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
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...
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.