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

[riffraff]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Probably, but this idea of linking being a victim to people wanting diversity recognized is a pretty crappy thing happening right now. There's just no real link between the two and to me it really diminishes some people in an unfortunate way. Thats how i see it anyway.  

I just don’t see it as that consistent.  People want diversity?  Or there own special place?.....most times it’s blurred. And this contributes to what sounds like non stop white noise whining.

[Rob_Zepp]

12 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Nah, I wasn’t trying to make a crack at your intelligence at all (plus your scholastic accolades are on your Wikipedia page); I just know that for someone who played hockey at your level, conventional school ended early so I was curious if you’d attended classes day to day in a post secondary environment.

 

The reason I asked is because I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you’re not just trying to stir the pot with the most recent article that you posted, and subscribe to some of what is being claimed there. That’s why I’m curious about your post secondary experience because mine was relatively recent and quite the contrast to what you fear is happening in universities.

I have not seen that sort of thing in the STEM areas but it was rife in the social sciences.....and what I see is less a "fear" as I am disappointed with the rhetoric that you are free to speak/think as long as it is in a certain way.    This article (from Foundation for Economic Education....very interesting group that is a tad left at times but I like several of their recurring authors) below caught my eye a month or so ago...I would have zero tolerance for what this guy said to the author BUT I don't agree he should be banned from saying it.....there was another of Laurentian in Canada where they proposed "better speech" that limits "free speech" to stop if even a single person is offended....seems lunacy that someone thinks there is something "better" than free speech.    EVERYTHING will offend someone.

 

Your free speech is more important than my feelings....

 

Your Free Speech Is More Important Than My Feelings

Whether I like it or not.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

 

Tricia Beck-Peter

The first time I felt threatened by someone else’s free speech, I was a freshman in college. My college was plagued by a young man who would stand outside the library and use the word of God to belittle and harass students, especially young women.

Once every few months, this man would show up to call us adulterers, witches, sluts, and sinners while professing to represent a religious viewpoint that enriched the lives of many of my classmates.

When he turned to me I was wearing a skirt, a turtleneck shirt, and leggings that covered any exposed skin of my legs. He decided that even this relatively chaste outfit was reason enough to condemn me. Emotion welled up within me- fear, yes, but mostly a desire to fight this terrible man. I could see that my classmates, especially my gay and lesbian classmates, felt unsafe around him.I believed in free speech in theory, but not for this guy.

We wanted him off our campus, and so we protested. Theology students grabbed their Bibles and yelled counterpoints to his scripture. LGBT couples openly displayed their affections as a way to fight hate with love. And me? I checked out the first Harry Potter book and read the first chapter aloud to the crowd loud enough to drown him out. I lost my voice for a week.

An hour into the counter protest, the police were called. We begged them to remove the man from the premises. They looked apologetic but informed us that the sidewalk we were standing on was public property even though it ran through the campus. Therefore, this man was protected by free speech laws.

 

This Was "Hate Speech"

 

I believed in free speech in theory, but not for this guy. This guy was attacking students verbally on a place where they deserved to feel safe. His words made us feel angry, hurt, less than human. His words were damaging. How could they be protected?

For years, I campaigned for the college to privatize that sidewalk to protect our students from this monster. While I was campaigning, I spoke to a fellow economics student. He begged me to reverse my position.

Abolitionists, suffragettes, civil rights activists, they all needed free speech.

• I had no intention of giving this up. Time and time again, my friends and I had been called every nasty name in the book for the crime of being women in shorts in the Florida heat. I had no intention of backing down, until this student made a point that stuck with me.

What if one day, we needed to protest the administration?

My administration was fairly competent, but they had botched an on-campus sexual assault case the year before. What if they did it again? What if we lost the one place on campus where our free speech was more important than their feelings?

The Student Government charter was written in such a way as to give no power to the students to challenge the administration. There was no formal process by which we could change the institution from within. Without that sidewalk, we would be powerless if the tables should turn.

Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

The point of free speech is to rebel when those with more power are wrong. Abolitionists needed free speech. Suffragettes needed free speech. Civil rights activists needed free speech. While today we applaud all of those movements, in their day they were considered radical loonies that should be silenced. Sometimes the right thing is unpopular and the right people have less power. Sometimes, the good guys are the minority.

One day, you may need that same right to do good in this world.

• That hate preacher was wrong to attack the character of strangers. I do not believe the tide will ever turn so thoroughly for me as to see him as anything more than mean-spirited and cruel. But the same laws that protected Martin Luther King protect him. The First Amendment will be rendered impotent when we pick and choose who it protects. As much as I despise that man, his free speech is more important than my feelings.

Your free speech is more important than my feelings. Your right to say whatever you want is more important than my right to feel safe. Your right to be awful is more important than my right to feel accepted. Your right to condemn my choices is as sacred as my right to make those choices.

It is not fun to prioritize the rights of strangers, whose words upset us over our comfort. It is, however, necessary. One day, you may need that same right to do good in this world. Therefore, we cannot suppress the right of others to challenge our beliefs. We can only work to advocate for ideas that are better than those that advocate for hate and destruction because, in the long run, good ideas win.

[JM_]

37 minutes ago, riffraff said:

I just don’t see it as that consistent.  People want diversity?  Or there own special place?.....most times it’s blurred. And this contributes to what sounds like non stop white noise whining.

usually the comments that I see about people wanting a special place is when someone from the right is complaining about someone from the left  

 

thats why I think the Charter is such a great document, there's no special place or rights, it applies to all of us.  

 

[riffraff]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

usually the comments that I see about people wanting a special place is when someone from the right is complaining about someone from the left  

 

thats why I think the Charter is such a great document, there's no special place or rights, it applies to all of us.  

 

Round and round we go

[JM_]

30 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

there was another of Laurentian in Canada where they proposed "better speech" that limits "free speech" to stop if even a single person is offended....seems lunacy that someone thinks there is something "better" than free speech.    EVERYTHING will offend someone.

 

what issue do you have with this? nowhere does the university president say we must act if one single person is offended, not sure where you are getting this idea from. 

 

Universities exist to create, preserve, apply and pass on knowledge. We have a responsibility to ensure our students recognize the importance of free speech in the pursuit of knowledge. Speech is the path to learning what others think and believe, so that we can learn from each other.

 

Universities are also beacons of opportunity and serve as springboards for intellectual, social and economic mobility. Our institutions must respect the dignity of those who come to our campuses to study, research and teach. To do so, we strive to create campus environments that support human rights for everyone.

 

On our modern, globally-focused and diverse university campuses, there are times when students will undoubtedly encounter views they find challenging and possibly offensive. It is not the role of a university to shelter students from intellectual discomfort or to censor speech that falls within the limits of Canada’s laws on discrimination, harassment and hate speech. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent and be antithetical to the spirit of open inquiry.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-not-merely-free-speech-but-better-speech-needs-to-be-protected-on/

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

what issue do you have with this? nowhere does the university president say we must act if one single person is offended, not sure where you are getting this idea from. 

 

Universities exist to create, preserve, apply and pass on knowledge. We have a responsibility to ensure our students recognize the importance of free speech in the pursuit of knowledge. Speech is the path to learning what others think and believe, so that we can learn from each other.

 

Universities are also beacons of opportunity and serve as springboards for intellectual, social and economic mobility. Our institutions must respect the dignity of those who come to our campuses to study, research and teach. To do so, we strive to create campus environments that support human rights for everyone.

 

On our modern, globally-focused and diverse university campuses, there are times when students will undoubtedly encounter views they find challenging and possibly offensive. It is not the role of a university to shelter students from intellectual discomfort or to censor speech that falls within the limits of Canada’s laws on discrimination, harassment and hate speech. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent and be antithetical to the spirit of open inquiry.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-not-merely-free-speech-but-better-speech-needs-to-be-protected-on/

Watched the interview with a Laurentian Dean and she said "no person should feel offended"....and that alerted me to  Globe & Mail (Canadian Newspaper) where the President of that University came out with this:

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-not-merely-free-speech-but-better-speech-needs-to-be-protected-on/

 

I found the article a bit odd (and funny too) in that I wasn't aware that free speech needed to be improved and to have one group decide for all which parts of it could be curtailed to make "better speech".   

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Watched the interview with a Laurentian Dean and she said "no person should feel offended"....and that alerted me to  Globe & Mail (Canadian Newspaper) where the President of that University came out with this:

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-not-merely-free-speech-but-better-speech-needs-to-be-protected-on/

 

I found the article a bit odd (and funny too) in that I wasn't aware that free speech needed to be improved and to have one group decide for all which parts of it could be curtailed to make "better speech".   

you're misreading the article. She's actually talking about something you mention a lot, raising the bar on how we debate. She's not talking about limiting legal free speech at all. 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you're misreading the article. She's actually talking about something you mention a lot, raising the bar on how we debate. She's not talking about limiting legal free speech at all. 

I guess....well so did her Dean then.

 

I could not agree more that raising the bar is important BUT I don't agree that speech should be legislated to avoid offending someone.   EVERYONE will find something offensive someone else doesn't and I don't like the concept of a society where anyone has the power to decide what is offensive and what is not.   For the most part, those who practice things like hate speech or similar are quickly self-identified as wingnuts and will gain no traction for their perspective anyway so self-censor as no one can hear them after a short while.   

 

Read the "feelings" article and see where you sit on that spectrum.

 

Cheers.   

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I guess....well so did her Dean then.

 

I could not agree more that raising the bar is important BUT I don't agree that speech should be legislated to avoid offending someone.   EVERYONE will find something offensive someone else doesn't and I don't like the concept of a society where anyone has the power to decide what is offensive and what is not.   For the most part, those who practice things like hate speech or similar are quickly self-identified as wingnuts and will gain no traction for their perspective anyway so self-censor as no one can hear them after a short while.   

 

Read the "feelings" article and see where you sit on that spectrum.

 

Cheers.   

well, thats good because no one is trying to do that in Canada. 

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well, thats good because no one is trying to do that in Canada. 

 

 

That's good to hear.   Jordan Peterson disagrees with you.    I will just continue to watch.

[Master 112]

8 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

That's good to hear.   Jordan Peterson disagrees with you.    I will just continue to watch.

Jordan Peterson is a bigot and a charlatan.

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

That's good to hear.   Jordan Peterson disagrees with you.    I will just continue to watch.

I'm sure he does  

 

If you want to start a Jordan Peterson thread I'd be happy to debunk his shtick. 

[Rob_Zepp]

15 minutes ago, 112 said:

Jordan Peterson is a bigot and a charlatan.

Uh, ok.   I am not aligned with 100% of his stuff for sure but his points about personal accountability are bang on in my mind.    Guess we see that part of him differently and/or feel different about personal accountability.   

[Rob_Zepp]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm sure he does  

 

If you want to start a Jordan Peterson thread I'd be happy to debunk his shtick. 

Nah, not going to start a thread as I am not a "fan" per se and will have to endless defend his stuff I don't align with (seems that is a CDC trait).   However, I do (per above) align myself when he talks about personal accountability.   He should also send that young woman student TA at Laurentian residuals as that situation made his name explode and I am sure is making him a lot of money.

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Nah, not going to start a thread as I am not a "fan" per se and will have to endless defend his stuff I don't align with (seems that is a CDC trait).   However, I do (per above) align myself when he talks about personal accountability.   He should also send that young woman student TA at Laurentian residuals as that situation made his name explode and I am sure is making him a lot of money.

sure, the general concept of personal responsibility is a good one, if people are getting a better sense of how to do that for themselves from his stuff thats good. Its when people start to use it as a club for someone else to act is where it goes off the rails, but thats the same thing with the far left stuff people are concerned about. 

 

 

btw - i'm only interested in debating the ideas not going after you personally 

[taxi]

20 hours ago, Ilunga said:

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.

But we're literally at the point, where people are being silenced because other people feel offended or disagree with their politics. For example, you might have strong disagreements with Ben Shapiro has to say (I certainly do). That doesn't mean you have the right to force him to hire security just so he can speak. His views are conservative, but not hate speech.

[Rob_Zepp]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

sure, the general concept of personal responsibility is a good one, if people are getting a better sense of how to do that for themselves from his stuff thats good. Its when people start to use it as a club for someone else to act is where it goes off the rails, but thats the same thing with the far left stuff people are concerned about. 

 

 

btw - i'm only interesting in debating the ideas not going after you personally 

Jimmy, to the btw I fully understand that.   You continually seem one of the most enjoyable person to have an adult conversation on this board with - we don't always agree but I respect the h*ll out of you and your opinion.   You don't resort to childish rhetoric and such and on the hockey topics you show knowledge and seem to genuinely appreciate insights that perhaps someone with a playing background can bring that is a bit different.

 

Anyway, cheers and trust me you are a good person to share opinions with.   I also think your bravery in discussing your daughter's issues was commendable and I can see that she has a much better potential outcome given that you are her Dad.

[Rob_Zepp]

4 minutes ago, taxi said:

But we're literally at the point, where people are being silenced because other people feel offended or disagree with their politics. For example, you might have strong disagreements with Ben Shapiro has to say (I certainly do). That doesn't mean you have the right to force him to hire security just so he can speak. His views are conservative, but not hate speech.

BINGO!!!!  ^^^^^^^^^^

[taxi]

20 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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? 

Public funding is relevant. If you want to set up a private university that only allows certain views, you can do that. Publicly funded institutions are for the public as a whole, and a university that is publicly funded needs to cater to the diversity of political views and beliefs within its student body. 

 

Hate speech in Canada is not legal. I have yet to see some kind of white nationalism that doesn't involve hate speech. This is exactly my point. It's up to the legal system to decide what's  legal speech. It is not up to individuals to censor the speech of others. 

[JM_]

36 minutes ago, taxi said:

Public funding is relevant. If you want to set up a private university that only allows certain views, you can do that. Publicly funded institutions are for the public as a whole, and a university that is publicly funded needs to cater to the diversity of political views and beliefs within its student body. 

 

Hate speech in Canada is not legal. I have yet to see some kind of white nationalism that doesn't involve hate speech. This is exactly my point. It's up to the legal system to decide what's  legal speech. It is not up to individuals to censor the speech of others. 

thats an interesting point, but when it comes to your charter rights it doesn't matter who funds it - look at the TWU case this year, even though thats a private law school they had to uphold the charter when it came to their policies. 

 

I guess I'm digging us into semantics on this one - the law is based on what we all want as a society so things that were OK to say 50 or even 20 years ago don't fly today for most people. Is that censorship, if we mostly agree it isn't?