Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

freespeech.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 194 posts

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#11

Post by zo1 »

cwillu wrote: post #2

I love the explicitness of “they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”

However, they negate it with this caveat:

> "The Institute may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute."

Which is vague enough that an enterprising and determined individual or group could use to stifle discussion about things like gender, race, etc (all the hot/touchy topics atm).

As an aside, the "violates the law", is a trojan horse that (I understand covers them legally) but also enables laws that violate free speech. Here is a list that speaks to just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#So...

They use the word "hate" speech, but it might be very far from what we'd see as hateful.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#12

Post by skrebbel »

sdoering wrote: post #6
onos wrote: post #3

Meanwhile, the University of California seems to have implemented a DEI litmus test on all applications for faculty positions and promotion. Does anyone know if this is actually true? Is this reasonable? https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/01/wokeademia.html?m...

Just as a side note. The link to this post was flagged after being submitted to HN yesterday within a very short time frame. You might want to consider your karma points and preemptively remove it and pay your dues to the community by apologizing for not adhering to group speak. I very much stand on the left side of the political spectrum, while the linked blogpost clearly comes from the liberal to right spectrum. Bu…

I think you're mistaking groupthink for people who are simply tired of seeing the same old culture war debate on HN repeated over and over again.

Plenty HN discussions about exactly this subject in the past have shown that:

1. Unlike some subjects, HN commenters have widely differing opinions here. The free speech hardliners and the anti disinformation/bigotry/*ism hardliners are both well represented, and many on both sides are capable of intelligent debate.

2. Nevertheless, the discussion never really gets anywhere. Nobody adds new information and nobody convinces anybody.

I might be projecting, but i can imagine that many people flagged it with a "here we go again" sigh and not with the "must suppress anti woke sentiments!!" thought you. I bet comparably inflammatory articles from the woke side of the debate are flagged equally much.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#14

Post by justinclift »

Invictus0 wrote: post #4

This is likely in response to the recent Dorian Abbot cancellation: https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/620352/ (Sorry about the AMP link, I couldn't figure out how to get a normal link.)

If you remove the "amp" fragments in that url (https://theatlantic.com/article/620352/), it seems to work and redirects to this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/why-latest...

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#16

Post by raxxorrax »

onos wrote: post #3

Meanwhile, the University of California seems to have implemented a DEI litmus test on all applications for faculty positions and promotion. Does anyone know if this is actually true? Is this reasonable? https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/01/wokeademia.html?m...

> Is this reasonable?

Absolutely not. This incentivises the worst characters and abuse of power. DIE is the most impotent advertising for social justice that I have ever seen. I support social justice in most cases, it a basic requirement for society and every society has some form of it implemented. But I also support humanism and enlightenment which DIE proponents very quickly leave behind.

DIE put me off of it pretty quickly. I believe California is selling entitlement instead of education here. And that entitlement firmly includes knowing better than anyone else and the justification is that they do it for the greater good. We had that countless times in human history and the result was always the same. If you want to see the result of underfunded education, it may very well be California. Maybe it should not be surprising to find it there since the contrast of wealth is pronounced.

It is hard not to become reactionary to DIE, they should just be ignored in the best case. It just behaves like religeous fundamentalism, they believe there are countless Nazis all around them and are themselves reactionaries.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#17

Post by afarrell »

zo1 wrote: post #11
cwillu wrote: post #2

I love the explicitness of “they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”

However, they negate it with this caveat: > "The Institute may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute." Which is vague enough that an enterprising and determined ind…

> an enterprising and determined individual or group could use to stifle discussion…

This is true.

Ultimately no manifesto or written commitment can constrain a people into freedom. The best we can do is strive to say what we intend, see reality clearly, change structures that stand in the way, and then trust ourselves to act with courage.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#18

Post by netcan »

evancoop wrote: post #7

Most responses to this will be positive, and they should be. Typically, the real evaluation is the market (will more students and professors be drawn to MIT?). However, there is already a tremendous demand for admission (from students) and competitive hiring processes (for professors). So...how many other comparable institutions will follow suit? Will universities in California adopt, oppose, or ignore?

>> Typically, the real evaluation is the market.

Typically in what sense? I don't think there's much history of success from consumer/student "action." Market discipline exists where and when it exists. It's not always, or even often, a major factor.

Re: Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression

#20

Post by syshum »

zo1 wrote: post #11
cwillu wrote: post #2

I love the explicitness of “they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”

However, they negate it with this caveat: > "The Institute may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute." Which is vague enough that an enterprising and determined ind…

"violates the law" in this context would naturally have to comply with 1st amendment US protections which would bar any "hate speech" laws like the ones you linked to since 1st amendment to the US Constitution prohibits hate speech laws of that type
Post reply on HN