MIT faculty worried about chilling of speech

MIT faculty worried about chilling of speech(whyevolutionistrue.com)

43 points by shermablanca 4 years ago | 5 comments

tsol 4 years ago |

>The reason they shouldn’t do this is that such declarations impede free discourse by discouraging those who disagree with the statements from speaking up. If your department has an official statement about the college or the country being “structurally racist”, for instance, what student or untenured professor would disagree publicly? Why risk your degree or your tenure by going up against an official statement?

Just want to point out how ironic this is coming from a publisher called "why evolution is true". For the most part I agree banning that speaker was over the line, actually. But where that line is, isn't so clear. There are people that argue creationism should be taught, that there is more support for it than it seems but people are afraid of being labeled crazy. Where such lines begin and end are growing increasingly blurry. At some point there will be demands that one of these common conspiracy theories be taught-- dems are evil, new world order, qanon.. take your pick. I imagine it's in areas where a lot of believers live, that the most pressure will be felt. It's that day that I really fear

anm89 4 years ago | |

I read something from Why the lucky stiff the other day where he interviewed famous programmers. A lot of them gave long complicated answers about everything and Guido van Rossum mostly gave one liners.

On the topic of what makes truly exceptional programmers exceptional his one line was: good taste.

There is not one rule set to social situations. There is no perfectly consistent framework that purely promotes free speech while being smart enough to say: we shouldn't teach creationism in school. It's a matter of having the taste to subjectively evaluate the bigger picture and say this is what's right

humanistbot 4 years ago | |

I completely agree with the irony of the author's positions on this. Everyone believes that the speech they agree with should be protected. But when it comes to speech that makes them uncomfortable, suddenly that speech has a chilling effect and must be banned under a paradox of tolerance rationale in order to protect "real" freedom of speech.

m0zg 4 years ago | | |

Ability to demonstrate hypocrisy is the main manifestation of one's power. Rules for thee but not for me, as it were. Or "to know who has power over you, see who you're not allowed to criticize".

blip54321 4 years ago | |

I think the line should be drawn at intentionally lying.

I also do think that all sorts of conspiracy theories ought to be taught. Teach flat earth along side round earth, and both geocentric and heliocentric. We all believe things which are false. Introducing a few intentionally has few downsides, and is a good context in which to develop critical thinking.

I do think intentionally lying -- especially when done by government employees, academics, and government contractors -- should be a borderline criminal offense.

I also think profit motive is a good place to draw lines, but I'm not quite sure how. Free market dynamics force disinformation. If that what gets the most ad clicks, that's what you'll see.