Yes, I did say that. And what is your answer to the question? Is it possible to show on rational grounds that sexism is bad? I am not asking you if it is possible to reform the behavior of all sexists. I am asking if it can be shown by reason, evidence, etc., that sexism is bad (whether people heed this conclusion or not).
I’m speaking of cases where I know those involved. It would not be appropriate for me to air such dirty laundry of others in public. But I have spoken correctly. If you don’t believe me, ignore the remark. I’m not trying to compel anyone’s assent, just explaining why I find the remark about fooling around with undergraduates to be a foolish one. In my experience, liberals and leftists do it as least as much as, if not more than, conservatives. In fact, it was very rare in my experience for a conservative professor to do this. Probably something to do with the traditional high valuation that conservatives put on faithfulness or loyalty (to one’s partner, one’s promises, one’s country, etc.).
And vice versa too. Cf Eddie.
Bovine faeces. They also object to geology, physics (esp radioactivity and dating consequences) and other topics related to the age of life and the earth.
1 Like
Hmmm.
Should universities invite creationists/IDers to speak? Of course not. They should invite speakers who have academically plausible hypotheses to present, and given the track record of Intelligent Design, there is no reason to think that an IDer will come up with an academically plausible case.
Yes, but those those parts of geology and physics are objected to as part of the overall subject of “evolution”, and it’s in ninth grade biology where that subject (evolution) is compulsory in public schools. Only in that grade. And only for two or three weeks. Take out that unit, and the creationist has nothing left to complain about. Even if radioactive dating is taught in senior physics, senior physics is not a compulsory subject; no one is forced to take it. The big issue for the fundamentalists is not having their 14-year-old kids forced to hear that evolution is true (and hence that the literal reading of Genesis is false, even if the high school science teacher is careful not to say that directly). If their kids, later in high school, choose to take advanced science courses for personal career reasons, e.g., they are interested in medical school, so they take an advanced biology course that among other things teaches evolution, that is not so objectionable, because it is their choice to aim for those careers, whereas ninth grade biology is inflicted on them without any choice. The parents still might not like the evolution stuff in the higher grades, but because there’s the element of choice, it’s not as offensive to them. If you look at the fights, you’ll see that 90% are focused on the ninth-grade biology curriculum.
I don’t say they should or shouldn’t. But if they do issue an invitation for an ID proponent (or anyone else) to speak, they shouldn’t rescind it due to pressure from either faculty or students. And they should not allow either faculty or students to disrupt the event. That goes for any event to which the speaker has been invited either by the university (as part of a series of university lectures), or with permission of the university (as when a department is allowed to bring in a visiting speaker). Aside from the basic objection of impoliteness, rudeness, vulgarity, etc. in withdrawing invitations after speakers have made plans, or treating them badly when they arrive, it’s a denial of the function of the university to air controversial ideas and debate them – a tradition going back to the founding of the university in the Middle Ages. No one is compelled to attend the lectures, so no one is forced to hear, say, Behe talking about irreducible complexity. They can go to the pub for beer instead. And if they do choose to go, they are sure to have an opportunity to ask Behe questions and offer criticism of his ideas. This is the old European tradition; you don’t disinvite speakers; if you don’t like what they have to say, you simply miss the lectures, or you go out to the lectures and debate with the speaker. This is civilized, compared with the recent American development of disinviting speakers and in some cases resorting to threats, vandalism, or violence if the institution does not agree to disinvite the speaker. This is savagery, and every last American should be embarrassed on hearing that some American universities, and university students and personnel, have stooped so low. It makes America, intellectually, into a bush league country. If you’re afraid of ideas you don’t like, you have no business attending university in the first place; and indeed, I would go further; I would strip of their degrees all students and faculty involved in any physical disruptions (as opposed to reasoned debate), the disruptions being evidence that they no longer honor the tradition of the community of scholars. Thuggery has no place on a university campus.
2 Likes
What public school grades are you including here? K to 8? K to 12?
I never said that it was right for fundamentalists to stifle the discussion of evolution. I don’t believe in stifling the discussion of anything. It sounds as if your schoolteachers were delinquent in their responsibility to teach the curriculum, and I don’t think it’s a good excuse that they were terrified of the parents. If the parents have complaints about the curriculum, the teacher is not the person to blame, and they should take their complaints to a higher level.
Nor did I say that only liberals, and never conservatives, have stifled discussion of ideas. It’s true that in some “churchy” settings (not all, but some) there has been a tendency to stifle certain ideas. But I have made it clear that I am talking about the intellectual life of the secular university, not the life of churches or bible colleges or seminaries or small villages dominated by church people. And in the universities, when there is stifling of discussion, it’s almost always coming from the leftist faculty (I should say leftist rather than liberal, because liberal was originally a noble word and it’s a shame to have to denounce it), not from the few isolated and vulnerable conservative faculty who don’t have enough votes or influence to stifle, intimidate or control anyone or anything.
1 Like
Throughout this discussion you have downplayed the desire for many more “conservative” groups in stifling ideas in the public arena and demonized “liberals”. You have said that creationists are only trying to influence a small part of the school curriculum. It’s what I would expect of someone recommending people read Denesh D’Souza.
1 Like
Wait there’s a card? Why didn’t I get mine?
School curricula vary widely from state to state although there has been some effort lately to adopt common standards across all states (common core). Some states will give evolution a more prominent role in the school curriculum than others. Why is that? Because ideologically right-wing and religious fundamentalists have enormous influence in some states. They are actively imposing their narrow political and culture war agendas into the education system and lobbying to have topics they don’t like (but know nothing about) like evolution and climate change removed from state standards. So spare this BS that everything is because of leftist university professors.
How far should we take this? There is a movement within the church where some Christians insist that the Bible teaches a flat Earth. Should we now remove a globe Earth from high school geology classes? Who gets to decide what science to take out of classes due to religious beliefs?
1 Like
Sure, but where have we got so lost that crackpots with those kinds of fatuous opinions are now dictating equal time in public discourse? There has to be some limit to the insanity here. Why not invite David Icke to tell us about lizard aliens and the illuminati?
While you pay some lip service to the idea of not engaging in an overcompensating pendulum swing towards an opposing political extreme, you appear to be de facto arguing for a sort of equal time to any idea no matter how preposterous, simply because there’s some cohort of the population who likes it.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there’s a role for reasonable people to reject the more hysterical extremists on either side of the political spectrum?
Just as we can use reason, data, science, and common sense to push back against extremist leftists who (say) think all mention of possible developmental neurological differences between men and women is de facto misogyny, we can also use reason and common sense to decide who does get to be platformed.
If someone is so lost they think Al Gore and Michael Mann are con artists, then they have lost their minds and shouldn’t get use their lunacy to try to move the Overton Window on what constitutes a reasonable point of contention.
No, David Duke also doesn’t need to be invited and heard. Yes it IS possible to resist attempts to deplatform legitimate scholars in their fields who expose inconvenient facts, while also rejecting calls for letting any and all ludicrous ideas get a seat at the table.
2 Likes
Indeed. With the exception of religion – which always seems to get “special rights” as people like Eddie like to say – we generally have no protection for employees or potential hires in employment law based upon beliefs or expression of those beliefs.
That’s not science’s or the education system’s problem. Suppose the kid’s parents were Holocaust deniers and demanded the WW2 Nazi extermination camps not be taught? It’s the school’s duty to teach factual information like evolution, not just what the parents like. If the parents are that upset they can send the kid to a private Fundamentalist school where he can be taught a literal Genesis and a Flat Earth.
To recap, you are complaining because non-science religious dogma is not allowed equal time to be taught in science classes. You blame that on “leftists” instead of admitting evolution is the only position supported by the science. How long did it take you to memorize the DI’s disingenuous talking points?
5 Likes
No, you didn’t. I said they shouldn’t, for the exact same reasons that you said holocaust deniers should not be invited. Reasons you omitted from your lengthy response, possibly to make it harder for readers to notice that you were replying to a rhetorical question that had already been answered.
Here they are again:
Should universities invite creationists/IDers to speak? Of course not. They should invite speakers who have academically plausible hypotheses to present, and given the track record of Intelligent Design, there is no reason to think that an IDer will come up with an academically plausible case.
No, not at all. The context of this discussion was the case where a university has invited a speaker, one known to hold controversial opinions, to come and speak. It is not I, but the university, which has made the decision whom to invite, presumably after some deliberation by a committee of faculty and others created for that purpose.
I was objecting to universities being forced, or feeling pressure, to recant their invitations by threats or hooliganism from the student body or other groups who find the views of the chosen speaker offensive.
If the university has invited someone to speak, and that person has made complicated and perhaps expensive travel plans, and has prepared a lecture or series of lectures, the person should be allowed to give that lecture.
If there are some at the university who find that person’s views offensive, they have several non-violent options, including non-attendance at the event, attendance with critical questioning during the question period, a negative review of the speaker’s lecture in a newspaper or on a podcast, etc.
This is what I have been talking about, but Herman Mays has tried to turn my concern into evidence that I think departments should hire every crackpot, racist, extremist, etc. that crawls out of the woodwork.
I’m in the humanities, which are very different from the natural sciences. The very lifeblood of the humanities is controversy over the deepest and most important issues, the great questions on which human beings often offer sharply different and mutually incompatible answers. The humanities cannot function if those differences are not allowed to be aired. And those differences inevitably produce strong feelings, and statements that some will find offensive.
You know, I grew up in an era when movies were not allowed show nudity, sexual acts, excessive violence, four-letter words, etc. I remember vividly when movies started including these things. I remember the outcry from conservatives that these things were wrong and evil and personally offensive to them and should not be shown in theaters. And I remember the standard liberal answers: artists must have artistic freedom; in a free society, one must allow the expression of ideas that many find offensive; no one is forced to watch these movies, so if you don’t want to see and hear these things, don’t go to them, but don’t take away the freedom of others to do so; etc.
Back then, the principle: “This is just obviously morally wrong and must not be tolerated” (an expression very similar to one Herman Mays has used) was dismissed as inadequate to justify controlling freedom of expression. The principle then was: “The price of a free society is that offensive speech and art must be allowed.”
Yet, when I apply that principle today, to freedom of speech at the university, for invited speakers to air controversial views (views known to be controversial when the invitation is issued), I am told by Herman Mays that it is a bad principle, an invalid principle, and should not be respected.
So, if Herman Mays has the right to censor university speakers that he finds offensive, but that I do not find offensive, do I have the right to censor movies that I find offensive, but that he does not? Would it be right for me and a gang of hooligans to block movie viewers from entering a theater to see a film of their choice? Or burst into a film showing with signs reading, “Ban filth from our movie screens”, so that those seated could not enjoy the movie?
I agree with this entirely. Note, however:
-
Herman Mays has repeatedly refused to answer my example of a scientist who reports on neurological differences. He will not say whether he thinks the views of that scientist are offensive, sexist, should be banned, etc. He will not say whether he thinks such a scientist should be disinvited to speak at a university if a group of angry feminists decide that her views are sexist and intolerable. Instead, he tries to make out that I am campaigning to make sure that every department hires some racists, sexists and fascists. He tried to make my position sound much more extreme than it is. This is not discussion in good faith. He is not even trying to read my words in the best possible light, but is insisting on reading them with the lowest possible interpretation.
-
Yes, reasonable people will have to decide whom to invite to speak at universities. I assume that before people are invited, committees review a number of suggestions for speakers for the season, and that various candidates are considered, and obviously during that process the committee will become familiar, if it is not already familiar, with the sort of thing that each candidate tends to argue for, and will then try to decide if hearing a talk by that person would have some educational value for the university community at large. For this reason, I doubt very much that any significant university or college would ever invite a Holocaust denier to speak; most Holocaust deniers offer very little in the way of genuine academic argument for their views, as opposed to undocumented conspiracy theories, and therefore it is highly unlikely that the university community would learn anything by hearing them speak. Note that here the Holocaust deniers are not invited, not because their views are offensive to many, but because their arguments are sub-academic, and therefore not suited to a university audience which has high intellectual standards. On the other hand, someone who argued that there were verifiable differences in human male and female brain development might well be invited, even though her conclusions might be offensive to many feminists and others, if her case for her conclusion was truly an academic one and therefore potentially of interest and importance.
I have not suggested that David Duke should be invited to speak at any university. However, if, say, Harvard University decided (for some reason I can’t imagine), after due deliberation of a properly constituted committee, to invite him to speak, it would be wrong for Harvard to rescind its invitation because some group of student hooligans were smashing windows in administrative buildings in protest. In that case the students should all be arrested and suspended or perhaps expelled from the university. No matter how strong their feelings against the ideas of any particular person, nothing justifies the descent into savagery of students who are supposed to be committed to the life of reason. There are civilized ways in which they can express their intellectual and moral revulsion to ideas they find unacceptable, and part of becoming an educated person is learning how to express oneself in civilized ways.
2 Likes
As is quite frequently done here by some people, you impute to me a low motive for my action instead of simply asking me why I did not include or respond to some of your words. The simple fact is that your words appeared to me to be attempting to draw me into a defense of ID, and I was not biting. The topic of this thread is not the intellectual or scientific worthwhileness of ID. Some people here have a habit of trying to draw every thread back to that topic, as if they desire another showdown regarding ID. I do not intend to respond to such invitations to change the topic. I do not agree with either the spirit or the contents of your words above, but I am not going to take up the thrown-down gauntlet.
1 Like
He was just noticing the pattern of your “selective” memory similar to most of your other deliberately misleading posts.
No. I don’t think those “views” are offensive, sexist, or should be banned. Of course not. I’m saying that sometimes there are legitimate reasons to ask that some ideas be excluded. Biological differences between the sexes is not one of those reasons. I’m sure I don’t need to lecture you however on the distinction between gender and sex.
You are acting as if we should be blind to BS and give all of it a public platform. I mean you’ve really thrown out a lot of absurd arguments here Eddie.