←back to thread

459 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.402s | source
Show context
necubi ◴[] 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[dead post] ◴[] No.43578928[source]

[flagged]

decimalenough[dead post] ◴[] No.43579250[source]

[flagged]

hellotheretoday ◴[] No.43579360[source]

[flagged]

replies(6): >>43579598 #>>43579751 #>>43579792 #>>43581910 #>>43583339 #>>43585202 #
emptysongglass ◴[] No.43579792[source]

[flagged]

replies(10): >>43579833 #>>43579916 #>>43580171 #>>43585057 #>>43586164 #>>43586240 #>>43586736 #>>43586862 #>>43587632 #>>43588669 #
anigbrowl ◴[] No.43586862[source]

The problem with such reflexive absolutism, as I've pointed out many times, is that you end up advocating for the speech rights of people who are advocating for genocide. I shouldn't need to point out that killing people also terminates their speech rights and that advocacy of genocide is thus an attack on free speech.

You do not have to defend the free speech rights of people who are themselves attacking free speech (and free life). In fact, it is foolish to do so.

replies(3): >>43587152 #>>43589238 #>>43589835 #
rendall[dead post] ◴[] No.43587152[source]

[flagged]

1. anigbrowl ◴[] No.43587362[source]

I bet you're thinking you're really clever with that context switch. I was actually talking about nazis, because posts above were complaining about left-wing cancel culture getting people fired from their jobs which is the sort of consequence that happened to quite a few extremely online nazis over the last decade.

Who taught you to argue like this? They didn't do you any favors.

replies(1): >>43595045 #
2. rendall ◴[] No.43595045[source]

Advocating for free speech does indeed mean defending the rights of people to say reprehensible things, including those who advocate for deeply offensive or dangerous ideas. But it's important to be clear-eyed about the historical record.

The Nazis did not rise because of an excess of free speech. During the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws and Nazi publications were censored or banned multiple times. Hitler himself was banned from public speaking in several German states in the 1920s. Despite that, the Nazi movement grew, driven not by open dialogue but by a mix of economic despair, nationalism, violent intimidation, and institutional weakness.

Far from championing free speech, the Nazis used paramilitary violence to silence opponents even before seizing power. Once in control, they moved quickly to eliminate all free expression, banning parties, censoring the press, imprisoning dissenters.

So if anything, the historical lesson is that censorship and suppression didn’t stop fascism, and that once authoritarians gain power, their first move is often to destroy free speech entirely.

Free speech is a super power. Strong free speech rights require defending the rights of terrible people to say terrible things. That doesn’t mean what they’re saying is good. It just means that it's easy to defend the rights of meaningless or popular speech, but your own right to truly speak your mind is only as strong as the rights of those you disagree with most. Someday, something you believe passionately might be seen as reprehensible by the majority.