The Fora: A Higher Education Community

I just started a new thread on how this has spilled over into Canada.

In the NYT yesterday:

QuoteThe Fall of Penn's President Brings Campus Free Speech to a Crossroads
Before the Israel-Hamas war, universities were already engulfed in debates over what kinds of speech are acceptable.

Quote from: Langue_doc on December 15, 2023, 06:30:25 AMIn the NYT yesterday:

QuoteThe Fall of Penn's President Brings Campus Free Speech to a Crossroads
Before the Israel-Hamas war, universities were already engulfed in debates over what kinds of speech are acceptable.

Halle-FRIGGIN-lujah!

If having people of the same "vulnerable" status on "both sides" of a conflict means that people can't simply resort to the "victim" - "oppressor" narrative, and have to make rules that are universal, that will be a huge improvement. (It will also technically be regressive, since that was the intended goal before "progressives"  decided the rules had to be different for different "groups".)

Keep in mind that "freedom of speech" can apply to the institution itself and its representatives. So, it can be difficult to comprehend, and very bad policy, but the school really can say "This thing out there is good. That thing out there is bad." Again, its ill advised and would lead to more trouble with "the Feds," but they have some liberties too.

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 15, 2023, 06:46:22 AMIf having people of the same "vulnerable" status on "both sides" of a conflict means that people can't simply resort to the "victim" - "oppressor" narrative, and have to make rules that are universal, that will be a huge improvement. (It will also technically be regressive, since that was the intended goal before "progressives"  decided the rules had to be different for different "groups".)

You know, Marshy, that in some ways I agree with you, but you do seem to always have a simplified, rather sectarian version of these events.  Remember, the tremendous sensitivity to the portrayal of some groups of people comes from generations of abuse at the hands of white people, mostly men----so it is not just like "progressives" (whoever you think that is) suddenly just decided to play a one-sided game with who-get-to-say-what, all this is the result of growing awareness of the past and what we can do to amend these wrongs now (what conservalunatics want to label "woke").

I just think, in the way that most humans react, we have taken these issues too far and sometimes want to vent on the people here now since we can't inflict any justice on the people past.  That, and in our confusion over what to do, we make up rules that are not practicable. 

Here's the right-wing propaganda machine outright telling the world how and what they are doing. Chris Rufo straight up brags that he is the instigator of the Claudine Gay plagiarism story and how they are manipulating the media with it. He's also the person who brags about manufacturing the CRT moral panic. He's also now on the DeSantis appointed New School Board of Trustees. PLEASE right-wing posters here- how, as academics, can you take their bait and tolerate this!?
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1737209508735472102/photo/1

Quote from: Diogenes on December 20, 2023, 08:30:26 AMHere's the right-wing propaganda machine outright telling the world how and what they are doing. Chris Rufo straight up brags that he is the instigator of the Claudine Gay plagiarism story and how they are manipulating the media with it. He's also the person who brags about manufacturing the CRT moral panic. He's also now on the DeSantis appointed New School Board of Trustees. PLEASE right-wing posters here- how, as academics, can you take their bait and tolerate this!?
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1737209508735472102/photo/1

I just followed this link and visited twitter for the first time in a long time. All my notifications are letting me know that Elon Musk posted something, even though I don't follow him or engage with any of the topics he seems to post on. Even by the standards of the rich and famous, he is quite a narcissistic guy.

From what I've seen on social media (yes, highly biased, n=1, etc), criticism (by presumably lay people) against academia regarding the hearings is basically three-pronged:

-It shouldn't be hard to say that calling for genocide is harassment/bullying/otherwise against codes of conduct.
-If the same question had been asked about black people, gay people, trans people, etc, the answer wouldn't have been "it depends."
-The University Presidents appeared inept, at least if considered in terms of their response to the genocide question, and basically conformed to negative stereotypes of the "out-of-touch academic."

Personally, I find myself agreeing with the criticism - they might've quibbled with what precisely counts as calling for genocide, but if you're asked that question about calling for genocide, some form of "yes, it goes against our codes of conduct" is pretty much the only acceptable answer. "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" doctrine - that there have to be limits on free speech - has long had mainstream acceptance. I also don't believe they would've answered "it depends" had it been basically any other demographic.
Regarding the third point, the University Presidents did show themselves incompetent. It should've been obvious such answers would not look good to politicians, donors or the general public, and it very much is part of their job to court these constituencies. I think they were trying to pander to radicals in their own institutions (refusing to say anything these people might consider "censorship") - and that's kind of precisely the problem.

But think about your own college's code of conduct. Is it a list of bad things? No. It might generally say that discriminatory acts based on X, Y, Z are not tolerated, and then go into a 30 page process of how to report, how to investigate and how to have a hearing and how to punish ("resolve" is the more fashionable word). But it doesn't get into "calls for genocide", "diatribes against CRT," etc. It really does depend!

But even so, they each should gave prefaced by saying they personally find such behavior reprehensible...then get into the legal crud. I think they thought, and might have been right, that saying that one kind of genocide was bad might lead to asking more about some other form of genocide (say, whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide, etc.) and they just wanted to avoid the morass. But they looked like morons doing so. Maybe not morons...but very indecisive or at least unclear.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 11:09:25 AMBut even so, they each should gave prefaced by saying they personally find such behavior reprehensible...then get into the legal crud. I think they thought, and might have been right, that saying that one kind of genocide was bad might lead to asking more about some other form of genocide (say, whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide, etc.) and they just wanted to avoid the morass. But they looked like morons doing so. Maybe not morons...but very indecisive or at least unclear.

So what form of genocide isn't bad? How is discussing "whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide" more problematic than flat out starting from the point of view that GENOCIDE IS BAD?

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 11:09:25 AMBut even so, they each should have prefaced by saying they personally find such behavior reprehensible...then get into the legal crud. I think they thought, and might have been right, that saying that one kind of genocide was bad might lead to asking more about some other form of genocide (say, whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide, etc.) and they just wanted to avoid the morass. But they looked like morons doing so. Maybe not morons...but very indecisive or at least unclear.

Sorry for the double post, but this is such a ridiculously lame answer. Presumably they also find cannibalism, child sexual abuse, and mass murder "personally reprehensible" but they should DARN WELL REPORT THEM TO AUTHORITIES if they know about them. The "personally" distinction suggests that it's not something that in any way carries any responsibility of doing something about.
Genocide is not some sort of eccentric personal habit. Calling for genocide isn't even an eccentric personal habit. Not by a long shot. The only reason for trying to cast it that way is to avoid having to confront the people who do it.

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 02:14:39 PMSo what form of genocide isn't bad? How is discussing "whether or not the IDF bombing of Gaza is tantamount to genocide" more problematic than flat out starting from the point of view that GENOCIDE IS BAD?

Ruralguy's point is that specifically calling the IDF's actions 'genocidal' will get a lot of very vocal people pissed at you, along with an entire state that's been pretty serious about going after people abroad who are critical of its actions. And if you don't, and don't have a chance to qualify that denial, then you also look pretty monstrous. It's a no-win situation, so you try to avoid it. Similarly, you don't want to get into a discussion about what constitutes a call for genocide unless you know your interlocutor is operating in good faith. Which these weren't.

Unfortunately, educating people/congresscritters about the finer points of American free speech law is also a lose-lose situation.

Yes, precisely my point. Their answers sucked big time, but aside from some of the things I've said already, there wasn't a lot they could do that wasn't going to get them in trouble with these jerks.

I am sure they were all told a million times: Don't take a political stance on any of the issues discussed. Don't be specific! Don't say "yes" or "no" if you don't know!  I am not saying that was right or moral, just that I could guess how they were briefed.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 05:19:08 PMYes, precisely my point. Their answers sucked big time, but aside from some of the things I've said already, there wasn't a lot they could do that wasn't going to get them in trouble with these jerks.

I am sure they were all told a million times: Don't take a political stance on any of the issues discussed. Don't be specific! Don't say "yes" or "no" if you don't know!  I am not saying that was right or moral, just that I could guess how they were briefed.

My guess is very different. I am sure they were briefed on the intricacies of First Amendment jurisprudence. But the question wasn't about the First Amendment. It was about their private university speech codes.

They were hiding behind a First Amendment, quite explicitly, later, in Penn's case, but  whose rights they didn't practice. According to FIRE's student survey, MIT is in mid-field for free speech, U Penn ranked next to last for free speech, and Harvard is off the chart. I think that's what was noticed.

The Empresses had no clothes.

Quote from: Ruralguy on December 21, 2023, 11:09:25 AMBut think about your own college's code of conduct. Is it a list of bad things? No. It might generally say that discriminatory acts based on X, Y, Z are not tolerated, and then go into a 30 page process of how to report, how to investigate and how to have a hearing and how to punish ("resolve" is the more fashionable word). But it doesn't get into "calls for genocide", "diatribes against CRT," etc. It really does depend! 

The word "genocide" is not included, but verbal aggression, etc are. Whether it would be enforced or not is another matter, but our code of conduct would definitely implicitly cover calling for genocide.