Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday April 17 2017, @10:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-listening-to-all-sides dept.

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...

Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/14/wellesley-college-student-newspaper-ignites-free-speech-debate/NHVrp8nNensXxCQHaPLHPJ/story.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Monday April 17 2017, @05:47PM (2 children)

    by Soylentbob (6519) on Monday April 17 2017, @05:47PM (#495377)

    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...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @07:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @07:57PM (#495458)

    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

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday April 18 2017, @12:22AM (#495620) Journal

    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.