3 ms·

It sounds like you're dismissing the students' complaints by saying effectively "if the speaker wasn't offensive to the student, the student wouldn't complain".

by eridius 11y ago

It sounds like you're dismissing the students' complaints by saying effectively "if the speaker wasn't offensive to the student, the student wouldn't complain". But that's kind of a given, isn't it? If you find someone that everybody can agree is a good speaker to have, then it should be obvious that nobody will protest it.

mc32 11y ago
I'm saying that as I student, I should be able to manage offensiveness. Not meanness, but offensiveness. I should be able to process divergent and disgusting and disagreeable views without getting overworked. We deal with all kinds of offensive things in our daily lives, we don't need to be coddled. We may not always live in the US or Europe (what "we're" used to, we may have to travel to other places (or vice versa) and we'll need to be able to manage unfavorable opinions on all kinds of things.
- eridius 11y ago
  But there's a vast difference between saying "I should be able to tolerate opinions I disagree with" and saying "I'm ok with my school spending many thousands of dollars for an enormously controversial speaker to give a commencement address, which is both a tacit endorsement by the school of the speaker itself (which is worth protesting all on its own), a flagrant waste of money, and it's an event where the speaker should be someone that the entire student body can recognize as being qualified to speak and give advice to the student body regardless of any minor disagreements".
  - mc32 11y ago
    I don't think we should limit the scope of speakers... I will agree to limit the money paid to any speaker (set a max fee, adjusted yearly, for example, I'm okay with that). I think one _could_ interpret bringing a speaker as an endorsement (shudder) but I'd rather see it as bringing a variety of views and giving students a broad exposure to ideas. Moreover, I think it's more beneficial to thought to bring in people who one would disagree with (anti endorsement) in order to foment more thought and make for more fertile ground for thinking, rather than maintain or exacerbate a positive feedback loop. On the endorsement bit, would you consider inviting a drug addict to speak about drug addition, or a convict to speak an "endorsement"? I don't. I see it as enlightening. It's good to get exposed to good and bad ideas. Terrible and offensive ideas, as well as the ones which make us feel warm and fuzzy.
    - eridius 11y ago
      You continue to completely ignore the difference between some group bringing a speaker on campus, and the school bringing in a commencement speaker. It's an extremely important difference.
      - mc32 11y ago
        Commencement speeches are pretty tame, so it seems people would be more concerned about baggage or perception than anything the speaker would actually say, that's pretty damning if people are so politically bound it would pain them to entertain someone of a different stripe.

by eridius 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

I'm saying that as I student, I should be able to manage offensiveness. Not meanness, but offensiveness. I should be able to process divergent and disgusting and disagreeable views without getting overworked. We deal with all kinds of offensive things in our daily lives, we don't need to be coddled. We may not always live in the US or Europe (what "we're" used to, we may have to travel to other places (or vice versa) and we'll need to be able to manage unfavorable opinions on all kinds of things.

eridius 11y ago
But there's a vast difference between saying "I should be able to tolerate opinions I disagree with" and saying "I'm ok with my school spending many thousands of dollars for an enormously controversial speaker to give a commencement address, which is both a tacit endorsement by the school of the speaker itself (which is worth protesting all on its own), a flagrant waste of money, and it's an event where the speaker should be someone that the entire student body can recognize as being qualified to speak and give advice to the student body regardless of any minor disagreements".
- mc32 11y ago
  I don't think we should limit the scope of speakers... I will agree to limit the money paid to any speaker (set a max fee, adjusted yearly, for example, I'm okay with that). I think one _could_ interpret bringing a speaker as an endorsement (shudder) but I'd rather see it as bringing a variety of views and giving students a broad exposure to ideas. Moreover, I think it's more beneficial to thought to bring in people who one would disagree with (anti endorsement) in order to foment more thought and make for more fertile ground for thinking, rather than maintain or exacerbate a positive feedback loop. On the endorsement bit, would you consider inviting a drug addict to speak about drug addition, or a convict to speak an "endorsement"? I don't. I see it as enlightening. It's good to get exposed to good and bad ideas. Terrible and offensive ideas, as well as the ones which make us feel warm and fuzzy.
  - eridius 11y ago
    You continue to completely ignore the difference between some group bringing a speaker on campus, and the school bringing in a commencement speaker. It's an extremely important difference.
    - mc32 11y ago
      Commencement speeches are pretty tame, so it seems people would be more concerned about baggage or perception than anything the speaker would actually say, that's pretty damning if people are so politically bound it would pain them to entertain someone of a different stripe.