To educate? To inform? I mean lectures do happen where people just present historical facts or scientific findings to educate the audience. Not everything is a game of political indoctrination. Furthermore it is still unclear if this lecture had anything to do with the opinions people are up in arms about.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Richard Dawkins tells students upset by Germaine Greer to go home and hug a teddy
- Thread starter Erin S Kittens
- Start date
- Status
To educate? To inform? I mean lectures do happen where people just present historical facts or scientific findings to educate the audience. Not everything is a game of political indoctrination. Furthermore it is still unclear if this lecture had anything to do with the opinions people are up in arms about.
I would assume that the university has a gender studies faculty. This gender studies faculty probably has experts on transgender identity. If TERFs really are discredited as people say they are (which I believe, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to really know like I do with creationism), these experts are allies of the LGBT movement.
So although it's very likely that transgender people themselves aren't very well represented (if at all), their allies are, both in terms of faculty and lectures. Every university has a LGBT support creed (slightly undermined probably by society-wide transphobia background noise, but still). So the transgender movement is winning, academia is largely on their side, and more and more people are starting to understand gender identity.
You say something about making incorrect voices quieter. I can agree with that in terms of politics (no media attention for example, like with neo-nazi's), but not in a university context. Universities should ideally be the one place where incorrect viewpoints can be vocalised, just so experts can concretely determine/explain/teach/research the errors in those viewpoints. Through this process, people are educated. And for that, you need to at least allow people to formulate these incorrect viewpoints.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
They chose to protest, she chose to bail. And now seemingly way more people know those archaic ideas of hers.
You shouldn't be upset about this.
The thing is, everything is political. ESPECIALLY education. We agree to only teach about certain aspects of history (usually the ones which casually gloss over problematic elements of our history), we tailor sex education to the needs of the government, etc.
Why else do you think right-wingers like Carson are so keen to take back power from the "left-wing" universities?
Greer educating people to her view is literally a political form of education.
Yes, humans demonstrably reject disconfirming information. Young, old, it doesn't matter. What a university setting has historically provided is professors and speakers and other contributors who challenge people.
Many people considered civil rights activists and revolutionaries terrorists in the 60's. What if we had this overly sensitive, PC culture back then among the youth? Would they have had a voice? The answer is no, because they had to fight against oppression to earn the right to speak.
Does this mean I agree with this bigot woman? Of course not. But this same attitude can be used to shout down people with a beneficial message. And shouting down everyone and everything accomplishes nothing.
I hate to sound like some old guy screaming at clouds but seriously kids, thicken that skin. You're playing right into the hands of those who would gleefully oppress you by silencing any thought that is dissenting to your groups' views.
partyphone
Banned
"A university is not a safe space. If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy & suck your thumb until ready for university."
-Mature Person Dick Dorkins
The fact that the public at large generally agree with Greer (despite her horrible words and tone) is why I can't accept people equating her speech with outright race-hate or gay-bashing. In those cases, modern society has entirely come to a conclusion as to what is and isn't acceptable to do and say, and there are mere pockets of extremists railing against that.
On the transgender issue there is no societal acceptance of transgender people yet at all. The trans-rights movement is just picking up steam. We can't pretend it's already at the place where gay rights are in the public consciousness or anywhere close. That took decades to achieve, after all. And since we're at the beginning of this process, if we want to progress things we actually have to debate it out, and yes, that means from first principles, as well as accepting that there are literally millions of people out there that hold views that trans people would see as blatant hatred but are still seen as 'common sense' to a great many people. Some of these people can be taught, some can't. But they're out there in vast numbers.
I understand how devastating that is to some, most or all trans people but it's the reality of the world we live in, a reality I'm sure they encounter every day. Shutting down someone like Greer who was going to speak on an entirely different subject on the pretence that the trans issue is settled and she's a hateful extremist doesn't win people over to your side and doesn't jibe with the reality that her view is close to the majority one outside of college campuses.
I also believe (and I've stated this multiple times) that trans rights and acceptance is going to be a much harder sell than gay rights and gay marriage were to the majority of society for a bunch of different reasons. It's a long, hard road ahead.
But you see, I don't see how transphobia is worthy of discussion at a university level. We don't discuss other people's fundamental humanity at a university level, do we? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly sure a class on African-American studies probably wouldn't raise the idea that black people are criminals.
As for your hypothesis that TERFs are discredited... it basically depends on if you're taking a scientific or a populist approach to the word "discredited". I believe the science around transgender people is pretty settled (gender dysphoria is a thing, let them decide how to handle it, we can stop people from going through puberty now yay); but obviously on a popular level that's not true - see how pretty much all the major UK papers defended Greer, especially the Guardian (who are meant to be better on these issues but frequently go to TERFs for opinion pieces, see also Julie Bindel).
freeofgreed
Member
No I'm saying it's okay for students to pressure universities to cancel speakers because of the potential damaging effects said speaker can have (speaking generally here). This is also partly because I don't place too much value of guest speakers in the first place (not saying they aren't important at all, just that they are much less important than traditional education in the grand scheme of things). Keep in mind if they wanted to stop this from being taught in the classroom at all, I'd be 100% against that. But I don't think the bannings are nearly as harmful as some are making it out to be.
CrocMother
Banned
I took a class on trans history in college, taught by a transwoman and the very particulars of transphobia were a common topic of conversation. We talked about the divide between gay/lesbian, feminist and trans activists and if this woman were to come to our uni I'm sure our professor would have given us extra credit for going and hearing her out. I never took an African-American studies course but I could almost guarantee you that the idea that blacks are viewed as criminals would be not only discussed but analyzed if it was relevant to the course subject. I'm not sure if you have ever taken a college course or just some really shitty ones, but the point is to make you intellectually uncomfortable by confronting and challenging your established beliefs.
I find your idea of only talking about "correct" things while quieting "incorrect" things very concerning.
Okay, I understand the concept of talking about historical divisions in activism. That makes sense. I took History as one of my subjects in school and I think learning the lessons of the past helped shape me into the person I am now.
I also feel that if, hypothetically, someone had stood up in that class and said to your professor "I don't believe you are a real woman" that would have just been a waste of time. It requires her to defend her identity, which I consider unnecessary.
That's what I would be uncomfortable with.
That's basically how the concept of a curriculum works, since you can't learn everything. What you mean is you object to my definition of "incorrect", yes?
Yea, I don't know if my post was clear but I'm not exactly upset by this.
If the protesters has somehow barred her from speaking I'd be upset, but they didn't, she chickened out... probably to increase visibility in fact.
I'm mostly like... continually shocked at Dawkin's lack of critical thought in some areas.
A lecture on Calculus isnt political. A timeline of the Iraq war or moments in feminism isnt political. Reading about Austrian economics theories isnt political. It may have political ramifications due to the way the audience uses it but it isn't automatically and deliberately political or pushing an agenda.
...Part of education is developing critical thinking. Walling people off from opinions you think they shouldn't be exposed to through coercion and mob pressure that usurps the normal educational process of vetting speakers is rather concerning. Furthermore it opens up the question I keep asking of how do you actually institute protest feedback and pressure as a means of driving university agenda successfully?
Right now we allow educators to make these decisions about who they hire and who they ask to speak. There are institutional processes in place within the university and from outside, especially in public universities, to control this. Historically it has led to some institutions being more liberal then others and some less so. Where ideas rise and fall on the weight of their evidence and the strength of their arguments. To do so universities have provided a fairly wide array of exposure to various ideas and opinions and through various means. The collective result has been a progressively better society in the long run. What benefits as a whole does the university system gain by encouraging through compliance protest that aims to silent unpopular opinions from being shared? Understanding that this cuts both ways.
It may get a person you hate from getting time to speak to an audience you had no interest in going to in the first place but it just as well may end up getting a valuable liberal speaker you wanted to see canceled. If the choice is between a university where the winds of the most vocal mob can dictate who speaks and one where the university system reigns supreme - flawed as it may be - which leads to some speakers that otherwise would of been pressured out on either side of the political divide of an issue to get a platform, well, I'll take the university that doesn't bend to mob pressures every time. I'll also argue it will provide a better educational environment overall and therefore I am not going to be ok with protests on either side that are trying to break down that process to cater it toward their own opinions and take away the choice from others.
We as a society deem it necessary early on to shield the way we present education topics but as we grow we know that inevitably we are going to be forced into a world where not everyone's opinions are going to conform to our comfort zones. College is typically that last place before going into the real world where critical thinking is actively developed on a broad scale. So if we are going to tinker with it I need good arguments for why.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
When the opinion in question is hate speech the targets have not been "insulated" and this not their chance at education. No trans person is unfamiliar with people who think they are monsters, just as no black kid really manages to grow up without understanding that a lot of people will see him as a "violent thug". Since we do seem to actually be considering her "controversial" opinions their novelty and educational merit is in serious, serious doubt
Like I said, I prefer a university where unfortunately some bad people may get through the vetting process then one where strong enough mob rule can effectively dictate university policy by pressure.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Then can we drop the "comfort zone" line of bullshit at least? This isn't about sensitive kids being exposed to radical new ideas that they just can't cope with. "Trans people are monsters", which is her literal position, is not novel
Dick Dorkins?
I'm not sure what is bullshit about it. The real world is a place where not all opinions are going to conform to our comfort zones. Well rounded critical thinking skills are powerful tools to have when faced with that reality.
JesseEwiak
Member
I guess the 60% of people in America who agree with Noah's Ark being a real thing just heard the better argument then.
I am not sure what your point is. You are presumably in support of ignoring Greer? And if you are trying to draw a parallel between Biblical literalism and Greer's transphobia you are presumably then in favor of ignoring Bible literalists instead of confronting them?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
And having a speaker who reaffirms your inhumanity, in a way you frequently hear from other sources, builds critical thinking skills...how?
Truly the essence of progressive thought. A champion of progressives for decades, one dissident belief and to many fellow circle jerkers, becomes irrelevant, a fossil, a kook.
Why I have nothing to do with modern progressives?
Because you can be utterly orthodox with the present beliefs and values, but in 5, 10, 30 years the goalpost will be moved, morphed and always out of reach. Where they will demand complete agreement or at the least, presenting the proper façade of agreement, on whatever the du jour (guaranteed to be insane) issue of the day is. Any deviance will not be tolerated. Ostracized from the social circle you were apart of, eliminated from the areas they hold power, criticized by bootlickers that haven't had a single original thought in their lives and regulated to a distant memory. A memory of a useful idiot that served their purpose.
There is no redemption in this Ideology, only constant resubmission.
Yes it is, it suggests that calculus is important to learn about.
Yes it is, because inevitably a lecture on "Iraq" or "feminism" will leave certain things out or present things in a certain way.
Never, EVER assume that only people intending to push agendas manage to do so.
And yet, as I have raised previously, education does this anyway. Universities decide what their students will sit (and it is disingenuous to say that this will never, in any way, be political. I study fucking ancient Greek and the texts I read are very much influenced by what society considers acceptable, especially in criticism thereof) - right down to the opinions they are taught in class. To complain that students then want to raise their opinions seems unreasonable.
To believe that everything has always been considered in a perfect meritocracy is fallacious when you consider just how much culture has shifted in the last ten years, let alone the last hundred years.
Students learn that their voice matters in the world. Students learn that bigots are not entitled to a platform to speak. Students become aware that some opinions are indefensible. Universities promote a diverse range of viewpoints. Lots of good stuff.
When I protested a racist speaker at my university, I told all my conservative friends that if there was someone they didn't want to see speak they too should protest. I've never seen any flaw in thinking this.
But this is the problem. What is the difference between Germaine Greer being disinvited and Germaine Greer not being invited in the first place (apart from, we wouldn't be having this argument)? The net result, in terms of lectures given by Germaine Greer to the student body, is the same. Clearly the university, upon reflection, did not consider a lecture by Greer worth fighting for. So... what's the issue? The students only lost something in the sense that they were offered a lecture which was then revoked after new information came to light.
I'd like to stress, also that I agree that private institutions bowing to mob pressures can be problematic. Thing is, I'm also not going to get up on the hill to defend this particular instance. I can't think of a recent case where it's been more obvious that somebody ought to be disinvited, IMO.
Inviting somebody to present a "critical viewpoint" only works if the educators then criticise that viewpoint. Yes, my tutors make me read scholarship that is now out of date, but they present it alongside the things that prove it wrong. That doesn't work in the context of a lecture where someone gets to speak for themselves on their own terms.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
Greer's comments are awful and wrong, but do they actually incite hatred and violence? A lot of British universities don't see anywhere near as much protest when an invite is offered to some Islamic preacher who supports the death penalty for apostates and has far worse things to say about lgbt people (and Jews and atheists and moderate Muslims and...)
Greer says transphobia doesn't exist. That it's not a concept that is possible of existing.
That's an extremely dangerous remark to make in a world that is regularly killing trans people simply for being trans.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
Fair enough. She denies hatred and violence exist. A good reason to debate her and show her she is wrong.
I would not invite a Biblical literalist to a debate on the Big Bang, put it that way.
Well, there's two reasons for this: for one thing, yes, progressive ideology changes with time, because new struggles come to light. Hence why there have been many different, even contradictory waves of feminism (note how early waves wanted to ban porn, nowadays it is embraced)
Secondly, "trans people are monsters" is not a "dissident belief", and Greer has argued it for over two decades.
I refuse to believe this is a thing that actually happens.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
Point? You can provide empirical evidence that refutes her claims. Why would you waste the opportunity to do so publicly?
This removes you from the philosophy of some of the greatest science popularizers of the past thirty years, including Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
There is a reason public debates are encouraged by higher education. It is not to simply give a voice to those with controversial ideas. It is not to present oppression as equal to progressiveness. It is to create a dialogue and challenge belief systems. It is to move closer to truth.
You can't change minds without challenging them. You can't challenge them without giving them a platform from which to speak.
And yet it does both of these things, but that's neither here nor there.
The more important question is - in the modern age, does a university need to waste time inviting a Biblical literalist to their science department? Why not simply invite a scientist? Why not invite the people you have mentioned? Would they not be more productive? Do we not accept that some things are considered a priori true, or should they be constantly forced to justify their own existence?
This also ignores the fact that this was not an invitation to debate, it was an invitation for Greer to speak. If it were a debate, then things could be different. But it was not. She was invited to speak and then, following concerns raised, the invitation was withdrawn. Her ideas are still out in the public forum. In fact, they are dominating the public forum because the populist view of transsexuals is still a negative one, and yet the 'free speech' defence is being raised in favour of Greer, and not her critics who lack the reach that she has.
EDIT: Reading your last comment, take a look at how every single article in the papers this week seems to be in favour of Greer. In exchange for losing a lecture at a university, she has had a platform all over the place. Tell me - who needs help to foster the dialogue? Is it the woman who denies her opponents' fundamental humanity or those who simply want to be allowed to live without constantly defending their existence?
JesseEwiak
Member
I fully expect to be seen as a conservative fuddy duddy by my grandkids. And that's a good thing. Otherwise, we'd be happy with where we are. Atticus Finch was a hero in the 30's and a racist by the 60's. Good.
It's already been done publicly. Hell, the internet is more public than that university conference
You really said nothing of value pertaining to much of what I wrote and frankly, Im not going to waste the time going line by line with this tripe. I think you are honestly showing just why it is important to be presented with challenging and contrarian opinions to your own. You constantly talk past, misframe, move goal posts, generalize to the point of absurdity to win an argument and straight up argue against points no one is making. This is an exercise not worth engaging in.
Im sorry you wasted so much time with what you thought was a deconstruction of my point but Im not sure what I am reading here other then a lot of garbage.
She wasn't invited to go to a debate, she was invited to do a lecture. Which are barely more than one-way conversations that do not ressemble a debate in the slightest.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
You are fairly mediocre at saying nothing tbh. Language needs to be more flowery than this.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
You're the one who keeps repeating "exposure to different opinions" like some kind of fetishistic mantra without any apparent interest in the context around a particular speaker or set of opinions. You didn't actually answer when I asked how hate being given an official platform develops helps develop "critical thinking" other then "man fuck the authority that gives this person a platform"
I really don't, but the revelation that you don't believe anything is political unless it is intentionally so tells me everything I need to know.
I'd love to know where I "straight up argue against points no one is making", since you have accused me of this lots of times but never given me an example once.
Can you explain?
All beliefs not only should be constantly revisited, but need to be. Nothing should ever be assumed to be true a priori. If you ask anyone to accept something at face value, no matter how obvious it may seem to you, no matter how reprehensible the alternatives, you do them an injustice. You must always justify your claims.
What you are suggesting is scary. It is damaging. It is exactly what a critical education protects against.
The visit would have spurred conversation. You must have more faith in people. Dialogue is a natural consequence of public speeches. There would have likely been a q&a, critical discussion in classrooms, and editorials in the campus paper. A speaker does not necessarily need to engage in a debate at an event for there to be debate about the content of his speech. This thread exemplifies that.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I mean, her views on trans people are literally on the scale of "black people are mentally inferior", are you going to argue that from now until the far flung future that would be an opinion that needed thorough debunking? It never reaches a point of "no that's fucking stupid"?
JesseEwiak
Member
Come on, it makes perfect sense that every so often we need to ya' know, just double check that white people aren't genetically superior to the other races and give that hypothetical 100% respect, or we aren't looking at all the evidence.
If people believe it, a counter argument must be substantiated with some kind of why, otherwise we may as well give up.
What you are asking to enforce is the same kind of appeal to authority that people use to propel bigotry in the first place. Your view is more suited to social tolerance but is just as damaging to critical thought and individual empowerment.
I am honestly surprised that you of all people are arguing that we should not support our arguments with proof. You used to have a lot more substance behind your views.
It's irrelevant.
No. You are missing my point. In every single debate, there are certain things that we have to consider to be a priori true. We do not start every debate by saying "Well we are on the Earth which is a planet which revolves around the Sun..." and then continue when we reach the relevant point. Certain things are accepted a priori. This is the same reason why we have fundamental human rights.
Transgender people are not required to protect their identities at every turn.
I'm sure that trans folk will be delighted to see that once again they get to be the subject of debate.
This is precisely why I'm glad she was disinvited. By confronting her in that way it was made clear that her views were absolutely unacceptable, and the debate that has occurred represents in some ways an opportunity for people to raise their voices about disinviting Greer and her views. I am disappointed that so many have come out in her defence, and I would argue the real "free speech" issue lies in how a platform is denied to her opponents.
JesseEwiak
Member
No, you're defending her right to speak and get paid for it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah. And then I talked to people and made friends in marginalized groups who told me, repeatedly, from different backgrounds, how having their humanity or fundamental worth be a topic of debate was hurtful. How conversations in which two people debate about the "facts" of another person's right to basically exist are ultimately alienating even if one person really is arguing in your favor. That respect for the very idea of conversation sends a message about the topic being an acceptable point of contention. I realized that I care a lot more about not hurting people who the world does enough of a job hurting already than I do about maintaining some high minded ideal of perfect discourse
- Status