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

Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

thefire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#101

Post by kelseyfrog »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #74
kelseyfrog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have to ask the individual(s) who profess to have been harmed. Claiming "it must be X" and then dismissing X is approaching a straw man. Restorative justice practices are notoriously antithetical to the adversarial justice system we're used to dealing with. Assumptions we make in adversarial justice systems like open observation to ensure a public check on proceedings are not part of restorative practices.…

Indeed, similar logic was often used by Communist states to justify their judicial systems. The adversarial justice system of the US was an example of bourgeoisie justice, designed to uphold bourgeoisie capital relations. The Soviet judicial system was thought to be an instance of Proletarian Justice [1]. [1]: Vyshinskii on Proletarian Justice: https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1924-2/socialist-legality/soci...

That's funny. The reality is that restorative justice today has its roots in specific indigenous justice practices. Specifically the Kitchener experiment in Ontario, Canada in the 1970s[1].

More than happy to hear your critique about indigenous justice systems though, since it's more relevant.

1. http://www.brattleborocjc.org/blog/indigenous-roots-of-resto...

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#102

Post by kelseyfrog »

warcher wrote: post #87
kelseyfrog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would have to ask the individual(s) who profess to have been harmed. Claiming "it must be X" and then dismissing X is approaching a straw man. Restorative justice practices are notoriously antithetical to the adversarial justice system we're used to dealing with. Assumptions we make in adversarial justice systems like open observation to ensure a public check on proceedings are not part of restorative practices.…

Wasn't this an anonymous tip, precluding the possibility of any form of dialogue?

"Hi, I'm not revealing my identity, but my friend John spoke to me about how upset he was about Jane doing X and I thought I should bring it to your attention."

Anonymous tip, possible to bring the parties together. No contradiction.

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#103

Post by tablespoon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20
leephillips wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dizzying pace with which so many of our institutions—from the ACLU to basically all our our elite universities—have not only abandoned but energetically oppose their former principles, over just the past five years, is horrifying.

> from the ACLU The ACLU has a track record of defending the rights of the unfavorable, even irredeemable. Are there examples that lump them in with this nonsense?

> The ACLU has a track record of defending the rights of the unfavorable, even irredeemable. Are there examples that lump them in with this nonsense?

This is just the first link that popped up, but they're starting to at least back away from their track record:

https://reason.com/2020/12/20/would-the-aclu-still-defend-na...

> Retired since 2001, [Former ACLU Executive Director Ira] Glasser says he's worried about the future of both free expression and the organizations that defend it. In 2018, a leaked ACLU memo offered guidelines for case selection that retreated from the group's decadeslong content-neutral stance, citing as a reason to decline a case "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." Glasser fears that, by becoming more political and less absolutist when it comes to defending speech, the ACLU might be shrugging off its hard-won legacy.

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#104

Post by tablespoon »

rayiner wrote: post #68
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from the ACLU The ACLU has a track record of defending the rights of the unfavorable, even irredeemable. Are there examples that lump them in with this nonsense?

Unfortunately, lots of these public interest organizations are staffed with a new generation of lawyers who don’t believe in the old ways. My friend works at one such organization and was grumbling to me about young lawyers who protested representing a client who was undoubtedly within the scope of the organization’s mission, but who they didn’t like for unrelated reasons. (Details intentionally fuzzy to avoid outing…

> There is a major ideological gap between the Boomer and Gen X liberals and the Zoomers on this front. The former were focused on craving out a space for pluralism in a society where the elite institutions were controlled by religious conservatives. The Zoomers grew up in a world where the religious conservatives have mostly been driven out of the elite institutions. They wish to use those institutions to advance their own moral ideology.

I've been getting those vibes too. Preach tolerance when oppressed, and oppression when in control.

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#105

Post by tablespoon »

leephillips wrote: post #54
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from the ACLU The ACLU has a track record of defending the rights of the unfavorable, even irredeemable. Are there examples that lump them in with this nonsense?

“Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.” That’s Chase Strangio, part of ACLU leadership, fighting to ban a book she doesn’t like: https://www.iwf.org/2020/11/16/some-in-aclu-have-new-cause-b... You might object that the ACLU also fights against book bans, and that Strangio wasn’t necessarily expressing official ACLU policy, and those would be good points. But the ACLU tole…

> “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

> That’s Chase Strangio, part of ACLU leadership, fighting to ban a book she doesn’t like: https://www.iwf.org/2020/11/16/some-in-aclu-have-new-cause-b...

It's worth noting here that the ACLU seems to have literally bought nearly all the online ad space on the New York Times over the past several weeks (at least), to pronounce in 72pt bold letters that you should support them to fight "book bans."

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#106

Post by tablespoon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #24
mindcrime wrote: post #9

Wow. Just wow. As far as I'm concerned, the student in question should have exactly one response to the Stanford administration. "Fuck You."

> the student in question should have exactly one response to the Stanford administration I would have assumed everyone would have rushed to check out copies of books this PIH deems harmful. More concretely, PIH is described as a "reporting system." Are Stanford's librarians violating their confidentiality duty? (EDIT: Never mind, it looks like a public-reporting system [1] to the let the campus rabbi get upset at wh…

This is apparently the website for their "Protected Identity Harm Reporting System," including a form to submit reports: https://protectedidentityharm.stanford.edu/

That have a dashboard where they apparently made some of the reports public (but it doesn't look like it's automatically updated). This was was interesting:

https://protectedidentityharm.stanford.edu/news/cords-potent...:

> What happened:

> On the morning of Monday, November 29 a student reported seeing two long cords that may represent nooses in a tree near the intersection of Campus Drive and Junipero Serra Boulevard, along the Lake Lagunita walking trail. What is being done:

> Updated as of 5/10/22

> Based on statements from staff and students, and photos showing the scene at Lake Lagunita, it was determined the cords in the tree had been in that location for several years prior to it being reported to DPS. Photos showed the cords in the tree dating back to at least June 2017. Separately, a former student reached out reporting their recollection that a rope swing used to be in that location. DPS closed the case on December 6, 2021, and the incident was not classified as a crime.

> Updated as of 11/30/21

> A student reported the cords to the Dean of Students Office early this morning. The Office immediately contacted the Stanford University Department of Public Safety (DPS), which promptly investigated the incident with a campus arborist. Based on weathering and tree growth around the cords, it seems that the cords had been attached to the tree for approximately 18-24 months. We cannot be certain whether the ropes were deliberately fashioned in the shape of nooses, or were part of an abandoned swing or rope ladder.

> The Dean of Students Office has connected with the student via telephone and email and will continue offering support.

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#107

Post by rayiner »

tablespoon wrote: post #104
rayiner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, lots of these public interest organizations are staffed with a new generation of lawyers who don’t believe in the old ways. My friend works at one such organization and was grumbling to me about young lawyers who protested representing a client who was undoubtedly within the scope of the organization’s mission, but who they didn’t like for unrelated reasons. (Details intentionally fuzzy to avoid outing…

> There is a major ideological gap between the Boomer and Gen X liberals and the Zoomers on this front. The former were focused on craving out a space for pluralism in a society where the elite institutions were controlled by religious conservatives. The Zoomers grew up in a world where the religious conservatives have mostly been driven out of the elite institutions. They wish to use those institutions to advance th…

I’d say it’s more tolerance or pluralism versus universalism. Neither Christian conservatives nor woke progressives are deliberately trying to “oppress” anyone. Both believe in a universal morality, and believe that the world would be better if society operated according to their moral principles. And both are willing to use institutions and social and legal coercion to get people to embrace their ideology. (I don’t mean to characterize either side pejoratively. There’s an internal logic to both of you start from the assumptions they believe to be true.)

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#108

Post by sacnoradhq »

jleyank wrote: post #3

Can have fun with this particularly if it’s a 20th century European history course assignment. If books cause harm, then pretty much any religious text will be (very) offensive to another as it’s heretical etc. psychology texts probably really offend Scientologists, and I’m sure you can come up with other combinations without too much effort. Das Kapital, any civil war history covering the western campaign and it’s g…

I can't recall the quote, but "A book worth burning is a book worth reading."

No one has to support or agree with ideas to delve into them, find their flaws and strengths (reality and people are mixtures of gray), and consider other perspectives. To avoid topics is one path to ignorance and decline.

- Das Kapital

- Understanding Socialism

- The God Delusion

- Bible

- Quran

- Mein Kampf

- Atlas Shrugged

- (numerous critiques of objectivism and its political-economic brand: libertarianism)

- Critique of Pure Reason

- The Social Contract

- Industrial Society and Its Future

- A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies

- The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

- Guns, Germs, and Steel

== And some fiction ===

- Howl

- Tropic of Cancer

- Four Past Midnight (yes, Stephen King)

- Maus

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#109

Post by sacnoradhq »

shanebellone wrote: post #11
8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, but, we all know that in those circles nobody cares about Scientologists' feelings getting hurt. There's a well-established hierarchy of sacred victim groups that have to be protected from "harm" (for an arbitrary and nebulous definition of the word) at all costs, and whose defense is one of the most pious expressions of in-group belonging. Scientologists, Christians, members of political groups on the other…

{Scientologists, Christians, members of political groups} No one likes ugly sets.

Does the set of all sets include itself? And is the universal set beautiful even if it contains a pointer or recursion?

Re: Stanford student may need to ‘acknowledge harm’ for reading ‘Mein Kampf’

#110

Post by sacnoradhq »

mxkopy wrote: post #18

Devils advocate - it may be that Stanford is punishing the act of taking a picture and distributing it, rather than reading the book. I was thinking of reading Mein Kampf (I've never read it), but I'd never think to pose in front of it.

The Stanford Daily blurb is ambiguous as to whether 1. the student posed and posted it themselves, or 2. a bystander took a picture and sought to embarrass them for committing the crime of curiosity.

It sounds like 2. which would be concerning to academic freedom, but if it's 1. then maybe they were young, insensitive, and made a mistake. I doubt Stanford is in the business of accepting Neo-Nazis as proof of diversity. Also, the politically powerful as many Stanford students' families are, they tend to be concerned about "doing everything perfectly" to not be screamed at, lose respect of, or be cut off from their friends or family for doing something to embarrass them.

Post reply on HN