Political Correctness in our universities

Great Debates
161

So, if students use their free speech to argue with someone, that is not free speech. But when the government says that something is too offensive, that somehow is free speech.

Literally the opposite is true in both of your statements. The first is free speech in action. They shouted her down. That’s speech. She could have stuck around and delivered her speech, but she chose to leave to portray herself as a martyr. That is why these speaking engagements exist now.

The second was not hate speech, and he was not convicted of breaking hate speech laws, but a law against offensive speech in electronic communications. The guy did not at any point joke about the Holocaust. The joke was that he made a cute pug respond positively to obviously horrible things. He stated this at the beginning of the video.

And, no, he didn’t train the dog to do anything to certain words. Dogs respond more to tone, and he filmed it, meaning he can use all sorts of trickery. Training the dog would take way too much effort for a video.

Freedom of speech means that people can speak to disagree with you, but they can’t have the government come in and silence you. You can argue that maybe the college students were not following the rules of the college and were trespassing. But it’s not a freedom of speech violation. You can argue that Dankula joke was not funny or even offensive, but you can’t argue that having the government force him to stop was not violating his freedom of speech.

What is with people claiming to fight for freedom of speech without knowing what it means? Do you think it means “people get to say stuff I agree with”?

162

Wait, you have to go to historical authoritarians to find a body count? You don’t have anything, say, in North America, maybe in this century?

You’re using 1930’s USSR and 1950’s China to argue about “leftist” violence in the USA circa 2018. I don’t know which is more ridiculous. The attempt at a comparison or that you find the situations similar in any form.

163

And now I have to admit fault. I took CCitizen’s description of the event rather than looking it up myself. It seems that Sommers was not prevented from giving her speech. The protesters interrupted her a few times. They didn’t stop her from saying what she wanted to say, and they weren’t stopped from saying what they wanted to say.

So she didn’t even do the martyr thing. She did get upset at being asked to hurry up near the end, but she didn’t act like the students somehow prevented her from speaking. So I impugned her when I should not have.

Still, I think the case for freedom of speech is even stronger. Letting both sides speak is ideal of freedom of speech. And, frankly, it sounds like the protesters did a bad job and lost the “debate,” since they just shouted talking points.

164

What’s ridiculous is you downplay historical abuses of power. I’m sure you are quick to ridicule Trump or GWB or any other Republican = Hitler nonsense as well?

One of the major points of studying history is to learn from analogous events. Just because you think that institutional abuse of power is somehow irrelevant because a few decades passed doesn’t mean that others shouldn’t pay attention to the methods and actions of those who came before.

It’s probably not as sexy as tearing down statues but it’s actually more important.

165

I think you’ve correctly identified the line – namely, that we should not tolerate behavior which disrupts function – and then casually equated it with rudeness or disrespect. But the two are by no means synonymous. It is perfectly possible to learn, teach, reason, and debate despite rude or disrespectful behavior. Rudeness and disrespect may or may not be disruptive, and the latter is what we should care about (both in universities and in courts).

To put it differently, your approach to this thread demonstrates that you feel that mockery, which is neither polite nor respectful, is not out of bounds in reasoned discussion. I agree with you, and see no reason that the government should ban it. Hopkins can do what it wants, of course.

166

What’s analogous between Stalin’s Great Purge and RADICAL LEFT WING VIOLENCE! today? One was a political purge using the might of the government, the other is people swinging a bike lock or throwing a wine bottle while their ideological opponents drive cars into crowds.

ETA: Calls for condemning Hitler comparisons are rich coming from the one that blames liberals when alt-right protestors kill them.

167

You seriously can’t be missing the point about the counterproductive nature in a so-called free society of promoting the concept of punishment for taboo language or thoughts.

With regards to Hitler, either stuff in the past is relevant for analogies and comparisons and for lessons learned or it isn’t. Your deflection isn’t hiding the blatant double standard.

168

I’m not using Hitler as an analogy, you’re trying to. While we’re talking about current events, you’re bringing up authoritarian regimes from 80 years ago like it proves your point. It’s as relevant to the discussion as how much rainfall Timbuktu received on April 31, 1995.

Again, what’s the similarity between Stalin’s purge and “leftist violence”? Was his purge based on “political correctness”?

169

There is no double standard. The comparisons to hitler are typically not made when talking about mere individual right-wing violence, but with regards to movements in right-wing politics, as well as the president of the united states. You said it yourself:

Notice who we’re talking about. It’s not “random professor who says naughty thing” or “random leftie who swings a bike lock”. It’s “the president of the united states”. George W. Bush and Donald Trump are not random nobodies whose sphere of influence extends to maybe a few hundred (generally disempowered) students, they are/were literally the head of the executive branch of government.

Whereas we’re explicitly discussing what, again? Oh right, the violence of fringe left-wing and right-wing rioters, respectively. Which has fuck-all to do with the political power of the state, and everything to do with the actions of individuals on those fringes. Comparing antifa to neofascist groups is analogous (if often very silly). Comparing Trump and Obama to Mao and Hitler is analogous (if often very silly). Comparing antifa to Stalin’s secret police is nuts.

170

Cite ? Or are you talking about Holocaust deniers ?

171

“Freedom of Speech” doesn’t involve freedom from the consequences of speaking. If you say dumb, hateful or cunty things, people are going to behave as though you’re dumb, hateful or cunty. They might even act so as to prevent your dumb, hateful or cunty ass from making noise in public again.

Freedom of Speech, as it is enumerated in the Constitution, only precludes the State from preventing you from speaking your mind. The public shouting your ass down isn’t covered by said right. And sometimes, just sometimes, you mind really needs to shut the fuck up.

You’re welcome for that legal clarification.

172

Rude and disrespectful behavior makes it more difficult for folks to focus on the arguments at hand. It’s also unnecessary to the free flow of ideas. It’s also unfair to folks for whom the university is their workplace, to declare that here unlike other workplaces they must be subject to verbal abuse.

So, yes, rude and disrespectful behavior is disruptive.

173

Fuck that. Some ideas are just harmful and *shouldn’t *flow freely, especially when the people peddling them are dishonest. The only proper answer to a Nazi is a punch in the face. My grandparents knew that, so did yours.
That or they got punched in the face a lot.

Rude behaviour, fuck. Some speach really does call for an emotional knee jerk. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
That goes for you too Father Thomas, BTW.

174

Four things: [ul][]Rude or disrespectful behavior * may have the effect you claim. But “may have” and “does have” are not synonyms.[]Not everything that happens at a university happens in a classroom; in fact, most things don’t. To the extent that speech codes regulate behavior outside the classroom as well as inside it, it’s no use to focus solely on the effect of rudeness in the classroom, even if I accept your assertion that it is (as opposed to is potentially) disruptive.[]If being rude and disrespectful in the university setting really does merit sanction by the powers that be, why are you so strident in your support of students who treat invited speakers rudely and disrespectfully? Why support Jarrar, who was undoubtedly rude and disrespectful? You can’t have it both ways.[*]Finally, if rudeness and disrespectful behavior inhibit healthy discussion, as you claim, why have you been doing it here? Or would you have us believe that your responses to Shodan, for example, have been polite and respectful?[/ul]

175

Hi, German local here. So it turns out that the main actual risk in Germany when it comes to immigration has nothing to do with the immigrants, but rather has to do with the right-wing backlash towards immigration and the rise of parties like the AfD - parties which are actually shockingly close in content to the US Republican Party.

Given that you are an unapologetic right-winger, would you care to bring up what “canary” you’re talking about with regards to immigration that doesn’t make you look like part of the problem?

176

I’ll take these things one by one.

First, thanks for the grammar lesson, gatorguy! Now for a law lesson: when behaviors “may have” a deleterious effect, we “may” ban them. For example, calling a judge a motherfucker during a sentencing hearing “may” be disruptive to the courtroom. Because of that, we “do” allow the judge to punish the speaker.

Did I use those auxiliary verbs correctly? May tell! I mean do.

If the behavior is on campus, it’s part of the learning environment. Things which disrupt the learning environment are sanctionable. Speech codes which extend to off-campus behavior that’s not part of an academic activity would be very problematic; do you have examples of such codes?

Can I have it one way–the way where you read what I wrote? I am in no way supportive of the students who treat invited speakers rudely. I have insulted and belittled them. I just think that they’re not a great threat to our civilization.

I only support Jarrar to the extent that I think she should not be sanctioned by the government for her off-duty activities. This is 100% consistent with what I’ve said. If she were mocking and insulting students during classtime, or even on campus, or in academic publications, I would call for her to be sanctioned.

Indeed, I have called for just such sanctions when a professor calls out a student by name and says she “lacks the intellectual coherence to form any sort of rational plan.” That’s an example of when someone has stepped over the limits.

This isn’t an academic environment, despite your grammar lessons above. Nice attempt at a gotcha, but no gotcha.

Even if you were right, though, I’ve never claimed perfection; sometimes when someone is being clearly rude and obnoxious to me, I treat their statements with less than full patience, forbearance, and civility.

177

Let me know if you’re interested in thoughtful debate - I addressed every one of his questions and cites (as well as your questions). If you’re just interested in whatever lazy straw manning this is, then have fun.

We see things differently… That doesn’t mean I’m not trying to honestly and reasonably lay out my position.

178

And is it not more sensible to just ban the thing we actually care about rather than the thing which may have the bad effect but need not? Your law lesson of course is wrong on the first amendment, which is why so many campus speech codes are found unconstitutional. Indeed, the standard actually allowed for student speech is the one I advocate - that speech may be sanctioned when it is disruptive. At least, that’s the standard for pre-college students. Personally, I would also apply that standard to courtrooms; if I can find a way to insult a judge without disrupting the function of the courtroom, I may be an idiot, but having done no harm I should not be punished.

No, though you could just spend a few quick seconds to do your own research, where you would, for example, learn that there are certainly schools punishing students for off-campus speech.

But that’s beside the point. If your justification for rude speech being banned is that it is disruptive, and if you assert that rudeness is disruptive because it makes it hard to focus on the argument, then it follows that when there’s no concern about difficulty of focusing on the argument, you have provided no reason to call rudeness disruptive. If you have an argument demonstrating that rude behavior outside the classroom is so disruptive to the learning environment that it should be banned despite the first amendment, then by all means provide it.

So would you be okay with the schools punishing the students who treat invited speakers rudely and who disrupt their speeches? How about those who let the speaker give his or her speech and then ask a rude question? The code you’re currently championing would allow them to do so, would they not? I suspect you’re not concerned with what the code allows but with how it’s actually applied, but I don’t think a code which says one thing but means another is desirable, and if the code allows for abuses and we must simply trust that it won’t be abused, then I think it’s fair to criticize the code - as FIRE have done in this case and for which you have excoriated them.

What does that have to do with anything? Either you believe being rude inhibits making an argument or you don’t. Does it only inhibit making an argument in an academic environment but in the real world is fine? But let’s say it were an academic environment - would you then conclude that responding to an argument you believe to be obnoxious with less than full civility should be punishable? Why hold students to standards that you don’t seem capable of meeting?

179

I’ll reply more later, but you’re misunderstanding Tinker. Courts have repeatedly said since that schools may ban speech that is likely to cause disruption (e.g., a doodled Confederate flag on a notebook, when there had been race riots at the school).

180

Thanks for the correction.