It looks like anybody can be against academic censorship, as this opinion piece in the Washington Post shows:
Wisconsin's Supreme Court can soon right a flagrant wrong stemming from events set in motion in 2014 at Milwaukee's Marquette University by Cheryl Abbate. Although just a graduate student, she already had a precocious aptitude for academic nastiness.
On Oct. 28, in an undergraduate course she was teaching on ethics, when the subject of same-sex marriage arose, there was no debate, because, a student said, Abbate insisted that there could be no defensible opposition to this. (Marquette is a Jesuit school.) After class, the student told her that he opposed same-sex marriage and her discouraging of debate about it. She replied (he recorded their interaction) that "there are some opinions that are not appropriate that are harmful [...]
[...] McAdams, a tenured professor then in his 41st year at Marquette and a conservative who blogs about the school's news, emailed Abbate seeking her version of the episode. Without responding to him, she immediately forwarded his email to some professors. She has called McAdams "the ringleader" of "extreme white [sic] wing, hateful people," a "moron," "a flaming bigot, sexist and homophobic idiot" and a "creepy homophobic person with bad argumentation skills."
Because there is almost no Wisconsin case law concerning academic freedom that could have guided the circuit court, McAdams is asking the state supreme court to bypass the appeals court and perform its function as the state's "law-developing court." He is also asking the court to be cognizant of the cultural context: Nationwide, colleges and universities "are under pressure" — all of it from within the institutions — "to enact or implement speech codes or otherwise restrict speech in various ways."
[Post-publishing edit: An A/C below helpfully provides the following far more neutral reportage by Inside higher Ed titled Ethics Lesson which explains the situation with more light and less head. Thanks A/C - Ed. (FP)]
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:13PM (2 children)
No, I quite explicitly did not make that assumption.
Behaving like an unthinking animal is not defensible, whether or not you are in the presence of animals.
I don't even need to take a position on Runaway here.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:15PM (1 child)
You know, I like most of your posts, and you seem reasonable enough, but you're falling into whataboutism here. Don't assume any two posters are equally sane, knowledgeable, or rational. We have some real headcases on here...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday January 11 2018, @04:33PM
Sure, Runaway is prone to spouting utter garbage. I'm not suggesting you're in the same league, I just figure you've got little excuse not to rise above.
When you visit the zoo, you don't fling the monkey poop back, any more than you'd angrily shout at the sky for raining on your day off.