You know that something’s wrong when someone is forced to be psychologically evaluated for asking uncomfortable questions. This entire story looks like something straight out of a dystopia.
They did it in Soviet Union at some point to the intellectuals who questioned their ideology.
Free speech and academic freedom have always been and will always be under threat. It's a constant struggle.
My observations around this:
* Lots more platitudes. Nearly every teacher in the CS department had signs on their doors about being an inclusive zone or standing for social justice. Seems like it would have been easier to just make a big sign that says, "The CS department is inclusive and promotes equity."
* Early in President Trump's tenure they designated an area as a safe-space. This is honestly the first actual safe-space I had run into, despite hearing about them endlessly in culture wars news. I personally don't mind a politics free zone.
* I had to take a mandatory title ix training. It used words I don't normally bump into but have been targets for the right like "trigger warnings" and "microaggressions". I wrote the title ix coordinator (simply because it felt like a waste of time) and asked if I could skip it because I had already done 8 years of college without running afoul of school rules and she told me no.
That was about it. So I'm not sure how endemic the problem is but my anecdata was it's not too much to fret over. My personal sense here is that the media likes to report these stories because they are "man bites dog" stories.
Isn't this how universities become temples?
If I’m reading this and saying “what these people are doing is evil, I’d like to affiliate with the opposite group of people”, I won’t have too many outlets that are not far right.
And what will happen is that being "politically unreasonable" will be unfashionable and the society will swing to an equilibrium once again. The extremists will leave or retire and the people who kept their heads down will say "they were a silly bunch". In the UK they were labelled "The Loony Left" and subject to much comedy.
To suggest that it's either one extreme or the other isn't how things will work.
Also, part of the way this swinging back to equilibrium will work is by the left tearing each other apart with more and more demands to just accept the liberal orthodoxy handed down from on high. At each step along the way, more and more people will pop out and realize that the whole thing is flawed because it is based on the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy.
I don’t know whether I have a bias about seeing this trait, but I think 10 years ago, people would at least keep social restraint. Something has definitely snapped.
You can't tell people they're irredeemable racists and expect them to vote for you.
Do those people try to be reasonable, or are they trying to disrupt the rest of society because, for example, they are bitter about it, have no hope, or hate the West’s evils so much that they’d rather take revenge on their own country, “for the good of humanity” (at least according to their ideology)? Which means, they are happy with pendulum swings, as long as it keeps us busy with aimless infighting, rather than being powerful and united in a war against, say, Koweit.
At one point, you have to ask whether they are trying to be logical, or whether they hope to throw despair, illogism and unfairness in all layers of society, because of entrenched hate of something.
It could be, I suppose. And I am outraged if it is. But the question that keeps nagging me... is it?
It's also quite possible for a university to act completely unreasonably in a conspiratorial way based on a culture of believing they don't need to obey the laws or statutes. (My university had a famous scandal a number of years ago where the person in charge of handling student sexual assault allegations simultaneously acknowledged in writing the legal obligation to report cases of possible danger to the community publicly (the allegation was of a group committing sexual assault regularly at parties) and that they weren't going to do it, after years of a reputation of covering up anyone foolish enough to report it to them, and said writing got leaked to the press. ...despite the massive public fallout from this at the time, the institutional result was to found a new org to handle sexual assault cases...and put the aforementioned official as the head of it.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/UVA/comments/ab1dy7/university_of_v...
My take is it that the plaintiff is a troll.
These alleged threats were the basis for the banning from campus, but not the suspension. The claim is that they have been made after the suspension. A lawsuit should bring these into the air.
"isn't it out of my control what hurts somebody? I can punch the air, and if that makes somebody mad it's not really my problem or my fault, but if I punch them in the face and it directly hurts them I've incited at them, it's completely different"
"Where are you getting this basis from? How are you studying this, how are you gathering evidence and making presentations on it?"
There are ways to ask guests for more information about their methodology, and he failed.
Also, his core point -- there's no difference between microaggressions and unintentional rudeness -- is fucking stupid. So what if there's no difference? Changing the name from micro-aggression to unintentional rudeness doesn't change anything about how we respond when they happen.
I flagged it because it misrepresented the very source you now linked. Quote:
> For the purposes of ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true the following allegations set forth in the amended complaint and attached exhibits.
This court decision did not side with the plaintiff, nor has the court spend a second thinking about whether his allegations are or could be true. A motion to dismiss simply says "Hey, even if we take everything at face value here, this case can't win".
The article misrepresents this as the court siding with the plaintiff. That did not happen. I can't know if that's an honest misunderstanding or deception; but in any case it shows that the author did not understand the court decision, as he evidently didn't take into account the premise I quoted above.
Once coded language is on the table, there is absolutely no statement that can be decided as misunderstanding or deception, and thus the gaslighting retort of "you, the accuser, must be misunderstanding/projecting", but also, the prevalent fear amongst certain non-Black males that "people will just make something up to get me"/"I will be unprotected".
There's no satisfactory resolution to coded language in the legal domain because it is a purely ethical problem. The real problem in America isn't "them/the other side", its that no one, as far as I can tell, actually values or can actually imagine a world where we can and do live together without hegemony.
I'm very reminded of Neil DeGrasse Tyson arguing with Rogan on JRE about tourist litter in the Himalayas: you either value ending and cleaning-up the pollution, and all other solutions flow from this, or you don't. But everyone's just hand-waving the elephant in the room.
https://soundcloud.com/user-381804527/microagressions-presen...
The relevant bit starts around 28:40 or so.
This should raise a few eyebrows with any critical reader. And indeed, the article simply completely sides with the student and takes every allegation as already proven – going so far as discrediting the university's defence of what happened as "gaslighting".
For all we learn from the article, the student may have been increasingly hostile to a point that warranted suspension. Siding so completely with the student against the university seems to be very premature. Unfortunately, the author seems to suffer from a critical misunderstanding about what a motion to dismiss is and isn't. A motion to dismiss claims that a case can't be won even under the assumption that everything alleged is true. That's why the opinion takes everything the student claims at face value – because that's the bar for a motion to dismiss. The court did not decide that these events were factual; just that if they all were that the case has to go on.
I'm not commenting on what happened. I don't know. But the article feels quite manipulative, even under the assumption that the misrepresentation of the court's opinion is an honest mistake, this article tries to enrage the reader. Not the kind of content I would have hoped to see under a brand like "reason.com".
What is not on YouTube is literally every other part of the story. For what we know (as described in the article), it's possible that the student was always calm and rational, or that he screamed abuse at the top of the lungs to university staff; or anything in between. We simply don't know (as described in the article), so it's quite manipulative to describe the university refuting the student's claims as "gaslighting".
Please note that I said that siding completely with the student is premature. I stand by that. If everything the student alleges is true, it is an outrageous story. However, it is very clear that this article was written as outrage porn. So we should wait and see what the court conclude actually happened. After all, it's not like this is a timely case, the incident happened over two years ago.
I think it is because bad actors on the left are both powerful and vindictive -- even as this story illustrates.
It has caught the attention of many prominent free-speech activists in the country. Expect it to blow up further.
He also said: "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners".
A movement that cannot be criticized cannot achieve positive goals - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26718823 - April 2021 (117 comments)
To be honest, the raw case is even worse than the article. Little excerpt :
> During Bhattacharya and Peterson's one-hour meeting, Peterson "barely mentioned" Bhattacharya's questions and comments at the panel discussion. Dkt. 33 ¶ 73. Instead, Peterson attempted to determine Bhattacharya's "views on various social and political issues—including sexual assault, affirmative action, and the election of President Trump." Id.
