Reposting this tweet from over a year ago as I write what I will say about the damage that is done by allowing reactionary groups to invite speakers like Murphy into university and library spaces.
As I'm thinking through conditions under which unis can and should deny the booking of a speaker whose work contravenes a uni's mandate, I'm reminded of this thread I wrote about the Laurier freedom of expression statement that followed the Shepherd story.
It's a good thread. You should read it.
I particularly draw your attention to this strange way in which the statement concern trolls itself: that because future, imaginary uni members might interpret a policy in a different way, we should stop ourselves now from having one.
I particularly draw your attention to this strange way in which the statement concern trolls itself: that because future, imaginary uni members might interpret a policy in a different way, we should stop ourselves now from having one.
It's rather absurd.
"Someone in the future might abuse these research funds. Let's not have the research funds in the first place!"
"A future TA could misinterpret my assignment submission policy. In that case, better not make any rules about assignment submission!"
"Someone in the future might abuse these research funds. Let's not have the research funds in the first place!"
"A future TA could misinterpret my assignment submission policy. In that case, better not make any rules about assignment submission!"
Bonus tweet.
Nothing quite as enjoyable as the smell of conspiracy in the morning.
Nothing quite as enjoyable as the smell of conspiracy in the morning.
@threadreaderapp unroll
