Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

Right wing response was an undivided & unambiguous defense of free speech (with a large side of Muslim-bashing). Leftists were more inclined to hedge, e.g. ILX thread.

max tweeted out the final bit of that reason post

michelle shocked answered him

https://twitter.com/mshockedrox/status/578814639858810880

sup internet!

XP don't forget the Bill Maher liberals

Anyway, after a browse down memory lane on the CH thread here, I just want to pay tribute to my favorite post from that discussion:

its just so... french. they can't even have normal racism like the rest of us loser countries. they have to have some refined triple-distilled artinsinal grown from only one village with special soil you-can't-even-understand-the-flavor sophisticated racism.

― celfie tucker 48 (s.clover), Saturday, 10 January 2015 16:59 (2 months ago) Permalink

Yeah that is classic

http://nyti.ms/1IbzI2F

Nice enlightenment praxis. Good article, too.

i had a classics class with the columbia student quoted in that article. he was pretty knowledgeable but never seemed to be responding to anything anyone else said and just launched on long, righteous speeches any time he was given the opportunity to talk. we're still friends on facebook, and he posted his response to the safer space thing. it was really awful, i don't think it's a coincidence that the author chose not to quote it. someone slips a flyer under your door saying "hey, let's try to challenge homophobia in our dorms when we encounter it" and you launch into an epic essay about the defence of intellectual liberty. iirc it ended with the phrase: "this is a dangerous space... a very dangerous space." such an asshole. his facebook posts are half about how atheism is the biggest problem facing the world today, which he ties into some great thesis he has about a crisis of morals and faith in western society, and half your typical mordy ilx posts.

goes without saying that the illiberalism is wrong and has no place in universities, but i wonder if articles like this & that chait one are blowing it up for spin. i wonder if the illiberal stuff is a trend or if they're just the extreme (and unfortunate) outliers in the general trend of universities trying to make more inclusive spaces. these articles all have a suspicious lack of voices from members of the groups themselves. i suspect they're mostly pretty reasonable (modulo college). everyone i have ever talked to about trigger warnings basically has the same opinion, that there's no hard or fast rule about it but it's something teachers should keep in mind. someone enrolled in a university english class should be able to read anna karenina without "tw: suicide," but a teacher should warn their students before showing a film with a graphic rape scene. that kind of thing.

the safe space at brown described in that article sounds like a right-wing caricature of safe spaces; puppies and pillows and soothing music. granted i've never gone to an american LAC but that's not at all representative of what the term referred to at my alma mater, or in the other public spaces that use the title that i've encountered. ime it just means the people who run the space hold themselves accountable to the people who use it, and will kick someone out who is making members of oppressed groups uncomfortable. again, no one thinks every space should have that policy, but it makes sense for some spaces to, right? as long as there are large numbers of ppl who use racist or homophobic language & humour, it kind of makes sense for there to be spaces for queer people & poc to go where they don't have to hear it. can we assure that rules are never applied overzealously? no, of course not. but i question the motives of these articles highlighting a subset of incidents where they are and calling it the norm

How come these trollwavers never do this in public school, these are all private universities?

i've never been in a 'stress relief zone', which i believe they've been having on campuses more and more often (esp. around finals time) since i went to school in the late 90s, but i got the impression from the description of that safe space that it was combining the no-triggering no-aggression function of a safe space with a de-stress function, probably because they had the puppy videos and whatever around from their already existing de-stressing student wellness office?

yeah they had the play with puppies thing during finals when i was in college, but it had nothing to do with safe-spaces

I see the article as pushing back against a set of related arguments:

1) We are made unsafe by exposure to ideas & language that trouble us.

2) A student's sense of threat or offense in response to such exposure therefore requires administrative intervention.

3) For safety's sake, public discourse on campus should be carefully moderated to ensure that no one feels threatened or offended.

4) In pursuit of this, it is reasonable to exclude or otherwise censor controversial voices.

I think it's worth opposing (or at least interrogating) every part of this construction.

is anyone making those arguments though? like, is there a group represents any or all of those arguments? like, is this an argument actually being had, outside of inside the minds of journalists who write these pieces? all the articles i've read about this take isolated incidents of students overzealously applying social justice principles and extrapolate from that a movement of people who want to limit public discourse on campus.

because there are none mentioned in that article, or in the jonathan chait one. i just reread it and checked.

the afrofunk band with too many white people in it was lols though

naw the theory i think is the chilling effect on discourse that happens when someone disagrees w u

lol

I don't think anyone has to explicitly argue the position for the argument(s) to exist & gain traction in the world. A group of well-intentioned people "overzealously applying...principles" is more than enough to justify a few skeptical articles.

I mean, if this construct were held more closely in mind, most of these incidents would never have happened:

1) We are not made unsafe by exposure to ideas & language that trouble us.

2) A student's sense of threat or offense in response to such exposure rarely justifies administrative intervention.

3) There is no pressing need to moderate discourse on campus in the name of public safety.

4) It is not acceptable to exclude or otherwise censor controversial voices.

how is it going to gain traction if no one is explicitly arguing for it? it seems to me that what is gaining traction is universities making more inclusive spaces. which is... good? and then some fuckhead reactionary journalists come along and write this softserve anecdotal condescending garbage about "self-infantilizing millenials." it's just a cop out. look within yourself. we're inherently reactionary. we're just looking for a good reason to spout reactionary shit that doesn't make us seem like dicks. so if jonathan chait comes along and tells us we are defending _liberalism_ cause a white funk band couldn't play a concert or a panel of 2 men couldn't discuss abortion at some college in england, that makes us feel good.

There is no pressing need to moderate discourse on campus in the name of public safety

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/almost-link-mental-health-gun-violence
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/actually-know-connections-mental-illness-mass-shootings-gun-violence-83103
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/25/report-sandy-hook-shooter-adam-lanza-was-obsessed-with-mass-shootings

Law making bodies have declined to do anything in response to recent school shootings, passing the responsibility off on the faculty. Brain policing has been the one of the more sensible suggestions.

3) There is no pressing need to moderate discourse on campus in the name of public safety.

what are the facts? there may or may not be people who want to moderate discourse on campus in the name of public safety. their existence has been posited, but we haven't heard from them yet. my personal theory from having interacted with people who get painted with that brush is that it's a social justice bogeyman.

so who do we know? we know that there are people who don't like the fact that certain people are entering the discourse on campus. they don't like the fact that there are now people in the discussion who criticize their universities for booking panel discussion between two men about abortions, who criticize profs for ridiculing victims of sexual assault in op-eds.

*WHAT do we know

You're constructing this as a conflict between meddling reactionaries and the expression of sensible voices that have heretofore been excluded, good vs. bad. In Jeremiah True's case, I don't think that's a satisfactory description of events and motives. As I understand the situation, True's exclusion from the conference portion of Prof. Savery's class was initially justified by the suggestion that his ideas - not his manner of presenting them, but the ideas themselves - made others in the class feel unsafe. I believe we set a terribly dangerous precedent when we habituate ourselves to thinking of the expression of ideas in terms of threat, safety and harm. While there are certainly cases where such framing is appropriate, they're relatively rare, and outside that context, it's intrinsically hostile to the free exchange of ideas.

Of course, it's possible that True's manner in class was aggressive, threatening or otherwise actionably disruptive. But Professor Savery didn't make that claim in justifying his decision. He instead went with the assertion that True's ideas simply made people feel unsafe. That he thought this appropriate is troubling, and doubly so the administration's apparent support. I reject the suggestion that this is an isolated non-incident, irrelevant in the larger scale of things if not for the shit-stirring interference of a few online "reactionaries". It's part of a larger pattern and the natural product of ideas and strategies that have gained sway in recent years. That they emerged from social justice movements and seek to protect/empower the less privileged does not oblige us to uncritically support them in all applications. Good intentions are no guarantee of good ends, after all.

Again, these are private institutions. Try this shit in a Walmart and see what response you get.

Ok you brought up the idea vs the manner. Have you considered that by the idea being "claims of harassment are false and overreported" he was pressuring them all into not claiming it was his manner? Apparently he didn't directly threaten anyone, so if someone felt unsafe, but they were being reminded daily that victims are false claimers, maybe they would think twice". Would you rather the professor and students had lied, like the student said they would? He basically checkmated them all.

imo contenderizer otm

Law making bodies have declined to do anything in response to recent school shootings, passing the responsibility off on the faculty. Brain policing has been the one of the more sensible suggestions.

"Brain policing”???

controversial/ annoying/ unpopular/ disliked (by campus standards) speech or views does not equal serious (let alone dangerous) mental illness!

so who do we know? we know that there are people who don't like the fact that certain people are entering the discourse on campus. they don't like the fact that there are now people in the discussion who criticize their universities for booking panel discussion between two men about abortions, who criticize profs for ridiculing victims of sexual assault in op-eds.

may be misunderstanding this sentence (getting the “people” crossed); but if I’ve got it right, don’t understand it. There are people who don’t like that certain people are entering the discourse, are now in the discussion, engaging in certain kinds of critique? But for decades the latter critical voices have been freely, healthily, vigorously, and perhaps predominantly represented in campus discourse and discussion. They’re very well established and powerful voices on campus— good thing, but it’s very strange to say that those critical voices are in any way endangered, threatened, fragile, or incipient; on the contrary, they arguably predominate on campus (though of course not necessarily elsewhere in society).

Of course, there’s a difference between critical power and (let’s say) executive power: e.g. the power not just to criticize (and effect change through criticism), but to disallow or shut down any “panel discussion between two men about abortions,” or the power to fire professors who (are deemed to have) “ridiculed victims of sexual assault in op-eds.”

and imo that's a good thing too (even in cases where i may strongly agree with the criticism).

you may be right that there are "social justice bogeymen," but i'd say there are bogeymen all around (and that's the problem).

to flopsons point, from the times article:

Only a few of the students want stronger anti-hate-speech codes. Mostly they ask for things like mandatory training sessions and stricter enforcement of existing rules.

we're inherently reactionary. we're just looking for a good reason to spout reactionary shit that doesn't make us seem like dicks.

i think this is true, but should be applied as broadly as possible, including these 'delicate' students

omg brain policing. i can't get over it. adam b never change u hilarious addlepate.

You're constructing this as a conflict between meddling reactionaries and the expression of sensible voices that have heretofore been excluded, good vs. bad. In Jeremiah True's case, I don't think that's a satisfactory description of events and motives. As I understand the situation, True's exclusion from the conference portion of Prof. Savery's class was initially justified by the suggestion that his ideas - not his manner of presenting them, but the ideas themselves - made others in the class feel unsafe. I believe we set a terribly dangerous precedent when we habituate ourselves to thinking of the expression of ideas in terms of threat, safety and harm. While there are certainly cases where such framing is appropriate, they're relatively rare, and outside that context, it's intrinsically hostile to the free exchange of ideas.

Of course, it's possible that True's manner in class was aggressive, threatening or otherwise actionably disruptive. But Professor Savery didn't make that claim in justifying his decision. He instead went with the assertion that True's ideas simply made people feel unsafe. That he thought this appropriate is troubling, and doubly so the administration's apparent support.

― 2-chords, a farfisa organ and peons to the lord (contenderizer), Sunday, March 22, 2015 4:57 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not claiming that no instance of this has ever resulted in shitty illiberal things happening for bad reasons. this was my first post itt

goes without saying that the illiberalism is wrong and has no place in universities, but i wonder if articles like this & that chait one are blowing it up for spin. i wonder if the illiberal stuff is a trend or if they're just the extreme (and unfortunate) outliers in the general trend of universities trying to make more inclusive spaces.

my problem is, even the social justice kids who go to the greatest lengths to be reasonable get painted with this brush. the trick played by fucktwads like chait is to make people like me & you feel like good liberals who support free speech and discourse for turning our nose at this stuff. maybe this nyt one isn't as bad in terms of generalizing it to all "pc" as the chait one idk

I reject the suggestion that this is an isolated non-incident, irrelevant in the larger scale of things if not for the shit-stirring interference of a few online "reactionaries". It's part of a larger pattern and the natural product of ideas and strategies that have gained sway in recent years. That they emerged from social justice movements and seek to protect/empower the less privileged does not oblige us to uncritically support them in all applications. Good intentions are no guarantee of good ends, after all.

where is the evidence of the larger pattern? so far we have a sample of, what, 4? if there is a larger pattern, can we find some group of people who identify as wanting to carrying it out? no one is saying we should "uncritically support them in all applications." but criticizing an instance and criticizing a conjectured "larger pattern" that (in this case is implied but in the chait article was explicit) is being substituted for "social justice" are completely different things.

but flopson this entire thread is more or less about documenting the illiberal leftism trend- obv it's real enough

i thought this was just the thread ppl bumped whenever another thinkpiece citing the same 4 examples makes the rounds

There's something of a shell game being played with words safe and unsafe here, I think. True, and defenders of unlimited free speech generally, keep saying, like, "I didn't threaten anyone, I used polite language" like that's proof that everyone else is being CRAZY.

I believe that microaggressions are real and bad and ppl shouldn't have to deal with the bombardment of them all the time because they DO DAMAGE, but even if you don't agree for whatever reasons, PTSD is a thing that happens to people after trauma. And trauma includes a lot of things that happen, not, just, like "being shot at in a war zone."

Oh actually I see adam kind of addressed that--I somehow skipped over some posts itt.

Anyway yeah the idea that if no one verbatim threatened to physically harm you, there's no possible justification for you to ever feel "unsafe" and if you do, it's your own weak brain being afraid of IDEAS is some bullshit.

based on that reason post i think it's a bad idea to use Jeremiah true as a typical example of college illiberalism, at least until some fuller reporting comes out

flopson - i do agree that this is a very minor phenomenon and has little to no impact on that culture at large, but isn't that a kind of weird argument to make? it implies that if it weren't so minor, then yes, it would be an actual problem. which is ultimately what all these ppl are saying. chait wasn't arguing that the entire culture has been impacted, just that the parts that have are - ahem - "problematic."

Again, these are private institutions. Try this shit in a Walmart and see what response you get.

― ©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, March 22, 2015 3:13 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

p interesting that 'private institution' is getting played as a trump card by leftists itt. that used to be a v contentious point of 1st amendment law, and one in which the liberal justices were on the opposite side. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner

and under some state constitutions j true absolutely could set up shop in a store and they wouldn't be able to kick him out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

i do agree that this is a very minor phenomenon and has little to no impact on that culture at large, but isn't that a kind of weird argument to make? it implies that if it weren't so minor, then yes, it would be an actual problem. which is ultimately what all these ppl are saying.

also, yes, this is a minor phenomenon and the response to it has been pretty minor as well: a few opinion pieces by people who are pretty unknown outsde of certain circles. I imagine if you talked about this stuff to nearly anyone irl you'd have to explain who Chait was.

I think this is a symptom of the right losing the culture war. The right wing intellectual youth, those culture warriors who would be at an anti-gay march (if they had them, even republicans support gay marriage) have nothing to do. So they're doing this. They are too for the Tea Party, but have been exposed to those extremist ideas, and are considering them in their logic experiments. Ultimate I think both parties are going to dissolve into abstraction, the inherent absurdities of ideology being picked part by events like these.

They are too smart for the Tea Party. /edit

I believe we set a terribly dangerous precedent when we habituate ourselves to thinking of the expression of ideas in terms of threat, safety and harm.

― 2-chords, a farfisa organ and peons to the lord (contenderizer), Sunday, March 22, 2015 4:57 AM (17 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean this is super otm. What do you think the dangers are? I wonder what would happen if some legislation were passed and the law was written with predatory corporate interests in mind.

but isn't that a kind of weird argument to make? it implies that if it weren't so minor, then yes, it would be an actual problem

I don't think that's a weird argument to make at all. I think revolutionary Maoism is a terrible ideology, and if it were a serious force on campuses, it would totally be worth writing long opinion pieces fretting about it, but since it's in fact a tiny fringe, it would be weirdly tendentious to write long opinion pieces fretting about it.

This is the internet and people that know how to use the echo chamber properly can have their speech amplified.

Of course, it's possible that True's manner in class was aggressive, threatening or otherwise actionably disruptive. But Professor Savery didn't make that claim in justifying his decision. He instead went with the assertion that True's ideas simply made people feel unsafe.

no, he went with the former

xxp social justice authoritarianism is a much bigger force on campus than Maoism

ROTC bigger than both of those.

and there has never been any controversy about having them on campuses

xxp social justice authoritarianism is a much bigger force on campus than Maoism

I'm sure that's true, but I went to college in the early 1990s, so I've already been through one full wave of newspaper columns about "our campuses are dominated by political correctness" that were absolutely irrelevant to actual campus life then. Why should I find this wave any more believable? I have seen nothing to make me think that "social justice authoritarianism" is a major aspect of the life of more than a tiny fragment of US college students.

Just scary to think social justice has infiltrated a private Portland liberal arts college that doesn't give out letter grades.