Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
If just a request than the professor made a big stink about nothing. If mandatory than I back his stance 100%.
"Drexel University makes promises to protect professors’ speech rights, but the university’s treatment of Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher makes clear it does not keep them.
The trouble for Ciccariello-Maher began on Dec. 24, 2016, when he tweeted “All I Want For Christmas is White Genocide,” which he said was “a satirical tweet about an imaginary concept, ‘white genocide.’” Perhaps predictably, a backlash ensued — one that was fueled in significant part by accounts operated by the Russia-based and Kremlin-linked Internet Research Agency. Drexel initially promised Ciccariello-Maher that he would not face punishment for the tweet, but the red light institution quietly launched an investigation anyway."
Crazy that a far-right wing organization would support Cicciariello-Maher, a pro-Palestinian student organization, and a kid at Texas State who wrote an article about whiteness being a social construct and an abomination.
Good thing Katie didn't interview any students to see if they remembered whether the event was voluntary or required.
Also, that sign is super duper sad.
Dim people. Dim prospects. Dumb intellectual outputs.
That's the only statement in regards to limiting speech in that article. So what? I'm 100% fine with limiting speech to exclude slurs at colleges. Slurs exists only as a means to convey hostility, not as a means to convey potentially taboo or unpopular ideas, which should be engaged with at college. That's not a policy I'm trying to fight at all.
@17 Loaded and offensive as it may be, if not coerced than it is still just an idea that falls under the banner of free speech. The type of taboo idea that should be engaged with in a higher learning institution. If coerced, it obviously would be an act of discrimination, which I would oppose.
You will end up regretting this sale of whatever journalistic soul you may have had. Tim and Dan are not good people.
We really don't need short sighted reactionaries anywhere near public policy.
The reaction by students to Weinstein’s email was violent. Violence is never an appropriate response to speech.
BTW, cries of “morality” just mean you don’t have a plausible idea to defend with thoughts and words.
@20 Sounds (from these sources) like that's all W tried to do.
Mutual combat is legal in Seattle, which I fully agree with. But it's probably good we don't allow fights at schools.
Slurs and hate speech meaning words that have no purpose other than to hurt others, usually on the basis on race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc... This restriction should not be considered to include legitimate intellectual discourse that some may find offensive, though if it is legitimate intellectual discourse I'm sure it can be communicated without the use of slurs. Legitimate intellectual discourse should never be restricted on the basis of whether or not it's offensive.
And for the record, I do think colleges do seem to have a problem with left-wing authoritarianism. Also right-wing trolls. Colleges these days seem to be pretty intellectually dismal places in general.
The fact that they are essentially defending the right to hate speech in their mission tells you all you need to know. They then go on to refer to "diversity training" as indoctrination to an "officially-approved ideology" as a potential offense also shows us where their favor lies. As other commenters have noted, this article as well as The Seattle Times article, cite FIRE without doing their homework on the organization.
I am truly concerned that this sort of content is being published in The Stranger now. It is a disservice to the work of some of the other reporters there who are doing well-written analysis. Even this article last year on the subject does a far better job of examining of what happened at Evergreen - https://www.thestranger.com/news/2017/06…
"Weinstein says white students weren't 'asked' to go off campus, they were ordered to.
And according to minutes recorded during a meeting of the Equity Council in January 2017,
Rashida Love, at the time the head of the campus diversity office, 'secured commitments
from 15-17 faculty members to require that their students participate' in the event."
If you go back to the document you link to, here is the quoted statement IN CONTEXT during a January meeting, three months prior to the event in question:
"Felix: DOA/DOP is scheduled for 04/12/17 and 04/14/17. The next meeting regarding
DOA/DOP is scheduled 01/23/17 to discuss space, presenters, and commitments
from faculty to bring students to this event. There is a concrete budget of $60,000
(the request initially was $66,000). There is the hope that the remaining funds will
be pulled from the $10,000 endowment for keynote speakers. Rashida Love has
secured commitments from 15-17 faculty members to require that their students
participate in DOA/DOP, which brings the total to 400 students. The goal is to have
1,000 students participating in this event.
Tina: Could DOA/DOP be an opportunity to cover the Jewish population? This should be
a topic of discussion.
Emily: There is a proposal from the DOA/DOP committee for white students to go off
campus and students of color to remain on campus; this has been approved.
This is to center the campus on students of color."
This makes clear that, in that January discussion, the "requirement" for students concerned participating in DOA/DOP events like discussions and presentations. It is not till the end of the discussion that the idea that white students would go off campus was raised.
Great job confounding two different issues in order to help propagate right-wing talking points.
@35 There is certainly a difference between people of one or more ethnic groups deciding on an action that they feel would be beneficial to take off their own accord and people of those same ethnic groups singling out another ethnic groups to be asked to leave campus. To what degree it is/is not okay is what's being debated.
One is a proactive self-determined decision based on ones voluntary affinity with their ethnic group and the other is singling out others for exclusion on the basis of their ethnic identity.
campus and students of color to remain on campus; this has been approved."
If that was approved before the meeting, wouldn't that mean that the statement that 15-17 staff members were requiring students to participate mean that requiring students to participate was with knowledge that it meant their exclusion from school?
There are forums & events for DOA/DOP, and there was a proposal for white students to leave campus. These are parallel endeavors.
It is quite clear from the notes of the meeting that they were talking about participating in the events being paid for, such as discussions and presentations.
Also, lost in this discussion is that the event always had been, and remained, a voluntary event, even in 2017. The fact that particular instructors for particular classes required participation (again, participation in events, not removing oneself from campus) is not unusual in college courses.
I could, of course, be wrong in this interpretation, but I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.