[otterley]

> How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant?

By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job.

> I think everyone has the right to campaign for their cause regardless if that cause is to stop someone else from doing something. I think it's up to the other party to argue their case as best as they can on their own merits instead of trying to shame the other group that are expressing their opinions. People who support free speech should celebrate the outpouring of free speech happening on campuses right now and they should form their own groups arguing for their causes rather than thinking they are morally superior even though they really just disagree since they want the same thing they are accusing their opponents for.

That's not the issue here. If this were all that were happening, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The issue is that speech is now being suppressed in higher education settings -- a place where (otherwise lawful) offense is expected to be tolerated -- by students who don't respond to offense with the sort of counterargument you're proposing. Instead, they are making demands for resignation or other forms of retribution, and these are starting to bear fruit.

[gozo]

> The issue is that speech is now being suppressed in higher education settings -- a place where (otherwise lawful) offense is expected to be tolerated -- by students who don't respond to offense with the sort of counterargument you're proposing. Instead, they are making demands for resignation or other forms of retribution, and these are starting to bear fruit.

Yeah, there's not much point in continuing this discussion. I don't see how you can in one sentence claim that "(otherwise lawful) offense" should be tolerated, but in the next say that calls for resignations or retribution (like boycotts) shouldn't be? Those aren't normally unlawful. Isn't that literally "lawful offence except those I disagree with like calls for resignation"?

[drumdance]

Let's stop speaking in abstractions. Look at the Silliman situation. Erika Christakis was persecuted not for anything she said, but for merely suggesting that the best way for students to deal with insensitive actions is to confront them directly instead of expecting the administration to do it for them.

If only more people behaved is way in the workplace.

[otterley]

It's not about disagreement. It's about the institution. If you don't agree with one of the main purposes of the institution -- to inculcate tolerance of differing views -- don't go there.

Meanwhile, the rest of us think this institution as it stands today still provides an incredibly valuable function in society. We make better decisions as a result because we're able to digest more opinions without vomiting all over ourselves.

[DanBC]

> By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job.

Does institutional racism and sexism and homophobia - which prevent some people even getting a job - count?

[otterley]

In many cases, sure, they do. It's pretty much the textbook definition of intolerance. But this is not the issue before us.

Here, the students were admitted, presumably with knowledge of these facts, and don't yet have a credible claim to any effect other than hurt feelings.

[otterley]

Re: the above post:

> I don't see how that isn't institutional discrimination.

Discriminating against people who get offended isn't unlawful. Not every instance of discrimination deserves to be righted. (If I kick you out of my perfume store because you smell like a distillery, the law does not, and should not, protect you.)

> What if it included writing an essay on "why bullying nerds are good for them" and people who've benn bullied couldn't do very well on that assignment, because they obviously took offence, is that not discrimination?

No, it is not. Again, there's no right to be protected against assignments that conflict with your upbringing. (In fact, one of the main goals of higher education is to make you see things from other points of view, even if they disturb you.) If you were offended by it, you'd be well off to still do the assignment but provide a strong counterargument instead.

[DanBC]

> and don't yet have a credible claim to any effect other than hurt feelings.

You appear to be saying that it's okay for people to call black colleagues niggers, and for the college to do nothing to support that black student because fuck them, hurt feelings, and that the long history of brutal racist treatment of black people in America should be ignored by any black people when someone calls them nigger.

Is that what you're saying? Because I can't find another interpretation.

[otterley]

Of course not.

First, none of the situations discussed involve the N-word, so what you're describing is a hypothetical example, and a very special one at that. I think it's expected that a professor or staff member would be fired for hurling racial epithets.

Students, on the other hand, are a different case. For them, it's the institution's duty to intervene and help resolve the conflict, educate the speaker about the historical background, help instill empathy, and counsel the victim. Academic probation is often a tool that can be used if the problem cannot be resolved, but expulsion is typically the second or third step, not the first.

[gozo]

The argument in the top of this thread was that people who are sensitive to certain things should be filtered out of the admissions process based on that. I don't see how that isn't institutional discrimination.

What if it included writing an essay on "why bullying nerds are good for them" and people who've been bullied couldn't do very well on that assignment, because they obviously took offence, is that not discrimination?

[drumdance]

Then they're not very good learners. Learning to see both sides of an argument is part of what education is about.

The debate team doesn't get to choose which side they argue. It's assigned randomly. More people should do that because it actually increases empathy.