According to The Statesman, the student newspaper of Stony Brook University (also known as The State University of New York at Stony Brook, or SUNY), the school has joined the club of Special Snowflakes Who Cannot Be Offended. And again it is the students and not the administration who are complaining about hurt feelings and having been suddenly yanked out of their “safe space.” This is one of the most bizarre attempts to restrict free speech I’ve seen yet, for it involves students complaining about a debate in which their own side was defended! They don’t even want a debate, much less a standalone speaker who opposes their views.
Here’s what happened. In late April, skeptic and author Michael Shermer debated the Christian apologist Frank Turek at the SUNY student union. Sponsored by NewYorkApologetic.com, the debate was about “What better explains morality, God or science?” Shermer took the science side and Turek the religious one. The debate is online here, but I haven’t yet watched it.
Apparently Shermer brought up the topic of same-sex marriage as an example of something that rationality would support but that many religiously-derived views of morality would condemn. Shermer demanded that Turek give his opinion of the issue, which he did (he opposes gay marriage). There was some back-and-forth on the issue, and some segments of the audience applauded Shermer and others Turek, showing a divergence of opinion on this issue among the audience.
Well, the fact that Turek publicly stated disapproval of gay marriage was too much for the Graduate Queer Alliance (GQA), which wrote a long and rambling letter to the editor of The Statesman, “Hate speech requires transparency.” It’s one of the strangest expressions of “I’m offended” I’ve ever seen. They can’t complain that only one side of the issue was aired (Shermer was strongly in favor of gay marriage), so they have to argue that someone who even discusses opposition to gay marriage creates an unsafe space that is damaging to students. In other words, giving such an opinion shouldn’t be allowed on campus.
Here are few excerpts from the GQA letter to show its craziness, which involves the classic, “I’m in favor of free speech BUT. . “:
We encourage open dialogue as a way to evaluate evidence, formulate opinions and communicate those opinions to others. However, not all ideas are morally fungible. Some are, in fact, harmful, and at a liberal educational institution, injurious ideas are rightfully criticized and not given an unquestioned platform to be presented. A different mechanism of presentation is required if ideas are deemed potentially harmful, and this mechanism holds to a higher standard the rigor with which they will be subsequently evaluated.
What higher standard than having an eloquent opponent (Shermer) deride the opponent’s views? What more do they want? As we’ll see below, they want official university condemnation of Turek’s views.
. . . Turek was openly and unabashedly Islamophobic, sexist and misogynistic. He misrepresented the views of a variety of other groups as well, and mocked and denied the theory of evolution the same week that scientists at Stony Brook discovered humanity’s oldest stone tools.
Turek’s propaganda is so far from the truth that it should be self-evident in the 21st century and especially to the millennial generation that currently attends Stony Brook that a speaker who holds these beliefs should not be given such a prestigious platform to speak in the first place.
Yep, that’s censorship: some ideas are simply too hurtful to be presented. But isn’t that an abrogation of free speech? The GQA, of course, says no (these letter-writers would have made good theologians):
This is not an issue of free speech, not least because the views that Dr. Turek expresses have already been evaluated and exchanged in public forums countless times, and it has been concluded that they are indeed wrong and harmful. We do not tolerate people who advocate for ridiculous things like racial segregation in schools an unquestioned platform to speak, despite the fact that they are allowed to express those views in other public forums. A public school administration would rightfully fight the expression of bigotry like this on a college campus, so why should someone who speaks just as hatefully toward gays and other groups be treated differently?
. . . Again, disagreement and debate on social and moral matters, even when there is a common set of facts, is the crux of a liberal university culture. Free and open debate should be encouraged, but not when what is being said is so clearly wrong and so clearly harmful to others.
These people have no inkling what free speech is really about! They are the Arbiters of what is okay speech and what is prohibited WRONG speech.
At the Graduate Queer Alliance, we believe in free speech, we believe in the freedom to practice one’s faith, we believe in diversity. We support these things even if opinions are different from our own. However, we are vehemently against pointless bigotry of any sort.
So it’s okay to allow free speech even if the GQA doesn’t share its content—EXCEPT when those opinions are “pointless bigotry,” i.e., opinions that aren’t shared by GQA. We’re down the rabbit hole here.
Wrong and harmful! Well, there are still many people who oppose gay marriage, and while I disagree with them, don’t they deserve an airing of their reasons, especially if someone like Shermer is there to knock them down? It’s just bizarre that the writers claim that some issues are simply settled, and that allowing them to even be mentioned is “wrong and harmful.” What world are these people living in? In fact, it’s because we have been able to air views about gay marriage that most Americans have been convinced that gays should have the same rights to marry as anyone else. And the debate clearly continues, for many opponents remain, and the Supreme Court hasn’t even weighed in on its federal legality. Do we really want to appoint anyone, or any group, to decide what issues have been “settled” and no longer deserve airing.
What do the letter-writers want? Well, first of all, censorship, because opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds is clearly “hate speech”:
It is incumbent upon the administration at all levels to ensure fair and open dialogue without bringing harm to any community on campus. . . . . Turek’s hate-speech instigates and nourishes a culture of homophobia and should simply not be tolerated on campus without the appropriate actions taken to put it into context.
If Shermer wasn’t taking the appropriate actions to put the “hate speech” into context, I don’t know what else can be done. Oh, yes, the group passed a resolution demanding that the School of Social Welfare, which apparently hosted the event without much publicity, be censured. They’re also asking for those who hosted the event to apologize, and for the president of SUNY, the deans, and the graduate school “to reiterate the university’s commitment to providing an inclusive environment for all students, especially LGBTQ* folks, to flourish and grow.” Finally, they want their Safe Space:
We open our meetings to provide a safe space to members of the university community to heal from Dr. Turek’s bigotry and encourage further discussion on this matter.
Was it really that painful to hear Turek oppose gay marriage, even when Shermer took him apart? How much healing needs to be done? And if there’s this kind of damage from a debate, which students didn’t have to attend, what will happen to them when they go into the real world of Chick-Fil-A and Christian homophobes?
The consequence of allowing one group to censor those with opposing opinions is that no controversial opinions will be aired. Jewish students will be offended by the BDS movement, Palestinian students by celebrations of Israeli independence, feminists by “men’s rights” advocates or the wrong kind of feminist, and so on. In the end, nobody will be able to say anything, and everybody will be cosseted in their safe spaces with Play-Doh and kitten videos.
Fortunately Turek and Shermer, an unlikely pair, joined forces to criticize the students’ complaints by writing their own joint letter to the Statesman. They show that some of the students’ claims were flat wrong, but, more important, make this critical point (the first four sentences are great; my emphasis):
Finally, on the issue of tolerance, it appears that GQA only wants to tolerate ideas they agree with. That’s not tolerance. That’s totalitarianism. You can only tolerate ideas you disagree with. Moreover, you will never learn and grow (the essence of a university) if you hear only one side of any issue. As Dr. Shermer points out in The Moral Arc by quoting same sex marriage advocate Jonathan Rauch: “Good ideas outcompete bad ideas in the marketplace of free exchange.” Now that’s a good idea rooted in the very foundation of a free society.
Unfortunately, GQA is expressing a totalitarian impulse to silence all opinions that dissent from their own. As a free people, we must not adopt such an unlearned, intolerant and unconstitutional position. This atheist and Christian agree with same sex marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan who wrote against this totalitarian impulse this way: “If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”
As always, the issue comes down to this: who has the right to prevent others from speaking? Apart from government (or university) restrictions on speech that incites immediate physical attack or constitutes illegal harassment, there is no cogent answer to that question. Everybody could make the claim that opinions they don’t like represent opinions that are “objectively” wrong and harmful. Well, there is no objective right or wrong when it comes to gay marriage, or morality in general. I believe that a society that doesn’t give those civil rights to gays is a society that is substantially worse than one that doesn’t, but others disagree. Let us continue the debate, for that’s the only way I know that the oppression of gays—or any minority—will end. Doesn’t the GQA realize that its form of censorship and bullying, and its dissimulation about “free speech,” actually damages its cause?
Sub
I get criticizing the GQA for their letter, but why criticize the school itself? The headline of the story and the first sentence would seem to imply that the Stony Brook itself has taken some untoward action or position. Has SBU acquiesced to the demands of the GQA? If not, it doesn’t seem fair to me to blame the overall university for the opinions, however misguided, of a small number of students.
Disclaimer: I’ll be starting a PhD program at Stony Brook in the fall, so I am, perhaps, not an unbiased observer.
Fair enough; I’ll change the title to “Stony Brook students”. But my intent was just to include the university in the roll of schools where this stuff is going on.
And I think you’re right to criticize the letter from the GQA. It just didn’t seem fair to me to criticize the entire university for a letter to the editor. The title change is appreciated.
Political correctness unchecked will be the death of liberal Western democracies. You nailed it, Jerry.
Personally, I love to watch a debate where someone I agree with takes apart the arguments of someone I disagree with. I find it really heartening and encouraging that the best arguments are on the side I support.
As Jerry points out, the reason LGBT rights and same-sex marriage have made such progress in recent years is because the issues have been openly discussed, and the anti- arguments have been found wanting. However, especially in countries where religion is important to many, the antis still hold a lot of sway, and the debate needs to continue to hopefully persuade more.
I think it’s also helpful for those who aren’t so good at coming up with arguments on their own, especially on the fly. Listening to people like Shermer debate gives them a good example of not only how to argue, but in this particular case, the arguments to use to different points.
As Jerry points out, the reason LGBT rights and same-sex marriage have made such progress in recent years is because the issues have been openly discussed
Yes, and abortion, on the other hand, keeps getting sidelined, because it isn’t something that is openly discussed. It’s in the shadows. And it doesn’t help that the illiberal left refuses to debate the subject, with the excuse that ‘this was settled in 1974’
The same thing happens with abortion here. No political party is prepared to go there – they’re just too scared to open up the can of worms. Our law is from the early ’70s too.
And there will be several MPs who’d destroy their careers by saying stupid stuff, often accidentally, and they don’t want to be the one.
And the issue creates great passion amongst the type of person who goes around making death threats and generally thinking any action is OK when you’re doing The Lord’s Work.
Indeed, all the progress we have made as a society has come because people have heard what others have had to say – from reading novels about slaves to seeing movies about rape. Are these things nice to read or watch? No! That’s the point! It would be much easier to make ourselves feel better by thinking that slaves were lucky because they had owners to look after them or rape victims were asking for it but when we force ourselves to listen to what they have to say, we learn something and we try to change our society for the better.
To naively think the gay marriage question is settled and needs never to be discussed again is just bizarre. Should we never discuss the Holocaust because clearly we think genecide is a bad idea? Should we never discuss nuclear war because the Cold War is over? Please!
Yep. One of the big reasons that abortion rights activism was so big in the 1970s is because *everyone* was talking about it. Everyone knew someone, or was a degree of separation from someone who had had an illegal abortion or died from one.
Now, the only people doing the talking, in the USA at least, are the anti-choicers. Liberals don’t want to discuss it because it’s ‘settled.’ So, basically, the right runs roughshod over the left.
It’s in the shadows, and the only voices we really hear are from Republican RWNJ’s getting on tv and shedding crocodile tears over the suffering of poor widdle embwyos.
I suspect the GQA’s position on this is much like Dawkins on debating creationists. Someone with Shermer’s stature being willing to debate this issue implies that Turek’s position is a reasonable one. It grants the position credibility it shouldn’t have.
That being said gay marriage wasn’t the focus of the debate. I think the argument could be made that if such a debate were the focus it might better be avoided. Do we really want to invite such people (no matter now many there are) to the big kids table?
I wanted to add that the fact many still oppose gay marriage doesn’t mean, like creation vs evolution, that the question hasn’t been settled by rational people.
Perhaps it’s a debate that should be left to theologians on either side of the issue.
That’s a really good point. The debate wasn’t actually about same-sex marriage, it simply came up. Does this mean that people are going to want certain topics to be no-go areas in a more general debate? That is actually even more ridiculous than stopping debates about same-sex marriage because among reasonable people the question is settled.
You can have a debate about relationships, but you’re not allowed to talk same-sex relationships for example. I can’t imagine any self-respecting academic allowing themselves to be muzzled in that way.
There’s a fundamental difference. The correctness Theory of Evolution is a question of fact. Either all life on Earth evolved, or it didn’t and the evidence is clear and unambiguous that it did. The people arguing against evolution are, almost by definition, not the equals of professional scientists. They don’t have the intellectual tools (by which I mean knowledge and expertise, not that they are stupid) to argue their position effectively, and if they did, they would be on the other side.
The rules regarding marriage and who should be allowed to marry whom are human inventions. As such, there isn’t an objective answer to whether gay people should be allowed to marry. It’s about how we treat certain people in our society and it’s about public policy. As such everybody gets a say. My personal opinion is that everybody should have the right to marry the person they love, no matter what sex or gender, but that is just an opinion.
CFI people here in Ottawa had a “counter protest” at a recent antiabortion rally. It is difficult, however, because of the fact that educational charities can only use 11% of money for political stuff, making it hard to coordinate activities. Other groups were also present, though I have no details at hand since I couldn’t make the event.
Of course the really appalling thing here is that many of the state-money-sponsored Catholic schools bus students in to create numbers and “youth presence” etc. That really creates a “one sided discussion” if one side is allowed to be sponsored. Fortunately they are not at present being listened to – even by current Conservatives, though I cannot imagine it will stay that way for long.
Arguably, that might be how this mindset evolved. Aren’t we argueing about Social Justice things now, even if on a meta level?
Same as in the secular movement, few want to have certain things on the agenda, but by kafkatrapping, by accusing and smearing and by using each and every keyword to go nuclear, the social justice mind-parasite perpetuates itself. People are forced to take position, and are forced to deal with the matter and speak out, for other prongs of the social justice fascist mindset make sure you have to say a few words on the issues too, to not seem complicit in what liberals generally reject. Hence the target are always milieus or people who aren’t opposite to the social justice project because here they can “activate” and force people to say the right words. Or so it looks to me. Social justice warriors say they defend “safe spaces”, i.e. bastions were their views are anyway commonplace — and so it is otherwise posturing (that’s in for the individual).
But it is not working like charm. And here is the problem: The social justice brown shirts intimidate people who tend to share their views, but by bullying them they have driven many people to now pay attention to right wing media (such as Breitbart). At the same time, they’ve broadened and escalated so much that serious offenses and dubious views have become invisible among a sea of cases that have been cranked up to eleven.
We discuss things, yes, but ultimately, the costs are high and I hope those people will pay for it one day. That would be “social justice”.
“injurious ideas are rightfully criticized and not given an unquestioned platform to be presented.”
Sounds like they overlooked that there was another debater in this debate.
Certainly does, “unquestioned” it was not.
Worse, the phrase “unquestioned platform” is used multiple times. Whoever composed the letter feels a need to be certain that the straw opponent is defeated.
The Jacobins are really coming into power.
+1 for the French Revolution reference. I would’ve given more points if you had mentioned Robespierre, which though vicious toward the end, did a lot with his Jacobin club to bring freedom to France.
I especially like this quote:
Anyone read Simon Schama’s brilliant A Place of Better Safety about the French Rev?
I tried to study the French revolution, but the people were so revolting I couldn’t stand it. It’s a subject I want to know more about, but i’m literally sickened by so much that happened.
Yes, I know, pathetic. It’s not a problem I had with any other period in history. Not sure why that one got to me particularly. Perhaps I lived through it in a former life. 🙂
And in case anyone’s wondering, no I don’t really believe that.)
Some of my ancestors fled France during The Terror. I blame them for my pale skin.
I was French Revolutioned to death. I studied twice in high school for some reason then ended up studying it again in first year university. I actually quite like it even though I was so sick of it back then.
I always find the Russian Revolution much more sad. Perhaps I didn’t see the Romanov’s as evil though I’m sure they weren’t very nice to regular people. I just didn’t think they needed to be all killed.
Wow, this is really unnerving. If it wasn’t for WEIT, I would have no idea how pervasive anti-free-speech at Universities is. Students truly don’t get it. I wonder if this is a result (in part) of civics no longer being taught in middle/high school.
Thanks for another top-notch post and analysis.
Whatever the reason, I dread working with them when they graduate. I will be in the HR office constantly!
Right? Because (some) students advocating for silly and ill-advised ideas on college campuses is totally a brand new thing! Certainly no earlier generations have engaged in such activities!
No because in keeping with the central thesis of this post, these students do not want to hear dissenting opinions. In my line of work dissention is encouraged and you’ll often not only have to hear opinions that differ from yours but may even (gasp!) have to try them out.
Right, but what I’m saying is that this problem is not a new one. These types of people have always been around. Therefore, you do not need to “dread working with them when they graduate” because you (and everybody else) have likely already been working with people who acted like this in college for quite some time.
Not like this I haven’t. I’ve worked with people who felt they were entitled (like working from home meant sitting in front of the television) or special (I need a career that is tailored specifically to me) but I’ve not worked with people who get upset and involve the authorities because they’ve heard something they disagree with.
How would you possibly know what activities your co-workers engaged in while they were college students? The point I am trying to make is that undergrads have done stupid things like what Jerry documented in this post since time immemorial. Including, I’ll bet, being unnecessarily hostile to ideas different from their own. I am sure there are many examples from all the on-campus turmoils of the 1960’s/1970’s. Students who have done things like this are not just entering the workforce now. They have already been there for decades.
Of course they have. But they never had the power that they have today, that’s the difference.
You asserted that I’ve dealt with these people already. I haven’t and I said so. I don’t need to know what they did as undergrads to know I haven’t dealt with people who can’t take criticism or dissenting opinions.
You are making up your own argument by trying to minimize this entire post with a “kids will be kids” argument. It doesn’t wash. If you are easily offended in a university to the point that you appeal to the administration to prevent your delicate ears from hearing anything that offends you, you will be ill prepared for the shocking things you will hear off campus.
I don’t want to belabor this particular point that we seem unlikely to agree on, so I will just leave it here and let you have the last word on the subject.
This article backs up your observations:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/how-to-land-your-kid-in-therapy/308555/
Wendy Mogel is a clinical psychologist in Los Angeles who, after the publication of her book The Blessing of a Skinned Knee a decade ago, became an adviser to schools all over the country. When I talked to her this spring, she said that over the past few years, college deans have reported receiving growing numbers of incoming freshmen they’ve dubbed “teacups” because they’re so fragile that they break down anytime things don’t go their way. “Well-intentioned parents have been metabolizing their anxiety for them their entire childhoods,” Mogel said of these kids, “so they don’t know how to deal with it when they grow up.””
daveyc,
I am confident no one is having any problems getting your point. I think the issue is that you are not happy that others don’t agree with you about your point. It’s OK.
Whoops (oopla)…a Place of GREATER Safety.
I think the Scharma book you are thinking of is ‘Citizens’; A Place of Greater Safety is by Hilary Mantel. And yes read both they are both excellent, but also both rather long.
this has got a bit detached from Jay’s original comment about Jacobins
You are absolutely right, Bric! It was the Mantel one I was thinking of, but read the Schama one shortly thereafter. Neither one’s a very straight-forward read, but both very interesting. Sorry for the confusion.
It’s not surprising they got confused in your mind
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/book-review–the-rough-and-tumbril-of-history-a-place-of-greater-safety–hilary-mantel-viking-pounds-1599-1549781.html
‘Hilary Mantel’s huge novel about the Revolution – almost the same length as Citizens – covers much the same territory and shares Schama’s method of concentrating on individuals’
I think it was the concentrating on individuals that made them both so interesting.
On the other hand, these students are at least engaging in civics, even if badly.
Doesn’t this kind of thing go on all the time? Maybe going through a phase of being intolerant and arrogant is some kind of genetic tie-in to intelligence. I mean (don’t laugh), maybe the same genes that give these kids intelligence and curiosity also give them a belief that they are totally right. I remember obnoxious students at Berkeley in the 60s, and I also remember being a little obnoxious myself. I must have seemed comical to my kind parents, although I only nibbled at the edges of the whole youth movement of that time.
Except the average Fox news viewer is also arrogant, intolerant and *never wrong*.
Arrogance actually works against intelligence, because your ability to reason is clouded by your emotions. Paging Spock!
This woman that I once knew on the IRC said that she always knew who was intelligent because people with a superior intellect were naturally 1) arrogant 2) vain, because hey, only superior people act in such a way, right? Ergo, a giant ego is proof of a towering intellect.
sub
sub
It’s been said many times before, but censorship has an insidious effect. Not only does it suppress people’s right to present their views or research, but also everyone else’s right to hear what they have to say.
Why do these offended students get to dictate what everyone else is allowed to hear? Aren’t they adult enough to decide for themselves whether it’s of any merit?
Coel wrote:
“Why do these offended students get to dictate what everyone else is allowed to hear?”
It doesn’t sound like these students do get to dictate what everyone else is allowed to hear, since apparently the university has done nothing about it. It sounds more like the students are exercising their free speech rights by stating their opinions in a letter to a student newspaper, just as everyone here is doing by criticizing those opinions. Until the university puts policies into action that comply with the student demands, it sounds very much like a public debate.
Yes, they’re exercising their free speech, and I’m exercising mine to say that I think they’re mistaken. But don’t forget that some universities have put “hate speech” policies into action!
The gay rights movement has made amazing strides in the last few decades. It truely is incredible how far homophobia has been driven out of mainstream society. Even in areas like professional sports and rap music homophobia had almost entirely been driven underground. I never thought i’d live to see openly homosexual people feel comfortable in small town Mississippi, or in black urban areas like South Central LA. Anyone who has lived in these areas in the last decade will have been absolutely amazed by the changes.
But as usual, the left won’t accept that it’s won. Instead of celebrating, they are more angry and fervent than ever, intent on hunting down and publicly shaming the last remaining stragglers who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings. Although I agree with the left on pretty much every issue, there is something dark and manic at the heart of the left. Power simply drives leftists mad, every time, like clockwork.
“You’re going mad with power!” “Of course I am! Have you ever tried going mad withOUT power? It’s a waste of time!”–The Simpsons Movie
:-). Hard to be powerful when you can’t see where you’re going…
“the left won’t accept that it’s won”
The battle is far from over.
What you express is “victory blindness” where you think that more has been achieved than really has been.
Do you realize that there are no widespread federal protections against discrimination against lgbts as there are for religion, race, and gender? And in 29 states there are no state wide protections. That means that in over half of the states gays can be denied housing and employment just for being gay. In some of the most anti-gay states they are even passing state laws that prohibit individual cities and towns from having non-discrimination laws.
Now a couple can get married one day and then fired the next for being gay.
And, around the country state legislatures have been busy trying to pass bills that allow businesses to refuse service to gays if they have religious objections to homosexuality.
Do you really think it’s ok to carve out exemptions from public accommodation laws in order to let racist or anti-semitic bakers and photographers refuse to serve interracial couples or Jewish ones? Or is it just gays who should be subjected to the humiliation of being turned away because of who they are?
Indeed, the battle is far from over.
However, the illiberal left seems content to pick on allies who fail to show the correct amount of ideological purity, instead of actually going after the bad guys who, in reality, don’t give a sh*t what the illiberal left thinks.
where is your evidence that on the issue of lgbt rigths the left doesn’t actually go after the anti-gay bad guys?
major and minor gay rights associations, as well as the splc, work tirelessly to combat the right-wing anti-gay propaganda and lobbying machine and the government officials who buy into it.
are you conflating the liberal confusion over islamophobia with their positions on lgbt rights?
I am talking about what I see on Twitter, and places like FTB, where the illiberal left puts most of their energy into being angry at their allies for failing the ideological purity test.
And yeah, personal experience. They seem to spend lots of time arguing on forums, attacking allies, vs actually engaging in real activism.
At once it is established that “some views” can be no-platformed and censored, it will hit the lesser privileged, the minority, and the weak ones. Social justice warriors, by wanting to exploit a momentary upper hand in one setting are not just smug and arrogant, they are dumb at the same time, while they play with fire.
Good point,and I am honestly puzzled why there haven’t been more claims of “triggering” and “feeling unsafe” from the conservative side. You’d think those of a culturally conservative bent would be moaning nonstop about how “triggering” it is to see two men holding hands, and how “unsafe” they feel when I see an atheist billboard. Not that it would make them any more sensible than the illiberal left, of course, but it might help put into focus what dangerous nonsense this all is.
Then again, we can probably count ourselves fortunate that the right hasn’t taken up these tactics (“War on Christmas” notwithstanding.
They don’t talk about being ‘triggered’ because they have their own vernacular.
They speak of the ‘gay mafia’ the ‘gaynazis’ the ‘feminazis’ and how all of the above are ‘spreading disease’ etc etc
That is exactly what has happen with the putting up of atheist billboards. They demand that they be removed and some of them certainly have been removed and refused to be allowed in certain areas.
I give them kudos for using the phrase, “morally fungible” because it’s suitably snooty.
In everything else they are wrong.
Below the beautiful Elburz Mountains is Teheran University with its elegant entrance of green gates. Through these the male students walk to lectures while to the side the female students enter through a smaller entrance to be checked for the invisibility of their skin, the absence of make-up and the cut of their scarf.
Perhaps the GQA of Stony Brook would like to initiate a similar scheme to check for misogyny and sexism. In order to make the entire campus a safe space.
And you can tell what a humourless bunch they are when they accuse a Christian of being Islamophobic. The totalitarian impulse is always blind to irony. x
“Do we really want to appoint anyone, or any group, to decide what issues have been “settled” and no longer deserve airing.”
Kinda made me think of the global warming/climate change warriors we keep hearing from with their “the science is settled – put the deniers in jail” in the teeth of new discoveries about global climate being made every week.
Except that the new discoveries seem to reinforce the notion that global climate change is occurring and that much if not most of it is man made.
Nice re-branding of the “consensus of climate scientists regarding climate change based on the best scientifically accumulated evidence” as “climate change warriors”. As since when have a consensus of climate scientists asked for the incarceration of climate change denialists?
chris moffatt wrote:
“Kinda made me think of the global warming/climate change warriors we keep hearing from with their “the science is settled – put the deniers in jail” ”
Really? People are calling for climate change deniers to be put in jail? I must have missed that. Oh, and the science is settled.
Yes there have been a number of high profile statements like that. Including by that great intellect Prince Chuck.
It’s far too complex an issue to be slammed shut with “settled”.
Well, Prince Charles is not a climate scientist so his opinion on the matter is rather irrelevant. However, the issue is “settled” as far as:
a. Average global temperatures are rising.
b. The fraction of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is rising (we just hit 400 parts/million.
c. Most of the known feedback effects are positive.
What is not settled are the consequences, which are still a matter of legitimate dispute, although the preponderance of the expert opinion on the matter is that they ain’t good.
“As always, the issue comes down to this: who has the right to prevent others from speaking? Apart from government (or university) restrictions on speech that incites immediate physical attack or constitutes illegal harassment, there is no cogent answer to that question.”
I wonder if the GQA has any more legitimate reason to object to Frank Turek’s presence than they would Ken Ham’s presence. I assume that Ken Ham’s opinion about same sex marriage conforms to that of Frank Turek.
For some reason, the progressives have always dabbled in totalitarianism. The earliest example I can think is the French Revolution.
But American progressives had a soft spot for Lenin and Stalin. Chomsky defended Pol Pot. Current progressives defend Islam.
This makes it difficult for me to get worked up about the bible belt crowd. To me they play the same game on different teams.
I think totalitarianism is natural human trait, common to both conservatives and progressives. Just how many of us really enjoy dealing with people who have a “wrong” opinion? (Case in point: don’t many commenters here wish SJW’s would just shut up about “triggers” and “safe spaces” and let people discuss unpopular ideas?)
So when we actually have the power to shut the “wrong” people up, there is an obvious temptation to do just that.
Shermer-Turkey debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBrs-kAZluw
Around an hour and 34 minutes for into the debate Turek brought up gay marriage.
I meant ‘around an hour and 34 minutes into..’ lol… i’m not sure how ‘for’ got in there… I loved how Shermer handled Turek’s bogus arguments about gay marriage. The way he scolded Turek and the audience members who cheered Turek on should’ve pleased the students that wrote that silly editorial. I think it is great when people like Turek make hilariously poor arguments against gay marriage. I think it is even better when someone like Michael Shermer is there to expose who ridiculous christian arguments against gay marriage are.
“In other words, giving such an opinion shouldn’t be allowed on campus.”
I will never understand these people. Censorship of opinions you oppose only works while you have any sort of power. The moment those who feel being pro-gay is a censor-able offence get into power, it is that crowd who will suffer the wrath of censorship.
This is why “morally problematic” has a limited utility – it works within an isolated group closed off to contrary opinions, but it’s utterly useless where there’s diverging views and a range of beliefs about what is right and wrong. It’s even worse than useless but downright counterproductive when one simply wants their morality to be the standard without explaining just why other people ought to adopt that standard. But to explain it requires there to be an open exchange, and that in itself is “morally problematic”.
“harmful [ideas], injurious ideas, potentially harmful [ideas]”
F*** me, but their language makes me crazy! Oops, can I say crazy? is that OK?
Also, I’m willing to bet that although I disagree with Frank Turek on many topics, that he’s neither a misogynist, a homophobe, nor any of the other usual “*ists” listed by these eternally offended illiberals.
I don ‘t know if
Turek is a homophobe or a misogynist but he is certainly is a typical theocrat. Here’s a review of one of his tomes by J. T. Eberhard which pretty well takes down many of his claims. Turek once agreed to a debate with Eberhard and later chickened out with a lame excuse. Apparently, he feared that his Gish Gallop wouldn’t be sufficient.
It should also be pointed out that Turek has been fired by Cisco Systems and Bank of America, allegedly for his beliefs. I suspect that his beliefs were only a small part of the reasons for his dismissal; in particular, it is likely that he was creating a hostile work environment.
http://goo.gl/hWHJQl
http://goo.gl/lngNWY
It’s always hard (for me) to add anything to these posts because Jerry nails everything so well. I just sit back and think “yup.”
But some thoughts arise from the info in today’s post…
As for the “harm” such a debate purportedly foists on the GQA, I wish they would spell out exactly what that “harm” is. It’s bizarre because in their very letter is based on the premise that arguing the case against Turek is trivially easy, so why cower in fear from a view when you can show up and blow it out of the water in front of everyone?
I’ve watched plenty of debates involving Christians who truly believe that I as an atheist would deserve ETERNAL TORMENT. Do I sit there and cower? No, I delight in watching their secular opponent point out why such a belief is absurd. Or if I’m engaging a Christian on this, I do it myself.
But it’s only due to free speech – which implicitly recognizes that the majority beliefs could be wrong! – that I can do this. If I’m transplanted to a Theocracy, like Pakistan, I lose this right. Their position is, just like the GQA “Look, this question has been settled, it’s obvious to all our religion is true, so we shouldn’t and do not allow an opposing opinion to be aired.”
Because, of course, the majority is always right.
That the GQA acknowledges the debate has taken place in other public forums, and essentially saying “But not here, on OUR watch it won’t.”
It’s amazing to see how short the memory is of the GQA: it wasn’t long ago that homosexuality, not to mention gay marriage, was seen by the majority as clearly ‘wrong.’
It was only TO THE EXTENT that dissenting opinions have been allowed publicly that
homosexuality/LGBT have made the gains against previous opinion that they have.
If we were to set the limits of free speech based on what the majority felt were settled or self-evident truths, not only would the LGBT community not have been able to make it’s case, little social progress could have taken place.
The free speech censors are like people clinging to the trunk of the tree, sawing off the branch full of people espousing minority views arguing to be heard. What’s perverse is watching a group that has just managed to make it off the branch on to the safety of the trunk, pick up the saw and take over the sawing! “Best we don’t have to listen to these dissenters!”
I suspect that if you chatted with any of the students from the GQA you’d find they’re not as traumatized as they seem. To me this whole protest is about the exercise of power. A small group of otherwise unremarkable students wants to see if they can bend the university ( and the larger culture to an extent) to their will. They’re offended, now do as they say…even if that includes undermining core Western values.
No. Acts are harmful, ideas are not. The idea that some ideas are moral is a particularly invidious claim, which takes us right back to a priesthood which will regulate not just our speech, but our sins.
An interesting debate over the question whether “Liberals Are Stifling Intellectual Diversity On Campus”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlF2gstvLAY
“In the intellectual world, toleration is the disposition to fight opinion only with opinion; in other words, to protect freedom of speech, and to confront divergence of opinion with open critical reflection rather than suppression or force. Toleration therefore gives us only the dictum attributed to Voltaire, that I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
(Blackburn, Simon. Truth: A Guide. London: Penguin, 2005. p. xviii)
I listened to that debate live, and it was a pretty good one IMO.
I think the side proposing stifling “won”.
“truth that it should be self-evident”
The problem with the “self-evident truth” is that it so often is neither self-evident or true. And who decides which truths SHOULD be self-evident, even if they aren’t. It’s very sad that supposedly educated people should be so foolish.
I’m so pleased that Shermer and Turek joined forces to shoot down those idiots in the GQA. Credit to both of them.
Any homophobe must be rubbing their hands with glee at these clueless queers and their strenuous efforts to score an own goal.
(I thought ‘queer’ used to be a term of abuse, but apparently not. How times have changed.)
Oh, umm, I suppose I should hasten to clarify ‘clueless’ refers only to the GQA’s letter writers and not to, umm, ‘queers’ in general. It’s fatally easy to be ambiguous on the Internet.
It used to be. But the gay community took it instead as a badge of honor. So it’s ironic that GQA can tolerate a homophobic insult in the name of their organization, but a discussion of gay marriage can’t be tolerated.
A bit like ‘black is beautiful’ I guess (though that seems to have lost out to ‘persons of color’).
Yes, one might pause to wonder how it would feel to the GQA if the shoe were on the other foot. If this were 1965 instead of 2015 and the people claiming they were hurt and offended were the Xians and they were saying that it was “self-evident” that gay marriage was wrong — as most people in the US believed until fairly recently?
Should the gay folk of 1965 have shut up to not offend the Xians?
Just because you have the upper hand doesn’t make you wise enough to be a totalitarian.
Very good point. I lived through that time when in 1963 I lived in an apartment building where there were seven gay men couples. I knew nothing about homosexuals but I was strongly opposed to Jim Crow. I was raised in Iowa , but moved to Missouri while in high school. In discussions with these men over a seven month period it seemed to me that they were gay because they did not”choose” to but because their feelings and attractions forced them to confront it and live with it. My co-workers and other thought I was crazy. Then in 1979 the American Psychological Association and the American Psyciatric Association(I think this was their names) came out and declared that the majority of their respective members of these professional groups believed the evidence was that gays behavior was natural and not a choice. Then latter the tv shows with gays. I was in a demonstration in the 1990’s where the gays had paper sack over their faces trying to win a city resolution to where they could not be fired from their jobs or evicted from apartments. They could not afford to be recognized on television. I wore my union jacket(UAW)and got strongly criticized at work by some. They assumed I must be gay. No Solidarity Forever as our song says! Unbelieveable the gains that have been made by 2015 and I played my part.
I would love to see a secular student club hold an “insult an atheist” event.
Start with 4 or 5 big boards labeled with things like
“I disagree with atheists about…”
“Atheists are annoying when …”
“Atheists are okay because …”
“Freedom of speech is freedom to offend. Discuss…”
Sell index cards for 50 cents each and give the proceeds to a neutral charity.
“You can only tolerate ideas you disagree with”
Bingo:
Now look, I’m supportive of SSM but this is just ridiculous: 40% of the population is currently opposed to it. Closer to 80-90% of the population was opposed to it a mere decade or two ago. I hope that in a few more years the immorality of anti-gay bigotry will be as self-evident as the immorality of slavery is now, but here in the real world, it is obviously not self-evidently far from the truth.
Moreover, this sentiment utterly fails in the “college is preparation for the real world” department. You’re going to have to deal with people who oppose SSM when you venture out into the real world. If you can’t handle listening to them in a polite, academic debate, how the heck are you going to deal with neighbors, co-workers, cousins and in-laws?
For me the most disturbing part of the letter is the phrase “ideas deemed potentially harmful”. I winced. But I guess students are often misguidedly idealistic and have a lot of time on their hands. Not that they should be allowed to get away with this sort of nonsense, of course.
I would like to respectfully suggest that Philip Roth’s ‘Sabath’s Theatre’ be made mandatory reading for all these students.
Does it come with a trigger warning?
Wayyy back in the previous century, Nat Hentoff published a book entitled
“Free Speech for Me but not for Thee: How the Left and Right try to censor each other”
Still relevant, and not much has changed.
This is one of the reasons I don’t agree with the concept of ‘hate speech’ or ‘hate crime’ as a legal entity. It simply creates a motivation for people to label anything they don’t like as ‘hate speech’.
One point that doesn’t seem to come up enough though: Whenever I read one of these all-too-common stories about censorship in academia, it’s almost always STUDENTS involved. Well jeez, who gives a fuck what students think? Yes it’s shocking that they’re this stupid, and one can certainly question what the fuck they’re being taught on these campuses, but still…it’s not the faculty expressing this antipathy to free speech — it’s just students. Hopefully a few years in the real world will level them out a bit.
I’d like to point out an incorrectly worded sentence in the post. In the last paragraph, we read:
“I believe that a society that doesn’t give those civil rights to gays is a society that is substantially worse than one that [doesn’t], but others disagree.”
The last “doesn’t” should actually be “does”.
In case anyone missed it
Great article. I completely agree. Thank you!
What happens if some students say: “We are offended and triggered by the word ‘trigger’ we cause we are afraid of guns and/or are opposed to guns”?
Or what if they just say: “We are triggered by the very concept of a trigger warning because we are physically nauseated by the belief-system on which the concept relies”?
It’s been done – from the Geek Feminism Wiki that someone linked to in this thread –
“Some have suggested shifting to “activation warning”, or “stress warning.” The purpose would be to make the warning more inclusive of a larger range of responses and also to avoid a metaphor that can be a reminder of guns.”