3 ms·
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 do
by 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 agoWhich 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 agoFree 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.