4 ms·

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

by 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.

by nomat 10y ago

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.