[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.