Victim Mentality - Universities teaching to see bias here there is none

[JM_]

35 minutes ago, taxi said:

An unreasonable left doesn't theoretically have to lead to a reaction from the right, but in practice it does. The same is true of the opposite. Our current political system offers few options and is instead a bunch of radicals feeding off each other.

 

You're argument about a "code of conduct" and "freedom of speech" is exactly the problem. You're lumping in all left wing policy, both moderate and extreme, into one "code of conduct" and stating it's alright to do so, as the right is posing an imminent threat to basic human rights.....which is the exact same argument the Alt Right uses, but in reverse. 

 

No, the students do not have the right to silence opinions they disagree with. If it's hate speech, then the government and the laws should deal with it. The university should act to promote freedom of speech. It is absolutely not up to a university faculty or student body to decide what is and what is not hate speech. We have a set of laws and a judicial system that makes those distinctions. There is also a difference between protesting/offering opposing views and silencing.  

but what is an actual real example of "extreme" policy in Canada in particular? I'm not lumping in everything at all, I'm just pointing out that something like a policy on a code of conduct for not using profane language in classrooms may very well be constitutional. 

 

The students do have a right to show up and be loud or protest at an event if they want to, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. If you don't want that reaction as an alt-right speaker then hold a private function. You don't have the right to hold a public function in silence. 

 

I'd argue that it is up to the university student body to some degree. Community standards is valid concept, and if they don't want to see something at their university they have every right to vocalize what they want to see or not see. 

[Toews]

All these so called radical leftists in university but the polling booths during election time when I attended university were mostly desolate. So my question is where were all these radicals because in my 4 years attending university I cannot remember any protests nor anyone trying to push any agenda down anyone's throat. Politics was rarely ever on anyone's mind especially in my program where everyone had their nose pressed to the grindstone.

 

I sincerely hope some of the folks in this thread aren't depriving their children of a good education because of their paranoia of non-existent radicals. The most valuable education I got in university was how to think critically which helped shape my politics and view on life. It also helped push me further away from disingenuous right-wing rhetoric against women, minorities and the LGBTQ. 

 

Knowledge is power and that's what a good education provides you, it allows you to smell the BS and swerve away from it when you encounter it. 

[taxi]

29 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but what is an actual real example of "extreme" policy in Canada in particular? I'm not lumping in everything at all, I'm just pointing out that something like a policy on a code of conduct for not using profane language in classrooms may very well be constitutional. 

 

The students do have a right to show up and be loud or protest at an event if they want to, as long as they're not doing anything illegal. If you don't want that reaction as an alt-right speaker then hold a private function. You don't have the right to hold a public function in silence. 

 

I'd argue that it is up to the university student body to some degree. Community standards is valid concept, and if they don't want to see something at their university they have every right to vocalize what they want to see or not see. 

You shouldn't need to hire security to allow people to access a building. 

 

And yes, if someone has rented a private space, including a university auditorium, they do have the right to speak in silence. If someone is making noise within that private space, you can ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, they've now trespassed, which is against the law.

 

Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are basic human rights. The university belongs to the public taxpayers that fund them and students who support both the right and left wing. Declaring a university only y left wing and barring other speakers is the exact problem I'm talking about. 

[JM_]

12 minutes ago, taxi said:

You shouldn't need to hire security to allow people to access a building. 

 

And yes, if someone has rented a private space, including a university auditorium, they do have the right to speak in silence. If someone is making noise within that private space, you can ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, they've now trespassed, which is against the law.

 

Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are basic human rights. The university belongs to the public taxpayers that fund them and students who support both the right and left wing. Declaring a university only y left wing and barring other speakers is the exact problem I'm talking about. 

No one has declared that anywhere. 

 

You can bar speakers if they are or have promoted hate speech and think thats what their intention is. Free speech has the qualifier of "reasonable limits" and our society determines what reasonable is. Most people think things like white nationalist propaganda isn't something deserving of protection, thats an easy one. There have been other issues with speakers promoting what many women view as extremely sexist views too. It gets greyer from there but there's no absolutes when it comes to speech, it ultimately comes down to what our society thinks is acceptable. You don't have some kind of ultimate protection to say whatever you want wherever you want. 

 

 

[taxi]

9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No one has declared that anywhere. 

 

You can bar speakers if they are or have promoted hate speech and think thats what their intention is. Free speech has the qualifier of "reasonable limits" and our society determines what reasonable is. Most people think things like white nationalist propaganda isn't something deserving of protection, thats an easy one. There have been other issues with speakers promoting what many women view as extremely sexist views too. It gets greyer from there but there's no absolutes when it comes to speech, it ultimately comes down to what our society thinks is acceptable. You don't have some kind of ultimate protection to say whatever you want wherever you want. 

 

 

It's not up to individuals to decide what is and what is not acceptable speech. That's the job of law makers and judges. If people have not broken the law, they absolutely have the right to speak in private spaces they've rented, which includes a university auditorium. 

 

Your concept of "community standards" is most certainly an infringement on speech. University students are a diverse group of people with diverse views. It is 100% wrong to decide a political standard and forcefully apply that to all students. 

[JM_]

30 minutes ago, taxi said:

It's not up to individuals to decide what is and what is not acceptable speech. That's the job of law makers and judges. If people have not broken the law, they absolutely have the right to speak in private spaces they've rented, which includes a university auditorium. 

 

Your concept of "community standards" is most certainly an infringement on speech. University students are a diverse group of people with diverse views. It is 100% wrong to decide a political standard and forcefully apply that to all students. 

its not my concept, community standards is a concept used all the time in cases involving decency or speech. Its not unreasonable to extend that to a university community.

 

a "political standard"? you have to give me a for instance here. Is there a real incident or case that you can point to where a group was unreasonably kept from speaking at a university? I don't mean kids showing up and yelling, I mean officially by the university. 

[taxi]

17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its not my concept, community standards is a concept used all the time in cases involving decency or speech. Its not unreasonable to extend that to a university community.

 

a "political standard"? you have to give me a for instance here. Is there a real incident or case that you can point to where a group was unreasonably kept from speaking at a university? I don't mean kids showing up and yelling, I mean officially by the university. 

Except that universities don't have one community standard. In Canada, the public universities are publicly funded. A diverse group of students has a right to attend. Staff and other students should not dictate to them what they are and are not allowed to say and think.

[Heretic]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no its taken things completely off topic  there's just so much made up bs in this article I don't even know where to begin. None if it is based in reality. Its making the post-secondary world sound like a forced re-education camp. Its totally ridiculous. 

 

The funniest part is trying to boil down postmodernism to a single point of view and political philosophy, thats exactly what it isn't. I don't know where you get this stuff Rob but this one is hilarious. 

According to the web site, it was written by:

 

Philip Carl Salzman, Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at McGill University

 

I've been trying to find anything that discredit's the site - but haven't yet.

[Ilunga]

Just now, taxi said:

It's not up to individuals to decide what is and what is not acceptable speech. That's the job of law makers and judges. If people have not broken the law, they absolutely have the right to speak in private spaces they've rented, which includes a university auditorium. 

 

Your concept of "community standards" is most certainly an infringement on speech. University students are a diverse group of people with diverse views. It is 100% wrong to decide a political standard and forcefully apply that to all students. 

Society is made up of individuals, in our societies we get to choose/elect individuals who then supposedly enact our will. Individuals seem to have different ideas about what is acceptable to say and what is not. That is the dilemma we face. I believe that if it is the intent of the speaker to cause harm, hurt to others they must not be allowed to speak. How do we define harm ? To start with that is by inviting others to physically hurt others. I believe mental pain is worse. That seems to be the grounds for the contention and there seems to be no easy answers.

[JM_]

23 minutes ago, taxi said:

Except that universities don't have one community standard. In Canada, the public universities are publicly funded. A diverse group of students has a right to attend. Staff and other students should not dictate to them what they are and are not allowed to say and think.

what does public funding have to do with anything related to speech? thats irrelevant to the topic.

 

Of course our society has the right to dictate what appropriate standards are. What else would? Some things don't have a place in a reasonable society, I'll use white nationalism again as an example. How is that acceptable on a Canadian college campus? 

[riffraff]

49 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its not my concept, community standards is a concept used all the time in cases involving decency or speech. Its not unreasonable to extend that to a university community.

 

a "political standard"? you have to give me a for instance here. Is there a real incident or case that you can point to where a group was unreasonably kept from speaking at a university? I don't mean kids showing up and yelling, I mean officially by the university. 

How strong of a word is concept?

[JM_]

30 minutes ago, Heretic said:

According to the web site, it was written by:

 

Philip Carl Salzman, Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at McGill University

 

I've been trying to find anything that discredit's the site - but haven't yet.

checked out his web page... he's a pretty far right thinker, lots of fodder there for a couple of dozen CDC threads  

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, riffraff said:

How strong of a word is concept?

? not sure what you mean 

[riffraff]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its not my concept, community standards is a concept used all the time in cases involvin

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

? not sure what you mean 

g decency or speech. Its not unreasonable to extend that to a university community.

 

a "political standard"? you have to give me a for instance here. Is there a real incident or case that you can point to where a group was unreasonably kept from speaking at a university? I don't mean kids showing up and yelling, I mean officially by the university. 

I mean to me a concept is an idea not a law or even an entirely legitimate basis for one....or am I misreading something here.

[HerrDrFunk]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

checked out his web page... he's a pretty far right thinker, lots of fodder there for a couple of dozen CDC threads  

Absolute shocker coming from a guy who's claiming all universities are part of a communist conspiracy. I guess the image of communist icons at the top of his article should have been a tip off. 

[JM_]

Just now, riffraff said:

I mean to me a concept is an idea not a law or even an entirely legitimate basis for one....or am I misreading something here.

the idea of a community standards test is: "The courts must determine as best they can what the community would tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that may flow from such exposure." So for hate speech, things like neo-nazi's denying the holocaust have been determined to not meet community standards. 

[riffraff]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the idea of a community standards test is: "The courts must determine as best they can what the community would tolerate others being exposed to on the basis of the degree of harm that may flow from such exposure." So for hate speech, things like neo-nazi's denying the holocaust have been determined to not meet community standards. 

One would think that would be obvious but would it not vary from community to community potentially?  (Not referring to nazism)

[Toews]

1 hour ago, taxi said:

It's not up to individuals to decide what is and what is not acceptable speech. That's the job of law makers and judges. If people have not broken the law, they absolutely have the right to speak in private spaces they've rented, which includes a university auditorium. 

 

Your concept of "community standards" is most certainly an infringement on speech. University students are a diverse group of people with diverse views. It is 100% wrong to decide a political standard and forcefully apply that to all students. 

What would you do if a spokesperson for ISIS decided to give a speech at your campus? I abhor violence but I would not object if someone decided to kick his teeth in. 

 

Again it goes to what Jimmy is saying that there are reasonable limits to free speech. You aren't going to have access to a public forum to air your hateful rhetoric unchallenged. And that's what a university is, its a public institution and any speaker who has been invited to speak needs to respect that. If Richard Spencer decided to come to my neighbourhood and decided to give a speech in a public space then I and other like-minded individuals are within our rights to oppose him. You stating that this should not be permitted would be a violation of my free speech.

 

Richard Spencer can rent a private space and nobody would be able to oppose him but he will not be allowed a public space in my neighborhood. The same goes for my example of an ISIS spokesperson.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, riffraff said:

One would think that would be obvious but would it not vary from community to community potentially?  (Not referring to nazism)

sure, of course. Stuff changes all the time, thats what keeps things interesting 

 

In this thread what I'm saying is its not an unreasonable position that the university community has a say in its own standards of speech and conduct. It all depends on the intent of the people they are trying to keep from speaking and whether or not people are doing things legally. 

 

I'm still waiting for a specific example of a person or group that was unreasonably barred from speaking on campus, so far its been pretty theoretical. 

[riffraff]

2 minutes ago, Toews said:

What would you do if a spokesperson for ISIS decided to give a speech at your campus? I abhor violence but I would not object if someone decided to kick his teeth in. 

 

Again it goes to what Jimmy is saying that there are reasonable limits to free speech. You aren't going to have access to a public forum to air your hateful rhetoric unchallenged. And that's what a university is, its a public institution and any speaker who has been invited to speak needs to respect that. If Richard Spencer decided to come to my neighbourhood and decided to give a speech in a public space then I and other like-minded individuals are within our rights to oppose him. You stating that this should not be permitted would be a violation of my free speech.

 

Richard Spencer can rent a private space and nobody would be able to oppose him but he will not be allowed a public space in my neighborhood. The same goes for my example of an ISIS spokesperson.

I suppose the isis person has the right to free speech until it becomes a threat and the teeth kicker has the right to act but must assume the consequences - all of the above being under the law?