David:
After a year of political correctness running (or ruining) the national higher-education debate, the University of Chicago issued a fairly blunt massage in welcoming students to the fall semester:
“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,” wrote John Ellison, dean of students.
Coming from President Obama's Alma Mater, this message, which 10 years ago would have been unnecessary, now comes across as bold and unique. Hopefully, the rest of the collegiate community will follow suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/us/university-of-chicago-strikes-back-against-campus-political-correctness.html?_r=0
Doug:
David:
You're hilarious. Fox News represents a single media voice in a sea of liberal voices, and somehow that's unfair. The fact that you think so speaks volumes.
I believe that liberals sought to protect free speech, right up to the point that they gained control of the speech at college campuses. Now, the push is to silence any speech that doesn't follow the "correct" ideology. We've had this discussion before.
http://blankversusblank.blogspot.com/2016/05/do-universities-lack-ideological.html
Missouri enacted safe-spaces, changed administrators, and pretty much did everything that protestors wanted, and their alumni responded. Enrollment has faltered, and alumni donations dried up. Parents don't want to send their kids to a university that stifles ideas, and they don't want to pay a huge sum for chaos. Chicago appears to have decided they will lay out clear ground rules on what students should expect on their arrival, and throughout their educational experience. They will be challenged, and they will be engaged in debate. I think your interpretation of these events is wrong, because I think you are interpreting these events through your paradigm that students need to be shielded from ideas you believe to be wrong (meaning conservative ideas).
Doug:
Second, any public speech that is demeaning, racist, sexist, or degrading should not be tolerated in any manner. What would be the point?
David:
Of course, you get to decide what is racist, demeaning, sexist, or degrading. That seems like some pretty handy, yet vague terms to squelch ideas you don't agree with. If I say there is no pay disparity between women and men, you can claim I'm "sexist", and can be silenced, without giving me a forum to explain my rationale. How very convenient.
Doug:
As a middle-aged white man, you have plenty of forums to explain whatever ideas you want to espouse. But your chances of being invited to a college or university to proclaim that there is no pay disparity between men and women is pretty small. But you are right: I wouldn't classify that as "sexist" but just "ignorant".
David:
Not that long ago, speech promoting racial equality was deemed radical. If uncomfortable speech or speech that challenges people is not allowed, because the listener is offended, then free speech and freedom of ideas doesn't exist at all. What's the point? The point is the free exchange of ideas, good and bad, controversial or not. That is what most people think higher education should be about.
Disallowing one side of a debate because you don't agree with them is not the same as having a debate. Declaring the other side as "ignorant", and then refusing to allow them to speak is censorship. That doesn't appear to be good scholarship.
Doug:
Lots of people may have lots of ideas about what higher education should be about. But these are discussions full of nuance and complexity. Pulling out some single aspect to attempt to connect it to a political issue is not useful.
David:
"Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of our democracy." -Jesse Jackson
Doug:
And third: the trigger warning. Kate Mann gives a good examination here. But that is merely a recommendation, and each author/professor can decide how to present their own material. The Dean of Students does not factor into the decision.
Why would John Ellison send a welcome letter to the first-year students that is hardly welcoming? Perhaps he needs a "Dear John" letter in response. I suspect that his days as Dean of Students are numbered.
David:
You have explained my point better than I ever could have. Ellison wrote a letter welcoming the students to campus, and explained that they will be challenged with views they have not heard before. They will be exposed to new ideas, and will need to make up their minds about what to believe, and what ideologies to follow. For stating (the obvious) that college is a time of mental growth, learning new things, and not a time for hiding in the bushes, you say he has somehow said something worthy of losing his job. Perfect!
Doug:
Well, I'm not perfect, but thank you. My point is, of course, that items like "safe spaces" and picking college speakers are full of nuance, and that John Ellison's letter doesn't reflect that complexity at all. If he lost his job because of that lack of understanding, I wouldn't be surprised. "Dear John, it's not you, it's us."
David:
Of course, you would say that, because any alternatives to what is being currently pushed onto students might lead some of them to stray from the Progressive Indoctrination you have supported in pasts blogs.
Again, you make it sound as though the Dean of Students is a lone voice out in the wilderness. If the Dean says there will be no "safe-spaces", I think that means exactly what it says. I have found no disclaimer from the University of Chicago stating otherwise, or apologizing for the rantings of the Dean.
Doug:
Like Mizzou, they need to get their campus in order. As the little clicky link says, this is a discussion we continue to have on the left. Probably good it stays there, as it is complex and nuanced.
David:
At most universities, it is only a "conversation on the left", as higher education has attempted to exclude all commentary or discussion from the right. Again, how convenient of you. And smug. Your commentary also explains your bias that all conservatives are Neanderthal knuckle-draggers who only see things in black and white. It's a darn good thing we amoebas have such grand, enlightened popinjays to lead us all to the promised land.
Doug:
#NotAllConservatives
David:
Sadly, it appears you do speak for far too many tenured professors who are only too happy to be in a forum where their opinion is the only correct one, the only allowed one, and all of their students must accept and adopt their ideology, or fail.
Doug:
When I say that the discussion is happening on the left, I mean that there is a heated, informed discussion occurring there. I have many liberal friends that argue for, and against, trigger warnings. I trust that a professor can use their own judgement when making that decision. You are perfectly welcome to join the discussion. The only requirement is that one understand the issues, and wrestle with them individually on their own merit. I pointed out where the dean conflated three separate issues, and attempts to squelch the discussion by speaking for all of the university by decree. That is what is wrong with the letter. If it declared that professors must have trigger warnings, that would equally miss the mark.
David:
On the one hand, you say that one must understand the issues and judge them on their merits. But on the other hand you argue that students should be shielded from some of the information necessary to fully understand the issues. I suppose that's consistent for you, as you just stated that if I interpret the data in a way that you disagree with (on something like pay discrepancies), then I must be ignorant. Not allowing students the opportunity to hear opinions or conclusions that you disagree with fails to allow them to evaluate the arguments.
While I would say that the pendulum has swung, and now is returning to a more middle ground with the letter from the University of Chicago, you continue to say that this letter is an abhorrent aberration. At least you're consistent in your mandatory compulsion of ideology. Sigh.
Doug:
I don't think the "middle ground" is for a university administrator to declare that the discussion is over. No. Rather, the discussion can move back to campus, and out of headlines, where reasonable people can continue to discuss the merits. You always like to make the argument about what you think the argument is about rather than what it is actually about. The irony is that you would actually find some professors that agree with some of your points. But you'll never hear those discussions because your idea of a "middle ground" is always where you are standing.
David:
No, the middle ground falls between my interpretation of the facts, and your interpretation of the facts. I don't make any claim that I don't see things from a conservative, right-leaning viewpoint. I certainly do. But you often fail to see (or at least admit) that you are liberal and left-leaning. The middle ground is where all of these ideas are represented and debated.
The discussion that should be taking place on college campuses should involve both of our viewpoints, paradigms, and world-views (and everything in between). I believe this argument is about allowing the open discussion of ideas on campuses, and combatting censorship. You believe this a limited discussion about whether safe-spaces will be allowed on individual campuses.
I suppose we're both right, somewhere in the middle.
After a year of political correctness running (or ruining) the national higher-education debate, the University of Chicago issued a fairly blunt massage in welcoming students to the fall semester:
“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,” wrote John Ellison, dean of students.
Coming from President Obama's Alma Mater, this message, which 10 years ago would have been unnecessary, now comes across as bold and unique. Hopefully, the rest of the collegiate community will follow suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/us/university-of-chicago-strikes-back-against-campus-political-correctness.html?_r=0
Doug:
I don't know why you think this debate has only been going on for a year. This is a debate that we-on- the-left have been having for decades, maybe centuries.
But I'm afraid that your reading of the article is a bit lacking, and perhaps full of wishful thinking. You titled our blogpost "The Demise of the 'safe space' on campus." But if you read the article, you'll see that the University of Chicago just recently created safe spaces for students. The letter from John Ellison was written for you, those who like their news black and white, with no nuance. The reality is that safe spaces are gaining in popularity, and are welcomed by most students.
David:
So you're saying the University is lying, or at least trying to say one thing, while actually doing something else. Curious.
Doug:
It is not that complicated: John Ellison is one employee at the University. He is the Dean of Students. The Dean of Students is a liaison with the students. He does not speak for the faculty, the staff, nor the students. But, as a friend of mine noticed, in his letter John easily slides back and forth between "we" and "I". Which is curious, considering who he can actually speak for.
David:
Someone appears to be guilty of wishful thinking. You're claiming that the Dean of Students doesn't represent anyone but himself when he publishes something like this, on official letterhead, that gets sent to all incoming students, at the university's expense. That is just not a credible comment.
Doug:
He probably did get an "ok" from the admin team at Chicago to send the letter. But he can't decree that there are no "safe spaces" on campus. Students, faculty, and staff are free to make their own safe spaces without any college support. Colleges and universities are active, living organisms.
David:
I'm glad you can at least agree that he got an "ok" from administration. This letter was likely debated thoroughly from the president on down. Unless you feel that everyone in a university administration is a lone wolf, who can do and say anything that strikes their fancy.
Your link regarding safe-spaces is from 2014. This letter, that just came out, appears to repudiate that earlier sentiment for the needed safe-spaces. My guess is that the University of Chicago saw the backlash at Missouri from alumni donors, and the decreased enrollment that Mizzou suffered after they bent over backwards to pacify student protesters.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433171/mizzou-campus-protests-drive-down-enrollment
David:
So you're saying the University is lying, or at least trying to say one thing, while actually doing something else. Curious.
Doug:
It is not that complicated: John Ellison is one employee at the University. He is the Dean of Students. The Dean of Students is a liaison with the students. He does not speak for the faculty, the staff, nor the students. But, as a friend of mine noticed, in his letter John easily slides back and forth between "we" and "I". Which is curious, considering who he can actually speak for.
David:
Someone appears to be guilty of wishful thinking. You're claiming that the Dean of Students doesn't represent anyone but himself when he publishes something like this, on official letterhead, that gets sent to all incoming students, at the university's expense. That is just not a credible comment.
Doug:
He probably did get an "ok" from the admin team at Chicago to send the letter. But he can't decree that there are no "safe spaces" on campus. Students, faculty, and staff are free to make their own safe spaces without any college support. Colleges and universities are active, living organisms.
David:
I'm glad you can at least agree that he got an "ok" from administration. This letter was likely debated thoroughly from the president on down. Unless you feel that everyone in a university administration is a lone wolf, who can do and say anything that strikes their fancy.
Your link regarding safe-spaces is from 2014. This letter, that just came out, appears to repudiate that earlier sentiment for the needed safe-spaces. My guess is that the University of Chicago saw the backlash at Missouri from alumni donors, and the decreased enrollment that Mizzou suffered after they bent over backwards to pacify student protesters.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433171/mizzou-campus-protests-drive-down-enrollment
Doug:
That article is not about "pacifying" student protesters, but about getting the campus in order. Mizzou has issues, real issues. Do you think that the "welcome letter" is going to quiet student unrest at Chicago? No, this conversation does not end with this letter somehow signaling an end to the discussion. As the NYTimes article mentions, this is a debate alive and well on the left:
That article is not about "pacifying" student protesters, but about getting the campus in order. Mizzou has issues, real issues. Do you think that the "welcome letter" is going to quiet student unrest at Chicago? No, this conversation does not end with this letter somehow signaling an end to the discussion. As the NYTimes article mentions, this is a debate alive and well on the left:
“Historically, the left has been much more protective of academic freedom than the right, particularly in the university context,” said Geoffrey R. Stone, a University of Chicago law professor who specializes in free speech issues. Conservatives “suddenly became the champions of free speech, which I find is a bit ironic, but the left is divided.”Ellison's letter mixes together three separate issues in my mind. First, we want to be aware of all points of view. But that doesn't mean that just anyone should be invited to campus and given a platform to speak their view (let alone paid for it). Some of the protests on campus have been about who to invite. Let's hear some other voices! Especially those voices that we don't typically hear. We can turn on Fox News to hear one side. But there are lots of other sides.
David:
You're hilarious. Fox News represents a single media voice in a sea of liberal voices, and somehow that's unfair. The fact that you think so speaks volumes.
I believe that liberals sought to protect free speech, right up to the point that they gained control of the speech at college campuses. Now, the push is to silence any speech that doesn't follow the "correct" ideology. We've had this discussion before.
http://blankversusblank.blogspot.com/2016/05/do-universities-lack-ideological.html
Missouri enacted safe-spaces, changed administrators, and pretty much did everything that protestors wanted, and their alumni responded. Enrollment has faltered, and alumni donations dried up. Parents don't want to send their kids to a university that stifles ideas, and they don't want to pay a huge sum for chaos. Chicago appears to have decided they will lay out clear ground rules on what students should expect on their arrival, and throughout their educational experience. They will be challenged, and they will be engaged in debate. I think your interpretation of these events is wrong, because I think you are interpreting these events through your paradigm that students need to be shielded from ideas you believe to be wrong (meaning conservative ideas).
Doug:
Second, any public speech that is demeaning, racist, sexist, or degrading should not be tolerated in any manner. What would be the point?
David:
Of course, you get to decide what is racist, demeaning, sexist, or degrading. That seems like some pretty handy, yet vague terms to squelch ideas you don't agree with. If I say there is no pay disparity between women and men, you can claim I'm "sexist", and can be silenced, without giving me a forum to explain my rationale. How very convenient.
Doug:
As a middle-aged white man, you have plenty of forums to explain whatever ideas you want to espouse. But your chances of being invited to a college or university to proclaim that there is no pay disparity between men and women is pretty small. But you are right: I wouldn't classify that as "sexist" but just "ignorant".
David:
Not that long ago, speech promoting racial equality was deemed radical. If uncomfortable speech or speech that challenges people is not allowed, because the listener is offended, then free speech and freedom of ideas doesn't exist at all. What's the point? The point is the free exchange of ideas, good and bad, controversial or not. That is what most people think higher education should be about.
Disallowing one side of a debate because you don't agree with them is not the same as having a debate. Declaring the other side as "ignorant", and then refusing to allow them to speak is censorship. That doesn't appear to be good scholarship.
Doug:
Lots of people may have lots of ideas about what higher education should be about. But these are discussions full of nuance and complexity. Pulling out some single aspect to attempt to connect it to a political issue is not useful.
David:
"Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of our democracy." -Jesse Jackson
Doug:
And third: the trigger warning. Kate Mann gives a good examination here. But that is merely a recommendation, and each author/professor can decide how to present their own material. The Dean of Students does not factor into the decision.
Why would John Ellison send a welcome letter to the first-year students that is hardly welcoming? Perhaps he needs a "Dear John" letter in response. I suspect that his days as Dean of Students are numbered.
David:
You have explained my point better than I ever could have. Ellison wrote a letter welcoming the students to campus, and explained that they will be challenged with views they have not heard before. They will be exposed to new ideas, and will need to make up their minds about what to believe, and what ideologies to follow. For stating (the obvious) that college is a time of mental growth, learning new things, and not a time for hiding in the bushes, you say he has somehow said something worthy of losing his job. Perfect!
Doug:
Well, I'm not perfect, but thank you. My point is, of course, that items like "safe spaces" and picking college speakers are full of nuance, and that John Ellison's letter doesn't reflect that complexity at all. If he lost his job because of that lack of understanding, I wouldn't be surprised. "Dear John, it's not you, it's us."
David:
Of course, you would say that, because any alternatives to what is being currently pushed onto students might lead some of them to stray from the Progressive Indoctrination you have supported in pasts blogs.
Again, you make it sound as though the Dean of Students is a lone voice out in the wilderness. If the Dean says there will be no "safe-spaces", I think that means exactly what it says. I have found no disclaimer from the University of Chicago stating otherwise, or apologizing for the rantings of the Dean.
Doug:
Like Mizzou, they need to get their campus in order. As the little clicky link says, this is a discussion we continue to have on the left. Probably good it stays there, as it is complex and nuanced.
David:
At most universities, it is only a "conversation on the left", as higher education has attempted to exclude all commentary or discussion from the right. Again, how convenient of you. And smug. Your commentary also explains your bias that all conservatives are Neanderthal knuckle-draggers who only see things in black and white. It's a darn good thing we amoebas have such grand, enlightened popinjays to lead us all to the promised land.
Doug:
#NotAllConservatives
David:
Sadly, it appears you do speak for far too many tenured professors who are only too happy to be in a forum where their opinion is the only correct one, the only allowed one, and all of their students must accept and adopt their ideology, or fail.
Doug:
When I say that the discussion is happening on the left, I mean that there is a heated, informed discussion occurring there. I have many liberal friends that argue for, and against, trigger warnings. I trust that a professor can use their own judgement when making that decision. You are perfectly welcome to join the discussion. The only requirement is that one understand the issues, and wrestle with them individually on their own merit. I pointed out where the dean conflated three separate issues, and attempts to squelch the discussion by speaking for all of the university by decree. That is what is wrong with the letter. If it declared that professors must have trigger warnings, that would equally miss the mark.
David:
On the one hand, you say that one must understand the issues and judge them on their merits. But on the other hand you argue that students should be shielded from some of the information necessary to fully understand the issues. I suppose that's consistent for you, as you just stated that if I interpret the data in a way that you disagree with (on something like pay discrepancies), then I must be ignorant. Not allowing students the opportunity to hear opinions or conclusions that you disagree with fails to allow them to evaluate the arguments.
While I would say that the pendulum has swung, and now is returning to a more middle ground with the letter from the University of Chicago, you continue to say that this letter is an abhorrent aberration. At least you're consistent in your mandatory compulsion of ideology. Sigh.
Doug:
I don't think the "middle ground" is for a university administrator to declare that the discussion is over. No. Rather, the discussion can move back to campus, and out of headlines, where reasonable people can continue to discuss the merits. You always like to make the argument about what you think the argument is about rather than what it is actually about. The irony is that you would actually find some professors that agree with some of your points. But you'll never hear those discussions because your idea of a "middle ground" is always where you are standing.
David:
No, the middle ground falls between my interpretation of the facts, and your interpretation of the facts. I don't make any claim that I don't see things from a conservative, right-leaning viewpoint. I certainly do. But you often fail to see (or at least admit) that you are liberal and left-leaning. The middle ground is where all of these ideas are represented and debated.
The discussion that should be taking place on college campuses should involve both of our viewpoints, paradigms, and world-views (and everything in between). I believe this argument is about allowing the open discussion of ideas on campuses, and combatting censorship. You believe this a limited discussion about whether safe-spaces will be allowed on individual campuses.
I suppose we're both right, somewhere in the middle.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!