Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a rare victory for academic freedom the University of Chicago sent incoming freshmen a letter strongly espousing vigorous discussion of issues, on their merits. This was covered in today's New York Times. University of Chicago Strikes Back Against Campus Political Correctness. The text of the letter is transcribed below (not from New York Times article, but from Public Domain sources):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welcoming Letter to Univ. of Chicago Freshmen
Dear Class of 2020 Student:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welcoming Letter to Univ. of Chicago Freshmen
Welcome and congratulations on your acceptance to the College at the University of Chicago. Earning a place in our community of scholars is no small achievement and we are delighted that you selected Chicago to continue your intellectual journey.
Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago's defining characteristic is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. This is captured in the University's faculty report on freedom of expression. Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort .
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called "trigger warnings; we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual "safe spaces" where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority-building campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background h a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.
The letter then makes reference to the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression (link).
This is refreshing in a world where speeches by such figures as Ben Shapiro, a leading mainstream conservative commentator. See Cal State canceled on Ben Shapiro after liberal students compared him to the KKK. Free speech was not created for cowards. It was created for adults with the courage to express and debate their convictions.
As I say in my classes, academic freedom protects a great many statements & questions. Open discourse and academic inquiry is welcome.
What academic freedom is NOT is a license to make boorish, offensive, or vulgar comments. Not all "opinions" are equal and should not be treated as such. Sometimes opinions are just the product of one's accumulated prejudice.
Rule of thumb #1 - if you don't think you could say it to your grandmother, you probably shouldn't say it in class. Rule of thumb #2 - the first person to make a Hitler comparison automatically loses the argument.
But yes, I support UChicago for pre-empting student groups from setting the school's rules.
As I say in my classes, academic freedom protects a great many statements & questions. Open discourse and academic inquiry is welcome.
What academic freedom is NOT is a license to make boorish, offensive, or vulgar comments. Not all "opinions" are equal and should not be treated as such. Sometimes opinions are just the product of one's accumulated prejudice.
Rule of thumb #1 - if you don't think you could say it to your grandmother, you probably shouldn't say it in class. Rule of thumb #2 - the first person to make a Hitler comparison automatically loses the argument.
But yes, I support UChicago for pre-empting student groups from setting the school's rules.
I agree that the tone of comments should be on a level with that expected in the writing at the university in question. But I don't think that students should be allowed to veto conservative course content as long as it isn't overtly racist or sexist.
I agree that the tone of comments should be on a level with that expected in the writing at the university in question. But I don't think that students should be allowed to veto conservative course content as long as it isn't overtly racist or sexist.
Of course not. I think some colleges have let their student & community activists get out of control. From what I've seen, the cancellations of speakers, etc.. are due to student groups making a fuss about events that the administration scheduled.
In a rare victory for academic freedom the University of Chicago sent incoming freshmen a letter strongly espousing vigorous discussion of issues, on their merits. This was covered in today's New York Times. University of Chicago Strikes Back Against Campus Political Correctness. The text of the letter is transcribed below (not from New York Times article, but from Public Domain sources):
[font="]
The letter then makes reference to the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression (link).
This is refreshing in a world where speeches by such figures as Ben Shapiro, a leading mainstream conservative commentator. See Cal State canceled on Ben Shapiro after liberal students compared him to the KKK. Free speech was not created for cowards. It was created for adults with the courage to express and debate their convictions.
I support University of Chicago in this.
.
This is not an all or nothing issue, it is complex and nuanced. The students have a right say that they don't want certain speakers coming to their campus. If enough of them feel that way, then so be it. Especially, as their student activities fees are what typical pay for speakers fees.
My only issue is when students try to police each other, they should discuss and confront each other on issues relating to speech and whatever else is bothering them, but the admins should not be policing micro aggression.
This is not an all or nothing issue, it is complex and nuanced. The students have a right say that they don't want certain speakers coming to their campus. If enough of them feel that way, then so be it. Especially, as their student activities fees are what typical pay for speakers fees.
I strongly disagree. I would let the organization that wanted the speaker to come guarantee a certain attendance level for revenue purposes. If certain students don't want to hear a speaker then let the students not come. This is America. They have a right not to attend anything they don't want to attend.
One of my first experiences with this was when Milton Friedman spoke on monetary policy at my Alma Mater, Cornell University, during Academic Year 1978-9. There was a small demonstration outside and one of my friends wanted to join the demonstration and perhaps interrupt the speech. Mind you, at the time I agreed with the anti-apartheid demonstrators. I persuaded my friend, though, not to try to silence Mr. Friedman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
My only issue is when students try to police each other, they should discuss and confront each other on issues relating to speech and whatever else is bothering them, but the admins should not be policing micro aggression.
I agree with you on this. Also, as difficult as it is, unless physical violence is involved the accused should always be allowed to confront the accuser. The presumption of innocence must apply.
On a personal note, at the end of my sophomore year I became unduly distressed about my likely grades, and made that perhaps too clear to people who worried about my safety. I was promptly sent home without any opportunity to discuss the matter with anyone. Fortunately a week later I was allowed to return, and completed both the year and the degree program successfully, going on to law school. Due process at universities could use some serious work.
I will PM more details to anyone interested but they do not belong on a public discussion board.
I strongly disagree. I would let the organization that wanted the speaker to come guarantee a certain attendance level for revenue purposes. If certain students don't want to hear a speaker then let the students not come. This is America. They have a right not to attend anything they don't want to attend.d.
I agree.
At the very least, sometimes the exposure to certain ideas can really cement how much you're against the concept/belief, etc, and give you more information and ammunition to work against it.
It's shortsighted not to obtain information in whichever format you can safely get it.
University should be a place where all manner of subject can be talked about without fear of reprisal.
The idea of college was a place where everyone can come together and discuss topics with civility and debate the merits of ideas.
No one is right or wrong and everyone should be allowed to speak.
It was funny, the other night we went out to dinner with an Ivy league educated attorney and I was interested in her politics. We were opposed but we still had a nice chat about the merits of the candidates. The funny part is at the end of the evening she said even though we disagree we were still able to talk. Her other highly educated friends are not able to have a civil talk about politics without screaming at each other.
That is the problem at colleges and America today, People are not able to have a civil discussion without resorting to anger and screaming to get their point across.
People need to speak less and listen more. You might actually learn something.
As I say in my classes, academic freedom protects a great many statements & questions. Open discourse and academic inquiry is welcome.
What academic freedom is NOT is a license to make boorish, offensive, or vulgar comments. Not all "opinions" are equal and should not be treated as such. Sometimes opinions are just the product of one's accumulated prejudice.
Rule of thumb #1 - if you don't think you could say it to your grandmother, you probably shouldn't say it in class. Rule of thumb #2 - the first person to make a Hitler comparison automatically loses the argument.
But yes, I support UChicago for pre-empting student groups from setting the school's rules.
As I've learned over the years, most people complaining about "political correctness" are angry that they can't call "those people" bigoted names anymore, and most people complaining about "safe zones" are mad that they can't be offensive, fight-picking thugs anymore. Every complaint I've ever heard about such things has inevitably come from angry people who just like to pick fights and make life hell for anyone who's different.
So, while a university is a place for open discourse and inquiry, that is very rarely what the opponents of political correctness and safe zones are actually seeking. Instead, they feel that they have some sort of right to bully others, and that is not protected by academic freedom. Heck, it's not even really protected by the first amendment; you can't be put in prison for being a verbal thug, but there are still consequences for spewing bigotry and being a thug.
Of course not. I think some colleges have let their student & community activists get out of control. From what I've seen, the cancellations of speakers, etc.. are due to student groups making a fuss about events that the administration scheduled.
True. The inmates run the asylum in most academic institutions these days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
