He wants a system based on merit? Where should this merit come from for underrepresented groups if not from affirmative action?
Perhaps a system that just looks at your economic underpriviligedness instead of skin color could work?
The latest campus cancellation is different
161–170 of 520 posts
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#162Here's what seems to be a follow-up on an MIT webpage: https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa... Edit: and for what it's worth, I think many people here are too easily stirred into a frenzy based on astonishingly little information about this incident.
The letter you link is quite clear: MIT doesn't want to hold a scientist up as a role model if progressive activists dislike him. This wouldn't have happened at University of Chicago.
Your comment is a partial answer to a question I have: are there any universities with any prestige who still, today, uphold the principles of free expression and academic freedom? I thought MIT might still have some institutional self-respect, and am saddened to find out that it does not. Who’s left (in addition to U. of Chicago)?
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#163This article reads like it is trying to cancel the cancellers, somewhat ironically! Very hard to not become the thing you hate when you get tangled up in this stuff.
It's okay to cancel the cancellers. In fact, the expected outcome of this effort is to 'cancel' the cancellers, by not allowing their complaints to translate into institutional action. They are free to argue others should be canceled, but no one should listen to them. Given that they are currently listened to, preventing that is indeed a form of cancellation, and it's a good one. You cannot and should not expect to b…
"It's okay to cancel"
You can just stop right there! Either it's okay to cancel, or it isn't. "It's okay to cancel those that I don't like, but not cancel those I do like" is infantile reasoning and not to be taken seriously.
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it too, they're saying this is different because they agree with them. Pretty much every example of lecturers being cancelled in the last 5 years is for the same unrelated reasons. It's boring, so you're a fan of this one guy and suddenly it's an issue? Please.
I mean, not being super familiar with this guy outside of what is presented in the article, there does seem to be a pretty important difference between someone like Milo and an actual academic giving an academic talk. I see why some would worry about cancelling a talk by the former (despite him being utterly repugnant and bringing nothing of substance to the audience), but the latter cancellation seems worse to me.
Must be the homophobe inside you.
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this exactly the world that free speech / pro-liberty advocates want? I don't have any power to fire someone from their job; I'm not their boss. But I do have the right to make my views about them freely known. That's my right to free speech. And I can also decide whether to patronize their business or not. That's my right to economic freedom - to not be in an authoritarian society where the government tells me…
> Isn't this exactly the world that free speech / pro-liberty advocates want? No. The main consequence of speech that is being opposed should be… speech, not action to get that speaker's speech curtailed, whether by speech or other means. > I can also decide whether to patronize their business or not These people didn't have to turn up to the talk. That's not the same as cancelling a talk because someone said they do…
This post, like many in this thread, misrepresents what free speech is. Free speech protects us from government retribution, nothing more. I agree that it's bad form to lobby the university directly, but it's their right to do so, and the university has a right to change which speakers it invites. Having it any other way would be an attack on free speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The purpose of free speech is to prevent the government from punishing people for their views. A similar imposition on citizens would violate their 1st amendment rights.
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#166How do we neuter the power of Twitter mobs? Seems like they can bully and intimidate any organization from universities to corporations to GitHub projects to kowtow to their demands. Their demands are usually to fire, boycott, or boot people with opinions that run afoul of the mob. Not a healthy precedent to set. We will regret this later if we continue down this path.
the problem is that prestigious institutions are run by bureaucrats wearing its skin. For example this article says "MIT buckled", when in reality some campus admin buckled because to them it's not worth risking their comfy job over a speaker. The bureaucrats have no skin in the game, they don't benefit from thinking about long term damage to MIT or society in general. From their perspective it's logical to bow to Tw…
According to the upstream article posted in a sibling comment [1], the decision was made by the department head for EAPS, themselves a scientist AFAICT [2].
That doesn't necessarily change anything (and I'm not weighing in here), but given your assertion it seemed worth pointing out.
[1]: https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa...
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#167Wow. Should we let the bar of perfection be lifted so high that noone can meet those standards? No matter how long ago their sins were or whether they have rehabilitated themselves?
Are the people who are lifting that bar really as virtuous as they think themselves to be?
Res ipsa loquitur: 'The thing speaks for itself.'
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#168It is time for talented teenagers to stop going to illiberal institutions. Consider getting your education at a place with values you can respect. Mission-driven schools: this is your moment.
I agree but for a different reason: you’re probably gonna get a better education than in most of these football down in the goonies universities. If football is what drives the funding and the students guess what drives the priorities as well?
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#169Then the campaign to cancel Abbot’s lecture began. On Twitter, some students and professors called on the university to retract its invitation. And, sure enough, MIT buckled, becoming yet another major institution in American life to demonstrate that the commitment to free speech it trumpets on its website evaporates the moment some loud voices on social media call for a speaker’s head.
Two tweets does not seem like a mob. The quality of The Atlantic has really gone downhill. No different from the rest of the hype-filled media.There are 1000x more tweets about the cancellation than tweets that called for his cancellation.
Re: The latest campus cancellation is different
#170How do we neuter the power of Twitter mobs? Seems like they can bully and intimidate any organization from universities to corporations to GitHub projects to kowtow to their demands. Their demands are usually to fire, boycott, or boot people with opinions that run afoul of the mob. Not a healthy precedent to set. We will regret this later if we continue down this path.
the problem is that prestigious institutions are run by bureaucrats wearing its skin. For example this article says "MIT buckled", when in reality some campus admin buckled because to them it's not worth risking their comfy job over a speaker. The bureaucrats have no skin in the game, they don't benefit from thinking about long term damage to MIT or society in general. From their perspective it's logical to bow to Tw…
[deleted]