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

Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

president.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#11

Post by yanderekko »

roenxi wrote: post #8
jonathanstrange wrote: post #6

One, perhaps the only, problem with freedom of speech in academia is that can be very actively exploited by bad faith actors, i.e., people who are not interested at all in truth and merely abuse the university system as a platform for furthering political goals and "whitewashing" their position. These people are surprisingly easy to spot, by the way. They often come from a non-academic background, have a party or "th…

> The point is not to keep politics out of universities, there is no reason for that, but to keep bad faith actors out of them. When we talk about these obviously bad actors, are we talking people like Socrates and Galileo? Or are we keeping to strictly political undesirables like Assange, Snowden and the whiny pacifists who nobody likes? The words you use are dangerously vague and you aren't calling for observable,…

>The words you use are dangerously vague and you aren't calling for observable, thoughtful standards.

Which of course is arguably the point. There's just another type of "bad faith actor" who is lurking in the shadows with these arguments: Someone who wants to leverage censorship against disfavored viewpoints regardless of their truth value.

Given the choice between "let everyone speak even if someone might be lying" and "let only approved speakers speak even if the approval process may be corrupt", I'll take the former pretty much every time.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#12

Post by Zigurd »

neilv wrote: post #9

One of my favorite incidents involving free speech happened several years ago, and had an MIT connection. Some alt-right people organized a big so-called "Free Speech Rally" in Boston, perhaps as a Trump-emboldened show of force, or publicity effort. But a massive number of counter -demonstrators turned out (including many students and staff from MIT), dwarfing the alt-right people by orders of magnitude, and basical…

Are you implying the alt right employs bad faith trolling? Cry bullying?

Way too often, free speech debates are hijacked to normalize a fascistic movement in American politics. The left is feckless because they don't think like Peter Thiel or Steve Bannon.

Certainly there are days when the mass of normal opinion outweighs the straussian tactics of the right because the position of the right has gone ridiculously too far and it is obvious that it isn't normal. But it is difficult to count on that happening reliably.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#13

Post by roenxi »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #10
roenxi wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is not to keep politics out of universities, there is no reason for that, but to keep bad faith actors out of them. When we talk about these obviously bad actors, are we talking people like Socrates and Galileo? Or are we keeping to strictly political undesirables like Assange, Snowden and the whiny pacifists who nobody likes? The words you use are dangerously vague and you aren't calling for observable,…

Everyone you've just mentioned has a highly politically charged position, but is not associated with being a bad faith actor.

"In 399 BC, Socrates went on trial for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for impiety." [0]

I dunno, that sounds like the sort of thing that might be considered bad faith. I suppose the exact charge might not have survived translation. How do we think about heretics who corrupt people in good faith?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#Trial_of_Socrates

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#14

Post by jonemi »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #10
roenxi wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is not to keep politics out of universities, there is no reason for that, but to keep bad faith actors out of them. When we talk about these obviously bad actors, are we talking people like Socrates and Galileo? Or are we keeping to strictly political undesirables like Assange, Snowden and the whiny pacifists who nobody likes? The words you use are dangerously vague and you aren't calling for observable,…

Everyone you've just mentioned has a highly politically charged position, but is not associated with being a bad faith actor.

I think that’s the point. Who are examples of obviously bad faith actors who _everyone_ would agree are bad faith?

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#16

Post by ghusto »

makeworld wrote: post #7
redeux wrote: post #4

[flagged]

I find the differences between these statements minimal. The former implies the latter very easily, making both dangerous.

The difference is that the first can be easily rebuffed with logic and evidence. The second can too, but it's obvious that logic and evidence aren't at the top of the agenda there. So there's no discussion necessary in the latter, and you can just shut it down.

Why allow the first one then? It's about giving them enough rope to hang themselves with, _in public_. The public bit is important, because having them claim persecution and censorship, then saying those things in private anyway without rebuttable, may swing certain people.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#17

Post by radford-neal »

redeux wrote: post #4

[flagged]

I think your distinction is the conventional legal view. Though to actually be a criminal offense, the second statement may need to be made in a context where it encourages driving actual people into the sea (not just talking about how good a thing that would be).

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#18

Post by tomcam »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #6

One, perhaps the only, problem with freedom of speech in academia is that can be very actively exploited by bad faith actors, i.e., people who are not interested at all in truth and merely abuse the university system as a platform for furthering political goals and "whitewashing" their position. These people are surprisingly easy to spot, by the way. They often come from a non-academic background, have a party or "th…

> These people are surprisingly easy to spot, by the way.

Excellent. So let them say what they want and demolish them with reason instead of suppression.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#19

Post by tablespoon »

> We saw this last fall with the wide range of views around the Carlson lecture.

If anyone else was wondering what was being referenced above, I'm guessing it's this:

https://thetech.com/2021/10/14/carlson-lecture-cancellation:

> Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) Department Head Robert van der Hilst canceled the department’s annual John Carlson Lecture due to controversy surrounding the invited speaker, Professor Dorian Abbot of the University of Chicago, and his views on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts within academia....

> In a Newsweek op-ed titled “The Diversity Problem on Campus,” published August 2021, co-authors Abbot and Stanford Professor Iván Marinovic wrote that DEI in academia seeks to increase the representation of some groups through discrimination against members of other groups, violates the ethical and legal principle of equal treatment, compromises the university’s mission, and undermines the public's trust in universities and their graduates.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#20

Post by yanderekko »

WCSTombs wrote: post #2

From the PDF [1]: > We cannot prohibit speech that some experience as offensive or injurious. (...) A commitment to free expression includes hearing and hosting speakers, including those whose views or opinions may not be shared by many members of the MIT community and may be harmful to some. This commitment includes the freedom to criticize and peacefully protest speakers to whom one may object, but it does not exte…

Reasonable but sadly I expect it to be a dealbreaker. The triumph of safetyism over speech has been so swift and complete in many left-dominated circles that this sort of appeal is subject to being dismissed as being unbearably privileged at best and regressive dogwhistling at worst.
Post reply on HN