"certain" students, "certain" speakers, "certain" discussions - I just can't hear the word "certain" any more without assuming that what I'm reading is yet another angsty, hand-wringing, paranoid-tinged screed about Things These Days, with no specific target, just this anger about these "certain" things that these "certain" people do.
Maybe here is a more eloquent description of the problem.
Also, consider that the writer already feels free speech is so under attack that they are not safe enough to even discuss that free speech is under attack.
It's Jordan Peterson talking, he has quite a reputation outside of PragerU. But this one video is very short and sums up the attack on free speech from a unique angle his other videos don't do and it's specifically about universities.
Dangerous people are filling the heads of young people with dangerous nonsense. Who are these people? They are what Jordan Peterson calls “the post-modernists:” neo-Marxist professors who dominate our colleges and universities. And here’s the worst part: we are financing these nihilists with tax dollars, alumni gifts and tuition payments. Time to wise up.
Calling Marxists nihilists is contradictory, and Jordon Peterson does not have a good track record of accurately discussing either post-modernism or Marxism. So right off the bat, I don't think this video is going to be a valuable use of my time.
Edit: Plus the hyperbolic language included in the description indicates to me that I'm not about to hear an even-handed discussion of the issue that seeks to accurately represent the opinions of the other side.
Are neo-marxists not marxists? I talk with actual marxists and not a single one has used this terminology, so this really smells like something made up just so claims like the above can be made. It doesn't seem like a good-faith attempt to understand the positions of the "neo-Marxist professors." In my read of Jordan Peterson's stuff, there's a lot of that going on: claiming misconstrued context or playing semantic games to avoid the heart of the matter that his point of view is just not substantiated.
The video is short, it's good to hear alternative opinions that challenge your own.
Its good to hear alternative opinions that are well formed, even-keeled, and evidenced. To use an extreme example, I do not need to hear an opinion about how the Earth is flat or maybe white nationalism would be a good thing. Right of the bat, I'm told that these "neo-Marxist" professors are dangerous and encouraged to enter a moral panic about nihilism being taught to kids. That doesn't seem like its going to be a good and informative argument.
Earlier this year there was the promise of Slavoj Zizek and Jordan Peterson debate this October, but sadly that looks like it isn't going to happen. In the spirit of debate, here are two videos that answer some of Mr. Peterson's points.
That looks vastly superior to the above, and I'll make an effort to watch it. Thanks for the source.
Edit:
Ok so first of all, I think I should state that I am not a Marxist. I'm of the liberal persuasion, in that I think free markets with a good social safety net is the current optimal economic and political structure. That being said, I like to understand Marxist criticism of the above.
I don't think that this is a really good or compelling argument with regards to "post-modernism". Basically, the gist of it is that Marxism says X, X has empirically failed, far-leftists chose a childish reaction of not acknowledging the facts and so they embraced post-modernism to avoid having to deal with it.
The argument fails on several dynamics.
First, it fails to acknowledge that there are multiple political theories within Marxism itself. The Soviet Union, for example, started from Leninism, and there are quite a lot of Marxists that reject that. This allows him to claim that the failure of one type of Marxist thought is equivalent to it all failing without having to actually support that argument. Its pretty intellectually dishonest.
Second, he really doesn't seem to understand some of the core things about Marxism. In particular, he boils down the notion of exploitation to a moral argument, using the colloquial definition and emotional reactions of the term. But Marx used the term in a descriptive manner to describe how value created by a worker did not go to the worker but to their employer. Neither does Marxism necessarily involve central planning by the workers which he seems to suggest. It also isn't necessarily focused on sharing. There can still be markets in a such a market-based, Marxist economy, but the products would be produced by companies that are owned and ran by the workers at those companies.
Third, he does not really do any sort of deep analysis of capitalism. In particular, he talks a lot about material conditions in capitalist nations vs the soviet union and prescribes things like purges to marxism. But what is elided is the fact that capitalism has also done some pretty terrible stuff in third world countries. All of that is simply ignored in the argument.
Fourth, he says post-modernism is embraced without any real evidence. I can't say that the far left is any more post modern than it was in the past, and that statement was just dropped there without any support.
Fifth, he says that post modernism was embraced to avoid facing the facts. This is also not evidenced. It could be that those with different perspectives are just looking at different things and facts and are weighing things differently.
He uses 1-3 to try to argue that these beliefs are obviously wrong and not supported by reality and then 4-5 to say that a certain set of beliefs are due to child-like rejection of the facts.
In other words, his argument is poor, he is incredibly dismissive the people he is criticizing, and is not doing intellectual due-diligence with his arguments.
Example from the article: the one about Chinese students offended by Chinese state discrimination against Tibetans. The school removed it, even though China really does. Universities are supposed to be a place of shared knowledge and diverse perspectives. Another example Berkeley, a school which, according to USA Today, "has become known more recently for its violent demonstrations between those with opposing viewpoints."
Also, the article presented overall statistics, focusing more on university trends than individuals. I think a presentation of how widespread the issue is is more impactful than attacking one particular person/university.
Example from the article: the one about Chinese students offended by Chinese state discrimination against Tibetans. The school removed it, even though China really does.
The full text of that example from the article is:
"At the University of Sheffield, Chinese students complained about a film showing state discrimination against Tibetans in China containing an offensive phrase. It was replaced with a different film, still showing discrimination against Tibetans."
It seems to me the last sentence there is rather important for context.
Also, the article presented overall statistics, focusing more on university trends than individuals. I think a presentation of how widespread the issue is is more impactful than attacking one particular person/university.
Well, yes, and the overall statistics it presented strongly suggest that the answer to the question in the headline -- "Is free speech under threat?" -- is "No, not very much."
It tickled me that Westminster University has a policy of not allowing people to speak who are intolerant of free speech. Presumably no representative of the university can ever speak. That must be hard for them.
It is more specifically the case that the idea of free speech as a prized element of a society is under threat, than the actual practice of free speech. We need to be mindful of separate things: actual individual free speech events happening, laws about speech, and society's consideration of free speech as a virtue aren't all the same "free speech" thing.
But who is threatening the virtue? Who is The Real Threat To Freedom Here! I think it's actually just various people in various political groups, from progressive students at universities to people with actual power like NY States's Cuomo with his radical anti-BDS laws and executive orders.
I like the distinction here. I find the "no platforming" question the most troublesome, because there should be freedom of association and one should not be forced to provide a venue for views that they disagree with. But at the same time, there is a point where limiting access to a venue has a real detrimental effect on free speech.
Universities have an obligation to provide a wide variety of dissenting views and not be eco chambers. But at the same time they have limited space and so they must, at some level, pick and choose which speakers get access to those venues. How does one choose which ideas are valuable enough to get access to limited space?
It's mind-boggling that it has to be limited. What are universities for? Every day every university should have hundreds of guests thinkers and grad students streaming through doing paid speeches and Q&As. If half of them are Alex Jones fraudsters, ok, let students protest and leaflet outside all they want, which would be even more exchanging of ideas and facts.
I meant that in terms of physical space availability, of which there is a finite amount. Theres only so many conference rooms that can house a visiting guest speaker.
I don't think that's a real issue. It's not like all the controversial speakers are trying to speak at the same university at the same time. Usually these spots are planned weeks or months in advance, plenty of time to book a room.
In fact most of the spots that have been called off were canceled well after they were scheduled and confirmed. If a university for whatever reason does not want to host the speaker at all, then just come right out and say so. Saying "Oh so sorry, we're all booked for the next 6 months!" is just a transparent excuse.
Its not specific to those examples though. Think of it like a thought experiment: a university literally can't host everyone so there's some criteria by which a guest needs to be judged.
In America, a lot of the spots were cancelled, IIRC, because protests necessitated increased security that couldn't be arranged or paid for. I'm not sure thats on the university.
Protests are an excuse. Protests are allowed and even encouraged by the university.
If the university actually wanted to stop protests, it would be trivial. Simply remove all support for protesters. (make this known in advance) This means: access cards stop working, transcripts are made unavailable, employees are fired, degrees are revoked, scholarships are terminated... some of this can be retroactive too.
When this has been done even in relatively limited form, protesters quickly stopped causing trouble. When the university gives tacit approval to the protesters, things quickly spiral out of control.
Protesting is a pretty fundamental right and societal value in America though. Cracking down on protests is, in my view, just as authoritarian as what the universities are accused of.
Whether something is a riot is often subjective and a lot of security arrangements are made for peaceful protests. After all a peaceful protest may turn into a riot. Or it may remain peaceful.
"Free speech" is a loaded term. In the US, you can't just say whatever you want without consequence, which is what lots of people seem to think "free speech" means.
Neither slander nor obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. Same goes for so-called "fighting words." Incitement of lawlessness is not protected. Incitement of suicide will likely be tested soon, but a lower court has ruled it is not protected.
And that's just a fraction of the types of speech not protected by the US Constitution.
In the UK I'm free to say this in public, following a magistrate court's decision in a public obscenity case against the Sex Pistols, caused by their album, "Never mind the bollocks (...)" that the word, bollocks, means "nonsense", not "testicles"; and is, therefore, not an obscenity.
And that is how free speech is protected, in the UK, and other modern democracies.
36 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 81.9 ms ] threadAlso, consider that the writer already feels free speech is so under attack that they are not safe enough to even discuss that free speech is under attack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LquIQisaZFU
Oh okay.
Calling Marxists nihilists is contradictory, and Jordon Peterson does not have a good track record of accurately discussing either post-modernism or Marxism. So right off the bat, I don't think this video is going to be a valuable use of my time.
Edit: Plus the hyperbolic language included in the description indicates to me that I'm not about to hear an even-handed discussion of the issue that seeks to accurately represent the opinions of the other side.
The video is short, it's good to hear alternative opinions that challenge your own.
The video is short, it's good to hear alternative opinions that challenge your own.
Its good to hear alternative opinions that are well formed, even-keeled, and evidenced. To use an extreme example, I do not need to hear an opinion about how the Earth is flat or maybe white nationalism would be a good thing. Right of the bat, I'm told that these "neo-Marxist" professors are dangerous and encouraged to enter a moral panic about nihilism being taught to kids. That doesn't seem like its going to be a good and informative argument.
On Post-Modernism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1LhcEh8Ms
On Marxism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGld3FbDY6s
https://youtu.be/pKMwJo9DHUQ
Edit: Ok so first of all, I think I should state that I am not a Marxist. I'm of the liberal persuasion, in that I think free markets with a good social safety net is the current optimal economic and political structure. That being said, I like to understand Marxist criticism of the above.
I don't think that this is a really good or compelling argument with regards to "post-modernism". Basically, the gist of it is that Marxism says X, X has empirically failed, far-leftists chose a childish reaction of not acknowledging the facts and so they embraced post-modernism to avoid having to deal with it.
The argument fails on several dynamics.
First, it fails to acknowledge that there are multiple political theories within Marxism itself. The Soviet Union, for example, started from Leninism, and there are quite a lot of Marxists that reject that. This allows him to claim that the failure of one type of Marxist thought is equivalent to it all failing without having to actually support that argument. Its pretty intellectually dishonest.
Second, he really doesn't seem to understand some of the core things about Marxism. In particular, he boils down the notion of exploitation to a moral argument, using the colloquial definition and emotional reactions of the term. But Marx used the term in a descriptive manner to describe how value created by a worker did not go to the worker but to their employer. Neither does Marxism necessarily involve central planning by the workers which he seems to suggest. It also isn't necessarily focused on sharing. There can still be markets in a such a market-based, Marxist economy, but the products would be produced by companies that are owned and ran by the workers at those companies.
Third, he does not really do any sort of deep analysis of capitalism. In particular, he talks a lot about material conditions in capitalist nations vs the soviet union and prescribes things like purges to marxism. But what is elided is the fact that capitalism has also done some pretty terrible stuff in third world countries. All of that is simply ignored in the argument.
Fourth, he says post-modernism is embraced without any real evidence. I can't say that the far left is any more post modern than it was in the past, and that statement was just dropped there without any support.
Fifth, he says that post modernism was embraced to avoid facing the facts. This is also not evidenced. It could be that those with different perspectives are just looking at different things and facts and are weighing things differently.
He uses 1-3 to try to argue that these beliefs are obviously wrong and not supported by reality and then 4-5 to say that a certain set of beliefs are due to child-like rejection of the facts.
In other words, his argument is poor, he is incredibly dismissive the people he is criticizing, and is not doing intellectual due-diligence with his arguments.
The full text of that example from the article is:
"At the University of Sheffield, Chinese students complained about a film showing state discrimination against Tibetans in China containing an offensive phrase. It was replaced with a different film, still showing discrimination against Tibetans."
It seems to me the last sentence there is rather important for context.
Also, the article presented overall statistics, focusing more on university trends than individuals. I think a presentation of how widespread the issue is is more impactful than attacking one particular person/university.
Well, yes, and the overall statistics it presented strongly suggest that the answer to the question in the headline -- "Is free speech under threat?" -- is "No, not very much."
So, yes?
But who is threatening the virtue? Who is The Real Threat To Freedom Here! I think it's actually just various people in various political groups, from progressive students at universities to people with actual power like NY States's Cuomo with his radical anti-BDS laws and executive orders.
Universities have an obligation to provide a wide variety of dissenting views and not be eco chambers. But at the same time they have limited space and so they must, at some level, pick and choose which speakers get access to those venues. How does one choose which ideas are valuable enough to get access to limited space?
I meant that in terms of physical space availability, of which there is a finite amount. Theres only so many conference rooms that can house a visiting guest speaker.
In fact most of the spots that have been called off were canceled well after they were scheduled and confirmed. If a university for whatever reason does not want to host the speaker at all, then just come right out and say so. Saying "Oh so sorry, we're all booked for the next 6 months!" is just a transparent excuse.
In America, a lot of the spots were cancelled, IIRC, because protests necessitated increased security that couldn't be arranged or paid for. I'm not sure thats on the university.
If the university actually wanted to stop protests, it would be trivial. Simply remove all support for protesters. (make this known in advance) This means: access cards stop working, transcripts are made unavailable, employees are fired, degrees are revoked, scholarships are terminated... some of this can be retroactive too.
When this has been done even in relatively limited form, protesters quickly stopped causing trouble. When the university gives tacit approval to the protesters, things quickly spiral out of control.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/academics-...
Neither slander nor obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. Same goes for so-called "fighting words." Incitement of lawlessness is not protected. Incitement of suicide will likely be tested soon, but a lower court has ruled it is not protected.
And that's just a fraction of the types of speech not protected by the US Constitution.
In the UK I'm free to say this in public, following a magistrate court's decision in a public obscenity case against the Sex Pistols, caused by their album, "Never mind the bollocks (...)" that the word, bollocks, means "nonsense", not "testicles"; and is, therefore, not an obscenity.
And that is how free speech is protected, in the UK, and other modern democracies.
_____________
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Mind_the_Bollocks,_Here%...