Liberals Are Stifling Intellectual Diversity On Campus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 фев 2015
- What is college for? For many, it's a time for personal and intellectual growth, to meet new people, and to explore ideas and philosophies that challenge their beliefs. Or is it? Recent cancellations of conservative speakers, rescinded honorary degrees, and scrutiny of certain campus groups have heightened perceptions that there is pervasive liberal intolerance on campuses. Are liberals shutting down speech and debate on campus? Or is this theory a myth, based on the preponderance of liberals at universities rather than intentionally discriminatory actions?
I desperately wish this is how people could debate these issues out in public..
that was the goal guess free and democratic society
"How is it censorship?"
"They literally censored it."
Best exchange of the debate.
just shows how dense liberals are. They are so entrenched in their bias that they can not see their hypocrisy even when right in front of them.
@@nickdipaolofan5948 Bingo. Cognitive dissonance is very powerful and it has been weaponized by the media.
brings up a very interesting question..... is self-censorship censorship? or is it freedom of expression?
@@nickdipaolofan5948 Liberals aren't clones, buddy. Not every one of them thinks the same way and holds the exact same set of beliefs.
@@teddydunn3513 I didn't say that in this comment. You just debunked a strawman you made up in your head and assigned to me.
I'm a liberal and I have to side with the affirmative. It is an echo chamber except for a small area on the FSU campus.
There's a term I heard about this trend.
Liberal Diaspora.
Liberals are cringing at liberal echo chambers and wandering off to talk to others instead.
officechairpotato Democrats are getting too extreme with their pansy shit. Fucking trigger warnings are the epitome of this.
If you're a teacher, you say what you want. No trigger warning bullshit. If the student can't handle it, they should the class and get the fuck out. They shouldn't have added the class because their personal trigger bullshit is going to be posted in the syllabus.
Dread Naught huh, that FSU detail was oddly specific.
tha1ne because Im student at FSU
One campus and a hasty generalization.
As a current college student I do see liberals stifling intellectual diversity.
However, I think this is actually more of a problem for liberal students.
Most students actually come out of college with relatively the same political views they went in with. Conservatives typically remain conservatives and liberals typically remain liberals.
However, college is meant to be a time where you learn, grow, and are exposed to new ideas and new ways of thinking. You may not agree with all of them, but you should at least be exposed to them.
For conservative students this is met. Conservatives are greatly exposed to liberal ideas. But, for the liberals, they may go through college and never once be exposed to anything that challenges their current way of thinking. Always being exposed to ideas that you agree with doesn't do much for you.
This is why it seems to me that liberals are actually hurting other liberals, and not conservatives, when they stifle intellectual diversity on college campuses.
John C I'm a Conservative and I couldn't agree more. In debates I've found that Alabama or Louisiana Liberals are (largely) among the most formidable because their ideas were challenged by their culture and degree-holding Conservatives are likewise dangerously effective in debate. The people who've exposed their ideas to more scrutiny tend to have more refined ideas.
The incident with the Israeli ambassador Angus Johnston is referring to, in which 11 students were charged with misdemeanor - he says they were arrested for engaging in free speech. I've seen unedited video of that event, and he's being extremely dishonest in his account of it.. The ambassador was eventually able to speak, but only after the disruptive students were removed. Every time he started to talk, an Irvine MSA member would stand up and start screaming at him. It wasn't "heckler's veto." It was mob rule. They were escorted out and charged with disruption, nothing more - and only then was the ambassador, who had been invited, able to speak. When Johnston said that, he lost the debate, as far as I'm concerned. The worst thing you can do for your position is lie to back it up.
Agreed, Angus seemed extremely disingenuous in many of his points. He claimed more than once that he loves a raucous, nasty debate and that it made him who he is - this is absolutely incompatible with his support of trigger warnings, to name but one example. I am forced to conclude that he's a Sophist (clever and nuanced liar, that is) who doesn't want to admit that he supports the outright suppression of certain types of speech.
Alexandra Pierce Moreover, heckling isn't "practicing free speech", it's depriving free speech from others.
People have come to that venue in order to listen to the person on the stage, not to the heckler.
without the ability to offend, and make someone uncomfortable ( I am not referring to insults to the person) you have no free speech.
Against side isn't entirely wrong but the proposition is obviously true.
***** The motion doesn't include 'therefore oppression'. 'Liberals are technically stifling free speech' and 'liberals are stifling free speech' are logically almost equivalent and the the collection of the latter contains the former.
***** Vault boy from the Fallout video games
I agree, they have some good points, but I think they forget that it isn't just conservative vs. liberal, it's also liberal vs. radical liberal.
Victor Koekenbier and it's administration watching out for its own interests.
Dontbethatguy And those interests are almost always the principles of the political left-center.
The most decisive blow from either side came from the first audience question, when the student asked if the administrators were merely catering to a largely liberal student body by suppressing non-liberal voices and one of the Opp side agreed that was the case. Whether administrators are acting based on their own liberal ideology or merely failing to suppress the baser instincts of their liberal student body to silence the opposition is of little consequence if the end result is the stifling of diverse viewpoints.
As an anarchist I get so much hate from Liberals you wouldn't believe.
Ironically Conservatives tend to be more tolerant of diverse thought.
I am ancap and I respect any communist, syndicalist, mutualist more than these nutjobs. They can't stand any deviation from "acceptable" thought.
AnCaps ftw.
Liberal statist would love nothing more than to shut you up and lock you in a cage if you disagree with their viewpoint. They won't say this outright, but it's so much easier than having to face the realities of your ridiculous positions; authoritarian overreach and ridiculous left-leaning economic policies that hurt more than they could ever help.
Yes, I have found conservatives more lenient in viewpoints in regards to individual liberty and right-leaning economic policies, but this isn't a huge surprise. I've seen, heard, and personally dealt with many that would love to censor and shut up AnCap/Libertarian ideologies just the same.
Out of curiousity, what are you main values? I'm not very clear about how anarchy can be a legitimate point of view.
Theo Koblesky 1.) Hurting people is wrong.
2.) No one has a right to own another.
bobbygnosis So why choose to be an anarchist? How do these values contradict central authority or government?
this debate triggered me
seconded kappa
You saying this debate triggered you triggered me. I’m outraged. I may have to kill myself now. Happy now, murderer?
Shut up you nazis, all this triggering has triggered me, you fascists, REEEEEEEEEEE
This was before mizzou, before Yale Halloween controversy, before milo and Shapiro speeches were blockaded and ore alarms set off. Today's college left is absolutely intolerant to disagreement from the right.
We should be intolerant of bad ideas and the right is full of bad ideas. The right has just lost logic and reason and now want to cry about their rights to speak and play identity politics.
I'm impressed by this comment.
+HotSkull not an argument
bob bob duh
+HotSkull Good little nazi
Boy the against side really starts to fall apart right before and at the question phase. He demonstrated perfectly what these social justice crusaders are doing, claiming that protecting their "right to not be offended" does not equate to censorship when they are calling for the literal censorship of words and ideas. This is some sad shit.
His first opening stance against the conservatives were terrible as well. He cited polls stating college students mostly don't feel they're opinions are unwelcome when most college students are in fact liberals, proving that liberals feel safe on campus. He also generalized conservatives as free-market lovers who value the almighty dollar over education and as anti-science religious hicks.
"Heckler's veto shouldn't happen, and also it's pretty rare."
Being a historian, I bet he wishes that wasn't on record. This is too funny in 2017.
To call these people and their actions "liberal" is disingenuous.
There's hardly anything liberal about anything these people do.
Instead of calling illiberal things "liberal", we should not allow these people to think of themselves as liberal in the first place.
What we actually need is to return colleges to liberalism so that they may function again.
Edit: 1:18:22 is all you need to know about Angus Johnston.
gantmj. Good one. :-)
Liberals as individuals, not as a movement. They are liberals on their own, but don't represent any of the "liberal" principles, not by a longshot. They claim to be "for the minorities" but only when it serves a purpose for them.
its not because thats commonly what they refer to themselves as
gantmj I try to use illiberals and illiberal universities whenever I can.
The amount of rights violations happening on campuses over the the last 17 years is grotesque. It's physically sickening.
Really what all this is masking is that liberalism as a movement was co-opted by the Left from roundabout the 1930s onwards. This was possible because of liberal tolerance - tolerance is the glory of liberalism, but it's also a potential achilles' heel, if liberals don't stay alert.
The key difference is that liberalism is about individual rights, whereas the kind of hard Left "liberalism" we see on campuses is all about groups, group representation, group deserts: i.e. it's collectivist. (Originally with Marxism the groups involved were of course socio-economic "classes", nowadays with intersectional identity politics, the comparable groups upon which the theory is based are races and genders.)
The US is fundamentally liberal in the classical sense, even religious people in the States are largely liberal. Classical liberalism _is_ the American center, which ideally should consist of Right-leaning liberals, aka moderate conservatives and libertarians, and Left-leaning liberals, i.e. "good, old-fashioned" liberals, so to speak (like Lukianoff).
The problem is that "liberalism" in academia, particularly in the humanities, and most particularly in all "XXX Studies" that derive from Critical Theory, has nothing of this centrist politics about it, it's purely a hard Left phenomenon, and often openly Marxist. It was basically a stealth takeover by extremist utopian revolutionary thinkers that's been hugely successful - not exactly a conscious conspiracy (although the USSR did support it while there was such a thing) but a movement of like-minded people working in sync., using social shaming as its main tactic. (i.e."If you don't give lip service to my hokey Marxoid theory, which I'm calling "liberal", you must be illiberal, you don't want to be seen as illiberal do you?")
A better term for these people is really "the Regressive Left", to distinguish from good, old-fashioned Left-liberals, who are genuinely progressive, but not collectivist in their thinking.
Both of my kids have expressed to me that they are afraid to express conservative opinions... fear of physical harm and fear acedemic repercussions. They do not have thin skin, they are being pragmatic.
I wonder how this debate would have gone down in the shadow of Melissa click's incitement of thuggery against a reporter. "This is a safespace and to preserve it we're going to beat you up" The boot stamping on a human face over and over again for ever has a stiletto heel.
I'd like to say that I really enjoy the fact that you can have a great debate and there was no name calling or shaming. I think that's amazing in this current environment.
Angus doesn't understand that if something is a part of the explicit mission of the university, something agreed upon by all involved, that's different from the muting of speech in a place that purports to be diverse, open, and GOVERNMENT FUNDED.
He also has a total confidence that his views are correct, implying that Liberty and BYU should have views just like him re: gay marriage. Everyone needs to be a secularist, just like him. And he doesn't have the slightest twinge at his own dogmatism. This is because he lives in an echo chamber. How interesting his life would be if the political breakdown of his school were reversed. It would be quite salubrious. In fact, academics MUST be challenged...and they so seldom are.
This question is loaded.
Either the administrators are doing this regardless of ideology, in which case their political beliefs are extraneous. So if that is the case, then the question should be "Is intellectual diversity being stifled on campus by administrators."
If not, the question must be asked, are the administrators censoring these students because the administrators ARE liberal?
If they are censoring messages that liberals agree with en masse, then the fact that the administrators are liberal becomes dubious as the reason for the censorship.
If the question is, are liberal administrators stifling intellectual diversity on campus? and 97% are liberal... then yes... it doesn't even need to be debated. It's like debating that 2+2=4... Why would you argue about that though? The most interesting question that I have, as a conservative, is: Are administrators stifling diversity on campus BECAUSE they have a neo-liberal bias... sadly, that's not the motion, and therefor this debate is a huge waste of time.
Jeremy Mair on his intro - "Professors should not tell you what to think" ... And yet every single college or university student will tell you that you don't dare diverge from your professors 'way of thinking' ...
I wish they would have spent more time on "No Platforming" and dismissive defamation/libel/slander via accusations of "Racist/Sexist/etc.." hell, even bringing attention to someone's ethnicity and sexuality (if white and hetero) can shut down an argument...
+Still Flame precisely
Me?
Angus either had a fundamental misunderstanding of the motion, or knew he was wrong and desperately wanted not to be.
‘Trigger warnings’ in universities? And we wonder why young people can’t cope with real life.
This American habit of dumbing things down into two sides, in this case Liberal and Conservative, is infuriating. People live today to boast online about what offends them, no matter what their ideological background, and universities are yielding to every threat of such criticism.
I'd be classed as a devout socialist if not communist by the average Republican/'conservative' - but I couldn't agree more that 'liberal' agenda is completely disastrous as a political/ideological movement, stifling debate, creativity, independence, free speech, free expression, disagreement and worst of all, the only diversity that should ever matter - diversity of thought
Epluribusunum Exactly. To use a quote that is usually used to describe pure democracies, but which absolutely applies to this, democratic socialism is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
"...if it is an accurate portrait of higher education in America, then we should all be alarmed, and we should all donate money to Greg's group"
Greg: *nods furiously*
The guy says if you are a conservative is a sea of liberals put on your big boy pants and take it.
We can take it ... just don't band our speakers and use speech code rules to chill the campus.
I feel like the side arguing against the motion really failed to grasp a lot of the points that the affirmative were making. What's in question isn't necessarily which political side's views are being suppressed on campus, it's which political side is the one responsible for the suppression of certain political views (hence stifling intellectual diversity), regardless of whether these views are conservative or liberal.
They stoop to such an Us vs Them mentality that they fail to actually acknowledge the premise of the affirmative's argument, at least not until the end.
As a libertarian myself,
I encountered 1 liberal professor who punished me for what I contributed to being openly conservative and had the nerve to debate him.
I also have been accused of sexual harassment from a transgendered individual. According to administration, the evidence was overwhelmingly against me. Luckily for me, I had good grades and am prior service army.
On one occasion, my libertarian group invited a famous intellectual to speak on campus. A liberal professor actually searched the internet for any slanderous and negative things he could find about that speaker, printed out copies of it, and passed it around DURING the actual speech.
The true litmus test of the opposing members’ sincerity would be to ask them this same question now that we’ve had the Evergreen, UCLA and Middlebury debacles.
Gotta love how the liberal arguing against the notion immediately opened up with a straw man.
Since there are no real men in the democrat party, all they have are straw men..............
Regarding civility, that's something that tends to come with age and wisdom. Most college-age people might be more apt to yell and scream and call names, because their full of passion, but perhaps short on experience. I fully expect college-age students to be obnoxious at times. Most people, after going out into the world, eventually learn that you can get much further and be more convincing by being respectful.
"Rowdy, obnoxious debate" generates the maximum of HEAT, but the minimum of LIGHT!! The best arguments are not always expressed by those with the loudest voices in the first place?? To shout down the ideas & opinions of others are just one stage from the baseball bat!!
To understand Nazism, read "Mein Kampf"! To understand Islam, read the Qur'an! To understand Communism, read
" Das Kapital" & the Communist Manifesto!!
Understand the ideas expressed and evaluate them in the light of your own education, but also read criticisms of the ideas expressed in these works, in other sources which refute them!! THAT is education!! Not to be brainwashed by one side or the other, because THAT is totalitarianism!! Freedom is the right to read & hear ALL sides of an argument. NOT to be taught that only one side is correct & the alternative is forbidden to be heard! That was the policy of the Soviets & the 3rd.Reich, backed up by the Secret Police!! And so clearly described by Orwell in "1984" who foresaw "Political Correctness" so accurately!!
When the side against the motion went to the "trigger warning" they lost the debate.
At 16:40, accounting for inflation: Start year (1996): $29,500, End year (2019): $47,212.57. It'd be nice to have some automated way to do this.
If only they knew that it was only going to get worse...... Much, much worse.
I wonder how the speakers against the motion would argue now, after Mizzou and Evergreen, etc....
Lol. Totalitarian America, coming out of campus near you.
These campus freaks wouldn't last 5 mins in a totalitarian state ; their behaviour occurs to prevent such a state
As a liberal myself, I absolutely agree with the motion. It's not just campuses, it's the new media as well. I am more liberal than conservative, but my true philosophy is most well articulated by Chris Rock - "Liberals are idiots. Conservatives are idiots. Only an idiot makes up their mind before they hear the issue. Be a PERSON!" (This is paraphrasing.) There are quite a few opinions I hold that do go against the liberal base's opinions, and I'm afraid to say them sometimes because I would be branded a bigot or close-minded.
One of the best examples of the crime of liberal stifling is the character assassination of Sam Harris. There has been this insane conflation among liberals that criticizing Islam the religion is tantamount to bigotry, which is absolutely insane. Islam is a set of ideas and should be as open to scrutiny as any other set of ideas. But Sam Harris, for making points against Islam and calling it a dangerous religion, has become this big target for liberal media groups as a bigot who claims that all Muslims are terrorists, and wants to launch a nuclear strike against the Arab world. Both thing being horrible deformations of his actual arguments. And now he has to spend this unfortunate amount of time clearing the air because of certain left wing groups' obsession with jumping to the bigot card for their targets without actually engaging the real argument.
Completely agree. Because liberalism is becoming more and more trendy, it becomes a jump-on-the-bandwagon movement and it loses the essence of what it should be all about... critical and free thinking.
+Schrodinger hey atleast you haven't given up your soul, You're free to still change your side,
+Schrodinger Youre a classic liberal. Most people taking up the Alternative Right are classic liberals. These lefties are no way classical liberals
28 minutes in, and I can already see where this is going. The first speaker was the only one to stay on topic so far.
Who gives half a fuck if there are only 8 liberals on every campus, when the debate is about whether, or not, those liberals are stifling free speech (thus limiting intellectual diversity)?
The lady could have pointed out in less than 15 seconds the gentleman who spoke before her essentially spewed nothing except off-topic claptrap.
He was arguing liberals vs. conservatives; who's censoring whom. The point is liberals are even censoring liberals! That's coming from a liberal!
Poor debate performance really pisses me off.
I may be self-educated, but even I know there's a synergistic effect to simultaneously dismantling your opponent's argument, and attacking their methodology, while bringing your point to bear.
Argh! Now I've gone all pirate up in here.
The analogy that comes to mind is: Is the pilot flying the plane? The negative side wants to ask, is the copilot flying the plane, or would he be, if the pilot were not. That's not the point.
Of course conservatives want to stifle free speech too, but the overwhelming majority of campuses are liberal, with a majority liberal faculty, and administrations.
So far, I've heard the bald guy drop a strawman fallacy, an argumentum ad hominem, an argumentum ad populum, and I'm pretty sure there was an appeal to consequence in there as well.
Bald guy, in his closing statement said being a conservative professor was a tough gig, why is that? Lmfao.
I have to give it up to the positive side, they were extremely cordial. I would have viciously, and vociferously, stuffed the negative side's bullshit right back down their throat.
Remember that the Free Speech Movement at UC/Berkley in the 60s began as a left-right student coalition (SDS and YAF) protesting the center-left bias of official invitations to outside speakers to come to campus. Both sides saw a spectrum of opinion that went all the way from Hubert Humphrey to Hubert Humphrey as stifling.
I think are more interesting topic would be "Have we forgotten how to promote Intellectual Diversity"
In my opinion, the only reason this debate points to Liberals as being the problems is because, as they pointed out, most college campuses are largely liberal. If most college campuses were largely conservative, we would be having the exact same argument with a few words and sitting positions switched.
In too many aspects of our lives it has become Us vs Them, and incidents that happen on college campuses are just a reflection of that negative aspect of our society. In my opinion, it seems like people have lost the ability to have calmed, reasonable discussion with someone when they disagree with them, especially when the topic touches on something that carries a lot of emotional weight for people. We don't look at the person who disagrees with us as a fully thinking rational person who has arrived at this opinion for SOME reason that to them is just as valid as any reason you come up with to support your opinions. Debates should be about learning what those reasons are and discussing those reasons, not the person.
Couldn't agree more. The topic they chose resulted in too much confused jabbering about demographics and not enough rational argumentation about intellectual diversity itself, what it is and how we promote it.
The key issue here is how we deal with having a vast group of people of different political opinions and how we promote discussion in that kind of ecosystem. Slapping political labels on the debate only introduces a distraction: the false dichotomy of liberal vs conservative.
Conservatives absolutely would do the same thing if in a position to do so. That doesn’t mean it should happen, no matter who does it.
I don't think conservatives would do the same thing (at least not to the extent liberals are censoring speech) if given the opportunity because most conservatives are so confident in their ideas that they openly welcome the apposing side to articulate their views and compare them to conservative ideas. Think of it like the designer of a Maserati or some high end super car. He is not trying to suppress the public from being exposed to the Pinto.....
Jeremy Mayer just tried to blame this on Conservatives, and Christians, and didn't really address the points the other side made.
The student activist talked the most, be didn't say anything of value. It seemed like he wanted to derail the debate, and turn it into a chance to spew his garbage about. When he was caught on some of the things he said, he just tried to counter attack the challenge. (IE, No you didn't score a goal because blah blah blah)
1:02:00 i love how the opposing side argument fell apart
+MrWazzup987 it fell apart less than 20 minutes in.
i like how it fell apart at that point
The host is great. Generally an all around interesting discussion, despite being pretty plainly in the favor of the "For" party. The against side had some pretty good points.
Surprised this debate wasn't protested itself by people screaming this was homophobic, islamophobic, racist and sexist
at around 01.03:00 it seems as though for a brief looks as though he'd like to have changed sides
1:07:43 - 'heckler's veto is a horrible thing and it shouldn't happen' he says.
THEN he tells a story of an attempted heckler's veto that failed, where the hecklers were arrested and charged, as he describes it, 'for engaging in free speech' - ie. the free speech being heckling, done in an attempt to carry out a heckler's veto, which he described as a horrible thing that shouldn't happen.
so if the heckler's veto succeeds, there are no arrests, the free speech is stifled, and this guy will tut tut (but what is really thinking...I"d say he's happy).
But if the heckler's veto fails, because they get arrested for trying to carry out a heckler's veto, then what has happened is free speech rights were stifled.
so tell me, oh weasel one, how should a heckler's veto be discouraged, as you believe they should be since you say they are so horrible and shouldn't happen?
I love how the guy twists the Robert Birgeneau story. What the students did was basically blackmail. "Apologise or we will cancel your speech".
If the students just wanted to talk to the guy they could have asked him for a question and answer segment where they could address their concerns. no platforming someone is not a form of free speech. I can't take anyone making this argument seriously.
45:43 - look at that expression - his gambit paid off. The two men on the right of the stage, representatives of the left, come off as so oily.
This seems like it strayed off topic quiet a bit.
Not sure what happened to liberals. I’m one and I remember discussions and different points of view where acceptable. The right does it too, the White House calls it Fake News when they don’t like something or Fox News calls it mainstream media instead of a different point of view.
Another win for professional conservative victimology.
Saying something different than what I think = Not free speech.
Forcing me to book my own venue at actual conservative campuses = violence.
Schools are centers for learning that have historically used student government as a ventilation mechanism for a student's power process, given a limited set of decisions that can affect an institution's color within the cultural context regarding extra curricular activities that aren't welded into core academic activity. Decision making responsibility key to class room teaching and academic subject matter was left to the administration and department heads, chosen by a particular school through top down political influence via donors, sponsors and charters which philosophically sets the school in a particular direction.
When students obtain key political power backed by factions within the university setting, especially at staff level, giving rise to key decision making processes riding on the whims of political trends, the breach of trust between school and student is affected. Learning environments become battle grounds between ideologies and subject matter becomes the target of censorship. It's an impossible model to achieve without alienation.
This trend of student empowerment while likely drive schools to more openly develop, brandish and establish further it's academic and cultural identity so as to cater to the process of choice, putting new responsibilities on a school's marketing campaigns and a more nuanced role for career/university counselors to help a student find a school that fits at the philosophical level. It would also make sense to utilize school psychologists in a better way to help those dealing with troubling issues, isolating the situation away from the classroom setting. When and if certain students are unhappy with their learning environment, there should be an easier transfer process to help them find a school that fits their sensibilities.
Only one word can describe this debate: "Chilling." -.-
I've recently graduated from university, and I'd like to point out that there's a huge mix of opinions on campuses -- obviously. In election season, there were about as many posters for the Conservative Party as for Labour. And sure, you'll likely find that different departments have different general leanings. The humanities may generally lean left, while the Economics department and business school will generally lean right. And never in my experience as an undergrad student did I witness any stifling of religious societies on campus. We had a chaplaincy at the heart of our campus that any religious society could regularly reserve and use. And I don't appreciate the comment in this debate that people having negative feelings towards evangelicals is somehow a bad thing. I don't think I'd be the first to note that evangelicals are extremely annoying, and it's no surprise tons of people don't look well upon zealous religious people trying to shove their religion down your throat when you're clearly not interested. Most university campuses are, after all, secular spaces, and while every student and faculty member has the right to practice a religion, we all also have the right to not have warm fuzzy feelings about campus evangelicals, who often try to stifle secular principles. While nobody should be able to take away the evangelicals' right to have their own religious beliefs (as long as those beliefs don't translate to actions that infringe upon the rights of others), evangelicals should not by any means be free of criticism. The speakers for the motion seemed to be so concerned with protecting the sensibilities of evangelical students, while telling liberal students to accept ideas that are offensive to them. Perhaps evangelicals are scared of speaking out because they know they will be rightly criticized by many people. Our society has progressed enough to embrace secularism, and thus -- just like somebody touting racist ideologies in a society that has broadly rejected racism -- evangelicals will often find themselves in the minority being criticized by a majority that sees their views as regressive and counterproductive. They may be scared of voicing their views because they know their views will not stand up to scrutiny, and they would be uncomfortable hearing criticism of their religion. I personally knew Catholic evangelicals on my campus, and one of them (the head of the Catholic Society) asked me to attend an event featuring an anti-abortion speaker who would lecture attendees on why (in his view) abortion is wrong. I told this evangelical friend that I would be fine attending the event, but I let him know that I was going to ask the speaker challenging questions during this event and openly criticize his anti-abortion position in front of all the attendees. My friend was very uncomfortable about the idea of me doing that. He didn't want a debate, and he didn't want criticism. He wanted me to listen to his side of the issue, but he didn't want to listen to my side or give me the opportunity to challenge his side. He didn't want the speaker to become uncomfortable. And I wasn't saying I will heckle him or storm the stage -- just ask him questions at the end of his talk and challenge him. Any speaker giving a talk at a campus should be prepared to encounter students who disagree. The threat of criticism makes us all examine our opinions more deeply and treat what we say or type with more responsibility, which is a good thing. It isn't only liberals who stifle free speech and diversity of thought on university campuses, and it isn't only conservatives that are affected. What about the many pro-Palestine speakers who are uninvited from giving talks at university campuses because of their criticism of Israeli policies? The pro-Palestine position is generally considered to be a leftist position, and those speakers are usually protested against by more conservative pro-Israel groups on campuses. I'd also like to point out that many students and faculty members would laugh in your face if you argued the university administration was liberal. Let's remember that liberal student movements and events are often quashed by university administrators, and there was a big incident on my campus where security used violent excessive force against nonviolent students participating in a sit-in. This was seen clearly as conservatives stifling liberals' free speech. So while I don't deny that there are cases of self-proclaimed liberals on campuses stifling the free speech of people they disagree with, the blanket statement that 'liberals are stifling free speech on university campuses' is reductive and doesn't represent the whole picture.
And regarding trigger warnings, if you're a lecturer who is going to be talking about something deeply disturbing and upsetting in a class or talk that isn't called something like 'Rape Law', just don't be an asshole. Warn your students, as that's the decent thing to do. Let them know that they have the choice to leave for a while if they find themselves to be too upset by what you are showing them/talking about. Seriously, it's just being decent and responsible. For example, in one of my classes, we watched a film that had an extremely graphic, extended rape scene (I'm not mentioning the film's title because it may spoil the plot), and our lecturer warned us about this beforehand and let us know that he would understand if some people would not be able to sit through it (though he also argued for why we should stay and watch even if we were made very uncomfortable). He didn't have to give a warning before other films, even if those films were violent, because a certain threshold of tolerance is expected of most people, but he felt it was only right to give a special warning about a film that has been regarded as extremely graphic. So most liberals are not going to argue for having trigger warnings attached to just about anything and everything (and yes, their use can definitely be excessive at times), but when you're a lecturer talking about or showing something you know to be extremely graphic and disturbing, your thoughtfulness in providing a trigger/content warning will be appreciated.
Maybe I simply struggled to understand the opposition but it seemed to me they sentimentally and fundamentally kept supporting the other argument.. which honestly this isn’t even an argument bc the motion is overwhelmingly true. Furthermore, I feel this panel, w the exception of Keristen, missed the pinnacle point of the entire debate which was whether proper space was being made for intellectual diversity. She was the only was one who seemed to focus on how the hostilities neither side denied exist are creating an environment where original thought and natural conversation of objectivity and challenge cannot take place. Though I was for the motion, it was too easy of a win and I would like to see a more pointed debate on this where the speakers are not so hung up on giving examples and kitchen sinking of things we already know are taking place. The only point from the opposition I found valid was the suggestion that, though many faculty members tend to be liberal and can therein create biased mandates, the greater of them set out to accomplish civilian and peace with their open speech policies.
Do people seriously still doubt this? Have they never been to a campus?
so many people who lean left like to pretend they don't see it. It is not because they are stupid, it is because they view YOU as stupid and they think that they can convince you that there is "nothing to see here"
.". I look forward to denouncing them as bigots,". He says with sarcasm. How far we have come
The question seems like it needs another conditional to be worth debating against. It's really hard when there isn't a strong enough conservative presence on most college campuses to even bring conservative ideology into this debate. It looks like a classical liberal vs. radical/militant liberal problem. I think the debate question should've made that explicit, to make the arguments more relevant and less pointless fingerpointing. Like "Is there a radical liberalism across college campuses that is crippling free speach?" Then you could have some radicals who would argue for radical tactics and explain how they do not err on free speach, or are counter measures to other more insidious rights infringements. And some average liberal types who stand by ideals of free speach and academic havens for its experimentation. Ironically, likely the reason that isn't happening is because many radicals think of their role as beyond debate.
oh would you look at that!
I absolutely agree a major problem are college administrators who don't want to rock the boat and lose tuition money. Makes sense in a capitalistic society, which conservatives would be the first to defend.
TheaterPup They are getting ready to lose it for decades of intolerance, ignorance and rights violations
"Shes a combat veteran" Yeah so am i.... Doesnt mean that people need to stifle their speech around you. Ask them politely if its that big of a problem. But ultimately, any offense you take to speech is your own problem.
I agree with Johnston in his opening: it's mainly bureaucracy stifling free speech on campus, not politics. I find a lot of pro-religious and pro-conservative leanings in my professors, but they don't push their biases, and overall the campus is liberal. However, there's no debate club and it's not the students or professors that decided that, it's the administration.
How is a trigger warning stifling free speech if it's not mandatory? You should be allowed to say 'trigger warning' if you want to under free speech.
The against side is so disingenuous with their arguments.
I kinda agree with the motion. People do get carried away with protections of sensitivities. However, I also disagree with the motion. While the protection of free speech is paramount, it is also important to have opportunities to allow people to shield themselves if necessary. If it is for the reason of bring back an experienced trauma or they are just overly sensitive, that is not the issue. It is their decision to participate, if they choose not too, well, they are either not ready or they are only short changing themselves.
Their is a political pendulum that swings from one side to the other and in some ways there's no predicting which issue will get caught up in that shift. Most likely, if it is actually an issue, which I am sure there is some validity to it but I do not think it is as pressing as many would have you believe, it is transient, and likely will be directed towards the other side soon enough.
Personally, I think a lot of it is people having problems with liberal ideas because of the wildly successful indoctrination of millions by the "conservativeness" of the media (I call it the O'reilly factor). I see evidence of it all over my facebook news feed and elsewhere. The demonization of progressive thought: liberals, leftists, regressives, libtards, the conflation of fascism and socialism etc. etc. etc. These are attempts to do exactly what is being complained about, stifling voices. However, don't be mistaken to think that either side is unable to be guilty of this motion.
Heroic fabric anaylisis assurance wireless criket nextel
The against team said something I found interesting when asked why Christian student groups were being kicked off of campuses. That universities were trying to keep an Aryan Power group from forming. Since when is Christianity exclusive to white people? Anyone one of any race can become Christian, so how is worrying about racial supremacy justified? There are plenty of black student groups at Universities too, which contradicts his notion that campus groups must be open to all races and genders. These kind of double standards only create more segregation and animosity between students. This issue is about more than just Liberals stifling intellectual diversity, is about rationalizing racial bias and retributive behavior against white students. Its all a bit strange and scary.
Universities also actively prevent groups dedicated to men's rights issues from forming on campus, even though feminist groups are ubiquitous.
Half way through and the con side seems to be incapable of understanding the question at issue. The question is not WHO IS BEING SUPRESSED : “are conservative being suppressed on campus?” The question is WHO IS DOING THE SUPRESSING “are liberals stifling free speech on campus” to which the answer it would appear is yes....and both sides agree who it is who is doing the supressing, so the debate is pointless.
they know this, but were intentionally being obtuse in order to avoid admitting the obvious. Finding an intellectually honest liberal is VERY rare.
Students should also be taught that insults are not good debating skills.
they do are stifling intellectual diversity ... and not only on campuses ...
interesting the classes they are talking about are classes that require debate
46:38 "ya'll" - oh I'm sure that word is just part of who he is - and not at all a sly emotional appeal.
11:30 most compelling.
I wonder how much these people have left to say before they get cut off for out of time?
because I dunno but as I followed where I'm up to now, 33:40, it seems as though first right guy said that for various reasons liberals occupy a lot of positions on campus and then the second right guy said it's not students its administration. Aren't they against the proposition though?
I like the joke about calling them a bigot at the start of 2nd right guy but I think that means he is well aware of the behavior of some liberals and so his answer about letter writing is a calculated dodge by focusing on specific details of that one instance to try and pretend like fire alarms aren't being pulled in some instances etc.
Since you can't ask the follow up and he doesn't address the core idea of what he is trying to dismiss what he said kinda just hangs there meaninglessly, like maybe he should of donated that time to his friend. Know what I mean?
Lunji
~47 seems like that little bit is over but was the past 2 and a half minutes or something really best interpreted as 1rg making this about FIRE and fishing for it's short comings to distract from the proposition?
If it is do people consider that a cheap shot or is that just me?
Lunji
And just later I see him re frame the proposition to being about liberal ideology crushing conservatism so whatever ima stop typing now because apparantly it's gonna be a book.
tldr;
Doesn't seem to me like the people on camera right are keeping it real. If true, it becomes increasingly obvious as they talk freely.
Lunji
Couldn't help myself
Conservative bake sale makes black students angry. Therefore take moralStance:Defend bake sale].
But how does that maths change considering new information:
-I've heard stories that some liberals are doing serious bake sales.
Liberal bake sale makes black student angry. (Omitted moralstance: who cares)
Therefore (Combine and cancel and expand)
Affirmative action bake sales make black student angry.
(stretchen it) Affirmative action bake sales make minorities angry.
(argghh she wont hold captain!)Affirmative action bake sales contribute to the oppression of minorities.
I don't know why but that seems like a point of contention with some people at some times (??now that some liberals have started wanting to do them??)
This debate is certainly more intellectually stimulating than your average Feminist/MRA RUclips video. ;)
The guy keeps bringing up bureaucrats, I don't think he understands who influences these bureaucrats. It's students who have the ability to institute these ridiculous policies that go against intellectual diversity.
It's markedly worse today, only 5 years later. On the other hand maybe that's only my perception. Remember that William F. Buckley wrote his book "God And Man At Yale" about liberal bias in universities stifling academic freedom and thought. And that was 60 or 70 years ago.
18:00 shifting the topic from what it is
52:31 what'd he say?
at 50:00 or so, talking about civility, to follow up what I posted below: there is a difference between civility and giving oxygen to academically dishonest views...
How about: conservatives are stifling diversity EVERYWHERE.
I find it very hard to believe whether the economics, business, engineering, history, medicine & law faculties are majority liberal. I would agree that there is a majority in the social sciences (for obvious reasons).
The first speaker for the against (liberals aren't censoring) did not even address the question in his whole intro argument! He's ranting on about how colleges aren't becoming more liberal and yada yada. Fine. I agree with your points, but you fail to address the actual topic of the debate; Are Liberals stifling intellectual diversity on campus? The pro side made a great case with incident after incident. Why can't you at least acknowledge this?
rowdy debate?? great but where is the debate part of it??
They should have the same debate today
What we see in schools today is a jumble of ideas from the past, stifling a cogent liberal ideology. The administration of a liberal education necessarily and systematically stifles conservative ideology.
This is a better pair of liberals to debate the issue of free speech on campus. Better than the other pair on the "Free Speech Threatened on Campus" vid with those two air heads who kept saying "problematic." Could be better though. As you see, we liberals still lost. At the end of the day, forcing people to go by a certain set of values is not good, whether you're a conservative christian or an atheist liberal. I'm a bleeding heart liberal (who will NOT preface anything I say with a "trigger warning") and I approve this message.
if we had this debate today the scales would be overwhelmed with examples of liberal " fascism" shutting down free speech, at least people are waking up and withholding funding and donations ( it's all about money and power to the left)...
Its for drinking beer, flunking out, and wasting money isnt it?
I agree that both parties are at fault. Liberals have their intellectual snobbery, and conservatives have an anti-intellectualism streak.
My survey says this so Im right! Great debate!
Lol Afton
These intellectuals seem not to understand the whole idea of religious schools, criticizing them for "not having free speech". By definition, these religious schools, like churches or other organizations, accept as true certain axioms which agnostic, free-thinking schools and faculty do not. To do otherwise would be to affirm in advance the truth of agnosticism and destroy the very mission of the religious school. (No one is required to attend such schools or pay for them, but many conservatives have to pay for these Left-wing state universities through their taxes.) Included in this Leftist attack on religious schools is the implied idea that religious schools should not exist because they are "intolerant" and logically from there that churches should exist because they are "intolerant". The fact is that all human beings like to form organizations where like-minded people can go, participate in, and to have fellowship with others who share the same perspective. This is also why people form political parties or other organizations.
Alive and thriving in the least country expected: a western version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the USA.
wish their is round 2
when you get knocked out in round one, there is no round 2
I read the title and was like, "yea". No need to watch.
I kinda had to laugh that the against sides entire argument seems to be "But Conservatives though".
Both parties are like that, always pointing the finger at the other. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in this country.
I am sure today in 2016, the debaters against the motion will vote for the motion.
Angus Johnston is simply not getting the questions... He speaks in a convincing style but not addressing the actual issue. Independently from his lack of precisity my personal experience is, though I am not a conservative but rather a center left, unfortunately confirming that liberals are indeed stifling diversity in academia.