Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

admissions standards "beyond" passing the big high school exam, the "bac"

Having just filed some grades and noted the number of zeros (i.e. outstanding ones), I usually wait until late April for the "My mom got bit by a gecko, can I still turn in my paper?" lines.

i do get surprised sometimes, but if i grade honestly then most students just start out not writing/thinking at a level i consider appropriate for 'A' papers, and it takes the kind of skill that can't be acquired during a single semester.

i'm seeing more not-turning-in-work-at-all when teaching online courses. but in person, last semester i had a student, at a very pricey private school, who had more or less been showing up all semester and even took the final, but then just didn't even turn in a term paper until i'd hounded and wheedled it out of them a few weeks after the deadline so they wouldn't fail.

why bother hounding them? if they want to fail, let them fail.

and less grading for you!

inextirpable concern for student well being

is that some cross being inexplicable and inextricable?

?

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/198606/the-daoud-affair

A group of 19 professors in France drew up a statement accusing Daoud of a series of ideological crimes, consisting of “orientialist cliches,” “essentialism,” “psychologization,” “colonialist paternalism,” an “anti-humanist” viewpoint, and other such errors, amounting to racism and Islamophobia. Le Monde published their accusations. A second denunciation came his way, this time in private. It was a letter from the author of the New York Times Magazine profile, the American literary journalist Adam Shatz. In his letter Shatz professed affection for Daoud. He claimed not to be making any accusations at all. He wrote, “I’m not saying you’re doing it on purpose, or even that you’re playing the game of the ‘imperialists.’ I’m not accusing you of anything. Except perhaps of not thinking, and of falling into strange and potentially dangerous traps”—which amounted to saying what the 19 professors had said, with the additional accusation of stupidity.

Daoud published the American journalist’s letter in Le Monde, just to make clear what he was up against—though he did it with an elegant show of friendliness. He explained that he, and not his detractors, lives in Algeria and understands its reality. He noted the Stalinist tone of the attacks on him. He insisted on the validity of his own emotions. He refused to accept the political logic that would require him to lapse into silence about what he believes. And then, in what appeared to be a plain and spiteful fury at his detractors, he declared that he is anyway going to do what the detractors have, in effect, demanded. He is going to silence his journalism: a gesture whose emotional punch comes from The Meursault Investigation, with its theme of silence. Or, at minimum, Daoud threatened to be silent—though naturally the calls for him to continue speaking up have already begun, and doubtless he will have to respond.

He insisted on the validity of his own emotions.

something like this should be written on the tombstone of the human race.

I'm not sure why Le Monde published it, those aren't "professors in France". For instance, the only philosopher on the list is a South African who works at UC Irvine (noted for being Derrida's USA hideout). He does "critical race theory" which is one of those american areas of philosophy that draws upon French philosophy but is ignored by the French. at least one of the sociologists works at the lol new school, enough said. others are americans. others are post docs or grad students. I don't see a single French professor on the list.

I know I'm cap'n save a french academia but if there's a beef, it's between americans and Daoud, americans who couldn't interest an american newspaper enough to print it because Daoud writes in French.

interesting! thank you for the correction/clarification.

and i don't mind cap'n save a french academia. i'm perfectly happy to believe that the american academy is uniquely ignorant + polemical and that europe universities have their shit more together.

hah well that's not the case but when it comes to this issue at least French academia hasn't lost its shit. we have other shit going on, like biweekly strikes against the new labor law for example.

That quote from Shatz is not exactly what I'd call a "denunciation" though of course I haven't read Shatz's whole letter

well he accuses him of not thinking so, like the article says, it's basically a soft denunciation

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If I wrote that to a friend I'd be saying "you're acting in a way that helps out people who are motivated to say bad things about you that aren't true," and that would not be at all the same as saying "all those bad things about you are true plus you're stupid."

shatz in LRB:

The exaggerations in Daoud’s New York Times piece about behaviour in the Arab world were too sweeping, the leaps of judgment too swift. He seemed to be breaking taboos about Muslim ‘sexual misery’ for their own sake, without realising that some of these taboos are clichés in the West, in racist circles where he would not be welcome except as an ‘Arabe de service’. Daoud has always refused to be muzzled by fears of the ways others might use his writings; if racists choose to exploit his criticisms of Islam, he can hardly be blamed for it. It is an admirable stance. But to write in blithe disregard of nuance and complexity – and of the battles waged by the Arab women in whose name he spoke – struck me as irresponsible, and unworthy of him. I wrote to him in the hope that he would climb down from this mountain of hyperbole, and instead explore the ambiguities of sex and power in his fiction. He replied that my letter had confirmed his decision to ‘return to literature’ and ‘leave journalism’.

Yeah, I would definitely not call that a "denunciation." It's what I'd write about somebody whose work I respected and thought was worthwhile.

i understand there's a difference between saying "your work is useful for racists" and "you are a racist" but ultimately both are censorious moves i thnk

But who knows, maybe I'm going around denouncing people without knowing it!

i understand there's a difference between saying "your work is useful for racists" and "you are a racist" but ultimately both are censorious moves i thnk

I just think that difference is vitally important to keep in the forefront of our mind -- e.g. because I think there are people in BDS to whom both you and I would like to say the former and not the latter (setting aside for a moment the people to whom we would like to say the latter)

and it is super annoying when the response to saying the former thing is "OH STOP LEVELING THAT TIRED ACCUSATION OF ANTI-SEMITISM AT ME," which response elides exactly that difference.

that's fair but i'm not surprised that after what was definitely a clear denunciation of racism he wasn't quite as receptive to the "your work is useful for racists" critique (like probably he saw the shatz letter in the same continuum and not as a distinct critique). nb putting aside whether shatz is right or not i should admit i have not read the novel. i think i do agree with you.

Death of the citer?

http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-regents-committee-OKs-anti-Zionism-as-6988865.php

The 12-page “Principles Against Intolerance”

that's a lot of principles.

Noted feminist and UC Berkeley comparative literature Professor Judith Butler told the regents that she was the daughter of Holocaust survivors and that “anti-Semitism is a despicable form of discrimination.” However, she said, UC should not conflate it with anti-Zionism, “a political viewpoint protected by the First Amendment.”

FWIW anti-semitism is also protected by the first amendment, no? at least if it's not employed in some actionable form of discrimination. you are allowed to be anti-semitic, to say anti-semitic things.

i feel like a lot of academics and administrators have forgotten this.

for instance the chancellor of my university sent out a statement that said something about "nobody is entitled" to express hateful or demeaning speech. um, yes, yes, they are. especially at a public university.

otm

this all ties into the expansion of academic bureaucracy. schools shouldn't have to have these elaborate speech codes, but having them justifies a lot of jobs, and in any case students increasingly seem to see this kind of administrative interference as an end in itself. how many recent protest movements made administrative "statements" and new administrative positions a key part of their demands?

also have we discussed this?:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/emory-u-to-track-down-trump-supporting-chalkers.html

SMDH

thinktanks for the emories

FWIW anti-semitism is also protected by the first amendment, no? at least if it's not employed in some actionable form of discrimination. you are allowed to be anti-semitic, to say anti-semitic things.

I think political expression has always been understood to be at the very center of what's protected by 1st amendment, and is indeed more strictly protected than being a racist yutz (not to say the latter isn't protected)

for instance the chancellor of my university sent out a statement that said something about "nobody is entitled" to express hateful or demeaning speech. um, yes, yes, they are. especially at a public university.

I think they're entitled in a sense, but it's def not the 1st am that entitles them, it's an academic norm. Steven Salaita doesn't have a 1st amendment claim against UIUC, nor would he if he were a student who got expelled for tweeting the same stuff.

speech codes at public universities seem like possible first amendment violations to me and i believe courts have generally ruled against speech codes for that reason. i agree that butler is embarrassingly confused about 1st amendment protections in quote above.

also i think a lot of anti-semites consider their antisemitic speech political and that's probably why it gets mixed up w/ anti-zionism so much since they're both political speech directed against jewish institutions

for instance the chancellor of my university sent out a statement that said something about "nobody is entitled" to express hateful or demeaning speech. um, yes, yes, they are. especially at a public university.

I think they're entitled in a sense, but it's def not the 1st am that entitles them, it's an academic norm. Steven Salaita doesn't have a 1st amendment claim against UIUC, nor would he if he were a student who got expelled for tweeting the same stuff.

Don't know the details of the Salaita case enough to comment, but like 30 minutes ago I was listening to a podcast where a law professor made the exact opposite point re:students--that student speech in non-university forums (like twitter) is subject to first amendment protections against university disciplinary actions.

specifically applied to public universities like UIUC

If a law professor said that, I stand corrected.

yeah, I am no lawyer and can't back it up beyond my initial statement. it was a weird confluence of listening to a podcast at random and then opening up this thread to see the exact same discussion. The law professor in question was either Eugene Volokh from UCLA or Geoffrey Stone from UofC, fwiw.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/25/brown-students-shut-down-trans-activist-s-speech-because-israel.html

http://www.manchesterspring.org.uk/2016/02/23/the-end-of-emo-politics/

kpunk on EMO-POLITICS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/

According to EUSA safe space rules, only gestures that indicate agreement are “permissible”, and then only as long as “these gestures are generally understood and not used in an intimidating manner”.

is that real

It's a good question. The EUSA is not part of the University of Edinburgh, afaik, and they set their own rules. They also have an extremely hostile relationship with the student newspaper that 'broke' the story. They have a rep for pushing edicts like asking student discos to not play Blurred Lines, etc, but it is worth taking anything written about them with a pinch of salt unless it is backed by a lot of evidence.

no i mean like, are there orgs that even do that??

it occurred to me that perhaps some parliamentary bodies have, at least, customs on only voicing disagreements in prescribed ways

The association seems to have a very strict policy on how members are expected to behave when others are speaking. I don't think that's necessarily culturally unusual but it might not be codified often.

http://chronicle.com/article/What-Students-Think-About-Free/235897

paywall :(

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/10/students-censorship-safe-places-platforming-free-speech?CMP=fb_gu

I don't know if this article has been posted here before. One of the authors believes in something called 'concept creep' which I thought might be relevant to this thread (I wish I could now put some disclaimers on the OP because thread makes me look like an idiot, but moving on).

So how did it come to pass that many Emory students felt victimised and traumatised by innocuous and erasable graffiti?

Emory students are not unique. Many other universities have been rocked by protests this year over what seem like small things to outsiders (...). What on earth is going on?

Part of the answer can be found in cultural shifts that have changed the meanings of many words and concepts used on campus, making it hard for people off campus to understand what the protesters are saying. One of us (Haslam) recently published an essay titled “Concept creep: Psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology.” Many concepts are “creeping” – they are being “defined down” so that they are applied promiscuously to milder and less objectionable events.

Take bullying. When research on bullying began in the 1970s, an act had to meet four criteria to count: it had to be an act of aggression directed by one or more children against another child; the act had to be intentional; it had to be part of a repeated pattern; and it had to occur in the context of a power imbalance. But over the following decades, the concept of bullying has expanded in two directions.

It has crept outward or “horizontally” to encompass new forms of bullying, such as among adults in the workplace or via social media. More problematic, though, is the creeping downward or “vertically”so that the bar has been lowered and more minor events now count as bullying. (...) As the definition of bullying creeps downward for researchers, it also creeps downward in school systems, most of which now enforce strict anti-bullying policies. This may explain why Emory students, raised since elementary school with expansive notions of bullying and subjective notions of victimhood, could perceive the words “Trump 2016” as an act of bullying, intimidation, perhaps even violence, regardless of the intentions of the writer.

A second key concept that has crept downward is trauma. Medicine and psychiatry once reserved that word for physical damage to organs and tissues, such as a traumatic brain injury. But by the 1980s, events that caused extreme terror, such as rape or witnessing atrocities in war, were recognised as causing long-lasting effects known as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The original criteria for PTSD required that a traumatic event “would evoke significant symptoms of distress in almost everyone” and would be “outside the range of usual human experience”. But in recent trauma scholarship these stringent criteria are gone; like bullying, trauma is now assessed subjectively. (...)

A third key campus concept that has crept downward is prejudice. As overt prejudice has declined precipitously, the term has crept outward and downward. For example, the concept of “modern racism” was developed to refer to people who may show no overt prejudice, but who endorse policy positions that might be associated with prejudice, such as opposing the use of racial preferences in college admissions. More recently, the concept of “implicit prejudice” has become popular after experiments showed that it takes most people slightly longer to associate pictures of Black people (vs. White people) with good words (vs. bad words).

As with bullying, prejudice is now in the eye of the beholder. If a person feels that a word, facial expression or even a subtle hand movement makes them uncomfortable in a way related to a protected identity, then an act of prejudice has occurred. For Emory students steeped in training about prejudice and inclusion, there is no need to know the intentions of the midnight chalker. The word “Trump” activates associations to racism in their minds. Therefore, anyone who writes his name has committed an act of racism, perhaps even traumatizing racial violence.

Concept creep does not happen to all psychological terms – it happens primarily to those that are useful in what sociologists have called a “culture of victimhood”.

This feels plausible. 'The meaning of words changes over time, therefore some older people don't get why some younger people call some things bullying, traumatic or prejudiced'. I haven't read the actual case they use to back it up though, so I'm not going to dive in and agree that, for example the definition of bullying has changed as they say. I believe they provide a link at the bottom of the article.

Mind you, this article is also a perfect example of that creepy vibe I mentioned right back at the start of this thread. Quite a lot of it could be paraphrased as 'Hmm ... but why would anyone feel that Donald Trump or one of his supporters was a threat to their life?'