ChatterBank0 min ago
Snowflake Education?
26 Answers
http://
should students be permitted the opportunity to hear and challenge controversial ideas? or is it more important for students to be protected from possibly corrupting concepts?
should students be permitted the opportunity to hear and challenge controversial ideas? or is it more important for students to be protected from possibly corrupting concepts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“No-platforming” sounds like a horrible idea unless you have particularly offensive Ageist, racist, sexist and other extremely offensive views. I like a good debate with slightly offensive ideas that don’t offend but spark the debate and gives it enough momentum to evolve into a great and loud debate. What does “snowflake” mean in your context?
There should be virtually no topic off the agenda at university.
If it is so offensive that people need to be protected against it then that is a very good reason to have the debate.
Discuss, debate and counter what you find or think offensive. Closing the discussion down only makes it more attractive to some people.
By not allowing free debate means 'someone' is deciding what is appropriate and what is not.
If it is so offensive that people need to be protected against it then that is a very good reason to have the debate.
Discuss, debate and counter what you find or think offensive. Closing the discussion down only makes it more attractive to some people.
By not allowing free debate means 'someone' is deciding what is appropriate and what is not.
Of course you should be challenged intellectually. I remember it as being quite an uncomfortable process in the '70s. I always told my students that they could not afford to be 'mealy minded'. You are supposed to be faced with many ideas and work out your own stance. I thought that that was the point of further education - along with gaining the subject knowledge you needed. a ''Bah, Humbug" to the lot of these idiots.
There's really no problem with Imams giving talks or whatever, within the law at universities, as long as the right of reply is there, unhindered and unheckled.
The problems seem to arise when the opportunity is seen as an occasion for an uninterrupted monologue from the stage with thought police keeping control.
The problems seem to arise when the opportunity is seen as an occasion for an uninterrupted monologue from the stage with thought police keeping control.
There are definitely ideas that don't belong on university campuses because they are actively against the spirit of learning (like the "stork theory" of reproduction or flat earth advocacy or holocaust denial). So it's a bit simplistic to say everything should be allowed when it clearly shouldn't and yes, someone - invariably university staff - are typically the people left with making that decision.
The trouble isn't with universities being selective about content - that is something which they definitely should be. The trouble is those decisions are being taken a) to please students, because universities are wrongly treated like businesses which need to please customers; b) to some extent along fuzzy political/ideological lines (although this side of the problem is imo far less serious than people tend to think it is).
The trouble isn't with universities being selective about content - that is something which they definitely should be. The trouble is those decisions are being taken a) to please students, because universities are wrongly treated like businesses which need to please customers; b) to some extent along fuzzy political/ideological lines (although this side of the problem is imo far less serious than people tend to think it is).
Also - the academic jobs market is extremely insecure and competitive these days, meaning it is very hard to land a secure job and to get a new one. This means that, when faced with "customer" (i.e. student) pressure, staff are far less likely to rock the boat or take decisions which lead to conflict even if they are the more sensible ones. This is not groupthink. It's not a result of political conspiracy. It's the long term result of policymaking designed to make further education a market when that is in some ways inimical to the purpose of a university.
If Adolph Hitler flew in today, they’d send a limousine anyway.
They'd have to, Gromit.
His old limo is being auctioned off.
https:/
They'd have to, Gromit.
His old limo is being auctioned off.
https:/
Kromo;
https:/
I can assure you every penny will go to caring for injured, wildlife, I know this because my daughter has been helping out there for several years, in fact she sacrificed Christmas Day to care for the injured animals. vetuste_enemi has donated, (quite a generous amount too!).
Of course, 4 days can be a long time in politics :0)
Sorry, mushroom.
https:/
I can assure you every penny will go to caring for injured, wildlife, I know this because my daughter has been helping out there for several years, in fact she sacrificed Christmas Day to care for the injured animals. vetuste_enemi has donated, (quite a generous amount too!).
Of course, 4 days can be a long time in politics :0)
Sorry, mushroom.
Do the same arguments have to be had over and over again? How do we move forwards if every generation has to work out for itself issues like fascism, religious extremism, misogyny ... ? Should the "right" answer (e.g. "fascism is bad") even be taught?
Isn't it just an invitation for a riot or no-platforming in other ways, e.g. loud heckling?
Should we be allowing extremists the oxygen of publicity to voice opinions as "free speech" on arguments that have long since been settled in civilised society?
Isn't it just an invitation for a riot or no-platforming in other ways, e.g. loud heckling?
Should we be allowing extremists the oxygen of publicity to voice opinions as "free speech" on arguments that have long since been settled in civilised society?
