Posted on 12/06/2023 4:02:24 PM PST by nickcarraway
THE CHRONICLEN OF HIGHER EDUCATION (Can only be linked to, per FR rules.)
>>> (Can only be linked to, per FR rules.)
Doesn’t stop you from commenting on it.
Why should it?
>>> Why should it?
Well, that’s just kind of the whole idea behind a news forum.
We don’t just post news articles.. we talk about them.
Well, I’d read it, but it won’t let me sign up.
Why should I click on the link if I don’t know what you think about it?
Can’t see article without subscription
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4199162/posts?page=39#39
Our contention is that calls for greater freedom of speech on campuses, however well-intentioned, risk undermining colleges’ central purpose, namely, the production of expert knowledge and understanding, in the sense of disciplinarily warranted opinion. Expertise requires freedom of speech, but it is the result of a process of winnowing and refinement that is premised on the understanding that not all opinions are equally valid. Efforts to “democratize” opinion are antithetical to the role colleges play in educating the public and informing democratic debate. We urge administrators toward caution before uncritically endorsing calls for intellectual diversity in place of academic expertise.
…
We academics tend to want to understand ourselves as egalitarians, and it can feel awkward — undemocratic, even — to claim authority based on expertise. Facing increasing skepticism from the public, we are loath to seem elitist. But we’re not claiming a universal expertise, just a limited scholarly expertise, and it’s for the public to judge how much that kind of expertise matters. For our part, we either stake our claim to the expertise our training and experience provide us, or we stake no claim at all. Nor is it elitist to insist that scholars are best suited to judging whether curricula should be adopted, or speakers sponsored as part of academic programming.
…
Left to its own devices, a marketplace of ideas is under no necessity to converge on the truth. Taken alone, that account of the First Amendment’s understanding of free speech is in tension with expert knowledge, the acquisition of which requires discrimination. The creation of knowledge through academic disciplines would be undermined by a jurisprudence that insisted on content neutrality in this context. The question for Post is, thus, how the conditions required for expert knowledge might be reconciled with the comparatively permissive standards of the public sphere. When free speech drowns out expert speech, we all suffer.
…
embattled academics cannot simply fall back on academic freedom. That concept is, to be sure, indispensable, but, as Durkheim observed, it has to be undergirded by public trust in academics, or, more broadly, by disciplines whose status as disciplines isn’t itself a matter of public dispute. Otherwise we end up where we find ourselves now: with a lack of public support not simply for the claims of certain scholars, but for the value of the disciplines and departments of which they are part — the very disciplines within which these claims might be knowledgeably assessed. Or a sense, at any rate, that these are just further opinions — a dissolving of expertise into a flattened-out theory of knowledge. “Free speech” is what we are left with when we recognize no experts.
They will refuse to have a conservative speaker on campus because it makes some students feel triggered or unsafe? But anti-Israeli rallies that are threatening, are okay?
Wow, I get criticism either way. I believe the fascism in academia is a great threat.
>>> Left to its own devices, a marketplace of ideas is under no necessity to converge on the truth.
Rom 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...
>>> I believe the fascism in academia is a great threat.
Thank you, I feel better now.
You see, the thread title alone can give readers a false impression of you.
It is an important issue to raise. I mean they can talk about Karl Marx and his idiotic ideas till hell freezes over. But talk about putting America first, securing the borders, stopping transgenderism from our elementary schools, promoting the Second Amendment or being against abortion - all pretty normal ideas a generation ago - and the snowflakes come unglued. And they actually believe there is virtue in silencing people who believe in these things. The world is crazy.
The fallacy is known as argument by authority.
bttt
Academia refuses to have a conservative speaker on campus because it makes some
students feel triggered or unsafe. Yet anti-Israeli rallies threatening genocide, are okay?
Amen!
A pair of Arizona state Droids
You should post as many articles as nickcarraway does and maybe readers won't have a false impression of you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.