3 ms·

"The MIT statement on free expression states that in order to encourage provocative thinking, controversial views, and nonconformity, the university will protec

"The MIT statement on free expression states that in order to encourage provocative thinking, controversial views, and nonconformity, the university will protect all speech within the boundaries of the First Amendment." "Therefore, as a junior member of the Flat Earth Society, I demand MIT provide me an auditorium and a microphone to legitimize and amplify my nonconformist opinion about the shape of the Earth."

superb-owl 4y ago
This is also a false equivalence. MIT is obviously only going to consider inviting speakers that would appeal to some subset of its community. The statement doesn't give anyone a right to demand an audience at MIT, it gives the MIT community license to invite controversial speakers.
- panarky 4y ago
  Which gives the lie to all the sanctimonious talk about protecting all speech that's legal under the First Amendment. MIT isn't protecting all legal speech, they're amplifying speech the MIT community wants to hear, and suppressing speech the community doesn't want to hear. If the MIT community wants to legitimize and amplify speech about perpetuating the current hierarchy of elites, and suppress protest speech aiming to open up and overturn that hierarchy, it's up to the community. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Contrary to all the feel-good language about platforming nonconformity, the goal is not to provide an equal platform to all viewpoints, because that would be ridiculous.
  - superb-owl 4y ago
    Free speech isn't about giving all ideas an equal footing. It's about letting any individual speak their mind without fear of repercussions. And that is exactly what MIT appears to be pledging to do here. Ideas are still subject to the marketplace, and the MIT community is a very discriminating market.
PubliusMI 4y ago
Are there many members of the community at MIT that would be eager to see such a talk?
- ternus 4y ago
  You might be surprised. The MIT Lecture Series Committee (a student club which now mostly screens movies) invited Gene "Time Cube" Ray to give a talk: https://web.mit.edu/iap/www/iap02/searchiap/iap-4330.html https://web.mit.edu/iap/www/iap02/searchiap/iap-4330.html AIUI this was controversial, but not for the reasons you might think: people were concerned that the guy wasn't well and that encouraging him wasn't kind.
Manuel_D 4y ago
If someone wants to try to promote flat earth ideas let them. I think it's condescending to MIT students to think this is somehow harming them.
- panarky 4y ago
  People are free to promote whatever crackpot ideas they wish. The question is whether MIT should provide a platform for everyone. Since there are infinite crackpot ideas but only one Kresge Auditorium, the MIT community must make value judgments about what speakers and ideas are worthy, and which ones are not. No institution should be compelled to provide a platform for all speakers and ideas. Some speakers and ideas are worthy of MIT, and many are not. MIT faculty and leadership should embrace their fiduciary duty to make these hard judgments. They should grapple with what it means for speakers and ideas to be worthy, and what speech should not receive MIT legitimacy and amplification. Instead this statement evades all of that by pretending to support all speech as long as it's legal.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > Since there are infinite crackpot ideas but only one Kresge Auditorium, the MIT community must make value judgments about what speakers and ideas are worthy, and which ones are not But this is the key thing: Abbot was giving a talk on environmental studies, and confirmed affirmative action was not part of the talk he was giving. The push to exclude him was on the basis of something other the science of his talk. Here's a better analogy: would it be appropriate to cancel musician'd concert because he's a flat earther? The argument that we have only one auditorium and we should allocate it to a better musician does not make sense unless there's a compelling reason to say that his musical performance abilities are affected by a belief in a flat earth.
TigeriusKirk 4y ago
Sounds good to me. Bring on the debate.

superb-owl 4y ago

This is also a false equivalence. MIT is obviously only going to consider inviting speakers that would appeal to some subset of its community. The statement doesn't give anyone a right to demand an audience at MIT, it gives the MIT community license to invite controversial speakers.

panarky 4y ago
Which gives the lie to all the sanctimonious talk about protecting all speech that's legal under the First Amendment. MIT isn't protecting all legal speech, they're amplifying speech the MIT community wants to hear, and suppressing speech the community doesn't want to hear. If the MIT community wants to legitimize and amplify speech about perpetuating the current hierarchy of elites, and suppress protest speech aiming to open up and overturn that hierarchy, it's up to the community. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Contrary to all the feel-good language about platforming nonconformity, the goal is not to provide an equal platform to all viewpoints, because that would be ridiculous.
- superb-owl 4y ago
  Free speech isn't about giving all ideas an equal footing. It's about letting any individual speak their mind without fear of repercussions. And that is exactly what MIT appears to be pledging to do here. Ideas are still subject to the marketplace, and the MIT community is a very discriminating market.

PubliusMI 4y ago

Are there many members of the community at MIT that would be eager to see such a talk?

ternus 4y ago
You might be surprised. The MIT Lecture Series Committee (a student club which now mostly screens movies) invited Gene "Time Cube" Ray to give a talk: https://web.mit.edu/iap/www/iap02/searchiap/iap-4330.html https://web.mit.edu/iap/www/iap02/searchiap/iap-4330.html AIUI this was controversial, but not for the reasons you might think: people were concerned that the guy wasn't well and that encouraging him wasn't kind.

Manuel_D 4y ago

If someone wants to try to promote flat earth ideas let them. I think it's condescending to MIT students to think this is somehow harming them.

panarky 4y ago
People are free to promote whatever crackpot ideas they wish. The question is whether MIT should provide a platform for everyone. Since there are infinite crackpot ideas but only one Kresge Auditorium, the MIT community must make value judgments about what speakers and ideas are worthy, and which ones are not. No institution should be compelled to provide a platform for all speakers and ideas. Some speakers and ideas are worthy of MIT, and many are not. MIT faculty and leadership should embrace their fiduciary duty to make these hard judgments. They should grapple with what it means for speakers and ideas to be worthy, and what speech should not receive MIT legitimacy and amplification. Instead this statement evades all of that by pretending to support all speech as long as it's legal.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > Since there are infinite crackpot ideas but only one Kresge Auditorium, the MIT community must make value judgments about what speakers and ideas are worthy, and which ones are not But this is the key thing: Abbot was giving a talk on environmental studies, and confirmed affirmative action was not part of the talk he was giving. The push to exclude him was on the basis of something other the science of his talk. Here's a better analogy: would it be appropriate to cancel musician'd concert because he's a flat earther? The argument that we have only one auditorium and we should allocate it to a better musician does not make sense unless there's a compelling reason to say that his musical performance abilities are affected by a belief in a flat earth.

TigeriusKirk 4y ago

Sounds good to me. Bring on the debate.