http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/opinion/mizzou-yale-and-free-speech.html?_r=0

This is exactly what I posted about earlier concerning free speech. Why is the left so restrictive on those who have a different view? Especially on a college campus where students are supposedly taught to use critical thinking of both sides of a debate.

Now they need warnings and have wrapped themselves in a bubble of protective thought.

I want other peoples views discussed. It makes me think, and evaluate my own views.

I suppose it probably ought to be said that the overwhelming majority of students don't act this way. I sincerely hope not anyway. They didn't when I was at university but that was a while back now and maybe things have changed. I doubt it though, this kind of thing is just a loud and obnoxious minority. They really need to come out of their safe spaces and realise that their frequently fatuous views are not worthy of protection from criticism.

With that said, I probably shouldn't comment on the Missouri thing since I don't understand it. I've seen a couple of news reports on the story and I'm no clearer on what they were actually protesting about. The temptation is to just assume they're making a lot of noise about very little but I'd probably better not jump to that conclusion.

Sassenach wrote:I suppose it probably ought to be said that the overwhelming majority of students don't act this way. I sincerely hope not anyway. They didn't when I was at university but that was a while back now and maybe things have changed. I doubt it though, this kind of thing is just a loud and obnoxious minority. They really need to come out of their safe spaces and realise that their frequently fatuous views are not worthy of protection from criticism.

Unfortunately Sass, I don't think it is all that small of a minority. This sort of thing happens on college campuses all the time. There is an entire organization dedicated to defending students and faculty who have run afoul of college speech codes. It is called Foundations for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). You should check out their website at www.thefire.org. It is down right scary. The Yale incident was caught on video because the President of FIRE, Greg Lukianoff, happened to be on campus for a free speech symposium that day. He was leaving, after have to be escorted out of the hall where the symposium was being held by police because of the students protesting the event, when he came across Christikas protest. He started filming it because he felt someone should get incident recorded. In an interview on Michael Smerconish radio show this week, Lukianoff said he was told by an editor at the Yale student paper that if he, Lukianoff, hadn't released the video he had made, the paper was set to publish a story with a narrative that was negative about the faculty member that was being yelled at.

Sassenach wrote:With that said, I probably shouldn't comment on the Missouri thing since I don't understand it. I've seen a couple of news reports on the story and I'm no clearer on what they were actually protesting about. The temptation is to just assume they're making a lot of noise about very little but I'd probably better not jump to that conclusion.

My understanding of the Missouri think is that there were two recent incidents on campus. One was were a drunk student yelled a racial epithet at some African-American students. (my understanding is this individual was arrested and kicked out of Mizzou but I could be wrong). The other incident was some RA's found a swastika drawn with feces on a dorm bathroom wall. The protests are because the students are unhappy with the way the administration responded to these two incidents. I have read somewhere that the precipitating incident was that the President refused to get out of a convertible he was riding in and discuss the issue when students came up to him on the street. I don't know how true that was because the article was from a right leaning website so ...

The protest was against the systemic racism at Mizzou. It started with a single grad student doing a hunger strike. Then more students started to participate making a camp city on some spot in the campus. Then the college football team basically said they would not practice or play until the President was removed from office. This would have cost the University $1M in fee to the opposing team for forfeiting today's game not to mention lost revenue for ticket and concession sales at the game. The president resigned the day after the football team's announcement.

"To our students: from Concerned Student 1950 to our grad students, football players and other students, the frustration and anger that I see is clear, real,and I don't doubt it for a second.
"To the faculty and staff who have expressed their anger, their frustration, this, too, is real.
"To my friends and my supporters that have been so gracious and have sent so many emails in the past and calls with support, I understand that you might be frustrated, as well.
"So the question really is, is why did we get to this very difficult situation. It is my belief we stopped listening to each other. We didn't respond or react. We got frustrated with each other, and we forced individuals like Jonathan Butler to take immediate action and unusual steps to effect change.

This part of what Tim Wolfe said when he resigned. He seems to admit in his resignation speech that he did nothing about systemic racism on campus. Perhaps he had no real idea what he could do to affect change. And if its the casual everyday racism that the next article expands upon, I don't know either. Though he obviously should have taken some action even if it was mostly symbolic.

http://www.kansascity.com/latest-news/a ... 42580.html

The extremes of the argument now seems to be those who deny racism really exists as a continuing problem that is systemic and those who want to insist upon redress that may not be realistic.
Black Lives matter is a perfect example. What some say that undermines the intent of Black Lives Matter is that All Lives Matter. What this ignores is that Black Lives are in greater peril than white lives. (Especially when encountering police).
It ignore the actual problem and denies the complaints. And I think thats what Wolfe was admitting on his way out the door. Though in his case, the power to actually enact change may have been beyond him

rickyp wrote:

"To our students: from Concerned Student 1950 to our grad students, football players and other students, the frustration and anger that I see is clear, real,and I don't doubt it for a second.
"To the faculty and staff who have expressed their anger, their frustration, this, too, is real.
"To my friends and my supporters that have been so gracious and have sent so many emails in the past and calls with support, I understand that you might be frustrated, as well.
"So the question really is, is why did we get to this very difficult situation. It is my belief we stopped listening to each other. We didn't respond or react. We got frustrated with each other, and we forced individuals like Jonathan Butler to take immediate action and unusual steps to effect change.

This part of what Tim Wolfe said when he resigned. He seems to admit in his resignation speech that he did nothing about systemic racism on campus.

Did he say anything of that magnitude? I don't think so.

For example, please demonstrate there was "systemic racism on campus." One drunk uttering a racial epithet and some mental patient shaping feces into a swastika hardly constitutes "systemic racism."

Unfortunately Sass, I don't think it is all that small of a minority. This sort of thing happens on college campuses all the time.

Sure, but it's still only a minority of students doing it. I think we should be careful not to tar all young people with the same brush.

Sassenach wrote:

Unfortunately Sass, I don't think it is all that small of a minority. This sort of thing happens on college campuses all the time.

Sure, but it's still only a minority of students doing it. I think we should be careful not to tar all young people with the same brush.

I wonder if it's possible for the BLM to actually lose support among students with stunts like this one:

Protesters at Dartmouth University disrupted students studying in the library, reportedly directing profanity towards white students and physically pushing others.

In a critical editorial, the conservative Dartmouth Review listed some of the epithets hurled by the protesters: “@#$! you, you filthy white @#$!!” “@#$! you and your comfort!” “@#$! you, you racist sh*%&!”

In addition, the Review reports that some of protesters became physically violent: “Men and women alike were pushed and shoved by the group. ‘If we can’t have it, shut it down!’ they cried. Another woman was pinned to a wall by protesters who unleashed their insults, shouting ‘filthy white b****!’ in her face.”

Campus Reform managed to obtain video showing the protesters walking through the library shouting as others try to study. One of the protesters can be seen flipping off the cameraman. Another gets in the face of those who are studying demanding they say that black lives matter.

When you start disrupting the lives of those who support you, you may be on the wrong track.

MIZZOU is one of the most progressive campuses in all of Missouri.

Entitlement + victimese = news story

or put another way..give me something for nothing or you'll be sorry.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:MIZZOU is one of the most progressive campuses in all of Missouri.

Entitlement + victimese = news story

or put another way..give me something for nothing or you'll be sorry.

In some places, this would be known as "robbery." For example, the state of California: the taking of property from another by means of force OR fear.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:MIZZOU is one of the most progressive campuses in all of Missouri.

Is that like being one of the tallest dwarves?

I do find the current fad among students to try and exclude speakers quite disappointing. We had it here recently - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ree-speech - students have been petitioning for Germaine Greer to be stopped from speaking at Cardiff University, because while she's a feminist icon she also has the view that transsexuals (M to F) are not women.

Of course there are other threats to academic freedom - Also from Missouri: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abo ... 1d307168a3

danivon wrote:Of course there are other threats to academic freedom - Also from Missouri: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abo ... 1d307168a3

Is it "academic freedom" to write what will surely be propaganda? From your link:

Part of Schaefer's complaint about the 72-hour waiting period study is that the student's supervisor, Marjorie Sable, is a member of the Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Board of Directors. The grad student is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social Work, of which Sable is a director.

"It is difficult to understand how a research study approved by the University, conducted by a University student, and over seen by the Director of the School of Social Work at the University can be perceived as anything but an expenditure of public funds to aid in Planned Parenthood in improving 'its services to better meet the needs of women seeking abortions' in clear violation of Missouri law," Schaefer wrote.

Ooh, I wonder how that "study" is going to turn out? That's a real nail-biter.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Of course there are other threats to academic freedom - Also from Missouri: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abo ... 1d307168a3

Is it "academic freedom" to write what will surely be propaganda? From your link:

So we should shut down all academic studies which might be "propaganda"? Either you want free academia or you do not.

Part of Schaefer's complaint about the 72-hour waiting period study is that the student's supervisor, Marjorie Sable, is a member of the Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Board of Directors. The grad student is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social Work, of which Sable is a director.

"It is difficult to understand how a research study approved by the University, conducted by a University student, and over seen by the Director of the School of Social Work at the University can be perceived as anything but an expenditure of public funds to aid in Planned Parenthood in improving 'its services to better meet the needs of women seeking abortions' in clear violation of Missouri law," Schaefer wrote.

Ooh, I wonder how that "study" is going to turn out? That's a real nail-biter.

If the University acceed to the politico's demands, we won't know. But if they don't then you get to shoot down the actual study, rather than what you assume it will be now. You do know what the literal meaning of "prejudice" is, right?

Interesting article Danivon, especially this part...

Part of Schaefer's complaint about the 72-hour waiting period study is that the student's supervisor, Marjorie Sable, is a member of the Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Board of Directors. The grad student is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social Work, of which Sable is a director.

I see Fate beat me to this point.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Interesting article Danivon, especially this part...

Part of Schaefer's complaint about the 72-hour waiting period study is that the student's supervisor, Marjorie Sable, is a member of the Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Board of Directors. The grad student is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Social Work, of which Sable is a director.

I see Fate beat me to this point.

Yep, and my response is the same, but I will expound:

1) Shaefer's assertion is that the study is illegal in Missoouri because it wold provide "encouragement" or "counselling" for abortion. However, the study is a study based on the data. You cannot judge if the study actually encouraging or counselling unless you read it.

2) As the data is coming from PP, if anything it is the academic study which is getting benefit from PP, not the other way around.

3) Maybe the results will show that Missouri's more restrictive laws lead to fewer abortions. Would you not want that to be reported?

danivon wrote:3) Maybe the results will show that Missouri's more restrictive laws lead to fewer abortions. Would you not want that to be reported?

A decent academic adviser would not permit "propaganda" to be a thesis.

If you really believe the outcome of the study is in doubt, perhaps you'd care to make a wager? If there was ever a rigged "study" this is it.