Harvard writer: Free speech threatens liberalism and must be destroyed

reply to post by Kali74


T'is why I also linked her original article in the OP and not just the subsequent opinion pieces.

Yes I did read her original nonsense.

And as I have stated, she has every right to talk about denying free speech.

Kali74


Regardless, in academia you fight back with knowledge and better research, in other words prove those assholes wrong. The result would be the same, a Professor discredited would likely not be welcomed back.

The best way to fight racism, sexism, heterosexism and all manner of other ugly things is to let them stand in the light and wither under it. Not push them back into the shadows where they can fester and breed.

Exactly! Academia is the best place for these scumbags to show up. You have some really smart people who can turn them into blubbering idiots with the right information and tools of debate. You can discredit them so that they run away with their tails between their legs ... and you can make them look very, very stupid - not just at that university, but at every university. And you don't have to beat them, rape them, kill them, or cut their tongues out. Use your brain and your words and beat them at their own game.

beezzer
reply to post by Kali74

 

T'is why I also linked her original article in the OP and not just the subsequent opinion pieces.

Yes I did read her original nonsense.

And as I have stated, she has every right to talk about denying free speech.

I'm disgusted enough that I really, really have be careful what I say. What she says is absolutely true, her methods are wrong. But I feel it isn't just her methods that irk so many in this thread.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Its happend a few times here in the UK some uni's have invited the local bigots to speak and they just end up makeing a complete fool of themselfs. The bigots get there freedom of speech and they end up loseing status in the process as they just make a complete arse of themselfs.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

libertarianism, as it turns out lately, is a mixture of the middle ground of the two poles we currently have (not polish people, mind you...polar opposites

) and true fiscal conservatism.

I think if you lined up those two things, you would find the average libertarian.

A growing number, however, are moving more in a full throttle anti-government direction. To be honest, either/or makes me happy enough. I just can't keep taking what we currently have. it makes me feel dirty and stupid.

You just described me to a tee. I am a fiscal ultra conservative combined with a moderate mix of conservative and liberal social ideals.

I do believe that I should be able to do virtually anything as long as I am not harming another person, their property, nor threatening them or their property. I abhor govt intervention in my life when it seems so unnecessary, so tyrannical in ways.



To those who want to threaten this girl, who is speaking against freedom of speech.... All I can say is, I would fight for her right to say stupid things. That is what freedom of speech means.

We need to defend our Constitution and our rights as granted...not threaten those who would exercise them, no matter how stupidly.

crazyewok
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Its happend a few times here in the UK some uni's have invited the local bigots to speak and they just end up makeing a complete fool of themselfs. The bigots get there freedom of speech and they end up loseing status in the process as they just make a complete arse of themselfs.

That's why I always will support the right to free speech.

Mark Twain had a saying. . .

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Let the fools speak!

reply to post by beezzer


It’s funny.

people worry about giving these sort of scum free speech due to them getting supporters ect

When really giving the free speech just does the opposite.

If you suppress and keep it in the dark then ignorance festers and its quite frankly people end up supporting cause its risky and rebellious.

I'm starting to dislike Harvard more and more. It seems everything that comes from Harvard, whether it's a publication or a person, wants to tell everyone else how to act or feel. I used to think Harvard was nice, even visited the campus once, but now I'm starting to really hate it.

crazyewok
reply to post by beezzer

 

It’s funny.

people worry about giving these sort of scum free speech due to them getting supporters ect

When really giving the free speech just does the opposite.

If you suppress and keep it in the dark then ignorance festers and its quite frankly people end up supporting cause its risky and rebellious.

This i agree with.

Subversive ideas are introduced then stifled. The purpose is to impact the next generation, by priming them to rebel in a predictable and more controllable way. Useful idiots, if you will.

The strength of an open society is its ability to flesh out subversive ideas by embracing their discussion. This cannot happen in todays world. Or yesterdays. For it to happen in tomorrows world would require a miracle of biblical proportions. There are those who want to control, and everyone else who is willing to be controlled.

Yeah let's sacrifice our freedom for justice. Where have we heard that before?

Btw she sounds really ignorant and pretentious (read: moron).

Destinyone
reply to post by beezzer

 

The esteemed Sandra Korn, of Harvard. Can kiss my happy arse...

How's that for free speech...

Des

hold on a minute, destiny...the daily caller "writer" Robby Soave, completely misinterpreted Korns article
here it is:
www.thecrimson.com...#

this Soave guy is intellectually lazy and dishonest, how he ever arrived at his conclusion about Korn, or her opinion from the article, doesn't make any sense at all.

did any of you read her article????....she said nothing about what you are condemning her for...point out direct quotes from her article that can back up what you people interpret her as saying.

PeaceNLove123
Yeah let's sacrifice our freedom for justice. Where have we heard that before?

Btw she sounds really ignorant and pretentious (read: moron).

huh?...."let's sacrifice our freedom for justice"???....what the hell does that mean?

crazyewok
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Its happend a few times here in the UK some uni's have invited the local bigots to speak and they just end up makeing a complete fool of themselfs. The bigots get there freedom of speech and they end up loseing status in the process as they just make a complete arse of themselfs.

You'd think would be the answer, right? But then there's this:

... (Swarthmore College) invited a famous left-wing Princeton professor, Cornel West, and a famous right-wing Princeton professor, Robert George, to have a debate. The two men are friends, and by all accounts they had an utterly civil exchange of ideas. But that only made the whole thing even more outrageous.

"What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion," Ching told the Daily Gazette, the school's newspaper. "I don't think we should be tolerating [George's] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society."

I don't really need to add anything to this.

That said - those who discuss violence against the speaker, even in a joking way, cede the high ground back to those who use peaceful means of oppressing opposition. While I think the above quote shows a rather fascist way of thinking, remember the first rule of debate - the first person to threaten violence loses.

If you want free speech for all, you must fight for it, for all, in all its forms, even when you disagree, or when its "hate speech", (itself another modern construct meant to undermine free speech rights.)

jimmyx
did any of you read her article????....she said nothing about what you are condemning her for...point out direct quotes from her article that can back up what you people interpret her as saying.

Actually ...

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

The power to enforce academic justice comes from students, faculty, and workers organizing together to make our universities look as we want them to do. Two years ago, when former summer school instructor Subramanian Swamy published hateful commentary about Muslims in India, the Harvard community organized to ensure that he would not return to teach on campus. I consider that sort of organizing both appropriate and commendable.

I think that's precisely what everyone is on about. Basically, "we" (the students of Harvard), get to decide what "justice" means - and that not only do you get to fire those who don't toe whatever political dogma is in vogue at the time, you also get to suppress any research that doesn't similarly toe the line.

It's formalizing mob rule, ensuring no professor is ever hired or tenured or who conducts research that aren't entirely in concert with the political orthodoxy of those who scream the loudest.

So, if someone wanted to conduct research on, say, the "Presence of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Illegal Immigrant Populations", that research should be suppressed, because "Illegal Immigrant" is hate-speech.

While there have been many outrages committed under the aegis of "academic freedom", this cure is worse than the disease.

PeaceNLove123
Yeah let's sacrifice our freedom for justice. Where have we heard that before?

Btw she sounds really ignorant and pretentious (read: moron).

99 times out of 100 I will say that Jimmyx is a blathering idiot. This time, though, he is right.

The context of what this lady was saying was 100% local in its reach. The context that the OP's author was trying to place this in was wholly national/global in scale.

In short: what you believe she is saying is not what she is saying. What she is essentially saying is, "Why does my tuition money go to support research that violates the values that brought me here in the first place?" And she is right, and has every right to ask that.

reply to post by squittles


so you would fight equally for the freedom of a black professor, who came on as a speaker at the university of Alabama, and said in the classroom that all white southern Christians should be put into slavery to serve and work for the betterment of all black people...you would protect his freedom to do that?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Good point. This is a private college, yes? Doesn't that mean it's a private business? Doesn't that mean that IF the PTB at the university didn't want to hire someone who stands against everything that university stands for - they have that right?

I still disagree with her stance though. I think we should let these racists/bigots speak, then shame them very publicly in the university setting. That does more harm to them than trying to keep them quiet.

Elton
reply to post by alienreality

 

Try as I might I just can't wrap my head around the idea that US Patriotism includes violence against a citizen for exercising their Constitutionally protected right to free speech. Even if they are saying something terrible (and I suspect she is more against tenure protecting teachers from being able to say or teach anything with no repercussions than restricting free speech nationwide).

I also do not think an article in a school paper merits threats in a free society (but I've said this many times and I suppose I must accept that my idea of following the Constitution and Rule of Law may be unpopular nowadays...)

It wasn't meant as a threat, it was meant to make a point that when someone wants to take away a right from everyone, then they should be deprived of the right for a period of time so they can wear the shoes themselves, that they want to make everyone else wear.

Taking away a right can end up being just as bad as yelling "fire" in a theater. IE; rioting, looting, all kinds of crime would happen if rights are taken away for real, and when people press to remove a right, then they should be deprived of that right. (but only temporary to correct their anti liberty efforts) Free speech is one thing, but removing it is something else.

Would I really advocate her tongue being cut out? No I wouldn't. I would see her muzzled and given a 1 month sentence of not being allowed to speak though. But if it were a male like Harry Reid calling for the removal of free speech and he was actually writing legislation to take away free speech, then I would gladly cut his tongue out myself if it was allowed.

Trying to have rights taken away like the right of free speech is not simply using free speech. Just like yelling "Fire" in a theater is not included in the first amendment.

Think what would happen if it were announce that free speech is banned everywhere. There would be mass arrests as soon as people started publicly speaking what they think of those who passed that law. And when that happened their would be people looting and killing and maiming, and all kinds of anarchy.

jimmyx
reply to post by squittles

 

so you would fight equally for the freedom of a black professor, who came on as a speaker at the university of Alabama, and said in the classroom that all white southern Christians should be put into slavery to serve and work for the betterment of all black people...you would protect his freedom to do that?

Why not?

It up to the public to laugh him down and redicule his ideas.

And they will.