I note you retweeted pitchbot (hilarious as always). Owls in the PNW really are increasingly aggressive in the NW - here's what it means to Biden, because barred owls have followed the trail of farm and logging openings into the PNW and attack spotted owls, the signature metaphor for old growth management and Bill Clinton's big action to keep us all from shooting each other. Other than Oathkeeper sheriffs and militia threats to death federal employees, an arrest of a fire boss by an Oathkeeper type sheriff, and $3 million damage to wildlife refuges, complete with cop stalking, I don't see much implication for Biden at this time.
It's always interesting when people get wound up over the mildest forms or protest. Remaining seated when asked to stand or taking a knee or turning your back or walking out are all civil actions and should be accepted as part of the conversation or the debate.
If you can't take that, how could anyone reasonably expect that you would graciously accept someone arguing against your position?
Arguing, of course, implies at least the possibility of a response. If I am offended by your quiet demonstration of disapproval, it is likely because such a protest gives me no opportunity to reply without seeming to *start* an argument (as in this case). If we are in dialogue, though, it is presumed that I may speak, if I have something to say after you have said your piece, and that if I speak, I do in fact have something to say. Thus in classic Murray-Peterson style, it is possible for me to win the argument through endurance, and with a degree of finality, rather than risk that observers will judge your position to be valid and worthy of respect.
This reminds me when (years ago) I sat in on a film lecture at Columbia given by Village Voice critic Andrew Sarris, who was screening "Birth of a Nation." During the Q&A the President of the university's Black Student Union asked Sarris about the obviously racist nature of the film. Sarris's response was ... I'm not sure how to exactly describe this ... but he kind of blinked, rhetorically speaking, and went on about auteur theory. Not directly dismissing the student's remarks, but still dismissing them. So the student, and several other African-American students got up and walked out. And I remember thinking: Good for them.
You know, I might or might not. Actually, after they walked out, Sarris acknowledged their reaction and, later, I saw him talking to the students who left. After all, Sarris wrote that "Birth of a Nation" was outrageously racist. If he wrote it before that lecture, maybe that's why he missed the students' justifiable anger. If he wrote it after, maybe he learned something.
Many speakers complain about college students' belief that they have a right not to be offended, but those same speakers get offended if their targets don't sit there and take it. "You will debate me, on my chosen topic and in the forum I choose, or you're against free speech!!"
Something interesting Ken did in this post is that he used the offending word exactly once, to make plain the title of the book (because if he used asterisks, you might wonder if the title also used asterisks) and otherwise referred to it euphemistically throughout his post.
One might wonder if this was an intentional style choice, designed to convey the point that there is an equally effective way to communicate that avoids the potential for provocation or giving offense, at zero cost.
The idea that the students who disagree should respond with an argument seems really absurd in this case. Would they have actually been okay with it if several students each came up after the speech and accused them of racism in front of the whole crowd? I suspect that they’d characterize that as “shouting them down” and as also violating their right to free speech.
This is a very fine essay. It has exemplified the butt hurt of those concerned with "cancel culture" who give no meaningful consideration of the free speech/association rights of the audience or others.
It is sad to see Harvey fall so low. Randy always had the contrarian publicity hound in him (for example his early death penalty position -- provocative! But dumb.)
I had the great experience of taking Prof. Randall Kennedy's class on Race & The Law. (BTW- Both Prof. Randall Kennedy and Prof. Duncan Kennedy were commonly referred to by their honorific followed by first and last name, so as to distinguish between the two. The same was true of Professors Paul Weiler and Joseph Weiler).
The Prof. Kennedy who I encountered in the classroom in the early 90s would look askance at the 2022 version. In the class that I took, there was a wide spectrum of views expressed from the conservative (Viet Dinh, for example) to the mainstream to Critical Race Theory adherents (for real, students who were research assistants for actual founders of Critical Race Theory). That Prof. Kennedy frequently stated that "voting with your feet" by boycott was a time-honored form of protest.
It seems to me that cancel culture too often links freedom of speech (protected) with freedom from consequences of that speech (not protected). Being shunned, having sponsors pull funds and boycotts/walkouts are all part of the marketplace of ideas working, as it should.
It is incumbent on the speaker to tune their message in such a way that it is heard by the audience.
The element that is missing from the original article is self-critique. The message from a 20 year old book needs to be presented differently to an audience that wasn't born 20 years ago.
Who in the 70's gave heed to 50's messaging? it was laughed at. By the 90's, 70's ideas were laughably out-of-date.
The current generation is watching and listening to a segment of our culture engage in overt racist behavior and strongly rejecting anything tied to it. Intolerance in the face of increased racism is probably extremely reasonable.
That they will need to mature beyond that and engage the issues that could be presented isn't a triumph of cancel culture, it is a change in response from high school students attempting to engage the current culture.
Did the students even give any explicit sign that they were walking out *in protest*, as opposed to just deciding that they didn't want to be there anymore? Is there a meaningful difference between those things when the numbers are large enough?
Silverglate and Kennedy's response is ridiculous in either case, but it's amazing how many people go out of their way to make their audience uncomfortable and are shocked, SHOCKED to see them do exactly what you'd expect from someone who's found themselves in an uncomfortable situation with no pressure not to leave early.
I don't really know what "vigorous dialogue" means in this context - a lot of people claim to want such things, but when their response to harsh criticism is to yell "cancel culture," it feels a little like they don't want a "vigorous" response at all. But I will follow Ken's lead and give Mr. Silverglate more credit than that, based upon his well-earned reputation. Perhaps he really did want to stop and have a discussion with the students, whatever that would look like.
But what is the idea to be discussed here? The disagreement is basically "is it okay to say the n-word, in this particular context, this number of times." We could certainly talk about that, but maybe it's just the kind of thing people get to have different opinions on. You think it's fine, I don't, so we both go on with our lives. We don't have to spend 30 minutes trying to come to agreement on this specific thing.
These issues are 100% on school administrators, teachers, and other adults. It's fine for language usage to evolve. But there is no such thing as forbidden words. Words, no matter how distasteful, are not literally violence. Lukianoff/Haidt had it right about one of the great untruths: The Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker."
Maybe the best retort should have been: "Grow up". But we live in a time where adolescence extends ways past even the mid 20s for way too many people.
I thought about editing my comment to make it clearer as I recognized the potential issues of clarity.
Supposedly actual adults, like those at Milton Academy, deserve no deference. I'm a couple years older than you and attended a version of "Milton Academy" of my medium-large city. We actually had lively debates (in a HS sense) with nobody walking out on anyone else. Nobody fainted because of any words.
Why is it assumed that this dude is entitled to students attending his lecture? If I think smoking a joint is a better use of my time than listening to someone speak, why is that suddenly an issue of personal honor that demands satisfaction like the world's stupidest duel? That's the most crybaby bs I've ever heard.
But you are blaming the "issue" on the kids, while blithely assuming their motivations to be base and their temperament for debate to be fragile. As many have correctly pointed out, if the students had started verbally objecting to what was being said in the speech it would be considered another form of cancel culture - shouting the speaker down.
Like Ken noted, it's laughable to say that the lecture attendees should've considered Silverglate's usage of a racial slur as an example of civil speech, while Silverglate and others can't handle silently walking away as an example of civil speech.
I think we studied Huck Finn in 11th grade in 1985. Nobody was not aware of the the issues of "the word". But you can just go fuck off too. It's just a word.
I'm fully OK with being sworn at if done in an honest or even witty manner. This "comeback" was of our generation the lamest attempt at a "burn". As smarter teenagers of the 80s had some ability to apply 10th grade logic to real life.
You know what else we of the mid '80s thought was great? "Blazing Saddles", probably the most Huck Finn thing of the late 20th century. Only mental morons (another "bad" word, I guess) could misunderstand the message of that movie.
Your thinking is stuck in the past, and you are viewing the situation from a very self-centered, myopic point of view. This ain't 1985. I was a teenager back then myself, and also attended a prep school, and I would not wish the attitudes of racism and ignorance we took as normal on today's teenagers (or adults). The world is better for the evolution away from the "sit down, shut up, suck it up" attitude adults had toward teenagers. Teens are allowed to hold different worldviews, and different attitudes, toward racism than their elders. It's good and natural. Frankly, you sound like a churlish "get off my lawn" person who chooses to be willfully ignorant (and overly sensitive) to changing mores. Grow up, perhaps?
I have at least a little bit of experience being a grown adult, and maybe even a tiny bit of experience acting like one, and in my opinion shouting "grow up" at a student as he walks out of your lecture wouldn't be a super mature way to behave.
Kids who have never been told to grow up are one of the big issues of the day. As they are now adult adolescents. Do you follow Ken on Twitter? Have you seen how he lovingly, wittily prods his kids? We should all have adults in our lives like that. For about the 10th time, the issue in this case is adults. Adults who don't understand that kids are not just mini-adults. See: Arendt. See: Montessori.
I think Ken seems like a great parent. As a parent myself, I know one of the reasons it's so challenging is that there's a whole lot more to it than just instructing them to "grow up." Particularly in a smug context that merely asserts, "I'm the grown-up here and what you need to do is emulate me." My view is that to help your kids grow up you need to show more than you need to just tell.
Not sure where you've purchased your straw. All kids need direction sometimes. That in no way implies that adults rule their lives - a state that we live way too much in. Again, see esp. Montessori. Going back to the point of the original post, free speech. Free speech is not a natural state. It means that people get to say blasphemous, stupid, hurtful, unproductive things. These should all be banned! How do you get past that? By learning a lot of history and following wise people. Every generation has to learn, hopefully, the lessons. But why do you want them to take the long way?
Ken White misperceives my objection to the students' walking out. I have absolutely no objection. I recognize their absolute right to walk out. What I was saying is that it is astonishing that students at an elite high school would prefer to walk out on a speaker, rather than engage that speaker and his ideas. Milton students should know, and if they don't already know, they must learn, how to express disagreement in a society that values free speech. HARVEY SILVERGLATE (the speaker)
Nonsense, for the reasons already stated in the piece. You’ve DEFENDED speech like walkouts. And this was a FAR more effective way of expressing dissent and calling attention to the matter than “engaging” you about something you’d already decided to do repeatedly. This is deeply unbecoming.
Behave or else.
You're not my dad!
Wow, *someone* sounds like the Milton School! (I kid!)
I note you retweeted pitchbot (hilarious as always). Owls in the PNW really are increasingly aggressive in the NW - here's what it means to Biden, because barred owls have followed the trail of farm and logging openings into the PNW and attack spotted owls, the signature metaphor for old growth management and Bill Clinton's big action to keep us all from shooting each other. Other than Oathkeeper sheriffs and militia threats to death federal employees, an arrest of a fire boss by an Oathkeeper type sheriff, and $3 million damage to wildlife refuges, complete with cop stalking, I don't see much implication for Biden at this time.
You're not the boss of me.
It's always interesting when people get wound up over the mildest forms or protest. Remaining seated when asked to stand or taking a knee or turning your back or walking out are all civil actions and should be accepted as part of the conversation or the debate.
If you can't take that, how could anyone reasonably expect that you would graciously accept someone arguing against your position?
Arguing, of course, implies at least the possibility of a response. If I am offended by your quiet demonstration of disapproval, it is likely because such a protest gives me no opportunity to reply without seeming to *start* an argument (as in this case). If we are in dialogue, though, it is presumed that I may speak, if I have something to say after you have said your piece, and that if I speak, I do in fact have something to say. Thus in classic Murray-Peterson style, it is possible for me to win the argument through endurance, and with a degree of finality, rather than risk that observers will judge your position to be valid and worthy of respect.
This reminds me when (years ago) I sat in on a film lecture at Columbia given by Village Voice critic Andrew Sarris, who was screening "Birth of a Nation." During the Q&A the President of the university's Black Student Union asked Sarris about the obviously racist nature of the film. Sarris's response was ... I'm not sure how to exactly describe this ... but he kind of blinked, rhetorically speaking, and went on about auteur theory. Not directly dismissing the student's remarks, but still dismissing them. So the student, and several other African-American students got up and walked out. And I remember thinking: Good for them.
You know, I might or might not. Actually, after they walked out, Sarris acknowledged their reaction and, later, I saw him talking to the students who left. After all, Sarris wrote that "Birth of a Nation" was outrageously racist. If he wrote it before that lecture, maybe that's why he missed the students' justifiable anger. If he wrote it after, maybe he learned something.
Many speakers complain about college students' belief that they have a right not to be offended, but those same speakers get offended if their targets don't sit there and take it. "You will debate me, on my chosen topic and in the forum I choose, or you're against free speech!!"
Just happy to see you posting again, Ken lol
Something interesting Ken did in this post is that he used the offending word exactly once, to make plain the title of the book (because if he used asterisks, you might wonder if the title also used asterisks) and otherwise referred to it euphemistically throughout his post.
One might wonder if this was an intentional style choice, designed to convey the point that there is an equally effective way to communicate that avoids the potential for provocation or giving offense, at zero cost.
Not "at zero cost".
The idea that the students who disagree should respond with an argument seems really absurd in this case. Would they have actually been okay with it if several students each came up after the speech and accused them of racism in front of the whole crowd? I suspect that they’d characterize that as “shouting them down” and as also violating their right to free speech.
This is a very fine essay. It has exemplified the butt hurt of those concerned with "cancel culture" who give no meaningful consideration of the free speech/association rights of the audience or others.
It is sad to see Harvey fall so low. Randy always had the contrarian publicity hound in him (for example his early death penalty position -- provocative! But dumb.)
Did I behave?
I had the great experience of taking Prof. Randall Kennedy's class on Race & The Law. (BTW- Both Prof. Randall Kennedy and Prof. Duncan Kennedy were commonly referred to by their honorific followed by first and last name, so as to distinguish between the two. The same was true of Professors Paul Weiler and Joseph Weiler).
The Prof. Kennedy who I encountered in the classroom in the early 90s would look askance at the 2022 version. In the class that I took, there was a wide spectrum of views expressed from the conservative (Viet Dinh, for example) to the mainstream to Critical Race Theory adherents (for real, students who were research assistants for actual founders of Critical Race Theory). That Prof. Kennedy frequently stated that "voting with your feet" by boycott was a time-honored form of protest.
It seems to me that cancel culture too often links freedom of speech (protected) with freedom from consequences of that speech (not protected). Being shunned, having sponsors pull funds and boycotts/walkouts are all part of the marketplace of ideas working, as it should.
It is incumbent on the speaker to tune their message in such a way that it is heard by the audience.
The element that is missing from the original article is self-critique. The message from a 20 year old book needs to be presented differently to an audience that wasn't born 20 years ago.
Who in the 70's gave heed to 50's messaging? it was laughed at. By the 90's, 70's ideas were laughably out-of-date.
The current generation is watching and listening to a segment of our culture engage in overt racist behavior and strongly rejecting anything tied to it. Intolerance in the face of increased racism is probably extremely reasonable.
That they will need to mature beyond that and engage the issues that could be presented isn't a triumph of cancel culture, it is a change in response from high school students attempting to engage the current culture.
Until the story comes to the part about the speaker's response, this sounds like the system we want more or less working. That's comforting.
Did the students even give any explicit sign that they were walking out *in protest*, as opposed to just deciding that they didn't want to be there anymore? Is there a meaningful difference between those things when the numbers are large enough?
Silverglate and Kennedy's response is ridiculous in either case, but it's amazing how many people go out of their way to make their audience uncomfortable and are shocked, SHOCKED to see them do exactly what you'd expect from someone who's found themselves in an uncomfortable situation with no pressure not to leave early.
I don't really know what "vigorous dialogue" means in this context - a lot of people claim to want such things, but when their response to harsh criticism is to yell "cancel culture," it feels a little like they don't want a "vigorous" response at all. But I will follow Ken's lead and give Mr. Silverglate more credit than that, based upon his well-earned reputation. Perhaps he really did want to stop and have a discussion with the students, whatever that would look like.
But what is the idea to be discussed here? The disagreement is basically "is it okay to say the n-word, in this particular context, this number of times." We could certainly talk about that, but maybe it's just the kind of thing people get to have different opinions on. You think it's fine, I don't, so we both go on with our lives. We don't have to spend 30 minutes trying to come to agreement on this specific thing.
"Human beings, Rushdie observed in his 1990 essay In Good Faith, “shape their futures by arguing and challenging and questioning and saying the unsayable; not by bowing the knee whether to gods or to men”." - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/14/salman-rushdie-defied-those-who-would-silence-him-too-many-fear-causing-offence
These issues are 100% on school administrators, teachers, and other adults. It's fine for language usage to evolve. But there is no such thing as forbidden words. Words, no matter how distasteful, are not literally violence. Lukianoff/Haidt had it right about one of the great untruths: The Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker."
Maybe the best retort should have been: "Grow up". But we live in a time where adolescence extends ways past even the mid 20s for way too many people.
I agree Silverglate should grow up.
I thought about editing my comment to make it clearer as I recognized the potential issues of clarity.
Supposedly actual adults, like those at Milton Academy, deserve no deference. I'm a couple years older than you and attended a version of "Milton Academy" of my medium-large city. We actually had lively debates (in a HS sense) with nobody walking out on anyone else. Nobody fainted because of any words.
Did these students faint?
Probably just finding a way to go to the woods to smoke a joint. Again, I don't blame this issue on the kids. It's the faux adults.
Why is it assumed that this dude is entitled to students attending his lecture? If I think smoking a joint is a better use of my time than listening to someone speak, why is that suddenly an issue of personal honor that demands satisfaction like the world's stupidest duel? That's the most crybaby bs I've ever heard.
But you are blaming the "issue" on the kids, while blithely assuming their motivations to be base and their temperament for debate to be fragile. As many have correctly pointed out, if the students had started verbally objecting to what was being said in the speech it would be considered another form of cancel culture - shouting the speaker down.
Like Ken noted, it's laughable to say that the lecture attendees should've considered Silverglate's usage of a racial slur as an example of civil speech, while Silverglate and others can't handle silently walking away as an example of civil speech.
How frequently did you let loose the n-word?
I think we studied Huck Finn in 11th grade in 1985. Nobody was not aware of the the issues of "the word". But you can just go fuck off too. It's just a word.
Heavens what a response! What ever happened to debate and discourse?
I'm fully OK with being sworn at if done in an honest or even witty manner. This "comeback" was of our generation the lamest attempt at a "burn". As smarter teenagers of the 80s had some ability to apply 10th grade logic to real life.
You know what else we of the mid '80s thought was great? "Blazing Saddles", probably the most Huck Finn thing of the late 20th century. Only mental morons (another "bad" word, I guess) could misunderstand the message of that movie.
Your thinking is stuck in the past, and you are viewing the situation from a very self-centered, myopic point of view. This ain't 1985. I was a teenager back then myself, and also attended a prep school, and I would not wish the attitudes of racism and ignorance we took as normal on today's teenagers (or adults). The world is better for the evolution away from the "sit down, shut up, suck it up" attitude adults had toward teenagers. Teens are allowed to hold different worldviews, and different attitudes, toward racism than their elders. It's good and natural. Frankly, you sound like a churlish "get off my lawn" person who chooses to be willfully ignorant (and overly sensitive) to changing mores. Grow up, perhaps?
You didn't and don't need to edit your comment. It was deliberately misconstrued by the real juvenile in this room.
I have at least a little bit of experience being a grown adult, and maybe even a tiny bit of experience acting like one, and in my opinion shouting "grow up" at a student as he walks out of your lecture wouldn't be a super mature way to behave.
Kids who have never been told to grow up are one of the big issues of the day. As they are now adult adolescents. Do you follow Ken on Twitter? Have you seen how he lovingly, wittily prods his kids? We should all have adults in our lives like that. For about the 10th time, the issue in this case is adults. Adults who don't understand that kids are not just mini-adults. See: Arendt. See: Montessori.
I think Ken seems like a great parent. As a parent myself, I know one of the reasons it's so challenging is that there's a whole lot more to it than just instructing them to "grow up." Particularly in a smug context that merely asserts, "I'm the grown-up here and what you need to do is emulate me." My view is that to help your kids grow up you need to show more than you need to just tell.
Not sure where you've purchased your straw. All kids need direction sometimes. That in no way implies that adults rule their lives - a state that we live way too much in. Again, see esp. Montessori. Going back to the point of the original post, free speech. Free speech is not a natural state. It means that people get to say blasphemous, stupid, hurtful, unproductive things. These should all be banned! How do you get past that? By learning a lot of history and following wise people. Every generation has to learn, hopefully, the lessons. But why do you want them to take the long way?
The students didn't think the speech should be banned, despite being hurtful to them. Seems like they're already way past the lesson.
This matches with my perception that today's kids are a lot sharper than older generations want to give them credit for.
Ken White misperceives my objection to the students' walking out. I have absolutely no objection. I recognize their absolute right to walk out. What I was saying is that it is astonishing that students at an elite high school would prefer to walk out on a speaker, rather than engage that speaker and his ideas. Milton students should know, and if they don't already know, they must learn, how to express disagreement in a society that values free speech. HARVEY SILVERGLATE (the speaker)
Nonsense, for the reasons already stated in the piece. You’ve DEFENDED speech like walkouts. And this was a FAR more effective way of expressing dissent and calling attention to the matter than “engaging” you about something you’d already decided to do repeatedly. This is deeply unbecoming.
Yes. He *disingenuously* misperceives. As I'm sure you appreciate, it's a very common trick for those of a neo-Marxist Long March bent.