There is a real challenge on point 3
by fontoknow (2024-01-03 14:03:04)

In reply to: Thanks for the summary.  posted by Dutch

Cannot Reply Return to Political

Who do you invite to present the racism good argument if there are no scholars involved in meaningful research on the topic? Presenting an alternative viewpoint can be good but the person presenting the alternative viewpoint needs to be worthy.

I think there is also benefit to accepting that somethings are currently settled. Does a university need to present flat earther theories to be a university? Or creation science? This list could get long quickly. I think the answer is obviously no, a university does not need to present everything to be a marketplace of ideas. The market place haas already curated and created some guardrails for discussion.

Gay failed to protect her Jewish students. Ultimately, this is why she is gone.

I'm traveling and couldn't reply to people who followed up
by sorin69  (2024-01-03 20:36:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

on my initial post. I do apologize for the firewall. But Kbyrnes helped enormously by filling in background on the Kalven report (I also welcome his invocation of the revered figure of Frank O'Malley, on whom I have written -- in the Back Room I think).

Yes, defining what's settled and therefore inadmissible isn't self-evident. I've done some teaching on issues related to the First Amendment's religion clauses (free exercise, no establishment), and it's still very much a fraught area: religious liberty issues are a favorite way for conservatives to maintain a toehold in the public square. And they often have a good case. I don't have the material in front of me at the moment, but a good example of what the law at least regarded as settled is the case involving Bob Jones University's prohibition against interracial dating (this goes back to the l983 Supreme Court case in which BJU lost its tax exempt status because the Court ruled that the government had an overriding interest in ending discrimination in higher education and that the free exercise clause did not obtain). In that limited sphere, the issue is legally settled. The question can naturally be asked whether by analogy a school that forbade same-sex marriage would also end up becoming sanctioned.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.
by Dutch  (2024-01-03 14:28:25)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

If there is not a worthy academic willing to present the viewpoint, then such viewpoint need not be represented.

However, I think there is risk to calling certain things "settled" as a way to stifle dissent or chill contrary research. For example, I don't think universities should exclude communists even though it's fairly settled these days that communism has not worked in practice. Likewise, I don't think universities should exclude climate scientists who are skeptical of the current models of anthropogenic climate change.

Personally, I think the harder questions are ones that involve certain ethical questions. For example, should (and if so, to what extent) universities allow research related to the genetic modification of human beings or the creation of cyborgs?

There is real and meaningful debate on the topics you offer
by fontoknow  (2024-01-03 15:06:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

And I think there are genuine and interesting discussions at most institutions on the work you suggest in both paragraph 2 and paragraph 3.

Eugenics, phrenology, flat earth, young earth, etc have no real place.