Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it's a setup for a lawsuit when he doesn't get tenure.
Meh, I don't have much of a beef with this blog, although I agree that there may very well be some of a preemptive shot across the bow regarding tenure.
Personally, I think it comes down to a simple phrase that comes not from our Constitution, but our Declaration of Independence: All Men Are Created Equal. If all of our arguments (on either side) are including THIS particular assumption, then, yes, free speech is a perfectly correct thing. If something is not assuming this baseline that all men (not gendered men, but humanity in general, of course) are created equal, then free speech is not exactly what is necessary. What I understand that Prof. Grollman is saying is that you cannot simply let someone walk in to dehumanize others, because that is deviating from the "self-evident truth." That is not what free speech is about.
It is a moral situation, and that is a major part of what university is about, I would think, and I think that that is what many of you are arguing here, even from a different angle than I have.
What I understand that Prof. Grollman is saying is that you cannot simply let someone walk in to dehumanize others, because that is deviating from the "self-evident truth." That is not what free speech is about.
At minimum, this is a straw man argument. When has this occurred at UR? Particularly in a manner that would have him calling out his boss? Its BS.
Belonging to the "perpetually offended" class is a choice the professor has made. That is his prerogative but it certainly does not mean that one has to give it any credence. Complaining about persons being invited to speak who hold divergent viewpoints from one's own is a weak argument. To state the professor used exaggerated hyperbole is to state a blatantly obvious fact.
One of the people he cited is Charles Murray, which is the crux of the point that I mentioned. If he dehumanizes someone (i.e., the black person who is "less" than the white person), then he is not someone who is welcome at the table. I am not black, but I find his rhetoric extremely offensive (and racist, to boot). Why should we continue to give someone like him space, and therefore, credibility? That's the point here.
So - if I follow that logic KWeaver - one's emotional response to an issue should cause others to snap to and carry out the order. When will it be my turn to rely on my emotions and order others to follow my wishes? And here I thought the purpose of education was reasoned debate with each person free to follow the dictates of their own conscience. But if viewpoints based on opposition from those who disagree are not allowed to be voiced where is the exchange of ideas? Saying one's own ego is too fragile to even hear other viewpoints is a very weak argument. And "identity politics" is a losing proposition that starts with the premise that my identity is more important than yours. Certainly does nothing to promote any semblance of cooperation other than the premise you need to capitulate to my preferences.
Because we live in a free society. Censoring ideas or research just because it happens to make you sad or uncomfortable is not the way our society works. It is the antithesis of everything the Western Educational model represents. If this guy can't handle a free society, he's the one who needs to change or get out. We have humored these nut jobs for far too long. The fact this guy (who would seem more at place in a community college) was even hired in the first place is an embarrassment to the University. Who hired this guy? That's the inquiry I'm making if I'm the President.
You may have a fair point worthy of consideration, but you totally miss the point in your quote of Orwell's satire and cynicism--Yes all men are created equal and I have no need to resort to condescension as your post does. You are free to believe whatever you want if that makes you happy.
Your argument fits more into the premise of Animal Farm:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others ...
And what is that, Comrade Spinner? Sorry to call you out, but these simpleton Americans sometimes need to have you spell it out. Be courageous, tell them exactly what you mean. Do not worry, Comrade, it will be well received by these ignorant Americans...and our movement will be advanced, So let's hear it, comrade.why get into the nitpicking, we all know what we are talking about here