←back to thread

451 points pseudolus | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.01s | source | bottom
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 ◴[] 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 #
decimalenough ◴[] No.43579250[source]
The left banning the use of certain words and the right banning the use of certain words are flip sides of the same coin.

Of course, if you point that out, you get yelled at by both sides.

replies(8): >>43579289 #>>43579321 #>>43579360 #>>43579383 #>>43579749 #>>43579804 #>>43583320 #>>43587542 #
hellotheretoday ◴[] No.43579360[source]
Except one side of the coin complains on twitter and maybe gets you fired from your job whereas the other side of that coin systematically removes over a hundred million dollars of research grants based on language and is literally disappearing people for their writing

but yeah, same thing. sorry someone put you through the absolute hell of saying they/them at work

replies(6): >>43579598 #>>43579751 #>>43579792 #>>43581910 #>>43583339 #>>43585202 #
emptysongglass ◴[] No.43579792[source]
Your attitude and inability to see anything but your own view is exactly the problem we've seen in the new left.

"Maybe gets you fired from your job" is someone's entire livelihood you're trivializing.

Any attempt to control speech and silence opposition is wrong, no matter how you slice it. "Your side" isn't any better than the other's.

replies(10): >>43579833 #>>43579916 #>>43580171 #>>43585057 #>>43586164 #>>43586240 #>>43586736 #>>43586862 #>>43587632 #>>43588669 #
1. singleshot_ ◴[] No.43588669[source]
If you get fired for saying something stupid, you might want to consider the notion that you deserve not to have a job. They’re called consequences, and if you don’t like them, remaining silent is free.

Put otherwise, it’s very possible that your livelihood is trivial.

replies(1): >>43588768 #
2. strken ◴[] No.43588768[source]
This is just asinine. Consider the same argument flipped around:

"If you get deported for saying something stupid, you may want to consider the notion that you do not deserve to live in the US. They’re called consequences, and if you don’t like them, remaining silent is free."

Both arguments are ridiculous because they present no evidence as to whether someone deserves a job or a visa stay.

replies(2): >>43588996 #>>43589017 #
3. ◴[] No.43588996[source]
4. singleshot_ ◴[] No.43589017[source]
Consequences as “asinine”? Let’s agree to disagree.
replies(1): >>43589266 #
5. strken ◴[] No.43589266{3}[source]
No, I'm not going to disagree with your empty statement; there's nothing there to even take a stance on. The problem with your original position is that there are real differences between A) getting deported for saying there are too many civilian casualties in Gaza, B) materially supporting Hamas, C) getting fired because you have a secret twitter account where you're overtly racist, and D) refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding then getting sued and becoming a media spectacle.

Your argument can be used to support consequences for every single one of these scenarios because it's just "maybe when a bad thing happens it was deserved". Sure, yeah, sometimes people deserve things and sometimes they don't, but pointing this out is a useless addition to a conversation.

replies(2): >>43589315 #>>43589331 #
6. ◴[] No.43589315{4}[source]
7. ◴[] No.43589331{4}[source]