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

[ThatOtherGirl]

If someone was trying to invite a KKK member(as some people in this thread seem weirdly keen on suggesting was happening) I think most of us would be fine with the University no-platforming them if it looked like they were going there just to preach white supremacy and how all the blacks should die. They may not be inciting violence and thus not be doing anything illegal, but that borders on hatespeech and I think most people would agree that's not cool.

Honestly, that is not far from what is happening in some cases.

Here is a question: Would you be willing to no-platform someone who has a history of using public speaking places like this to declare their view that black people as mentally ill, sexually deviant, and that they are dangerous to women? A person that regularly stereotypes all black people based on the actions of one or two people, using these examples as proof of views that marginalized black people?

The article in particular mentions Julie Bindel, who is a trans exclusionary feminist who has made a point in the past to champion views that attack trans people, especially trans women, as are mentally ill, sexually deviant, and dangerous to cis women, all stereotypes that cause real damage to trans people around the world. Just look at the bathroom bills the republican party has blanket endorsed across the country - they are predicated on the idea that trans women are sexually deviant, dangerous men looking to abuse women.

She has compared trans men to a woman sticking a vacuum hose down their pants. She has openly mocked transgender women as "men in dresses", describing them as "a man wanting to get into nightclubs free on Ladies' Nights". She makes stereotypes about the appearances of trans women and of trans men, of how we act and dress which are both unfounded and offensive.

And all that was in just one of the articles she has written about trans people. Her views are provably anti scientific, bigoted, and harmful to trans people.

And it doesn't stop there, her views on bisexual people are just as offensive, describing it as "a fashionable trend", describing bisexual individuals as hedonists, and as a manufactured sexuality that exists to pressure lesbians to conform to heterosexual norms.

She stereotypes both groups based on behavior of single members of those groups, and sees them as people defined by "odd sexual practices", and has openly expressed her disgust at both groups.

I don't see much difference between a man getting up on a stage to tell everyone that black people are gang banger rapists and a woman getting up on a stage to tell everyone that trans people are sexually deviant threats to women.

 

[Areloch]

Fine, if you want to see it as that. That's on you, not me.

Most of the 'censorship can be good'-side examples I've seen in this thread have leaped straight to hate-speech and talking about inviting the KKK, which is fairly dishonest as I'm moderately sure that's not what most people are talking about when complaining about people being no-platformed or having students try and interrupt/shut down presentations.

If people can't avoid leaping straight to the extreme hyperbole, then that's their issue. That doesn't invalidate a perfectly good subject for discussion as a whole.

It's very much a slippery slope argument being presented seemingly to stop people presenting a more close to the present issue case.

So for example someone is invited to speak on a subject. Because of their views on another subject people protest and claim they shouldn't be allowed a platform on the first subject because it would make people feel "Unsafe" or they believe some-one will use the platform to secretly indoctrinate people into their other beliefs.

It rather seems like a specific group who are intent other people can't speak at universities unless they support all of the views said easily offended group want supported even if supporting said views has nothing to do with their field of expertise or the reason they're invited to speak.

It's a certain group who seemingly constantly need people to reinforce their world views and can't accept anyone as saying anything valid ever unless they do reinforce said world views.

I'd imagine to some they'd be unable to accept a doctor lecturing on medical practice as worth listening to about medicine if said Doctor supported testing drugs on animals.

It seems related, yeah.

I think another part of it is a combination of young adults finding out that:

a) the squeaky wheel gets the grease
b) it's easy to get a fervor going due to the internet
c) they can get people they dislike fired via a and b
and d) they have a nice little psuedo-independent life while at university.

They, by virtue of being an adult now, feel(as every single person that's hit that age felt) that they know better than the stupid adults, and feel compelled to make the world more aligned to their views. If you have them falling into that activism phase, and combine it with a, b and c, you get people that THINK they know what they're talking about with a remarkable amount of power to enact it.

The issue arises when these young activists work towards making a little bubble where they can pretend they're adults with adult responsibilities without having to actually shoulder any of those responsibilities. Their room and board is paid, they have friends that agree with them, and they can learn the things they want. It's rather unsurprising that they'd try to maintain this bubble and push out anything that challenges the safety of the bubble of their current worldview or condition.

It's how you get people yelling about being oppressed when they come from 6-figure-or-more estates, with everything fully paid for them. It's how you get the people trying to shut down speakers, lecturers or faculty that simply disagree with them(like the whole absurd Yale Halloween debacle).

The good news is, most all of these people can't stay in college forever and when they get thrust into the real world, which doesn't care about what they think or feel, most young adults that think they know everything go through another phase of rapid growing and become largely respectable adults.

 

[Areloch]

If someone was trying to invite a KKK member(as some people in this thread seem weirdly keen on suggesting was happening) I think most of us would be fine with the University no-platforming them if it looked like they were going there just to preach white supremacy and how all the blacks should die. They may not be inciting violence and thus not be doing anything illegal, but that borders on hatespeech and I think most people would agree that's not cool.

Honestly, that is not far from what is happening in some cases.

Here is a question: Would you be willing to no-platform someone who has a history of using public speaking places like this to declare their view that black people as mentally ill, sexually deviant, and that they are dangerous to women? A person that regularly stereotypes all black people based on the actions of one or two people, using these examples as proof of views that marginalized black people?

The article in particular mentions Julie Bindel, who is a trans exclusionary feminist who has made a point in the past to champion views that attack trans people, especially trans women, as are mentally ill, sexually deviant, and dangerous to cis women, all stereotypes that cause real damage to trans people around the world. Just look at the bathroom bills the republican party has blanket endorsed across the country - they are predicated on the idea that trans women are sexually deviant, dangerous men looking to abuse women.

She has compared trans men to a woman sticking a vacuum hose down their pants. She has openly mocked transgender women as "men in dresses", describing them as "a man wanting to get into nightclubs free on Ladies' Nights". She makes stereotypes about the appearances of trans women and of trans men, of how we act and dress which are both unfounded and offensive.

And all that was in just one of the articles she has written about trans people. Her views are provably anti scientific, bigoted, and harmful to trans people.

And it doesn't stop there, her views on bisexual people are just as offensive, describing it as "a fashionable trend", describing bisexual individuals as hedonists, and as a manufactured sexuality that exists to pressure lesbians to conform to heterosexual norms.

She stereotypes both groups based on behavior of single members of those groups, and sees them as people defined by "odd sexual practices", and has openly expressed her disgust at both groups.

I don't see much difference between a man getting up on a stage to tell everyone that black people are gang banger rapists and a woman getting up on a stage to tell everyone that trans people are sexually deviant threats to women.

Whoops, you ninja'd in while I was replying to Kodu, haha.

Yeah, this is the gray area where it gets complicated, no doubt. It's not actually hate speech, and it's not inciting actual harm, but it's questionable as all get out.

However, for that very reason(and the fact that I'm fervently pro-free speech), I'd say that, as long as she wasn't spreading hate speech or inciting violence against trans or bisexuals, I feel she has a right to be able to opine.

Hate speech as a concept is a very vague and tricky one though. The definition of it is any speech that incites harm or intimidates a protected group, but that's a very vague limiter. I'm not a legal expert, but in the US at least, I'm not sure her speech passes the sniff test.

For example "I think black people are all retarded and should go back to Africa" is super racist and offensive, but it's not actually hate speech. It sounds like her opinions float in the same ballpark - remarkably distasteful, but not illegal(I know that the UK has different standards for hate speech and defamatory speech and the like though, so that'd further complicate things. Obviously no one should be invited as a presenter if they're going there to break the law).

As such, if some people at the university want her there, I think it's fair for her to do her presentation, just as if, say, a black supremicist got invited by a bunch of people and gave a speech about how white people suck and should go back to europe, etc.

It'd be offensive, but if they're not inciting violence or actively attempting to intimidate white people, then they're not doing anything illegal and I feel it's fair to let them present if students want to hear it. As others have pointed out, it's the sort of views one will be exposed to in real life and being at least aware of them is a good idea, even if you find them super distasteful.

Presumably, however, if they're being invited, there's at least some merit to their presentation outside of "This is how you tie a lynching rope!", otherwise I'm unsure how the invite even occured in the first place.

That all said, I know I wouldn't be inclined to attend those presentations and would make sure to 'forget' to show up. Heck, I'd probably even be motivated to invite a different speaker who holds an opposing view to explain why their stance on all that is remarkably stupid.

tl;dr: It's no doubt a very muddled issue, but as long as they're not doing actual hate speech or inciting violence, I think that if someone wants them to present, they should be allowed to present, distasteful as they may be. Obviously, not everyone's going to agree with me though.

Edit: As a bit of a side note that's sorta related: I've never actually blocked anyone on this forum, even if I disagree like crazy with quite a lot of the people on here. The reason is, even people I disagree with like crazy have good points and ideas about other stuff. Blocking them out entirely, not just ignoring their posts as they go by in a thread if I disgree does me a great disservice. I feel the same sort of thing holds true here.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Whoops, you ninja'd in while I was replying to Kodu, haha.

Yeah, this is the gray area where it gets complicated, no doubt. It's not actually hate speech, and it's not inciting actual harm, but it's questionable as all get out.

However, for that very reason(and the fact that I'm fervently pro-free speech), I'd say that, as long as she wasn't spreading hate speech or inciting violence against trans or bisexuals, I feel she has a right to be able to opine.

Hate speech as a concept is a very vague and tricky one though. The definition of it is any speech that incites harm or intimidates a protected group, but that's a very vague limiter. I'm not a legal expert, but in the US at least, I'm not sure her speech passes the sniff test.

For example "I think black people are all retarded and should go back to Africa" is super racist and offensive, but it's not actually hate speech. It sounds like her opinions float in the same ballpark - remarkably distasteful, but not illegal(I know that the UK has different standards for hate speech and defamatory speech and the like though, so that'd further complicate things. Obviously no one should be invited as a presenter if they're going there to break the law).

As such, if some people at the university want her there, I think it's fair for her to do her presentation, just as if, say, a black supremicist got invited by a bunch of people and gave a speech about how white people suck and should go back to europe, etc.

It'd be offensive, but if they're not inciting violence or actively attempting to intimidate white people, then they're not doing anything illegal and I feel it's fair to let them present if students want to hear it. As others have pointed out, it's the sort of views one will be exposed to in real life and being at least aware of them is a good idea, even if you find them super distasteful.

Presumably, however, if they're being invited, there's at least some merit to their presentation outside of "This is how you tie a lynching rope!", otherwise I'm unsure how the invite even occured in the first place.

That all said, I know I wouldn't be inclined to attend those presentations and would make sure to 'forget' to show up. Heck, I'd probably even be motivated to invite a different speaker who holds an opposing view to explain why their stance on all that is remarkably stupid.

tl;dr: It's no doubt a very muddled issue, but as long as they're not doing actual hate speech or inciting violence, I think that if someone wants them to present, they should be allowed to present, distasteful as they may be. Obviously, not everyone's going to agree with me though.

The key here, in my opinion, is the nature of no-platforming. This woman can say what she wants, I wont stop her, but universities have limited resources to spend on giving platforms for speakers. This isn't the internet where there is practically infinite space for everyone to share their views. If this woman gets a platform we lose out on someone with actually useful things to say. In particular, we don't need someone to get up and tell all the lies before we can address them. I don't see why we should waste thousands of dollars, and in particular give these speakers thousands of dollars, so these people can come and tell me how disgusting I am and how my very existence is an affront to decency.

There is a difference between being allowed to present a view point, which we all have ample opportunity to do through things like the internet, and being paid many thousands of dollars out of university funds to do so. When it comes to deciding these things I don't think it is unreasonable to be highly discerning on who gets access to that limited space, and the students in particular should be able to inform that decision.

 

[Areloch]

Whoops, you ninja'd in while I was replying to Kodu, haha.

Yeah, this is the gray area where it gets complicated, no doubt. It's not actually hate speech, and it's not inciting actual harm, but it's questionable as all get out.

However, for that very reason(and the fact that I'm fervently pro-free speech), I'd say that, as long as she wasn't spreading hate speech or inciting violence against trans or bisexuals, I feel she has a right to be able to opine.

Hate speech as a concept is a very vague and tricky one though. The definition of it is any speech that incites harm or intimidates a protected group, but that's a very vague limiter. I'm not a legal expert, but in the US at least, I'm not sure her speech passes the sniff test.

For example "I think black people are all retarded and should go back to Africa" is super racist and offensive, but it's not actually hate speech. It sounds like her opinions float in the same ballpark - remarkably distasteful, but not illegal(I know that the UK has different standards for hate speech and defamatory speech and the like though, so that'd further complicate things. Obviously no one should be invited as a presenter if they're going there to break the law).

As such, if some people at the university want her there, I think it's fair for her to do her presentation, just as if, say, a black supremicist got invited by a bunch of people and gave a speech about how white people suck and should go back to europe, etc.

It'd be offensive, but if they're not inciting violence or actively attempting to intimidate white people, then they're not doing anything illegal and I feel it's fair to let them present if students want to hear it. As others have pointed out, it's the sort of views one will be exposed to in real life and being at least aware of them is a good idea, even if you find them super distasteful.

Presumably, however, if they're being invited, there's at least some merit to their presentation outside of "This is how you tie a lynching rope!", otherwise I'm unsure how the invite even occured in the first place.

That all said, I know I wouldn't be inclined to attend those presentations and would make sure to 'forget' to show up. Heck, I'd probably even be motivated to invite a different speaker who holds an opposing view to explain why their stance on all that is remarkably stupid.

tl;dr: It's no doubt a very muddled issue, but as long as they're not doing actual hate speech or inciting violence, I think that if someone wants them to present, they should be allowed to present, distasteful as they may be. Obviously, not everyone's going to agree with me though.

The key here, in my opinion, is the nature of no-platforming. This woman can say what she wants, I wont stop her, but universities have limited resources to spend on giving platforms for speakers. This isn't the internet where there is practically infinite space for everyone to share their views. If this woman gets a platform we lose out on someone with actually useful things to say. In particular, we don't need someone to get up and tell all the lies before we can address them. I don't see why we should waste thousands of dollars, and in particular give these speakers thousands of dollars, so these people can come and tell me how disgusting I am and how my very existence is an affront to decency.

There is a difference between being allowed to present a view point, which we all have ample opportunity to do through things like the internet, and being paid many thousands of dollars out of university funds to do so. When it comes to deciding these things I don't think it is unreasonable to be highly discerning on who gets access to that limited space, and the students in particular should be able to inform that decision.

Oh, to be sure, the Universities should be free to not fund things as necessary. I'm just against no-platforming purely due to political or ideological reasons. If like, 2 people want a black supremacist presenter there and no one else does, then it's entirely fair for the university to go 'yeah....nah, there's no real reason to pay for that'.

As with most things, it's about a middle-ground in handling. Universities shouldn't have to pay for any and all speakers, I don't think anyone's argued for that, but they also shouldn't no-platform someone purely due to differences in ideologies or politics.

 

[Areloch]

Fine, if you want to see it as that. That's on you, not me.

Most of the 'censorship can be good'-side examples I've seen in this thread have leaped straight to hate-speech and talking about inviting the KKK, which is fairly dishonest as I'm moderately sure that's not what most people are talking about when complaining about people being no-platformed or having students try and interrupt/shut down presentations.

If people can't avoid leaping straight to the extreme hyperbole, then that's their issue. That doesn't invalidate a perfectly good subject for discussion as a whole.

People bring up the KKK because it is relevant to the conversation at hand. I mean if people are saying that universities should be forced to give people platforms then the realities of that should be discussed.

It speaks volumes for an argument if it relies on not talking about disagreeable outcomes. It's not the side that's bringing up the KKK at fault there, it's the people saying don't talk about it because it's inconvienient to their argument.

Hm, I'm wondering if quoting derped out, I didn't spot this at first. Sorry Pluvia.

Anywho, I feel that the mentions of the KKK and the like are intentionally swinging the extreme to enact a gut response, but sure, that's fair, no doubt there's at least one person out there that'd like to invite the local KKK chapter to speak somewhere.

So if we go with that, I'd stick to what I've said already. As long as they're not there to spread actual hate-speech or incite violence, then no-platforming them for purely political/ideological reasons is wrong.

Like, say, they came in to give a presentation about white American history and how the US is what it is today because of white people and the sort. That's not "here's how you too can better lynch 'dem niggers", which would be obviously brushing up into hate-speech and incitement, which we've agreed is wrong.

So if their presentation has merit and they're not there to spread harm, then merely existing as the KKK strikes me as an insufficient reason to block them from presenting.

Fine, if you want to see it as that. That's on you, not me.

Most of the 'censorship can be good'-side examples I've seen in this thread have leaped straight to hate-speech and talking about inviting the KKK, which is fairly dishonest as I'm moderately sure that's not what most people are talking about when complaining about people being no-platformed or having students try and interrupt/shut down presentations.

If people can't avoid leaping straight to the extreme hyperbole, then that's their issue. That doesn't invalidate a perfectly good subject for discussion as a whole.

The good news is, most all of these people can't stay in college forever and when they get thrust into the real world, which doesn't care about what they think or feel, most young adults that think they know everything go through another phase of rapid growing and become largely respectable adults.

Unfortunately it's looking less like that good news holds true with people now able to pretend to be professional researchers of Twilight and man other things and Universities etc allowing some of this. Heck the expansion out of university with people demanding to be paid for their activism to continue and activist communities. Some people are doing pretty well finding ways to be paid to create these college style bubbles.

Hm, while that is true, I don't feel that it holds up at a broad level in real life, yet. I like to troll around through tumblr in those sorts of groups and tags because people post the most gloriously insane trains of logic(and lots of people step in to shut them down), and I've seen quite a number of people hit a point where it stops making sense to them or gets too crazy and they have a reality check.

No doubt, there always has been, and always will be people that squeeze by on worthless degrees and stupid ideas, but I don't feel it's hit a critical mass point yet. Gender Studies degrees are just as useless to just about every field as they've always been if you plan to do anything that isn't teaching about Gender Studies, for example.

They may try to persist their safe bubbles, but outside of creating a small echo chamber most people will sidestep around, their reach is drastically cut when they move that bubble out into real life - if only because most people won't put up with their viewpoints as they try to spread them.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

The argument wasn't so much it was fine for her to stand there and de-humanise people. I'm sure most people would agree that would be abhorrent.

However if she's been invited to speak on other issues then it's possible she would be a worthy speaker on those issues.

To give an example an actor invited to speak about their experience and how to be an actor who I dunno believes the Earth is Flat and anyone who disagrees is an inhuman alien monster in disguise. Well you wouldn't care so much if they're there to say how to be a successful actor and don't bring up the extraneous stuff.

And that is a fine point in theory, but often the extraneous stuff is woven directly into their area of expertise. A scientist coming to lecture on particle physics that hates gay people might be excusable, but often there is no such clear delineation. For example, the woman I mentioned is a lesbian feminist. If she was to speak, it would be either about LGBT issues or feminism.

The problem is that to her one of the the pressing issues of both is how, according to her, bisexual and transgender people are an affront to homosexuals and womanhood. I believe she could keep those particular views out of her presentation but I am not sure she would. And even if she didn't directly mention them every time she talks about how women are marginalized or attacked I know she is referring partially to us.

It would be like inviting someone to discuss racial inequality who openly hates Hispanic Americans. Nothing they say can be taken seriously because you know that for every rousing shout of "equality for everyone!" they are silently adding to themselves "except for those disgusting Mexicans." The blatant hypocrisy destroys their credibility.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

And that is a fine point in theory, but often the extraneous stuff is woven directly into their area of expertise. A scientist coming to lecture on particle physics that hates gay people might be excusable, but often there is no such clear delineation. For example, the woman I mentioned is a lesbian feminist. If she was to speak, it would be either about LGBT issues or feminism.

The problem is that to her one of the the pressing issues of both is how, according to her, bisexual and transgender people are an affront to homosexuals and womanhood. I believe she could keep those particular views out of her presentation but I am not sure she would. And even if she didn't directly mention them every time she talks about how women are marginalized or attacked I know she is referring partially to us.

It would be like inviting someone to discuss racial inequality who openly hates Hispanic Americans. Nothing they say can be taken seriously because you know that for every rousing shout of "equality for everyone!" they are silently adding to themselves "except for those disgusting Mexicans." The blatant hypocrisy destroys their credibility.

I can appreciate that but shouldn't people be willing to give the speaker a chance to prove they aren't going to weave such things into their talk?

I mean it rather seems to be de-platforming a person for what they might say at a talk rather than what they do say at a talk or have said at a previous university talk.

How many chances do we give a person? She has been staunchly anti bi and anti trans for over a decade. She has used many such speaking opportunities in the past to push these views along with pushing them through other means.

How many times do we pay a person many thousands of dollars to spew hatred and ignorance before we should stop?

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

How many chances do we give a person? She has been staunchly anti bi and anti trans for over a decade. She has used many such speaking opportunities in the past to push these views along with pushing them through other means.

But was that at other events where she was there to discuss those elements of her views or was it her going offtopic at a university speech?

That is just it, she does not see it as off topic. Her views on trans and bi people are an extension of her approach to feminism. I have not seen transcripts of her previous speeches, but I have read several of her articles, some very recent. She talks about giving women safe spaces and throws in a comment about keeping "men in dresses" out. She talks about women being free to express their sexuality and then makes a disparaging comment about experimenting with sex outside of rigid hetro/homosexual lines. She talks about being accepting of sexuality and then mocks people who are still figuring theirs out.

Some people out there may want to hear those views of her (though who knows who they hell those people who). Hence she may have been asked specifically to events to share those views instead of being asked to give a talk on a different area.

That is fine, if people want to hear her views on the subject they can hear them. She already has sufficient resources to get her words out there, and if she is invited by an organization to do so I am not going to say those people have no right to host her transphobic views.

But what is happening here is a university considered inviting her and hundreds of their students felt strongly enough about that to specifically speak out against against her coming, where as no significant amount of students bothered to defend her coming. Few care significantly enough to see her come and many would rather she didn't.

The aim of eliminating no-platforming is to prevent such a process of deciding who speaks - all viewpoints, whether or not a significant amount of students want to hear them, must be fielded using limited resources. And that right there is the problem, limited resources. We often talk about inclusiveness not being a zero sum game, but in this narrow case it actually is. There is only so much funding for this sort of thing. If this woman is given a platform, someone else does not get one.

And I have to ask, even if she does manage to keep away from any low blows, given this woman's anti scientific track record is she the best feminist we can get? Can we count on her to deliver well reasoned and rational points about feminism when she routinely dismisses scientifically valid evidence about women in favor of personal pet theories based entirely on her own transphobia? Is paying her thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of dollars a wise use of our limited funds?

 

[Areloch]

How many chances do we give a person? She has been staunchly anti bi and anti trans for over a decade. She has used many such speaking opportunities in the past to push these views along with pushing them through other means.

But was that at other events where she was there to discuss those elements of her views or was it her going offtopic at a university speech?

That is just it, she does not see it as off topic. Her views on trans and bi people are an extension of her approach to feminism. I have not seen transcripts of her previous speeches, but I have read several of her articles, some very recent. She talks about giving women safe spaces and throws in a comment about keeping "men in dresses" out. She talks about women being free to express their sexuality and then makes a disparaging comment about experimenting with sex outside of rigid hetro/homosexual lines. She talks about being accepting of sexuality and then mocks people who are still figuring theirs out.

Some people out there may want to hear those views of her (though who knows who they hell those people who). Hence she may have been asked specifically to events to share those views instead of being asked to give a talk on a different area.

That is fine, if people want to hear her views on the subject they can hear them. She already has sufficient resources to get her words out there, and if she is invited by an organization to do so I am not going to say those people have no right to host her transphobic views.

But what is happening here is a university considered inviting her and hundreds of their students felt strongly enough about that to specifically speak out against against her coming, where as no significant amount of students bothered to defend her coming. Few care significantly enough to see her come and many would rather she didn't.

The aim of eliminating no-platforming is to prevent such a process of deciding who speaks - all viewpoints, whether or not a significant amount of students want to hear them, must be fielded using limited resources. And that right there is the problem, limited resources. We often talk about inclusiveness not being a zero sum game, but in this narrow case it actually is. There is only so much funding for this sort of thing. If this woman is given a platform, someone else does not get one.

And I have to ask, even if she does manage to keep away from any low blows, given this woman's anti scientific track record is she the best feminist we can get? Can we count on her to deliver well reasoned and rational points about feminism when she routinely dismisses scientifically valid evidence about women in favor of personal pet theories based entirely on her own transphobia? Is paying her thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of dollars a wise use of our limited funds?

I guess all that would depend on if the student body felt there was a better pick than her, wouldn't it? And as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, I don't think I've ever seen financial constraints as a listed reason for someone being denied speaking at a university, so the reasoning there feels somewhat weak.

It always boils down to the ideological or political for the listed justification of why someone shouldn't be allowed to present. When finances are brought it, it absolutely complicates the matter, but even your argument here is predicated on her having a terrible opinion and thus they shouldn't spend money on her.

So would it still be an issue if she was willing to speak at the university for free?

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

I guess all that would depend on if the student body felt there was a better pick than her, wouldn't it? And as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, I don't think I've ever seen financial constraints as a listed reason for someone being denied speaking at a university, so the reasoning there feels somewhat weak.

I would suggest you have not been looking hard enough, it happens all the time. Even in this very thread, starting at post #2 and #3:

"Julie Bindel was barred from speaking (not "banned" as the article inaccurately describes) because more students didn't want her to appear on one of their platforms and get paid with by their tuition than students wanted her to speak."

"What is happening is universities are telling that person they can't use university resources as a platform for their speech."

It always boils down to the ideological or political for the listed justification of why someone shouldn't be allowed to present. When finances are brought it, it absolutely complicates the matter, but even your argument here is predicated on her having a terrible opinion and thus they shouldn't spend money on her.

And informing that entire discussion is the understanding, based on the most basic and intuitive principle of economics, that there is not infinite money. Why do you think the speaking fee of individuals is brought up so often? Why do you think post number 2 discussed where the student's money would go?

We judge the worth of speakers by the quality of their ideas, knowledge, and credentials. Because that is what we are hiring them for. Not talking about their ideology would be awfully weird since that is specifically why we are hiring them.

And so, for example,we ask the questions: are Julie Bindel's ideas of high quality as they pertain to the subject on which she will be speaking? Has she demonstrated a thorough understanding of the issue? Is she in line with current scientific thinking? If not, does she bring an alternative hypothesis based on sound scientifically obtained evidence? If not, is she at least purposing a method by which evidence supporting her hypothesis may be obtained? If not, is her hypothesis at least not already debunked?

The answers to these questions, in order: They do not seem to be, no, no, no, no, no.

So we keep going and eventually we get to "Can we at least be sure she won't use the time we give her to champion transphobia and biphobia?" and the answer is still no. I am not sure what value is left. There are better feminists out there, I know there are. Why should we hire this one over all of them?

So would it still be an issue if she was willing to speak at the university for free?

No, as long as the university does not have to foot the bill for the event. This has been stated many, many times in this thread, again starting at post number 2.

"If the speaker really is oh so concerned about speaking to the students they can organize a speaking event elsewhere."

"If they wanted to show up to somebody's crowded dormroom and rap about whatever to the crowd that showed up they could."

 

[Areloch]

I guess all that would depend on if the student body felt there was a better pick than her, wouldn't it? And as has been pointed out earlier in this thread, I don't think I've ever seen financial constraints as a listed reason for someone being denied speaking at a university, so the reasoning there feels somewhat weak.

I would suggest you have not been looking hard enough, it happens all the time. Even in this very thread, starting at post #2 and #3:

"Julie Bindel was barred from speaking (not "banned" as the article inaccurately describes) because more students didn't want her to appear on one of their platforms and get paid with by their tuition than students wanted her to speak."

"What is happening is universities are telling that person they can't use university resources as a platform for their speech."

It always boils down to the ideological or political for the listed justification of why someone shouldn't be allowed to present. When finances are brought it, it absolutely complicates the matter, but even your argument here is predicated on her having a terrible opinion and thus they shouldn't spend money on her.

And informing that entire discussion is the understanding, based on the most basic and intuitive principle of economics, that there is not infinite money. Why do you think the speaking fee of individuals is brought up so often? Why do you think post number 2 discussed where the student's money would go?

We judge the worth of speakers by the quality of their ideas, knowledge, and credentials. Because that is what we are hiring them for. Not talking about their ideology would be awfully weird since that is specifically why we are hiring them.

And so, for example,we ask the questions: are Julie Bindel's ideas of high quality as they pertain to the subject on which she will be speaking? Has she demonstrated a thorough understanding of the issue? Is she in line with current scientific thinking? If not, does she bring an alternative hypothesis based on sound scientifically obtained evidence? If not, is she at least purposing a method by which evidence supporting her hypothesis may be obtained? If not, is her hypothesis at least not already debunked?

The answer to every one of those questions is no. So we keep going and eventually we get to "Can we at least be sure she won't use the time we give her to champion transphobia and biphobia?" and the answer is still no. I am not sure what value is left. There are better feminists out there, I know there are. Why should we hire this one over all of them?

So would it still be an issue if she was willing to speak at the university for free?

No, as long as the university does not have to foot the bill for the event. This has been stated many, many times in this thread, again starting at post number 2.

"If the speaker really is oh so concerned about speaking to the students they can organize a speaking event elsewhere."

"If they wanted to show up to somebody's crowded dormroom and rap about whatever to the crowd that showed up they could."

Wow, I totally managed to miss the tuition part. Sorry, Mars' response got a bit wall-o-texty there and I guess I glazed on that bit.

So yeah, fair point on that.

I feel the "You're free to speak, as long as you don't do it here" isn't the same as "As long as the university doesn't foot the bill" in regards to the last part though, but otherwise, yes, as long as the main consideration isn't the ideological/political stance, I think it's likely to be as far as it's going to be.

The only real issue I take with no-platforming is when it occurs because the speaker holds the 'wrong' opinion or politic. After that is picking and choosing on which is the best options to spend the limited resources on, which is (more or less) fair between all speakers.

 

[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.

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.

So you want to restrict the freedom of students to lobby other students or speak, to preserve the right of other students to use collective money to hire people to speak? Or do you just object to those students' speech, and prefer they shut up? The university is listening to their students, and nothing is stopping one group from being louder or more influential than any other, except numbers and commitment.

That sounds like a good real world lesson for everyone, and it's how a minority of outraged religious maniacs can keep the rest of us from swearing and seeing tits on TV.

 

[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.

I don't-

I don't understand.

There are clearly words there, but I didn't understand a single one of them. You must be new here.

What part is confusing you exactly? It was apparently comprehensible to the person I replied to, and no one else struggled with it. I'm happy to help you through the big words here, even as I am a newbie. Or, you can teach me how to use the little words. I'm willing to adapt.

 

[NiPah]

Spoiler

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.

So you want to restrict the freedom of students to lobby other students or speak, to preserve the right of other students to use collective money to hire people to speak? Or do you just object to those students' speech, and prefer they shut up? The university is listening to their students, and nothing is stopping one group from being louder or more influential than any other, except numbers and commitment.

That sounds like a good real world lesson for everyone, and it's how a minority of outraged religious maniacs can keep the rest of us from swearing and seeing tits on TV.

I object to the NUS creating a blacklist of organizations and people preventing them from speaking at functions, at facilities run by the NUS and affiliated unions, and with members of affiliated unions, I have read the reasons given for creating the blacklist and I feel it doesn't warrant the gross display of censorship.

I'm not purposing we restrict the freedom of the students, although I wish the universities had taken steps to prevent such acts, I'm simply judging the acts of a student organization. Even democratically elected groups can preform acts I find distasteful, I'd never advocate we restrict their freedom to prevent these acts, but the admonishment of their acts gets the point across.

I'd also like to say it's not that the NUS isn't hiring everyone they disagree with, it's the act of creating a list of banned organization and individuals with ideologies they disagree with that I disapprove of, especially when the reasons given to blacklist certain individuals is suspect.