spineless colleges who bend to any criticism just to try and keep students. People need to get out of their personal bubbles and start interacting with people of different views and backgrounds (not hide from them).
On June 2, 2016, former Provost Eric Isaacs announced the establishment of a faculty committee “to review and make recommendations about procedures for student disciplinary matters involving disruptive conduct, particularly interference with freedom of expression, inquiry and debate.”
Isaacs tasked the committee to “address the range of disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed, and make recommendations for responses in the midst of any event that is being disrupted.”
Isaacs is also asking for recommendations for “educational programming” to promote the importance of free expression.
The committee’s recommendations are due on December 15, but committee members and the Provost’s office were not immediately available for comment on whether the committee has convened.
in the last two years. One of the members of the law department (Geoffrey R. Stone) was the primary author. I sent him an email congratulating him on his efforts the day it was released and surprisingly, I got an email of thanks back less than five minutes later. Class act. Here is the policy - ( New Window )
I like it. Giving notice to all little pansy asses afraid of getting their fuzzy wuzzy feelings hurt, that if they want to go to their school then they need to have a spin and thick skin.
But I can also see where the policy might require a platform for those who don't deserve one. Say, a real live racist or a 9-11 "thruther". There was a controversy at SUNY new Paltz several years ago where they invited hookers and sex toy purveyors to speak. You balance that with disinviting Condoleeza or the Muslim lady who wanted to talk about abuses of women in Islamic countries. Policies need to protect and also have some discretion. Mainly, you have to hope that someone is intelligent and respond lie when it comes to decision-making. Since, that's a faint hope, maybe they're right and these things do need to be codified. But whichever way you go, you create new problems..
On June 2, 2016, former Provost Eric Isaacs announced the establishment of a faculty committee “to review and make recommendations about procedures for student disciplinary matters involving disruptive conduct, particularly interference with freedom of expression, inquiry and debate.”
Isaacs tasked the committee to “address the range of disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed, and make recommendations for responses in the midst of any event that is being disrupted.”
Isaacs is also asking for recommendations for “educational programming” to promote the importance of free expression.
The committee’s recommendations are due on December 15, but committee members and the Provost’s office were not immediately available for comment on whether the committee has convened.
From the article linked in the OP
Quote:
In May, Student Government (SG) passed on an opportunity to reaffirm the University’s commitment to free speech when members voted to indefinitely table a resolution that would have condemned any student who “obstructs or disrupts” free speech.
But I can also see where the policy might require a platform for those who don't deserve one. Say, a real live racist or a 9-11 "thruther". There was a controversy at SUNY new Paltz several years ago where they invited hookers and sex toy purveyors to speak. You balance that with disinviting Condoleeza or the Muslim lady who wanted to talk about abuses of women in Islamic countries. Policies need to protect and also have some discretion. Mainly, you have to hope that someone is intelligent and respond lie when it comes to decision-making. Since, that's a faint hope, maybe they're right and these things do need to be codified. But whichever way you go, you create new problems..
Bill, I seriously doubt U of Chicago invites somebody of the class to which you refer.
Even so, should a student not like the topic, he is free to not attend or leave the audience.
Thank heavens. A school that starts the real world in college so that students will see what is needed to fend for themselves.
But I can also see where the policy might require a platform for those who don't deserve one. Say, a real live racist or a 9-11 "thruther". There was a controversy at SUNY new Paltz several years ago where they invited hookers and sex toy purveyors to speak. You balance that with disinviting Condoleeza or the Muslim lady who wanted to talk about abuses of women in Islamic countries. Policies need to protect and also have some discretion. Mainly, you have to hope that someone is intelligent and respond lie when it comes to decision-making. Since, that's a faint hope, maybe they're right and these things do need to be codified. But whichever way you go, you create new problems..
Who's to say who exactly is a "real live racist?" For some students, it might be Ben Shapiro. For others, it might be Marc Lamont Hill.
As for a "9-11 Truther," well, many years ago I attended an open forum in college where the guest speakers were Ralph Nader and Dick Gregory. Gregory went on at length about how the moon landings were faked, in fact I've never forgotten one of his lines: "Who would believe we went to the moon when all we came back with was a bag of rocks?" The bottom line is who cares? He's entitled to his opinion, and if someone wants to give him a platform to express it, so be it.
should not only be allowed, but promoted as the greatest principle in human civilization. There are exceptions where it is inciting immediate violence or harm, of course.
The fact that this letter even needs to be sent is an indictment on how far we have fallen from putting human rights and commitment towards truth, on the pedestal they deserve.
this is not gov't muzzling these speakers like they're the Gustapo. U of Chicago is a private institution.
Does that mean I countenance these little monsters? No. They're unbearable. But don't necessarily object to them voicing their opinion and in effect speaking up as customers of a private business (that shouldn't include actually shouting down speakers). Or to U of Chicago saying "take a hike if you don't like it".
It's little different than my "friend" shopping at Store A over Store B because A chooses to stock my, I mean my friend's favorite prostate massager.
That said, I for sure do not envy these administrators who have to tightrope walk between catering to their (unreasonable) customers and something seemingly routine like booking speakers.
Ahmadinejad for tea and crumpets, and defended it under heavy pressure, to a place I hardly recognize. They caught a lot of shit for it back when it happened, and he certainly didn't disappoint with his conspiracy theories on 9/11, Holocaust denial, and denial of the existence of any Gay Iranians. Totally fucking whackadoo. But, I remember a place of loud arguments, strong viewpoints, and encouragement to engage - never hide. That prepared me for the various different roads I've walked.
Now it's a luxury sleep away camp where kids hide for four years before getting smacked in the face. The alumni network hasn't been so generous the past few years. It is alarming.
Good for UC; shame it is necessary.
RE: It's not a free speech issue in the sense you're using it Â
this is not gov't muzzling these speakers like they're the Gustapo. U of Chicago is a private institution.
Does that mean I countenance these little monsters? No. They're unbearable. But don't necessarily object to them voicing their opinion and in effect speaking up as customers of a private business (that shouldn't include actually shouting down speakers). Or to U of Chicago saying "take a hike if you don't like it".
It's little different than my "friend" shopping at Store A over Store B because A chooses to stock my, I mean my friend's favorite prostate massager.
That said, I for sure do not envy these administrators who have to tightrope walk between catering to their (unreasonable) customers and something seemingly routine like booking speakers.
It is a free speech issue to the extent that stupid ideas should be allowed to be shared, so that college kids can protest them.
The trend has been to ban things for being "offensive" and hurting feelings, rather than putting them through the test of reason (in public discourse in this case), which benefits all concerned.
I don't think the colleges are TRYING to act like a police state or the Gestapo, but that is exactly what they are doing, even if their intentions are clearly better. They have a duty to support free speech and the quest for truth, not be the arbitrators of it.
arguing that if a potentially dangerous situation comes about (e.g. by letting a white supremacist speak who has no intellectual value or ideas to share), they should not take action to mitigate physical harm.
But I can also see where the policy might require a platform for those who don't deserve one. Say, a real live racist or a 9-11 "thruther". There was a controversy at SUNY new Paltz several years ago where they invited hookers and sex toy purveyors to speak. You balance that with disinviting Condoleeza or the Muslim lady who wanted to talk about abuses of women in Islamic countries. Policies need to protect and also have some discretion. Mainly, you have to hope that someone is intelligent and respond lie when it comes to decision-making. Since, that's a faint hope, maybe they're right and these things do need to be codified. But whichever way you go, you create new problems..
In my opinion, once you start allowing this and disallowing that you are on a slippery slope. Who is determining who is racist, or what belief is a valid one and which one isn't. I believe we should always fall on the side of allowing all ideas.
RE: My alma matter went from a place that hosted Â
Ahmadinejad for tea and crumpets, and defended it under heavy pressure, to a place I hardly recognize. They caught a lot of shit for it back when it happened, and he certainly didn't disappoint with his conspiracy theories on 9/11, Holocaust denial, and denial of the existence of any Gay Iranians. Totally fucking whackadoo. But, I remember a place of loud arguments, strong viewpoints, and encouragement to engage - never hide. That prepared me for the various different roads I've walked.
Now it's a luxury sleep away camp where kids hide for four years before getting smacked in the face. The alumni network hasn't been so generous the past few years. It is alarming.
Good for UC; shame it is necessary.
This is a pretty good example where it makes a lot of sense to prevent the representative of a hateful, intolerant theocracy from speaking here. But he is (was) a (somewhat) leader of a major and very relevant country. It is important that young minds get exposed to the fact that there are religious-inspired, fraudulent holocaust-denying, religious supremacists in places of power in the world.
The fear of him being taken seriously enough to radicalize people is a chance worth taking, and unlikely once people in a free, secular and open society get to see what crap he has to say.
I often catch myself wanting to silence people like Ahmadinijad, and have to remember that there are two important sides to this coin (free speech). Just because he and his ilk throw people that practice free speech into Evin prison to be tortured and die, does not change its crucial role in the progression of human rights and universal freedom.
Ahmadinejad for tea and crumpets, and defended it under heavy pressure, to a place I hardly recognize. They caught a lot of shit for it back when it happened, and he certainly didn't disappoint with his conspiracy theories on 9/11, Holocaust denial, and denial of the existence of any Gay Iranians. Totally fucking whackadoo. But, I remember a place of loud arguments, strong viewpoints, and encouragement to engage - never hide. That prepared me for the various different roads I've walked.
Now it's a luxury sleep away camp where kids hide for four years before getting smacked in the face. The alumni network hasn't been so generous the past few years. It is alarming.
Good for UC; shame it is necessary.
This is a pretty good example where it makes a lot of sense to prevent the representative of a hateful, intolerant theocracy from speaking here. But he is (was) a (somewhat) leader of a major and very relevant country. It is important that young minds get exposed to the fact that there are religious-inspired, fraudulent holocaust-denying, religious supremacists in places of power in the world.
The fear of him being taken seriously enough to radicalize people is a chance worth taking, and unlikely once people in a free, secular and open society get to see what crap he has to say.
I often catch myself wanting to silence people like Ahmadinijad, and have to remember that there are two important sides to this coin (free speech). Just because he and his ilk throw people that practice free speech into Evin prison to be tortured and die, does not change its crucial role in the progression of human rights and universal freedom.
I have no problem with them having Ahmadinijad speak on campus. His views are repugnant but should be heard. What troubles me is that they would likely step in and protect the snow flakes if Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak on campus. A lot of repugnant views as well, but they would no any more damage
Isaacs tasked the committee to “address the range of disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed, and make recommendations for responses in the midst of any event that is being disrupted.”
Isaacs is also asking for recommendations for “educational programming” to promote the importance of free expression.
The committee’s recommendations are due on December 15, but committee members and the Provost’s office were not immediately available for comment on whether the committee has convened.
Is throwing pies still okay?
Here is the policy - ( New Window )
Quote:
On June 2, 2016, former Provost Eric Isaacs announced the establishment of a faculty committee “to review and make recommendations about procedures for student disciplinary matters involving disruptive conduct, particularly interference with freedom of expression, inquiry and debate.”
Isaacs tasked the committee to “address the range of disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed, and make recommendations for responses in the midst of any event that is being disrupted.”
Isaacs is also asking for recommendations for “educational programming” to promote the importance of free expression.
The committee’s recommendations are due on December 15, but committee members and the Provost’s office were not immediately available for comment on whether the committee has convened.
From the article linked in the OP
Bill, I seriously doubt U of Chicago invites somebody of the class to which you refer.
Even so, should a student not like the topic, he is free to not attend or leave the audience.
Thank heavens. A school that starts the real world in college so that students will see what is needed to fend for themselves.
Quote:
from shouting down guest lecturers.
Is throwing pies still okay?
I'm sure they make an exception for Laura Ingraham
Who's to say who exactly is a "real live racist?" For some students, it might be Ben Shapiro. For others, it might be Marc Lamont Hill.
As for a "9-11 Truther," well, many years ago I attended an open forum in college where the guest speakers were Ralph Nader and Dick Gregory. Gregory went on at length about how the moon landings were faked, in fact I've never forgotten one of his lines: "Who would believe we went to the moon when all we came back with was a bag of rocks?" The bottom line is who cares? He's entitled to his opinion, and if someone wants to give him a platform to express it, so be it.
The fact that this letter even needs to be sent is an indictment on how far we have fallen from putting human rights and commitment towards truth, on the pedestal they deserve.
The other side of that coin is North Korea, as an example.
Does that mean I countenance these little monsters? No. They're unbearable. But don't necessarily object to them voicing their opinion and in effect speaking up as customers of a private business (that shouldn't include actually shouting down speakers). Or to U of Chicago saying "take a hike if you don't like it".
It's little different than my "friend" shopping at Store A over Store B because A chooses to stock my, I mean my friend's favorite prostate massager.
That said, I for sure do not envy these administrators who have to tightrope walk between catering to their (unreasonable) customers and something seemingly routine like booking speakers.
Now it's a luxury sleep away camp where kids hide for four years before getting smacked in the face. The alumni network hasn't been so generous the past few years. It is alarming.
Good for UC; shame it is necessary.
Does that mean I countenance these little monsters? No. They're unbearable. But don't necessarily object to them voicing their opinion and in effect speaking up as customers of a private business (that shouldn't include actually shouting down speakers). Or to U of Chicago saying "take a hike if you don't like it".
It's little different than my "friend" shopping at Store A over Store B because A chooses to stock my, I mean my friend's favorite prostate massager.
That said, I for sure do not envy these administrators who have to tightrope walk between catering to their (unreasonable) customers and something seemingly routine like booking speakers.
It is a free speech issue to the extent that stupid ideas should be allowed to be shared, so that college kids can protest them.
The trend has been to ban things for being "offensive" and hurting feelings, rather than putting them through the test of reason (in public discourse in this case), which benefits all concerned.
I don't think the colleges are TRYING to act like a police state or the Gestapo, but that is exactly what they are doing, even if their intentions are clearly better. They have a duty to support free speech and the quest for truth, not be the arbitrators of it.
In my opinion, once you start allowing this and disallowing that you are on a slippery slope. Who is determining who is racist, or what belief is a valid one and which one isn't. I believe we should always fall on the side of allowing all ideas.
Now it's a luxury sleep away camp where kids hide for four years before getting smacked in the face. The alumni network hasn't been so generous the past few years. It is alarming.
Good for UC; shame it is necessary.
This is a pretty good example where it makes a lot of sense to prevent the representative of a hateful, intolerant theocracy from speaking here. But he is (was) a (somewhat) leader of a major and very relevant country. It is important that young minds get exposed to the fact that there are religious-inspired, fraudulent holocaust-denying, religious supremacists in places of power in the world.
The fear of him being taken seriously enough to radicalize people is a chance worth taking, and unlikely once people in a free, secular and open society get to see what crap he has to say.
I often catch myself wanting to silence people like Ahmadinijad, and have to remember that there are two important sides to this coin (free speech). Just because he and his ilk throw people that practice free speech into Evin prison to be tortured and die, does not change its crucial role in the progression of human rights and universal freedom.
Quote:
Ahmadinejad for tea and crumpets, and defended it under heavy pressure, to a place I hardly recognize. They caught a lot of shit for it back when it happened, and he certainly didn't disappoint with his conspiracy theories on 9/11, Holocaust denial, and denial of the existence of any Gay Iranians. Totally fucking whackadoo. But, I remember a place of loud arguments, strong viewpoints, and encouragement to engage - never hide. That prepared me for the various different roads I've walked.
Now it's a luxury sleep away camp where kids hide for four years before getting smacked in the face. The alumni network hasn't been so generous the past few years. It is alarming.
Good for UC; shame it is necessary.
This is a pretty good example where it makes a lot of sense to prevent the representative of a hateful, intolerant theocracy from speaking here. But he is (was) a (somewhat) leader of a major and very relevant country. It is important that young minds get exposed to the fact that there are religious-inspired, fraudulent holocaust-denying, religious supremacists in places of power in the world.
The fear of him being taken seriously enough to radicalize people is a chance worth taking, and unlikely once people in a free, secular and open society get to see what crap he has to say.
I often catch myself wanting to silence people like Ahmadinijad, and have to remember that there are two important sides to this coin (free speech). Just because he and his ilk throw people that practice free speech into Evin prison to be tortured and die, does not change its crucial role in the progression of human rights and universal freedom.
I have no problem with them having Ahmadinijad speak on campus. His views are repugnant but should be heard. What troubles me is that they would likely step in and protect the snow flakes if Ann Coulter was scheduled to speak on campus. A lot of repugnant views as well, but they would no any more damage
Dragging the elders into the progressive future, kicking and screaming.
Some things never change - this argument has been around forever and will always be a part of our culture, I suspect.
What was acceptable in the 50's wasn't acceptable by the 70's, and each decade redefines what is politically correct and incorrect.
They'll try to make you believe it's the end of Freedom, the end of America.
Don't listen to them. They've been trying to sell that lie forever.