SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
An editorial in the Wellesley College student newspaper that called for "shutting down" some forms of hateful rhetoric became the latest flashpoint in a contentious national debate over free speech and its limits on college campuses.
The editorial, published Wednesday in the Wellesley News, argues that the campus community will "not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible."
"Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech," the editorial states. "The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging."
The editorial was widely criticized on social media as antithetical to the free exchange of ideas that is critical in a democracy and in liberal arts education. It comes as colleges across the country are wrestling with how to protect free speech in an era of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and even assaults on incendiary speakers invited to campuses.
Free speech for all. Unless they disagree with us on something...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @10:57AM (21 children)
I find it amusing that the "staff editorial" header was used for this story but the staff member wasn't a person of their convictions enough to put their name on it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Soylentbob on Monday April 17 2017, @11:07AM (10 children)
I wonder why. After reading the editorial, it appears to not call for any immediate consequences for what they call 'hate speech'. Therefore it is also just a statement of opinion, and students or institutions "not standing for" hate-speech, as in:
- not actively supporting it
- calling it out when seing it
- writing strongly worded letters against it
- motivate students to publicly oppose it
is imo all legitimate. Laying off people or failing students because of their offensive believes would imo not be ok, although some people here should be fine with that as well, since <sarcasm>obviously the free market will take care of that </sarcasm>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @11:49AM (1 child)
Free markets take care of lots of things that nobody wants to take care of, like gender studies majors and champagne socialists baristas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 18 2017, @07:28PM
> Free markets take care of lots of things
Like uppity women asking for the same wage for the same work as men.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:02PM (1 child)
- not actively supporting it
- calling it out when seing it
- writing strongly worded letters against it
- motivate students to publicly oppose it
But that's censorship to Republican snowflakes, especially if somebody calls them "racist" while doing so. Saying "racist" to a Republican is like saying "nigger" to a black person. They'd need to go to their safe space where there are videos of Sean Hannity playing and copies of Breitbart articles.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @04:05PM
"Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech" is nothing but lies. Unless you threaten someone, nothing you say undermines their rights; and nothing you say can undermine their existence unless you're some kind of wizard. Banning speech is violating free speech you lying cunt. Be honest for once. You want other people to have as much free speech as the average North Korean.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 17 2017, @03:55PM (1 child)
I agree. I'm really trying to figure out why this editorial garnered enough attention to warrant a piece in the Boston Globe. Yes, it is arguing against hateful and intolerant speech.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be arguing for such speech to be silenced. It does suggest that it be "called out." It primarily seems to be arguing against the escalation of hostility toward those who may support bringing "controversial" speakers to campus or whatever. It argues that education is important to recognize inappropriate bias and discrimination. It argues for having a "dialogue in a constructive and educational way" about the kind of speakers invited to campus. It encourages SPEECH as a response to this: "talk-back, protest videos and personal correspondences are also ways to have a constructive dialogue."
Basically, it's an OPINION stated FREELY in a newspaper about the types of speakers whom the editorial board things would best serve the Wellesley community, along with an extended call for measured "productive dialogue" about that issue, rather than blanket censorship or denying a voice to speakers or student groups who may support them. Wellesley College is a private institution which gets to invite whatever speakers it wants; this editorial is just making a (brief) argument about what speakers the editorial board prefers and then making a much longer argument encouraging dialogue (rather than hostility) about the issue.
Also, let's keep in mind this is an opinion written by a small group of undergraduate students, not a manifesto endorsed by the administration of Wellesley College. (The President of Wellesley has actually come out with a statement in support of free expression [wellesley.edu], a statement which notes that objecting to the invitation of a speaker is actually ALSO free expression of an opinion! Shouldn't that be obvious?!)
There are only two things I find objectionable in the editorial: (1) The sentence "Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech." This sentence doesn't define "shutting down," but it seems a marked contrast with the more measured approaches to promoting "dialogue" about such issues advocated in the rest of the editorial. It's no wonder that sentence is the one that's getting quoted in the summary, because it's one of the few that sounds extremist, when the rest of the piece argues for moderation. (2) The editorial wants to hold invited speakers more strongly accountable for their views rather than berating students who invite/support those speakers. I agree to some extent with that sentiment, but the piece goes overboard in basically making it sound like students who support these speakers likely come in with biases and prejudices taught to them when they were young (and presumably too stupid to know better), and they're just not "educated" enough to understand the error of their ways yet. There is some truth to the fact that a lot of bias and discrimination is often undermined by encounters with other viewpoints and by education, but this editorial comes across as needlessly infantilizing those who may hold different views or support controversial speakers.
That said, again -- it was written by a small group of undergrads. I don't expect that it will be a perfect polished reflection of a thoroughly coherent philosophy. But there's certainly a lot of this piece that seems to advocate productive responses and dialogue about controversy and controversial speakers, rather than kneejerk reactions. That deserves to be highlighted too, since it seems to be the main point of the piece.
And, well, I just searched for the video of the actual event [youtube.com] that caused all of this debate in the first place. I don't see anything like the kind of escalations encountered at other campuses -- the speaker wasn't shouted down or chased away... no rioting occurred. Instead, an academic gave a talk, some students asked some questions (some of them pointed). The end.
So, other than a few poor sentences in this editorial, what are Wellesley students doing here against free speech? They showed up to a talk and asked some questions. They posted a video claiming to 'debunk" the speaker. Some expressed some concern about why she was invited. The student newspaper suggested that there should be "productive dialogue" about some of the speakers that are invited. Almost all of this seems to be about encouraging dialogue. Why is the Boston Globe reporting on a couple problematic sentences in a student newspaper editorial again??
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 17 2017, @04:44PM
By the way, I have openly spoken out against the forms of unnecessarily violent student protest at Berkeley, Middlebury, etc. and their attempts to actively silence speakers. I am a strong defender of dialogue and free expression.
I am frankly baffled by the attention given to this Wellesley thing though. As I said, a few sentences in the student newspaper editorial seem problematic, but the overall tone is about dialogue. And by all accounts that's EXACTLY what happened at Wellesley. I just found this piece on WBUR [wbur.org] about the actual event surrounding the controversial speaker and its response:
Tom Cushman [the professor who invited the speaker, and campus leader of the conservative "Freedom Project"] said the fact that students like Boyk came and listened was proof that he’s in the right place.
“When I look at Middlebury, I run over to Wellesley and I kiss the ground. Because we’ve had nothing like that happen. Wellesley students, they’ve have proven to be very intense, very outspoken, but also extremely civil to our speakers. That’s what a public sphere is supposed to look like," Cushman said.
When the event was over, students applauded and milled around, discussing and arguing about Kipnis' speech. Cushman says sparking those tough conversations between very different people is worth the trouble — especially, he adds, since it’s not going so well in America right now.
THIS kind of response and a few sentences in a student newspaper editorial are enough to send the right-wing into a tizzy these days? Wow.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @05:36PM (3 children)
The thinking is that conservative speech is equal to violence. Opposing it with real violence is just self defense. You can "bash the fash", clubbing in a Trump supporter's head, without being unethical.
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Monday April 17 2017, @05:47PM (2 children)
The editorial does not mention violence in the slightest. That this is the first thing to come to your mind might tell more about you than about your expertise...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @07:57PM
This time around, they aren't open about it, but yes they do mean exactly that.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday April 18 2017, @12:22AM
The editorial does not mention violence in the slightest.
Indeed. The claim in many conservative news headlines about this story advocating "violence" seems entirely based on one use of the word "hostility." Here's the problematic sentence:
This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.
But is this "hostility" advocating "violence"? Unfortunately, the many conservative headline writers seem to have failed basic reading comprehension, because the use of the word "hostility" is clearly referencing a sentence earlier in the editorial. Namely:
This being said, the tone surrounding the current discourse is becoming increasingly hostile.
What are they talking about here? They're talking about the supposed thought police who are being "hostile" to students who supported the conservative speaker. Yes, the editorial board is arguing against the "hostility" being used against those with different opinions from the campus norm (which, in this case, are likely conservatives). Rather than this 'hostile" environment, the editorial board recommends education:
....we argue that these questionable claims should be mitigated by education as opposed to personal attacks. [...] holding difficult conversations for the sake of educating is very different from shaming on the basis of ignorance.
Now, we may rightly object that the use of the word "education" here is akin to "indoctrination" in liberal values, something I objected to in a previous post on this thread. It's not an ideal argument to me, but it's not advocating "hostility" -- it's saying the campus debate has become "hostile," and instead we should talk calmly about this and educate ourselves about these issues.
IF this "education" fails, THEN "hostility may be warranted." But obviously in context this doesn't mean violence; it's referring to exactly what the word "hostile" meant earlier in the editorial -- i.e., "berating," "shaming," "personal attacks," etc. And even then, they aren't suggesting that students be targeted by this --
It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students [...] Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better.
There's a lot of problematic wording in the editorial, a lot of which I'm personally not comfortable with. But -- despite the conservative media's inept reading of this editorial -- there is no suggestion of "violence" of any sort. Basically, it's a piece that says dialogue and education is superior to unproductive dialogue (like personal attacks and berating). And only when such dialogue has failed (as in speakers who "should know better" but still are advocating hateful speech) do they say that stuff like that less productive dialogue "may be warranted."
It's not the best writing, and there's a lot of questionable stuff in it. But at the core, it's advocating dialogue and discussion -- and at worst saying a bit of heated language against speakers who are themselves advocating hate speech may be "warranted." At least, that's what I get out of actually reading the whole text, rather than just choosing a few sentences out of context.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @11:41AM (1 child)
"Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard," it says. Not his real name (I hope) but hardly anyone uses those on this site.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:44PM
It (or a shortened version thereof) gets used more often than my actual name, both online and off. Make of that what you will.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday April 17 2017, @03:05PM (5 children)
I find it amusing that the "staff editorial" header was used for this story but the staff member wasn't a person of their convictions enough to put their name on it.
I could be wrong, but I would assume "staff editorial" means that it was written by and approved by the editorial STAFF (i.e., the editorial board) of the paper, kind of like generic "editorials" in most newspapers, which are generally unsigned and are taken to reflect the opinion of the editorial staff as a whole. And you can find the names (and bios and photos) of the editorial board clearly posted on the newspaper website [thewellesleynews.com], so nobody's hiding.
Taking a look back at the "staff editorial" archive on the website, it seems most of the "staff editorials" are of this form, likely reflecting the editorial board's opinion as a whole. There are occasional signed ones, where I assume there was less unanimity or it was important to single-out a specific author for a personal opinion/piece.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:13PM
You expect somebody gullible enough to take #pizzagate seriously to understand how editorials work?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @04:47PM (3 children)
Most editorials are in fact attributed to the author(s), or at least a pseudonym. That this is not the policy of said site speaks to their courage of conviction.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday April 17 2017, @06:16PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday April 17 2017, @06:58PM
Most editorials are in fact attributed to the author(s), or at least a pseudonym. That this is not the policy of said site speaks to their courage of conviction.
Hmm...that's odd. A quick survey of a few newspapers doesn't show that at all:
Editorials from Kansas City Star [kansascity.com] are attributed to the "editorial board";
Editorials from The Washington Times [washingtontimes.com] are attributed to "The Washington Times";
Editorials from The Wall Street Journal [wsj.com] are unsigned;
Editorials from The Boston Globe [bostonglobe.com] are also unsigned.
Opinion pieces by columnists or contributors pretty much always have an individual byline, editorials not so much.
Perhaps I chose the wrong newspapers for my quick and dirty survey. Which newspapers give editorials as opposed to columnist or contributor pieces individual bylines? Do tell.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday April 18 2017, @12:38AM
I'll echo the previous post and add some more links:
-- The Washington Post attributes [washingtonpost.com] its "The Post's View" editorials to the "Editorial Board" and contains a blurb on the side listing the names of exactly who is included.
-- The New York Times attributes [nytimes.com] its "Editorials" to "The Editorial Board."
-- The New York Post attributes [nypost.com] "Editorials" to the "Post Editorial Board."
-- The Chicago Tribune attributes [chicagotribune.com] "Editorials" to the "Editorial Board."
Etc., etc. I can't remember ever seeing a major newspaper in the U.S. that "signs" editorials regularly. Occasionally if there's disagreement among the board, you'll see something that's signed by some editors, perhaps with an "opposing view" piece written by another editor or something.
As How Stuff Works explains [howstuffworks.com], editorials are defined as: "unsigned commentary that reflects the collective position of the newspaper's editorial board." You'll find similar definitions elsewhere.
There's a word for what Mr. Buzzard is talking about: it's an "Op-Ed," i.e., an "opinion-editorial" which traditionally reflects a particular editor's opinion (that's where the word comes from). Nowadays the word "Op-ed" is sometimes used more freely to refer to stuff not written by editors, but traditionally the byline is pretty much what differentiated an individual "opinion editorial" from the newspaper's collective "editorial" pronouncements on behalf of its entire board.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @05:22PM (1 child)
I find it amusing that the "staff editorial" header was used for this story but the staff member wasn't a person of their convictions enough to put their name on it.
Why?
It represents the opinion of the editorial staff. Not just one person.
They publish staff editorials all the time.
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/03/01/college-should-publicly-disclose-funding-sources/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/03/09/letter-from-the-editors-2/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/04/05/compensation-should-extend-beyond-college-government/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/03/24/highlighting-the-differences-between-news-and-opinions/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/03/09/response-from-the-editors-re-editorial-on-funding-sources/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/02/24/campus-staff-should-be-included-in-post-election-activism/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/02/15/commotion-around-clinton-takes-spotlight-off-commencement/ [thewellesleynews.com]
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/02/13/wellesley-sanctuary-campus-petition-should-be-re-instated/ [thewellesleynews.com]
...
Seems like you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday April 17 2017, @05:27PM
How do you figure? I said I thought it was interesting not that I'm losing sleep over it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.