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

81–90 of 194 posts

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

#81

Post by mmastrac »

woolion wrote: post #30

We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. This statement is so weak that it is necessary to consider this climate to even understand how this can be published as a statement. After explicitly saying that illegal speech is not free speech, it lists 6 exceptions for things that are not free speech either, includin…

There's no magic bullet for free speech thanks to the Paradox of Tolerance. Allowing all speech, completely unrestricted, is a recipe for creating a completely unworkable environment.

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

#82

Post by Fricken »

rory wrote: post #34
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…

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…

They all sound to me like reasonable caveats except the last one; which is vague and subjective enough to cover just about anything they don't like.

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

#83

Post by MatteoFrigo »

ModernMech wrote: post #53
zozbot234 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The requirements are not limited to "understand[ing] the salient DEI issues" in an abstract, neutral sense; going by the scoring rubric, they're explicitly demanding a statement of ideological conformity-- as well as a personal commitment to an especially divisive, controversial, dubiously-effective approach to mitigating DEI challenges-- that goes further than what was previously "expected of all faculty". That's wh…

Again, that's not about belief, that's about the reality that the student body is diverse, the school wants the student body to be diverse, and the classroom itself will accordingly be diverse. What specifically about the rubric is the most troubling to you? By the way, as someone who hires faculty and reads many such statements (I have to ask, have you read any DEI statements? Do you have examples which you find esp…

Would you mind stating which institution you work for, so I can recommend that my kids avoid it like the plague?

I want teachers who can answer questions about Fourier transforms, not teachers who can "manage a diverse classroom". Really, "manage"?

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

#84

Post by pessimizer »

woolion wrote: post #30

We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. This statement is so weak that it is necessary to consider this climate to even understand how this can be published as a statement. After explicitly saying that illegal speech is not free speech, it lists 6 exceptions for things that are not free speech either, includin…

This is never not been a mainstream position. I can't easily get news from the Chinese government or Iranian patriots, but the Falun Gong have three OTA TV stations in Chicago. The same people complaining about the woke mob are also fired up about "critical race theory."

If you care about people being fired for being canceled, work for labor rights. If you support at-will employment but also worry about people being fired for being canceled, work to make racists, sexists, and homophobes a protected employment class. If you've successfully passed special rights for racists, sexists, and homophobes, specifically protecting their employment, but you're still upset because people can still call you shitty, protest you and drown out your voice in public, and not invite you to their parties - add racists, sexists and homophobes to hate crime legislation, and start rounding up the people who are oppressing you by speaking.

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

#85

Post by [deleted] »

mmastrac wrote: post #81
woolion wrote: post #30

We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. This statement is so weak that it is necessary to consider this climate to even understand how this can be published as a statement. After explicitly saying that illegal speech is not free speech, it lists 6 exceptions for things that are not free speech either, includin…

There's no magic bullet for free speech thanks to the Paradox of Tolerance. Allowing all speech, completely unrestricted, is a recipe for creating a completely unworkable environment.

[deleted]

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

#86

Post by champagnois »

thematrixturtle wrote: post #57
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?

Universities in California are going in precisely the other direction by mandating ideological purity tests aka "diversity statements" for staff. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/11/24/uc-davis-math-prof...

It is an ideology that is sustained through censorship, faith, loyalty tests, and suppression.

It is particularly amusing when it pretends to be a science and makes recommendations on how to manage your company, hiring, or engineering teams. Don't hire smart people or good engineers, they say.

Get any individual that appears to be a zealot of this religion publicly to meet privately, away from microphones, and they will typically acknowledge the absurdity of it all. People are often happy to brag, gloat, and acknowledge they are just gaming the system for maximum benefit. Their willingness to disclose this to you does require trust.

So, when does this end? How much damage will this do? Is this a strategy designed to divide the lower classes during a period of runaway neofuedalist inequality?

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

#87

Post by rendall »

tokai wrote: post #62
gadders wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have hate speech laws, then your speech is not protected.

Thats my point. Even with hate speech laws the protection is apparently still better than in the US.

> Thats my point. Even with hate speech laws the protection is apparently still better than in the US.

Free speech protection from government sanction is as strong as ever, but the culture of free speech is losing force in the US. Partisans seem unable to understand how it benefits them to allow speech that they find reprehensible. There have been many, many incidences of college administrators caving to complaints and sanctioning and threatening teachers and students over the past several years; not to mention de-platforming even of invited speakers.

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

#88

Post by teddyh »

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.)

> Sorry about the AMP link, I couldn't figure out how to get a normal link

I suggest the Redirect AMP to HTML browser extension:

https://www.daniel.priv.no/web-extensions/amp2html.html

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

#89

Post by oefrha »

ModernMech wrote: post #53
zozbot234 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The requirements are not limited to "understand[ing] the salient DEI issues" in an abstract, neutral sense; going by the scoring rubric, they're explicitly demanding a statement of ideological conformity-- as well as a personal commitment to an especially divisive, controversial, dubiously-effective approach to mitigating DEI challenges-- that goes further than what was previously "expected of all faculty". That's wh…

Again, that's not about belief, that's about the reality that the student body is diverse, the school wants the student body to be diverse, and the classroom itself will accordingly be diverse. What specifically about the rubric is the most troubling to you? By the way, as someone who hires faculty and reads many such statements (I have to ask, have you read any DEI statements? Do you have examples which you find esp…

As a non-white male person who successfully navigated highly diverse top U.S. institutions as an international student without all the DEI bullshit a while back, I’d rather work with faculty and staff who don’t cater to my ethnicity, gender or whatever irrelevant traits, thanks.

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

#90

Post by syshum »

ur-whale wrote: post #77
woolion wrote: post #30

We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. This statement is so weak that it is necessary to consider this climate to even understand how this can be published as a statement. After explicitly saying that illegal speech is not free speech, it lists 6 exceptions for things that are not free speech either, includin…

> We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. I disagree. There is a very vocal, very small minority that's ruining it for everyone else. Certainly not mainstream.

I have to ask, which side are you taking,

because I honestly do not know, and I dont think it is "small minority" on either side.

There are ALOT of people that oppose free speech as a concept, hiding behind statements like "hate speech is not free speech" or "words are violence"

So while think you are attempting to defend free speech, I can also see how your statement would be "free speech absolutist are ruining everything"

Post reply on HN