I have asked if you want to propose a principled distinction between protest and intimidation. I am genuinely interested in hearing one. Could the students show up at the dean’s house? The school her kids attend? The only line I have heard you draw is that a party who nominally holds the power is a priori presumed to be fair game for any…
I have asked if you want to propose a principled distinction between protest and intimidation. I am genuinely interested in hearing one. Could the students show up at the dean’s house? The school her kids attend? The only line I have heard you draw is that a party who nominally holds the power is a priori presumed to be fair game for any form of nonviolent protest. I do not find this analysis convincing.
I'm talking about the latter. Even if the students managed to get this professor fired and shunned from the academic community, which is the outcome I would fear, I would still see that as 1A protected speech, similar to the Hollywood Blacklists.
But from a norms perspective, I think that threats to one's livelihood and personal space are coercive. We should feel justified in condemning people who try to win the argument by coercive means, particularly when they reject the idea of debate or defending their ideas on the merits.
Again, this seems unreasonably delicate towards the dean of students, a powerful person. Norms of “coercion” that serve to protect the powerful from the expression of the less powerful are dubious.
I guess that's our point of disagreement then. The Dean has a title, true, but does that necessarily mean she has more power? I think to answer that question requires looking beyond title and hierarchy but to the actual outcome of the conflict if both sides continued to escalate. If one side can inflict more consequence on the other in the end, I would argue that they had more power all along.
If the person with highest title always held the most power, then no king or queen would ever lose their head.
I have asked if you want to propose a principled distinction between protest and intimidation. I am genuinely interested in hearing one. Could the students show up at the dean’s house? The school her kids attend? The only line I have heard you draw is that a party who nominally holds the power is a priori presumed to be fair game for any form of nonviolent protest. I do not find this analysis convincing.
Are you talking about for First Amendment protection purposes or for "free speech values" philosophical purposes?
I'm talking about the latter. Even if the students managed to get this professor fired and shunned from the academic community, which is the outcome I would fear, I would still see that as 1A protected speech, similar to the Hollywood Blacklists.
But from a norms perspective, I think that threats to one's livelihood and personal space are coercive. We should feel justified in condemning people who try to win the argument by coercive means, particularly when they reject the idea of debate or defending their ideas on the merits.
Again, this seems unreasonably delicate towards the dean of students, a powerful person. Norms of “coercion” that serve to protect the powerful from the expression of the less powerful are dubious.
I guess that's our point of disagreement then. The Dean has a title, true, but does that necessarily mean she has more power? I think to answer that question requires looking beyond title and hierarchy but to the actual outcome of the conflict if both sides continued to escalate. If one side can inflict more consequence on the other in the end, I would argue that they had more power all along.
If the person with highest title always held the most power, then no king or queen would ever lose their head.