←back to thread

A university president makes a case against cowardice

(www.newyorker.com)
450 points pseudolus | 4 comments | 03 Apr 25 12:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
necubi ◴[03 Apr 25 23:48 UTC] No.43576821[source]▶
Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point).

I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expression with a need to provide a safe and open learning environment for everyone on campus. In particular, he never gave in to the unlimited demands of protestors while still defending their right to protest.

In part, he had the moral weight to do that because—unlike many university presidents—he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020, which then were turned against the left over the past year.

I don’t see any particularly good outcome from any of this; the risk of damaging the incredibly successful American university system is high. Certainly smart foreign students who long dreamed of studying in the US will be having second thoughts if they can be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained.

But I hope the universities that do make it through do with a stronger commitment to the (small l) liberal values of freedom of expression , academic freedom, and intellectual diversity.

replies(7): >>43578254 #>>43578551 #>>43578928 #>>43579619 #>>43582082 #>>43585458 #>>43586399 #
kevingadd ◴[04 Apr 25 06:27 UTC] No.43578928[source]▶
People are being abducted off the street for writing tame op-eds and we're still complaining about the left chilling speech post-2020? What are we doing here?
replies(4): >>43579250 #>>43580751 #>>43581013 #>>43587658 #
rayiner[dead post] ◴[04 Apr 25 12:02 UTC] No.43581013[source]▶
[flagged]
g8oz ◴[04 Apr 25 14:35 UTC] No.43583049[source]▶
The government may be within its legal rights. As an expression of values however it's hard not to see the expulsion of these students as petty politicalized retaliation. The sort of thing you would see in an electoral autocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy.
replies(2): >>43583378 #>>43584161 #
somedude895 ◴[04 Apr 25 14:57 UTC] No.43583378[source]▶
If you're a guest, act like a guest. Anti-Israel protests are by extension a protest against the US foreign policy, so yeah... You protest your host in a violent and disruptive manner, you probably shouldn't have been allowed in to begin with.
replies(9): >>43583455 #>>43584460 #>>43585036 #>>43585841 #>>43586492 #>>43586497 #>>43586501 #>>43586826 #>>43587602 #
1. soulofmischief ◴[04 Apr 25 15:01 UTC] No.43583455[source]▶
Not in my America.

I welcome any and all persons from anywhere in the world if they want to come and protest the American war machine

Our forefathers would be absolutely ashamed at what you just said. Protesting a totalitarian government that lacks proper representation is the most American thing you can possibly do, and that makes these immigrants more American than you will ever be, as long as you hold such views.

Edit: It seems you have edited your post in order to remove the extremely distasteful language you originally expressed. I assume you still hold such views or you'd not have expressed them to begin with, and as such my comment still stands.

replies(1): >>43585579 #
2. saalweachter ◴[04 Apr 25 17:41 UTC] No.43585579[source]▶
> Our forefathers would be absolutely ashamed...

Well, like half of our forefathers. Maybe 30%.

America has always been this weird combined project of Hopeless Idealists and The Worst People In The World. Our forefathers sought independence for freedom and self-determination and all sorts of other noble things, but also because many of them owned a bunch of slaves and were worried that was going to be outlawed in the near future. And then sought independence again a century later out of the same fear.

replies(1): >>43586174 #
3. soulofmischief ◴[04 Apr 25 18:35 UTC] No.43586174[source]▶
That's a good point, I often use "forefathers" loosely when I really mean just the good forefathers, such as Franklin, Paine, etc. I need to figure out a way to be more precise about this without being too verbose.
replies(1): >>43587688 #
4. onetimeusename ◴[04 Apr 25 21:20 UTC] No.43587688{3}[source]▶
The good forefathers? What is the basis for deciding? Like back in 2017 there was the Unite the Right rally on the UVA campus. I am guessing you would not support that kind of anti-Semitic speech and "protest against totalitarian government" although there's not really much difference in speech said at that rally versus the anti-Israel ones at Columbia except by who was saying it. Maybe I am wrong and you are a free speech absolutist but if not I would be interested in hearing how to decide which hate speech should be cracked down upon and which shouldn't.