@Mamalion: The right of controversial groups to march in public is paid for by tax dollars (used in large part for security).
I suggest the book āThe Coddling of the American Mindā by Haidt and Lukianoff which goes into these issues in detail.
My (and their) take on the issue is that the conservative speakers represent views of a large part of the American population, and students who actively protest being exposed to these views in an academic setting are basically protesting against education and awareness. I would not want my kid to study in any place where these students call the shots. However, I wouldnāt make this decision on the base of one incident.
Iām not seeing a lack of freedom of speech. Sounds like different people have been very free to express their thoughts, the administrations listen and then make a decision while expressing theirs. Iām not aware of any of these administrations (where people are criticizing them for withdrawing offers to speakers) having had a societal or university wide stance that is racist, homophobic or misogynistic so it makes sense that when they look at evidence that some speakers espouse those ideas, the administrations may withdraw speaking offers.
Note that the āconservativeā speakers who get attention in these types of things are typically the ones dipping into some kind of nasty bigotry, rather than other kinds of conservative politics (e.g. economic policies). Such media attention has the unfortunate effect of redefining āconservativeā as bigotry (which influences left leaning people to be more hostile to all conservatives and right leaning people to be more accepting of bigotry).
Most campuses most of the time are able to support activities that do not offend. For example, I donāt like frats (30 hazing deaths in the last 5 years), but my values arenāt offended to outrage and actions. I am not upset my college daughters tolerate frats.
When hate speech and/or act comes to campus, the studentsā home, they should protest. It is a very different event. Hate speech is validated by engagement.
Furthermore speakers sometimes are invited because they offend, not because they are good scholars or have unique, relevant knowledge. The Middlebury case seems a bit that way.
How is banning speakers supporting free speech?
@mom2twogirls : The lack of freedom of speech occurred when the scheduled speaker was not allowed to speak on campus.
We do not know the content of the invited, then disinvited, speakerās speech. The students missed out on an opportunity to question, maybe even cross-examine, a primary source.
P.S. According to the initial post which started this thread, the speaker was invited to campus to speak about his most recent book concerning democracy. What would your opinion be if the students were assigned to read this book for class and, in protest, refused to do so ?
@Publisher Taxes pay for the police when Nazis march. Student fees pay for travel, lodging, banquet, and usually a significant honorarium when racists speak on campus. This Platonist, speaking in a area where he has no academic qualifications, may have been paid 1000s for his opinion.
Edit. I would be very disappointed if a faculty member assigned a supposedly scholarly book which was not subject to peer reviews. The point of higher education is the cultivation of knowledge, not propaganda.
So the Pope would be banned from speaking at Middlebury and similar schools? even if the proposed speech was on human rights or some other topic. Because he might delve into the lgbtq issue or the lack of inclusion of women in the priesthood?
This was quashing a political view of an academic.
Donāt go to the speech if will offend you. Or go and voice your opinion. Or gasp, go and listen. Use your newly molded critical thinking skills to digest and respond.
Midd students last year beat up and severely injured a professor for inviting a conservative academic on campus.
Itās a bit out of control.
Amherst and the Jeff sessions is not a great example either. Why not hear what he has to say and then comment or argue strongly? To take up seats and walk out is not scholorship or critical analysis. Itās politicizing a campus.
The students arenāt to blame. Itās the profs and administration. They werenāt caving. They were agreeing and being just as closed minded. They should be ashamed of themselves as academics.
How are our future leaders and politicians ever going to find compromise in a diverse and large democracy without fair minded and and open consideration to a different viewpoint. You have to be able to hear a speech before condemning it.
The speaker could be a complete cad or moron in this case. I donāt know him at all. I certainly feel that I would not agree with him at all. But I can listen and learn or debate. Or simply not go.
1 Like
Really, you wouldnāt include religious campuses? I donāt quite understand why private, religious colleges are allowed to dictate their community values and private, secular colleges are not (well, they ARE, for now, despite threats of cutting funding, but Iām referring to the level of outrage generally.)
I feel that we can like or dislike how colleges choose to define their values and decide whether or not we want to apply to become a part of that community.
@privatebanker: Great point regarding future leaders & politicians need to learn to listen to other points of view in order to make democracy work.
@PetraMC do you have specific examples of academic speakers being shut down at a non fringe type religious college?
BYU administration approved the commencement student speaker to come out as gay during the key speech of the night. That particular religion does not support that viewpoint at all. Thatās being fair minded.
I wonder whether an applicant would be admitted to any highly selective school if his or her application essay stated that the applicant did not want to be exposed to any point of view with which the applicant disagreed or which might make the applicant feel uncomfortable.
I canāt speak to Middlebury in particular, but as a student at multiple liberal arts college (Reed, Sarah Lawrence, SUNY Purchase), I can say pretty comfortably that this is a problem. I tend to be fairly far-left in my own political views, but Iāve seen students shut down speakers one-too many times over negligible violations of leftist orthodoxy. It needs to stop, not least because a university is a place where ideas from across the spectrum are supposed to get a hearing, rather than a echo-box for onesā personal prejudices.
Great discussion.
My opinion is in line with privatebankerās. To flip things, what would the reaction be if a campus disinvited a speaker because he or she advocated for LGBTQ rights? Even if it had nothing to do with the speech? Iād be outraged, personally. Objectively, I donāt see the difference here. Go ahead and protest. Schedule a counter-speaker. Protest is great, wonderful, an exercise of democracy and what makes this country unique. But the protest should be against the speaker and his/her views, not the decision to invite the speaker. It seems like that was the intent here. The fact, however, that the school told the protesters they "had every right to feel aggrieved, and assured them thereās steps underway to ensure controversial right-wing speakers are not easily invited to campus in the future,ā was out of line with their responsibility to provide a robust, varied, learning environment to all students, IMO.
To bring it back to one of my original questions, would this influence your decision to go to/to send your child to Middlebury?
@tpike12 and @Publisher
This guy wasnāt banned from campus. His offer to have a podium to speak publicly was rescinded. Iāve never been given one at a college either but that doesnāt mean any college has prevented me from speaking. They have no obligation to give anyone outside of their community a place to speak.
College administrators can choose not to be linked professionally to people who are themselves linked to homophobia, racism and misogyny. IMO, they should have the freedom to do so, and frankly I think they have the obligation.
@RayManta: An issue to consider is whether or not one considers this to be a healthy environment for intellectual & emotional growth.
I love diversity. Diversity comes in many forms including varying opinions & beliefs.
Itās a bit hypocritical to strive for diversity in a college community but to limit that diversity to the color of oneās skin & to sexuality.
@PetraMC You suggest that religious colleges get a pass from free speech defenders. Itās true that FIREās position is that private universities (religious and non-religious) can lawfully restrict speech (unless there is an applicable state law such as in CA) ā but FIRE will call them out if they claim in their mission statement, news releases, website etc to value free expression but then donāt really do so in practice. Did you read FIREās 2019 list of the worst colleges for free speech? Liberty University is in their top 10. https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2019/
https://www.thefire.org/fire-calls-on-liberty-universitys-leadership-to-end-censorship-of-student-press/
@privatebanker Brigham Young U pre-approved the speech (not exactly free speech nor amazing to allow a self-identifying gay to speak). On the other hand, they are suspected of silencing sexual assault survivors https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/07/27/byu-students-say-victims-of-sexual-assault-are-targeted-by-honor-code/
To those of that religion it is. To me itās not. Thatās the difference. It is the best way for them to potentially change the view in a constructive manner. Itās being able to speak your mind in a respectful manner.
No one is approving hate speech. Itās just so many that conflate conservative political ideas as hate speech. Itās the opposite of the idea of religious and idea tolerance. I guess we prefer to be tolerant up to the point when it differs from oneās views.