Commencement speaker slams graduating seniors

[fluffy2017]

<p>@bp0001‌ </p>

<p>Interesting</p>

<p>So it looks like those students violated their own honor code. </p>

<p>Let’s see how much the school values the honor code by conducting an investigation. </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

@fluffy2017 wrote: </p>

<p>A friend of mine is gay and he does not mind being called ***** or even ******* or even ******** and even refers to himself and friends like that.</p>

<p>But that does not mean that ***** and ******* and ******** are appropriate terms.

</p>

<p>As a huge proponent of free speech and in believing private behavior is private and none of my business, I would like to amend your last sentence to be a bit more encompassing.

Edit by @awcntdb:</p>

<p>“But that does not mean that ***** and ******* and ******** are appropriate terms to be used with people other than his friends or in a public venue. The terms are totally appropriate in private if all involved parties have no issue using those terms.”

</p>

<p>OK, I now feel at peace with the sentence and sentiment behind it.</p>

[fluffy2017]

<p>^^^ yeah, in theory, yes…but…can you ever really be sure that all parties have no issue with using those terms?</p>

<p>Maybe one person is okay with ***** and ****** but has an issue with ******* because of something that happened that they just never talked about.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

…because of something that happened that they just never talked about.

</p>

<p>Well, then the person should speak up. If he stays silent; it is consent.</p>

<p>No human is a mind reader. Therefore, it is impossible to even know. How can anyone control for something that is not even known? It cannot be done.</p>

<p>Now, if the person speaks up, then it is up to the private group to decide how to proceed and that includes having the input of that person.</p>

<p>Again, these are private conversations and, as adults, people should discuss and work things out, for no one can read minds. This really extends beyond adults because middle schoolers and high schoolers, for example, have private conversations as well. </p>

<p>Also, I should clarify I extend this position beyond the terms you are talking about. It could any terms / words, which are being used by private parties.</p>

[Gator88NE]

<p>Hey! Michael Bloomberg wants to jump into the fray!</p>

<p>

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, delivering Thursday’s commencement speech at Harvard University, criticized what he described as a disturbing trend of liberals silencing voices “deemed politically objectionable.”</p>

<p>“This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw – or have their invitations rescinded – after protests from students and – to me, shockingly – from senior faculty and administrators who should know better,” Bloomberg said.
…
“In each case, liberals silenced a voice – and denied an honorary degree – to individuals they deemed politically objectionable. This is an outrage,” Bloomberg said to applause.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/29/us/bloomberg-harvard-speech/”>Michael Bloomberg: Universities becoming bastions of intolerance - CNN;

[awcntdb]

<p>^^ It is not surprising. There is a point where gestapo tactics, the efforts to censor ideas and words for some people, but not others, and all such nonsense run into common sense. </p>

<p>It does not take much common sense to deduce when the supposedly most enlightened cannot even debate another idea without getting angry and reflexively resorting to trying to silence that clearly they are not the most enlightened.</p>

<p>Truly enlightened people can present and win arguments; the people doing these other activities are nothing, but thugs. Nothing enlightening about thuggery.</p>

<p>But, it does really become surreal and damaging to their own causes when the supposedly self-proclaimed most tolerant people cannot even be tolerant of another idea being presented or honored. So such for living as tolerantly, as you proclaim to be. And the fact they do not even see that hypocrisy illustrates how much they operate with blinders on.</p>

<p>We will see next year if commencement speakers decide not to back out and if these self-proclaimed tolerant students learn to listen to ideas other than their own. That would be a refreshing change. </p>

[Gator88NE]

<p>Will commencement season ever end?</p>

<p>Students protest UC President Napolitano’s Laney College talk</p>

<p>

“No one could hear her as she was speaking, the whole time,” said Yvette Felarca, one of the organizers of the protest. “It was a very proud day for Oakland - we made it clear that she was not welcome at Laney College. It was an insult, it never should have happened.”</p>

<p>A spokesman for Napolitano, Steve Montiel, said the hostile response to her address was “particularly disappointing” in light of the fact that Napolitano began her remarks by referencing the shooting deaths of six people near the UC Santa Barbara campus on Friday night.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Students-protest-UC-President-Napolitano-s-Laney-5502944.php”>http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Students-protest-UC-President-Napolitano-s-Laney-5502944.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[coase]

<p>Swarthmore had a speaker withdraw last year after student protests. (I thought the whole episode put Swarthmore in a bad light, but I concede that others disagree.) Prof. Timothy Burke of Swarthmore wrote about both episodes. He focused on the academic freedom and faculty governance aspects this time:

There is literally no other workplace left in America where there is any expectation whatsoever of a right or even a utility to speaking one’s mind about both the subject of work and about the conditions of employment. Once upon a time, at least some of the professions had some similar ideas about the value of professional autonomy and about a privileged relationship between the profession and the public sphere. We’re the last left as far as that goes.
Which means that if we’re going to defend academic freedom, we have to defend it in bluntly absolutist terms. The moment we start putzing around with “Well, not so much at commencement” or “Well, not if the speaker is homophobic” or “Well, not if it’s the IMF, come on, they’re beyond the pale”, we’ve pretty much lost the fight for academic freedom and might as well come out with our hands up. It is not that there aren’t distinctions to be made, but that making fine-grained distinctions and saying, “It’s an academic thing, you wouldn’t understand” is a sure way to appear as hypocrites who don’t understand the value of the right they’re defending if we’re talking to already hostile publics who can be fired at whim for seeming to criticize the choice of pastries at the morning office meeting.

I tend to agree with his view of academic freedom. But even if I didn’t, I would still be concerned about his last point. At a time when government funding for higher education is tight, when the NIH and NSF are retrenching, such protests give fodder to those who would turn off the spigot. </p>

<p>

The other practice that we cherish as faculty that’s under assault nationwide is faculty governance. If your idea, as a faculty member, of faculty governance is that the one person who says, “I don’t like X” should override a committee and a process and an entire faculty, then guess what, we deserve to lose the fight for governance. If your idea of faculty governance is that you demand the outcomes you wanted in the first place after the meeting is done, and think it’s ok to rock the casbah to get there, then we deserve to lose the fight for governance.
When some Smith students and some faculty rise to say, “We don’t want Christine Lagarde to speak because the IMF is imperialist”, they’re effectively saying, “We don’t care who decided that or how”, and thus they’re also embedding an attack on governance along the way. Because surely to disdain the IMF (or the World Bank) so wholly that you will do what you can, what you must, to stop them from being honored guests is to also disdain anyone who might have, in any context, ever have thought otherwise.

By all means let’s have a discussion about how best to select speakers, but at some point one must accept the outcome. The full text is at <a href=“Of Shoes and Ships and Sealing Wax–and Commencement Speakers | Easily Distracted”>http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/2014/05/27/of-shoes-and-ships-and-sealing-wax-and-commencement-speakers/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[collegevetting]

<p>It’s not immature to shame an entire graduating class at their own graduation because you personally disagree with something a few of them did, when their school is giving you an honor?</p>

<p>I’m sure there must be something on that in the etiquette books.</p>

[fluffy2017]

<p>

It’s not immature to shame an entire graduating class at their own graduation

</p>

<p>That did not happen.
What happened was he commented about the individuals involved, not the “entire graduating class”.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>It seems to me that there is a big difference between a commencement speaker and a person who is receiving an honorary degree. While being a commencement speaker is an honor, in a way, it’s also an opportunity for speech, and I don’t like protests about it. But an honorary degree is a different thing–it really is an honor, and it’s not surprising that somebody might object if a controversial person is being given such an honor. I don’t know anything about this particular guy, but I can imagine that some folks might not be too happy if their college were giving an honorary degree to, say, Edward Snowden, or Oliver North, or Al Sharpton or Glenn Beck, or lots of others.</p>

<p>By the way, this whole thing makes me chuckle, as people on the right are all up in arms about the attempt to silence these commencement speakers. Doesn’t anybody remember President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame? Totally the reverse.</p>

[fluffy2017]

<p>The latest is that veterans are protesting Jane Fonda speaking at UCLA commencement.</p>

<p>Although in that case, it seems like the protests are not coming from the students, but UCLA, publicly funded, so who knows?</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

By the way, this whole thing makes me chuckle, as people on the right are all up in arms about the attempt to silence these commencement speakers. Doesn’t anybody remember President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame? Totally the reverse.

</p>

<p>That was not a left or right issue. It was anti-abortion issue at a catholic university. And anti-abortion students, on both the left and right, were against his speaking. </p>

<p>The issue here though is not finding one example on the right to justify the too many examples on the left. As Bloomberg said, it is just stark that this year it was all one way (as it is in most years actually), i.e., leftist students protesting right-leaning speakers. </p>

<p>Just look how far back you have to go (2009) to get one example of the other way, which interestingly, is not even accurate as to it being a left and right issue. And the person involved is the most powerful and visible on the planet, like as if there is not controversy around that person already regardless if he is left or right.</p>

<p>The problem clearly lies with intolerant leftist students who cannot listen to ideas, which challenge theirs. I support their right to protest, incidentally. However, it does not make them look too smart. Also, I like the fact that they are open and public with their protests, faces and identifies. It means companies can track them and not hire them as well. Gotta love social media in that regard. Therefore, it all works out just fine in the end.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>C’mon, awcntdb. The only reason there aren’t more protests of leftist speakers is that conservative colleges never invite them. If you think the Notre Dame case wasn’t partisan, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.</p>

[coase]

<p>I agree that it is not a left/right issue. Perhaps it appears that way in the blogosphere, but that is not how I see it. After Zoellick withdrew from Swarthmore’s commencement program last year, I discussed the case with many of my academic colleagues. There was uniform regret over how it turned out. Concerns about tolerance and governance trump partisanship. </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>^^ OK, you know the future and how right-leaning students would behave. A whole lot of projecting going on there. Just make it up and project what you want and, walla, right students are the same as left students, even if you have no evidence.</p>

<p>Sorry, right students would not be shouting down and telling a leftist speaker not to speak. Of all the right college households I know, and I know plenty, not one teaches shouting down a person with different ideas than ours. Silently protesting, having debates etc, yes, but saying they have no right to speak, not a chance.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>@coase - Sorry, my previous post was meant in response to the post above yours. Our posts crossed there.</p>

<p>

Concerns about tolerance and governance trump partisanship.

</p>

<p>I think you hit on the head. </p>

<p>I was at a barbecue for my newly admitted son’s college (they held a barbecue for new students and interviewers) and among people of clearly opposite political strips, there was overall dislike for the students’ behavior last year and this year.</p>

<p>I suspect a whole lot of this has to do with being in the “real” world. People have much to lose business-wise if they do not watch how they treat people. It is one thing to tell me you disagree with my position and present a cogent argument in return. Even a spirited debate is fine; I have those all the time. Yet, in the end, we can still do business together, if we have products and services, which need each other. It is called listening and respecting the other’s position, even if you vehemently disagree.</p>

<p>However, tell me to just shut up, call me homophobic for believing the institution of marriage is between a man and a woman, or call me a mysognist for believing life begins at conception, then money is surely lost because no business can ever take place. These students are too stupid to know they have a lot to lose acting that intolerant. </p>

<p>I gave one example: my company knows who many of theses kids are, we keep them in our database and will surely never hire them. Intolerance to listen to another side is a dumb move, period. If you are that intolerant publicly, smart companies assume you are even worse, i.e., more intolerant, privately. Not good for business. And, I know more and more companies are doing this, as I talk to them all the time. </p>

[fluffy2017]

<p>

Intolerance to listen to another side is a dumb move, period.

</p>

<p>It is amusing to watch the intolerance of the people who promote tolerance. It reminds me of the great line from Austin Powers:

There’s only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people’s cultures and the Dutch.

</p>

<p>

@hunt

The only reason there aren’t more protests of leftist speakers is that conservative colleges never invite them.

</p>

<p>Hmmm…never say never. Makes you look silly.</p>

<p>Trinity College (very conservative college, second most conservative in Connecticut) has Katie Couric delivering the commencement address and receiving an Honorary degree. Also, receiving an Honorary degree is Vernon Jordan, a civil rights attorney who has sued the U of Georgia for it’s racial discrimination policies. Both very liberal individuals. Not exactly who you would consider in the sweet-spot of a conservative college.
Protest? None.</p>

<p>Fairfield College (the most conservative in CT), has John Santa receiving an honorary degree. He is a very active community organizer who focuses a lot on social justice and criminal justice reform. Not exactly your stereotypical conservative.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>fluffy, my mind is blown by your examples of wild-eyed leftists who were allowed to peacefully speak at conservative colleges. Katie Couric? Let me know when Noam Chomsky gets an honorary degree there.</p>

[sally305]

<p>fluffy, it only takes a few activists at any college to create enough buzz that a potential speaker decides it isn’t worth it to attend. More colleges are liberal than not. That certainly doesn’t mean conservatives are more tolerant. I’m *sure

[/quote]
that isn’t what you are suggesting, is it?</p>