Slashdot Mirror
Wisconsin Speech Bill Might Allow Students To Challenge Science Professors (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: There have been some well-publicized incidents in which student groups or other protesters have interfered with scheduled appearances by right-wing speakers at U.S. universities. In response, a number of states have considered "campus free speech" bills based on model legislation produced by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank. Different bills introduce specific penalties for students who shout down the speech of others and prevent college administrators from disinviting speakers, to give two examples. One such bill is being debated in Wisconsin. Faculty and university officials in the state are concerned about what else might be prevented by the bill's overly vague language, according to the local Cap Times. As often happens with bills relevant to science education, the debate has also elicited some rather bizarre comments from the bill's sponsors. The trouble comes from this section of the bill: "That each institution shall strive to remain neutral, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day, and may not take action, as an institution, on the public policy controversies of the day in such a way as to require students or faculty to publicly express a given view of social policy." While the bills' scope is focused on public events involving invited speakers, there are a couple key questions here. University officials want to know how far this requirement "to remain neutral" extends. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has spoken out against proposed bans on stem cell research on campus. Would the university run afoul of this law if it did so again?
impinge on my right to free speech by using yours!
How can this possibly get past the SCOTUS?
As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis advised, in his famous Whitney v. California opinion in 1927, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
I was that kind of nerd in class that would read the whole book at the start of the semester, then just sort of enjoy asking leading questions during the year, perhaps once or twice per class period. As long as it was a fair exploration of the topic, ~90% of teachers enjoyed the light challenge - especially the history teachers. I enjoyed finding out where I was wrong, or some detail that connected the subjects we were covering in some larger way.
There were also more religiously reactive students who would play the special-pleading game, trying to weaponize their belief lest others learn to believe in any other way. The answer there is usually increasing degrees of "you might very well be correct, and if you can find an international standards body recognized completely outside of your religious organization in [insert field], I'd suggest you contact [organization who sets school policy], and get the curriculus updated. Until then, this is what's going to be on the test."
I can't see that changing much, and if students decide to raise a stink, it would be fair for a teacher to offer to let the student test out of the class immediately, giving them the remaining homework/tests in one lump, and saving everyone a bit of time, since the student is unwilling to learn directly from the teacher.
Ryan Fenton
... aren't students shelling out thousands of dollars in (science) education to be taught conventionally accepted knowledge by an expert in the scientific discipline's field? What would the bill accomplish besides having unqualified nincompoops devaluing the quality of education? There is a standard of conventional knowledge and research competence demonstrated by every PhD. Undergrads and outsiders have no business contesting facts in the science curriculum. Any legislator that votes for such a bill should be impeached. You may as well shutdown the university at that point; it will cease to be a credible, accredited undergraduate facility.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
So what you are saying is you side with Trump?
That is, if you think a *tweet* is blocking free speech in any way, instead of expressing an opinion which is clearly free speech all by itself...
No speech is so dangerous that it should be disallowed. That does not protect the speaker from consequences, like a person yelling fire in a crowded theater if there is none...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is just another lame attempt to allow people to squeeze "creation science" into courses at universities that receive public funds by saying that certain instructors can spout their personal "beliefs" as fact. To these people "evolution" and having your kids vaccinated are "controversial". I agree that people shouldn't be able to shut people like Milo down but this bill is utter bullshit.
Yes, "nothing controversial" in this context means topics that don't result in an angry mob with masks, torches and pitchforks. So yeah, speakers affiliated with "alt-right/conservative" institutions will not be invited, while "progressive" speakers get a pass. Unless conservative students organise their own angry mobs. A course I wouldn't ever recommend (and certainly don't want to imply that there shouldn't be discussions on LGBT or other diversity issues). Though I don't think that's very likely to happen. This is something the left has always understood far better than the right: administrators hate dealing with trouble of this kind, and will go out of their way to avoid it. Especially if the guy in charge isn't a big fan of the topic in question either; in that case a hint of trouble provides the perfect excuse to ban undesirable opinions on grounds of public safety. Over here, right wing marches often got cancelled after a mere announcement by Antifa on their intention to stage a counter-demo.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Your tribalism is showing. And it's really messing with your perception.
No, my tribalism isn't showing. This has been a purely left-wing thing, do you think groups like antifa and BAMN are right-wing? There are more members in those two groups in the US and Canada, then there actual KKK members. And the number of self-proclaimed KKK members is under 5000, some official crime stats put it under 2500. There are more BAMN members violently active in the state of California.
You had to go that far to find an example (and a made-up one at that)? Should tell you something about the strength of your case.
Yes, very made up so made up in fact that the party admit it happened. Just like Salon's so many pro-pedophile articles. Or the NYT which has several as well. Then there's groups like PIE(UK) which were heavily involved in politics in the 1980's trying to legalize it, including with the British Labour Party. And the famous one in north america of course is NAMBLA, and several of their splinter groups. One was very big in the Toronto politics scene and tried to legislate gay bath houses for underage boys and men.
Sound advice. You should try it.
Looks like I already, maybe you should simply stop reading CNN and WAPO.
Om, nomnomnom...
Close, but I see it slightly differently.
The problem scientists have is a lack of a public voice over their own research. How many times have we watched two pundits on the television 'debate' anthropogenic global warming? I don't know about you, but I quite frankly don't trust Tucker Carlson NOR Rachel Maddow to really present the science in any kind of accurate way. That goes for any 'political' issue, not just AGW. By the time it gets to the mass public airwaves, any study is long separated from those who wrote it, and it is subject to the biased interpretations of partisan hacks who aren't trained to know what they are talking about, or even recognize what the study's purpose might have been.
Example: Suppose I test out a new numerical algorithm for oceanic climate modeling. I want to look at diffusion rates across ocean strata, and explore the effect this has on the overall result o the simulation, namely atmospheric transport, temperature, carbon content and the like. Suppose I run a bunch of cases, each with a somewhat different approach to this problem, and publish the results compared to historical data and with projections from each. Suppose one of those simulations shows dramatic and irreversible warming at the surface within the next ten years, and another shows a more or less stable surface environment for the next 50 years. Does it matter which one, I the author, think is correct? Or if I think both of these are extreme cases that are unlikely to be true, but are merely demonstrating the bounds of potential outcomes by varying a single parameter? Does it matter that my primary point may have simply been that some unknown factor could have dramatic effects on the path of global climate, and that we need to further study and understand this effect? Or does it only matter that I produced some computer simulations that people can argue about out of context on the TV? And nobody will bother to invite me on to explain these results because, well, that doesn't benefit any of the talking heads that make those decisions.
TL;DR: Scientists need to better interface with the public. Easier said than done, but I believe that is the crux of the problem.