161–170 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your premise is flawed. Unless it's a direct incitement to violence, speech does not cause harm.
That is far too narrow a view. There are many ways a person can be harmed beyond just physical violence. Instead the question we have to tackle is how much harm are we OK with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you should take a statistics class before taking this class so that you can understand that people are varied and different and not entirely defined by which groups they fit into. EDIT: NB In case it is not clear I personally don't think that there are meaningful e.g. IQ differences between the (in my opinion totally arbitrary) groups of humans that people divide other people into where those groups are based…
> understand that people are varied and different and not entirely defined by which groups they fit into Funnily enough when this idea is called "diversity" it's much less popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> microagressing them > Somehow I'm reminded of the debate over corporal punishment in schools, where pedagogical effectiveness takes a back seat to more primal ideas about punishment, conformity, and order. People used to be beaten for being left-handed, remember. Can you provide some context to justify comparing microagressions with beating people with sticks?
Difference between "agression" and "microagression" is one of scale - and they are at a very different scale, hence the "micro". But the intent to hurt is common. We can see even in this thread people talking about the need to "toughen" up students. Some people who think that any form of physical hurt would be completely unacceptable still seem to think that emotional hurt is completely fictional and it's totally OK…
No, you're comparing physical aggression with verbal aggression. Sure, the latter might hurt, but I think many (most?) people would agree that it's not just a difference "of scale".
> But the intent to hurt is common.
No, "microaggressions" are often accused even when there's no intent to hurt. E.g. asking a foreign-looking student "Where are you from?" - which is most often likely asked with genuine curiosity, and no ill intent whatsoever - even if you don't assume the person is a foreigner!
Welcome to the Heckler's Veto becoming the norm of higher education if not corporate life. This is the method of choice in almost all instances of issues surrounding race, religion, and orientation, now. Look at Intersectionality[1] for clues to why the situation has gotten out of hand. In essence there are so many levels of grievance. In effect, unless you are part of the class of people your right to discuss or rai…
While I agree and sympathize with Professor Charney's on one level, on another the real problem (IMHO) is the lack of legit opportunities in Higher Ed. In the corporate world people are fired or let go for silly reasons or non-reasons all the time: that's at-will employment. But for people in most fields they just find another job and move on; the problem here is there aren't many opportunities to teach at a prestigi…
I’m not so sure about this. I went to a school that is not very well known outside my state/neighboring states. Even though it was the 2nd largest school in Georgia at the time.
The teacher teaching HTML/CSS in dreamweaver was making $95k. 2 professor getting PhDs in security were making $120k and likely much more after their PhD. The department head was making $150k and the old head was making much more until she got a million dollar grant. This was 6 years ago so they likely make a lot more now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is far too narrow a view. There are many ways a person can be harmed beyond just physical violence. Instead the question we have to tackle is how much harm are we OK with.
If you believe that then you have defined "harm" so broadly as to be utterly meaningless.
Limiting "harm" to mean being the victim of physical violence is so narrow as to be utterly meaningless.
The issue with treating college like a normal good is that there are positive externalities. So the customer (the student who is paying) doesn't capture all the good that is provided. There's value in having an educated populace and in inculcating common values. That value accrues to society as well as the student. That means that we can't compare paying for college to paying for a normal good, say a car. If there wa…
The issue with treating a car like a normal good is that there are positive externalities. Sot he customer (the one buying the car) doesn't capture all the good that is provided. There's value in having electric cars, cars which have better MPG that pollute less, cars with safety features that prevent crashes (even a single vehicle crash in a populated area massively slows down traffic), cars with safety features that protect passengers who weren't the customer, cars that are less likely to injure people who will have to depend on government provided healthcare if injured.
I could apply this to a book, a video game, a tv, a computer, a smart phone, an internet connection, a bicycle, clothing, food, and even housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Though it doesn't entirely answer your question, several philosophers of speech have identified no metaphysical difference between speech and non-speech, and some find the justifications for a law guaranteeing freedom of speech to be ultimately unfounded[0]. The issue for them is not whether speech causes harm (it does) but whether the harms are sufficient to allow some kind of regulation on speech; there is no evide…
Your premise is flawed. Unless it's a direct incitement to violence, speech does not cause harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you struggle with a teacher who respectfully challenges your views, you don't belong at any college.
I'd like to agree, but then we'd have an even larger uneducated and willfully ignorant mass. Perhaps we could be more tactful, or find some way of easing people into sensitive discussions. Quarantining those people, enticing as it may seem, will just make things worse.
Remember, the guiding principle of science (and pursuit of knowledge in general) is skepticism.
I think there is something to the notion that there should be schools which are inclusive to students who would struggle under teachers like this. I just don't see why that school should be Duke University. I don't understand why the most elite schools seem to be among the most likely to decide that their students need protection from harm. Polarizing teachers seem like they should be right in an elite universities w…
>> I don't understand why the most elite schools seem to be among the most likely to decide that their students need protection from harm Do you have a source for this, or is this just a biased opinion?
Welcome to the Heckler's Veto becoming the norm of higher education if not corporate life. This is the method of choice in almost all instances of issues surrounding race, religion, and orientation, now. Look at Intersectionality[1] for clues to why the situation has gotten out of hand. In essence there are so many levels of grievance. In effect, unless you are part of the class of people your right to discuss or rai…