As a former university academic, it saddens and sickens me that the current crop of administrators see their job as protecting the most fragile rather than encouraging open inquiry. I consistently received outstanding student evaluations from the vast majority of my students with a few terrible ones every semester. Now, the malcontents would be encouraged to invent an excuse to have me fired and undoubtedly cowardly administrators would agree.
I’m so glad I am no longer in academia, but now I don’t know if I want my grandchildren to pursue higher education.
“David Everett, associate vice president for inclusive excellence”
Orwellian little eff I am sure. But this stuff is promoted and sanctioned by the Democrats and the corporatist Uniparty Propaganda Cabal (MSM), so little David is just being a good compliant comrade of the collective.
Why would anyone with talent want to be a professor today?
I fully agree. The despicable statement and actions of the administration are appalling on many levels. They would not think for a second (rightly) to give Christian students veto power over everything that gets shown in art class, not even something like Piss Christ, as the author notes. That alone is grounds for a class action law suit against the university. How inconvenient for the woke that their double standards run directly afoul of civil rights law.
I am not sure that being offended occasionally is a bad thing especially in college where individuals are presumed to be adults. It can be a valuable learning experience for the individuals involved. For example being able to judge whether the action was intended to be offensive and then responding accordingly. In this instance, however, Hamline University still has a lot to learn.
My understanding of free speech, including that protection against being offended is not part of it, has not changed. What your essay has done for me is to point out the limiting effects of colonialism on our ways of thinking about the many facets of culture.
In my former line of work in public libraries, there was a saying: "Some books are mirrors, some books are windows", that is, the light they transmit helps us to see ourselves more clearly, and to see into other spaces we don't inhabit. You have helped me to understand the value of the prism in this light metaphor: full and honest education illuminates all the facets of culture, and shows us all its components, as a prism shows us all the colors in light. I may not like a particular color, but I would have a wrong and sadly limited view of the world if it were banished because I don't like it.
It is not simply the blatant disregard for the principle of free speech (which is common to all mindsets driven by religious thought -- be it faith-based or secular ideology based, it does not matter). It is that the arguments on which the ban rests, like Professor Khalid points out, are deeply, obscenely DISCRIMINATORY.
It is not just a logical fallacy to assume that one subset of a group represents the whole: it implies the concept best expressed as: "All of them are the same". It imposes on the group a reductive identity determined by the prejudices of the authority that pronounces the statement, whether or not reinforced by vocal advocates of specific interests within the same group.
Racism is the mental attitude that attributes the same character to large groups of people based on vague phenotypes: is racist to assume that all black/coloured/white people (and subcategories thereof) think, feel and behave the same. It is racist whatever the colour of the skin of the speaker.
Religious intolerance is the mental attitude that considers religious beliefs different from one's own evil and to be eliminated, and discriminates people on this basis. Part of the discrimination is the assumption that the very same beliefs are embraced fully by any adherent of said religion.
In the specific case, what Hamline University has done is painting all Muslims with a broad brush, which is shockingly dismissive of Islam while pretending to be respectful. (I am highly critic of Islam -- as well as of Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion Abrahamic or not -- but even when you consider an attitude to be negative, it is a wise course to know and understand it).
Specific interest groups within these wider groups push, loudly, for their own purposes... it is a struggle for of power, and Critical <Name> Theory folks should have read their Foucault better (if even they know where their power rigmaroles come from). Groups are painted with very broad brushes, but who reaps the (temporary) victory are not the broad groups, but individual activists or subgroups that push their own agendas.
The entire Human Rights established regulations are being increasingly hijacked by groups that are bent on silencing dissent using the vague concept of "harm", discrimination and "-phobia".
From many parts they are also deeply conservative and illiberal groups, which happens mostly outside of the West but increasingly here as well, pointedly starting with religion.
Make no mistake. All of these are strategies, conscious or not, that go in the direction of an illiberal society where undesired thought is suppressed. It is not a matter of Left or Right -- this tendency has always existed in both camps. It is a matter of dreaming a society where what is different is NOT allowed to exist. Dreams of this kind are always built on good intentions, a sense of guilt and a sense that what is other than you diminishes what you are.
Let us all look at ourselves and count the number of unwarranted generalisation we make every day, driven by anger. ALL OF THEM, we say. ALL OF THEM. EVIL. WRONG. ENEMY.
And with this attitude, we all go to hell. All together.
It's very odd. The very people that think it's fine to introduce elementary children to complex sexual and gender ideas believe university students should have "safe spaces" and trigger warnings.
Great article! Everyone, please join FIRE's email campaign here for this very issue: https://p2a.co/gw8pumy
Fully agree; when will colleges finally stand up to these absurdly fragile students ; she even pre warned them but this student stayed. Disgraceful
Thanks for your eloquent defense of free speech on campus.
Thank you.
As a former university academic, it saddens and sickens me that the current crop of administrators see their job as protecting the most fragile rather than encouraging open inquiry. I consistently received outstanding student evaluations from the vast majority of my students with a few terrible ones every semester. Now, the malcontents would be encouraged to invent an excuse to have me fired and undoubtedly cowardly administrators would agree.
I’m so glad I am no longer in academia, but now I don’t know if I want my grandchildren to pursue higher education.
“David Everett, associate vice president for inclusive excellence”
Orwellian little eff I am sure. But this stuff is promoted and sanctioned by the Democrats and the corporatist Uniparty Propaganda Cabal (MSM), so little David is just being a good compliant comrade of the collective.
Why would anyone with talent want to be a professor today?
I fully agree. The despicable statement and actions of the administration are appalling on many levels. They would not think for a second (rightly) to give Christian students veto power over everything that gets shown in art class, not even something like Piss Christ, as the author notes. That alone is grounds for a class action law suit against the university. How inconvenient for the woke that their double standards run directly afoul of civil rights law.
I am not sure that being offended occasionally is a bad thing especially in college where individuals are presumed to be adults. It can be a valuable learning experience for the individuals involved. For example being able to judge whether the action was intended to be offensive and then responding accordingly. In this instance, however, Hamline University still has a lot to learn.
Thanks for an enlightening essay.
My understanding of free speech, including that protection against being offended is not part of it, has not changed. What your essay has done for me is to point out the limiting effects of colonialism on our ways of thinking about the many facets of culture.
In my former line of work in public libraries, there was a saying: "Some books are mirrors, some books are windows", that is, the light they transmit helps us to see ourselves more clearly, and to see into other spaces we don't inhabit. You have helped me to understand the value of the prism in this light metaphor: full and honest education illuminates all the facets of culture, and shows us all its components, as a prism shows us all the colors in light. I may not like a particular color, but I would have a wrong and sadly limited view of the world if it were banished because I don't like it.
It is not simply the blatant disregard for the principle of free speech (which is common to all mindsets driven by religious thought -- be it faith-based or secular ideology based, it does not matter). It is that the arguments on which the ban rests, like Professor Khalid points out, are deeply, obscenely DISCRIMINATORY.
It is not just a logical fallacy to assume that one subset of a group represents the whole: it implies the concept best expressed as: "All of them are the same". It imposes on the group a reductive identity determined by the prejudices of the authority that pronounces the statement, whether or not reinforced by vocal advocates of specific interests within the same group.
Racism is the mental attitude that attributes the same character to large groups of people based on vague phenotypes: is racist to assume that all black/coloured/white people (and subcategories thereof) think, feel and behave the same. It is racist whatever the colour of the skin of the speaker.
Religious intolerance is the mental attitude that considers religious beliefs different from one's own evil and to be eliminated, and discriminates people on this basis. Part of the discrimination is the assumption that the very same beliefs are embraced fully by any adherent of said religion.
In the specific case, what Hamline University has done is painting all Muslims with a broad brush, which is shockingly dismissive of Islam while pretending to be respectful. (I am highly critic of Islam -- as well as of Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion Abrahamic or not -- but even when you consider an attitude to be negative, it is a wise course to know and understand it).
Specific interest groups within these wider groups push, loudly, for their own purposes... it is a struggle for of power, and Critical <Name> Theory folks should have read their Foucault better (if even they know where their power rigmaroles come from). Groups are painted with very broad brushes, but who reaps the (temporary) victory are not the broad groups, but individual activists or subgroups that push their own agendas.
The entire Human Rights established regulations are being increasingly hijacked by groups that are bent on silencing dissent using the vague concept of "harm", discrimination and "-phobia".
From many parts they are also deeply conservative and illiberal groups, which happens mostly outside of the West but increasingly here as well, pointedly starting with religion.
Make no mistake. All of these are strategies, conscious or not, that go in the direction of an illiberal society where undesired thought is suppressed. It is not a matter of Left or Right -- this tendency has always existed in both camps. It is a matter of dreaming a society where what is different is NOT allowed to exist. Dreams of this kind are always built on good intentions, a sense of guilt and a sense that what is other than you diminishes what you are.
Let us all look at ourselves and count the number of unwarranted generalisation we make every day, driven by anger. ALL OF THEM, we say. ALL OF THEM. EVIL. WRONG. ENEMY.
And with this attitude, we all go to hell. All together.
If you think this is bad, witness what is happening with Jordan Peterson and the Canadian College of Psychology.
It's very odd. The very people that think it's fine to introduce elementary children to complex sexual and gender ideas believe university students should have "safe spaces" and trigger warnings.
Freedom, diversity and openess are all important for all humans