7 ms·

You stated the exception without justification. You need to give an actual argument for why discrimination should be an exception but free speech shouldn't. Fr

You stated the exception without justification. You need to give an actual argument for why discrimination should be an exception but free speech shouldn't. Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right. In fact, free speech is a civil right--one of the originals. Why shouldn't it be included under your civil rights exception?

vinceguidry 9y ago
The civil rights movement itself exposed the need for specific legal protections for minorities, because leaving it all up to the "marketplace of ideas" only ensures that patterns of systemized oppression continue. What happens when you don't restrict along protected grounds is that entire industries collude to exclude those classes of people. Mass hatred drowns out the whole marketplace.
- a_puppy 9y ago
  And right now the entire university education industry is colluding to suppress certain types of speech; an incident like this could happen at most universities, not just Harvard. So why doesn't freedom of speech also deserve specific legal protection? You still haven't justified treating freedom of speech differently from freedom from discrimination.
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    I'm having trouble following your logic. In my original comment, I stated that Harvard should have a right to choose who they want to admit or not admit to their school, unless they wanted to discriminate on illegal grounds. Everyone here is exercising their rights. The kids have a right to exercise their rights to free speech, and Harvard has a right to run a business the way they want to run it. Harvard is not a public institution run by the state, so it is not obligated to respect rights that public schools have to. This creates more diversity in the marketplace rather than less. Everybody can make the kinds of statements they want to make, and everybody can run the kinds of businesses they want to run, until those statements or businesses run afoul of laws. That's how America works. You can tell Harvard that they should respect student's rights the way you want them to. They can in turn ignore you. You can in turn choose a different university. The reason we have anti-discrimination laws is because without them, minorities would have no other options. You seem to want blanket and blind enforcement of your idea of what rights are, without regard to the reasons why we have free speech and discrimination laws in the first place. It's for greater diversification and opportunities.
    - julianmarq 9y ago
      >The reason we have anti-discrimination laws is because without them, minorities would have no other options. But those laws exist precisely because people fought to get them in place and be recognized as civil rights. How can you write several paragraphs that sound exactly like rationalizations used for segregation in the 50s [1] and then turn around and talk about anti-discrimination laws? Well, just like anti-discrimination laws were set in place, so should laws that shouldn't allow businesses to discriminate based on someone exercising their free speech. [1]: "They can in turn ignore you. You can in turn choose a different university." Seriously, stay classy.
    - a_puppy 9y ago
      I'm arguing that it's insufficient to point out that Harvard is a private institution, because the exact same argument could be used to justify discrimination. You have to show how free speech and discrimination are different. I agree that under 2017 US law, Harvard has a legal right to kick out the students. Similarly, under 1930 US law, Harvard had a legal right to reject all female applicants. I agree that those students can try to apply to a different university. Similarly, women rejected by Harvard in 1930 could apply to a different university. I agree that this wasn't a good solution for the women rejected by Harvard in 1930, because most other universities would also reject them. I argue that it's also not a good solution for freedom of speech in 2017, because most US universities now suppress certain types of speech. The reason we have anti-discrimination laws is because without them, minorities would have no other options. The reason we need free speech protections is because without them, people with the "wrong" opinions have no other options.
      - vinceguidry 9y ago
        > I argue that it's also not a good solution for freedom of speech in 2017, because most US universities now suppress certain types of speech. Well, if they want to change that state of affairs, they can go start a civil liberties movement to get "the right to post dank memes" enshrined as a legally-protected act. Let me know so I can go sign their petition. The point I'm trying to get across is that nothing about your argument that is compelling enough to convince a reasonable adult, much less a plurality of Americans to fight for it. Justice isn't free, just because you say things should be fair and the Constitution says it should be this way doesn't make your particular injustice worth fighting for. Civil rights for minorities was. What do I know, maybe dank memes will be in the future. I'm not holding my breath though.
  - yawaramin 9y ago
    It's different because minorities can't choose to not be minorities any more. Racists can choose to not be racist--at least in public (or in 'private' chat groups which, let's face it, are leaky sieves).
bradleyjg 9y ago
Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right as against the government. It's never been considered part of the accept all commers obligation of places of public accommodation. It's a false analogy. A restaurant turning away a would be customer because he's black isn't the same thing as a restaurant turning someone away because he's wearing KKK regalia. The words 'free speech' aren't a magical talisman. You have to explain how they actually apply, and in this case they don't.
- a_puppy 9y ago
  If I understand correctly, you're pointing out that Harvard has a legal right to suppress its students' freedom of speech. I agree; I'm not arguing that Harvard has broken the law. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize Harvard, or complain about the trend towards universities suppressing freedom of speech, or even advocate for making what Harvard did illegal [0]. So I agree that "free speech" doesn't apply in a legal sense, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion. (Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law
  - bradleyjg 9y ago
    I'm saying that "suppressing its students' freedom of speech" is a category error in the first place. There's never been in the United States or elsewhere a widespread norm that offensive speech should not come with any consequences from fellow private citizens and from private organizations. When you said "Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right" that's simply inaccurate with respect to the private context. It was never so considered. Certainly not as any sort of right, but not even as a general norm. If you want to advocate for the desirability of adopting a new norm, from here forward -- fine go ahead and do it. But simply repeating the words "free speech" over and over again isn't convincing.
    - a_puppy 9y ago
      I disagree with your claim that there has never been a widespread norm. On university campuses in particular, there was a long-standing norm of tolerating radical and controversial opinions. If a large group of private universities all retaliate against students for expressing certain opinions (which is what's happening) then that causes the same harm as if the government does it. As I've argued elsewhere in this thread, that's analogous to how discrimination is harmful even if it's by private institutions instead of by the government.

vinceguidry 9y ago

The civil rights movement itself exposed the need for specific legal protections for minorities, because leaving it all up to the "marketplace of ideas" only ensures that patterns of systemized oppression continue. What happens when you don't restrict along protected grounds is that entire industries collude to exclude those classes of people. Mass hatred drowns out the whole marketplace.

a_puppy 9y ago
And right now the entire university education industry is colluding to suppress certain types of speech; an incident like this could happen at most universities, not just Harvard. So why doesn't freedom of speech also deserve specific legal protection? You still haven't justified treating freedom of speech differently from freedom from discrimination.
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  I'm having trouble following your logic. In my original comment, I stated that Harvard should have a right to choose who they want to admit or not admit to their school, unless they wanted to discriminate on illegal grounds. Everyone here is exercising their rights. The kids have a right to exercise their rights to free speech, and Harvard has a right to run a business the way they want to run it. Harvard is not a public institution run by the state, so it is not obligated to respect rights that public schools have to. This creates more diversity in the marketplace rather than less. Everybody can make the kinds of statements they want to make, and everybody can run the kinds of businesses they want to run, until those statements or businesses run afoul of laws. That's how America works. You can tell Harvard that they should respect student's rights the way you want them to. They can in turn ignore you. You can in turn choose a different university. The reason we have anti-discrimination laws is because without them, minorities would have no other options. You seem to want blanket and blind enforcement of your idea of what rights are, without regard to the reasons why we have free speech and discrimination laws in the first place. It's for greater diversification and opportunities.
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    >The reason we have anti-discrimination laws is because without them, minorities would have no other options. But those laws exist precisely because people fought to get them in place and be recognized as civil rights. How can you write several paragraphs that sound exactly like rationalizations used for segregation in the 50s [1] and then turn around and talk about anti-discrimination laws? Well, just like anti-discrimination laws were set in place, so should laws that shouldn't allow businesses to discriminate based on someone exercising their free speech. [1]: "They can in turn ignore you. You can in turn choose a different university." Seriously, stay classy.
  - a_puppy 9y ago
    I'm arguing that it's insufficient to point out that Harvard is a private institution, because the exact same argument could be used to justify discrimination. You have to show how free speech and discrimination are different. I agree that under 2017 US law, Harvard has a legal right to kick out the students. Similarly, under 1930 US law, Harvard had a legal right to reject all female applicants. I agree that those students can try to apply to a different university. Similarly, women rejected by Harvard in 1930 could apply to a different university. I agree that this wasn't a good solution for the women rejected by Harvard in 1930, because most other universities would also reject them. I argue that it's also not a good solution for freedom of speech in 2017, because most US universities now suppress certain types of speech. The reason we have anti-discrimination laws is because without them, minorities would have no other options. The reason we need free speech protections is because without them, people with the "wrong" opinions have no other options.
    - vinceguidry 9y ago
      > I argue that it's also not a good solution for freedom of speech in 2017, because most US universities now suppress certain types of speech. Well, if they want to change that state of affairs, they can go start a civil liberties movement to get "the right to post dank memes" enshrined as a legally-protected act. Let me know so I can go sign their petition. The point I'm trying to get across is that nothing about your argument that is compelling enough to convince a reasonable adult, much less a plurality of Americans to fight for it. Justice isn't free, just because you say things should be fair and the Constitution says it should be this way doesn't make your particular injustice worth fighting for. Civil rights for minorities was. What do I know, maybe dank memes will be in the future. I'm not holding my breath though.
- yawaramin 9y ago
  It's different because minorities can't choose to not be minorities any more. Racists can choose to not be racist--at least in public (or in 'private' chat groups which, let's face it, are leaky sieves).

bradleyjg 9y ago

Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right as against the government. It's never been considered part of the accept all commers obligation of places of public accommodation. It's a false analogy. A restaurant turning away a would be customer because he's black isn't the same thing as a restaurant turning someone away because he's wearing KKK regalia. The words 'free speech' aren't a magical talisman. You have to explain how they actually apply, and in this case they don't.

a_puppy 9y ago
If I understand correctly, you're pointing out that Harvard has a legal right to suppress its students' freedom of speech. I agree; I'm not arguing that Harvard has broken the law. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize Harvard, or complain about the trend towards universities suppressing freedom of speech, or even advocate for making what Harvard did illegal [0]. So I agree that "free speech" doesn't apply in a legal sense, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion. (Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  I'm saying that "suppressing its students' freedom of speech" is a category error in the first place. There's never been in the United States or elsewhere a widespread norm that offensive speech should not come with any consequences from fellow private citizens and from private organizations. When you said "Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right" that's simply inaccurate with respect to the private context. It was never so considered. Certainly not as any sort of right, but not even as a general norm. If you want to advocate for the desirability of adopting a new norm, from here forward -- fine go ahead and do it. But simply repeating the words "free speech" over and over again isn't convincing.
  - a_puppy 9y ago
    I disagree with your claim that there has never been a widespread norm. On university campuses in particular, there was a long-standing norm of tolerating radical and controversial opinions. If a large group of private universities all retaliate against students for expressing certain opinions (which is what's happening) then that causes the same harm as if the government does it. As I've argued elsewhere in this thread, that's analogous to how discrimination is harmful even if it's by private institutions instead of by the government.