Don’t you think that it is somewhat subjective?
Please note that subjectively I agree with you on the main issue being protested.
What I object to is "These kids are at Yale they should shut up and be grateful or surrender their financial aid/spot "
But some are:
Not to mention the primacy of free speech over other values. (Something I agree with, by the way, but for most of us it seems to be an issue “settled in advance and not up for discussion.”)
Disco, on the other hand . . . . How is that settled? It was really the last truly racially (and sexual-identity) integrated popular music, and in many ways it has never gone away, having morphed over time into various forms of EDM.
No, I do not think it is subjective. There is a stark difference between trying to persuade people and trying to silence them. The analog to the anti war protests would be to seek dialogue and consequent illumination about John Calhoun, what he meant to the University and to history and what he means to certain groups today. This is why the anti war movement constantly sought media attention and even created their own media. They felt they could persuade the larger body politic of the rightness of their ideas.
Contrast this with the tack taken by current protesters to bar media, or attack those who disseminate videos of their actions. This current crop of protesters do not want the dialogue, because they know that most people are rational and do not judge historical figures on the precise scale of current social justice/progressive thought. It is a coercive rather than persuasive movement.
And I agree with you that no one should be told to sit down, shut up and be grateful that Yale in their largesse decided to let them come. But I believe that should apply to Trump supporters as well as Sanders supporters, to the Chrisitakisas (sp?) as well as Melissa Flick and to Clarence Thomas as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Manifestly, the protestors rolling through our colleges today do not share that view. That is bad.
@jhs, what do you mean free speech is “settled in advance and not up for discussion”? It is openly under discussion all over colleges today.
@Ohiodad51 , I mean that there is not a single post in this thread in which anyone, on the right or the left, has questioned the primacy of free speech, at least in a university context. Obviously, that is something that some of the college protesters question, but every single one of us is condemning that one way or another.
Which is not to say I don’t want to condemn them, too. But there’s an element of hypocrisy in attacking campus “political correctness” by saying that certain matters “are settled in advance and not up for discussion” – referring to current liberal sacred cows like marriage equality, a right to appropriate the gender of one’s choice, or affirmative action – without acknowledging that many of our own arguments stem from settled-in-advance principles, too.
You are glossing over a very significant difference, as I expect you know. The “settled in advance” free speech principle is explicitly enshrined in the governing document of out society, and has been a matter of vigorous debate pro and con since the late 1700s. Further, I can not think of a single instance where a first amendment absolutist was reticent to engage in debate over the wisdom of the free speech clause. On the other hand, global warming has been received wisdom since the mid 1980s, no dead white men since the 1990s/early 2000s, gay marriage since about 2010, and transgender bathrooms this calendar year. And very few of the advocates for those non constitutional bits of current Kant seek to engage in debate on the merits of their viewpoint
Oh no you didn’t!
(sorry was just trying to make a joke, not really a discosux guy)
Well, yeah, ohiodad, just like there’s no debate anymore about whether women should have the right to vote or that slavery is a bad thing. At certain points things do become received wisdom.
I have no problem with renaming. Our kids are going to rename many things after we are old, feeble or dead.
No, @Postmodern , I do not agree with you. I explained my thinking. I have my own opinion about what’s “not cool” about this conversation. But fine, let’s drop it.
Yes @pizzagirl, both of which are enshrined in our constitution and were the subject of vigorous debate over long periods of time. That’s the point.
I agree @Pizzagirl, but I also struggle with where to draw the line. When do active political controversies become settled? When does an opinion pass from being within the bounds of discourse to beyond the pale?
There are still professors on college campuses today who were and are opposed to gay marriage. I think that’s abhorrent, but don’t think they should be summarily fired. On the other hand, I wouldn’t expect to see a professor opposed to interracial marriage – and think a school would be fully justified in sanctioning or removing a professor who made comments to that effect. Does that mean in ten years the same will be true of anti-gay rights professors? In twenty?
I simply don’t have an answer.
Freedom of speech/press is hardly settled in political opinions in the US (and much less so in many other countries). For example, outside of college contexts, at least one prominent current politician with substantial political support has said that he wants to “open up libel laws” to make it easier to win lawsuits without having to meet the current standard for libel.
People in power always want to shut down the speech they disagree with. There’s no difference in principle between safe spaces, the global gag rule, shutting down anti-war protests, or “opening up the libel laws.” Everyone thinks their speech is justified. Everyone thinks disagreeing speech is wrong. There are lots of fun terms like “hate speech” or “low value speech” that people use to justify themselves, but really it always comes down to silencing the dissent.
I am disappointed that these are the big issues on campuses these days.
Whatever happened to reducing pain and suffering around locally, in the country, around the world?
Whatever happened to racial and gender inequality issues?
Whatever happened to carbon emission issues?
At least these issues meant common good as opposed to changing some names somewhere in order to make themselves feel good.
The right someone else has to express offensive views is the same right that you have to express views offensive to them. You don’t have to agree with anyone else, that’s what’s nice about freedom. If those opinions lead to laws, then yes you have to follow them (you can think black people are bad, but you cannot own a black person anymore.) It would be nice if everyone could get along and agree on everything and be nice to everyone, but it’s just not going to happen.
Free speech != speech without consequence.
While I understand where everyone responding here is coming from, I get a strong feeling none of the responders to this thread are actually black Americans. Lets maybe just step in their shoes for a moment before we condemn their protests on campus… Racism IS alive and thriving in our country. If you are black you DO have a greater chance of ending up in prison, profiled and detained by police, and or killed… you have lower economic advantages and failing schools… Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps mentality isn’t working…Some (Ta Nehasi Coates) advocate a case for reparations … like it or not, he does have a point.
While maybe that is going too far, at the very least, I think the oppressed in our country have a right to question the continued glorification of historical figures who have had a part in actively repressing the black race. I think we might need to check our “white privilege” here a tiny bit and at least listen to what the youth have to say… because we haven’t come up with any effective solutions to end racism to a point where they can take a step back and say yes, that was history things are so much better now…
Yes indeed, @runswimyoga .
And furthermore, as POCs at places like Yale have said many, many times, there’s a disjuncture on the campuses. The elite colleges–rightly! admirably!–aggressively pursue POC applicants, but when those applicants arrive on campus, they often feel like an afterthought, as if they’re gatecrashers. The institutions themselves haven’t yet caught up with their admissions goals and marketing messages.
This is again making the mistake of judging historical figures using present norms. But for consistency purposes, if the protesters want to rename Calhoun college, why aren’t they asking to rename Yale itself, given his higher level of transgression against today’s norms?
I find the entire concept of “white privilege” to be an attempt of repression. It is a very much a “I’m allowed to to say bad things about your race, but you are not allowed to respond” type of statement. By the way, I am not white.