16 ms·

Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. Viewed in this light, the University of Chicago's rejection of political

by judah 10y ago

Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. Viewed in this light, the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism: allowing for, rather than actively silencing, diverse political discourse. This is in stark contrast to neighbor Chicago school DePaul, who last month blocked[0] Jewish conservative minority voice Ben Shapiro from speaking. The extreme position here is blocking and preventing free speech and ideas through safe spaces and trigger warnings. Dismantling these, as the U of C has done, is worth celebrating. I hope they are the first of many. [0]: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923 http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923

nomat 10y ago
I assume people like Shapiro collect fees from the school for speaking, so would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support?
- Erik816 10y ago
  Which is the "student vs consumer" argument. If you are a consumer, then you complain about how your money is not being spent to match your existing preferences. If you are student, you are there to be exposed to things you disagree with and don't support, so you don't complain when the University provides and pays for speakers (or professors) you disagree with.
  - nomat 10y ago
    That is a good point, and I agree with you when the case is that the idea or person you disagree with is a necessary part of the curriculum/class. But in the case where it's an extracurricular activity or student organization that isn't a core part of the degree, then why doesn't a student have the right to complain? edit: I believe that students are also consumers. The two are not mutually exclusive. Tuition is pretty high these days. I guess the difficult part is finding the right balance.
    - talmand 10y ago
      Why should student A who sees the negative of a speaker have the power of veto over student B who sees the positive of the speaker? What happens when student B complains about a speaker that student A wants to hear? Do we just ban everybody or allow a diversity of opinions? For that matter, if the speaker is invited by a student organization that the complaining student is not a member of, why should that student complain? Just don't go.
      - jonlucc 10y ago
        Why not allow both? The group can have their speaker within whatever guidelines the school has (some schools ban foul language or other school-wide policies), and the other group is allowed to protest. Just like the real world where another company can do what it wants within the law, but I can also protest what and how they do it.
        teacup50 10y ago
        Protesting the speaker's ideas is always fine. Protesting the speaker's existence is difficult to intellectually justify as a healthy exchange of ideas, including critique. These days, what we see is a lot of the latter -- up to and including attempting to prevent attendance of the event -- and very little of the former.
        talmand 10y ago
        I've seen cases on college campuses of obvious criminal activity, although usually minor, that is excused because they happen during a protest.
    - generalledger 10y ago
      Most of the times these clubs that pay for speakers are given a stipend to spend on events from the school. When universities bring in people like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos, it is almost always the campus Republican group that pays, in part with the money provided by the school, and in part with money raised by the group itself. Campus Democrats also get money for the exact same purpose. I would say that the students certainly do have the right to complain and protest as long as it is not violent and not terribly disruptive. Complaining and protesting is PART of the open exchange of ideas. Physically blockading events is not, shouting down speakers while they are speaking is not, and in general throwing an adult-sized tantrum until you get your way is not.
- judah 10y ago
  I don't believe so, no. DePaul claimed they blocked Shapiro from speaking due to "security concerns"[0]. In particular, students in favor of safe spaces and trigger warnings threatened to riot, block the doors, and prevent student access to the event. DePaul capitulated to this bullying by banning Shapiro. Related: California State University-Los Angeles planned on hosting Shapiro to speak, but demanded[1] the student group which invited him to pay $600 to the university in security fees. When the student group refused, the university blocked his speech. I'm not aware of this happening to speakers holding majority political viewpoint; it affects the minority viewpoints primarily. Frame it in terms of race: imagine a modern campus saying, "We allow blacks to speak, but only if they pay hundreds of dollars to provide security against the white riots that will inevitably arise." [0]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/ben-shapiro-banned-from-depaul-university-over-sec/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/ben-shapiro-b... [1]: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26367/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26367/
  - Larrikin 10y ago
    Do you believe that speakers of hate speech should be allowed on campus? I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former. I'm a grad student at DePaul at the loop campus so I don't really follow much of what is going on with the undergrads at the main campus, but it seems to me that the administration is taking a hard stance because of people like Milo who are mostly there for shock effect and not because they are saying anything of substance. His speech was successfully protested and he wasn't invited back.
    - ericras 10y ago
      > Do you believe that speakers of hate speech... Who gets to create the definition of 'hate speech'? You, I assume? > ...and not because they are saying anything of substance. Because he's not substantive to you and people who agree with you, right? Free speech is great as long as it's within acceptable boundaries!
    - ctlby 10y ago
      > I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former. There is zero difference. "Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views. It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles.
- wutbrodo 10y ago
  > would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support? Should creationist students lobby to remove the teaching of evolution from the curriculum? I understand that it's not an identical situation, but the general point is that students are putting a certain level of trust in the university to educate them, and having a line-item veto on the manner that that's done leads to insanity if you actually apply it equitably. If students knew exactly what they needed to learn, going to college would be largely irrelevant.
  - iofj 10y ago
    "leads to insanity if you actually apply it" A better description of politics I could not have come up with. "equitably" Fortunately, no danger of that on either the left or the right.
Chathamization 10y ago
> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to something they want to do for their job). Universities are aware of this but pretend that's not the case, which is problematic. It'd be like if grocery stores started pretending their purpose was to provide an area for debate, and every time you wanted to get a gallon of milk you had to both pay for it and argue with the cashier about politics for 5 minutes. You don't want to do that? What, are you afraid of being exposed to new ideas? I don't mind discussing things, but sometimes you just want a gallon of milk (or degree). Of course, you could go to the convenience store down the street, but they only carry cheap milk powder.
- jbigelow76 10y ago
  >The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment".
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    > Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment". Sure, theoretically. In the real world, not so much. Want to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm? Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do? Good luck going down that path by going to a trade school. Heck, look at the example of Susan Finley. After 46 successful years at NASA, they demoted her - because she didn't have a bachelor's degree. If universities want to be mainly about debate and a free exchange ideas, they should give up their monopolies on the things most people are going there for (monopolies they really shouldn't have in the first place).
    - 10y ago
rayiner 10y ago
> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. That's an ideal that was never really true. Historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-di.... I'm not a supporter of the movement to stamp out uncomfortable ideas from universities. But let's not look at things through rose-colored glasses. Even with space spaces, universities today are much closer to the ideal than they were 50-100 years ago.
- Torgo 10y ago
  They will be even better when we don't infantilize minorities by acting like we need the degenerated versions of these concepts.
  - lake99 10y ago
    To be fair, I don't think it's minorities that are asking for trigger warnings. They are groups with political agendas.
    - internaut 10y ago
      That is true. As many of you know there are an unusual number of transgender/sexual in the tech/geek communities and in my experience they get along with those of a conservative or christian bent and often have healthy non-rancorous debates with them. Perhaps they are supposed to be at war and some of them are but I don't see it. I think it helps a lot that people identify as geeks first so in a hackerspace it is assumed we're all in the same tribe, trying to be interesting people doing interesting things.
- yawaramin 10y ago
  You have a very narrow view of universities and higher learning throughout history. The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority.
vacri 10y ago
> the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness I disagree. To me, political correctness is about not limiting other people's opportunities through stereotyping them. Making jokes about gangstas when the black guy is around or talking about terrorists like they're all muslim reinforces stereotypes and makes it harder for people of that demographic. Political correctness isn't about preventing offense, it's about not limiting opportunity, and in my opinion, the 'hacker' crowd that's supposed to be all about meritocracy should be strongly for political correctness. Trigger warnings don't fit into this - you're not claiming someone is something they're not (directly or indirectly). I like what the U of C has done here, but it's not about PC.
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  Your definition of political correctness is incorrect. And what you believe about it doesn't make it so.
  - vacri 10y ago
    Google disagrees with you: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." Nothing in that relates to 'trigger warnings'. It's nice, though, that you just declare me wrong by fiat, without any evidence to support the definition that you believe (or even what the definition is).
    - michaelbuddy 10y ago
      No, political correctness has always been a negative. Your first page google findings are fitting your bias. Like any other political term, it has been written and batted back and forth, occasionally hijacked to try to give it a positive spin. You're taking an underhanded approach here. "Marginalized" "Socially Disadvantaged" are just buzz words to distract from the definition. Attempting to create a victimized group (straw man) to try to make political correctness a good thing to protect the straw man is disingenuous. Political correctness is and always will be lying or deciding not to say what many people recognize or experience as truth out of a perceived fear of political rejection, ostracism or whatever dreamt up consequences. The problems continue because ignoring, hiding, refraining from voicing actual problems means that they will never be addressed. This is political correctness imposed on another person and in this case worthy of a civil rights lawsuit. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-day-suspension-for-saying-all-lives-matter.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-...
stcredzero 10y ago
the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism How about an "arms limitation treaty" between the left and the right in the US? Both sides will give up most of their empirically unsupported, subjective, and intellectually dishonest tactics for muddying the waters and suppressing substantive debate. The left can give up trigger warnings while the right can stop denying climate science. What we need in the US is a "Groupthink Potlatch." We should have a reality TV show alternative to the mainstream debates where two high profile contestants destroy their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit. The winner is the one who gives away or destroys the most of their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch (Is that cultural appropriation? Heh.)
- michaelbuddy 10y ago
  There are many on the right that agree that climate change is real. But they aren't just going to accept any and all legislation because of it. It's just that type of issue where the most ridiculous money wasting endeavors can be injected in the still of the night. Also not all regulations of industries improve them. Many hinder progress, many make it impossible to have competition in an area and some frankly are just based on incomplete science. The other day I read an article where the headline said "Scientists explain why despite global warming, there is more ice in the antarctic." Then in the text it said "Scientists can't explain it." So don't just think that things are conclusive because you've been reading articles. The "warmest july on record" isn't really all that impressive to me considering the record isn't that deep when it comes to the age of the earth.
- nikcheerla 10y ago
  I'd love that. The problem is that it's really, really hard to criticize your own tribe. (People who made a habit of criticizing their tribe in the ancestral environment were killed off very quickly).
- nostrebored 10y ago
  Climate Science is actually an interesting intersection of these issues. "Safe space"-style rhetoric has been used to no platform people who deny global warming. The government does not fund research into any climate science that looks for an alternate explanation. Unfortunately, the combination of these two things makes it nearly impossible to be a climate-scientist who disagrees with the herd. Even if you could overcome the massive cultural hurdle, you have society and the government to deal with as well. Which makes me skeptical, but I still think that it's safest to heed the precautionary principle.

by judah 10y ago

nomat 10y ago

I assume people like Shapiro collect fees from the school for speaking, so would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support?

Erik816 10y ago
Which is the "student vs consumer" argument. If you are a consumer, then you complain about how your money is not being spent to match your existing preferences. If you are student, you are there to be exposed to things you disagree with and don't support, so you don't complain when the University provides and pays for speakers (or professors) you disagree with.
- nomat 10y ago
  That is a good point, and I agree with you when the case is that the idea or person you disagree with is a necessary part of the curriculum/class. But in the case where it's an extracurricular activity or student organization that isn't a core part of the degree, then why doesn't a student have the right to complain? edit: I believe that students are also consumers. The two are not mutually exclusive. Tuition is pretty high these days. I guess the difficult part is finding the right balance.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Why should student A who sees the negative of a speaker have the power of veto over student B who sees the positive of the speaker? What happens when student B complains about a speaker that student A wants to hear? Do we just ban everybody or allow a diversity of opinions? For that matter, if the speaker is invited by a student organization that the complaining student is not a member of, why should that student complain? Just don't go.
    - jonlucc 10y ago
      Why not allow both? The group can have their speaker within whatever guidelines the school has (some schools ban foul language or other school-wide policies), and the other group is allowed to protest. Just like the real world where another company can do what it wants within the law, but I can also protest what and how they do it.
      - teacup50 10y ago
        Protesting the speaker's ideas is always fine. Protesting the speaker's existence is difficult to intellectually justify as a healthy exchange of ideas, including critique. These days, what we see is a lot of the latter -- up to and including attempting to prevent attendance of the event -- and very little of the former.
        talmand 10y ago
        I've seen cases on college campuses of obvious criminal activity, although usually minor, that is excused because they happen during a protest.
  - generalledger 10y ago
    Most of the times these clubs that pay for speakers are given a stipend to spend on events from the school. When universities bring in people like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos, it is almost always the campus Republican group that pays, in part with the money provided by the school, and in part with money raised by the group itself. Campus Democrats also get money for the exact same purpose. I would say that the students certainly do have the right to complain and protest as long as it is not violent and not terribly disruptive. Complaining and protesting is PART of the open exchange of ideas. Physically blockading events is not, shouting down speakers while they are speaking is not, and in general throwing an adult-sized tantrum until you get your way is not.
judah 10y ago
I don't believe so, no. DePaul claimed they blocked Shapiro from speaking due to "security concerns"[0]. In particular, students in favor of safe spaces and trigger warnings threatened to riot, block the doors, and prevent student access to the event. DePaul capitulated to this bullying by banning Shapiro. Related: California State University-Los Angeles planned on hosting Shapiro to speak, but demanded[1] the student group which invited him to pay $600 to the university in security fees. When the student group refused, the university blocked his speech. I'm not aware of this happening to speakers holding majority political viewpoint; it affects the minority viewpoints primarily. Frame it in terms of race: imagine a modern campus saying, "We allow blacks to speak, but only if they pay hundreds of dollars to provide security against the white riots that will inevitably arise." [0]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/ben-shapiro-banned-from-depaul-university-over-sec/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/ben-shapiro-b... [1]: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26367/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26367/
- Larrikin 10y ago
  Do you believe that speakers of hate speech should be allowed on campus? I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former. I'm a grad student at DePaul at the loop campus so I don't really follow much of what is going on with the undergrads at the main campus, but it seems to me that the administration is taking a hard stance because of people like Milo who are mostly there for shock effect and not because they are saying anything of substance. His speech was successfully protested and he wasn't invited back.
  - ericras 10y ago
    > Do you believe that speakers of hate speech... Who gets to create the definition of 'hate speech'? You, I assume? > ...and not because they are saying anything of substance. Because he's not substantive to you and people who agree with you, right? Free speech is great as long as it's within acceptable boundaries!
  - ctlby 10y ago
    > I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former. There is zero difference. "Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views. It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles.
wutbrodo 10y ago
> would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support? Should creationist students lobby to remove the teaching of evolution from the curriculum? I understand that it's not an identical situation, but the general point is that students are putting a certain level of trust in the university to educate them, and having a line-item veto on the manner that that's done leads to insanity if you actually apply it equitably. If students knew exactly what they needed to learn, going to college would be largely irrelevant.
- iofj 10y ago
  "leads to insanity if you actually apply it" A better description of politics I could not have come up with. "equitably" Fortunately, no danger of that on either the left or the right.

Chathamization 10y ago

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to something they want to do for their job). Universities are aware of this but pretend that's not the case, which is problematic. It'd be like if grocery stores started pretending their purpose was to provide an area for debate, and every time you wanted to get a gallon of milk you had to both pay for it and argue with the cashier about politics for 5 minutes. You don't want to do that? What, are you afraid of being exposed to new ideas? I don't mind discussing things, but sometimes you just want a gallon of milk (or degree). Of course, you could go to the convenience store down the street, but they only carry cheap milk powder.

jbigelow76 10y ago
>The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment".
- Chathamization 10y ago
  > Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment". Sure, theoretically. In the real world, not so much. Want to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm? Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do? Good luck going down that path by going to a trade school. Heck, look at the example of Susan Finley. After 46 successful years at NASA, they demoted her - because she didn't have a bachelor's degree. If universities want to be mainly about debate and a free exchange ideas, they should give up their monopolies on the things most people are going there for (monopolies they really shouldn't have in the first place).
  - 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas. That's an ideal that was never really true. Historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-discriminating-against-jews-2014-12 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-di.... I'm not a supporter of the movement to stamp out uncomfortable ideas from universities. But let's not look at things through rose-colored glasses. Even with space spaces, universities today are much closer to the ideal than they were 50-100 years ago.

Torgo 10y ago
They will be even better when we don't infantilize minorities by acting like we need the degenerated versions of these concepts.
- lake99 10y ago
  To be fair, I don't think it's minorities that are asking for trigger warnings. They are groups with political agendas.
  - internaut 10y ago
    That is true. As many of you know there are an unusual number of transgender/sexual in the tech/geek communities and in my experience they get along with those of a conservative or christian bent and often have healthy non-rancorous debates with them. Perhaps they are supposed to be at war and some of them are but I don't see it. I think it helps a lot that people identify as geeks first so in a hackerspace it is assumed we're all in the same tribe, trying to be interesting people doing interesting things.
yawaramin 10y ago
You have a very narrow view of universities and higher learning throughout history. The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority.

vacri 10y ago

> the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness I disagree. To me, political correctness is about not limiting other people's opportunities through stereotyping them. Making jokes about gangstas when the black guy is around or talking about terrorists like they're all muslim reinforces stereotypes and makes it harder for people of that demographic. Political correctness isn't about preventing offense, it's about not limiting opportunity, and in my opinion, the 'hacker' crowd that's supposed to be all about meritocracy should be strongly for political correctness. Trigger warnings don't fit into this - you're not claiming someone is something they're not (directly or indirectly). I like what the U of C has done here, but it's not about PC.

michaelbuddy 10y ago
Your definition of political correctness is incorrect. And what you believe about it doesn't make it so.
- vacri 10y ago
  Google disagrees with you: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." Nothing in that relates to 'trigger warnings'. It's nice, though, that you just declare me wrong by fiat, without any evidence to support the definition that you believe (or even what the definition is).
  - michaelbuddy 10y ago
    No, political correctness has always been a negative. Your first page google findings are fitting your bias. Like any other political term, it has been written and batted back and forth, occasionally hijacked to try to give it a positive spin. You're taking an underhanded approach here. "Marginalized" "Socially Disadvantaged" are just buzz words to distract from the definition. Attempting to create a victimized group (straw man) to try to make political correctness a good thing to protect the straw man is disingenuous. Political correctness is and always will be lying or deciding not to say what many people recognize or experience as truth out of a perceived fear of political rejection, ostracism or whatever dreamt up consequences. The problems continue because ignoring, hiding, refraining from voicing actual problems means that they will never be addressed. This is political correctness imposed on another person and in this case worthy of a civil rights lawsuit. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-day-suspension-for-saying-all-lives-matter.html http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-...

stcredzero 10y ago

the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism How about an "arms limitation treaty" between the left and the right in the US? Both sides will give up most of their empirically unsupported, subjective, and intellectually dishonest tactics for muddying the waters and suppressing substantive debate. The left can give up trigger warnings while the right can stop denying climate science. What we need in the US is a "Groupthink Potlatch." We should have a reality TV show alternative to the mainstream debates where two high profile contestants destroy their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit. The winner is the one who gives away or destroys the most of their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch (Is that cultural appropriation? Heh.)

michaelbuddy 10y ago
There are many on the right that agree that climate change is real. But they aren't just going to accept any and all legislation because of it. It's just that type of issue where the most ridiculous money wasting endeavors can be injected in the still of the night. Also not all regulations of industries improve them. Many hinder progress, many make it impossible to have competition in an area and some frankly are just based on incomplete science. The other day I read an article where the headline said "Scientists explain why despite global warming, there is more ice in the antarctic." Then in the text it said "Scientists can't explain it." So don't just think that things are conclusive because you've been reading articles. The "warmest july on record" isn't really all that impressive to me considering the record isn't that deep when it comes to the age of the earth.
nikcheerla 10y ago
I'd love that. The problem is that it's really, really hard to criticize your own tribe. (People who made a habit of criticizing their tribe in the ancestral environment were killed off very quickly).
nostrebored 10y ago
Climate Science is actually an interesting intersection of these issues. "Safe space"-style rhetoric has been used to no platform people who deny global warming. The government does not fund research into any climate science that looks for an alternate explanation. Unfortunately, the combination of these two things makes it nearly impossible to be a climate-scientist who disagrees with the herd. Even if you could overcome the massive cultural hurdle, you have society and the government to deal with as well. Which makes me skeptical, but I still think that it's safest to heed the precautionary principle.