Campuses must combat growing zeal for censorship
city-journal.org
city-journal.org
Of course on principle this is a disgusting form a censorship that could come to bite them on the ass if it continues to be culturally accepted. They seem to forget that things like interracial marriage, or people of color even being allowed onto these schools were once unpopular ideas.
If they continue to create a culture of violence and intimidation against anyone who dares utter unpopular ideas in their vicinity they'll snuff out any hope of future social revolutions from happening. But this seems to be what they want. It's in some ways an ultra-orthodox, conservative, perversion of left wing ideals.
Does student censorship affect that directly? Probably not, but students running the school more than teachers certainly could.
"Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.
"In such cases there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all."
and also
"While Yale bemoaned the occasional “paranoid intolerance” of student protesters, the university also criticized the “arrogant insensitivity” of free speech advocates who failed to acknowledge that requiring of someone in public debate to defend their human worth conflicts with the community’s obligation to assure all of its members equal access to public speech."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snow...
Interesting additional context (scroll down to the part about Urban Outfitters and cultural appropriation): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh.
> “There is no government agency more dedicated to the proposition that black lives matter than the police.”
I'm sure there's a way that this statement could be true but that's only if every other gov't agency has literally zero dedication.
The accuser has a lawyerly attention to detail and wrote an interesting story that is sure to bring political outrage, but what does the other side have to say in their defense?
I could totally use that quote in an essay I'm writing. Do you have it?
1. I agree with X.
2. An X was flagged.
3. Mods did it.
4. Mods are anti-X.
It's not just election time: general political articles are discouraged. From the guidelines:
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
You can view the guidelines here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> maybe the flagging was due not to the content of the article but rather the exceptional negativity of its comments
I think this is likely what's happening. Some topics do not lend themselves to civil and constructive discourse on HN, and as such, some members will flag them as inappropriate for HN.
> When speakers need police escort on and off college campuses, an alarm bell should be going off that something has gone seriously awry.
Whether you agree with her political stance or not is immaterial. Let's imagine Hitler (or if you like Hitler, imagine someone you think is/was horrible) was giving the speech. And then imagine Hitler writing a post on Medium talking about how terrible it was that he couldn't explain how important genocide was.
Would you feel sorry for him? Or would you tell him that just because he has freedom of speech doesn't mean he's guaranteed a platform to exercise it on a college campus with many students who really hate him?
The people being barred, and often assulted, are fairly mainstream conservatives, not nazis.
Randos, that may not have ever heard of the speaker, or people who merely support free speech? Yeah, I would find that incredible and insane.
why is the preference of the protestors more important than the civil rights of the speaker and the preferences of the inviters?
it's alarming to me how common your viewpoint has become.
There is this thing called "hate speech", you know... And at least here in Canada, it is totally illegal. No freedom there at all.
Is hate speech allowed in the US, in the name of "freedom" and "amendments"? I hope not.
Yes, it is, and not by accident.
There's a reason it's called "free speech", not "speech that mostly won't offend".
No one has the right to not be offended by ideas in a public forum. If you're unable to handle that, show yourself out if the forum has been granted.
Edit due to HN throttling:
There are costs to living in a free society. I choose to live in the society that I do, and in most cases other options are available to those who don't share my country's ideals (and other country's they can emigrate to).
I can empathize with those who feel persecuted while not being willing to compromise on inalienable rights. That's how tyranny begins.
No one said that. Proponents of free speech are saying that freedom of speech extends to people with abhorrent views as well.
> it's about their rights to feel safe within their own country
There is no such right.
Everyone decides for themselves.
> who is the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech?
Ultimate arbiter? Nobody. Please tell me, who do you think is the ultimate arbiter? Do you think one individual in the crowd was the ultimate arbiter? What is their name?
> you might agree with them today but you should be incredibly wary of ceding the power to regulate speech to them lest you disagree with them tomorrow
If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them.
> why is the preference of the protestors more important than the civil rights of the speaker and those who invited them?
Why are the preferences of the speaker and those who invited them more important than those of the protestor? Do you think whoever is called a "speaker" should become "the ultimate arbiter of acceptable speech"? Because I don't. I don't like putting power in one person's hands.
And when they violently protest your speeches in other public spaces? Where do you go?
The issue here isn't that you are OK with finding another place to speak. You're free to do whatever makes you happy.
The issue is that the places which should be open to public discourse are not. The places which have rules about acceptable behavior are applying those rules... selectively. The places which are supposed to be bastions of learning and questioning, have instead rigidly enforced "good think" ideas.
That's upsetting to a wide range of the population.
I like this quote. Let's talk about that word you used - "selectively". Should the protestors have been selectively told to shut up? Are you in favor of arbitrarily saying whoever is on a podium is the only one who can speak and that everyone else must shut up and agree with them?
Leading questions are not a good argument.
> Are you in favor of arbitrarily saying whoever is on a podium is the only one who can speak and that everyone else must shut up and agree with them?
Your best argument is a ridiculous straw man? That must be so embarrassing...
For my real opinions see other comments I've made in this thread.
Good point. How about this: why are you in favor of Mac Donald saying everything she wanted to, but against protestors saying all they want to? You are selectively arguing in favor of some people's speech, and arguing that others (the protestors) shouldn't have expressed themselves, and then accusing me of selectively allowing the protestors and not Mac Donald. I'm cool with Mac Donald having said all she said, even though I (at least mostly) disagree with her. I'm also fine with protestors booing her. How am I being more selective than you?
> Your best argument is a ridiculous straw man?
That in and of itself is a strawman argument. My comment clearly pointed out that it's unfair to shut up everyone in the audience and only allow one person to speak, but you're looking at it in its weakest form. Meanwhile, I took what I felt like was the strongest part of your argument, and showed why I thought it was flawed. How "embarrassing"
Why do you insist on asking leading questions which assume nefarious intent?
If you could quote my comments to show that's my position, you would. But you can't, because it's not my position.
> That in and of itself is a strawman argument.
That's just an embarrassing response.
> I took what I felt like was the strongest part of your argument
i.e. you didn't read or understand my argument. Instead, you straw-manned me with a ludicrous misinterpretation of it.
Again, go read the rest of my comments to see what I'm against.
> My comment clearly pointed out that it's unfair to shut up everyone in the audience and only allow one person to speak,
Then you're entirely missing the point of an invited speaker. When the invitee gives the talk, everyone in the audience does need to sit down, and shut the f%ck up. That's what polite social discourse is.
When there's time for questions, the audience can ask questions.
My argument (to re-iterate in hopefully simple enough language) is that violent suppression of free speech in the name of openness... is wrong.
If the protestors act peaceably, follow the law, and allow the audience and speaker to have their free speech, then I don't really give a shit what the protestors say or do.
The line is violent suppression of other peoples speech.
Now, is that clear? Or will you continue to ask leading questions which assume I have some kind of nefarious intent?
Ah, got it, silencing voices is ok as long as it's done by a crowd. Out of morbid curiosity, what happens when that crowd becomes a majority and they continue silencing minorities?
> If a crowd of people were that crazy about getting me to not speak at their college, I would happily leave and find another place, and write a Medium post about my views, not crying that people don't like me and don't want to hear them.
Is this an immediate self-contradiction? It seems like an immediate self-contradiction.
> Why are the preferences of the speaker and those who invited them more important than those of the protestor?
Nobody's rights are violated by letting someone talk.
I hope those minorities find ways to express themselves. If they can get to their local public library and write a post on Medium, maybe they can change the world. Or be shunned by it.
> Is this an immediate self-contradiction? It seems like an immediate self-contradiction.
I just looked over it, and I don't see how writing a medium post or looking for a new venue are contradicting anything. Do you mean that "crying that people don't like me" contradicts writing a post on Medium? Because I actually wrote "write a Medium post about my views" - the post wouldn't be a whining piece, rather, it's what I would have liked to have said at the university.
I'm gonna need an explanation on how I contradicted myself
> Nobody's rights are violated by letting someone talk.
I feel like this sentence might be contradicting your views. Do you feel like the rights of Mac Donald were not violated by her allowing protestors to protest?
So your solution is an eternal cicle in which a group of people will always be silenced and forced to specific ways to express their views, slowly gain traction, become accepted, start silencing and forcing other groups into using specific ways to express their views, rinse and repeat?
That's literally not progress.
> I just looked over it, and I don't see how writing a medium post or looking for a new venue are contradicting anything. Do you mean that "crying that people don't like me" contradicts writing a post on Medium? Because I actually wrote "write a Medium post about my views" - the post wouldn't be a whining piece, rather, it's what I would have liked to have said at the university.
Ah, so it was a self-contradiction. Thanks.
> I feel like this sentence might be contradicting your views. Do you feel like the rights of Mac Donald were not violated by her allowing protestors to protest?
No, they were, the problem is that they weren't merely talking; they literally barricaded the building and expressed intent of violence if the talk were to be given. But I know exactly why you pretending that giving a talk and doing everything they did is the same. Your mind wouldn't be able to accommodate the alternative as it would force you to rethink it.
Cheers.
That is not really a fair characterization of the situation. Some people at the university wanted to hear what the speaker had to say. That is why the speaker was invited to the campus. Other people didn't want the speaker to speak at the university. So they created a civic disturbance, including some amount of violence, to prevent the speaker from being able to speak.
It is not accurate to say that the students at the university didn't want the speaker there. Some students at the university didn't want the speaker there. Other students did want the speaker there. Many didn't care, probably.
So what happens if you think through your argument with the idea that different people at the university have different opinions?
Your freedom of speech does not trump my freedom to not support you. I can't glue your mouth shut, I can't hit you or threaten to do so, but I sure as hell can not give you my microphone.
the constitutionally enshrined right to free speech does in fact trump you arbitrarily enumerated 'right' to not be uncomfortable.
Are these public universities? Regardless, aren't the students in their right to organize counter-demonstrations? As long as they abide by the law and commit no crimes then surely the demonstration itself is not a crime no matter how it may irk some people?
I completely agree with you. Students should be able to organize counter-demonstrations as long as they abide by the law and commit no crimes.
From the first paragraph of the article:
"American college students are increasingly resorting to brute force, and sometimes criminal violence, to shut down ideas they don’t like."
<< Are these public universities? >> UCLA and Berkeley are public universities that are funded by taxes. Claremont McKenna College is not, although the speaker was invited.
When it's your personal microphone, that comment is reasonable.
When it's a universities microphone, that comment is not reasonable.
Universities have a set of rules as to who can and cannot rent their facilities. Those rules should be applied fairly and equitably to everyone.
The upset here is that the rules are not being applied fairly or equitably.
Worse, the people who claim to be for peace, for free speech, for openness and inclusion, are using violence to exclude the speech of people they don't like.
Conflating "my" microphone with use of public facilities is a way to side-step the real topic.
The arguments I've seen on this subject revolve around two poles. One argues that if we give "hateful" (replace hateful with whatever fashionable adjective) speakers a platform, it will "promote," "validate," and "normalize" them. If Hitler gets to give a talk, it "sends the message" that he's a reasonable guy.
The other pole argues, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." If this Hitler guy really is as bad as you say, let him babble without interruption. The more the talks, the more people will realize how crazy he is. And if they don't, have someone sane and reasonable respond to his ideas. The stark contrast will be apparent to the audience.
It seems to me that the first camp always uses such vague language. What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone? What does it mean to "send a message?" Who is the recipient of this message? Who is the hypothetical citizen today who will look on the stage, see Hitler there, and think to himself, "Hmm, that man is standing on a stage. That's where the important people stand. Gee, his ideas must be pretty good."? Who is conceivably that dumb, and why should political theory be informed by such a mentality?
As someone who sometimes attends these college talks as a member of the audience, I find it insulting that I should be disallowed to listen to someone on the basis that they are so odiously toxic I have to be protected from them. Can't I just decide for myself?
>What on earth does it means to "validate" or "normalize" someone?
To make their views appear valid, and to make it appear more normal to hold them, respectively. I really disagree that this is vague language.
Or perhaps protests send the message that the views of the protestors are really fragile and can easily be disproven by the arguments of these speakers.
The bigger the protest, the less credible the protestors seem. It's odd that they haven't yet noticed this.
I wouldn't agree. I've certainly never looked at a large protest and thought "wow, certainly those people look insecure", or seen someone speak unopposed and come to the logical conclusion that everyone who disagrees with them is so confident as to not show up.
>If the protestors are so afraid of a mild-mannered speaker that they need to prevent the speech from happening at all, that sends a pretty strong signal that the views being suppressed must be really powerful and probably contain a kernel of truth worth listening to.
There's a big debate as to what "mild-mannered" means, but I think it sends the stronger signal that there's a large group of the population who strongly oppose the speaker and will do the same to anyone who agrees with them: this is definitely effective, since articles like the one in the OP keep cropping up about how these people should be allowed to speak without fear of the protestors.
In any case, the protest is not over how convincing the views are, but whether they should be expressible at all.
There seems to be this idea that especially outrageous views ought to be banned outright. This seems weird to me, since the more obviously crazy an idea is, the easier it is to dismantle it. I'd rather debate Hitler than some of these speakers who get protested, because in front of an educated audience I'd win so quickly.
Protesting speakers to bar them from speaking entirely certainly is effective as you say, but the effect of it is for onlookers to view the protestors as infants throwing their toys out the pram. What they're doing is an energetic way of saying, "I don't like what you're saying, so you can't speak." Their most promising defense is that speech is a threat to their safety, but I've yet to see the chain of reasoning that supports this.
As a side note, I don't know how old you are and make no presumptions, but it's sometimes hard for me to explain to people over, say, 35 why this is a problem. "Well, social justice is good! Young people should be applauded for caring about it!" Right, but the banhammer has extended far beyond genuine racists, fascists, and nationalists. I encourage anyone to go on YouTube and listen to some of the speakers who've recently gotten banned. They're just not Hitler. They have criticisms, which frankly no one should be exempt from anyway, and they're right about some things and wrong about others. A lot of people would like to hear the bits they're right about.
Read Freakonomics, specifically the part about Broken Windows, and you'll understand these words.
> Who is conceivably that dumb, and why should political theory be informed by such a mentality?
If you talk to someone on the far-left, they will tell you that the answer to this question is "everyone on the far right! They believe everything they read on fox news!" and if you ask someone on the far-right, they will tell you that the answer to this question is "everyone on the far left! They believe 100% of the fake news". Either way, there's one thing far-left and far-right people can agree on: yes, there are plenty of people like this. I don't think people are always like this, but I do think we all have brainfarts. At some point or another, we've all been extremely susceptible to influences like this.
> I find it insulting that I should be disallowed to listen to someone on the basis that they are so odiously toxic I have to be protected from them. Can't I just decide for myself?
Yes, please do! Decide for yourself that you want to listen to them! Find them on Facebook, Twitter, or whatever, and start talking to them! Enjoy your free speech! Call them on the phone! Email them! Anyone who wants to take those things away from you is a serious threat.
A better one would be as follows:
"imagine a group of students went around calling anyone they disagree with to be equivalent to Hitler. And then imagine these people went around assaulting, not only these people that they disagree with, but ALSO people who merely support the concept of free speech. "
You better not walk around campus at night wearing a red hat during these events. You can expect a group of black clad people to smash your head in with baseball bats.
This assaulting of innocent people is very wrong. If you told me about an innocent person wearing a red hat during one of those events getting assaulted for wearing that red hat, I would say that's awful.
But my comment isn't addressing any violence, it's addressing freedom of speech, which I thought was the main issue presented in the article. If you want to talk about violence, then at least don't only focus on the violence against the people wearing red hats.
If the speaker was invited by students/faculty to speak to interested parties, they shouldn't require police escorts. Period.
Tough. If someone is incapable of dealing with dissenting opinions, even terrible ones... they should crawl into a padded "safe space" with similar infants.
If people protest speakers who have dissenting opinions, the protestors should obey the law. They should restrict their protest to the same medium used by the speaker: speech. If the protestors get violent, they should get arrested and charged. The universities should ban the violent criminals from campus.
That's my $0.02 at least.
The reality is that the universities seem to tolerate violent protests, so long as the protestors have the "right opinions". Instead of the violent criminals being arrested, the peaceful speakers are charged for police protection.
In the interests of "safety", of course.
Nope. I do not. Much like your username, this idea and what I'm saying are orthogonal. My point is, if you'd let Hitler get booed down, why wouldn't you let someone else get booed down? Are you asking the protestors not the express themselves?
Seriously, your argument just reminds me of the "Anyone who dissagres with me is Hitler" meme and benefits little to the conversation and its an appeal to emotion -even when that wasn't your intention-.
Secondly, I would feel extremely insulted that these protesters do not trust the general public with the ability to hear two sides of an argument and make an informed decision.
Thirdly I would be immensly disappointed that certain words and ideas had become taboo on a university campus.
You must be immensely disappointed! Go to a college football game and tell someone really into a specific team just how much their team sucks. It's so taboo! You'll be shocked by how much they try to sensor your ideas that go against their favorite football team.
Yes, censorship happens at football games; it does not follow that censorship ought to happen at public speaking events.
Thank you for being an excellent, cool and collected arguer, and I'm sorry I was so tribalistic.
Let's go the opposite way. Let's imagine it was someone complete innocuous. Like they're giving a speech extolling the benefits of sunscreen, or brushing your teeth. But otherwise the same—police escorts, protestors, the whole shebang.
Would you tell them that "just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed a platform to exercise on it on a college campus with many students that really hate them."?
Or would you instead say "something has gone seriously wrong here..."?