Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[rms]

I really enjoyed that NYT opinion article. The first third read off as an Onion article, crazy shit out there. I feel like my school is going to head into that direction soon. Watching some video thing she did in response to that, see if she has any more interesting thought;

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/34317?in=02:03&out=63:26

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm confused guys. I definitely don't think we should avoid racial slurs when talking about Mark Twain's literature, or Flannery C'Connor's, or William Faulkner's... or, hell, Ralph Ellison's for that matter.

But I also think it's absolutely acceptable and preferable to include trigger warnings at the top of syllabi and to let students know about potentially objectionable content ahead of time.

In the case of objectionable content, it doesn't relieve the student from participating, but rather allows me to facilitate the issue - possibly this means meeting with the student one-on-one.

I definitely don't see this kind of behavior as "disgusting."

 

[rms]

But I also think it's absolutely acceptable and preferable to include trigger warnings at the top of syllabi and to let students know about potentially objectionable content ahead of time.

Weirdly, in my lit class we read Passion of New Eve and we had a slight warning to a rape scene in the text but not the castration segment. What deems something worthy of a warning? I don't really have a problem with this, but I do think it's weird to prepare students for a rape section or whatever else and act like that has any effect on the reader at all?

I assume Dak is more upset at the "safe(r) place" type group thing instead of the warning of a syllabus.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would include a warning for any extreme violence. In fact, I have to make an announcement for next week: my kids are watching The Cabin in the Woods.

As far as the "safe(r) place" thing goes, it isn't as though the students tried to have the debate cancelled entirely. I don't see any point in getting upset over some students gathering elsewhere. Or are we suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to do so?

 

[rms]

Well I think that was just one example where students were welcomed somewhere else, with play-do and slinkys and other weird things for an adult.

The person arguing against abortions or something was not allowed to debate because of their differing opinion, the vagina monologues were cancelled at some liberal arts college because it doesn't include a transgender character..I think there are some examples out there of a lack of freedom of speech because it may put a mental hold on someone in the audience

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm curious: does the non-educational quality of prohibiting someone from speaking precede or succeed the prohibition?

Are these students losing a chance to be educated? Or are they appealing to the knowledge of a particular education and acting on that knowledge? I really don't see this as a freedom of speech violation; more often than not, the speaker doesn't ask to give a lecture at a university, they're asked by upper administration. They're not being refused some service, they're being challenged. To be entirely honest, if Rand Paul gives a speech at a university, you know what he's going to say. Public figures don't announce major ideological change-of-hearts in speeches, they do so in print.

It's known what a controversial figure will say well before they say it at a podium.

 

[rms]

I'm trying to understand your first sentence, but i'm feeling dumb. What non-educational quality are you referring to? The affect it has on the student body? And then you're asking how that changes before/after the prohibition?

In my experience with my school, we don't really have big name speakers coming often. We had Buzz Aldrin not too long ago and we had Soledad O'Brien my first semester. Lone Survivor dude too (so definitely agree what he would say before coming)--but I think it's more interesting in the discussion that follows. We have the Conference on World Affairs every April or something here and I went last year to two discussions, it was interesting to hear a discussion more than any notions the speakers came in with, if that makes sense.

I don't think the people cited in the article are that well known, but i'm not entirely knowledgeable on the scene for academic speakers.

 

[Einherjar86]

The quality I'm referring to is that of "non-education."

I'm saying that when these sorts of things happen (i.e. when speakers are prevented from speaking), critics complain that it's an impediment to education and intellectualism. I'm asking whether that's actually the case, or whether it's because of education that these speakers are prevented from speaking.

 

[Dak]

Sounds like you're arguing for info-bubbles Pat. Sure everyone generally knows what a given speaker is going to speak about. Students don't have to go (unless, of course, they do ala "Liberty" Uni and Ted Cruz incident), don't have to agree, etc.

The cultural holywars over who is the most victimized person or group in the room is both goddamn disgusting and hilarious. Hilarious in that first world idiocy is now past coming out and is throwing a pride parade, and disgusting in that it happens in such a way as to stamp out even the pretense of intellectualism at the institutions which are supposed to have that as their primary function.

Lets end the pretense of classes, athletics, etc. and admit the university system is just the continuation of day care through the "emerging adulthood stage". Padded cells and pacifiers for all the sweet innocent vulnerable children. And beer.

 

[rms]

You are suggesting that the audience is so well aware they it's actually a benefit that those speakers do not speak? Interesting idea, but all the cases I read about seem to be more on the fence of super left wing/protected society/involve every faction of society more than anything else. Maybe what I consider weird you consider educated.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sounds like you're arguing for info-bubbles Pat. Sure everyone generally knows what a given speaker is going to speak about. Students don't have to go (unless, of course, they do ala "Liberty" Uni and Ted Cruz incident), don't have to agree, etc.

The cultural holywars over who is the most victimized person or group in the room is both goddamn disgusting and hilarious. Hilarious in that first world idiocy is now past coming out and is throwing a pride parade, and disgusting in that it happens in such a way as to stamp out even the pretense of intellectualism at the institutions which are supposed to have that as their primary function.

Lets end the pretense of classes, athletics, etc. and admit the university system is just the continuation of day care through the "emerging adulthood stage". Padded cells and pacifiers for all the sweet innocent vulnerable children. And beer.

I think that within the set of values and regulations that we have in our culture, and have had for the past couple centuries, it's not difficult to come to the conclusion that women, blacks, and gays have been far more victimized than heterosexual white males. It's a fantasy that we like to imagine ourselves as oppressed by our Orwellian government.

The university system as a continuation of daycare is a hyperbole, I must assume. Acknowledging potentially traumatic historical conditions isn't the same as coddling.

You are suggesting that the audience is so well aware they it's actually a benefit that those speakers do not speak? Interesting idea, but all the cases I read about seem to be more on the fence of super left wing/protected society/involve every faction of society more than anything else. Maybe what I consider weird you consider educated.

It was only a question. I think it's possible that a university audience could be better educated than some invited speakers.

 

[rms]

As an undergraduate, I wish I could see your optimism. I don't think i'm that smart and it's really rare to hear a well spoken thought around campus.

 

[The Ozzman]

So with the Indiana bullshit: small business owners getting some freedom finally? About fucking time considering no one really cares that s business needs to run how the business thinks it should run

 

[The Ozzman]

I don't think i'm that smart

I could've told you that a while ago. It's probably why you're in the military currently.

 

[Mort Divine]

So with the Indiana bullshit: small business owners getting some freedom finally? About fucking time considering no one really cares that s business needs to run how the business thinks it should run

until a hospital refuses to treat someone based on their sexual orientation/religious views

 

[The Ozzman]

It's not going to come to that because of the Hippocratic Oath but keep thinking your train of logic is right

 

[Matt]

I could've told you that a while ago. It's probably why you're in the military currently.

So that's a pretty low blow there. What the fuck did you say you do again? I'm interested to hear how you utilize your immense intellect on a day to day basis.

 

[The Ozzman]

So that's a pretty low blow there. What the fuck did you say you do again? I'm interested to hear how you utilize your immense intellect on a day to day basis.

Eh I figured you or Dak would say something. I work at an insurance company and I pretty much sit around all day. It sucks but everyone knows I'm really fucking smart so they don't really question what I'm doing.

It's nice when I have lots of problems to solve as my job is project based but it's also nice to jam to tunes all day.

If I hadn't gone to college I would've done the military assuming my color blindness wouldn't have been a factor.

 

[Mort Divine]

It's not going to come to that because of the Hippocratic Oath but keep thinking your train of logic is right

The Hippocratic Oath is not legally binding, and I definitely am willing to believe that there are people out there who place their religious beliefs over their professional ethical codes.

And oh, it has already happened: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-parents-and-theres-nothing-illegal-about-it/

 

[rms]

I could've told you that a while ago. It's probably why you're in the military currently.

Been out since January 2013, I don't know if this comment is serious/joke so I won't really respond anyways