December 1, 2010

“Holocaust Denial From U.S. Professors: Academic Freedom?”

So asks Alex Joffe at PJM.

To which the answer is simple: so long as it’s uttered in a designated free speech zone, there shouldn’t be a problem. Free speech zones are intellectually sacrosanct.

It’s everywhere else that the Jews control.

Ahem.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:44am
20 comments | Trackback

Comments (20)

  1. “This is AMERICA, asshole! The WHOLE FUCKING PLACE is a free-speech zone!”

  2. My alma mater was considering a “free speech zone” during the ’80s.

    I thought it was a goofy idea even then, and when I asked why a university needed to set aside a place for free speech, nobody really had an answer.

    In the end the idea faded away — though for all I know it came back later and now you can say anything you like over in the paved area behind the dining commons, as long as you dont’t block truck access to the loading dock.

  3. Precisely, mojo. Prof Siddique may spout the most egregious crap, but it is his right, endowed by his Creator, to spout it.

    [Holocaust denial is] also effectively hate speech, whatever the intent of the speaker. It denies people their history and obliterates the fate of their relatives on the basis of their religion and ethnicity.

    I’m afraid I don’t give a monkey’s if it is “hate speech” – it is speech, and he may speak it. Equally, his students have the right to disagree with him and point out, without fear of retribution, how he is talking bollocks. Man, that “hate speech” stuff really chaps my ass.

  4. Man, that “hate speech” stuff really chaps my ass.

    Denounced. You crypto-hater, you.

  5. The very idea of a free speech zone is fascist in my book. If you let them go with that, pretty soon they will set up a free speech zone in a place like ANWAR, but everywhere else speech will be thoroughly regulated.

  6. SW, as long as his forum isn’t being funded in any way, shape or form by my tax dollars, I agree.

  7. As long as he doesn’t deny about the climate changings I don’t see the problem.

  8. SDN, don’t you see academic freedom of speech, even speech you disagree with, as being fundamental to university education?

  9. The very idea of a free speech zone is fascist in my book.

    That would explain why the concept has its origins in Berkeley, then.

    Semi-related: My favorite example of Double-Think is the pro-Palestinian, the Holocaust is a myth/we’re gonna finish what Hitler started cant one hears from time to time.

  10. Not when what the academic’s saying is fundamentally dishonest, I don’t.

  11. SW, the university is where you should be spouting all sorts of nonsense, without fear of academic reprisal. The fact is, though, that “wrong” beliefs can get you punished if you share them. That needs to stop.

  12. Isn’t that the whole point of a university education – to examine what others say and write, subject these things to your reason, and find them valid or wanting? Otherwise, do you vet speech beforehand, or discipline errant speech post-hoc? The whole point of FIRE is to fight against any and all such attempts to limit discourse.

    Who gets to decide which speech is dishonest?

  13. Oh, I couldn’t agree with you more, cranky. It is equally disgraceful to punish student speech that is unpalatable to the lecturer. We put up with this garbage in Britain (see Wendy Kaminer here), but of course the difference is that here, we can go to jail for speech that someone else dislikes.

  14. SW, I was actually thinking of students as well. Students here in the U.S. are usually afraid to say anything because that gets you a lower grade. Not always, but often enough.

  15. Students here in the U.S. are usually afraid to say anything because that gets you a lower grade.

    A handful, perhaps. I fear that the majority aren’t afraid of any such thing, since it would never dawn on them to question the narrative they’ve been fed since kindergarten.

  16. Students here in the U.S. are usually afraid to say anything because that gets you a lower grade.

    A handful, perhaps. I fear that the majority aren’t afraid of any such thing, since it would never dawn on them to question the narrative they’ve been fed since kindergarten.

    That’s really the nub of the problem, isn’t it? We have an education system that rewards one with proper credentials for producing the appropriate answers at the appropriate time. “Critical thinking” rarely occurs, even in classes which propose to teach this (purportedly essential to the future success of the 21st-century worker) skill.

  17. Kids these days think the “authority” they’re supposed to question is some guy on the radio or with a blog — never the fucking government and the fucking credentialed elite that supports whatever it does.

  18. Guys, I wouldn’t sell the students quite so short. Of course they regurgitate the professor’s line to get a grade, they’re not stupid (at least not all of them). But they’re also kids and they’re contrary as hell just like we were at their age. By definition they think their parents, their teachers, and pretty much anyone else over 30 is full of shit, just like we did. Nothing has changed there in thousands of years.

    Actually, that gives me great hope for the youngsters. The indoctrination factories liberals have made of our schools are failing in that mission. College kids I talk to today are far more conservative than I was at their age. They laugh at all the dried up old hippies with their Birkenstocks and gray wool socks, just not to their faces.

  19. The last time I was exposed to liberal claptrap in a classroom setting, I spoke up about it. Then again, I was in my late 30s, and pretty much not afraid of anything they would throw at me because I knew I could win the argument. The thing is, I had quite a few silent supporters. I could tell both by the way they didn’t shun me and even more by the looks on their faces.

  20. Pingback: Steynian 431rd « Free Canuckistan!

Leave a Reply