
The BBC is wrong: university censorship is definitely not a myth - leephillips
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/10/the-bbc-is-wrong-university-censorship-is-definitely-not-a-myth/
======
TheOtherHobbes
Someone has done some analysis, and - as is often the case - the narrative
diverges significantly from the facts.

[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/8/3/17644180/po...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-
georgetown)

~~~
dreta
"Move along, there's nothing to see here" mentality. Just because the sky's
not falling, doesn't mean there's no problem.

Freedom of speech is a right that's frightingly easy for people to give up,
and articles like these do nothing but hurt the situation.

------
oliwarner
This is just as bad as the analysis it critiques...

> could even make teaching a biology class tricky

It's slippery-slope, _might_ -happen, fear-mongering like this that seems to
"force" members of the alt-right to test the boundaries. Aka, be twattish
until somebody calls you out, tells you to go away and then claim unfairness.
Same works the other way too. It's not discrimination that an established
church won't marry you and your gender-fluid beagle.

We need to stop testing social policy by extremes. The vast majority, the
moderates aren't represented at all.

------
electricwater
University censorship has always existed. I think that right-wing universities
will start to emerge all around the U.S. in a form way more prevalent than
what they are now, similar to how Fox News emerged. Instead of co-existing
with another point of view, we drive them out, segregating and polarizing the
other side.

I remember back when Kissinger came to campus. There were a group of students
that protest all week before and during his 4 hour stay. It almost got
cancelled.

I think it is healthy to hear their arguments of the people you don't agree
with and come up with counter-arguments proving them wrong instead of shunning
them away.

(English is not my first language - sorry for the grammar mistakes.)

~~~
mikekchar
> I think it is healthy to hear their arguments of the people you don't agree
> with and come up with counter-arguments proving them wrong instead of
> shunning them away.

There may be a small problem with that. It is easy for people to keep making
the same arguments over and over and over again. You will get tired of coming
up with counter-arguments. Eventually you will quit, and they will be the only
people talking.

It is especially difficult if the other person chooses their argument so that
it is easy to say, but difficult to explain why it is wrong. An example might
be: Eating eggs is unhealthy because there is a lot of fat. It's an easy
argument to make and defend, but it is too simple to be true. Eating eggs can
be very healthy in many circumstances, but to explain why requires a lot of
technical explanation.

Usually people will prepare ways to defend their argument. For example, they
will collect a list of papers that show that eating fat is unhealthy. It's
easy to find hundreds of them. If you say, "We need to eat some fat", then
they can list a hundred papers and say, "You have to argue against all of
these papers". Of course it is impossible.

Because of this, it is often best to avoid discussing things with people who
have no intention of listening to you.

~~~
dreta
so, in your opinion, it's alright to ban people from speaking because it gets
tiring when they're obviously wrong, and still they refuse to stop talking

~~~
kirkules
Yes, banning trolls is morally fine. If you want to design a system to
automatically detect them, that's where things get hard

~~~
dreta
the way you said it, it looks like we can just model the system based on your
understanding of what's right or wrong, or maybe you have some other
infallible person in mind?

------
slivym
I hate this debate. Firstly, this headline is terrible - the BBC basically
states that Universities do not censor speech and the facts back them up. They
make the perfectly valid point that practically all 'censorship', 'no
platforming' and 'protests' cited are actually carried out by independent
bodies such as student unions. The Spectator is just factually wrong, they're
trying to conflate debates about what are valid ideas to discuss between
independent political bodies at universities with the idea that the
universities themselves are taking an active role in censoring speech which is
incorrect.

Secondly, and more broadly though - it should be down to the people at
university to decide what they discuss, what should be beyond discussion at
their university and how those ideas should be discussed. No student is
restrained from going outside of their campus to discuss ideas either. It's
also not the same thing stopping someone speaking and stopping someone using
university resources to speak. What this debate actually seems to be about is
older, right wing people attempting to force their right wing view points into
universities that simply aren't receptive to them. It's not good enough for
Tom Slater that students simply don't want to hear his fact-free anecdata
about censorship. The arguments simply don't stand up to basic scrutiny- if
the problem is that Tommy Robinson is having his free speech curtailed, then
quick! Take down those videos of him standing on stage outside the high court,
take down that interview at the Oxford Union, censor those pictures of him
having lunch in the House of Lords. But if one of the most famous right wing
campaigners is being censored then I need a bit more evidence for it than just
the convicted fraudsters word for it.

------
ThJ
Can't read article due to paywall.

