Got it. I mean I don't care very specifically about the actual rating of course. The point is that Harvard is quite clearly not overly concerned with free speech so much as are about student's feelings and about equality. Until now.
Specifically to what Jonathan said, President Gay let a law professor twist in the wind when students objected to him defending Harvey Weinstein, a pretty clear case of putting students feelings ahead of a lawyer performing their duty (something even higher than freedom of association or free speech, no?)
She also recently failed to defend Professor Hoover (Hooven?) who recently wrote a book about testosterone and said in broadcast television that humans had two sexes, male and female. This one is pretty clearly putting the professor’s free speech rights behind the feelings of her students, some of whom joined a protest led by a DEI administrator (there’s that program [pogrom?] again!)
Happy to disagree about it but this is why I mentioned the quote - clearly FIRE at least believes she/they have (whether or not the specific ratings are of much use)
at a very bare minimum I would hope we can all agree that given everything, their explanation/defense after an entire day of planning could have been a whole lot better than what they put out. Putting out a weak defense, one of them hostage video style, strongly suggests having no good explanation at all.
Wow, you're STILL here with the pathetic non-sequitur insults? What a sad life you lead. Xitter still exists, you know, go nuts. Off to find a mute button now.
I'm just enjoying your increasingly sad responses. You went from a serious response to a "they weren't prepared" wah wah wah. Next up you'll be rhyming your comments.
well apparently substack's block function doesn't work. No, you are clueless enough to probably be a russian troll or a bot so I'm not wasting my time explaining to you. Waste of time. Real/sane people already get it so they don't need it. Get a hobby, comrade.
It’s subjective, opaque, based on perceptions that are highly questionable (just as people’s perception of whether crime is up are down are highly questionable), based on perceptions to which they contribute, sometimes argumentative, sometimes out of date, and sometimes arbitrary.
FIRE's standards and criteria are clearly delineated. The organization has done a better measure than any other I've seen. Any suggestions as to an alternative?
You're demanding a dumb answer to a hard problem. Criteria based on perceptual factors call into question whether the rankings reveal anything useful about the actual state of free speech on college campuses. Over the past few years, there have been occasional firestorms of controversy in the football stadiums on many college campuses due to the difficulty of establishing criteria which are clear, workable and that align with the layman's understanding of what constitutes a "catch". The idea that FIRE has the whole 'measuring free speech' problem licked is laughable.
Not gonna speak for Ken, but a big issue with it seems to be that the ratings are largely based on how much students "feel silenced" by their peers (not even the school!) as opposed to actual policies and practices of the school in terms of free speech - essentially, it conflates "people use their speech against my speech" with "my speech is literally censored or punished by the administration."
That's fair. I'm not a big fan of the "feel silenced" standard myself; that's the kind of standard that got us into this mess in the first place. I do think there is a role for the administration in cultivating an environment and a student body that tolerates minority views and opinions, but that's very difficult to judge, and kids "feeling silenced" is not a good benchmark.
Yeah, and I'm not blaming any of the college students - going to a college that is supposed to be about intellectual freedom and then having your professor be a jerk to you because you actually participated in that project is a terrible experience! It's just a) something that can't really be fully gauged by surveying students who have only ever been to one school, and b) a different issue than an adminstration that actively punished students/staff/faculty for their speech.
There probably *is* a way to try to rank school by how much they have free speech culture and to what degree faculty have censorious tendencies, but it would be very hard and I think think FIRE has figured it out.
(funny enough my very censorious alma mater isn't even in their rankings!)
It’s probably a FIRE rating. FIRE’s litigation to defend speech of all kinds is peerless. I am not a fan of its rating systems.
Got it. I mean I don't care very specifically about the actual rating of course. The point is that Harvard is quite clearly not overly concerned with free speech so much as are about student's feelings and about equality. Until now.
What does that mean?
Is there an instance where the Harvard President gave an inconsistent answer when faced with racism to someone else?
Specifically to what Jonathan said, President Gay let a law professor twist in the wind when students objected to him defending Harvey Weinstein, a pretty clear case of putting students feelings ahead of a lawyer performing their duty (something even higher than freedom of association or free speech, no?)
She also recently failed to defend Professor Hoover (Hooven?) who recently wrote a book about testosterone and said in broadcast television that humans had two sexes, male and female. This one is pretty clearly putting the professor’s free speech rights behind the feelings of her students, some of whom joined a protest led by a DEI administrator (there’s that program [pogrom?] again!)
Happy to disagree about it but this is why I mentioned the quote - clearly FIRE at least believes she/they have (whether or not the specific ratings are of much use)
at a very bare minimum I would hope we can all agree that given everything, their explanation/defense after an entire day of planning could have been a whole lot better than what they put out. Putting out a weak defense, one of them hostage video style, strongly suggests having no good explanation at all.
You're down to "they could have done better"? Thanks, minimalist-boy.
Wow, you're STILL here with the pathetic non-sequitur insults? What a sad life you lead. Xitter still exists, you know, go nuts. Off to find a mute button now.
I'm just enjoying your increasingly sad responses. You went from a serious response to a "they weren't prepared" wah wah wah. Next up you'll be rhyming your comments.
I never said that at all and you so wildly misunderstand my point that I’m starting to wonder if you don’t actually speak English. Blocking you now.
I understand your point which allows me to mock it as effectively as I have been.
well apparently substack's block function doesn't work. No, you are clueless enough to probably be a russian troll or a bot so I'm not wasting my time explaining to you. Waste of time. Real/sane people already get it so they don't need it. Get a hobby, comrade.
Jump up and down, minimalist-boy.
Yes it is a FIRE rating.
https://www.thefire.org/college-free-speech-rankings
What makes you not a fan of their rating system?
It’s subjective, opaque, based on perceptions that are highly questionable (just as people’s perception of whether crime is up are down are highly questionable), based on perceptions to which they contribute, sometimes argumentative, sometimes out of date, and sometimes arbitrary.
FIRE's standards and criteria are clearly delineated. The organization has done a better measure than any other I've seen. Any suggestions as to an alternative?
You're demanding a dumb answer to a hard problem. Criteria based on perceptual factors call into question whether the rankings reveal anything useful about the actual state of free speech on college campuses. Over the past few years, there have been occasional firestorms of controversy in the football stadiums on many college campuses due to the difficulty of establishing criteria which are clear, workable and that align with the layman's understanding of what constitutes a "catch". The idea that FIRE has the whole 'measuring free speech' problem licked is laughable.
Not gonna speak for Ken, but a big issue with it seems to be that the ratings are largely based on how much students "feel silenced" by their peers (not even the school!) as opposed to actual policies and practices of the school in terms of free speech - essentially, it conflates "people use their speech against my speech" with "my speech is literally censored or punished by the administration."
That's fair. I'm not a big fan of the "feel silenced" standard myself; that's the kind of standard that got us into this mess in the first place. I do think there is a role for the administration in cultivating an environment and a student body that tolerates minority views and opinions, but that's very difficult to judge, and kids "feeling silenced" is not a good benchmark.
Yeah, and I'm not blaming any of the college students - going to a college that is supposed to be about intellectual freedom and then having your professor be a jerk to you because you actually participated in that project is a terrible experience! It's just a) something that can't really be fully gauged by surveying students who have only ever been to one school, and b) a different issue than an adminstration that actively punished students/staff/faculty for their speech.
There probably *is* a way to try to rank school by how much they have free speech culture and to what degree faculty have censorious tendencies, but it would be very hard and I think think FIRE has figured it out.
(funny enough my very censorious alma mater isn't even in their rankings!)
I think it is very hard and the FIRE rankings are highly flawed, but scoring dead last probably does indicate a fairly bad culture.
Oh, no, was a professor mean to someone? That's a war crime/genocide right there.