Thread by @wokal_distance

I did a thread on this earlier today about why conservatives turned on Professor Kershnar.

The other side of this is that, as per fire, Kershnar is playing Devil's advocate at a public university and as such his speech is protected by the first amendment.

He should not be fired

https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1489714571011047424

I disagree with Kershnars arguments and conclusions.
I understand those who think his devil's advocate schtick might be a mask for real pedophilia.

However, unless he advocates for a crime (which he hasn't) or committs a crime (he hasn't) his argument is still protected speech.

Now, a breif point.

It used to be common for professors to use the devil's advocate style to make students think. At one time conservatives were generally ok with this.

But the universities have lost the trust of people, so they no longer are willing to give the benefit of...

the doubt to professors who make controversial arguments...particularly when people like Ilya Shapiro get fired for poorly worded tweets.

I get it conservatives. I totally understand. And, FWIW I agree that many universities cannot be trusted with the devil's advocate style...

of argument.

I agree that most professors cannot pull it off, they do it poorly, they don't know how to set it up, and they can't make it connect with their students.

However, devil's advocate done poorly and for bad reasons is still protected by the first amendment.

I also know that most conservatives realize "devil's advocate" arguments is only defended in academia when done from the left and only when it is used as a strategy to steelman hard left arguments to nove the conversation/overton window to the left.

I also know...

That when conservatives try to play devil's advocate they get mobbed, attacked, fired, and have their papers retracted.

Bruce Gilroy tried to steelman British Colonialism and his paper got retracted and they tried to have him fired:

insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/1…

So I understand how conservatives get "censorship envy" and want to do to the left what the left does to conservstives under the thinking "there should only be one standard, if we get suspended for controversial views, then they get suspended for controversial views."
I get it...

But we have to remember that there are laws in place and we cannot just cede all ground to the left and agree to play their game on their terms.

Dr. Kershnars speech is clearly protected speech and he should not be fired.

We should, of course, lay waste to his ideas...

And show his devil's advocacy to fail spectacularly.

But we should not fire him.

Finally, if he is not merely playing devil's advocate, but actually advocating for the commission of heinous criminal activity that may, under certain circumstances change the calculus.

However...

That does not appear to be the case here.

So we must tread carefully.

Tear his arguments to pieces and make the folly of his arguments so clear that the fact he ever made them becomes a source of embarssment for him.

But do not fire him.

Finally, let me say that I am aware that its possible to dress a real argument up as "devil's advocacy."

Some will say that Kershnar actually wants to defend pedophilia as a good thing, that he isn't really a devil's advocate, and that the devil's advocate move just a cover...

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say we can't prove what is in a person's head. That's impossible.

All we can do is refute the argument and watch the person carefully.

That's it.

The people who take Kershnar's classes are adult's, and so long as he isn't...

Encouraging anyone to do these things, and so long as he isn't presenting these arguments to kids to get them to act on them, we should woth a very watchful eye, allow him the benefit of the doubt that he is being a gadfly and playing devil's advocate.

Cc @jennfrey @TheFIREorg @glukianoff

Finally, let me say, I don't buy his arguments at all. I think he is wrong. And I strongly support my country's laws in this matter.