OT: Universities are place for open debate and vigorous discourse

Submitted by StephenRKass on

We are all waiting for football season. And today is the next to last day for OT posts. Here is one I thought relevant to University life. There was an editorial today in the Chicago Tribune about the University of Chicago and freedom of expression. In a welcome letter sent to all incoming students in the class of 2020 from the dean of students, they are encouraged to understand that the university is meant to be a place of robust debate and open discussion. He writes:

You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.

The Trib heartily seconds his letter, and the rejection of the idea of a "safe space" and "microaggressions" and "trigger warnings." I realize that a post like this can easily become politicized. The point of the letter, the point of the editorial, and the point of my post, is that this is apolitical. Regardless of one's political persuasion, or position on the issues of the day, or gender, or religion, or race, or culture, or language, or sexual preference, vigorous debate and even discomfort is a good thing. Shutting down discussion because you don't like the other person's position doesn't help. We need, imhe, more legitimate discourse.

I loved my time at UofM, and the opportunity to talk late into the night with fellow dorm mates and fraternity brothers and room mates. We sometimes didn't agree, but some of my best friends and I continue to have those kinds of discussions that we began many years ago. I hope that UofM, like Chicago, is a place for open discussion, and a forum where individuals coming from all over the spectrum can be heard.

LINK:  Why the U. of Chicago is the University of Common Sense.

(Edit:  I hope the link works. I subscribe to the Trib, and some things are paywalled. I'm sure if you use Google to search the news, or look for trending on facebook, you can find it).

Addendum:  As I reflect on MGoBlog, I like that at its' best, this is also a place for vigorous debate and discussion, albeit on Michigan athletics. You don't always agree with others, but you can argue about it, in a good way.

Mgoscottie

August 25th, 2016 at 1:37 PM ^

but really the generations going into college now are better prepared to do this than anyone else has ever been.  They have so much experience with this and the opposite via the internet and education has started shifting to incorporate more of these concepts into instruction in the last few years.  

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

August 25th, 2016 at 1:46 PM ^

Most people just entering college have, up to that point in their life, used the internet mainly to post pictures and collect likes the way kids used to collect baseball cards.  The fact that textbooks are very often displayed on iPads really doesn't do much for advancing debate, it's just a display medium.  Not to mention that this is a generation that's grown up with parents who get arrested just for letting them walk back and forth to school by themselves, so they're used to the idea that they deserve a healthy blanket of overprotection.

stephenrjking

August 25th, 2016 at 1:53 PM ^

The internet permits a greater freedom to exchange ideas, a freedom which is left mostly unused. In practice, it has increased the polarized insularity in our culture, as people are now free to source information and opinion from content-producers that agree with their suppositions. And geographically many people rarely encounter individuals who are substantially different from them in background or opinion. What is called a "free exchange of ideas" is in most cases just an echo chamber of enthusiastic agreement.

This is by no means limited to one group of people or another. 

PopeLando

August 25th, 2016 at 1:40 PM ^

Someone once told me, "[PopeLando], you can't reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."

It's helped me a lot in my personal life, when I realize after a minute or two that I'm in an emotional argument, not a logical one.

It helps me at work, when I can recognize when I'm dealing with a zealot who can't be convinced.

But anyone who is truly up for an honest debate where your position and the underlying facts can be defended, those are the most intellectually satisfying talks. They are rare and to be cherished.

StephenRKass

August 25th, 2016 at 1:31 PM ^

Hmmm. You may be right. This does have the potential to go terribly wrong, although I hope not. I have to admit, in posting this, I'm curious where the discussion will go. I studiously avoided taking ANY positions. Well, other than the position that it is good to have discussions with people you don't always agree with. Hope that is still true in today's academic environment.

JayMo4

August 25th, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^

I'm fine with it, so long as mgoblog is still the same safe space it has always been, safely free of any aggression, micro or otherwise.

DrMantisToboggan

August 25th, 2016 at 1:32 PM ^

Apolitical statement: if you believe something - ANYTHING (sports, religious, culinary, etc.) - and run away from all opposing views from that belief, then you are mentally weak and your views are founded on emotions and no scholarly effort. If you can not have a conversation about anything with someone who disagrees with you, then you are not an adult and you do not know enough about your belief to justify believing it.




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

StephenRKass

August 25th, 2016 at 1:37 PM ^

Being apolitical can also refer to situations in which people take an unbiased position in regard to political matters. I would fully agree with you that if you run away from all opposing views, it isn't healthy. In fact, that's the point of my post. My own personal position on the various concerns of today is irrelevant to the need for having conversations with others, particularly with those whom you disagree with.

blue in dc

August 25th, 2016 at 3:26 PM ^

I am trying to think of any political topic where there would be broad agreement that there was an unbiased position. Even topics where there is very strong scientific consensus are politicized. One of the challenges in having reasoned debate on issues is the fact that there is often difficulty in finding common ground on defining the issue itself.

Steve in PA

August 25th, 2016 at 3:48 PM ^

I am proud that in my formative years I had friends in every clique and could seamlessly pass from group to group.  I am still very close friends with some of those people and love many of them like family even though we are on completely different sides of many issues.

The only people who I do not care to associate with any longer are the angry people.  They have been excised from my world as I have no time for angry people.  It's sad to see someone get so wrapped up in their ideology (right or left) that any viewpoints they dont agree with are attacked.

I would not want to go through life angry or fearful of starting conflict.

Honk if Ufer M…

August 25th, 2016 at 4:43 PM ^

It is worthy, I would say neccessary, to be angry at people who don't recognize the life and death and undeserved misery or not attached to the ideas and outcomes of ideas and policies, and think remaining calm in face of callous disreguard for the suffering of others, standing  by and wanting to let terrible things happen to the many for the benefit of the few and not being outraged, not understanding outrage, or even actively working on the andside of the few, the only few who don't need any help, to the detriment of everyone else, is ok  that the most important thing is to be polite even when being asked to ignore, go along with or root for/push for the slaughter of masses of innocents, the forced poverty of same, etc. 

Also, claiming to be or trying to be apolitical, and demanding it of others by ruling out political discussions, and failing to acknowledge the political nature in what you do want to talk about, or how it's always intertwined in political and social issues no matter how separate you'd like to pretend it is, IS POLITICAL! Abdicating responsibility to know, to care, to act, to speak out, to explain, IS POLITICAL! Like Howard Zinn said, you can't be neutral on a moving train. Not speaking out about injustice, corruption, crazy fucked up systems, etc. is to support and enable them, to ensure their perpetuation and usually their worsening. Bury your heads about that, argue with it, but it's logically, obviously, mathematically, historically and empirically true.

The idea that's it's better to avoid disagreements, anger, name calling or whatever rather than to discuss and debate the crucial, the dire and the all important things, especially among the people trying to hide from them, who want the pretense of a safe play space allegedly, but never really, away from them, is truly insane, destructive and self destructive. Nonsensical and totally counter productive. Saves nothing, loses everything.

StephenRKass

August 25th, 2016 at 3:23 PM ^

Twice in the last year, DePaul "uninvited" conservative speakers. To be fair, I think both were provocateurs. DePaul claimed that they couldn't adequately provide security, etc., etc. The problem was that there were students and others who loudly protested, claiming that to have such speakers on campus was violating a safe space for students, and offensive, and aggressive, and wrong, and that they weren't welcome. The issue wasn't the position of the speakers. The issue was that the campus, ostensibly "open-minded," was very close-minded to having conservatives speak. This has been very troubling for a number of thinking liberals. IIRC, Trib columnist Eric Zorn (a Michigan grad and probably on mgoblog) bemoaned the cancellation, basically because of the power of the protestors. The protestors "won," but at the expense of stifling free speech (albeit offensive speech).

Honk if Ufer M…

August 25th, 2016 at 5:27 PM ^

The thing is that what you call free speech, if it's conservative, is generally advocating things that are anti democratic, unjust, are absolutely known and provable to cause harm, damage, poverty, death, disease, slavery, genocide and general ripoff and tyranny.

Yet we have and enforce laws regarding so called material support for terrorism, usually involving charitable humanitarian donations to humanitarian orgs trying to help the victims or unjust, criminal, and or tyrannical policies of our own or of our so called allies that we support or insist upon.

Tokyo Rose and others called and treated as traitors, or heroes like Manning, Assange and Snowdon who expose the absolute crime of our leaders, policies and system and treated likewise, for trying to save us and help us, who don't do any harm to us, unless us are the one tenth of one percent who operate as the largest mafia figures in history.

Obviously speakers advocating for injustice of the many for the benefit of illegitimate corporate overlords who are going to poison the air, water, ground, food and products, among many other crimes against humanity, the constitution and justice, are causing infinitely more money loss and theft of many more people, much more death, genocide, suffering, wage slavery and ripoffery to the people, the planet, democracy, freedom, freedom of information and rights of the people than a million John Walker Lihnd's, Blind Sheik's or whistle-blowers combined.

You can't silence and imprison Chelsea Manning, and want to and threaten to kill or imprison Snowdon and Assange for expressing the opinions that war crimes and anti democratic efforts, torture, illegal spying and corruption of the world for the benefit of the 150 richest corps in the world, all done with the people's tax money against the interests of the people, but call it free speech when people lie and advocate for the killing of millions and the impoverishment of billions, people who get their wishes and influence the realities of those practices. No, that is material support for terrorism that dwarfs what officials and the media refer to as terrorism.

They should have the free speech, but then be tried and executed for that speech in the same way we do to people that murdered only ONE fucking person! Put on trial the way poor black or brown people are for inciting a riot that wasn't a riot and didn't cause death to anyone, as if you caused millions or billions of times more damage to more people and to society and the world than anyone convicted of inciting a riot or reckless endangerment has ever done,, because THEY HAVE!

Why aren't you calling for freedom of speech of Occupiers and other protesters who get heads beaten, pepper sprayed down the throat, tear gassed in the head, run over by cop motorcycles, falsely arrested, illegally detained, tortured, and threatened?

Why weren't you calling for the free speech of Jill Stein in this election season and Nader and Kucinich in the past regarding news coverage on the public mass communications systems given away for free to private monopolies to get to both profiteer and propagandize/censor news and control politics,  and not being allowed on the debate stages and onto various state ballots?

If there were a wrongful death lawsuit against somebody the court would try to determine if the results of the actions of the defendant could have been and should have been known or foreseeable in order to determine liability, it's something the courts claim the ability to determine through fact finding, investigation and questioning of witnesses and experts and participants. When they are testifying they're under oath and subject to criminal penalties for lying, regardless of the pettiness of the underlying issue or crime being tried. Perjury is a crime even when testifying about the shoplifting of a candy bar.

Yet a public speaker or writer can knowingly and intentionally lie and propagandize to the masses about things that affect the life, death, health and prosperity of 7 billion people without being under oath or subject to any recourse whatsoever. No shouting fire in a crowded theater that might harm a handful of people, but say things that will help whole countries or more starve, hey, that's fucking freedom! Let 'em die! Freedom!

It's a crime to lie to an officer or federal official, any small lie, but lie to the whole country and the world and that's freedom of speech. Under oath to get to the truth of the case of the missing candy bar, but public officials, candidates and public figures trying to influence public policy that controls every breath of the world, nope, nada, lie and demagogue all you want and be proud of it!

MGoNukeE

August 25th, 2016 at 6:26 PM ^

The first speaker was invited with a few complications:

1) Administrators added a $1000 bill to College Republicans three days before the event to hire additional security personnel. The student organization had to scramble, but managed to pay half the bill. The speaker paid the remainder of the bill out of pocket.



2) Two protestors stormed the stage during the event to shut it down; in the process, a protester took a swing at the speaker. The "security" they hired did nothing but stand and watch, so they called the police. Police arrived, but also did nothing per instructions from administrators. The event was cut short.



Outrage ensued, and the president resigned a month later. My guess is it was easier to uninvite the second speaker to avoid repeating this level of backlash.

Kapitan Howard

August 25th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^

I don't understand the point of this. If you say or do something stupid, there could be consequences, particularly social ones. Social media just makes it more far-reaching. Being a crybaby about it doesn't really make you seem smart. This has seriously never been a real problem for anybody I know.

Blue Bo

August 25th, 2016 at 1:33 PM ^

It is unfortunate that "free speech" is beginning to be conflated with "hate speech".  In theory and usually in practice, harmless.  When used to incite and inflict sadistic impulse, dangerous.