For what? I don't think we conversed yet in this thread.
> I blindly accepted your claim that Wallace was not permitted to speak at Yale. That's not true.
I can see that the context changed the meaning for you. Good thing I cited the source. For me, my original comment still rings true as a summary. Wallace was disinvited and ultimately did not speak at Yale.
There are a few errors in your TLDR. Kingman was provost at the time, not president, and it was reported that two groups of law students reinvited him, not two student groups.
> Donald Kagan reported that “two groups of law students issued another invitation to Wallace, reaffirming ‘the right of students to hear speakers of their own choosing without restraint or interference from those who would like to limit the right of free expression to those whose views coincide with theirs.’
It's not clear that Provost Brewster would've allowed Wallace to speak had he accepted the new invitation from these students. Also, the book describes how Brewster, later as president, accused an established student group of "playing games" with free speech. So it's not like he had a change of heart on the subject:
> "The occasion does not warrant departure from Yale’s principles of free speech. However, the use of free speech as a game, the lack of sensitivity to others, the lack of consideration for the community, and the lack of responsible concern for the university as an institution seem to me reprehensible..."
Regardless, it does not substantially change what happened. Wallace was disinvited and ultimately did not attend. Human relations aren't so easily Ctrl-Z'ed. It doesn't surprise me that some tried to reinvite him after the backlash. As you said, many in the community stood against Brewster's decision.
These days, it is common for students to shout down undesired speakers, so it's interesting to look back at when this practice may have began. For awhile, the University of Chicago was a place where such debates were encouraged. A group of Harvard students jokingly ranked it as the least fun school, less fun than West Point, for that reason [1].
> FIRE is just another dark money funded group working on the reactionary project to roll back civil rights, assert corporate rule. and end democracy.
Wow. Just going to slip that in at the end there huh? That's quite a take down. What do you think is dark about it? They're a non-profit which makes them subject to much more scrutiny than private organizations.
As for "asserting corporate rule" and "ending democracy", I think that's a ridiculous claim. They exist to defend the free speech rights that the ACLU now declines to do, as I mentioned elsewhere [2]. If anything, they're responsible upholding democracy by encouraging people to choose words over violence.
> [4] Might be broken.
Works for me. It's the last page of their podcast listing as of now.
> Kingman was provost at the time, not president...
Oops. I initially wrote "Provost" and then changed it. I gotta learn to trust my gut more.
I stand by the rest of my reply.
> These days, it is common for students to shout down undesired speakers...
And speakers show up to be shouted down. I think all the clapping and pwnage is lame.
But what do I know?
Remember when Bernie got shouted down in Seattle? As a Bernie fan, I was confused. Why would those kids mess with the candidate closest to their own views?
I actually know one of the persons who climbed onto the stage. Afterwards, I asked the Gen Z and Y people I know, and that person on stage, about the incident.
A kid name Xander, who I respected very much, said something very interesting. Paraphrasing: "All politicians should be challenged." So he agreed with the action, despite being a Bernie fan.
I can't speak to what's happening in higher ed. And I really don't, truly don't care. All that drama is just performance art.
But clearly something has changed. Direct action and confrontation are the norms again. For better or worse.
That's right. It can be a political win for you when people don't let you speak. The audience wants to hear both sides. Anyone who acts censoriously comes off as afraid of words, as if words are violence. And that's the exact argument that many (but not all) protesters today are using, that words are violence. We can instead draw a distinction between words and violence in order to encourage civil discourse. When you don't do that, the majority naturally suppresses minority views.
> A kid name Xander, who I respected very much, said something very interesting. Paraphrasing: "All politicians should be challenged." So he agreed with the action, despite being a Bernie fan.
What happened with Bernie [1] was not as bad as other cases where violence occurred, but preventing a speaker from talking is still against free speech principles.
> I can't speak to what's happening in higher ed. And I really don't, truly don't care. All that drama is just performance art.
You don't think those protesters are genuinely expressing themselves?
I can understand how it's hard for some of them to see why blocking speakers is not a good idea. It is a bit similar to what the likes of MLK Jr. and John Lewis supported, direct action by standing in the way, as was done at the lunch counters. But I don't think either of those civil rights defenders would have supported the current movements that seek to displace speakers. They wanted their ideological opponents to speak so that they could respond with reason and win more followers.
Nonviolent direct action, in itself, is not a bad thing, but it's problematic when you use that method to prevent someone from speaking. Words are not violence, so speech should be acceptable. If it's not, then we need more speech to discover where the disconnect is. Free speech is an old idea, not a new one, and it's been proven to work. It takes some effort to understand, and I would argue that such challenging issues are the very ones worth taking the time to learn.
For what? I don't think we conversed yet in this thread.
> I blindly accepted your claim that Wallace was not permitted to speak at Yale. That's not true.
I can see that the context changed the meaning for you. Good thing I cited the source. For me, my original comment still rings true as a summary. Wallace was disinvited and ultimately did not speak at Yale.
There are a few errors in your TLDR. Kingman was provost at the time, not president, and it was reported that two groups of law students reinvited him, not two student groups.
> Donald Kagan reported that “two groups of law students issued another invitation to Wallace, reaffirming ‘the right of students to hear speakers of their own choosing without restraint or interference from those who would like to limit the right of free expression to those whose views coincide with theirs.’
It's not clear that Provost Brewster would've allowed Wallace to speak had he accepted the new invitation from these students. Also, the book describes how Brewster, later as president, accused an established student group of "playing games" with free speech. So it's not like he had a change of heart on the subject:
> "The occasion does not warrant departure from Yale’s principles of free speech. However, the use of free speech as a game, the lack of sensitivity to others, the lack of consideration for the community, and the lack of responsible concern for the university as an institution seem to me reprehensible..."
Regardless, it does not substantially change what happened. Wallace was disinvited and ultimately did not attend. Human relations aren't so easily Ctrl-Z'ed. It doesn't surprise me that some tried to reinvite him after the backlash. As you said, many in the community stood against Brewster's decision.
These days, it is common for students to shout down undesired speakers, so it's interesting to look back at when this practice may have began. For awhile, the University of Chicago was a place where such debates were encouraged. A group of Harvard students jokingly ranked it as the least fun school, less fun than West Point, for that reason [1].
> FIRE is just another dark money funded group working on the reactionary project to roll back civil rights, assert corporate rule. and end democracy.
Wow. Just going to slip that in at the end there huh? That's quite a take down. What do you think is dark about it? They're a non-profit which makes them subject to much more scrutiny than private organizations.
As for "asserting corporate rule" and "ending democracy", I think that's a ridiculous claim. They exist to defend the free speech rights that the ACLU now declines to do, as I mentioned elsewhere [2]. If anything, they're responsible upholding democracy by encouraging people to choose words over violence.
> [4] Might be broken.
Works for me. It's the last page of their podcast listing as of now.
[1] https://youtu.be/XFShZMJhdOA?t=180
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33055579