If part of a professor’s job is to evaluate students, does it call into question his fairness in evaluating students who are either in an interracial relationship or children of an interracial relationship?
In my mind, i am less bothered by the astronomy professor posting something academically controversial about astronomy. A flat earth is hyperbole, but some of these biochemists supporting intelligent design as an alternative to natural selection comes close. It’s the professor’s job to argue for the truth in their discipline as they see it.
The statement in gay marriage could potentially make students feel uncomfortable in class, and would hurt the professors ability to teach effectively. I also do not really see the public interest in the professor posting this in social media in the first place.
Isn’t she a Philosophy Professor? Doesn’t Philosophy deal with questions of personal identity?
At any rate it seems you are OK with the government suppressing free speech in some settings (what cirriculum can and can not be taught is one example) but against government suppression of free speech in other settings. Though I admit I’m not sure what distinctions you’ve been trying to draw.
Do you think this type of thing happens a lot? And how is it “critical race theory”? I think you are either missing my point or think that anecdotal evidence proves your point, which it doesn’t. I know there is a whole other thread and there’s no compelling evidence that this should be a big issue. It’s manufactured outrage over hypothetical transgressions by teachers. Why do you fall for this scam? Same thing with the transgender athletes. Why is this such a huge issue? It’s just a distraction trying to get people riled up about a really minor thing.
I think it is debatable whether this is reasonable. A lot will depend on the details.
But what i think is less reasonable is the extrapolation from a few anecdotes to a full moral panic.
It reminds me of worry about the “gay agenda” in education a decade ago, which as far as i could ever tell was based off a few textbooks used by private schools in san francisco, and the like.
2 Likes
When “the gay agenda” was in the news, I asked a couple of gay friends if they had any idea what the gay agenda might be. It was a joke. There never was a gay agenda. I suppose “legalize same-sex marriage” and “drop the criminal sodomy statutes” might have been on some hypothetical gay agenda before those things happened, but the panic over the gay agenda was mostly after those were a fait accomplis.
Sounds like a good learning opportunity to open up a discussion about privilege in society.
No that’s why I said
This was discussed in the other thread.
Agreed. That’s why I said
1 Like
all i can recall is articles from The Onion from over 20 years ago. I just googled and I still had pretty good recall of the main articles. good times.
I do have an agenda though.
What if the fact is that all those dirty _____s should die?
I’m supposing the fill-in-the blank can be anything.
So, “Baby-Killers”
“Rapists”
“Excel Misusers”
Well, it is twig.
Disagree with your ‘for the most part’. Will switch to the other thread I guess.
It’s not the job of the police to execute people. A police officer who is really vocal about killing people is not a person who should be issued a gun.
Moderating:
Best to comment on the content, not the contributor.
How about a debate between the professor and another professor on the subject? Let people make their own mind up.
In a way labeling something hate speech is a suppression of free speech. Make someone defend their position with facts. Both sides may learn something. People’s minds may be changed.
1 Like
If you walk into a bar, and someone looks at you and says, “you (fill in ethnic group, or whatever) are subhuman, and don’t belong here.” And the bartender says, “now, let’s have a reasonable discussion about whether Nick is human or not”, do you feel welcome in that bar? Will you ever go back?
Maybe you’ve never had anything vaguely like that happen to you, and you think it would be interesting. Maybe you think you can “win” that debate. I can assure you that when it happens over and over again, you don’t find it at all “interesting” and you realize that you can’t actually “win” against bigots. It’s not about facts, it’s about feelings.
Any venue that hosts debates between bigots and people arguing against them is a venue that the people who are the subject of the debate are going to be uncomfortable in. And the bigot gets a platform, and people who feel similarly, but haven’t had the guts to say so out loud feel empowered. They might even pick up some good catch phrases to use.
Naw, I don’t think it’s valuable to host debates that give bigots a platform.
4 Likes
I would say, though, that there are contexts where “hate speech” shouldn’t be said at all.
Putting this idea into a positive phrasing: There are contexts where civil discourse should both be expected and enforced. And there should be contexts where contentious ideas can be discussed without emotional reactions to statements. And these two contexts should not be synonymous.
Yes, it’s a suppression of free speech and should be applied sparingly. But there should be some limits on free speech. Like the kind of speech that sparked the Rwandan genocide, as an example.
But IMO the definition of hate speech should be limited to speech that incites violence. Not speech that hurts feelings.