|
cravius posted:You just don't want to be exposed to beliefs and ideas you disagree with and that's a damning indictment of the strength of yalls convictions. So what if I wanted to give a speech about, say, the mating habits of the common unicorn? Should the college be made to provide me with an extraordinary venue to hold that speech? If they refused, would that just be an admission that they're afraid of exposing their students to the dangerous yet seductive pro-unicorn agenda? For every single prospective speaker about any given topic, colleges need to make a judgement about whether there's a point to inviting them. Whether whatever they have to say is in some way, shape, or form conducive to their students' development and education. And the key point here is: The mere fact a given position runs contrary to the current mainstream does not give that position any intrinsic merit or value. There is no great nationwide controversy about whether phrenologists should be invited to medical schools, or flatearthers to astronomical faculties. There are countless of positions and beliefs that disagree with the mainstream, and most of them never get anywhere near a college speaking engagement. And in the same vein, it's perfectly alright for a college to look at a speaker whose main points run along the lines of "Rape is actually no big deal, women just need thicker skins" and decide that there's nothing to be gained from providing that speaker with a venue. The idea that the alt-right's ideas in particular carry enough merit to deserve such speaking engagements is essentially an outgrowth of truth-is-in-the-middle-ism. The current zeitgeist among young people trends vaguely left-ish, so people assume that basically anything that bills itself as right-wing is automatically a valid and necessary counterpoint. Especially so in the US, where basically any random issue can and will be framed in a left/right, liberal/conservative perspective.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
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
|
|