Who runs the universities nowadays?

[Unseen]

The term “cancel culture” is rampant among discussion circles lately. It refers to the tendency to attempt to destroy or at least silence voices a certain segment (usually left-leaning) disagrees with.

I was in college in the 60’s and 70’s and one of the most stimulating things about being a student then was the regular parade of speakers representing all sides of every issue. Typically, speeches or presentations were followed by question and answer or discussion sessions.

The belief was that the best idea would prevail in the end.

It’s not uncommon for left-leaning students to either pressure the University not to allow certain speakers on campus or, if they are already invited, to cancel their invitation, which sometimes means that the university still owes the speaker their fee or at least a cancellation fee of some sort.

The excuses given for this is often that the speaker would trigger some minority group or that their ideas are simply so terrible that nobody should hear them.

So I ask, who is running the show. It seems that the students—or, rather, a certain segment of students—hold veto power over who may speak on campus.

Remember, attendance at these talks are typically voluntary affairs. Perhaps a professor may occasionally turn a speaker into a homework assignment, but mostly such speeches are entirely optional. So, what these students are doing is exerting their power to deprive other students of hearing an alternative voice.

Like I said, these groups who engage in cancel culture are left-leaning, so during my lifetime the campus leftist has devolved from a group working on behalf of campus free speech to one concentrating more and more on suppressing alternative voices.

WTF is going on? Who runs universities nowadays?

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.

From the Harper’s letter mentioned in this article.

(I was going to include it in the last Sunday School).

[Simon Paynton]

I’ve heard, although I don’t have good knowledge of it, that provocateur far-right and Islamist extremists target universities and quietly wind the situation up, so that what looks like spontaneous crazy behaviour on the part of the Leftist students, is actually a reaction to being threatened and provoked.  We don’t often hear about these groups in the news.  It makes a better story to talk about childish left-wing students who get frightened when they hear an opinion they disagree with.

I understand that this played a part in Evergreen College when many of the students went nuts.  The right wing agent provocateur side of things is under-reported.  The culture wars in the US look toxic from over here.

[Simon Paynton]

I think “cancel culture” is often just toxic bullying under another name.  But, judging from one young person I know, it’s the young people’s way these days to attempt to extinguish the opposition by force, rather than negotiate on friendly win-win terms.  Who knows.  Maybe it was always the way with the young – dogmatism is an immature position.

But intolerant dogmatism requires power in order to succeed, and that power is available to people nowadays – online.

I need to be challenged, and proved wrong, or lacking, in a rational constructive way, in order to progress.

[jakelafort]

Unseen, you expressed very well my understanding. And wtf are the dynamics of the power that has upended the oft-lauded notion of free market place of ideas? It would make a nice documentary to see how the fuck we got here. If it started at the unviersities it certainly has spread into the greater culture. Ya just keep hearing about people getting fired now for their speech. And sure some of it may be justified. But who is that announcer in Sacramento? who got fired after saying all lives matter. How ridiculously extreme. And if the current affairs are adumbration of the future when the progressive has the power…holy fuck? How bad will the usa get?

[_Robert_]

I got to the point that if I criticized another engineer’s work without all sorts of pandering preamble, I was ‘negative’ and not a team player, LOL. Yeah, so a couple of 737’s landed the hard way, but at least no one’s feelings got hurt.

 

[jakelafort]

Reality furnishes too many examples of how bad ideas have the longest legs. Exposure to new ideas, contrary ideas and argument are nearly futile against the adherents of ideology. The ultra religious, hard core racists, political ideologues and cultists are not amenable to reason. You argue until your blue in the face and their neural firewall protects their mind virus.

At universities, however, there is (or was) the possibility of entirely new world views and understanding of issues for the young minds. It is insane enough that little kids are brain fucked with religion and the bad ideas of their parents about race and such. But now the chance of a young person’s neurons to assimilate and synthesize are reduced or obviated.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

My first recollection of “cancel culture” was the Maryam Namazie incident five years ago:

In September 2015, the students’ union of Warwick University briefly banned her from a forthcoming talk on campus organised by the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists’ Society because of a fear that she might “incite hatred” of the university’s Muslim students. In an interview with the Coventry Telegraph’s Simon Gilbert, she was quoted as saying: “It angers me that we’re all put in a little box and that anyone who criticises Islam is labelled racist. It’s not racist, it’s a fundamental right. … The Islamic movement is a movement that slaughters people in the Middle East and Africa. It’s important for us to speak about it and criticise it. source

I first heard her at the World Atheist Convention in 2011. It is still a relevant speech.

 

[Unseen]

If you dare to criticize anyone nowadays, especially if they are a nationality or a religion, you risk being treated like a bigot, no matter how well-founded and fair your positions.

[Unseen]

 

[jakelafort]

Chomsky enunciates the standard superficial rationale for unabridged free speech. It is weak. It is a foolish consistency.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Chomsky enunciates the standard superficial rationale for unabridged free speech. It is weak. It is a foolish consistency.

You have a rationale for abridged free speech.

[jakelafort]

“if you’re in favor of freedom of speech you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” On first blush it is hard to argue with the notion that one’s discomfort or horror at another’s speech is insufficient basis for censorship. After all we cherish speech as a core value and as an aspect of freedom. Sorry Mister and Mrs. Victorian if you are offended by the speaker. End of analysis?

NO! Were the delicate sensibilities of the observer/listener the ONLY consideration then it would be easy peezy lemon squeazy-turn the page cuz this shit is easy. Constitutional rights involve balancing of interests. What is the nature of the speech? What interest is being promoted in granting the speech? What danger or risk is there to the PUBLIC in granting the speech.

There are endless hypotheticals from history or one’s imagination in which the state justifiably censors the speaker. Lets see. A sex trafficker in attempting to kidnap sexually attractive teenage girls is on the street soliciting by promising a new and better life with a home, money and free time. “You ho can fuck good? You come with me and i take you to the promised land baby girl. This here wad of money will be yours. I just take a little test ride on your ass in the back of my van first and then i will show you the good life in your mansion…” So does the state have a right to censor the trafficker’s speech? Or is unabridged speech the answer? It is silly to even analyze this. Yes the balancing of interests justifies the censorship. I could go on an on with instances in which speech is or ought to be censored.

[Simon Paynton]

Some speech is deliberately harmful and destructive.  Just look at Milo Yiannopoulos’ troll campaigns.  The internet is a playground for sociopaths and their flying monkeys.

[Davis]

Cancel culture is a fear word that mostly reactionary conservatives have used and promoted to create people using social platforms to call out outright biggotry and discrimination as some sort of boogeyman. It takes a few cases where things are excessive, like someone inadvertently wording things badly and the fall out that comes with it, as being representative of people getting in hot water for the things that they say, when in reality, most high profile cases are people saying extremely stupid and offensive things that would get them fired from their job if their boss ever found out, whether it was via social media or not.

Remember, cancel culture definitely works both ways. Consider what happened to people and even famous celebrities like the Dixie Chicks who were critical of George Bush for the Iraq war. Consider the extremely negative reaction to people who started BLM protests in small town America. Consider the backlash the girl in Steubenville faced for going ahead and pressing charges against two boys who raped her and her vilification. If anything the most pernicious cancel culture of all comes from conservative voices for those who simply state a point of view or seek justice, as opposed to someone saying something so toxic and vile, discriminatory or even inciting hatred against a group.

If you don’t want to pay a social price for pointlessly saying something racist, homophobic or biggoted, then don’t say stupid racist, homophobic or biggoted shit.

If you want to say something critical of religion, clearly and directly criticize the religious policies with strong examples and be very careful not to demonize believers. If you do demonize muslims as opposed to the religion, you’ll get called out. Mass islamophobia has terrible repercussions in a place like the United States where, if a notable politician says something blatantly anti-muslim (as opposed to criticising tenants and practices of the religion) Muslims in the following week face vandalism of their houses, insults in the street and even violence. The repercussions are serious. Be careful what you say. People’s lives are directly and terribly hurt otherwise.

Having said this, yes university lectures being cancelled because the speakers are far-right ones or say stupid biggoted bullshit, is a very bad precedent to set. It’s one thing to call such speakers out and that they pay a social price for what they say, its another thing to shut them up. I am very much against it. None the less, this phenomena is not as widespread as some journalists have claimed and it is overblown. It should be stopped, but it is not an infectious phenomena as has been stated in some articles.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 9 months ago by Davis.

[Author]

Posts