If you were to ask me which American universities have the most odious instantiations of repressive “political correctness,” I’d say Stanford, Columbia, UCLA, Brandeis, and Brown (this is just an impressionistic view). And it’s sad, because those universities are good ones, and are supposed to provide a liberal education. But the student left often converges with fascism these days—or at least with an unenlightened authoritarianism, and those universities are not ones where I’d want to teach.
And here’s a good example of what passes for “rational thought” among college students. It’s a letter appearing in the Brown University Daily Herald: “Asker ’71: Universities shouldn’t speak freely.” (Nicholas Asker is an op-ed columnist for the paper.) The topic is the University of Michigan’s cancellation of the movie “American Sniper,” an issue I reported a week ago. The cancellation occurred after Middle Eastern and Muslim students objected to the film’s subject, leading the university group showing the movie to substitute a screening of “Paddington Bear”. Eventually the University allowed “American Sniper” to be shown.
In a weird inversion of priorities, Asker argues that showing that film is actually a violation of free speech: the speech of the students who were offended. And he equates the screening with having Mein Kampf in a waiting room:
It’s a complete mystery why the university thought it was a good idea to begin with to show the movie at a Friday night event designed to provide alcohol-free fun, entertainment and socializing. Just as it would be disconcerting to find copies of “Mein Kampf” strewn amongst the National Geographic magazines in a dentist’s office, so it is strange to find a controversial war movie playing at a casual party. Though there may be an acceptable time and place to read “Mein Kampf,” it’s quite clear that a waiting room is not. Likewise, a fun social function is not the place to watch “American Sniper.”
Now I’m not sure about the nature of the “fun” event, but I don’t see why a serious movie shouldn’t be shown. What I am sure of is that the students who didn’t like the movie or its theme didn’t have to go. And someone in a waiting room doesn’t have to read Mein Kampf. (After all, I’ve been in plenty of waiting rooms that contain the Bible, something that offends me.) But that voluntary participation isn’t enough for Asker. Have a look at his Orwellian view of how the movie relates to freedom of speech (my emphasis):
But really, canceling the movie is perfectly consistent with freedom of expression, and showing the movie is what contradicts freedom of expression. As we will see, doing so silences Arab voices, so it conflicts with the purpose of promoting free speech on campuses — to foster students’ intellectual growth through exposing them to many different perspectives.
What the hell? Showing a film doesn’t “silence Arab voices”, except that they shouldn’t talk while the movie is being shown! Offended students, Arab or otherwise, have every right to raise their voices in protest. And they should! (And they did.) Somehow Asker, who is a student at a good university, has a deeply warped view of how free speech should function. If you present one point of view, he argues, you have to present them all—at the same time!
Obviously free speech on a college campus is enormously valuable and something colleges should ardently encourage. They should protect the rights of students and student-run groups to show and view almost any movie they want so that they’re exposed to a wide range of viewpoints. There is a significant difference, however, between the university promoting free speech for its students and the university itself presenting only one particular viewpoint on an issue. If the university, as opposed to a student organization, sponsors an event and presents only one viewpoint, it is effectively weighing in on an issue and endorsing a particular opinion — whether it intends to or not. For it is privileging one view at the expense of other views, which, without a university-authorized platform, get pushed into obscurity. The privileged view gets the limelight and, simply because of its prominence, people buy into it.
This is problematic because it’s not the university’s place to persuade its students or promulgate its own opinions. Its job is to create an environment where students’ voices rule, not its own. Rather than nurturing a diverse symphony of perspectives that free speech policies attempt to achieve, Michigan drowned out alternative views by not giving them a fair shot of being heard.
This is problematic because it’s not the university’s place to persuade its students or promulgate its own opinions. Its job is to create an environment where students’ voices rule, not its own. Rather than nurturing a diverse symphony of perspectives that free speech policies attempt to achieve, Michigan drowned out alternative views by not giving them a fair shot of being heard.
What is he on about? It was one lousy movie! And the movie doesn’t present, as far as I know, the view that Chris Kyle was an unalloyed hero, or that Muslims are universally to be despised. It is the story of a man who suffers greatly from what he’s had to do—was ordered to do. If you’ve seen his other war films, Clint Eastwood is no super-patriot who sees American warfare as a black-and-white issue. He sees it as a horrible thing that dehumanizes people.
Clearly a university should expose students to a variety of viewpoints, but that doesn’t mean that at any single event, everyone with an opinion should participate or weigh in. Asking a speaker or showing a movie isn’t necessarily an endorsement of that movie, just like showing “Triumph of the Will” isn’t an endorsement of Hitler.
What world is Asker living in? He’s going to get a rude shock when he graduates from Brown and sees what happens in the real world. Out there we have plenty of speeches and talks that are not accompanied by countering views. As for the “privileged view getting the limelight”, I don’t think that’s the case here. What got the limelight was the students’ protest about the film.
So Asker sees “freedom of speech” as the presentation of all voices at any event in which one voice is heard. Whoops! There go commencement speakers, showings of any single movies, any talks at all by individuals (especially controversial talks), and so on. But who is to judge which talks are controversial and need balance, and who is to judge what’s required to provide that balance?
Asker finishes with another black-is-white assertion (or, even more Orwellian, “censorship is freedom” (my emphasis):
If Michigan decided to cancel the showing of “American Sniper,” its decision wouldn’t be censorship or antithetical to free speech. Instead, the decision would reflect an understanding that the showing would give an unfair platform to a much-contested viewpoint. The university would realize that it isn’t its place to provide opinions and that it should always be neutral on issues. In general, universities have a special obligation when they put on events to carefully ensure all views are equitably represented, because they can so easily inadvertently privilege certain viewpoints over others. In sum, universities should promote free speech and vigorous exchange of opinions amongst students but avoid opining and speaking freely themselves.
So the American liberal student body goes to perdition, and it’s sad. At first I thought Asker’s letter was a joke, but I don’t really think so.
I suppose one wouldn’t want Mein Kampf in every waiting room, but I see nothing wrong with having it around.
Banning it makes it easier to forget the holocaust and easier not to understand why the half of the Jewish population that lives in israel is a bit reluctant to turn its survival over to hostile or disinterested third parties.
I’m reminded of the adage, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have nothing to add to your excellent analysis. It will be interesting to learn if the op-ed author responds to your criticisms!
The sound of liberalism committing suicide …
And with such poise and assurance.
*snort*
That really cracks me up.
Yes.
All I can say to them is: Don’t watch the effing movie if you don’t like it!
You don’t get to say: No one gets to watch it, because I disagree with its message (even if I clearly do not understand that message.)
jbilie, you have stated the most important part of free speech — you don’t get to silence others. Freedom isn’t about preventing others from doing things.
Don’t like adult films? Don’t watch them. Criticize them all you want. But don’t make them illegal for those who do watch them.
Don’t like liver? Don’t eat it. Make frowny faces all you want. But don’t demand every restaurant and meat shop refrain from selling liver to those who like it.
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get married to someone of the same sex. But don’t pass laws making it illegal for those who want it.
It’s not that difficult to see who wants Freedom for all and who only wants freedom for themselves.
Personally, I agree with all your examples, but free speech is a special case.
Are you ready to say that everything goes?
Would you say what you say about liver about whale, d*g or (since we are here) cat meat?
I think that many readers here find it perfectly acceptable to make parents vaccinate their kids.
I believe that most people don’t see any real problem in making others do (or avoid) certain things.
Speech is different because democracy is meaningless without it. If you are not given the opportunity to convince others that your currently unpopular opinion is right, other aspects of democracy become useless.
All your examples would fall under what I would consider the first (of only three) commandments necessary for civil society: do not do unto others as they do not wish to be done unto, save for the minimal intervention necessary to prevent them from violating this rule.
Speaking, with the possible exception of the famous examples of inciting to riot and the like, cannot be considered as “doing unto.” So long as you’re not trespassing or haven’t kidnapped people or are stalking them or what-not — which would be obvious violations of the rule — the people who don’t want to listen to what you have to say can just move out of earshot.
We have social prohibitions against eating cats such that there’d never be a commercial market big enough for a business to be profitable — as well as health and safety regulations that would prohibit “private” black-market sales of any sort of meat regardless of the animal. But if you wanted to raise cats for livestock for your own consumption — though I can’t possibly imagine why — and didn’t run afoul of any of the cruelty to animals or other laws…well, I very emphatically would disapprove of you doing so and would use my right of free speech to urge you to consider otherwise, but I can’t argue for any legal prohibition against such that wouldn’t also apply to any other form of livestock.
Endangered species are another matter, as is anything that causes damage to the environment. Your right to smoke a cigarette ends at the same place your right to swing your fist does: my nose.
The same sort of thing applies to vaccines. You might not want the vaccine for yourself, but that just makes you a plague carrier who’ll likely infect me and thereby cause me even more harm than if you swung your fist at and through my nose. If there were somewhere you could go in quarantine or exile that I wouldn’t have to support you and where your presence wouldn’t cause further harm, I’d be fine with seeing your unvaccinated self spend the rest of your life there with any others who also didn’t want to get vaccinated…but, if you want to live amongst others who don’t want you to infect them, you’ll need the jab.
Cheers,
b&
In South East Asia, eating cats and dogs is common. I guess that there are enough immigrants from, say, Vietnam and Thailand to make a business growing and selling them profitable. In Israel, it was forbidden on grounds of animal abuse, but I am not sure that the conditions were really worse than those in which other animals are grown for the meat industry. I am convinced that the real reason was what you call “social prohibition”, and I suspect that other countries would stop this for the same reason, using similar excuses. Nations forbid things which don’t meet your criteria, because their societies find them offensive in some or another way. I am not saying that this is good. I am just saying that this is reality.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am largely with you on this. My point was not to justify this, but to show that even if you accept this in principle, free speech is a different category.
I don’t recognize my world anymore.
I don’t recognize my world anymore.
You can say that again!
You should have put that after the first comment! 😀
It’s an odd thing that whenever the left condemns, it chooses the text related to Nazis, never those affiliated with the writings of exterminators like Stalin and Mao.
Additional question: Which college campuses do readers think are the most free from the politically correct, or worse, virus?
Actually, the people most affiliated with Nazis (other than South Americans of German heritage) were middle eastern Muslims. They were either allies or sympathizers.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose
Which books would you endorse.
Mein Kampf espouses anti Semitic and other racist thought and philosophies that led to the actual genocide of the Holocaust. On a racial basis.
Mao and Stalin may have been responsible for many deaths but are there any concise works, by them espousing racial contempt leading to anything like the Holocaust. A lot died, but not in the organised way of Hitler and the Nazis.
Mein Kampf is the right book to encapsulate that sentiment.
Words fail.
If I saw copies of Mein Kampf in my dentist’s waiting room I would simply cancel my appointment and find another dentist.
You wouldn’t ask, “is it safe?”
It’s a dentist’s office, of course it’s not safe.
What if they provided you with cookies and fluffy kittens to play with? Then would you feel safe?
This post is why I follow you. As a committed Theist I totally disagree with your completely materialist viewpoint (for instance I think it is a good idea to have Christian literature in waiting rooms and I have no problem with Mein Kamph as well), but at the same time I appreciate your commitment to truth.
Why is it a good idea to have Christian literature in a waiting room? And just Christian literature? Maybe the dentist is a Muslim.
The point is a dentist should have whatever literature he wants in his waiting room. He could have Christian literature, Muslim literature, articles by Christopher Hitchens, or white supremacist literature. (Or any combination of the above.)
A wise dentist will have literature that will do nothing to make the experience of waiting uncomfortable for any of the patients and, secondarily, help pass the time as fast as possible for as many as possible.
Only an idiot dentist is going to fill the waiting room exclusively with literature that only she herself is interested in — and especially so if said literature is likely to upset a significant fraction of her clientele. Visiting the dentist is a bad enough experience already for enough people that all she’s going to do is drive away potential clients in droves to less-idiotic dentists if they have to look forward to getting upset with the choice of waiting room literature.
In other words, the optimal selection for the waiting room is going to mirror the selection at the checkout aisle for whatever grocery store her clientele is most likely to frequent.
b&
I have visited my dentist quite a bit. I don’t have the slightest problem with it.
Modern techniques make it a relative breeze.
Poking the sucking thing in and around is the worst but not too bad.
A good dentist wouldn’t have you waiting long so any material of substance would wasted.
I haven’t had any bad experiences at the dentist, either, but I haven’t had to go in for anything other than semiannual cleanings / X-rays / etc. But Jerry has posted on his unpleasant experiences, and I’ve known plenty others with similar complaints.
And it’s generally nothing against the dentists themselves; most people appreciate the work they do even as they inflict great discomfort. It’s a necessary evil, and oftentimes the proverbial dirty job that somebody’s gotta do.
But my point is that there’s nothing to be had by using waiting room literature to push an unpopular agenda on patients. Every other dentist is smart enough to know that that’s not a good thing to do, so any dentist who did so would go out of business pretty quickly.
b&
I wash my clothes at a laundromat whose magazines consist mostly of JW “Watchtowers” and scuba-diving magazines- ??? the laundromat is in Illinois!
The Watchtower magazines could well be left by other customers…the Witlesses have a nasty habit of leaving a trail of spam behind them wherever they go, and laundry facilities seem to be a particular favorite of theirs. Hell, I used to live in a privately-owned fourplex with a communal laundry room. None of the several landlords were overtly religious…and yet, at least a few times a year — and typically about the same time they’d come knocking at the door — you’d find copies of “Awake!” casually left atop the machine.
Sometimes I suspect that the Witless actually do have magic powers…but they’re limited to transmutating lost socks into religious pamphlets….
b&
And the scuba magazines for if the washing machines leak and you get a flood?
My dentist has New Scientist but the orthodontist magazines featuring large yachts. Accurate signalling though.
Would you draw the line at porn?
I’d read it. At last a change from the womens’ magazines and ‘house and garden’ upmarket glossies…
My dentist wants to get rid of all the literature in his waiting room, because it costs him money to provide it, and nobody ever looks at it anymore; they’re all too busy looking at their phones.
Your dentist can’t afford magazines? I’d be a little concerned…
It’s not a question of whether he can afford them. It’s whether buying magazines, and passing the costs on to the patients, adds any value to the service he provides. I’m inclined to agree with his view that it doesn’t anymore.
Out of curiosity, what is a “materialist” viewpoint, and why would anyone have it?
[I am familiar with that cosmology shows, since 2004, that the whole universe is one physical system. But that is merely a fact that everyone knows or should know.
What it has to do with anti-theism is curious…]
“As a committed Theist…”
More theists should be committed.
funny, but as a kid, that’s what I remember most about dentists’ and doctors’ offices; illustrated bibles for kids, that, and the ubiquitous Highlights magazines. I always flipped through the illustrated Noah’s Ark bit, loving animals as I did. Can’t say it had any effect on me one way or another, but I can only image what an illustrated children’s Mein Kampf would be like!
It seems like a lot of right-wing personalities have begun affiliating with liberal groups. These rhetorical contortions are very typical coming from right wingers who want to repress discourse. The new leftist patterns of “words are violence” and “religious criticism is racist hate speech” have always been typical of right-wing Mormons in Utah, who frequently claim to be “persecuted” when in fact their church controls every last inch of this place. Coming from that background, it’s been truly alarming to hear those same rationalizations coming from the left. They actually claim that the Muslim voices are silenced when they are clearly the loudest voices in the room! What they don’t mention is that many of those “muslim” students are liberal critics of right wing muslim culture who are often drowned out by their right wing peers in the US, and the liberal community is just throwing them under the bus to placate islam’s authoritarian wing.
Oh, let’s save all the turmoil about what is free speech. Just hand each student a list of what is acceptable belief at the beginning of each term and be done with it.
That is a positively terrifying letter. Orwellian is precisely the right word to describe it. It never ceases to amaze the mental gymnastics people go through to buttress a dearly held ideology.
Freedom is slavery. War is peace.
Ignorance is strength!
b&
What I want to know is where in hell are the philosophy professors who teach logic?
Philosophy professors?! They should have learned this level of logic in kindergarten.
Jaegwon Kim is at Brown, IIRC. He’s pretty well known. I imagine though he might be so well known he doesn’t have to teach such courses unless he wants to.
Beat me to it!
Yeah the first thing that came to mind for me was double speak as well. Have these students not read 1984
We live in a world where being liberal means sympathizing with people who oppress women and execute gays, being antisemitic is “progressive” and censoring movies is freedom of speech.
Reality beats nineteen eighty four (spelling? don’t kill me).
It seems there is a tacit assumption among people like this that everyone watching a film or hearing a talk just imbibes it full and without question. Wouldn’t someone in presummed disagreement actually want to watch the film so they are adequately informed to protest?
I suppose not, with so many students in for the grades and the degree and just parroting back in essay and exam. They are learning the opposite of inquiry.
It reminds me of schools assigning the Quran post 9/11 and the vigorous attempts to suppress it as dangerous and unpatriotic. What ever happened to “know thine enemy”?
Hearing the opposition is your duty if you want an informed decision.
I suspect he’s under the impression that if you willingly attend the film that in itself is evidence you’re in need of re-education.
Au contraire. You may willingly attend if you are simply a Clint Eastwood fan, a Chris Kyle fan, a Bradley Cooper fan, or you just like movies and shoot ’em ups. Or need a freaking night out. Or curious. Or incensed. Or totally opposed. I’m all-in for any reason to see the film.
I am simply against the Brown student’s pre-supposed and privileged objection to showing it at all. Stay away, see it pro or con, protest, show a competing film, but virtually denying it exists and insisting that on others is the heighth of mendacity.
I believe it was Confucius who said if no one is looking into something, you must. And if everyone is looking into something, you must as well.
Assumption incorrect. I am for anyone attending for any reason, pro or con.
I would expect military enthusiasts to attend. I would want pacifists to as well.
I am against the Brown student’s assumption that people need to be protected in any way from seeing the film. See it. Love it, hate it, write about it, protest it, show a competing film. Add to the dialogue, not shut it down.
That’s why it’s called dialogue.
As Confucius said, to the best of my memory, if everyone is looking into something, you must. And if no one is looking into something, you must.
I was agreeing with you, and assuming Nicholas Asker was the one who was under that impression.
Then my assumption was incorrect regarding your comment.
Yes, I do agree with you. It did seem Mr. Asker was implicitly backing some kind of correction (to his point of view)just not critique.
Assumptions, presumptions, impressions… blogs are tricky.
errata (mine):
Yes, I do agree with you. It did seem Mr. Asker was implicitly backing some kind of correction (to his point of view), not just critique.
When I was at UBC, some antiabortionists had shown up (like they had for many years apparently) and some students wanted to keep them off the campus. My philosophy of math and logic professor at the time (Andrew Irvine) took the opportunity (“teachable moment”) to explain about freedom of speech and freedom of debate. So some students actually did debate. On the other hand, the antiabortionists were told by campus police that they had to stick to the bus loop (city property) or stay non-disruptive, since they were, strictly speaking, transpassing.
Is that something like tresgressing?
Oops! I guess so!
😀
BTW, my original remark could have used a smiley–I was just teasing you. 😉
I totally agree with your comments on recent instances of absurdity at Michigan and Brown, but, ummm, as a Stanford grad, I would like to hear your evidence about my alma mater, especially as you named it first…(smoothing down my hackles)🙀
Well, Stanford appears to be right up there with UCLA in promoting antisemitism.
http://goo.gl/HTwYO2
This seems to be a single, rather iffy, example.
I must say I’m getting tired of “identity politics” of all stripes.
Hi Merilee, it’s my alma mater too and I would give it a heavy thumbs down. Recent actions/appointments (worth removing) include:
The Very Reverend Jane Shaw
Religious Studies Program
Religious Liberty Clinic
and
the ever mighty God-talker – Luhrmann
These are religious tentacles that have no business in academia, but since my day, there has been a blanket of PCness among the student body that’s feels immature.
I had forgotten about Luhrmann:-( I think the Religious Studies Program was already there in my day (late 60s and early 70s), but I don’t remember much osculating the rump….
Guess I haven’t followed much of this other stuff. When were you there, Kevin? I was at Berzerkeley for a couple of years before going back to Stanford, am distressed with the PCness there now. But when I think about it, even The Free Speech Movement et al, was a little over-the-top PC. I remember more than once being asked if I was a hippy or straight, and thinking neither: I’m myself.
I would even them have identified myself as atheist and Democrat, but very few other labels.
By publihing this article, the university promoted just one view point without giving alternate points of view within the same article. Since the university is meant to foster all points of view and not promote one to the detriment of others, this article should not have been published.
Just trying to use the same argument.
But some view points are more valid then other view points to the post modern.
“Some animals are more equal than others.”
That is correct, but I’m not sure the post modern allows to admit openly that some view points are more valid than others.
I think we call this upside down thinking. I wonder if he has to stand on his head to think it.
Where is this rule where the university operates like a pre-school to the kiddies. No rules from us, no opinions….it’s all up to you kiddies. It’s garbage.
“Its job is to create an environment where students’ voices rule”
What a puzzling statement. Why have a university at all, if that’s the goal? Just join your fellow students on the beach or in a park somewhere and listen to each other’s voices. That’d be a lot cheaper than paying all of those professors to push their ideas off on you.
I was confused by this statement as well. Why should student voices rule?
Not only puzzled but rather alarmed. The idea that someone with this kind of mentality should ‘rule’ anyone or anywhere is truly appalling.
No 1984 allusions yet?
Shoot, didn’t read “Orwellian”
Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, isn’t he making a kind of ‘separation of church and state argument? i.e. People are free to believe (and say) anything they want, but it’s not the university’s job to promote one point of view over another? (And, like secularism, preventing ‘the authorities’ promoting one religion is the best way of protecting religions as a whole…?)
(I think I’m most appalled by the university organising a social at all — what’s wrong with these kids that they can’t organise their own fun.)
I’m a little confused about the idea of a movie “social”. Little socializing goes on during movies.
In any case, my original impression was that they were merely screening the movie on campus. The “social” aspect is a bit vague to me. I don’t know how it works there, but at my Alma Mater there was a theater on campus that showed movies every Friday night. They showed all sorts of movies, just like any other theater. Sometimes it was blockbusters, sometimes it was something like Pink Floyd’s The Wall, one memorable time it was a French film with subtitles where one character cuts his penis off with an electric carving knife (one person ran out of the theater when this happened)! I had assumed that the situation was similar at Brown, et. al., that the university shows movies on a semi-regular basis and that the content is all over the map.
I suppose context could matter. If the university said, “This is the official movie statement of Brown University”, then it’d merit maybe more scrutiny. But if they are merely airing it because it’s a movie that some people watch… I don’t get it. If you think the movie is wicked, make signs and stand outside the movie… talk to people going in and coming out… what a great opportunity. Set up a little projector showing a counter film. Get a counter-film to be shown the next week! So many things you can do… but not so many lazy things I suppose.
In my experience, too much socializing goes on during movie these days.
The worst “socializers” in movies are old people, hands down! It’s as if Gramps and Ethel are completely unaware that they are not in their own living room! Give me a theater of noisy little brat kids any day, at least they have the excuse of not fully grasping social norms. Not that this has anything to do with university fascism, but it’s almost not worth saving a few bucks for the matinee if I have to listen to ancient fools reciting every damn line in the movie because their partner’s hearing aid doesn’t work! AHHHHHHRG! and that’s why I stay home.
We have lots of summer movie festivals around my neck of the woods. You go early, picnic, then watch the movie when its dark. Lots of socializing. Sometimes dancing. Heck, one is in a little ‘main street’ area: you can literally sit at an outdoor café with a friend, order drinks, and watch the movie. In general these are more noisy than Merilee probably likes, but its an outdoor festival: caveat emptor applies in spades. If you want a pristine movie-going experience, this is probably not your venue of choice.
Depends on the movie, and certainly, sometimes these outdoor movies can be fun. I just don’t like pay $15+ to go to a regular movie, and after watching 15 minutes of commercial ads, plus previews, I have to listen to the people around me giving their friends the blow-by-blow, or texting stuff…
Oh yeah! With you 100%.
It’s been a long time since I’ve gone to a movie theatre, for all the same reasons.
I can get a much more “pristine” movie experience in my own living room with the laptop and headphones and far better popcorn. Plus, I can pause the movie if I want to wash my hands after the bowl of popcorn is empty or to go to the bathroom or whatever.
If you see the movies as a social experience, the theatre, I’m sure, is best; you could boo and hiss or what-ever at home, but who’re you going to impress? But if you’re watching the movie because you want to lose yourself in that world for a while or similar reasons, the theatre is probably the worst place to go.
b&
“giving their friends the blow-by-blow”
I don’t think you think that means what I instantly thought it means 😉
Nooooooo….get your mind out of the gutter:-)
… or out of the back seats of a summer outdoor movie…..?
The festivals (at least around here) are free, or nominal in terms of price ($2 or $3). They do not show first run movies and often show ‘classic’ movies. In terms of sound quality, you are often getting what you paid for.
He’s still overreacting (IMO). I think when a university hosts a series of movies or parties, its perfectly reasonable to say that showing a different sort of movie every week fulfills any social obligation the University has to remain ideologically neutral.
We also don’t know how the university picked its shows, and if you’re talking about neutrality, that matters. If each year they pick the top 10 box office goers from the previous year, then even if 9/10 of 2014 box office smashes were conservative or anti-muslim or what have you, the University is remaining neutral because its methodology of selection is ideologically neutral.
So, free-speech is for those that Asker deems as aggrieved, but everybody else can just lump it.
What kind of bizarro-land is post-modernism turning universities in the Western world into?
I am offended by that letter and feel threatened by its content.
Therefore, Brown University is OBLIGATED to punish the Daily Herald for publishing it and should suspend the student who wrote it immediately!
This is problematic because it’s not the university’s place to persuade its students or promulgate its own opinions. Its job is to create an environment where students’ voices rule, not its own.
Inmates running the asylum? Probably too flippant a comparison, but honestly, how insane is it to think that the purpose of university is to let students run the show? I didn’t know brains could do such gyrations.
It’s sad that anyone in a notable university found this nonsensical mumble worth publishing
Well… it is a student newspaper. I don’t know how they do it there, but ours was run by students almost 100%, and as a result the quality and standards varied widely, even from quarter to quarter. It was fun and sometimes interesting to read, and even occasionally thoughtful, but it was not widely regarded as the best source you could turn to.
I’m less bothered that some students at the paper have crazy views, I expect that, but that those crazy views were put into action by the university.
In 1982 I remember my student newspaper writing articles on how to have gay and lesbian sex, because that was the only way those students could get info on it from a reliable source. I honestly can’t remember if there were any protests.
There was no interference from faculty, or editorial oversight. I have no idea if these articles would have gone ahead if there had been.
“If the university, as opposed to a student organization, sponsors an event and presents only one viewpoint, it is effectively weighing in on an issue and endorsing a particular opinion — whether it intends to or not.”
Right! Following this incredible piece of logic to its proper conclusion, a university may not screen ANY film without simultaneously showing all other films offering some different perspective related to the subject. E.g. if the film shown is “When Harry Met Sally” the university must also simultaneously screen films showing EVERY other possible gender association and every non-association possible – along with alternative social pairings occurring in the rest of the animal kingdom. Ooops, I forgot to include plant-plant relationships!
Feed me Seymour!
Somehow, I’m not surprised to learn that you’re a mean green mother from outer space….
b&
Might get some pushback from the usual quarters when it comes to the necrophiliac homosexual rapist ducks….
b&
Sub.
The correct analysis of this perspective lies not with political persuasion but rather with the reconceptualization of students as consumers in the university setting. As consumers paying for a product the students believe that they are entitled to decide on the products presented. This is occurring in and out of the classroom and significantly degrades the value of a liberal arts, or any other model, education. Students increasingly will not accept that the faculty in particular, but the university as a whole, is there to guide and expand their experiences. They simply feel that they, as customers, can demand to not be exposed to topics that make them uncomfortable. In analytic the classroom
That argument would apply to all movies. So now Brown can’t even show Paddington Bear without simultaneously showing Ted and Grizzly Man too, I guess.
Although I do see the potential appeal of a movie night consisting of Pride and Prejudice juxtaposed with Rocky Horror Picture Show. Just don’t show something too prudish, or the University will be forced to show porn to balance it.
Funny thing, I bet I would be far more accepting of the results of a “student vote-based movie night” than Mr. Asker would. If the students voted to show American Sniper, I have no doubt he’d still be complaining.
Well, it would certainly be good if they showed a variety of movies so that students with a wide variety of interests would have reasons to go to the movie night. I’d say though that in this case, the “event” is best considered the entire film series and “equity” is best achieved by showing a different sort of movie each week. I’m a sci-fi fan, but I agree it would be a bit annoying and narrow-minded if (I was going to a university and that) university had a Friday night party that showed sci-fi movies every single week.
But which Pride and Prejudice? Olivier, Colin Firth, Keira Knightly? The university has no business endorsing any particular version; it must show all of them simultaneously.
Wonder if Brown University’s Dept of English will be persuaded to drop Merchant of Venice, Jew of Malta or Othello from their syllabus since they have themes that are decidedly unpleasant to modern tastes? Somehow I doubt it
Or Twain?
The opposition to Twain is the one I find especially disturbing. Nowhere else are you going to find a more sympathetic, compassionate, and compelling treatise on the plight of Blacks in America nor a more faithful representation of the evils they’ve endured…and yet the use of a single word has caused countless people who should be championing the book to turn their backs on it.
I really don’t get it. If you want to explain to people why insulting somebody with the word, “nigger,” causes so much pain, you’re not going to do so more effectively than Twain did. He even shows just the pain it can cause when used unthinkingly by people who don’t mean to hurt somebody. Read Twain and you’ll not only know exactly why you shouldn’t insult people with that term but also why most of the opposition to Obama is because, as far as most of those on the right who oppose him are concerned, he’s a nigger — whether or not they’d actually say so out loud in public. That is, after all, what the whole “birther” movement is about; the same people who have been most vocal about that have also been the ones who, in the past, have suggested an Amendment to remove that restriction so Ahnuld could run for President. And not because of party politics, but because somebody with Ahnuld’s body (but most certainly not his morals!) could have posed for a Nazi recruitment poster…but Obama is a nigger.
You just can’t make sense of that sort of double standard — let alone understand just how truly evil it is — unless you’ve read Twain, particularly the books most likely to be banned.
b&
Next thing you know, the PC crowd will be banning Tom Sawyer for being pro-con-the-other-guy-into-white-washing-your-fence.
There is, for me, no more powerful scene in American letters than the one in Chapter 31 where Huck, knowing (from what he’s been taught by the good Christians in town) that his soul will be forfeit if he helps Jim escape, rips up the letter he had written to Miss Watson snitching Jim out, and says: “All right, then, I’ll go to hell!”
It’s odd, but on reading Huck Finn again, it seems retroactively derivative — because every American novelist since has ripped off a piece of that book.
Hemingway said: “All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn” — and he, of all, should know since the camping scenes in his “Nick Adams” stories could be pages torn from Huck & Jim’s time on the river.
Don’t be so sure.
On the other hand, I remember overhearing some young “African-Canadians” (their words) discussing Othello. They’d been reading it in high school, and were amazed that a white guy from 400 years ago could write about “someone like them”. I hope their teach got wind and can explain “like everyone”, but …
What a warped, demented viewpoint from this student. This is the product of our educational system? This is a college student’s understanding of our nation’s founding principles? I guess government censorship is just the government exercising it’s own freedom of speech? Sounds like a young Stalin or Mao in the making.
I too found this opinion piece idiotic, but can we remember that it was written by a student (class of ’17) who is most likely only 19 or 20 years old? If it had been found in a high school newspaper written by a bright 17 year old would the reaction be as vocal? The author is essentially a child and perhaps his poorly expressed arguments should be viewed in that context.
Nick, “essentially a child”? And you speculate that he is 19 or 20? That is not a child, essentially or not.
You “Nicks” really stick together, doncha? 🙂
There is no end to the divide.
We should make production companies (Disney, WB, Paramount, etc.) all become religions. Each of their products may (and do) sensibly offend someone and no doubt they have a fervent following for most of the productions.
Art and Music should be religions too. Religions for everyone. Any artist cannot be endorsed by an academic institution.
While they are at it…throw out the computers…we know what religious followings are behind each OS: MAC, PC, LINUX. It’s mayhem. No university should endorse what could obviously make another person noxious.
I was really thrown by this since the post lists Asker ’71 as a student and then goes from there. I figured either he was a graduate from 44 years ago or else was really on the slow track and it would be 56 years until he matriculated. Clicking on the link shows me that the post should have read Asker ’17. I feel somewhat better that Asker is probably only 20 years old and has time to learn some things. I feel bad that reasoning powers among what should be very bright students has gone to hell in a hand basket.
On the bright side, the responses to the letter are almost uniformly critical. Hope is not completely lost if at least some of those responses are from current Brown students.
So we’ve heard one side of this pathetic story, where’s the other side? Where are the students who are not willing to be brainwashed and force-fed from the official list of acceptable information? Are they writing into the student paper to complain, or are they silenced as well?
Forgive me if this was covered in the earlier post, I don’t remember. I would love to hear from students who are opposing this sort of newspeak liberalism, or have they become unpersons?
to clarify, checking comments at the paper, it’s clear the commenters are absolutely outraged, but will the paper publish this opposing viewpoint, not just allow it in comments.
Out of the sixty comments on the page, I read not one that supported the author and plenty that slammed his view in pretty harsh terms. But that doesn’t mean we need an “opposing viewpoint” published. That’s where you go with CNN and it’s ilk. “My first guest says evolution is true and my second guest says it’s bunk. We’ll let you decide”. A columnist publishes opinions but not every issue needs a counter columnist.
And this was where I had a big problem – the idea that the University should present all ideas equitably. Some ideas are better because they have more evidence etc.
Evolution vs Creationism
Holocaust vs denial
Vaccination vs non-vaccination
Climate change vs denial
Atheism vs theism
Antibiotics vs homeopathy
and many more.
Everyone should be horrified if a university presents homeopathy as equal in its MD program, for example.
Since its earliest colonial days, this Nation has been infected with a virulent Puritanical virus. It retreats into the body politic during its dormant phase, but our immune system never quite kills it, so that it recrudesces from time to time in surprising places, with surprising and painful symptoms.
Anyone who has done battle against it before will, like the exorcist in Peter Blatty’s novel, recognize it straight-away, whatever its current incarnation — and understand immediately the struggle that must be waged against it, and the stakes for failing to achieve victory.
Are you pointing out we may all be old? 🙂
— Bob Dylan, Subterranean Homesick Blues
“Censorship is freedom of speech” is just the sort of claim I came to expect from Soviet apparatchiks.
Speaking of Columbia, some physicians are trying to get Dr. Oz removed from their medical faculty:
http://news.yahoo.com/physicians-want-dr-oz-gone-columbia-medical-faculty-232438146.html
From the article; “Oz was not reachable Thursday night at his Columbia office number, which played a recorded message explaining how callers could get tickets to his TV show”.
I would say it was about time to get rid of Dr. Oz.
I have no idea what the student population is in these institutions but 40 years in academia would lead me to conclude that it is unlikely that they represent 1 per cent of the student body on a good day. However activity and noise seem to create panic in administrations – most students are probably at the pub (well maybe not if the US drinking age is still 21)or whatever.
And apropos of nothing – some outfit in NZ has introduced a loyalty card which includes lots of pubs among other things – you get 5% of your total spend paid of your student loan.
Of course, we also know that apathetic students are the rule, so the loud and sometimes wrongheaded win.
That’s why (with no real interest in student government) I voted randomly several times as undergraduate at McGill.
Remarkable how this student missed the entired notion of Freedom of Speech. It is the freedom to speak! Not the freedom to restrict speech, which is what he is describing. Silly.
Remarkable how this student misses the whole point of Freedom of Speech. It is the freedom to speak! Not the freedom to restrict others from speaking. He is describing the opposite, it’s Orwellian what he’s saying. In general, I find many value Freedom of Speech only when their own views are being spoken.