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

21–30 of 124 posts

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#21

Post by jonathanstrange »

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,…

You're misunderstanding bad faith actors in academia. These are people not interested in advancing science and not interested in the truth. The examples you give of Socrates and Galileo are clearly examples of the opposite.

As for Assange, Snowden, or "whiny pacifists" -- yes please keep them out of universities, and also don't forget to exclude any Trumpists, Steve Bannons, nationalists, individual anarchists, and members of communist parties, unless they're reporting about their actual scientific research if they conduct some. I see no reason whatsoever why such people should give political speeches at universities.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#23

Post by RHSeeger »

yanderekko wrote: post #11
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,…

>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"…

> 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.

While I tend to agree with this sentiment, it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them. As such, letting everyone say whatever they want and expecting the lies to be exposed/countered by the truthspeakers is destined to fail. We've seen this exact thing play out on every social network.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#24

Post by RHSeeger »

tomcam wrote: post #18
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.

I'm quoting what I said in anther comment here, but it applies, so...

> it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them. As such, letting everyone say whatever they want and expecting the lies to be exposed/countered by the truthspeakers is destined to fail. We've seen this exact thing play out on every social network.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#25

Post by neilv »

Zigurd wrote: post #12
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…

Agreed, visible mass of public opinion isn't a panacea.

And there seems to be a widespread anti-intellectualism movement, from multiple directions, that's turning all of us into bickering reactionaries.

Someone has to start bringing us back to aspiring to sophistication of intellect and character, to both engage in genuine dialogue, and to recognize when someone else isn't.

MIT, as one vanguard, doesn't have the last word on this (it has its own biases), but IMHO not surprising to see them taking a confident stand for a kind of intellectualism that's in a relatively good direction. We need the influence of others, to address concerns/perspectives that are not as much on the radar of MIT.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#26

Post by cool_dude85 »

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…

>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.

Strong disagree. The problem with "freedom of speech in academia" is that it's a polite fiction.

What happens when an MIT professor puts out a press release saying that the US deserved 9-11 and that more attacks are justified? Or that the Charlottesville protestors didn't go far enough, and more lefties need to be run down in the street like dogs? Will MIT be hiring Holocaust denier history professors? Does anyone truly believe that, if a professor publicly expresses views well outside of mainstream acceptability, there will be no professional consequences?

"Free expression" at a place like MIT still means you need to keep well within the standards of acceptability, just that we want to make sure that the standards include certain things that are now considered beyond the pale.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#27

Post by atq2119 »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #21
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,…

You're misunderstanding bad faith actors in academia. These are people not interested in advancing science and not interested in the truth. The examples you give of Socrates and Galileo are clearly examples of the opposite. As for Assange, Snowden, or "whiny pacifists" -- yes please keep them out of universities, and also don't forget to exclude any Trumpists, Steve Bannons, nationalists, individual anarchists, and m…

Universities should provide a broad education, and there are interesting and important experiences that could be shared by the likes of Snowden, even if it isn't strictly speaking their own scientific research.

That said, the person must be able and willing to discuss a bigger picture than just their personal politics, which is why I specifically picked Snowden but excluded Assange, Trump, and Bannon in the above. That's basically your good faith distinction.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#28

Post by zajio1am »

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.

I can see that difference between these statements can be minimal for collectivists, who consider benefit of society as the most important value. But for individualists, the former does not implies the latter. It is more like:

All X are good for nothing leaches on society, but their individual rights and freedom are inalienable and that is more important that their negative effect on society.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#29

Post by hirundo »

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…

People think they can easily identify bad faith, since they hear arguments that sound incomprehensible and assume no one could hold them in good faith. It is common to believe that large swaths of the population carry their convictions in bad faith.

As a life long atheist I have suffered from this misconception. The idea of a god seems so absurd to me that I honestly don't understand how people can have faith in one. Never the less it is true, they do, and in good faith. I've had enough deep conversations with believers to establish that. And it's true no matter how many instances of their hypocrisy you collect.

The same is true of political opponents.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#30

Post by cool_dude85 »

tomcam wrote: post #18
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.

This doesn't work in some situations. Hitler would not have been DEMOLISHED by facts and logic, to use a youtube-ism.
Post reply on HN