4 ms·

> The university should only allow speakers that the students agree with? I was very clear that was not what I was saying, I said literally the opposite, so it

by Latty 5y ago

> The university should only allow speakers that the students agree with? I was very clear that was not what I was saying, I said literally the opposite, so it seems like you didn't even bother reading my post. > The university has the job of determining what this level is. Exactly, and they decided that it wasn't valuable enough. I think they were right, you may well disagree. Either way, it isn't "academic freedom" under attack—as this is framed. There will always be people pissed they don't get that platform for their idea—more people want a platform than there is time and budget to offer. It is a decision about the value of exposing students to the idea weighed against the cost of doing so. If other students feel they are being denied value, they are free to go to the University and push back. Of course, we all know where this is going, just as with the reactionary response to homosexuality, it will become increasingly unpopular because the cat is out of the bag: people have trans loved ones and don't want them to be discriminated against.

nemo44x 5y ago
You have cognitive dissonance in your thoughts then. On one hand you claim the students should be able to protest the speakers that the administration invites and on the other hand you suggest the administration should decide which intellectuals are educationally valuable. But yet, after the administration picked a speaker a minority of students protested and that same administration revoked the invitation under pressure. This suggests the minority of students, not the administration, decided what was of value. This is a problem akin to letting a spoiled child instructing their parent just what’s for dinner. An abdication of duty. There’s a difference from wanting discrimination against people and having a forum on very real issues regarding an ideology that claims a special access to a certain Knowledge. In a scientific liberal institution, no one is irrefutable and no one has the final say pending new evidence. Of course the current motif is to dismiss scientific liberalism as racist and suspicious. You only have to read critical theory literature (race, queer, colonial, etc) , which oddly is not receptive to criticism itself.
- joshbert 5y ago
  That was my perception of that person's posts as well.

by Latty 5y ago

nemo44x 5y ago

You have cognitive dissonance in your thoughts then. On one hand you claim the students should be able to protest the speakers that the administration invites and on the other hand you suggest the administration should decide which intellectuals are educationally valuable. But yet, after the administration picked a speaker a minority of students protested and that same administration revoked the invitation under pressure. This suggests the minority of students, not the administration, decided what was of value. This is a problem akin to letting a spoiled child instructing their parent just what’s for dinner. An abdication of duty. There’s a difference from wanting discrimination against people and having a forum on very real issues regarding an ideology that claims a special access to a certain Knowledge. In a scientific liberal institution, no one is irrefutable and no one has the final say pending new evidence. Of course the current motif is to dismiss scientific liberalism as racist and suspicious. You only have to read critical theory literature (race, queer, colonial, etc) , which oddly is not receptive to criticism itself.

joshbert 5y ago
That was my perception of that person's posts as well.