Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Caracal]

8) Are you and I and all the other forumites allowed to have a private life in which we can develop our own beliefs without fear of losing everything we have worked for because we express ourselves?

My sense is that Caracal doesn't ever see himself holding views which would be that dangerous to express.

Like everyone else, I have lots of views that various people might disagree with. It's weird to me how the starting assumption for these discussions is that everyone should be able to say whatever they want in all kinds of public accessible spaces, without any fear of it biting them in the butt. I have a twitter account, but I don't post anything on it. I use other social media just to post pictures of children and dogs. Part of that is just that I don't think the world needs more people ranting about politics on facebook. I'm just somebody who reads a lot of stuff, but I don't think that means I'm really going to add anything to the world with my takes. However, I also don't really want to have to worry about everyone in the world is going to perceive my half formed thoughts on social media. I make occasional exceptions to this policy. For example, I have responded to misinformation about COVID vaccines. In that case, I think whatever risk is involved is worth it, but I'm trying to make a considered calculation.

Self censorship isn't some terrible leftist plot. It's an important skill for functional adults. People should think about what they write and how other people will view it, and that includes employers. The only thing that makes this new is that a lot more people are writing things in public spaces than used to. When I go on facebook or Twitter, I don't come away thinking "man, I wish everyone felt more free to just say whatever they were thinking, that would make this a much more healthy place."

[mahagonny]

8) Are you and I and all the other forumites allowed to have a private life in which we can develop our own beliefs without fear of losing everything we have worked for because we express ourselves?

My sense is that Caracal doesn't ever see himself holding views which would be that dangerous to express.

If I recall correctly Caracal has a spouse with tenure, so would most likely be safe from retribution. And the obvious, his views are lock-step with the far left majority in academia, so would likely only attract attention positively.
It's kind of hard to take people taking up arguments of principle when those principles one purports to have are only remotely likely to ever see any test. And meanwhile, others in their midst are paying big penalties.

You really are oddly like Poly sometimes...

I don't work at the same institution as my spouse, for what that's worth. I don't have any protection from anything I've mentioned minor details about my life in these threads before, as others do. I don't think that makes it appropriate to bring those up and attribute my views to my supposed privileged status. (I'm the spouse of a college professor, not a billionaire, so its a little confusing)

Your inability to actually engage with the substance of the argument is rather telling. But I think I'm done engaging with you on this.

I have engaged in the substance herein, but I think you didn't read it. #105 and a few other places.

There's nothing in anything you have posted that shows any interest in getting to the bottom of a dispute such as the one that happened at Georgetown with Professor Sandra Sellers. I find that surprising in a research scholar. Kind of lazy. But not surprising from a person who's drinking the social justice Kool-Aid being served currently. The impression you give me is that if anyone from a 'marginalized group' says they are offended by what a professor says, they should be kicked out like a football, even after apologizing, even after a 20 year track record of success in and out of the academy. I find your lack of interest bizarre. And it's also obvious that your take on the situation is, in our current political climate, the path of least resistance.

[marshwiggle]

8) Are you and I and all the other forumites allowed to have a private life in which we can develop our own beliefs without fear of losing everything we have worked for because we express ourselves?

My sense is that Caracal doesn't ever see himself holding views which would be that dangerous to express.

Like everyone else, I have lots of views that various people might disagree with. It's weird to me how the starting assumption for these discussions is that everyone should be able to say whatever they want in all kinds of public accessible spaces, without any fear of it biting them in the butt.

No-one has ever made such a broad claim. The old expression of not being allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre comes to mind. I can't think of anyone who has advocated absolute freedom for anyone to say anything anywhere.

In the case of Sandra Sellers, she was fired over stating an observation, which would be very easy to verify. Her colleague  was disciplined over merely listening to her and not objecting!

Do you really think that "listening in silence" ought to be a punishable offence?

Self censorship isn't some terrible leftist plot. It's an important skill for functional adults. People should think about what they write and how other people will view it, and that includes employers.

The problem is, as in the Sandra Sellers case, increasingly "what they write" includes observations of objectively verifiable facts. All it takes is for someone to not like to hear those facts expressed.

In law, the accepted ironclad defense against slander and libel charges has consisted of showing that the statement was factually correct. However, in cancel culture factual correctness is entirely irrelevant. Expressing an "inconvenient truth" is grounds for punishment.

[Wahoo Redux]

It's weird to me how the starting assumption for these discussions is that everyone should be able to say whatever they want in all kinds of public accessible spaces, without any fear of it biting them in the butt.

Self censorship isn't some terrible leftist plot.

Never said either of those things.  Those are strawman, moving-the-goal-posts arguments.

I said...

3) We already have laws that protect us from people who act on their egregious beliefs. 

4) We already have axiomatic protection from people who break their employers' protocols. 

5) If we stopped at thought-policing police officers...okay...maybe.  But that small catalog of stories included all sorts of people in all sorts of careers and scenarios. 

*****

9) Are the Seuss and Mary Poppins controversies a symptom of hysterical thinking?

Which cover your objections above.

If I tweeted, "Caracal decapitates Muppets and buries them in Central Park" you can sue me for libel.    You can sue for a restraining order if I threaten you.  If I flunk a student because I do not like her or his Justin Bieber T-shirt I could and should lose my job.  If I tell my provost that his mustache makes him look like a walrus...well, I am not sure what would happen, but I would face the consequences.

If I tweet from my home that my university is running a form of reverse-discrimination and All Lives Matter, that is my right (although I believe neither of those, just to be clear) and I should not have to worry.

And YOU may exercise restraint on social media, but for a lot of people they see social media as their megaphone to the world.

And yeah, "everyone should be able to say whatever they want in all kinds of public accessible spaces" IS free speech, complete with its consequences. 

So yes, everyone should be able to say whatever they want in all kinds of public accessible spaces.  Yes.  Then they can then deal with the effects of their speech.

If parents want to exercise their free speech, they don't have to read Dr. Seuss to their kids.

If you want to clean the public space...

Oliver Twist is one of the most anti-Semitic and sexist books I have ever read.

Hemingway?  Piggy pig-pig-pig-piggy

Faulker's novels are an indictment of southern racism----but it is pretty clear Faulker was a southern racist if you read his interviews.

Lolita by Nabokov!?!?!  Oh lordy.

Catch-22 insults veterans, and uses all sorts of sexist ideologies and racist dialog, which make Heller's point.

Even listened to Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols?

Ever watched Pan's Labyrinth or Pulp Fiction? 

I'm sorry, man, but you are wrong.

[apl68]

If I tweeted, "Caracal decapitates Muppets and buries them in Central Park" you can sue me for libel

Caracal--it wasn't me who blabbed.  Honest!

[Wahoo Redux]

If I tweeted, "Caracal decapitates Muppets and buries them in Central Park" you can sue me for libel

Caracal--it wasn't me who blabbed.  Honest!

Just so you all know, you can NEVER trust apl68 with ANYTHING!!!

[Puget]

If parents want to exercise their free speech, they don't have to read Dr. Seuss to their kids.

And the Suess estate can exercise its free speech rights by deciding not to publish certain books any more, which is what they did.
You keep forgetting that free speech rights are vis-a-vis the government not private individuals or companies.

[marshwiggle]

If parents want to exercise their free speech, they don't have to read Dr. Seuss to their kids.

And the Suess estate can exercise its free speech rights by deciding not to publish certain books any more, which is what they did.
You keep forgetting that free speech rights are vis-a-vis the government not private individuals or companies.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that they didn't have the right to stop publishing. My criticism is for the virtue-signalling explanation, and my concern is that increasingly more organizations and individuals feel that such virtue-signalling is necessary. People expressing views they hold is good; people expressing views they pretend to hold and/or feel they are supposed to hold is a different matter. In the Seuss case, if they were concerned that even if they stopped publishing those titles, but didn't make the public statement they did that they might in future be boycotted, then it makes the point that actions matter less than perceived ideological correctness.

[mahagonny]

If parents want to exercise their free speech, they don't have to read Dr. Seuss to their kids.

Read them Beyonce lyrics, since they need positive role models. (As the Obamas have stated).

"Driver roll up the partition please I don't need you seeing Yonce on her knees ... Monica lewinskied all on my gown"

What comes of thinking nothing produced by American black popular culture can be anything but wonderful.

[Wahoo Redux]

If parents want to exercise their free speech, they don't have to read Dr. Seuss to their kids.

And the Suess estate can exercise its free speech rights by deciding not to publish certain books any more, which is what they did.
You keep forgetting that free speech rights are vis-a-vis the government not private individuals or companies.

Agreed and agreed.

My point is that once we begin to allow corporate and government entities to control free expression in the public sphere we have a dangerous scenario.

I would suggest we need laws to protect our speech off-the-clock.

[Puget]

If parents want to exercise their free speech, they don't have to read Dr. Seuss to their kids.

And the Suess estate can exercise its free speech rights by deciding not to publish certain books any more, which is what they did.
You keep forgetting that free speech rights are vis-a-vis the government not private individuals or companies.

Agreed and agreed.

My point is that once we begin to allow corporate and government entities to control free expression in the public sphere we have a dangerous scenario.

I would suggest we need laws to protect our speech off-the-clock.

Since the government isn't punishing anyone* in any of these examples you've cited (that I saw), you are suggesting employment laws that would bar companies from firing or otherwise punishing an employee for off-the-clock speech? That's an interesting idea, but would be a pretty radical change from our generally at-will employment system. I think you'd also agree there would have to be some exceptions for cases where the off-the-clock speech clearly impacts the ability to do the job (including loss of public trust) or indicates lack of competence to do the job (e.g., surely you don't want your MD spouting psuedo-science?).
At any rate, it is not something covered by the 1st. Amendment and would be new legal territory in the US.

*Again, in the case of the actual topic of this thread, no one is punishing anyone- -a company made a business decision for itself, end of story.

[Wahoo Redux]

Since the government isn't punishing anyone* in any of these examples you've cited (that I saw), you are suggesting employment laws that would bar companies from firing or otherwise punishing an employee for off-the-clock speech? That's an interesting idea, but would be a pretty radical change from our generally at-will employment system. I think you'd also agree there would have to be some exceptions for cases where the off-the-clock speech clearly impacts the ability to do the job (including loss of public trust) or indicates lack of competence to do the job (e.g., surely you don't want your MD spouting psuedo-science?).
At any rate, it is not something covered by the 1st. Amendment and would be new legal territory in the US.


*Again, in the case of the actual topic of this thread, no one is punishing anyone- -a company made a business decision for itself, end of story.

I anticipated this response.  I almost preemptively posted but my posts tend to be too long already.

We DO protect people in the employment sphere for things that are not directly job related.

If I went to Facebook and said...

I have converted to Catholicism / Buddhism / etc....
I am gay...
I am marrying an African American / Native American / etc....
I am pregnant (impossible for me but just hypothetically speaking)...
I found out my parents are immigrants...

...and I was fired I am protected, even if a pregnant-gay-Catholic-Buddhist-African / Native-American-son-of-immigrants may damage the image of my employer in some people's eyes.

I got this idea some years ago after dinner with a colleague whose wife was one of those liberal pot-smoking lawyers who, during a discussion about a school teacher who had lost her job because some parent found Facebook party-pics from her college days, said very simply, "The laws are not keeping up."

I am sure you are right that this might be "new legal territory"...but everything above was at one point new legal territory.  Social media is new territory.  Maybe we need laws for new territories.

And no, I think an employer can take action the moment a person's beliefs affect their employment , not before.  Free expression should be sacrosanct.

The link to Dr. Seuss is the zeitgeist.  We want to anneal the effects of the past, a laudable thing.  It is perfectly legitimate for the publisher to decide not the publish a book that, in their estimation, carries a damaging message.  That is free speech.  It is another thing to demand speech to be shut down.

[mahagonny]

Wahoo's idea is brilliant. What would follow is a challenge from the woke party, the democrats, since they currently derive a good chunk of their political effect and power from that gold mine, white guilt and fear. If a white person could say at lunch to a co-worker or in the evening on FB after a couple of scotch and sodas "immigrant people from Indiristan would be more successful if they'd pick better wage earning academic careers as opposed to the silly social justice and identity politics ones they currently like" then even if it were captured on video, easily referenceable, ready for worldwide broadcast, he still has a right to keep his job as long as he does it well enough. In other words, flawed opinionated and outspoken people still have a right to work, raise children and pay taxes in the electronic dominated era, and will get a measure of legal protection specifically for that right. This would be a loss for for the woke party. How would they respond once their hand is forced would be interesting.

[Wahoo Redux]

Well mahagonny, before you engage too eagerly in a revenge fantasy pertaining to the "woke crowd" (what is that anyway?) I was rather thinking of someone like myself who would agree almost point-by-point with Caracal on most things, if not this one.

Not that long ago I found myself in a raucous online debate with a grandmother who lives somewhere up there in the frozen upper Midwest.  The subject was Donald Trump.  The last thing she said to me before she logged off was, and I quote, "You'll get your comeuppance." 

She was actually fantasizing (pertaining to the woke crowd) about a civil war and military tribunals, but I absolutely guarantee you that had she had found out that I was a *dreaded-socialist- academic-who-indoctrinated-the-youth-with-Marxism-or-some-such-dross* at a state university she would have looked for my head on a platter (maybe literally). 

The internet allows us all to be tattletales and expect our own peeves to result in (yes, this is the right word) punishment.

[Wahoo Redux]

And lest my fears of the tattletale zeitgeist seem overblown:

Open Season on the Faculty

Proposed legislation in Iowa would require the state's Board of Regents to survey all employees of the three universities it oversees as to their political party affiliations, disaggregating the data by job classification but not by individual. The regents would deliver the information to state lawmakers by the end of the calendar year.

The bill doesn't provide an explanation, and Jim Carlin, the Republican state senator who introduced it, didn't respond to a request for comment. But the meaning is clear: by disaggregating employee groups, Iowa's General Assembly could measure the political beliefs of the faculty.

In Iowa and elsewhere in recent years, Republican state lawmakers have lamented what they describe as academe's lack of intellectual or ideological diversity.

In 2017, for instance, another Iowa Republican state legislator proposed an ultimately unsuccessful bill that would have prevented regents institutions from hiring professors who caused the "percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by 10 percent" the share of the faculty belonging to the other dominant party. Under that bill, Iowa's commissioner of elections was to provide voter registration data to colleges and universities once a year. Carlin's new bill represents a new way of getting at that party affiliation data.

At the time, faculty members across Florida wondered what would happen if they refused to answer questions about their political beliefs. Would they be punished, for instance?

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education this week launched a new legal defense fund and 24-7 hotline for public college and university faculty members, citing a rise in threats of censorship and punishment for speech and research.