I don't get it. Free Speech Under Threat At University? (Added Extra)

[Bad Player]

-snip-

So, just to be completely clear... the no-platforming/"censorship" is done by student unions, not the universities? How exactly does the process of getting a speaker work, and what role do the student unions and universities play in it?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

It's silly that people are crying over it happening at all. There *can* be issues here, the problem isn't just that it happens. People look at it the wrong way, with some sort of bizarre sense of entitlement, as if someone was robbed by not being *selected*.

People don't get to speak at universities officially by default. There is no basic problem that there is some kind of discernment. To whine that it is censorship ignores this basic fact.

The question is if their standards are good or not and if their reason for denying someone is reasonable. Not some naive complaint about the very principle of denying someone.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Eh, not this again. A university is not under any obligation to welcome any particular person to speak there.

It is not censorship for a university not to allow someone to speak at that university.

Their under no obligation, correct.
But explain how banning someone from speaking at your university because you disagree with their ideas not censorship.
I get it that people don't want to call this censorship because it's the Kindof thing bad people do, but couldn't you just say Kim Jong is under no obligation to welcome any particular person to speak in his country? This is censorship pure and simple.

Explain why a private institution should give their resources and location for hate speech.

Why should they? Because I believe censorship is wrong, the spread of knowledge and ideas is a good thing, but like I said they're under no obligation to do so.

It isn't censorship not to offer your building to every single person who asks.

It's also odd that your moral beliefs should be relevant when given with no justification.

I'd imagine Chinese universities have similar rules and obligations as well, the schools in he UK are in poor company.

I hear Hitler used the same alphabet you're using.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

This article reeks of stupid. It's like "the anti-trans bigot wasn't paid to speak: censorship!" It's almost as silly as when people say criticism of art is somehow censorship.

 

[Terminal Blue]

So, just to be completely clear... the no-platforming/"censorship" is done by student unions, not the universities? How exactly does the process of getting a speaker work, and what role do the student unions and universities play in it?

That depends on the speaker and their role.

Sometimes, departments will invite an researcher from another university to guest lecture in the department. This is relatively easy to set up as it's a good opportunity for academics to publicize their research and it helps institutions and department to raise their profile. A lot of guest lecturers are contacted through informal peer networks (people working in a department tend to know other people in the same field) while others (particularly when guest lecturing in a foreign country) have a very definite speaking circuits where they will sign up ahead of time to do a bunch of guest lectures at different universities. Others, especially very senior academics, will be asked to give a lecture as the keynote of a conference or workshop they are attending at an institution.

There have been examples of guest lectures being protested (which is in and of itself not a problem as the right to protest is considered a key part of free expression) but they are solicited by the department or institution which invites them and ultimately, students have no power there.

However, most people who come to speak at universities are not academics who have been invited to speak there, they are invited by the student union. As well as representing the interests of the student body in negotiations with university administration (often very poorly, in my experience) student unions are also meant to serve as social hubs for students (especially undergraduates). Student unions receive funding from the university administration, which they will use to run facilities and events. Students themselves can also apply for funds from the student union in order to run their own social activities, like the rugby team in the article which will probably have recieved some money to pay for training facilities. Basically, the goal is to make students' experience of campus life more socially rich, which has nothing to do with the academic side of things at all.

Now. The key thing is that the student union is a private organization "owned" by the student body as a whole. It may have a few full time employees, but most roles within it will be filled by students elected democratically from the student body. Issues on which the student union takes action are voted on by the student body at regular UGMs. The university administration has absolutely no say in this, deliberately so because again the serious function of a union is to represent the student body in disputes with administration. The NUS, the umbrella organization to which student unions in the UK belong, works on similarly democratic principles.

This means that if, and let me give a real life example, a university Islamic society wants to invite a preacher with known extremist views to speak at union facilities using union funds, they can apply to do that, but the rest of the student body is perfectly entitled to use the democratic functions of the union to say "no, we don't want this person here". The no platform policy is something the NUS as a whole voted to have, and could at any time vote to repeal. Furthermore, any given student union can, without repercussions, choose to disregard the no platform policy (and there are examples of unions doing so). It is a relatively informal idea based on the principle that universities, as places of education populated primarily by young and fairly impressionable people, should not be used to spread or incite certain forms of discriminatory speech or action.

Now, the students who organized the talk or invited the speaker are members of the union, they have an invitation to the private club, so to speak. They have the right to initiate or cast a vote at a UGM. Whether they exercised it or not, they had a chance to express their views and to seek the support of the student body for their position. But the student union is under no obligation to abide by a set of ideological principles, such as some absolute form of "free speech", which its members didn't actually vote for. That's how democracy works.

 

[Something Amyss]

Presumably, whether the censorship should be occurring or not.

And since people seem to be talking about the definition, or making blanket declarations about censorship, I'm going to go with "that's not really presumably the case."

I've been talking about this with my roommate. I can't yet tell where I stand on the matter. He made a good point when I brought up the whole "safe space" thing, simply by asking "what is it?". I tried to explain it to him, but only ended up showing myself how little I actually understand it. How exactly do these things work? How is everything enforced? And, I think what matters to me a lot is, are they intended to remove toxic conduct, toxic ideas, or both? I'm apologize if I'm assuming you're the expert on this whole thing, but I kind of lost sleep over this last night. Curiosity and uncertainty can do that to me. Feel free to go private if we're going too far off-topic.

I'm no expert, but here's a few things:

"Safe Space" as a concept is a pretty broad one. I used an AA example because it's technically a safe space: a place where one can voice their issues with alcohol without repercussion. One of the cases here was concerned with endangering trans students. Having been literally beaten nearly to death because of this, I can appreciate the desire for environments where you can't incite violence. Hell, in the cased of LGBT groups, the alternative is literally the position I was put in. A potential death sentence. I got so sick of the violence I had several suicide attempts under my belt by the time I was sixteen. Think about how fucked up that sounds. Now think about the fact that the people who are upset are upset because of policies intended to protect groups which are already at significant risk for harm. Their "free speech" in such cases is arguing for a right to put people like me in danger.

Though given how quickly and frequently I see the same people jumping up to defend hate, I end up suspecting it's no accident. But hey, I'm teh bias.

 

[Areloch]

Presumably, whether the censorship should be occurring or not.

And since people seem to be talking about the definition, or making blanket declarations about censorship, I'm going to go with "that's not really presumably the case."

Touch difficult to debate on if something should be happening or not if some people disagree with the definition of the thing being discussed.

 

[Mikeybb]

It may be a little naive of me.
I like to hold faith in the idea that when exposed to a truly bad idea that common sense and reason will win out for the vast majority of people.

And this is how we end up with a guy who says Mexicans are rapists and suggests barring Muslims from entering the country within striking distance of the White House.

True.
Like I said.
Naive, but maybe a bit hopeful.
Believe me, the last part is a surprise to me too.
I'll have to excuse myself from the thread anyway.
I've got a lot of hot deals on bridge ownerships and some pretty amazing offers from foreign monarchs to sort through in my inbox now.

 

[NiPah]

Spoiler

Eh, not this again. A university is not under any obligation to welcome any particular person to speak there.

It is not censorship for a university not to allow someone to speak at that university.

Their under no obligation, correct.
But explain how banning someone from speaking at your university because you disagree with their ideas not censorship.
I get it that people don't want to call this censorship because it's the Kindof thing bad people do, but couldn't you just say Kim Jong is under no obligation to welcome any particular person to speak in his country? This is censorship pure and simple.

Explain why a private institution should give their resources and location for hate speech.

Why should they? Because I believe censorship is wrong, the spread of knowledge and ideas is a good thing, but like I said they're under no obligation to do so.

It isn't censorship not to offer your building to every single person who asks.

It's also odd that your moral beliefs should be relevant when given with no justification.

The Definition is:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

Bold'ed the parts relevant to this case of Censorship.
As an organization NUS is a clear example of an authority banning groups from speaking.
Not all censorship is created equally, The Escapist censoring talk about adblock? Not so bad. The National Union of Students of the United Kingdom banning George Galloway because of Julian Assange rape comments? That's pretty bad.
It's up to the individual to judge each case of censorship, and by definition this is censorship, just don't say this isn't censorship for some BS reason like "not to offer your building to every single person who asks", when you have a set list of individuals and organizations banned from speaking at your institution because you find their speech/publish communication objectionable, harmful, and politically incorrect you're a censor, shit you've ticked off every little requirement and more.

As for the justification of my moral beliefs I said the spread of knowledge and ideas is a good thing which was my justification of censorship being wrong. That's why I tend to judge censorship harsher then others, and why I hate people denying blatant censorship.

I'd imagine Chinese universities have similar rules and obligations as well, the schools in he UK are in poor company.

I hear Hitler used the same alphabet you're using.

I'd be fine using the Chinese Pinyin writing system too, but if authorities in my university started banning people from speaking due to ideology/sensitivity issues I wouldn't be fine.

But hey to each their own, if you're as ok with censorship as say using the Latin alphabet, you do you.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Presumably, whether the censorship should be occurring or not.

And since people seem to be talking about the definition, or making blanket declarations about censorship, I'm going to go with "that's not really presumably the case."

Touch difficult to debate on if something should be happening or not if some people disagree with the definition of the thing being discussed.

Well unless people take 'censorship is wrong' as some kind of basic axiomatic moral belief, they should be able to explain why this thing is wrong without using the word 'censorship'.

Much as if I wanted to explain what I believe is wrong with taking someone's car doesn't require me to use the word theft and keep arguing by saying 'Theft is wrong'

 

[sageoftruth]

Presumably, whether the censorship should be occurring or not.

And since people seem to be talking about the definition, or making blanket declarations about censorship, I'm going to go with "that's not really presumably the case."

I've been talking about this with my roommate. I can't yet tell where I stand on the matter. He made a good point when I brought up the whole "safe space" thing, simply by asking "what is it?". I tried to explain it to him, but only ended up showing myself how little I actually understand it. How exactly do these things work? How is everything enforced? And, I think what matters to me a lot is, are they intended to remove toxic conduct, toxic ideas, or both? I'm apologize if I'm assuming you're the expert on this whole thing, but I kind of lost sleep over this last night. Curiosity and uncertainty can do that to me. Feel free to go private if we're going too far off-topic.

I'm no expert, but here's a few things:

"Safe Space" as a concept is a pretty broad one. I used an AA example because it's technically a safe space: a place where one can voice their issues with alcohol without repercussion. One of the cases here was concerned with endangering trans students. Having been literally beaten nearly to death because of this, I can appreciate the desire for environments where you can't incite violence. Hell, in the cased of LGBT groups, the alternative is literally the position I was put in. A potential death sentence. I got so sick of the violence I had several suicide attempts under my belt by the time I was sixteen. Think about how fucked up that sounds. Now think about the fact that the people who are upset are upset because of policies intended to protect groups which are already at significant risk for harm. Their "free speech" in such cases is arguing for a right to put people like me in danger.

Though given how quickly and frequently I see the same people jumping up to defend hate, I end up suspecting it's no accident. But hey, I'm teh bias.

I certainly see what you mean. From what I've gathered, it seems like the execution of safe spaces is far more important than whether or not they should exist in the first place. Still, that sounds super complicated. I discussed it with my boss not long ago. He loves breaking the office code and talking about political and social issues. His argument was that safe spaces have existed for centuries, simply for those who aren't part of a targeted group. The main difference being that those are generally enforced by society rather than through rules and regulations, thus making it far less apparent that any safety is even being granted, since it's just "how things are". As a result, those who protest against safe spaces probably don't even realize that they already have safe spaces of their own, thus making everything look unbalanced to them.

I can certainly relate. Without posters like you, I'd have no idea what you even need safe spaces for, since I've always taken my safe space for granted.

In the end, I think they're a great thing to have. Like copyright law, though, we have to avoid setting the protocols too broadly or too vaguely, as some articles I've read have mentioned campuses using them to forbid discussion of things like evolution. I think that's what leads to so much controversy. When the specifics aren't laid out, certain people tend to just assume the worst, as we've seen already in parts of this thread. Anyway, thanks for your input.

 

[NiPah]

This article reeks of stupid. It's like "the anti-trans bigot wasn't paid to speak: censorship!" It's almost as silly as when people say criticism of art is somehow censorship.

They banned an individual from speaking at any of their events because they disagreed with their ideology, in the past they've forced the cancellation of events when it was discovered blacklisted individuals would speak. Any individual student unions are banned from hosting events with a black listed group or individual.

By definition this is censorship, it's suppressing speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

By definition criticism of art is not censorship, if we're going off the definition of criticism.

This is just another case of why knowing the definition of a word is useful when discussing it, next time you see someone saying this criticism of art is censorship you can use the definition of the word to show them why they're wrong, just as easy as that.

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

So it's not about the substance, just the semantics, and about semantics between people who know they already disagree? Lovely. It's soooooo shocking that nothing has progressed in four pages of "discussion".

How about just letting the semantic bullshit drop, and we talk about whether or not this case of "X" is appropriate? Harmful? Helpful? Uncertain? Maybe talk to each other like people.

 

[Terminal Blue]

As an organization NUS is a clear example of an authority banning groups from speaking.

The NUS is a clear example of a private organization making a decision using democratic process to recommend that its private resources and facilities not be used for certain purposes. You could say that means the same thing, but if that's what you're going to do maybe don't be surprised when people say you're cheapening the definition of censorship.

Again, the NUS is owned by its members. Every student in the UK is, unless they opt out (which they are entirely free to do) a member of the NUS and is entitled to influence its proceedings.

The fact that you think a personal ideology ("censorship" is bad) should automatically take precedent over a democratic process does not, to me, suggest any broader commitment to freedom. The "free exchange of ideas" is meaningless unless it is backed up by the capacity for meaningful political action. What you're saying is that everyone is an allowed an opinion, provided that opinion never actually means anything. Again, not how democracy works and not really how the "free exchange of ideas" works either.

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

As an organization NUS is a clear example of an authority banning groups from speaking.

The NUS is a clear example of a private organization making a decision using democratic process to recommend that its private resources and facilities not be used for certain purposes. You could say that means the same thing, but if that's what you're going to do maybe don't be surprised when people say you're cheapening the definition of censorship.

Again, the NUS is owned by its members. Every student in the UK is, unless they opt out (which they are entirely free to do) a member of the NUS and is entitled to influence its proceedings.

The fact that you think a personal ideology ("censorship" is bad) should automatically take precedent over a democratic process does not, to me, suggest any broader commitment to freedom. The "free exchange of ideas" is meaningless unless it is backed up by the capacity for meaningful political action. What you're saying is that everyone is an allowed an opinion, provided that opinion never actually means anything. Again, not how democracy works and not really how the "free exchange of ideas" works either.

It is how it works if your ideology is losing ground to a demographic landslide though, and you want to use the ability to communicate effectively to your advantage. It certainly sounds better to play the concerned freedom fighter, or to imitate the aggrieved in some pale way than it is to just outright seek cultural dominance. It sounds better to say that you're fighting censorship, than it does to say that you want to stick your thumb on the scales because you're tired of being overruled by a jury of your peers.

 

[NiPah]

So it's not about the substance, just the semantics, and about semantics between people who know they already disagree? Lovely. It's soooooo shocking that nothing has progressed in four pages of "discussion".

How about just letting the semantic bullshit drop, and we talk about whether or not this case of "X" is appropriate? Harmful? Helpful? Uncertain? Maybe talk to each other like people.

Certainly.

Personally I believe (for lack of better words) it's better to let the idiot speak and allow the individuals, in this case the students of the university, form an opinion themselves over what is right and what is wrong. For example, while I believe Westboro Baptist Church is an extremist hate mob I don't believe they should be banned from speaking at a university, hearing them speak may be sobering to the minor to moderate homophobic audience. I understand that NUS does not want to give a platform for a group to spread their bias and propaganda, but instead of guarding the students from such speeches I believe it is better to teach students to think logically and question what they're being told, outside of a university students will inevitably hear the bias and propaganda from extremist groups and without the NUS all they can rely on is their own ability to filter and think logically.

And at the end of the day I also just don't like organizations holding this much power, even if democratically elected I don't want a group creating their blacklist of organizations and individuals they believe shouldn't be allowed to speak at their events.

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

So it's not about the substance, just the semantics, and about semantics between people who know they already disagree? Lovely. It's soooooo shocking that nothing has progressed in four pages of "discussion".

How about just letting the semantic bullshit drop, and we talk about whether or not this case of "X" is appropriate? Harmful? Helpful? Uncertain? Maybe talk to each other like people.

Certainly.

Personally I believe (for lack of better words) it's better to let the idiot speak and allow the individuals, in this case the students of the university, form an opinion themselves over what is right and what is wrong. For example, while I believe Westboro Baptist Church is an extremist hate mob I don't believe they should be banned from speaking at a university, hearing them speak may be sobering to the minor to moderate homophobic audience. I understand that NUS does not want to give a platform for a group to spread their bias and propaganda, but instead of guarding the students from such speeches I believe it is better to teach students to think logically and question what they're being told, outside of a university students will inevitably hear the bias and propaganda from extremist groups and without the NUS all they can rely on is their own ability to filter and think logically.

And at the end of the day I also just don't like organizations holding this much power, even if democratically elected I don't want a group creating their blacklist of organizations and individuals they believe shouldn't be allowed to speak at their events.

So let the idiots speak, no one is stopping them. Are you further saying that students should be forced to spend their collective money to hire those idiots to speak? That's the issue in this thread, so that's what I'm curious about, as regards your opinion on it.

 

[NiPah]

As an organization NUS is a clear example of an authority banning groups from speaking.

The NUS is a clear example of a private organization making a decision using democratic process to recommend that its private resources and facilities not be used for certain purposes. You could say that means the same thing, but if that's what you're going to do maybe don't be surprised when people say you're cheapening the definition of censorship.

Again, the NUS is owned by its members. Every student in the UK is, unless they opt out (which they are entirely free to do) a member of the NUS and is entitled to influence its proceedings.

The fact that you think a personal ideology ("censorship" is bad) should automatically take precedent over a democratic process does not, to me, suggest any broader commitment to freedom. The "free exchange of ideas" is meaningless unless it is backed up by the capacity for meaningful political action. What you're saying is that everyone is an allowed an opinion, provided that opinion never actually means anything. Again, not how democracy works and not really how the "free exchange of ideas" works either.

I can say it means the same thing because it means the same thing, it's the definition, it's a word, if I'm devaluing it by using it when it fits by definition then that's value it never deserved given to it by people who don't understand the meaning of the word.

Also you're sugar coating threats of violence and injury as "recommendations".

Lastly, I'm completely in my right to judge an action of an organization, even if that organization was democratically elected and even if they voted for said action, if that action is condemnable then I'll condemn it. I also condemn my government for creating kill lists including my own countrymen and while America isn't a pure democracy, same principals apply. As for the rest of what you're saying, I'm not sure what the hell you're saying.

 

[NiPah]

So it's not about the substance, just the semantics, and about semantics between people who know they already disagree? Lovely. It's soooooo shocking that nothing has progressed in four pages of "discussion".

How about just letting the semantic bullshit drop, and we talk about whether or not this case of "X" is appropriate? Harmful? Helpful? Uncertain? Maybe talk to each other like people.

Certainly.

Personally I believe (for lack of better words) it's better to let the idiot speak and allow the individuals, in this case the students of the university, form an opinion themselves over what is right and what is wrong. For example, while I believe Westboro Baptist Church is an extremist hate mob I don't believe they should be banned from speaking at a university, hearing them speak may be sobering to the minor to moderate homophobic audience. I understand that NUS does not want to give a platform for a group to spread their bias and propaganda, but instead of guarding the students from such speeches I believe it is better to teach students to think logically and question what they're being told, outside of a university students will inevitably hear the bias and propaganda from extremist groups and without the NUS all they can rely on is their own ability to filter and think logically.

And at the end of the day I also just don't like organizations holding this much power, even if democratically elected I don't want a group creating their blacklist of organizations and individuals they believe shouldn't be allowed to speak at their events.

So let the idiots speak, no one is stopping them. Are you further saying that students should be forced to spend their collective money to hire those idiots to speak? That's the issue in this thread, so that's what I'm curious about, as regards your opinion on it.

The union should hire those they feel listening to will benefit the student populations, I have no issue with the unions deciding not to hire a group (say for example an anime group in South Dakota) if they feel it has no benefit to the students. I do have issue with the university not hiring a group on the grounds of disagreement in ideology or speech, and creating hard-line blacklists that do not take into account situation and circumstance, as well as pressuring member unions to cancel events because blacklisted individuals were involved.

It's not just the hiring to speak, it's the prevention of use of facilities and speaking with union organization members that I also take issue with.