University professor finds it mind-boggling that educational spaces are not public streets & squares and that those in charge of them have the mandate of safeguarding the educational mission, incl. by regulating offensive speech.
The question of whether academics who are Conservative/Republican-aligned in their political beliefs need more affirmative-action-style support to increase their numbers esp. within some research fields has been a hot one on Twitter lately. 1/
I watched this interview with #PeterBoghossian yesterday. He’s not the most mainstream character in this discussion; but he is working on his publicity and he is an active supporter of various organizations that push this idea. 2/
One point he made—I didn’t transcribe it—is that he thinks it’s hypocritical of the white president of his uni to make a statement against racism while not resigning his seat to hand it over to a BIPOC president. He also posted this recently. 3/
Below thread are my notes in #PeterBoghossian's words (marked with em-dash, sans commentary) from listening to this interview. I'll add only some comments (in square brackets) for issues pertinent to my work. 1/
-- Cognitive liberty is better than left, right dichotomies. Traditional categories don't apply. Two things:
-- 1) The cognitively liberal speak clearly & bluntly about evidence, discuss, converse without negative implication for truth-seeking. No reputational cost attached. 2/
-- 2) Correspondence theory of truth, there are truth and facts. There are better ways to move towards truth. 3/
I’m no Willard, but I learned from him. Here is a play.
K [stands to one side of the stage; nods and smiles to an argument that’s just out of earshot]
U [walks onto stage from the other side]: Nodding to balderdash? Smiling to horseshit?
K: You yourself seem to talk horseshit.
U [to audience]: Always dismissing people who disagree with her, isn’t she? No surprise here!
K [to U]: Are you joking?
U: My lady, I will give you the benefit of the doubt! What I called horseshit was what you were agreeing to, not your agreement to it. [smiles to audience]
K: And by calling what I was nodding to horseshit, you were not also calling my nodding horseshit?
U: I was only trying to figure out why you could possibly be nodding to it.
K: Are you trying to make me believe that when you say horseshit you are asking me a question?
I should go for a walk, I’m a bit mad. Before I go, here is a basic argumentative return for our use, my beloved friends:
When people say, “We shouldn’t make a taboo against saying racist/eugenicist/transphobic shit, it’s better to have debates and strengthen our arguments.” 1/
You say: “OK, where are you doing it? Show me. Send some links. I wanna see how you argued against racists yesterday. And against eugenicist the day before. Also against transphobes the day before that. Teach me your formidable arguments in action. Please. And thank you.” 2/
Would be cool if they could actually show me. So far, anyone I’ve asked hasn’t been able to offer anything. They’ve used the “we need to argue better against X!” demand as nothing more than a convenient shield for not facing up to racism/transphobia, others’ or their own. 3/
“I have yet to hear a single parent say anything bigoted” says #Quillette author about anti-trans parents at the 600-word mark of article that is very liberally spiced with bigotry.
If you encourage me, I will write more about how bigoted, exactly. Not right now, though, Twitter, not right now. 🙃
OK. Here we go.
Brace yourselves, please. This #Quillette article is one in a series by a pseudonymous academic who has no expertise in this area of study and will publish three more pieces like it. 3/