• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Forming a Student Movement against Censorship on Campuses

 
 
 
J842P said:
This is nonsense. Having a speaker at a campus is not the same thing as instruction.
A University should welcome, for example, having YEC come and speak at a college if a student group invited them. Indeed, the group who invited the speaker need not sympathize with them! If some conservative group invites an global-warming skeptic, then surely they should be allowed to speak, and the relevant experts would hopefully be chomping at the bit to engage them. It belies a lack of confidence in your arguments if you wish to silence even the snake-oil salesmen. Sunshine is the best medicine. Tuition doesn't generally go to these sorts of speakers anyway, but they are brought in by groups on campus. This is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Again, you are trying to present fraud as a point of view. People commit fraud to make money. If they speak on campus, you can be sure they are being paid. You will never convince them they are wrong, because they don't believe it themselves. They are doing an act and telling lies for money. The only way to get them to stop is to make it no longer profitable. And the only way to do that is to stop paying them.

They don't let people on the campus peddle Rhinocerous Horn, they shouldn't let them peddle global warming denial. No matter how many people a fraud convinces to believe his lies, fraud is not a legitimate point of view. Students have every right to be upset that the often exorbinant tuitions they are paying are being misused in this way. He that pays the piper calls the tune. Let the frauds pay for their own hall rental, their own sound equipment, and their own electricity.
 
The problems in the UK seem to be more about censorship by students and not of students.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/24/safe-spaces-universities-no-platform-free-speech-rhodes

Last November a curious scene took place at Goldsmiths that captured something of the contradictions that surround the debate on acceptable speech. It happened during a talk given by the human-rights activist Maryam Namazie. The Iranian-born Namazie is spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims and campaigns for secularism, feminism, freedom of expression and against Islamist extremism. As such she is a controversial figure.

Earlier last year she was barred from giving a speech at Warwick University when an officer from the student union decided that she was too “inflammatory” to be heard. Following media attention, that decision was later overturned by the union president, Issac Leigh. He insists that external pressure played no part in the reversal, that it was simply the normal review procedure taking effect after a poor initial assessment of risk. Namazie remains sceptical. She believes Warwick backed down as a result of public attention.

Namazie had been invited to Goldsmiths by the college’s Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (Ash) to speak on the subject of blasphemy and apostasy in the age of Isis. Recognising the sensitivity of the subject, Ash informed Goldsmiths Islamic Society (Isoc) of the Namazie event. In reply Ash received an email from the head of the Isoc: “We feel having her present will be a violation to our safe space,” it read, “a policy which Goldsmiths SU adheres to strictly, and my society feels that all she will do is incite hatred and bigotry, at a very sensitive time for Muslims in the light of a huge rise in Islamophobic attacks.”

Despite the Isoc protest, Ash decided to go ahead with the meeting and the student union did not prevent them. The president of Ash at Goldsmiths, Asher Fainman explains his reasoning: “In regards to the external speaker policy, there needs to be a clear distinction between people who condemn the personhood of a religious group and a criticism of religion as ideology like any other. And these are often conflated. So you can get people barred for criticising your ideology on the grounds that they’re discriminating against your race. It’s a dangerous conflation because it leads to this toxic atmosphere of identity politics.”

Namazie is heckled and subject to a prolonged campaign of disruption by a group of students from the Isoc. They shout out, get up and sit down, walk around the room, laugh when she refers to Bangladeshi bloggers being hacked to death, and at one stage shut down her overhead projector when it displays a [British webcomic] Jesus and Mo cartoon END OF QUOTEhttp://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/nus-will-condemn-israel-and-ukip-but-not-isis--lJLK98e7Ul

The National Union of Students has condemned everything from Ukip to David Lammy - but not, it seems, Isis.

The Union's National Executive council (NEC) refused to pass a motion criticising the terror group, which has enslaved women and displaced or killed tens of thousands of people, in its most recent meeting. It comes shortly after the NEC passed a motion to boycott Israel entirely, despite warnings it could alienate Jewish students.


http://thetab.com/2014/10/14/nus-refuses-to-condemn-terrorists-because-its-islamophobic-22191

Murderous ISIS militants secured a victory on British soil – when the National Union of Students voted against a motion to condemn them.

Hand-wringing delegates at the NUS blocked a vote to show solidarity with Iraqi Kurds and condemn Islamic State militants because they say it’s “Islamophobic”.

The bill called for the Union – which claims to represent UK students – to support unity between Muslims, condemn the bloody terror of ISIS (also known as the Islamic State), and support a boycott on people who fund the militants.

But the motion offended Black Students Officer Malia Bouattia, who said: “We recognise that condemnation of ISIS appears to have become a justification for war and blatant Islamaphobia.

“This rhetoric exacerbates the issue at hand and in essence is a further attack on those we aim to defend.”

In the same meeting the NUS passed a motion to boycott UKIP and email every student in the country on polling day telling them to do the same – effectively meaning they find it easier to condemn UKIP than ISIS. END OF QUOTE



NB Later In the article she did say that she would propose another motion to condemn ISIS....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom