10 ms·

Student “safety” has become a real threat to free speech on campus

89 points by pliny 11y ago

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
I think some lazy college administrators are happy to have another excuse to manage student behavior (in a way that minimizes inconvenience to college administrators). >Unfortunately for them, something called the American constitution strongly protects free speech, whether divisive, upsetting or not. That hasn't stopped many from throwing up "free speech zones" and attempting to ban activism in common areas.
misuba 11y ago
Not discussed in the article's introduction is whether Mr. Tanyolacar, and by extension The Economist, might possibly have any learning to do about how race works in America, and whether that learning might be something that he and they are currently experiencing as trauma. There's a point past which trigger warnings are silly; Klan hoods in the quad aren't past it. That professor's an idiot at best, and The Economist has again chosen a revealing bedfellow.
- lovemenot 11y ago
  >> Not discussed in the article's introduction is whether Mr. Tanyolacar, and by extension The Economist, might possibly have any learning to do about how race works in America If you look to the end of the article, it is clear that he had been insensitive at best. >> The Economist has again chosen a revealing bedfellow Your choice of language is antagonistic. It seems like you are implying the writer's and the publication's racist tendencies are slipping out. If so, I don't know what is the basis of that assertion.
  - misuba 11y ago
    Hey man, I just finished "What is Code," gimme a minute to refill my magazine-article bar. As for my admittedly prejudicial feelings towards The Economist, it's been a long ride and I couldn't point to anything specific. I've just developed a tendency not to be surprised when they don't regard certain things as important, or certain other things as fallible.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      When reading The Economist, it is easy to forget that it is an English publication. It tends not to fit easily into familiar American stereotypes.
    - lovemenot 11y ago
      Appreciate your conciliatory language. I believe the article is really all about Voltaire's maxim : I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Such an argument pretty much necessitates an unpleasant exemplar. Read the obituary of Bob Randall currently on their front page for one instance of the Economist decrying institutional racism in a thoroughly heartfelt manner.
      - tacone 11y ago
        BTW, actually Voltaire never said that thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
      - misuba 11y ago
        As discussed elsewhere in the thread, rights are not at issue; social consequences are. This is about a group of people saying, "not everything you have the right to do is beneficial. When introducing something into a given conversation in a given way, for the mere sake of the performance of your right, has known negative effects on the conversation and the people in it, you're not being a free speech warrior; you're being a jerk."
        lovemenot 11y ago
        Why must it be either/or? Rights and social consequences are not exclusive. I agree that the artist behaved as a jerk. I just don't think it is desirable to try to prevent him being a jerk by shutting him (and others) down. As the article contends, by bending the definition of "safety" to now include not having to put up with jerks. At the start of this thread, others had tried to make your voice irrelevant by down-voting your comment. Presumably because they disagreed with you. More recently, I have received down-votes against my first reply to you. In both cases, (and for the same reasons as this discussion) I think it would have been better for those who disagreed to say why they disagreed, not to attempt to shut down dissent. Disagreement is fine, as long as it is in the open. Silencing critics (jerks even) may feel good at the time, but the precedent is insidious. Did you read that obit yet? http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21653997-bob-randall-aborigine-elder-teacher-and-campaigner-died-may-13th-aged-about-81 http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21653997-bob-randall-... Adjusted your view of TE editorial policy on racism after doing so?
fweespeech 11y ago
This whole situation has gotten out of hand in the US. The exercise of speech [even disgusting, offensive, and/or odious speech] is not a safety issue. Words cannot hold guns, knives, or other weapons. Yes, they can be unpleasant. Yes, they can be upsetting. Yes, people who have been abused can be triggered. However, it is pretty clear the intent of the academic in question was to promote discussion and debate about racism. The fact that is not an idea worth defending because the manner in which it was done offends people is really depressing. > The reaction among some black students was to fear for their safety, and that is not surprising. What is more of a puzzle—for anyone outside American academia, at least—is that students and UI bosses continued denouncing Mr Tanyolacar for threatening campus safety even after the misunderstanding was cleared up. In vain did the Turkish-born academic explain that he is a “social-political artist”, using Klan imagery to provoke debate about racism. We can't bubble wrap the world for the adults that live in it. We can only provide support groups, make sure they aren't discriminated against in the marketplace, and other measures to help them cope.
- misuba 11y ago
  > However, it is pretty clear the intent of the academic in question was to promote discussion and debate about racism. The Internet - yes, that other one with all the SJWs and their vapid twitterings - has a saying it is wise to take to heart: "Intent is not magic." The particular intent cited has even less magic than most, precisely because it's so often used as a defense by people who are essentially trolling under cover of art.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Art-as-trolling is a cherished tradition among social activist artists of the world. The only difference here is that the "Intent is not magic" crowd didn't like it this time.
    - misuba 11y ago
      They've never liked it. Now they're being listened to. (I look forward to finding out over the next decade how many plain facts I can quote that I will then hear repeated back to me as a label for "that crowd.")
jkyle 11y ago
> Unfortunately for them, something called the American constitution strongly protects free speech, whether divisive, upsetting or not. I don't think this author understands the constitution. This may apply on public campuses. However, it most certainly does not apply on private campuses. Anyone is free to exercise their free speech, but that right does not protect them from being expelled, fired, or censored at a private university. UI is a public university, but Northwestern is not. Whether a private university should behave this way is a different proposition. But there seems to be this trend of invoking the constitution like some holy shield against "whatever I disagree with".
- return0 11y ago
  > expelled, fired, or censored I get the censoring , but firing or expulsion would be illegal right?
  - josephpmay 11y ago
    Not at all. People get fired all the times for things they've said. [0] http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinney_post_gets_teacher_fired_but_she_insists_she_only_meant_well_when_pining_for_segregation/ http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinn...
    - bhayden 11y ago
      Even worse than that, sometimes people get fired for political donations. Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was "pressured to resign" (fired) for supporting Prop 8. You don't even have to say unpopular beliefs, you just have to hold them privately until someone uncovers them through digging through your records.
  - joeclark77 11y ago
    Google "mozilla Eich" for a case study that hits close to home for many HN readers.
    - 11y ago
vacri 11y ago
What an affront to freedom of expression, that a university had to apologise for an artwork that if left alone, would suggest they condone oppression of blacks? Stupid article. The issue isn't that black students might fear for their very lives because of a statue, but that they may be made to be second-class citizens - if the university condones such outright support of a racist group, where else might they be unfair to blacks? The point about 'safe' environment is that university is a stressful (and fun) time with a lot going on. By condoning shit like this, you make it harder for a subset of students, who now have to deal with worrying about a political agenda that other students don't. In any event, the artist shouldn't complain, because he got exactly what he wanted: a dialogue on race. He simply didn't like (expect?) the contents of that dialogue. The cynic in me likes that, that he hid behind a generalised "oh, trying to start a dialogue" motif, and then had problems when he didn't like the specifics.
- geofft 11y ago
  > In any event, the artist shouldn't complain, because he got exactly what he wanted: a dialogue on race. This is an excellent point. There was a lot of freedom of speech and expression. Unfortunately, that expression was apparently so traumatic for the artist that he left his job. Nobody forced him to leave. Certainly nobody forced him to leave his entire academic career. Maybe we should institute "safe spaces" for faculty who don't know how to start conversations on race in a useful way, so they can be shielded from criticism.
monochromatic 11y ago
There is no right not to be offended. That's just a right that doesn't exist.
- geofft 11y ago
  Is there not the right of freedom of association, and by extension, not to associate with those who offend without purpose?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mhurron 11y ago
    > by extension, not to associate with those who offend without purpose? Of course there is. You are free to not acciciate with those who offend you by leaving. You do not however, have the right to stop people from offending you by assiciating with them.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    Of course. But my freedom not to associate with someone DOES NOT give me the right to force him to go away.
    - geofft 11y ago
      Was anyone forced to go away?
      - monochromatic 11y ago
        I'm sorry, I may have missed your point about freedom to associate. What was it?
    - seanflyon 11y ago
      Unless they are on your property, in which case you can ask them to leave.
geofft 11y ago
This article strikes me as surprisingly badly argued, much more so than I'd expect from The Economist. > Students should beware of winning too many victories. A perfectly safe university would not be worth attending. What? Why? Is there anything in this article that even attempts to be an argument for this point (let alone a good argument)? And isn't the voluntarily departure of of Mr Tanyolacar a sign that the university is in fact not safe, as the author wants? It seems like he faced some "ideas or imagery that might prove distressing" from students, and chose to leave the academy. Well, good for him, not everyone is cut out for a free-speech environment where students are free to say that they disagree with poorly-done stunts from faculty.
- Nadya 11y ago
  If your ideas go unchallenged - are you learning? If you're "triggered" by history lessons - do we need to rewrite history? Is it even considered history at that point? Who's "safety" should we prioritize? What if two students ideas of safety conflict? How would that be resolved? Should we focus on teaching or "student safety" from ideas? Which is more important in an academic setting?
  - geofft 11y ago
    Those would all be good questions that I would have liked the article to give some attention to. For instance, do the trigger warnings on historical content imply a way for students to avoid that content and still graduate the class? Or does it merely say what material will be covered, just as a syllabus does, so that students can be mentally prepared? Have there been conflicting ideas of safety? Concrete examples may be helpful to figure out what we're talking about. What's a good basis for determining what needs to be taught? I can imagine, for instance, a top-notch CS curriculum that involves no classes about history. (MIT's graduation requirements, for instance, don't require any history classes.) The article doesn't talk about any of this, and instead spreads FUD about the impending destruction of the academy.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      >For instance, do the trigger warnings on historical content imply a way for students to avoid that content and still graduate the class? Or does it merely say what material will be covered, just as a syllabus does, so that students can be mentally prepared? Quite literally what a syllabus is for, so I imagine the former rather than the latter. If it were the latter - they already have the syllabus so what's the problem? >Have there been conflicting ideas of safety? Concrete examples may be helpful to figure out what we're talking about. I feel more safe with security/cops on campus. Certain individuals may feel less safe with security/cops on campus given recent events and media coverage over the past 2-3 years especially. Just one plausible example. Not to say that issue has come up in any notable cases - but it is one I can imagine playing out given recent events. >The article doesn't talk about any of this, and instead spreads FUD about the impending destruction of the academy. In my personal opinion, academia is already screwed. Not every field and not every campus - but an increasingly number of them. But my opinions aren't important here.
misuba 11y ago
Where you read "safety" in this article and other discussions of the issue, it's illuminating to substitute the words "regard as full human beings." Contexts that don't regard certain classes of people - those with a history of this lack of regard - as full human beings are going to be considered obsolete by today's undergraduates. That's just a given. Repair these contexts and universities would see a lot of these problems go away. There are, of course, contexts you can't repair - namely, works that have value but were made in, or contain, obsolete contexts. The recontextualization work here can be difficult, it's true, but universities and professors that don't do it are going to be hearing about it.
ianbicking 11y ago
It seems totally appropriate the artwork was taken down. It was an attempt to provoke, and then co-opt the result of that provocation through somewhat surreptitious filming to produce another work of art, all hosted in a public place which could not be expected to be an art venue, using emotionally charged imagery of a scale that could not be avoided. I generally appreciate art that is provocative and performance art, but at least a performance artist confronts the reaction to the work through their presence. If an artist wants to do something that emotionally charged, I think they need more skin in the game than this guy had. All the article claims happened, as far as I see, is that the art was taken down, and the school apologized they didn't take it down earlier. The language the school used in its apology seems a little hyperbolic, but whatever. Assuming this is the sum reaction against the artist (and maybe there are more repercussions), then I think that's all a reasonable risk that an artist takes and the artist should take his punches and move on. Creative defacement of the art would have been a more interesting in-kind response, but I suppose that ship has sailed.
- joeclark77 11y ago
  I think the example in the first paragraphs of the article (the Klan effigy with candid camera) is not the strongest one; it was a weird device for data collection, not really speech. The problem is better illustrated by some of the other articles: leftist students attacking things they disagree with, not by responding to them, but by going to the authorities and claiming to feel "unsafe". They have in many cases abused Title IX, claiming that this book or that lecture creates a "hostile environment" (i.e., lying without shame), because they know it's a way to trap an opponent in a lengthy, biased pseudo-judicial process. In these kinds of attacks, it's not about getting a conviction, because the leftists know their charges are false. Instead, "the process is the punishment". They want to make examples and terrorize others into self-censorship. These attacks are happening all over the country and they are not just good people taking it too far -- they are malicious and intentional.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    The other examples are pretty terrible too, the guy who was afraid of his "liberal" students was complained about by a right-wing student who demanded he blame a financial collapse on poor, black homeowners, and was mostly frightened because he apparently had no job security. So on the basis of all the examples the highly respected Economist magazine can scrape together, this appears to be almost entirely invented scandal. You on the other hand seem to have knowledge of a wide-ranging campaign of terror and intimidation against free speech, maybe you should write up an article about it and we could discuss that instead.
fredgrott 11y ago
Please remember folks in a time far away US both private and public Colleges got around the US Constitution by shutting down for the summer to put an end to protests during the Vietnam War.
ecdavis 11y ago
I read Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rauch[0] earlier this year which makes a fantastic argument against the limitation of free speech. It was written over twenty years ago. While I wholeheartedly agree with Rauch's position, I can't help but wonder what has changed in the last two decades. The points he made then seem just as relevant today, and the examples he provided of speech being censored do not seem at all old-fashioned. Is this sort of behavior strictly limited to university campuses, or does it eventually seep into the "real world" as well? Is freedom of speech today significantly more hindered than it was twenty years ago? [0] I read the book after seeing a recommendation on Hacker News. I enjoyed it a great deal and would strongly recommend it also. http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/K/bo18140749.html http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/K/bo1814074...
- randomname2 11y ago
  > I can't help but wonder what has changed in the last two decades. While certainly not the sole reason, social media giving a voice to disturbed people and resurrecting the "lynch mob" may have played a big part.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
I feel like this specific incident is a really shitty example of the chilling of free speech. And that's a shame, because it's a real issue that deserves better arguments than this one. I can't see that Tanyolacar was wronged in any way. The article doesn't mention that he was personally disciplined; the university has not attempted to censor his speech. He hung a racist symbol on public property, with no indication that it was intended as art, and it was removed. Is that censorship? If actual Klansmen had set up a burning cross in the middle of campus, should we let it burn because it might have been intended to be art? If someone spraypainted swastikas on the walls, should they be left untouched as free expression of political views? He made a statement (and if art is speech, than it can clearly be a statement) that was both not his actual belief and deliberately calculated to provoke an entertaining reaction. We call people who do that "trolls." He wanted to offend people, he succeeded, and now he's complaining about it. What did he expect to happen? What does he think should have happened?
- joeclark77 11y ago
  He was wronged in that students lied about feeling "afraid" and "terrorized" and "unsafe" instead of simply saying that they were offended. They made these claims because they know that these words put into motion an array of employment-related and/or pseudo-legal threats like Title IX suits. They lied about how they felt, to a third party such as the university administration, instead of responding truthfully to the person they disagreed with. The first problem is that there are structures in place that reward this behavior, and the second is that the current breed of leftists feel absolutely no shame in using them.
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    So you don't think there's any possible way that displaying the symbol of a group known for murdering black people and black rights activists, on the site of a protest for black rights, could legitimately be construed as a threat of violence. Okay.
xoa 11y ago
The debate about whether students are being insufficiently challenged in terms of opinions and beliefs appears to be a growing one, and it ties into the debate on academic freedom on college campuses that has existed since at least the 1800s. It's somewhat distinct though from the more generalized debate about Free Speech in overall society, and I have to wonder in this case if The Economist (and many others) aren't picking the wrong correlation here. While the exact reasoning changes over the decades, "so and so professor should be pressured/fired for saying something I don't like" remains constant and the answer was the tenure system. I think the modern decline of tenure positions is actually much more of the actual, root cause of any problems we're seeing right now. Overall popular opinions are always in flux and new trends come and go, and right now extreme sensitivity towards anything that might make someone uncomfortable seems to enjoy popular support. But just like with previous trends, if a professor had tenure they'd be equally free to argue back as hard as they wished and tell students to either successfully convince the professor, shape up, or suck eggs. It's true that in many cases economic pressure on some colleges have become heavier over the years as public funding has evaporated, but economic pressure is still economic pressure and has always existed with the same natural result. Money talks. Counteracting that natural trend with mechanisms like tenure is much more important and lastingly useful then trying to apply bandaids to any particular trend of the day. With a strong basic framework ensuring that debate can continue even in the face of popular consensus, there is a much higher chance that the marketplace of ideas will succeed and prevent any permanent fall into a local minima. It's somewhat disappointing that The Economist of all places would fail to explore this, with even the very word "tenure" not showing up at all.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
amluto 11y ago
I'm surprised that the Economist didn't include a picture of the effigy. Here's an article with a partial picture: http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-of-iowa-pulls-controversial-kkk-art-display/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-of-iowa-pulls-cont... I think the Economist article is a bit one-sided. Is it really fair to blame students for being scared when an effigy in the style of those displayed by a group that is known for advocating and sometimes conducting violence against a certain racial group, is displayed on campus? As far as I can tell, this particular effigy wasn't clearly distinguished from one that might actually be displayed by the KKK. Sure, people have the right to display things that make other people uncomfortable, but there must be a line somewhere, and this seems perilously close to it.
zaroth 11y ago
There's definitely something going on, although I think this article in particular makes a weak case. A couple other articles in a similar vein; "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me" - https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afrai... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9654710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9654710) "My Title IX Inquisition" - http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/06/my-title-ix-.html http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/06/my-title-ix-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9626970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9626970)
- return0 11y ago
  Trends that start in academia sooner or later leak into daily life. This one is particularly troubling - i 've never heard academics before defending the abolition of a fundamental human right. Who knows, maybe soon karma arrows will be replaced with safety kill-switches.
- geofft 11y ago
  Vox themselves published some good responses to that first article: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identity http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identi... http://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8753721/college-professor-fear http://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8753721/college-professor-fear The first one points out, in passing, that the only actual complaint the liberal professor received was from a conservative student, who thought the professor was too soft on (perceived) communism. But it makes the more general point that the root problem with academic liberty, insofar as there is a problem, is with the tenure process and the rise of adjunct positions, not with liberal students. It's a very interesting analysis.
scintill76 11y ago
In the case of Serhat Tanyolacar, an African American lectures a Turkish immigrant: "I don’t understand why a non-black person can appropriate black people’s pain to teach a lesson about racism." Did she not also thereby "appropriate" the artist's message, another minority? Is she not appropriating the sole victimhood at the hands of the KKK, which has also been racist against other races, anti-Catholic, and homophobic? Her response is basically that Mr. Tanyolacar is too white to have a legitimate voice in this[0] (please don't thoughtlessly retaliate with this link.) Although it's reasonable for a black person to interpret a KKK message as primarily anti-black, and my opinion would be discounted on the basis of my own race/gender/orientation... it's just sad to see rampant labeling and subdividing of people even among self-professed shared victim classes, assigning out who has legitimate pain and who doesn't, narrow-minded focus on one's own problems while simultaneously professing a motivation to help others, etc. We all have pains, we've all been somebody's victims, we're all aggressors sometimes. P.S. I find the work in poor taste, and it sounds like it at least should have been labeled better. This is merely a comment on the tactics used to dismiss and discredit the artist. [0] https://twitter.com/krw18/status/541105260098371584 https://twitter.com/krw18/status/541105260098371584
- nosuchthing 11y ago
  There's certainly an ongoing trend of aggression against individuals whom are blamed for the actions of groups which they were born into.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  The KKK hates everyone who isn't exactly like them, but they were specifically created to suppress (i.e. terrorize and murder) African-Americans trying to exercise equal rights, and that still appears to be their #1 concern. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to see KKK symbols as symbolizing violence and repression specifically against African-Americans and their allies.

89 points by pliny 11y ago

I think some lazy college administrators are happy to have another excuse to manage student behavior (in a way that minimizes inconvenience to college administrators). >Unfortunately for them, something called the American constitution strongly protects free speech, whether divisive, upsetting or not. That hasn't stopped many from throwing up "free speech zones" and attempting to ban activism in common areas.

misuba 11y ago

Not discussed in the article's introduction is whether Mr. Tanyolacar, and by extension The Economist, might possibly have any learning to do about how race works in America, and whether that learning might be something that he and they are currently experiencing as trauma. There's a point past which trigger warnings are silly; Klan hoods in the quad aren't past it. That professor's an idiot at best, and The Economist has again chosen a revealing bedfellow.

lovemenot 11y ago
>> Not discussed in the article's introduction is whether Mr. Tanyolacar, and by extension The Economist, might possibly have any learning to do about how race works in America If you look to the end of the article, it is clear that he had been insensitive at best. >> The Economist has again chosen a revealing bedfellow Your choice of language is antagonistic. It seems like you are implying the writer's and the publication's racist tendencies are slipping out. If so, I don't know what is the basis of that assertion.
- misuba 11y ago
  Hey man, I just finished "What is Code," gimme a minute to refill my magazine-article bar. As for my admittedly prejudicial feelings towards The Economist, it's been a long ride and I couldn't point to anything specific. I've just developed a tendency not to be surprised when they don't regard certain things as important, or certain other things as fallible.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    When reading The Economist, it is easy to forget that it is an English publication. It tends not to fit easily into familiar American stereotypes.
  - lovemenot 11y ago
    Appreciate your conciliatory language. I believe the article is really all about Voltaire's maxim : I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Such an argument pretty much necessitates an unpleasant exemplar. Read the obituary of Bob Randall currently on their front page for one instance of the Economist decrying institutional racism in a thoroughly heartfelt manner.
    - tacone 11y ago
      BTW, actually Voltaire never said that thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall
    - misuba 11y ago
      As discussed elsewhere in the thread, rights are not at issue; social consequences are. This is about a group of people saying, "not everything you have the right to do is beneficial. When introducing something into a given conversation in a given way, for the mere sake of the performance of your right, has known negative effects on the conversation and the people in it, you're not being a free speech warrior; you're being a jerk."
      - lovemenot 11y ago
        Why must it be either/or? Rights and social consequences are not exclusive. I agree that the artist behaved as a jerk. I just don't think it is desirable to try to prevent him being a jerk by shutting him (and others) down. As the article contends, by bending the definition of "safety" to now include not having to put up with jerks. At the start of this thread, others had tried to make your voice irrelevant by down-voting your comment. Presumably because they disagreed with you. More recently, I have received down-votes against my first reply to you. In both cases, (and for the same reasons as this discussion) I think it would have been better for those who disagreed to say why they disagreed, not to attempt to shut down dissent. Disagreement is fine, as long as it is in the open. Silencing critics (jerks even) may feel good at the time, but the precedent is insidious. Did you read that obit yet? http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21653997-bob-randall-aborigine-elder-teacher-and-campaigner-died-may-13th-aged-about-81 http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21653997-bob-randall-... Adjusted your view of TE editorial policy on racism after doing so?

fweespeech 11y ago

This whole situation has gotten out of hand in the US. The exercise of speech [even disgusting, offensive, and/or odious speech] is not a safety issue. Words cannot hold guns, knives, or other weapons. Yes, they can be unpleasant. Yes, they can be upsetting. Yes, people who have been abused can be triggered. However, it is pretty clear the intent of the academic in question was to promote discussion and debate about racism. The fact that is not an idea worth defending because the manner in which it was done offends people is really depressing. > The reaction among some black students was to fear for their safety, and that is not surprising. What is more of a puzzle—for anyone outside American academia, at least—is that students and UI bosses continued denouncing Mr Tanyolacar for threatening campus safety even after the misunderstanding was cleared up. In vain did the Turkish-born academic explain that he is a “social-political artist”, using Klan imagery to provoke debate about racism. We can't bubble wrap the world for the adults that live in it. We can only provide support groups, make sure they aren't discriminated against in the marketplace, and other measures to help them cope.

misuba 11y ago
> However, it is pretty clear the intent of the academic in question was to promote discussion and debate about racism. The Internet - yes, that other one with all the SJWs and their vapid twitterings - has a saying it is wise to take to heart: "Intent is not magic." The particular intent cited has even less magic than most, precisely because it's so often used as a defense by people who are essentially trolling under cover of art.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Art-as-trolling is a cherished tradition among social activist artists of the world. The only difference here is that the "Intent is not magic" crowd didn't like it this time.
  - misuba 11y ago
    They've never liked it. Now they're being listened to. (I look forward to finding out over the next decade how many plain facts I can quote that I will then hear repeated back to me as a label for "that crowd.")

jkyle 11y ago

> Unfortunately for them, something called the American constitution strongly protects free speech, whether divisive, upsetting or not. I don't think this author understands the constitution. This may apply on public campuses. However, it most certainly does not apply on private campuses. Anyone is free to exercise their free speech, but that right does not protect them from being expelled, fired, or censored at a private university. UI is a public university, but Northwestern is not. Whether a private university should behave this way is a different proposition. But there seems to be this trend of invoking the constitution like some holy shield against "whatever I disagree with".

return0 11y ago
> expelled, fired, or censored I get the censoring , but firing or expulsion would be illegal right?
- josephpmay 11y ago
  Not at all. People get fired all the times for things they've said. [0] http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinney_post_gets_teacher_fired_but_she_insists_she_only_meant_well_when_pining_for_segregation/ http://www.salon.com/2015/06/12/jaw_droppingly_racist_mckinn...
  - bhayden 11y ago
    Even worse than that, sometimes people get fired for political donations. Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was "pressured to resign" (fired) for supporting Prop 8. You don't even have to say unpopular beliefs, you just have to hold them privately until someone uncovers them through digging through your records.
- joeclark77 11y ago
  Google "mozilla Eich" for a case study that hits close to home for many HN readers.
  - 11y ago

vacri 11y ago

What an affront to freedom of expression, that a university had to apologise for an artwork that if left alone, would suggest they condone oppression of blacks? Stupid article. The issue isn't that black students might fear for their very lives because of a statue, but that they may be made to be second-class citizens - if the university condones such outright support of a racist group, where else might they be unfair to blacks? The point about 'safe' environment is that university is a stressful (and fun) time with a lot going on. By condoning shit like this, you make it harder for a subset of students, who now have to deal with worrying about a political agenda that other students don't. In any event, the artist shouldn't complain, because he got exactly what he wanted: a dialogue on race. He simply didn't like (expect?) the contents of that dialogue. The cynic in me likes that, that he hid behind a generalised "oh, trying to start a dialogue" motif, and then had problems when he didn't like the specifics.

geofft 11y ago
> In any event, the artist shouldn't complain, because he got exactly what he wanted: a dialogue on race. This is an excellent point. There was a lot of freedom of speech and expression. Unfortunately, that expression was apparently so traumatic for the artist that he left his job. Nobody forced him to leave. Certainly nobody forced him to leave his entire academic career. Maybe we should institute "safe spaces" for faculty who don't know how to start conversations on race in a useful way, so they can be shielded from criticism.

monochromatic 11y ago

There is no right not to be offended. That's just a right that doesn't exist.

geofft 11y ago
Is there not the right of freedom of association, and by extension, not to associate with those who offend without purpose?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mhurron 11y ago
  > by extension, not to associate with those who offend without purpose? Of course there is. You are free to not acciciate with those who offend you by leaving. You do not however, have the right to stop people from offending you by assiciating with them.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  Of course. But my freedom not to associate with someone DOES NOT give me the right to force him to go away.
  - geofft 11y ago
    Was anyone forced to go away?
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      I'm sorry, I may have missed your point about freedom to associate. What was it?
  - seanflyon 11y ago
    Unless they are on your property, in which case you can ask them to leave.

geofft 11y ago

This article strikes me as surprisingly badly argued, much more so than I'd expect from The Economist. > Students should beware of winning too many victories. A perfectly safe university would not be worth attending. What? Why? Is there anything in this article that even attempts to be an argument for this point (let alone a good argument)? And isn't the voluntarily departure of of Mr Tanyolacar a sign that the university is in fact not safe, as the author wants? It seems like he faced some "ideas or imagery that might prove distressing" from students, and chose to leave the academy. Well, good for him, not everyone is cut out for a free-speech environment where students are free to say that they disagree with poorly-done stunts from faculty.

Nadya 11y ago
If your ideas go unchallenged - are you learning? If you're "triggered" by history lessons - do we need to rewrite history? Is it even considered history at that point? Who's "safety" should we prioritize? What if two students ideas of safety conflict? How would that be resolved? Should we focus on teaching or "student safety" from ideas? Which is more important in an academic setting?
- geofft 11y ago
  Those would all be good questions that I would have liked the article to give some attention to. For instance, do the trigger warnings on historical content imply a way for students to avoid that content and still graduate the class? Or does it merely say what material will be covered, just as a syllabus does, so that students can be mentally prepared? Have there been conflicting ideas of safety? Concrete examples may be helpful to figure out what we're talking about. What's a good basis for determining what needs to be taught? I can imagine, for instance, a top-notch CS curriculum that involves no classes about history. (MIT's graduation requirements, for instance, don't require any history classes.) The article doesn't talk about any of this, and instead spreads FUD about the impending destruction of the academy.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >For instance, do the trigger warnings on historical content imply a way for students to avoid that content and still graduate the class? Or does it merely say what material will be covered, just as a syllabus does, so that students can be mentally prepared? Quite literally what a syllabus is for, so I imagine the former rather than the latter. If it were the latter - they already have the syllabus so what's the problem? >Have there been conflicting ideas of safety? Concrete examples may be helpful to figure out what we're talking about. I feel more safe with security/cops on campus. Certain individuals may feel less safe with security/cops on campus given recent events and media coverage over the past 2-3 years especially. Just one plausible example. Not to say that issue has come up in any notable cases - but it is one I can imagine playing out given recent events. >The article doesn't talk about any of this, and instead spreads FUD about the impending destruction of the academy. In my personal opinion, academia is already screwed. Not every field and not every campus - but an increasingly number of them. But my opinions aren't important here.

misuba 11y ago

Where you read "safety" in this article and other discussions of the issue, it's illuminating to substitute the words "regard as full human beings." Contexts that don't regard certain classes of people - those with a history of this lack of regard - as full human beings are going to be considered obsolete by today's undergraduates. That's just a given. Repair these contexts and universities would see a lot of these problems go away. There are, of course, contexts you can't repair - namely, works that have value but were made in, or contain, obsolete contexts. The recontextualization work here can be difficult, it's true, but universities and professors that don't do it are going to be hearing about it.

ianbicking 11y ago

It seems totally appropriate the artwork was taken down. It was an attempt to provoke, and then co-opt the result of that provocation through somewhat surreptitious filming to produce another work of art, all hosted in a public place which could not be expected to be an art venue, using emotionally charged imagery of a scale that could not be avoided. I generally appreciate art that is provocative and performance art, but at least a performance artist confronts the reaction to the work through their presence. If an artist wants to do something that emotionally charged, I think they need more skin in the game than this guy had. All the article claims happened, as far as I see, is that the art was taken down, and the school apologized they didn't take it down earlier. The language the school used in its apology seems a little hyperbolic, but whatever. Assuming this is the sum reaction against the artist (and maybe there are more repercussions), then I think that's all a reasonable risk that an artist takes and the artist should take his punches and move on. Creative defacement of the art would have been a more interesting in-kind response, but I suppose that ship has sailed.

joeclark77 11y ago
I think the example in the first paragraphs of the article (the Klan effigy with candid camera) is not the strongest one; it was a weird device for data collection, not really speech. The problem is better illustrated by some of the other articles: leftist students attacking things they disagree with, not by responding to them, but by going to the authorities and claiming to feel "unsafe". They have in many cases abused Title IX, claiming that this book or that lecture creates a "hostile environment" (i.e., lying without shame), because they know it's a way to trap an opponent in a lengthy, biased pseudo-judicial process. In these kinds of attacks, it's not about getting a conviction, because the leftists know their charges are false. Instead, "the process is the punishment". They want to make examples and terrorize others into self-censorship. These attacks are happening all over the country and they are not just good people taking it too far -- they are malicious and intentional.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The other examples are pretty terrible too, the guy who was afraid of his "liberal" students was complained about by a right-wing student who demanded he blame a financial collapse on poor, black homeowners, and was mostly frightened because he apparently had no job security. So on the basis of all the examples the highly respected Economist magazine can scrape together, this appears to be almost entirely invented scandal. You on the other hand seem to have knowledge of a wide-ranging campaign of terror and intimidation against free speech, maybe you should write up an article about it and we could discuss that instead.

fredgrott 11y ago

Please remember folks in a time far away US both private and public Colleges got around the US Constitution by shutting down for the summer to put an end to protests during the Vietnam War.

ecdavis 11y ago

I read Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rauch[0] earlier this year which makes a fantastic argument against the limitation of free speech. It was written over twenty years ago. While I wholeheartedly agree with Rauch's position, I can't help but wonder what has changed in the last two decades. The points he made then seem just as relevant today, and the examples he provided of speech being censored do not seem at all old-fashioned. Is this sort of behavior strictly limited to university campuses, or does it eventually seep into the "real world" as well? Is freedom of speech today significantly more hindered than it was twenty years ago? [0] I read the book after seeing a recommendation on Hacker News. I enjoyed it a great deal and would strongly recommend it also. http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/K/bo18140749.html http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/K/bo1814074...

randomname2 11y ago
> I can't help but wonder what has changed in the last two decades. While certainly not the sole reason, social media giving a voice to disturbed people and resurrecting the "lynch mob" may have played a big part.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

I feel like this specific incident is a really shitty example of the chilling of free speech. And that's a shame, because it's a real issue that deserves better arguments than this one. I can't see that Tanyolacar was wronged in any way. The article doesn't mention that he was personally disciplined; the university has not attempted to censor his speech. He hung a racist symbol on public property, with no indication that it was intended as art, and it was removed. Is that censorship? If actual Klansmen had set up a burning cross in the middle of campus, should we let it burn because it might have been intended to be art? If someone spraypainted swastikas on the walls, should they be left untouched as free expression of political views? He made a statement (and if art is speech, than it can clearly be a statement) that was both not his actual belief and deliberately calculated to provoke an entertaining reaction. We call people who do that "trolls." He wanted to offend people, he succeeded, and now he's complaining about it. What did he expect to happen? What does he think should have happened?

joeclark77 11y ago
He was wronged in that students lied about feeling "afraid" and "terrorized" and "unsafe" instead of simply saying that they were offended. They made these claims because they know that these words put into motion an array of employment-related and/or pseudo-legal threats like Title IX suits. They lied about how they felt, to a third party such as the university administration, instead of responding truthfully to the person they disagreed with. The first problem is that there are structures in place that reward this behavior, and the second is that the current breed of leftists feel absolutely no shame in using them.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  So you don't think there's any possible way that displaying the symbol of a group known for murdering black people and black rights activists, on the site of a protest for black rights, could legitimately be construed as a threat of violence. Okay.

xoa 11y ago

The debate about whether students are being insufficiently challenged in terms of opinions and beliefs appears to be a growing one, and it ties into the debate on academic freedom on college campuses that has existed since at least the 1800s. It's somewhat distinct though from the more generalized debate about Free Speech in overall society, and I have to wonder in this case if The Economist (and many others) aren't picking the wrong correlation here. While the exact reasoning changes over the decades, "so and so professor should be pressured/fired for saying something I don't like" remains constant and the answer was the tenure system. I think the modern decline of tenure positions is actually much more of the actual, root cause of any problems we're seeing right now. Overall popular opinions are always in flux and new trends come and go, and right now extreme sensitivity towards anything that might make someone uncomfortable seems to enjoy popular support. But just like with previous trends, if a professor had tenure they'd be equally free to argue back as hard as they wished and tell students to either successfully convince the professor, shape up, or suck eggs. It's true that in many cases economic pressure on some colleges have become heavier over the years as public funding has evaporated, but economic pressure is still economic pressure and has always existed with the same natural result. Money talks. Counteracting that natural trend with mechanisms like tenure is much more important and lastingly useful then trying to apply bandaids to any particular trend of the day. With a strong basic framework ensuring that debate can continue even in the face of popular consensus, there is a much higher chance that the marketplace of ideas will succeed and prevent any permanent fall into a local minima. It's somewhat disappointing that The Economist of all places would fail to explore this, with even the very word "tenure" not showing up at all.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

amluto 11y ago

I'm surprised that the Economist didn't include a picture of the effigy. Here's an article with a partial picture: http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-of-iowa-pulls-controversial-kkk-art-display/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/university-of-iowa-pulls-cont... I think the Economist article is a bit one-sided. Is it really fair to blame students for being scared when an effigy in the style of those displayed by a group that is known for advocating and sometimes conducting violence against a certain racial group, is displayed on campus? As far as I can tell, this particular effigy wasn't clearly distinguished from one that might actually be displayed by the KKK. Sure, people have the right to display things that make other people uncomfortable, but there must be a line somewhere, and this seems perilously close to it.

zaroth 11y ago

There's definitely something going on, although I think this article in particular makes a weak case. A couple other articles in a similar vein; "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me" - https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid https://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afrai... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9654710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9654710) "My Title IX Inquisition" - http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/06/my-title-ix-.html http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/06/my-title-ix-... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9626970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9626970)

return0 11y ago
Trends that start in academia sooner or later leak into daily life. This one is particularly troubling - i 've never heard academics before defending the abolition of a fundamental human right. Who knows, maybe soon karma arrows will be replaced with safety kill-switches.
geofft 11y ago
Vox themselves published some good responses to that first article: http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identity http://www.vox.com/2015/6/5/8736591/liberal-professor-identi... http://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8753721/college-professor-fear http://www.vox.com/2015/6/10/8753721/college-professor-fear The first one points out, in passing, that the only actual complaint the liberal professor received was from a conservative student, who thought the professor was too soft on (perceived) communism. But it makes the more general point that the root problem with academic liberty, insofar as there is a problem, is with the tenure process and the rise of adjunct positions, not with liberal students. It's a very interesting analysis.

scintill76 11y ago

In the case of Serhat Tanyolacar, an African American lectures a Turkish immigrant: "I don’t understand why a non-black person can appropriate black people’s pain to teach a lesson about racism." Did she not also thereby "appropriate" the artist's message, another minority? Is she not appropriating the sole victimhood at the hands of the KKK, which has also been racist against other races, anti-Catholic, and homophobic? Her response is basically that Mr. Tanyolacar is too white to have a legitimate voice in this[0] (please don't thoughtlessly retaliate with this link.) Although it's reasonable for a black person to interpret a KKK message as primarily anti-black, and my opinion would be discounted on the basis of my own race/gender/orientation... it's just sad to see rampant labeling and subdividing of people even among self-professed shared victim classes, assigning out who has legitimate pain and who doesn't, narrow-minded focus on one's own problems while simultaneously professing a motivation to help others, etc. We all have pains, we've all been somebody's victims, we're all aggressors sometimes. P.S. I find the work in poor taste, and it sounds like it at least should have been labeled better. This is merely a comment on the tactics used to dismiss and discredit the artist. [0] https://twitter.com/krw18/status/541105260098371584 https://twitter.com/krw18/status/541105260098371584

nosuchthing 11y ago
There's certainly an ongoing trend of aggression against individuals whom are blamed for the actions of groups which they were born into.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
The KKK hates everyone who isn't exactly like them, but they were specifically created to suppress (i.e. terrorize and murder) African-Americans trying to exercise equal rights, and that still appears to be their #1 concern. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to see KKK symbols as symbolizing violence and repression specifically against African-Americans and their allies.