4 ms·

Devils advocate - it may be that Stanford is punishing the act of taking a picture and distributing it, rather than reading the book. I was thinking of reading

by mxkopy 4y ago

Devils advocate - it may be that Stanford is punishing the act of taking a picture and distributing it, rather than reading the book. I was thinking of reading Mein Kampf (I've never read it), but I'd never think to pose in front of it.

sacnoradhq 4y ago
The Stanford Daily blurb is ambiguous as to whether 1. the student posed and posted it themselves, or 2. a bystander took a picture and sought to embarrass them for committing the crime of curiosity. It sounds like 2. which would be concerning to academic freedom, but if it's 1. then maybe they were young, insensitive, and made a mistake. I doubt Stanford is in the business of accepting Neo-Nazis as proof of diversity. Also, the politically powerful as many Stanford students' families are, they tend to be concerned about "doing everything perfectly" to not be screamed at, lose respect of, or be cut off from their friends or family for doing something to embarrass them.
kube-system 4y ago
Yeah, I think there's not enough information to make a judgement call over the internet on this one. What specifically was in this photo, and who was it shared with or sent to? Contextual details are everything in these kinds of situations.
mywittyname 4y ago
That makes sense actually. Given the issue is not that the student read the book (as noted, it's required reading in certain classes). The complaint appears to be, a student was photographed reading the book, and the nature of the photograph caused a group of people to feel adversely targeted by it. The article omits the photograph, or even any real description of it, so we can't exactly judge for ourselves. The PIH rules seems to be for addressing, "I'm not touching you"-style harassment. So without seeing the photograph, or hearing the complaints against it, I feel like the article is very one-sided. Also, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education claims to be non-partisan, but apparently sponsors conservative action groups on college and high school campuses. Including one run by Charlie Kirk.
- taylodl 4y ago
  > The article omits the photograph, or even any real description of it, so we can't exactly judge for ourselves. In other words the article hides critical information in order to create flame bait. This is what passes for "journalism" today.

by mxkopy 4y ago

sacnoradhq 4y ago

The Stanford Daily blurb is ambiguous as to whether 1. the student posed and posted it themselves, or 2. a bystander took a picture and sought to embarrass them for committing the crime of curiosity. It sounds like 2. which would be concerning to academic freedom, but if it's 1. then maybe they were young, insensitive, and made a mistake. I doubt Stanford is in the business of accepting Neo-Nazis as proof of diversity. Also, the politically powerful as many Stanford students' families are, they tend to be concerned about "doing everything perfectly" to not be screamed at, lose respect of, or be cut off from their friends or family for doing something to embarrass them.

kube-system 4y ago

Yeah, I think there's not enough information to make a judgement call over the internet on this one. What specifically was in this photo, and who was it shared with or sent to? Contextual details are everything in these kinds of situations.

mywittyname 4y ago

That makes sense actually. Given the issue is not that the student read the book (as noted, it's required reading in certain classes). The complaint appears to be, a student was photographed reading the book, and the nature of the photograph caused a group of people to feel adversely targeted by it. The article omits the photograph, or even any real description of it, so we can't exactly judge for ourselves. The PIH rules seems to be for addressing, "I'm not touching you"-style harassment. So without seeing the photograph, or hearing the complaints against it, I feel like the article is very one-sided. Also, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education claims to be non-partisan, but apparently sponsors conservative action groups on college and high school campuses. Including one run by Charlie Kirk.

taylodl 4y ago
> The article omits the photograph, or even any real description of it, so we can't exactly judge for ourselves. In other words the article hides critical information in order to create flame bait. This is what passes for "journalism" today.