@TheAtlantic said:
Crap. We are driving away the people that post rationally enough to keep the thread from getting shut down.
Some more articles about the riot/protest:
^ @hebegebe, it was ever thus.
@tonymom, I think there is a difference from noticing a repeating and escalating pattern of conduct at a variety of campuses, and saying that every issue at every campus is the same. And whether your son or mine has experienced conduct which is like what has been reported doesn’t mean that what has been reported isn’t happening. I personally have never understood why people say that these types of stories are just made up or stoked by “a certain type of media”. I mean there is video available of all of these things. You can’t just pretend it didn’t happen. The question is what does it mean.
@Ohiodad51
Not saying individual incidences haven’t happened. I’m saying they aren’t some wide spread epidemic as some have suggested.
I’m also trying to present that the person telling/relaying the incidentals of the story often times have motives that may or may not have an agenda.
And I do think that there is some undertones (not you!) of “can’t we just go back to the good old days when students knew their place”…I would argue that a long legacy of student activism has given us a deeper and more relevant curriculum; one that is inclusive of a variety of points of view and knowledge.
Should that protest be violent? No, but nobody here is suggesting it should be.
I guess we will just have to disagree about its scope and reach as I do not see it as a widespread problem.
Now free speech being hampered on a national level…that’s another story 
From the link in post 44.
“Protesters then surrounded the parked car, with some pushing on the sides of the car. Several people stood behind the car, yet Burger attempted to back out of the parking spot.”
I wonder what her definition of “pushing on the sides of the car” meant.
She is also blaming those in the car from escaping from those who appear to want to harm them. How inconsiderate of them to not stay and take the verbal abuse and harassment we believe they should have to endure.
@Ohiodad51
And as student athletes maybe our sons are too busy taking spots from more worthy students or just always at practice so they never see these types of altercations…wait, wrong thread…
“I bet it was a righteous, uber-paid, tenured faculty, who attacked Professor Stanger. And I bet this person is very proud of his/ her actions.” “I bet, some tenured faculty was behind the mayhem.”
Can we refrain from jumping to theories with zero proof, please?!
“I would argue that the familiar “this is an isolated incident/conservatives are worse” argument that gets made every time this issue comes up is equally unproductive.”
Has anyone made THAT argument?
If it’s good enough for the leader of the free world… /sarcasm
Well at least we haven’t lost our sense of humor
Don’t any of you remember controversial speakers from your college days? I remember those with conservative views the best because many liberal students showed up to, well, show up the speaker. I remember one woman asking F. Lee Bailey a question and adding that he was ‘so old and out of touch that his opinions really didn’t matter.’ He gave it back to her, reminding her that he wasn’t quite out of the loop and had fairly recently represented Patty Hurst. It was a lively discussion and interesting.
If the students don’t want that type of speaker supported by the university, they need to work through student government, through the departments bringing in the speakers, through the school newspapers to make it known that those speakers aren’t popular, aren’t adding to their education and aren’t worth the money spent on them.
“they need to work through student government, through the departments bringing in the speakers, through the school newspapers to make it known that those speakers aren’t popular, aren’t adding to their education and aren’t worth the money spent on them.”
Oh, many people on the Midd campus made it quite clear, once they found out which was less than 2 weeks notice supposedly, that they did not want him on campus. I almost wonder if there would have been the same reaction had more notice been given. Things might have heated up and then died down. Instead, given the short window, the event took place while people were still irate.
An opinion piece from a Middlebury student:
https://middleburycampus.com/article/why-im-declining-aeis-invitation-to-argue/
The total annual cost of attending Middlebury is $61,400.
@doschicos, serious question, but how else do you expect the argument that it is unfair to link this incident to Berkeley or whatever to be interpreted? How about all the comments about Trump, or conservative hate or whatever? And do you really think that an alleged lack of adequate notice explains what happened here?
@tonymom, right you are, lol. Although it would make for a much shorter thread, I think my kid probably was close to the truth when I asked him what he thought about the Wilson College protests last year. He said there were about ten kids with serious ideas surrounded by a bunch of idiots.
I have no problem discussing a broader trend, @Ohiodad51. What I do find disappointing is reference to shrieking girl, jigglypuff or whatever, instead of saying Missouri, UCB, etc. I also take issue with broad brushstrokes like statements on some sort of widespread grief counselors taking place. It’s less to do with the what you are looking to address but how you are choosing to do it. More facts, less clickbait. Is there a reason you choose to reference events in the manner you do?
My only point in bringing up the time is thinking if having it happen in the midst of major heat in the community on the whole issue contributed to the tone and level of protesting. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. It seems to me that the whole timetable from announcement to objections and discussion around those objections to the event itself seemed awfully short and rushed.
I could be obtuse, but I don’t get the distinction between triggley puff/UMass, shrieking girl/Yale or Click/Mizzou. There could be one I guess, you seem to see it, but I don’t really intend some distinction. And I am pretty sure I didn’t mention “wide spread” grief counseling, I think you are the one who brought up the requirement of some quantification.
So if it just a few places and not widespread then it really isn’t an issue so why bring it up at all?
Now I think at least we can agree. If the debate is over whether the incidents we have seen is either the beginning of a troubling trend or just a collection of exceptions to the general free spirited debate we should expect on campuses, then I think that is an issue we can productively discuss. If it is not obvious, my position is that all of these incidents, to a greater or lesser degree, indicate a troubling trend away from true intellectualism, which should be the goal of all our universities. And for ourselves, frankly.
In my opinion, our society has directed their fear of injustice towards the ideas themselves, rather than toward the undesirable or immoral application of those ideas. A concern for civil rights and equality under the law is good and noble. But too often people are becoming rabid at the mere suggestion coming from scientific or sociological research that people are not all the same, when if we’re honest with ourselves, we KNOW perfectly well through our personal experience that people are not all the same. But our fear of institutionalized discrimination against a certain race or class of people causes some to want to silence certain ideas like those of Murray.
We need to evolve to the same place with issues of race, ethnicity, and gender that we have with brain laterality. I am left-handed and old enough to have experienced the tail end of minor discrimination toward left-handed people. There was a time when being left handed was viewed as a spiritual defect–being left-handed was somehow evil or “sinister.” Therefore, society not only did not accommodate left-handers but tried to forcibly make them into right-handers. Eventually, we abandoned that unenlightened attitude and now one can buy left-handed scissors and find left-handed desks in schools and no one is tying a child’s left hand behind his or her back.
That said, research by scientists like McManus at Harvard has indicated lefties may be more adept at certain skills, including those required for leadership. Some other studies suggest left-handers are, in aggregate,a bit more intelligent and creative. I don’t recall anyone protesting McManus’ book about handedness nor anyone else’s similar research. Why not? We’ve already had a history of discrimination against left-handers, and now with this research, the tables could be turned and employers and teachers etc. others might not start to prefer left-handers and assume greater capability. Shouldn’t we be very worried?
It’s a shame that we can’t evaluate and learn from science without fear.
*NOW start to prefer-- not “not”
The aspect of this that I find the most troubling is the idea that a small group of people can determine ahead of time that a persons research or opinion is so worthless or detrimental that they must not be allowed to speak. It seems that there is either an insecurity or perhaps even a snobbery in that notion. An insecurity in that allowing others to hear the speakers arguments may actually convince them of the reality of his/her arguments or snobbery in that their own ideas are so superior as to make them the arbiters of what is valid and what is not. I like to think that people, especially those that proclaim the intelligence for higher education, would have the ability to make their own decisions concerning topics presented. Obviously there are those out there that don’t have the same faith in their peers. As for dealing with controversial subjects, if you get two people together a topic and enough time there will be controversy.