More Race and PC problems at Harvard

[Mad Monkey]

This situation kinda reminds me of when I explained to co-workers at my steel mill that I firmly believe gay couples should be allowed to adopt... Except they didn't demand I be fired or a host of other things. :o

Sure, but if they had forwarded your comments to every blog on the Internet (and all blog commentators are cruel, childish, and ignorant, regardless of political alignment) and framed it as something like, "Area steelworker supports child gay sex", the same thing could have happened.

[mormont]

Once again, the question is not whether she matters in the grand schemes of things, it is whether she should be allowed to speak (and have her message actually heard).

Here's the basic flaw in your reasoning: you refer to 'the question' and then go on to discuss what are in fact two different questions. The right to speak doesn't imply a right to an audience - let alone a passive and receptive audience. You might well say, if that's so, what use is the right to speak? And the answer is, it gives you the chance to earn an audience. But even if you don't like that answer, it doesn't change the error you're making. Everyone has a right to speak, but we do not have a duty to listen to everyone.

That said, the issue in this case is not the right to an audience - this email has clearly found a very wide audience. The issues in this case are about privacy and the limits of criticism, which have more to do with how the email found an audience and what that audience's reaction should be.

ETA: In fact, the linked Wikipedia page contains this little gem "the majority [of academics] believe that Blacks are genetically inferior" (Kouyate and Taylor, 2003). This is, of course, an outrageously inflammatory formulation (I have never seen a race–intelligence paper using the term "inferior" — the preposterous idea that being less intelligent makes you inferior comes strictly form the liberal left), but (modulo the invective) close to the point I want to make: the law student merely says what science is saying.

HE, there is just no way you can stand that bolded bit of hyperbole up. You're seriously suggesting that nobody on the right thinks that lower intelligence is inferior to higher intelligence? Quite apart from the fact that almost everyone in this thread is clearly operating on that assumption (right and left, and regardless of their view about the validity of the research), it would be absurd to suggest that the far right don't view the research on race and IQ as 'scientific proof' of white superiority. Such a claim can be easily rejected by the most cursory search of the internet, though it might take you to some of the nastier recesses.

[Nous]

This is absurd. I'm sorry for her, although I'd have respected her more if she hadn't made the standard semi-ritualistic pseudo-apology. Her being "deeply sorry for the pain caused" is neither an apology nor genuine. I like to think that in her place I'd have thrown my scorn and defiance at the mob. Of course, I'm neither in her position nor in possession of anything except the most cursory picture of the situation.

When even daring to express less than total conviction leads to hysterical condemnation and witch hunt, something is wrong. There may be some place for sacred cows even in supposedly scientific institutions, but at Harvard they seem to be leading the herd.

[Tempra]

Because a frank discussion on subjects doesn't mean inviting any old moron off the street to talk about it.

Coulter is just some moron from the street. There's no reason to listen to anything she has to say.

Then don't listen to her. Go watch the football game instead. Go play video games. Go hit on some girl and get laid. But, if you do go, have some respect for the people who are actually inclined to hear what she has to say.

[Tempra]

Here's the basic flaw in your reasoning: you refer to 'the question' and then go on to discuss what are in fact two different questions. The right to speak doesn't imply a right to an audience - let alone a passive and receptive audience. You might well say, if that's so, what use is the right to speak? And the answer is, it gives you the chance to earn an audience. But even if you don't like that answer, it doesn't change the error you're making. Everyone has a right to speak, but we do not have a duty to listen to everyone.

If you've actually read the conversation that you're quoting from, you'd understand that i've said as much. The problem is, when you make it impossible for someone to even speak, they cannot "earn an audience." I don't expect anyone to like what David Horowitz or Ann Coulter have to say, but if they are invited to a school, they should not be physically attacked, have their books stolen, have signs ripped down announcing their speaking engagement, and then be met by a fringe group who make it impossible for them to even speak.

Protesters can wear their t-shirts that say "racist," they can boo when the speaker says something particularly offensive, they can say nasty things to the speaker during the open mic, they can hold signs saying "you're unwelcome...racist," or, shockingly, they can disagree by NOT SHOWING UP.

It sets a very dangerous precedent that the way to respond to an individual you disagree with is to shout and make it impossible for them to speak. Do you think it would be acceptable for the God Squad to show up at every lecture about evolution and taunt the speakers into submission? Is that how you imagine the market place of ideas and how universities should conduct frank conversations? Whichever side can bring more goons to shout the loudest wins in the market place of ideas?

That said, the issue in this case is not the right to an audience - this email has clearly found a very wide audience. The issues in this case are about privacy and the limits of criticism, which have more to do with how the email found an audience and what that audience's reaction should be.

If you actually read what you were quoting from, you'd see that line of conversation was about Anne Coulter / David Horwitz.

[Tempra]

She is not offering proof but expanding upon her position in ways that absolutely confirm my (and the general) interpretation.

She is not offering proof? Let's evaluate what she said.

"The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) "

She gives two examples of somethings that are genetic. Rather uncontroversial, and in no way supports your conclusion that she said "black people are dumber than whites, prove me wrong."

"Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders."

Proof of differences between men and women (of dubious quality). Again, this in no way supports your conclusion that she said "black people are dumber than whites, prove me wrong."

"This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria."

And more proof about a genetic link to intelligence (again of a dubious quality). Once more, this in no way supports your conclusion that she said "black people are dumber than whites, prove me wrong."

We are thus left with this statement: "I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner."

That is the statement I posted and it encapsulates what she says "it is possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level." Her comments are inflammatory enough without you mischaracterizing them.

The correctness of her proof does not matter (and I've already stated in the very first post that I disagree with her completely), it is whether her comments were so inflammatory to warrant her treatment.

What fucking nonsense. I am only "reading between the lines" in the sense that I am discussing the sentences which you carefully omitted from your selective quotations. Exactly what additional context do we need to add to a 500 word email?

And your additional sentences do not show that she said "blacks are dumber than whites, prove me wrong." You have put those words into her mouth. In fact, she also said:

"I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances."

As for additional context, we would want to know everything about the prior conversation. Why were they talking about race and intelligence? What were the positions of the other two conversationalists? What did she say at the dinner that she felt she needed clarify? It is not like we have a law review article or a speech on race and intelligence to judge her. We have a very incomplete thought.

I don't necessarily condone the fallout of this fiasco, but your attempt to make her into some kind of innocent martyr for free speech is ineffectual.

I have never said she's innocent. I said upfront that I disagree with her position. This thread, since you've seemed to miss the point, is about whether the fallout was warranted and NOT about whether she got the science right. People seemed to understand this for the first several pages.

[Aemon Stark]

The correctness of her proof does not matter (and I've already stated in the very first post that I disagree with her completely), it is whether her comments were so inflammatory to warrant her treatment.

If this supposedly smart individual is not familiar with the inflammatory nature of scientific racism, she has a poor grasp of recent history. The sort of "research" she discusses has some fairly direct connections to eugenics and overt racism, as exemplified by the lineage of things like the Pioneer Fund.

[Shryke]

Then don't listen to her. Go watch the football game instead. Go play video games. Go hit on some girl and get laid. But, if you do go, have some respect for the people who are actually inclined to hear what she has to say.

Paying her to speak is not a passive activity. She does not have some nebulous "right" to be payed to speak at a university.

[Tempra]

Paying her to speak is not a passive activity. She does not have some nebulous "right" to be payed to speak at a university.

Of course not. A university does not have to pay her fee. Universities often choose which speech they want to endorse by only paying certain individuals to speak. That is entirely acceptable. However, it is often student organizations that pay for conservative speakers to come. Once she IS invited, the ballgame changes.

[Tempra]

If this supposedly smart individual is not familiar with the inflammatory nature of scientific racism, she has a poor grasp of recent history. The sort of "research" she discusses has some fairly direct connections to eugenics and overt racism, as exemplified by the lineage of things like the Pioneer Fund.

I think she understands the inflammatory nature of her email, which is why she ended with the Larry Summers comment. But if a private individual cannot engage in a private discussion about an inflammatory subject without her entire livelihood being threatened, we have a very illusory and shallow respect for difference of opinion. I am not sure how forcing this type of dialogue further underground (i.e. removing it from written speech altogether) benefits anyone.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Since it hasn't been said yet, I'd hit it.

I was hoping she'd be really cute, I was a bit disappointed.

I've always felt stupid and dumb beyond my control, even though I'm white, I think I'm genetically predisposed to be stupid.

[Datepalm]

I think she understands the inflammatory nature of her email, which is why she ended with the Larry Summers comment. But if a private individual cannot engage in a private discussion about an inflammatory subject without her entire livelihood being threatened, we have a very illusory and shallow respect for difference of opinion. I am not sure how forcing this type of dialogue further underground (i.e. removing it from written speech altogether) benefits anyone.

this isn't about freedom to express difference of opinion - had she said this in any public context, she would utterly deserve to have herself ripped apart by ravening wolves of public opinion. People should be allowed to speak but they should have no protection (beyond the law as it applies elsewhere) from peoples reaction. The issue is the intrustion into her privacy and the public reaction to a private conversation, not the way shes being treated for having that opinion.

[Tempra]

this isn't about freedom to express difference of opinion - had she said this in any public context, she would utterly deserve to have herself ripped apart by ravening wolves of public opinion. People should be allowed to speak but they should have no protection (beyond the law as it applies elsewhere) from peoples reaction. The issue is the intrustion into her privacy and the public reaction to a private conversation, not the way shes being treated for having that opinion.

I think the issues are bound together in this case and cannot be neatly severed. Her privacy rights were violated because she DID express an opinion that some/many/most think is taboo. As a result, people must guard against expressing any view that someone could deem unacceptable.

I am not saying that people need to start respecting racists' views, but we have a statement that is far from a typical racist spewing hatred. We can say she "dressed up" racism (which I think is a mischaracterization based on this statement alone), but, in reality, this incident has shown that a whole entire area of conversation is off limits. I don't see how that benefits anyone.

[Shryke]

I think the issues are bound together in this case and cannot be neatly severed. Her privacy rights were violated because she DID express an opinion that some/many/most think is taboo. As a result, people must guard against expressing any view that someone could deem unacceptable.

I am not saying that people need to start respecting racists' views, but we have a statement that is far from a typical racist spewing hatred. We can say she "dressed up" racism (which I think is a mischaracterization based on this statement alone), but, in reality, this incident has shown that a whole entire area of conversation is off limits. I don't see how that benefits anyone.

No, it showed that private correspondence isn't as private as it used to be.

[mormont]

If you've actually read the conversation that you're quoting from, you'd understand that i've said as much.

I have read it, and so far as I can see you never made that distinction, I'm afraid. In fact you seemed to be doing the opposite, blurring the two issues.

The problem is, when you make it impossible for someone to even speak, they cannot "earn an audience."

Are you claiming that Ann Coulter or David Horowitz have never been given the chance to speak? Or that they do not now have any way of getting their message heard? Of course not. They have had that right, they've exercised it, and they've earned an audience. All this must have happened before they could possibly have been invited to speak at a university.

Whatever one thinks of the reaction to that invitation, it's not sensible to say it has denied them their right to free speech. They have had that right and they continue to have it. What they were denied was a chance to speak at a particular time, in a particular venue, to a particular audience. While the tactics used to do that might be reprehensible (and are not something I'd want to encourage), these are separate issues to their constitutional right to free speech.

If you actually read what you were quoting from, you'd see that line of conversation was about Anne Coulter / David Horwitz.

Yes, I did know that. Hence my reference to 'in this case'. I was trying to bring the conversation back to the topic at hand. I don't actually make a habit of responding to conversations I haven't read.

[Datepalm]

I think the issues are bound together in this case and cannot be neatly severed. Her privacy rights were violated because she DID express an opinion that some/many/most think is taboo. As a result, people must guard against expressing any view that someone could deem unacceptable.

As far as I can tell, the email was forwaded out of malice, not ideology. If all her friend enemy had was an email where she called the Dean a total asshole, I assume they would have forwarded that to the Dean. I don't think people should guard against expressing any views - to the contrary, i'd be much happier if she's come out and written her opinions in the school paper or something - where she could be soundly tarred and feathered as she may well deserve (or not, I suppose. But this way we'd know for sure) and the whole issue fought out in public where these kinds of public social-political opinions should be.

I am not saying that people need to start respecting racists' views, but we have a statement that is far from a typical racist spewing hatred. We can say she "dressed up" racism (which I think is a mischaracterization based on this statement alone), but, in reality, this incident has shown that a whole entire area of conversation is off limits. I don't see how that benefits anyone.

I'd hardly say its off limits. For one thing, Larry Summers apparently managed to get a white house gig after his bit, so it hasn't exactly destroyed his career. More importantly, there have been numerous links to studies and articles both here and in the evo-psych thread of last week, so its not as if no one is studying the subject or discussing it. What you want is for us to nevertheless respect repugnant statements that go against those studies. Thats not free speech and thats not science.

[Liadin]

As far as I can tell, the email was forwaded out of malice, not ideology. If all her friend enemy had was an email where she called the Dean a total asshole, I assume they would have forwarded that to the Dean. I don't think people should guard against expressing any views - to the contrary, i'd be much happier if she's come out and written her opinions in the school paper or something - where she could be soundly tarred and feathered as she may well deserve (or not, I suppose. But this way we'd know for sure) and the whole issue fought out in public where these kinds of public social-political opinions should be.

But that's the whole point of privacy. If she were to share these opinions publicly, she'd get tarred and feathered, so she didn't. Are you saying that no one should hold opinions that they wouldn't be comfortable publishing in the school paper? Yes, the girl seems to be mistaken about science and thus might have benefitted from talking to someone other than her fellow Federalist Society members, but the fact is that most of us probably have opinions we wouldn't want to share with the world (at least, not with our real names attached). And that should be okay. And when something like this happens, it makes it look like it's not okay; like you can't even tell your friends what you think about some controversial subject without the Huffington Post calling for your expulsion. That's what's so scary about the whole thing.

[Datepalm]

But that's the whole point of privacy. If she were to share these opinions publicly, she'd get tarred and feathered, so she didn't. Are you saying that no one should hold opinions that they wouldn't be comfortable publishing in the school paper?

Well, like I said, in this case she didn't say them publicly and thats fair enough, and I do think the real issue here is the breach of privacy. I think Tempra was defending peoples right to have their opinions respected about the issue in general though, which I don't agree with. (or on any other issue. Respect has to be earned.)

However, I would say that I dont see the point of holding an opinion you wouldn't say out in public. If you believe in it, fight for it. If you're not sure, become sure. Shes far too old and theoretically too well educated to be allowed the benefit of the doubt of still intellectually maturing. The ability to be racist and offensive as a symptom of still 'figuring things out' is only marginally ok maybe in Highschool, not Law School.

I mean, I think anyone should be able to say whatever they want and keep it private if thats how it started out, but I don't think I should have any respect for closeted racists or idiots or both who are socially savvy enough to keep quiet about it.

[Liadin]

Well, like I said, in this case she didn't say them publicly and thats fair enough, and I do think the real issue here is the breach of privacy. I think Tempra was defending peoples right to have their opinions respected about the issue in general though, which I don't agree with. (or on any other issue. Respect has to be earned.)

However, I would say that I dont see the point of holding an opinion you wouldn't say out in public. If you believe in it, fight for it. If you're not sure, become sure. Shes far too old and theoretically too well educated to be allowed the benefit of the doubt of still intellectually maturing. The ability to be racist and offensive as a symptom of still 'figuring things out' is only marginally ok maybe in Highschool, not Law School.

I mean, I think anyone should be able to say whatever they want and keep it private if thats how it started out, but I don't think I should have any respect for closeted racists or idiots or both who are socially savvy enough to keep quiet about it.

I agree with you that people aren't obligated to respond to this girl politely. But, shouldn't people be intellectually maturing and growing their whole lives? This girl is, what, a 20-something? And still a student besides. She shouldn't be required to have firmly determined her opinions on every conceivable subject for the rest of her life.

Additionally, I just don't understand your "I dont see the point of holding an opinion you wouldn't say out in public." Most of our opinions aren't things we choose using a cost-benefit analysis. That's like saying "I don't know why you'd fall in love with somebody who doesn't want kids when you know you want them." It's not that simple. Do you think that people who are liberals but live in conservative areas deliberately choose to be liberal in order to be contrarian or feel unique? For that matter, do you think racists deliberately decide to be racist because after weighing the potential to lose minority friends and be publicly embarrassed against the opportunity to feel superior to another group, superiority wins out?

It just seems bizarre to suggest that if your beliefs might get you into trouble if media outlets knew about them, that you should just change your beliefs. And it goes against freedom of conscience besides.

[Tempra]

Well, like I said, in this case she didn't say them publicly and thats fair enough, and I do think the real issue here is the breach of privacy. I think Tempra was defending peoples right to have their opinions respected about the issue in general though, which I don't agree with. (or on any other issue. Respect has to be earned.)

I have nowhere said that we should respect her opinion. I have said that she should be able to voice her opinion in a private conversation without her entire livelihood being jeopardized.

When I said we have an "illusory and shallow respect of difference of opinion" I was referring to the gross and disproportionate response to the student's statements. Not that her opinion is entitled to equal respect. You should know this because in the prior post (which you responded to), I clearly said "I am not saying that people need to start respecting racists' views."