The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
MIT's Free Speech Problem
Daryl Morey raises concerns about the lack of free expression at his alma mater.
Does the Massachsuetts Institute of Technology have a free speech problem? Daryl Morey, an MIT alum, thinks so, and wrote about it for the Wall Street Journal. In a new op-ed Morey writes:
The data point to a growing problem: According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, MIT ranks an abysmal 181st out of 203 universities when it comes to students' belief that the administration will protect their speech rights. FIRE reports that the mistrust extends to MIT faculty: 38% say they don't believe the administration would defend a speaker's rights during a controversy. Forty percent of MIT faculty said they were more likely to self-censor as of summer 2022 than they had been before 2020. Among students, 41% aren't confident in the administration's ability to protect controversial speech. Those are disheartening statistics for one of the world's best research institutions.
If MIT faculty, who are at the cutting edge of science and technology, can't count on their employer to defend open inquiry, it might prevent them from taking innovative risks. This, in turn, would stymie technological progress and the education of the next generation of innovators.
One step MIT can take to address this problem, Morey writes, is for MIT's President to endorse the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom, which was adopted by the faculty last month.
The statement calls on MIT to embrace its tradition of "provocative thinking, controversial views, and nonconformity." While community has the right to expect "a collegial and respectful learning and working environment," the institution "cannot prohibit speech that some experience as offensive or injurious." The statement affirms that debate and "deliberation of controversial ideas are hallmarks of the Institute's educational and research missions and are essential to the pursuit of truth, knowledge, equity, and justice."
A resounding public endorsement of the statement from Ms. Kornbluth would make it clear to current and future faculty and students that speech will be protected by the university.
It is worth noting that Morey has some experience with blowback for controversial speech. Back in 2019, when he worked for the Houston Rockets, Morey tweeted his support of Hong Kong protestors. Given its efforts to cultivate the Chinese market -- which requires staying in the good graces China's government -- the NBA was none too happy with Morey's statement. Morey never apologized for his tweet (nor should he have), however much it displeased others.
Given Morey's support for individual liberty and free expression, it seems appropriate he is now president of basketball operations for the Philadelphia 76ers, a team that takes its inspiration from the nation's founding and the Declaration of Independence.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Does the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have a free speech problem?"
No.
If you don't even have free speech, how can you have a free speech problem?
The Volokh Conspiracy is concerned about MIT’s free speech problem.
The Volokh Conspiracy ignores — when not imposing the censorship that constitutes — the Volokh Conspiracy’s free speech problem.
Clingers gonna cling.
Partisans gonna hack.
The wild card here -- often overlooked -- is that MIT is a Land Grant University. Massachusetts split the grant, with the "A" going to what is now UMass (initially Mass Aggie) and the "M" going to MIT.
I don't think any court has ever ruled on the question of if the free speech rights of a public university ought to extend to a private one founded with public land grant dollar.
Grants are not contracts; there is no governmental ownership stake.
The government can condition requirements by statute, but a grant does not make one a government actor.
I was under the impression that the Morrill Acts encumbered the institution -- e.g. UMass Amherst is *required* to keep its Ag School (Stockbridge) even though agriculture has largely vanished ftom the Commonwealth.
On a practical basis, the Third Morrill Act required a "separate but equal" school if the southern states wanted their land grant colleges segregated -- many of these became HBCUs. But if the funding wasn't encumbered, what prevented these quite-racist states from simply shutting down the Black college a year or two later?
The government can condition requirements by statute (‘encumber’), which is what you appear to be referring to, but that would require an act of Congress.
Since there is currently no such encumbrance, and one does not seem likely to soon pass Congress, there is currently no such obligation.
I understand MIT to be free of state control, except to the extent every school is regulated.
you are correct
But has any court ever ruled on my question -- something that would be unique to MIT (and maybe Cornell). I'm not aware of any ruling...
And the private/public distinction as to student rights has only been relevant for the past 50 years or so -- maybe no one's raised it yet.
Government giving you a scholarship doesn’t make you a government actor for the rest of your life. The Homestead Act didn’t make all those western farmers government actors. Mining claims didn’t make gold prospectors government actors.
Government has given a great deal of both money and land to private parties over the years, sometimes with conditions, sometimes without, and didn’t turn them into government actors. What makes MIT any different?
In particular, Rendell-Baker v. Kohn held that a private school whose funding was virtually all government funds did not by reason thereof become a state actor. (It's control, not funding, that counts.)
MIT, or as I call it the Cambridge Community College, is a private school
The Volokh Conspiracy is regularly worried about whether bigots are treated with adequate respect on strong campuses (while ignoring pervasive censorship and flouting of academic freedom at conservative-controlled schools).
The Volokh Conspiracy doesn't seem interested in mentioning, though, race-targeting censorship imposed by Republicans (especially those who might nominating judges some day).
Clingers gonna cling.
Partisans gonna hack.
Hypocrites and cowards gonna blog.
Not many Catholics or Italian Americans at Ivy League Rev sir. Why not? Jews over represented..must be all those anti-Italian bigots in the admission office..yes by all means it is time for bitter Jewish Liberals to stop blocking Italian Americans from entry into Harvard.
Thank you for agreeing with me on this Rev.
This is the comment the Volokh Conspiracy deserves.
The guy in the article was the one who took on China in Hong Kong and caught heat from the NBA, cowards servile to that dictatorship.
You choose to drag out picayune problems in a free nation.
How brave of you.
The guy who “took on China” and “caught heat from the NBA” is the same guy who wrote the quoted article about MIT. If he doesn’t think it’s a “picayune problem” and thinks that it deserves to be addressed to help ensure that we stay a free nation, with all due respect who are you to disgree?Apologies. I didn't realize you were replying to the Kirkland troll. I misread your comment as addressed to the Reason authors.
If my comments interfere with Rossami's consumption (or generation) of bigotry at this blog . . . great!
Jerry Sandusky's gonna Jerry Sandusky
Easy solution. MIT should get rid of the '"diversity" departments created for "diversity." Stick to Engineering and Hard Science degress.. believe me the problem will go away overnight. Instead of "social science" departments which typically are full of kids who could not have gotten into MIT and have axes to grind and run by bolshie profs. I'd even nuke the economics dept given how poor in critical thinking their graduates are.
And don't worry about the gender or color of the kids...admit based on SAT scores..it that means all Asian kids..nothing wrong with that. Culture determines academic achievement. If your tribe isn't represented..change your culture.
I have little issue with admitting based on excellence, but let me stop you at "admit based on SAT scores".
Spending 18 years learning how to take an SAT (and/or other forms of "teach to the test") results in student who are good at filling in bubbles. Excessive reliance on standardized test-defined "academic achievement" doesn't translate to knowing how to think, figure out new problems, actually invent things, etc.
I'm not saying I have a good solution, but I do know the problem isn't that simple to solve.
"Filling in Bubbles"??
OK, when I took the SAT (actually took the upstart ACT) in 1979 we did actually fill in bubbles with our #2 Pencils,
But since Algore invented the Internets, isn't it all on Computers now?
so it results in students who are good at clicking mouses.
And what's all this fuss about test scores, just pick the favored group of the moment, how do you think Barry Hussein got into Harvard? It wasn't his speaking ability
Frank
I signed up for five SAT tests in high school, but since you have to pay for them in multiples of three, I added Math II. One of the questions bamboozled me, I chose an answer, and later asked my math teacher. He showed me the correct answer and how to get it.
Many weeks later, the counselor called me in to congratulate me on my perfect 800 on the Math II test. I told him no, I had misanswered one, and besides, I hadn't got 800 on Math I. Several weeks later, he called me in again, said they had hand-checked it, I had gotten 800.
I haven't had much faith in standardized tests since. I am still curious how they got that 800. People have all sorts of excuses for it, none increasing my faith.
By design, a fraction of the SAT and ACT questions are ungraded "test" questions. I don't remember the exact fraction but I think it's around 10%.
The purpose of those questions is to
a) test whether the proposed new question is a useful discriminator of knowledge. If a question comes back with 100% right, it's clearly too easy and if everyone gets it wrong, it's too hard. Either way, the question doesn't help you sort out the participants.
b) test whether there are any implicit assumptions or hidden biases in the question. A question that everyone in Minnesota gets right but that everyone in Hawaii gets wrong might be telling you something useful about the difference between their educational systems - or it could just be telling you that Hawaiians don't have a lot of experience with snow - knowledge that is not part of what you're trying to test.
c) once you've got a good question, you still have to baseline it for several years so you'll have valid year-over-year comparisons when you finally move that question into the graded section and pull some other question out.
There is some good science behind the experimental design that goes into those standardized tests. I'm sorry your counselor wasn't able to explain it to you all those years ago.
The counselor was just a bureaucrat. Not evil, just a middle manager punching the clock.
I have since other tests which also impressed me not much.
Interesting, thanks for that info.
I took the SAT back in the late 70s and scored 790. Being (reasonably) good at math I realized that there was no way to get that score if the questions were evenly weighted. I did ask my counselor regarding the methodology but never got an answer that made sense.
MIT and its students are doing just fine with the current structure of departments and gen ed requirements. However the faculty is always fine tuning
This blog post about observations in the WSJ that Stanford "hates fun", and the resulting impact on quality of education and close parallels to MIT, has been the subject of robust discussion among the denizens of my former living group. Worth a read. FWIW, the dorms and living groups at MIT that attracted the most administrative ire were more liberal, freewheeling ones - in particular, Senior House and Bexley Hall, which were both permanently closed.
Can confirm; and sometimes not even 5 minutes.
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2022/12/stanford-hates-fun.html?m=1
Also, starting about 20 years ago MIT made it harder to get into the dorm you wanted in an attempt to prevent dorms from acquiring their own personality. It was said by students that admissions had changed its priority to admit smart but boring students who might not change the world but would at least not embarrass the school.
Yep, part of the "freshman on campus" (FOC) initiative, which also majorly impacted independent living groups. FOC was (and still is) one of the major rifts between the administration and older alums. MIT was already ramping up application of in loco parentis in the 90s, and significantly overcorrected following the drinking death of a student in 1997. Sad, really.
I never cared for Morey when he was GM of the Rockets but I gotta say I admire him for continually standing up for freedom.
That's right.
Who is he standing up to? In the case of Hong Kong, it was the Communist government of China, imposing its iron grip on the formerly-free people of Hong Kong. Now, he's standing up to those who would squelch the expression of "politically incorrect" views. If he fails and they succeed, our future will resemble that of the formerly-free people of Hong Kong...
Yes ... MIT has completely transformed from the time when I was a student there. I have severed all my ties with the institution.
You can always cling to Wheaton, Liberty, Franciscan, Hillsdale, Oral Roberts, Ouachita Baptist, or another low-quality, conservative-controlled school.
I saw in person the MIT prank, when they put a police car on the roof. Pretty funny, I guess.
AtR, just keep at least 370 smoots from the campus, and at least you won’t get wet. By the way, what is the frequency used to broadcast the MIT radio station, in smoots?
Frequency isn't measured in smoots, you ninny.
Frequency is inverse wavelength, which can be measured in smoots.
Yes, wavelength can be measured in smoots, but c/smoot is rather obviously different from smoot.
The point is that 'the frequency used to broadcast the MIT radio station, in smoots' is a very answerable question.
not really. the units for frequency are 1/seconds. There is no answer that includes a length dimension, whether you're using a value for c of 3.00x10^6 m/sec or 1.76x10^6 smoots/sec.
And for either value of c, the full answer with proper units is that WMBR's frequency is 8.81x10^7 sec^-1 (a/k/a 88.1MHz).
Ultimately, the problem here is that the Q "what is the frequency in smoots" is improperly formed, and there is simply no correct answer.
Michael P is being pompous and condescending, but he's technically correct.
No. Let's try another example. Computer processors are often marketed based on their operating frequency, nowadays mostly measured in gigahertz (GHz). You cannot measure that in feet. If you went to Best Buy and asked to buy a 0.02-foot Intel processor, the salesperson would have no idea what you meant.
OTOH, Ham radio types frequently talk about ‘the 2 meter band’ and so on: examples.
Sure, because a lot of hams care deeply about antenna geometries, and those scale based on the wavelength of the signal. It's a lot easier to figure out (approximately) how big a quarter-wave antenna needs to be for the "20 meter" band than for the "14 MHz" band. They're still not measuring frequency.
This started with a discussion of radio, right? The chart I linked is pretty mainstream - it's from the ARRL. And it is full of '2 Meters (50MHz)', '160 Meters (1.8 MHz)', and so on.
You may have a strong preference for carefully distinguishing frequency and wavelength, but in general the radio world doesn't seem to share that concern; they use '2 meters' and '144MHz' interchangeably.
That's not true everywhere - when talking about the power grid, we say '60 Hz', not whatever the wavelength of AC power in copper wires might be. But in the context of radio, mainstream usage uses the terms interchangeably. If you ask a ham 'what frequency were you using' and object when he answers 'the 2 meter band', he's going to look at you funny.
This is like the ever controversial 'is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable'. To a botanist, clearly it is a fruit, but to everyone else, right or wrong, it is a vegetable. And I suspect that botanists who make a big deal of the distinction don't get a lot of repeat invitations to dinner parties.
You can quibble about units all you want, but answers in the form of c/length is fine for some physics fun in my dork book.
My professional capacity is dealing with radio signals. I've worked in radar, communications, navigation, and more. The only two places I've seen wavelength often used to refer to frequency are amateur radio and radio astronomy.
For example, https://ntia.gov/page/united-states-frequency-allocation-chart doesn't even mention wavelengths. The FCC's Table of Frequency Allocation uses frequency, not wavelength.
I don't know what your RF background is, but my experience disagrees with your assertion about "mainstream usage" in the radio world.
The last time I noticed S_0 saying "you can quibble", he was trying to excuse a four-orders-of-magnitude conflation of groups of people (the 600-some billionaires in the US versus "the 1%").
This usage is "quibble" is in line with that one.
y'all are getting awfully snippy, defensive, and outright hostile about an attempted funny about smoots. Howzabout everyone chill out for a sec?
So Stephen messed up freq and wavelength. He also said it's not his field, and I'll go out on a limb and assume he's not an MIT grad. Is this really useful for anyone at this point, or has it just devolved into a lame d1ck-size contest and insult-fest?
They're antisocial, disaffected incels. This is as good as it ever gets for them in modern America.
“Is this really useful for anyone at this point, or has it just devolved into a lame d1ck-size contest...?”
.03 Smoot. Doesn’t sound like much, but not bad for my height.
“.03 Smoot”
I had to check whether google’s unit conversion (search for “.03 smoot to inch”) supported smoots. I’m happy to report it does[1] …but says .03 smoots is 2.01 inches.
[1]I have always had a bit of a kink for, shall we say, very inclusive units in computers. SAS, for example, would let you print numbers as integers, floating point, scientific notation, … and Roman numerals (plus some I’m forgetting). And for date conversions, it was always fun to see whether they properly handled dates that spanned October of 1582, etc.
ETA: per your question below, I tried "88.1mhz to smoots", and it just gave me a bunch of links saying "MIT's student-run college radio station, WMBR, broadcasts at a wavelength of two smoots (3.40 m), i.e. 88.1 MHz" (wikipedia), but didn't do the conversion itself, so google seems to be in Michael P's camp.
Absaroka, I find it helpful to dodge the fruit/vegetable distinction, and answer the tomato question accurately. It is a berry. Your auditor is then free to ask himself what a berry is.
"I had to check whether google’s unit conversion (search for “.03 smoot to inch”) supported smoots. I’m happy to report it does[1] …but says .03 smoots is 2.01 inches."
Yup. As I mentioned, not bad for a guy who'd twelve inches tall.
"google seems to be in Michael P’s camp."
Yup. Frequency is measured in waves over time, not smoots or any unit of length. So the concept of "frequency in smoots" is inconsistent.
"If you ask a ham ‘what frequency were you using’ and object when he answers ‘the 2 meter band’, he’s going to look at you funny."
Yeah, but if you ask him, "what frequency were you using, in meters?", he's going to think you don't understand the difference between frequency and wavelength.
So Stephen messed up freq and wavelength. He also said it’s not his field
And yet felt the need to pompously attempt to correct those whose field it is. When you do that, ignorance is more of an indictment than a defense.
"The point is that ‘the frequency used to broadcast the MIT radio station, in smoots’ is a very answerable question."
Yeah? How many smoots is it?
i2smoc, as they say.
inverse 2 smoots over c, of course!
Your smoots are gone!
Michael P, not my field, but I figure the MIT radio station knows how to measure its frequency. They say it's 2 smoots.
You are misunderstanding what they are saying, and thus misrepresenting it. (This is my shocked face.) The wavelength is two smoots (+/- 1 ear), not the frequency. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/relation-between-frequency-and-wavelength/ explains how they're different but related.
If you don't even know the difference between frequency and wavelength but feel the need to pompously correct those who don't share your topical ignorance, yooooouuuuu....might be a Lathrop.
I know, I know...I laughed at reading..."Michael P, not my field, but I figure....". I would love to see lathrop pulled over and try 'splaining to the cop why he is in the right. It would be hilarious.
I would love to see lathrop pulled over and try ‘splaining to the cop why he is in the right. It would be hilarious.
Especially when the tasers come into play.
Imagine how the real lawyers, and mainstream Americans, react when the half-educated, bigoted, obsolete fans of this blog decide to comment.
Commenter_XY, you should be so lucky as to know what to tell cops when you get pulled over.
I have had a license for 60 years. I have always driven more miles per year than most. Long car or motorcycle trips every year. Many continent-crossing round-trips—in cars, in vans, and on motorcycles. March-or-die crazy 200 mile night-time round-trips through blizzards in the Northern Rockies—on rigidly-scheduled, get-the-paper-printed missions, with no postponements possible.
Do you remember the 1960s Ford Bronco? As far as I know, that was the least directionally stable vehicle ever sold in the U.S. On a snow packed road near the freezing point, it might spin under pressure of a 10 mph cross-wind. That was what I had to work with when I started in the newspaper business in Idaho. If you got it sideways, it would load the suspension on the side you were skidding towards, and if you tried to correct too suddenly, you risked rolling over.
Every staffer I loaned that car to crashed it eventually. The final one rolled it down an embankment with a load of newspapers in the back. Luckily, no injury to the driver. I was the only one who never did crash it. Of course I should have gotten rid of it much sooner.
I drove that Bronco much more than all the others combined. I have always been a proficient and cautious driver. Nevertheless, I did once get cross-wise on a mountain switch-back, with Rupert Murdoch in the passenger seat, and his wife in the back. I got it straightened out and acted like it was just routine, which with that vehicle it was.
During that driving career, I have been pulled over 7 times. The first time I got a ticket—except in a few crashes caused by others, it was the only time I was totally innocent. It was in Boston, a no-turn-on-red-arrow light, which at 5 am on a Sunday the cars in line ahead of me ran. They all got pulled over. The arrow then turned green before I got to it. I got busted with the others, got a ticket, and points on my license. That was 35 years ago, and I remain pissed off today. That led me to think a bit about what to say if I got pulled over again.
In the 6 remaining pull-overs since, I collected 5 warnings, and one remarkable forbearance. Within 2 hours I got an out-of-state citation with a $300 fine reduced to $100, and an agreement not to put points on my license.
Do you want to know what I tell cops to make stuff like that happen? Of course you do. Here is a hint. It has nothing to do with any special connections, not with the police or anyone else. It does not suggest any need for personal privilege, or claim any status to distinguish me from anyone else. It has nothing to do with newspapers or publishing. It is something anyone can say honestly, and should say, whether guilty or innocent. It promises the cop absolutely nothing, and in no way suggests the possibility of a bribe.
After swearing them to secrecy, I have shared what I say with my wife and my son, for whom it has worked as well as for me. Other than that, I plan to take the secret to my grave. If everyone knew it, it wouldn't work anymore. But paradoxically, if every cop who ever stops me again knew I had written this, it would probably still work. See if you can figure it out. It is one sentence of six words. If you want to take a guess, I will neither confirm nor deny that you got it right.
One other suggestion. Don't sneer at people so much, and maybe they will reciprocate by not boring you with long, discursive, true-but-otherwise-unhelpful replies.
I have changed my mind. To make this more fun, if you get the six word sentence exactly right, I will confirm it. Otherwise I will not reply.
Amazing. You continue to believe that long-windedness is a good substitute for intelligence.
He is a Boomer, what do you expect?
AtR,
What is your primary complaint, that we now have young women instead of co-eds (that was the language in my undergrad days)? But seriously what is our primary objection to today's MIT?
Read the op-ed (or just the excerpts above). It's pretty straightforward.
I missed in his post where he said anything at all about women/co-eds at MIT...so why the dishonest injection of that topic?
I'll second Don Nico's Q, AtR - I'm curious what aspects you feel are "completely transformed". Relatedly, in what time frame were you a student? I was an undergrad in the late 80s/early 90s, and there's definitely a lot that has changed since then.
The important point, from the perspective of the Volokh Conspiracy, is that MIT must commit without qualification to refraining from interfering with any faculty member’s habitual use of vile racial slurs.
A Land Grant University versus a private blog....
Good point about land grant universities . . . are land grant universities in Florida affected by conservatives' race-targeting academic censorship?
Why does the Volokh Conspiracy avoid discussion of that issue, focusing instead on the "woke scandal" at MIT?
Other than the cowardice, partisanship, and hypocrisy, I mean.
You get spanked like a bad puppy one time by your betters and you cry about it for years.
Eat some red meat, skip the soy latte and at least once try to be a real man.
Heaven forbid you have kids, if you don't find your masculinity soon you're resigning them to a life of purple hair, meaningless protests, and failed autonomous zone gardening.
I sense the habitual, vile racial slurs constitute the most endearing point for this blog's fans, more than enough to arrange disregard of the hypocrisy and cowardice; the flouting of "elite" societal norms seems a bonus for the disaffected culture war losers.
In BravoCharlieDelta's world, hiding behind tenure is for tough guys.
As is bigotry, in several forms.
BraveCharlieDelta . . . This Blog's For You!
Forty percent of MIT faculty said they were more likely to self-censor as of summer 2022 than they had been before 2020. Among students, 41% aren't confident in the administration's ability to protect controversial speech. Those are disheartening statistics for one of the world's best research institutions.
If MIT faculty, who are at the cutting edge of science and technology, can't count on their employer to defend open inquiry, it might prevent them from taking innovative risks.
Note the (implied) equation: ". . . ability to protect controversial speech," equated to, "defend open inquiry." There are few places imaginable where that equation is less likely to apply than MIT.
There is little reason to suppose an MIT faculty type, commenting on concern about "self-censorship," even had in mind his own field of inquiry when he answered. Pretty much anyone now understands at-work questions about self-censorship to apply to rules of comity—they are about how co-workers relate to each other, about how employees relate to the public, and about how institutional managers should treat everyone.
Consider for a moment what a question about, "self-censorship," is likely to mean in context of any workplace in the U.S. today. What is the first thing someone asked that question would think about before answering it? Probably it is something like, "Do you feel comfortable at work giving voice to a racist slur, or an anti-gay slur."
Compare the answer you could reasonably expect from a bank employee, a fast food worker, or a law firm employee, to the apparently ~ 60% of MIT faculty who say, yes they are comfortable that their employer would support that. Considered that way, the question is so outlandish it is almost self-debunking. You know as soon as you consider it that something is amiss about the terms being compared. You can't make mutual sense of any of the answers. Which tells you there is little sense in this OP.
So what are we to make of the OP? I suggest it is manifestation of a disordered strain of libertarian ideology. It is about a tendency to take every question to an impractical extreme, to see if it holds up. Some libertarians really do think it would improve American society if, for instance, trolling right-wing libertarians were free to visit university campuses, to bait minority members with attacks, and then denounce universities as opponents of expressive liberty if they do not punish the minority members. Of course, some outright bigots also think that would be an improvement. That is the disordered part I mentioned.
I suggest that for ordinary employed Americans in mainstream occupations the expected employer support for an anti-black slur or anti-gay slur would approach 0.0%. And you know what? It is a good thing that most Americans, whatever their bigotries, have learned that most workplaces do not support gratuitous attacks on members of minority groups. It is not a problem that that has happened; it is evidence of improvement. These libertarian attacks can safely be dismissed as a hyper-rationalist sideshow, and they should be.
You did start out making a good argument, but the problem with your premise is that the term “controversial speech” is not limited to “anti-black slurs” and “anti-gay slurs”.
The pattern for the tyrannical Left is to make some absurd proposition, then declare any opposition to it hate speech and thus out of bounds of acceptable conversation.
That’s where your argument falls flat. It isn’t about the ability to insult others, in the sense that most Americans understand the term “insult”. The mentally deranged and authoritarian Left has pretty much declared any opposition to whatever they assert as hate speech and are even trying to get it declared as actual violence. They do this to silence others. They need to silence others because their ideas are so bad they don't stand up to any scrutiny.
BCD states, “The pattern for the tyrannical Left is to make some absurd proposition. . . ,” then goes on and makes an absurd proposition.
You still having problems scheduling a VA mental health counseling appointment?
It's government run healthcare, isn't everyone having problems scheduling just about everything?
Leftists literally claim that speech is violence, and on that basis try to get speech they disagree with banned as violence. BCD's claim is not an absurd proposition but plain fact.
Thanks for proving his point, though.
If he had started out making a good argument, that would have been a noteworthy first, but he didn't.
Think Galileo. Think challenging wokesters about how to admit and recognize scholars to one's own field. There's an abundance of in-field self-censorship in a lot of academic fields (and related applied science) to avoid offending the entrenched authorities. Arnold King has written about this dynamic ... using MIT's economics program, where he got his Ph.D., as a leading example.
Speaking of absurd propositions by tyrannical leftists, how about "There is no such thing as a 'natural' woman" as a reason to ban a famous song by a widely appreciated black woman?
Interested to see what if any defense is offered to the lack of R-E-S-P-E-C-T for a "Natural Woman".
The gaslighters and bootlickers are going to be arguing those songs were always considered problematic next.
Still not as bad as cancelling Mark Hamill for liking a tweet by JK Rowling.
Remember that academic freedom came from a Stanford not using racial slurs but saying that Leland Stanford exploited Chinese labor in building his railroad.
They made a statement acknowledging that so everything is totes cool now.
"There are few places imaginable where that equation is less likely to apply than MIT."
True enough in Course 8 or Course 6. But what about in the Sloan School or in the Humanities departments? Have you any hard evidence of that? I do not in either direction.
I don't see any basis for it either. But I will note that the claim "Forty percent of MIT faculty said they were more likely to self-censor" doesn't require that a course 8 prof would self-censor about physics as opposed to some different-but-controversial topic.
So the inference that "MIT faculty, who are at the cutting edge of science and technology, can’t count on their employer to defend open inquiry, it might prevent them from taking innovative risks" appears to assume facts not in evidence. Indeed it might even be the opposite, if the administration is effectively telling faculty "keep your head down and talk about physics, not controversial topics".
Because, as we all know, the sciences are completely free of controversy.
Physics has nothing to say about the climate change debate? I think an awful lot of physicists would be very surprised to hear you say that.
Meh, my gripe is that “more likely to self-censor” doesn’t tell the reader if the self-censorship is about their field of study or related fields, or something completely orthogonal like admission policies or DEI mandates.
A faculty member can believe they are free to innovate in their field and do big science, and simultaneously worry about getting sanctioned for speech that is not related to their field at all.
If you look at the linked FIRE report, it seems pretty clear the faculty concerns are about the latter, not the former. For instance, the lead takeaway point of the FIRE report states:
However, it appears to me that Morey conflates the two. He might be right, he might be wrong, but there’s still a “facts not in evidence” problem … even if you want to be pedantic about global climate change models being “physics” writ large.
And let’s be honest, when you think about a “controversy” Tucker Carlson will squawk about and university admins will try to duck, what springs to mind? Trying to read the sexual tea leaves of an animated M&M’s footgear selection, or the validity of a particular finite element model?
So what exactly is your reason for believing that an administration that will not protect politically unpopular speech that is not directly scientific in nature would protect such speech about areas of science that are politically (and even scientifically) controversial?
Try addressing what I said: “He might be right, he might be wrong, but there’s still a “facts not in evidence” problem”.
Let’s see if I can simplify further for you: Morey is taking FIRE’s report that “MIT faculty are concerned about being hung out to dry over DEI disagreements” and turning it into “MIT profs won’t innovate in their field of study”.
That’s a critique of Morey, because the evidence fails to adequately support the “oh noes end of the world!!1!” conclusion. It makes no prediction about what the admin will or won’t do in a particular situation.
Let’s see if I can simplify further for you:
Let’s see if you can do that without dishonestly paraphrasing, or descending into simple-mindedness rather than simplification:
Morey is taking FIRE’s report that “MIT faculty are concerned about being hung out to dry over DEI disagreements” and turning it into “MIT profs won’t innovate in their field of study”.
Nope, you can’t. He made no such absolute declaration. What he said was (emphasis mine)…
“it might prevent them from taking innovative risks”
This is why I asked the question above (that you refused to answer). An administration that caves to political pressure on speech of one kind is more likely to do so on other kinds as well, as compared with those who show more general support for free speech, which is more likely to have a chilling effect on unpopular speech. You then compound your simple-minded dishonesty by adding this:
““oh noes end of the world!!1!” conclusion”
Your argument is not to be taken seriously.
Zarniwoop, that is good, and succinct. I envy your ability to explain clearly the points I tried to make, but maybe not so well.
For some reason I'm not surprised that you're impressed by a post based on dishonesty and playground hyperbole.
Yes, if you make an incredibly stupid assumption, then the question has little sense. Nobody on the planet is talking about using racist epithets at work. That's not what the topic of this discussion is. If you don't understand what people are talking about, why not ask, rather than saying "probably" it's something that it definitely isn't and that nobody sane could even guess that it was?
You picked the wrong blog for that one, clinger.
Right-wingers aren't even trying any longer.
Nieporent, the OP, apparently deliberately, conflates two classes of expressive freedom. One is about culture war expressive attacks on minorities. The other is about freedom to advance academic theses without fear of censorship.
There exists a burgeoning tendency among right wingers to exploit such conflations. Apparently, they do it to further an objective to empower actually-scurrilous attacks on programs like affirmative action, while marching in disguise, under a banner of 1A protected expressive freedom.
Right wingers understand that reasoned attacks on programs they want abolished lack power to mobilize unreasonable (often actually racist) fans of those same objectives. And reasoning right wingers mostly shrink from trying to claim that 1A freedom fully supports activities which almost anyone would condemn as actually racist.
Doing it that way would amount almost to self-contradiction. The argument made might be legally supportable, but in a technical way. As a practical matter, it tends more to discredit the constitutional right than to vindicate the right wing. Hence the need for conflation.
Your demand for an absolutely logical approach sorts poorly with the fundamental illogic which drives the argument. Put plainly, what we are seeing is an attempt to mobilize outright racism in support of arguably legally supportable goals—but goals with such socially extreme implications they would win only thin support otherwise.
This stuff is getting commonplace. It is time to call it out, and say clearly what is going on.
The next time you say something clearly will be the first time.
This discussion isn't even about the first amendment, but I will say — based not on this post alone, but on many things you've said — that you do fundamentally misunderstand it. It is entirely, 1,000%, about protecting offensive speech. Your notion that such speech discredits or undermines the first amendment is like saying that criminal defendants being acquitted discredits due process.
I will just reiterate: this discussion is not remotely about racial slurs. MIT professors are not saying that they want to use epithets but are afraid of punishment if they do.
It is entirely, 1,000%, about protecting offensive speech.
Nieporent, even you ought to know better than that. The 1A is about protecting the public life of the nation from government power to decree what expressions are allowed, and what expressions are proscribed. The 1A has nothing to say about offensive speech, pro or con.
By misunderstanding legal tactics, some folks who style themselves 1A fundamentalists have muddled their own thinking about expressive freedom—maybe also muddled public thinking too. 1A legal defenders have usefully preferred cases involving especially offensive expressions. The lawyers do it that way to afford opportunity to extend the scope of speech protective opinions.
That makes sense legally. It makes sense as a means to protect public life from government interference. It ought not be interpreted to mean more than that.
But some do suppose it means more. They suppose it means not merely that offensive speech is permitted because government is constrained, but instead that it means offensive speech is inherently worthy of protection. Some conclude perversely that it means offensive speech is more valuable than any other kind, and thus more worthy of protection than any other kind.
Experience shows the contrary. It shows that most offensive speech is at best useless, and likely deleterious. But experience also shows that some speech thought offensive offers great value, and especially great value for expressions which get misjudged because they are novel, and called offensive on account of that. It is wisdom we get from that second kind of experience which teaches us to keep government out of the business of evaluating speech.
Thus, the question stands apart from the 1A, whether a particular offensive speech instance is of the commonplace deleterious kind, or of the more rarely occurring valuable kind. That question needs an analysis separate from the question whether the 1A is wise, or serves a legitimate public purpose.
The 1A is wise. The 1A does justify itself, simply by empowering that question to be analyzed, whether this or that expression is deleterious, or valuable. But the 1A is not the needed analysis. Without effort to complete that analysis—whether this or that expression is valuable, deleterious, or maybe indifferent—public life would actually derive little benefit from effort used to protect expressive freedom from government interference. Anyone inclined to conclude it is offensive to expressive freedom to practice analysis of which expressions offer value, and which expressions inflict harm, would thus turn upside down the very purpose of expressive freedom.
Nobody tries to ban innocuous speech; the 1A doesn't need to protect it. In Russia or China or North Korea, even without a 1A, you're free to say things that everyone likes to hear. It only needs to protect speech that upsets people.
Nieporent, that is beyond simplistic. It's as if partisan speech did not exist. Seems like the majority of commenters on this blog would ban speech, if they thought they could confine the ban to their partisan opponents—who, by the way, would insist that the speech in question was salutary, not merely innocuous.
The linked article was behind a paywall, but it would seem from the quoted bit that all this outrage is about the belief that students and staff have about their freedom to speak, as opposed to actual incidents? If so, that's pretty lame.
As was pointed out upthread, "all this outrage" is about a pro-free-speech resolution adopted by the faculty but ignored by the administration.
Yes, I understand that, but "ignored by the administration" presumably only means that they didn't officially adopt the resolution, which they could've had any number of reasons for not doing. It doesn't mean they've actually done anything to stifle anyone's speech. There are plenty of actual speech stifling incidents to be outraged about.
compare:
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/09/24/patriots-kneel-national-anthem-nfl-protests-gillette-stadium/
When I saw this story, I thought: Shouldn't they at least change the team's name?
Um, no?
I melted down my Brass Rat and gave up on the woke MIT after
Dorian Abbot was cancelled from giving Carlson Lecture.
https://www.thefp.com/p/mit-abandons-its-mission-and-me
The talk was about computer modeling of hypothetical exo-planets and the remote chances of “life”. A bit of DiscWorld climatology.
Amusingly, I was able to Zoom the Princeton sponsored presentation which got about ten times the audience. I decided not to attend any more reunions or graduations. Skipped marching in the Red Jacket parade. Yes Morey is correct. They need to cull the administration not make empty “statements.”
Switch your allegiance to Wheaton, Liberty, or Ouachita Baptist.
You might be happier, and a better fit, at those campuses.
As with AtR's disaffection with the 'tvte, I'm curious .. what year was that Brass Rat you melted down?
Disaffected rubes,
nipping at heels and ankles
of their betters. Word.
MIT outrage,
but not a Florida word,
nor about Twitter.
Arthur, your haiku composition skills are coming along nicely. I like the 5-7-5 cadence. I'd give it a B-, but you can probably get an A- by switching up topics, just for variety's sake. 🙂
I do not recall a previous haiku addressing Florida or MIT.
Just as I do not remember the cowards and hypocrites who operate this blog mentioning the race-targeting Florida censorship. Which surprises me, because it would have provided an opportunity to publish another vile racial slur. Somebody might be busy with other matters.
Arthur, you have promise in haiku writing. 🙂
Heh, when I was an undergrad there was one department ("Course 21") for that housed most of the "liberal arts". Most of the Course 21 faculty taught classes for non-majors; I believe there were 4 undergrads with a Course 21 major in the class of '91. There's also economics (14) and poli sci (17) but those aren't heavily populated either at the undergrad level. (Old information. Also, get off my lawn!)
Bill, rest assured that few if any people go to MIT for a liberal arts degree.
at MIT they'd call it "Engrish"
"rest assured that few if any people go to MIT for a liberal arts degree."
Thank goodness.
I had the impression that a few students who had trouble in the engineering and science departments switched to humanities rather than transfer out. In that era MIT required a lot more humanities courses of students in tech majors than liberal arts schools required science classes. I know somebody who went to a liberal arts school where there was only one professor for all the math and science classes.
They have had a women studies program for at least 30 years now ... all humanities at the university are put together into one "humanities" department.
Goodness! Wokesters are no worse for free speech or academic inquiry than the literal Inquisition! Why didn't I think of that rebuttal to the idea that MIT (or the rest of modern academia) has a problem?
Re-muting you because boxes of rocks continue to be more useful and provide better insights.
haha yeah you sure defeated his argument!
Great job! That's an argument a smart person would make to change people's minds!
That's as goofy -- but not as loud -- as the right-wing crusade against m&ms.
Woke M&Ms, another culture war scalp taken by your betters.
Eat shit woke morons.
Yes - and the point of the article is that the administration has ignored it.
I had a roommate who had studied women's studies at MIT.
I was generally impressed with the caliber of the humanities profs in the late 80s/early 90s, and the graduation requirements were non-trivial. Can't speak to the current state of the dept, but my impression is that the decisions that are creating a rift with many alums are driven by the administration, not the Course 21 faculty.
The foundational mantra of the Volokh Conspiracy.
(Although Prof. Volokh may have Prof. Blackman working on a new one, which would explain Blackman's lack of recent production)
That's not really true. As a minor nit, one of the three cases was about being transgender, not gay. And they were not about speech per se, but about being gay/transgender.
Yup. Like your wife and her sister. Related, but you need to remember that they're different.