|
Determining what ideas are valid or worth exposing students to is literally the job of professors. Even if you believe in a more democratic education, this filter on the curriculum still exists; students do not possess accredited academic authority. This is the issue that's ultimately being contested here. Obviously, universities shouldn't waste time and resources inviting hate mongers like Yiannopoulos to speak, but the question of who draws the line and under what criteria still remains. Condoleezza Rice is a former Secretary of State, her viewpoint and opinion are invaluable, especially if you disagree with her politics and consider her a war criminal. Debate is possible, and learning how to confront neoconservative arguments head-on instead of merely taking prescribed viewpoints from the people you're already ideologically aligned with is an improvement in the quality of your education.Silver2195 posted:I think this is true as far as it goes, but "cases of genuine mental illness or distress" are a lot more common than they're often assumed to be. This is also important to consider. We should be accommodating to mental illness and disability as much as possible, but I think it's fair to say that at a certain point, students have a responsibility to self-select out of environments and discussion of subjects that inadvertently cause them stress. I would say that no number of sincere attempts to protect a vulnerable person can shield them from, for an extreme example, a thorough education on feminist theory if they are distressed by discussion of rape. We can't simply pretend it's unimportant or doesn't exist and give them a free pass. Academia has a duty to help them through it as best it can, but it also has a duty to teach the truth to every student.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
It is in my opinion especially devious that FIRE has supported a socialist woman writing about the sexual abuses suffered by Native Alaskans, a student protesting against parking garages and car culture, a professor with a Nietzsche quote above his door, etc. This obfuscatory tactic of supporting civil liberties in all cases is so effective that now few are aware of their true and more sinister aims: supporting the civil liberties of people I don't like.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Oh I absolutely agree. Like I don't mind having conservative speakers on campus, I'd totally listen to Bush give a seminar on whatever bullshit he's on (if for no other reason than I can say "holy poo poo guys listen to what that chode said") but Milo and his sort are genuinely dangerous because their hate IS damaging. And I dunno where the line between those two starts and ends. Like what kind of criteria should we have? Political experience? I know Milo is just a hatemonger, but is there a way we can define it? The best I can do is say that he's just there to "start poo poo". I don't know either. It comes down to the tacit and specific knowledge of the professors in determining what is relevant and what is not. I don't think this means they're always right, but they are, as a group, the only people who can authoritatively draw up these lists of names. That said, the most simple criteria can probably be applied universally: some position of authority or notability on a given subject, and no black marks against them in the form of unrepentant hate speech or a predilection for unprofessional conduct. The willingness of the students themselves to listen is also important, as long as they at least form a sizable enough minority to make it worth the effort.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Those criteria are entirely subjective. How can you possibly say that they are simple? Of course they're subjective, but subjective doesn't mean complicated. They remain relatively (this is what the superlative "most" implies in that sentence, btw) simple criteria from the perspective of the people making these judgments, because they all have somewhat codified definitions behind them that have to be observed in their line of work. This is how how large organizations get anything done, ever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 14:52
|
|