Gideon Steinbach argued at Heterodox STEM, “It is time to redefine academic freedom, and restore scholarly discourse on campus.” Redefining academic freedom with the dream of removing a perceived evil is a dangerous approach.
There are still untouchable topics that are completely off limits in universities. Many of them have to do with human differences based on biological sex and ethnic origins. Surely some of these have been severely misused in the past when implemented as official policies, but no discussion topic should be prohibited in academia. As long as such topics exist, the search for truth suffers deeply.
The better approach to addressing the radicalization at the universities is to address the untold billions in funding the schools are receiving from Arab countries and China. Having foreign countries bribing our schools is a problem.
The problem with concepts like censoring perceived dangerous ideas suffers always from a few issues, which I as the following.
1. What is considered "dangerous" in such cases is very subjective, biased and often self-serving.
2. Because such ideas are so subjective they are ripe for doublespeak and deliberately vague and ambiguous language which obfuscate the real reasons and make them open for unbridled interpretation, which will always sow partisan divedes, polarisation and strong us vs them division. Which incentivize people treating each other badly.
3. Such ideas are always very sensitive for slippery slopes, which can be fallacious, but also can be real. Because censorship is self-serving, when culture shift, and when what is considered dangerous changes this kind of thinking can turn around and bite those who started it in the faces. It is a sword that tends to cut everyone in it comes in contact with.
4. Every political movement that looks to gain power uses this. You are all very likely to point the fingers at the left. But the right has been using the same tactics for years. And is still doing so. This kind of thinking is bad for everyone, regardless of one's believes. And the moment one side uses this to vilify the other it's often a tactic for propaganda. So be careful how this is used if you really purport to be politically neutral it will also be good to point out that these tactics are used and abused by both sides equally and are always bad no matter who uses it.
There are still untouchable topics that are completely off limits in universities. Many of them have to do with human differences based on biological sex and ethnic origins. Surely some of these have been severely misused in the past when implemented as official policies, but no discussion topic should be prohibited in academia. As long as such topics exist, the search for truth suffers deeply.
The better approach to addressing the radicalization at the universities is to address the untold billions in funding the schools are receiving from Arab countries and China. Having foreign countries bribing our schools is a problem.
The problem with concepts like censoring perceived dangerous ideas suffers always from a few issues, which I as the following.
1. What is considered "dangerous" in such cases is very subjective, biased and often self-serving.
2. Because such ideas are so subjective they are ripe for doublespeak and deliberately vague and ambiguous language which obfuscate the real reasons and make them open for unbridled interpretation, which will always sow partisan divedes, polarisation and strong us vs them division. Which incentivize people treating each other badly.
3. Such ideas are always very sensitive for slippery slopes, which can be fallacious, but also can be real. Because censorship is self-serving, when culture shift, and when what is considered dangerous changes this kind of thinking can turn around and bite those who started it in the faces. It is a sword that tends to cut everyone in it comes in contact with.
4. Every political movement that looks to gain power uses this. You are all very likely to point the fingers at the left. But the right has been using the same tactics for years. And is still doing so. This kind of thinking is bad for everyone, regardless of one's believes. And the moment one side uses this to vilify the other it's often a tactic for propaganda. So be careful how this is used if you really purport to be politically neutral it will also be good to point out that these tactics are used and abused by both sides equally and are always bad no matter who uses it.