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

A university president makes a case against cowardice

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#641

Post by throwaway389234 »

lelanthran wrote: post #587
throwaway389234 wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech in the US is about not having consequences for what you are saying. In particular not having consequences from the government. Therefor you can only say that it is a legitimate consequence if you disregard free speech. Free speech in the US is about being able to be an asshole to 10%, 50% or 90% of the population without having to be responsible for what that part of the population does. And even more so…

> Therefor you can only say that it is a legitimate consequence if you disregard free speech. I didn't say it was a legitimate consequence. I was aiming for "it was a predictable consequence".

Sure, that is what I said as an argument. Free speech being a right means there is no merit to it being a consequence.

Being in a car crash might be the consequence of driving a car. But if someone drives at high speed in the wrong lane and then crashes into you it is a consequence of them not respecting traffic laws and not of you just being in a car. That is why we have traffic laws, so you are able to be in a car without someone crashing into you.

You could never be in a car, and you could also never speak. But then you wouldn't need free speech. Free speech exist so you can speak. In the US without consequences from the government. If you then speak the consequences of that speech aren't a consequence of you speaking but of the government not respecting free speech. Because to not have consequences you would have to not speak and then you wouldn't have free speech.

Someone getting deported by the democrats once they get into power would now be a predictable consequence. They then equally can't say "Sure, we were assholes to the other 50% of the population, but your response is worse". So then you have no free speech.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#642

Post by archagon »

rayiner wrote: post #598
archagon wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millions of people think the Earth is flat and that dinosaurs roamed the Earth alongside humans. Should universities be teaching that as well? Popularity is a poor barometer for educational value and policy.

[flagged]

First, what is a "fact"? For example, is climate change a fact? Prominent members of the current administration do not seem to think so; they're basically a step removed from labeling it woke and DEI.

As for things that aren't "facts," but are nonetheless extensively studied and have wide consensus: should universities, for example, teach that the Civil War was actually about states' rights and that slaves benefitted from slavery? There is no historical evidence for these claims, yet a large percentage of the public believes them due to punditry, party loyalty, and other truth-distorting forces.

> In 2023, Florida banned DEI initiatives in its public university system. The ban resulted in changes to the state’s African American history curriculum, including a reinterpretation of the effects of chattel slavery to include that enslaved people gained beneficial skills.

Should universities fall in line with this kind of thinking, or is there a moral imperative for educators and academics to push back against propaganda? I think it's clearly the latter. Otherwise, the university system just becomes a Soviet-style state organ, good for only certain kinds of STEM.

Second, you said:

> As to what universities should have done, the answer is “just dribble.” Universities should be places that are just as eager to research effective approaches to mass deportations as all the DEI stuff they do.

That sounds like you're saying that universities should be blank slates, essentially devoid of values. But they should also kowtow to the values and ideology of the public...? So which is it?

In my opinion, given that academia is (by definition) the vanguard of knowledge, it must hold to its own set of internal values and principles, not ones delivered by outside forces. Pursuit of knowledge should be the primary driving force and not, for example, commercial pressure to bolster "clean coal" at the expense of sustainable energy.

Third, I should remind you that, in all likelihood, at least 50% of the population believes that universities today are pursuing activities consistent with their values and ideology. They pay taxes, too — perhaps even more taxes than conservatives. In a democracy, the plurality should not have dictatorial control over things like university policy; it's tantamount to taxation without representation. These things must be decided by consensus-building, not royal decree.

Also, as an aside, I suspect that when affirmative action was first introduced, a majority of the public still opposed civil rights and desegregation. Was that "DEI"? Barring direct state intervention, should universities have acquiesced to the masses? I stand by what I said: popularity is a poor barometer for educational value and policy.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#643

Post by DiggyJohnson »

Yasuraka wrote: post #520
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on Earth? How is their argument out of touch or made in bad faith? It's a reasonable and popular line of reasoning that you disagree with strongly. Assuming the best possible interpretation is one of our community guidelines, please follow it.

The second paragraph answers your second question, actually.

How so? I don't see how that answers any of my questions. It just adds more color and nuance to the situation being discussed.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#644

Post by kashunstva »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #578

What bothers me the most about all these protests and going-ons at universities and colleges is that they are generally by 18-22 year olds who are pre-adults still in their formative years who still have a lot of learning and growing up to do.

> who still have a lot of learning and growing up to do

I’m 60, and I have a fair bit of learning to do yet. And as the father of a student in roughly the 18-22 I would be proud to see her standing up for views that she feels strongly about whether her knowledge is fully complete or not.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#645

Post by tobbe2064 »

bruce511 wrote: post #291
mmooss wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. Except the alternatives! No form of government is more effective, competent, just, or free of corruption.

That's the point the parent made. Elections are suitable for political officers. Once you start electing other jobs, like judges or plumbers, then you get whoever you elected, rather than necessarily a person able to do the job. In other words, getting elected is a specific skill set. Doing the job is a different skill set. In most fields those skill sets do not overlap. Even in govt the overlap is marginal. Which is…

Well,of course you get who ever you elected, that's a trueism that holds for any method.

What method do you prefer?Trust in the market and chose the one with the highest price, or, choose the one recommended by most, aka the popular choice or the elected?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#646

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

theultdev wrote: post #595
cess11 wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been a lot in usian news about people having been deported because of things like tattoo of the logo of some spanish or other soccer club. Here's one case where the deportation seems to be based mainly on having worn sports branded merch and a hoodie, and some supposed anonymous snitch, which the state has agreed was an error: https://www.newsweek.com/kilmar-armando-abrego-garcia-deport...

they agreed it was an error, to send him to that particular prison, not out of the country in general. he is an illegal and his deportation defense in 2019 was he feared for his life from a "rival gang" indicating he was in the MS-13 gang that the feds and judge found him to be part of. he's not just some "father", as the left leaning news likes to portray. he participated in human trafficking and himself admitted he…

He's not illegal, he had protected status.

What precisely changed between the granting of that protected status and his arrest that warranted the change of status?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#647

Post by cultofmetatron »

emptysongglass wrote: post #360
hellotheretoday wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> "Maybe gets you fired from your job" is someone's entire livelihood you're trivializing.

yes, the left doing that was pretty bad and I have gotten into many arguments over my left leaning friends over it. But it was largely private companies capitulating to pressure. To compare that to people being abducted and incarcerated by the government without trial or even an actual law being broken is worse.

You do understand why thats worse right?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#648

Post by anigbrowl »

somedude895 wrote: post #473
g8oz wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government may be within its legal rights. As an expression of values however it's hard not to see the expulsion of these students as petty politicalized retaliation. The sort of thing you would see in an electoral autocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy.

If you're a guest, act like a guest. Anti-Israel protests are by extension a protest against the US foreign policy, so yeah... You protest your host in a violent and disruptive manner, you probably shouldn't have been allowed in to begin with.

We were talking about the Tufts PhD student who did not engage in any violence or disruption, but wrote an op-ed advocating for a boycott of another country.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#649

Post by wat10000 »

freedomben wrote: post #579
wat10000 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a free country, private employers should be allowed to choose who they employ, with very narrow exceptions for discrimination based on race, religion, etc. In a free country, citizens should be allowed to read what other citizens write in public. Those both seem pretty obvious, but put the two of them together and it means people can lose their jobs or not be hired for stuff they tweet. How do you resolve that? IM…

I mostly agree with you. > Those both seem pretty obvious, but put the two of them together and it means people can lose their jobs or not be hired for stuff they tweet. How do you resolve that? If the employer happened to see it, then yes I think that's well within rights. But I think having some random stranger see something and actively campaign against the employee to their employer is a little bit different. It'…

OK, it's bad behavior. Now what? That means nothing.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#650

Post by 8note »

vimax wrote: post #508
paulryanrogers wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harassment is bad. Extraordinary rendition is bad. One of them is significantly worse than the other. And the side complaining about A whilst celebrating B is significantly more hypocritical.

What about the side that complains about A and complains about B, and complains that constant polarizing rhetoric has been ratcheting up to get us from the less bad A to the very bad B?

i think that puts you in case A, harassing people for their speech, in this case, the "polarizing rhetoric" is the speech to be protected
Post reply on HN