Printable View
We're losing empathy and gaining stupidity.
Then again, Hillary Clinton is the first presidential candidate I'm aware of whose platform called for re-writing the First Amendment. I'm not saying this in a "she started it" manner, but just to represent how high-up the rot can go.
Reagan wanted to criminalize flag burning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:haha: How could I forget the inspiration to this Simpson's clip?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSANTRnEBgg
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...chair-he-says/
Leftists chilling.
Look at these leftists attempting to drive right over freedom of speech:
https://thinkprogress.org/aaron-bern...527bc0a49/amp/
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/new-y...icle-1.3499956
How do these people make it this far in life?
Barnette is not exactly unknown law, it is taught in every state's government/civics curriculum, has been for some time. Which, granted, is why most of those cited schools are backing the students (it is not applicable to private schools like the mentioned Catholic school though, and they are free to delude themselves into thinking coercion means respect)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Clarification please. I assume you mean people like Isaacson?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes.
http://www.richmond.com/news/police-...19c0db7c4.html
This guy may just be the saddest little fuck in the US right now.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...180416296.html
People like her (and particularly the professors supporting her, who really should know better) really makes it hard to defend academia.
Interesting. Wonder what the natural distribution is at that uni.
Does it matter? For starters, I'm guessing at least half the students are female. And if you have a class with 1 non-white student, are you really doing anyone a favor by constantly calling on them?
Now if it was specific to that kind of class, as an experiential way to highlight the impact of privilege as implicitly addressed in the class material, I could almost applaud it as a teaching mechanism. But just as general policy? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Unique to that class or not, it clearly breaks numerous anti-discrimination statutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Incidentally, I've heard the opposite complaint, that using the sole black person in the classroom to represent the "black perspective" is a micro-aggression.
Did...did this guy just compare free speech to physical rape?
http://columbiaspectator.com/opinion...-speech-rules/
This guy is an adjunct at the law school? Also, not to get weird, but he refers to "we as black bodies" but...he...seems like he may be more African than Black African? Eh, I hate that I'm falling into the intersectionalist trap of looking at this guy's ethnicity in the first place, but he brought it up.Quote:
...it became apparent that Columbia adopts a narrow conception of free speech that ignores the violent physicality of hate speech: Lips move, sound travels, and words penetrate.
If I didn't know better, I'd say people were manufacturing threats just to keep themselves relevant (and I don't know better).
Watch the video.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/17/if...peech-is-no-bi
There've been so many examples of conservative snowflakes trying to silence dissent from the left on US campuses, but this one was especially embarrassing:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tanford-emails
What a bunch of dumbasses.
Libs just cancelled this conservative thought-leader:
Twitter Link
"Journalism school will instead offer Nikole Hannah-Jones a fixed five-year contract"
Such cancellation, much wow
Of such an intellectual giant who would use the phrase: "There is a difference between being politically black and racially black." :)
You don't understand the difference between this and tenure? Or the difference between coming to this decision independently and being pressured to do so by butthurt conservative men leveraging their control over your funding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Wouldn't the obvious rebuttal be, "You don't understand the difference between this and cancellation?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Not having tenure means there's a possibility she could be cancelled in the future, not the she has been cancelled in the present. :weird:
Its wrong to No Platform people you disagree with. She has not been No Platformed.
I am admittedly no academic, but my understanding is that tenure is generally something that is earned, often over an extended period of time. Not getting tenure immediately upon being hired does not seem to me to be the same thing as being canceled.
Or is this the same type of cancellation that Cornell West experienced at Harvard?
She is the first person in this role to not be given tenure, and "There have been other folks who have been tenured from various professional realms that have also not had a whole lot of academic experience. So that justification doesn't really hold a lot of water,"Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Be that is it may, it still does not equate to being cancelled, professionally or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I make no comment on it being considered "cancelled", but there appears to be no denying that this is political payback/punishment considering the make up of the trustees.
This was for a "practice" position (rather than a purely academic one), which has different standards. The fact is tenure decisions are almost never reversed by the Board of Regents. They're there to rubber stamp the decision of the college. They certainly don't have the expertise to decide who deserves and who doesn't deserve tenure. People nearly always quit their old jobs long before the Board of Regents officially accepts a tenure decision (think of tenured professors who move elsewhere with tenure intact).Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I'm surprised how little you care about an egregious violation of academic freedom and free speech (after all, the person is being punished by the government for her speech). How very libertarian of you. FWIW, FIRE at least cares about this: https://www.thefire.org/fire-stateme...ured-position/
I know of many professors who would jump at the opportunity to have a similar violation of their academic freedom and free speech foisted upon them. From what I gather you would probably be thrilled if such an opportunity was handed to you. If you want me to be outraged over someone getting a five year contract instead of a tenured position you're barking up the wrong tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Look - words matter; this might very well be misguided - as mentioned before I am no academic, and I am admittedly unfamiliar with academic SOP - but this is certainly not Nikole Hannah-Jones being cancelled.
EDIT
I am also unsure if you have a meaningful grasp of the dimensions of libertarian thought involved. A would-be professor at a public institution receiving tax payer dollars who did not immediately receive a tenured position, (a concept that is not universally accepted in libertarian circles as an unmitigated good) is not exactly laying the groundwork for a libertarian cause célèbre.
It's only cancel culture if it comes from the Cancelle region of southern France—otherwise it's just sparkling retribution.
Whether or not Loki would be happy to be treated the same way is not relevant; each situation must be judged on its own merits. NHJ has professional merits and recognition that, at her institution, more than qualify her for tenure; that the institution was pressured—for political reasons—to deny her tenure is in the same category of behaviors as the calls for deplatforming etc. that are usually described as "cancel culture". Cancelation is not academic murder—it's an attempted punitive restriction.
Now, I'm not opposed to this decision in and of itself. I think that the institution must be free to make its own choices about who it wants to be disgraced and humiliated by. NHJ is accomplished enough that she'll be fine in the long term, probably in a tenured position at a more courageous institution. But this decision will have a powerful chilling effect on the academic activity of those of her colleagues who don't have tenure, as well as on grad students who aren't even on track to ever get tenure. Their employment and financial situations tend to be very precarious, and the fear of being disqualified from tenure for doing good work that offends a small group of wealthy racist reactionaries just doesn't sound like an ideal scenario to me.
I really am puzzled by your rationale re. the offer she's gotten being one many others would jump at. If someone were to set my salary at the same level as that of an intern, because of something I'd done that was widely acknowledged as being remarkable and influential but politically sensitive, that would be an obvious case of politically motivated punishment. It would be irrelevant if that salary would be a huge step up for eg. a gig-economy worker trying to eke out a living by delivering food.
So anyone want to expand upon what being "politically black" means?
I don't understand your point. I'd take a non-tenure track job at Harvard. I guess that means revoking tenure from all conservatives at Harvard would be acceptable then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I don't understand why you're using the BS logic of cancelling. The state is explicitly punishing someone for their speech. The fact the punishment isn't an execution doesn't make it any less a violation of free speech and academic freedom.
Are you being intentionally misleading now? The point isn't whether someone got or didn't get tenure; it's that someone is getting punished by the state for their speech. The extent of the punishment is irrelevant.
I'm sure he would be very disappointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
I don't understand why you're using the BS logic of cancelling. The state is explicitly punishing someone for their speech. The fact the punishment isn't an execution doesn't make it any less a violation of free speech and academic freedom.
Can we juxtapose these two sentences for a second? I am being misleading while you are comparing a five year contract with a punishment - and execution? Again, words have meanings, and it takes some amount of mental gymnastics to make a job offer and a five year contract a punishment. Is this what passes for intellectual rigor in your institution?Quote:
Are you being intentionally misleading now? The point isn't whether someone got or didn't get tenure; it's that someone is getting punished by the state for their speech. The extent of the punishment is irrelevant.
I am using the BS logic of canceling, (whatever that means) because that is what Aimless implied happened here. It is what I was specifically objecting to. That you seem to be suddenly surprised that politics and speech plays a role in the hiring decisions of faculty at academic institutions speaks volumes about your naivete, (doubtful for someone who believes hope is the denial of reality) or your intellectual dishonesty.
Furthermore, people get punished for their speech all the time. Just ask Marjorie Taylor Greene. Most would be thrilled to have that punishment come in the form of a five year contract. It isn't that she is getting punished because of her politics - her politics are why she got the job in the first place.
This is a violation of free speech. Your logic (which we all know you wouldn't apply in the opposite direction) is that such a violation isn't a big deal because the punishment was mild. That's not how free speech works and you know it. You're just unwilling to defend your own principles when that means helping people you disagree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
You're equating violations by some faculty members who have a tenuous relationship to the state with violations done by high-level political appointees. Again, for a libertarian, you seem to not care about the state using its immense powers to punish private citizens for things they say.Quote:
That you seem to be suddenly surprised that politics and speech plays a role in the hiring decisions of faculty at academic institutions speaks volumes about your naivete, (doubtful for someone who believes hope is the denial of reality) or your intellectual dishonesty.
The idea that college administrators, especially in a state like North Carolina, are acting out of left-wing political beliefs is laughable by the way. And FYI, by far the main reason people fail to get tenure (other than not publishing enough) is because of petty personal disagreements. Believe it or not, most universities in this country aren't elite northeast liberal arts institutions.
Are you seriously equating the state punishing a private citizen for speech and a politician being punished by other politicians (for encouraging violence no less)?Quote:
Furthermore, people get punished for their speech all the time. Just ask Marjorie Taylor Greene. Most would be thrilled to have that punishment come in the form of a five year contract. It isn't that she is getting punished because of her politics - her politics are why she got the job in the first place.
It's telling that you believe that. She wrote for the NY Times for 6 years. Won a MacArthur "Genius Grant." Won a Pulitzer. Gained a seat at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. But she writes things you disagree with, so clearly she was hired because of her politics. :rolleyes:
Thanks Aimless. I needed that laugh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
If you can find a libertarian professor who was offered a five year contract instead of a tenured position I will muster up exactly the same amount of outrage and anger for their cause. Which is to say none.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Two additional points - I am not certain how you are making this a violation of free speech. As far as I can tell Nikole Hannah Jones has not had any state interference in what she has said, how she says it, or the platforms from which she does so. Maybe you can better explain to me how free speech works and how this is a violation of it. Frankly I'm just happy for Jones, and for this country, that we have finally have come to the point where this level of privilege and fragility can be enjoyed by all.
Second, this concept that the severity of the "punishment" is irrelevant needs additional unpacking. In what world does the severity of the punishment not matter? Both my logic and my ethics dictate that the severity of the punishment is not only relevant - it is essential in considering costs - and the changing of the terms for an offer of voluntary employment hardly rank as a punishment worthy of an uproar, or really amounts to much of a punishment at all. Are all the other applicants who were considered for this position being punished because they did not receive an offer? Which is preferable, a five year contract or never being seriously considered in the first place?
Regardless, there is an enormous objective moral difference between a five year contract and the gulags.
You're right - as a libertarian I should really agitate for the following:Quote:
You're equating violations by some faculty members who have a tenuous relationship to the state with violations done by high-level political appointees. Again, for a libertarian, you seem to not care about the state using its immense powers to punish private citizens for things they say.
1. Disband all public universities, including the University of Chapel Hill. Both Nikole Hannah Jones and the trustees who were vetting her tenure application are leeches suckling off the teat of the tax payer.
2. Advocate that people who aren't directly involved in private contract negotiations between individuals mind their own business, and accept that if a mutually beneficial arrangement between the parties can't be reached that both are free to go their separate ways.
3. Work to offer better education to current faculty and staff in the now private university system on the meaning of words like punishment and concepts like free speech.
Believe it or not, I can easily believe that most universities in this country are run by those engaging in petty personal disagreements, squabbling, and infighting.Quote:
The idea that college administrators, especially in a state like North Carolina, are acting out of left-wing political beliefs is laughable by the way. And FYI, by far the main reason people fail to get tenure (other than not publishing enough) is because of petty personal disagreements. Believe it or not, most universities in this country aren't elite northeast liberal arts institutions.
What I find telling is that you believe that free speech is sacrosanct and inviolate, and that there can be no sanction made against it, no matter how minor - until the person getting sanctioned is Marjorie Taylor Greene. I'm not able to muster outrage in either case. Marjorie Taylor Greene can be sanctioned for her speech by her peers and Nikole Hannah Jones can choose to accept or decline a five year contract. As for me, I'd rather be in Nikole Hanna Jones' shoes.Quote:
Are you seriously equating the state punishing a private citizen for speech and a politician being punished by other politicians (for encouraging violence no less)?
It's telling that you believe that. She wrote for the NY Times for 6 years. Won a MacArthur "Genius Grant." Won a Pulitzer. Gained a seat at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. But she writes things you disagree with, so clearly she was hired because of her politics. :rolleyes:
You seem to believe I have taken issue with her merits - I haven't. I am in no position to do so. However, I also don't find it credible that someone with a similarly laudable record who happened to be conservative would be given serious consideration for the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism at the Hussman School of Journalism and Media either.
Question, Enoch. Do you really think, as a libertarian, that zero public higher education is a functional or even desirable goal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Now this one doesn't even provide superficial consistency. Even the retarded side of the libertarians still want a court system for resolving disputes. They're just willfully blind that in order for a third party to even pretend to justly or fairly arbitrate disputes there must be rules which are to be followed.Quote:
2. Advocate that people who aren't directly involved in private contract negotiations between individuals mind their own business, and accept that if a mutually beneficial arrangement between the parties can't be reached that both are free to go their separate ways.
It was my hope that it would be obvious I was making a caricature - but no, I am not enamored with the current state of higher education, (public or private) nor the governments role in funding and subsidizing it. To be honest I don't have concrete solutions, nor have I given it the kind of thought that it deserves to put forth actual policy recommendations.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I am not referencing legal courts here - there is unquestionably a place for them, even in my idealized libertarian utopia. I am talking about the courts of public opinion. Why what amounts to a minor contract dispute is making headline news and setting the Twitterverse alight is beyond me.Quote:
Now this one doesn't even provide superficial consistency. Even the retarded side of the libertarians still want a court system for resolving disputes. They're just willfully blind that in order for a third party to even pretend to justly or fairly arbitrate disputes there must be rules which are to be followed.
But maybe I've gotten to that stage of old man yelling at cloud.