Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s Post

In this moment, our commitments to free inquiry, evidence, dialogue, and the right to intellectual dissent are being tested. If we do not protect these basic rights, we allow propaganda, irrationality, and dogmatism to determine our notions of truth and morality — without even knowing it. In this moment of filter bubbles, shadowbans, partisan media, and demagoguery, demand fully articulated and detailed information; demand to see the evidence; demand primary sources; demand historical context; demand more than soundbites. Demand the space to research, think for yourself, and reach your own conclusions. Demand the right to respectfully disagree. This is hard work. We live in a consumer culture largely designed to keep us in a state of cognitive sedation. And this is precisely why we must remain compassionate and patient with those who stubbornly turn away from facts and critical inquiry; for social media, bestselling books, celebrated public intellectuals, conversations over family dinners, and snappy lines from favourite films are filled with disinformation and basic ignorance. This piece by Judith Butler raises critical questions about the challenges facing universities and the public sphere, and the risks of intellectual bigotry: https://lnkd.in/dPNw3drC Excerpts: "At universities, we question the question for its premises. If we lose that critical capacity from our classrooms and from public life, we have lost our mission, and we have failed ourselves and our students. [...] Censorship is always the instrument of the weak. Yes, it wields power, but it confesses that matters are already out of the control of those who use it. Censorship is deployed by those who seek to contain or eliminate a point of view they do not want to be heard. It attributes great power to that point of view because, perhaps, it knows that vocal opposition to injustice can attract supporters who still have the courage to see, name, and oppose the horror of what is happening." (The whole article is worth reading. I refrained from quoting passages that would get this post shadowbanned.)

In the ever more diverse and ambiguous world, we must accept that there is rarely one truth, but that truth has always been multidimensional. "Rather than shying away from uncomfortable subjects, professors should encourage students to hear out ideas that may be upsetting and learn how to regulate their own feelings and reactions. Written assignments should give students practice in using measured, persuasive terms to voice controversial ideas and challenge orthodoxies. Faculty advisers should help student organizations to plan and practice protests in ways that may be boisterous but do not impinge on the speech rights of others. " Debates can be contentious but they don't have to be disrespectful.

Yes, a recent article by Amy Royce said, "As it stands today, our tax code already fails to fairly tax income from wealth, compared to income from work, which provides a huge benefit to those at the top. It’s why billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than many working people. In fact, some billionaires, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, have successfully exploited loopholes that allowed them to pay zero dollars in federal income tax in some years. This inherent unfairness at the heart of the tax code comes at the expense of women and people of color, who are underrepresented among the billionaires who benefit the most. This unfairness deprives the federal government of tax revenues that could be invested in ways that support our collective success and wellbeing, especially for those who have been historically shortchanged by our economic systems and structures." https://lnkd.in/g6NyB5Wv. We must understand how cases like these affect economic security for the most marginalized members of our community and then we must fight for justice and sustainability for all of us. #EconomicSecurity #Justice #Law #Wealth vs #Work #TaxLaw #DisabilityJustice #Ethics #EconomicJustice

Bloomberg is right in that the lack of viewpoint diversity in academia is at the root cause of the issues we are dealing with. Universities have been hijacked by militants. There is however one aspect that I have not seen people discuss, which is the matter of accountability/responsibility of teaching based on facts. If a professor were to teach students that the Earth is flat, s/he would be fired. Why are they allowed to teach that Israel is "an apartheid state" when it does not hold any of the characteristics of an apartheid regime? There should be consequences for teaching falsehoods and narratives that are not grounded on facts. University of Pennsylvania Harvard University Columbia UniversityCornell University https://lnkd.in/eKCxx57n

Today included some discussion with university senior leaders about how we develop greater consistency in the practice of free speech between union & university or at least a clearer rationale for the differences and some assurance these meet free speech obligations. It’s fair to say this reasonable endeavour is all much harder when the legislative framework and appetite for free speech from the government seems a bit fluid right now with a growing sense that the practice of free speech should avoid offence or antagonising communities in the current context having previously been very explicit that free speech included the right to offend and the role of free speech over and above the responsibility to keep people safe from harm. From where I’m sat I think the decisions and judgements on how to practice free speech are often better when not subject to juvenile culture wars, excessive external interference and the suggestion that judgement about balancing sensitivities is best served by legislation and media commentators rather than the communities who live on, study at or operate on university campuses. Free speech is a right best served with community respect and collaboration rather than drum banging, newspaper headlines and political agendas. #StudentLife #universities

Is university a political actor? In this blog post, we share some thoughts with my project co-researcher, Taru Koivisto, about the complexity of higher education as political and relational to its surrounding social systems. https://lnkd.in/eBufCNFd

https://lnkd.in/gfmjQCPu "Our primary recommendation is to nurture and protect more speech, not less. That means cultivating robust debate and adhering to core values of free speech and academic freedom, even and especially in the face of pressure."

An international university that suppresses the voices of their international students is entirely out of touch. Check out my article where discuss the importance of students utilizing their platform-- and how censorship shouldn't be in the picture. ⤵ https://lnkd.in/e6Ewu2j6

So not only are Hamas fabulists, but so are their useful idiots on college campuses. A out of context clip was cut from a confrontation with an economics professor at University of Southern California to imply that he called for the death of USC students and all of Gaza. That clip caused a huge uproar! But, if we learned anything from our favorite college presidents, context counts. CNN says that a longer clip reveals the truth. https://lnkd.in/e8xhcrhV But the story doesn't end with CNN's reporting What is especially disconcerting is that although CNN makes it sound like this longer clip is new news, the reality is that it was reported on in full two weeks ago: https://lnkd.in/eccN-yDx And yet, even with the full clip and the full story, University of Southern California took actions against the professor, putting him under investigation even a week later. And CAIR, the discredited Council on US Islam Relations, called for an investigation. It would seem that University of Southern California knew the truth, and only sought to mollify the bloodthirsty mob on campus. Is CNN trying to help them? Or are they just late to the game?

Tuesday, December 12, 2023 4 PM–5:30 PM US Eastern Time Harvard Radcliffe Institute will host an interdisciplinary panel to discuss the purposes and scope of academic freedom and the legal norms that govern how universities respond to conflict and protest. The program will integrate concerns about antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other identity-based hatreds—issues that have received increased attention in the context of the ongoing Gaza crisis and attendant campus controversies—into a broader set of questions about the role of institutions of higher education. Speakers will explore the constitutional and statutory rules that govern universities; how these rules interact with the institutions’ research, teaching, and service missions and codes of conduct; and the line between protected political speech and hate speech. Free and open to the public. https://lnkd.in/eSpg2Y6c