My other response is that it’s not that this type of thing is suppressing free speech, it’s trading off between two groups feeling comfortable participating in a particular environment. Let’s look at the incidents in this article where there was a censorship of free speech:
The professor refused to allow a student to capitalize words in their dissertation paper, citing the Chicago Manual of Style. The students preferred APA, but the professor would not let them use the style they prefer.
Similarly, a TA says they aren’t allowed to comment on correcting grammar.
The author of the article commenting over and over on “poor” writing style.
Protesting a t-shirt that pictured a professor who created a theory that states that students who get in on affirmative action are not as good of a match for the college, because they wouldn’t have been admitted otherwise.
In many of thees situations, there are two groups where free speech is a concern: Academic groups trying to enforce a certain style of writing, and students trying to write in the way they feel expresses themselves the best.
At best, this is a conflict of different group’s ability to speak freely. At worst, it’s a continuation of the idea that writing in a style of a non-white cultures is somehow worse or less professional.
The only other thing was the T-shirt. To students who are affected by AA, that teacher was basically saying “you don’t belong here.” Obviously, that was not the intent of people who were wearing the t-shirts. And I am not sure how I feel on the overall reaction to this, but it is definitely understandable that affected students would feel uncomfortable by seeing a t-shirt with this guy’s face on it.
College courses do not exist to provide an opportunity for student to “speak freely”. They are not open forums for students to express themselves. Self-expression may be a part of a college course, but the school has absolute discretion to decide how much latitude is allowed. Treating the professor and the students as having comparable interests fundamentally misrepresents the basic nature of a college court.
“Protesting a t-shirt that pictured a professor who created a theory that states that students who get in on affirmative action are not as good of a match for the college, because they wouldn’t have been admitted otherwise.”
The professor says that the colleges are not good match for the students. You are subtly changing the focus of his theory to make it seem more offensive.
“At worst, it’s a continuation of the idea that writing in a style of a non-white cultures is somehow worse or less professional.”
That doesn’t make sense. Writing styles don’t have ethnicities, and pretending otherwise is leftist mind-killing. Different styles are more predominant among different ethnicities, but there is no such thing as a “white” writing style.
“To students who are affected by AA, that teacher was basically saying “you don’t belong here.” ”
You are simply flaunting your ignorance. This took place at UCLA, which is part of the UC system, which does not have AA. Even if there were, the professor’s writings was not directed towards UCLA students. The idea that no professor should express any thoughts as to who should be admitted, because those that the views do not benefit will take offense, is absurd. And again, you are phrasing it in the most offensive way possible. He isn’t saying “You don’t belong here”. he’s saying “You would have better expected outcomes if you went elsewhere”.
I also wonder at your choice of the word “affected”. Why such a obfuscatory term?
I agree with the bulk of your post, but one part is false.
Self-expression may be a part of a college course, but the school has absolute discretion to decide how much latitude is allowed.
This is not true in a public university (such as UCLA) in the United States, which is bound by the First Amendment. I won’t get into the details, but UCLA can restrict self-expression in some ways, but not others—it definitely does not have absolute discretion. Similar rules apply in many other jurisdictions.
At worst, it’s a continuation of the idea that writing in a style of a non-white cultures is somehow worse or less professional.
That’s an interesting idea, actually. Is there any evidence that the peculiar writing featured in the article is actually a distinctive style as opposed to, for lack of a better term, “bad English”?
That’s a bit snarky, but yes, “correct style” may be arbitrary, but without it, we’d drift towards not being able to understand each other. All told, I think a professor (esp. in a thesis writing prep class) is expected to correct students’ grammar, and this one was treated shabbily.
I think you’re right that a lot of par for the course friction between groups is being cherry-picked and made to look like a broad trend, when it isn’t nearly so broad if it is anything.
There’s a lot of cherry picking, and a lot of making up out of whole cloth.
Note that the mythical “8 levels” were so well established, in a way, that Yahoo is even now, spitting it out matter of factly, 3 months after I wrote my piece. I just tried it (entering: What are the 8 levels of control as outlined by Saul Alinsky?) to answers.yahoo.com
And yet, I warrant very few people have any idea that it’s going around, unless they spend quite a bit of time on right wing web sites—and read the comments, because the site’s main author(s) -- at least on the more important blogs, won’t be caught telling such flat-out lies.
My other response is that it’s not that this type of thing is suppressing free speech, it’s trading off between two groups feeling comfortable participating in a particular environment. Let’s look at the incidents in this article where there was a censorship of free speech:
The professor refused to allow a student to capitalize words in their dissertation paper, citing the Chicago Manual of Style. The students preferred APA, but the professor would not let them use the style they prefer.
Similarly, a TA says they aren’t allowed to comment on correcting grammar.
The author of the article commenting over and over on “poor” writing style.
Protesting a t-shirt that pictured a professor who created a theory that states that students who get in on affirmative action are not as good of a match for the college, because they wouldn’t have been admitted otherwise.
In many of thees situations, there are two groups where free speech is a concern: Academic groups trying to enforce a certain style of writing, and students trying to write in the way they feel expresses themselves the best.
At best, this is a conflict of different group’s ability to speak freely. At worst, it’s a continuation of the idea that writing in a style of a non-white cultures is somehow worse or less professional.
The only other thing was the T-shirt. To students who are affected by AA, that teacher was basically saying “you don’t belong here.” Obviously, that was not the intent of people who were wearing the t-shirts. And I am not sure how I feel on the overall reaction to this, but it is definitely understandable that affected students would feel uncomfortable by seeing a t-shirt with this guy’s face on it.
So, send out a resume written in ebonics, see how successful will it be.
Feel uncomfortable! Oh, the horror!
College courses do not exist to provide an opportunity for student to “speak freely”. They are not open forums for students to express themselves. Self-expression may be a part of a college course, but the school has absolute discretion to decide how much latitude is allowed. Treating the professor and the students as having comparable interests fundamentally misrepresents the basic nature of a college court.
“Protesting a t-shirt that pictured a professor who created a theory that states that students who get in on affirmative action are not as good of a match for the college, because they wouldn’t have been admitted otherwise.”
The professor says that the colleges are not good match for the students. You are subtly changing the focus of his theory to make it seem more offensive.
“At worst, it’s a continuation of the idea that writing in a style of a non-white cultures is somehow worse or less professional.”
That doesn’t make sense. Writing styles don’t have ethnicities, and pretending otherwise is leftist mind-killing. Different styles are more predominant among different ethnicities, but there is no such thing as a “white” writing style.
“To students who are affected by AA, that teacher was basically saying “you don’t belong here.” ”
You are simply flaunting your ignorance. This took place at UCLA, which is part of the UC system, which does not have AA. Even if there were, the professor’s writings was not directed towards UCLA students. The idea that no professor should express any thoughts as to who should be admitted, because those that the views do not benefit will take offense, is absurd. And again, you are phrasing it in the most offensive way possible. He isn’t saying “You don’t belong here”. he’s saying “You would have better expected outcomes if you went elsewhere”.
I also wonder at your choice of the word “affected”. Why such a obfuscatory term?
I agree with the bulk of your post, but one part is false.
This is not true in a public university (such as UCLA) in the United States, which is bound by the First Amendment. I won’t get into the details, but UCLA can restrict self-expression in some ways, but not others—it definitely does not have absolute discretion. Similar rules apply in many other jurisdictions.
That’s an interesting idea, actually. Is there any evidence that the peculiar writing featured in the article is actually a distinctive style as opposed to, for lack of a better term, “bad English”?
That’s a bit snarky, but yes, “correct style” may be arbitrary, but without it, we’d drift towards not being able to understand each other. All told, I think a professor (esp. in a thesis writing prep class) is expected to correct students’ grammar, and this one was treated shabbily.
I think you’re right that a lot of par for the course friction between groups is being cherry-picked and made to look like a broad trend, when it isn’t nearly so broad if it is anything.
There’s a lot of cherry picking, and a lot of making up out of whole cloth.
An example of the latter: http://therealtruthproject.blogspot.com/2014/07/myths-about-saul-alinsky-and-obama.html with an addendum: http://therealtruthproject.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-did-saul-alinsky-really-say.html
Note that the mythical “8 levels” were so well established, in a way, that Yahoo is even now, spitting it out matter of factly, 3 months after I wrote my piece. I just tried it (entering: What are the 8 levels of control as outlined by Saul Alinsky?) to answers.yahoo.com
And yet, I warrant very few people have any idea that it’s going around, unless they spend quite a bit of time on right wing web sites—and read the comments, because the site’s main author(s) -- at least on the more important blogs, won’t be caught telling such flat-out lies.