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
This is what religious theocracies do to enforce orthodoxy. What else is the result of subjecting education to a litmus test of belief? Nothing. Yet another sign of the failure of the US as a modern nation. It's successor can join Turkey as heir to a failed empire.
So let's see if we can get this right. Milo and Coulter couldn't speak on college campuses because of violent left-wing protests. You attempt to use a single "republican student" which doesn't actually appear to be the case. But if you really want to try and pull that bullshit, let's look at the guy in WA state and the other in FL, who were both far-left supporters and went on shooting/stabbing sprees killing multiple people.
And people are upset at liberals shutting down free speech by the heavy use of violence and attacks against individuals, along with left-wing hate crimes. I can even look up here in Canada and find numerous examples of the political left assaulting and violating assaulting people for wrong-think. And left aligned environmentalist and feminist groups who burn things down, try to create environmental catastrophes(like blowing up pipelines), or simply disrupting talks when MRA's are speaking. And those repeated violent assaults against people on college campuses against people who are right-leaning, isn't just some fiction. The left are the violent party, much like how the left in the 1960's and 70's were the ones planting bombs and blowing them up all over the place.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'm sick of these lefties fresh mouths.
I think the lefties' behavior tarnishes their own cause, but I am skeptical of the righties' effort to ensure free speech by restricting speech.
If you recall Milo was sacked by right-wing Breitbart for his "little boys can consent to sex with old men" comments.
Correction: He quit. Second, he was talking about himself.
Did the student protest him because he's right-wing or because he's a pedo?
No they violently protested him, and called him everything from an alt-right neo-nazi, to an actual nazi. They rioted, they burned shit, they smashed public property and it was members of the left that did it. This happened way before that comment of his.
Is being a pedo suddenly a right-wing thing? I didn't see Hannity or Tucker invite him onto their shows to talk about his warm wet love of kids. They have TV shows, they don't need to talk in the abstract about censorship, they can invite him on to talk to their audience of right wing mothers and fathers.
No, it's purely a left-wing thing. Which of course why left-wing groups have heavily pushed normalizing pedophilia, and so did numerous same-sex organizations did the same. The green party in Germany heavily pushed a pro-pedophile stance. Also, you should go watch what he said. Because he was talking about himself, you know just like George Takei was talking about himself when he said exactly the same thing as Milo. But I sure don't remember the usual left-wing whine train coming out to attack him.
You should probably start getting your news from more then one source.
Om, nomnomnom...
Try reading more history. And don't give a bullshit reply about the Nazi party being anything other than extreme right-wing because I'm German and I already know that is wrong.
Math professor: You didn't solve that partial differential equation.
Conservative snowflake: I did too, libtard.
Wisconsin Republicans: Teach the controversy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence. In other cases it is observationally generated or synthesized by review of existing literature. All are valid. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, objecting for the sake of grandstanding, and claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.
Challenging them with science, yes. But this bill isn't about science, it's about politics.
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.
"Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming,"
You should watch some videos from Berkeley, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to give a speech.
Nope, it wasn't the radical rights screaming, using fists, and setting the campus on fire.
I'd say some publicity stunts like some nutcases giving a speech to an empty lecture hall is a small price for stopping that sort of behavior.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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...
Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming
Sorry that's the left in berkely. Same with the bike lock attacker Nice collection of weapons pulled off antifa members who were looking to attack people at pro-trump/free speech rally. And I can really keep going, because there's not only dozens of cases like this but hundreds in the last 2 years.
Antifa are leftists of marxist/mao kind. BAMN are of the same kind, you also need to toss in their little cult camps. And people on the right didn't start responding until the left started going "OH NO, they're not us." We don't condone anything, while letting them slip back into the crows and cover them. Professor bikelock is the most recent and famous example of this. Now what I want you to do is freeze it within the first 3 seconds. You see all those masked people happily moving within that group of unmasked leftists?
Find any video where people are filming antifa and you'll see: Antifa slip into the crowd or part of the crowd, attack someone/attack in a group/crowd of unmasked leftists cover for them and let them slip back in.
Om, nomnomnom...
Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence. In other cases it is observationally generated or synthesized by review of existing literature. All are valid. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement, objecting for the sake of grandstanding, and claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.
And while most science should be based on observed behavior, or at least proven formulas, everything has human interpretation involved. Given a hundred scientists, there should at least be two (usually more) interpretations of a set of data and the minority should never be rejected just because it is the minority. All opinions should be accepted or rejected based on careful consideration.
This has nothing to do with challenging science. You would actually have to know something about science to challenge it. This is about trying for force false equivalence. "Scientists claim the earth is spherical, but some non-scientists disagree". That kind of crap comes from the right wing every day. It is called the doubt machine. Sow doubt that cigarettes cause cancer, doubt that humans are altering the biosphere or climate, Sow doubt that evolution is a well documented fact. It is all about preventing positive action that might hurt a political agenda or corporate bottom line.
When you can't win the argument, just pass a law. Bullshit.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
All opinions should be accepted or rejected based on careful consideration.
The problem we have now is that after the science community has carefully considered a particular "interpretation" and has rejected it, a large portion of our populace ignores this.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Which opens the door to infinite evil. Do we have evidence that behaving sinfully won't end up with us cast posthumously into a pit of eternal fire? Well, no, partly because we have no evidence of life after death, pits of eternal fire, and no objective definition of sin. So this means that ANY presentation can be interrupted simply by asserting that thus and such are sinful, etc. Can you prove that it is NOT? Of course not. There simply in no evidence that it is.
Your example of a zombie apocalypse is well taken. Do we have the slightest shred of evidence that zombies or anything zombie-like is really possible? Not just heavily drugged or brain-damaged individuals deliberately harmed by slavers or practicers of voudoin, but actual living dead brain-eating zombies? Well, no, although rabies as a disease does have related effects and might have been part of the origin of zombie legend. So what the heck! Sure, the zombie apocalypse could be unleashed by mutant rabies, GMO foods, stem cells, a disease transported to Earth by meteors or space aliens, biowarfare gone awry, the deliberate act of a vengeful deity, the deliberate act of an evil supernatural demon, prions (a mutant mad cow disease), a new "safe" designer recreational drug anybody can make at home out of clorox and pepto-bismol that has a zombie side effect one year after it is ingested, pods from outer space, slugs that attach to your spinal column from outer space, nanites intended to cure brain cancer, or a mutation of the common cold. Maybe half of these possibilities have formed the basis in whole or in part of science fiction novels over the decades (mutant rabies, alien diseases, pods, and slugs, biowarfare gone awry...)
So, should we allow scientific talks on how stem cells are being used to cure nerve deafness in humans and parkinson's disease to be interrupted at will by whack jobs that want to claim, without evidence, that the individuals cured MIGHT turn into zombies, so all research into stem cells must instantly cease? Seriously? Or, because stem cells are making an end run around the "intelligent design" of the human body by a supernatural deity they are therefore sinful (no need for evidence or a firm definition of sin, remember, it is whatever you want it to be or allege that it is and nobody can prove you wrong) and will cause not the zombie apocalypse but the biblical apocalypse unless we gather up all of the researchers and burn them alive at the stake as a manner of atonement and banish all of their works and threaten all human with torture and death if they ever use the words "stem cells" again? Can you prove that this won't happen (well, except by ignoring the idiots and curing nerve deafness and Parkinson's anyway with no breaking of the seals or unleashing of the four horsemen etc)?
Lack of evidence is not positive evidence of lack. It is, however, something that can legitimately be used to state that lack is more likely the longer evidence is looked for and not found. We cannot positively assert that there are no pink unicorns living somewhere on Earth simply because one has never been seen, captured, found (with or without color) in the fossil record), but we can say that -- given the existing observational evidence -- it is pretty unlikely that any exist and are just lurking somewhere in deepest darkest Africa or Tibet or in a special volcanic cave in the middle of Antarctica. If you assert invisible pink unicorns (whatever color "invisible pink" ends up being) you make it even harder to disprove, as now you can literally look everywhere on Earth and just because you can't see them doesn't mean that they aren't there, because they are invisible! Does this mean that we have to now allow La La Loopsie/My Little Pony followers to disrupt scientific presentations of evolutionary biology?
Note well that I'm not certain legislation is the answer to stuff like this, but providing the idiots with an escort off campus and leaving them there with instructions not to come back (students or not) seems pretty reasonable.
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
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.
Nice collection of weapons pulled off antifa members who were looking to attack people at pro-trump/free speech rally. http://www.officer.com/news/12...
Holy shit!! I think I saw the rusty hatchet stolen from my shed in there. Any chance I can get it back?
And what the hell is that at the bottom of the image? Is that a a gate hinge bolted to a shin guard? That's gotta hurt.
This also demonstrates that no government can disarm the public, people will improvise. You can take their guns and knives but then they'll just fashion their own. Part of the reason why the speakers and attendees to these speeches get their ass kicked so often is that the venue is "weapons free" but the area to and from is not. The police disarmed one group but not the other. Would these hooligans be so bold to bring a sack full of bricks if they thought the attendees might shoot back?
I know someone is thinking, "but at least the hooligans didn't have a gun." What makes you think the hooligans could buy a gun? These students are likely often high on drugs (prescribed or not), likely with previous criminal records, or a protection order out on them. They couldn't pass a background check to buy a firearm.
Another common reply to my comment, "Do you really think it justified to use a gun against someone swinging a sack of bricks?" Yes. Wait, let me make myself clear... HELL YES!! Swinging a sack of bricks, putting a plastic bag over someone's head, hitting them with a pipe wrench, or a bike lock, is deadly force. Deadly force should be met with deadly force. That includes the use of a firearm in defense of lives.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.