Kameburger said:
I feel like you're representing these things as though they are something that is happening through the democratization of university policy. University is not obligated to provide students with a representation of the world as they want to see it but rather to educate.
Yes, but what does curriculum have to do with guest speakers requested by students who are then accomodated at the expense of the university? They're two separate things. You can't no platform a class. At best you can question either the legitimacy of the course's teaching or, alternatively, question why its taught when attendance is poor enough and other, requested curriculum is requested by not taught. Still though, the students don't really have any say in that and its judged based on what the faculty thinks is important. Even if an econ class is unpopular its still important enough to the education of those who take it to warrant its existence. Recess was really popular in middle school but they cut that instead of algebra for a reason.
It is important for students to hear from Julie Bindel because she represents a point of view that people actually hold. Saying that her point of view is toxic may be a valid critique, but people that agree with her exist, and those people vote in a democratic society and their vote counts just as much as yours or anyone else's.
She's published books, you know. If one really wanted to see what she has to say they can request the book to be bought by the library. It'll accomodate pretty much any reasonable request and two copies of a book for $15 each is quite reasonable. Certainly much more so than however much it costs to have her speak. Thats democracy functioning well. If 95% of the student body didn't want the WBC to be paid to speak using their tuition they wouldn't be given the platform but there's nothing to stop them from speaking under other accomodations and their ideas aren't actually being restricted on campus. Its not like somebody can't talk about the ideas anymore.
Not clearly understand what she believes does the transgender student who might be offended by her, the MOST disservice. Ignoring problematic viewpoints doesn't mean those people go away, yet that's the precedent these universities are setting.
Who said that they didn't exist? This is about the tuition of the students not going towards certain objectionable things. This teaches people who to behave in a system of taxpayers. Some courses are more expensive and only serve a minority of people but they stay because those people are owed those while unnecessary things are more debatable and democratized.
LGBTQ people may not have to socialize with Jerry Falwell types of people, but they do have to vote with them, and trying to sweep them under the rug is what created movements like the religious sect of the Tea Party in the US.
Actually, the Tea Party became what it was being a bunch of people got pissy that democracy didn't go their way one time and a black guy got to be president. That is what the Tea Party is - a bunch of people who side with democracy except for when they're a minority. Thats what the Birther movement was too.
If a speaker draws no crowd, and no one want's to hear them speak that's one thing, but barring them from speaking etc, undermines education, because it hides a point of view from the world that actually exists.
Nobody is actually being barred from speaking. If she really wanted to speak Julie Bindel would speak. If a group of students wanted her to speak they'd organize something, whether it be in their dorm or a club. Just because she's not getting paid to speak and not being given the auditorium doesn't mean she's banned. There's no magic barrier preventing her from going on campus and talking to people. Hate preachers go onto college campuses all the time and students get to listen to them. They just don't get a nice, cushy auditorium and paycheck when they do so.
pquote]But let's say I didn't want to hear Anita Sarkeesian speak because she makes endless strawman arguments about male gamers, I'd be doing myself a disservice. On the contrary I want to here Anita speak BECAUSE I don't like the way she constructs her argument. Because people argue like she does. If I don't know how she think's and argues than I can't properly disagree with her, because I'm ill informed and I will not be taken seriously by anyone.