I'd like to see a clear policy around shouting down invited speakers and preventing students from attending a talk. Brown shirt behavior of this kind has no place on campus. This should be explicitly stated in school policy with direct and immediate consequences by removing disruptors and possibly suspension. Without consequences you are implicitly condoning that type of behavior.
I'd go so far as making govt funding dependent upon evidence of such a policy and proof that it is enforced. If schools will not do this , then it becomes necessary for legislators to determine how tax payer money should be spent. This should be a bipartisan issue.
I agree with both the premise and the promise of this piece.
The challenge is implementation, particularly in state universities, where pressure from legislators to "diversify" viewpoints on campus boils down to a call for the representation of a very particular -- and orthodox -- set of conservative views. In that view, the campus is a battleground, not a place for discovery.
In future posts, I'd love to see more discussion of how to achieve genuine pluralism that doesn't fall into the trap of entrenching partisanship.
it can be approached at the micro and macro level.
At the micro level every single word can be debated as to its meaning and how it fits into the concept being discussed.
At the macro level the discussion can focus on the overall encompassing theme of the issue being debated. .
Putting both together in discussing an issue will lead to lots of discussion but IMHO no conclussion....how satisfying is that???? all talk no conclussion.
"Free the Inquiry".....does it change anything or just lead to entrenched points of view.
Maybe voting on the issue up front than have the discuss and vote again post discuss and see if the debate changed any minds or just hardened point of view.
I'd like to see a clear policy around shouting down invited speakers and preventing students from attending a talk. Brown shirt behavior of this kind has no place on campus. This should be explicitly stated in school policy with direct and immediate consequences by removing disruptors and possibly suspension. Without consequences you are implicitly condoning that type of behavior.
I'd go so far as making govt funding dependent upon evidence of such a policy and proof that it is enforced. If schools will not do this , then it becomes necessary for legislators to determine how tax payer money should be spent. This should be a bipartisan issue.
I agree with both the premise and the promise of this piece.
The challenge is implementation, particularly in state universities, where pressure from legislators to "diversify" viewpoints on campus boils down to a call for the representation of a very particular -- and orthodox -- set of conservative views. In that view, the campus is a battleground, not a place for discovery.
In future posts, I'd love to see more discussion of how to achieve genuine pluralism that doesn't fall into the trap of entrenching partisanship.
view point diversity?
like the concept
it can be approached at the micro and macro level.
At the micro level every single word can be debated as to its meaning and how it fits into the concept being discussed.
At the macro level the discussion can focus on the overall encompassing theme of the issue being debated. .
Putting both together in discussing an issue will lead to lots of discussion but IMHO no conclussion....how satisfying is that???? all talk no conclussion.
"Free the Inquiry".....does it change anything or just lead to entrenched points of view.
Maybe voting on the issue up front than have the discuss and vote again post discuss and see if the debate changed any minds or just hardened point of view.
Happy Holidays you all
Makes sense.
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/when-collegiality-becomes-censorship