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

121–130 of 194 posts

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

#121

Post by MatteoFrigo »

fallingknife wrote: post #54
roenxi wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point there has to be trust in people to be reasonable in their interpretation. If that trust isn't possible, the only available strategy is to try and purge the entire administrative apparatus and replace it rather than attempting to play word games. Word games are there to be lost. This statement is pretty clear that the intent is to allow speech that some people find offensive.

Problem is that there can be no trust since this statement is coming from a group that disinvited a lecturer on climate science because he opposed DEI initiatives https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/06/mit-controver... . Actions speak louder than words. Purging and rebuilding the entire administrative apparatus of the US university system is actually a great idea, and for more reasons than just freedom of exp…

With all due respect, I think you are misreading the situation. Some people at MIT disinvited Prof. Abbot. The authors of the article are those who opposed this action and are trying to establish rules to prevent the situation from happening again.

You are free to trust whomever you want, of course. FWIW, I am on your side, I know some of the people who signed the doc, and I don't see anything nefarious going on.

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

#122

Post by dogleash »

pessimizer wrote: post #84
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…

Labor rights are a patchwork. If you believe in them you should probably engage with strange bedfellows to accomplish the most feasible. Then, maybe when you get to the harder issues you might have shown more people why expanding labor rights is an attractive political goal.

Right now you're just coming across as someone who's going to be miffed to find out what's in California Labor Code § 1101.

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

#123

Post by oversocialized »

This is the same institution that railroaded Aaron Swartz and accepted donations from Jeffrey Epstein on behalf of Bill Gates (pedophile arrested at Gates' house). Anyone looking to these self serving institutes for morality or upholding the Constitution is in for a rude awakening.

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

#124

Post by snicker7 »

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.

By "very small minority", do you mean "one of the two only viable political parties in the United States"?

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

#125

Post by modo_mario »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #64
fallingknife wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that there can be no trust since this statement is coming from a group that disinvited a lecturer on climate science because he opposed DEI initiatives https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/10/06/mit-controver... . Actions speak louder than words. Purging and rebuilding the entire administrative apparatus of the US university system is actually a great idea, and for more reasons than just freedom of exp…

I see here a climate scientist advocating for public education policy without seeming educated himself on the subject (advocating for trial runs of charter schools and voucher programs as if they haven’t already been tested and studies borne out). I don’t really see the canceling here, it sounds like his talk are moved from one audience to another audience still at MIT, his public advocacy in a field he doesn’t study…

>The sponsoring department chair at MIT “called to tell me that they would be cancelling the Carlson lecture this year in order to avoid controversy.”

I think this is what's being referred to. Surely he wasn't made to retract his statements or fired but it does seem weird. After all said statements have little to do with his lecture. Also whilst i also disagree with the bits you mentioned i don't think they're what started this controversy or made up most of his standpoint to begin with.

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

#126

Post by gpm »

andrew_ wrote: post #118
gpm wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The exact scenario was inspired by a "prank" the engineers pull off on new students at the university I went to every year (more along the lines of a spontaneous musical than a rock concert, but same effect). The broader point was that there's tons of "expression" that you need time/place/manner restrictions against for completely content legitimate, the exact example wasn't important.

It's not a straw man at all... a straw man argument is arguing against something that someone else didn't said, I'm directly arguing that the terms the person I responded to suggested aren't needed, are in fact needed. It is sort of an argumentum ad absurdum, but that's a valid form of argument, and the absurdness of the example isn't necessary so it's only sort of one.

If you want less absurd examples, they need to be able to regulate the expression of telling people answers during tests (time/place), the expression of making loud noises all night in dorm rooms (place/manner), the "expression" of plagarizing someone else's paper and calling it your own (directly incompatible with...), etc.

Edit: Found a video for y'all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lyHQLyZUuM

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

#127

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

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.)

Could be. I can attest that as of the late 1970s MIT and some of these professors did not care about free speech. My source on the state of the campus has since retired and is not looking back at all, but told me in the middle of the last decade the most rightward a student could be was libertarian, and I have to wonder if that's still allowed.

More likely these professors, having done their part to turn MIT into "an oasis of totalitarianism in a desert of freedom" are now worried the monster they helped create is going to cancel them. Which is how holiness spirals have worked throughout history.

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

#128

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

gpm wrote: post #126
andrew_ wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The exact scenario was inspired by a "prank" the engineers pull off on new students at the university I went to every year (more along the lines of a spontaneous musical than a rock concert, but same effect). The broader point was that there's tons of "expression" that you need time/place/manner restrictions against for completely content legitimate, the exact example wasn't important. It's not a straw man at all...…

MIT's equivalent was and may still be "freshman shower night," where students would be forcibly abducted from their dorm rooms and thrown into a running shower the night before the first mid-term exams were held for core math and physics courses.

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

#129

Post by BeetleB »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #68
funcDropShadow wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are supposed to be top researchers in their field. And I doubt you'll find a world-wide renowned scientist in biology who believes sex is merely a social construct. So these goals are at least partially incompatible. Universities should be about research, science, teaching and teaching students to educate themselves. Following the dogma of DEI is incompatible with teaching students to educate themselves.

I think you’ve misinterpreted the common meme. The common meme is that gender or race are social constructs. I haven’t heard the meme sex is a social construct.

Sex has multiple meanings, one of which is gender. I don't know if it's an American vs British English thing, but in many countries they use the word "sex" this way much more frequently than "gender".

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

#130

Post by somenameforme »

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.

Here is the 'Paradox of Tolerance':

>Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, 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 most unwise.

>But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

>We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

The one thing one may claim is that it is not immediately clear is what he means by intolerance or intolerant groups, yet he leaves little ambiguity in the second section above.

Post reply on HN