2 ms·

The logic is that having the Videos and Lectures it is than seen that students would seek out Dr Walter Lewin for help in a healthy student - teacher relationsh

by baldfat 11y ago

The logic is that having the Videos and Lectures it is than seen that students would seek out Dr Walter Lewin for help in a healthy student - teacher relationship which Dr Lewin has shown to have to engage in unhealthy relationships.

jessriedel 11y ago
But you can make this argument about hosting content from any immoral public figure who's not dead. "I saw a talk by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so I sought him out to ask a follow-up question." The danger of the student-teacher relationship is that the teacher has administrative power over the student in terms of grading, recommendations, etc. That's what has to be eliminated, by removing him as a professor. On the other hand, you're just arguing that, as a former teacher, he would be source of knowledge or an intellectual authority that a student would seek. But that possibility exists for any unpalatable intellectual. Would MIT not publish a textbook by an immoral teacher because a reader might seek them out? Etc.
- dalke 11y ago
  This is a clear case of free association. MIT does not wish to have any association with Lewin, and has no obligation to host Lewin's lectures on its public-facing web servers. While you might believe there is a free speech issue, we know that the materials are available from other sites which aggregate free lectures. The MIT library also has many materials which are available to on-site visitors which are not available on the web site - it may well be that these lectures are still available to the public via that mechanism. Remember, free speech does not obligate organizations to use all possible means to disseminate information, but is foremost a prohibition on government restraint on speech. In the US Constitution's First Amendment, free speech is on par with free association. Your hypothetical is incomplete or misdirected. We know details from news reports like https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/23/complainant-unprecedented-walter-lewin-sexual-harassment-case-comes-forward https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/23/complainant-u... that it is not the case that students contacted Lewin but the opposite - Lewin actively sought out many women who were self-learning using his videos, including joining in with Facebook groups. In addition, Ahmadinejad is not a professor at MIT, nor are interactions with him covered under Title IX. Quite clearly MIT will not publish a textbook by Lewin should he decide to write one, so the answer to your final question is "yes". Again, this is a free association question. If no publisher is willing to take on the book, nor any web hosting company, nor other organization, then it might be a free speech issue. But that is not the case for this specific example. Presumably Ahmadinejad is also able to publish a book through any number of mechanisms, and not limited to the MIT Press.
  - jessriedel 11y ago
    > This is a clear case of free association. MIT does not wish to have any association with Lewin... Ha! Yes, I suspect you're right. But this isn't the reason MIT gave. They said it was for the danger he posed. > Remember, free speech ....is foremost a prohibition on government restraint on speech. This is a very neutered and ahistoric conception of free speech. The actual reasoning that led folks to endorse things like the first amendment is certainly not restricted to just matters of law or government. It is a normative claim that applies, in particular, to private citizens dealing with each other. If this idea is foreign to you, I highly recommend reading John Stuart Mills' classic work on this, which is about a hundred pages and available free online. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901?msg=welcome_stranger http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901?msg=welcome_stranger > Lewin actively sought out many women who were self-learning using his videos, including joining in with Facebook groups. Very interesting (and creepy)! I didn't know. All the same hypotheticals go through, though. > Ahmadinejad is not a professor at MIT Neither Lewin nor Ahmadinejad should be professors at MIT -- Lewin even more so. > Again, this is a free association question. Again, I think you misunderstand the deep justification for the principle of freedom of speech, and how it interact with MIT's mission. After all, freedom of association would apply just as well to Ahmadinejad. If MIT was in some business other than the pursuit of knowledge, your point could be fine.
    - dalke 11y ago
      Yes, they don't want to be associated with someone who might use that association to emotionally harm others. I don't see the contradiction. I don't understand your point about being 'ahistoric'. Private organizations are allowed to prohibit certain types of speech. That is part of what freedom of assembly means. Quoting Mills, it's the "freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others". Or earlier in the same paragraph, "the principle [of expressing and publishing opinions] requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like". If we don't like someone else's opinion, we don't have to express it for them. Like I said, freedom of speech is on par with freedom of assembly. There can be a tension between them, certainly, but it's certainly not the case that freedom of speech historically trumps freedom of association. Otherwise, a Perl conference will be forced to accept talks about C#, Google would be forced to accept and forward unsolicited commercial email, etc. Quoting now from the Supreme Court in THOMAS v. COLLINS (1945): > It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. All these, though not identical, are inseparable. They are cognate rights, cf. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 , 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, and therefore are united in the First Article's assurance. Cf. 1 Annals of Congress 759-760. [323 U.S. 516, 531] Similarly from N. A. A. C. P. v. ALABAMA, (1958): > Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 ; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 . It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 ; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324 ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 ; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 321 . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the [357 U.S. 449, 461] effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny. How about you clarify to me what the freedom of assembly means, and its connections to the freedom of speech? Since the historical record seems to say they are aspects of the same sense of liberty.

by baldfat 11y ago

jessriedel 11y ago

But you can make this argument about hosting content from any immoral public figure who's not dead. "I saw a talk by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so I sought him out to ask a follow-up question." The danger of the student-teacher relationship is that the teacher has administrative power over the student in terms of grading, recommendations, etc. That's what has to be eliminated, by removing him as a professor. On the other hand, you're just arguing that, as a former teacher, he would be source of knowledge or an intellectual authority that a student would seek. But that possibility exists for any unpalatable intellectual. Would MIT not publish a textbook by an immoral teacher because a reader might seek them out? Etc.

dalke 11y ago
This is a clear case of free association. MIT does not wish to have any association with Lewin, and has no obligation to host Lewin's lectures on its public-facing web servers. While you might believe there is a free speech issue, we know that the materials are available from other sites which aggregate free lectures. The MIT library also has many materials which are available to on-site visitors which are not available on the web site - it may well be that these lectures are still available to the public via that mechanism. Remember, free speech does not obligate organizations to use all possible means to disseminate information, but is foremost a prohibition on government restraint on speech. In the US Constitution's First Amendment, free speech is on par with free association. Your hypothetical is incomplete or misdirected. We know details from news reports like https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/23/complainant-unprecedented-walter-lewin-sexual-harassment-case-comes-forward https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/23/complainant-u... that it is not the case that students contacted Lewin but the opposite - Lewin actively sought out many women who were self-learning using his videos, including joining in with Facebook groups. In addition, Ahmadinejad is not a professor at MIT, nor are interactions with him covered under Title IX. Quite clearly MIT will not publish a textbook by Lewin should he decide to write one, so the answer to your final question is "yes". Again, this is a free association question. If no publisher is willing to take on the book, nor any web hosting company, nor other organization, then it might be a free speech issue. But that is not the case for this specific example. Presumably Ahmadinejad is also able to publish a book through any number of mechanisms, and not limited to the MIT Press.
- jessriedel 11y ago
  > This is a clear case of free association. MIT does not wish to have any association with Lewin... Ha! Yes, I suspect you're right. But this isn't the reason MIT gave. They said it was for the danger he posed. > Remember, free speech ....is foremost a prohibition on government restraint on speech. This is a very neutered and ahistoric conception of free speech. The actual reasoning that led folks to endorse things like the first amendment is certainly not restricted to just matters of law or government. It is a normative claim that applies, in particular, to private citizens dealing with each other. If this idea is foreign to you, I highly recommend reading John Stuart Mills' classic work on this, which is about a hundred pages and available free online. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901?msg=welcome_stranger http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901?msg=welcome_stranger > Lewin actively sought out many women who were self-learning using his videos, including joining in with Facebook groups. Very interesting (and creepy)! I didn't know. All the same hypotheticals go through, though. > Ahmadinejad is not a professor at MIT Neither Lewin nor Ahmadinejad should be professors at MIT -- Lewin even more so. > Again, this is a free association question. Again, I think you misunderstand the deep justification for the principle of freedom of speech, and how it interact with MIT's mission. After all, freedom of association would apply just as well to Ahmadinejad. If MIT was in some business other than the pursuit of knowledge, your point could be fine.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Yes, they don't want to be associated with someone who might use that association to emotionally harm others. I don't see the contradiction. I don't understand your point about being 'ahistoric'. Private organizations are allowed to prohibit certain types of speech. That is part of what freedom of assembly means. Quoting Mills, it's the "freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others". Or earlier in the same paragraph, "the principle [of expressing and publishing opinions] requires liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like". If we don't like someone else's opinion, we don't have to express it for them. Like I said, freedom of speech is on par with freedom of assembly. There can be a tension between them, certainly, but it's certainly not the case that freedom of speech historically trumps freedom of association. Otherwise, a Perl conference will be forced to accept talks about C#, Google would be forced to accept and forward unsolicited commercial email, etc. Quoting now from the Supreme Court in THOMAS v. COLLINS (1945): > It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in speech and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. All these, though not identical, are inseparable. They are cognate rights, cf. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 , 57 S.Ct. 255, 259, and therefore are united in the First Article's assurance. Cf. 1 Annals of Congress 759-760. [323 U.S. 516, 531] Similarly from N. A. A. C. P. v. ALABAMA, (1958): > Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364 ; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 . It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the "liberty" assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. See Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 ; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 324 ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 ; Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313, 321 . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the [357 U.S. 449, 461] effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny. How about you clarify to me what the freedom of assembly means, and its connections to the freedom of speech? Since the historical record seems to say they are aspects of the same sense of liberty.