@mom2twogirls You say: “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.” But the difficulty is always who decides who gets denied a platform. Accusations of homophobia, racism and misogyny are sometimes applied unfairly. I don’t really know anything about the speaker at Middlebury. But the student article in Quillette makes it sound like certain faculty members propose to take it upon themselves to vet the speakers and keep out the ones they deem to be undeserving of a platform. Do you trust those faculty members to permit actual viewpoint diversity? Or is it better to let the students make up their own minds?
Any system of censorship may start out being used “for good.” But eventually that system will be used against the marginalized.
@Corinthian I trust that the students themselves can and do determine those answers through their discussions with administration (who apparently have shown they listen to students) and with their decisions to attend and transfer into or out of the colleges in question.
I look at it a little differently. It would be hypocritical to spend millions of dollars to recruit and retain LGBTQ kids at formerly hetero-normative campuses and then expect them to stand idly by while their money is spent on psuedo-conservative speakers whose basic stance is that they have no right to exist. You wouldn’t stand for it, nor would I. Why should they?
@mom2twogirls I think that the most activist faculty will assume the vetting positions and listen to the most activist students about who to de-platform. Expecting a student who objects to the exclusion of certain speakers to transfer out is, I guess, a way to “vote with their feet.” But so is skipping the speaker you don’t like, and that’s a lot more efficient and less costly to the student.
@Corinthian that’s still a way of putting the burden on the students, this time the ones who may not want to be part of an institution that is condoning homophobia, racism, misogyny, etc by allowing those speakers. Now they are the ones who could vote with their feet instead?
It gets back to the question of who decides who gets de-platformed. You are comfortable with the proposed de-platforming idea because you feel comfortable that the deciders agree with you on who is worthy to speak. But I reiterate that once you buy into the idea that censorship is okay, then one day the tide will turn and the censorship will be used against you or the ideas you support.
I have to admit that this bugs me too. I want my kid to be exposed to contrary opinions, topics, and controversial topics. IMO, it’s the best way for her to be informed and be able to advocate for her own believes/opinions.
I can understand universities cancelling speakers if they feel that there could be a safety risk to their students. There are instances where outside protestors are brought in and they can escalate into violence.
The problem is that anything that does not agree with progressive narrative is labeled with some kind of negative buzzword. It’s everywhere. I am continually shocked at what people determine is “problematic”. As one example, a professor from the University of Illinois recently wrote a book and argued that math perpetuates white privilege.
I disagree since I said that I was comfortable with the students voicing their opinions, presenting them, and then those opinions being taken into account. This is their world and this is how they are learning they can make impactful changes. Whether the results are as they hope or not, it is a learning experience.
And since it’s my view, I think I’m a better judge of what I am or am not comfortable with, lol.
I also disagree that it’s censorship. If a book publisher chooses not to print a submitted book, it’s not censorship either but the publisher preferring not to support the work. IMO, this is similar.
I agree that, of course, it is a matter of gatekeeping. When has it ever not been? In an era of the dark net and 4chan and every other kind of media outlet you can think of, is it really possible to argue that our kids don’t get exposed to enough kinds of ideas? What we are really arguing about are a few, choice, trophy platforms where the speakers have more to gain from the prestige accorded them than the audience has from any real exchange of ideas. I’ve heard from multiple, reliable, contemporaneous sources that once the late Justice Anthony Scalia finished his prepared remarks while speaking at Wesleyan, in one of his last public appearances, he was flippant and never really engaged the students other than to insult a few people holding up signs. I was happy he made the trip and that he was treated respectfully, but, at the same time I wondered whether he ever intended to change anyone’s mind or was he more concerned with being able to claim he had come to the lion’s den and poked it a few times with a stick?
The answer to speech you do not like is more speech. Verbalizing disagreement is what happens in a healthy democracy. Silencing it is what happens in a dictatorship.
No one has mentioned that Middlebury has invited Ryszard Legutko back in the fall (when they can plan more carefully for the crowd of protestors expected).
I also haven’t seen much in this discussion about the group of students and their professor who secretly invited Legutko onto campus so he could give his talk and engage in debate.
It is possible and necessary. Do you read 4chan on a regular basis? My guess is that liberally minded students don’t either. Moreover, they probably don’t read the Weekly Standard or watch Fox News. They - we all, actually - prefer to read those whose views we share and to feel comfortable and validated. We find out what the other side is saying mostly by reading rebuttals and satire that comes from our own side. This perpetuates and worsens the current situation when the two parties and their supporters are at each other’s throat instead of working together to find compromises that are good for the country. This is going to end very badly if we don’t turn this around. And to turn this around, we need to learn to listen to the opponents, especially when they actually present arguments as opposed to purely spewing hateful nonsense like so many on the internet. Inviting conservative professors and politicians on campus is pretty much the best opportunity these students will have to hear and argue against points of views that differ from their own.
If the students feel discomfort when a right-wing speaker is on campus, even when they don’t attend his speech, what would they do if they have a job and learn that some of their coworkers (gasp) voted for Trump? What if it’s their boss? Their in-laws? They’re setting themselves for a life either limited to very liberal social circles and industries, or very unhappy because they’ll have to deal on a day-to-day basis with people they consider hateful and unworthy of any consideration and respect.
I’ve been thinking about this issue today, and to me the main problem is that this isn’t even an example of censorship. And it’s because of the money factor—the speaker was being paid to provide a service to the students in the form of a speech and discussion. The administration decided, at this time, the costs are no longer worth the benefits. The speaker is still completely free to express his views, and nobody is trying to stop him from expressing those. The fact that he is no longer being paid shouldn’t be labeled as censorship.
To give a more extreme example of my point, if someone who was actively involved in illegal actions and on the run from the cops was selling a book, I wouldn’t buy it because I wouldn’t want to support his/her views. Now, if the book was free, I would be willing to read it in order to see the his/her viewpoint without funding his/her lifestyle that I don’t agree with.
“Midd students last year beat up and severely injured a professor for inviting a conservative academic on campus.”
Is that fact? It’s not the way I remember the events surrounding Charles Murray’s visit to Middlebury. Was there any proof that it was Midd students or was it outside agitators?
The administration made clear that the cancellation of this most recent event at the last minute was due to safety concerns. First and foremost, the administration is responsible for providing a safe environment on campus. If they felt that was at risk, especially in light of what happened before, it was their duty to cancel as they did. They specifically stated that the speaker would be invited back and as post #51 states, that seems to be in the works.
I agree it is a problem. Too many seem to fall into the “Your speech is violence; my violence is speech” double standard.
It is one more reason I am glad both my kids have picked public universities - there is still some legal recourse against unconstitutional behavior there.
@RayManta to answer your question: yes I would not want my child attending Middlebury. I am both appalled and disgusted at how quickly administrators bend to the will of a very small number of students who are too delicate and triggered to have a speaker they disagree with on their campus. Are they required to attend? Is the speech being broadcast campus wide? No. If you don’t want to hear the speech don’t go. You are an adult with control over your faculties and decisions.
@vpa2019 I don’t think it’s fair to label people as “delicate and triggered” for opposing the school paying a speaker who has labeled both LGBTQ members and Africans as being “tyrannical.” These students don’t want to support someone who supports inequality, which is a completely valid stance.