The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is caught up in its biggest free-speech scandal since the 2019 disinvitation of Professor Dorian Abbot from giving a lecture on astronomy because he had once published an op-ed against illegal racial discrimination in admissions.
Completely disagree. Things not allowed on University campuses are not solely restricted to criminal actions. I am not allowed to walk on the lawn at my college in Cambridge. Not because it is illegal, but because the institution has rules.
Students even vaguely plausibly inciting violence are obviously breaking rules that exist for good reason at an institution that is NOT about maximal freedom, as in society, but instead has an explicit duty of care for its staff and students. The left have weaponised that duty to institute authoritarianism over areas where the University has no plausible case to tell people what to do, but this is different.
There is NO valid case to be made that violent action should ever be organised against any member of the university. It is patently obvious that the University should not tolerate this and anybody trying to ferment such a thing should absolutely be immediately ejected from the course.
I mean, the example you give of the line being a detailed plan to kill someone should self-evidently NOT be where we draw the line. It's frankly unbelievable that you would draw the line so far into extremism - basically at the point where it would be too late to stop horrible violence from unfolding, and at a point where nobody wanting to initiate violence would ever logically cross because it would actually be counter-productive to their goal.
As someone working at a University, I wish we were far more stringent in application of common sense about prohibiting calls for violence and abuse of shared spaces on campus. These are centres of learning, as well as temporarily people's homes, and marxists trying to incite a bloody revolution should quite simply be removed from the premises never to return. Good riddance!
I as well think that this character Prahlad went way too far, after numerous warnings. He did not seem to recognize that what he was doing was beyond the pale. If this magazine was his first offense, it probably would not have been treated the same way. But this seems to demonstrate that he was deliberately flouting the rules and flaunting his supposed impunity in front of the administration. He was daring them to act. So, they acted.
The situation is, MIT is on very thin ice. They do not have a huge endowment like Harvard. Even huge endowments might be a target in this incoming administration, as president-elect Trump has threatened. MIT gets the vast majority of its money from federal contracts. Many are still furious with MIT for not being more forceful in stopping student protests and encampments last year.
So MIT has to err on the side of caution, if they want to have any hope of continuing to exist. And I write as an MIT alumnus. MIT is irritating the people and organizations that fund it, and its huge influential body of alumni.
People think that universities in the US can continue to be "woke" and are somewhat immune. No, nothing is farther from the truth. The recent "woke right" dustup on X demonstrates that the cretins who are anxious to wield political power right now and get retribution are only barely restrained at the moment.
So, MIT was just being prudent. Do we want MIT to survive and continue to be funded with grants and contracts? Then if so, MIT must toe the line. They must even be "more Catholic than the Pope himself" or however that saying goes. If that seems excessive (which it is), then fine. In the current atmosphere, it might be necessary.
Eric, you draw many possibly useful distinctions and this comment does not go to your central point but … at one point you appear to equate all use of force to violence. Restraining my child who is advancing rapidly toward a street uses force but is clearly not violent. I’m not sure exactly where to draw the line between force and violence but there is definitely a distinction to be made.
We should give MIT a break for punishing the graduate student who urged his supporters to “stop being nonviolent”:
1. MIT’s action is well within their rules.
2. The recent history of this issue is highly asymmetrical: Pro-Hamas demonstrators have broken rules in many universities, including MIT. Punishment has been minimal.
3. The writer says (referring to the problematic article). “Yes, “On Pacifism” argues for violence, but that is not the same as inciting violence.”
4. It depends on the context: Statements like: “It is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc,” and, “We have a mandate to exact a cost from the institutions.” “We need to start viewing pacifism as a tactical choice made in a contextual sphere,” and, “We must act now.” Given recent history, that all sounds pretty inflammatory.
5. We should understand MIT’s apparent desire to restore some balance to what has been a very unbalanced situation on their campus and many others.
The above is a prime example of how the university campus serves as a launch pad for disseminating disinformation and hate to the global media. The fabricators of hate are not asked to engage in evidence based scholarly debate. Instead, they are encouraged to freely express.
Fake Free-Speech/ Academic Freedom Orthodoxy expressed by Woke/DEI/FIRE/Heterodox Academy is the problem. (1, 2) It enables the fabrication of disinformation and hate on campus. The solution is simple and doable: restore scholarly discourse and the pursuit of validated truth in education and on the university campus.
Those concerned with problem solving on campus can structure the university campus as a platform for evidence based debate that includes accountability and self-correction.
STEM faculty must look in the mirror and ask: what is our goal at the university? Free expression regardless of content, or the pursuit of validated knowledge.
The die is cast. Starting January 20, the government will pull the rug from under our feet and restructure education.
We have a great opportunity to effect change and to have a say, but we need to 1) redirect our mission and 2) do the work.
Our fake pretense of "free expression on campus" no matter how much it hurts is the bluff that the electorate rejected. We need to define our mission and our "to do" list. 1. restore the pursuit of validated truth and the practice of scholarly discourse on campus. 2. Eliminate the effectors of disinformation in the classroom and on campus.
To do: expose, online, the disinformation taught in the classroom. This will enable the accrediting bodies to address the problem.
Addendum: Redefining our Mission at Heterodox Academy
WHY do we adhere to the FIRE and Heterodox Academy mission and battle cry for FREEDOM OF INQUIRY and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (that we have and agree on) ?
Freedom of Inquiry is alive and well in the USA. This is supported by the phenomenal (and exponentially rising) advancement of knowledge.
Freedom of expression is alive and well. 30 years ago we heard near zero voices. Today we hear billions of voices, every day, all day.
Our main problem is DISINFORMATION, its fabrication and teaching at the university.
STEM scientists have defined and exposed the problem.
But, we Academicians, FIRE and Heterodox Academy have perpetuated, rather than abated, the exponential rise of DEI/Woke disinformation and the dismantling of Western values of Democracy and human rights. https://weareall.com/pedagogical-malpractice/
The new administration will restructure education to eliminate DEI/Woke and pro-Jihad, anti-democracy, anti-humanity ideology on campus. Hence, it is time for us to redefine our mission.
Post October 7, academia and FIRE flaunted their support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Jihad. This was a wakeup call to what we, educators, have done. We received freshman students who were deeply committed to the rights and freedom of all humans, and we transformed them into advocates of ideologies that viciously suppress human rights and freedoms. Brilliant students at MIT continue to support Jihad and view Western Culture as the chief enemy of humanity. This alarming historical phenomenon is as serious as communism and Nazism in the 1930s (which academia failed to address and resolve). The voice of the university has now become a weapon that promotes global deaths in real time. This is no longer an academic issue open to chatting. It is clearly time for the American people to intervene.. but this will not come without pain. It is up to us to participate in the restructuring of our educational institutions in order to ensure and optimize the free and effective pursuit of knowledge.
It is time for FIRE and Heterodox Academy to (abandon our empty slogans and) actively engage in the reconstruction of our educational system to the benefit of our students. And it is time for us to make sure that this happens.
The phenomenal progress in information technology transformed our educational system into a dinosaur that requires re-creation. Let's embrace the restructuring of education as a welcome opportunity.
On a relevant note, I really don't understand why Universities have become Hubs for protests regarding Global Affairs... We are not Government Officials: We Academics have no control over such issues. There are surely better venues for protesting in America...
Universities must be places in which people mainly study. In particular, Professors and Students need focus on coursework and research most of the time. Hosting lectures in Astronomy, as well as in other branches of Science, is an excellent example for an endeavor that Universities shall pursue.
It is because anti-Zionism, Jew-hate, "social justice," and radical race theory are the main topics taught in the "humanities" and "social sciences," and the Marxist theory that the world is divided into "oppressors" and "victims" is the central university organizing principle of the administration and its DEI political commissars. And "social activism" has replaced the search for truth.
You have some interesting thoughts here. However, we must emphasize that there's a drastic distinction between a Professor criticizing admissions and Students encouraging violence...
It is now indeed time that we redefine Academic Freedom. Note that our Freedom for Communication at Universities can be constrained in comparison with our Freedom for Communication in the rest of Society (as defined by the US Constitution).
The author uses the very high bar set for criminal incitement created by US First Amendment law to state that material such as "It is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc...We must act now” is not a criminal offence, and thus that MIT should permit it.
Not so fast. This smart guy EE PhD candidate is skating right on the edge of a crime. But even if no DA is prosecuting, his writing is clearly threatening to a small minority group on campus during a turbulent time when actual violence was being committed at major universities including MIT. Definitely a student code of conduct violation, crime or not.
Completely disagree. Things not allowed on University campuses are not solely restricted to criminal actions. I am not allowed to walk on the lawn at my college in Cambridge. Not because it is illegal, but because the institution has rules.
Students even vaguely plausibly inciting violence are obviously breaking rules that exist for good reason at an institution that is NOT about maximal freedom, as in society, but instead has an explicit duty of care for its staff and students. The left have weaponised that duty to institute authoritarianism over areas where the University has no plausible case to tell people what to do, but this is different.
There is NO valid case to be made that violent action should ever be organised against any member of the university. It is patently obvious that the University should not tolerate this and anybody trying to ferment such a thing should absolutely be immediately ejected from the course.
I mean, the example you give of the line being a detailed plan to kill someone should self-evidently NOT be where we draw the line. It's frankly unbelievable that you would draw the line so far into extremism - basically at the point where it would be too late to stop horrible violence from unfolding, and at a point where nobody wanting to initiate violence would ever logically cross because it would actually be counter-productive to their goal.
As someone working at a University, I wish we were far more stringent in application of common sense about prohibiting calls for violence and abuse of shared spaces on campus. These are centres of learning, as well as temporarily people's homes, and marxists trying to incite a bloody revolution should quite simply be removed from the premises never to return. Good riddance!
I as well think that this character Prahlad went way too far, after numerous warnings. He did not seem to recognize that what he was doing was beyond the pale. If this magazine was his first offense, it probably would not have been treated the same way. But this seems to demonstrate that he was deliberately flouting the rules and flaunting his supposed impunity in front of the administration. He was daring them to act. So, they acted.
The situation is, MIT is on very thin ice. They do not have a huge endowment like Harvard. Even huge endowments might be a target in this incoming administration, as president-elect Trump has threatened. MIT gets the vast majority of its money from federal contracts. Many are still furious with MIT for not being more forceful in stopping student protests and encampments last year.
So MIT has to err on the side of caution, if they want to have any hope of continuing to exist. And I write as an MIT alumnus. MIT is irritating the people and organizations that fund it, and its huge influential body of alumni.
People think that universities in the US can continue to be "woke" and are somewhat immune. No, nothing is farther from the truth. The recent "woke right" dustup on X demonstrates that the cretins who are anxious to wield political power right now and get retribution are only barely restrained at the moment.
So, MIT was just being prudent. Do we want MIT to survive and continue to be funded with grants and contracts? Then if so, MIT must toe the line. They must even be "more Catholic than the Pope himself" or however that saying goes. If that seems excessive (which it is), then fine. In the current atmosphere, it might be necessary.
Eric, you draw many possibly useful distinctions and this comment does not go to your central point but … at one point you appear to equate all use of force to violence. Restraining my child who is advancing rapidly toward a street uses force but is clearly not violent. I’m not sure exactly where to draw the line between force and violence but there is definitely a distinction to be made.
We should give MIT a break for punishing the graduate student who urged his supporters to “stop being nonviolent”:
1. MIT’s action is well within their rules.
2. The recent history of this issue is highly asymmetrical: Pro-Hamas demonstrators have broken rules in many universities, including MIT. Punishment has been minimal.
3. The writer says (referring to the problematic article). “Yes, “On Pacifism” argues for violence, but that is not the same as inciting violence.”
4. It depends on the context: Statements like: “It is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc,” and, “We have a mandate to exact a cost from the institutions.” “We need to start viewing pacifism as a tactical choice made in a contextual sphere,” and, “We must act now.” Given recent history, that all sounds pretty inflammatory.
5. We should understand MIT’s apparent desire to restore some balance to what has been a very unbalanced situation on their campus and many others.
J. Staddon, Duke University
The above is a prime example of how the university campus serves as a launch pad for disseminating disinformation and hate to the global media. The fabricators of hate are not asked to engage in evidence based scholarly debate. Instead, they are encouraged to freely express.
Fake Free-Speech/ Academic Freedom Orthodoxy expressed by Woke/DEI/FIRE/Heterodox Academy is the problem. (1, 2) It enables the fabrication of disinformation and hate on campus. The solution is simple and doable: restore scholarly discourse and the pursuit of validated truth in education and on the university campus.
Those concerned with problem solving on campus can structure the university campus as a platform for evidence based debate that includes accountability and self-correction.
STEM faculty must look in the mirror and ask: what is our goal at the university? Free expression regardless of content, or the pursuit of validated knowledge.
The die is cast. Starting January 20, the government will pull the rug from under our feet and restructure education.
We have a great opportunity to effect change and to have a say, but we need to 1) redirect our mission and 2) do the work.
Our fake pretense of "free expression on campus" no matter how much it hurts is the bluff that the electorate rejected. We need to define our mission and our "to do" list. 1. restore the pursuit of validated truth and the practice of scholarly discourse on campus. 2. Eliminate the effectors of disinformation in the classroom and on campus.
To do: expose, online, the disinformation taught in the classroom. This will enable the accrediting bodies to address the problem.
1. https://weareall.com/pedagogical-malpractice/
2. https://weareall.com/education/
Addendum: Redefining our Mission at Heterodox Academy
WHY do we adhere to the FIRE and Heterodox Academy mission and battle cry for FREEDOM OF INQUIRY and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (that we have and agree on) ?
Freedom of Inquiry is alive and well in the USA. This is supported by the phenomenal (and exponentially rising) advancement of knowledge.
Freedom of expression is alive and well. 30 years ago we heard near zero voices. Today we hear billions of voices, every day, all day.
Our main problem is DISINFORMATION, its fabrication and teaching at the university.
STEM scientists have defined and exposed the problem.
https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/download/article/3/1/236/pdf
and that is the problem that we should address.
But, we Academicians, FIRE and Heterodox Academy have perpetuated, rather than abated, the exponential rise of DEI/Woke disinformation and the dismantling of Western values of Democracy and human rights. https://weareall.com/pedagogical-malpractice/
The new administration will restructure education to eliminate DEI/Woke and pro-Jihad, anti-democracy, anti-humanity ideology on campus. Hence, it is time for us to redefine our mission.
Post October 7, academia and FIRE flaunted their support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Jihad. This was a wakeup call to what we, educators, have done. We received freshman students who were deeply committed to the rights and freedom of all humans, and we transformed them into advocates of ideologies that viciously suppress human rights and freedoms. Brilliant students at MIT continue to support Jihad and view Western Culture as the chief enemy of humanity. This alarming historical phenomenon is as serious as communism and Nazism in the 1930s (which academia failed to address and resolve). The voice of the university has now become a weapon that promotes global deaths in real time. This is no longer an academic issue open to chatting. It is clearly time for the American people to intervene.. but this will not come without pain. It is up to us to participate in the restructuring of our educational institutions in order to ensure and optimize the free and effective pursuit of knowledge.
It is time for FIRE and Heterodox Academy to (abandon our empty slogans and) actively engage in the reconstruction of our educational system to the benefit of our students. And it is time for us to make sure that this happens.
The phenomenal progress in information technology transformed our educational system into a dinosaur that requires re-creation. Let's embrace the restructuring of education as a welcome opportunity.
On a relevant note, I really don't understand why Universities have become Hubs for protests regarding Global Affairs... We are not Government Officials: We Academics have no control over such issues. There are surely better venues for protesting in America...
Universities must be places in which people mainly study. In particular, Professors and Students need focus on coursework and research most of the time. Hosting lectures in Astronomy, as well as in other branches of Science, is an excellent example for an endeavor that Universities shall pursue.
It is because anti-Zionism, Jew-hate, "social justice," and radical race theory are the main topics taught in the "humanities" and "social sciences," and the Marxist theory that the world is divided into "oppressors" and "victims" is the central university organizing principle of the administration and its DEI political commissars. And "social activism" has replaced the search for truth.
You have some interesting thoughts here. However, we must emphasize that there's a drastic distinction between a Professor criticizing admissions and Students encouraging violence...
It is now indeed time that we redefine Academic Freedom. Note that our Freedom for Communication at Universities can be constrained in comparison with our Freedom for Communication in the rest of Society (as defined by the US Constitution).
Essay and comments: good discussion. Too bad good discussions are forbidden in universities.
The author uses the very high bar set for criminal incitement created by US First Amendment law to state that material such as "It is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc...We must act now” is not a criminal offence, and thus that MIT should permit it.
Not so fast. This smart guy EE PhD candidate is skating right on the edge of a crime. But even if no DA is prosecuting, his writing is clearly threatening to a small minority group on campus during a turbulent time when actual violence was being committed at major universities including MIT. Definitely a student code of conduct violation, crime or not.
Good for MIT.
Excellent. Very well argued.
It makes sense. The same happened to me. It happens every day in our solemn Western Civilization in these grim times:
[https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/heresy]
[https://www.kritischegesellschaftsforschung.de/Journal/Article/65/50/pdf]