Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[dismalist]

Heh. I date moronity in US academia to 1897, when Harvard established a Department of Economics.

Agreed! U Chicago established the first Economics Dept in the US in 1892. For five years, everything was fine, and then Harvard established its Economics Department in 1897. Downhill ever since. :-)

[little bongo]

I don't believe you.

Now I know I have a heart. I can feel it breaking.

[/quote] I find it frankly astonishing that you could be that worried about what the republicans might do, given the alternative of wokeism as federal policy.
[/quote]

Now see, i would tell you the exact opposite: "... that you could be that worried about wokeism as federal policy, give the alternative of what the republicans might do." Some people are different than you, studhoss.

[/quote]If we were to tell him students with green skin spend, on the average, 14 hours per week high on cannabis, and spend on average three hours a day on social media, and read at a third grade level, while people with purple skin spend four hours a month high on cannabis, use social media 20 minutes per day, and read at high school senior level, and therefore, high school seniors should put down the hash pipe and cell phone and study, his only response would be you are picking on green-skinned kids.[/quote]

Wow, you took the long way around the garden path to make that (rather dubious) point.

[/quote]It's impossible for me to believe anyone with enough work ethic to earn a PhD, even in my field, which has a lot of fakers, does not understand he's a snake oil salesman.[/quote]

Look, Skeezix, I lived through the time period I mentioned, read a butt-load of presidential tweets, listened to and watched a lot of press conferences, read other related materials along the way, made some decisions and came to some conclusions. And so did you. We came to different ones. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you're wrong. Given what I've read of your posts over the past... pretty long time, I won't say I'm "frankly astonished" by the conclusions you've come to. But given your recent rants about rap music and garbage culture, and wishing cancer upon a controversial influential academic, I will say you've got a pair of brass ones to lecture me about what snake-oil salesman I choose to buy from, if indeed the term "snake-oil salesman" applies.

[mahagonny]

OK, we are worlds apart. I can stop there at this time. We both accept that neither will persuade the other.

ETA: for what it's worth, something you don't know about me: I am scared to death of what is happening in our country.

I have only become aware of Peter Boghossian recently. This brief interview sounds like a sane, experienced person identifying real problems.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/09/17/universities-are-turning-into-ideology-mills/

[Wahoo Redux]

NY Times:

M.I.T.'s Choice of Lecturer Ignited Criticism. So Did Its Decision to Cancel.

Dorian Abbot is a scientist who has opposed aspects of affirmative action. He is now at the center of an argument over free speech and acceptable discourse.

Some faculty members and graduate students argued that Dr. Abbot, a professor at the University of Chicago, had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity programs. In videos and opinion pieces, Dr. Abbot, who is white, has asserted that such programs treat "people as members of a group rather than as individuals, repeating the mistake that made possible the atrocities of the 20th century." He said that he favored a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit.

Ever more fraught arguments over speech and academic freedom on American campuses have moved as a flood tide into the sciences. Biology, physics, math: All have seen fierce debates over courses, hiring and objectivity, and some on the academic left have moved to silence those who disagree on certain questions.

Dr. Abbot, for his part, said he had tenure at a grand university that valued free speech and, with luck, 30 years of teaching and research ahead of him. And yet the canceled speech carries a sting.

"There is no question that these controversies will have a negative impact on my scientific career," he said. "But I don't want to live in a country where instead of discussing something difficult we go and silence debate."

[dismalist]

NY Times:

M.I.T.'s Choice of Lecturer Ignited Criticism. So Did Its Decision to Cancel.

Dorian Abbot is a scientist who has opposed aspects of affirmative action. He is now at the center of an argument over free speech and acceptable discourse.

Some faculty members and graduate students argued that Dr. Abbot, a professor at the University of Chicago, had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity programs. In videos and opinion pieces, Dr. Abbot, who is white, has asserted that such programs treat "people as members of a group rather than as individuals, repeating the mistake that made possible the atrocities of the 20th century." He said that he favored a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit.

Ever more fraught arguments over speech and academic freedom on American campuses have moved as a flood tide into the sciences. Biology, physics, math: All have seen fierce debates over courses, hiring and objectivity, and some on the academic left have moved to silence those who disagree on certain questions.

Dr. Abbot, for his part, said he had tenure at a grand university that valued free speech and, with luck, 30 years of teaching and research ahead of him. And yet the canceled speech carries a sting.

"There is no question that these controversies will have a negative impact on my scientific career," he said. "But I don't want to live in a country where instead of discussing something difficult we go and silence debate."

The important and valuable aspect of all this nonsense is that Abbot can speak elsewhere, in this case at Princeton, about the subject he was originally invited to speak upon.

Competition is a necessary institution to discover truths. As long as we have it, fine. When we don't, it'll be all over.

[mahagonny]

The important and valuable aspect of all this nonsense is that Abbot can speak elsewhere, in this case at Princeton, about the subject he was originally invited to speak upon.

Competition is a necessary institution to discover truths. As long as we have it, fine. When we don't, it'll be all over.

Under the 'Department of Antiracism' that Boston University is promoting, Abbot would not be allowed to speak anywhere, except maybe to his cellmate.

[dismalist]

The important and valuable aspect of all this nonsense is that Abbot can speak elsewhere, in this case at Princeton, about the subject he was originally invited to speak upon.

Competition is a necessary institution to discover truths. As long as we have it, fine. When we don't, it'll be all over.

Under the 'Department of Antiracism' that Boston University is promoting, Abbot would not be allowed to speak anywhere, except maybe to his cellmate.

He's speaking at Princeton. No problem, so far.

[mahagonny]

The important and valuable aspect of all this nonsense is that Abbot can speak elsewhere, in this case at Princeton, about the subject he was originally invited to speak upon.

Competition is a necessary institution to discover truths. As long as we have it, fine. When we don't, it'll be all over.

Under the 'Department of Antiracism' that Boston University is promoting, Abbot would not be allowed to speak anywhere, except maybe to his cellmate.

He's speaking at Princeton. No problem, so far.

I agree, but the conundrum I see here is, does freedom of speech mean that someone can campaign against allowing freedom of speech? How about a university doing it?

ETA: just to postulate one bone-chiller: Someone in government somewhere says 'let's make August 25 Leonard Bernstein Day in the city of Lawrence, MA in recognition of his contribution to the arts.' And someone from the anti-racism think tank, who is now a salaried government staffer, says "Bernstein spent his whole career promoting white supremacy." And his crowd, thinking the fight against racism needs to be, each day, more vigorous than it was yesterday, says 'gosh darn it, I didn't think of that. You're right. This must be stopped.'

[Caracal]

The important and valuable aspect of all this nonsense is that Abbot can speak elsewhere, in this case at Princeton, about the subject he was originally invited to speak upon.

Competition is a necessary institution to discover truths. As long as we have it, fine. When we don't, it'll be all over.

Under the 'Department of Antiracism' that Boston University is promoting, Abbot would not be allowed to speak anywhere, except maybe to his cellmate.

He's speaking at Princeton. No problem, so far.

I agree, but the conundrum I see here is, does freedom of speech mean that someone can campaign against allowing freedom of speech? How about a university doing it?

ETA: just to postulate one bone-chiller: Someone in government somewhere says 'let's make August 25 Leonard Bernstein Day in the city of Lawrence, MA in recognition of his contribution to the arts.' And someone from the anti-racism think tank, who is now a salaried government staffer, says "Bernstein spent his whole career promoting white supremacy." And his crowd, thinking the fight against racism needs to be, each day, more vigorous than it was yesterday, says 'gosh darn it, I didn't think of that. You're right. This must be stopped.'

I really am having a hard time figuring out what the argument is supposed to be here. Like a lot of cancel culture angst, it seems to rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is. Free speech protects against government restrictions. That's it. The supposed conundrum doesn't exist because there is no right to give a lecture at a university. If the institution is public, you are welcome to go out to one of those free speech areas and say whatever you want to whoever will listen, but you don't have some right to an auditorium. In some cases public schools may be obligated to allow student groups to invite speakers of their choice, and private schools often choose to have the same rules.

However, you seem to believe that somehow criticism of the choice of speakers and pressure on a group to disinvite a speaker is a violation of free speech. John Stuart Mill would be pretty confused by this argument. He specifically argued that free speech didn't need to be regulated by the government because it could be regulated by popular opinion and fringe ideas could be marginalized.

When people whine about cancel culture, they mostly seem to want to regulate and control the criticism of speech. Take your supposed "bone chilling" example. Towns aren't required to have a day celebrating anybody. Obviously to do so is to celebrate the person. It seems strange to argue that debate about whether someone's life and career is worthy of celebration is inappropriate, wrong and dangerous. In this example, some people are arguing that Leonard Bernstein promoted white supremacy. You're welcome to argue that this doesn't make much sense. What you really want to do is to say that it shouldn't be allowed to question whether the town should celebrate some person.

[marshwiggle]

I really am having a hard time figuring out what the argument is supposed to be here. Like a lot of cancel culture angst, it seems to rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is. Free speech protects against government restrictions. That's it. The supposed conundrum doesn't exist because there is no right to give a lecture at a university. If the institution is public, you are welcome to go out to one of those free speech areas and say whatever you want to whoever will listen, but you don't have some right to an auditorium. In some cases public schools may be obligated to allow student groups to invite speakers of their choice, and private schools often choose to have the same rules.

Perhaps it helps to frame the question in this way: If a group affiliated with an institution invites someone to the institution to speak, does the institution owe a duty of civility to actually allow the person to speak?

This does not preclude the institution having to approve any invitations before they are given. This seems like a reasonable expectation for an institution whose mission involves the investigation of ideas and the search for truth.

[Caracal]

I really am having a hard time figuring out what the argument is supposed to be here. Like a lot of cancel culture angst, it seems to rest on a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is. Free speech protects against government restrictions. That's it. The supposed conundrum doesn't exist because there is no right to give a lecture at a university. If the institution is public, you are welcome to go out to one of those free speech areas and say whatever you want to whoever will listen, but you don't have some right to an auditorium. In some cases public schools may be obligated to allow student groups to invite speakers of their choice, and private schools often choose to have the same rules.

Perhaps it helps to frame the question in this way: If a group affiliated with an institution invites someone to the institution to speak, does the institution owe a duty of civility to actually allow the person to speak?

This does not preclude the institution having to approve any invitations before they are given. This seems like a reasonable expectation for an institution whose mission involves the investigation of ideas and the search for truth.

Well, in this case, the guy was invited by a department to give a talk. There was criticism of the speaker and the department decided to rescind their invitation. You can argue about whether they should have done that, or what beliefs and ideas should be considered when deciding to invite or disinvite a speaker, but I don't really understand saying that there's something wrong because the choice was criticized and that criticism caused the department to cancel the lecture. If a department invited someone and then learned they were a holocaust denier, would you argue they shouldn't cancel the invitation?

The issue is that you don't believe criticizing affirmative action should result in someone's lecture being canceled. That's fine. Make that argument. However, you don't get to decide for everyone else. The department is allowed to decide they don't want to bring someone to campus who has ideas they don't support, or that they don't want to deal with being criticized. The center at Princeton is then allowed to decide they don't like that decision and want to invite the guy to give the talk there to make a point.

[marshwiggle]

Well, in this case, the guy was invited by a department to give a talk. There was criticism of the speaker and the department decided to rescind their invitation. You can argue about whether they should have done that, or what beliefs and ideas should be considered when deciding to invite or disinvite a speaker, but I don't really understand saying that there's something wrong because the choice was criticized and that criticism caused the department to cancel the lecture. If a department invited someone and then learned they were a holocaust denier, would you argue they shouldn't cancel the invitation?

If the department invited the person to speak about the Holocaust, they presumably would have known his views before inviting him. If he wasn't invited to speak about the Holocaust, it's totally irrelevant. I don't care if my plumber is a flat-earther or a climate-change denier; I care that s/he can fix my plumbing. Should I care about the plumber's position on the Israel-Palestine conflict? Team Edward or Team Jacob? Ginger or Mary Anne? Griffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin? How many dimensions of ideological purity are necessary that have nothing to do with what the person is being invited for?

The department is allowed to decide they don't want to bring someone to campus who has ideas they don't support, or that they don't want to deal with being criticized. T

That cowardliness reflects badly on the institution. As Al Gore indicated, whether the truth is convenient or not, (or whether some people may be uncomfortable hearing it or not), doesn't determine whether it needs to be discussed. That would extend to whether the person presenting the truth is in some unrelated ways unpopular or unlikable.

[Caracal]

Well, in this case, the guy was invited by a department to give a talk. There was criticism of the speaker and the department decided to rescind their invitation. You can argue about whether they should have done that, or what beliefs and ideas should be considered when deciding to invite or disinvite a speaker, but I don't really understand saying that there's something wrong because the choice was criticized and that criticism caused the department to cancel the lecture. If a department invited someone and then learned they were a holocaust denier, would you argue they shouldn't cancel the invitation?

If the department invited the person to speak about the Holocaust, they presumably would have known his views before inviting him. If he wasn't invited to speak about the Holocaust, it's totally irrelevant. I don't care if my plumber is a flat-earther or a climate-change denier; I care that s/he can fix my plumbing. Should I care about the plumber's position on the Israel-Palestine conflict? Team Edward or Team Jacob? Ginger or Mary Anne? Griffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin? How many dimensions of ideological purity are necessary that have nothing to do with what the person is being invited for?

Again, you are trying to insist that there are universal rules. I don't scour Facebook to see what sort of views a plumber might have before seeing if he can fix the drain. However, if I learned that the plumber I'd hired before was in a Neo nazi group, I'd hire a different plumber next time. You can have nazis in your house if you want, but I'd sooner not. There's no rule that says you can't choose to not invite people to give talks if you don't like things they have said about issues unrelated to the talk.

[dismalist]

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education [FIRE], to which I donate money every year, makes the point that public college must allow free speech on account the government may not prohibit speech, but that private colleges often promise they will allow free speech. It is such private colleges that FIRE goes after.

Publicizing which colleges do what concerning speech lets people sort themselves into colleges. It worries me not too much as long as there are free speech colleges left, but it worries me just enough to donate to FIRE. :-)

My impression is that speech is restricted most in trendy private colleges, but I could be wrong.

[marshwiggle]

I don't scour Facebook to see what sort of views a plumber might have before seeing if he can fix the drain. However, if I learned that the plumber I'd hired before was in a Neo nazi group, I'd hire a different plumber next time. You can have nazis in your house if you want, but I'd sooner not. There's no rule that says you can't choose to not invite people to give talks if you don't like things they have said about issues unrelated to the talk.

It's rescinding the invitation that they already gave that was cowardly. They're free to invite or not whoever they like. But once they invite someone, "uninviting" the personal is unprofessional and childish when it has nothing to do with the purpose for the invitation. (If they invited someone to speak on their research, and then evidence arose that their research was wrong, based on falsified data, or something of that sort, then rescinding the invitation based on the questions about the person' actual expertise on the subject at hand would be entirely reasonable.)