A university choosing not to cover a certain ancient book of poetry in its syllabus is not the same thing as free speech being suppressed. Self-editing is not the same as censorship. Learn this concept already.
In fact, though debate raged between students and faculty all year, an administrator told The Wall Street Journal that imposing trigger warnings wasn't even part of the official discussion, as they could threaten "intellectual freedom."
“At no point did [we] consider trigger warnings as being something that could be productively or intellectually mandated, or made structural,” Julie Crawford, chairwoman of Columbia College’s literature humanities department, told the Journal.
Columbia will be changing some of the required books that some students objected to, including removing Ovid's Metamorphoses and adding Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison, but Crawford says it's unrelated to the trigger-warning debate.
we'll just have to disagree on that point then, for i fear it more than likely. to be clear, though, my thought process goes against all taboo subjects all over the board and spectrum. regarding your last sentence, i'd be of the opinion to let everyone bitch and moan and leave their demands in the dust. knowledge knows no bounds.
Sigmaleph: "Putting WARNING: CONTAINS RAPE on the cover of a book is not censorship."
guizonde: "But we should be allowed to discuss rape in class. University should be about both the best and the worst of humanity."
Have I got it right?
Sigmaleph: "Putting WARNING: CONTAINS RAPE on the cover of a book is not censorship."
guizonde: "But we should be allowed to discuss rape in class. University should be about both the best and the worst of humanity."
Have I got it right?
yes on both counts. if you'd said "banning books from the cursus on the grounds of harsh subjects", then it would be censorship. i believe you captured sigma's point. regarding mine, i'd rather go with "sensitive subjects" rather than just rape. how else can we better humanity if we don't know what we did wrong in the past?
I still think a university going "we've got a limited number of books that we can cover during the course, and this book is pretty gross and rapey, let's cover something else and maybe broach the topic of 'the quality of the work being detached from its hatefulness' or whatever we could accomplish by covering this book some other way", or something similar isn't censorship. But eh, this is one of those topics that I can disagree with and still respect the person I'm disagreeing with, so let's just agree to disagree.
True, true, but a course on poetry isn't necessarily a course on "poetry by ancient Romans that's also rapey", so in this particular instance it's not necessary to include that particular poetry book.
I just stumbled across this and I wasn't sure where else to put it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/293326897/Oberlin-College-Black-Student-Union-Institutional-Demands (http://www.scribd.com/doc/293326897/Oberlin-College-Black-Student-Union-Institutional-Demands)
Certain Oberlin students are demanding racially segregated "safe spaces," payment for protesting, immediate tenure for black professors, and the firing of faculty they don't like. Fucking surreal.
The argument that's used is that it's only a tool of oppression and racism if implemented by oppressors. If it's implemented by a marginalized group, then it's fine because they're creating safe spaces free from oppression they face everywhere else in society.
The argument that's used is that it's only a tool of oppression and racism if implemented by oppressors. If it's implemented by a marginalized group, then it's fine because they're creating safe spaces free from oppression they face everywhere else in society.
so if the majority wants to separate from the minority, it's segregation. if it's the opposite it's safe-spaces?
... i've been back from a three-day bender and i still feel i need a drink for that one.
You come back out into the real world and get on dealing with life. It's only when you spend you entire life in one or worse yet try to extend its sphere of influence to cover the entire world that it becomes a real problem.
i agree completely with you, sigma and mojo. some modicum of triage is necessary in anyone's life in order to eliminate the toxic elements of society.
nowadays, however, i get the feel a "safe space" is less "support group" and more "let's blame everyone but us for our woes". that's a bad attitude to have because it constitutes a downward spiral in human interaction. that's why i have a problem with tumblr and online communities in general. fandoms, music boards, youtube comments... it's all about belonging to the group and belittling the "plebes" and "sheeple".QuoteYou come back out into the real world and get on dealing with life. It's only when you spend you entire life in one or worse yet try to extend its sphere of influence to cover the entire world that it becomes a real problem.
you said it, not me. now check out our very own "things people say on the internet" and "wsj" threads...
So when black people come together to discuss the racism they face, they should instead... be blaming themselves for that racism? Wat? I pray I've misunderstood you.
"let's blame everyone but us for our woes"
@mojo: what happens when the idiots take over and they start hurting others? tumblr, reddit, even 4chan (to a lesser extent) encourage young impressionable teens to think that some acts are a-ok. i'm thinking of the shoplifting fandom specifically, but any racist/slut-shaming/revenge/dangerous behavior subgroup can be included.
A Laurentian University professor in Sudbury, Ont. says he has been stopped from teaching a first-year psychology class after asking students to sign off on his use of vulgar language.
Dr. Michael Persinger, a neuroscientist, said he asked students in his introductory psychology course to sign a "Statement of Understanding" during the first lecture. The statement lists a sample of words that might be used during class, and includes the F-word, homophobic slurs and offensive slang for genitalia.
"One of my techniques is to expose people to all types of different words," Persinger told CBC News. "Silly words, complex words, emotional words, profane words. Because they influence how you make decisions and how you think."
By using words in lectures that cause emotion, Persinger said he can teach students about how that affects the brain's rational processes.
Political correctness is the post-modern term for being superficially kind, and setting up invisible barriers with multiple complex levels of protocols of communication, that in the end isolate people and their ability to empathize with one another.
Look who’s complaining
Something strange is happening at America’s colleges and universities. A movement is arising — undirected by students, professors or deans but scripted, funded and promoted by people off-campus — that blames liberals for trying to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Speech codes. Trigger warnings. Safe spaces. We’ve all read and heard disturbing accounts of such measures’ ubiquity and oppressiveness on campus after campus, their students depicted as demanding them en masse and administrators as rushing to establish them.
...
Critics of the protesters are right to argue that they’re illiberal and morally wrong in trying to silence people administratively and legally simply for making sexual and racial allusions, some wholly anodyne and innocent, some even imagined by their “victims.” But the lived experience of societies is subtler and more complicated than that, and outsiders who over-dramatize liberal censoriousness on campuses are themselves deflecting attention from a deeper, often harder, reality: American college students’ intellectual and moral conformity has long been and still is preeminently a conservative goal and achievement, not a liberal imposition.
Because conseratives have such a big presence on campus, don't they?
https://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/liberals-admit-to-discriminating-against (https://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/liberals-admit-to-discriminating-against)
http://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science (http://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science)
http://theweek.com/articles/586794/where-are-all-conservative-university-professors (http://theweek.com/articles/586794/where-are-all-conservative-university-professors)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/academias-rejection-of-diversity.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/academias-rejection-of-diversity.html?_r=0)
Besides, even if that were true, it doesn't matter. If it's wrong coming from the right, then it's wrong coming from the left.
Could somebody make sense of that word salad for me? I can't even tell the point the writer of the article is trying to make, much less argue for or against it.
A movement is arising — undirected by students, professors or deans but scripted, funded and promoted by people off-campus — that blames liberals for trying to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense. Speech codes. Trigger warnings. Safe spaces.Not everything is a conspiracy funded by shady figures you don't like! Sometimes people just disagree with you!
Since 1986, the University of Oregon has housed a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. in the lobby of the Erb Memorial Union. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…”
However, this hasn’t always been the quote that filled the entrance of the EMU and there was talk of the quote changing again. The quote is not going to change, but that decision was not made without some hard thought by the Student Union Board.
The University of Oregon seriously considered removing an MLK quote for not being inclusive enough:
http://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/01/25/2438507/ (http://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/01/25/2438507/)QuoteSince 1986, the University of Oregon has housed a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. in the lobby of the Erb Memorial Union. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…”
However, this hasn’t always been the quote that filled the entrance of the EMU and there was talk of the quote changing again. The quote is not going to change, but that decision was not made without some hard thought by the Student Union Board.
The University of Oregon seriously considered removing an MLK quote for not being inclusive enough:
http://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/01/25/2438507/ (http://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/01/25/2438507/)QuoteSince 1986, the University of Oregon has housed a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. in the lobby of the Erb Memorial Union. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…”
However, this hasn’t always been the quote that filled the entrance of the EMU and there was talk of the quote changing again. The quote is not going to change, but that decision was not made without some hard thought by the Student Union Board.
The University of Oregon seriously considered removing an MLK quote for not being inclusive enough:
http://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/01/25/2438507/ (http://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/01/25/2438507/)QuoteSince 1986, the University of Oregon has housed a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. in the lobby of the Erb Memorial Union. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream…”
However, this hasn’t always been the quote that filled the entrance of the EMU and there was talk of the quote changing again. The quote is not going to change, but that decision was not made without some hard thought by the Student Union Board.
...
1) How is this a free speech in academia issue? Or was that code for "SJ-aligned college students do things I dislike"?
2) "Diversity is so much more than race. Obviously race still plays a big role. But there are people who identify differently in gender and all sorts of things like that,” sophomore architecture major, Mia Ashley said."
She is not wrong. MLK's message against racism is powerful and important, but it's not the only possible message worth sending. Why is the idea of not quoting MLK so ridiculous?
Why do you think this is a case of idiocy, exactly?
Okay, maybe that was a bad example.
But here's a campus cop outright saying it's illegal to offend people.
-snip-
Okay, so maybe I was a little harsh. However, the fact remains that you seem so... certain that we would be better off without religion...Overall, maybe I was wrong about a few things. But that doesn't invalidate my point.
I understand that maybe I was a little harsh in judging anti-theism. However, I also think you need to watch what you say around religious people.
Okay. But I still hate their ideas.
Quote from: Dynamic DragonMaybe I should amend my statements. I was harsh in insulting anti-theists. However, I strongly disagree with their ideas, just as I strongly disagree with communism, fascism, and objectivism...
I notice that you do this several times in this thread, but not only do you inevitably go back to the insults, but you're not actually admitting any fault--you never retract any claims...It reads more like an apology to yourself for not being able to handle us. Both make your numerous apologies look rather insincere, & if you corrected some of these issues, there might actually be a change in this thread...
It's not an apology. It's a request for a recess so he can collect more data and/or quietly sneak away.
It's not an apology. It's a request for a recess so he can collect more data and/or quietly sneak away.
It's neither, it's an agreement to disagree.
And are we really bringing that shit up again? Just let it die, Ironchew.
I went back and read that whole anti-theist thread. Eerily similar between UP and DD. Uncanny valley shit. You know what, I've been getting really uptight on this. I reckon UP is in fact Spuki's sockpuppet and she was DD all along.
I went back and read that whole anti-theist thread. Eerily similar between UP and DD. Uncanny valley shit. You know what, I've been getting really uptight on this. I reckon UP is in fact Spuki's sockpuppet and she was DD all along.
And I bet you're the Queen's sockpuppet! Ooh!
I went back and read that whole anti-theist thread. Eerily similar between UP and DD. Uncanny valley shit. You know what, I've been getting really uptight on this. I reckon UP is in fact Spuki's sockpuppet and she was DD all along.
And I bet you're the Queen's sockpuppet! Ooh!
Queen! You promised not to tell anyone about you sticking your hand in my arse?
Seriously though mate, I think its time to come clean.
I went back and read that whole anti-theist thread. Eerily similar between UP and DD. Uncanny valley shit. You know what, I've been getting really uptight on this. I reckon UP is in fact Spuki's sockpuppet and she was DD all along.
And I bet you're the Queen's sockpuppet! Ooh!
Queen! You promised not to tell anyone about you sticking your hand in my arse?
Seriously though mate, I think its time to come clean.
Alright, it's true. I was the one who ate the last cookie!
I went back and read that whole anti-theist thread. Eerily similar between UP and DD. Uncanny valley shit. You know what, I've been getting really uptight on this. I reckon UP is in fact Spuki's sockpuppet and she was DD all along.
I went back and read that whole anti-theist thread. Eerily similar between UP and DD. Uncanny valley shit. You know what, I've been getting really uptight on this. I reckon UP is in fact Spuki's sockpuppet and she was DD all along.
And I bet you're the Queen's sockpuppet! Ooh!
Queen! You promised not to tell anyone about you sticking your hand in my arse?
I thought he was Kiwi though.
Oh hey, something actually topical: College professor to leave evangelical school because she made a facebook post saying Christians and Muslims worship the same god (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-illinois-religion-idUSKCN0VG0OU).
Oh hey, something actually topical: College professor to leave evangelical school because she made a facebook post saying Christians and Muslims worship the same god (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-illinois-religion-idUSKCN0VG0OU).
Guess it's refreshing to see rightist extremists doing this shit.
Oh hey, something actually topical: College professor to leave evangelical school because she made a facebook post saying Christians and Muslims worship the same god (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-illinois-religion-idUSKCN0VG0OU).
Guess it's refreshing to see rightist extremists doing this shit.
*sigh*
True, but the right is who typically does it, so your comment gets a sigh.
How exactly does one source a personal perception?
How much of that happens in college nowadays? That's what I was referring to.(http://i.imgur.com/io2mXtd.jpg)
How much of that happens in college nowadays? That's what I was referring to.(http://i.imgur.com/io2mXtd.jpg)
How much of that happens in college nowadays? That's what I was referring to.(http://i.imgur.com/io2mXtd.jpg)
I was clarifying my position, not moving the goalposts. Obviously, I know right-wing idiots do all that stuff, but considering the thread was talking about present-day colleges, I thought it was clear what I was asking.
How much of that happens in college nowadays? That's what I was referring to.See above reference to Harper and Abbott, also Florida and North Carolina.
I said barely qualifies, not doesn't qualify. If the university did indeed have a policy of stopping dissenting speech directly outside it's grounds that would be deeply troubling. If it was just a flatfoot being an authoritarian ignoramus then he should know better as he's effectively representing the university in his professional role.
So, UP do you have examples of actual studies or teaching being suppressed or just the case of a single campus cop not understanding their job description?
That’s it? After months of investigation evinced by the foregoing, I must conclude: that’s it.
How could there possibly have been so much smoke and so little fire? One answer is that, if you look as closely as I have done here, there were in fact far fewer accusers of Bailey than all the noise in the press and on the Internet would have you believe. And of the accusations made, almost none appear to have been legitimate. But all of the noise of the accusations did what I suspect Conway, James, and McCloskey hoped: It distracted attention from the book’s message—that Blanchard’s theory of MTF transsexualism was right—by apparently killing the messenger. Indeed, much as Bailey would prefer not to admit it, in their leadership of the backlash against TMWWBQ, Lynn Conway, Andrea James, and Deirdre McCloskey came remarkably close to effectively destroying J. Michael Bailey’s reputation and life.
The authors also drop this bombshell: In one survey they conducted of academic social psychologists, "82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate." Eighty-two percent! It's often said discrimination works through unconscious bias, but here 82 percent even have conscious bias.
The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not.
http://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science (http://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bias-killing-social-science)Ah Pascal Emmanual Gobry, the man who declares that the Republican Party is now the party of ideas (http://punditfromanotherplanet.com/2014/03/14/pascal-emmanuel-gobry-the-republican-party-is-becoming-the-party-of-ideas-again/) again who worries that twitter is oppressing his compadre Milo Yiannopoulos (http://theweek.com/articles/598597/why-twitter-punishing-conservatives) thinks that lefties are destroying social science, hm. He cites an article entitled Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science (https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf) that does make the case that there sure are a lot of lefties in that field. The paper is not without it's critics who urge that simply establishing the presence of left wing people in a field does not establish that work in the area is impaired by their mere presence. A response to the paper entitled Political Attitudes in Social Environments (http://andrewgelman.com/2015/04/23/political-attitudes-social-environments/) describes the central fault in the article cited by Gobry.QuoteThe authors also drop this bombshell: In one survey they conducted of academic social psychologists, "82 percent admitted that they would be at least a little bit prejudiced against a conservative [job] candidate." Eighty-two percent! It's often said discrimination works through unconscious bias, but here 82 percent even have conscious bias.
The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not.
So yeah, I'd say it's a problem.
Contrary to the assertion of the authors, we have seen no evidence that social science fields with more politically diverse workforces have higher evidentiary standards, are better able to avoid replication failures, or generally produce better research. As there are no standardized ways to measure these outcomes at the disciplinary or subdisciplinary level, and as reliable data on researcher politics at the disciplinary and subdisciplinary level are scarce, there have never been—to our knowledge—any systematic attempts to examine the relationship between epistemic quality and variation in the political composition of the social-scientific community. The authors are thus calling for major changes in policy and practice based on sheer speculation.
Yeah... British tabloids aren't exactly known for their reliable and objective reporting. I'm going to withhold my outrage until there is another source besides a tabloid that openly backs an extreme right party (UKIP).
Yeah... British tabloids aren't exactly known for their reliable and objective reporting. I'm going to withhold my outrage until there is another source besides a tabloid that openly backs an extreme right party (UKIP).
Hence my reservations.
OK. That's immediately more understandable. The kid views a video about a violent extremist group and a police officer specializing in extremists grooming kids online has a discussion with the kid and his dad. Even the question about UKIP activism is acceptable in this context since it tells if he is politically active in a way that might be taken advantage of by the EDL. If the kid was a Muslim who had viewed an ISIS video and the police had asked about his religious activities and opinions nobody would have cared. The dad and the tabloid just overreact and make it sound like police is targeting UKIP.
Absolutely none of anybodies business what polically incorrect sites he looks at.
Eh, school student, college student, not that big a difference. If schools are telling kids they are not allowed to visit websites for political parties (even if it is UKIP) that does sound like an issue relating to general problems with academic freedom.Point conceded, my judgement was arbitrary and incorrect on both schools and the status of the website he was visiting.
Absolutely none of anybodies business what polically incorrect sites he looks at.
White boy looking at racist material
Deimos: Eh, it's free speech. What's the harm? It's cool. What-evs.
Refugees trying to escape ISIS to create a better life for themselves
Deimos: Too dangerous, not my concern. What-evs.
Ms Wilson said she raised her arms in disagreement after being accused by another speaker of failing to respond to an open letter, despite in fact having made efforts to contact the letter’s authors.
A complaint was made against Ms Wilson, who was then subjected to a vote on whether she should be removed from the room.
Although the vote went in her favour, with 18 people voting to remove her and 33 voting for her to be allowed to remain, she was later threatened with another complaint after shaking her head while someone was speaking.
Ms Wilson said she believed that safe space rules banning gestures of disagreement, which were drawn up under the tenure of previous sabbatical officers, were “a little extreme” and had been used as a “political” tool against her after she spoke out against anti-Semitism.
“I totally do believe in safe space and the principles behind it,” she told the Telegraph. “It’s supposed to enhance free speech and not shut it down, and give everyone a chance to feel like they can contribute.
“Safe space is essential for us to have a debate where everyone can speak, but it can’t become a tool for the hard left to use when they disagree with people.”
She said: “At that meeting we were discussing BDS, the movement to boycott Israel. I made a long and passionate speech against us subscribing to this, on the basis it encourages anti-Semitism on campus. It was only after I made that speech that someone made a safe space complaint. I can’t help but think it was a political move against me.
“Later on in the meeting, someone threatened me with a second complaint because I was shaking my head – but when I was addressing the room about my worries about Jewish students, there were plenty of people shaking their heads and nothing happened.”
Radflake Cancer. It turns universities into kindergartens by spewing cooties onto just about everybody.Except that it may be more about harassing someone for their political beliefs than actually thinking that a person shaking their head is raping you.