Hamline's president's statement “respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom” is going to create a lot of problems for other professors on campus. Will fundamentalist Christians argue that an evolutionary perspective in biology classes creates harm? The administration did not think this through.
Respect for the observant students of most any religion in the classroom would require the instructor to acknowledge the divine origin and ultimate and unique truth of said religion, and that all others are at least badly misguided, if not driven by literal Evil.
Yes, and will female faculty members who decline to dress themselves in the garb considered appropriate by various conservative religious denominations be seen as being disrespectful to students who don't approve of women displaying bare legs, visible shoulders, or uncovered heads?
It's not merely that Muslims differ about the acceptability of depictions of Muhammad. _This_ depiction was drawn by a 14th-century Iranian Muslim. The only real culture war here is between Muslims, and I find it quite offensive that non-Muslims like most of the protesting students and the college administration took a side.
She is embodying free speech culture principles and NOT trying to cancel Ken, which is good. Maybe emails should be shorter so she can actually read this blog!
And intent does indeed matter very much, although of course it is not everything.
But morally, ethically - it matters, and often legally too.
When I heard Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, speak, the two things that really rubbed me the wrong way were
1) Intent “almost doesn’t matter”
2) the victims of racial oppression get to decide they are victims and cannot be questioned on this
Welp, having worked in hospitality, I can tell you “customer is always right” dynamics amount to abuse to the service staff. There are just some people that will abuse those dynamics. Regularly and blatantly.
It's laudatory to take the side of the underdog, in general.
However, modern (and even older) literature, drama, etc teaches strongly that the underdog is **always** right and true and good, which makes for good plot development when they win, but doesn't reflect reality.
I also wonder if there is a need for analysis of consistency or hypocrisy on these "proclaimed standards." Does it prevent history classes teaching the wrongs of the crusades because that might offend Roman Catholics? Certainly, Columbus is out of the curriculum under this standard. Almost anything taught, despite any warnings runs the risk of upsetting both Roman Catholics and Indigenous people. Certainly, as an indigenous person myself, I hope we can at least discuss residential schools. I mean, the Pope admitted the church did wrong, but this standard certainly prohibits the topic if there are Catholics in the room. Where do we stop? So, when we test this standard, we find it unusable in any academic format. But I also wonder if the persons proposing this standard live by this standard when its analyzed in other situations. It's a lot different to cry "fire him" for speech that I don't like, when I have speech that I don't want to be judged by the same standard; or at least expect to be allowed to explain why my speech should be allowed.
On another track, I am currently back at school as an Art History Student. The discipline is struggling with how to deal with representation, especially in the area of curation. I see lots of people trying hard to discuss and deal with these issues. But that can only occur if we are allowed to respectfully talk about the issues instead of facing a disproportionate response launched with the intent to kill rather than help the discussion. We are all lessened by this.
The administration's response to students yelling "fire him" should be "perhaps we can assist you in transferring". But that would cost them money, and so they don't.
I do think this might be an element. I work for a small private institution myself and such institutions have been struggling enrollment-wise for years. A further sharp overall decrease is expected in 2025. Any college where revenue is primarily derived from tuition is striving to keep retention up.
“I’m like, ‘this can’t be real,’” Wedatalla told the Oracle. “As a Muslim, and a Black person, I don’t feel like I belong, and I don’t think I’ll ever belong in a community where they don’t value me as a member, and they don’t show the same respect that I show them.”
Victimhood, seems to be his raison d'etre of existence.
I agree with Ken that this is one of the most egregious examples of disproportionate response to unpopular speech in academia. However I regularly visit the website for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Judging from the number of cases they have handled over the past decade, this is a far from isolated instance. I fear for the future of discourse in our democracies, as these student make their way into the work world. We are already seeing the consequences of this in journalism, entertainment, and the tech industries.
I am curious, while we are on the subject of definitions, how they are defining “Islamophobia”. I would have thought that the definition would include something stating that the intent of the speech in question was to denigrate Islam in some way. Actual Islamophobia is execrable and should be treated as such but when the term is simply a by word for things I don’t like regardless of whether they fit a reasonable definition of the term then it begins to erode and undermine the term. Eventually, the term ceases to have value as a descriptor of unacceptable beliefs or behaviors. This is not ok. If my first thought upon hearing someone called a Nazi or a groomer is, “Are they really a Nazi or a groomer or do they just hold views you don’t like,” then we have done harm to discourse. People who absolutely do not deserve these labels will suffer because of them and people who absolutely do deserve them will get away with it because people are skeptical of these labels. This is, of course, not a new phenomenon but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be striving against it.
This is an interesting point. I, someone who's Jewish, had someone from India make a comment about Jewish average intelligence. She wasn't my direct report, but I definitely was higher up in the company than she.
I just let it go without comment. The intent was obviously not to insult me or my co-religionists, and despite some people viewing such a comment as anti-semitic, being called (undeservedly) a genius stings a lot less than being called (undeservedly) an idiot.
“How do you talk about this without descending into culture war bullshit?” -- K.W.
This raises a host of questions, including but not limited to, “Can we get a definition of ‘culture war bullshit’?” and “Is C.W.B.S. particularly egregious or simply more distasteful than standard bullshit? Why?”
Disliking Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson is fine and good, but by the time we get to (I paraphrase) “This is giving aid to assholes like Tucker” and (I quote directly) “This is a huge culture war victory for the anti-progressive Right” we’ve abdonned a pretense of linguistic rigor and objectivity. Which is okay. You can end on any note you want.
Still, among other things, it is an example of a phenomena that’s worth reflecting on. One that offers insight into the cultural context. Namely, in 2023 the kids need to constantly be assured that the old school liberals are Genuinely Good People who are not arguing out of a perverse elitist sense of intellectual integrity or consistency, but rather because they really and truly believe it is in the best strategic interests of the good (marginalized people, their young allies in Minnesota, the progressive Left, etc.)
This is the background in which so many academic and public discussions about both free speech and “cancel culture” take place. That’s interesting and telling.
I don't like Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro. I think they're bad for America. I say what I think. I have little respect for the "why can't you just support free speech without trash-talking people you don't like," which is very old and very boring.
I can't remember who coined the term "Fox News fallacy" (Noah Smith, I think?) but it refers to a tendency on the left to automatically downplay whatever it is that right-wing media types are complaining about.
While much of what they do is just ignorant fearmongering, sometimes they do hit on an issue about which even moderates and old-school liberals might have some concerns. Instead of trying to answer them, they're told there's nothing there and they're bad pepole for even entertaining the suggestion.
I think someone who leads with "we’ve abdonned a pretense of linguistic rigor and objectivity" should develop thicker skin about responses.
And, yes. Nothing personal. But I've been writing about free speech issues for a lot of years, and I tend to say what I think about the people involved -- often saying, for instance, "this person is an asshole but their speech is protected," and someone almost always shows up with "why do you have to virtue signal" or some such bullshit, and indeed I've always found it old and tedious.
Not only didn’t I “lead with” it, I acknowledged it was simply what you were choosing to conclude with and literally said that was okay.
I seem to have really pissed you off. That wasn’t my intention. I’ll reread your comments tomorrow and seriously reflect on them and spare you any further response no matter what conclusion I reach. Best wishes.
Every movement to dismantle bigotry is necessarily an alliance between good people who simply want to be able to live their lives in peace and a cadre of chauvinists deeply offended to find themselves anywhere except the top of the social pyramid. It is often impossible to make a distinction between the two until a person is in a position of power, whether that is leadership of an organization, a big following, or some other grant of social authority. This isn't an endorsement of bigotry or an argument that such movements are doomed to failure, it's simply a fact about people, incentives, and how they come together. It's important to recognize this fact and be ready to deal with it, but recognizing and dealing with it is not hypocrisy, "coddling", or enemy action.
Not trying to be a dick, but can you tell me what specifically in my comment you’re “nah”-ing? An exact quote would be ideal, but I’d even settle for a summation of what you think I’m saying that I can refute (if you’re mistaken) or either address or concede (if it is a valid summary). Thanks. I am happy to respond cordially & with thought if you just let me know.
"in 2023 the kids need to constantly be assured that the old school liberals are Genuinely Good People who are not arguing out of a perverse elitist sense of intellectual integrity or consistency, but rather because they really and truly believe it is in the best strategic interests of the good (marginalized people, their young allies in Minnesota, the progressive Left, etc.)"
Not that the paragraph before the one I quoted was doing you any favors, but arguments in the mold of "kids these days" or "respect your elders" are a great way to get me to suspect that the person making them is, at best, deep in Dunning-Kruger land. The implied premise (that society has entered, or perhaps risks entering, some sort of degenerate state by being overly accommodating towards people younger than the speaker) is basically always wrong. If you're sincerely trying to make a substantive point, then I apologize, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what it is.
The original White essay and his entire argument about cancel culture accepts as a given that, indeed, increasingly there are instances where institutions are “overly accommodating” to students (younger than White) in ways that are truly egregious. He discusses one at Hameline University in depth.
Your allusion to Dunning-Kruger was both ironic and poignant. Good luck.
Ken's argument does not even resemble your summary. Apology rescinded. Most of the situations he cites in the original article are not confined to institutional settings and actors, and in any case, this seems to be the only example where anyone's actions can be framed as attempting to "accommodate" anyone else, of any age. Ken is not making a "kids these days" claim of any kind - he's talking about a broad cultural shift that is specifically dangerous in ways that he articulated. You are the one insisting that this somehow proves that "kids these days", while also insinuating that his discussion of specific negative consequences is an indicator of bias.
I left a comment on that Oracle op-ed defending the decision to delete the department chair's letter. Let's see if they post it.
They did, and reposted the letter.
As a Muslim, I gotta say these Muslims are embarrassing me.
Thank you for this, I finally have a career goal, to become an Associate Vice President for Inclusive Excellence…
Mine is becoming Junior Assistant to the Acting Senior Vice President for Filing Things in Ascending Order According to Weight.
Hamline's president's statement “respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom” is going to create a lot of problems for other professors on campus. Will fundamentalist Christians argue that an evolutionary perspective in biology classes creates harm? The administration did not think this through.
Respect for the observant students of most any religion in the classroom would require the instructor to acknowledge the divine origin and ultimate and unique truth of said religion, and that all others are at least badly misguided, if not driven by literal Evil.
I can see how that would make teaching difficult.
Yes, and will female faculty members who decline to dress themselves in the garb considered appropriate by various conservative religious denominations be seen as being disrespectful to students who don't approve of women displaying bare legs, visible shoulders, or uncovered heads?
"The administration did not think this through."
Why would you think they intended to apply it consistently in the first place?
This also touches on the whole "punching up vs punching down" distinction that's sometimes invoked in cases like this.
to say nothing of the Pastafarians!
It's not merely that Muslims differ about the acceptability of depictions of Muhammad. _This_ depiction was drawn by a 14th-century Iranian Muslim. The only real culture war here is between Muslims, and I find it quite offensive that non-Muslims like most of the protesting students and the college administration took a side.
Ah. Now I feel silly for questioning the comparison to Kimono Wednesdays.
Thank you. Much appreciated discussion. It resonated for me when you pointed out the issue with flinging around the term Islamophobia. Good essay.
Unfortunately, many such, are thrown around with abandon, nowadays. Disapproval of something, becomes a phobia, or worse.
Sorry but I have migraines and I don't read a 40 page email, so I had to unsubscribe regardless of the topic and I wish you all the best
This is a proportional response to getting a long email. Ken approves 😅
She is embodying free speech culture principles and NOT trying to cancel Ken, which is good. Maybe emails should be shorter so she can actually read this blog!
“Hamline teaches us it doesn’t matter the intent, the impact is what matters,” Huddleston said.
Self-inflicted impact, at that. Did she not hear the advance warnings? If not, she wasn't much of a student either.
And intent does indeed matter very much, although of course it is not everything.
But morally, ethically - it matters, and often legally too.
When I heard Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility, speak, the two things that really rubbed me the wrong way were
1) Intent “almost doesn’t matter”
2) the victims of racial oppression get to decide they are victims and cannot be questioned on this
Welp, having worked in hospitality, I can tell you “customer is always right” dynamics amount to abuse to the service staff. There are just some people that will abuse those dynamics. Regularly and blatantly.
Some people seek out victimhood, as there is no more exalted status in our society than that of the victim. Social Munchausen syndrome.
It's laudatory to take the side of the underdog, in general.
However, modern (and even older) literature, drama, etc teaches strongly that the underdog is **always** right and true and good, which makes for good plot development when they win, but doesn't reflect reality.
Also want to say thank you.
I also wonder if there is a need for analysis of consistency or hypocrisy on these "proclaimed standards." Does it prevent history classes teaching the wrongs of the crusades because that might offend Roman Catholics? Certainly, Columbus is out of the curriculum under this standard. Almost anything taught, despite any warnings runs the risk of upsetting both Roman Catholics and Indigenous people. Certainly, as an indigenous person myself, I hope we can at least discuss residential schools. I mean, the Pope admitted the church did wrong, but this standard certainly prohibits the topic if there are Catholics in the room. Where do we stop? So, when we test this standard, we find it unusable in any academic format. But I also wonder if the persons proposing this standard live by this standard when its analyzed in other situations. It's a lot different to cry "fire him" for speech that I don't like, when I have speech that I don't want to be judged by the same standard; or at least expect to be allowed to explain why my speech should be allowed.
On another track, I am currently back at school as an Art History Student. The discipline is struggling with how to deal with representation, especially in the area of curation. I see lots of people trying hard to discuss and deal with these issues. But that can only occur if we are allowed to respectfully talk about the issues instead of facing a disproportionate response launched with the intent to kill rather than help the discussion. We are all lessened by this.
Again, thank you.
The administration's response to students yelling "fire him" should be "perhaps we can assist you in transferring". But that would cost them money, and so they don't.
I do think this might be an element. I work for a small private institution myself and such institutions have been struggling enrollment-wise for years. A further sharp overall decrease is expected in 2025. Any college where revenue is primarily derived from tuition is striving to keep retention up.
“I’m like, ‘this can’t be real,’” Wedatalla told the Oracle. “As a Muslim, and a Black person, I don’t feel like I belong, and I don’t think I’ll ever belong in a community where they don’t value me as a member, and they don’t show the same respect that I show them.”
Victimhood, seems to be his raison d'etre of existence.
There is a large and growing field of the professional victim. His university career will be good training for that occupation.
Fuck, this is so good.
this is a really excellent and clear summation of the principles, and it's so galling. GAH.
"The people running the Oracle who made this decision shouldn’t be taken seriously as journalists or scholars and shouldn’t get jobs in journalism."
They will be running the New York Times by the end of the decade.
I agree with Ken that this is one of the most egregious examples of disproportionate response to unpopular speech in academia. However I regularly visit the website for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Judging from the number of cases they have handled over the past decade, this is a far from isolated instance. I fear for the future of discourse in our democracies, as these student make their way into the work world. We are already seeing the consequences of this in journalism, entertainment, and the tech industries.
I am curious, while we are on the subject of definitions, how they are defining “Islamophobia”. I would have thought that the definition would include something stating that the intent of the speech in question was to denigrate Islam in some way. Actual Islamophobia is execrable and should be treated as such but when the term is simply a by word for things I don’t like regardless of whether they fit a reasonable definition of the term then it begins to erode and undermine the term. Eventually, the term ceases to have value as a descriptor of unacceptable beliefs or behaviors. This is not ok. If my first thought upon hearing someone called a Nazi or a groomer is, “Are they really a Nazi or a groomer or do they just hold views you don’t like,” then we have done harm to discourse. People who absolutely do not deserve these labels will suffer because of them and people who absolutely do deserve them will get away with it because people are skeptical of these labels. This is, of course, not a new phenomenon but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be striving against it.
This is an interesting point. I, someone who's Jewish, had someone from India make a comment about Jewish average intelligence. She wasn't my direct report, but I definitely was higher up in the company than she.
I just let it go without comment. The intent was obviously not to insult me or my co-religionists, and despite some people viewing such a comment as anti-semitic, being called (undeservedly) a genius stings a lot less than being called (undeservedly) an idiot.
“How do you talk about this without descending into culture war bullshit?” -- K.W.
This raises a host of questions, including but not limited to, “Can we get a definition of ‘culture war bullshit’?” and “Is C.W.B.S. particularly egregious or simply more distasteful than standard bullshit? Why?”
Disliking Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson is fine and good, but by the time we get to (I paraphrase) “This is giving aid to assholes like Tucker” and (I quote directly) “This is a huge culture war victory for the anti-progressive Right” we’ve abdonned a pretense of linguistic rigor and objectivity. Which is okay. You can end on any note you want.
Still, among other things, it is an example of a phenomena that’s worth reflecting on. One that offers insight into the cultural context. Namely, in 2023 the kids need to constantly be assured that the old school liberals are Genuinely Good People who are not arguing out of a perverse elitist sense of intellectual integrity or consistency, but rather because they really and truly believe it is in the best strategic interests of the good (marginalized people, their young allies in Minnesota, the progressive Left, etc.)
This is the background in which so many academic and public discussions about both free speech and “cancel culture” take place. That’s interesting and telling.
I don't like Tucker Carlson or Ben Shapiro. I think they're bad for America. I say what I think. I have little respect for the "why can't you just support free speech without trash-talking people you don't like," which is very old and very boring.
I can't remember who coined the term "Fox News fallacy" (Noah Smith, I think?) but it refers to a tendency on the left to automatically downplay whatever it is that right-wing media types are complaining about.
While much of what they do is just ignorant fearmongering, sometimes they do hit on an issue about which even moderates and old-school liberals might have some concerns. Instead of trying to answer them, they're told there's nothing there and they're bad pepole for even entertaining the suggestion.
Tucker and Shapiro are assholes. And malignant forces.
Still. I wonder how much of the aversion to being associated with “cancel culture” is an aversion to being on their side.
You find my argument (or your caricature of it) “very old” and “boring.” That’s allowed. No prob.
Now me, I’m always suspicious of “I’m not angry, just bored” put-downs. (And, yeah, it’s a pretty “old” & dubious rhetorical move.)
But, hey, I did enjoy your essay and appreciate your patience with my technical incompetence. Truly.
EDIT: I can now find & use the “edit” function. Exciting!
I think someone who leads with "we’ve abdonned a pretense of linguistic rigor and objectivity" should develop thicker skin about responses.
And, yes. Nothing personal. But I've been writing about free speech issues for a lot of years, and I tend to say what I think about the people involved -- often saying, for instance, "this person is an asshole but their speech is protected," and someone almost always shows up with "why do you have to virtue signal" or some such bullshit, and indeed I've always found it old and tedious.
Not only didn’t I “lead with” it, I acknowledged it was simply what you were choosing to conclude with and literally said that was okay.
I seem to have really pissed you off. That wasn’t my intention. I’ll reread your comments tomorrow and seriously reflect on them and spare you any further response no matter what conclusion I reach. Best wishes.
How dare you use your right to free speech to defend the right of free speech?
Nah.
Every movement to dismantle bigotry is necessarily an alliance between good people who simply want to be able to live their lives in peace and a cadre of chauvinists deeply offended to find themselves anywhere except the top of the social pyramid. It is often impossible to make a distinction between the two until a person is in a position of power, whether that is leadership of an organization, a big following, or some other grant of social authority. This isn't an endorsement of bigotry or an argument that such movements are doomed to failure, it's simply a fact about people, incentives, and how they come together. It's important to recognize this fact and be ready to deal with it, but recognizing and dealing with it is not hypocrisy, "coddling", or enemy action.
Not trying to be a dick, but can you tell me what specifically in my comment you’re “nah”-ing? An exact quote would be ideal, but I’d even settle for a summation of what you think I’m saying that I can refute (if you’re mistaken) or either address or concede (if it is a valid summary). Thanks. I am happy to respond cordially & with thought if you just let me know.
"in 2023 the kids need to constantly be assured that the old school liberals are Genuinely Good People who are not arguing out of a perverse elitist sense of intellectual integrity or consistency, but rather because they really and truly believe it is in the best strategic interests of the good (marginalized people, their young allies in Minnesota, the progressive Left, etc.)"
Not that the paragraph before the one I quoted was doing you any favors, but arguments in the mold of "kids these days" or "respect your elders" are a great way to get me to suspect that the person making them is, at best, deep in Dunning-Kruger land. The implied premise (that society has entered, or perhaps risks entering, some sort of degenerate state by being overly accommodating towards people younger than the speaker) is basically always wrong. If you're sincerely trying to make a substantive point, then I apologize, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what it is.
Apology accepted.
The original White essay and his entire argument about cancel culture accepts as a given that, indeed, increasingly there are instances where institutions are “overly accommodating” to students (younger than White) in ways that are truly egregious. He discusses one at Hameline University in depth.
Your allusion to Dunning-Kruger was both ironic and poignant. Good luck.
Ken's argument does not even resemble your summary. Apology rescinded. Most of the situations he cites in the original article are not confined to institutional settings and actors, and in any case, this seems to be the only example where anyone's actions can be framed as attempting to "accommodate" anyone else, of any age. Ken is not making a "kids these days" claim of any kind - he's talking about a broad cultural shift that is specifically dangerous in ways that he articulated. You are the one insisting that this somehow proves that "kids these days", while also insinuating that his discussion of specific negative consequences is an indicator of bias.