[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2016-October-26, 12:25, said:

About the quoted bit, and political speakers at Universities. There have been various cases of conservative speakers being aggressively protested and/or shouted down at supposedly liberal colleges.

Of course most college students are politically liberal, but perhaps more importantly, they tend to see the world in black and white. Political (well definitely social) "conservatism" is seen as not misguided or uneducated but as evil.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2016-October-26, 09:32, said:

To play Devil's Advocate, couldn't you say that about many state laws and policies? Are you suggesting that we abolish states' rights, because sometimes states get it wrong? If not, where do you draw the line?

It's not like we can trust the federal government to always get it right, either. There's a sweeping movement to legalize marijuana at the state level, but the feds don't seem to be budging.

The point is simple: the smaller the population, the greater the chance for discrimination. Another point is that the Constitution itself was agreed upon via compromise.

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2016-October-26, 12:25, said:

This has been a long and often depressing forum thread, to say the least. But mikeh posting here is the best news I have seen in it. As usual mikeh, your rhetoric takes the case further than I would, but is still good reading.

About the quoted bit, and political speakers at Universities. There have been various cases of conservative speakers being aggressively protested and/or shouted down at supposedly liberal colleges. But when Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University, the students received him with all respect due to his position, and calmly listened to his speech in its entirety, despite his position far away on the political spectrum. I doubt he persuaded many, maybe none, but the difference in decorum was pronounced.

I agree with this.
And another point occurred to me. If/when a speaker comes to the University, it can be a learning experience along these lines.

Some years back, it had become expected that after Maryland played Duke there would be stuff going on in College Park that could reasonably be described as a riot. I recall one of the students being quoted "it doesn't matter if we win or lose, after the game we riot". Eventually the University, the neighborhood, and of course the police decided to deal with this. They announced in advance that this would not be tolerated, they reinforced this, and then they acted on it. Some parents found themselves coming to get their kids out of jail. The next year things were much better.

I don't know anything about the speaker whose talk was cancelled, bur I gather he is different from Bernie Sanders in more ways than just their politics. But the point remains. A speaker gets to speak.

Realism is that there are people out there who wish to cause trouble unrelated to any actual political or social program. One of the benefits of being a pain in the butt adolescent is that we, most of us, got it out of our system. I don't think that a University has to provide a platform for every nut job with some half baked agenda, but an extremely broad spectrum of views should be welcome. "Shocking" or "Upsetting" certainly doesn't disqualify a speaker. "Unamerican" is too vague to disqualify anyone from anything. I realize one guy's nut job is another guy's hero so I favor erring, if it's an error, on the side of letting the perhaps nut job speak. But I think that there can come a point where a university administration can say "The law gives you the right to speak and we support that. The law does not require that we provide a platform for you".

If he is given the platform, he gets to speak. This should be an enforced University policy.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2016-October-26, 14:44, said:

I agree with this.
And another point occurred to me. If/when a speaker comes to the University, it can be a learning experience along these lines.

Some years back, it had become expected that after Maryland played Duke there would be stuff going on in College Park that could reasonably be described as a riot. I recall one of the students being quoted "it doesn't matter if we win or lose, after the game we riot". Eventually the University, the neighborhood, and of course the police decided to deal with this. They announced in advance that this would not be tolerated, they reinforced this, and then they acted on it. Some parents found themselves coming to get their kids out of jail. The next year things were much better.

I don't know anything about the speaker whose talk was cancelled, bur I gather he is different from Bernie Sanders in more ways than just their politics. But the point remains. A speaker gets to speak.

Realism is that there are people out there who wish to cause trouble unrelated to any actual political or social program. One of the benefits of being a pain in the butt adolescent is that we, most of us, got it out of our system. I don't think that a University has to provide a platform for every nut job with some half baked agenda, but an extremely broad spectrum of views should be welcome. "Shocking" or "Upsetting" certainly doesn't disqualify a speaker. "Unamerican" is too vague to disqualify anyone from anything. I realize one guy's nut job is another guy's hero so I favor erring, if it's an error, on the side of letting the perhaps nut job speak. But I think that there can come a point where a university administration can say "The law gives you the right to speak and we support that. The law does not require that we provide a platform for you".

If he is given the platform, he gets to speak. This should be an enforced University policy.

Of what are we afraid? A contrarian or "objectionable" idea gaining traction because we give it exposure? If it is indeed inferior or unacceptable, will that not be easy to prove and refute? Freedom of speech is an aspect of society that ensures progress and evolution. Stifling this right is the province of dictators and totalitarian regimes. Fight for the right to speak out and to be heard. Anything less is submission and enslavement.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2016-October-26, 12:25, said:

But when Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University, the students received him with all respect due to his position, and calmly listened to his speech in its entirety, despite his position far away on the political spectrum. I doubt he persuaded many, maybe none, but the difference in decorum was pronounced.

You do realize that said students are

1. Required to attend
2. Forbidden to protest

[kenberg]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-October-26, 16:46, said:

Of what are we afraid? A contrarian or "objectionable" idea gaining traction because we give it exposure? If it is indeed inferior or unacceptable, will that not be easy to prove and refute? Freedom of speech is an aspect of society that ensures progress and evolution. Stifling this right is the province of dictators and totalitarian regimes. Fight for the right to speak out and to be heard. Anything less is submission and enslavement.

I cannot imagine what I said that would give you the idea that I am worried about students being exposed to contrarian ideas.

I will give you a mathematical example, it actually happened.
Fermat's Last Theorem was stated without proof in 1637. It was proved, almost, in 1994 by Andrew Wiles and finally completely done by Wiles with some interaction with Richard Taylor. The effort took many years of work on the part of Wiles and he drew on large parts of twentieth century mathematics.

At a certain minor university, they advertised a speaker who had a new and simpler proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Didn't really need much of anything and could be explained fully in an hour to anyone. Uh no. At the very least, they might have asked to see the calculations beforehand. Showing this guy the door would not be an assault on free speech.

Does this apply to political speech? Well, surely we have to be more careful not to shut down ideas. Still, there are times. If the BS is deep enough we can all smell it. There is a difference between forbidding speech at gunpoint, versus saying of course you have a right to state your views but we are not sponsoring a speech by you.

[Al_U_Card]

Neither that simple nor that cut-and-dried. Small minds have difficulty staying open. Open minds are not afraid that their discernment will be diminished by the presence of refutable or untenable ideas. Indeed, they welcome discourse and diversity, as that allows for the hybridization of sentience and ensures progess. Toeing the party line, accepting the consensus and fearing to speak out or address unpopular ideas is the beginning of the end.
Fermat's last theorem or Einstein's theory of relativity notwithstanding, science marches on ONLY if and when it is given free rein to explore all eventualities. Stifling dissidence and skepticism is a very dead end. What if they gave a speech and nobody came? Their loss and nobody's gain.

[barmar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-26, 09:58, said:

Are you implying that letting a state teach creationism is the same as creating a law respecting an establishment of religion? I don't see it as the same thing; there is no law per se, but their Board of Education chooses to teach creationism and no state lawmakers are forbidding it.

Are you questioning whether creationism counts as religion, or whether "make a law" includes setting the curriculum of public schools?

I believe the accepted understanding is that the First Amendment covers all government-sponsored activity, not just those that are explicitly coded into laws. For example, if a town places a creche on town hall property, this is considered a violation of the separation clause, even if they never passed a law authorizing it. (I think Christmas trees are no longer considered to be religious icons, because they've become so ubiquitous, so they've become acceptable on public land.)

[Vampyr]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-October-26, 16:46, said:

Of what are we afraid? A contrarian or "objectionable" idea gaining traction because we give it exposure? If it is indeed inferior or unacceptable, will that not be easy to prove and refute? Freedom of speech is an aspect of society that ensures progress and evolution. Stifling this right is the province of dictators and totalitarian regimes. Fight for the right to speak out and to be heard. Anything less is submission and enslavement.

Universities and other organisations have limited funds to devote to speakers, as well as constraints on venues and times. So there is no "right" to speak out and be heard at such places; rather, it is a privilege to be invited.

So people who do not get invited and do not have the wherewithal to sponsor their own events will end up with less airing of their views. Perhaps this is unfortunate, but is there a solution?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-October-26, 19:02, said:

Universities and other organisations have limited funds to devote to speakers, as well as constraints on venues and times. So there is no "right" to speak out and be heard at such places; rather, it is a privilege to be invited.

So people who do not get invited and do not have the wherewithal to sponsor their own events will end up with less airing of their views. Perhaps this is unfortunate, but is there a solution?

While this is true, it's not unreasable to expect them to balance their use of those limited funds. If they consistently invite only speakers of a certain political persuasion, they're not providing their students or members a quality experience, they're promoting an agenda.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2016-October-26, 19:41, said:

While this is true, it's not unreasable to expect them to balance their use of those limited funds. If they consistently invite only speakers of a certain political persuasion, they're not providing their students or members a quality experience, they're promoting an agenda.

Should a university invite a fascist spouting racist hatred and promoting violence just to provide balance? How about someone that believes the Earth is flat or that women should have no legal rights to property or assets within a marriage? At the end of the day someone has to decide which views are worth airing and which are not. And certainly limited financial resources are a factor in that decision for the vast majority of institutions.

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-27, 03:20, said:

And certainly limited financial resources are a factor in that decision for the vast majority of institutions.

I think finances are the least limiting resource. If you are trying to have a prominent series of public at your University, common sense dictates that you should have only so many slots per term. And you can't organise such a lecture series without having a view (or implicitly establishing a view) on the range of opinions that make worthwhile topics for such lectures. Many of the student protests on such lectures are just an expression of "We should be part of the process establishing this range of views", and the backlash is just an expression of "No, I want [people like me] University administrators in charge". There isn't one side who is in favour of free speech and another who is against.

[Al_U_Card]

That makes some speech more free than others. It behooves an institution of "higher" learning to make sure that opposing views are presented so that both sides can have a chance to be trashed, and ideas thrashed about, in the clear light of reasoned debate. Best way to eliminate the dross.

[Zelandakh]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-October-27, 05:58, said:

Best way to eliminate the dross.

BBF has proven that eliminating the dross is easier to say than to achieve.

[barmar]

Al_U_Card, on 2016-October-27, 05:58, said:

That makes some speech more free than others. It behooves an institution of "higher" learning to make sure that opposing views are presented so that both sides can have a chance to be trashed, and ideas thrashed about, in the clear light of reasoned debate. Best way to eliminate the dross.

True, but Zel makes a good point that they need to set some limits. They can't be expected to hit every point on the compass of opinions, some judgement of acceptability is necessary. While everyone has a right to speak their mind, we don't have to provide all the soapboxes to them.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2016-October-27, 09:00, said:

True, but Zel makes a good point that they need to set some limits. They can't be expected to hit every point on the compass of opinions, some judgement of acceptability is necessary. While everyone has a right to speak their mind, we don't have to provide all the soapboxes to them.

I agree, strongly agree the community does not need to provide a soapbox, but it does need to provide a space, a safe space, for that soapbox. Case in point the KKK marching in Skokie, They were provided a limited, one time space, to voice their viewpoint in the heavily Jewish suburb. Point in fact the community paid for extra police to assist in making it a safe space to some degree.

I hear of cases where colleges are not providing that safe space. I hear of examples where they invite then disinvite, pull away that space for speakers. I hear of cases where the provide that space but it becomes an unsafe place. I do agree on limits, public safety limits, limits on community money spent.

[mycroft]

First, welcome back Mike. As usual, I may not agree with all of what you're saying, but it is a pleasure to read, and a challenge to not agree (sometimes a challenge to agree).

I do have one correction, however: a trigger warning is not "to announce to the audience that the topic about to be discussed may cause controversy" - it is to announce that the topic may cause harm. That the topic may, in fact, trigger the kind of responses in people damaged in that area that fall under the convenient term "PTSD flashback". Or otherwise remind them of damagingly harmful experiences in their lives in potentially harmful ways.

These kinds of reactions are much much worse if hit 'out of the blue' so to speak, so warning people in advance of them is the right thing to do. It may be that they will be unable to deal with it anyway; it may be that they will, with preknowledge and/or advanced preparation, be able to deal with it; it may be that they will be able to participate in the discussion rather than spending all of their energy (and all of next week's energy) remaining calm and 'presentable' - or stop from instinctively retaliating - during the attack.

What are triggers is as diverse as the injured population; which is why people wonder why they are "so prevalent, and for stupid, trivial things". I have my triggers; luckily I am able to deal with them reasonably well, and at worst, I can control myself until I can leave - and the trauma isn't life-shattering (life-altering? yes); also, most of them are the kind of things that people, when they hear about them, will maybe make a joke about it and then say "but yeah, I know this freaks a lot of people out" - AND CHANGE THE TOPIC.

But the little look into the triggerable subculture I get at least gives me the ability to see how triggers on bigger trauma than mine could be more debilitating than mine. So I try, like many others, primum non nocere. I don't always succeed.

Please note that: "...and that the topic is going to be discussed despite that possibility." is certainly true, as it should be.

Kaitlyn: I won't discuss this topic in detail with you, because I can pretty much guarantee that your idea of a loony left liberal is about 3 steps to the right of me, and any attempt to find common ground will be a spectacular failure. I admit to being too liberal for the Liberals, which in Republican North (Alberta) is sometimes a little difficult (people don't talk politics with me at the bridge club, for instance...) But the worst I can say about Hillary Clinton is that she's an establishment politician with all the blemishes that 30 years in politics will apply to anyone. She's a little too cozy with Wall Street for my tastes (in the same way that Vindaloo is a little too hot), and for all their bleating and conniving, ALEC, the Chamber of Congress, and the Koch brothers are going to come out of a Clinton presidency Just Fine Thank You. The best I can say about Trump is that the only important thing to him is winning, and whatever is most likely to look like he's winning is what he will say or do - even if it directly contradicts what he said last week, what his party has said for 50 years, or what is considered acceptable dogwhistles.

In general: were I an American, I'd be a one-issue voter. I have said, more than once, that were I American, I'd be dead. Having said that, many of my friends and colleagues would survive (again, Just Fine, Thank You) any reasonable result of this election. The rest - probably won't survive two Republican nominees to the Supreme Court, just like I wouldn't have survived being in the 51st state through the turn of the century.

[mike777]

Given I read that 20% of women in college are raped or sexually attacked I think we can agree University is a dangerous place for women. It seems trigger warnings are the among the least of the issues to be worried about when it comes to harm at college but ok.


Despite all of the danger at University I do hope we get free college for all ages, raise the tuition cost, lower the rest of the costs to close to zero. I would love to move to Wilmington in my old age and live at college.

[mycroft]

Mike (not H), flashbacks aren't "unhappy memories", they frequently are *wholesale reliving of the trauma*. *That's* what triggers trigger, and that's what the trigger warning is there to allow the victims to manage and potentially deflect. And the 20% of women attacked in University aren't the entirety of the women attending classes that could be triggered, so even if we solved the abuse-on-campus problem, we would still have people susceptible to PTSD flashbacks in our classes where trigger warnings would be effective.

And it's not just women, and it's not just sexual assault, and even when it is, it may not be *them* that it happened to. Nobody attacked Romeo Dallaire (to use a Canadian example); but I wouldn't want his flashbacks either.

We have no issues with "This production uses strobe lighting" warnings for photosensitive epileptics; why the issue when it's an "invisible disability"?

[mike777]

mycroft, on 2016-October-27, 15:53, said:

Mike (not H), flashbacks aren't "unhappy memories", they frequently are *wholesale reliving of the trauma*. *That's* what triggers trigger, and that's what the trigger warning is there to allow the victims to manage and potentially deflect. And the 20% of women attacked in University aren't the entirety of the women attending classes that could be triggered, so even if we solved the abuse-on-campus problem, we would still have people susceptible to PTSD flashbacks in our classes where trigger warnings would be effective.

And it's not just women, and it's not just sexual assault, and even when it is, it may not be *them* that it happened to. Nobody attacked Romeo Dallaire (to use a Canadian example); but I wouldn't want his flashbacks either.

We have no issues with "This production uses strobe lighting" warnings for photosensitive epileptics; why the issue when it's an "invisible disability"?

Certainly sounds like a lot of harm going on at University between rape, attacks, "wholesale reliving of trauma", and whatever else we are leaving out. As you mention men are in danger as well as women. Sounds like per your post Canada has a the same problem of harming students.