Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Freedom Of Speech]: More Than The First Amendment

14244464748

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    This is why tenure contributes to academia's sexual harassment problem - because sanctioning a tenured professor for anything requires going through the full process.

    Tenure isn't a single thing, and woe unto the professor who thinks they have "tenure" only to learn that their individual contract doesn't do what they thought it did. Nonetheless, here are the AAUP recommendations on terminating a tenured professor for cause:
    Termination for cause... should, if possible, be considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should have the opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or her own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned

    If possible charges should be considered by a faculty committee and governing board. The cause should be specified, the professor should have a chance to dispute it, with an advisor, and the proceedings should be recorded. That's it.

    Sometimes institutions accept resignations rather than prosecute cases because they'd rather not be in the news, and sometimes administrators are so rankly incompetent that they cannot even meet the minimal standard of documenting what they are doing and why, and sometimes it's a combination of both. Sometimes, craven and incompetent administrators who give no shits about sexual harassment itself will let abusers slide instead of, like, doing the work and doing their jobs. This is much like literally any union contract that requires that firings be for cause--or, for that matter, like any legal protection for defendants more broadly. Good job picking up the right wing framing where you find a bad person who got protected (because police fucked up the search, admin fucked up the documentation, etc.) and then call for abolition.

    Jokes on you, tenure's going to end anyway--maybe because politicians hate it, but probably just because the labor market isn't what it once was. In a few hard-left liberal arts colleges this will give the Pravda crowd the ability to enforce the bleeding edge of orthodoxy. I imagine Reed will be real torn up about exactly who gets to say what. Mostly, though, it will end up with liberals getting fired especially for criticizing the school itself, the donors, or anything inconvenient to the hedge-fund-style nexuses of wealth that universities are becoming.

    ia, ia

    I've actually said that tenure is a good thing that should be retained, but it's dying - and a large part of why it's dying is because it turns out that people are less willing to defend a principle that's being used to protect those harming them. People don't tend to support principles that are being wielded against them, no matter how much people argue that they should because it's the "right" thing to do. And yes, part of the problem is the administration at schools taking the easy way out instead of doing their job (especially when the professor in question is a rainmaker, and thus there is institutional rationale to not look closely), but a good part of it is that people argue that allowing hate and abuse is part of "academic freedom" (a position that it's worth noting that you yourself have argued for.)

    Passing over in silence the fact that you're reaching to litigate posts I wrote in 2015, maybe this would be a productive question: you have this triumphalist narrative about how, because everyone now has your politics, things are gonna change. "People" see how they are being victimized by empty principles. They are going to reject hate, and they've already started doing so, etc. Etc. Do you have literally any evidence? I have never seen you cite any. You just say this stuff.

    I brought that post up because a) we were discussing the same sort of topic there and b) you're still making the same arguments. If the statement no longer applies because your views have changed, that's one thing - but to say that it's reaching to point out that you've been consistently on one side of the argument just because of the age of your comment and nothing else isn't an actual argument against the point.

    But more importantly, you've missed my argument, which is that minorities and other dispossessed groups are no longer taking the usual bromides about free speech which have argued that they should tolerate being harmed in the name of "freedom" and are now pushing back. I already had pointed to one example already - the pushback against the ACLU after Charlottesville - after the organization tried to justify its defense of the rally (remember, they had sued the city when it had tried to deny the original permit), they received widespread condemnation that ultimately forced the ACLU to publicly state that they would no longer defend hate groups demonstrating with firearms. Another example that's more recent and centered in academia is Harvard's refusal to renew Harvard Law professor Ronald Sullivan as Winthrop House faculty dean in response to students voicing opposition to him, especially after his voluntary choice to join Harvey Weinstein's legal team - this case centered around students pointing out that he could no longer be trusted as part of the sexual assault reporting chain (which the faculty dean is part of), while pundits and the defense bar tried to argue that refusing to renew his appointment on these grounds would harm First and Sixth Amendment protections. In my own field of tech, there was the response to CloudFlare providing support to the Daily Stormer - there was a time, about 5 or so years ago, where CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince's arguments would have been taken seriously - but these days "we have to work with Nazis because freedom" is becoming more and more a nonstarter.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    FANTOMASPhillishereNyysjanMegaMekHappy Little Machine
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    This is why tenure contributes to academia's sexual harassment problem - because sanctioning a tenured professor for anything requires going through the full process.

    Tenure isn't a single thing, and woe unto the professor who thinks they have "tenure" only to learn that their individual contract doesn't do what they thought it did. Nonetheless, here are the AAUP recommendations on terminating a tenured professor for cause:
    Termination for cause... should, if possible, be considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should have the opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or her own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned

    If possible charges should be considered by a faculty committee and governing board. The cause should be specified, the professor should have a chance to dispute it, with an advisor, and the proceedings should be recorded. That's it.

    Sometimes institutions accept resignations rather than prosecute cases because they'd rather not be in the news, and sometimes administrators are so rankly incompetent that they cannot even meet the minimal standard of documenting what they are doing and why, and sometimes it's a combination of both. Sometimes, craven and incompetent administrators who give no shits about sexual harassment itself will let abusers slide instead of, like, doing the work and doing their jobs. This is much like literally any union contract that requires that firings be for cause--or, for that matter, like any legal protection for defendants more broadly. Good job picking up the right wing framing where you find a bad person who got protected (because police fucked up the search, admin fucked up the documentation, etc.) and then call for abolition.

    Jokes on you, tenure's going to end anyway--maybe because politicians hate it, but probably just because the labor market isn't what it once was. In a few hard-left liberal arts colleges this will give the Pravda crowd the ability to enforce the bleeding edge of orthodoxy. I imagine Reed will be real torn up about exactly who gets to say what. Mostly, though, it will end up with liberals getting fired especially for criticizing the school itself, the donors, or anything inconvenient to the hedge-fund-style nexuses of wealth that universities are becoming.

    ia, ia

    I've actually said that tenure is a good thing that should be retained, but it's dying - and a large part of why it's dying is because it turns out that people are less willing to defend a principle that's being used to protect those harming them. People don't tend to support principles that are being wielded against them, no matter how much people argue that they should because it's the "right" thing to do. And yes, part of the problem is the administration at schools taking the easy way out instead of doing their job (especially when the professor in question is a rainmaker, and thus there is institutional rationale to not look closely), but a good part of it is that people argue that allowing hate and abuse is part of "academic freedom" (a position that it's worth noting that you yourself have argued for.)

    Passing over in silence the fact that you're reaching to litigate posts I wrote in 2015, maybe this would be a productive question: you have this triumphalist narrative about how, because everyone now has your politics, things are gonna change. "People" see how they are being victimized by empty principles. They are going to reject hate, and they've already started doing so, etc. Etc. Do you have literally any evidence? I have never seen you cite any. You just say this stuff.

    I brought that post up because a) we were discussing the same sort of topic there and b) you're still making the same arguments. If the statement no longer applies because your views have changed, that's one thing - but to say that it's reaching to point out that you've been consistently on one side of the argument just because of the age of your comment and nothing else isn't an actual argument against the point.

    But more importantly, you've missed my argument, which is that minorities and other dispossessed groups are no longer taking the usual bromides about free speech which have argued that they should tolerate being harmed in the name of "freedom" and are now pushing back. I already had pointed to one example already - the pushback against the ACLU after Charlottesville - after the organization tried to justify its defense of the rally (remember, they had sued the city when it had tried to deny the original permit), they received widespread condemnation that ultimately forced the ACLU to publicly state that they would no longer defend hate groups demonstrating with firearms. Another example that's more recent and centered in academia is Harvard's refusal to renew Harvard Law professor Ronald Sullivan as Winthrop House faculty dean in response to students voicing opposition to him, especially after his voluntary choice to join Harvey Weinstein's legal team - this case centered around students pointing out that he could no longer be trusted as part of the sexual assault reporting chain (which the faculty dean is part of), while pundits and the defense bar tried to argue that refusing to renew his appointment on these grounds would harm First and Sixth Amendment protections. In my own field of tech, there was the response to CloudFlare providing support to the Daily Stormer - there was a time, about 5 or so years ago, where CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince's arguments would have been taken seriously - but these days "we have to work with Nazis because freedom" is becoming more and more a nonstarter.

    It's why people are reading and connecting to Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance in a way they haven't since the 1940s. The actual presence of fascists in the streets really focuses the mind on how liberal tolerance can be turned into a weapon against liberal society.

    mrondeauNyysjanSleepAngelHedgieDarkPrimusQanamilMegaMekBigJoeMForarThe SauceKristmas KthulhuMayabirdkimeEmperorSethStabbity StyleHappy Little Machine
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    MrMister wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    This is why tenure contributes to academia's sexual harassment problem - because sanctioning a tenured professor for anything requires going through the full process.

    Tenure isn't a single thing, and woe unto the professor who thinks they have "tenure" only to learn that their individual contract doesn't do what they thought it did. Nonetheless, here are the AAUP recommendations on terminating a tenured professor for cause:
    Termination for cause... should, if possible, be considered by both a faculty committee and the governing board of the institution. In all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused teacher should be informed before the hearing in writing of the charges and should have the opportunity to be heard in his or her own defense by all bodies that pass judgment upon the case. The teacher should be permitted to be accompanied by an advisor of his or her own choosing who may act as counsel. There should be a full stenographic record of the hearing available to the parties concerned

    If possible charges should be considered by a faculty committee and governing board. The cause should be specified, the professor should have a chance to dispute it, with an advisor, and the proceedings should be recorded. That's it.

    Sometimes institutions accept resignations rather than prosecute cases because they'd rather not be in the news, and sometimes administrators are so rankly incompetent that they cannot even meet the minimal standard of documenting what they are doing and why, and sometimes it's a combination of both. Sometimes, craven and incompetent administrators who give no shits about sexual harassment itself will let abusers slide instead of, like, doing the work and doing their jobs. This is much like literally any union contract that requires that firings be for cause--or, for that matter, like any legal protection for defendants more broadly. Good job picking up the right wing framing where you find a bad person who got protected (because police fucked up the search, admin fucked up the documentation, etc.) and then call for abolition.

    Jokes on you, tenure's going to end anyway--maybe because politicians hate it, but probably just because the labor market isn't what it once was. In a few hard-left liberal arts colleges this will give the Pravda crowd the ability to enforce the bleeding edge of orthodoxy. I imagine Reed will be real torn up about exactly who gets to say what. Mostly, though, it will end up with liberals getting fired especially for criticizing the school itself, the donors, or anything inconvenient to the hedge-fund-style nexuses of wealth that universities are becoming.

    ia, ia

    I've actually said that tenure is a good thing that should be retained, but it's dying - and a large part of why it's dying is because it turns out that people are less willing to defend a principle that's being used to protect those harming them. People don't tend to support principles that are being wielded against them, no matter how much people argue that they should because it's the "right" thing to do. And yes, part of the problem is the administration at schools taking the easy way out instead of doing their job (especially when the professor in question is a rainmaker, and thus there is institutional rationale to not look closely), but a good part of it is that people argue that allowing hate and abuse is part of "academic freedom" (a position that it's worth noting that you yourself have argued for.)

    Passing over in silence the fact that you're reaching to litigate posts I wrote in 2015, maybe this would be a productive question: you have this triumphalist narrative about how, because everyone now has your politics, things are gonna change. "People" see how they are being victimized by empty principles. They are going to reject hate, and they've already started doing so, etc. Etc. Do you have literally any evidence? I have never seen you cite any. You just say this stuff.

    I brought that post up because a) we were discussing the same sort of topic there and b) you're still making the same arguments. If the statement no longer applies because your views have changed, that's one thing - but to say that it's reaching to point out that you've been consistently on one side of the argument just because of the age of your comment and nothing else isn't an actual argument against the point.

    But more importantly, you've missed my argument, which is that minorities and other dispossessed groups are no longer taking the usual bromides about free speech which have argued that they should tolerate being harmed in the name of "freedom" and are now pushing back. I already had pointed to one example already - the pushback against the ACLU after Charlottesville - after the organization tried to justify its defense of the rally (remember, they had sued the city when it had tried to deny the original permit), they received widespread condemnation that ultimately forced the ACLU to publicly state that they would no longer defend hate groups demonstrating with firearms. Another example that's more recent and centered in academia is Harvard's refusal to renew Harvard Law professor Ronald Sullivan as Winthrop House faculty dean in response to students voicing opposition to him, especially after his voluntary choice to join Harvey Weinstein's legal team - this case centered around students pointing out that he could no longer be trusted as part of the sexual assault reporting chain (which the faculty dean is part of), while pundits and the defense bar tried to argue that refusing to renew his appointment on these grounds would harm First and Sixth Amendment protections. In my own field of tech, there was the response to CloudFlare providing support to the Daily Stormer - there was a time, about 5 or so years ago, where CloudFlare CEO Matthew Prince's arguments would have been taken seriously - but these days "we have to work with Nazis because freedom" is becoming more and more a nonstarter.

    It's why people are reading and connecting to Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance in a way they haven't since the 1940s. The actual presence of fascists in the streets really focuses the mind on how liberal tolerance can be turned into a weapon against liberal society.

    It's a subject of debate which I appreciate, but we are mostly redoing a lot of the philosophy work that has already happened with education, criticism, and a pragmatic conclusion regarding the concept. I've seen a lot of articles from academics going, "oh, that old thing?"

    We have been complacently ignoring social philosophy for quite a while and require catch up. The problem is that we've also forgotten how to discuss it with our peers.

    I don't think anybody predicting where society ends up over this has an edge in being right, but the layman is finally getting some much needed education after a long period of ignorant flailing.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • PhotosaurusPhotosaurus Registered User regular
    So in an interesting display for a presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard is suing Google for alleged "free speech violations."
    Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has filed a $50 million suit against Google in which the Hawaii representative claims her free speech rights were violated by the internet giant when it suspended her campaign’s advertising account following a Democratic debate last month.

    Gabbard filed the suit in federal court in Los Angeles late Wednesday. In the suit, Tulsi Now Inc., a campaign committee for Gabbard, says that Google hasn’t provided it with “a straight answer—let alone a credible one” for why it suspended Gabbard’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28 following the first debate of Democratic presidential candidates. The account was reinstated and is currently active.

    I could see that as maybe a FEC violation, not being super familiar with the rules for political ads via the internet, but to go at it from a 1st amendment angle seems like an odd play.

    "If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    So in an interesting display for a presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard is suing Google for alleged "free speech violations."
    Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has filed a $50 million suit against Google in which the Hawaii representative claims her free speech rights were violated by the internet giant when it suspended her campaign’s advertising account following a Democratic debate last month.

    Gabbard filed the suit in federal court in Los Angeles late Wednesday. In the suit, Tulsi Now Inc., a campaign committee for Gabbard, says that Google hasn’t provided it with “a straight answer—let alone a credible one” for why it suspended Gabbard’s advertising account for six hours on June 27 and June 28 following the first debate of Democratic presidential candidates. The account was reinstated and is currently active.

    I could see that as maybe a FEC violation, not being super familiar with the rules for political ads via the internet, but to go at it from a 1st amendment angle seems like an odd play.

    What's interesting is that this complaint against twitter comes from a Democrat instead of a Republican, so we've got bipartisan first amendment concerns regarding ... campaign financing.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think we've had this conversation before, with respect to other topics about whether or not to fire someone over their views, but I still come down on the side that nobodies opinion, expressed outside the workplace, no matter what it is, should result in termination.

    There are just so many situations where we expect people to have to work together, even if they have significant ideological differences, or hate each-other.

    In this particular instance I would say if you could prove the teachers racist beliefs were affecting their teaching (say they were harsher on minority students either in grading or in class interactions), then you should be able to fire them for unequal education or something similar. At most, having expressed her racist opinions outside of the classroom should only be something used as circumstantial evidence. So if, for example, they consistently give minority students lower grades, you could use their comments to show racist motives, even if they try and claim that minority students are just worse students. But the comments (again, outside the classroom) should not be enough on their own.

    So, you're arguing that minorities should have to live in "peace" with the people who are literally refusing to acknowledge their humanity, and that we shouldn't assume that someone who openly lies about the performance of minority students publicly will apply that belief to other parts of their life, like grading. Let's note that Penn didn't agree with the latter, in part because federal educational discrimination laws do exist and have teeth, so placing minority students in a position to be taught (and graded) by someone who has made such public statements is just inviting a lawsuit.

    I think that you have created a false narrative that the harm involved with a minority interacting with someone who has given racist comments is so far and above any other situation that it needs unique intervention, and that it is easily identifiable. Instead, I believe there are many situations with an equal amount of harm or animosity, that we would typically not intervene in. Which leads me to question why we need give up some of our freedoms in terms of speech, if many harmful situations will continue (and should continue) to exist.

    Some examples that I believe would have equal harm: a professor who believes religions should be banned and that anyone in one is either brainwashed or actively harming society, and a religious student; a professor who believes students on athletic scholarships are unfairly promoted and are in fact not intelligent or hard working enough to be at that prestigious school, and a student on an athletic scholarship; a staunch conservative professor who believes poor people are poor either by choice or because they are lazy, and a student who grew up poor.

    I don't agree that it will be trivially easy to regulate racist speech, which is occurring not on campus, and in no way affiliated with this person's job, and not have it affect other types of speech we may want to protect. And I strongly disagree that a persons livelihood, and ability to provide for themselves, should ever be tied to how someone feels about that person because of their beliefs.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    HamHamJNSDFRandJuliusFrankiedarling
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    So you disagree with someone threatening a person livelyhood, but think that someone threatening a persons right to exist is not a problem.
    And the problem of preconceptions about students on athletic scholarships are of the same type and dimension as racism.

    I dont find your arguments compelling.

    PhillisheremrondeauBigJoeMMegaMekMeeqekimeJaysonFourHappy Little Machine
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    It's much easier to affect a person's livelihood than their existence. It's not as severe an outcome as most hate crime and all genocide, but factoring in likelihood makes the equation less one sided.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    AngelHedgiePhillishereMegaMekNyysjanGnome-InterruptusWhittledownJaysonFourFANTOMASHappy Little Machine
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    It's unclear what actual actions anybody in here is advocating beyond having a certain frame of mind. I haven't advocated anything and am only making peanut gallery comments, for instance

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    So you disagree with someone threatening a person livelyhood, but think that someone threatening a persons right to exist is not a problem.
    And the problem of preconceptions about students on athletic scholarships are of the same type and dimension as racism.

    I dont find your arguments compelling.

    You have completely changed everything about my argument. First, threats are always illegal, so that has no bearing here. Second, I am totally fine with commenting about someone's livelyhood. It is absolutely the students right to say that the professor should be removed for any reason, even stupid ones. Third, I never said that racism was not a problem, just that I don't think the correct action is to fire anyone who we think has made a racist comment (for several reasons).

    edit - Also, I guess I just fundamentally disagree that a professor shouldn't be able to say that a student on an athletic scholarship is less qualified than someone who isn't. I mean, it is very often the case, and I think an important topic that should be discussed.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    NSDFRandJulius
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    Should professors be able to refuse to use student's preferred pronouns without any consequence?

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    Julius
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Should professors be able to refuse to use student's preferred pronouns without any consequence?

    Of course not. If a student indicates that they have a preferred name and gender, professors should use that because their entire fucking role in that context is to administer the paperwork for the student and be able to acknowledge them when they participate in the class.

    A professor who refuses to accomplish that very basic part of the customer service interaction that they are a part of should be fired for the same reason that a McDonald's worker doing the same would also be fired. Why conservatives think every single social interaction should provide them with an untrammeled ability to shit on people - in this case the customers in the seats who literally paid cash money for the course - is a mystery to me.

    Phillishere on
    mrondeauAngelHedgieThe SauceJaysonFourHappy Little Machine
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    .
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think we've had this conversation before, with respect to other topics about whether or not to fire someone over their views, but I still come down on the side that nobodies opinion, expressed outside the workplace, no matter what it is, should result in termination.

    There are just so many situations where we expect people to have to work together, even if they have significant ideological differences, or hate each-other.

    In this particular instance I would say if you could prove the teachers racist beliefs were affecting their teaching (say they were harsher on minority students either in grading or in class interactions), then you should be able to fire them for unequal education or something similar. At most, having expressed her racist opinions outside of the classroom should only be something used as circumstantial evidence. So if, for example, they consistently give minority students lower grades, you could use their comments to show racist motives, even if they try and claim that minority students are just worse students. But the comments (again, outside the classroom) should not be enough on their own.

    So, you're arguing that minorities should have to live in "peace" with the people who are literally refusing to acknowledge their humanity, and that we shouldn't assume that someone who openly lies about the performance of minority students publicly will apply that belief to other parts of their life, like grading. Let's note that Penn didn't agree with the latter, in part because federal educational discrimination laws do exist and have teeth, so placing minority students in a position to be taught (and graded) by someone who has made such public statements is just inviting a lawsuit.

    I think that you have created a false narrative that the harm involved with a minority interacting with someone who has given racist comments is so far and above any other situation that it needs unique intervention, and that it is easily identifiable. Instead, I believe there are many situations with an equal amount of harm or animosity, that we would typically not intervene in. Which leads me to question why we need give up some of our freedoms in terms of speech, if many harmful situations will continue (and should continue) to exist.

    Some examples that I believe would have equal harm: a professor who believes religions should be banned and that anyone in one is either brainwashed or actively harming society, and a religious student; a professor who believes students on athletic scholarships are unfairly promoted and are in fact not intelligent or hard working enough to be at that prestigious school, and a student on an athletic scholarship; a staunch conservative professor who believes poor people are poor either by choice or because they are lazy, and a student who grew up poor.

    I don't agree that it will be trivially easy to regulate racist speech, which is occurring not on campus, and in no way affiliated with this person's job, and not have it affect other types of speech we may want to protect. And I strongly disagree that a persons livelihood, and ability to provide for themselves, should ever be tied to how someone feels about that person because of their beliefs.

    Actually, I'd argue that the examples that you give are also points where we should intervene in. Hell, we've actually talked about your first example in the form of Sam Harris - a neuroscientist who likes to opine frequently on why Islam is horrible (and comes across as completely clueless when he does.) Bigotry does real harm, especially when championed by people like Wax or Harris who have social standing to make their declarations appear to be true while not being backed by any real support.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    DarkPrimusJaysonFour
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Should professors be able to refuse to use student's preferred pronouns without any consequence?

    In case this was directed at me, I would say that interactions inside the classroom are different than expressing opinions outside of the classroom. So while I wouldn't fire a professor for saying (outside of the classroom) that they believe people should always be referred to by the pronouns associated with their birth sex (even if I strongly disagree). I also believe that there should be school policy that says that when on-campus and in the classroom, preferred pronouns should always be used when addressing trans-gendered students/faculty, and that failure to comply with the policy should be fire-able.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    JuliusFrankiedarling
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    If the professional bigot cannot exist, then it should be easy to prove their bigotry inside the classroom, without relying on statements they made elsewhere. If it is not easy, then maybe that says something about the assumption that the professional bigot cannot exist.

    The point of those examples was to counter the argument that teachers/donors/faculty should be allowed to exercise their freedoms by forcing a school to fire a racist. But as my examples attempt to point out, we already limit the freedoms of teachers/faculty (maybe not donors that was bad example) whilst on campus or dealing with school matters. The racist teacher on the other hand is not on campus, or dealing with school matters.

    And again I would point out that social pressure is quite often used for ill. How often does the racist get fired rather than the lone liberal, or environmentalist, or some other "outsider" for whatever region you happen to be in? I don't think that employment is the right area to target for social justice, because the risks for poor outcomes are too high.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    Frankiedarling
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    If the professional bigot cannot exist, then it should be easy to prove their bigotry inside the classroom, without relying on statements they made elsewhere. If it is not easy, then maybe that says something about the assumption that the professional bigot cannot exist.

    The point of those examples was to counter the argument that teachers/donors/faculty should be allowed to exercise their freedoms by forcing a school to fire a racist. But as my examples attempt to point out, we already limit the freedoms of teachers/faculty (maybe not donors that was bad example) whilst on campus or dealing with school matters. The racist teacher on the other hand is not on campus, or dealing with school matters.

    And again I would point out that social pressure is quite often used for ill. How often does the racist get fired rather than the lone liberal, or environmentalist, or some other "outsider" for whatever region you happen to be in? I don't think that employment is the right area to target for social justice, because the risks for poor outcomes are too high.

    You make the mistaken assumption that not doing so will prevent the bad outcomes you're worrying about.

    Also the bigot doesn't have to say anything in the classroom to have a negative effect. There's any number of other things, from being harsher with scoring to "just happening" to never be available to assist students they're biased against.

    mrondeauPhillishereDarkPrimusAngelHedgieMegaMekThe SauceKristmas KthulhuJaysonFourNyysjanQanamilHappy Little Machine
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    If the professional bigot cannot exist, then it should be easy to prove their bigotry inside the classroom, without relying on statements they made elsewhere. If it is not easy, then maybe that says something about the assumption that the professional bigot cannot exist.

    The point of those examples was to counter the argument that teachers/donors/faculty should be allowed to exercise their freedoms by forcing a school to fire a racist. But as my examples attempt to point out, we already limit the freedoms of teachers/faculty (maybe not donors that was bad example) whilst on campus or dealing with school matters. The racist teacher on the other hand is not on campus, or dealing with school matters.

    And again I would point out that social pressure is quite often used for ill. How often does the racist get fired rather than the lone liberal, or environmentalist, or some other "outsider" for whatever region you happen to be in? I don't think that employment is the right area to target for social justice, because the risks for poor outcomes are too high.

    You make the mistaken assumption that not doing so will prevent the bad outcomes you're worrying about.

    Also the bigot doesn't have to say anything in the classroom to have a negative effect. There's any number of other things, from being harsher with scoring to "just happening" to never be available to assist students they're biased against.

    This deserves formal research. There are just too many factors at work

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    JuliusJebus314Frankiedarling
  • The SauceThe Sauce Fleur de Alys Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    If the professional bigot cannot exist, then it should be easy to prove their bigotry inside the classroom, without relying on statements they made elsewhere. If it is not easy, then maybe that says something about the assumption that the professional bigot cannot exist.

    The point of those examples was to counter the argument that teachers/donors/faculty should be allowed to exercise their freedoms by forcing a school to fire a racist. But as my examples attempt to point out, we already limit the freedoms of teachers/faculty (maybe not donors that was bad example) whilst on campus or dealing with school matters. The racist teacher on the other hand is not on campus, or dealing with school matters.

    And again I would point out that social pressure is quite often used for ill. How often does the racist get fired rather than the lone liberal, or environmentalist, or some other "outsider" for whatever region you happen to be in? I don't think that employment is the right area to target for social justice, because the risks for poor outcomes are too high.

    You make the mistaken assumption that not doing so will prevent the bad outcomes you're worrying about.

    Also the bigot doesn't have to say anything in the classroom to have a negative effect. There's any number of other things, from being harsher with scoring to "just happening" to never be available to assist students they're biased against.
    Yes! And knowing the professor is a bigot is enough of a negative effect. I'm not intending to return to university any time soon, but if I did start taking courses again, and I was in a class where the professor had a history of being bluntly transphobic outside the classroom? I'd spend every moment in that class somewhere between uncomfortable and terrified. If it's an optional class I'd get the hell out, even if the material was something I was otherwise very interested in and intended to integrate into my career pursuits afterward. Either situation does actual and obvious harm.

    I'd feel those ways about a professor even if I weren't in their specific targeted demographic, because who knows who else they hate and what it might result in.

    I don't want to listen to people like that, much less try to learn anything from them, and it's unreasonable and frankly hostile to expect students to work around such people when trying to navigate their curriculum.

    The Sauce on
    Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
    PhillishereEncMegaMekmrondeauDarkPrimusBigJoeMMayabirdkimeAngelHedgieTynnanKristmas KthulhuJaysonFourNyysjanQanamilAistanHappy Little Machine
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    The Sauce wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    If the professional bigot cannot exist, then it should be easy to prove their bigotry inside the classroom, without relying on statements they made elsewhere. If it is not easy, then maybe that says something about the assumption that the professional bigot cannot exist.

    The point of those examples was to counter the argument that teachers/donors/faculty should be allowed to exercise their freedoms by forcing a school to fire a racist. But as my examples attempt to point out, we already limit the freedoms of teachers/faculty (maybe not donors that was bad example) whilst on campus or dealing with school matters. The racist teacher on the other hand is not on campus, or dealing with school matters.

    And again I would point out that social pressure is quite often used for ill. How often does the racist get fired rather than the lone liberal, or environmentalist, or some other "outsider" for whatever region you happen to be in? I don't think that employment is the right area to target for social justice, because the risks for poor outcomes are too high.

    You make the mistaken assumption that not doing so will prevent the bad outcomes you're worrying about.

    Also the bigot doesn't have to say anything in the classroom to have a negative effect. There's any number of other things, from being harsher with scoring to "just happening" to never be available to assist students they're biased against.
    Yes! And knowing the professor is a bigot is enough of a negative effect. I'm not intending to return to university any time soon, but if I did start taking courses again, and I was in a class where the professor had a history of being bluntly transphobic outside the classroom? I'd spend every moment in that class somewhere between uncomfortable and terrified. If it's an optional class I'd get the hell out, even if the material was something I was otherwise very interested in and intended to integrate into my career pursuits afterward. Either situation does actual and obvious harm.

    I'd feel those ways about a professor even if I weren't in their specific targeted demographic, because who knows who else they hate and what it might result in.

    I don't want to listen to people like that, much less try to learn anything from them, and it's unreasonable and frankly hostile to expect students to work around such people when trying to navigate their curriculum.

    That’s just in the classroom.

    Professors have a mentoring role beyond teaching. Would a student have the same comfort seeking a professor for assistance during office hours, asking for a reference, picking them for a thesis committee, etc. if that professor was publicly bigoted against the student?

    Phillishere on
    The SauceEncMegaMekGnome-InterruptuskimeTynnanJaysonFourNyysjanHappy Little Machine
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion The Land of Flowers (and Dragons)Registered User regular
    This whole argument is moot when all of these things are fireable offenses already at most institutions, even if you have tenure.

    BSoBJaysonFour
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    This whole argument is moot when all of these things are fireable offenses already at most institutions, even if you have tenure.

    These kind of professor usually end up being fired, but in the meantime the academic martyr schtick gets them conservative cred and money/fame beyond what teaching pays. It’s practically a cottage industry in the U.S.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna689841

    MegaMekDarkPrimusJaysonFourFANTOMASYoutube
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    And here's the thing - I think tenure is a good thing. But I also realize that when a principle is used to justify harm, the result is that it delegitimizes the principle in the eyes of the harmed. If people use tenure to defend Wax, why should the people targeted by her position, targeted by those whom she is working to rehabilitate consider it to be legitimate? It's being used as a bludgeon against them, after all.

    How is it used to bludgeon them? How is it used to justify harm? Nobody is saying that it is just that she says that shit. Nobody is claiming that it is good that she is hurting people with her speech.

    No, you just have people saying that nothing should be done about it, because she has tenure. (And yes, people have done such, like the Penn board member who resigned in protest and threatened to withdraw his donations over Wax's removal from 1L teaching assignments.) Why should the people whom she's targeting be interested in preserving a principle that's protecting their interlocutor?

    ?
    This guy protesting by threatening to withdraw donations is not appealing to tenure but directly to the value of her differing views to the debate. Because he is an idiot and didn't read up on the case. I can't stress enough how ridiculous it is to defend your claim by providing an article that itself notes this guy is an idiot and also not doing what you say he did. He is saying she shouldn't lose her classes because her views are valuable, not because she has tenure.

    You can tell because tenure is strictly about employment and termination. Again, the statement you yourself linked provided a list of actions including removal of teaching assignments, yet did not touch tenure. They do not call for her to be fired.

    Why should the people whom...etc.? Because an important number of those people made a statement that preserved that principle!

    Isn't the whole purpose of tenure to protect diversity of thought in academia by allowing professors the ability to articulate controversial ideas? Saying "he wasn't talking about tenure, just the underpinnings of tenure" strikes me as a distinction without difference.

    Tenure is just one of the measures taken to protect academic freedom, it is not itself academic freedom. But my point is that he is specifically claiming that her statements have some (academic) merit and her "attackers" are condemning them without reasons or facts. That is, he is appealing to the idea that controversial/radical views contribute to scientific/philosophical developments. But the principle of academic freedom is much broader. It doesn't claim all views contribute to the debate/search for truth. Some views are clearly without merit, some may even actively hinder! The idea, though, is that to ensure the true free search for truth (which benefits from antagonistic views) you have to have complete freedom. The dumb and offensive views are the price paid for this.

    Now, you may disagree with this idea! It seems dubious! I myself think the free search for truth isn't meaningfully harmed by firing academics for making absurd and hurtful claims like how the earth revolves around the sun. Science requires us to consider honestly and without prejudice ideas that seem controversial and radical, but not clearly meritless ones.

    The point is: You haven't yet shown anyone actually appealing to tenure or the principle of academic freedom to claim Wax should face no consequences and no actions should be taken. Not that it would matter if you did because the existence of alternative responses/claims/views is enough to dismiss your point. These "harmed people" you continue to point to can just look to those alternatives.

    Oh, you'd like me to point you to arguing that Wax shouldn't be treated as normalizing white supremacy - alright:

    No I'd like you to stop doing that because it is making the opposite of the point you think it is. People arguing along the lines of "she never said such a thing" aren't appealing to the principle of academic freedom. You need someone who says she is saying such a thing but nothing should be done because of academic tenure.
    But of course, it doesn't "matter" that Wax is, as the folks over at LGM define it, part of the part of the "right wing academic martyr racket", in which right wing academics make outrageous, unsupported (you did say that we are not obliged to consider meritless ideas, after all), and bigoted comments, refuse to engage with actual scholarly criticism, and claim "persecution" by academia in the right wing media. It doesn't matter that Wax is part of a system on the right wing designed to normalize and defend white supremacy, which has been fueling the rise of white supremacists we've been seeing. Because there are "alternative views".

    Ignoring for a moment that I said none of that, my point is that those " "alternative views" " actually have merit. It doesn't matter if someone offers a bad defense of academic freedom if someone else offers a good one.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    White supremacy has merit?

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    mrondeauMegaMekAngelHedgieJaysonFourStabbity StyleYoutubeHappy Little Machine
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    White supremacy has merit?

    Depends on how you define merit. Is there merit in knowing what it is, how it is expressed, who believes some or all of it, what causes them to believe it, what causes them to act on it, etc? You can copy-paste to anything people believe that is obviously false and/or obscene.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    White supremacy has merit?

    The alternative views I was talking about are the other ones. The ones saying that Wax is racist and her statements should be denounced, but which do not say she should be fired. Like the one Hedgie linked himself.

    The point is that all those "people harmed by her statements" he is speaking for can look at those for a reason to consider whether tenure is legitimate.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    White supremacy has merit?

    Depends on how you define merit. Is there merit in knowing what it is, how it is expressed, who believes some or all of it, what causes them to believe it, what causes them to act on it, etc? You can copy-paste to anything people believe that is obviously false and/or obscene.

    Any part of white supremacy that could be argued to hold merit is something that only holds merit when separate from white supremacy. White supremacy is toxic and all aspects of it are rendered meritless. I therefore reject any definition of "merit" that is applicable to white supremacy.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    MayabirdMegaMekAngelHedgieKristmas KthulhuJaysonFourMillQanamilStabbity StyleForarYoutubeHappy Little Machine
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    The Sauce wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    If the professional bigot cannot exist, then it should be easy to prove their bigotry inside the classroom, without relying on statements they made elsewhere. If it is not easy, then maybe that says something about the assumption that the professional bigot cannot exist.

    The point of those examples was to counter the argument that teachers/donors/faculty should be allowed to exercise their freedoms by forcing a school to fire a racist. But as my examples attempt to point out, we already limit the freedoms of teachers/faculty (maybe not donors that was bad example) whilst on campus or dealing with school matters. The racist teacher on the other hand is not on campus, or dealing with school matters.

    And again I would point out that social pressure is quite often used for ill. How often does the racist get fired rather than the lone liberal, or environmentalist, or some other "outsider" for whatever region you happen to be in? I don't think that employment is the right area to target for social justice, because the risks for poor outcomes are too high.

    You make the mistaken assumption that not doing so will prevent the bad outcomes you're worrying about.

    Also the bigot doesn't have to say anything in the classroom to have a negative effect. There's any number of other things, from being harsher with scoring to "just happening" to never be available to assist students they're biased against.
    Yes! And knowing the professor is a bigot is enough of a negative effect. I'm not intending to return to university any time soon, but if I did start taking courses again, and I was in a class where the professor had a history of being bluntly transphobic outside the classroom? I'd spend every moment in that class somewhere between uncomfortable and terrified. If it's an optional class I'd get the hell out, even if the material was something I was otherwise very interested in and intended to integrate into my career pursuits afterward. Either situation does actual and obvious harm.

    I'd feel those ways about a professor even if I weren't in their specific targeted demographic, because who knows who else they hate and what it might result in.

    I don't want to listen to people like that, much less try to learn anything from them, and it's unreasonable and frankly hostile to expect students to work around such people when trying to navigate their curriculum.

    That’s just in the classroom.

    Professors have a mentoring role beyond teaching. Would a student have the same comfort seeking a professor for assistance during office hours, asking for a reference, picking them for a thesis committee, etc. if that professor was publicly bigoted against the student?

    The question is what should we consider a reasonable fear. There are lots of teachers who students fear and don't approach for completely benign reasons. They seem mean. They seem really smart and you don't want to look stupid. They seem really busy and you don't want to anger them by disrupting. Etc. Fear is not in and of itself enough cause to terminate the professor.

    Which isn't to say feelings never matter. For example, threats/intimidation would likely change the calculus so that we would say their fear is well founded and significant enough to warrant action. But this is where intent of the professor is important. In Wax's case, stating that america would be better off with less minority immigrants coming in is definitely racist and stupid, but I seriously doubt could in any way be construed as a threat. Thus I don't believe a minority student would have cause to say their fear (that something bad would happen to them during office hours) is well founded enough to warrant action.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    JuliusFrankiedarlingNSDFRand
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited July 26
    Enc wrote: »
    This whole argument is moot when all of these things are fireable offenses already at most institutions, even if you have tenure.

    What are the fire-able offenses? Because the examples I gave seem pretty clearly like they should not be fire-able offenses (to me anyway). Plus we just spent pages arguing about how tenure allows racism/sexism/sexual assault to run wild, so it seems a little strange to 180 and act like those are easily fire-able even with tenure.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    White supremacy has merit?

    Depends on how you define merit. Is there merit in knowing what it is, how it is expressed, who believes some or all of it, what causes them to believe it, what causes them to act on it, etc? You can copy-paste to anything people believe that is obviously false and/or obscene.

    Any part of white supremacy that could be argued to hold merit is something that only holds merit when separate from white supremacy. White supremacy is toxic and all aspects of it are rendered meritless. I therefore reject any definition of "merit" that is applicable to white supremacy.

    Some parts of white supremacy that could be argued to hold merit are things that also hold merit when separate from white supremacy. Fundamental aspects of the entire process of a person expressing a belief in white supremacy have fundamental merit that is difficult or impossible to tease from the process of expression of white supremacy. I chose a group of ideas deriving merit from the freedom of expression of white supremacist ideas, which is a concept that is obviously inseparable from white supremacy.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    The Sauce wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    If the professional bigot cannot exist, then it should be easy to prove their bigotry inside the classroom, without relying on statements they made elsewhere. If it is not easy, then maybe that says something about the assumption that the professional bigot cannot exist.

    The point of those examples was to counter the argument that teachers/donors/faculty should be allowed to exercise their freedoms by forcing a school to fire a racist. But as my examples attempt to point out, we already limit the freedoms of teachers/faculty (maybe not donors that was bad example) whilst on campus or dealing with school matters. The racist teacher on the other hand is not on campus, or dealing with school matters.

    And again I would point out that social pressure is quite often used for ill. How often does the racist get fired rather than the lone liberal, or environmentalist, or some other "outsider" for whatever region you happen to be in? I don't think that employment is the right area to target for social justice, because the risks for poor outcomes are too high.

    You make the mistaken assumption that not doing so will prevent the bad outcomes you're worrying about.

    Also the bigot doesn't have to say anything in the classroom to have a negative effect. There's any number of other things, from being harsher with scoring to "just happening" to never be available to assist students they're biased against.
    Yes! And knowing the professor is a bigot is enough of a negative effect. I'm not intending to return to university any time soon, but if I did start taking courses again, and I was in a class where the professor had a history of being bluntly transphobic outside the classroom? I'd spend every moment in that class somewhere between uncomfortable and terrified. If it's an optional class I'd get the hell out, even if the material was something I was otherwise very interested in and intended to integrate into my career pursuits afterward. Either situation does actual and obvious harm.

    I'd feel those ways about a professor even if I weren't in their specific targeted demographic, because who knows who else they hate and what it might result in.

    I don't want to listen to people like that, much less try to learn anything from them, and it's unreasonable and frankly hostile to expect students to work around such people when trying to navigate their curriculum.

    That’s just in the classroom.

    Professors have a mentoring role beyond teaching. Would a student have the same comfort seeking a professor for assistance during office hours, asking for a reference, picking them for a thesis committee, etc. if that professor was publicly bigoted against the student?

    The question is what should we consider a reasonable fear. There are lots of teachers who students fear and don't approach for completely benign reasons. They seem mean. They seem really smart and you don't want to look stupid. They seem really busy and you don't want to anger them by disrupting. Etc. Fear is not in and of itself enough cause to terminate the professor.

    Which isn't to say feelings never matter. For example, threats/intimidation would likely change the calculus so that we would say their fear is well founded and significant enough to warrant action. But this is where intent of the professor is important. In Wax's case, stating that america would be better off with less minority immigrants coming in is definitely racist and stupid, but I seriously doubt could in any way be construed as a threat. Thus I don't believe a minority student would have cause to say their fear (that something bad would happen to them during office hours) is well founded enough to warrant action.

    The issue is not "oh, her comments threaten students", it's that people don't work the way you seem to think they do. Bigotry isn't something that gets compartmentalized by most people, which is why students of the group the professor is targeting are going to view them as unsafe and likely to harm them in the classroom.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    PhillishereGnome-InterruptusHappy Little Machine
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    This whole argument is moot when all of these things are fireable offenses already at most institutions, even if you have tenure.

    What are the fire-able offenses? Because the examples I gave seem pretty clearly like they should not be fire-able offenses (to me anyway). Plus we just spent pages arguing about how tenure allows racism/sexism/sexual assault to run wild, so it seems a little strange to 180 and act like those are easily fire-able even with tenure.

    There's a difference between easily fire-able and fire-able. So it's not exactly a moot argument, but nobody here is arguing at the level of nuance that reflects reality yet.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    JuliusGnome-Interruptus
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    The Sauce wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Free speech protections are more than just what you say, though.

    Like, do I not have the right to refuse to fund speech I disagree with?

    So donors pulling their funding from a school that has a teacher openly saying non-whites are less capable than whites, or that only whites should be allowed to immigrate is an example of those donors exercising their own rights.

    And does the rest of the faculty have any speech or association rights of their own?

    Or is this a case where people that do not want to be associated with that speech must be the ones to leave?

    I honestly don't think anyone here wants to promote white supremacy, but the end result of saying that white supremacists should be free from any societal consequence for promoting hatred and violence against non-whites is that white supremacy is the only perspective that will be allowed to be promoted.

    I think this ignores all of the times social pressure has been used in grossly unfair and unjust ways. Are donors pulling funding because the school is now accepting minorities also just exercising freedom of speech/association? Does the faculty also have the right to not "associate with"/teach minorities if they so desire?

    I'm not saying there should be no consequences for anything. For example, I do believe that acting in a racist manner in a classroom (grading minoties differently for example), should definitely be fireable. But I do believe that making it easier to fire people for their beliefs, when they are completely professional at work, is not a great outcome, even if it can at times be used for good.

    There's a saying I've heard in regards to the argument that you can have a "professional bigot" - "there is no Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." What that means is that it is ridiculous to argue that people can easily compartmentalize their beliefs - someone who openly lies about the performance of black students (like Wax) cannot be trusted to treat black students fairly (hence why in part she was pulled from teaching mandatory 1L courses.)

    As for your two questions: Yes, donors can legally pull their funding over minorities - and we can then hold them accountable for doing that by pointing out what they are doing and making society at large aware of their bigotry. No, teachers do not have the right to not teach minorities if they wish - but this is because we have specific laws stating this.

    If the professional bigot cannot exist, then it should be easy to prove their bigotry inside the classroom, without relying on statements they made elsewhere. If it is not easy, then maybe that says something about the assumption that the professional bigot cannot exist.

    The point of those examples was to counter the argument that teachers/donors/faculty should be allowed to exercise their freedoms by forcing a school to fire a racist. But as my examples attempt to point out, we already limit the freedoms of teachers/faculty (maybe not donors that was bad example) whilst on campus or dealing with school matters. The racist teacher on the other hand is not on campus, or dealing with school matters.

    And again I would point out that social pressure is quite often used for ill. How often does the racist get fired rather than the lone liberal, or environmentalist, or some other "outsider" for whatever region you happen to be in? I don't think that employment is the right area to target for social justice, because the risks for poor outcomes are too high.

    You make the mistaken assumption that not doing so will prevent the bad outcomes you're worrying about.

    Also the bigot doesn't have to say anything in the classroom to have a negative effect. There's any number of other things, from being harsher with scoring to "just happening" to never be available to assist students they're biased against.
    Yes! And knowing the professor is a bigot is enough of a negative effect. I'm not intending to return to university any time soon, but if I did start taking courses again, and I was in a class where the professor had a history of being bluntly transphobic outside the classroom? I'd spend every moment in that class somewhere between uncomfortable and terrified. If it's an optional class I'd get the hell out, even if the material was something I was otherwise very interested in and intended to integrate into my career pursuits afterward. Either situation does actual and obvious harm.

    I'd feel those ways about a professor even if I weren't in their specific targeted demographic, because who knows who else they hate and what it might result in.

    I don't want to listen to people like that, much less try to learn anything from them, and it's unreasonable and frankly hostile to expect students to work around such people when trying to navigate their curriculum.

    That’s just in the classroom.

    Professors have a mentoring role beyond teaching. Would a student have the same comfort seeking a professor for assistance during office hours, asking for a reference, picking them for a thesis committee, etc. if that professor was publicly bigoted against the student?

    The question is what should we consider a reasonable fear. There are lots of teachers who students fear and don't approach for completely benign reasons. They seem mean. They seem really smart and you don't want to look stupid. They seem really busy and you don't want to anger them by disrupting. Etc. Fear is not in and of itself enough cause to terminate the professor.

    Which isn't to say feelings never matter. For example, threats/intimidation would likely change the calculus so that we would say their fear is well founded and significant enough to warrant action. But this is where intent of the professor is important. In Wax's case, stating that america would be better off with less minority immigrants coming in is definitely racist and stupid, but I seriously doubt could in any way be construed as a threat. Thus I don't believe a minority student would have cause to say their fear (that something bad would happen to them during office hours) is well founded enough to warrant action.

    I don't think things have to rise to the level of threats to be actionable. I think some form of action is warranted so long as a student can reasonably believe they will not be treated fairly or taken seriously/accepted. e.g. a professor openly and frequently stating minorities are intellectually inferior or transgender persons are mentally ill makes it reasonable for students to believe they will not be treated fairly, so it seems reasonable that the professor should be dismissed from at least some teaching duties.

    I dunno about Wax, but I would point out that she also previously claimed black students rarely graduated in the top half of class without any data to back that up. I think it is reasonable to take previous statements into account in considering the reasonability of fear.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    White supremacy has merit?

    Depends on how you define merit. Is there merit in knowing what it is, how it is expressed, who believes some or all of it, what causes them to believe it, what causes them to act on it, etc? You can copy-paste to anything people believe that is obviously false and/or obscene.

    Any part of white supremacy that could be argued to hold merit is something that only holds merit when separate from white supremacy. White supremacy is toxic and all aspects of it are rendered meritless. I therefore reject any definition of "merit" that is applicable to white supremacy.

    Some parts of white supremacy that could be argued to hold merit are things that also hold merit when separate from white supremacy. Fundamental aspects of the entire process of a person expressing a belief in white supremacy have fundamental merit that is difficult or impossible to tease from the process of expression of white supremacy. I chose a group of ideas deriving merit from the freedom of expression of white supremacist ideas, which is a concept that is obviously inseparable from white supremacy.

    No, only parts that hold merit when separate from white supremacy have merit, only when separate from white supremacy. Any possible merit something may have is lost when it is used to prop up/support/disseminate/legitimize/etc white supremacy.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    AngelHedgieKristmas KthulhuNyysjanFANTOMASQanamilMegaMekForarYoutubeHappy Little Machine
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    White supremacy has merit?

    Depends on how you define merit. Is there merit in knowing what it is, how it is expressed, who believes some or all of it, what causes them to believe it, what causes them to act on it, etc? You can copy-paste to anything people believe that is obviously false and/or obscene.

    Any part of white supremacy that could be argued to hold merit is something that only holds merit when separate from white supremacy. White supremacy is toxic and all aspects of it are rendered meritless. I therefore reject any definition of "merit" that is applicable to white supremacy.

    Some parts of white supremacy that could be argued to hold merit are things that also hold merit when separate from white supremacy. Fundamental aspects of the entire process of a person expressing a belief in white supremacy have fundamental merit that is difficult or impossible to tease from the process of expression of white supremacy. I chose a group of ideas deriving merit from the freedom of expression of white supremacist ideas, which is a concept that is obviously inseparable from white supremacy.

    No, only parts that hold merit when separate from white supremacy have merit, only when separate from white supremacy. Any possible merit something may have is lost when it is used to prop up/support/disseminate/legitimize/etc white supremacy.

    Let's step back a bit; what is your definition of merit?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    If you want to argue that there is merit in white supremacy, go ahead and nail yourself to that cross. I've made my position very clear.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    FANTOMASMegaMekHappy Little Machine
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    If you want to argue that there is merit in white supremacy, go ahead and nail yourself to that cross. I've made my position very clear.

    I doubt that both of us have made anything very clear. I am not sure how the concepts we discussed apply in terms of legal precedent, current events, constitutionality, or philosophy of free expression, and I believe this is because we may have differing ideas of a very abstract concept: merit. I'm willing to discuss it if you are, but if you feel you cannot discuss this calmly with me, then I respect your self awareness and will drop the issue.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    White supremacy has merit?

    Depends on how you define merit. Is there merit in knowing what it is, how it is expressed, who believes some or all of it, what causes them to believe it, what causes them to act on it, etc?

    Paladin, the problem here is likely that unless you define merit really weirdly, the very obvious answer here is "No.". There is no intrinsic merit in knowledge. The definition of merit as value/worth is about moral value, not value as usefulness. There may be value to knowing what white supremacy is etc. in order to better understand the world, but no merit.

    White supremacy has no merit. It is entirely worthless, there is no good to it.

    DarkPrimusKristmas KthulhuNyysjanFANTOMASStabbity StyleHappy Little Machine
Sign In or Register to comment.