So much for freedom of thought at universities

[Jokodo]

[...]but cookies...

Install a second browser if you don't have one already.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if that's the actual reason then the professor was in the wrong. If the topic was rape and his comments were on topic, then if other people are uncomfortable with differing views on the topic of rape then they should not be involved in classes which discuss rape.

Not if one student--any student--was monopolizing the classroom discussion or dominating the discussion excessively. This would be true of any of the students was dominating discussion with any other point of view. So, if another student wanted to spend hours pontificating about how the patriarchy was promoting the rape of women, then I would find that to be also inappropriate. Particularly when asked to cease.

But that's not what the professor said (or not that I recall him having said). The quote I was responding to claimed that some of the other students were uncomfortable with what he was saying because they were sexual assault survivors. They felt that they lived rape culture every day and his claims that rape culture didn't exist therefore disregarded their life experiences. The quote claims that it was the fact that he was talking about it to sexual assault survivors which moved it over the line from his beliefs to harassment and that`s the part I disagree with.

If someone being a sexual assault survivor makes them uncomfortable discussing rape, then the onus is on them to avoid discussing rape. The onus is not on other people to avoid or hold back on certain opinions because of how it makes them feel.

 

[dismal]

Not if one student--any student--was monopolizing the classroom discussion or dominating the discussion excessively. This would be true of any of the students was dominating discussion with any other point of view. So, if another student wanted to spend hours pontificating about how the patriarchy was promoting the rape of women, then I would find that to be also inappropriate. Particularly when asked to cease.

But that's not what the professor said (or not that I recall him having said). The quote I was responding to claimed that some of the other students were uncomfortable with what he was saying because they were sexual assault survivors. They felt that they lived rape culture every day and his claims that rape culture didn't exist therefore disregarded their life experiences. The quote claims that it was the fact that he was talking about it to sexual assault survivors which moved it over the line from his beliefs to harassment and that`s the part I disagree with.

If someone being a sexual assault survivor makes them uncomfortable discussing rape, then the onus is on them to avoid discussing rape. The onus is not on other people to avoid or hold back on certain opinions because of how it makes them feel.

Yes, every quote in the article suggests what people found "disruptive" was the content of his speech.

If the issue was frequent and repetitive disruptions that could just have well as been about baseball statistics there would be no need to dwell on the content of what he said at all, but content is what all the comments focus on.

And in any case, he should be free to rebut a claim every time it is brought up.

 

[laughing dog]

And in any case, he should be free to rebut a claim every time it is brought up.

You think this bozo should have the right to be anywhere, anytime to speak? No one has that right. Right now, he can rebut any claim he sees or hears anywhere but the discussion section.

 

[Derec]

Quite apropos:
College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea

 

[Togo]

Yes, every quote in the article suggests what people found "disruptive" was the content of his speech.

No, read the article. You posted it, you need to read it. His views were welcomed at first, but he wouldn't stop talking about them. Both he and the faculty mention this. In his letter to the college he mentioned an entire hour-long class being taken up with this one issue. More than one faculty member, and more than one students, are cited as mentioning a tendency to dismiss the life experiences of others in the class, and his tendency to refuse to stop talking about his own views.

A class is not a vehicle for the personal expression of an individual, it's a discussion for the whole class. He's not giving them equal time, or their views equal time. If 19 people want to discuss rape culture, and 1 wants to discuss the idea that it doesn't really exist, then 5% of the class time is should be what we're aiming for. In an hour long class, that's 3 minutes. Does it sound like he is limiting himself to 3 minute discussions?

And in any case, he should be free to rebut a claim every time it is brought up.

Why? You can't run a class on that basis. Why should any student have a right to talk over any other?

Look at what he's asking for. There's some confusion between his professor and other professors about whether or not he can transfer to another class, but he doesn't want that. He wants to return to his class, to carry on arguing with his classmates, and to carry on where he left off. He wants the college to stop using studies that he disagrees with. And he wants other students to stop discussing their views of him.

How is the college supposed to grant all this, and still give all the other students the education they paid for?

 

[thebeave]

This is an interesting article on the current state of free thought and expression of ideas on college campuses. Kinda of disturbing. All I can say is I'm so glad I graduated college 30 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html

The safe space, Ms. Byron explained, was intended to give people who might find comments “troubling” or “triggering,” a place to recuperate. The room was equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubbles, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies, as well as students and staff members trained to deal with trauma. Emma Hall, a junior, rape survivor and “sexual assault peer educator” who helped set up the room and worked in it during the debate, estimates that a couple of dozen people used it. At one point she went to the lecture hall — it was packed — but after a while, she had to return to the safe space. “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.

Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being “bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material.

Some people trace safe spaces back to the feminist consciousness-raising groups of the 1960s and 1970s, others to the gay and lesbian movement of the early 1990s. In most cases, safe spaces are innocuous gatherings of like-minded people who agree to refrain from ridicule, criticism or what they term microaggressions — subtle displays of racial or sexual bias — so that everyone can relax enough to explore the nuances of, say, a fluid gender identity. As long as all parties consent to such restrictions, these little islands of self-restraint seem like a perfectly fine idea.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm willing to be offended and distressed by any number of opinions if it will get me some free cookies.

 

[ZiprHead]

Don't get them confused with the Play-Doh.

 

[thebeave]

I'm willing to be offended and distressed by any number of opinions if it will get me some free cookies.

Well, I wouldn't get too excited about the cookies. Apparently, someone got PTSD from seeing a cookie in the safe space that vaguely resembled a pair of testicles. So, now all cookies are blended with milk and served as a smoothie. Though they will provide one of those loop-de-loop fun straws upon request.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm willing to be offended and distressed by any number of opinions if it will get me some free cookies.

Well, I wouldn't get too excited about the cookies. Apparently, someone got PTSD from seeing a cookie in the safe space that vaguely resembled a pair of testicles. So, now all cookies are blended with milk and served as a smoothie. Though they will provide one of those loop-de-loop fun straws upon request.

Well then, you have a so-called "safe place" with a pissed off psycho in it who's yelling and ranting about how he didn't get any cookies. Doesn't sound very safe to me.

Stupid university.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, read the article. You posted it, you need to read it. His views were welcomed at first, but he wouldn't stop talking about them. Both he and the faculty mention this. In his letter to the college he mentioned an entire hour-long class being taken up with this one issue. More than one faculty member, and more than one students, are cited as mentioning a tendency to dismiss the life experiences of others in the class, and his tendency to refuse to stop talking about his own views.

So what if he dismissed the life experiences of others in the class? And so what if he kept talking about his own views? That doesn't mean he monopolized the discussion. If people kept challenging his views, and he kept responding, that isn't him monopolizing. That is people putting the spotlight on him.

If he constantly talked over everybody else and wouldn't allow them to speak, kept interrupting them, etc, then you would have a point. Did he do that? If he did, then yes, he was causing a disturbance and was rightfully removed.

But as others have said, this appears to be more about him refusing to back down from his view and accept the views of the majority.

This reminds me of talks about religion, where the atheist is told to shut up and not say his opinion that god doesn't exist, while we all discuss what God's intentions are in this or that situation. Typically the guy who says "There is no god, so there are no intentions" will make the majority uncomfortable and he will get the spot light whether he wants it or not, so long as he keeps that opinion and doesn't back down from it. Go into any internet chat room and you will find the same thing happening. The guy, whoever they are, with the extreme opposite view of the majority will get a spotlight, may even get interrogated, whether he wants it or not, so long as he disagrees. If they find him speaking too much, they could simply allot a set amount of time for each student to speak their views, including him speaking his, and remove the spotlight from him. If he starts interrupting as others speak, then he should be removed.

And in any case, he should be free to rebut a claim every time it is brought up.

Why? You can't run a class on that basis. Why should any student have a right to talk over any other?

Why do you equate rebuting a claim with talking over another? Was he interrupting them constantly and not letting them speak? Maybe he was... If he was.. then they were right to kick him out. But I don't see that mentioned anywhere.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

College Professor Bans Student From Class For His Views On Rape

He was banned by a lefty professor Pancho Savery (who on his college homepage says that he "believe religiously in the conference method—the idea that students are in charge of their own education" except, apparently, if they disagree with him), because he challenged the notions of "rape culture" and the unfounded "1 in 5" (sometimes "1 in 4") claims. Feminist propaganda must not be challenged I guess.
I wonder if the student in question can sue for viewpoint discrimination.

Obviously it was not Jeremiah True's viewpoints which got him banned, but rather his disruptive beahavior.

If you read the article you will see that Savery had warned True about his disruptive behavior several times.

True has a FaceBook page that says he majors in "How to Annoy People" at Reed College.

So I am thinking this is a kid who would just continually interrupt people talking in class and loudly and wantonly voice his misogynist remarks. Despite several warnings.

He could have had even an opposite view on rape, but had he continued to voice it in his belligerent and disrespectful manner he still probably would have been sanctioned.

Reed is a liberal arts college. Not a barracks. Remember these are 19-22 y.o. kids. Half of them girls.

I'm sure True is quite the testosterone-driven and woman-hating jerk. But perhaps not. Either way..sound like he got a lesson in respect for others' sensibilities.

And rest assured that Reed is QUITE the liberal school..you can design your own major! And their SDS Chapter is one of the strongest in the country. Me ex went there for a couple years.

The tone of your past posts on rape have indicated to me that you share True's outlook, and you guys should probably get a room. So..that is no reason to denigrate a fine college and a most likely fine professor for disciplining a disruptive student.

 

[Derec]

And rest assured that Reed is QUITE the liberal school..

I.e. left wing. I am sure if a female student were to grandstand by ranting about "rape culture" and "patriarchy" Pancho Villa would have no problem with her.

And their SDS Chapter is one of the strongest in the country.

Isn't SDS what birthed the terrorist organization Weather Underground?

 

[laughing dog]

So what if he dismissed the life experiences of others in the class? And so what if he kept talking about his own views? That doesn't mean he monopolized the discussion.

Actually, if does. Classes are not like chatrooms - there are specific time limits to the class, and classes typically do not dwell on one specific point over long periods of time.

If people kept challenging his views, and he kept responding, that isn't him monopolizing. That is people putting the spotlight on him.

The purpose of class time is not to persistently put a spotlight on one student. A class based on discussion is about discussing all the viewpoints on the course material, not one person's.

But as others have said, this appears to be more about him refusing to back down from his view and accept the views of the majority.

No, it is about his refusal to "back down" in the sense that he would not shut up about his views.

If this class was about Mr. True's opinions, then he would have a point. Since it isn't, he doesn't.

 

[Saint_of_Me]

I.e. left wing. I am sure if a female student were to grandstand by ranting about "rape culture" and "patriarchy" Pancho Villa would have no problem with her.

And their SDS Chapter is one of the strongest in the country.

Isn't SDS what birthed the terrorist organization Weather Underground?

Yeah...you got it. You're right:

Reed is a Terrorist Camp who is secretly trying to brainwash students to form a cell to commit anarchy and take-over the Government.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion; by all means.

Look: I think one thing we all need to remember here is that we are talking about kids, at Reed. And in that class of Avery's. We are talking about 18-22 year-olds, half of them girls. If one of them was my daughter and I was paying $15,000 a year for her to attend a world-class Lib Arts University I wouldn't want one of her classes being monopolized and disrupted by some idiot who shows no respect for others and does not listen to repeated warnings to tone it down. Again...this was a college class, not a barroom conversation. Or even an open internet forum.

Like Walter Sobchek said in the great movie, "The Big Lebowski"-- "This isn't Vietnam. There are rules here!" LOL

 

[whichphilosophy]

Since it is now clear what his specific wording is and the opposing statements, there is insufficient evidence to form an opinion as o exactly why he was banned.

Rape does exist, survivors exist. Statistics are hard to put together to the nearest 1 percent. It is also accepted that that many cases of alleged cases are unreported. The word alleged is used here as they have not been established as rape.

It seems that persons who were raped took offence to his comments that a rape culture does not exist. I'm not sure how to define rape culture but certainly under this definition we have victim blaming, trivializing it, refusal to acknowledge certain forms, creating social reasons for it, denying rape even exists in many cases and so on. In our modern society we have progressed 'without consent to withdrew consent, and would not have consented (e.g. drugged during a date rape). Naturally with the wider definition (and rightly so) then more rape will be acknowledged to exist.

 

[Togo]

So what if he dismissed the life experiences of others in the class?

Discussing them was part of the class.

And so what if he kept talking about his own views? That doesn't mean he monopolized the discussion. If people kept challenging his views, and he kept responding, that isn't him monopolizing. That is people putting the spotlight on him.

No, it's him monopolising the class. Imagine a room with 19 people with opinions A1, A2, A3, etc. and one with opinion B1. If every person gets equal time to speak, then he's talking for a maximum of three minutes out of the hour. If, however, he's rebutting every time anyone challenges his opinion, then he's monopolising the discussion, because he's not claiming equal time with other students, he's claiming equal time for his opinion versus everyone else's. That means he talks for half an hour, and everyone else talks for 90 seconds.

It's harsh, but you can't have a right to rebuttal in a class discussion. if 19 people say you're an idiot, you don't get 19 replies. You get one. That's how it has to work if the discussion if going to be remotely fair. It gets even worse if discussing the issue is on the syllabus, and his objections are not.

If he constantly talked over everybody else and wouldn't allow them to speak, kept interrupting them, etc, then you would have a point. Did he do that?

According to the complaint, yes, he wouldn't stop airing his views. Note that monopolising the discussion doesn't involve interrupting anyone. And all you need to do to stop someone else speaking is to speak yourself at sufficient length. That's exactly what they said he was doing.

If he did, then yes, he was causing a disturbance and was rightfully removed.

There we go then.

But as others have said, this appears to be more about him refusing to back down from his view and accept the views of the majority.

Nonsense, there's nothing to suggest that people were waiting for him to change his mind, He himself claims that his alternative views were initially welcomed. What is complained about is that he wouldn't stop expressing his views, which is entirely reasonable.

This reminds me of talks about religion, where the atheist is told to shut up and not say his opinion that god doesn't exist, while we all discuss what God's intentions are in this or that situation. Typically the guy who says "There is no god, so there are no intentions" will make the majority uncomfortable and he will get the spot light whether he wants it or not, so long as he keeps that opinion and doesn't back down from it.

Having been precisely in that situation, I know what you're talking about. However, what happens is either you agree to disagree, or you decide to make that difference the focus of the discussion. What you don't do, in that situation, is loudly proclaim that god doesn't exist every time anyone mentions religion, try and drag the conversation back to yourself and your views, or insist on having a chance to personally rebut every time anyone expresses a view that disagrees with your own.

I've handled such situations well, and I've handled them badly. In each case, it was entirely my decision to do so, not theirs.

Go into any internet chat room and you will find the same thing happening. The guy, whoever they are, with the extreme opposite view of the majority will get a spotlight, may even get interrogated, whether he wants it or not, so long as he disagrees. If they find him speaking too much, they could simply allot a set amount of time for each student to speak their views, including him speaking his, and remove the spotlight from him. If he starts interrupting as others speak, then he should be removed.

That is one way of doing it, but the professor may have been shooting for a more informal style. There was a heavy emphasis from the college on providing a safe and unpressured environment in which to speak, and that doesn't combine well with timed pronouncements. Personally I tend to use a ball of string, or baton, or some such that gets passed from person to person, to indicate who can speak at any one time, but that suits London people, who tend to be ok with speaking in public, but hate being interrupted. New Yorkers, on the other hand, tend to be fine with overlapping speech, and so on..

And in any case, he should be free to rebut a claim every time it is brought up.

Why? You can't run a class on that basis. Why should any student have a right to talk over any other?

Why do you equate rebuting a claim with talking over another? Was he interrupting them constantly and not letting them speak?

If he is rebutting everyone who disagrees with him, and most people disagree with him, then yes, he's not letting someone speak.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

he's claiming equal time for his opinion versus everyone else's.

Is he though? That isn't the impression I got from what I read. I got the sense that the mere presence of his opinion, and his steadfast keeping of it, was the "problem". Maybe I misread it. If he simply kept going on and on and wouldn't shut up, then that is one thing. If he gave the opinion and everybody set their gaze on it, responded to it and questioned him on it, so he continued to speak on it that is something entirely different. Did the professor say something like "Fair thought, but assuming for the moment that rape culture does exist.... " and go on from there? Or was it more "Yes. Rape culture does exist. Don't say that it doesn't again. It makes people uncomfortable when you deny it"?

 

[Trausti]

he's claiming equal time for his opinion versus everyone else's.

Is he though? That isn't the impression I got from what I read. I got the sense that the mere presence of his opinion, and his steadfast keeping of it, was the "problem". Maybe I misread it. If he simply kept going on and on and wouldn't shut up, then that is one thing. If he gave the opinion and everybody set their gaze on it, responded to it and questioned him on it, so he continued to speak on it that is something entirely different. Did the professor say something like "Fair thought, but assuming for the moment that rape culture does exist.... " and go on from there? Or was it more "Yes. Rape culture does exist. Don't say that it doesn't again. It makes people uncomfortable when you deny it"?

I read it like you do. He expressed an unpopular opinion and the professor silenced him.