SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Recent reporting and discussions here about "trolls" and the "culture of hate" (both con and pro) have repeatedly broached the topic of what appropriate limits to free expression might be.
Dean of Students John Ellison at the University of Chicago has taken a stand on the issue in a letter welcoming new students. He writes:
Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago's defining characteristics is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. [...] Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
While some have voiced support for Ellison's commitment to free expression (with Robby Soave at Reason encouraging readers to give the dean "a round of applause"), others are concerned about the implications of his message. L.V. Anderson at Slate agrees with much of the letter's content promoting "civility and mutual respect," but finds the last paragraph quoted above to be "weird" and unsettling:
By deriding "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" before students arrive on campus, the University of Chicago is inadvertently sending a message that certain students—the ones who have never been traumatized, and the ones who have historically felt welcome on college campuses (i.e., white men)—are more welcome than others, and that students who feel marginalized are unlikely to have their claims taken seriously. Adults who decry "the coddling of the American mind" will likely celebrate U. Chicago's preemptive strike against political correctness, but students who have experienced violence, LGBTQ students, and students of color likely will not.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @10:48PM
Go to the UChicago campus and shout "fuck you nigger" at passersby, and just see how quickly the police will arrive to end your freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:08PM
Is that guy over there shouting things as part of a sociological research project to see which words cause offense this year? I want to check his blog later, maybe he'll post a preprint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:22PM
You're both expelled.
- The Dean
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:21PM
What's your point?
That the U is still a safe-space for black people?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:24PM
The U is not a safe space for anyone when the dean arbitrarily decides who is acting threateningly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:30PM
Your scenario would be nearly universally considered threatening.
Particularly by the speaker themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:35PM
Well now that all depends on the intent of the speaker. There's additional context to consider also. What if the speaker is laughing? What if the speaker is dressed like a clown?
NOPE. Nigger is nigger, It's a trigger, no warning, go directly to jail, to preserve THE SAFE SPACE.
The dean is a lying hypocritical sack of shit.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday August 26 2016, @11:56PM
So black people can't say that word either? Gosh there will be a lot of people expelled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:03AM
All 5% of the student body who happen to be black people hate niggers too.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:11AM
Oh, no. Remember, nigga is completely different than nigger.
For instance:
Acceptable (Even for Caucasian persuasions): "Yo, my nigga! How's it hanging?"
Not Acceptable (Dead Honkey): "Yo, nigger! Wanna hang?"
It's subtle, but trust me, there is a difference. Apparently.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:09AM
> Acceptable (Even for Caucasian persuasions): "Yo, my nigga! How's it hanging?"
Nope
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday August 27 2016, @05:36AM
Say that to movies, television, and real life.
I didn't say I agreed with it, only that is what I see.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @08:14AM
Sadly true, theft of black culture includes 'nigga' and people are too polite to chastize the culprits. Teens get it a lot in music so they drop it like other phrases that are heard in music a lot, to sound cool. Same goes for other degrees/topics of insult, eg. speaking in ebonics without realizing it is akin to making "flied lice" Chinese food jokes; or how women are commonly referred to as 'bitches' from man to man, on the surface in a lighthearted tone. Lots of other examples.
Source: in my third year back as an undergrad. Wow.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @03:30PM
theft of black culture
That's utterly nonsensical. People copying culture is how culture spreads in the first place, and it's a completely natural occurrence. There is no "theft" of culture.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday August 27 2016, @07:22PM
In America. Depending on context and intent, people in other countries can still use the word 'nigger'.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday August 27 2016, @06:31AM
Yeah, I'm sure a white person saying that wouldn't be immediately attacked.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:11AM
> Well now that all depends on the intent of the speaker. There's additional context to consider also.
> What if the speaker is laughing? What if the speaker is dressed like a clown?
Its funny how racists think they are so clever when they are only fooling themselves.
shout "fuck you nigger"
That's all the context needed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:33AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @12:43AM
Still clearly threatening.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Friday August 26 2016, @11:27PM
That doesn't sound like
rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement.
It sounds like harassment.
Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:30PM
You're harassing me!! POLICE!!! POLICE!!!!!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:34PM
You are arguing with someone of such low intelligence that they can not distinguish between insight and incivility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2016, @11:40PM
How dare you question my intelligence! My trust fund paid for my admittance to this university! I must be smart because my parents are rich!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @03:35PM
I wasn't aware that freedom of speech required "rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement." In other words, it's still a fact that only some approved speech is allowed.
and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others.
What does "harass" or "threaten" mean? Those words are too subjective to take seriously. There are many non-credible threats that are nonetheless taken seriously, and there are many things that are called 'harassment' that were really one-off insults.
But I would say it's completely wrong anyway. If your 'threats' or 'harassment' get you into trouble, then you are at least somewhat limited in what you can say, even if you agree with those limitations; there's no getting around that, and no one can pretend it's not censorship.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:31AM
Yes, because:
Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @03:37PM
In other words, they don't truly believe in freedom of speech. I don't even agree that "civility" (in speech) and "mutual respect" are vital to all of us. Who decides what is or is not vital to me or others? Not them. There are plenty of ideas and people which I absolutely will not respect or be civil with, but that doesn't mean my speech should be limited.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday August 27 2016, @07:53PM
If you are free to be a flaming ass, I demand the freedom to express my distaste in the form of a punch to your nose. Hey, it's just me expressing myself right?
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Tuesday August 30 2016, @07:07PM
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday August 30 2016, @09:29PM
That was kinda my point. We call it free speech, but what we really mean is you may express anything you like, but the means of expression may be limited (fighting words, causing a panic, or physical violence for example).
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday August 31 2016, @12:05AM