Currently browsing posts filed under "UL/Derbyshire"
Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.
[Emphasis added.] The most prominent cancellation of a controversial speaker at an elite college was, of course, President Falk’s cancellation of John Derbyshire. Questions:
1) Do you think the author of the Chicago letter had Williams in mind?
2) Has Williams sent out anything like this to incoming first years? I doubt it. Should it? You betcha!
3) EphBlog, while sadly a pale shadow of its former self, is starting to become a useful place for discussion. See this comment (in a dead thread) which jump started a 20 comment back-and-forth discussion about the Chicago letter. Kudos to participants like sigh, Trigger, anon-liberal and anon, all of whom make good points in the spirit of open discussion and debate.
If I were a Trustee I would ask President Falk why Williams itself does not provide a forum on which students, alumni and faculty might discuss these issues.
In The Economist in June:
Next consider the swelling range of opinion deemed to fall outside civilised discourse. To be sure, some opinions do, and the boundary shifts with time. The trouble now, says Zach Wood, a student at Williams College in Massachusetts, is that many people want to banish views that remain widely held among their compatriots, believing that, on neuralgic topics such as homosexuality, “It’s all said and done.” He runs a campus group that hosts challenging speakers. “Silence does nothing,” he reasons. Two of its invitations—to Suzanne Venker, author of “The War on Men”, and John Derbyshire, a racist provocateur—have recently been rescinded: Ms Venker was disinvited under pressure from other students, Mr Derbyshire by the college’s leadership. Mr Wood has been insulted, ostracised and (he is black) told he has “sold out his race”. Other prominent figures deterred or blocked from addressing university audiences include Condoleezza Rice, a former secretary of state, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim, and Jason Riley, an African-American journalist who wrote a book called “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder For Blacks To Succeed”.
Activists are entitled to their protests. But when, as at Williams, they decry counter-arguments as tantamount to violence, they stray into censorship.
I think that censorship is what they want . . .
By the way, calling Derbyshire “a racist provocateur” is sleazy. Most of his opinions (at least the ones Falk found objectionable) are held by a majority of people in, say, China. If most Chinese are “racist” — by the definition that The Economist is currently using — then it ought to start using a more useful definition.
Also, when was the last time that The Economist — easily the most important English language news magazine in the world — mentioned Williams? I can’t recall. But any article that talks so much about us and Yale is probably a net positive for admissions. So, well done Zack!
From the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Dear Mr. Wood,
While I am not interested in an extended dialogue with the National Association of Scholars regarding matters at Williams College, I am prepared to give a brief response to your question about John Derbyshire’s canceled appearance here. To that end, please see his opinion piece “The Talk: Non-Black Version.” This article was considered so racist by the National Review (no bastion of left-wing orthodoxy, I assure you) that upon its publication the editors severed their association with Derbyshire and refused him further access to their pages. Typical of its content is the following excerpt, in the form of advice to “nonblack” children:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
As for Derbyshire’s views on white supremacy, I would point you to the following passage that appeared on the website VDare:
“Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think ‘White Supremacist’ is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don’t see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.”
Frankly, this is the kind of material I would expect to see distributed by organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan.
Derbyshire’s rhetoric, as typified in these passages, isn’t the explication of provocative, challenging or contrary ideas. To speak to what I’m sure is a particular concern of the National Association of Scholars, his work on race isn’t remotely scholarly. Derbyshire simply provokes. His racist bile would have added nothing to the complicated and challenging conversations occurring every day on our campus, across a wide range of ideologies and experiences. No educational purpose of any kind would have been served by his appearance at Williams.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Related article and discussion here.
Let’s spend five days reviewing Professor Michael Lewis’s surprisingly sharp attack on President Falk concerning the banning of John Derbyshire from Williams. Today is Day 5.
Here’s where Uncomfortable Learning comes in. Having recognized that there is a growing uniformity of thought here (and elsewhere), its leaders invested a great deal of effort in bringing to the College points of view that typically go unheard. Twice their events have been canceled events. Perhaps Hopkins Hall can save them the trouble by showing them the blacklist of speakers who are persona non grata. And, while they’re at it, they might explain why it was a dreadful thing to have a blacklist in 1952 but it is morally correct in 2016.
Of course it isn’t called a blacklist. It is a symptom of the fundamental dishonesty of this day that we hesitate to call things by their right names. Back in the 1930s, that age of international fascism, the Louisiana populist Huey Long was asked if he thought fascism could ever succeed in the United States. “Sure,” he replied, “just so long as they call it anti-fascism.”
1) “events have been canceled events” Don’t the Record editors even read these articles?
2) The blacklist of 1952 was horrible because it targeted people on the left. Those are the good guys, as every Williams student is taught. The blacklistees of today — people like Venker and Derbyshire — are of the right. They are evil and should not be heard. At least, that is how Adam Falk sees it.
Again, I can’t recall a Williams faculty member even being so publicly critical of a Williams president. The question now, however, is: Will Professor Lewis and other faculty fight for free speech and open debate on the Williams campus?
I have my doubts. Lewis is a busy guy with many interests. Does he even live in Williamstown? Is he really willing to engage in the local faculty/student politics that taking Falk would require? I hope so! And EphBlog has some suggestions for when the fight begins . . .
Uncomfortable Learning is now in a stronger position than ever because now the College must decide, ahead of time, which speakers it is going to ban.
Imagine that UL leaders want to make life tough for Adam Falk. All they need to do is ask him (or the “Assistant Director for Student Organizations & Involvement in the Office of Student Life”) if they may invite person X to Williams. That is what the policy requires of them. They don’t have to — in fact, they are not allowed to! — invite person X before getting this permission. But this procedure (permission first, invitation second) means that they can endlessly torture Adam Falk by asking for permission for speakers that span the continuum from John Derbyshire on leftward.
The College is then trapped. Either they allow Uncomfortable Learning to develop a long list of all the speakers that Williams has banned (imagine the Washington Post article that would come out of the leaking of this list!) or they have to draw the line at Derbyshire and allow just about everyone else in. With luck, they will be smart enough to choose Door #2.
Does Uncomfortable Learning have the necessary student leadership to take advantage of this opportunity?
Professor Michael Lewis could do this as well. He could, easily, send an e-mail to Falk asking if it is OK for him to invite Jared Taylor or Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter or Charles Johnson or . . .
Either Falk says “No” and we crucify him on a cross of open debate or he says “Yes” and the problem is solved.
Let’s spend five days reviewing Professor Michael Lewis’s surprisingly sharp attack on President Falk concerning the banning of John Derbyshire from Williams. Today is Day 4.
Homogenous intellectual environments are not good at responding to new factors or conditions, as I learned from my own college experience. I went to Haverford, a Quaker college known for its extraordinary moral probity (with the country’s most rigorous honor code). I was there during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, throughout which time, in all my courses in political science, history and economics, I never heard the slightest suggestion that mighty shifts in American public opinion were underway that would lead to the Ronald Reagan landslide of 1980. My professors probably were unaware of their omission. But by being unable to give students a fair and well-informed summary of the basic tenets of the Reagan platform, other than a mocking caricature of it, Haverford failed in its duty to prepare its students for American life.
Something similar seems to be happening today with Donald Trump. We may write him off as a laughable neo-Napoleonic carbuncle, but if a sizable portion of the American population thinks otherwise, then our students need to hear the most articulate case for Trump – and hear it here, without having to drive to Renee’s Diner in North Adams. And if they cannot hear it from their professors, then they ought to be able to hear it regularly from outside speakers.
“[L]aughable neo-Napoleonic carbuncle” is great writing!
Recall that Lewis was writing in February. The case for Williams students being exposed to “the most articulate case for Trump” is even stronger now, obviously.
Is Lewis suggesting that his Williams colleagues in political science — like EphBlog favorites Sam Crane, James McAllister, Justin Crowe ’03 and Cheryl Shanks — can’t (or won’t) give the best case for Trump in their classes? If so, he should come right out and say it. That has never been EphBlog’s position. The problem is not that Williams faculty can’t teach or that their classroom teaching is biased. The problem is that the collection of speakers that Williams has invited to campus over the last few years includes exactly zero conservatives/libertarians/Republicans/Trumpians.
John Derbyshire, by the way, was one of the first Trump supporters among the chattering classes, back in July 2015. If Williams had more speakers like him than students/faculty/Falk would have been less surprised by the rise of Trump.
Let’s spend five days reviewing Professor Michael Lewis’s surprisingly sharp attack on President Falk concerning the banning of John Derbyshire from Williams. Today is Day 3.
All this takes place against the background of a college that proclaims, ceaselessly and fervently, its commitment to diversity. But, as defined at the College, diversity seems to mean embracing the full variety of individual human differences – except for ideas and opinions. Here is why the Derbyshire and Venker incidents are so alarming. The College is fast approaching a state where the genuine exchange of serious ideas – in open public debate, with good will and mutual respect – is made impossible because a growing number of opinions are considered out of bounds. As Mary Detloff, the College’s director of media relations told The Berkshire Eagle, Derbyshire’s views on race, women’s rights, gay rights and sexual harassment render him “unsuited to discussions at Williams College.” Of course, once everyone’s views are homogenous, it’s hard to imagine what would be left to discuss.
Indeed. Lewis is exactly right about the danger and about the direction in which the College might go, might even be going right now. Recall the student who reported that although he supported Trump, he didn’t want to tell people that for (reasonable!) fear as to what that would do to his “social standing.” That seems like a problem to me! If the Williams student community chooses to ostracize someone merely because he will be voting for Trump, then honest discussion and debate becomes impossible.
But Michael Lewis, tenured member of the Williams faculty, is in a good position to do something about this! He could invite a series of speakers that agree with Trump (if not Derbyshire) on a variety of issues, thereby expanding the range of acceptable opinion on the Williams campus. If several Trump-supporters were to speak this fall, students who also support Trump would be less likely to be ostracized and more likely to speak out.
Let’s spend five days reviewing Professor Michael Lewis’s surprisingly sharp attack on President Falk concerning the banning of John Derbyshire from Williams. Today is Day 2.
The excuse is the familiar platitude that “there’s a line somewhere” that divides free speech from hate speech. And speech that crosses this line must be squelched, even at the point of covering the ears of the listeners. But the notion that there is a line between free speech and hate speech is a curious one. Free speech is a principle that you can define in absolute terms. Hate speech is an accusation – frequently a moving one – which doesn’t lend itself to the drawing of neat lines. The only stable definition for hate speech is speech that makes someone hate you.
Isn’t that exactly backward? At Williams, and places like it, hate speech is not “speech that makes someone hate you.” Hate speech is speech that you hate. Perhaps I am confused by what a “stable” definition is? Perhaps I am defining hate speech descriptively — meaning a definition that an outsider could apply to Williams and use to predict what speech the community would define as “hate” — while Lewis is being more prescriptive, trying to come up with a new definition which we might all agree on and then use going forward.
You don’t have to agree with Derbyshire to believe that the College did something wrong in forbidding him from speaking here. Administrators can make blunders, but this isn’t a blunder; rather, it’s part of a larger and ominous pattern. Last October, the same students who invited Derbyshire were pressured into rescinding their invitation to Suzanne Venker. This itch to censor is not even limited to the present. Right now, a committee is tracking down “potentially problematic” historical art on campus. Its mission is encapsulated in a remarkable leading question (a question so artfully constructed as to yield but one answer): “What should be done about historical images that portray the College as less welcoming than we are or aspire to be?” Framed that way, it’s hardly a surprise that the mural in the Log depicting Chief Hendrick – the Mohawk ally of Ephraim Williams – has been found objectionable and whisked behind plywood.
Lewis was much too pessimistic with regard to the mural. Williams (and Falk, to his credit) has decided to keep the mural at The Log. Is Lewis also wrong about the “larger and ominous pattern?” I hope so! Certainly, across higher education, there is a move to greater censorship, especially of “conservative” views. But Williams has always been more mainstream than other elite liberal arts colleges and so, one hopes, less likely to slide down the censorship slope. Remove the Venker rescission (which was truly the decision/fault of the students who invited her) and the mural controversy, and the pattern becomes the single instance involving Derbyshire. Perhaps things are less dire than Lewis makes them out to be?
Let’s spend five days reviewing Professor Michael Lewis’s surprisingly sharp attack on President Falk concerning the banning of John Derbyshire from Williams. Today is Day 1.
The title (chosen by Lewis?) of this Record op-ed is “A new blacklist: How the disinvitation of John Derbyshire reveals a troubling pattern of censorship on campus.” I can not recall a harsher public criticism of a Williams president by a Williams faculty member. Can anyone?
No one who really believes in free speech ever says, “Free speech is a value I hold in extremely high regard,” as our College’s president did last Thursday in a campus-wide email. If you believe in free speech, you simply practice it, which means going through your life listening to a good deal of cant, nonsense and occasional sheer vileness. One can always walk away; this is what it means to be an adult. But when someone sings a song of praise for free speech, you can reckon with mathematical certainty that there is a but circling in a holding pattern overhead, waiting to drop. It didn’t take long. President Falk’s paean to free speech ended with the inevitable: but John Derbyshire is not free to speak here.
I could not agree more. However, this being EphBlog, let’s engage in some small-minded editing suggestions. First, the “but” in “but circling” definitely needed quotation marks. Otherwise it reads too similar to “butt circling.” Second, planes don’t “drop” from a holding pattern, they “land” from one. Bombs drop but, when they do, they come from planes, not from holding patterns. Third, it is interesting to look at the Google search for Falk’s phrase. Turns out that no one has ever said this exact phrase before, which is not a critique of Lewis since he was obviously referring to sentiments like this in general.
But the uniqueness of the phrase makes it easier for us to find all the other critiques of Falk, like this one from Ken White at Popehat and this from Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy. Lots of excellent material to get us through the dog days of August!
Most famous current Williams undergraduate? Almost certainly Zach Wood ’18 for his role as president of Uncomfortable Learning. This Newsweek article tells his story in the context of broader trends on campus.
Until it was squashed by administrative decree, Williams College sophomore Zachary Wood headed up an on-campus lecture series called “Uncomfortable Learning.” Wood, an African-American who grew up in one of the poorer neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., is a self-described liberal, devoted to learning and books. He liked inviting controversial speakers, usually from the political right, to challenge young progressives cloistered in a collegiate utopia at one of the nation’s great small liberal arts institutions.
Last year, though, Wood encountered the limits of free speech at Williams. First, he invited Suzanne Venker, an anti-feminist author and lecturer. After a campus and social media outcry, Wood’s fellow “Uncomfortable Learning” leaders disinvited her and then, to avoid further shaming on social media, resigned from the organization.
Wood then formed a club of one and invited an even more confrontational speaker, British-American writer John Derbyshire, whose contributions to the racial discourse include a snide white dad’s version of “the talk” black men give their sons about police. After suggesting that blacks are more “antisocial” than whites, he wrote that a small percentage “is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us,” while “around half will go along [with violence] passively if the five percent take leadership in some event.”
An hour after Wood advertised Derbyshire’s speech with a Facebook post, he was swarmed. On Facebook, someone wrote that Wood deserved the “oil and whip”—a reference to a punishment for slaves. Others accused him of providing a space on campus for “hate speech” and began debating how to file a complaint against him. When Wood replied to one critic, “So you would never bring a speaker on the far right, like Venker and Derbyshire? I value the work I do with UL,” someone retorted, “I’d rather sell crack first.”
A few days passed, the outrage kept building, and the university president disinvited Derbyshire.
Wood believes students need to hear provocateurs like Derbyshire in order to formulate their own thoughts and challenges. “What is hate speech to begin with?” he asks. “It’s what people don’t like to hear. Trump has the support of a considerable portion of the American electorate. With someone like him running for president, speaking on national television every day, saying controversial things about the most important issues of our time, it is imperative that we confront offensive views and afford college students the opportunity to learn how to engage constructively with people they vehemently disagree with. Shielding students from microaggressions does not improve their ability to argue effectively; it coddles them. At a time like this, uncomfortable learning is vital.”
The official Colby College magazine covered the topic of free speech on campus.
A flood of incidents at institutions ranging from huge land-grant universities to small liberal arts colleges is growing into a conflict between “politically correct” culture and freedom of speech. The swift reaction has been passionate. Some warn of suppression of speech, while others welcome the shift toward a more sensitive culture as a needed adjustment in an increasingly intolerant world. Still others complain that such increased “tolerance” is itself a form of intolerance.
A recent national survey revealed that while most college students believe their campus environment should expose them to diverse viewpoints, a large majority also believes that schools should be allowed to restrict intentionally offensive language. And 54 percent of students recently surveyed by the Knight Foundation and Gallup said the climate on campus prevents some people from saying what they believe, because others might find it offensive.
But can colleges monitor and restrict slurs and hate speech while also protecting free speech and the give and take of ideas in what is, after all, an academic and intellectual space? In Colby’s tight-knit community, the conversation is just getting started. “We need to be very clear about our values when it comes to issues around freedom of speech and around respect and civility,” said President David A. Greene. “These things can coexist.”
Read the whole thing. Do you think that the Williams Magazine will cover the debate on this topic at Williams? I have my doubts. The Colby author writes:
As the conflict spread, Williams College canceled two right-wing speakers who were invited to campus as part of the college’s “Uncomfortable Learning” series.
1) It is interesting to see how (sympathetic!) observers portray the events of the last year at Williams. EphBlog readers know, of course, that “Williams College” did not really cancel two speakers. The students cancelled Venker and Falk banned Derbyshire. And yet, to Colby alumni, it will appear (correctly?) that there is less free speech at Williams than there is at any other NESCAC school.
2) At Colby there is a student Republican group. At Williams, there is not. Why? Should we be worried?
3) Always nice to see Robert Gaudino’s catchphrase, “Uncomfortable Learning,” get mentioned elsewhere.
4) Entire tenor of the article is remarkably restrictionist. They don’t quote — because they can’t find — a single faculty member or administrator who believes that speech at Colby should be at least as free as speech at the University of Maine.
So, I guess the answer to “Can we talk?” will be, in a few more years, “Only if you don’t say anything that upsets from from the right.” Or am I too pessimistic?
A reader commented yesterday:
At the faculty meeting today, a liberal cum libertarian critique of President Falk’s decision to cancel the Derbyshire talk was met with polite silence. A defense of President Falk’s decision was greeted with widespread applause.
1) Could other readers provide more details? Which faculty members spoke? What arguments did they make?
2) Those who hope that Williams is still a college rather than a madrasa might console themselves by imagining that the widespread applause was the dying gasp of an intellectually bankrupt regime, like the end of the miners’ strike in England 30 years ago. Those with a clear-eyed view of the future should cry over the Williams that was.
3) One of the mostly widely-read essays at EphBlog is about why smart 18-year-olds should choose Williams over Harvard. I have talked to more than one Eph who came across this essay while making her decision and was influenced by it. Yet can any lover of freedom continue to make that recommendation? At Harvard, students are treated as adults. They can invite someone with unpopular ideas, someone like John Derbyshire, to campus. They can listen to him and argue with him. At Williams, students can’t do that. They have about as much agency, at least when it comes to unpopular ideas, as 5th graders at the local elementary school.
If you are someone who is happy to follow the herd, who has no interest in bucking the mores of polite society, then Williams is probably still a better college than Harvard. But, if you are someone who sees the world differently than Adam Falk, then you ought to think twice before coming to Williams.
And those are perhaps the saddest words ever written at EphBlog . . .
Professor Nate Kornell shared his thoughts on the UL/Derbyshire/Falk controversy.
I’ve been criticized for a recent tweet in which I supported the decision to disinvite a speaker in a lecture series here at Williams College, where I teach. In case anyone cares (which I doubt) here’s my thinking.
One thing I’m sure of, though: College campuses are THE place where rational debates should find safe harbor. If colleges want to create safe spaces, they should be places where it is safe to speak one’s mind, not where people are safe from hearing messages they don’t like (having such spaces is fine, but colleges needn’t provide them).
I wouldn’t want to disinvite someone because I don’t like their message — again, I want to hear from people who disagree with me — but only if they don’t make a rational case for it.
Read the whole thing. Comments:
1) We love Nate Kornell! He is exactly the sort of professor that Williams needs more of, engaged with both his students and the wider world. Kudos to Williams for hiring/tenuring him.
2) Glad to see Kornell come to his senses (although that last sentence could have used a good editor).
Does Professor Nate Kornell really believe that banning speakers is a good idea, or is he just hopeful that, if he spouts the usual PC-vanities, the speech police won’t come for him next? I don’t know. But if Williams leftist are looking for another person to attack, Kornell would make for an interesting target.
1) Kornell is, obviously, a rape apologist.
2) Kornell fails to support — which is more or less the same thing as attacking — minority students.
Here are some truths that Kornell almost certainly believes.
1) IQ tests like the SAT are some of the most important and reproducible results in all psychology. Doing well on an IQ test is highly correlated with all sorts of outcomes including performance in Williams college classes.
2) IQ is significantly genetic. The population variance that is explained by genes is at least 50% and possibly much more. The best way to ensure that your children are smart is to marry someone smart, and that is just as true even if you intend to give up your children for adoption.
3) Measured IQ (using any intelligence test, including the SAT) varies significantly by race, with African-Americans scoring much lower than, say, Asian-Americans.
4) The 10,000 or so genes that are affect IQ are being identified. This work is the “locomotive” that Charles Murray refers to as heading toward the social sciences. Within ten years, you will be able to make a fairly decent prediction, at birth, of what someone will score on the SAT 16 years later.
And that is just a sample of Professor Nate Kornell’s horrible beliefs! How can Adam Falk put up with such hate speech infecting Williams College classrooms?
UPDATE: Kornell recants.
Consider this comment from ephalum regarding student complaints about Venker being allowed to speak at Williams.
Sorry, Juan, but that comment reads like a self-parody (is it intended to be, perhaps I am missing something?) of the sorts of ridiculous overreaction to speakers whose ideas you might dislike, even find offensive or stupid. Having a speaker appear on campus who no one is under any obligation to listen to in no way causes tangible harm, let alone should be equated to the “dispersal of violent ideologies.” The answer to speech you dislike is more speech. That is fundamental to any discourse, whether political or academic. During my time at Williams we had plenty of speakers far more inherently offensive than this speaker on BOTH sides of the spectrum (Charles Murray, Nation of Islam leader Khalid Muhammed, etc.) but no one claimed to suffer any sort of psychological harm based on their mere presence on campus.
(And in case you don’t know, I am a fervent liberal, but the few extreme voices from the far left trying to shut down discourse due to purported psychological damage are an embarrassment to the rest of us).
Indeed. But where was ephalum four months later when Falk cancelled Derbyshire using, more or less, the exact same reasoning which ephalum mocked here? In particular, is Adam Falk (someone who has successfully “shut down discourse”) an “embarrassment to the rest of us?” And, if not, what distinguishes him from the students who protested against Venker being allowed to speak?
A similar complaint applies to our own Professor Miller who, four months ago, played the “First they came for the Socialists” card, writing:
PBK is dedicated to the principles of freedom of inquiry and liberty of thought and expression. We do not necessarily support the views and opinions of the speakers, but we strongly support the calls made by President Falk, William McGuire III ’17 and others on the importance and value of having civil discussions. There is a great opportunity in such debate, and we encourage all interested members of the community to come to these and other events and be heard. Many of the positions held by students and faculty on our campus today would not have found receptive audiences in the earlier days of Williams; ideas should be refuted by facts, not silenced.
Talk is cheap. If Miller really believes in the “the principles of freedom of inquiry and liberty of thought and expression,” he will stand up to Falk. Tenure serves no useful purpose if it does not encourage professors like Miller to fight the administration about important matters of principal.
Assume that Miller means what he writes. What should he do next?
Williams is accredited by the New England Association of of Schools and Colleges (NEASC). The current standards are here. Key portion:
5.23 Scholarship, research, and creative activities receive encouragement and support appropriate to the institution’s purposes and objectives. Faculty and students are accorded academic freedom in these activities.
It is a violation of the academic freedom of students to prevent them from bringing a (non-violent) speaker to campus. Is Williams in danger of losing its accreditation because it now picks and chooses among the speakers that it allows students to bring to campus?
The new standards (which come into effect in July) are worded differently but imply (?) the same substance. Relevant passages include:
The institution protects and fosters academic freedom for all faculty regardless of rank or term of appointment.
The institution is committed to the free pursuit and dissemination of knowledge. It assures faculty and students the freedom to teach and study, to examine all pertinent data, to question assumptions, and to be guided by the evidence of scholarly research.
If a faculty member (and I bet that Uncomfortable Learning could find at least one!) issues a new invitation to Derbyshire and the College insists on banning him, then there is no doubt that this would be an infringement of academic freedom.
Leftist readers will no doubt recall something from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
Can the College live up the rules of its own accreditation organization? I hope so!
The Record ought to call NEASC and ask some questions . . .
Side question: What is the closest Eph connection to either Alinsky or Rules for Radicals? Perhaps Wade Rathke ’71 of Acorn?
James Watson’s Scheduled Appearance at Williams
To the Williams Community,
Today I am taking the extraordinary step of canceling a speech by James Watson, who was to have presented his views here on Thurday night. The college didn’t invite Watson, but I have made it clear to the biology faculty who did that the college will not provide a platform for him.
Free speech is a value I hold in extremely high regard. The college has a very long history of encouraging the expression of a range of viewpoints and giving voice to widely differing opinions. Until this year, we have never canceled speakers or prevented the expression of views. But, as in the case of John Derbshire last week, there is a line and James Watson is on the other side of it. As reported in the New York Times:
In an interview published Sunday in The Times of London, Dr. Watson is quoted as saying that while “there are many people of color who are very talented,” he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.”
“All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.
These thoughts clearly constitute hate speech, and we will not promote such speech on this campus or in our community.
We respect our faculty’s exploration of ideas, including ones that are very challenging, and we encourage individual choice and decision-making by faculty. But at times it’s our role as administrators to step in and make decisions that are in the best interest of our community. This is, again, one of those times.
More commentary below the break: Read more
This excellent article (pdf) from the Alumni Review provides a sense of what Robert Gaudino would do if a controversial speaker were invited to campus.
If Derbyshire’s talk wasn’t providing “the creative potential to unsettle and disturb” then the words have no meaning. Show this quote to someone like Professor Sam Crane and he would (I hope!) agree with it. Williams should “unsettle” and “disturb” its students. But what Sam really means is that Williams should “unsettle” and “disturb” its students from the left. If a student is a strong supporter of Israel, then Williams should unsettle/disturb him by confronting him with a passionate opponent, like Vijay Prashad. If a student is opposed to affirmative action, then Williams should unsettle/disturb him by confronting him with a speaker like Tim Wise. And so on.
Gaudino, of course, would have gleefully mocked Sam Crane, would have pointed out that if you really believe that the College has a responsibility to “unsettle and disturb” its students, then that responsibility applies to all students, even (especially!) those students who agree with the common zeitgeist.
As we have noted, on the topics that got Derbyshire banned at Williams, Charles Murray is every bit as non-PC. But, he is more polite and less likely to give offense. If I were a social justice warrior, that would make me more worried about Murray rather than less.
Among those who agree with Falk’s decisions to ban Derbyshire: Do you also think he should ban Murray? I am honestly curious to read your views and reasoning. Especially appreciated would be links to Murray’s writings that you find offensive enough to justify a ban.
As always, the best parts of EphBlog are often in the comments. Consider this one from Professor Darel Paul:
In light of the many recent controversies regarding what is and is not acceptable speech / representation at Williams College (Yes: Jiz Lee, Suzanne Venker, Remi Kanazi; No: John Derbyshire, left-facing (i.e. non-Nazi) swastikas; Preliminary No: old murals of King Hendrick), perhaps what is needed is a kind of Miller Test for the community.
As my deconstructionist faculty friends would say, there is a lot to unpack here. Let’s start!
1) Who can tell if Paul is kidding? I honestly can’t! From Wikipedia:
The Miller test (also called the Three Prong Obscenity Test) is the United States Supreme Court’s test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.
On the one hand, Professor Paul could be serious. Williams does seem to have a problem in deciding what to allow and what not to allow. Given that, we need a procedure for deciding these issues going forward. Why not start with something like Miller?
On the other hand, he must be joking, purposely teasing the Williams administration — purposely teasing his boss Adam Falk? — about the stupidity of its current course of action. Would Williams really want to treat ideas — even ideas as unpopular as John Derbyshire’s — in the same way that provincial US local governments handled obscenity?
2) It is true that Williams now claims that Suzanne Venker would have been welcome if UL had not disinvited her. Does everyone really believe that, now that we know that Adam Falk considers “hate speech” a reason for banning someone from campus? I don’t know. Many Ephs thought that Venker was guilty of hate speech. The editors of the Record, for example, seemed to argue that Venker should not be allowed to speak at Williams, and for precisely the same reasons that Falk banned Derbyshire.
Poet Remi Kanazi, for example, who frequently speaks at SJP-sponsored events, represents Palestinian culture through work that attacks Israel as a “racist, apartheid state” that is “built upon the graves of Palestinians.” In one Facebook post from 2012, Kanazi wrote,“Dear Zionists: You have never ‘defended yourselves.’ You came in, stole land that wasn’t yours & maintained a racist state through massacres and brute force.”
There are certainly Jewish Williams students who are as offended by Kanazi as other Williams students are offended by Derbyshire. And, if they view that speech as “hateful,” then they are probably accurately describing their subjective feelings upon reading/hearing that speech. But, if you ban Derbyshire, why wouldn’t you ban Kanazi?
From the Berkshire Eagle:
Our Opinion: Wrong call by Williams in cancelling speaker
At a time when too many college student bodies are demanding that controversial speakers be banned it is disappointing that Williams College won’t get to hear such a speaker who was invited by students.
1) Any forecasts on what other media outlets will editorialize about Falk’s decision? I am most curious about the Record, which deeply embarrassed itself last fall in the Venker controversy but is now under new leadership.
2) Key in this whole discussion is that Derbsyhire was invited by members of the Williams community. He wasn’t just wondering in off the street. I don’t think it should matter whether the invitation came from students or faculty or staff.
Williams President Adam Falk has ordered the cancellation of an appearance Monday by former National Review columnist John Derbyshire, who some have condemned as being racist. He had been invited by a student group called Uncomfortable Learning.
In framing the debate, how one describes Derbyshire is key. I think that the above is a fair description. It is both true (lots of people, including Adam Falk!, do condemn Derbyshire for being racist) and it highlights the reasons behind the controversy. This is much more neutral than describing Derbyshire as a “white supremist,” since he would disagree with that terminology, or as a “race realist,” which is too confusing for Eagle readers.
Students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities nationwide have taken to banning or disinviting speakers whose views some find discomfiting. Teachers introducing similar views or failing to provide “trigger warnings” about controversial subjects are demeaned, harassed and threatened with suspensions or firings. The offending speakers and viewpoints are almost invariably conservative or far-right
Mostly correct, although a bit overwrought. But is there a single example — either at an elite college or anywhere else — of a president “banning” a speaker, of forbidding Person X from stepping foot on campus even though they have an invitation from current students or faculty? I can’t find one but pointers are welcome!
This is counter to the mission of higher education, which is to expose students to a variety of disagreeable viewpoints, not to protect their delicate sensibilities from them. Mr. Derbyshire denies he is a white supremacist (Eagle, February 19), and while The Eagle disagrees with the sentiments expressed in a National Review column advising white children about how to be safe among African-Americans, he is entitled to them and Williams students should be able to hear and debunk them.
Fifty years ago, Robert Gaudino considered it one of his missions to “expose students to a variety of disagreeable viewpoints.” Does any faculty member at Williams agree? I am honestly curious.
A Williams grad told The Eagle that “White supremacy has no place in the Purple Valley,” but all manner of racist views exist in the wide world outside of that protected enclave. There is no hiding from them and it is best to be exposed to them in school. That is part of the educational process, one that has been denied to Williams students.
What advice do our readers have for Adam Falk?
First, admit that you have a (big!) problem. This controversy shows no signs of going away. If anything, it is on the verge of snowballing out of control. When well-respected Harvard professors like Steven Pinker are openly mocking you, it is time to do something.
Second, the best approach would be what I suggested yesterday. Issue the following statement:
I have talked to many Williams faculty, students and alumni. I have now read John Derbsyhire’s book We Are Doomed, having checked it out from our own Sawyer Library. Although I profoundly disagree with Derbyshire’s views on a variety of topics, I now realize that my earlier decision was a mistake. Williams College is precisely the place where these odious opinions need to be explored, confronted and debunked. If not us, then who? If not here, then where? So, in the spirit of uncomfortable learning, I have personally invited John Derbyshire to Williams, where we will stage a debate between him and some of the members of our faculty.
And so on. The exact details are unimportant. But banning student-invited speakers is a horrible idea. Admit your error and move on.
Third, the second best approach is to shut up! Stop giving interviews. Stop talking to people. If anyone has questions, refer them to your statement. There is no upside (for you) in continuing the conversation. Your quotes in the Washington Post are a disaster. Consider:
“The understanding I came to of his writing was that it was simply racist ranting, with no redeeming intellectual value whatsoever,”
Then why does Williams have three of his books in its library? Are your staff idiots? Do Williams librarians purchase many books that are simply “racist ranting?” Providing quotes like this only makes you look incompetent. Moreover, John Derbyshire regular writes for The New Criterion, as hoity-toity an egghead magazine as you are going to find. Do you really believe that The New Criterion publishes a lot of material with “no redeeming intellectual value?” Are they a bunch of racists too? That is nuts, and readers of the Washington Post are smart enough to know it.
“The college does not have an obligation to give a platform to absolutely anybody. And a self-proclaimed white supremacist who was going to come and tell students … that they should avoid the African American students, was over a line.”
Note how the Post leaves out a part of your comment? Reporters are not your friends. They have a beast to feed and you are the meat. The more you say to them, the more you leave yourself open to quote-mangling, malicious or otherwise.
And you leave yourself open to rebuttal on the facts. John Derbyshire is many, many things but he is not “a self-proclaimed white supremacist.” You have just opened yourself (and Williams!) up to claim of defamation! Listen to your lawyers and shut up. (Attorney readers are welcome to offer their opinions as to whether or Derbyshire would have a case.)
And you aren’t even accurately summarizing Derbyshire’s infamous article correctly. He writes:
In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.
Derbyshire’s (rude) advice to non-black Williams students is exactly the opposite of what you have claimed it to be. He recommends that they go out of their way to make friends with black Williams students. He reasoning may be false and obnoxious and racist — and you are allowed to call it all those things and more — but you aren’t allowed to say that Derbyshire gives Advice X when, in fact, he gives Advice Y.
Fourth (and this is by far the worst option but still better than the path you are going down) is to make someone else at Williams the face of this issue. That is why senior administrators like Will Dudley, Denise Buell and Sarah Bolton get paid the big bucks. Let one of them — or perhaps a senior professor looking for a fight — spout off to the Washington Post. You are the president of Williams College. You should step back from the fray. You already made the decision. Let other faculty members talk about it.
What advice do our readers have for Falk?
The forthcoming issue of the Record will get more views outside of the Eph family than all of last year’s issues combined. The news of an elite college president banning an student-invited speaker is that big a deal. What articles should the Record be working on, in addition to general news stories?
1) History of speech debates/suppression at Williams. I am embarrassed to admit that I don’t know this history at all. Does anyone? When was the last time a speaker was banned at Williams? What have previous Williams presidents said about free speech on campus? Start here, although I couldn’t figure out how to search. Suggestions welcome! Also, Katie Nash, the new Archivist, knows her stuff.
2) A comparison to other NESCAC/elite schools. Ask Amherst and Swathmore if they have ever banned a speaker. Ask them if they ever would. They might use this occasion to make fun of Williams. Ask them if they have any official policies which would prevent their students from inviting Derbyshire to campus. Place Falk’s action in the context of our peers.
3) Interviews with prominent alumni who have experience with, or expertise in, campus speech debates.
4) Interviews with faculty who have spoken out. I would start with EphBlog favorite Sam Crane who has an extensive discussion on his own blog. The key point to push with Sam is the following: Should students at Williams have fewer rights than students at MCLA? Because of the First Amendment, students at a state school like MCLA can not be punished for “hate speech” and can not be prevented from bringing (non-violent) speakers to campus, even if they are speakers that Sam Crane does not like.
Williams is a private institution and can have whatever rules it likes. But I would love to have Sam and other faculty on record as claiming that such restrictions benefit Williams students relative to their peers down the road at MCLA.
PS. Here is another suggestion for the name for the scandal: “Derb Makes Falk Uncomfortable.” This includes a reference to all three key players: John Derbyshire (who is nicknamed “Derb” in corners of the internet), Adam Falk and the student group Uncomfortable Learning. Previous discussion here. Only thing I don’t like is that it is too long. Suggestions?
Williams College cancels a speaker who was invited to bring in provocative opinions
Williams College’s president took “the extraordinary step” this week of canceling the speech of an author who had been invited to bring provocative ideas to campus, saying his ideas cross the line into hate speech.
There is a lot to cover, but here are the key issues:
1) Will this controversy lead to Adam Falk’s departure from Williams? I feel absurd (and sad!) even typing those words. I like Adam Falk! I think he is doing a good job as president! It would be bad for Williams to lose its president in the middle of a capital campaign. But this controversy is close to spinning out of control. And there are a lot of people at Williams, a lot of powerful people among the board of trustees, who believe strongly in free speech. The odds of Falk’s departure are not high, but they are no longer zero. Were the issues that led to the end of Hank Payne’s presidency any more serious?
2) This article reads like it was written by Adam Falk’s worst enemy. Could that title be biased any more strongly against him? It isn’t that the title is wrong or false. It is just the framing that is so damning. Why not “Williams College Cancels Speech by White Supremacist” or “Williams College Cancels Racist Speech” or, at minimum, “Williams College Cancels Speech by Author Widely Accused of Racism”? The greatest sin in America today is racism. Supporters of Falk’s decision need that word, or something like it, in the first sentence of every news story.
3) Who is giving Adam Falk such horrible advice? Jim Kolesar has been guiding Williams presidents through troubled waters for a generation. I like to hope he was against cancellation. Who does Falk rely on to make these sorts of decisions? He needs better advisers.
4) Has the backpedaling begun? Key passage:
“The understanding I came to of his writing was that it was simply racist ranting, with no redeeming intellectual value whatsoever,” he said.
Just how much time did Falk spend coming to an “understanding” of “his writing?” The Williams College library includes three books by Derbyshire. Did Falk read them? Did he talk to someone who did? One of those books, We Are Doomed, is a good summary of Derbyshire’s views. Which passages does Falk object to?
Yet the good part of this passage is that it provides Falk with a way out. Next week he could say:
I have talked to many Williams faculty and alumni. I have had a chance to read Derbsyhire’s book We Are Doomed. Although I profoundly disagree with John Derbyshire, I now realize that my earlier decision was a mistake. Williams College is precisely the place where these odious views need to be explored, confronted and debunked. If not us, then who? If not here, then where? So, in the spirit of uncomfortable learning, I have personally invited John Derbyshire to Williams, where we will stage a debate between him and some of the members of our faculty . . .
And so on. There is still an (easy!) way out for Adam Falk and the people around him. Are they smart enough to take it? I have my doubts.
5) Where to next? Once you have made the Post, the New York Times, NPR and the rest of the US media will not be far behind. Could this story make the morning talk shows (Mike Brezinski ’89)? The nightly news (Erin Burnett ’98)? You betcha!
What do readers predict will happen with regard to the Falk bans Derbyshire story? It just hit the AP.
BOSTON (AP) — The president of Williams College is canceling a speaking event by a contentious writer who had been invited to campus by students.
President Adam Falk told students on Thursday that the writer John Derbyshire, whose views have been criticized as racist, will not be welcome on the campus in Williamstown.
A student group that regularly hosts speakers with polarizing opinions had invited Derbyshire to speak on Monday. The group’s leader, sophomore Zach Wood, says that as an African American he disagrees with Derbyshire’s opinions, but he wanted to give students the opportunity to challenge those views.
It’s the first time the college has blocked a speaker invited by the group. The school’s president says many of Derbyshire’s views amount to hate speech.
Derbyshire could not immediately be reached for comment.
The story could end here. Or it could go as far as the Venker Disinvitation and get a mention in conservative outlets like Fox news. Or worst (best?) case, it could get into the mainstream press. What do readers predict?
The bull case is that this is the first time in several generations that an elite college has banned a speaker. (Changing your mind about awarding an honorary degree is not that same thing. And, even in those cases in which a speaker was disinvited from talking at Commencement, the college/university did not ban — and even explicitly welcomed — a talk in another venue on campus.) Does anyone know the last time this happened at a NESCAC or Ivy school? The last time it happened at Williams?
The bear case is that places like Fox news won’t touch it because they view Derbyshire, and other figures on the Alt-Right, as too toxic. There are also fierce divisions on the right, divisions which make people like Derbyshire more critical of Fox news than many liberals. (Fox, for example, is a big supporter of amnesty.) And, if Fox won’t touch it, why would the New York Times?
My prediction is that this story makes it to places like NPR and the New York Times. It is too juicy, too emblematic of the changes in society’s attitude to free speech. If the story does have legs, all that we ask is that they spell EphBlog correctly!
Someone posted on Yik Yak this letter from the Alumni Office sent, I think, to Class Agents. (And others?)
Today, President Adam Falk make the decision to cancel the scheduled appearance at Williams of John Derbyshire. The full text of Adam’s letter to the community about this decision is available here.
I expect that some of you have already heard about this from your own classmates, or from any friends or relatives you may have on campus. Below is additional information that may prove helpful as you continue the vital work of contacting your classmates to encourage their support of Williams.
Derbyshire, who was fired from his role as a commentator for the National Review in 2012 after writing this piece in another publication, had been invited to speak by a couple of students involved with the Uncomfortable Learning group on campus. Derbyshire’s expressions of hate in the 2012 piece were directed specifically toward African-Americans, but his other writings and speeches have expressed, among other things, homophobic and misogynistic viewpoints (stating that women should not have the right to vote, for instance).
Cancellation by the college of a scheduled speaker—even one engaged by a group of students receiving no funding or official recognition from the college—is extremely rare and something the college would do only in extreme circumstances. This is the first such instance we’re aware of. Uncomfortable Learning has hosted many events over the past several years including K.C. Johnson, who spoke on November 5, 2015, after the Venker cancellation.
It is important to note key distinctions between this cancelation and the cancellation of a scheduled talk by Suzanne Venker in the fall. Both speakers were invited by the same group, Uncomfortable Learning. In the Venker incident, the students did not consult with or advise the college prior to inviting her. Indeed, the college learned of the planned event only after the student organizers had canceled it.
Had the administration been consulted, it would have strongly advised the students to continue the talk as scheduled, despite strong objections from fellow students.
In this instance, however, the organizers of the Derbyshire event submitted an electronic request for auditorium space several days in advance, and upon seeing it and learning more about the event, President Falk stepped in cancel it out of concern for the Williams community and a conviction that Williams will not promote hate speech. This goes beyond concern that students might be “uncomfortable” with differing viewpoints. Hate speech actively harms individuals, and in President Falk’s determination and that of many who have expressed support for today’s decision, to have provided Derbyshire with a stage and a microphone from which to espouse his views would have brought significant harm to the Williams community.
There is a lot to unpack here. Worth a week’s close reading?
FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has slammed Williams/Falk for cancelling the UL/Derbyshire talk. Best part:
There is no reconciling Falk’s October position with his current one, leaving students with unclear guidelines as to which speakers or subjects are out-of-bounds at Williams College. In fact, the only thing that is clear now is that President Falk has declared his administration to be the sole arbiter of what can and cannot be said at the college, the college’s supposed commitment to free speech notwithstanding.
Although Williams is, as a private institution, free to craft its own rules, it has stated that it is “committed to being a community in which all ranges of opinion and belief can be expressed and debated” and that “controversy is at the heart of … free academic inquiry.” Imposing restrictions on what topics may be discussed and who students may invite to discuss them is the polar opposite of “free academic inquiry”; it is closer to indoctrination than education.
Indeed. What would Robert Gaudino say? FIRE continues:
It’s worth noting that some of the most controversial speakers invited to speak at colleges and universities over the past century have sparked the adoption of policies that protect robust and open debate on campuses. The prime example is Yale’s 1975 Woodward Report, which is regarded as the first free speech policy statement by a university to espouse a deep commitment to examining all viewpoints, no matter their popularity, as a path toward truth. That report was adopted only after students called for the disinvitation of controversial Nobel laureate William Shockley, whose views many contended were not only patently racist, but incontrovertibly false. The Woodward Report has been cited as an inspiration for the University of Chicago’s free speech policy statement, which FIRE has endorsed, and which schools are increasingly adopting.
For the moment, it appears Williams has chosen a different path—a path on which paternalistic administrators decide which ideas are too dangerous for college students to hear, even when students themselves have established a program specifically for the purpose of engaging with such ideas. It is now up to the students, faculty, alumni, and trustees of Williams to decide whether that is truly the kind of place they want their college to be, or whether they are going to push back against this act of censorship.
Are we going to push back?
Outstanding Berkshire Eagle article by Scott Stafford about Adam Falk’s banning of John Derbyshire from speaking at Williams. Read the whole thing for an excellent overview of the controversy. Some highlights:
“We feel very confident on this decision given that Mr. Derbyshire’s writings not only on race, but on women’s rights, gay rights and sexual harassment make him unsuited to discussions at Williams College,” Detloff said.
How quickly the definition of hate speech expands! If one is, for example, against the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, is one guilty of hate speech and, therefore, not welcome at Williams? Perhaps Detloff could provide us with a summary of the acceptable views on controversial topics like “women’s rights” . . .
Derbyshire describes himself in his writings as a “race realist.” …
Derbyshire says that to label him as a white supremacist is a “misinterpretation.”
Basic politeness requires that we describe people using the terminology they prefer unless that terminology is grossly misleading. If someone describes herself as “pro-life,” you should use the same terms, even if you really want to call her “anti-abortion.” The same should apply to Derbyshire. He describes himself as a race realist. Why not use that term? (Google suggests that Williams folks will find race realism every bit as objectionable as white supremacy.)
Entire article below the break.
What should we call the current campus controversy? Suggestions welcome! For now, our category will be the simple “UL/Derbyshire,” but that is boring! Recall some previous excellent controversy names like Willy E. N-word, Nigaleian and Mary Jane Hitler. (That last one is, in many ways, the most relevant to today’s. I bet that Morty Schapiro would have been smart enough not to cancel Derbyshire’s speech.)
UL/Derbyshire is not a bad name since it includes two of the personae dramatis: the student group Uncomfortable Learning and John Derbyshire. But it leaves out Adam Falk, perhaps the most important actor. We might also include a reference to Professor Robert Gaudino, the patron saint of uncomforable learning. Maybe:
Ferbyshired — combining the F in Falk with the speaker, in a way that suggests the action Falk took, or in reference to the situation being all Ferbyshired up.
Line in the Derb — making a reference to Falk’s note about “We’ve found the line. Derbyshire, in my opinion, is on the other side of it.” Also uses short form of Derbyshire’s name, a common usage in the Alt-Right community.
Falk Bans Derb — highlights the key actors and actions.
Falk Hates Derb — connects to Falk’s discussion of hate speech. Also, is there some common emoji for hate that we could use?
Falk Bans Speech — abstracts away from Derbyshire, who is not the most important aspect of this debate, and highlights the central problem: What other speech will Falk ban? What are students and faculty not allowed to say?
Currently browsing posts filed under "UL/Derbyshire"