“being as dismissive of those concerns as that '60s era self-proclaimed Jewish alum was does mean he can’t later complain as he did when many alums call him out for it.”
Sure he can. He can complain all he likes. There is no one uniform Jewish point of view he is obligated to conform to.
^ Exactly.
Some issues with the above statement:
Can you NOT understand an example of an overgeneralization? You just proved the point.
^^^
Fair enough.
But didn’t you say this in a thread that you started?
And can you not understand that your posting’s analogy is premised on the the Pro-Israeli narrative that they’re the oppressed group when many folks…including many Jews feel it’s the exact opposite. And that includes some Israeli Jews who have taken part in military operations:
You have a common misunderstanding of free speech, apparently.
The First Amendment only says that the government cannot pass any laws that punish you for speech, and even that has limits. Private entities are not bound by this in the least, and also it never means there are freedom from consequences, even in government related institutions. U Chicago is a private school of course, so they can do what they want within the bounds of their charter/handbook and general fairness.
But let’s look at a simple example under the broad theory you seem to hold. A guy gets up on his desk at work and shouts to the rooftop that his boss is a Nazi, a pedophile, and just a complete jerk. None of it is true, but he has free speech right? Well, yes he does in the sense that he isn’t going to jail. But he is out of a job. Even if that workplace is the Department of Commerce or the state DMV. This is similar. No one in the frat is going to jail, but the school has every right to take action if they deem it appropriate. Now whether it is appropriate in this case is exactly the debate, but it is not a free speech issue in any way, shape or form. It is an issue on if their speech is outside the bounds of what the national frat poobahs think is reasonable and what the administration of the university thinks is reasonable. Quite possibly, those decisions would have to pass muster with a court in a civil case, as that would be the avenue open to the frat and to individuals involved if action were taken against them. That, among other reasons such as PR, is what keeps campus administrations from making totally arbitrary decisions most of the time.
By including the phrase “in general”, that makes her consistent. Implied directly in that is the recognition that there are exceptions. Now whether those exceptions are few or many is an issue for clarification.
It is as if I said, “Blacks vote for Democrats” or “In general, blacks vote for Democrats”. The former is false, because in most national elections about 10% do not vote for the Democratic candidate, but since 90% do, the latter is quite accurate.
No, cbreeze. I did not say what you quoted in post # 64 . The quote you quoted from the thread on the cheating scandal in China was posted by fractalmstr, not me, here: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1853696-its-about-time-cracking-down-on-cheating-in-china-p1.html But that said, your comment brings up a good example. That thread (and another similar one posted by Roger Dooley at the same time about the cancellation of the SATs in China in January http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/china/1854289-sats-cancelled-in-china.html ) was about an article in the Boston Globe that was written about companies popping up to, in the words of the sub-heading of the article, “to root out widespread fraud in China”. Some posters in that thread, including cobrat, started accusing people of saying that “all Chinese cheat”. No one said that… except them.
Fallenchemist: If a person shouted inaccurate, harmful things about someone in the example you give, they could be sued for slander. That’s different from someone being a garden variety bigot.
@fallenchemist. If you put ‘in general’ that means there’s a preponderance, at least more than 70%.
How would you prove that without having a bias connotation?
It is entirely different to say 'In general, blacks vote for Democrat" than to say “Lack of ethics/integrity seems to be a significant problem in Chinese culture, in general” because you cannot quantify the latter.
That’s a definition with which I am unfamiliar and do not agree. Also, sometimes people use phrases to make a point instead of to be technically correct. But let’s not derail this by trying to prove either point. We will agree to disagree on it.
You are right about the slander, but it wasn’t my point. The person could let that go entirely and still fire the person for just behaving inappropriately. Under Much2learn’s theory, they couldn’t do that if it was protected speech. So even if everything the person said was true, such as ranting on about certain factual issues regarding tax payments by the rich or our policies in the Middle East, they could still be fired. And political speech is the most protected, usually. But there are consequences when done thoughtlessly.
Agree with fallenchemist. There seems all too often ( but hopefully not “in general”) a tendency to ascribe bias where it does not exist. Ascribing a quote to the wrong person, is just an oversight or misremembering, or is is bias, attributing it if, for example, if, say a person didn’t like a thread topic and then didn’t like a particular comment, the memory associates the two, incorrectly.
But, as FC said, it’s starting to wander off topic. Its fascinating, but it is a bit off topic.
@fallenchemist You are correct that it what U of C did is perfectly legal. I said so in an earlier post.
"I get that UofC is private and does not need to protect free speech on its campus under current law.
However, most elite schools try to go out of their way to do so. To me in this case they are just being insensitive idiots. As far as I can tell there is no threat, or implied threat here. It sounds to me like they are guilty of making tasteless, unfunny jokes."
I just think that this type of censorship sets a dangerous precedent and elite colleges should resist the knee jerk instinct to punish speech just because it is unpopular. When the speech is threatening or intended to intimidate, that is different. However, being able to silence minority perspectives, is a very dangerous tool. Predictably, most people can’t understand that until they find themselves holding the minority opinion that is being silenced, but then it is too late.
@fallenchemist I think your analysis is correct, but just to present an opposing view, I would point to the Bob Jones University case, in which the Supreme Court said rules against interracial dating were against public policy and therefore the university could be stripped of its tax-exempt status for having them.
A strong argument can be made that rules punishing speech, even offensive speech, are against public policy, and that the university should lose its tax exempt status over this. Certainly I would love to see someone file for a writ of mandamus against the head of the IRS on the issue. It would make for an interesting case.
I think those are apples and oranges cases. A private employer cannot discriminate in hiring based on race, because as you say it is illegal and against public policy. That is far more similar to the dating case. To somehow rule that speech has no consequences would be anarchy itself. As I said, there are remedies for egregious abuses in cases like U Chicago, if it is indeed an egregious abuse of authority.
News reports so far indicate that the university and that fraternity’s national organization have made public statements condemning the remarks, but there is no indication of any penalty by either against the chapter (at least not yet). So it that enough for you to say that the university should lose its tax-exempt status?
I’m having trouble deciding whether this is more a free speech issue, or a right to privacy issue. When you start delving into private conversations, it’s a bit too Thought Police for me. I would certainly not support any kind of official punishment for people who said offensive things in private that were not made public to any of the “targets” by the speakers. It’s why I didn’t like the bus chant case, and this one is even further along in terms of privacy.
It does not look like there is any official punishment so far, so no real free speech problem yet.
On the privacy front, isn’t it currently between the various fraternity members (the writers and the leaker)?