<p>Steven Landsburg was voted Professor of the Year in 2007. On March 20th, 2013 he posted the following;</p>
<p>Censorship</a>, Environmentalism and Steubenville at Steven Landsburg | The Big Questions: Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics</p>
<p>The University of Rochester responded with;</p>
<p>"At the University of Rochester, we honor our Communal Principles: fairness, freedom, honesty, inclusion, respect, and responsibility. We are committed to academic freedom and free speech.
Professor Landsburg is entitled to his opinions and his independent publishing of them. His opinions do not represent the views of the Universitywe work hard to promote a culture of mutual respect and to combat sexual violence.</p>
<p>I can see a few different sides on this but I'm curious what other people have to say. Particularly, will this would affect your decision to apply to/attend the University of Rochester.</p>
<p>One of the most beneficial activities in pursuing a liberal arts education is to question every assumption (or as many as practically feasible) with respect to discovering the truth about the nature of something or forming an opinion about the wisdom of a course of action or the merits of a given policy. This is something that should be encouraged. </p>
<p>Also, I am reminded of the quote I’ve seen attributed to Aristotle, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” </p>
<p>Having said all that, the professor comes across as an immature jerk, both intellectually and tempermentally. Right off the bat, he cannot resist peppering his so-called thought experiments with leading names for the principals. “Granola McMustardseed”? Really? Talk about the need to act your age and not your shoe size. I suspect that one could have quite a game of logical fallacy bingo in his class, though I also suspect such games would be over all too quickly. </p>
<p>I do not find it credible that he is “merely asking questions” as a dispassionate observer; his questions are of the obviously leading variety, and are in concord with what I have just read of his history of despicable and immature comments regarding Sandra Fluke. It is possible (and desirable) to question moral intuitions maturely - try listening to (or reading online) Rationally Speaking with Massimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef, for instance. </p>
<p>I expect this will hurt Rochester’s yield via this month’s decisions whether to matriculate. </p>
<p>The awarding of tenure is the gift that keeps on giving, I guess. They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it.</p>
<p>The link is a set of questions that you expect from a good class. I gather Landsburg has a tendency to say things in an inflammatory manner but so what? </p>
<p>As an example, in criminal law, we went over sets of facts about baby killing. They were constructed so you felt more sympathy for some baby killers than others. As Yale Kamisar then yelled at us, we felt more sympathy for the woman who pre-meditatedly stuffed her baby in a trash can than for a baby killer who acted in confusion. Why? Because we were caught up in the context in which the facts were presented and couldn’t see through to the legal points. We were all horrified to realize we were excusing the most cold-blooded and judging most harshly the least guilty. That is the kind of thing you need to learn.</p>
<p>I think picking Steubenville is exactly what a teacher should do. This is the same as the case in the south somewhere where a professor asked students to step on the name of Jesus or some other super-important “label”. The idea wasn’t to force students to do this - the lesson plan said people will resist so ask them about that - but to talk about your feelings why this is an issue, why you can’t, what that means to you. The student took this as threatening and now the professor receives death threats. But that kind of challenging is what teaching is supposed to do. If someone doesn’t get that, then I would suggest Liberty University or the equivalent madrasa.</p>
<p>“The link is a set of questions that you expect from a good class.”</p>
<p>I agree with this statement. But I still have a strong, negative reaction to it because this wasn’t in a classroom setting where the professor uses the false conclusions/feelings to illustrate a point (perhaps that of having to logically defend your beliefs as opposed to merely relying how one feels) that is clearly made by the end of the class. I’m afraid that these statements could be used by a disturbed individual as “justification” to rape - and with such a sensitive issue, especially on college campuses, I feel like some discretion as to where this thought experiment was used (public blog vs. classroom) would be appreciated.</p>
<p>A disturbed individual does not need a justification to rape. I worked in the criminal justice system. It isn’t television.</p>
<p>I don’t really understand what the question is here. The OP asked “Particularly, will this would affect your decision to apply to/attend the University of Rochester.”</p>
<p>Is that the question? If so, that seems really silly. For the sake of argument, let’s assume the professor has lost his marbles or is horribly off-base in this instance. So then he, as one among how many professors, should cause a ripple in UR’s admissions yield? Seems really ludicrous to me. I am sure every competitor institution has either an equally or more controversial professor or two, and certainly they have professors who are poor if not controversial.</p>
<p>That said, I don’t find any defense for the professor’s article. It’s not logical or on the money in any way as far as I am concerned. And it is offensive, grossly so. And there is no ironic lesson. Disappointingly juvenile from someone who is supposed to be smart. So my response is that I would not be inclined to take a class with him.</p>
<p>I wonder if the prof is an Aspie… Those folks don’t have good social tact nor the “feelings” the rest of us so easily identify with. We had 5 well-known students in our high school die in the same car accident last year (no drugs or alcohol involved) and most of the school was in a shambles mentally (understandably). Yet there were some who wondered why anyone cared. Those were our Aspies.</p>
<p>Aspies grow up. Many are very intelligent. They all think outside the box and are very logical. While many “learn” social standards to some extent, it never comes naturally to them.</p>
<p>Just musing…</p>
<p>I do, at least, like the Prof’s follow up as reported in the news this morning, but the original was rather distressing. </p>
<p>As for comparisons to the FL incident? That was just plain wrong - esp choosing a religious figurehead (any). Rather than thinking Aspie, I think that one was just a sheep following the text without thought. The person who wrote the text is unreal.</p>
<p>To get that same message across (quite a good message), it would be more profitable to have kids choose their least favorite restaurant or college or whatever (NOTHING HUMAN), and stomp on that. Then they should choose their favorite and see if they are willing to stomp on that. If not, why not? What would they think if their favorite = someone else’s least favorite? Can they see why tactless bashing could be offensive? The message comes across without such a deep level of offense and without trying to see if you can get people to do that level of offense (whether they care about the figurehead or not).</p>
<p>But people? Whether religious figureheads, the President, best friends, parents/guardians, whoever - using those is just plain wrong. If you get the sheep who follow, all you are doing is an experiment akin to the electrical shock one of fame - nothing at all productive and can be destructive toward peace in our society if you start teaching that it is ok to stomp on people.</p>
<p>My two cents on both.</p>
<p>What I find objectionable is that people find objectionable calling belief into question. The issue in NC became, “How dare you even ask me that?” - which was the point of the lesson but the student was so unreceptive that it became “How bleeping dare you ask me that? I’m going to make an issue of the fact that you ask me to even think about challenging my beliefs. I’m going to try to get you fired. I’m going to try to ruin your life. Because you had the audacity to ask me to challenge my beliefs.” That is why I have little hope for humanity: people so rooted in belief they are now intolerant of questioning. But then I approach this from the position of someone who knows people involved in defending the teaching of science from the ignorant who want to impose religious belief as though it is science. </p>
<p>Remember, this is in the context where Congress has simply tried to ban funding for political science research - not to mention that Congress decided years ago we will not fund research into gun safety at all. (When people say x is soft on crime, think about that: the actual policy position of those claiming to be hardest on crime is that we can’t research anything having to do with guns so we can’t identify issues relating to crime and, of course, we can’t track guns and can’t ID those law breakers who sell guns to criminals. This is driven, IMHO, by a belief that guns should be owned by everyone - which is an extreme belief in something beyond the 2nd Amendment - and that any research into gun safety might limit that. They’ve taken nearly every step imaginable to make it easier for criminals to get guns to further a belief that this means everyone will have them. It’s a quasi-religious view of gun ownership.)</p>
<p>When I see a teacher pushing the envelope of politeness, that’s all I see. That people want to prevent that is why we need tenure. I have been following the debates about whether tenure is a good idea or not. That people object to questioning is, to me, the main reason why we need it.</p>
<p>Maybe I haven’t read this thing closely enough. I didn’t really go past the frist 3 questions. I followed the first 2 and was wondering what the fuss was about. Looked like he was exposing false outrage that often likely is false outrage (i.e. if I felt bad enough about drilling in Alaska or famine somewhere in Africa may I should go there and do something about it). I followed the point about things happening outside of our personal realm. Then he got to #3. Unconscious or not, I don’t want my body violated without permission. To suggest that unconscious rape has no effects and that my body is only a property right seem way, way off the mark. My body is inseparable from what I am and there is no analogy to one’s body being akin to an oil field 3500 miles away in Alaska. I just thought it was a very poor argument, and I reacted to that more than anything else.</p>
<p>Your response is exactly what he was trying to uncover. You can phrase the question in stages: you didn’t know when it happened, you never know, you have no memories, there are no physical effects, all the way until you cross into questions of what you actually experience or not. But that’s one thread. The other thread, which the questions get at, is about the people who do or know. You exist in a context of family, friends, community, etc. If others know something happened to you, isn’t that potentially the same as if you knew? Not because you ever find out but because they may change their treatment of you, perhaps even to keep you from finding out.</p>
<p>And that second thread goes toward issue we often see in classes: why is it wrong to shout fire in a crowded theatre? Answer: because someone might get hurt. It’s not that someone will but that someone might. So a person is attacked and it happens in some version of the person not knowing, that invokes the same worry about what harm can occur. </p>
<p>It is this kind of thread, btw, which is why Congress banned research into firearms. If they found people were in more danger having firearms, maybe people would buy fewer. Or keep them more locked up. The ideology is that firearms are not only good but necessary. (Note that I’m talking about the ideologues not about gun owners generally, but the ideologues who drive policy.) My objection, other than the idiocy of the ideology, is that closing off questions is bad.</p>
<p>I’m with you, Finalchild. No comparison whatsoever and it’s not even worth entertaining the idea for discussion’s sake IMO. If someone were to bring that up in adult company, I’d leave. If a student were to bring it up to me in school, they’d be heading to guidance. I CAN see an aspie type doing so (and they’d likely be little threat to society), but if a “regular” guy brought it up, I’d be a bit concerned.</p>
<p>Lergnom, I have re-read yet again, and of course I might not be very smart.</p>
<p>I think I understand your point about censorship and free speech. He can say what he wants to say. I just find his thinking very sloppy with enough logical and psychological errors to receive a F is this was what he turned in to his own class or anyone elses. All 3 examples are very poor. I won’t bother to go through each of them. But yes, #3 is particularly offensive and the fact that he includes the Steubenville case in his example and the title I find very, very poor. Not that this matters, but he does not say the victim will never find out. He says the victim will just be unconscious during the rape. So one is free to date rape with a drug and that’s fine, and then he suggests that there is no qualitative difference between #3 and #1. There are massive differences. There is nothing brilliant or thought-provoking in the least as far as I am concerned. So from that point of view, sure, he can say what he wants, but it’s an embarrassment.</p>