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

31–40 of 194 posts

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

#31

Post by ghaff »

tokai wrote: post #21

Is this really needed? I'm not trying to be obstinate. But in the north european country where I reside, while we have hate speech laws etc., my speech is protected by the law - both from the state and my employer (a university). This commitment seems very bombastic for what feels like a work environment policy to me. Am I misunderstanding something cultural here? EDIT: thx for the comments, it makes it more sense to…

In the US, your speech is largely protected by law from the state. But while there's a strong tradition of free speech in a university environment--arguably eroded in recent years, hence this letter--that is certainly not the case in most companies, especially if it's public speech.

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

#32

Post by shadowgovt »

tokai wrote: post #21

Is this really needed? I'm not trying to be obstinate. But in the north european country where I reside, while we have hate speech laws etc., my speech is protected by the law - both from the state and my employer (a university). This commitment seems very bombastic for what feels like a work environment policy to me. Am I misunderstanding something cultural here? EDIT: thx for the comments, it makes it more sense to…

There's some concern in some circles in the United States that universities have gotten into the habit of stifling speech on controversial topics.

The reality is a bit more complicated, but MIT is choosing to go out of its way to confirm that such stifling is not part of its principles.

The proof will be in the pudding... At the end of the day, a declaration of this sort only has value in so much as it shapes what the school practically chooses to do when one group on campus hosts a speaker and another group sets up a picket line to shut them down.

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

#33

Post by colpabar »

tokai wrote: post #21

Is this really needed? I'm not trying to be obstinate. But in the north european country where I reside, while we have hate speech laws etc., my speech is protected by the law - both from the state and my employer (a university). This commitment seems very bombastic for what feels like a work environment policy to me. Am I misunderstanding something cultural here? EDIT: thx for the comments, it makes it more sense to…

> my speech is protected by the law - both from the state and my employer (a university).

Can you elaborate what it means that your speech is protected by your employer? Because that seems like something that doesn't happen here in the US - you can lose work over disagreeing with political ideologies, especially at universities.

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

#34

Post by rory »

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…

Those all sound like pretty reasonable caveats that clearly don't, in their spirit, stifle discussion. Could they be twisted by someone who doesn't actually believe in the spirit of this declaration? Sure, but it's not like the declaration itself is a legal document, so it doesn't make sense to overly lawyer the precise language.

The "violates the law" thing is a different story, but the South African law you linked to has no parallel in the United States, so I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt until such law exists.

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

#35

Post by rsfern »

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...

DEI - the post is talking about the diversity, equity, and inclusion statement. Most departments (including at MIT) seem to be asking for one along with research and teaching statements these days, it’s not just the UC system.

Calling it a “litmus test” seems like a biased take though.

Here’s some context from UT on that search Connie’ committees are looking for https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/drafting-diversity-equity...

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

#36

Post by shadowgovt »

verisimi wrote: post #19

Quoted post unavailable.

Such invitations are often extended by organizations in the university, not the university itself. Those organizations can definitely be politically far afield from the university median.

The test of a declaration like this will be how the school responds when another organization on campus reacts to such an invitation by protesting it.

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

#37

Post by zozbot234 »

oefrha wrote: post #23
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...

Damn, this is actually a lot worse than it sounds. Rather than requiring an arguably hollow oath like the infamous UC loyalty oath from the 50s, they actually grade each applicant against “DEI” rubrics and eliminate applicants based on that. You don’t get a job without demonstrating tangible contributions to DEI in the past (no, treating everyone equally doesn’t count) and plans to promote it in the future. According…

> they actually grade each applicant against “DEI” rubrics and eliminate applicants based on that

Doesn't this explicitly incent applicants to lie by misrepresenting their views and past "contributions to DEI" as more pro-DEI than they actually are? I'm not sure how this requirement is compatible with rather basic norms of academic ethics.

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

#39

Post by fallingknife »

raxxorrax wrote: post #27
zo1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think it is mostly a reasonable constraint. But I think it needs to be said that it is prudent to err on the side of freedom. Not prosecution of twitter comments and youtube videos. Everyone that was part of that should be deeply ashamed. In my (backward) country a disturbance of the public order is illegal. Some old vices are hard to get rid off.

Mostly. But "otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute" could be construed to be anything.

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

#40

Post by ModernMech »

oefrha wrote: post #23
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...

Damn, this is actually a lot worse than it sounds. Rather than requiring an arguably hollow oath like the infamous UC loyalty oath from the 50s, they actually grade each applicant against “DEI” rubrics and eliminate applicants based on that. You don’t get a job without demonstrating tangible contributions to DEI in the past (no, treating everyone equally doesn’t count) and plans to promote it in the future. According…

Why is this a bad thing? Part of a faculty’s job is to do community service and to manage a diverse classroom. Faculty who have a good handle on the issues that arise through teaching such a diverse classroom are better equipped to handle the job. It’s no different than judging them based on the their research or teaching experience, which are also part of the job. If an applicant doesn’t understand the salient DEI issues, they are literally unqualified.
Post reply on HN