Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
With Governor Roy Cooper (D) taking no action on the bill, the state of North Carolina has enacted the Restore Campus Free Speech Act, the first comprehensive campus free-speech legislation based on the Goldwater proposal. That proposal, which I [Stanley Kurtz (Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center)] co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizona's Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states. It's fitting that North Carolina should be the first state to enact a Goldwater-inspired law.
[...] The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act achieves most of what the Goldwater proposal sets out to do. It ensures that University of North Carolina policy will strongly affirm the importance of free expression. It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450027/north-carolina-campus-free-speech-act-goldwater-proposal
Related Stories
The President of the University of Texas at Austin released a letter regarding the removal of statues on the campus.
[...] The University of Texas at Austin is a public educational and research institution, first and foremost. The historical and cultural significance of the Confederate statues on our campus — and the connections that individuals have with them — are severely compromised by what they symbolize. Erected during the period of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the statues represent the subjugation of African Americans. That remains true today for white supremacists who use them to symbolize hatred and bigotry.
The University of Texas at Austin has a duty to preserve and study history. But our duty also compels us to acknowledge that those parts of our history that run counter to the university's core values, the values of our state and the enduring values of our nation do not belong on pedestals in the heart of the Forty Acres.
The issue isn't a new one, they first looked into the issue in 2015, and had a wide range of options including effectively turning the mall into an open air museum, which they eventually decided against. Should the statues be relocated from their historical context just because of the attitudes and behaviour of noisy minorities? (Your humble editor cannot forget the local riots when a historical but hostile-themed statue was relocated.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Friday August 11 2017, @01:09PM (18 children)
What forms of interference? Shouldn't we just enforce existing assault/etc. laws?
Protesting against invited speakers is free speech. Throwing bricks or Molotov cocktails at them is not. Physically impeding the speakers could also be illegal. Heckling or shouting over someone does not seem illegal, but you could get around that by establishing control of the venue with the ability to eject unruly people.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @02:20PM (12 children)
Example 1: Attending a speech and blowing airhorns while the speaker is trying to speak.
Example 2: Attending a speech, physically taking the microphone from the speaker, and threatening physical violence to the speaker if he reaches for it.
Example 3: Attending a speech en masse and simply shouting loud enough that nobody can hear the speaker.
Example 4: "Protesting" outside a speech and physically blocking access with threats of or actual violence.
Every last one of said examples have happened in the US this year and the universities and police/security either tacitly or actively allowed them with not a whit of interference.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday August 11 2017, @02:25PM (8 children)
Should #1 and #3 be considered illegal? How many decibels loud can the airhorns be before we start calling it "assault with an acoustic device [soylentnews.org]"?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:05PM (3 children)
Going by the "your rights end where mine begin" theory, I'd say yes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:48PM (2 children)
Well if we're on the discussion of violent protests, maybe some more light should be shed on non-violent protests, like the one that got a line of protesters sprayed in the face with pepper spray at UC Davis a few years back.
The reason I bring this up is because if we're going to try and keep civil protestation and open discourse going on, we need to ensure both controversial speakers, their supporters, and their dissenters feel safe, as well as that law enforcement patrolling the venue is ensuring the safety of ALL participants, whether on the 'accepted' or 'reviled' side of a discussion without bias.
As soon as bias is allowed by persons who are supposed to be acting as a neutral party the whole system breaks down, much like we've let happen to the US as a whole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @05:31AM (1 child)
I'm starting to think the only sane thing to do is to take a step back in time and allow people to sort out these differences with fisticuffs
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday August 13 2017, @12:23AM
They will use cars instead. [nbcnews.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by boxfetish on Saturday August 12 2017, @07:28AM (3 children)
I'd say no. #1 and #3, although annoying and childish, shouldn't actually be illegal. I suppose I would have less problem with the universities themselves having rules or codes of conduct that disallow #1 and #3. #2 and #4 should be punishable offenses both legally and academically, imo. This bill seems rather hypocritical to me. You are either in favor of all speech or you are not. If your point of view is severely in the minority on colleges campuses, to the point that unpopular guest speakers are uninvited or shouted down, then shouldn't you win the hearts and minds of those shouters/protestors with the merit of your ideas? You don't pass a bill effectively trying to force an unpopular minority opinion to be listened to. You don't legislate ideology. Only a fool would think you can.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @03:42AM (2 children)
How many decibels is the merit of an idea? You can't win hearts and minds, if your speakers can't be heard above the din or aren't allowed to speak on campus. And how many people, especially those with air horns, do you really need to drown out a speaker? My view is a small, really dedicated minority could drown out all invited speakers on a campus, if they so choose.
(Score: 2) by boxfetish on Sunday August 13 2017, @09:38AM (1 child)
Then the university itself should have behavioral or conduct standards to address when the line between speech and harassment is crossed. All others can fuck off trying to regulate this.
I can see both sides of this, though. I actually think that the idea someone else threw out in this thread is probably the best compromise. If a real student group wants to bring a speaker to campus, then poll the student body. If 10% respond in the affirmative, then it's on. Otherwise, not happening.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @12:53PM
Not if it's a public university such as UNC. As an arm of the government they have to grant the rights of the Constitution, particular that of freedom of speech. So they can't have behavioral/conduct standards that can be used to deliberately exclude particular topics of speech by the decision makers.
Who gets to decide when this poll is triggered? And why should the student body get a say any more than anyone else? My view is that along those lines is that informal, small venues can be reserved by one signature (or even just occupied on the spot, if the venue happens to be empty) while more formal venues might require signatures proportional to the capacity of the venue, like a tenth. So a group can move into a small classroom after hours without having to consult with anyone. But it might take 3 signatures to reserve a small meeting room or 5,000 signatures to reserve the stadium. Further, if there are costs to the university associated with large speeches or conferences, that should be covered as well.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @03:28PM (2 children)
#1: Shouldn't a university simply have a policy that says this anyway, if this is an actual problem or common occurrence? Honestly, blowing an air horn in a crowd can damage the hearing of people next to you in a crowd, so this should be illegal just on that basis alone.
#2: This is already illegal: it's assault, threats, etc. In every state in the union, this can get you thrown in jail.
#3: Sounds like a university policy is needed here.
#4: Again, this is already illegal. You can't legally threaten someone. Conservatives usually claim that "hate laws" aren't needed because we already have laws on the books forbidding assault, intimidation, murder, etc., and that those laws should simply be enforced when someone does it to someone just because they're racist. Why is it different here? Why do we need more laws to criminalize things which are already criminal?
and the universities and police/security either tacitly or actively allowed them with not a whit of interference.
Maybe what we really need is some laws which punish the police when they turn a blind eye to violent crimes being committed right in front of them. Honestly, I think this is the root of the problem right here: our police totally suck (in various ways), and we need more laws to punish them when they fail.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:56PM (1 child)
Fair nuff but the university administration that explicitly requested the police and security do nothing needs to be held accountable as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @04:43PM
If you can prove that, then sure. Police who let violence go unchecked should not only be fired, but prosecuted for aiding and abetting. Those who give orders to police to do such things should get even worse punishments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:20PM (4 children)
I'd imagine the issue will be attempts at intimidation, interference, and/or appearing in in protest with your personal identity disguised. Heckling/shouting in attempt to disrupt an event would in a normal world be considered disturbing the peace, which is a criminal offense. I agree with you on the value of protest, but I think respectful disagreement is an art that is not only crucial for progress - but also something that people are forgetting how to engage in.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday August 11 2017, @02:50PM (1 child)
Ah yeah, I forgot that one [wikipedia.org]. Definitely existing law that is very applicable to some of these protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct [wikipedia.org]
http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2011/10/op-ed-disorderly-conduct-how-protesting-became-a-crime-in-nyc/ [thirteen.org]
http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-assembly/funeral-protests/ [newseuminstitute.org]
It's a typical "contempt of cop" charge and likely to be dropped in the case of protesters (as opposed to wandering around drunk and loud), if it is brought against them at all. It's a good way to remove protesters from the area only to release them after hours or a day.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @03:16PM
Absolutely, and I'd hope that's the idea of these acts. The last thing we need is another reason to put people behind bars for meaningful amount of time for petty violations. A token fine and a night in jail until the judge releases them on a personal recognizance bond the next day is what I think would be ideal. It's just an active reminder that you can express yourself without interfering with others who are just trying to do the exact same thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @08:50PM (1 child)
I'd imagine the issue will be attempts at intimidation, interference, and/or appearing in in protest with your personal identity disguised.
There ought to be a law against disguising one's identity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @11:53PM
Agreed. We are ACs who complete get the whole "irony" thing.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @01:22PM (46 children)
So when the campus creationists invite a speaker to espouse creationist nonsense, UNC will not be able to point out how contradictory that is to it mission.
Seems like typical conservative false equivalency between their fairy tales and reality.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @01:59PM (26 children)
Ah, the mating cry of the Greater North-American Argument Loser. Anyone secure in their beliefs welcomes the chance to dispute contrary beliefs. The only ones who don't are those who know either consciously or subconsciously that their argument cannot stand the light of day.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:58PM (4 children)
You're being willfully ignorant that not all speech is discourse, no matter the surface appearance.
Anarchists and Nazis (including the alt-right, a most surprisingly effective rebranding of nazism) aren't interested in civil society. They're interested in creating a society where they can perform violence upon you*, with cheering and without repercussions. Giving them a platform to promote this under the guise of "discussion" is facepalm stupid for a university.
Yes, you, TheMightyBuzzard. You're smart enough to make computers do backflips on command, hence not trustworthy. You can probably scheme, too. You won't count in their new world order.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:09PM (3 children)
Which is precisely why their views should be given a hearing. You can't know how wrong a position is unless you understand that position. Which you cannot do without first hearing that position.
BTW: Getting students wound up to silence unpopular speech at universities was a very early Nazi tactic. Informing you of this just so you don't mistake which side are actually acting like Nazis.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 11 2017, @06:06PM
Yep. It doesn't matter what the subjective or even objective quality of the speech is. Our founding principles were that it could be said without fear or repercussions, with very few exceptions. Where speech could cause great harm like yelling fire in a theater is one of the very few exceptions.
It's really dumb for a university of all places to not let these undesirables to walk up to a podium and deliver their speech. How else are we supposed to counter their arguments and show them for the bigoted racist morons they are? There exists no intellectual, moral, or ethical superiority to your own positions when you simply oppress the positions of others and don't allow them to speak. How else are students supposed to be exposed to this, cause critical thinking and productive discussions, even among themselves?
I don't know if it Bushido, or older, but there is a Japanese maxim I've always appreciated. Paraphrasing it, "If you cannot expose yourself to the beliefs of others, you have no beliefs of your own". I may have mangled it (most probably), but in it essence it means that these students cannot claim to be principled intellectuals, or that those principles are worthy, if they cannot at least expose themselves to the beliefs and principles of others.
That's not the same as condoning it, or enabling it. Nothing says that afterwards you cannot have your say. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole fucking point of debate club to DEBATE? When did it become impossible to have discourse in the very places in which it is the most important?
I'm not down for preventing protests, but what happened at Berkley recently wasn't a protest. It was a violent shutdown of unpopular speech in ways and manners that reminded me of fascism in our recent past. I found it disturbing that our universities seemingly couldn't host Milo without the national guard being there. Which is strange, since as a student I would welcome him. How else can I make him look like the moron he is?
It IS time that some rules of conduct and order were brought to universities, and that the true spirit of debate was brought back. Fuck, these people make the Left look like loony idiots.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:16AM (1 child)
The friendly people of Daesh recruiting gullible idiots via internet videos is a good example of why some speech is curtailed in Europe: In a room where you came to hear the opinion of someone you oppose, there will be someone who takes that hateful speech to heart. We see what happens when that speech reaches enough people to find vulnerable ears who are likely to act on the violence it conveys.
Censorship is dangerous. But some ideas are dangerous too. It's not unreasonable, in a place where ideas are taught, that the people entrusted with the education of young gullible adults, be allowed to decide that some speech is not to be implicitly endorsed by welcoming it within the teaching walls.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:22AM
So what? It's the same problem with US liability law since the 70s and drone regulation [soylentnews.org] a few years back. We all lose when we regulate everyone as if they were the worst of idiots. If you're tightening regulations all the time because there are idiots, then you are doing it wrong. The idiots won't stop being idiots.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilsa on Friday August 11 2017, @03:39PM (4 children)
While on the surface what you say makes sense, but there still needs to be some kind of balance. There are people who insist on peddling nonsense and demand their right to speak, no matter how completely and repeatedly wrong they are proven. And as everyone knows, it takes orders of magnitude more effort to dispute bullshit than to invent it in the first place.
I'm concerned that this will make a mockery of intelligent thought. It will force universities to permit outlandish discussions such as creationism being a valid scientific theory, or anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, white supremacy, etc.
While it sounds like the whole safe zone thing has gotten out of hand, pushing the pendulum deeply to the other side isn't going to be very good for anyone either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @04:00PM (3 children)
There is no "too far the other way" when it comes to free speech. Foolish positions often debunk themselves and nobody is obligated to listen to the speakers. Not even the ones who invited them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ilsa on Friday August 11 2017, @05:30PM (2 children)
Except for when those positions *don't* debunk themselves. Or at least, when they are listened to by people who do not have the knowledge and critical thinking skill to properly evaluate the arguments. Never mind the maxim of "If you tell a lie often enough, people begin to think it's true."
Look at the anti-vax crowd as a perfect example. The original "scientist" was discredited, the research has been debunked beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yet a shockingly large number of people insist that vaccinations are bad. If this sort of thing only hurt the people that believed it, then I wouldn't really care. They can do whatever they want. But their decisions, based on gross misinformation, hurts other people as well.
I'm very glad that the university was able to at least push back on allowing any public area to be usable as a public forum. Otherwise there would have been sidewalk preachers every 10 feet.
The Westboro Baptist Church is going to have a field day with this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:31PM
Yes humans can be suckered in with bad information, but it is vastly more preferable to a thought-police tyranny.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:24AM
It's a college. If the people there don't have the knowledge and critical thinking skills to properly evaluate bullshit, then shut the place down.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @03:56PM (15 children)
Anyone secure in their beliefs welcomes the chance to dispute contrary beliefs. The only ones who don't are those who know either consciously or subconsciously that their argument cannot stand the light of day.
Or people who have better and more important things to do with their time than argue with nutjobs.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:59PM (14 children)
Then don't argue with them. That in a free society is entirely your right. Shutting down their speech is not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @04:41PM (13 children)
I never argued for shutting down their speech, only for not giving them a podium. It's really weird how conservative fools somehow equate not rolling out the red carpet for neo-Nazis to be equivalent to "shutting down their speech".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:20PM (12 children)
I agree with your sentiment, but this isn't about rolling out the red carpet. If some group of students invite a speaker to their university then they should be able to hear them and schedule use of an appropriate venue. You won't get random groups being able to force their way in and get a venue, they must be invited by students.
This is critical, we can't allow people to shutdown legal events just because they do not like the content. It cuts both ways, freedom include freedom for ignorant fools.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @08:12PM (10 children)
If some group of students invite a speaker to their university then they should be able to hear them and schedule use of an appropriate venue.
Sorry, I disagree. How large is this "some group of students"? Two? On any decent-sized university campus, you can always find some extremists who'd be willing to invite anyone. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Why should students get all this power?
If a large enough fraction of the student body agrees to a speaker, that sounds fine. But some random little extremist student group shouldn't be able to force an extremely provocative and controversial speaker on everyone.
This is critical, we can't allow people to shutdown legal events just because they do not like the content.
Why not? It would be perfectly legal for me to invite KKK members to my house to have a party (a "legal event"), but I'm not going to because I have no interest in associating with those fools. That doesn't mean I'm "shutting down a legal event", it means I'm just not having one. The same goes here. I don't see how a University is obligated to host a speaker just because some dumb students want it. That'd be like me being required to host some jerk at my house just because my teenage kid wanted them over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:43PM (6 children)
You can't compare your home to a university. Also, it is up to each institution to develop their own criteria. I imagine they would want a student group of 20+ at least in order to reserve a venue for some speaker. I don't think it is a good precedent to allow universities to have such subjective rules as you propose. Some well defined limits and requirements for speakers must be created so that there is no subective bias that comes into play.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:35AM (5 children)
I'd imagine that they would want some relevance to the mission or the fields of study of the university. No anti-vaxxers at the CS department, no spiritual healers for the law department, etc. The university has no duty to provide a platform outside of furthering their mission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:29PM (4 children)
Lol, university speakers are not often "for CS majors only".
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @10:07PM (3 children)
Every committee / group recognised by the university has been recognised as providing a function within/for the university (and, therefore, in line with the university's mission).
What I was suggesting was that each group sticks to its function.
Thus: the CS department invites speakers with relations to CS, legal invites speakers with relation to legal, etc.
This means that any group that the university recognises and evaluates as a group with a function that will contribute to its mission, can get university support (facilities) for speakers in line with that function.
If your group is not recognised, or your planned event deviates from the claimed function, then the university has no reason to support you.
Note that this is a typical CS solution to a legal problem :)
All the conundrums can now be resolved in some formalism, yet in real life it'll never work out this way.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:36AM (2 children)
I disagree. Most groups don't actually have a function. If a group of 20+ students, to use the above criteria wants to invite someone, what's the function of the group? Why should it have a function? It's just another way for selective bias to enter into the system. It also prevents simple quid pro quo like the CS department invites our speaker because they still have some money in the budget for speakers, and we'll do something for them later to pay them back.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 13 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)
To prevent the complete arbitrarily spending of (public) money at the whim of whoever is holding the purse strings.
In your hypothetical example, if the speaker's talk has some relevance to the CS department, then it is within the CS department's purview. No problem there.
If it doesn't... then why should the CS department be allowed to use university funds and facilities to this end? Why should the university sponsor such things? If there's general interest, book a room, charge admission, reimburse speaker, all off-campus.
No need and no reason to use university funds and facilities for non-university business.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 14 2017, @03:27AM
What makes you think it's not university business?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday August 12 2017, @03:16AM (2 children)
Dude, have you ever read what you write? It is frightening in the lack of awareness.
So? Then a couple of students are chatting with some visitor in some common area somewhere. Explain the possible harm or reason why anyone should care? A school as a variety of places than can be booked for events of all sizes, from a meeting room for a dozen up the the sportsball stadiums that can seat thousands. The only requirement is a student organization books one appropriate to the audience.
You are forgetting something. This argument is not about the speaker, it is about the students. The school decided they were worthwhile admissions, they decided a particular speaker would be a good idea for whatever organization they are members of.
That is entirely on the snowflakes who get all butthurt and "simply can't" at the idea somebody they disagree is going to be within a mile of them. If it is a mandatory program that all students must attend then you would have a point. That is never the case except when Proggies bring in a speaker to a "must attend" event like graduation. One of the lessons schools should be teaching is how to be a f*cking human in a pluralistic society, and that includes accepting the fact that there are people who disagree with you, and those people are talking, lecturing and otherwise engaged in the life of the mind that is the reason the institution they attend exists. If they can't accept that THEY should be expelled on the grounds of being unfit receptacles for an advanced education.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)
Says the human shaped pile of shit who wants to literally murder people he doesn't like. Hypocritical garbage bin.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:16AM
And yet jmorris is right. Such is the power of ad hominem attacks.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:01AM
Some group of Nazi students? Some group of Christian Fundie Westboro students? Some group of Milo Man-Boy Love students? Some group of Young Republican/Cannibal/Karl Rove students? And if said student group is just a front, completely funded and controlled by some off-campus anti-intellectual organization, like D'nesh D'Souza? And what if, just if, an airline makes Ann Coulter change her seat? [soylentnews.org] Is this not free speech in the service of treachery and rebel insurrection?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday August 11 2017, @02:07PM
Some people have too much free speech. Just like some have too much liberty.
That's why it is the government's job to regulate how much free speech and liberty we all have. Just like they regulate air pollution. It's for the good of us all!
Think of the children!
Now if they could only regulate travel for our protection. Comrade, stop at the checkpoint. Your papers please!
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:12PM (14 children)
Extremely liberal here and I don't see this as a problem. It's not the place of the university to take sides. When you start encouraging the university to take a side you will invariably end up in scenarios where they take the 'wrong' side for whatever reason. I think the whole ideal is respectful disagreement. Attend the creationists talk. When they take questions ask them poignant questions with relevant facts that contradict their view. Or organize a date such that you'll have e.g. Richard Dawkins speak the following evening.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @02:21PM (1 child)
Abso-fucking-lutely. This is how one behaves in a free, civilized society.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:23PM
Nice to see your more sane personality get control of your fingers, if only for a single post.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @03:54PM (11 children)
Why the fuck would I want to waste my valuable time attending a talk by a creationist, when I already know what they're spouting is utter bullshit? It's not my job to make sure everyone stays convinced of that fact. Arguments like yours seem to assume that everyone has infinite time and patience to listen to bullshit and then successfully argue it down. In reality, a lot of the bullshit-spewers are actually very talented at getting people to believe their bullshit, despite how horribly wrong it is. Just look at Hitler; he drummed up support from an entire nation with his bullshit. And look at Trump; much of the same there: millions of Americans fervently follow and believe in him no matter how much it's contradicted by factual evidence. Or look at all the anti-vaxxers, homeopathy fans, etc.: evidence (or lack thereof) means nothing to them and their religious beliefs in that stuff.
As for having Dawkins speak the following evening, you'll just get an entirely different crowd the next evening. How does that help anything?
Honestly, these controversial speeches seem to me like they really don't serve any useful purpose and only promote more extremism. Giving a nutcase or extremist a legitimate platform to air their views in effect lends the sense of credibility to their views, in a way that relegating them to ranting on a street corner does not.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @04:02PM (8 children)
You believe then that you have the right to tell people they are not allowed to even hear beliefs you disagree with, much less believe them? Dude, fascist much?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @04:40PM (7 children)
Where the fuck did you read that in my post? All I said was this crap is a waste of my time and frequently convinces other people despite its wrongness. My official position is that universities don't have any responsibility to provide a podium for these people. If they want to spout their bullshit, they can do it elsewhere, like on a street corner. We had morons like this (usually religious nuts) when I was in college, but they didn't get to reserve auditoriums, they had to stand outside in the sun and hope passerby students would stop and listen to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:16PM (3 children)
What he read is exactly what you wrote.
- 1. 'Things I do not agree with are bullshit.'
- 2. 'I can't be bothered to go to events with views I don't agree with and prove them wrong.'
- 3. 'Other people are too stupid to know as much as I do, so they can be conned without me being there.'
- 4. Hitler
- 5. 'Things I don't agree with serve no useful purpose and only promote extremism'
- 6. Due to #3 and #5 people trying to say things I disagree with should only be allowed to speak on street corners.
This is the problem with echo chambers. You don't realize how your views sound to people who are not part of your echo chamber. I don't think you even realize the dangerous levels of extremism in what you're saying.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @08:13PM (2 children)
You seem to be a nutcase, making up things in my post that aren't there. How is it "extremist" to advocate that a University has the right to be selective about who they invite?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:49PM
Oh wow, you put me in an awkward position here. You're in the wrong though. I think the key point you're missing is that universities won't be giving a podium to anyone, it is student groups who will invite speakers and every university has rules about doing so. If you were only talking about private universities then you'd have a point, but a public university should NOT engage in censoring the views of speakers invited by students. When you advocate for censorship it becomes normalized, and people will just go along with it.
Do you think the ACLU defends the KKK because they agree with them? Nope!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:32AM
Nobody here cares what you decide is worth your while. What we care about is who gets to decide who can or can't speak on a college campus. So when you say that there are some things you're not going to bother to go to certain talks, it's not to inform us that you are not indeed the single human on the planet who is perfected interested in every topic and has infinite time to attend every possible instance of public speech on a college campus.
And given that you immediately segued into this question indicates you did indeed advocate blocking speakers whose speech you're not interested in:
Who's doing the selection? You gave only one criteria for selection, whether you could be bothered to attend.
Because it's a university. Its whole purpose is to give the participants a place to communicate knowledge and ideas. A key part of that is to empower them to invite people with this knowledge and ideas to attend. Thus, students should have this power.
What's the mechanism behind this "forcing"? You've already stated that you wouldn't attend such speech, indicating that you don't believe that a random, little, extremist student group actually can force an extremely provocative and controversial speaker on you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:43AM (2 children)
Out of mod points, so I'll comment instead of upvoting:
This.
Universities are places where young adults are rapidly maturing in a formative phase in their lives. I get it, everyone wants a piece of the pie. But the university is under no obligation to allow that. Their job is to make sure people get educated and research happens. Anything beyond that is up to the institutions and their sponsors.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 12 2017, @08:11PM
Thank you, finally someone who gets it, that universities are not places for people to endlessly argue left vs. right political issues or worse, arguing about whether the Holocaust happened or whether white nationalism is a good thing or not. If students want to argue that stuff on their own, that's their right, but that shouldn't be something a reputable university fosters by granting generous auditorium space and publicity. They really should stick to things like having eminent scientists lecture, or other academic arcana. If someone wants to hear Ann Coulter or her buddy Ahmadinejad speak, let them book some other venue for that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:41AM
Almost all universities have free speech policies or at least the pretense to such. Inviting speakers is a key exercise of free speech. And it's worth noting free speech is part of the job of making sure people get educated and research happens.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday August 11 2017, @07:18PM (1 child)
Maybe to find out *how* they spout it, to engage or convince people? If only the actual text mattered, you could probably just read the transcripts later for most talks.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @07:38PM
Why would I want to spend my time this way? If people are stupid enough to believe Creationism, that's their problem. I'd rather do something I enjoy with my very limited free time, not argue with morons. And giving a podium to these hucksters is only going to succeed in giving them more followers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @04:44PM (2 children)
Interesting example.
Or that flat Earth guy we had here who got bored with equidistant azimuthal map projections and started posting about anarcho-capitalism and violently imposed monopolies instead.
Lots of people have lots of speech. Campus only has so much space and so many days during the semester for hosting that speech.
I haven't been to college in a long time, and when I was I wasn't politically active. There was a feminist group focusing on date rape called Eyes Wide Open that was explicitly transphobic, threatening “crossdressers” with immediate expulsion (with a sealed transcript, making transferring credits to another college impossible) for attempted rape should they enter the womyn-born-womyn's restroom. (This was circa Y2K. My, how successful feminism has been at making bathroom laws a nationwide controversy!) That's the closest I came to being politically active, but I wound out dropping out because the campus was too much of a hostile environment and I really didn't have much confidence at the time with my own gender transition either.
It seems to me that colleges should require some amount of signatures, kind of like how we do ballot initiatives in my state, before a speaker may be invited. Perhaps if there are 5,000 students in attendance in an average semester, require 500 or so student signatures, and the speaker is invited and may have exclusive use of campus property for an afternoon to hold an event, or something.
Well, if you have 10% of your student population requesting the presence of a flat-Earth or young Earth creationist, my feeling is that it must not really be about making the shape of the Earth or the age of the Earth a controversial subject with multiple viewpoints and opinions that are all equally valid. If it is, well shit, you've got bigger problems at that university. Transfer out ASAP!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:14PM (1 child)
Speakers do not invite themselves. They are invited by student groups who also fund and organize the event. At larger campuses on any given day there might be a dozen different events going on. It's actually one thing I miss about university - the talks were an incredible way to introduce yourself to a variety of ideas you might not otherwise be familiar with, or to challenge well informed speakers of events espousing ideas you find dubious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:26PM
That's a good point. I was proceeding from the assumption that a diverse student body collectively wants more speakers to present their ideas on campus than can be practically accommodated. If they can all be practically accommodated, the more the merrier I suppose. If a student doesn't want to hear certain speech, I believe in most cases they aren't required to attend.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Friday August 11 2017, @01:26PM (24 children)
Genuine question, I don't know.
(yes I've heard a thing or two, but I don't know what is the systemic problem that needs to be addressed by legislation.)
There seem to be some things that I'm not sure are a great idea:
1. more punishment possibilities in the law. Not immediately a fan
2. when is interfering with someone's free-speech right no longer a free-speech right?
If you approach this from a worst-case point of view, it's not clear why this is necessary?
A university's primary focus should be on teaching and research. Open debate certainly is a staple of universities in my mind.
On the other hand, if the CS department wants to invite a Grand Canyon biblical rock picker to talk about how the Earth is 4,000 years old according to his view of geological records, I don't see how the university has a duty to support this.
Open, honest debate should absolutely be fostered at universities. But this quote seems to enable quackery and ensure it can get a safe haven at a university.
Or, phrased differently: I'm all for open debate, I'm against enabling propaganda on campus.
In other words:
- Anti-vaxxer giving a talk at the medical department: possibly justified.
- Anti-vaxxer giving a talk at the electrical engineer department: not so great.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:06PM (11 children)
You don't just show up at a university and give a talk. Speakers generally need to be invited and a group needs to organize/reserve a location and all that good stuff. The whole point is letting people who others want to speak, speak. Propaganda is perfectly fine if not only because it's impossible to define it without ending up with an appeal to subjectivity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @03:42PM (10 children)
Why should people who want to speak be allowed to take up space on campus? The right to free speech doesn't guarantee you the right to a podium. Universities are supposed to be places for research and learning, not for any random nutcase to spout a bunch of BS and be able to reserve a lecture hall or auditorium for the purpose; there's no shortage of wackos who'd love to give "speeches" about some crap. Universities should have every right to be extremely selective about who they invite to talk, and really shouldn't be wasting time and space on random lunatics, trolls, and pundits who only speak to drum up controversy and sell their shitty books. And no, just because some group of idiot students wants to invite someone doesn't mean they should be able to do that. Every university has lots of student groups, and some of these are full of extremists and morons; if you let every little group of extremists have the power to take up space on campus and get attention, that's just going to make things worse. I guess what I'm saying is that universities should have rigorous requirements before extending an invitation to a speaker, to make sure they aren't just inviting some troll. Perhaps there should be a "speaker review committee" to make sure that some weird little department or student group doesn't cause a PR disaster by inviting some neo-Nazi or something.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @04:05PM
You mean like a group that takes a page out of history and, precisely like the Nazis did, silences speech on campus they disagree with?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @04:41PM
And besides, that's the faculty's job!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:59PM (1 child)
At a public university, it should simply be first-come-first-serve.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:11AM
A public university is not youtube, it is not 4chan, it is not even reddit, and god gnows it is not SoylentNews!
Universities exist to make idiots and religious types feel stupid, but that is only because they are, and the Dunning-Kruger effect is so strong that they will never realize it, even if we let them speak on campus and subject them to ridicule and derision and mockery. Universities are wicked good at mockery. So instead, Universities do them a favor by banning them from the Learned Pulpit, and thus they can take great umbrage at the "liberal professoriate" that is so prejudiced against them. This is why The Mighty Busshard has never given a lecture at a University. So unfair!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:06PM (5 children)
I'm having trouble understanding how you can internally reconcile this. You are trying to discuss the ideal ethical goals of institutes of higher education while basing what seems to be the entirety of your entire comment on ad hominem. Try to rephrase your argument while omitting ad hominem and I think you'll find you've said basically nothing other than 'Universities should not enable views, or speakers of such, that I don't agree with.'
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @08:01PM (4 children)
Where's the ad hominem? I'm not insulting anyone in this discussion in that post, though I make some references to vague anonymous groups of people in my argument (idiot students, troll speakers, etc.), none of which represent any of the SNers in this thread.
you've said basically nothing other than 'Universities should not enable views, or speakers of such, that I don't agree with.'
That's totally wrong. I guess it's not clear, but what I'm basically saying is that "Universities should not enable views, or speakers of such, that the University does not agree with and doesn't think will promote worthwhile academic discourse."
So that means I think it's a waste of time for a liberal university like Berkeley to invite Ann Coulter to speak, and I don't think that Liberty University has any obligation to invite any liberals to speak, and I certainly don't think that any decent university has any obligation to invite Andrew Wakefield or Jenny McCarthy to speak, or Ken Ham for that matter. Now if Liberty U. wants to invite Ken Ham, that's their right and it would make sense considering the bias that school has. Call it "echo chambering" all you like, but most people IMO don't want to waste their time listening to crap they don't agree with at all and have already long-since decided is total garbage, so for a university to invite someone to speak whose views are completely antithetical to the leanings of almost everyone on campus (e.g., inviting Iranian ex-pres Ahmandinejad to speak at a Jewish university) isn't "enabling discourse", it's just giving someone a podium to speak who will only succeed in angering everyone there. No one's mind is going to be changed (certainly not the Jewish students in this contrived example, and not Ahmadinejad's either), so what exactly is the point? Most people will be angry and not attend, and those who do will probably be disruptive. Nothing positive is going to come of it. To outsiders, it makes it look like the University thinks the speaker actually has something worthwhile to say.
Would it make any sense to invite some random lunatic to speak about the hallucinations he has and believes are real? I've got a paranoid schizophrenic relative who has lots of stories about seeing aliens, how the government has examined his brain, etc.; do you think we have an obligation to listen to him and try to point out the holes in his stories? (Luckily, he's not too bad when he's taking his meds properly.) No, it's a waste of time.
This isn't to say that people with differing views should *never* be invited to speak. It's quite possible a University might think someone isn't too antithetical to their views, and that useful discourse could occur by inviting them. But there's limits here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:53PM (1 child)
The wonderful thing about Universities is that the students are ostensibly adults, and thus are allowed to attend OR NOT whichever things they'd like. I have never heard of a mandatory assembly at a university.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 12 2017, @05:12AM
I have never heard of a mandatory assembly at a university.
Liberty University has such things. IIRC, they had a mandatory assembly during the Presidential election last year where students were required to hear Ted Cruz speak.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:18AM
Evidently, the objector in this case,
is not intelligent enough to grasp the point the Great Grish has made. And does not comprehend the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Vide:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @05:23AM
Your entire view is based around denigrating those you disagree with and using that denigrating as a basis for further 'logic' and in particular a suppression of their expression. Your entire argument is built entirely on ad hominem. And once again university's don't invite people to speak - students at the university do by reserving a public speaking venue and organizing said event. Repeating 'university's inviting people' is just bizarre and is intentionally missing the point.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @02:25PM (11 children)
Idiotic views need airing more than any other kind so that people can thoroughly understand why they are idiotic.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @04:10PM (2 children)
Using that logic, we should broadcast Hitler's speeches from dawn to dusk. Then we'll all be enlightened about the wrongness of Nazism?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @04:27PM
They should absolutely be taught in school, yes. Anything else is dooming yourself to repeat the whole tragic affair.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @06:42PM
Those who don't learn of history are doomed to repeat it. Seeing people speak warnings of the Nazis while simultaneously pushing increasingly radicalized far left agenda is interesting. Of course we learn that the Nazis were far right, so there's no danger there... Yet it's interesting how little left or right ultimately mean, isn't it?
It's bizarre how completely reasonable that sounds when I did little more than change the pronouns in a paragraph that was describing underlying ideology of what we now view as one of the most fanatical groups in history. Of course they had their Jews, yet do those of the groups described today not have their 'while males' to blame for all the problems of society? And the turn to overt violence only happened after many years of building up hatred and blame for the Jews.
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday August 11 2017, @04:51PM
Oh Minty Brisket of the Thick Skull!
People already do understand that they are idiotic, that is why they are protesting such idiocy being brought to campus and given a podium of legitimacy!
(Score: 1) by ants_in_pants on Friday August 11 2017, @06:17PM (6 children)
You say that, but the way that such idiotic views gain traction in the first place is because their arguments are phrased to sidestep logic. It would be great if people were perfectly reasonable but even smart people can be drawn into fallacies and emotional appeals.
-Love, ants_in_pants
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:02PM
Then that would be their problem for being foolish. Don't de-platform speakers merely because some people are irrational and especially susceptible to bad arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:08PM (3 children)
And who gets to decide what is or is not an "idiotic view?"
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @08:04PM (2 children)
Simple: the institution that's providing the venue. Their venue, their decision.
It's the same in my house. It's my house, my rules. If I want to invite someone to visit, that's my prerogative. But no one has a right to come hang out at my house unless I want them there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:40PM
You're saying the campus is private property. However, the topic is the University of North Carolina, a public (state-owned) university. Even though it mentions Congress, the First Amendment has been held (Everson v. Board of Education) to apply to state governments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @05:31AM
You obviously do not think your private residence is in any way an appropriate comparison to a public speaking venue that is specifically there for organizations and individuals to reserve and use as they deem fit. The lack of logic you're espousing here is indicative of cognitive dissonance. I think you know that what you're saying is inappropriate, but nonetheless want to support it. It leads to illogical and inappropriate arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:28PM
I'm gonna stick with "freedom" thank you very much. I'd rather not slide into tyranny and oppression by trying to stop tyranny and oppression.