The Fora: A Higher Education Community

Quote from: nebo113 on November 21, 2023, 07:09:32 AMThe AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.

Marshy????

I don't see a mention of whether they also reject characterization of pro-Israel speech  as Islamophobic. There are people on both sides of this issue who would label anything they disagree with as either antisemitic or Islamophobic. People who truly favour free speech should not accept either of those oversimplifications.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 21, 2023, 07:24:03 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 21, 2023, 07:09:32 AMThe AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.

Marshy????

I don't see a mention of whether they also reject characterization of pro-Israel speech  as Islamophobic. There are people on both sides of this issue who would label anything they disagree with as either antisemitic or Islamophobic. People who truly favour free speech should not accept either of those oversimplifications.

I, for one, have not seen many accusations of Islamophobia being levelled at people for their pro-Israel speech. I have, however, seen quite a few people accused of anti-Semitism (and suspended from their jobs) for saying things critical of Israel (including a story on CBC this very morning). Among those making such accusations have been Israeli and American government officials. And, indeed, Israel's government has recently been pushing to have anti-Semitism equated with criticism of the state of Israel's actions.

So, it seems to me that the AAUP is prioritizing the right direction here.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 21, 2023, 12:00:45 PM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 21, 2023, 07:24:03 AM

Quote from: nebo113 on November 21, 2023, 07:09:32 AMThe AAUP rejects the characterization of pro-Palestinian speech or critiques of the Israeli state as invariably antisemitic.

Marshy????

I don't see a mention of whether they also reject characterization of pro-Israel speech  as Islamophobic. There are people on both sides of this issue who would label anything they disagree with as either antisemitic or Islamophobic. People who truly favour free speech should not accept either of those oversimplifications.

I, for one, have not seen many accusations of Islamophobia being levelled at people for their pro-Israel speech. I have, however, seen quite a few people accused of anti-Semitism (and suspended from their jobs) for saying things critical of Israel (including a story on CBC this very morning). Among those making such accusations have been Israeli and American government officials. And, indeed, Israel's government has recently been pushing to have anti-Semitism equated with criticism of the state of Israel's actions.

So, it seems to me that the AAUP is prioritizing the right direction here.

If you're arguing for freedom of speech on the basis of a "right direction", you're missing the point. It's like arguing against the death penalty for the possibly wrongly-accused; the important principle of the argument applies even for those who are clearly guilty.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 21, 2023, 02:16:52 PMIf you're arguing for freedom of speech on the basis of a "right direction", you're missing the point. It's like arguing against the death penalty for the possibly wrongly-accused; the important principle of the argument applies even for those who are clearly guilty.

This is confused. The AAUP is not advocating for free speech for only Israel's critics. It's trying to protect a class of speech that is the subject of active attempts at censorship. Because one side is actively doing virtually all of the censoring, that side is the focus of its protective attention.

I don't really see how this is different, in principle, from when any other group steps in to try to defend the free speech rights of someone or some group of people whom they believe is being actively censored. Is this not exactly what groups like FIRE claim to be doing? (If you ask me there's one important difference, which is that most of FIRE's cases are pretty dubious at best, whereas here, at least, the censorship is very real. But that's neither here nor there. I've seen you post approvingly about FIRE's interventions. How is this different?)

UPenn president Liz Magill and Board Chair Scott Bok resign after disastrous hearing on antisemitism

I don't know how you negotiate this sort of free speech issue when there is the distinct possibility of violence.

QuoteMagill struggled to answer questions about whether calls for genocide against Jews would violate UPenn's code of conduct. She and other university presidents failed to explicitly say calls for genocide of Jewish people constituted bullying and harassment on campus. The exchange went viral and prompted a flurry of business leaders, donors and politicians to demand Magill step down.

From the NY Times:

QuoteDuring her testimony before Congress on Tuesday, Ms. Magill gave lawyerly responses to a complicated question involving speech. Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, said that students had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews hear as a call for violence against them.

After parrying back and forth, Ms. Stefanik asked, "Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?"

Ms. Magill replied, "If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment."

Ms. Stefanik responded, "So the answer is yes."

Ms. Magill said, "It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman."

Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: "That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?"

Two other university presidents — Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. — testified with Ms. Magill and made similar statements. Free-speech scholars said that they were legally correct.

But Ms. Magill's remarks failed to meet a moment of moral clarity for many of the university's Jewish students, faculty and alumni, and set off a wave of criticism that included the state's Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, and its two Democratic U.S. senators, John Fetterman and Bob Casey. Even the White House weighed in.

Seems like a political got'cha moment by a government official that worked, and in so doing nullified any complexity about free speech (private school or no).

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 09, 2023, 03:18:14 PMUPenn president Liz Magill and Board Chair Scott Bok resign after disastrous hearing on antisemitism

I don't know how you negotiate this sort of free speech issue when there is the distinct possibility of violence.

QuoteMagill struggled to answer questions about whether calls for genocide against Jews would violate UPenn's code of conduct. She and other university presidents failed to explicitly say calls for genocide of Jewish people constituted bullying and harassment on campus. The exchange went viral and prompted a flurry of business leaders, donors and politicians to demand Magill step down.

From the NY Times:

QuoteDuring her testimony before Congress on Tuesday, Ms. Magill gave lawyerly responses to a complicated question involving speech. Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, said that students had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews hear as a call for violence against them.

After parrying back and forth, Ms. Stefanik asked, "Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?"

Ms. Magill replied, "If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment."

Ms. Stefanik responded, "So the answer is yes."

Ms. Magill said, "It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman."

Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: "That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?"

Two other university presidents — Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. — testified with Ms. Magill and made similar statements. Free-speech scholars said that they were legally correct.

But Ms. Magill's remarks failed to meet a moment of moral clarity for many of the university's Jewish students, faculty and alumni, and set off a wave of criticism that included the state's Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, and its two Democratic U.S. senators, John Fetterman and Bob Casey. Even the White House weighed in.

Seems like a political got'cha moment by a government official that worked, and in so doing nullified any complexity about free speech (private school or no).

The "complexity" about free speech for identitarians comes from allowing certain groups to say things that other groups aren't allowed to say. For non-identitarians, it's much less complex because anything that would be unacceptable for someone to say would therefore be unacceptable for anyone to say.

It seems like all of those presidents are identitarians, and that's why they couldn't give an answer that was honest and acceptable, since it would have prevented them from protecting their own "tribe".

IHE: Did the Top Campus for Student Free Speech Punish Faculty Speech?

Lower Deck:

QuoteA Michigan Tech professor allegedly called Young Americans for Freedom members "idiots" in class—and was then removed from the class.

QuoteAfree expression group is criticizing the university it ranked No. 1 nationally for student free speech after that same university allegedly punished a professor for using his own speech to criticize a student demonstration.

Carl Blair, a teaching professor in Michigan Technological University's social sciences department, says Michigan Tech removed him from teaching one of his classes and barred him from contacting students enrolled in it. The public university allegedly did this last month after a national conservative group with campus chapters posted online an audio clip of him during a class, purportedly calling members of that group homophobic, dumb and racist.

<snip>

Asked if the situation is ironic, Anne Marie Tamburro, a lawyer at FIRE, told Inside Higher Ed, "I wish I could say it was surprising, but the reality is that, right now, it's just a pretty terrible time for free speech on college campuses. I think this is certainly reflected by the news cycle."

Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 11, 2023, 07:16:07 AMIHE: Did the Top Campus for Student Free Speech Punish Faculty Speech?

Lower Deck:

QuoteA Michigan Tech professor allegedly called Young Americans for Freedom members "idiots" in class—and was then removed from the class.

QuoteAfree expression group is criticizing the university it ranked No. 1 nationally for student free speech after that same university allegedly punished a professor for using his own speech to criticize a student demonstration.

Carl Blair, a teaching professor in Michigan Technological University's social sciences department, says Michigan Tech removed him from teaching one of his classes and barred him from contacting students enrolled in it. The public university allegedly did this last month after a national conservative group with campus chapters posted online an audio clip of him during a class, purportedly calling members of that group homophobic, dumb and racist.

<snip>

Asked if the situation is ironic, Anne Marie Tamburro, a lawyer at FIRE, told Inside Higher Ed, "I wish I could say it was surprising, but the reality is that, right now, it's just a pretty terrible time for free speech on college campuses. I think this is certainly reflected by the news cycle."

Further down the rabbit hole:

QuoteIn perhaps further ironies, FIRE and Blair say Michigan Tech—which responded to Inside Higher Ed's requests for interviews with a two-sentence statement that didn't confirm or deny the whole situation—removed Blair from the Global Issues classroom for a short aside that ended with him defending student free speech. And the group he purportedly criticized calls itself an advocate for freedom, though it celebrated when Blair was allegedly removed from the classroom.

It's worth noting that free speech still can include lots of intemperate speech.

QuoteYoung America's Foundation, the parent organization of the Young Americans for Freedom campus chapters, posted Nov. 14 on X and its website a 90-second recording of Blair allegedly telling his class that something involved "childish, stupid, homophobic, dumb, racist twits."

It shouldn't have gotten him fired, but he can hardly be surprised that such a *statement to a class would come back to bite him.

(*Noting that from the article the specific context is a bit unclear; still, it's unprofessional for anyone in a position who potentially has to work with people who are included in that characterization. A prof publicly calling a student a twit is inviting some sort of negative response.)

Should a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS?  Why or why not?

Quote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS?  Why or why not?

This is in the category of "Hills I won't bother to die on." While I would agree that legally it shouldn't be a "firing offense", practically I'm not going to put my own career or reputation on the line to defend someone who does it. It's just way more antagonistic than is necessary or helpful. It doesn't create the kind of atmosphere of professionalism that you want in any workplace. Saying their ideas are illogical or inconsistent, etc. is the more appropriate way to go. (Addressing the ideas, rather than the people.)

Quote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS?  Why or why not?

Absolutely not!

But this is a good example illustrating much of the problem we have. Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.

There was a time when a professor could make such (admittedly) dumb remarks and the students, being all adults, could somehow survive.

Quote from: waterboy on December 11, 2023, 12:14:36 PMThere was a time when a professor could make such (admittedly) dumb remarks and the students, being all adults, could somehow survive.

Through all my education from first grade to graduate school, I never came across such speech on the part of teachers or professors. I guess mine were civilized.

Let me generalize even more. There can be no such thing as "free" anything. Of course speech can be hurtful! The only question can be: Who decides, the hurter or the hurtee? And that's where, once upon a time, self restraint kept the problem at bay in universities.

Quote from: dismalist on December 11, 2023, 10:54:02 AM

Quote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2023, 10:01:49 AMShould a professor be permitted to call a student group 'idiots', 'twits', etc., IN CLASS?  Why or why not?

Absolutely not!

But this is a good example illustrating much of the problem we have. Once upon a time one didn't need lawyers to draw the limits of the allowed, one had common courtesy, which amounts to self-restraint. Everybody wants to exercise their right to free speech. Doing so turns the university into a commons of cross purpose yelling.

The current situation has largely been driven by people on the *left,fighting on the one hand to protect people  from sanctions for saying certain things, (such as criticisms of authority), while on the other hand fighting to impose sanctions on people for "hate speech". The whole idea of "punching up" being OK but "punching down" being unacceptable creates a bottomless quagmire around determining who is "up" and who is "down", especially when it comes to groups, since individuals are not remotely homogeneous, so that who "belongs" in a certain group is often murky at best.

(*The closest thing to "hate speech" on the right would be "blasphemy", which would be specific to religious groups.)