The Demise of the "Safe Space" on Campus

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:

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  

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:

“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.

Conflicts of Interest

David:
I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more over the next 2 months about the Clinton Foundation.

Doug:
I'm sure we'll be reading a lot more from you over the next 2 months about the Clinton Foundation. And rightly so! It has done many good things, and has received high marks from CharityWatch. It is nice to shine a bright light on those organizations that do good.

David:
Of course, doing something good does not outweigh breaking the law. If I rob a bank, and give $20 to a homeless person as I walk to my getaway car, it doesn't excuse my robbing the bank, or using the stolen money to do "good".

Doug:
You have learned well, little brother. But we're talking about Conflicts of Interest right now.

David:
There are many instances where we see people in powerful positions securing more power or huge deals that enrich them by what most of us would call "Conflicts of Interest"(COI). One such example appears to be Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and her husband.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp

While there is no direct evidence that she intimidated the Postal Service into using her husband's company to sell off their properties, it would seem that ethical rules would preclude her husband's company from making the deal because of the COI.

Doug:
Strange that you would pick an example of Conflicts of Interest that has no evidence. Don't you think you could find a nice example of Conflicts of Interest with evidence? Perhaps when Judge Scalia was getting free travel and boarding from someone that won a favorable ruling from the supreme court?

David:
That would be a perfect example. Anytime someone in power exchanges some benefit in exchange for cash or more power is wrong. Like receiving sexual favors from an intern...

Doug:
How is having is having sex with an intern getting "cash or more power"? I don't see having sex with an intern as a Conflict of Interest issue. I do see it as an abuse of power. A very large abuse of power.

Other examples of Conflict of Interests: someone like Trump being president? Or Governor Chris Christie's office shutting down a bridge as political retribution? Or just the plain rules of congress?

David:
Well, now you've lost me. How does Donald Trump being president equal a COI?  And what in the world are you talking about the "rules of Congress"?

Doug:
Oh, sorry! I should explain how these little link things work. You have to click on them to follow the link. The first one leads to an article subtitled "Conflict-of-interest question would loom large if the Republican is elected". The second link (you have to click it!) leads to an article titled "Lucky for Congress, Blatant Conflict of Interest Is Still Perfectly Legal". Does that help?

David:
I'm asking you to explain how you think this works. Apparently, no successful businessman can be President? Ah, that's why you believe Obama and Clinton are perfect for the job: they are not successful business people.

Doug:
No president has ever been a successful president in the way that Trump is "successful" if that is what you mean.

David:
I believe the Christie scenario has the same problem about of evidence as the Clinton Foundation scandal.  No charges filed.

Doug:
No, you are wrong about that: this is very different. First, if you are going to call something a "scandal" then, for all of our sakes, please have some evidence. Any evidence. The evidence in Bridgegate is quite explicit: again, you have to click on the link to see that it says:

Kelly [Christie's Chief of Staff] had emailed Wildstein advising him that it was "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee". She was fired by Christie, who said she had lied to him about her involvement. Renna [director of intergovernmental affairs] had previously written a phone text to a colleague saying that if some of her boss’s emails were discovered they would prove that he had “flat-out lied” about his role in the plot.

No one is arguing that there is no evidence. The only question is: how many people will be indicted? Clearly having political operatives making decisions on traffic is a Conflict of Interest. But that is New Jersey. I think they invented "conflict of interest."

David:
I believe his cohorts did something wrong. I don't believe there is any evidence tying Christie to any of that. As you mentioned, he fired people who were responsible. I have not heard that anyone in the justice department is looking any further into this at all, despite your "only question". There may be some investigation of the Clinton Foundation, however. It's the appearance of impropriety that causes the problem, and leads to frustration among the populace.

Doug:
As I said, it was Chris Christie's office. The trial for bridgegate is set for September 12, 2016. There is no investigation into the Clinton Foundation except in your mind.

David:
Back to the discussion. I think that Donald Trump is now where he is because of this corrupt COI, money for favors, Washington corruption. Bernie Sanders railed against Clinton's Wall Street ties, until he rolled over and endorsed her. People are tired of this type of behavior, and Freedom of Information lawsuits may finally expose some of it.

Doug:
I think all presidential candidates should show their income tax reports, to show any conflicts of interest.

David:
Income tax returns don't illustrate all of your business dealings. Re-read your link regarding Congressional rules (which are different from Congressional ethics). Most of those issues would not appear in a tax return.

Doug:
Tax returns would not reveal all possible conflicts. Are you arguing for more transparency, but at the same time supporting the candidate that refuses to do the standard of showing his tax returns?

David:
I'd like to see his tax returns. And Hillary's medical records.

A different problem that arises is that we want people with special knowledge of a particular field to write the legislation for that field. For example, if you were a congressman, I would trust that you would be an important contributor to a discussion of legislation regarding the internet, cyber security, or other issues related to the field of computer technology. If I were a legislator, I'd expect to be consulted when dealing with matters of health care, insurance, and issues related to medicine.

Doug:
No, I think you are wrong again. Having knowledge of a discipline is a first step, but that is not enough.

David:
Sometimes it can be a fine line between improving the field you work in, and having that improvement also help you yourself, even though that was not the intention. As we have seen too often, the ethical line is crossed when elected officials use that position to directly enrich themselves. That was really the point I was trying to make here, before we were so easily distracted.

Doug:
Perhaps you can just say that, rather than mentioning things that have nothing to do with your point, like the Clinton Foundation, or having sex with interns, or stealing money from a bank.

David:
Surely we can agree that this type of behavior should not be allowed, and should be rooted out of Washington. As Truman said, " You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook". Look around at how many elected officials are getting rich on the job.

Doug:
And you have to ask yourself: why would a business person want to be involved in politics at all? To help people? But yes, we could hope that congress would make Conflicts of Interests against the law. I think you are arguing for a change in congress. Luckily we have an election soon. 

Science, Freedom, and the Greater Good

Doug:

Here is a common sentiment found on social media, like Facebook:

"Scientists want to run our lives. They want to control how much we can eat, how much we are allowed to drive, the temperature in our homes, how much water we use, and many other aspects of our lives. The so-called "scientists" think that they know everything, and now want to create laws that force us to obey their wacky ideas. This is really a question of freedom: should they be able to limit our freedom in the name of "science"? No! They are just trying to bully us into obeying them, like any tyrant."

What do you think about this view?

Dr. Jemison is an astronaut and advocates strongly in favor of science education and getting minority students interested in science. She sees science and technology as being very much a part of society.

David:

You need to screen your friends better. All of my friends place blame where it is due, on politicians. Scientists don't regulate the way we live, or strip us of our rights and cash. That all happens in Washington DC, and if Hillary gets elected, she’s already promised more of the same.

Doug:

Luckily, the post wasn't from a friend, or even from anyone that I know. But shouldn't politicians listen to scientists? Shouldn't politicians put on their scientist's hat when making decisions? Shouldn't  "freedoms" sometimes be limited by the impact that science identifies? Isn't there a cost to ignoring science's best practices?

David:

There is science, and then there is the idea of putting science into practice. Those aren't always the same thing, and there is sometimes a difference of opinion as to what the science should mean. All science is not amenable to even being in the realm of government.

Now, if politicians are trying to tackle a specific issue or problem, then certainly lawmakers should consult any science that may be available to solve that specific problem. At the Indiana Statehouse, lawmakers will invite experts to testify at hearings to come up with the best legislation. But these “experts” may just be people with strong opinions about the science. The best expert witness can sway legislators in the same way a jury can be swayed by a convincing witness. And, they have to listen to all of the lobbyists, who usually have compelling, if one-sided, reasons for or against legislation.

It isn't a simple process, and sometimes differing sciences may find themselves at odds. In my opinion, it's usually better for the government to butt out, and let people use the science to improve all of our lives without bureaucratic meddling. Science itself will better our lives, especially if the government doesn't inhibit it with regulations.

Doug:

I guess I am asking about a slightly different issue: when the science is clear, but it has an impact on our lives (described as "freedoms" in the above-quoted rant) should those restrictions be supported/imposed? For example, driving gasoline-powered cars has an impact on the environment. Water usage has an impact on the environment. Not getting vaccinated can have an impact on the community. All of these concerns can be mediated by limiting choices (or encouraging limitations on choice), and rightly we should limit such "freedoms." For example, one should not be allowed to use up all of the water in a region, even if one pays for the water. After all, we don't want to make water only available to the wealthy, but we want to limit consumption. How does government balance individual freedom with the good of all of the people?

David:

It's never quite so simple. Each of those issues has many factors involved, that would need to be evaluated over a long period of time. I choose freedom as the automatic default, except in extreme circumstances.

Doug:

Clever! All you have to do is label a circumstance as "extreme" or not and then you can easily move from one point to the other.

David:

Driving gasoline-powered cars affects the environment, to some degree, but a majority of people depend on their cars for transportation. Freedom to travel and to get to work is very important for people. Freedom to use water for your crops is important. The government has withheld water usage to an entire region in California, and all of those farmers are now out of business and out of work. That was a bad decision that stripped them of their ability to earn a livelihood. Parents have the freedom to refuse to vaccinate their children, but they also have the freedom to make that choice. It’s a non-scientific, stupid decision for most diseases, but it’s still their choice. Freedom.

The more government expands, the fewer freedoms we have.

Doug:

One of the most important roles of the government is to weigh the pros and cons of these uses. Are the farmers' uses more important that the uses of the people in the cities? Or can farming be done in other regions of the country where there are more resources. The problem of looking at any compromise as a limitation of freedoms is that it doesn't properly weigh the benefits of cooperation. These are not fewer freedoms, but merely reasonable constraints.

David:

Unless it’s your farm that is deprived of water and shut down, to benefit farmers in another region. Then it becomes the Big Government picking and choosing winners and losers.

Doug:

But that is an inherent risk with anyone that represents you. Your only recourse is to find someone better to represent you, and everyone.

Usually, when a group of scientists or engineers identify an issue (ozone, endangered species, threat of drought, etc.), then there may need to be some compromise. But, often for the greater good. When does "greater good" ever enter into the equation?

David:

Again, it isn't so clear, politically speaking. Whose “greater good” are you speaking of? You must remember that legislators are elected to represent their constituents. Let’s say you got elected to office, and you have plans to improve your district for the benefit of your constituents. Now, let’s say the issue of irrigation comes into a proposed bill. If scientists say that the water should be diverted elsewhere to benefit a small fish that is endangered, but all of your constituents are against the idea, and call you to demand that you represent them and vote against diverting the water, what would you do?

Doug:

The government (local, regional, and federal) must be smarter than just leaving the decision to a vote of the masses. Otherwise, we wouldn't need elected officials, and we could leave everything to a vote, and the tyranny of the masses.

David:

What if you knew that your vote might be the deciding vote in new computer or internet regulations that will be presented after the next elections? Would you save the fish, put many of your constituents out of work and destroy your district, and not be around to help format regulations and laws to benefit everyone with a computer, because you didn’t get re-elected over this one issue? When Hillary says she will put coal miners out of work, that may be good news for her pet companies like Solyndra, but it definitely isn't good for coal miners or the people who rely on the cheap electricity that comes from coal.

Doug:

Fish needing the internet? I got lost in your analogy. Coal mining, like other outdated jobs, can't be saved by making bad legislation. It isn't about "coal miners vs my pet company" but about the future. There is a cost to using coal (including environment and health) and that must be balanced with the greater good. Let's call it the "extreme" greater good, just so it is easy for you to see the issue.

David:

The other real problem that exists is scientists usually don’t have lobbyists, but corporations that the science threatens do. In politics, money talks. Hillary is on track to raise a Billion dollars for this election. That alone, if you follow statistics, guarantees her a victory in November. Whomever raises the most cash, always wins in politics, with very few exceptions.

Doug:

The problem with money in politics is something that we can agree on! Now, what are we (all) going to do about it?