Comment by JohnBooty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnBooty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I do not know anything about the subject of the linked article, nor her views. Did not venture past the pay/registration wall. I have no opinion about her.

    zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere

Generally, of course dogma should be questioned.

However, academic freedom does not mean that universities must provide a platform to literally anybody that wants one. Their resources are finite and choices need to be made.

Surely, we can agree that some discussions by their very nature are harmful or at least deeply insulting. Imagine discussions such as "should women be allowed to vote?" or "are $ETHNICITY people worthwhile of being treated like other human beings?" or "was Hitler right?" or some other such topic.

I would certainly not say such speech should be banned, but it is equally clear to me that no institution should be obligated to provide a platform for such ideas.

It's worth noting that "teach the controversy" is the disingenuous rallying cry of creationists seeking to wedge anti-evolution religious dogma into US public school systems. Those people know that merely giving creationism a figurative seat at the table serves to legitimize it to some extent. They also hope to wear down their opposition (in this case, already-overworked educators) by consuming massive amounts of their time and energy. Well, such religious teachings should be denied a seat at the table, at least in publicly-funded secular schools.

> Their resources are finite and choices need to be made.

By your own description[0][1], choices had already been made, and resources had already been committed.

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609417

1: > Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at Britain's Open University, was due to give a talk at Essex University

Yes. Decisions are made all the time. Sometimes they are reconsidered and sometimes even reversed. That is not inherently a bad thing, particularly when new information comes to light subsequent to the initial decision.

What are you getting at? I can guess, but these things work better if we don't make assumptions or guesses about what others are saying.

I am not sure if your definition of academic freedom applies equally all over the world. I understand Humboldts definition of "Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre" an university is obligated to support you once you have been taken on and to fire people because of their research alone would violate it.

In this specific case she was a guest of Essex University and not a tenured professor there, so they were under no specific obligation to provide a platform for her.

    Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology 
    at Britain’s Open University, was due to 
    give a talk at Essex University

To your point though, I wouldn't find it good for a tenured professor to lose their job for such a thing. However, even the idea of tenure really is meant to be more like "freedom from interference" and not "unlimited freedom without consequences", right? And of course the tenure track prior to tenure is of course a period of intense vetting.

The way people aligned to academic gender and racism ideas justify discharging other tells me a lot about the quality of said ideas. It happens in other faculties too, but not nearly that often and that decisive.

You have to convince others of your ideas at some point...

Why are publicly funded institutions allowed to decide who's opinion matters and whose doesn't? Assuming the discussion is poised and not straight up slandering nonsense, what harm does it do? Are we trying to curtail freedom of speech? They shouldn't be allowed to take a stance because they are the government. Although for some reason colleges can operate as some separate entity that just happens to siphon government funds...

    Why are publicly funded institutions allowed to 
    decide who's opinion matters and whose doesn't?

At a very minimum, there are real-world constraints at work.

There are a limited number of lecture halls and auditoriums. It costs money to run the facilities. Staff is required to maintain them. Somebody has to sweep the floors. There are heating and cooling bills to be paid and new boilers to be purchased every few decades. There are a limited number of hours available in students' academic careers.

A university cannot provide platforms for an unlimited number of professors and guest speakers; a student cannot attend an unlimited number of talks/lectures.

Therefore it is obvious. Choices must be made. One could even say that this curation is one of the most elementary duties of an educational institution.

What's your alternative? Should publicly funded institutions make zero curatorial choices whatsoever? Should literally anybody be able to teach there? If that is not your position, then you surely accept that some curation needs to occur.

This is not incompatible with the wishes of the people nor does it suggest that educational institutions should have dictatorial carte blanche. They must make choices, but must also be accountable to the public.

    Are we trying to curtail freedom of speech?

No.

Nobody is arguing that the subject of the linked article should be barred from expressing her views. This is strictly a question about who should (or should not) be obligated to give her a soapbox and a megaphone.

    They shouldn't be allowed to take a stance 
    because they are the government.

There would be considerable benefits to getting the government out of the education business entirely. The downsides would be considerable as well.

It would be worth looking for examples of times and places when government kept its nose out of education entirely. I do not think you will enjoy the correlation between "governments disinterested in education" and... well, anything good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com