|
cravius posted:I'm concerned with the concept prevalent in academia that oppossing views should not be entertained. Whether the dismissal is framed as an objection to [insert controversial remark here] or by claiming that conservative ideology has been "disproven" ( I mean what does that even mean?) it definitely runs contrary to the purpose of a college education, which involves a considered examination of all views in order to come to a conclusion. Do we really not trust students to realize how moronic people like Milo's opinions are? Do we trust men who've barely reached majority to be told by a speaker with the tacit support of authority figures that things are totally not rape and not treat that as justification? If so how the gently caress are we that loving stupid.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i dont find this convincing, given that you put scare quotes around safety concerns and you seem to be suffering from a strong degree of confirmation bias - something which is pretty ironic given that you're advocating for rational, even-handed consideration of opposing ideas same
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
this will be my last post for a while but i'm not very suprised when i ask "where's your evidence" that you responded with "well i have some anecdotal observations, i read some headlines without criticism, and i'm just generally assuming i'm correct" and really that is uh less than compelling or convincing argumentation
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
cravius posted:I'm basing this off my own experiences at college, and the plethora of news articles where controversial speakers are disinvited due to "safety concerns" or just outright protesting by a small segment of the student body. you realize that milo was disinvited from DePaul in part because he broke pretty much every rule he could, including leading a march across the campus that wasn't cleared with security? like yeah, that guy legitimately is difficult to work with when it comes to security.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:this will be my last post for a while but i'm not very suprised when i ask "where's your evidence" that you responded with "well i have some anecdotal observations, i read some headlines without criticism, and i'm just generally assuming i'm correct" and really that is uh less than compelling or convincing argumentation Believe me, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I doubt anyone could do that tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
cravius posted:Believe me, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I doubt anyone could do that tbh it's not hard to convince me of something, if you bring effort and demonstrable proof to the table! i'm not your therapist though and i'm not here to convince you that the ivory tower boogeymen aren't actually going to steal the breath from your mouth at midnight
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Well you already said demagogues shouldn't be allowed to speak, wasn't that you? I said that they don't contribute anything of value to a college campus, and so the college shouldn't give them an auditorium to speak from. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to speak ever. In fact I've said multiple times, and at least once to you specifically, that there are tons of platforms for such people to speak from to their hearts content.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
cravius posted:I'm concerned with the concept prevalent in academia that oppossing views should not be entertained. Whether the dismissal is framed as an objection to [insert controversial remark here] or by claiming that conservative ideology has been "disproven" (I mean what does that even mean?) it definitely runs contrary to the purpose of a college education, which involves a considered examination of all views in order to come to a conclusion. Do we really not trust students to realize how moronic people like Milo's opinions are? A key point in all academia is that the burden of proof for demonstrating the value of a new idea lies wholly on its proponents. If they can't demonstrate the merit of their ideas in a scientific fashion, they can gently caress right off. A day only has so many hours, it's simply not feasible to give prominent speaking engagements to any and all opposing views just because you want to teach the controversy. Perestroika fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I said that they don't contribute anything of value to a college campus, and so the college shouldn't give them an auditorium to speak from. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to speak ever. You really think George Will wouldn't be a good speaker to invite and give a platform? Why? He's pretty influential.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
cravius posted:Creating bubbles of thought that only cater to certain ideologies is the antithesis of higher education Is there any speaker a college shouldn't allow the use of their auditorium and by extension a sense of legitimacy? Neo-nazis, people who advocate for bombing abortion clinics, supporters of apartheid and segregation, pedophiles, people who don't like pizza?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Is there any speaker a college shouldn't allow the use of their auditorium and by extension a sense of legitimacy? Neo-nazis, people who advocate for bombing abortion clinics, supporters of apartheid and segregation, pedophiles, people who don't like pizza? Yes, this is obviously what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:You really think George Will wouldn't be a good speaker to invite and give a platform? Why? He's pretty influential.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
cravius posted:Yes, this is obviously what I mean. Okay, so what you're saying is that there's a line of acceptability in opinions, and all this has been arguing over the exact point at which to sell out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
cravius posted:Yes, this is obviously what I mean. It's a fairly straightforward question, and goes to the heart of the disagreement, because either you believe all speakers should be allowed, or some shouldn't. If it's the former then fine, if it's the latter then you're disagreeing with other posters on matters of degree. Either way, it'd help clarify things for readers like me so I'd appreciate an answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:You really think George Will wouldn't be a good speaker to invite and give a platform? Why? He's pretty influential. Because I don't think his ideas that rape victims are just pretending to be assaulted for attention is something a college should be supporting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:It's a fairly straightforward question, and goes to the heart of the disagreement, because either you believe all speakers should be allowed, or some shouldn't. If it's the former then fine, if it's the latter then you're disagreeing with other posters on matters of degree. Either way, it'd help clarify things for readers like me so I'd appreciate an answer. I don't think people that directly advocate violence should be invited to speak
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because I don't think his ideas that rape victims are just pretending to be assaulted for attention is something a college should be supporting. This is a gross oversimplification of his views on the issue, but if it helps you dismiss the rest of his very nuanced opinions on economics or whatever than keep telling yourself that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
cravius, what specific decisions taken by universities do you disagree with and how would you have handled them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
cravius posted:I agree with both. They are certainly free to do both. Peoples criticism of their choice to do both is also valid and fair to be discussed, not dismissed as a figment of the media's fixation with outrage. Do you agree or disagree? Well, I think that depends on the nature of their criticism, so I guess in general, I sometimes disagree. For example, if a university invites Milo and gets protested for it, but chooses not to actually disinvite him from their campus, I would consider it dishonest to say that the university was unfairly bullied by oversensitive students and forced to reject a worthwhile speaker. Or even if he WAS disinvited, I'm not sure I'd be willing to agree with "THE STUDENTS FORCED THEM", depending on what the university said their reason for that choice was. If a news article criticizes a university for putting mandatory safe spaces where no disagreement is allowed in every classroom to stifle thought, but it turns out that one of the only safe spaces on campus is literally "a hangout room in the campus LGBT center where you'll get kicked out for calling someone a bitch or a human being", I would consider that newspaper to be dishonest and fixated on generating outrage. I mean... Sometimes the criticism does not match the objective truth of the situation. And in those cases, the criticism is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If he's so influential, what does he need another platform for? OK but in that case I don't see why the same standard wouldn't apply to Slavoj Zizek or Cornel West, who have both said some pretty dumb things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:OK but in that case I don't see why the same standard wouldn't apply to Slavoj Zizek or Cornel West, who have both said some pretty dumb things. the same standards apply to both of them. students are free to protest them, the final decision lies with the university.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:14
|
|
botany posted:the same standards apply to both of them. students are free to protest them, the final decision lies with the university. Who decide on the basis of what criteria though?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Who decide on the basis of what criteria though? e.g. security concerns, as has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Who decide on the basis of what criteria though? The university, based on whatever criteria they want (usually some sort of "what is less of a headache for us", coupled with "does any of our faculty care"). Sometimes I disagree with cases where a university chooses to disinvite a speaker and I can agree that some university students are big babies who need to stop being listened to, but that doesn't mean the system and the status quo aren't working as desired.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
cravius posted:I don't think people that directly advocate violence should be invited to speak Does this apply to advocates of the death penalty and military interventions or strictly limited to non-legal violence like vigilantism and child abuse?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
cravius posted:I don't think people that directly advocate violence should be invited to speak So dogwhistle calls for violence are just fine? Is this some sort of "it's only racist if you specifically say friend of the family" type thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
botany posted:cravius, what specific decisions taken by universities do you disagree with and how would you have handled them? You go back to 2014 when Christine Lagarde and Condoleeza Rice withdrew from commencement speeches over protests, and then obviously George Will and Milo more recently. Students have the right to protest, but the attitude they have that the best response to differing opinion is to demand it be stifled is scary, quite frankly. That attitude is fostered by professors and other faculty who promote groupthink, and I've personally worked with professors who have been denied tenure solely due to their political views. I honestly don't know the solution, because it's a tricky problem. But I absolutely support the rights of students to protest, I just wish the schools would have more of a backbone when it comes to disinviting these speakers. If you don't like them, don't attend, but there are plenty of students who would like to hear those views expressed and it's pretty hosed up for institutions of higher learning to deny them that imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So dogwhistle calls for violence are just fine? Is this some sort of "it's only racist if you specifically say friend of the family" type thing? I mean Bobby Seal and Nelson Mandela directly advocated and participated in acts of violence, but they're some of the best speakers I've ever had the pleasure of hearing
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
cravius posted:I mean Bobby Seal and Nelson Mandela directly advocated and participated in acts of violence, but they're some of the best speakers I've ever had the pleasure of hearing So obviously you do want people who advocate for violence to speak. So did you lie before when you said you didn't want such people to speak, or are you lying now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
cravius posted:I've personally worked with professors who have been denied tenure solely due to their political views. What was their funding status? How much had they published and where? How many times were their publications cited? What were their student reviews like? Were they on any editorial boards for major journals in their field? What other service activities were they doing? How were their research projects going? Had they set up any high impact collaborations? How many grad students did they successfully mentor? I'm really interested in the answers to these questions because I'd like to be able to judge when this sort of thing happens, and you seem like you are awful sure that you know how to do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So obviously you do want people who advocate for violence to speak. So did you lie before when you said you didn't want such people to speak, or are you lying now? My whole point is that what people said in the past doesn't mean you should automatically discount all of the opinions they hold, idiot
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
cravius posted:You go back to 2014 when Christine Lagarde and Condoleeza Rice withdrew from commencement speeches over protests, and then obviously George Will and Milo more recently. Students have the right to protest, but the attitude they have that the best response to differing opinion is to demand it be stifled is scary, quite frankly. That attitude is fostered by professors and other faculty who promote groupthink, and I've personally worked with professors who have been denied tenure solely due to their political views. I honestly don't know the solution, because it's a tricky problem. But I absolutely support the rights of students to protest, I just wish the schools would have more of a backbone when it comes to disinviting these speakers. If you don't like them, don't attend, but there are plenty of students who would like to hear those views expressed and it's pretty hosed up for institutions of higher learning to deny them that imo. so you're fine with students protesting. that makes both lagarde and rice irrelevant, since neither of them was disinvited, they decided to withdraw. milo was disinvited due to security concerns in part because he chose to not obey security rules before. george will is the only person in your list who fits the topic - he was disinvited because he made excuses for campus rape. quote:If you don't like them, don't attend, but there are plenty of students who would like to hear those views expressed and it's pretty hosed up for institutions of higher learning to deny them that imo. there are no doubt students who would like to hear why their sexual assaults are not a problem, but universities have a duty to ensure the safety of their students, and rape apologia is pretty directly contrary to that. i mean this is not a discussion on whether or not the iraq war was justified, this directly impacts campus culture in an extremely dangerous way. i honestly can't see anything wrong with this disinvitation, much like i would disinvite anybody who argued that it's your moral duty to beat the poo poo out of every republican student you see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
naughty_penguin posted:What was their funding status? How much had they published and where? How many times were their publications cited? What were their student reviews like? Were they on any editorial boards for major journals in their field? What other service activities were they doing? How were their research projects going? Had they set up any high impact collaborations? How many grad students did they successfully mentor? Does the department chair telling me that "they don't fit culturally" count? Because I'm fairly knowledgeable on the tenure process, having worked on many professors packets for the department. And you're right, most don't do enough research, publish etc. But a few legitimately get let go over their beliefs, and that's awful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
cravius posted:Does the department chair telling me that "they don't fit culturally" count? Because I'm fairly knowledgeable on the tenure process, having worked on many professors packets for the department. And you're right, most don't do enough research, publish etc. But a few legitimately get let go over their beliefs, and that's awful. those professors would immediately have a lawsuit they'd win, so i'm kind of doubting that's the whole of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
botany posted:those professors would immediately have a lawsuit they'd win, so i'm kind of doubting that's the whole of the situation. Hey now, maybe he worked for Steven Salaita.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Hey now, maybe he worked for Steven Salaita. thats my point, salaita won his conflict.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
cravius posted:Does the department chair telling me that "they don't fit culturally" count? Because I'm fairly knowledgeable on the tenure process, having worked on many professors packets for the department. And you're right, most don't do enough research, publish etc. But a few legitimately get let go over their beliefs, and that's awful. No, it doesn't. I asked the question in good faith but your answer makes it pretty clear you are not arguing in good faith, and it's disappointing. Are you exerting so much effort defending useless windbags who have nothing to say because you know deep down you are actually in their number? E: I mean, the more I think about this the more it upsets me. Not only did you give some bullshit response that rightly got called out as an easy lawsuit, you also backpedaled pretty severely. You know lots of faculty that were denied tenure for their beliefs in one post, but the next post most of them were actually kind of lovely, just "a few" of them were denied for their beliefs. Not only does this sound like a tremendous pile of bullshit, you have just admitted your previous post grouped good academics who were legitimately mistreated with bad academics who totally deserved to be denied tenure. What do you think that does to people who are denied for political reasons when they try to defend themselves as such? You are a liar who is doing a massive disservice to people who get screwed by hosed up academic politics. Delete your account. naughty_penguin fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
cravius posted:You go back to 2014 when Christine Lagarde and Condoleeza Rice withdrew from commencement speeches over protests, and then obviously George Will and Milo more recently. Students have the right to protest, but the attitude they have that the best response to differing opinion is to demand it be stifled is scary, quite frankly. That attitude is fostered by professors and other faculty who promote groupthink, and I've personally worked with professors who have been denied tenure solely due to their political views. I honestly don't know the solution, because it's a tricky problem. But I absolutely support the rights of students to protest, I just wish the schools would have more of a backbone when it comes to disinviting these speakers. If you don't like them, don't attend, but there are plenty of students who would like to hear those views expressed and it's pretty hosed up for institutions of higher learning to deny them that imo. I agree, we should all shed a tear for the insightful, if potentially divisive, political opinions that would have been shared at those commencement speeches. The students recognized, correctly, that commencement speakers are nothing but props in a ceremony. The point of the commencement address is to put somebody recognizable and respected up front to deliver a bit of pleasant pablum about how they made it, and you can too. The protestors were not stifling political debate to demand that the institution disinvite a commencement speaker, because there was never going to be any political debate. They simply objected to the fact that their ceremony would be used to convey institutional approval on people they disagreed with (not to mention the significant financial aspect). On the surface, it looks like Will might have more of a case than the commencement speakers or professional trolls, but really, it's all the same. He's not there to share his unique views or advance the field. He was invited as Generic Celebrity Conservative Pundit, to deliver a generic speech about the virtues of the conservative movement. There was absolutely nothing lost by inviting non-rape-apologist conservative speaker Barbara Bush under the same program. If Rice, Lagarde, Will, or anybody else but a serial harasser who's pledged to gently caress with the campus for his amusement wanted to come to campus on their own dime, and set up a soapbox next to the ubiquitous "ALL SINNERS WILL BURN" guys, nobody would stop them. Everything else has to do with how the institution chooses to allocate its resources.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Who gets to determine what ideas are legitimate? And why are you so confident that they are always going to agree with you? People have the right to determine that for themselves. People don't have the right to have their ideas be respected by other private actors
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
How are speakers at universities chosen in the first place? If you're not allowed to discriminate between them based on the content of their ideas I guess Columbia University are freedom-hating PC lefties because they have't brought David Duke to speak at commencement. If you take this line of thinking to the end it actually requires a sort of affirmative action to elevate every cretinous, asinine opinion anyone has ever had to the highest level of public prominence
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 22:16
|
|