5 ms·

Anecdotally, I was in college for 95-99, and I think we are in a much better place, free-speech-wise, than back then. I think perhaps a LOT of people underestim

by jrm4 4y ago

Anecdotally, I was in college for 95-99, and I think we are in a much better place, free-speech-wise, than back then. I think perhaps a LOT of people underestimate the extent to which a lot of the biases that e.g. people of color discuss today were so pervasive that one could not even bring them up without reprisal back then. And by reprisal I mean the following: if I were to merely discuss --as in, not advocate for, but merely discuss as a concept -- reparations, I'd immediately be dismissed and generally forever known as the angry black guy. Of course, not to purely blame white people I suppose, that was just the "way things were." In retrospect, the line someone like me had to walk was far narrower back then. We do have problems today, but I do not see a huge gap between those then and now.

Sin2x 4y ago
Your example has nothing to do with academic freedom whatsoever.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  The ability to engage with unfashionable topics in an academic context has nothing to do with academic freedom?
  - Sin2x 4y ago
    There is no academic context here in the parent comment, only social context. This example would fit the topic if it were about writing a thesis on reparations that was rejected or if the author was actively dissuaded from writing it.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      If we exclude the social context in which academic discussions occur from "academic context" then I guess there won't be very many cases where academic freedom is infringed upon.
      - Sin2x 4y ago
        The original commenter did not mention being banned from any academic discussions -- his freedom was not infringed. It is the other people's freedom to ignore him that he wanted to infringe. He wanted to force other people to engage with him. That's the opposite of freedom. And now for a case of real infringement of academic freedom: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p...
        jrm4 4y ago
        No, I just wanted to paint a broad picture. Maybe I failed in that regard for you specifically, but I think other people got it.
        Sin2x 4y ago
        The broad picture you painted is that society nowadays is somehow more free because less people disagree with your views. That's absolutely incorrect and has nothing to do with the concept of academic freedom to boot. I'm getting tired of reiterating.
        bee_rider 4y ago
        You started with an argument-free assertion and your point seems to rely (as far as I can tell) on a pretty specific meaning of "academic freedom," which you've only defined by telling us that various aspects which one might expect to fall under "academic freedom" don't quite qualify. So it isn't that surprising that you've had to "reiterate" a bit. I think we'll probably all agree that the juice isn't really worth the squeeze here, though.
        Sin2x 4y ago
        Academic freedom is a relatively well-defined term, and requiring other people to acknowledge you and your ideas is not a part of it. Forcing your ideas onto others is fascist and the opposite of freedom.
- jrm4 4y ago
  It has everything to do with academic freedom because "academic freedom" is never in a vacuum. You're just showing that you're insulated from it. Be smarter, please.
  - Sin2x 4y ago
    What am I insulated from? Academic freedom? Vacuum? Social derision? Mayhap I am indeed dumb, but I don't follow your line of reasoning. What your original comment distills to is that you were socially shunned for holding certain opinions -- and yes, this has nothing to do with academic freedom. You were not censored or cancelled -- that's what's important. And you can't just force others to accept your views. Trying to is fascist.
jwond 4y ago
> if I were to merely discuss --as in, not advocate for, but merely discuss as a concept -- reparations, I'd immediately be dismissed and generally forever known as the angry black guy. So people would dismiss you? Did they do anything else? Did they try to get you punished? Did they try to get you kicked out of school? Did they try to shout you down or pull fire alarms to prevent others from hearing what you had to say? Did they physically attack you?
- scarmig 4y ago
  Even if people merely socially alienated him for placing an idea into consideration, that's a restriction on freedom of speech, particularly as academia is supposed to be a place where people can freely consider and debate ideas without worry of reprisals.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    What would your alternative be? Force me to listen to someone I disagree with? Aren't you now limiting my freedom? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed an audience.
    - scarmig 4y ago
      In the context of a university classroom... yes? I support government subsidies (either explicit or through beneficial taxable status) of academic institutions in the hopes that they can create a liberal culture where any and all ideas are open for consideration. If as institutions they don't want to create a place where freedom of thought is paramount, that's fine; but at that point I don't see any particular reason they should be eligible for subsidies. As for you, you should feel free to attend or not, but I'm not interested in subsidizing you sitting in a classroom but only hearing ideas that never challenge you.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      Lol. Bruh, I'm from "The Bell Curve" era. Yeah, you're gonna have to listen to people you disagree with. And I fully believe this goes both/all ways.
allturtles 4y ago
> And by reprisal I mean the following: if I were to merely discuss --as in, not advocate for, but merely discuss as a concept -- reparations, I'd immediately be dismissed and generally forever known as the angry black guy. As someone who was in college at roughly the same time, this doesn't sound like what I remember. Google scholar shows lots of academic discussion around reparations at that time (I'm assuming you mean for slavery, so I searched specifically for that) [0] I'm sure it depends on what institution you were at and who you spoke to, but I don't think it was at all a taboo concept generally speaking in American academia. Edit: Further googling found that there were even state legislatures creating legislation or resolutions in favor of reparations in the 1990s[1]: "In 1990, the Louisiana House of Representatives passed a resolution in support of reparations. In 1991, legislation was introduced in the Massachusetts Senate providing for the payment of reparations for slavery, the slave trade, and individual discrimination against the people of African descent born or residing in the commonwealth of Massachusetts." [0]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reparations+for+slavery&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&as_ylo=1995&as_yhi=1999 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reparations+for+slavery... [1]: https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/reparations-has-the-time-finally-come https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/reparations-has-the...
- jrm4 4y ago
  This is the difficulty of trying to get someone else to see through your eyes, right? The fact that it shows up in books/papers can be a universe away from the actual space of a classroom.
  - allturtles 4y ago
    Sure. I can definitely believe that in a given classroom setting being the advocate for reparations was uncomfortable. But even as that has become more acceptable, being an advocate for other things that would have been considered mainstream in the late 90s has now become uncomfortable. The acceptable range of discourse in college classrooms has shifted, but I'm not sure it has grown. In any case, those scenarios are different from academic freedom in what I think of as the more typical sense, in terms of scholars being allowed to pursue and publish on whatever research topics they like. Reparations were not (I believe) outside the realm of academic freedom in the 1990s that sense.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> And by reprisal I mean the following: if I were to merely discuss --as in, not advocate for, but merely discuss as a concept -- reparations, I'd immediately be dismissed and generally forever known as the angry black guy. But that doesnt infringe of academic freedom. It infringes when you have some mechanism that removes it. Such as censorship or punishment.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Your (and others) use of "mechanism" is telling; your mind is likely pointing to something visible, formal and therefore publicly addressable, and what I'm trying to get at is that the oppression we dealt with is none of those things. Majority type power can oppress without that.
  - Sin2x 4y ago
    Once again -- this has nothing to do with academic freedom. Are you trying to derail the topic on purpose?
    - jrm4 4y ago
      You appear to be under the absolutely ridiculous illusion that "academia" as a space for discussion is a self-evident isolated bubble of safety. I wish it were that, and I literally work most days to try to make it that way, but it ain't that way.
      - Sin2x 4y ago
        You keep saying words that appear to make sense but actually don't in the context of this post. Pretty much like politicians do. What is your point exactly? You said that academia is more free now than in the 90s -- is that your point? If so, this point is incorrect, because in the 90s there were no political witch hunts against academics that are prevalent and widespread nowadays.
        4y ago

by jrm4 4y ago

Sin2x 4y ago

Your example has nothing to do with academic freedom whatsoever.

bee_rider 4y ago
The ability to engage with unfashionable topics in an academic context has nothing to do with academic freedom?
- Sin2x 4y ago
  There is no academic context here in the parent comment, only social context. This example would fit the topic if it were about writing a thesis on reparations that was rejected or if the author was actively dissuaded from writing it.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    If we exclude the social context in which academic discussions occur from "academic context" then I guess there won't be very many cases where academic freedom is infringed upon.
    - Sin2x 4y ago
      The original commenter did not mention being banned from any academic discussions -- his freedom was not infringed. It is the other people's freedom to ignore him that he wanted to infringe. He wanted to force other people to engage with him. That's the opposite of freedom. And now for a case of real infringement of academic freedom: https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-p...
      - jrm4 4y ago
        No, I just wanted to paint a broad picture. Maybe I failed in that regard for you specifically, but I think other people got it.
        Sin2x 4y ago
        The broad picture you painted is that society nowadays is somehow more free because less people disagree with your views. That's absolutely incorrect and has nothing to do with the concept of academic freedom to boot. I'm getting tired of reiterating.
        bee_rider 4y ago
        You started with an argument-free assertion and your point seems to rely (as far as I can tell) on a pretty specific meaning of "academic freedom," which you've only defined by telling us that various aspects which one might expect to fall under "academic freedom" don't quite qualify. So it isn't that surprising that you've had to "reiterate" a bit. I think we'll probably all agree that the juice isn't really worth the squeeze here, though.
        Sin2x 4y ago
        Academic freedom is a relatively well-defined term, and requiring other people to acknowledge you and your ideas is not a part of it. Forcing your ideas onto others is fascist and the opposite of freedom.
jrm4 4y ago
It has everything to do with academic freedom because "academic freedom" is never in a vacuum. You're just showing that you're insulated from it. Be smarter, please.
- Sin2x 4y ago
  What am I insulated from? Academic freedom? Vacuum? Social derision? Mayhap I am indeed dumb, but I don't follow your line of reasoning. What your original comment distills to is that you were socially shunned for holding certain opinions -- and yes, this has nothing to do with academic freedom. You were not censored or cancelled -- that's what's important. And you can't just force others to accept your views. Trying to is fascist.

jwond 4y ago

> if I were to merely discuss --as in, not advocate for, but merely discuss as a concept -- reparations, I'd immediately be dismissed and generally forever known as the angry black guy. So people would dismiss you? Did they do anything else? Did they try to get you punished? Did they try to get you kicked out of school? Did they try to shout you down or pull fire alarms to prevent others from hearing what you had to say? Did they physically attack you?

scarmig 4y ago
Even if people merely socially alienated him for placing an idea into consideration, that's a restriction on freedom of speech, particularly as academia is supposed to be a place where people can freely consider and debate ideas without worry of reprisals.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  What would your alternative be? Force me to listen to someone I disagree with? Aren't you now limiting my freedom? Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed an audience.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    In the context of a university classroom... yes? I support government subsidies (either explicit or through beneficial taxable status) of academic institutions in the hopes that they can create a liberal culture where any and all ideas are open for consideration. If as institutions they don't want to create a place where freedom of thought is paramount, that's fine; but at that point I don't see any particular reason they should be eligible for subsidies. As for you, you should feel free to attend or not, but I'm not interested in subsidizing you sitting in a classroom but only hearing ideas that never challenge you.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Lol. Bruh, I'm from "The Bell Curve" era. Yeah, you're gonna have to listen to people you disagree with. And I fully believe this goes both/all ways.

allturtles 4y ago

> And by reprisal I mean the following: if I were to merely discuss --as in, not advocate for, but merely discuss as a concept -- reparations, I'd immediately be dismissed and generally forever known as the angry black guy. As someone who was in college at roughly the same time, this doesn't sound like what I remember. Google scholar shows lots of academic discussion around reparations at that time (I'm assuming you mean for slavery, so I searched specifically for that) [0] I'm sure it depends on what institution you were at and who you spoke to, but I don't think it was at all a taboo concept generally speaking in American academia. Edit: Further googling found that there were even state legislatures creating legislation or resolutions in favor of reparations in the 1990s[1]: "In 1990, the Louisiana House of Representatives passed a resolution in support of reparations. In 1991, legislation was introduced in the Massachusetts Senate providing for the payment of reparations for slavery, the slave trade, and individual discrimination against the people of African descent born or residing in the commonwealth of Massachusetts." [0]: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reparations+for+slavery&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&as_ylo=1995&as_yhi=1999 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reparations+for+slavery... [1]: https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/reparations-has-the-time-finally-come https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/reparations-has-the...

jrm4 4y ago
This is the difficulty of trying to get someone else to see through your eyes, right? The fact that it shows up in books/papers can be a universe away from the actual space of a classroom.
- allturtles 4y ago
  Sure. I can definitely believe that in a given classroom setting being the advocate for reparations was uncomfortable. But even as that has become more acceptable, being an advocate for other things that would have been considered mainstream in the late 90s has now become uncomfortable. The acceptable range of discourse in college classrooms has shifted, but I'm not sure it has grown. In any case, those scenarios are different from academic freedom in what I think of as the more typical sense, in terms of scholars being allowed to pursue and publish on whatever research topics they like. Reparations were not (I believe) outside the realm of academic freedom in the 1990s that sense.

nonethewiser 4y ago

> And by reprisal I mean the following: if I were to merely discuss --as in, not advocate for, but merely discuss as a concept -- reparations, I'd immediately be dismissed and generally forever known as the angry black guy. But that doesnt infringe of academic freedom. It infringes when you have some mechanism that removes it. Such as censorship or punishment.

jrm4 4y ago
Your (and others) use of "mechanism" is telling; your mind is likely pointing to something visible, formal and therefore publicly addressable, and what I'm trying to get at is that the oppression we dealt with is none of those things. Majority type power can oppress without that.
- Sin2x 4y ago
  Once again -- this has nothing to do with academic freedom. Are you trying to derail the topic on purpose?
  - jrm4 4y ago
    You appear to be under the absolutely ridiculous illusion that "academia" as a space for discussion is a self-evident isolated bubble of safety. I wish it were that, and I literally work most days to try to make it that way, but it ain't that way.
    - Sin2x 4y ago
      You keep saying words that appear to make sense but actually don't in the context of this post. Pretty much like politicians do. What is your point exactly? You said that academia is more free now than in the 90s -- is that your point? If so, this point is incorrect, because in the 90s there were no political witch hunts against academics that are prevalent and widespread nowadays.
      - 4y ago