The Coddling Of The American Mind (Trigger Warning Article In The Atlantic...)

That's an easy one: he doesn't talk about it so much. The journalist raises the phrase, the professor says he isn't happy with it, then he uses the phrase to get to his idea. Your gotcha is denied.

So you're saying the journalist is lying?

No. I am saying re-read the article more carefully, starting from the point where the phrase "freedom of speech" comes in.

"More disconcerting than the nature and tone of recent protests to this professor is the lack of concern over freedom of speech—or what he referred to as “freedom of expression”—on campus."

Yes, clearly FoS or FoE isn't important to the professor... 'More disconcerting' means 'doesn't talk about it much'...

I don't get at all what you're trying to say?

Here:

“‘Freedom of speech’ is a little tough,” he said. ”It’s not the perfect phrase to use, partly because we’re a private institution and we’re not talking about government action. I like to use ‘freedom of expression.’ Universities are supposed to be places of freedom of expression.”

Pretty easy to infer who brought up the phrase given the focus of the article, and that the specific, differentiated complaints of the anonymous professor can't reasonably be simplified into "THEM KIDS IS TAKIN' MY FREEDOMS OF SPEECH!!"

x-post: you just quoted the journalist, dum-dum.

Um, yes? But, if you read the quote veeeeeery carefully, you'll see that the journalist uses the words 'this professor', which - and sure, this is an assumption - probably refers to the professor he is interviewing. Whom he is saying is concerned with the lack of concern over freedom of expression.

I still don't get you at all. But congrats on getting to call someone a dum-dum.

You are correct; you aren't getting my point at all. The journalist asserts that the professor is most concerned about freedom of speech on campus. The direct quotes from the professor do not support this assertion, and the only direct quote from the professor that discussion freedom of speech expresses discomfort with the phrase and tries to finesse it. It is, I think, less of a stretch to infer that the professor only mentioned the phrase "freedom of speech" because the journalist asked him about it than to say this professor talks about it "so much".
(Sling the casual sarcasm and I'll sling a dum-dum at you every time. Low stakes.)

So you ARE saying that the journalist is lying? Then why didn't you say so?

Yes. I am saying the journalist is lying. There is only the absolute objective truth, and any deviation from absolute objective truth for any reason is a lie.

Dum-dum.

http://www.mississippilawyer-blog.com/Yelling.jpg

So you ARE saying that the journalist is lying? Then why didn't you say so?

Hungry for gotchas, this one.

http://buzzsouthafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/microrganisom1.gif

Why on earth are you resistant to saying that the journalist is lying? You're saying he wrote something that wasn't true (or asserts something that isn't supported the quotes, I'm sure you can tell me why that's an important difference) but when I ask if he's lying you become incredibly defensive?

But just to return to what the discussion was actually about, until you decided to derail it, here's the full part of the text that deals with 'freedom of expression'. Honestly, I think it seems quite clear that the professor is concerned.

More disconcerting than the nature and tone of recent protests to this professor is the lack of concern over freedom of speech—or what he referred to as “freedom of expression”—on campus.

“‘Freedom of speech’ is a little tough,” he said. ”It’s not the perfect phrase to use, partly because we’re a private institution and we’re not talking about government action. I like to use ‘freedom of expression.’ Universities are supposed to be places of freedom of expression.”

The strong emotions, high sensitivity, and overwhelming desire for immediate administrative changes in regards to the treatment of “historically underrepresented groups” appears to override freedom of expression and open dialogue on campus.

Concerns about freedom of speech on Brown’s campus also came up when I interviewed students about the controversial Columbus Day op-ed.
“I think freedom of speech in general has a lot of problems because of power dynamics, just racially and otherwise, so you have to be cautious,” sophomore Sierra Edd said.

The professor says his concerns about freedom of expression at Brown went back further than this fall.

In October 2013, Brown University students effectively prevented then-New York City police chief Ray Kelly from speaking after he had been explicitly invited to be part of a lecture series organized by Brown’s Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions.
“I knew people were organizing to protest, and I was all for that,” the professor said. “The idea that people were outside picketing, I thought, ‘Great! This is America. Picket. Let him know people here don’t like him, don’t like his views.’ No one objected to the picketing.”

Instead, student protesters booed and shouted to the point Kelly could not proceed with his speech.

“After about a half-hour of attempts to continue the lecture, administrators decided to cancel the event,” the Brown Daily Herald reported at the time.
“There are ways to protest a person without shutting down their speech,” the professor said. While he was disappointed in the students, he was alarmed that more professors weren’t upset.

Some faculty “thought it was absolutely appropriate and acceptable that his ability to express his views as an invited speaker, that shutting that down, was OK,” the professor said. “In my whole time here that was the first time faculty endorsed a view that does restrict free expression.”

I am resistant to saying that the journalist is lying because that would be silly. That are many ways to be wrong without lying: see, for example, yourself.

It would be wrong to say that the professor is not concerned at all about freedom of expression; but I think you are conflating the journalist's clear point of view in this piece with the professor's, as I think the journalist has done. I think the professor is very concerned about changes in student culture that are detrimental to the possibility of the open exchange of ideas; to call that "talking a lot about freedom of speech" makes it easy to dismiss with a hand wave, as your initial post seemed intended to do. You can be really very uncomfortable about the culture of shutting down without being against the protestors or their protests -- the assertions of protestors that this is not so to the contrary.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/cd4851c57accb3c9733efc5009014f49/tumblr_inline_njz6ipAWMo1r96r7k.gif

Yeah, I'm with Scott here, TWU. You really get butthurt over semantics.

Who's hurt?

i'm actually not paying too much attention. i got a little confused with the back and forth! carry on though. i'm watching a trump rally on youtube. oof!

That's ok. I was watching last nights Fargo. Probably that's why I think everyone is hurt.

(It's also kind of hard to pretend to be on the side of righteousness and use that awful word "butthurt", btw. A friendly tip.)

to call that "talking a lot about freedom of speech"

To be fair, this is what Frederik wrote: "how can a professor talk so much about the importance of 'freedom of expression', but then half his criticisms are 'they are shouting! making too much noise! why is she crying?'

x-post: Yeah, I thought about that afterwards, that it might have bad connections. I thought it was just something you said to assholes.

x-post: correction noted, but this isn't really a semantic point: the journalist went out to get "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" quotes from a professor for a "PC GONE MAD" article, and didn't really get one. The professor isn't harping on individual rights being trampled on in a way that makes it easy to boil down to "my speech is more equal than yours", but is talking about a student movement that apparently, in some circumstances, does not seek interaction or any kind of exchange -- whether the professor is right or wrong, that is a different question than the "shut up and let the white grownups speak" that a lot of articles on this subject have boiled down to.

It's also quite hypocritical to blame ones opponents for conducting their freedom of expression in ways that 'does not seek interaction or any kind of exchange' when doing a long anonymous interview, right?

Why?

Because you're not seeking interaction or any kind of exchange yourself.

I mean, not you, the professor.

The professor isn't a movement or a culture. We also don't know why he chose to be anonymous; it may have nothing to do with not wanting to answer for what he is saying. For example, I am very tempted to change my username and use another username on political threads not because I don't want people to disagree and engage with me but because there is a large enough number of posters who read my name and think they know what I am REALLY saying that conversation gets distorted and confusing very quickly.

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/GenomIndustries/ForumCrap/blahblah.gif

(It's also kind of hard to pretend to be on the side of righteousness and use that awful word "butthurt", btw. A friendly tip.)

This card fell out of your deck around 'Dum-dum', just so you know.

When did I ever pretend to be on the side of righteousness?

https://31.media.tumblr.com/227be639b6e81a19aa787f7fa0aa8c16/tumblr_inline_njz6iwLgoB1r96r7k.gif

sorry, thinking of ways to market my 2016 Girls Of Microagression calendar idea...

Is that last woman REALLY Icelandic or has she appropriated her sweater?

maria's e-mail to the student management at WMUA:

Who has the power at WMUA?

When there is conflict between people in an organization, it can be useful to examine who holds the power. In many social movements, those with less power challenge those with more power in an attempt to equalize power. Students lobbying the administration for a living wage for UMass workers is an example of those with less power (students, workers) appealing to those with more power (administration as an employer) for equity.

WMUA is student-run. Students hold the management positions. Students thus hold what sociologists call "legitimate power" or "positional power". Students with positional power can make choices that are not open to those who are not in that position. A student manager could request that the transmitter be turned off, for example.

Student managers also hold what sociologists call "reward power" and "coercive power". The General Body has been reminded repeatedly of this power, with statements such as "failing to properly refile CDs can be grounds for loss of membership". Fear among the general body that if they criticize the management, they might not get a slot for a show is a manifestation of this power. The ability of the General Manager to decide that the Music Director should receive a pay raise is an example of this power. The ability of the student management to appoint those they view as friends to DD positions or to "groom" individuals to step up into DD positions are examples of positional power. Student managers can bestow rewards (slots, other positions of power) or withdraw them (threat of loss of membership, loss of slots).

Student managers also have the power to try to diminish the power of others. Sociologists talk about "referent power" and "expert power". This is the influence individuals gain by being skilled or experienced or by building loyalty among allies. Community members can be said to have referent and expert power by virtue of their listeners and the experience they have gained in radio. This power can however be limited by, for example, not allowing community members to make posts on WMUA's social media sites.

Student managers can increase their own "referent power" by excluding community members from involvement in station events and by currying validation from student-centric venues like CMJ.

In the conflict at WMUA, community members have much less power than students do. Community members have appealed to "referent power" by seeking support in the Pioneer Valley from listeners. Community members have tried to appeal to the democratic power laid out in the station manual by trying to use the grievance committee process. This process revealed all the more starkly that the democratic power set out in the manual is entirely contingent on an acceptance by all parties that this process be respected. If the democratic process set out in the manual is ignored by those in power, community members lose any power to appeal to democracy.

Traditionally, "old, white men" have had the power in our society. It has become acceptable among progressives to disparage "old, white men". While claims of reverse racism are usually despicable and reactionary and ignore the historical context of power, in this case, it is important to view the power dynamics if one is to come to an equitable view of the situation.

Social activism among young people is to be encouraged, in my mind. In this case, I think there is some misplaced generational angst and some real age bias. This is not a case of students fighting power. This is a case of students using power to fight. There are good targets for a fight. Raising wages, giving the underprivileged a bigger voice, divesting from oppressive businesses, no longer glorifying perpetrators of oppression (e.g. Lord Jeffrey) – these are all honourable and justifiable battles against power. Making sure 70-year-olds can't keep playing tunes on the radio so that younger folks can instead? Not so much.

You've heard the saying "with power comes responsibility". As the holders of positional power, you should understand how your actions play out for those without power. I have had students tell me they are afraid to be seen talking to me, that they might not get a slot if they are viewed as friendly to the community. This is an example of how positional power can be abused.

Please think about this.

i think that's otm personally but i don't get the feeling that this idea that power should be analyzed in the context of particular circumstances a part from the broader societal theory of the case is v popular

maria's situation is why i started this thread and why i was thinking about this stuff. i realize that the thread has gone WAY beyond that though. and that most of the students brought up in this thread are NOT in positions of power. now i'm just thinking about power...

thumbs up for maria

(workplace power dynamics (and the abuse thereof) have always fascinated and astounded me particularly. that people willingly enter into that sort of agreement to be dictated to and all that that entails. and yeah we all have to eat but the results can be horrifying even now. institutional power dynamics also completely fascinating to me too. i should really read a good book on it all someday.)

Those microaggression girls are powerful! Did you... gif them, Scott?

that was a nice letter scott -- i wonder if/how it will be understood -- i'm curious to hear updates.

been reluctant to chime in because this is one of those things where it's best to listen but what is the deal w the WMUA thing and/because...

"Student managers also hold what sociologists call "reward power" and "coercive power". The General Body has been reminded repeatedly of this power, with statements such as "failing to properly refile CDs can be grounds for loss of membership"."

...being encouraged to wipe your own ass is a sign of a power imbalance?

also learning a lot from this thred so ty

Wait, scott, did people at your wife's radio station really invoke "fighting institutional racism" as a justification for firing totally nonracist yet old and white senior citizens from their long held positions as volunteer dj's at a publicly funded radio station? That's what I inferred from your wife's letter. If so, that's vile.

Vile and also bonkers.

If this thread has taught me anything, it is that there are (at least) 2 sides to every story.

We have heard only one side here, and given the reporting of the other side is from a guy who has repeatedly stated that he thinks microaggressions are bullshit (and in fact makes jokes about making "calendar girls" out of women complaining about microaggressions) I am really not sure how much weight I give his judgements on how racist the old guys holding all the financial and cultural Capital are.

I have no idea (and don't actually care) what the details of this beef are. But the words that people choose and the poses they strike always say a lot to me about how qualified they are to judge the existence or non-existence of biases they have never experienced!

Beef week for the multiplex, I see.

"Racism" isn't always "what they say", it's more often "what they do, or don't do"

Sometimes saying is doing though (arguably)