What possible kind of “robust intellectual exchange” is going to occur in an enviornment where your opponent gets to define not just the terms of the debate, but the very legitimacy of your position? Sorry, but no. IMHO, the appropriate response to “You are a racist” is “Really, why”?
@Ohiodad51, ok…
I think there is indirect harm too. I was listening to a Prime Minister Rabin of Israel story. People were advocating to kill him. They didn’t kill him. But somebody else listened and did kill him.
I watched Mississippi Burning yesterday. That took place in 1964 by the way. Words can be very dangerous.
I mentioned in an earlier thread a friend was involved in the documentary Surviving Skokie. The documentary was partially about Nazis marching in an area where many Jews who survived the holocaust lived.
Free speech?
The police in the area were former WWII vets. They hated Nazis. So…when the police knew nazis were going to demonstrate, the police told the jews when and where the nazis were going to demonstrate. Then the jews would show up and beat the crap out of the nazis. The police would show up…a little late. 
I don’t know…I kind of like what happened in that story.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Not everything. I don’t have the answers.
If we were having a discussion with others in public and I said “I think you are physically beating your spouse”, would your reaction be to say “Am not!”, and just continue the discussion like nothing happened? Or would you be seriously angry at me for violating the standards of civilized conversation?
@hebegebe, the standards of civilized conversation were violated when somebody said something racist.
This is the issue… People say racist things…they want to be free to say whatever…and then they complain when they are called on it.
So using @hebegebe’s example, you lose your right to object to being called a wife beater because you beat your wife. See the problem?
So a person who disagrees with you gets to call you a racist, and that’s supposed to be ok? What a dysfunctional world you want to live in.
I am seriously happy about the University of Chicago’s actions. I have been a fan for a while in terms of how they are innovating, but they really turned it up a notch with this.
As an alum, the contents of the letter to incoming students is classic U of C. I am more surprised at the attention this letter is receiving, rather than the letter itself.
Using this logic, if I feel you are beating your wife, clearly you must be doing so, and I can call you out on it.
I agree that “Really? Why?” is a totally appropriate response to being told that you are a racist based on something you’ve just said. My point is that someone calling you or your position racist doesn’t have to constitute the end of a productive discussion. You can try to understand why. You can try to explain why you see it differently. You can try to figure out a different way of framing your point that wouldn’t lead people to assume you’re a racist.
@Ohidad51, I never said that. Post 125.
Do you think the wife beater example is similar to a racist example?
Then the racists try to stifle the people who call them racists.
If you actually are racist.
Political discourse (outside of college environments) has gotten much more nasty and much less civil in recent years. In other words, we are already in such a dysfunctional world.
“the standards of civilized conversation were violated when somebody said something racist.”
(With all the patience I can muster) dstark, reasonable people can disagree whether a given statement / act is racist.
Take the white big with the dreadlocks who was accosted by a black girl host over his hair. Was that racist of him to wear dreadlocks?
How about if a bunch of white students are dining together in a cafeteria, a black student asks to join them and is told no, we want to be whites-only
How about if it’s the other way around - black students are dining together, whites want to join them and are rebuffed? (That was cited in the article posted above)
There is not one definition of racism. You don’t get to solely define it.
I guess UChicago has brought new meaning to the saying “where fun goes to die” So is it okay now for people to start screaming at UChicago “lets go exercise our second amendment rights” I agree with @dstark almost completely.
It is so so interesting how the racists try to stifle the people who call them racists!!!
@Pizzagirl, I did not define racism.
I only read your first two paragraphs of your post because once you wrote that… Now I am arguing a strawman.
But you have the right to write what you want.
Hurray for the University of Chicago !!!. I think I’ll wear a Maroon t-shirt this weekend and root for their football team this fall 
It’s no surprise to me that - once again - Chicago is a leader in defending academic freedom against the barbarian hordes and in upholding the role of universities as intellectual centers. This is quintessential Chicago. They have a long and very distinguished history on these matters. Their former President Robert Hutchins was a strong advocate for academic freedom and was an outspoken defender of the right of the faculty to freely teach during the McCarthy / Red Scare era.
I haven’t taught for many years now, but I agree with @dfbdfb’s observation. The overwhelming majority of students are focused on getting their degrees, studying, making friends, partying, and socializing (not necessarily in that order ). It’s fairly rare that political activism etc. makes its way into the classroom - even on politically active campuses.
But that doesn’t mean I agree with the conclusion that there isn’t an increasing problem with suppressing of speech on campuses.
-
The students who want to adopt draconian speech codes and to prohibit speakers that they don’t like from being invited to campus may be a small minority, but they are vocal and disproportionately powerful minority. Administrators take the path of least resistance and often cave to these pressures.
-
Most college faculty have strong opinions and hold a fairly narrow set of views on current controversial issues that are being actively debated. Fortunately, most are professional and don’t let their views color their teaching too much, but anytime you have a self-perpetuating culture in which only a narrow range of views are accepted as tolerable you will chill discourse. It’s inevitable. Chicago is much better than most in this regard.
3) On the positive side, I’ve found that the “silent majority” of students are quite reasonable and are as sensible as you can expect people in their 20’s to be. They're willing to engage with views that are different from their own. Also, they aren’t dumb and they know how to parrot back the views that their professors will accept, though it’s sad that they feel they have to. Of course, most students don’t really care that much because they aren’t focused on debating controversial issues.
Personally, I wonder if we shouldn’t have two types of (private) universities.
We can have “true” universities like Chicago where academic freedom and freedom of speech (within very wide limits) are upheld as core values. Students would need to accept this before enrolling.
We can also have “limited” universities where there are restrictions on speech of the kind that some people seem to want. Extreme conservative Christians who can’t handle gay people or the teaching of evolution can go to Liberty University or Bob Jones. Those who can’t handle differing politically conservative viewpoints can go to places like Reed or Oberlin (assuming they want to be this type of school), etc.
"The police in the area were former WWII vets. They hated Nazis. So…when the police knew nazis were going to demonstrate, the police told the jews when and where the nazis were going to demonstrate. Then the jews would show up and beat the crap out of the nazis. The police would show up…a little late. "
That is not even remotely what happened in Skokie in the Nazi marching case. I was at both the IL Holocaust Museum and the Chicago History Museum in the past 2 months, both of which had extensive exhibits on the Nazi March case, and I’m very familiar with Skokie, as Evanston is right next door. I think you may have misinterpreted something.
Dstark, the Nazis wound up not even marching in Skokie. And throughout the whole process, where they intended to march / demonstrate was not some great secret that the police had to inform the Jews about otherwise they wouldn’t know. It was all public knowledge, as the Nazi party, led by Frank Collin, was filing for permission in specific locales. It really doesn’t help discourse to make up what you might have wished had happened.
This is a good free speech example…
http://areachicago.org/the-nazis-in-skokie/
@Pizzagirl, the beatings did not take place in 1977. Demonstrate might be a bad description. Meet is probably a better description. I actually thought of using the word meet instead but I already typed demonstate and I did not think anybody would care. 
Ironically, you have proved my point with your response, as everything you state is based on a reasonable claim of racism. i.e., based on the assumption the accuser has a reasonable point.
However, if the claim is unreasonable and unwarranted, then there is no reasonable response that can be offered to satisfy the accuser. Basically, one cannot prove a negative, so assuming legitimacy/adopting the stance that an unreasonable claim as merit is a loser position before on even begins.
And sure, the accuser can believe what he/she wants and believe he has a point; however, believing an unreasonable claim does not mean, in a debate, that one should try to understand an unreasonable argument, as that is contrary to constructive debate and contrary to real arguments - real arguments are not unreasonable, and no need to devolve oneself into debating on those terms.
Said another way, not everything someone says involving a racist charge (or anything else for that matter) has merit or reasonableness attached. Thus, no need to automatically accept and understand those statements on an intellectual basis.
In fact, I would say adopting that approach is counterproductive because it lowers the intergrity and the basis of the debate into one of opinion only, devoid of substantive points. Opinions can be baseless assumptions and also unreasonable, and, by definition, they are inarguable and undebatable.
There is a saying I believe applies here: “If you argue with an idiot, after a while, no one can tell the difference between you and him.” I have always found this to be very true. Now, paraphrased for this discussion: If you argue an unreasonable claim, after a while, your claims will be viewed unreasonable as well."
I knew this conversation would hit Godwin’s Law but i didn’t expect it to happen so soon!
That is, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”