5 ms·

Just a reminder that a .org does not mean "trustworthy". https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_in_Education https://www.source

Just a reminder that a .org does not mean "trustworthy". https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_in_Education https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Individ... In this case, the discussion and the tenor of the conversation is almost certainly cherry picked to serve a particular agenda. On its face, the actions by Stanford in this article seem...not good. But I also suspect that this is making a mountain out of a molehill for political gain.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
FIRE is a known sponsor of Turning Point USA. This is absolutely a molehill mountain propped up to generate outrage, which you can see manifest in these comments.
wilg 4y ago
But now you’ve posted a .org! Is that one trustworthy?
- abakker 4y ago
  lol, you are of course correct. It seems they are owned by the Center for Media and Democracy, which looks pretty neutral, but it is of course hard to tell.
mc32 4y ago
How is keeping track of what people read a "molehill"? Do we now presume libraries will not keep your reading habits and history private?
- kube-system 4y ago
  This article is about a picture posted on a snapchat story.
sudobash1 4y ago
Some other sources: There is more information in the a "Stanford Daily" article: https://stanforddaily.com/2023/01/22/protected-identity-harm-report-filed-as-screenshot-of-student-reading-mein-kampf-circulates/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/01/22/protected-identity-harm... And an opinion article in the "Standford Review": https://stanfordreview.org/nazis-banned-books-we-shouldnt/ https://stanfordreview.org/nazis-banned-books-we-shouldnt/
- minsc_and_boo 4y ago
  But to GP's point, that appears to be the only news about the event: https://news.google.com/search?q=mein%20kampf%20stanford https://news.google.com/search?q=mein%20kampf%20stanford It seems like this really is a molehill.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  The Stanford Review article claims that the photo of the student reading that particular book may have been staged, as a "joke". If so, it does not seem surprising that such a stunt may potentially fall foul of Stanford's policies about protecting minority groups from harm or intimidation. There might not be an actual "book burning" concern of any sort here.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    And it's also entirely possible that the staged reading was, in fact, just a joke between friends at the ridiculousness of the Nazis that was massively overreacted to by an uninvolved party and that the university will end the investigation it's been asked to undertake by getting the participants to shake hands, move on with their lives and maybe think before acting next time. It's odd to watch what is a fairly consistent pattern of Americans being more concerned about the free speech implications of students being students than a likely next presidential nominee banning entire university courses and introducing the felony offence of having unvetted books in school classrooms as part of his culture war against "wokeness" though...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Fomite 4y ago
Given my experience with this organization when I was an undergrad, and reading their accounting of events that were going on on campus, I'd take this with more than just a grain of salt.
rgbrenner 4y ago
I read the sourcewatch link and see lots of conservative funding. So I went through FIREs articles and found lots of conservative-learning articles, but also: https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes-library-books-response-public-complaints-defying-first https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes... https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-warns-office-missouri-secretary-state-against-childproofing-literature-and-speech https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-warns-office-missouri-secr... https://www.thefire.org/news/texas-bill-targeting-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-restricts-student-speech-and https://www.thefire.org/news/texas-bill-targeting-diversity-... https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes-library-books-response-public-complaints-defying-first https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes... So there's at least some bipartisan criticism. This article seems to match with the stanford article... so do you have any criticism of the contents of this article?
- abakker 4y ago
  my personal criticism is that that the article's premise is that Stanford "May" ask someone to do something. The outlet has published a letter to stanford seeking corrective action in line with their politics. In general, I am in favor of free speech and do not under any circumstances want to police what people read. (especially as reading Mein Kampf at a college would seem to suggest a certain course of study, rather than just recreation). But, I am not in favor of cherry picking incidents to drum up support for "holding people accountable" and making this into some kind of broader trend instead of isolated miscommunication. I also acknowledge that Stanford has to address this and get it right. But, fire.org appears to be paid to generate this kind of content and that makes me mistrust their motives even if their content is fine.
woooooo 4y ago
If academia is overwhelmingly biased in one direction, and a free speech org is documenting cases of suppression.. then of course most of the cases they document will exhibit that bias. It doesn't necessarily follow that they're playing for a team or using "free speech" in a bad faith manner. Academia created the discrepancy, FIRE is just documenting it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
wahern 4y ago
FIRE is a relatively new free speech advocacy organization started after the ACLU abandoned its very principled stance on free speech rights, which it had adopted in the 1970s, mostly famously in the Skokie Case where it supported a neo-Nazi organization. Now, many of the organizers and funders of FIRE clearly have conservative leanings. But as far as I can tell, so far FIRE's advocacy has been just as principled and non-partisan as the ACLU once was. See, for example, FIRE pushing back against de Santis' retaliation against Disney: https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-amendment-news/robert-corn-revere-punishing-disney-opposing https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-a... Or this recent case opposing a school board's overly broad censorship of sexually explicit material in its libraries: https://www.thefire.org/cases/penncrest-school-district-bans-books-sexual-content https://www.thefire.org/cases/penncrest-school-district-bans... But, yes, by appearances many of their high-profile cases involve liberal colleges, but that's because of the strain of pro-censorship ideology which has become prevalent in liberal circles, causing a dramatic swing in the left's attitudes regarding free speech. Today, advocacy for expansive free speech rights has largely fallen into the hands of a mishmash of cross-partisan people and organizations, more so than in the past, where support on the left had once been more prevalent. And funding, specifically, now seems to be coming more from the right. But if once upon a time the ACLU, whose membership and funding predominately came from the left--even decades ago, not to mention today--could do it, then there's no reason why FIRE can't. OTOH, the ACLU did a 180 on free speech because over time too much of its membership and, especially, funding came from the left.[1] And the left's attitudes wrt free speech has changed. So hopefully FIRE will make it a priority to expand its funding and membership bases, so it's less susceptible to political shifts. [1] This isn't a rant against the ACLU. They still do alot of good work. The ACLU has been having these debates in the public for years, and plenty of long-time ACLU supporters have become disenchanted with changes at the ACLU, including previous ACLU leaders, particularly wrt free speech. The reasons for changes at the ACLU are well known and not seriously disputed. The only disputes concern the philosophical justifications for the changes in policy.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > organizers and funders of FIRE clearly have conservative leanings Freedom of speech as a concept has become (in a very bizarre plot twist to anybody who's old enough to remember even the 1980's) a conservative standpoint, so it's safe to assume anybody who's defending it in the 21st century has at least conservative leanings.

minsc_and_boo 4y ago

FIRE is a known sponsor of Turning Point USA. This is absolutely a molehill mountain propped up to generate outrage, which you can see manifest in these comments.

wilg 4y ago

But now you’ve posted a .org! Is that one trustworthy?

abakker 4y ago
lol, you are of course correct. It seems they are owned by the Center for Media and Democracy, which looks pretty neutral, but it is of course hard to tell.

mc32 4y ago

How is keeping track of what people read a "molehill"? Do we now presume libraries will not keep your reading habits and history private?

kube-system 4y ago
This article is about a picture posted on a snapchat story.

sudobash1 4y ago

Some other sources: There is more information in the a "Stanford Daily" article: https://stanforddaily.com/2023/01/22/protected-identity-harm-report-filed-as-screenshot-of-student-reading-mein-kampf-circulates/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/01/22/protected-identity-harm... And an opinion article in the "Standford Review": https://stanfordreview.org/nazis-banned-books-we-shouldnt/ https://stanfordreview.org/nazis-banned-books-we-shouldnt/

minsc_and_boo 4y ago
But to GP's point, that appears to be the only news about the event: https://news.google.com/search?q=mein%20kampf%20stanford https://news.google.com/search?q=mein%20kampf%20stanford It seems like this really is a molehill.
zozbot234 4y ago
The Stanford Review article claims that the photo of the student reading that particular book may have been staged, as a "joke". If so, it does not seem surprising that such a stunt may potentially fall foul of Stanford's policies about protecting minority groups from harm or intimidation. There might not be an actual "book burning" concern of any sort here.
- notahacker 4y ago
  And it's also entirely possible that the staged reading was, in fact, just a joke between friends at the ridiculousness of the Nazis that was massively overreacted to by an uninvolved party and that the university will end the investigation it's been asked to undertake by getting the participants to shake hands, move on with their lives and maybe think before acting next time. It's odd to watch what is a fairly consistent pattern of Americans being more concerned about the free speech implications of students being students than a likely next presidential nominee banning entire university courses and introducing the felony offence of having unvetted books in school classrooms as part of his culture war against "wokeness" though...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Fomite 4y ago

Given my experience with this organization when I was an undergrad, and reading their accounting of events that were going on on campus, I'd take this with more than just a grain of salt.

rgbrenner 4y ago

I read the sourcewatch link and see lots of conservative funding. So I went through FIREs articles and found lots of conservative-learning articles, but also: https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes-library-books-response-public-complaints-defying-first https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes... https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-warns-office-missouri-secretary-state-against-childproofing-literature-and-speech https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-warns-office-missouri-secr... https://www.thefire.org/news/texas-bill-targeting-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-restricts-student-speech-and https://www.thefire.org/news/texas-bill-targeting-diversity-... https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes-library-books-response-public-complaints-defying-first https://www.thefire.org/news/florida-school-district-removes... So there's at least some bipartisan criticism. This article seems to match with the stanford article... so do you have any criticism of the contents of this article?

abakker 4y ago
my personal criticism is that that the article's premise is that Stanford "May" ask someone to do something. The outlet has published a letter to stanford seeking corrective action in line with their politics. In general, I am in favor of free speech and do not under any circumstances want to police what people read. (especially as reading Mein Kampf at a college would seem to suggest a certain course of study, rather than just recreation). But, I am not in favor of cherry picking incidents to drum up support for "holding people accountable" and making this into some kind of broader trend instead of isolated miscommunication. I also acknowledge that Stanford has to address this and get it right. But, fire.org appears to be paid to generate this kind of content and that makes me mistrust their motives even if their content is fine.

woooooo 4y ago

If academia is overwhelmingly biased in one direction, and a free speech org is documenting cases of suppression.. then of course most of the cases they document will exhibit that bias. It doesn't necessarily follow that they're playing for a team or using "free speech" in a bad faith manner. Academia created the discrepancy, FIRE is just documenting it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

wahern 4y ago

FIRE is a relatively new free speech advocacy organization started after the ACLU abandoned its very principled stance on free speech rights, which it had adopted in the 1970s, mostly famously in the Skokie Case where it supported a neo-Nazi organization. Now, many of the organizers and funders of FIRE clearly have conservative leanings. But as far as I can tell, so far FIRE's advocacy has been just as principled and non-partisan as the ACLU once was. See, for example, FIRE pushing back against de Santis' retaliation against Disney: https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-amendment-news/robert-corn-revere-punishing-disney-opposing https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-a... Or this recent case opposing a school board's overly broad censorship of sexually explicit material in its libraries: https://www.thefire.org/cases/penncrest-school-district-bans-books-sexual-content https://www.thefire.org/cases/penncrest-school-district-bans... But, yes, by appearances many of their high-profile cases involve liberal colleges, but that's because of the strain of pro-censorship ideology which has become prevalent in liberal circles, causing a dramatic swing in the left's attitudes regarding free speech. Today, advocacy for expansive free speech rights has largely fallen into the hands of a mishmash of cross-partisan people and organizations, more so than in the past, where support on the left had once been more prevalent. And funding, specifically, now seems to be coming more from the right. But if once upon a time the ACLU, whose membership and funding predominately came from the left--even decades ago, not to mention today--could do it, then there's no reason why FIRE can't. OTOH, the ACLU did a 180 on free speech because over time too much of its membership and, especially, funding came from the left.[1] And the left's attitudes wrt free speech has changed. So hopefully FIRE will make it a priority to expand its funding and membership bases, so it's less susceptible to political shifts. [1] This isn't a rant against the ACLU. They still do alot of good work. The ACLU has been having these debates in the public for years, and plenty of long-time ACLU supporters have become disenchanted with changes at the ACLU, including previous ACLU leaders, particularly wrt free speech. The reasons for changes at the ACLU are well known and not seriously disputed. The only disputes concern the philosophical justifications for the changes in policy.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> organizers and funders of FIRE clearly have conservative leanings Freedom of speech as a concept has become (in a very bizarre plot twist to anybody who's old enough to remember even the 1980's) a conservative standpoint, so it's safe to assume anybody who's defending it in the 21st century has at least conservative leanings.