FWIS3

Have y'all seen what's going on at this college? I can't find any mainstream media on the subject, only the conservative viewpoint, so don't freak out that I'm posting a Tucker Carlson video. He's interviewing a very progressive professor in a very polite manner. This is some crazy, scary stuff.

Brett Weinstein

I have a video of a liberal (again, not mainstream media) discussing it, but it's over an hour long and I doubt anyone here has the patience to watch it.

I'm very disturbed by the direction the left is going when it comes to our college campuses. Freedom of speech is under siege. People get a pass just by declaring the speaker is racist, misogynist or just generally immoral. It's, as I said, disturbing. Would love some feedback though.

Believe it or not there was a column in the NYT a day or two ago on it. W my folks this weekend so no time to dig it up though.

Might I suggest though that I don't think it's fair at all to generalize one or even a few stories like this to say this is a large problem at ALL colleges or even more than a fringe of them, any more than I think BYU and Liberty U are indicative of problems of free speech for banning religious related things they disagree with. I say this as someone who spends a lot of time on college campuses and knows many others who do, and never run into crazies like this. Closest I can think of is my colleague who is in the physics dept at Oberlin College... but Oberlin was always fucking weird, and everyone knew it, when I was at CWRU.

Rommie wrote:Believe it or not there was a column in the NYT a day or two ago on it. W my folks this weekend so no time to dig it up though.

Might I suggest though that I don't think it's fair at all to generalize one or even a few stories like this to say this is a large problem at ALL colleges or even more than a fringe of them, any more than I think BYU and Liberty U are indicative of problems of free speech for banning religious related things they disagree with. I say this as someone who spends a lot of time on college campuses and knows many others who do, and never run into crazies like this. Closest I can think of is my colleague who is in the physics dept at Oberlin College... but Oberlin was always fucking weird, and everyone knew it, when I was at CWRU.

Just curious, and this is a sincere question, how many campuses have to have things like this take place before we determine it's a problem? This happened at the University of Missouri, and because of the way the administration handled it, they have lost so many students that they've had to close three dorms.

And yes, I'll admit that I did generalize because I've been immersed in this, but when you get a chance to look at this particular story, I highly recommend it, because I think this is actually a landmark case. I'm pretty sure you'll agree that the way the administration has handled it is absolutely unconscionable. They are actually turning on the professor that was accused of racism, and he is so very far from racist. He's a major progressive.

I am glad to hear that the NYT finally covered it. This should be all over the news imo.

I did look into it when it was the NY Times, and that's why I'm saying it still strikes me as pretty fringe.

I don't know if there's a quantifiable number for where it's an issue, but even if we were to be very conservative... well, there are around 2,500 four year public and private colleges and universities in the USA (many more if we count 2 year, of course). Are there even two dozen schools where stuff like Evergreen is happening, which would be 1%? I'm genuinely not sure in those kinds of terms this is a serious, social/cultural issue.

Further, a big thing I keep thinking back on whenever I see this kind of stuff was just 10 years ago, when I was in northern California, and there were tree protesters at Berkeley who were pissed off that the university wanted to cut down 50 trees that were planted a few decades prior for development. (Even though said trees were not native to California, and Berkeley had offered something like 50 trees to be planted for each one chopped down.) But because Berkeley is a public campus, it wasn't really the students driving the protest- rather, there were professional tree-sitters (their distinction, not mine), and lots of general idiots, and the university couldn't kick them out or anything because you can't do that on a public campus any more than you can kick out that Bible thumper on a corner. And yes, there were minor scuffles, similar to what you hear about now, just back then it was only local news.

Interestingly, this appeared in the NY Times today and I thought of sharing it with you when I saw it- there are now right wingers wanting to get violent with the left wingers I'm mentioning who sound like the evolution of those Berkeley professional tree protestors a decade ago. Yeah, this ain't ending well at this rate.

So, I mention that because while anecdote is not data, I do know someone at Berkeley today, and he says it's pretty common knowledge there that the violent protests are brought on not by students, but people from off-campus. And I think these groups are very likely to seek "legitimacy" in hanging out on college campuses, plus of course find naive kids to join their ranks... but I'm still not convinced that makes them a legitimate and large movement.

Btw, while I was seeking out that last article, I found this on the NYT page. Second column denouncing these actions in a month. So I will disagree that this is being ignored.

I'm still going to keep my eye on it. Some comedians are about to do a - they're calling it a documentary - we'll see. It's called "No Safe Spaces." I wonder if they'll determine whether or not it's anecdotal. Hopefully they don't manufacture the story.

The comments following the video are "interesting". I agree with Rommie that many of the more violent actions seem to be perpetrated by members of groups who are not college students. We just recently had a kerfuffle involving Berkeley and Ann Coulter. A conservative student group invited her to speak. The protests were so extreme that the college cancelled her speech. It sort of reminds me of the communist movements and how they gained traction in various countries. Apparently, college students are prime recruiting material for various ideologies.

SciFiFisher wrote:The comments following the video are "interesting". I agree with Rommie that many of the more violent actions seem to be perpetrated by members of groups who are not college students. We just recently had a kerfuffle involving Berkeley and Ann Coulter. A conservative student group invited her to speak. The protests were so extreme that the college cancelled her speech. It sort of reminds me of the communist movements and how they gained traction in various countries. Apparently, college students are prime recruiting material for various ideologies.

And that's what bothers me. College isn't for coddling and telling people what to think. College is for teaching people how to think.

Because making a progressive Jewish Lecturer who refuses to participate in what he considers an oppressive racist event, is an awesome way to promote anti racism in your college...

Traditionally, Colleges have always been the preferred recruitment grounds for the left. Because Intellectuals tend to sympathize with it. What is worrying is that those people at those colleges right now might allow nutjobs to be "normalized" on the left. just like they have been on the right. The Moderate Left cannot allow this to happen. Because in that case politics will be left to the nutjobs. And THAT is unacceptable.

Sigma_Orionis wrote: Because in that case politics will be left to the nutjobs. And THAT is unacceptable.

Have you watched the news lately! lol
It's like standing in 4 feet of water in your living room and saying, "if it keeps raining things will be bad".

vendic wrote:

Sigma_Orionis wrote: Because in that case politics will be left to the nutjobs. And THAT is unacceptable.

Have you watched the news lately! lol
It's like standing in 4 feet of water in your living room and saying, "if it keeps raining things will be bad".

The "Mainstream" Left still hasn't "normalized" the behavior seen in US Colleges. If you think what you have is bad, I suggest you find out what Pol Pot and Abimael Guzman did BEFORE founding the Khmer Rouge and Shining Path

I used to be a supporter of free speech but not hate speech.
Now that hate speech is slowly starting to be considered any view someone disagree's with, I'm slowly changing to complete freedom of speech is better.
The tendency for people to try to ban or refuse to even listen to any speech they disagree with is for me at least disturbing. It's even more so when they make up a story in their minds then classify it as hate speech, without even understanding what is trying to be said, instead, attempting to shut it down.
This case is an example. They are trying to get the professor fired even though he refuses to agree with racist ideals, and thus his pov is considered hate, simply because he disagrees with them on this one topic.

Up here things aren't much different. If a "controversial speaker" is invited to speak on campus, more often than not, the group that has invited the speaker to campus, is told by the school administration that they must cover the security cost for the event. This usually ends with the event being cancelled, due to high security costs.

Been some time since I was in uni, but apparently these days "safe zones", to protect students from hearing "offensive viewpoints" have been adopted up here too.

Parrothead wrote:Been some time since I was in uni, but apparently these days "safe zones", to protect students from hearing "offensive viewpoints" have been adopted up here too.

This is seriously overblown as a thing in 99.99% of cases. For example, it's really common on most college campuses I've been on to see an LGBT symbol on an office door with the words "safe space" beneath it. Hell, we even have one on mine! The reason for this is if someone is LGBT and struggling with an issue, and don't know who to talk to, they are always welcome to knock on a door with something like that and talk about their issue without judgement. Something like that can really matter when you're a young student far from home and have a problem, but don't know who to turn to to discuss it.

Similarly, as another safe space example, I was a member of a group in undergrad that was for women in science and engineering, and we had a "secret clubhouse" as we called it that only women in science/engineering were allowed in in that area of campus, that had computers/printers, a couch, feminine products, etc. Point was if you needed something like a tampon, or were lactating, you had a space to go. I don't remember anyone giving a shit about this arrangement.

Finally, because I know they got warnings etc, all the trigger warnings I've ever seen are just on the lines of what you'd read in a movie rating- "this book contains a rape scene, just FYI" type stuff. Similarly, there was an article that recently made the rounds about a certain prof who sexually harassed me- my supervisor saw it, and we discussed it when I raised it, but because he didn't know exactly what happened and how I'd react he didn't want to send it unsolicited lest I get triggered. Which is, you know, a completely fine and appropriate reaction for him to take in a professional relationship where he is the department head, and knows I was harassed by another department head.

So yeah, in conclusion, I'm sure in a world with millions of people there are some who don't implement these sorts of things correctly, but my experiences have always been fine.

This is a general observation. YMMV. I have been in the army for more years than I care to admit sometimes. And a practicing nurse for about 3/4 of that time. Both of these fine institutions had cultural practices (and still do) that were considered harsh and unforgiving at times. As an example nursing is rather infamous for "eating their own young". And the military had/has hazing practices that would probably make the average person either outraged or cause them to wet their pants.

When implemented in the spirit in which they are intended both of these cultural practices were intended to develop their members in certain ways. Nursing's goal was to teach individuals to be part of a team while making highly complicated decisions that determined whether people lived or died. The military's goal was to teach them to be part of a team...

There was also an element of "paying your dues". You were expected to earn the right to call yourself a member of the group. You did that by accepting the difficult assignments, working nightshift, learning to obey others without questioning their judgement, and other interesting things. Not all of this was positive. And where toxic teams and leaders thrived it could be downright harmful.

Compare that to college. College used to be a place where you went to learn to be an adult learner. You were expected to be exposed to other ideas, cultures, and ways of thinking. You were expected to become an adult learner and to develop a life time habit of expanding your intellect. Or at least learn enough to get darn good job. All while being changed in some fundamental way. Even if it meant being bullied, sexually assaulted, or hazed by a fraternity.

All of these cultural norms are intended to teach that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Fast forward to today. Today people want to be part of the group without paying dues. They want things to be fair. They think they shouldn't have to grow up by being traumatized and learning that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

They want help in dealing with the trauma. They have been taught that it's better to deal with trauma if you have someone you can trust to be your counselor. They want to be able to be part of the team without being thrown in the swimming pool full of sharks. Frankly, I think they are sissies. I made it out of the swimming pool just fine.

Of course, because people are involved we get some conflict in what a "safe zone" really means. And we get those fun media stories about hostile students using violence to protect their safe zones. Or the PC Police ganging up on someone because they didn't follow the script.

We need freedom of speech. And we need to understand that not liking what someone says is not the same as being subjected to hate speech. If someone starts screaming "hang the <insert your favorite derogatory minority identifying slur here>!!! That's hate speech.

Refusing to allow someone to speak because they have an opposing view is censorship.

So, sorry Fisher, but I'm gonna call bullshit on what's basically the "kids these days are soft, no respect," etc thing. For a lot of reasons.

- First of all, I seriously resent the idea that my generation does not work hard. I have seen no evidence supporting this- in fact all studies show that my generation works even harder than older ones, because the increased competitiveness and coming into the worst economy since the Great Depression. For example, do you know what it takes to get into a top 50 college these days? I have read some applications, and they are insane. Most Ivy graduates a few decades ago statistically wouldn't have the chops to be accepted today.

- Second, I get the impression that a lot of people in this thread are making generalizations about "young people" without really knowing a lot of them personally. I might be wrong, but just for the record, I have found all the undergraduates I am in contact with at my university as polite, nice people who are willing to work hard and don't really complain about it beyond a "to your friends" level, and have never shut down anyone's free speech. Just because they're being painted with a bad brush here, so while anecdote is not the plural of data I feel it would be unfair to not mention this about them.

- Third, I severely reject the idea that you need to go through what's a hazing process to be successful in your career. I will not regurgitate it here, but everyone reading this knows about the emotional abuse I have had at the hands of those superior to me in my field, under the guise of "making me a real scientist" and then claiming I thus cannot be one because I couldn't reach impossible guidelines. Do I think that's made me stronger? Fuck no. So far all it's done is cost me a huge amount in time and money just because petty assholes in power decided "this is the way it should be." And I'm the lucky one because the old guard thinks nothing of destroying other people's lives for no good reason, because those people didn't "cut it." I know for a fact that you don't have to go through that bullshit to be successful because plenty of people around me who didn't have asshole supervisors are doing just fine if not better in their careers. As is, I see no reason that one third of PhD students are at risk of a psychological disorder beyond vague ideas that it should be that way because it was for the generation prior.

- And yes, I did go to a counselor to deal with that trauma, because the circumstances of my professional career were manifesting themselves in said signs of severe psychological stress. To anyone who judges me for doing that, well, fuck you.

- Fourth, I should note that the only people who ever impinged on my free speech were not students or others in the younger generation, but frankly all old white men who tried to get rid of me and then tried to kick me out when I told others about what they were doing to ruin my life. They certainly still have had far more power over my life, and the lives of other students who were not capable of standing up to them, than any naive 18 year old kid who doesn't really have any power beyond being noisy and demanding.

So with that, I reject the idea that compassion has no place, or that things have to be made harder than they already are. I have found that life is already plenty difficult professionally on its own without the insistence that the real problem is my generation's inability to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.

Is it just me or are SFC and FZ currently undergoing a rightwingoplasty? lol

I agree with what Rommie has just written above. Engaging in the organized traumatization of people, with no knowledge of their mental state or background, is fine because fire forges irons? What a load of shit.

The young people (<30) that I know are different from previous generations because they want to live, study and work in a prejudice free, fair and inclusive environment. That does not make them sissies.

Sissies are the ones that for generations have been complicit in bullying and hazing because they didn't have the courage to stand up against it.

An interesting interpretation of what I said. In re-reading it I can see where you might believe that I was endorsing the baptism by trauma culture. Apparently the emoji was not sufficient to convey my snark about the efficacy of those norms. While they did produce a type of success they were not always the best way. My statement about the younger generation being different was not intended to imply that different was not a valid way of doing things.

Also allow to me to observe that hazing for the purpose of shaping someone to conform to a group norm is NOT the same as refusing to believe that someone belongs in your group for any reason. And insisting on setting impossible goals to meet to prove that person does not belong in the group.

What Rommie was subjected to was not hazing. It was destructive and intended to drive her out of the group.

An example of a hazing incident intended to teach group norms:

Example #1

Basic Trainee forgets his left from his right while marching.

Drill Sergeant makes Basic Trainee carry a rock in his left hand for an entire day every where he goes. Including to the latrine.

At the age of 96 with dementia the former basic still can't forget his left from his right.


Hazing has gotten a bad name because people who are sadistic and vicious pretend that what they are doing is hazing. It's abuse. There is a world of difference between abuse and hazing.

I see that Radical Leftist Bullshit is alive and well

Again "Liberals" must NEVER "normalize" idiots like these if they hope to unseat the nutjobs on the other side.

SciFiFisher wrote:An interesting interpretation of what I said. In re-reading it I can see where you might believe that I was endorsing the baptism by trauma culture. Apparently the emoji was not sufficient to convey my snark about the efficacy of those norms. While they did produce a type of success they were not always the best way. My statement about the younger generation being different was not intended to imply that different was not a valid way of doing things.

Also allow to me to observe that hazing for the purpose of shaping someone to conform to a group norm is NOT the same as refusing to believe that someone belongs in your group for any reason. And insisting on setting impossible goals to meet to prove that person does not belong in the group.

What Rommie was subjected to was not hazing. It was destructive and intended to drive her out of the group.

An example of a hazing incident intended to teach group norms:

Example #1

Basic Trainee forgets his left from his right while marching.

Drill Sergeant makes Basic Trainee carry a rock in his left hand for an entire day every where he goes. Including to the latrine.

At the age of 96 with dementia the former basic still can't forget his left from his right.


Hazing has gotten a bad name because people who are sadistic and vicious pretend that what they are doing is hazing. It's abuse. There is a world of difference between abuse and hazing.

My point (and I think squ1d's) is we do know that stuff like hazing passes the line pretty easily to more serious things. So why the hell do we need it? I'm not a huge fan of your army example because I'm sure someone will chime in saying I don't know army stuff, but frankly the example you just listed sounds stupid- dude does one step out of line, so I don't see why that necessarily requires breaking someone. I certainly don't think that's appropriate in a normal job.

But then, if you're in agreement with me, I'm not sure just what your post has to do in the context of the original comments, so maybe that's what's confusing me.

Rommie wrote: dude does one step out of line, so I don't see why that necessarily requires breaking someone.

Not picking sides in the overall discussion, but this statement. In some occupations, one mistake or one step out of line can easily be life threatening for yourself or your team. The "tiger team" over in accounting will be able to recover from or survive an 80% success rate. That number needs to be a little higher for rocket engineers/astronauts, a sniper team, or oil rig workers.

Pretty much with Fisher and Thumper on the military thing.
It's not getting out of step that is being taught. It is to hear and obey instructions without having to think while under imminent life and death type stress. The purpose is to train a soldier to react as fast as possible because that will make the difference between life and death for both him and the other members of the unit. Hopefully it works even when he is shit scared and in a state of panic. As Fisher pointed out though, there is a point where it works negatively as well.

Y'all might find this site interesting: link
It's a non partisan site that protects and documents free speech issues on campus.
The link above is directly to their database of cases where schools have attempted disinvitations. My search above is by year in descending order. I also listed the successful attempts and it's just under a half at a rough guess. A full 6 pages of 14 and one entry in the 7th page where they were successful.
So we're looking at about 150 successful cases where speakers were prevented from speaking of 342.
If you go through the list the trend has been increasing. If you look at the most recent entries, almost objections are from the left of the speaker's position, the total number since year 2000, of "right of speaker" attempts were 100/334, so 2 out of three are the left protesting. That ratio has changed significantly in recent years.

Is it a significant problem? I'd say not yet. I'm sure however that for the speakers themselves it would be.
The problem that I see is that the rise protests is not linear. It's rising rapidly. In 17 years, almost half of the successful cases happened in the last 4 and a half years.

Rommie wrote:My point (and I think squ1d's) is we do know that stuff like hazing passes the line pretty easily to more serious things. So why the hell do we need it? I'm not a huge fan of your army example because I'm sure someone will chime in saying I don't know army stuff, but frankly the example you just listed sounds stupid- dude does one step out of line, so I don't see why that necessarily requires breaking someone. I certainly don't think that's appropriate in a normal job.

But then, if you're in agreement with me, I'm not sure just what your post has to do in the context of the original comments, so maybe that's what's confusing me.

The hazing example I used is actually not intended to "break" someone. In fact, it almost never causes lasting psychological harm to carry a rock all day. Let's say that person is in an average sized platoon of trainees. He is with 40-60 other people. Everyone of them see him mess up and turn right instead of left when marching. The drill sergeant could punish them all and force them to march 100 feet and turn left repeatedly until 2 AM. The group now hates him and punishes him for the rest of the time they are in basic training. He "breaks" and becomes a poor soldier. That is an example of bad hazing.

In the good hazing example our poor basic trainee carries a rock all day in his left hand. He even has to eat with the rock in his left hand. His 40-60 fellow trainees share a common experience in following instructions AND none of them will ever forget their left from their right again either. In addition to that the drill sergeant has just helped the group bond through a common empathetic response. Everyone of those soldiers is probably fairly certain they could have made the same mistake.

What I am trying to explain is that these methods worked. They, unfortunately, have fallen out of favor because they became associated with a much harsher methodology that does not work as well. What I was also observing is that as cultural expectations have changed the methods used to normalize group behavior have changed. Safe Spaces is an example of that. My poorly worded observation was intended to highlight the fact that things seem different on college campuses because they are different. I don't necessarily agree that students have the right to not be offended or challenged in their beliefs. OR that freedom of speech should be abridged. I do agree that NO ONE should be abused. So, in that respect I fully agree with you. I think we have the usual cultural, age, gender, generational, expectations, written vs personal, communication gap going on.

Which is why I prefaced it with "I'm not a huge fan of your army example because I'm sure someone will chime in saying I don't know army stuff."

I know that's different, but I think most people are not in the army in their careers or in positions like you guys are stating in their careers.

An example of really bad hazing is to cut off his right hand. Then he'll always remember too.