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

111–120 of 194 posts

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

#111

Post by account42 »

ghaff wrote: post #103
pessimizer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he was really guilty of was sharing his opinions on a dangerous subject when he really had nothing interesting or original to add. He might as well complain about the speed limit on a particular road being 65 instead of 75. We set standards and conventions to keep order. And while I completely approve of RMS, that argument works just as well for 10 year olds and has often been made. Listen to screaming Gajdusek…

A fair number of people also had significant issues with RMS behavior going back a long time. So when he indelicately stuck himself into the radioactive Epstein situation it was just the last straw for many.

Or to phrase it another way: Some people who wanted RMS gone for a long time abused the opportunity to rally the mob against him.

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

#112

Post by zozbot234 »

ModernMech wrote: post #75
zozbot234 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a discussion about how current efforts are dubiously effective would be a welcome and would help your application at my institution. A required statement as part of applying for any faculty position or promotion is simply not the appropriate place for such a discussion. You're expecting what amounts to a serious research effort in social science. This kind of intervention in effective leverage points of a complex s…

> not the appropriate place for such a discussion Why? We want to hire faculty who have experience managing a diverse classroom. We want a diverse classroom because our student body is diverse. Our student body is diverse because our applicants are diverse. Diversity is part of this whole thing, and experience as faculty teaching diverse classrooms tells us that it's not something that can be treated as an afterthoug…

> Even just discussing the problems is more than enough to get you past any cutoff or filter I've encountered.

Even assuming that this were true, the clear implication is merely that the scoring rubric for that part of the application is being disregarded, since it very explicitly says otherwise. The linked blog post series actually discusses the issue at length, so I'm not going to repeat what it says. Regardless, having scoring rubrics that explicitly demand ideological conformity to a specific point of view is still a recipe for significant problems in the future.

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

#113

Post by hgir8937q63hlay »

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…

> Edit: And I wonder if and when these will start to appear in PhD applications, as PhD students are employees in a sense and often need to teach, too.

I applied for CS PhDs last year and Stanford did indeed require a diversity statement.

I don't remember any of the other universities I applied to asking for this. MIT certainly did not.

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

#114

Post by account42 »

coffeeisyummy wrote: post #38
mrd3v0 wrote: post #8

Taking this with a grain of salt after what they have done to rms.

RMS brought it on himself. Although, yes, MIT turned a blind eye to his behavior until his comments about Epstein.

Here is the original hit piece leading to RMS' cancellation, which includes a full copy of the "offending" email: https://selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21...

The media then twisted that into "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'" [0], which is not something that RMS claimed in that email. To this day there has been no redactin, apology or anything else to atone for this deliberate character assasination - but sure, keep blaming the victim.

[0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scient...

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

#115

Post by rory »

Fricken wrote: post #82
rory wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hm yeah, that last catchall slipped by my read. Whatever that's meant to refer to, it should have been enumerated specifically. It sounds like a catchall added to appease the "moderate" supporters of freedom of expression.

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

#116

Post by gpm »

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…

Ask yourself "what part of this allows them to prevent rock concerts during exams in the exam halls", it's only the parts that you seem to wish they would remove. I think we can both agree, that MIT does need the power to prevent rock concerts during exams in the exam halls.

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

#117

Post by hnaccy »

ecshafer wrote: post #91
mmastrac wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the "Paradox of Tolerance" Popper argues that despite the apparent paradox, defending free speech and having a tolerant society is the only way to go. People use the paradox of tolerance argument often, but leave out the part where popper resolves the paradox.

Where does he resolve the paradox?

He says you should claim the right to suppress the intolerant and that preaching intolerance is outside the law.

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

#118

Post by andrew_ »

gpm wrote: post #116
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…

Ask yourself "what part of this allows them to prevent rock concerts during exams in the exam halls", it's only the parts that you seem to wish they would remove. I think we can both agree, that MIT does need the power to prevent rock concerts during exams in the exam halls.

Either there's some obscure news I'm not up to speed on, or this is one of the most bananas straw men I've run across.

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

#119

Post by AlanYx »

hnaccy wrote: post #117
ecshafer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the "Paradox of Tolerance" Popper argues that despite the apparent paradox, defending free speech and having a tolerant society is the only way to go. People use the paradox of tolerance argument often, but leave out the part where popper resolves the paradox.

Where does he resolve the paradox? He says you should claim the right to suppress the intolerant and that preaching intolerance is outside the law.

Popper essentially takes the same position as Thomas Jefferson. Popper says: "I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise." Emphasis on the unwise -- for some unknown reason, there's this idea floating around that Popper thought it was wise to suppress intolerant philosophies. That's Marcuse's position, not Popper's (and Marcuse also is candid that his own position may be incompatible with democracy).

What Popper does agree is that societies should retain the right to act if civil discourse fails, which is again basically Jefferson's position.

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

#120

Post by AlexandrB »

hw-guy wrote: post #71
verisimi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm old enough to remember when the "Free Speech Movement" came from the left, and conservatives were the censors.

Conservatives still are the censors[1] they've always been. They're just interested in censoring different things in different venues.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/26/tennessee-school-board-bans-...

Post reply on HN