• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Professors' Abandonment of Free Speech

Free speech is no longer a high priority value among some professors. It's a long way from Berkeley in 1964.


Week in review – back to school edition

[FONT=&]Posted on September 3, 2016 | 11 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Many academics now consider freedom of speech just another American eccentricity, like guns and religion. – Daniel Jacobsen
Continue reading

Many academics now consider freedom of speech just another American eccentricity, like guns and religion. – Daniel Jacobsen

As the 2016/2017 academic year begins, universities are roiled by freedom of speech issues, pitting students, faculty members and administrators against each other. Different universities are handling this in different ways.
I’ve been collecting articles and meaning to write a substantive post on this, but my schedule is beyond crazy. So I decided to do a week in review type post on this issue, pointing to some of the more interesting links I’ve collected. My ‘collection’ of links was self-sabotaged when I copied them to the post (the links weren’t preserved). Oh well, maybe you can help me with links.
A short but cogent overview article to kick this off – Higher education: beyond parody [link]
CATO: Freedom of speech under assault on campus [link] . . .


Well, at least this is one thing we agree on.
 
[h=1]The Canadian Inquisition[/h]Posted on 23 Nov 17 by PAUL MATTHEWS 29 Comments
This story is not directly climate-related, but it illustrates the familiar authoritarian behaviour of the thought police within academia and the attempts to promote an agenda and suppress all dissenting views. You can read about the story at the BBC, CBC, the Spectator, Quillette, and many other sources. At a third-rate Canadian university near Toronto called … Continue reading
 
Speaking as a professor, I have some trouble with the ethical notion of free speech. Not the political notion-in terms of what government should be allowed to take action against, very little speech should be indicted (lying as part of felonious fraud would be an example of speech that government can legitimately act against). But ethically speaking, I don't think people have the right to say anything they want. There has to be some justification for making an assertion; the speaker must have discharged her epistemically responsibilities before making a claim. Again, I cannot support government taking action against those that do not. I do think those who don't should suffer social opprobrium.

As a final unrelated note, I think corporations should be subject to the same strictures as government with respect to disciplining employees. It would solve quite a few problems if such were the case.
 
Speaking as a professor, I have some trouble with the ethical notion of free speech. Not the political notion-in terms of what government should be allowed to take action against, very little speech should be indicted (lying as part of felonious fraud would be an example of speech that government can legitimately act against). But ethically speaking, I don't think people have the right to say anything they want. There has to be some justification for making an assertion; the speaker must have discharged her epistemically responsibilities before making a claim. Again, I cannot support government taking action against those that do not. I do think those who don't should suffer social opprobrium.

As a final unrelated note, I think corporations should be subject to the same strictures as government with respect to disciplining employees. It would solve quite a few problems if such were the case.

The problem is in deciding who gets to judge the justification. Better to just let J.S. Mill's "marketplace of ideas" sort it out, IMHO.
 
The problem is in deciding who gets to judge the justification. Better to just let J.S. Mill's "marketplace of ideas" sort it out, IMHO.

Yeah, I acknowledge this problem. I think the attitude to be taken is intellectual humility. A digression: the 17th century Spanish mystic Miguel de Molinos wrote, in his Spiritual Guide that Disentangles the Soul a couple chapters on humility that, I think, are the best and most profound on the topic anywhere. What he said is that humility does not consist in acting humble. You're not going to fool God, he says, by lowering your head and refusing to accept compliments. Humility is just the right relation to something.

I have two masters degrees and a PhD from elite universities. I am a lifelong student and I am paid to study and write and teach. I am struck daily by how little I know, and how dumb are the very smartest of us, me included. However, I also know when something I read or hear is just wrong or poorly argued. I don't think that's merely a matter of judgement. The theologian Bernard Lonergan wrote his masterwork Insight​ on this topic. It's worth reading.

Taking that idea, I have little respect for someone who takes a position from laziness, or just because they want to take it because it aleiviates their guilt. That's a lack of humility. But someone who has studied deeply and arrived even at a conclusion with which I disagree, I respect. It's fairly easy to tell the difference. In practical terms, it's difficult to know for sure-it's a problem I'm working on. I'll write a book on it when I'm finished, if I live that long. However-here's the critical point-I see the need for justification as a moral imperative, and so it cannot be ignored merely because we lack a practical solution.

To re-acknowledge your point in another way, then, we are also not absolved from any moral violations we commit in mistaken service to this ideal. So if we shut someone up who had justification we wrongly judged to be bad justification, saying we thought we were doing the right thing does not excuse our wrong action. It's a thorny problem.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I acknowledge this problem. I think the attitude to be taken is intellectual humility. A digression: the 17th century Spanish mystic Miguel de Molinos wrote, in his Spiritual Guide that Disentangles the Soul a couple chapters on humility that, I think, are the best and most profound on the topic anywhere. What he said is that humility does not consist in acting humble. You're not going to fool God, he says, by lowering your head and refusing to accept compliments. Humility is just the right relation to something.

I have two masters degrees and a PhD from elite universities. I am a lifelong student and I am paid to study and write and teach. I am struck daily by how little I know, and how dumb are the very smartest of us, me included. However, I also know when something I read or hear is just wrong or poorly argued. I don't think that's merely a matter of judgement. The theologian Bernard Lonergan wrote his masterwork Insight​ on this topic. It's worth reading.

Taking that idea, I have little respect for someone who takes a position from laziness, or just because they want to take it because it aleiviates their guilt. That's a lack of humility. But someone who has studied deeply and arrived even at a conclusion with which I disagree, I respect. It's fairly easy to tell the difference. In practical terms, it's difficult to know for sure-it's a problem I'm working on. I'll write a book on it when I'm finished, if I live that long. However-here's the critical point-I see the need for justification as a moral imperative, and so it cannot be ignored merely because we lack a practical solution.

To re-acknowledge your point in another way, then, we are also not absolved from any moral violations we commit in mistaken service to this ideal. So if we shut someone up who had justification we wrongly judged to be bad justification, saying we thought we were doing the right thing does not excuse our wrong action. It's a thorny problem.

Fair enough. My reply is that it is beyond the remit of government to impose moral order beyond the basics required to live together. Attempts by governments to elevate mass morality have generally resulted in tyranny and dystopia.
 
Speaking as a professor, I have some trouble with the ethical notion of free speech. Not the political notion-in terms of what government should be allowed to take action against, very little speech should be indicted (lying as part of felonious fraud would be an example of speech that government can legitimately act against). But ethically speaking, I don't think people have the right to say anything they want. There has to be some justification for making an assertion; the speaker must have discharged her epistemically responsibilities before making a claim. Again, I cannot support government taking action against those that do not. I do think those who don't should suffer social opprobrium.

As a final unrelated note, I think corporations should be subject to the same strictures as government with respect to disciplining employees. It would solve quite a few problems if such were the case.

When I was a student, I always thought that the best professors had an argument against every position I chose to take. At the time, it infuriated me.

And now, I can't imagine myself without having had those experiences, and I feel I owe a debt that I cannot possibly repay.
 
Fair enough. My reply is that it is beyond the remit of government to impose moral order beyond the basics required to live together. Attempts by governments to elevate mass morality have generally resulted in tyranny and dystopia.

I agree--I'd hate to see government start to decide which points of view could be expressed and which could not. It's more up to individuals making other individuals uncomfortable if the latter have not lived up to their epistemic responsibilities.
 
When I was a student, I always thought that the best professors had an argument against every position I chose to take. At the time, it infuriated me.

And now, I can't imagine myself without having had those experiences, and I feel I owe a debt that I cannot possibly repay.

Yes, a technique I often use with my students. Had it not been used on me, I don't think I'd have found even such little wisdom as I have.
 
I agree--I'd hate to see government start to decide which points of view could be expressed and which could not. It's more up to individuals making other individuals uncomfortable if the latter have not lived up to their epistemic responsibilities.

I'm not in favor of making others uncomfortable. Too much mob action and too much of the heckler's veto.
 
My ‘collection’ of links was self-sabotaged when I copied them to the post (the links weren’t preserved).

That truly sucks. You have my empathy.

I've had that happen when I pasted a multi-post critical review essay I'd written in response to another member's having cited a quasi-scholarly text's ideas as a rebuttal to one of my remarks. I'd read the book, "brushed up" on the specific topic in general and then written my essay, putting hyperlinks in where necessary. I didn't discover the link loss until after the editing window had passed. Fortunately it was just four links, but still...their not being appropriately hyperlinked makes them less useful than they otherwise would be.

Many academics now consider freedom of speech just another American eccentricity, like guns and religion. – Daniel Jacobsen

As the 2016/2017 academic year begins, universities are roiled by freedom of speech issues, pitting students, faculty members and administrators against each other. Different universities are handling this in different ways.
I’ve been collecting articles and meaning to write a substantive post on this, but my schedule is beyond crazy. So I decided to do a week in review type post on this issue, pointing to some of the more interesting links I’ve collected. My ‘collection’ of links was self-sabotaged when I copied them to the post (the links weren’t preserved). Oh well, maybe you can help me with links.
A short but cogent overview article to kick this off – Higher education: beyond parody [link]
CATO: Freedom of speech under assault on campus [link] . . .


This issue isn't nearly as simple as freely speaking on a college/university campus. To wit, the distinction between public and private schools makes all the difference in the world. U.C. Berkeley was what it was in the '60s in part because it was (and remains) a public university. That said, here are some documents that perhaps you'll find useful even this late after your thread's creation.
The documents address various aspects of the free speech issue in a college/university context.
 

That truly sucks. You have my empathy.

I've had that happen when I pasted a multi-post critical review essay I'd written in response to another member's having cited a quasi-scholarly text's ideas as a rebuttal to one of my remarks. I'd read the book, "brushed up" on the specific topic in general and then written my essay, putting hyperlinks in where necessary. I didn't discover the link loss until after the editing window had passed. Fortunately it was just four links, but still...their not being appropriately hyperlinked makes them less useful than they otherwise would be.



This issue isn't nearly as simple as freely speaking on a college/university campus. To wit, the distinction between public and private schools makes all the difference in the world. U.C. Berkeley was what it was in the '60s in part because it was (and remains) a public university. That said, here are some documents that perhaps you'll find useful even this late after your thread's creation.
The documents address various aspects of the free speech issue in a college/university context.

You have posted a false quote from me. The rest of your post doesn't matter.
 
[h=2]Trump tells Universities – No free speech means no federal grants OK?[/h]
[h=1]Trump tells Universities – No free speech means no federal grants OK?[/h]
Universities depend on Big Government, so it’s practically a law of physics that they will evolve into Big-Gov promoters unless some force stops them.
What is surprising is that most conservative governments let it happen.
[h=4]Trump does the obvious but unheard of:[/h]The Hill: Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses
by Tal Axelrod
“We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous,” Trump said. “Instead we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus.”
“Today I’m proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research grants.”
This came to a head because a conservative activist was viciously punched at Berkley. (See the full appalling attack on youtube). “Higher” education has become Hater education.
Keep reading →




 
As a matter of organizing social life, it usually is a risky business to engage in censorship. The primary reason for this is that it is precisely from the people whose voices we are the likeliest to silence that we have the most to learn, whether about our own views or that of others.

Many people on campuses act with a degree of certainty that only ignorance or stupidity can confer, not realizing the ease with which we all can manage to fool ourselves into thinking we know more than we really do. Nothing is more evenly shared among human beings than common nonsense and we all like this baloney, as long as it is our baloney. As it routinely is the case that we are wrong, in small or large parts, the prudent thing to do is to pay attention when people give us reasons why we might be wrong. By definition, these reasons are likelier to come from people with whom we disagree and it is rare that we wish to forcefully silent ourselves, or people who say we're right.

Another reason why it is important to bother having discussions, especially discussions which we might find uncomfortable or challenging, is that even if everyone involved is wrong in some way or another, the effort of justifying oneself to our peer forces us to come to grasp with the limits of our arguments. We have to look for reasons why others should think as we do and, in the process, we have to dig into the logical and practical consequences of our ideas. It also requires that we do more than we each make our own case. It requires that we pay attention to what others are saying so that we can reply to them. Convincing, very often, requires not only that you point out a solution you find either correct or satisfactory, but also that you show others why their solution is incorrect or unsatisfactory.

Even when arguments are poorly phrased and cases poorly made, you can still learn something because other people are different from you. If necessary, lend them your skills and knowledge: see if you can make an even stronger case than the one they make while still going in the same direction. It is almost impossible that you learn nothing doing this.
 
Back
Top Bottom