3 ms·

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.

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.
- a_puppy 9y ago
  I agree that dank memes in particular are not worth fighting for. However, I think the same policies and attitudes that get dank memes banned are also suppressing serious political speech. And the suppression of political speech on college campuses is an issue that a lot of reasonable adults take very seriously. See e.g. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ and https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus I'm not quite sure which position you're arguing for. Are you just arguing that Harvard should ban contentless offense such as dank memes, or do you also think Harvard should ban offensive political speech?
  - vinceguidry 9y ago
    I'm arguing that Harvard should be able to use reasonable measures to affect campus discourse, up to and including an outright speech ban if that's necessary, given of course that it is appropriate with existing limitations on such speech bans. (time, place and manner restrictions) You are asking about specific policy that I think Harvard should be able to or not be able to enact. The thing about policy is that it necessarily has a chilling effect. But symbolic actions like this one can send messages without making everyone feel like they're under the gun. Properly tailored, it scares the people that need to be scared and lets everyone else feel safe and protected. I have no problems with the action that Harvard took. They did not rescind all of the invitations of those involved, and exercised good judgment. It was a nuanced and appropriate response to the situation. If you remove the ability of school administrators to exercise judgment, then you're basically tying their hands together and things can rapidly devolve into a cesspool.

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.

a_puppy 9y ago
I agree that dank memes in particular are not worth fighting for. However, I think the same policies and attitudes that get dank memes banned are also suppressing serious political speech. And the suppression of political speech on college campuses is an issue that a lot of reasonable adults take very seriously. See e.g. https://www.thefire.org/ https://www.thefire.org/ and https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus I'm not quite sure which position you're arguing for. Are you just arguing that Harvard should ban contentless offense such as dank memes, or do you also think Harvard should ban offensive political speech?
- vinceguidry 9y ago
  I'm arguing that Harvard should be able to use reasonable measures to affect campus discourse, up to and including an outright speech ban if that's necessary, given of course that it is appropriate with existing limitations on such speech bans. (time, place and manner restrictions) You are asking about specific policy that I think Harvard should be able to or not be able to enact. The thing about policy is that it necessarily has a chilling effect. But symbolic actions like this one can send messages without making everyone feel like they're under the gun. Properly tailored, it scares the people that need to be scared and lets everyone else feel safe and protected. I have no problems with the action that Harvard took. They did not rescind all of the invitations of those involved, and exercised good judgment. It was a nuanced and appropriate response to the situation. If you remove the ability of school administrators to exercise judgment, then you're basically tying their hands together and things can rapidly devolve into a cesspool.