3 ms·

- Protest is a legitimate means of speech. Not really, not in an academic context at least. Counter-arguments are a legitimate response to an argument, while p

• TazeTSchnitzel 8y ago
  What are ideas if not political? The concept of an academia free of politics is absurd.
  • Udik 8y ago
    Everything can be political, and ideas can always have political consequences and the people that advance them always have political persuasions. But the arena of academia is that of logic and reason, not of political convictions. So even if everything has a political connotation, the whole point of science and academia is to try to keep that out of the way, and use cold reasoning instead. A protest can show that you don't accept an idea, not that an idea is not worth being accepted.
    • notahacker 8y ago
      A protest can also be an expression of the view that an academic is clouding their judgement with their own politics, or simply behaving unreasonably in a manner which has nothing to do with scientific enquiry or their subject matter. Blanket bans on protest are just as inimical to free and open discourse as blanket bans on discussing certain subject matter.
      • Udik 8y ago
        - an expression of the view that an academic is clouding their judgement with their own politics How is that not an ad hominem attack? - or simply behaving unreasonably in a manner which has nothing to do with scientific enquiry or their subject matter. This can be implied by the discussion of the ideas; stating "you are behaving unreasonably" is, again, not an argument. Protests are manifestations of personal and emotional involvement- I don't see what these things have to do with scientific inquiry.
        • notahacker 8y ago
          Out of curiosity, have you actually attended a university? Because I can assure you that a lot of things professors do and say (for better and for worse) have little or nothing to do with scientific enquiry, and that lectures and seminar programmes seldom have the fluidity to incorporate extended discussions on the merits of an academic's recent behaviour, treatment of students or allegedly overtly racist media comments. Especially not if they're a hard science programme. I don't think all protests have merit or are carried out in an acceptable manner, but I also don't think professors are such special snowflakes that all criticism of their actions is off limits unless specifically solicited in their classes, and I certainly don't think you can dress blanket censorship of unauthorised criticisms of them in the clothes of free speech.
          • Udik 8y ago
            > I can assure you that a lot of things professors do and say (for better and for worse) have little or nothing to do with scientific enquiry We have been talking so far of censorship of ideas and of "academic context", which doesn't necessarily coincide with the university building. My point, from which I might have strayed a bit in the thread, is that protests are irrelevant to the academic discourse (again, not "what professors chat about during the day") and as such they should be considered exclusively disruptive, and certainly not a way of making any sort of point. Shouldn't university, in general, also teach students to present their cases and conclusions in a cogent manner, as opposed to picketing a hall and shouting? Then there is of course the case of bad behaviour or mistreatment of students: but what does it have to do with "controversial ideas" and public protests against them? It's a matter for disciplinary committe and investigations about actual individual facts, not about general statements and beliefs.
      • yourbandsucks 8y ago
        Angry mobs are rarely the height of reasoned and considered discourse.
    • pessimizer 8y ago
      Political convictions are as in the area of logic and reason as academia. How else are we supposed to find the proper ways to elect representatives, and how else are those representatives to come up with and carry out their programs? The argument would work better if it were for the separation of religion and academia, faith and reason. TBH, I find that most of the people making an argument to remove politics from things are using "politics" as a euphemism for something other than elections and governance. When HN experimented with a ban on "politics," it explicitly excluded the operations of government from the definition of the term.
      • TeMPOraL 8y ago
        > TBH, I find that most of the people making an argument to remove politics from things are using "politics" as a euphemism for something other than elections and governance. When HN experimented with a ban on "politics," it explicitly excluded the operations of government from the definition of the term. So maybe we need a new term. Something to separate "politics as in mechanics of governance and related systems" from "politics as in partisanship, ideologies, and all the other bullshit that's entirely opposite to reason and rationality". Both HN and academia needs the former, not the latter.
• coldtea 8y ago
  >but academic discussion should strive to be as free as possible of politics. That's a specific ideology that says that, not a law of academics. Tons of academics, and very respected ones, would argue that everything is politics, that academics should involve themselves in the struggles of their era, and so on (including, of course, in their academic work). Try that line in France, for example, and see how far it goes...