Hacker News Reader

Comment by judah | Hacker News Reader

Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas.

Viewed in this light, the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism: allowing for, rather than actively silencing, diverse political discourse.

This is in stark contrast to neighbor Chicago school DePaul, who last month blocked[0] Jewish conservative minority voice Ben Shapiro from speaking.

The extreme position here is blocking and preventing free speech and ideas through safe spaces and trigger warnings. Dismantling these, as the U of C has done, is worth celebrating. I hope they are the first of many.

[0]: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7923

View on HN

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas.

The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment (most people stop taking classes after getting a degree), and below that is probably education for employment (if I see someone with a degree taking a class just for the education, it's usually related to something they want to do for their job).

Universities are aware of this but pretend that's not the case, which is problematic. It'd be like if grocery stores started pretending their purpose was to provide an area for debate, and every time you wanted to get a gallon of milk you had to both pay for it and argue with the cashier about politics for 5 minutes. You don't want to do that? What, are you afraid of being exposed to new ideas?

I don't mind discussing things, but sometimes you just want a gallon of milk (or degree). Of course, you could go to the convenience store down the street, but they only carry cheap milk powder.

Yes, most people go to universities for the credential in order to gain employment. However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education.

One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics. My assumption is that University of Chicago believes that in order to develop those critical thinking skills, it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.

Students that want the credential BUT they do not want to complete one of the requirements of that credential should reconsider whether the credential is right for them or perhaps find another university.

To use your grocery store/gallon of milk analogy, a more accurate version would be if I went to a grocery store and asked for a gallon of milk, but demanded that it be zero calories and made from tomatoes. The store owner would tell the customer that they can buy tomato juice or water, but there is nothing labeled as MILK which meets their requirements.

> it is a REQUIREMENT to learn an environment with a free and open exchange of ideas.

This is going to get buried, but I feel like I need to write it somewhere.

The biggest argument I've seen /for/ safe spaces is that, outside of them, it is very possible for a certain type of conversation to be drowned out. Safe spaces, by limiting some types of conversation, can allow other types of conversations to foster.

In a purely "free speech" environment, someone can just yell their opinion on repeat, talking over everyone, etc. A safe space can allow certain topics room to talk that they might not get otherwise.

I agree with the concept that UoC should not have to _provide_ safe spaces or trigger warnings, but I feel like both can have their place for an exchange of ideas (safe spaces) or to prepare people for something they're uncomfortable with (trigger warnings).

Viewing them solely as a political attempt to stifle free speech reads rather privileged, based on the above notion I gained elsewhere. I can't quite describe why, which is disappointing to myself - but perhaps safe spaces are needed in order for minority topics to gain the room they need to be discussed.

The idea of a safe space is exactly what you what you said was the problem with free speech though. Any given person's "safe space" will be a place where their opinions are the only ones, so they're not challenged or offended.

Safe spaces only work if you set up a safe space for every possible viewpoint, or you ban any form of interaction within the safe space.

It can be, yes.

But if you're trying to discuss native american problems and someone just keeps interjecting that focusing on native american problems is racist - then you're not really getting anywhere either - was sort of my point.

I don't think they exist to stifle opposing viewpoints, but to at least attempt sane discussion on certain topics that would otherwise not get the opportunity to be discussed.

But wasn't it possible to discuss ideas amongst allies before safe spaces? I think groups like AIM, for example, provide a great forum for such activities. Likewise, I think student advocacy groups are an excellent idea.

What I don't like about the concept of safe spaces–and I say concept because I have never actually experienced one– is that I would prefer universities, which often have connections with government, to have as few censorship powers as possible.

The example you are using of someone that keeps interrupting is really not a safe space issue to me but really a professor allowing someone to be rude.

There's no need for safe spaces just a professor who can allow for ideas to be exchanged in class whether they are hurtful or not and keep the discussion civil and moving forward.

> However, the reason why that credential is valuable in obtaining employment is because it implies that the holder of the credential has developed certain skills as part of their education. One of those skills is the ability to think critically about a variety of topics.

I don't think that's actually the case. In my experience, employers care whether or not a person is generally competent (often using degrees as a type of signalling, even if that's not accurate), if they can justify the hiring purchase to others (IE, do they have a decent defense if you're a terrible employee), and whether or not you would excel in that particular job (hence asking you questions about it and your work style in general).

I can't think of a case where an interviewer was attempting to see if the candidate was able to think critically about a variety of topics (topics not connected to the particular job). I don't know of any example of, say, a programmer getting interviewed and being asked how they would interpret a particular piece of literature, or being particularly interested if they frequented a political debate group. Such things are almost never considered particularly important when resume suggestions are given.

However, if you have examples of something like this I would be interested in hearing them.

I don't think mcjon was suggesting that interviews for technical positions frequently veer off into discussions about literature.

Rather, I think the experiences you are "supposed" to get in a traditional 4 year university education - such as discussions about literature and other topics not directly related to your degree - are widely believed to improve your ability to think in ways that perhaps aren't directly quantifiable, but nevertheless provide significant benefit to your employer.

These benefits can manifest, for example, in employees that are able to handle disagreements among themselves rather than running to their manager every time they butt heads. Or employees that are simply able to learn new systems without extensive hand-holding through every step of the process.

It seems to me that you have this backwards. Universities serve a purpose in society beyond job training; It's been that way for a long time and they're pretty explicit about that fact (witness the difference in prestige between universities and vocational schools). Someone who wants to go there just for job training and not get exposed to anything beyond their narrow horizons shouldn't have the right to demand their environment conform to their ideal.

> It'd be like if grocery stores started pretending their purpose was to provide an area for debate, and every time you wanted to get a gallon of milk you had to both pay for it and argue with the cashier about politics for 5 minutes. You don't want to do that? What, are you afraid of being exposed to new ideas?

You have this precisely backwards. Grocery stores are designed and advertised as being for groceries: they're not debate areas that people decided to start using to pick up milk. A more relevant analogy would be people going into a church just to rest their legs in a pretty building, and then complaining about the guy droning on about God. We would quite clearly place the blame in that case on the people expecting the church to accommodate their ideal of "a pretty building to sit down in", in contradiction to the original and stated goals of the church.

> The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment

This is most certainly not the case at the University of Chicago. If you want a degree, even a prestigious one, there are far easier options (even in Chicago... See that school in Evanston ;)

Students choose the U of C because they want to be challenged by ideas, they want to spend four miserable years pummeling their brains with the totality of human endeavor, at 1000 pages per week, lest they never have such chance again in their lives.

The degree itself matters to me very little, but the way that school changed my life will stay with me always.

Yep, UChicago alum here, too. It's a weak argument anywhere to claim we should limit free speech simply because most students attend universities for job training, not for intellectual enrichment. But it's an epic fail of an argument at Chicago. The school year opens with an address to the first years from a faculty member on "The Aims of Education." UC is not a lunch counter where students order things to their liking. Rather, the institution sits you down and tells you why you are there. You are encouraged to expand on their thoughts, but never to shirk the responsibilities the University puts on you.

It's pretty much a 'bend over and accept all the learning you're going to do'. Agreed w/ both of you though, that school changed my life in a very, very good way.

I almost wish I could say the same for my university education. I definitely grew as a person in college but I can't say it was really the University that did it. I could have done it anywhere. Now I realize I must not have been challenged enough.

I would be fine with this if it were applied equitably. As it stands, centrist and conservative students have been expected to endure progressive indoctrination, and they've done so relatively quietly up until it their speech and activities began to be prohibited (I believe it was UIC where someone chalked "Trump 2016" on the sidewalks, and students tried to have it prosecuted as a hate crime).

FWIW, UChicago is known for having one of the most conservative economics departments in the country/world. Over 50% of UChicago students major in econ (often as part of a double major), though most UChicago students are liberals.

I didn't know that. Thanks for the information. :)

It was at Emory

    >The problem with this is that's not why most people go to universities. The top reason is probably credentials for employment

Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment".

> Go to university and you should expect "free and open exchange of ideas", go to a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment".

Sure, theoretically. In the real world, not so much. Want to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm? Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do? Good luck going down that path by going to a trade school.

Heck, look at the example of Susan Finley. After 46 successful years at NASA, they demoted her - because she didn't have a bachelor's degree.

If universities want to be mainly about debate and a free exchange ideas, they should give up their monopolies on the things most people are going there for (monopolies they really shouldn't have in the first place).

Law is also the sort of degree that is full of potentially triggering discussion. Law is also the sort of career in which you can't just opt out of the discussion.

There are plenty of wider discussions to be had about this whole thing. Ensuring that faculty are good teachers, which includes the empathy to broach difficult subjects with sensitivity and moderate debate. The provision of welfare services to students to assist them to make the most of their studies.

Listening to a minority whose refusal to engage and demand that others cave in to their views harms society - and in many instances harms the very people making the demands. Victims of sexual assaults need a justice system that is better at understanding issues of consent, victim blaming and the harm victim may be put through by a trial - and how to weigh that up against the right to confront your accuser. Ethnic minorities need a society better educated in history, understanding of cultural differences and similarities who continue to be more progressive and accepting than previous generations.

> Want to be a lawyer ...

Perfect example! Law is one career where you can learn everything you need to know by reading books (ok, maybe all of them are that way..). Yet legislators (many lawyers themselves) in several states have introduced new laws to limit licensure only to those who have degrees. This would've excluded notables like Lincoln, Jefferson, Darrow, Marshall.

What's the justification for doing this?

The Bar Association is a modern guild. They don't want competition.

Jefferson, at least, graduated from the College of William & Mary.

True, he studied law there but was never offered a "degree".

"I see on your C.V. you've written 'The United States Declaration of Independence' -- nice job! Oh but no JD? Tsk. Next!"

EDIT: though he was awarded 'honorary' degrees from several institutions. Would those pass muster these days? ;)

Get a research position doing the kind of work PhD's do?

Avoiding exposure to ideas that challenge your own is not a good strategy for becoming an effective researcher.

> Susan Finley. After 46 successful years at NASA, they demoted her - because she didn't have a bachelor's degree

This is rather disingenuous. According to an article in the NYT [1] she just had her job title changed in 2004, from 'Engineer' to 'Engineering Specialist.' Her salary and status did not change. See the excerpt below:

    Instead, Ms. Finley, who never finished her degree, fell
    into a newly created classification: engineering
    specialist, an hourly position.

    Her overall pay did not change, and she is now eligible
    for overtime.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/science/space/nasa-juno-su...

You left out this part:

> But the change still irks Ms. Finley; she must mark down her arrival each day, her half-hour of lunch and the time she leaves to go home.

> “It’s a demotion,” she said. “No one wants a demotion. We want to be treated like we deserve. But it’s true. I don’t have a degree.”

Nathalia Holt, a science writer who wrote a book about Finley and others, also considers it a demotion:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-women-who-brought-...

Look at the way things could be, and ask "Why not?"

I'm not going to reject the ideal of college as a place to expand intellect because one common use is as a trade school.

Well, if universities are doing so wrong, you would expect people coming out to fix the problem by competing with them, at least in a free market like the States.

You may say they have, by setting up trade schools, whatever they are. If the trade schools are not doing enough, that's the problem of the trade schools, rather than of the universities. If the trade schools can provide good enough education, employers will recognize credentials they provide. If employers don't recognize them, there must be something missing from their education. The piece missing may well be what universities want the students to learn: communication with those you don't like.

But to be a lawyer high up in a corporate firm or get a research position you had damn well better be used to a free and open exchange of ideas. It is part of the "credentials for employment" that you can handle debate and can handle other people having radically different viewpoints and discussing uncomfortable topics.

No such trade schools exist for many professions. Would that they did! In fact, some are rising to the challenge/seizing the opportunity for professions like software development.

Many/most professional jobs treat university degrees as non-negotiable entrance criteria. Some go to the enormous trouble to punish professionals who are otherwise productive but have "gotten by" with extensive experience instead of a degree once it's discovered that they never had one.

> a trade school if all you want is "credentials for employment"

For many occupations, a trade school will not provide that. If trade schools expand to provide credential for many more fields, then maybe this will be a valid response. Until then it's not.

I'd argue that a big part of preparing for the working world is learning to think critically and contend with ideas and concepts that may seem strange, foreign, or downright unsettling to you. Because that's what the real world will throw at you. And because doing so will strengthen your intellectual and emotional abilities.

There's more to any given job, or any given career path, than the hard skills required for it. Arguably much more.

I realize we can quickly slip down the rabbit hole of debating what the primary purpose of a college education is supposed to be. I'd rather not do so. Even if we believe that the primary purpose is job preparation, we should acknowledge that developing critical thinking skills serves that purpose well.

You're right, of course, but I sure wish you weren't. In the world that I dream of we are prepared for an apprenticeship by the time we're halfway through high school and exit the apprenticeship a few years later in to a career. I just don't see any reason that 12 years of schooling isn't enough to get to entry level skill set in any profession.

Then we could save Universities for art and intellectual pursuits, spending an increasing amount of time there as our children grow up and eventually leave the house. As a dad of young children right now I feel a tinge of melancholy as I realize that in not too many years my children will move on and my life will become much quieter. How great would it be if instead I could look forward to that time when I'm able to engage with others who are at a similar stage in life for an indefinite period of challenging and rewarding study? People who have had enough life experience to actually have something to share and some real differing opinions and experiences? People who are not in a hurry to get a degree and get on with life? That seems to me to be much closer to the ideal of what we would like for a University to be.

I agree, and think it's crazy that we as a society give up on mental growth for most people past a certain point. There's an enormous amount of potential that gets wasted because of the erroneous assumption that most people won't grow past a certain point. I think most people would be happier taking new classes, meeting new people, working on new projects, etc. than they would be sitting at home watching TV or reading about celebrities.

There's some, limited support for this kind of continual growth, but not nearly as much as there should be.

Have you tried looking into whether or not your local community college offers any seminar classes? I took a couple seminar classes at university and a couple at a community college and they were great. It's a class format where there is generally a small lecture up front about the course materials followed by a discussion where everyone is allowed to participate and lead the discussion in any direction(within reason of course). From my experience it was mostly young people at university, but had a good mix of ages at the community college. I think I learned more from a single seminar class I took on history than I did from my two years of traditional history classes in college.

If you just want a gallon of milk, got ahead and buy it. No one's stopping you.

The real issue here is people using "safe spaces" and "triggers" and "microaggressions" and what have you to block people from making the choices they want to make. Like you, they seem to think that someone speaking about something they disagree with is about them. It isn't.

All you have to do is be tolerant, and mind your own business like any other adult.

If someone else wants to buy tomato juice, why should you care?

Even if what you're saying is true, "safe spaces" are infantilizing. At some point in life you have to learn how to cope with people who disagree with you.

Sometimes it's helpful to analyze our reaction to things if we can find a similar situation where the politics are reversed.

Go to any public university in the South, and you can hear essentially the same sentiment in your post, coming from young conservative white kids who don't want to question the way they were brought up or learn about other cultures, gay rights, etc.

I think the idea of a university is that it's good for the intellectual development of both the conservative southern kids and the trigger warning kids if they occasionally have to struggle with new ideas outside their comfort zone.

You are arguing for vocational institutions. They already exist, and they are not universities.

I think your description is accurate but your analogy is tragic. What kind of a mess have we got ourselves into that that the University is now comparable with retail?

> I don't mind discussing things, but sometimes you just want a gallon of milk (or degree).

It is a clever metaphore, but I don't think degrees are like gallons of milk at all. It is more like Louis Vuitton bags.

There are USD$600 LV bags, and there are others that cost twice or even 3 times as much. But, as many people that would love to snatch a USD$100 bag as there might be, LV cannot sell to them; if they did, all the > USD$1k customers would never buy LV again. Then the < USD$1k customers would begin to ask why they cannot have a 50% discount in the first place. And before long, LV would be selling at Walmart, competing with the (much more experienced) other players in the $20-$30 bag market.

Degrees are the same. Lots of people who only want a job want those. But the people who already have one like to believe that their degree says something about them; among other things, that they have the ability to dispasionately discuss subjects they find personally offensive. Every successful university has to stay in speaking terms with their alumni, if not for no other reason than to have then send their kids to the same university when the time comes.

At the end of day, University of Chicago is branding itself as "the place to study if you are an actual adult". Sometimes you want to sell regular milk, but sometimes you want to sell organic, grass-fed, free-range milk. And it is a good thing to have both options available.

the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness is actually a softening of extremism

How about an "arms limitation treaty" between the left and the right in the US? Both sides will give up most of their empirically unsupported, subjective, and intellectually dishonest tactics for muddying the waters and suppressing substantive debate. The left can give up trigger warnings while the right can stop denying climate science.

What we need in the US is a "Groupthink Potlatch." We should have a reality TV show alternative to the mainstream debates where two high profile contestants destroy their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit. The winner is the one who gives away or destroys the most of their own side's intellectually dishonest bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

(Is that cultural appropriation? Heh.)

Climate Science is actually an interesting intersection of these issues. "Safe space"-style rhetoric has been used to no platform people who deny global warming. The government does not fund research into any climate science that looks for an alternate explanation.

Unfortunately, the combination of these two things makes it nearly impossible to be a climate-scientist who disagrees with the herd. Even if you could overcome the massive cultural hurdle, you have society and the government to deal with as well.

Which makes me skeptical, but I still think that it's safest to heed the precautionary principle.

I'd love that. The problem is that it's really, really hard to criticize your own tribe. (People who made a habit of criticizing their tribe in the ancestral environment were killed off very quickly).

There are many on the right that agree that climate change is real. But they aren't just going to accept any and all legislation because of it. It's just that type of issue where the most ridiculous money wasting endeavors can be injected in the still of the night. Also not all regulations of industries improve them. Many hinder progress, many make it impossible to have competition in an area and some frankly are just based on incomplete science.

The other day I read an article where the headline said "Scientists explain why despite global warming, there is more ice in the antarctic." Then in the text it said "Scientists can't explain it."

So don't just think that things are conclusive because you've been reading articles. The "warmest july on record" isn't really all that impressive to me considering the record isn't that deep when it comes to the age of the earth.

> Universities ought to return to what they once were: free and open exchange of ideas.

That's an ideal that was never really true. Historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-di....

I'm not a supporter of the movement to stamp out uncomfortable ideas from universities. But let's not look at things through rose-colored glasses. Even with space spaces, universities today are much closer to the ideal than they were 50-100 years ago.

You have a very narrow view of universities and higher learning throughout history. The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority.

>The ancient Greek and Arab traditions in academia were very much that of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment through knowledge, not the entrenching of white males or indeed any other majority

Yes, all those slave-owning Greeks and Arabs were really the pinnacle of open discourse and the pursuit of enlightenment. There was definitely no social model they intended to enforce on others, and their universities were bastions of openness. Truly.

Huh, I had a feeling someone would do a post-modernist-style critique of ancient higher learning academies. Look, no one is saying that ancient societies were perfect; but seeing as they literally invented the concepts of a platonic institute for higher learning and for the gathering of knowledge for human progress, I think we can cut them some slack for being inhabitants of their eras. The same way that, gosh, I hope your descendants cut you some slack for being an inhabitant of a savage era of worldwide conflict, poverty, materialism and food shortage, not to mention environmental degradation.

Why should anyone be cut any slack? We can all clearly see the trend of moral progress and we should all be able to extrapolate from it. Progressivism wins and reactionism loses. But even with a myopic view of history, you have to be truly willfully blind to ignore the liberatory struggles that have existed as long as oppression. Slaves have always revolted.

There is nothing "post-modern" about this either. My ideologies are as modernist as they come, and it's clear to me that the ancient Greeks were in no way in favor of some platonic ideal of open, free discourse. They didn't let allow women or slaves in their open, free discourse, and even if they did, but shouted them down (as antagonists of safer spaces are doing in this thread, the University of Chicago, and virtually every other space, because oppression is the default, liberation is something you have to actively build), that would not make the discourse any more free or open. You're not being "anti-postmodern," you're just being willfully blind of savage inequities in the institutions you're holding up as examples. If you didn't want that contradiction examined you shouldn't have spoken up. (And don't even think about complaining about being called out for this -- what do you want, some ``safe space'' where you can just pat yourself on the back with other slavery apologists?)

> We can all clearly see the trend of moral progress and we should all be able to extrapolate from it. Progressivism wins and reactionism loses

Many people do not agree with that and not just reactionaries. A majority of philosophers (natural + unnatural) and religions in history would have explained their world by cycles. There are a great many events, many disturbing to the happy-go-lucky narrative that the Progressivism Forever hypothesis fails to explain.

I take the point that Cthulhu swims slowly leftwards but without understanding why it is that he does so it is dangerous to extrapolate for the next 300 years.

Ad hominem? Did I get the spelling right?

They will be even better when we don't infantilize minorities by acting like we need the degenerated versions of these concepts.

To be fair, I don't think it's minorities that are asking for trigger warnings. They are groups with political agendas.

That is true. As many of you know there are an unusual number of transgender/sexual in the tech/geek communities and in my experience they get along with those of a conservative or christian bent and often have healthy non-rancorous debates with them. Perhaps they are supposed to be at war and some of them are but I don't see it. I think it helps a lot that people identify as geeks first so in a hackerspace it is assumed we're all in the same tribe, trying to be interesting people doing interesting things.

> That's an ideal that was never really true.

Sure it was. In the 1960s and 70s, for example, when Universities were a hotbed of free speech and civil liberty activism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement

The interesting thing about the FSM speicifically is that was exclusively at Berkeley.

It is true that there were significant student protest movements at many universities in the 60's and 70's.

I don't think that this invalidates the OP's point that "historically, a major function of universities has been being places where white male elites could congregate and maintain their power by excluding others".

Look over the last 200 years or so of universities in the US. It's only since the 1950's that non-whites and females started attending in significant numbers.

Even if we take 1970 as a cut-off where that is no-longer the majority case, the OP's point is still valid.

When people call for universities to return to being a place for the free and open exchange of ideas, I think this is exactly what many of them want universities to return to being.

Take, for example, the Yale Halloween controversy, where supporters of this ideal fought hard to protect white male students from the idea that their costumes were mocking others because it might make them uncomfortable wearing them, and that violated their free speech somehow.

Or take the conservative activist who was so outraged at a left-wing poem in a newsletter that he barged into the office of a professor involved with it, demanding to know who "approved" the offending article and refusing to leave, and how groups like FIRE and all the other vocal supporters of the free end open exchange of ideas insisted his actions were a valent stand for the freedom of student speech.

I assume people like Shapiro collect fees from the school for speaking, so would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support?

I don't believe so, no.

DePaul claimed they blocked Shapiro from speaking due to "security concerns"[0]. In particular, students in favor of safe spaces and trigger warnings threatened to riot, block the doors, and prevent student access to the event. DePaul capitulated to this bullying by banning Shapiro.

Related: California State University-Los Angeles planned on hosting Shapiro to speak, but demanded[1] the student group which invited him to pay $600 to the university in security fees. When the student group refused, the university blocked his speech.

I'm not aware of this happening to speakers holding majority political viewpoint; it affects the minority viewpoints primarily. Frame it in terms of race: imagine a modern campus saying, "We allow blacks to speak, but only if they pay hundreds of dollars to provide security against the white riots that will inevitably arise."

[0]: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/ben-shapiro-b...

[1]: http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26367/

Do you believe that speakers of hate speech should be allowed on campus? I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former.

I'm a grad student at DePaul at the loop campus so I don't really follow much of what is going on with the undergrads at the main campus, but it seems to me that the administration is taking a hard stance because of people like Milo who are mostly there for shock effect and not because they are saying anything of substance. His speech was successfully protested and he wasn't invited back.

> Do you believe that speakers of hate speech...

Who gets to create the definition of 'hate speech'? You, I assume?

> ...and not because they are saying anything of substance.

Because he's not substantive to you and people who agree with you, right?

Free speech is great as long as it's within acceptable boundaries!

> I think theres a big difference between speakers you disagree with and the former.

There is zero difference. "Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views. It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles.

"Hate speech" is a phrase invented by modern progressives to describe disagreeable views.

I'm not entirely familiar with the US usage of the term, but that doesn't seem right to me. The pre-WW2 British Public Order Act (1936) was enacted to stop attacks by British Facists on Jews, and part of it was a ban on the "use [of] threatening and abusive words"[1]

It has zero meaning outside of pop liberal circles

That certainly isn't true. In many countries there are laws against it[2]

[1] http://spartacus-educational.com/Lpublic.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Yeah and ask yourself what merit does Germany have when making a negative comment about islam on a social network will get you a visit and possible fine or jail time. This is thought crime and it's NOT the right direction for the world to go.

I don't think I made any comment about its utility?

Good point, my statement is specific to the US.

That's a pretty strong accusation. If you're going to label someone as a hater, at least provide some references. Otherwise, you come across as the hater, with at least the appearance of making baseless claims.

Have you ever listened to Ben Shapiro? That the content of his talks can be labeled as hate speech is the very problem with the idea of having hate speech be a thing. It rapidly becomes "Anything that disagrees with the majority, regardless of facts."

Which is the "student vs consumer" argument. If you are a consumer, then you complain about how your money is not being spent to match your existing preferences. If you are student, you are there to be exposed to things you disagree with and don't support, so you don't complain when the University provides and pays for speakers (or professors) you disagree with.

That is a good point, and I agree with you when the case is that the idea or person you disagree with is a necessary part of the curriculum/class. But in the case where it's an extracurricular activity or student organization that isn't a core part of the degree, then why doesn't a student have the right to complain?

edit: I believe that students are also consumers. The two are not mutually exclusive. Tuition is pretty high these days. I guess the difficult part is finding the right balance.

Most of the times these clubs that pay for speakers are given a stipend to spend on events from the school. When universities bring in people like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos, it is almost always the campus Republican group that pays, in part with the money provided by the school, and in part with money raised by the group itself. Campus Democrats also get money for the exact same purpose.

I would say that the students certainly do have the right to complain and protest as long as it is not violent and not terribly disruptive. Complaining and protesting is PART of the open exchange of ideas. Physically blockading events is not, shouting down speakers while they are speaking is not, and in general throwing an adult-sized tantrum until you get your way is not.

Why should student A who sees the negative of a speaker have the power of veto over student B who sees the positive of the speaker? What happens when student B complains about a speaker that student A wants to hear? Do we just ban everybody or allow a diversity of opinions?

For that matter, if the speaker is invited by a student organization that the complaining student is not a member of, why should that student complain? Just don't go.

Why not allow both? The group can have their speaker within whatever guidelines the school has (some schools ban foul language or other school-wide policies), and the other group is allowed to protest. Just like the real world where another company can do what it wants within the law, but I can also protest what and how they do it.

Protesting the speaker's ideas is always fine.

Protesting the speaker's existence is difficult to intellectually justify as a healthy exchange of ideas, including critique.

These days, what we see is a lot of the latter -- up to and including attempting to prevent attendance of the event -- and very little of the former.

I've seen cases on college campuses of obvious criminal activity, although usually minor, that is excused because they happen during a protest.

> would it be correct to frame the issue as students not wanting their money to go into the pockets of a person that they don't support?

Should creationist students lobby to remove the teaching of evolution from the curriculum? I understand that it's not an identical situation, but the general point is that students are putting a certain level of trust in the university to educate them, and having a line-item veto on the manner that that's done leads to insanity if you actually apply it equitably. If students knew exactly what they needed to learn, going to college would be largely irrelevant.

> the University of Chicago's rejection of political correctness

I disagree. To me, political correctness is about not limiting other people's opportunities through stereotyping them. Making jokes about gangstas when the black guy is around or talking about terrorists like they're all muslim reinforces stereotypes and makes it harder for people of that demographic. Political correctness isn't about preventing offense, it's about not limiting opportunity, and in my opinion, the 'hacker' crowd that's supposed to be all about meritocracy should be strongly for political correctness. Trigger warnings don't fit into this - you're not claiming someone is something they're not (directly or indirectly).

I like what the U of C has done here, but it's not about PC.

Your definition of political correctness is incorrect. And what you believe about it doesn't make it so.

Google disagrees with you: "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." Nothing in that relates to 'trigger warnings'.

It's nice, though, that you just declare me wrong by fiat, without any evidence to support the definition that you believe (or even what the definition is).

No, political correctness has always been a negative. Your first page google findings are fitting your bias. Like any other political term, it has been written and batted back and forth, occasionally hijacked to try to give it a positive spin.

You're taking an underhanded approach here. "Marginalized" "Socially Disadvantaged" are just buzz words to distract from the definition. Attempting to create a victimized group (straw man) to try to make political correctness a good thing to protect the straw man is disingenuous.

Political correctness is and always will be lying or deciding not to say what many people recognize or experience as truth out of a perceived fear of political rejection, ostracism or whatever dreamt up consequences. The problems continue because ignoring, hiding, refraining from voicing actual problems means that they will never be addressed.

This is political correctness imposed on another person and in this case worthy of a civil rights lawsuit. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/03/student-facing-50-...

I'm taking an underhanded approach? You're the one that just said "no, you're wrong", with no evidence, then just handwave away some evidence that I present, dismissing it by fiat as well.

> Political correctness is and always will be...

Horseshit. Like any movement, some people go too far. But as a counter-example, in one of his shows, Dara O'Briain heard someone in the audience yell out "Yeah, fuck PC!", to which he replied "Yeah, fuck those people and their manners". The bulk of PC behaviour is very good, it's just the extremes that stand out, like with anything.

And seriously, quoting a Fox News article in support of what you have to say? You do know that their 'Fair and Balanced' slogan is just an ironic joke that they use? I use the relatively neutral Google to support my argument, and you use the frothy, proven liars of the extreme right wing Fox News? Yeah, I'm the one taking the underhanded approach here...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com