Freedom of speech (ideas) mean just that. I have a right to express myself and my beliefs. You do not have to listen to them, BUT, if you stop my freedom of expression, your's is next. Freedom mean just that - once you prohibit someone from expressing their thoughts, you suddenly start on the path to limit everyone's ---- like in China or any other State Controlled Society!!!!!!
11
Am I the only one puzzled by what the BLM movement actually wants? It is presented as a national movement but seems more like local groups using the collective term. Tactics differ but yelling at people, limiting speech, interrupting and not listening won't produce anything positive in the long run regardless of location.
If they're not careful, they're going to miss the opportunity to engage the country in an important conversation and will be no more effective than the Occupy Wall Street movement in the long run.
Anyone can identify issues, what is it that you want done about them?
If they're not careful, they're going to miss the opportunity to engage the country in an important conversation and will be no more effective than the Occupy Wall Street movement in the long run.
Anyone can identify issues, what is it that you want done about them?
14
I wonder what black parents tell their young adult children these days about having pride in oneself, coping in environments where they are in the minority, understanding why one is in college and realizing what is and is not important. I was at a loss when I read of the student resorting to violence when asked about her hair, asked illogical questions about the relationship between "greasy" skin and sweating and a bunch of other crap. Maybe they don't say anything to their children and that is why these sad young people react so emotionally to everything. College is no time to be overly emotional and in a state of perpetual anger. Perhaps an HBCU would be a better choice for these students to be heard?
4
The politically correct, long out of control, have now exceeded all bounds of rationality. The campus of Yale University, for example, is one of of the most liberal (and liberal Democratic) locales on the planet; something like 90% of the faculty are said to be left of center Democrats and full supporters of "diversity". It's hard to believe that members of ethnic or other minorities could feel intimidated at Yale.
And yet here we are. Instead of worrying about course work and scholarship, large fractions of the Yale community are devoting much of their time to concern about what costumes are permissible on Halloween.
I don't wish to belittle those who truly experience racism, but too many at Yale seem to enjoy painting themselves as victims.
Yes, there is racism remaining in America. But there's a lot less than there once was. It is no small observation that an African American was twice elected President of the United States by majorities of the electorate. Today, one gets the impression that the actions of many at Yale and other campuses are trivializing intolerance, and doing more harm than good.
And one must remember that the value of a Yale degree or faculty position are based on the reputation of the school in the world at large. What we are seeing today is seriously undermining the the opinion many hold of this venerable institution.
And yet here we are. Instead of worrying about course work and scholarship, large fractions of the Yale community are devoting much of their time to concern about what costumes are permissible on Halloween.
I don't wish to belittle those who truly experience racism, but too many at Yale seem to enjoy painting themselves as victims.
Yes, there is racism remaining in America. But there's a lot less than there once was. It is no small observation that an African American was twice elected President of the United States by majorities of the electorate. Today, one gets the impression that the actions of many at Yale and other campuses are trivializing intolerance, and doing more harm than good.
And one must remember that the value of a Yale degree or faculty position are based on the reputation of the school in the world at large. What we are seeing today is seriously undermining the the opinion many hold of this venerable institution.
11
What many people forget (or do not understand in the first place) is that the First Amendment right to free speech is couched in terms of what the Government may not do.
Nothing in the First Amendment applies to individual people speaking to others in their personal (not official) capacity. Some forms of extreme spech are constrained by the First Amendment, but in particular, offensive political speech is allowed. See the Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois years ago, or the Westboro Baptist Church making complete fools of themselves at military funerals.
We all have the right to act like jerks (not that such behavior is wise or merited).
As far as the students who demand "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces", my reaction is that THEY need to provide me with a trigger warning regarding their unreasonable perceptions of how I should act. That they are offended before I even speak is offensive to me. There. I said it. Deal with it.
How do these students deal with a poor grade on an exam? How will these poor babies deal with the "real world" when they grow up? Stuff, including sometimes unpleasant or horrifying stuff, happens. Do these people expect a warning before they are involved in an automobile accident? How about getting a disturbing medical diagnosis? How is that supposed to happen?
Nothing in the First Amendment applies to individual people speaking to others in their personal (not official) capacity. Some forms of extreme spech are constrained by the First Amendment, but in particular, offensive political speech is allowed. See the Nazi march in Skokie, Illinois years ago, or the Westboro Baptist Church making complete fools of themselves at military funerals.
We all have the right to act like jerks (not that such behavior is wise or merited).
As far as the students who demand "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces", my reaction is that THEY need to provide me with a trigger warning regarding their unreasonable perceptions of how I should act. That they are offended before I even speak is offensive to me. There. I said it. Deal with it.
How do these students deal with a poor grade on an exam? How will these poor babies deal with the "real world" when they grow up? Stuff, including sometimes unpleasant or horrifying stuff, happens. Do these people expect a warning before they are involved in an automobile accident? How about getting a disturbing medical diagnosis? How is that supposed to happen?
8
The leader of the Missouri student protest was actually a graduate student who was talking about white privilege when it appears his father made 8 million dollars last year and he himself is privileged. Free speech is being attacked by these paranoid students who instead of being happy to be in a great school are running around looking for reasons to be insulted. In the real world there will always be fools who say the wrong thing and they will not make it with this attitude.
Victimhood is not a pretty sight.
Victimhood is not a pretty sight.
14
When Dwight Eisenhower led Columbia University he responded to letters decrying how a representative from the American Communist Party had been invited to speak on campus. “I deem it not only unobjectionable but very wise to allow opposing systems to be presented by their proponents,” Eisenhower wrote in reply. He further warned that arbitrary refusal to allow students to hear different viewpoints, especially at their own request, set a dangerous precedent. This was 1948 in the midst of the Cold War, yet he let the speech go on. That's why it is lamentable in 2015 to see speaking engagements being revoked, journalists being prevented from covering these stories and students taking the defensive on issues of race that should be of great importance to all Americans.
American universities have always been places where our ideals of free speech have been most robust. However, self-policing and overbearing political correctness at times seem to be putting this at risk.
American universities have always been places where our ideals of free speech have been most robust. However, self-policing and overbearing political correctness at times seem to be putting this at risk.
12
Free speech does not mean you are shielded from speech. Someone might actually have a different thought or opinion than you do; deal with it.
15
"Instead of deriding trigger warnings, safe spaces and censored Halloween costumes, free speech proponents need to advance alternatives that resonate with the students they want to reach."
The author seems to be proposing that we find alternatives to free speech. I don't think I can support her on that one.
Students who insist on trigger warnings and safe spaces and banning Mariachi band Halloween costumes are simply trying to control everyone else. They want everyone else to behave the way they want us to, or else. This behavior puts them squarely in a camp occupied by the likes of Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover.
I have no desire to live in McCarthy's vision of America.
The author seems to be proposing that we find alternatives to free speech. I don't think I can support her on that one.
Students who insist on trigger warnings and safe spaces and banning Mariachi band Halloween costumes are simply trying to control everyone else. They want everyone else to behave the way they want us to, or else. This behavior puts them squarely in a camp occupied by the likes of Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover.
I have no desire to live in McCarthy's vision of America.
18
The Baby Boomers (and I'm one of them) blew it by raising overprotected, coddled children. They are seeking to extend their childhood with these ridiculous trigger warnings et al. It's our fault.
13
"A social media avalanche has now piled on a media studies professor who called for muscle' to push another photographer out of the way."
She deserves it. This (but not any of the reported threats) is EXACTLY what should happen to any university professor, regardless of field, who tries to stifle discourse and coverage of public events on a campus in such an idiotic manner.
This one's a no-brainer except for the ones with brains too controlled by group-think to think for themselves.
She deserves it. This (but not any of the reported threats) is EXACTLY what should happen to any university professor, regardless of field, who tries to stifle discourse and coverage of public events on a campus in such an idiotic manner.
This one's a no-brainer except for the ones with brains too controlled by group-think to think for themselves.
14
Re. the Yale situation. The first letter about costume choice was acceptable, and commendable. Students and young adults clearly need awareness and guidance. The "black face" and "Indian", costumes worn by some white students have been so inconsiderate and misguided as to be de facto hateful. If they didn't know, now they do.
Nowhere did it say that the students would be disciplined by the University if they chose to thoughtlessly mock and appropriate other cultures while dredging up devastating American atrocities.
What resulted- is what it is. The "Masters" response lacked compassion for the real concerns of their students and in-artfully escalated racial and cultural disagreements and divisions on campus.
The Masters were the ones coddling their students. "oh, don't you worry about those mean scary angry people of color! You go ahead and wear whatever little ethnic fun costume that sparks into your perfect little head! Don't pay any mind to those angry, sensitive people. Don't let them take any of that power you've been raised on." Yuck.
The letter urging consideration was fine. If some students still wanted to dress up in a way that their fellow students would feel hurt by, they could have, and probably did. If they were moved by the letter, well great- a strong step in healing our nation and living peacefully in a multi-cultural society!
Nowhere did it say that the students would be disciplined by the University if they chose to thoughtlessly mock and appropriate other cultures while dredging up devastating American atrocities.
What resulted- is what it is. The "Masters" response lacked compassion for the real concerns of their students and in-artfully escalated racial and cultural disagreements and divisions on campus.
The Masters were the ones coddling their students. "oh, don't you worry about those mean scary angry people of color! You go ahead and wear whatever little ethnic fun costume that sparks into your perfect little head! Don't pay any mind to those angry, sensitive people. Don't let them take any of that power you've been raised on." Yuck.
The letter urging consideration was fine. If some students still wanted to dress up in a way that their fellow students would feel hurt by, they could have, and probably did. If they were moved by the letter, well great- a strong step in healing our nation and living peacefully in a multi-cultural society!
7
Can't they just grow up? They will surely be fired the first time they run crying to HR about talk in the work place. Anyway, few of us can tolerate anyone else outside of a small circle of friends.
8
I guess coming from a former State Department PR hack, this shouldn't be surprising, but it's still amazing. Government surveillance of our communications? No biggie. Universities criminalizing activism and protest? No biggie. Universities firing professors for speech? No biggie. Government criminalizing whistle-blowing? No biggie. Government prosecuting Muslims for research? No biggie. Government surveilling religious communities? No biggie. Universities signing compacts with government limiting professors' allowed speech? No biggie. Political parties and local government controlling where news media can operate? No biggie. Corporations mandating allowed speech? No biggie.
College students arguing about speech? Paaaniiicc!!! Nossel continues to make PEN a running joke. Sad.
College students arguing about speech? Paaaniiicc!!! Nossel continues to make PEN a running joke. Sad.
6
As a 3rd generation Asian American approaching retirement age, and one who spent couple of decades in academia, I cannot helped but be surprised at events unfolding on university campuses. At one level, could the return of campus activism that we were accustomed to in the 60s and early 70s a reflection of a return of a healthier economy ?
In reading about the incidents that precipate student protests at different campuses---- protest for someone organizing a Kanye Kardashian party? others dressed up in ethnic clothing ( Sombrero and ponchos for Halloween) not their own? ( This is considered racist?), I cannot help but think that some of these kids have greater similarity to the only children in China who are used to their parents and grandparents catering to them.
Even now, I regularly entertain inquiries from folks I met recently where I am from ( Cincinnati?-- I mean, where are YOU from?), what nationality I am, and how long I have been here? Should Asians also take offense if others wear their traditional costumes such as kimonos or qipao? or pretend to be Jet Li or Jackie Chan and entertain you with their Karate chops?
In reading about the incidents that precipate student protests at different campuses---- protest for someone organizing a Kanye Kardashian party? others dressed up in ethnic clothing ( Sombrero and ponchos for Halloween) not their own? ( This is considered racist?), I cannot help but think that some of these kids have greater similarity to the only children in China who are used to their parents and grandparents catering to them.
Even now, I regularly entertain inquiries from folks I met recently where I am from ( Cincinnati?-- I mean, where are YOU from?), what nationality I am, and how long I have been here? Should Asians also take offense if others wear their traditional costumes such as kimonos or qipao? or pretend to be Jet Li or Jackie Chan and entertain you with their Karate chops?
10
I am not sure if the middle ground that Ms. Nossel is urging can be achieved in today's environment and honestly.
The problem - to me - is that tolerance, common sense, good judgment and civility - which seems to me to be the answer here, have all been thrown out the window on all sides.
My views fall squarely on the free speech side of the argument - what happened to the Master of Silliman College and his wife was shocking to watch and I have urged the President of Yale to apply appropriate disciple. And "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" are nonsense - they don't exist in the real world where we, Americans, are going to have our collective head handed to us if we do not become more competitive economically.
Real racism exists and it needs to be addressed (no, it didn't end with Obama's election or Oprah). It is beyond depressing to hear of racial death threats at Yale and Mizzou. But stifling free expression and mob rule isn't the way to combat this cancer. In fact, I'm pretty certain that it is a way of causing it to spread.
The problem - to me - is that tolerance, common sense, good judgment and civility - which seems to me to be the answer here, have all been thrown out the window on all sides.
My views fall squarely on the free speech side of the argument - what happened to the Master of Silliman College and his wife was shocking to watch and I have urged the President of Yale to apply appropriate disciple. And "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" are nonsense - they don't exist in the real world where we, Americans, are going to have our collective head handed to us if we do not become more competitive economically.
Real racism exists and it needs to be addressed (no, it didn't end with Obama's election or Oprah). It is beyond depressing to hear of racial death threats at Yale and Mizzou. But stifling free expression and mob rule isn't the way to combat this cancer. In fact, I'm pretty certain that it is a way of causing it to spread.
16
You almost had it, and then you lost it. You became to vague in the end and almost started to repeat the post-structural constitution--that rights are only political objects.
Fact is we are talking about two completely different levels--that is why it is not mutually exclusive. Ending racism can only be done within the parameters of our Constitution--which, sadly, ensures that it will continue to exist, but hopefully at the margins because of everyone's ability to contribute to hers/his own morality. This does not mean students cannot be outraged about the community they live in. They most certainly can because that is the right to ridicule at work.
It's just that changing morality and leaving to others choice tends not to feel as good as having a law. The Yale students made this clear when they said they are tired of explainig.
Fact is we are talking about two completely different levels--that is why it is not mutually exclusive. Ending racism can only be done within the parameters of our Constitution--which, sadly, ensures that it will continue to exist, but hopefully at the margins because of everyone's ability to contribute to hers/his own morality. This does not mean students cannot be outraged about the community they live in. They most certainly can because that is the right to ridicule at work.
It's just that changing morality and leaving to others choice tends not to feel as good as having a law. The Yale students made this clear when they said they are tired of explainig.
2
Yep. Why is that everyone on the left staggers for moral equivalency, when too often none exists? There is a huge difference between cursing out professors to their face, and bringing in "muscle" to keep writers and photographers away while in a public place, and many people's incomprehension and ridicule of these tactics. Free speech advocates don't need to advance alternatives to those students. They'd be better off paying for a refresher course in playing-well-with-others in nursery school and then eighth grade civics.
6
I once worked with a young black man in Los Angeles where we spent our day interacting with a lot of people (I'm not African American). Every day he saw many subtle instances of racial hostility. At first I dismissed him as oversensitive, then I thought, here is an intelligent, self-aware guy, and I am being unfair by dismissing his evident distress. While I will never fully appreciate the Black experience in America, I can certainly acknowledge his daily suffering. The injustices this guy had to put up with was as pervasive as the air. And therein lies the problem. America will eventually move beyond this. We will become a more coherent and mutually understanding society, but these are changes that require tectonic levels of movement in thought and action. This is why free speech matters. I think this is one of those issues where it is necessary to take sides, and I think the author is going out of her way not to take a side.
16
I think that this article, along with all the other texts out there framing this problem as a matter of free speech, miss the point entirely: there is no free speech whatsoever in a society with no public sphere. There is nowhere that diverse people can go in the United States to have a productive conversation. You can talk all you want, but could anyone name five things that the members of Concerned Student 1950 want to see happen? We know what they don't want—e.g., feces swastikas—but every reasonable person already doesn't want that. Movements become effective not when they reject what everyone already rejects, but when they present the public with a political program to be actualized. Part of the problem is that contemporary movements often make no effort to formulate a program, let alone share it. The other part is that there is virtually nowhere they could go to share it even if they did formulate it. Whether they physically draw a literal ring around themselves or not makes very little difference.
2
Pretty much every college and university in the United States has a "speech code." That, right there, is illustrative of the larger problem: Institutions of higher education, which should be the centers of free speech and the free exchange of ideas - including unpopular and offensive ideas - seek to limit any such exchange, thereby giving those with claims to "victimhood," be the claims legitimate or not, the unquestioned power to censor others' expression.
The imposition of penalties on those who do not or refuse to conform to the behavior mandated in such codes obviously works to squelch any expression that is outside the acceptable paradigm, thus crushing free speech and the free exchange of ideas mercilessly.
The difficulty with the recommendations made in this piece is that such an approach requires unfettered free speech on the part of both sides, which is anathema to the "victims" exercising their power to control others' behavior.
Are those arguing for speech codes and "trigger" disclaimers whining? Yes, they absolutely are. No one has the right to NOT be offended. What these are demanding is the right to only interact with people who think exactly like themselves. And that, dear Prudence, is not the real world that we live in, nor the world that college is supposed to be preparing these people for.
That this politically correct nonsense has been allowed to get to this point may be the saddest thing of all.
The imposition of penalties on those who do not or refuse to conform to the behavior mandated in such codes obviously works to squelch any expression that is outside the acceptable paradigm, thus crushing free speech and the free exchange of ideas mercilessly.
The difficulty with the recommendations made in this piece is that such an approach requires unfettered free speech on the part of both sides, which is anathema to the "victims" exercising their power to control others' behavior.
Are those arguing for speech codes and "trigger" disclaimers whining? Yes, they absolutely are. No one has the right to NOT be offended. What these are demanding is the right to only interact with people who think exactly like themselves. And that, dear Prudence, is not the real world that we live in, nor the world that college is supposed to be preparing these people for.
That this politically correct nonsense has been allowed to get to this point may be the saddest thing of all.
8
It's typically white media who don't understand the importance of respecting black spaces.— ConcernedStudent1950 (@CS_1950) Nov. 9, 2015
All of the twitter can be read in a very good article that the NYT
( excellent reporting btw) wrote 3 days ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-missouri-protesters-bloc...
But, if a reporter can't report the news because he is a white reporter, we are heading into a troubling time.
All of the twitter can be read in a very good article that the NYT
( excellent reporting btw) wrote 3 days ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-missouri-protesters-bloc...
But, if a reporter can't report the news because he is a white reporter, we are heading into a troubling time.
7
Lost in all of this is that no one is teaching these coddled students that no one has a right to not be offended. Sorry, bu the notion of "trigger warnings" and "safe places" (from speech, that is) is worthy of derision. How are these students expected to become functioning, self-reliant adults if they cannot even bear to be offended? I'm not talking about defending blatantly racist comments or the like, but these "trigger warnings" and "safe zones" extent well beyond such patently indefensible speech to encompass ANY idea or opinion they students have decided is offensive. Meanwhile, peoples' livelihoods are being threatened because the students have decided that the officials have not reacted sufficiently in the students' minds.
18
This is essentially an argument over whether some ideas are above scrutiny, questioning, and opposing views. By using blanketing terms, BLM and the UM protest movement shuts out any criticism of their movement. Accusing people that question the basis of their movements of "white privilege" and "racism" are red herrings and straw man arguments to deflect scrutiny. Additionally, these movements show a profound disregard for dialogue with the other side, and reacting to criticism of it. I am a millennial and very liberal on many issues (healthcare, the environment, markets, gay and transgender issues, gun control, European style reforms, etc.), and I do believe there is racism in this country; it is clear in some of the criticism that Obama receives. But, I can't support a movement that fails to address criticisms, fails to examine evidence, utilizes language haphazardly (institutional racism, white privilege, racism), and can't respect other's first amendment rights.
22
Free speech is a right, as are general protections against bodily harm and violence. But since when did it become a right to not be offended, to not hear things one disapproves of, to always be in a 'safe space'? Have we become so emotionally and psychologically fragile that we not only must wrap our children in bubble-wrap so they wont' scrape their knees when the fall, but we must bubble-wrap our psyches, too? 'Safe spaces' are not spaces wherein one will never hear or experience something unpleasant, but rather spaces wherein no one will be excluded or marginalized. Unfortunately, this (yes, I'll say it) immature desire to never encounter unpleasantness perverts the meaning of safe space and corrupts conceptions of free speech such that it is often no longer safe to have an intellectually honest discussion about the very problems protesters want to solve. THIS is how democracy falls.
11
It's depressing to realize that I'm old enough to have seen this all before as a college student in the 80's. Speakers shouted down, controversy in the women's studies department, political correctness taking hold, the initiation of diversity/sensitivity training and examining your own inner racism.
Some of this was good, some of it not good. The duty of today's students, academics, and administrators is to spend some time studying history to see what worked and to not repeat the mistakes of 30 years ago.
Some of this was good, some of it not good. The duty of today's students, academics, and administrators is to spend some time studying history to see what worked and to not repeat the mistakes of 30 years ago.
3
Ms. Nossel's approach is civilized but unrealistic, the same approach taken by a Yale master, who was threatened and condemned for an e-mail asking students to talk out their differences. I wonder if Ms. Nossel has read Erika Christakis' e-mail, which does exactly what she asks for in this column, and still students demanded Ms. Christakis' resignation.
One aspect not mentioned in these protests is that the protestors refuse to take yes for an answer. If you try to reason with them even if you agree with them, it isn’t enough. They insist on interpreting what you say negatively because it suits their purpose. The protestors are refusing to listen and to engage with anyone who may disagree with them. They are proscribing speech and they must be called out for it regardless of their motives.
Free speech means being able to call something stupid when you think it is stupid and to debate and argue freely without one side calling for the other’s head or having them banned from campus. It doesn't always have to be nice, it should be respectful, but sometime it will be lively, heated, and laced with sarcasm and even ridicule. There is nothing wrong with that. Listening means being able to hear things you don’t like without condemning the speaker and acting like a hothouse flower.
One aspect not mentioned in these protests is that the protestors refuse to take yes for an answer. If you try to reason with them even if you agree with them, it isn’t enough. They insist on interpreting what you say negatively because it suits their purpose. The protestors are refusing to listen and to engage with anyone who may disagree with them. They are proscribing speech and they must be called out for it regardless of their motives.
Free speech means being able to call something stupid when you think it is stupid and to debate and argue freely without one side calling for the other’s head or having them banned from campus. It doesn't always have to be nice, it should be respectful, but sometime it will be lively, heated, and laced with sarcasm and even ridicule. There is nothing wrong with that. Listening means being able to hear things you don’t like without condemning the speaker and acting like a hothouse flower.
10
“Without the media the civil rights movement would have been like a bird without wings” - John Lewis, rights activist and Democratic congressman from Georgia.
What would have been much better then in those days of yesteryear in order to serve democracy, and what is definitely needed now to salvage it is a hawk with talons at the ready. It's easy for the Suzanne Nosssels to write about "simmering racial tensions" when the simmering has been going on for more than 100 years and the bloodshed never stopping. It's 2015 and BLACK LIVES MATTER shows how easily for America to renege, to continue its dance of one step forward for freedom for all and 10 steps back.
What would have been much better then in those days of yesteryear in order to serve democracy, and what is definitely needed now to salvage it is a hawk with talons at the ready. It's easy for the Suzanne Nosssels to write about "simmering racial tensions" when the simmering has been going on for more than 100 years and the bloodshed never stopping. It's 2015 and BLACK LIVES MATTER shows how easily for America to renege, to continue its dance of one step forward for freedom for all and 10 steps back.
" The restrictions they seek would not be imposed by the government, or even necessarily the university administration, but by the students themselves."
Sounds like anarchy to me.
The most "offended" and the "most" thuggish will win. And Mob Views will change daily depending on the mood of the mob at any particular time.
Thank God for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Sounds like anarchy to me.
The most "offended" and the "most" thuggish will win. And Mob Views will change daily depending on the mood of the mob at any particular time.
Thank God for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
10
Anti-free-speech Progressive totalitarianism is the result of decades of Affirmative Action and the resultant plethora of propagandist multicultural departments on college campuses. These two developments, not aborted, are degrading the quality of higher education, letting those with lesser cognitive abilities rule the roost, based on irrationality and emotions. Our nation's competitors are laughing.
11
It's not surprising to me that the subject has changed.
The protests seemed ill-focused. It's all about message, but the message was allowed to fray at the edges. Racism was the original issue in Missouri, but the football team's threatened boycott made it about money. They have piled up bodies, but to what enduring effect? And what possessed them to bully reporters?
Beyond that, the reporting seemed under-done. It should have seemed more of a process. But a lot seems to have been accepted at face value -- the whole issue of Tim Wolfe's "tone deafness" for instance -- and little intellectual rigor was brought to the table.
That's unfortunate. There are many issues on college campuses (racism not least among them) and a genuine appetite for student empowerment and involvement. That seems the over-arching theme.
Some will argue that the messy details don't matter. And they are not wrong. It's not -the- story.
But it's a story.
And I don't think we've seen -the- story yet.
The protests seemed ill-focused. It's all about message, but the message was allowed to fray at the edges. Racism was the original issue in Missouri, but the football team's threatened boycott made it about money. They have piled up bodies, but to what enduring effect? And what possessed them to bully reporters?
Beyond that, the reporting seemed under-done. It should have seemed more of a process. But a lot seems to have been accepted at face value -- the whole issue of Tim Wolfe's "tone deafness" for instance -- and little intellectual rigor was brought to the table.
That's unfortunate. There are many issues on college campuses (racism not least among them) and a genuine appetite for student empowerment and involvement. That seems the over-arching theme.
Some will argue that the messy details don't matter. And they are not wrong. It's not -the- story.
But it's a story.
And I don't think we've seen -the- story yet.
2
The narrowmindedness and intolerance in academia today frightens me. Not just because I will be sending my two children into that environment some day, but because these students are being coddled and poorly guided by the adults around them. The suppression of free speech is contrary to the notion of the free exchange of ideas, tolerance and academic freedom. I don't blame these young people. I blame the adults around them who should know better.
14
When you say "Be Heard", what you really mean is "Wield Power". Being heard in this context means having one's demands met. That's why the protesters are not content with speaking, but must block opposing speech. They want to be heard to the exclusion of all other points of view.
16
A padded cell with a straightjacket on is perhaps the safest space on earth.
5
NYT writes: ".....potent threats to free speech these days come not from our government or corporations, but from our citizenry". Not really, certainlly not the citizenry. Rather it's being fermented by the liberal academia who are promoting "anything goes" type of behavior, with PC the king, and every little slight, real or imagined, a cause for demonstrations.
And finally it has come down to attacks on the first amendment. Who taught these students that in order to avoid the little slights they have a right to impose on free speech? Haven't they learned in the institutions of higher learning that free speech means tolerating those who say things you don't like? And in fact, advocating their right to say them?
No, it's not the citizenry which encompasses the entire nation. It's the academia, which represents a special interest group.
And finally it has come down to attacks on the first amendment. Who taught these students that in order to avoid the little slights they have a right to impose on free speech? Haven't they learned in the institutions of higher learning that free speech means tolerating those who say things you don't like? And in fact, advocating their right to say them?
No, it's not the citizenry which encompasses the entire nation. It's the academia, which represents a special interest group.
4
If these young people were going to school and protesting in the south side of Chicago, where last week a 9-year old boy was lured into an alley and murdered by gang members for revenge against his father, then I would take their fear more seriously. Being frightened by a bunch of Ozark redneck classmates yelling the n-word is puerile, but it certainly offers a great opportunity for campus theatre in the age of selfies.
As to the elevated class consciousness of the football players, the two big time athletic programs I know from firsthand experience had the most cossetted students on campus who enjoyed separate study facilities and had personal tutors paid to make sure they work up in time for classes and did their homework and provided them with online papers and tests to use a "models" for their coursework. Where's the "equal opportunity" in that set up?
As to the elevated class consciousness of the football players, the two big time athletic programs I know from firsthand experience had the most cossetted students on campus who enjoyed separate study facilities and had personal tutors paid to make sure they work up in time for classes and did their homework and provided them with online papers and tests to use a "models" for their coursework. Where's the "equal opportunity" in that set up?
7
As Mr. Justice Brandeis noted, free speech does not convey the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Therefore, no speech is "free," as has been demonstrated in all countries, societies and cultures. Minority expression that offends the majority, racial and religious baiting (see Charlie Hebdo), insults directed at one's parents, etc., all theses have brought forth reactions, occasionally violent ones.
The real issue, one that Ms. Nossel ignores, is that historically it has been the Right, representing majoritarian conservative opinion (Robespierre, an exception) that had been the threat to free speech, which is why the US Constitution was amended to provide protection against the power of the state to curb free expression of opposing views. Today, the greatest threat to free expression comes from the thought police on the Left.
Romney was ridiculed, and rightly so, when he suggested that illegal immigrants should "self-deport" themselves. Yet is seems perfectly okay for groups of late adolescents and developmentally arrested hangers on to "self-segregate" into enclaves of like-minded thinkers and doers, thereby sparing themselves the trouble of having to defend and advocate their positions to those who are not similarly like-minded.
Minority students demanded access to segregated universities. Now they seem to want to attend segregated ones. Have we come full circle?
The real issue, one that Ms. Nossel ignores, is that historically it has been the Right, representing majoritarian conservative opinion (Robespierre, an exception) that had been the threat to free speech, which is why the US Constitution was amended to provide protection against the power of the state to curb free expression of opposing views. Today, the greatest threat to free expression comes from the thought police on the Left.
Romney was ridiculed, and rightly so, when he suggested that illegal immigrants should "self-deport" themselves. Yet is seems perfectly okay for groups of late adolescents and developmentally arrested hangers on to "self-segregate" into enclaves of like-minded thinkers and doers, thereby sparing themselves the trouble of having to defend and advocate their positions to those who are not similarly like-minded.
Minority students demanded access to segregated universities. Now they seem to want to attend segregated ones. Have we come full circle?
2
This Yale issue is being unfairly lumped in with the other free speech debates. It is important to note that Yale Halloween costume memo did not prohibit anyone from expressing themselves and just explained that cultural appropriation can be viewed as offensive. In other words, you can do whatever you want, just be aware of the consequences. When people took umbrage with this, they were not fighting for free speech, but consequence free speech. Furthermore, it is okay for an outsider to disagree, but when a Yale administrator does it, it sends the message that casual racism is tacitly accepted on campus, which is at odds with the role of a College Master.
1
Some of the protester antics on display this week at the University of Missouri defied not just First Amendment rights, but -- also remarkably -- the basic tenets of maturity and adultness. Those in our society who are rational and levelheaded are increasingly surrounded by bumbling idiots.
Take, for instance, the professor who, having joined the protest, quickly demanded "muscle" to disperse journalists and photographers. As a teacher, this person -- by her unconscionable tirade -- instantly blighted her image, as well as the university's. And here's the kicker: She teaches in the Communications department.
Take, for instance, the professor who, having joined the protest, quickly demanded "muscle" to disperse journalists and photographers. As a teacher, this person -- by her unconscionable tirade -- instantly blighted her image, as well as the university's. And here's the kicker: She teaches in the Communications department.
9
No one has the right to be heard. Everyone should have the right to speak One of the great evils that grew out of the 1960s and has gained momentum is the equating of speech with action. Being upset by not nice words is not pleasant but is not the end of the world.
One should remember that rappers and Black comedians claim the right to use the N word. There was a time when Our Bodies Ourselves was banned as obscene. The attack on pin-ups and the like are just anti-male nonsense masquerading as harassment.
One should remember that rappers and Black comedians claim the right to use the N word. There was a time when Our Bodies Ourselves was banned as obscene. The attack on pin-ups and the like are just anti-male nonsense masquerading as harassment.
2
"When I was young and twenty....
...But I was one-and-twenty,
No use to talk to me."
What I would like to see are informed students -- not masked ones (wearing scarves that were once symbolic of the PLO...wonder if he knows it?), and absolutely not violent ones. Speak your mind indeed, but make that speech worthwhile, and make it as fair and just as those outcomes you demand.
...But I was one-and-twenty,
No use to talk to me."
What I would like to see are informed students -- not masked ones (wearing scarves that were once symbolic of the PLO...wonder if he knows it?), and absolutely not violent ones. Speak your mind indeed, but make that speech worthwhile, and make it as fair and just as those outcomes you demand.
6
Jon Ronson's TED talk "when online shaming gets out of control" is an example of silencing those you don't like. I recently read of a petition to stop a lecture at Cardiff University by Germaine Greer because the students were opposed to her take on transgender women. Listening to the other side does funny things... you may change your opinion, or if not, it forces you to refine and focus the reasons why you believe as you do. Without an open marketplace of ideas, we become a nation of zealots to our whatever group's "talking points" we've aligned ourselves with. This is not the sort of country I want to live in.
4
"On the contrary, the United States does a better job fostering coexistence between individual liberty and respect for minorities than nearly any other society."
I'm guessing the author hasn't been on the internet lately. I am a white woman (as is Suzanne Nossel) and I feel like there is very little respect for minorities. There is an outpouring of hate in this country--which, in my opinion, has come flooding into the open now that we have a black man as president, which is deeply threatening to many people. I'm hoping this is a last gasp of the haters, but I think these students are overwhelmed and threatened, and just trying to deal with the reality of a very, very racist society. America does not hit that "coexistence" unless you live in certain neighborhoods of certain urban communities. I'm not sure what America Suzanne Nossel lives in, but she seems very naive.
I'm guessing the author hasn't been on the internet lately. I am a white woman (as is Suzanne Nossel) and I feel like there is very little respect for minorities. There is an outpouring of hate in this country--which, in my opinion, has come flooding into the open now that we have a black man as president, which is deeply threatening to many people. I'm hoping this is a last gasp of the haters, but I think these students are overwhelmed and threatened, and just trying to deal with the reality of a very, very racist society. America does not hit that "coexistence" unless you live in certain neighborhoods of certain urban communities. I'm not sure what America Suzanne Nossel lives in, but she seems very naive.
4
Sorry, but nobody is "entitled to be heard". You have the right to free speech but nobody has to listen. You also do not have the right to not be offended by other's speech.
14
FREE SPEECH vs prior restraint. Many cases historically on the freedom of the press to publish material that the government believes to threaten national security have shifted ground fundamentally these days. One such question arose in the case of the publication of the pentagon papers stolen from government files by Daniel Ellsberg and the right of the news media to publish those documents. The media argued that prior restraint was not permissible due to the freedom of speech and a free press. He prevailed.
But Ellsberg would not prevail today. In the case of Edward Snowden, his documents were deemed to be a threat to national security and he there is a standing warrant for his arrest, though he is in a country that does not have an extradition agreement with the US, Russia. One can scarcely imagine a place less likely to permit him to exercise free speech!
In the 60s, the protests were accompanied by more than civil disobedience, occupying university buildings and shutting down classes. While the nonviolence of Martin Luther King was sincere, the films of the treatment in Selma Alabama of brutal response by government ignited the Civil Rights Movement. Had either side been censored, the historic impetus to act would not have evolved.
Still I object to Hallowe'en costumes such as those of students dressed as Palestinian terrorists, sitting next to a grinning the President, Amy Gutmann, who, probably Jewish, should know better, embracing a culture of violence!
But Ellsberg would not prevail today. In the case of Edward Snowden, his documents were deemed to be a threat to national security and he there is a standing warrant for his arrest, though he is in a country that does not have an extradition agreement with the US, Russia. One can scarcely imagine a place less likely to permit him to exercise free speech!
In the 60s, the protests were accompanied by more than civil disobedience, occupying university buildings and shutting down classes. While the nonviolence of Martin Luther King was sincere, the films of the treatment in Selma Alabama of brutal response by government ignited the Civil Rights Movement. Had either side been censored, the historic impetus to act would not have evolved.
Still I object to Hallowe'en costumes such as those of students dressed as Palestinian terrorists, sitting next to a grinning the President, Amy Gutmann, who, probably Jewish, should know better, embracing a culture of violence!
1
If we spent more time talking face to face with friends, family, and neighbors about our fears, our hopes, and the events in our lives that make us joyful and sorrowful, instead of sending out and following 140 character messages or group herded onto social media platforms to become indistinct and superfluous content contributors, the hard discussions we need to have about who we are and what we are would be possible and forthcoming.
3
'...The Missouri protesters have hearteningly awakened to this point, standing up for the photographer whom they had shunned...'
Now they have, but only because they were called out on it and realized that how they looked to everyone reflected their true intent.
No one has the right to live their lives without ever hearing a 'hurtful' word and the fact that so many students believe otherwise, with the support of their teachers, is chilling. That their first demand for the resignation of the university president was blatantly racist, but the 'correct' kind of racism, is frightening.
Now they have, but only because they were called out on it and realized that how they looked to everyone reflected their true intent.
No one has the right to live their lives without ever hearing a 'hurtful' word and the fact that so many students believe otherwise, with the support of their teachers, is chilling. That their first demand for the resignation of the university president was blatantly racist, but the 'correct' kind of racism, is frightening.
16
"Now they have, but only because they were called out on it and realized that how they looked to everyone reflected their true intent."
Right. That's called learning.
Right. That's called learning.
3
Was it really necessary for the individual in the photograph to be masked and covered up like some anarchist or rioter? Just from a PR standpoint alone, this looks pretty offensive.
12
You are 100% wrong about "free speech defenders will not win by dismissing students as insolent whiners". The white electorate is still holding at 70% and a huge majority deeply resent these kinds of attempts to suppress free speech. Couple that with the inane chatter about white privilege (from Yale and state college students!?!) and vague demands for special treatment. Just a few months ago, I thought that the GOP was soooo extreme and such a clown car that the Democrats had a really good chance of winning. But this is the sort of thing that plays so easily into the hands of the right-wing. Also, unlike many young adults, older people actually vote -- especially older white people. Don't be surprised to see the very un-safe-space world of a Republican backlash victory in 2016.
14
As an professor I prefer the world where we all can speak and nurture the ability to debate, understand and deal with what's said. Hurt feelings are worth that because the pain will be transient while the lesson lasts for ever. It's our responsibility to ensure that the environment stays nurturing and not destructive so the pain is indeed, transient and the lessons last. Clearly that's been failing on some campuses. Leadership is what's tested both among students, faculty and administrators. I might submit that student leadership fails when the f-bomb is screamed (Yale). The administrative leadership fails when the campus goes on strike (Mizzou).
8
Colleges have brought 2 of their biggest problems on themselves by trying to protect students--sexual assault and free speech. Colleges would do well to completely recuse themselves from these issues. There are certain kinds of speech that are not constitutionally protected:obscenity, fighting words, slander, libel, child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to illegal acts etc.. Some of the speech at U of Mo. clearly represents fighting words, and therefore is illegal. As a legal matter, and just as with sexual assault, colleges should immediately refer any alleged victim to the police to investigate the incident. If a student is found guilty, then the student-perpetrator can be punished by the school. Otherwise the school should stay out of the matter. When schools interfere in these matters they cloud the issues, and open themselves to accusations of favoring one side or the other, and may make terrible mistakes like suspending lacrosse players who were later proved innocent, protecting a football player accused of rape, or not supporting a victim of a racial epithet. The police and courts are experienced in handling criminal cases, schools are not. Furthermore, if there is any place in America where even offensive free speech should be tolerated and even encouraged it is in institutions of higher learning. The whole tenure process was brought about to protect free speech, and yet there is no place in America where free speech is less protected--shameful!
6
Who's "entitled" to be heard? Clearly, white students have always been heard and listened to. Now white students are confronted with a reality they were not raised to consider: The world and its opportunities do not belong just to them. They always fall back on the 1st amendment, which oddly always applies to their freedom of expression, but no one else's. Let's listen to the black students for a change. And maybe learn something. White isn't the default position, by any means.
3
This is a bunch of hogwash...The forcing out of the University President on the premise that he didn't do enough to respond to "systemic racism" is nothing short of preposterous. I have seen no photos of the swastika that was supposedly scrawled on a building. A student using a racial slur is not "systemic racism". Because some fool went on a hunger strike doesn't make him right. Please find and show the proof of "systemic racism" before you cost people their jobs and careers. Time for these kids to toughen up and take responsibility for their lives.
16
I still can't get over the image of mostly white supporters forming a "safe space" around the tents of the mostly black Concerned Student 1950. What we didn't see was the perceived stressor that motivated the protectionist. Were some students upset about how they were being portrayed? Subjected to leading questions, or forced to defend their list of demands? We may never really know, but one thing is clear: video and quotes from before and after the media ban show Concerned Student 1950 as eloquent, powerful, and perfectly capable of bearing the burden of free speech to achieve true progress.
Professor Click et al didn't just deny the journalists' first amendment rights, they dampened the speech of Concerned Student 1950. Jenna Basler went a step further by misidentifying herself as a member, and speaking on behalf of "their" rights to privacy, to an education, to live--a white woman standing in the way of the public hearing directly from the genuinely marginalized students.
Safe spaces silence the speech that needs to be heard the most. No one suffers more than the students themselves, who are denied the difficult and important task of facing difficult issues head on. who truly benefits from this safe space, and what are the long term costs of the short term sense of safety?
Professor Click et al didn't just deny the journalists' first amendment rights, they dampened the speech of Concerned Student 1950. Jenna Basler went a step further by misidentifying herself as a member, and speaking on behalf of "their" rights to privacy, to an education, to live--a white woman standing in the way of the public hearing directly from the genuinely marginalized students.
Safe spaces silence the speech that needs to be heard the most. No one suffers more than the students themselves, who are denied the difficult and important task of facing difficult issues head on. who truly benefits from this safe space, and what are the long term costs of the short term sense of safety?
5
The author's thinking is muddled. She talks about two "sides" but never clearly defines the core issue separating the two sides, and therefore is able to say both sides are wrong. Nope. It seems to me that those seeking "safe places" want to restrict speech. There are those of us who oppose those kinds of restrictions on speech. We're right. They're wrong. Whether or not I'm sensitive to the concerns of those seeking "safe places" (and I very much am) is irrelevant to the issue of under what conditions (if any) is it appropriate to restrict speech.
8
Why is it that the defenders of free speech carry the burden of explaining that to the protesters? Why isn't the burden on the protesters?
11
Shouting down people you disagree with, forcing commencement speakers to decline invitations to speak, blocking the press from doing its job, claiming a personal grievance because of a phrase in a book or costume/article of clothing - this is the mob undermining free speech. I thought the university was about experiencing, understanding and debating ideas that are unfamiliar or maybe even abhorrent to you. There are no "safe spaces" from ideas, nor should there be.
I was recalling the legal battle over the American Nazi Party's right to march in Skokie. kokie attorneys argued that for Holocaust survivors, seeing the swastika was like being physically attacked. The following is from Wikipedia
"The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words." Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march."
We appear to have come a long way in our view of free speech - at least at Yale and U of M.
I was recalling the legal battle over the American Nazi Party's right to march in Skokie. kokie attorneys argued that for Holocaust survivors, seeing the swastika was like being physically attacked. The following is from Wikipedia
"The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute "fighting words." Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march."
We appear to have come a long way in our view of free speech - at least at Yale and U of M.
14
Our universities engage in institutionalized racism in the admission process by discriminating as a matter of policy against Whites and Asians, yet what we hear about from radicalized students and professors is an alleged hostile environment toward minorities, usually without any verifiable specifics, and how others must shut up so that they can shout their grievances. If they were really concerned about racial discrimination in general, they would direct their ire against racial preferences.
9
The protestors are not the powerless. On the contrary, they protest because they are powerful. When you have the football team behind you at a football school, and when you have the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights behind you to cut off your schools funding if the university punishes you for breaking the rules, you have virtual impunity to shout down other voices, intimidate journalists, and demand resignations from those who fail to actively support you, even if there was nothing they could have done about the things that originally made you angry, like off-campus people insulting you, however deplorably, using their First Amendment rights. This is not about underprivileged students seeking to be heard over their powerlessness. It is about the peculiar dynamics of American higher education, where black students protesting racism and female students alleging rape not only can be heard, but must be heard and complied with. All are equal, but some are more equal than others.
6
You write, "but must be heard and complied with. "
That is really why the University President had to resign because he couldn't "comply" with Demand 1 of the Concerned Student 1950 group:
"I. We demand that the University of Missouri System President, Tim Wolfe, writes a handwritten apology to the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrators and holds a press conference in the Mizzou Student Center reading the letter. In the letter and at the press conference, Tim Wolfe must acknowledge his white male privilege"
http://www.kmbc.com/blob/view/-/36332870/data/1/-/202nsaz/-/-PDF-Concern...
That is really why the University President had to resign because he couldn't "comply" with Demand 1 of the Concerned Student 1950 group:
"I. We demand that the University of Missouri System President, Tim Wolfe, writes a handwritten apology to the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrators and holds a press conference in the Mizzou Student Center reading the letter. In the letter and at the press conference, Tim Wolfe must acknowledge his white male privilege"
http://www.kmbc.com/blob/view/-/36332870/data/1/-/202nsaz/-/-PDF-Concern...
5
Maybe these "minority" students should be looking in the mirror and trying to figure why so many black kids function so poorly in high school, and why so many of them are no where near college-ready. They should be going into schools and tutoring their brethren, as well as asking black men why they abandon their children. These things should come before their blaming of "society" for their problems.
12
I'm sorry, but when a young adult whines that s/he wants to only talk about how hurt and damaged s/he feels because somebody writes an email saying that students should choose their own Halloween costumes and that if anyone is offended they should tell the offender, that is not a "well founded concern". That is childish narcissism. And that everybody else should just shut up and let that person inflict their preferences on everybody else is fascism.
20
From this distance it looks like the difference between the adults at Mizzou and Yale is as follows: Coach Pinkel backed his kids, the Stillman House "masters" didn't back theirs. Pinkel couldn't have been deaf to the racial taunts his players finally got sick of hearing, and he understood their intention to go on strike. The Yale house deans, mindful of the demeaning Halloween caricatures and other provocations, simply called for a polite discussion. Might the lingering prep school-grad dominance at Yale have something to do with it?
7
I think you are trivializing what the Christakises did. They were not calling for polite discussions in the face of potential offensiveness, but asking students to engage with the real world.
I have gotten into trouble with my wife whenever I've opined that "Learning is a traumatic process." I used to say this about my son soon after he was born, but have been browbeaten out of repeating it. By this I mean that real learning and real lessons are acquired through some pain - physical, intellectual, emotional, whatever. I almost stabbed myself in the eye with a steak knife and have since learned to use a knife; I studied engineering in college and have since discovered that my understanding of many of the things I learned were at a superficial level and am trying to re-learn them with greater clarity; I've been told my bad behavior hurt people - a very difficult thing to listen to - and I have learned to modulate same.
There is nothing safe or painless about learning, and by exention there is nothing safe or painless about being in college. If we throw into a bucket all the things that college is supposed to be: Halloween, growing up, learning how to succeed and learning how to fail, free speech, and throw in "being safe" for good measure, none of these things can or should take place in a hermetically sealed safe-room. There is danger everywhere. Learn from it, embrace it, turn it around and use it to your advantage. I think that is what the Christakises were saying.
I have gotten into trouble with my wife whenever I've opined that "Learning is a traumatic process." I used to say this about my son soon after he was born, but have been browbeaten out of repeating it. By this I mean that real learning and real lessons are acquired through some pain - physical, intellectual, emotional, whatever. I almost stabbed myself in the eye with a steak knife and have since learned to use a knife; I studied engineering in college and have since discovered that my understanding of many of the things I learned were at a superficial level and am trying to re-learn them with greater clarity; I've been told my bad behavior hurt people - a very difficult thing to listen to - and I have learned to modulate same.
There is nothing safe or painless about learning, and by exention there is nothing safe or painless about being in college. If we throw into a bucket all the things that college is supposed to be: Halloween, growing up, learning how to succeed and learning how to fail, free speech, and throw in "being safe" for good measure, none of these things can or should take place in a hermetically sealed safe-room. There is danger everywhere. Learn from it, embrace it, turn it around and use it to your advantage. I think that is what the Christakises were saying.
3
I am an immigrant to this country and several issues related to the recent events in the UMissou bother me.
1. The request of black students for a "safe space" is in reality a request for racial segregation. I suspect that many white people in Missouri would be glad to grant black people such a space under one condition - just stay there, do not come out.
2. A university is NOT a free society. Young people pay for the right to be there. A university does not belong to students but to a the state or to a Board of Trusties. There are rules in any university: you brake them and you are out. Students-football players are accepted to a university free of charge under a simple condition - they must play when told. You go on strike - and you are immediately dismissed.
1. The request of black students for a "safe space" is in reality a request for racial segregation. I suspect that many white people in Missouri would be glad to grant black people such a space under one condition - just stay there, do not come out.
2. A university is NOT a free society. Young people pay for the right to be there. A university does not belong to students but to a the state or to a Board of Trusties. There are rules in any university: you brake them and you are out. Students-football players are accepted to a university free of charge under a simple condition - they must play when told. You go on strike - and you are immediately dismissed.
12
They do have their own building btw, a Black Culture Center, so honestly they could have just gone there and shut the door on the young Asian kid who was reporting the news.
4
This is a good moment to re-read George Orwell's "Animal Farm."
Describing the difficulties that he had finding a publisher for the book in the 1930s, given the pro-Soviet tilt of the English "enlightened" intelligentsia, Orwell explained "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.... Things are kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervenes but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact."
What is old is new again. It is not true that "free speech proponents need to advance alternatives that resonate with the students they want to reach." Free speech proponents owe no one an explanation.
Describing the difficulties that he had finding a publisher for the book in the 1930s, given the pro-Soviet tilt of the English "enlightened" intelligentsia, Orwell explained "The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.... Things are kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervenes but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact."
What is old is new again. It is not true that "free speech proponents need to advance alternatives that resonate with the students they want to reach." Free speech proponents owe no one an explanation.
10
Undoubtedly, there are "haters" out there. But the problem is that to acknowledge virtually any difference among genders or ethnic groups or sexual preferences or whatever is to be labelled a "hater." To me, differences should be celebrated not homogenized and/or ignored. Pity that we live in a world where "my" difference is always considered superior to "your" difference. In that kind of world resolution among different groups is almost impossible because in that kind of world resolution means that we must lie to ourselves and to each other, not a good prescription for success.
2
We are truly witnessing the modern day equivalent of The Crucible. Common sense and decency means nothing as mob rule and political agendas control all. Unless a genuine independent candidate and not a far right or far left one gains office this will only get worse. Would have hoped Sanders was that guy but his apparent fear of those shouting him down sadly means he is not.
10
Minority students have a right to air their grievances. One complaint I have about the airing of grievances, however, is that many people feel that it is "safe" to only air grievances about white people. It remains taboo, for example, for Asians to discuss the racial prejudice they feel on and off campus from African-Americans. African-American and Hispanic students generally do not feel "safe" discussing the tensions between their communities. Any white student who complains about every less-than-cheery interaction with a person of color being viewed through the lens of racism is usually met with derision.
Diversity training and racial dialogue are typically confined to the white - black racial paradigm. America is far too diverse for such an outdated construct, and in order for real change to take place, people of ALL races must feel comfortable and empowered in discussing their thoughts and feelings.
Diversity training and racial dialogue are typically confined to the white - black racial paradigm. America is far too diverse for such an outdated construct, and in order for real change to take place, people of ALL races must feel comfortable and empowered in discussing their thoughts and feelings.
10
What a waste of time and space. So many things to say and points to make and the author touches none of them. How did this drivel make the cut?
6
This story reminds me a Stephen Covy's quote: “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. If you're like most people, you probably seek first to be understood; you want to get your point across. And in doing so, you may ignore the other person completely, pretend that you're listening, selectively hear only certain parts of the conversation or attentively focus on only the words being said, but miss the meaning entirely.”
Freedom of speech is precious, but not in a deaf society.
Freedom of speech is precious, but not in a deaf society.
7
Surreal hysteria is a an appropriate way to describe the outrage over innocuous sleights and at worst tasteless Halloween costumes. An uninformed student asking an Asian looking peer where they were born is not racism. And even if it were civil discussion is the appropriate response.
16
Isn't the real problem that minorities do not feel comfortable within the predominantly white campuses ? The specific incidents are sporadic, but the feeling of being outcast may be chronic. Just opening the doors and punishing specific instances of hate is probably not as helpful as organizing events that encourage real community.
7
The thing the all sides including Suzanne Nossel are missing is REASON.
Without reason free speech is like a loaded gun with a hair trigger & no safety in the hands of a curious toddler in a room full of highly explosive materiel that might trigger a nuclear reaction if set off.
Apply reason and all problems become solvable and or manageable.
Without reason free speech is like a loaded gun with a hair trigger & no safety in the hands of a curious toddler in a room full of highly explosive materiel that might trigger a nuclear reaction if set off.
Apply reason and all problems become solvable and or manageable.
1
Abolish "affirmative action."
Without race-based preferences in admissions, there would be fewer under-prepared, under-ready, under-qualified students and fewer demands for "safe spaces" and other accommodations for under-prepared, under-ready, under-qualified students.
Without race-based preferences in admissions, there would be fewer under-prepared, under-ready, under-qualified students and fewer demands for "safe spaces" and other accommodations for under-prepared, under-ready, under-qualified students.
11
For years, the right has had their own media, and have assailed the "MainStream Media (MSM)" as hopelessly biased, to the point that it merits being ignored. This is effective because it creates a standard where any media reports that contradict right-wing propaganda can immediately dismissed, while media reports that are favorable to the right must be so obviously true and important that even the biased media had to report it.
This sort of thing has always existed on the left, but has been embraced by a larger and larger number of people in recent years. Left-wing websites depict the MSM as hopelessly catering to the whims of heterosexual white males, whose views can easily be dismissed as racist. Terms like "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining" are used to exclude unwanted contradictions to left-wing argumentation. "Safe space" must be created so women, gays, and people of color can be protected from the awfulness of not-agreeing-with-them (or, so that alternative views can be excluded).
The direction of this country presently is toward a reduced exchange of ideas, less rigorous debate, and growing hostility. And the left and the right are equal partners.
This sort of thing has always existed on the left, but has been embraced by a larger and larger number of people in recent years. Left-wing websites depict the MSM as hopelessly catering to the whims of heterosexual white males, whose views can easily be dismissed as racist. Terms like "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining" are used to exclude unwanted contradictions to left-wing argumentation. "Safe space" must be created so women, gays, and people of color can be protected from the awfulness of not-agreeing-with-them (or, so that alternative views can be excluded).
The direction of this country presently is toward a reduced exchange of ideas, less rigorous debate, and growing hostility. And the left and the right are equal partners.
2
At University of Missouri the actions of a few of its students and the completely cowardly response of its administrators in not facing up to them have killed the school. It is application season. Who in their right mind would want to apply to this school? What parents in their right mind would want to send their kids to this school? What talented teachers would want to teach there? What alumni would wish to donate to this school? What now is the value of a degree from this school?
14
Could we please stop calling what is happening at the University of Missouri "racial tension" and stop acting as if there are two sides/viewpoints that need to be aired to cover this story. What has gone on at Missouri is active racism, pure and simple. Students are being harassed, insulted and threatened because of the color of their skin. Certain members of the community who feel that they belong there are telling other members of the community that they are not welcome there. The University Administration failed to take any action. The targeted students have responded. This is a bogus article trying to conflate whatever is going on at Yale and a discussion of "trigger" warnings with bald-faced, intimidating racism in order to ignore the climate of actual racism and white entitlement that exists at Missouri. The "N word" - I think we can all agree it is a little more than a "trigger."
19
Jackie, "racial tension" I think is the reverse PC term to not offend the white people who think this isn't a big deal. They only think it's a big deal if lynchings, cross-burning and colored only signs come back, apparently. Just look at the doubt pointed to any account about racial incidents at a school with a history of segregation in a segregationist state where the first black student was only admitted in 1950.
Yes, it is racism. However, it is not structural in any sense from what I've read. That means it has a completely different analysis because we are talking about an authority suppressing students speech.
It's not that both sides are wrong; it's that both sides should have been more civil and respectful, and thought more before writing. As a Yale alum, I read all the letters and watched all the videos recently, and my overall reaction is disappointment in all sides. Disappointed that neither the Intercultural Affairs Council nor the associate Silliman master thought more before writing [about Halloween costume advice and the criticism of it, respectively]. They both should have thought about Yale's longstanding policy of free speech that is embodied in the 1975 Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale ["the Woodward report", http://yalecollege.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/woodward_report.pdf]. The Woodward report is is a road map on how to honor free speech even when it seems wrong or offensive to you. Both IAC and the associate master could have expressed themselves better, and they should have considered the Woodward report's guidance first. Free speech in a university community should also be civil and respectful; students and faculty are not identical to citizens at large; they have rights, responsibilities, limitations and privileges that are unique to the setting. But speech that crosses over into wrongful or illegal conduct is not protected and should be punished - whether it's racial discrimination at an event, a hate crime, or otherwise. Both IAC and the associate master did a disservice to Yale with their remarks.
1
I read the email composed by the associate Master and I found it thoughtful and respectful, as well as grounded in her own academic research, which offered an interesting, relevant perspective.
I'd be interested in knowing what specifically about her email disappointed you.
I'd be interested in knowing what specifically about her email disappointed you.
6
The most important diversity, is the diversity of opinion. The college students described in the news seem terribly afraid of an opinion that does not validate their pre-conceived notions. This is detrimental to their education and crippling to their attempt in the future to get jobs.
8
"free speech proponents need to advance alternatives that resonate with the students they want to reach".
Hold up! Are we arguing or debating for our constitutional rights now? We need to justify these rights to college students?
Hold up! Are we arguing or debating for our constitutional rights now? We need to justify these rights to college students?
9
I wonder if young people have trouble distinguishing the press from every day trolls because they both come out of the same magic phone and are now inexorably linked through comments sections. How this shapes debate and perceptions on the value of free speech is an issue worthy of further exploration.
6
This op-ed is trying for 'balance', and sometimes balance is called for. But sometimes balance is just bland capitulation.
The students are in the wrong on this one, and all of us should state this clearly. What has been going on in our colleges and universities is an embarrassing failure of school administrators to stand up against the pressures of liberal activists.
It won't be corrected by 'balanced reason'. What we need is strength, resolve, and a firm adult voice.
The students are in the wrong on this one, and all of us should state this clearly. What has been going on in our colleges and universities is an embarrassing failure of school administrators to stand up against the pressures of liberal activists.
It won't be corrected by 'balanced reason'. What we need is strength, resolve, and a firm adult voice.
8
"safe space" and "trigger warnings" and "censored halloween costumes" finally, finally, the NYT has seen the light regarding the absolutely ridiculous political correctness movement. Sorry, but "insolent whiners" sums it up admirably, and it allowed to continue unchecked and cheered on by the hard left it will ultimately ruin this country.
10
Answer: Everyone.
Seriously, these 'students' are reminding more and more of the Chinese Red Guard.
As you can see in the Yale video, step 1 has been accomplished: "Dehumanize your enemy."
She is seen telling her superior that he is 'disgusting' and should not be able to sleep at night, because he won't issue the demanded utterances of apology.
It may seem extreme, but it's not too difficult to imagine the compliance (at the very least) of these students in dragging those deemed unworthy from their homes to publicly denounce their thoughts as 'Anti-Progressive'
Seriously, these 'students' are reminding more and more of the Chinese Red Guard.
As you can see in the Yale video, step 1 has been accomplished: "Dehumanize your enemy."
She is seen telling her superior that he is 'disgusting' and should not be able to sleep at night, because he won't issue the demanded utterances of apology.
It may seem extreme, but it's not too difficult to imagine the compliance (at the very least) of these students in dragging those deemed unworthy from their homes to publicly denounce their thoughts as 'Anti-Progressive'
17
What a mishmash piece. "The restrictions they seek would not be imposed by the government, or even necessarily the university administration, but by the students themselves and the anonymous armadas of online ostracizers who might rally to their cause." Totally untrue - those advocating for want the administration or government to enforce their desires and impose their views on everyone else.
Why must colleges "acknowledge" the supposed concerns of many of these fringe demands? The fact that a small group makes unreasonable demands does not mean that they must be granted.
Since when are college athletes, especially football teams, not "cosseted"? These student athletes are treated as if they are celebrities and heroes and pampered, tutored, excused, etc. There is no nobility to their involvement nor are they entitled to any more consideration of their views than anyone else on or off campus.
Why must colleges "acknowledge" the supposed concerns of many of these fringe demands? The fact that a small group makes unreasonable demands does not mean that they must be granted.
Since when are college athletes, especially football teams, not "cosseted"? These student athletes are treated as if they are celebrities and heroes and pampered, tutored, excused, etc. There is no nobility to their involvement nor are they entitled to any more consideration of their views than anyone else on or off campus.
9
Free speech vs. repressive tolerance, is that what we are being offered? Giving up any right to free speech, no matter how hurtful, is a slippery slope. I am a white person who has travelled far and wide and have had all sorts of epithets thrown my way from passing cars just because I was a white foreigner. Yes it stings at the moment but what is quickly understood is that it has nothing to do with me. It is not Lure D. Lou who is being insulted it is some ghost in the other person's head...If we want to insulate ourselves from the harsh reality of the world because we are afraid of being hurt by it we have already lost. Fear Eats the Soul is an expression of great power and significance. The work that needs to be done is to create a disciplined mind that never gets fixed on fear. When I read these stories all I see are hordes of very scared people on both sides of the issues. Their 'debate' will go nowhere. You can not legislate against fear or hatred. You can set up a system to punish people for saying the wrong thing. North Korea, Iran and the Islamic State do it all the time.
9
I was recently talking to one of my children's old high school friends, a young woman who now attends a highly selective college. She relayed this experience:
In the course of a conversation with some fellow students she didn't know very well, she referred to another person (who wasn't present) as "she," not knowing that this person preferred to be called by some made-up pronoun. Not only was she corrected, but she was also clearly expected to apologize, even grovel. Instead, she said something to the effect of "how was I to know" and "I have better things to do than memorize random pronouns for people I don't even know."
At this point her own friends took her aside and told her to shut up, supposedly for her own good. "If you cross those people, you're finished here," they told her. - "those people" being the students who enforce various speech codes, shut down any speaker who doesn't please them, and vigorously "out" any student or professor viewed as not with their program.
This is bullying pure and simple.
In the course of a conversation with some fellow students she didn't know very well, she referred to another person (who wasn't present) as "she," not knowing that this person preferred to be called by some made-up pronoun. Not only was she corrected, but she was also clearly expected to apologize, even grovel. Instead, she said something to the effect of "how was I to know" and "I have better things to do than memorize random pronouns for people I don't even know."
At this point her own friends took her aside and told her to shut up, supposedly for her own good. "If you cross those people, you're finished here," they told her. - "those people" being the students who enforce various speech codes, shut down any speaker who doesn't please them, and vigorously "out" any student or professor viewed as not with their program.
This is bullying pure and simple.
30
Is Mario Savio still dead? Have we heard this narrative before?
This makes both sides look equally culpable. What a joke. This is essentially about people who want free speech and a free press; and an intellectual exchange of ideas (with the best rising to the top); versus those who want to use raw power to oppress and villainize all those who don't agree with their radical liberal thoughts. This is not a close contest and the author should be ashamed of making it seem so.
11
Many of these students and many of the most liberal educators on our campuses are products/initiators of a mindset/parenting that has advocated for and encouraged a rather strange phenomenon - a generation that has grown up free from any bullying, free from germs, free from stress, free from many social interactions that even may include kid games that require some appropriate physicality (dodge-ball, tag, etc.). A generation has now made its way to the universities. To paraphrase George Will, "They are like little, delicate snowflakes, ready to melt when confronted by positions and thoughts and ideas different from their own". Free speech is a core fundamental of what it means to be an American. These students and professors who deny this most basic of American concepts obviously missed some very important life lessons in their formative years. The world is a messy, competitive and complicated place. Your ideas will be heard and maybe even enacted, but not if you demand silence and then, only if you make a better argument.
9
There was no censoring of Halloween costumes. There was a suggestion that students not be racist when choosing their costume. A white professor defends the rights of white students to be as racist as they like. She's free to write her email; the students are free to find her email abhorrent, and to suggest she no longer be in charge of "nurturing" them as a house master. That's free speech.
1
"A white professor defends the rights of white students to be as racist as they like."
Did we read the same email?
" if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are hallmarks of a free and open society,”
Did we read the same email?
" if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are hallmarks of a free and open society,”
8
So this is where all those kids I've seen being picked up at their suburban bus stops, by waiting tinted window SUVs end up, when they go off to college.
6
This piece reads as if the writer were simply trying to placate both sides. The students who are angry over racism on campus have noble - and essential - goals, but the bully tactics being used are ultimately counter-productive. If you watch the videos of the Missouri confrontations, you see a President surrounded by students who won't allow him to speak, then decry him for not doing so. They simply scream over everything he tries to say, so he walks away. It's very clear they're not interested in his words - he has already been judged.
There is also a disturbing attention-grabbing element to these behaviors, fanned by the anonymous lurkers on social media. But
bullying and intimidation get us nowhere; you may get rid of a President, but you won't affect the racists. All you are doing is pushing their vile beliefs further underground, when what you want is an environment where these beliefs can be expressed, challenged and prevailed upon to change. And if you can't do that at a university, then where?
There is also a disturbing attention-grabbing element to these behaviors, fanned by the anonymous lurkers on social media. But
bullying and intimidation get us nowhere; you may get rid of a President, but you won't affect the racists. All you are doing is pushing their vile beliefs further underground, when what you want is an environment where these beliefs can be expressed, challenged and prevailed upon to change. And if you can't do that at a university, then where?
13
The First Amendment was never intended to shield people from the social consequences of their speech.
32
The usual PC drivel in this opinion piece. Let's make sure we don't offend anyone or come to some kind of adult truth or judgment on the matter. Oh, brother. There should be no censorship or thought police, that should be a given.
Every person regardless of race has prejudices. Every individual (and every group) has their own shortcomings and frailties.
If you want to talk about the failings of one group, fairness and honesty should require we talk about those of your group.
Let's support every uncomfortable truth being put on the table, including all of those that you and I would just as soon not talk about. It will make us all squirm at times, black and white, but maybe then people will be motivated to change themselves.
That's the only change any of us can actually effect in the end. When individuals change, then the world changes - it doesn't happen in reverse. Personal choices, actions and accountability should be emphasized.
Every person regardless of race has prejudices. Every individual (and every group) has their own shortcomings and frailties.
If you want to talk about the failings of one group, fairness and honesty should require we talk about those of your group.
Let's support every uncomfortable truth being put on the table, including all of those that you and I would just as soon not talk about. It will make us all squirm at times, black and white, but maybe then people will be motivated to change themselves.
That's the only change any of us can actually effect in the end. When individuals change, then the world changes - it doesn't happen in reverse. Personal choices, actions and accountability should be emphasized.
4
Ms. Nossel is, as others have said, pretty far off base. "Protesters" can't "PROTEST" if there isn't freedom of the press and freedom of speech. NO ONE would pay attention to them. Without freedom of speech and the press - and the Internet for that matter (try social media protests in China sometime) - the police would simply lock them up and their concerns would never make the censored news media. As that icon of human rights John Lewis said, the civil rights movement of the 1960s would never have happened at all without freedom of speech and the press. No print and TV news, no Selma March, no Freedom Riders, no March on Washington, no million people singing "We Shall Overcome." There were no "safe spaces" on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. So no, the two sides are nowhere near equal. Protesters who ask for censorship are not merely biting the hand that feeds them, they're biting off their own arms and legs.
7
Trigger warnings and 'safe spaces' amount to intellectual baby sitting. If you can't take the intellectual heat, get out of university system. Plus, why can't the protesters just look away from offensive costumes and ignore them?
On the other side, why can't there be a way to report uses of racist epithets and other such actions? Don't punish the entire university community for the actions of a few.
When you support things like trigger warnings and safe space you are elevating your group above the rest. Any true egalitarian will realize that this does not support equality.
Personally I believe that the Black Lives Matter movement and similar movements are a product of self victimization (making their own in-group the victims of outside groups, at least in their minds) inside the African-American community, similar to what we see in the Evangelical Christian political landscape. That sort of self victimization is dangerous because it causes the self victimized group to become immune to facts and statistics, and to blindly support things that may or may not help the group.
On the other side, why can't there be a way to report uses of racist epithets and other such actions? Don't punish the entire university community for the actions of a few.
When you support things like trigger warnings and safe space you are elevating your group above the rest. Any true egalitarian will realize that this does not support equality.
Personally I believe that the Black Lives Matter movement and similar movements are a product of self victimization (making their own in-group the victims of outside groups, at least in their minds) inside the African-American community, similar to what we see in the Evangelical Christian political landscape. That sort of self victimization is dangerous because it causes the self victimized group to become immune to facts and statistics, and to blindly support things that may or may not help the group.
9
Those who wish to conduct this debate on the basis of whether or not speech can be regulated are missing the real danger in these events. The progressive movement consists of self-appointed arbiters of the American human experience. It rejects the notion that government power must be circumscribed by the Constitutional protections for private property, free association and individual liberty. Progressives assert the unbridled power to dictate how wealth must be divided, how natural resources may be used, how people must perceive each other, which sexual behaviors must be accepted, and the list goes on. The progressives' problem with speech is merely their resentment that anyone has the audacity to disagree with them.
This piece argues that we should applaud the the Yale and Mizzou progressives because they are working eradicate unfairness and inequity. Because she has been captured by her own logic, she fails to understand that she and her friends on the left cannot define the world or predetermine human outcomes to dictate what everyone must agree is fair. Nor does she get to subvert my freedoms to have everything come out the way she would prefer things.
The scary part of all of this is that this has become so well-engrained among our youth. In my early adulthood, everything was about freedom. Today, our youth is being educated to fear freedom and to bow to the dictates of others, enforced by the manufactured consensus of social media. Freedom First!
This piece argues that we should applaud the the Yale and Mizzou progressives because they are working eradicate unfairness and inequity. Because she has been captured by her own logic, she fails to understand that she and her friends on the left cannot define the world or predetermine human outcomes to dictate what everyone must agree is fair. Nor does she get to subvert my freedoms to have everything come out the way she would prefer things.
The scary part of all of this is that this has become so well-engrained among our youth. In my early adulthood, everything was about freedom. Today, our youth is being educated to fear freedom and to bow to the dictates of others, enforced by the manufactured consensus of social media. Freedom First!
8
The ultimate goal of a protest is to educate. What good is protesting if the only ones who see it are those protesting? They are already convinced. To try to stop photographers and reporters from dissimilating the point of the protest is counter-productive. That is not a protest, but an outlet for anger. Let's call it what it is. Now, that is not necessarily a bad thing. People need an outlet for the anger and frustrations. But to effect change, educating those who do not understand the point you are making is essential. Let's hope these undertakings make the necessary changes to turn into true protests to educate the country on the racial and social dissonance we have.
2
This piece neatly captures the essence of the issues facing Yale and other universities - the attempt to create safe environments free from troubling events has instead created atmospheres where every slight, every uncomfortable encounter is blown way out if proportion. There is a huge difference between on-going, systemic discrimination and stupid, senseless and juvenile actions by some ridiculously immature idiots. The former must be addressed and corrected, the latter should be met with blank stares and perhaps the finger. The difficulty for millennials is that they've been fed a diet of "your feelings matter, your perception is valid and everyone must acknowledge that feeling/perception" rather than being taught that actually, "honey, in this instance your feelings don't trump the greater society". The road out of this situation will be painful for all but we need to find a balance between free speech and the right to be an idiot and being safe.
3
There is a huge difference between Yale and Mizzou (and no I'm not talking about the fact that you are guaranteed admission to Mizzou with a 24 on your ACT).
The issues here are relevant to Yale and the discussion of what a private institution that values free speech may choose to do and what a public institution like Mizzou must do whether it wants to or not.
Mizzou can't punish or ban speech just because it is hurtful or hateful. Only if the speech is accompanied by actual threats to harm or is so pervasive against a specific person that it amount to criminal harassment (irrespective of its content) can a public University seek to quash that speech through punishment or regulation.
The issues here are relevant to Yale and the discussion of what a private institution that values free speech may choose to do and what a public institution like Mizzou must do whether it wants to or not.
Mizzou can't punish or ban speech just because it is hurtful or hateful. Only if the speech is accompanied by actual threats to harm or is so pervasive against a specific person that it amount to criminal harassment (irrespective of its content) can a public University seek to quash that speech through punishment or regulation.
1
"Food for thought" may be a cliché but I think this article may indeed warrant some self-reflexion in a quiet place, "far from the madding crowds".
In adolescents the prefrontal cortex is not yet fully formed and thus children and teens lack the control over impulses that adults have. To clear the path to learning, adults sometimes need to act as an artificial prefrontal cortex.
In adolescents the prefrontal cortex is not yet fully formed and thus children and teens lack the control over impulses that adults have. To clear the path to learning, adults sometimes need to act as an artificial prefrontal cortex.
3
The big thing that a lot of these students aren't "hearing" is that there is NO right NOT to be offended.
If some form of expression offends you, your response is another form of expression. NOT the demand that the others NOT have their form of expression in the first place.
If some form of expression offends you, your response is another form of expression. NOT the demand that the others NOT have their form of expression in the first place.
18
There is no 'safe space' in the real world. The safest you get is a marketplace of ideas where the merit of the given idea is it's strength, not the censorship of alternative ideas.
19
Great writing. Loved the phrase "anonymous armadas of online ostracizers ". I guess these are the "new nattering nabobs of negativism." Understanding how the former took power from the latter over the last 20 years is the key to the whole thing. Foucault's ideas about power are certainly looking prescient these days, aren't they?
2
In my freshman year of college, they gave me John Stuart Mill's On Liberty to read http://www.bartleby.com/130/
Mill explains why the only way of finding the truth is to listen to all sides, and evaluate the merits of their argument.
Too bad Hillary Clinton didn't do that before she voted to allow the war in Iraq.
Mill explains why the only way of finding the truth is to listen to all sides, and evaluate the merits of their argument.
Too bad Hillary Clinton didn't do that before she voted to allow the war in Iraq.
3
This article is vague and ahistorical, offering equal handling of 2 viewpoints, only one of which is valid. It's similar to the media, under the guise of "balance," treating right wing radicalism's attempt to stifle free speech as both serious and valid. The author fails to offer historical context, but we've seen this before, most recently during the college campus "Feminist Sex Wars" of the 1980s. That schism among feminists was instigated by Catherine MacKinnon who used her radical critique that the First Amendment was nothing but a tool of male privilege to justify strict codes of campus speech. Markedly, restrictions on women's speech were more draconian. They were given a 'script,' highly limiting the things they could say in the presence of men. Campus wide speech codes banned any form of speech which might subjectively seem offensive, labeling it as discriminatory speech. The campus codes were struck down as violating the First Amendment. Critics of that attempt to stifle all campus free speech noted that MacKinnon simply borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones. The massive number of feminists alarmed by the prohibition of free speech on college campuses regarded the movement as not merely wrongheaded, but highly regressive and destructive. The same can be said for the current movement. It does nothing to secure individual safety while prohibiting everyone from exercising their fundamental rights.
9
We all know that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to anything but the federal and state government. But we also know censorship is wrong for a reason and that the values underlying the 1st Amendment—that viewpoints should not be restricted by the powerful or the merely loud, that free debate results in a refinement of thought, that conventional wisdom was and will always continue to be proven wrong and should be challenged by open debate, and even the liberal conception of individualism—are important regardless of whether a restriction is the product of state action. The liberty of thought could, for instance, by restricted by a monopolistic media company, and that could be just as problematic as government censorship.
And of course one of the most important places to encourage the free exploration of ideas is the university. For instance, many cherished liberal values were at some point in the past just some unpopular radical ideas debated at a university.
All of this being said to emphasize the point that we must be vigilant against private censorship of ideas, whether by the PC-crowd imposing some centralized orthodoxy, internet shaming of people who express different points of view or other means of private coercion. It is all bad and all dangerous.
And of course one of the most important places to encourage the free exploration of ideas is the university. For instance, many cherished liberal values were at some point in the past just some unpopular radical ideas debated at a university.
All of this being said to emphasize the point that we must be vigilant against private censorship of ideas, whether by the PC-crowd imposing some centralized orthodoxy, internet shaming of people who express different points of view or other means of private coercion. It is all bad and all dangerous.
6
rare clarity of thought; I will share this with my HS seniors...
1
"The Missouri protesters have hearteningly awakened to this point, standing up for the photographer whom they had shunned."--No, they have not "stood up for the photographer" they harassed and threatened--they simply realized they had committed a serious PR blunder and were caught out as hypocrites and did a rapid backtrack worthy of a politician whose real thoughts are caught on tape without his realizing it.
32
"The pendulum has to swing to both sides before it can settle in the middle." I heard this in a high school English class many years ago (and I have never forgotten it, Mrs. Eddington).
After decades and centuries of discrimination and a colossal lack of concern for the safety and feelings of minority groups and others who have been abused, the pendulum is swinging to the other side. Now there is a loud backlash that is getting a lot of media attention, shifting the pendulum's middle back towards insensitivity and lack of compassion.
This is exactly what you would expect in a society that has a hard time believing and dealing with claims of racism/discrimination/abuse. You would expect the focus to be on how the already powerful class is inconvenienced by this push for change.
Which is the more harmful problem, a few examples of over-zealous protesting and demands that infringe on free speech -- or life-threatening racism? We haven't heard much about the background that led MIssouri's protests.
At Missouri, protestors have received death threats, people are holed up afraid in their dorm rooms, and a professor sent an email trivializing their fears. The racist backlash at Missouri proves the protestors' point, yet it gets little coverage. Instead we are hearing about the travails of college professors who have to suffer over trigger warnings.
Let the pendulum swing a little.
After decades and centuries of discrimination and a colossal lack of concern for the safety and feelings of minority groups and others who have been abused, the pendulum is swinging to the other side. Now there is a loud backlash that is getting a lot of media attention, shifting the pendulum's middle back towards insensitivity and lack of compassion.
This is exactly what you would expect in a society that has a hard time believing and dealing with claims of racism/discrimination/abuse. You would expect the focus to be on how the already powerful class is inconvenienced by this push for change.
Which is the more harmful problem, a few examples of over-zealous protesting and demands that infringe on free speech -- or life-threatening racism? We haven't heard much about the background that led MIssouri's protests.
At Missouri, protestors have received death threats, people are holed up afraid in their dorm rooms, and a professor sent an email trivializing their fears. The racist backlash at Missouri proves the protestors' point, yet it gets little coverage. Instead we are hearing about the travails of college professors who have to suffer over trigger warnings.
Let the pendulum swing a little.
20
I am not clear that we are, fully, a society that has a hard time believing claims of racism/discrimination/abuse. We have laws in place to protect people around these issues, we have funds to support them (which can be abused), and we have school systems who publicly state and behave as if those ideas are unacceptable (as they should be). We are not a society refusing this information; we are a society dealing with it. At least that what it looks like to me, on the front lines as an educator.
5
The University of Missouri Cleary Act report shows only a single racial bias incident over the past six years. It doesn’t state the race of the victim in the 2012 incident. The death threats have been posted on Yik Yak, a social media smartphone application used nationwide that has no connection with the University of Missouri and is notorious for bullying message and threats generated by adolescents who have no intention of acting on their threats. The app is banned in many public school districts. Anyone who would hole up in a dorm because of Yik Yak threats deserves ridicule.
2
The pendulum of free speech should never settle in the middle. It will always stay put on the side of total freedom as defined by our laws.
2
If you can't hear someone speak how do you know if you agree with them or not? My problem with the safe spaces is that instead of hearing or reading something and then deciding if you are offended they try to protect students from hearing anything controversial or upsetting. Who is deciding before hand what is o.k. to hear? That is censorship and undemocratic.
14
Agreed. My problem with safe spaces is that the concept runs counter to a university's mission, which is to prepare young people for the real world. Students who believe they have a right to be protected from uncomfortable ideas are in for rude shock when they have a job and a boss.
3
The problem centers around the (difficult to define) concept of "safe spaces." I saw during the NY Occupy encampment that many were stretching that demand (or newly created right) to mean that any dissenting position was regarded as an affront to the "safe spaces" being asserted by others.
Similarly in Missouri their "safe space" campaign (probably brought in by advisors from the east coast) led them to several situations which were really denying others their constitutional rights of expression.
Similarly in Missouri their "safe space" campaign (probably brought in by advisors from the east coast) led them to several situations which were really denying others their constitutional rights of expression.
1
I guess it's actually a good thing that these kids have lived comfortably enough to get this far in life and still worry about halloween costumes and trigger warnings. Who even thought of the latter, by the way? Amazing. I must be jaded. With a high human development index, we've reaped what we've sown. I'm not sure if I can wrap my head around being happy for them but it's better than real hardship no matter how distasteful it is.
7
One of the ironies of racially integrated campuses today is the social isolation of minority historical experiences as a given on American campuses. Blacks are not on most white campuses because they fled oppression somewhere abroad but because the fight to get their education was against institutions like the ones they attend. Who else cares about that but them?
Ms. Nossel's title"Who is Entitled to be Heard?" omits historical burdens many minority students bring with them on most mostly white campuses. The more apt question acknowledging what the students feel here ought to be "Who hears what I feel?"
That the United States is more tolerant of diverse opinions than other countries is an old response segregationist often used to defend the status quo against disruptive protests. When the first black students were admitted to many previously racially segregated universities, they were not welcomed by white university administrators, local police, politicians, church leaders, and the smug heads of cultural organizations dependent on the financial support of such authorities.
Minority grandchildren enrolled at mostly white campuses may then view their presence there through the historical experiences of their parents. And what may seem to whites like an ordinary news event involving white and black conflicts outside the campus, over time, indeed, can make many of them feel as isolated on campus as it really was for their parents, or grandparents.
Ms. Nossel's title"Who is Entitled to be Heard?" omits historical burdens many minority students bring with them on most mostly white campuses. The more apt question acknowledging what the students feel here ought to be "Who hears what I feel?"
That the United States is more tolerant of diverse opinions than other countries is an old response segregationist often used to defend the status quo against disruptive protests. When the first black students were admitted to many previously racially segregated universities, they were not welcomed by white university administrators, local police, politicians, church leaders, and the smug heads of cultural organizations dependent on the financial support of such authorities.
Minority grandchildren enrolled at mostly white campuses may then view their presence there through the historical experiences of their parents. And what may seem to whites like an ordinary news event involving white and black conflicts outside the campus, over time, indeed, can make many of them feel as isolated on campus as it really was for their parents, or grandparents.
2
What we seem to be witnessing at Yale and other campuses is the ironic intolerance of those who feel they are not tolerated; the minority dictating the terms of dialogue to the majority: I speak; you must listen. You speak; I tell you to shut up. Progressive thought reaps the wind.
21
This is perfect. Sums it all up: "the ironic intolerance of those who feel they are not tolerated."
Progressive thought may have something to do with this, but not only. We live in a world where the dissemination of information is highly fragmented and in which very little thoughtful conversation between people who disagree is taking place, so that students come to college with few useful models of thoughtful intellectual exchange. Look at the political discourse: even people within a party talk at rather than to one another.
All too often students come to college thinking a discussion (or a paper) should be modeled after what goes on in debate teams: an argument is something one must win. Not true: an argument is something that, if entered into correctly, might actually lead me to reconsider my initial position.
First-year students must often take a writing course. They should perhaps also be taught how to interact in a seminar situation so that view points are heard and disagreements expressed in respectful and productive ways. Students too often say nothing, not necessarily because they don't care or don't have an opinion, but because they are not confident they have the necessary conversational skills and are worried about saying "the wrong thing." In such situations, everybody loses.
All too often students come to college thinking a discussion (or a paper) should be modeled after what goes on in debate teams: an argument is something one must win. Not true: an argument is something that, if entered into correctly, might actually lead me to reconsider my initial position.
First-year students must often take a writing course. They should perhaps also be taught how to interact in a seminar situation so that view points are heard and disagreements expressed in respectful and productive ways. Students too often say nothing, not necessarily because they don't care or don't have an opinion, but because they are not confident they have the necessary conversational skills and are worried about saying "the wrong thing." In such situations, everybody loses.
We free speech advocates have never questioned BLM's and the campus first amendment assassins' right to be heard. We hear them loud and clear- they have some valid points but as to the First Amendment they are wrong, clearly wrong. So creating an equivalence between free speech defenders and this misguided group of youngsters who lack sufficient introspection to see their own Orwellian follies is again wrong, clearly wrong.
Ms. Nossel- If the title of your article is asking "Who Is Entitled to be Heard?", you're already headed in the wrong direction because the answer to that question is so self-evident. There is only one side in this conflict that is refusing to let the other side be heard and your rhetorical game of trying to make right and wrong be the same thing doesn't wash.
Ms. Nossel- If the title of your article is asking "Who Is Entitled to be Heard?", you're already headed in the wrong direction because the answer to that question is so self-evident. There is only one side in this conflict that is refusing to let the other side be heard and your rhetorical game of trying to make right and wrong be the same thing doesn't wash.
19
As the Soviet Union learned, extortionate censorship does not work. Immediately the USSR fell, after 70 years of totalitarian power, the Orthodox Church re-bloomed and the capitalist attitude flowered (including the crime aspect). Old attitudes had never died because they had been forcefully suppressed.
Only voluntary attitude changes have staying power, like those of the sixties, when old white men (who had virtually all the power), led by a Southerner president, passed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, because it was the right thing to do.
Simple solution, ignored by many these days: take Dr. King's dream to heart and judge people by the content of their character.
Only voluntary attitude changes have staying power, like those of the sixties, when old white men (who had virtually all the power), led by a Southerner president, passed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, because it was the right thing to do.
Simple solution, ignored by many these days: take Dr. King's dream to heart and judge people by the content of their character.
5
In today's Times there is also a piece called "Why has distrust of media grown".
And I look at the tile of this contribution and see the word "entitled". So, a right has become an entitlement and entitlements have become rights.
Perhaps the "trust" column and this one by Ms. Nossel should cross-reference each other.
And I look at the tile of this contribution and see the word "entitled". So, a right has become an entitlement and entitlements have become rights.
Perhaps the "trust" column and this one by Ms. Nossel should cross-reference each other.
5
The author misses the point entirely. These people are not interested in "moral standing." They are interested in power. I invite you to read the history of Russia in the teens or Germany in the twenties to understand where these people intend to go. When the Left takes power, you and I, Ms. Nossel, will be the first ones to be lined up and machine gunned into a ditch.
9
Everyone has the right to speak because we should never trust any individual or group to decide what views shouldn't be expressed.
The false assumption behind the attempts to restrict campus speech is that a view that you disagree with creates "violence," "invalidates" some students' very existence, and causes "trauma." Students at Yale wrote that the thoughtful and nuanced email critiquing the administration's Halloween edict made them unable to function academically. They demand that the university protect them from feeling "hurt" and "pain."
It is striking that students' focus is on their own internal feelings. Meanwhile, in the world outside academia we have potentially catastrophic problems that demand our attention: the worst income disparities since the 1920's; disappearing jobs, a dwindling middle class and entrenched poverty; an unparalleled refugee crisis in the Middle East; and in many countries, slave labor and the truly violent state oppression of women. Time for students to look beyond how they feel. Millions of people, even close to home, have much
The false assumption behind the attempts to restrict campus speech is that a view that you disagree with creates "violence," "invalidates" some students' very existence, and causes "trauma." Students at Yale wrote that the thoughtful and nuanced email critiquing the administration's Halloween edict made them unable to function academically. They demand that the university protect them from feeling "hurt" and "pain."
It is striking that students' focus is on their own internal feelings. Meanwhile, in the world outside academia we have potentially catastrophic problems that demand our attention: the worst income disparities since the 1920's; disappearing jobs, a dwindling middle class and entrenched poverty; an unparalleled refugee crisis in the Middle East; and in many countries, slave labor and the truly violent state oppression of women. Time for students to look beyond how they feel. Millions of people, even close to home, have much
17
And our institutions contribute to this. On the home page of the New York Times this morning there is an article apparently discussing the "feelings" of the journalists who have been covering the migration crisis. Why on earth should the feelings of the journalists be thought to be newsworthy, or at all relevant to the issues? I'm sure the journalists felt bad at seeing the suffering of people. But is that revelation that they feel bad when confronting suffering supposed to be at all informative, or at all relevant to the public policy questions?
1
I suspect that the racist statements at University of Missouri have come from a small minority among whites. The president and other administrators at University of Missouri should have mobilized the student body to repudiate racist statements, but they failed to do so.
Racism is an assault not only against people of color, but against anybody who values political and social equality. Those of us who hate racism and bigotry have not only a right, but an obligation to speak for equality. Defense of equality can be an effective defense of civil liberties, including free speech and a free press, especially if it takes the form of clear and decisive statements made by a strong majority.
Everybody ought to be offended by racism and bigotry, no matter when and where they occur. If we do not speak up against racism, and demand that administrators and leaders do so as well, we will be left to feel threatened and vulnerable in our own schools and workplaces.
Racism is an assault not only against people of color, but against anybody who values political and social equality. Those of us who hate racism and bigotry have not only a right, but an obligation to speak for equality. Defense of equality can be an effective defense of civil liberties, including free speech and a free press, especially if it takes the form of clear and decisive statements made by a strong majority.
Everybody ought to be offended by racism and bigotry, no matter when and where they occur. If we do not speak up against racism, and demand that administrators and leaders do so as well, we will be left to feel threatened and vulnerable in our own schools and workplaces.
17
"I suspect that the racist statements at University of Missouri have come from a small minority among whites." Based on what evidence? There have also been well documented cases involving minority students faking such situations in order to generate a response.
Does every situation, even a fairly minor one where no is hurt, really call for mobilizing students? Why must everything be allowed to immediately demand a full on response? I don't think that this or another school really leaves much doubt that they oppose or tolerate racism. There are myriad rules and policy statements to that effect. Making more demands for mobilization or protests at each any every minor infraction just makes a joke out of the whole issue.
Does every situation, even a fairly minor one where no is hurt, really call for mobilizing students? Why must everything be allowed to immediately demand a full on response? I don't think that this or another school really leaves much doubt that they oppose or tolerate racism. There are myriad rules and policy statements to that effect. Making more demands for mobilization or protests at each any every minor infraction just makes a joke out of the whole issue.
2
The underlying problem is that we can never completely eliminate racist displays. There will always be someone who will say or do something, since the "perfect" is not possible in any human society. American society has come a long way since the 1960's. When so many other things demand our attention, why do we continue to focus so intensely on just one?
Anyone with enough money is entitled to be heard.
I think we should be clear -- what is going on at Mizzou (and Yale) is mob rule and suppression of free speech by the protestors. Period. And the rest of the students and faculty are guilty of.... being White I suppose. But have there been any reports of anyone attempting to prevent the protestors from speaking?
18
The protesters presumably don't simply wish to speak but to be heard, which, in a college situation,is something students are entitled to. Apparently some of them feel that yelling is their only recourse. Or maybe they are in genuine pain. This doesn't excuse every behavior (and, in my view, a faculty member who asks for 'muscle' to get rid of a reporter needs to face some kind of hearing to evaluate the wisdom of her continued employment), but perhaps the "grown-ups" could try and listen a little more. In any event, drawing conclusions from video snippets may not be the best way forward.
Gross.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-and-the-free-speech-diversion
"The default for avoiding discussion of racism is to invoke a separate principle, one with which few would disagree in the abstract--free speech, respectful participation in class--as the counterpoint to the violation of principles relating to civil rights."
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-and-the-free-speech-diversion
"The default for avoiding discussion of racism is to invoke a separate principle, one with which few would disagree in the abstract--free speech, respectful participation in class--as the counterpoint to the violation of principles relating to civil rights."
4
Just like the Right, the Left is for ideas, opinions, and speech it favors. (This includes the media.) Everything else gets preemptively or actively censored.
"Free speech" is an oxymoron.
Btw, I find it distressing that this article -- by a director of PEN, no less -- does not even bother to mention Professor Erika Christakis at Yale. Absolutely pathetic.
"Free speech" is an oxymoron.
Btw, I find it distressing that this article -- by a director of PEN, no less -- does not even bother to mention Professor Erika Christakis at Yale. Absolutely pathetic.
3
"The restrictions they seek would not be imposed by the government, or even necessarily the university administration, but by the students themselves and the anonymous armadas of online ostracizers who might rally to their cause. As all sides in this conflict are fast learning, the penalties of online pariahdom — damaged careers, vows of physical harm — can chill speech just as cold as the threat of jail."
there's a word for this: Yahooism. These coddled, questionably well-educated children have become yahoos who support and are seduced by mob vigilantism.
At the same time, these children want "safe spaces", where the emotional damage of living can be tended to with juice and soft toys, and "trigger warnings" so bad words and ideas can be avoided and never, never be discussed the open way the adults discuss them.
These children, unfortunately, are not at all prepared to face the real world, which will simply not indulge their childish pranks and fantasies and I predict major neurotic breakdown when their tantrums are not tolerated in the board room. The solution is to have these children leave, be dismissed or be expelled from sheltered universities and get jobs in the real world so the few scholars who want to learn can do so without the distraction of the uneducated yahoos.
there's a word for this: Yahooism. These coddled, questionably well-educated children have become yahoos who support and are seduced by mob vigilantism.
At the same time, these children want "safe spaces", where the emotional damage of living can be tended to with juice and soft toys, and "trigger warnings" so bad words and ideas can be avoided and never, never be discussed the open way the adults discuss them.
These children, unfortunately, are not at all prepared to face the real world, which will simply not indulge their childish pranks and fantasies and I predict major neurotic breakdown when their tantrums are not tolerated in the board room. The solution is to have these children leave, be dismissed or be expelled from sheltered universities and get jobs in the real world so the few scholars who want to learn can do so without the distraction of the uneducated yahoos.
19
Nossel gives censors and free speech advocates and defenders equal moral validity. That's a classic error of false equivalence. In Missouri, self-righteous thugs, including a faculty member, used intimidation and muscle to deny a photographer his right to photograph a public event in a public place. At Yale, foul-mouthed students screamed at the college master to shut up.
In both of these situations, the defenders of free speech deserve commendations for standing up for constitutional rights. The thugs, censors, and screamers deserve a stay in the slammer for assault.
And Nossel? She might benefit from a refresher course in constitutional law.
In both of these situations, the defenders of free speech deserve commendations for standing up for constitutional rights. The thugs, censors, and screamers deserve a stay in the slammer for assault.
And Nossel? She might benefit from a refresher course in constitutional law.
16
The thing is these kids are not doing themselves any service...making these campuses isolated "safe spaces" will not translate into the real world. Companies are not safe spaces and executives are not anywhere nearly as exposed as professors...the whiny, victim hood, temper tantrum behavior that gets these children what they want at protective liberal arts schools will not play well in the competitive world of multinational corporations..in fact outside of Wall Street I know many HR department do their best to avoid Ivy League graduates for just this reason (as well as the applicants overwhelming sense of entitlement) and as for the hard chewing Chinese and Koreans..they just laugh as this behavior.
8
"Who is Entitled to Be Heard?"
No one. You can't make anyone listen to you.
"Who is entitled to speak?"
Everyone.
If you don't like what is being said, then change the channel or walk on down the road, but you have no right to dictate what can or can't be said.
No one. You can't make anyone listen to you.
"Who is entitled to speak?"
Everyone.
If you don't like what is being said, then change the channel or walk on down the road, but you have no right to dictate what can or can't be said.
33
Like all universities, the University Missouri is required to file a triannual Clery Act report that list crimes, including hate crimes, committed on or near campus. A review of recent reports suggests student protestors are exaggerating the level of racial animosity on the Columbia campus. The Cleary reports shows only a single racial bias incident over the past six years at the University of Missouri. (The report doesn’t state the race of the victim in the 2012 incident.) However, anyone who suggests that black students might be protesting a bit too much, would be shouted down. Meanwhile, the news media seems too intimidated to report the paucity of verifiable racial bias incidents.
20
I think you are putting too fine a point on it. If someone called you a racial epithet, would you report it as a crime? Even if you did, would someone speaking a word to you be recorded as a crime? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Also, as a woman, I know many of us have been groped in our lives, and only in the last few years, have people started reporting it as a crime. Before, we all thought it was a scary nuisance we had to deal with. I just use that as an example to say that many crimes go unreported because the victim thinks the police will think it's a waste of time.
Also, as a woman, I know many of us have been groped in our lives, and only in the last few years, have people started reporting it as a crime. Before, we all thought it was a scary nuisance we had to deal with. I just use that as an example to say that many crimes go unreported because the victim thinks the police will think it's a waste of time.
It boggles me why so many people don't see threats of violence against black students and examples of overt racism as far more destructive to civil liberties and speech-chilling than anything these students are doing. Black students receiving death threats (which joins a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and 1960s state-sanctioned violence) and we're talking about blocking a photographer? Come on!
4
you're right david. the media is treating 'black lives matter' as though it was the republican presidential (un)debates. black lives matter is not simply a debatable opinion, it is a wail of righteous indignation about facts of life.
Yes, talking about blocking a photographer is important too, and addressing that doesn't in any way diminish attention to the threats. Why can't both be recognized? When do students (and one suspects not all are) at an event get to decide on their own to block public space for their own ends?
1
College kids, especially men, love what we used to call "shock value" humor. It's saying the worst thing you can imagine just to get a rise out of someone. It doesn't matter what it is or if you feel that way or believe it. It's the zing that counts. I think a lot of this is exactly that. Some of it isn't.
As I've gotten older and older, I've learned to keep my mouth shut more and more. I don't feel cowered or suppressed, it just makes it easier to keep it light.
As I've gotten older and older, I've learned to keep my mouth shut more and more. I don't feel cowered or suppressed, it just makes it easier to keep it light.
1
"Safe places" demanded by minorities for minorities? They seem to have convinced themselves that segregation into "safe places" is good for them. Is the decades-old movement to end segregation dying at the hands of those who would benefit from it?
14
the major weakness in nossel's argument in support of the 'free market' for expression is that we don't have one. her reference point is the 'freer' media in the 1950s which played a leading role in the civil rights movement. the problem is that this venerable fourth estate has slowly disappeared, hastened by the vietnam war coverage. an embarrassing case in point is the current media coverage of 'debates' that aren't. students aren't the only ones who feel they can't rely on objective, or even competent, journalism to re-air their grievances.
3
Silly question, for we all know that in political speech it is those who have the most money. Also, this issue is not about free speech, it is about free 'values', which is what these educators and students are trying to suppress.
1
Why can't everyone just get along? We all live in the same world and I think that we should learn to put our differences aside and coexist in peace. Of course, at this time, that is a fools dream. What sort of singular cause will it take to finally unite our race, the human race, as one? The world is only so big and there is very limited room, so we have to learn to get along. Many of you may say that i sound like a hippie, but you all know that we are thinking the same thing. Peace.
6
Free speech is one of the principles on which the U.S. was founded. But it is not an absolute right, as laws against slander attest. Also, a university is a special kind of community, whose members interact in and out of class in a more intense way than do members of the broader society. They learn from each other, and some kind of comity is essential to that experience.
For these reasons, it is important to make some distinctions between permissible and impermissible speech and behavior. Someone who scrawls symbols of hate (swastika, for example) on university property, or who attacks others with language demeaning their ethnic or cultural heritage, or threatening harm, is using language as an assault weapon. While such behavior is tolerated outside the university, on campus it undermines the sense of community essential to the educational mission.
On the other hand, criticisms leveled against someone's ideas or behavior form a necessary part of any dialogue that can advance the learning process. Vigorous disagreements about university policy, religion, political beliefs, and philosophy differ substantially from personal verbal attacks on a person because of the color of his skin or his cultural heritage. Both can arouse strong emotions, but only the latter attempts to destroy the victim's sense of self worth. Especially if a student feels vulnerable because of his minority status on campus, such assaults can do real damage.
For these reasons, it is important to make some distinctions between permissible and impermissible speech and behavior. Someone who scrawls symbols of hate (swastika, for example) on university property, or who attacks others with language demeaning their ethnic or cultural heritage, or threatening harm, is using language as an assault weapon. While such behavior is tolerated outside the university, on campus it undermines the sense of community essential to the educational mission.
On the other hand, criticisms leveled against someone's ideas or behavior form a necessary part of any dialogue that can advance the learning process. Vigorous disagreements about university policy, religion, political beliefs, and philosophy differ substantially from personal verbal attacks on a person because of the color of his skin or his cultural heritage. Both can arouse strong emotions, but only the latter attempts to destroy the victim's sense of self worth. Especially if a student feels vulnerable because of his minority status on campus, such assaults can do real damage.
22
To put it more succinctly, Use Reason, the thing they should already have learned and be using before they even got into college.
I agree that someone "who attacks others with language demeaning their ethnic or cultural heritage, or threatening harm, is using language as an assault weapon", but I would like to know more about how this supposedly applies in real situations.
For example, would that apply to someone who dismisses another's opinion by telling him or her "to check your privilege" as happens thousands of time a day on campuses? Is that attacking someone based on their ethnicity and rejecting their opinion on that basis? In effect, denying the legitimacy of their ability to express a contrary opinion.
And what about shouting someone down with whose opinion you don't agree or telling them to shut up or to resign is that intimidation?
I ask these questions sincerely. One needs to understand what broad principles actually come to in specific sorts of cases.
For example, would that apply to someone who dismisses another's opinion by telling him or her "to check your privilege" as happens thousands of time a day on campuses? Is that attacking someone based on their ethnicity and rejecting their opinion on that basis? In effect, denying the legitimacy of their ability to express a contrary opinion.
And what about shouting someone down with whose opinion you don't agree or telling them to shut up or to resign is that intimidation?
I ask these questions sincerely. One needs to understand what broad principles actually come to in specific sorts of cases.
2
"The Missouri football team can't be written off as a bunch of cosseted wusses." Really? Putting aside the sexism in this statement, I encourage readers, and Ms. Nossel, to be ever aware of the difference between physical and moral/intellectual courage. Football players are not necessarily brave, let alone wise. They should be paid for their work. They should not run our universities.
As for this "safe space" nonsense, todays students should be required to take a course in American Civics, with an emphasis on the relationship between our nation's ever evolving civil rights and the roles of free speech and a free press their first semester, or preferably in high school.
College students demanding that their world of ideas be smaller is strange indeed to this old hippie. I'm saddened and surprised to encounter a youth movement I can't support.
As for this "safe space" nonsense, todays students should be required to take a course in American Civics, with an emphasis on the relationship between our nation's ever evolving civil rights and the roles of free speech and a free press their first semester, or preferably in high school.
College students demanding that their world of ideas be smaller is strange indeed to this old hippie. I'm saddened and surprised to encounter a youth movement I can't support.
120
"Football players are not necessarily brave, let alone wise." No, but these football players were brave. I am no fan of college football but it is clear these students put themselves out on a limb for a principle. Where do you get that they, the players, are running the university. They are, more often than not, beholden and powerless and will not go on to a professional career making lots of money. For those young black men to do that speaks volumes to me and should speak volumes to an old hippie.
1
To paraphrase what a wise man once said, "I may vociferously disagree with what you are saying, but will strongly defend your right to say it". That cherished principle is not only a pillar of our democracy, but of our co-existence. Based on that principle, one should not and cannot prohibit or prevent or intimidate or threaten the speaker form expressing himself -- even if the expression is hateful -- just because you disagree with the content. What you can do is speak up yourself and express your own ideas, opinons, and sentiments so that anyone who listens understands how and whey you disagree. Any other approach is a dangerous step towards censure and suppression. Think Gallileo.
1
well said . . . class of '65 . . . I do not understand what has happened . . .
William Wilson dallas texas
William Wilson dallas texas
1
First and foremost we all are supposed to entitled to be heard. But we live in a police state and only have just realized this in the past few years. Our country now is so corrupt and the leaders and every junction are vile, greedy, self centered, and above our laws. We have no privacy and are told that's for our "security".
Our colleges have been a place where the administrators are allowed to rip off students, parents, tell themselves and others how smart they are although only a few have ever worked in the real world.
To keep the status quo free speech cannot exist that's why people who speak truth to power are still being thrown in jail.
Our colleges have been a place where the administrators are allowed to rip off students, parents, tell themselves and others how smart they are although only a few have ever worked in the real world.
To keep the status quo free speech cannot exist that's why people who speak truth to power are still being thrown in jail.
1
The point of universities, especially liberal arts studies, is to expose oneself to all kinds of views even views that may be foreign and opposing to one's own value system. These opposing views must be challenged and overcome ONLY by intelligent argumentation, never intimidation. Intimidation in our spaces of learning serve only the dogmatists of our society and would serve only those who wish for self segregation and isolation from "the others", since that would be it's intended or unintended consequence. Anything other than allowing free and possibly hurtful speech would eventually lead to intellectual isolation and self segregation and then we are back where we started but don't want to be.
10
Lord have mercy on these precious little snowflakes who feel offended by any views, demonstrations , perspectives or speech counter to their sense of righteousness. The 1st Amendment guarantees free speech, both those we agree with and those we don't. Suppressing speech we don't want to hear violates this Amendment.
Will anyone hire these students in the REAL world with their requirements for "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings"? I know I would take a pass on them.
Will anyone hire these students in the REAL world with their requirements for "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings"? I know I would take a pass on them.
12
Do students have any responsibilities in this model?
2
Nossel assumes that those who are aggrieved want a resolution that benefits everyone; that they will feel more comfortable after simply being heard and are willing to compromise and see others views.
Those who actively suppress the speech and views of others are not doing so because of hurt feelings or fear or for equality or access or even progress towards a communitarian atomsphere.
The Salem-style hysteria is about power and denegrating others for the sake of their own misbegotten political gain.
If ideas are worthy, they will stand the test of absolute free speech which is why those who seek repression are so violently against it.
Those who actively suppress the speech and views of others are not doing so because of hurt feelings or fear or for equality or access or even progress towards a communitarian atomsphere.
The Salem-style hysteria is about power and denegrating others for the sake of their own misbegotten political gain.
If ideas are worthy, they will stand the test of absolute free speech which is why those who seek repression are so violently against it.
4
What did happen to free speech and democracy? What happened to the Constitution of the United State and the Bill of Rights? What happened to the media and the right of the media to cover events and uncover the facts and the truth and protect the people by giving them access to knowledge and to participate in the public debate and vote and control their own destiny? Let me tell you, we are headed obviously to a country that is authoritarian and dictatorial, and serfdom.
2
A danger is that by suppressing free speech by using words such as "safety" too loosely, real situations of safety can end up ignored, such as the threats that led to the arrest of the young man in Missouri. An insane adherence to the rights of all of us to have an opinion and say it freely is all that keeps us truly free - and safe.
15
Halloween costumes, huh? So much for an Yale education. Save your money people!
3
Short of incitement, free speech is absolute. End of.
Hearing the ugliness in the open has value.
It's not like racists glow in the dark--speech is the only way to identify them.
And free speech provides the forum to protest institutional racism.
Get rid of free speech and we're stuck with it.
Hearing the ugliness in the open has value.
It's not like racists glow in the dark--speech is the only way to identify them.
And free speech provides the forum to protest institutional racism.
Get rid of free speech and we're stuck with it.
3
Whoever can create an algorithm/process to identify racist 18 year-old students, especially those receiving scholarships, could make a lot of money selling it to college admissions offices.
1
"anonymous armadas of online ostracizers"
What a great turn of phrase!
What a great turn of phrase!
7
I think the backlash against free speech is in response to the flood of hate speech that permeates the Internet, all social media, and commercial broadcasts. Free speech was never intended to be hate speech. It's purpose is to maintain open and unrestricted speech in the public square but that does not mean it's proper to or acceptable to promote racism and violence.
The Internet is a sewer of hate. The Washington Post comment boards are a sewer, and they are much more civil than most others. People get on these websites and rip each other apart just because someone says they like corn flakes.
Hate is everywhere. Media personalities make fortunes off of hate. They have their own TV and radio show. They write best sellers. Politicians make careers from hate.
The kids are sick of it. They don't know how to deal with it. They want it to go away. They want to be protected from it. They seek sanctuary from hate. Their reaction has reached the point that they even want reductions in free speech just to get rid of the hate.
The haters have abused free speech and turned it into a vehicle for nothing but spreading their hate and not for having a discussion. Hyper individualism has reached its limit. The kids want the community restored. That is the real story here.
The Internet is a sewer of hate. The Washington Post comment boards are a sewer, and they are much more civil than most others. People get on these websites and rip each other apart just because someone says they like corn flakes.
Hate is everywhere. Media personalities make fortunes off of hate. They have their own TV and radio show. They write best sellers. Politicians make careers from hate.
The kids are sick of it. They don't know how to deal with it. They want it to go away. They want to be protected from it. They seek sanctuary from hate. Their reaction has reached the point that they even want reductions in free speech just to get rid of the hate.
The haters have abused free speech and turned it into a vehicle for nothing but spreading their hate and not for having a discussion. Hyper individualism has reached its limit. The kids want the community restored. That is the real story here.
91
Some of these protestors ARE the hate, lying about other people pushing them WHILE they push others, demanding muscle, and calling themselves underprivileged despite having parents with 8 million dollar incomes,
2
"Hate is everywhere." For too many people, unfortunately, hate is defined as holding an opinion or belief that contradicts what they think/desire or hold to be true. What was once viewed as merely rude or a minority view is quickly dismissed as hate speech by those who disagree. While there is undeniably truly hateful speech on some sites on the internet, more often than not people throw out the hate denunciation with little to no basis in reality.
As for your claim that "The kids want the community restored", firstly these are not kids, but adults, though their actions do not always display maturity. Secondly, their vision of community is one of stifled conformity to only "accepted" view points, a totalitarian ethos that should offend all right thinking peoples.
The constitution never said that free speech must be sanitized and never offensive. Life is full of people and situations that are unpleasant but that's the way of the real world. One person's hate or offense is another's truth. The desire of many in academia, students and faculty, to rigidly demand that they never hear - and certainly never tolerate - any utterance that might give distress to listeners is an anathema to the constitution. You have no right to not be offended by others or life in general.
As for your claim that "The kids want the community restored", firstly these are not kids, but adults, though their actions do not always display maturity. Secondly, their vision of community is one of stifled conformity to only "accepted" view points, a totalitarian ethos that should offend all right thinking peoples.
The constitution never said that free speech must be sanitized and never offensive. Life is full of people and situations that are unpleasant but that's the way of the real world. One person's hate or offense is another's truth. The desire of many in academia, students and faculty, to rigidly demand that they never hear - and certainly never tolerate - any utterance that might give distress to listeners is an anathema to the constitution. You have no right to not be offended by others or life in general.
2
The problem is, how do you define hate? Where is the line drawn? Who will decide this, and how is this person (or institution) any wiser than the rest of us? How will this definition not be used to push an agenda, or be molded to bar unpopular ideas? This troubles me, but it seems to trouble others less and less these days.
Some commentators confuse "free speech" with "unchallenged speech".
I agree that the school does not have the authority to censor racist Holloween costumes. However, the school can discourage such costumes and bar them from school functions.
This is not only about the minority students who are aggrieved by racist displays. It is also about teaching the majority students (this is a school after all). The school is not preparing the majority students for the "big bad world" by letting them think that insensitive racist, misogyist or homophobic speech is acceptable. Such speech may be protected from government censorship by the first amendment, but it does not survive the in "free maketplace of ideas" that the framers intended. Most employers, correctly do not allow such behavior -- it is incompatible with a functioning, diverse workplace. The schools have a similar obligation to maintain a functioning, diverse university.
I agree that the school does not have the authority to censor racist Holloween costumes. However, the school can discourage such costumes and bar them from school functions.
This is not only about the minority students who are aggrieved by racist displays. It is also about teaching the majority students (this is a school after all). The school is not preparing the majority students for the "big bad world" by letting them think that insensitive racist, misogyist or homophobic speech is acceptable. Such speech may be protected from government censorship by the first amendment, but it does not survive the in "free maketplace of ideas" that the framers intended. Most employers, correctly do not allow such behavior -- it is incompatible with a functioning, diverse workplace. The schools have a similar obligation to maintain a functioning, diverse university.
7
'...The school is not preparing the majority students for the "big bad world" by letting them think that insensitive racist, misogyist or homophobic speech is acceptable...'
Who defines 'insensitive'? Each of us?
And any female student on campus has heard the violent and misogynist lyrics of rap songs blasting out of dorm rooms and students yell out the lyrics while driving around in cars.
Should this music be banned?
Should dressing as a famous hip hop artist for Halloween also be banned?
Who defines 'insensitive'? Each of us?
And any female student on campus has heard the violent and misogynist lyrics of rap songs blasting out of dorm rooms and students yell out the lyrics while driving around in cars.
Should this music be banned?
Should dressing as a famous hip hop artist for Halloween also be banned?
Has anyone said that racist, sexist, or homophobic speech is acceptable? Yale sent an email on costumes, the professor's wife sent an email questioning Yale's approach about the costumes. In no way did she approve of blackface.
Is your argument that universities should be like places of employment? The typical rule that that one should avoid any discussion of politics or religion at work. I don't think either side of this issue would want such a restrictive environment in a college setting, it would stifle student activism on such issues as Black Lives Matter, for instance.
Is your argument that universities should be like places of employment? The typical rule that that one should avoid any discussion of politics or religion at work. I don't think either side of this issue would want such a restrictive environment in a college setting, it would stifle student activism on such issues as Black Lives Matter, for instance.
Mr. Butler, the graduate student who conducted a hunger strike, is from a very wealthy family. This sets up interesting liberal conundrums: Does his 1% priviledge trump his minority greviances? Should his family's ability to insulate him from the stress of paying for college outweigh his sensitivities for perceived racial insults. Should a wealthy African-American receive more sympathy than a poor person without that status?
There was a time that these points could be discussed and debated on college campuses. With the new requirement for "safe" spaces, I'd imagine that's no longer the case.
There was a time that these points could be discussed and debated on college campuses. With the new requirement for "safe" spaces, I'd imagine that's no longer the case.
28
New York Times, you disappoint me today. You seem to want to talk about the "trigger warning" stories, and "coddled student" stories -- in the same breath you address what is happening at the moment. Shouldn't we pause to recognize what events really lead to this current discussion? Isn't it a beyond-reasonable expectation that cotton dropped in front of your living space, hearing the n-word screamed at you from a speeding car, swastikas painted in feces, "white girls only" frat parties and online death threats should be condemned, in the strongest terms possible? That's what the students asked for. They know the university can't stop these things from happening, but what they say and do in their wake matters.
Trigger warnings in classroom literature classes -- letting students know what may be coming in an experience of literature, -- that's a little different, isn't it? What is screamed at you from a speeding car or an anonymous twitter account--will require a different approach than dealing with a scene of sexual assault in literature.
Trigger warnings in classroom literature classes -- letting students know what may be coming in an experience of literature, -- that's a little different, isn't it? What is screamed at you from a speeding car or an anonymous twitter account--will require a different approach than dealing with a scene of sexual assault in literature.
7
Some of these incidents were dealt with accordingly. Others, such as the n-words screams from a speeding car, are frankly hard or impossible to have the university do something about without evidence. If we don't know who did it (a student? a townie?), how can the school punish anyone? We have to allow for investigation and due process to occur, and not demand instant results.
1
Here's what you fail to understand. Free speech isn't just a good idea that must compete with the desire for "emotionally safe spaces." By virtue of our most primary governing document it TRUMPS those concerns. The CONSTIUTION guarantees free speech. Period. Full stop. Free speech advocates have a law on their side when dealing with a public university. A law that can't be changed or overridden wot out a chane to the Constitution . They don't need to convince anyone of anything in order to obtain that right. You can wish it were different. It is not.
71
But that's not actually true. "Free Speech" is not an unlimited right, and particularly not so in educational settings. In regard to the second part of your statement, if anything, "free speech" has become the "emotionally safe space" for racists, rapists, and homophobes on campus. A catchphrase to hide behind and shield them from any sort of criticism. Free Speech does not equal the absence of criticism. People also have a right to tell you that they don't like your speech.
AJ is correct. The fact that important truths might hurt black feelings is no justification for not speaking of them, particularly since facing up to those truths could greatly help blacks solve their own problems.
These important truths include: the fact that blacks have a much higher crime rate than whites, including seven times the per capita murder rate according to a 2011 U.S. Justice Department report; that the number of blacks killed by blacks is more than twenty times higher than the total number of blacks killed by cops (including even such police killings that are totally justified, such as Officer Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown); that the distribution of black IQ scores is substantially lower that of white IQ scores (even though there still are millions of black people smarter than the average white person); that a substantial majority of the allegedly racist income gap between blacks and whites disappears if one compares populations of whites and blacks with the same IQ distribution; and that average black crime rates could be substantially lowered and black IQ scores could be substantially raised if America as a whole, and the black community in particular, were not prevented by political correctness from discussing, and taking to heart, the above important truths,
These important truths include: the fact that blacks have a much higher crime rate than whites, including seven times the per capita murder rate according to a 2011 U.S. Justice Department report; that the number of blacks killed by blacks is more than twenty times higher than the total number of blacks killed by cops (including even such police killings that are totally justified, such as Officer Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown); that the distribution of black IQ scores is substantially lower that of white IQ scores (even though there still are millions of black people smarter than the average white person); that a substantial majority of the allegedly racist income gap between blacks and whites disappears if one compares populations of whites and blacks with the same IQ distribution; and that average black crime rates could be substantially lowered and black IQ scores could be substantially raised if America as a whole, and the black community in particular, were not prevented by political correctness from discussing, and taking to heart, the above important truths,
What I think you might not be seeing, AJ, is that while our Constitutional right to free speech is not threatened directly... as you say, the Constitution isn't likely to be changed in that regard... free speech can indeed be threatened by social pressure so extreme that it is hard to overcome. When people with non-conforming ideas are disinvited to speak at Universities, fired from their jobs, and physically intimidated by aggressive mobs, the free speech we so value is indeed threatened and Academic integrity is in retreat.
"Instead of deriding trigger warnings, safe spaces and censored Halloween costumes, free speech proponents need to advance alternatives that resonate with the students they want to reach."
Of course we need to deride these things. They are designed to keep locked away the very ideas that we as a democracy need to put on the table for discussion.
Incest, rape, misogyny, child abuse both male and female - why NOT discuss this, especially in the intellectually charged environment of an elite learning institution? Rude and offensive Halloween costumes - bring the offending parties to the table and have those frat boys and sorority girls explain their thinking to a group of their black/minority student colleagues. [Interesting, that there is no parallel outcry over skimpy sexy maid or skin-tight catwoman-type outfits the overly sexualize and objectify women. Why have women's Halloween costumes turned into marital aids? But that's a discussion for another time.]
People have a right to moral outrage - and people have a right to disagree with that outrage. But what both parties should never avoid is talking it out to hear all views. And a campus is the perfect venue.
Of course we need to deride these things. They are designed to keep locked away the very ideas that we as a democracy need to put on the table for discussion.
Incest, rape, misogyny, child abuse both male and female - why NOT discuss this, especially in the intellectually charged environment of an elite learning institution? Rude and offensive Halloween costumes - bring the offending parties to the table and have those frat boys and sorority girls explain their thinking to a group of their black/minority student colleagues. [Interesting, that there is no parallel outcry over skimpy sexy maid or skin-tight catwoman-type outfits the overly sexualize and objectify women. Why have women's Halloween costumes turned into marital aids? But that's a discussion for another time.]
People have a right to moral outrage - and people have a right to disagree with that outrage. But what both parties should never avoid is talking it out to hear all views. And a campus is the perfect venue.
83
Almost everybody is in favor of the free speech that they agree with. What both institutions and individuals must continually ask themselves is "What are we doing to guarantee and protect the free speech we don't agree with."
221
Isn't is also a concern about what the speaker is entitled to do when the speaker feels that not enough people agree with him or her?
4
I would never have shouted at my residential college master like that. She should be ashamed of herself.
127
That young woman in the video we both saw was out of line. She screamed at the master of her college as if he were her parent, and she were 13 years old and losing control. I'm sure she already regrets her behavior.
But why should we focus on her? That's just misleading. Apparently there exists a climate at Yale in which students of color, especially female students, feel uncherished. Having gone to Yale, I can well believe it. Let's talk about that climate, about the fact that almost fifty years after Yale went coed and simultaneously decided to insist on racial and ethnic diversity, a climate of hostility and contempt on the part of the "majority group" still makes many students of color and many female students feel that they are outsiders, and they are supposed to stay outsiders.
But why should we focus on her? That's just misleading. Apparently there exists a climate at Yale in which students of color, especially female students, feel uncherished. Having gone to Yale, I can well believe it. Let's talk about that climate, about the fact that almost fifty years after Yale went coed and simultaneously decided to insist on racial and ethnic diversity, a climate of hostility and contempt on the part of the "majority group" still makes many students of color and many female students feel that they are outsiders, and they are supposed to stay outsiders.
28
Since when does anyone, regardless of gender, color, etc. have a "right" to feel "cherished"?
2
Right, and white male students feel "cherished"? Get a grip, Lawrence H. Did Madame Curie feel "cherished"? I guarantee you not. Did Richard Feynman? Hell no, they laughed at him for being a poor Jewish kid from the Bronx!
Nobody feels "cherished" at college, that's not what it's there for. Most people feel challenged, sometimes overwhelmed, occasionally exhilarated, forgotten, lost, adulated... and usually a bewildering mix of all of the above.
You want to feel cherished, stay in preschool. You want to come out and live in the grownup world, where bosses and professors actually expect things of you---welcome. But leave your curse words and your infantile narcissism at home, please.
Nobody feels "cherished" at college, that's not what it's there for. Most people feel challenged, sometimes overwhelmed, occasionally exhilarated, forgotten, lost, adulated... and usually a bewildering mix of all of the above.
You want to feel cherished, stay in preschool. You want to come out and live in the grownup world, where bosses and professors actually expect things of you---welcome. But leave your curse words and your infantile narcissism at home, please.
1
Both sides are wrong? Nossel sets up a straw man. Sure, some people accuse the students of being infantile, etc. But that is not the gravamen of the complaint. Nothing about that in the Washington Post's editorial the other day, for example. Whatever their reasons, many of the students have tried to suppress free speech. On this point, they are 100% wrong, and the advocates of free speech are 100% right.
275
After criticizing the censors, the writer turned around and gave equal validity to both sides - NOT a pretty ending to what began as a promising piece. The "safe space" and "trigger warning" movements should be eradicated as anti intellectual. If students need this, then they need psychiatric hospitals, not universities.
227
I've once been diagnosed, incorrectly luckily, with Celiac disease. On one of these online forums for celiacs, someone posted a photo of a restaurant that put on the menu that every singly one of its dishes could contain every possible allergen. Many there saw it as a defiance against Austria's new law that made information on allergens obligatory in restaurant's menus. They simply did not realize that the restaurant was actually complying with the law, it just might shoot itself in the foot by not catering to the ~10% (or not depending on the costs of adapting its kitchen and menu for this goal). When I pointed this out, I was met with indignation and disgust. Many felt the need to describe how much more ill and ailing they were (than me I guess?) and that restaurants should take that into account. The moderators stopped the discussion, but I would have liked to ask them whether they thought that because Stephen Hawkins is even more ill, that every single restaurant should equip for serving ALS patients. The level of entitlement I find scary to this day, I am glad not to have to be a member of such a pathetic self-pitying group anymore.
So the solution: put a all trigger warning on the university's entrance and please make fun of these wimps.
So the solution: put a all trigger warning on the university's entrance and please make fun of these wimps.
2
In 1965, Herbert Marcuse, the noted Maoist philosopher, produced a theoretical justification for suppressing conservative speech while protecting the rights of progressives to speak freely ( "Repressive Tolerance," 1965). Conservatives could be suppressed because they marginalized the powerless., according to Marcuse. What we are seeing on campuses today are Marcuse's children, radical leftists with no regard for or even understanding of American liberties.
93
Why do some people insist on trying to quiet, marginalize and demonize "minorities" who express their displeasure with racism? We are in the 21st century, yet it seems as though the nation has regressed when it comes to matters of race. Should conservative free speech be suppressed? My answer to that is No. I am a big believer in free speech. But, I don't believe that right allows anyone to disparage another group because of differences. It is a shame that it took a potential financial penalty to evoke change on the Missouri campus.
"Free speech" is too easy to say. Sure, we all want the right of free speech. But what does that actually mean? There are differences of speech by the powerful and the powerless. There are differences of who gets heard -- who has the means to project their speech on others. Everyone has the freedom of speaking to themselves in private. That is not the issue. So now we have "free public speech." Then there are issues of lies, distortions, perspective, hyperbole, dangerous speech, abusive speech, and so on. We all protest governments that use the BIG LIE to manipulate their populations. And my or your little voice is not enough to combat that. Governments should not be given the freedom to say whatever they want. Should FOX NEWS? Should political candidates? "Free speech" is more complicated than some absolute right to vibrate the air.
11
You seriously question the right of Fox News to say whatever they want? So who would police them, the government? You say that governments should not have the right to say whatever they want, but you want them to determine what others can say? I would suggest that you haven't thought through this carefully.
Actually, it is not more complicated than that,
Free speech absolutely includes the right to be incorrect. the solution is more free speech.
Why is it so difficult for people who have difference opinions (superficially), to sit down and talk "to" each other and not past each other? If it was so easy for people with varied opinions to not be open to different viewpoints, we would not have any conflict, no battles, no bullying, no victimizing etc. in our world. For some reason, just sitting down face to face and having a conversation is not possible in today's society and culture that only talks to each other through social media, texts, snapchats, instagrams, tweets...
Facing this difficult challenge, one brave woman, recently addressed an audience in Israel at the Mount of Beatitudes, which is unfortunately Exhibit A when it comes to depicting an example of conflict among human beings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZoLwo3VO8. Have a listen, if you dare to open your hearts.
Facing this difficult challenge, one brave woman, recently addressed an audience in Israel at the Mount of Beatitudes, which is unfortunately Exhibit A when it comes to depicting an example of conflict among human beings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZoLwo3VO8. Have a listen, if you dare to open your hearts.
2
Words are offensive. Pictures are offensive. Inaction is offensive. In today's college world. Today's "students" are offended and demand a "safe place" to study. Do today's college kids _study_? If they had, it would have started with choosing a college. Why, if you are from a rural area chose a college in a major city? From a small community college, why tackle the Ivy League? In other words if you, as student are not prepared to handle the stress of college, with the mix of cultures and levels , then maybe college is not for you.
The college I attended in Boston in 1978, made up of many levels and races, all got along. Even the Iranians ( yes you saw that) who leased dorm space from the college and who had a penchant for white bread toast, went along their day unaffected. No name calling, no pictures, no stares.
If there was an issue, we would "rap" about it, in a circle, on the grass median that was in front of the dorm. Fights? There were some, but at the end positive movement was achieved.
Are the students today too coddled, so driven to go to a "good" college that they can't handle it when they get there? What will they do when they land a job, and find they don't like the culture, demand the CEO resign? Good luck with that. Life is never easy, but the key is getting along and talking, not screaming inanities over completely unimportant topics, like Halloween costumes.
The college I attended in Boston in 1978, made up of many levels and races, all got along. Even the Iranians ( yes you saw that) who leased dorm space from the college and who had a penchant for white bread toast, went along their day unaffected. No name calling, no pictures, no stares.
If there was an issue, we would "rap" about it, in a circle, on the grass median that was in front of the dorm. Fights? There were some, but at the end positive movement was achieved.
Are the students today too coddled, so driven to go to a "good" college that they can't handle it when they get there? What will they do when they land a job, and find they don't like the culture, demand the CEO resign? Good luck with that. Life is never easy, but the key is getting along and talking, not screaming inanities over completely unimportant topics, like Halloween costumes.
79
Students aren't too coddled, my daughter explains they are just tired of their parents generation being too passive about these issues. As a brown American she has seen and recorded scores of incidents with racist undertones, these have sensitized today's college kids to the degree not seen in decades. They have just about had enough of what they perceive as white peoples insensitivity. A lot of what has been routinely spoken under the breath, behind the backs, is now exposed in full view. Kids have watched their parents 'be nice' and then turn around and swear under their breath. Hypocrisy no longer they can tolerate.
3
"They have just about had enough of what they perceive as white peoples insensitivity." Well I'm glad to know that only white people are insensitive. I'm just surprised that "white men" wasn't specified.
Any member of any ethnic, racial, or religious group can be insensitive or offensive to others.
As for not tolerating hypocrisy, please, spare me. There is a never ending display of hypocrisy from people who claim they have the only answers and are to be honored and respected while they denigrate others who commit the grave offense of disagreeing with them. Hypocrisy is not the property or claim of just one generation or demographic, and pretending otherwise displays a lack of understanding of the real world.
Saying something to "be nice" all the while holding a different view is just life. Are you telling me that these "kids" never do the same thing? Are always, 100% right up front with every person, even strangers, they encounter? Something tells me that isn't even partially correct.
Any member of any ethnic, racial, or religious group can be insensitive or offensive to others.
As for not tolerating hypocrisy, please, spare me. There is a never ending display of hypocrisy from people who claim they have the only answers and are to be honored and respected while they denigrate others who commit the grave offense of disagreeing with them. Hypocrisy is not the property or claim of just one generation or demographic, and pretending otherwise displays a lack of understanding of the real world.
Saying something to "be nice" all the while holding a different view is just life. Are you telling me that these "kids" never do the same thing? Are always, 100% right up front with every person, even strangers, they encounter? Something tells me that isn't even partially correct.
1
If we look at Free Speech as a means for which people can express themselves...and voting is a way to express your opinions - then we have a more serious problem on our hands than what is described here. The systematic assault on peoples right to vote (I am thinking of re-districting etc) needs to be included in this discussion.
7
"The Black Lives Matter movement and the campus protests" have fueled increased racial divisiveness rather than racial equality.
They have portrayed Black Americans,as a group, as
different and separate from other Americans.
When the goal should be lessening racial differences, they have done the opposite.
They have portrayed Black Americans,as a group, as
different and separate from other Americans.
When the goal should be lessening racial differences, they have done the opposite.
95
Maybe but black lives do matter and in response to the horrific deaths of black americans most recently, that movement is justified.
3
I wish the Black Lives Matter protests had happened years ago. As a white male 'suit' I had no idea how different the American Experience was between Black and White. Black Lives Matter and all the tertiary stories have been a real eye opener to me. My view and attitude on race in America has changed for better. I hope that other 'whites' are having their eyes opened as well.
My attitudes would not have changed without having Black Lives Matter and Race shoved in my face. If we lived in a place with 'Safe Zones' neither I nor other whites would be learning about what it really means to be Black in America. People would protest and we would happily go about our lives in ignorance.
My attitudes would not have changed without having Black Lives Matter and Race shoved in my face. If we lived in a place with 'Safe Zones' neither I nor other whites would be learning about what it really means to be Black in America. People would protest and we would happily go about our lives in ignorance.
22
Different, however, is NOT the same as unequal. That is a whole other discussion.
I don't ever want to watch another movie where the dog dies. Ever. So yes, I think trigger warnings or advance notice for things is just fine.
All a "trigger warning" does is let people know there's something that might be problematic if they have previously experienced a trauma or are particularly susceptible. It's a warning, not a stop to the speech or presentation. Those of you who think trigger warnings are stupid, would you care to have pictures of mutilated, dead people or animals flashed on your TV screen without warning that there are graphic images ahead? (hint...that's a trigger warning)
All a "trigger warning" does is let people know there's something that might be problematic if they have previously experienced a trauma or are particularly susceptible. It's a warning, not a stop to the speech or presentation. Those of you who think trigger warnings are stupid, would you care to have pictures of mutilated, dead people or animals flashed on your TV screen without warning that there are graphic images ahead? (hint...that's a trigger warning)
5
Where does it end?
3
I like dogs just fine, but I personally don't need a trigger warning on a movie that might depict a dog's death. This is especially true if the dog's death is a central plot point that really shouldn't be revealed ahead of time, e.g. movie adaptations of classic literature such as Old Yeller or Where the Red Fern Grows. Who decides what subject matters need trigger warnings? My sister is seriously phobic about snakes to the point that back when we were in high school I had to go through her biology textbook and tape over every reptile picture in it; should every biology book then be prefaced with trigger warnings about the pictures within? "As long as anyone might possibly get upset" is a guideline that will lead to EVERYTHING having an essay's worth of trigger warnings before it, which would defeat the purpose of trigger warnings because the longer that list is the less attention people will pay to it. Victims of violence and abuse of all forms deserve consideration, yes, but let's not equate a rape victim's trauma with your wish not to watch a fictitious canine death on screen.
One problem, though, is virtually anything can be a "trigger" to someone some where. Certainly, some issues are perhaps self evident, such as a story about rape, but as we've seen people claim distress at just about anything, however innocuous to most reasoned people.
Most people are simply - and should not be - so sensitive that they simply cannot exist in a world that doesn't shield them from any harshness or bad memory. That's simply unrealistic, which is one of the primary complaints against this warning movement. Absent mental illness, a functioning adult should be able to deal with the unpleasantries that occasionally intrude into life.
Most people are simply - and should not be - so sensitive that they simply cannot exist in a world that doesn't shield them from any harshness or bad memory. That's simply unrealistic, which is one of the primary complaints against this warning movement. Absent mental illness, a functioning adult should be able to deal with the unpleasantries that occasionally intrude into life.
2
The "safe areas" ethnic and gender minorities are demanding for themselves sound a lot like smaller-scale versions of what the segregationists used to ask for.
99
Uh, NO. Segregationist denied nonwhite citizens rights to employment, ownership of property, marriage through anti-miscegenatio laws, suppressing voting rights, usury and other subterfuges. We're not out to iynch you, deny you education nor a mortgage through red lining nor a place to live nor your voting rights. We don't even care who you marry even if they're black, etc.
White people still have Reason.com, Libertarian political parties, Fox news, Stormfront, the KKK, and places like Yaphank where the bylaws mandated that only people of German descent could own pproperty, all choices available according to their tastes for full white superiority or partial or even agnostic as to the question.. Totally within the laws created by the white people for the white people.
So spare us the false equivalencies. No one is denying white people going to college or jobs.
White people still have Reason.com, Libertarian political parties, Fox news, Stormfront, the KKK, and places like Yaphank where the bylaws mandated that only people of German descent could own pproperty, all choices available according to their tastes for full white superiority or partial or even agnostic as to the question.. Totally within the laws created by the white people for the white people.
So spare us the false equivalencies. No one is denying white people going to college or jobs.
It's amazing to me that anyone who claims the right to speak freely could propose to ban the right of others to do so in the name of inclusion and diversity. Have we all lost our minds?
143
In article headlined “Black Students See a Campus Riven by Race” that appears in today’s New York Times, protestors tell white students handing out political flyers on the University of Missouri plaza to “take their white privilege and leave.” But there is no real free speech issue at Mizzou because only the protestors are being hear and questioning or refuting their allegations is considered politically incorrect. Reporters are too intimidated to ask even the most basic questions. For example, reporters don’t ask the campus police if they suspect the infamous “fecal swastika” is a faux hate crime like those committed with regularity on other campuses because they are afraid of angering the protestors. A black journalism Mizzou professor claims some members of the university faculty have called her the n-word, but reporters are afraid to ask her for their names because asking would make it seem as if they were checking out her allegations to see if they were true. Reporters are afraid to ask black students who claim to have been repeatedly called the n-word why they never take cell phone photos of the white students who shout racial slurs at them or why they are never able to identify the culprits afterward. Asking would make it appear that reporters might doubt their veracity, which is what reporters are trained to do, except apparently when questioning black social justice advocate. Askign would make the reporters “part of the problem.”
171
William Case, I am both laughing and crying at your comment. Why do you write or say "n-word"? You are automatically curbing your own free speech. Perhaps because we in this free-speech society cannot say "n," "p," "c," "s." We don't have free speech. We have to hide when we indulge in free thought.
I believe that those behind these conflicts are itching for a fight. The original letter sent out by the Yale administration was absolutely balanced and inoffensive; it emphasized that while choice of costume was one of individual expression, a mature and thoughtful adult considers the feelings of those around him. Those on either side took the opportunity turn this into an escalating battle of hyperbole over what is a nonissue.
Similarly, consider the minor nature of the incidents that triggered the Missouri nonsense, the totality of which (in a school system of 77000 students) amounts to less than what one might expect to find in a large urban high school. In particular, there have been no reports of violence. I don't condone the few crazies going around shouting racial epithets, but for this a student says he will commit suicide if the president doesn't resign? If Mizzou is so racist, isn't it remarkable that a student body that is 7% Black manage to elect a Black president of the student's association?
The media is feeding into this frenzy by portraying an atmosphere of "simmering racial tension" where none exist. If you watch the video of the incident at the Mizzou homecoming, you don't see racial tension; what you see is Concerned Student 1950 pretending they're in a Ferguson war zone, and a bunch of students and a parade politely waiting for them to finish and get out of the way.
Similarly, consider the minor nature of the incidents that triggered the Missouri nonsense, the totality of which (in a school system of 77000 students) amounts to less than what one might expect to find in a large urban high school. In particular, there have been no reports of violence. I don't condone the few crazies going around shouting racial epithets, but for this a student says he will commit suicide if the president doesn't resign? If Mizzou is so racist, isn't it remarkable that a student body that is 7% Black manage to elect a Black president of the student's association?
The media is feeding into this frenzy by portraying an atmosphere of "simmering racial tension" where none exist. If you watch the video of the incident at the Mizzou homecoming, you don't see racial tension; what you see is Concerned Student 1950 pretending they're in a Ferguson war zone, and a bunch of students and a parade politely waiting for them to finish and get out of the way.
163
the Christakis worked a secret selfish agenda and lit the match...no where in the original email did Yale attempt to deny freedom of expression...everyone has the right to express themselves yet, their may be consequences to that expression.. after summarily trying the same tactic at Harvard, Christaskis chose to bring their agenda to disrupt Yale. Salon wrote an article about the Christakis and their "fake" first amendment rallying cries
1
Here's the real problem: that the administration of a university (any university for that matter) writes a letter about the appropriateness of a Halloween costume!!!
Is this a scene out of a comedy show or what? Has higher education in the US devolved into ...infant care?
All these are signs of extreme insecurity--when I am secure and firm about my beliefs, I am not threatened by anyone and his/her beliefs or arguments.
Is this a scene out of a comedy show or what? Has higher education in the US devolved into ...infant care?
All these are signs of extreme insecurity--when I am secure and firm about my beliefs, I am not threatened by anyone and his/her beliefs or arguments.
4
"But they also need to be vigilant when the marketplace of ideas fails: when speech crosses into threats or harassment, or is used to shut down opposing speech. "
What part of Free Speech don't you understand?
What part of Mill's Marketplace of Ideas do you not understand?
Here is a better Mill quote from On Liberty - perfectly understandable I think:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~ On Liberty (1859)
What part of Free Speech don't you understand?
What part of Mill's Marketplace of Ideas do you not understand?
Here is a better Mill quote from On Liberty - perfectly understandable I think:
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~ On Liberty (1859)
47
Are online death threats "free speech", i.e. protected by 1st Amendment?
Anon - good comeback - I guess in the in the 150 years from Mill - that line of reasoning has never been explored - good catch - I'll get right on it.
Paragraph after paragraph washing through the media about free speech and the supposed conflict it engenders... It puts me in mind of the discomfiting sense one gets reading novels like Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm, and The Name of the Rose. And the message? Above all, conform to the New Rules, whatever they may be, or be outcast or worse.
Here's my solution to the tensions: How about everyone take a breath, and spend some silent time with their own thoughts?
Here's my solution to the tensions: How about everyone take a breath, and spend some silent time with their own thoughts?
37
No, people defending free speech and those wanting to curtail it should not meet in the middle. " I disagree with with your words but defend your right to speak them" is what defines us as a nation. Other nations like France regularly ban and punish hate speech, but they lack a First Amendment. The push to protect college students from ideas and words is a first step to an Orwellian world when truth is lies and freedom is slavery.
211
Do you really want to be a free speech absolutist? Would it be okay if every day at the water cooler someone greeted you with a racial epitaph, in the name of "free speech?" Or are there some places we share in common and shouldn't have to contend with that sort of thing.
BTW, the students know there is nothing the administration can do to control everyone, but they can have better and worse responses.
BTW, the students know there is nothing the administration can do to control everyone, but they can have better and worse responses.
1
Paula whether I like it is irrelevant. If it's a workplace that person can be told that behavior is not wanted here; like using the C word at work. If he/she continues; and it is just a hate word; he/she can be asked to leave (fired from work or school). That is so not what is going on here. What people wear; how they speak; their political beliefs; even their stereotypical beliefs; is 100% different than a racial epithet. You need to grow up.
1
Yes Paula I do because the alternative is so much worse.
2
The biggest problem affecting free speech in America and the future of the University as a defense of ideas?
This is a very easy question to answer in at least one aspect: Free speech in America has devolved to a sad and startling extent to a battle between two major political parties, two groups who operate with all resources to get the better of each other, which means a smaller group of people not to mention an individual acting alone has less room if any to be heard.
Which is to say the big problem in America seems to be the unspoken theory that the future development of ideas themselves, progress of idea and further development of human society, operates by broad committee and that the concept of lone genius is dead as an idea for progress and success. So we have in American society the only way to step forward in ideas is by clumsy toddler steps of one broad political foot before the other: Left and right, left and right.
But the big question is can a genuine movement to brilliant idea and transcendence come from a committee, not to mention a transcendence of both left and right to a more integrated and clearly conceived human future come from the large committees of left and right going at each other? Should we not look back historically at the history of intellectual ideas to see how societies transcended internal conflict, how much transcendence and progress came from groups operating and how much from lone individuals proposing solution in flash of genius? Yes.
This is a very easy question to answer in at least one aspect: Free speech in America has devolved to a sad and startling extent to a battle between two major political parties, two groups who operate with all resources to get the better of each other, which means a smaller group of people not to mention an individual acting alone has less room if any to be heard.
Which is to say the big problem in America seems to be the unspoken theory that the future development of ideas themselves, progress of idea and further development of human society, operates by broad committee and that the concept of lone genius is dead as an idea for progress and success. So we have in American society the only way to step forward in ideas is by clumsy toddler steps of one broad political foot before the other: Left and right, left and right.
But the big question is can a genuine movement to brilliant idea and transcendence come from a committee, not to mention a transcendence of both left and right to a more integrated and clearly conceived human future come from the large committees of left and right going at each other? Should we not look back historically at the history of intellectual ideas to see how societies transcended internal conflict, how much transcendence and progress came from groups operating and how much from lone individuals proposing solution in flash of genius? Yes.
1
My son is a Mid at the US Naval Academy. Halloween was celebrated with costumes, candy and concerts. There were no protests and all enjoyed a break from the discipline of their daily lives. The Midshipmen are being trained to be leaders of sailors and marines in the real world; a world that contains dissenting views, offensive actions and speech. It is a world without trigger warnings or safe spaces, a world that can be overtly hostile and dangerous.
What world are the students at Yale being prepared for?
What world are the students at Yale being prepared for?
90
While I didn't go to Yale, I don't care to hear hate speech or see graphic images or hear about graphic assault, mayhem, or murder. What do I do? I work in research. Over the last 20 years, I have listened to people with emotional or psychiatric issues who have told me their symptoms; I have listened, over and over, to horrible traumas that led to PTSD. I have worked with people dying of cancer who are trying a last chance by taking an experimental medication (and comforted them at the end); now I work in an area finding a cure for children born with a genetic mutation, who will die young. In college, I didn't get (or need) offensive speech, and I didn't take classes that exposed me to graphic images or graphic stories. And even now, I don't need offensive speech. I don't need to hear anything more terrible than what I already have to deal with (and in my own way, I have shared those burdens as much as I could with the people who have to carry them, I hope, with grace and comfort; I cannot unhear what I have heard, and I cannot unsee what I have seen). I don't need graphic images; I've seen enough, and heard enough. Hate for others hurts my heart in ways that I guess you cannot imagine. Thanks anyway.
1
JP Tolins Minneapolis: Why, JP, they are being prepared for the world of candy canes and peppermint popsicles and rooms full of soft toys that can be cuddled with plenty of reassuring juice to sip whenever the sky gets dark and the baddie-bads roll loud thunder and throw scary lightening and Mommy's not around to stroke their hair and tell them "it's all right little sweetie".
Isn't that obvious?
Isn't that obvious?
I don't see the equivalence between the offensive incidents at Yale and Missouri U.
If Yale's campus were being buzzed by trucks full of Nazis waving swastika flags, no one would have the slightest problem interpreting it as intimidation. Action by the administration to stop an ongoing pattern of intimidation would be appropriate.
There is an equivalence in the proposed solutions, however. Both go to impermissible extremes in curbing protected speech.
If Yale's campus were being buzzed by trucks full of Nazis waving swastika flags, no one would have the slightest problem interpreting it as intimidation. Action by the administration to stop an ongoing pattern of intimidation would be appropriate.
There is an equivalence in the proposed solutions, however. Both go to impermissible extremes in curbing protected speech.
12
Is there video somewhere of any campus being buzzed by trucks full of Nazis waving swastikas? Something like that should be all over the news shouldn't it?
1
Missouri had trucks full of guys waving Confederate flags. It was all over the news.
For black students in a former slave state -- one which voted to secede, but was prevented from leaving the Union because the Union army deposed the government and occupied the state -- that is a level of intimidation that rises above questions of hurt feelings and bruised egos. It implied a public safety responsibility for the educational institution to intervene.
For black students in a former slave state -- one which voted to secede, but was prevented from leaving the Union because the Union army deposed the government and occupied the state -- that is a level of intimidation that rises above questions of hurt feelings and bruised egos. It implied a public safety responsibility for the educational institution to intervene.
Universities should not invite speakers, they should invite debate.
The problem always arises when the establishment preaches rather than listens.
The problem always arises when the establishment preaches rather than listens.
9
As one French proverb says: "C'est le ton qui fait la musique." In my opinion, many of these conflicts would not exist if we could phrase out thoughts in less demanding and more respectful terms, providing others with rather an alternative point of view than with a must-do instruction.
3
As another French proverb says, "il est la musique qui donne le ton".
You dance to whatever the band is playing.
You dance to whatever the band is playing.
Good point and long overdue. This is not a comment on any PARTICULAR case, but I cannot think of a single time in my life where I regretted rethinking my knee-jerk reaction to something that was making me angry. Being black, there's always an opportunity for me to take offense at something. And sometimes my knee-jerk reaction is right (some racial slurs, for instance, are pretty unambiguous). Even so, I've gotten in the habit of refusing to get into a battle of words unless I've asked at least once if the person speaking really meant their words the way they sounded. It's gratifying that most people, given the chance, love having a second opportunity to maintain their overall point without being insulting. I know I always appreciate it when someone (family, friends, co-workers, girlfriend, etc.) gives me that chance. It's not about backing down or conceding anything. It's about seeing the exit ramp on a bad road and just TAKING it. It's about knowing that the person is TRYING to take me seriously and that hyperbole, exaggerations and/or name-calling make that more difficult. When it's me extending the opportunity no one has ever responded, "Yeah, I meant that exactly the way it sounded. I am here TRYING to provoke you by using the harshest, most hurting language I can muster up."
2
Thank you, Matt. I have also tried to use your method of waiting a bit as it is entirely human to make these immediate assessments. And a bit of time often allows one to think, hey, maybe there is more context here than what "I" thought. Plus, I must remind myself that I'm not the center of the universe so it isn't ALWAYS about me & my context.
1
"Instead of deriding trigger warnings, safe spaces and censored Halloween costumes, free speech proponents need to advance alternatives that resonate with the students they want to reach."
Alternatives to what? Free speech?
Alternatives to what? Free speech?
57
Mac of Dallas: in case you haven't noticed, what today's students want are "trigger warnings, safe spaces, and censored Halloween costumes." The last thing today's students want is free speech.
And, sir, what exactly is the acceptable alternative to "free speech" in a democracy?
And, sir, what exactly is the acceptable alternative to "free speech" in a democracy?
"Who Is Entitled to Be Heard?" asks the NY Times.
In the case of the University of Missouri, a public institution endowed primarily with taxpayer funds? EVERYBODY!!
In the case of the University of Missouri, a public institution endowed primarily with taxpayer funds? EVERYBODY!!
39
Really well-written article. Too often, articles criticizing the protests happening on campuses infantilize college students and cast them as naive, which is a disservice to the substantial issues being raised by the students. Recognizing the importance of free speech in guiding movements should not detract from the idea that there are significant problems of racial/sexual discrimination in universities. At the same time, over the past week, it has become apparent how quickly side issues can distract from the focus on discrimination, so it is doubly important that protesters welcome dialogue and discussion in order to create actual policy change.
3
I think colleges and universities should stick to their knitting, which is teaching, and divest themselves of all their overpaid, nonteaching administrators and pseudo-professional sports teams.
49
Totally agree.... Especially sports - and let's take that down to the high school level. As in Europe, sports can be managed through a local club network at the expense of parents whose kids want to participate. As we know from the quality of soccer, golf and the broad array of Olympic athletes produced by Europe - as well as by their advanced math and science scores - separating sports and education works for both enterprises.
5
I agreed with your comments until you got to "Instead of deriding trigger warnings, safe spaces and censored Halloween costumes, free speech proponents need to advance alternatives that resonate with the students they want to reach." Hold it=dead stop. Free speech proponents do not need to advance alternatives; those hyper-sensitive children need to grow up and learn that 1)they are not the center of the universe and 2)other people's ideas and viewpoint are as valid as theirs.
131
Unfortunately there are still many things that I am stuck on and I have been searching online for answers to help me rationalize some of the things that have been happening the past few weeks, without much luck.
I think there still is a significant amount of racism occurring and some of it on campuses, but I think that one of the big problems that I see, which make it difficult for both sides to hear each other is that the goal post (in terms of what is/isn't racist) has moved. I spent about 1 hour last night scrolling through the #blackoncampus twitter feed to try to understand what students are going through. From what I saw, some of the greatest accusations about racism were about people touching women's hair or mistaken identity just because of skin color. So, to me when someone is referring to those situations as being racist and making them scared to be on campus, I do have a tough time empathizing. Not saying that is right of me, but I honestly have a tough time understanding how and when the things I stated above became racist. I would say the hair thing is out of ignorance. The mistaken identity is more based in how the brain works rather than racist. Every race does that when they are not exposed to a variety of people from different races. How many people are able to tell the difference between individuals of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean decent?
I think there still is a significant amount of racism occurring and some of it on campuses, but I think that one of the big problems that I see, which make it difficult for both sides to hear each other is that the goal post (in terms of what is/isn't racist) has moved. I spent about 1 hour last night scrolling through the #blackoncampus twitter feed to try to understand what students are going through. From what I saw, some of the greatest accusations about racism were about people touching women's hair or mistaken identity just because of skin color. So, to me when someone is referring to those situations as being racist and making them scared to be on campus, I do have a tough time empathizing. Not saying that is right of me, but I honestly have a tough time understanding how and when the things I stated above became racist. I would say the hair thing is out of ignorance. The mistaken identity is more based in how the brain works rather than racist. Every race does that when they are not exposed to a variety of people from different races. How many people are able to tell the difference between individuals of Chinese, Japanese, or Korean decent?
57
I would say the hair thing is insensitive; people have completely different concepts of what is appropriate, so who's to know if you're going to offend every time? It's sad one can't take a risk and, yeah, touch someone's hair if it looks fluffy. What would be so wrong about a girl touching her friend's silky hair?
By the way, the swastika in feces on the door is as bad as it gets, but I wonder why - at least to my knowledge - no one's mentioned an offense to the Jews?
By the way, the swastika in feces on the door is as bad as it gets, but I wonder why - at least to my knowledge - no one's mentioned an offense to the Jews?
3
In an article headlined “Black Students See a Campus Riven by Race” that appears in today’s New York Times, a black Mizzou student lists a conversation in which he overheard white students talking about houseboats their families owned as an example of things that create racial tensions on campus. In the article, black students also object to comments on high crime rates in black neighborhoods and assert that people stare at them as they walk past fraternity houses. In the article, black students also complain that being around so many white people make the uncomfortable. Imagine the reaction if white students complained being around black students made them feel uncomfortable.
6
Very nice analysis, SH.
I would add to it that most commenters here are quite confused on the rationale for these black students. A fecal swastika is nasty (if it occurred), and name calling is bad - but this isn't a direct threat of violence.
I wonder about the mindset of these black students. Many of them are from wealthy families (such as the hunger striker, or most of the Yale students). To what degree do they feel guilt about being privileged? To what degree do they wish to symbolically join their illustrious grandparents who struggled during the civil rights movements?
Is that why they are making mountains out of molehills?
I would add to it that most commenters here are quite confused on the rationale for these black students. A fecal swastika is nasty (if it occurred), and name calling is bad - but this isn't a direct threat of violence.
I wonder about the mindset of these black students. Many of them are from wealthy families (such as the hunger striker, or most of the Yale students). To what degree do they feel guilt about being privileged? To what degree do they wish to symbolically join their illustrious grandparents who struggled during the civil rights movements?
Is that why they are making mountains out of molehills?
5
I don't see how free speech can be used to shut down someone else's speech. If you're referring to people forming a protest mob that physically intimidates others into shutting up, then that's not really speech, is it? Protest and speech aren't quite exactly the same thing - protest is more of an attitude. If you want to restrict your protest to speech, then that's usually quite accommodatable - but if you want to engage in protest that imposes coercion on others, then that's outside the realm of acceptable expression. Your freedoms end where others' freedoms begin.
119
American university administrators deserve a substantial share of responsibility for their failure to "advance alternatives [to trigger warnings, spaces, and censored Halloween costumes] that resonate with the students they want to reach." Instead of pursuing such alternatives as requiring freshman orientation workshops on the history of free speech, individual rights, and the efforts to achieve evolving definitions of racial justice in America, universities, such as the University of Missouri ,have developed, implemented, and aggressively enforced rigid and repressive "hateful/hurtful speech codes," which are an anathema to developing the vibrant, free-range spirit and communitarian ethic of shared values such as respect for minorities. These "hateful/hurtful speech codes" suffocate any meaningful or respectful campus discussion and debate of highly charged issues surrounding race and diversity, such as affirmative action in hiring and promotion in colleges and the outside world. Instead of promoting a healthy discussion and liberal debate of these controversial political and social issues, these codes have a punitive "chilling effect" on students, faculty, and administrators who would like to address and debate issues of race, diversity, gender identity etc. without being formally censured and threatened with suspension by the Dean of Students or ostracized and physically threatened on social media by students holding opposing points of view about these issues.
91
I think Shakespeare described this opinion piece well when he wrote, "like a tale told by an idiot, the sound and the fury, signifying nothing."
17
The entire Mizzou mess was a complete hoax.
Read the Breitbart News accounts.
Read the Breitbart News accounts.
14
Complete with a voice over that interprets the events through the right-wing lens that Breitbart is so known for, you forgot to add.
If it's so self-evident, just post the video without any commentary and let people judge for themselves.
If it's so self-evident, just post the video without any commentary and let people judge for themselves.
3
One wonders if Ms. Nosal has ever worked in a corporate office. After a 40-year career with several large firms, I can perhaps open her eyes: there is more vigorous, argumentative speech about both economic and social issues in corporate offices than I ever encountered in 4 years at a top liberal arts college and four years of graduate school. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
33
Way back in 1979 at Ithaca College, I remember this incident well:
"Eleven Ithaca College students suspended for masquerading as Ku Klux Klan....On Halloween night ten of the students paraded around the campus in white sheets, dragging the eleventh in tattered clothes by a rope. The college expelled seven of the students and suspended the other four for the duration of this semester. A state supreme court judge denied the students' request for reinstatement and a college spokesmen said constitutional due process rights were not an issue because 'Ithaca College is a private institution and not tax-supported.'" (Harvard Crimson)
I remember it well, because I didn't get it. I was young, naive, and was left scratching my head with a shoulder shrug.
Friends, this was 36 years ago, on a campus hardly recognized for its diversity!
Kudos to our wonderful college president at the time, James J. Whalen.
"Eleven Ithaca College students suspended for masquerading as Ku Klux Klan....On Halloween night ten of the students paraded around the campus in white sheets, dragging the eleventh in tattered clothes by a rope. The college expelled seven of the students and suspended the other four for the duration of this semester. A state supreme court judge denied the students' request for reinstatement and a college spokesmen said constitutional due process rights were not an issue because 'Ithaca College is a private institution and not tax-supported.'" (Harvard Crimson)
I remember it well, because I didn't get it. I was young, naive, and was left scratching my head with a shoulder shrug.
Friends, this was 36 years ago, on a campus hardly recognized for its diversity!
Kudos to our wonderful college president at the time, James J. Whalen.
13
What didn't you get? Just curious.
2
God forbid that everyone have a voice.
5
But they do, WJG3; we have racists like Craig Cobb who get news stories written about their hateful views, those advocating legalized child molestation, black separatists and you name any disturbing notion to you has a voice in this country.
What some people are getting lost here in the debate is free speech doesn't mean I have to listen to your speech any where, any time. If someone shows up to your door selling cookies, proselytizing, getting you to vote for a political candidate, you have the freedom to not open your door or to not listen to them. What you can't do is ask that they shut up and not talk to other people.
What some people are getting lost here in the debate is free speech doesn't mean I have to listen to your speech any where, any time. If someone shows up to your door selling cookies, proselytizing, getting you to vote for a political candidate, you have the freedom to not open your door or to not listen to them. What you can't do is ask that they shut up and not talk to other people.
1
Never have I read so many platitudes squeezed into a single essay, in which the grand conclusion are the most trite of platitudes: a "marketplace of free speech" and a "dialogue".
The metaphor of a "marketplace" is an empty vessel that could be filled by anything: what kind of "market"? a libertarian market? a neoliberal market? a Keynesian market? a Marxist market? Each market entails very different levels of control or laissez-faire by the state.
As for "dialogue", doesn't that simply translate to, "can't we all just get along"? Nobody disputes that sentiment. The question is how.
This essay provides a good foundation for a meaningful dialogue. (See what I mean, how trite that last sentence was?)
The metaphor of a "marketplace" is an empty vessel that could be filled by anything: what kind of "market"? a libertarian market? a neoliberal market? a Keynesian market? a Marxist market? Each market entails very different levels of control or laissez-faire by the state.
As for "dialogue", doesn't that simply translate to, "can't we all just get along"? Nobody disputes that sentiment. The question is how.
This essay provides a good foundation for a meaningful dialogue. (See what I mean, how trite that last sentence was?)
26
Everyone has the right to speak. Being listened to must be earned.