Princeton teaches its students to stifle open debate with CENSORSHIP‼️
Instead of training its students to elucidate and persuade interlocutors in open discussions, Princeton indoctrinates its students to resort to CENSORSHIP to shut down ALL DEBATE‼️
Why would any family send their child to receive an inferior “education” at Princeton⁉️😡🤬
Malice says people don’t care about facts, only narratives, then he goes on to list a bunch of facts about, e.g., the USSR, that caused lefties to abandon the communist cause, thereby refuting himself.
I understand Malice’s point that free speech doesn’t mean that you are required to listen to every person’s (allegedly) reprehensible ideas but you do run the risk of shielding your ideas from good criticism if you are too indiscriminate. For example, if Randi Weingarten shields herself from Malice’s views on education, then she will never learn the error of her ways—but that’s exactly what Malice is telling her (and others) to do! No doubt Weingarten thinks that Malice is the “evil” one. (Why would anyone choose to be evil? Genetic character flaws?)
Yes, the Princeton admins resp. for these rules, and the application of them in this case are the bigger culprits by far, in each case meriting, at the least, a memo in their file, explaining how they exposed Princeton to disgrace, to rational suspicion of hostility to the U.S. Constitution, and to legal loss. And no, I'm not saying that for the grad student, this is a never-hire type of offense in the eyes of all non-progressivist persons and institutions, but, it certainly is no plus. So I think it is a reasonable expectation that FIRE, and Princeton, make the name of the students known in cases like this, even if it remains free for any member of the public to check to court transcripts themselves. The public does many things via taxation and otherwise to make GRADUATE education possible, even at Princeton. At that stage, citizens have reason to expect better, and for institutions to put offenses against democratic trust on the record.
No-Contact Order = CENSORSHIP ‼️
No-Communication Order = CENSORSHIP‼️
Princeton teaches its students to stifle open debate with CENSORSHIP‼️
Instead of training its students to elucidate and persuade interlocutors in open discussions, Princeton indoctrinates its students to resort to CENSORSHIP to shut down ALL DEBATE‼️
Why would any family send their child to receive an inferior “education” at Princeton⁉️😡🤬
Malice says people don’t care about facts, only narratives, then he goes on to list a bunch of facts about, e.g., the USSR, that caused lefties to abandon the communist cause, thereby refuting himself.
Mr. Lukianoff - Thanks for the podcast on the anarchist perspective on free speech. I’ll check it out. Here’s my latest post on the First Amendment, specifically the relationship between religion and education. I ask whether government funding of education is just? https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/religion-education-and-identity?r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I understand Malice’s point that free speech doesn’t mean that you are required to listen to every person’s (allegedly) reprehensible ideas but you do run the risk of shielding your ideas from good criticism if you are too indiscriminate. For example, if Randi Weingarten shields herself from Malice’s views on education, then she will never learn the error of her ways—but that’s exactly what Malice is telling her (and others) to do! No doubt Weingarten thinks that Malice is the “evil” one. (Why would anyone choose to be evil? Genetic character flaws?)
The graduate student in question should be named.
Yes, the Princeton admins resp. for these rules, and the application of them in this case are the bigger culprits by far, in each case meriting, at the least, a memo in their file, explaining how they exposed Princeton to disgrace, to rational suspicion of hostility to the U.S. Constitution, and to legal loss. And no, I'm not saying that for the grad student, this is a never-hire type of offense in the eyes of all non-progressivist persons and institutions, but, it certainly is no plus. So I think it is a reasonable expectation that FIRE, and Princeton, make the name of the students known in cases like this, even if it remains free for any member of the public to check to court transcripts themselves. The public does many things via taxation and otherwise to make GRADUATE education possible, even at Princeton. At that stage, citizens have reason to expect better, and for institutions to put offenses against democratic trust on the record.