Support NeoGAF

[Jonm1010]

If the student body is against it, then no, I think she shouldn't be paid and promoted to speak on campus by the university in an official capacity for a publicized campus event (clubs specifically raising money to bring her to club functions is another thing).

So you are advocating mob rule should dictate university policy?

How is that a smart way to run a college? And how does this actually work? How does such a system function? Is 2600 random signatures from a school of 26,000 enough to influence change? Given that is what happened here I have to assume you think so.

 

[partyphone]

it's clearly a difference of degrees, right? in both cases the university is lending its credibility, and money, to the guest. what's the prestige threshold where it's acceptable to criticise and protest? do you have a chart handy or something? because otherwise this is just special pleading in defense of dawkins.

 

[Nairume]

So you are advocating mob rule should dictate university policy?

How is that a smart way to run a college? And how does this actually work? How does such a system function? Is 2600 random signatures from a school of 26,000 enough to influence change? Given that is what happened here I have to assume you think so.

I'm advocating that students and faculty should be given a voice in what university funds are spent on.

That is not an unreasonable suggestion.

 

[Jonm1010]

I'm advocating that students and faculty should be given a voice in what university funds are spent on.

That is not an unreasonable suggestion.

I think it is.

Students are not educators, administrators or experts. Again though, spell out for me how this process works? Is 2600 random signatures on change.org the official policy? How does this system work? How do you deal with the chaos this will create? How are you going to feel when the shoe is on the other foot and anti-climate change students use the process to cancel any and all climate talks?

How is such a system more beneficial to the educational process of its student body then the classic contemporary model where a wide array of voices are typically offered through a university selection process conducted by staff? This sort of system you offer seems poised to shut down anything outside the student bodies collective group think. Which seems to be the antithesis to a good college education.

 

[Arkeband]

it's clearly a difference of degrees, right? in both cases the university is lending its credibility, and money, to the guest. what's the prestige threshold where it's acceptable to criticise and protest? do you have a chart handy or something? because otherwise this is just special pleading in defense of dawkins.

The threshold would be the awarding of an honorary degree.

 

[partyphone]

The threshold would be the awarding of an honorary degree.

this seems arbitrary, though.

 

[Cagey]

I think it is.

Students are not educators, administrators or experts. Again though, spell out for me how this process works? Is 2600 random signatures on change.org the official policy? How does this system work? How do you deal with the chaos this will create? How are you going to feel when the shoe is on the other foot and anti-climate change students use the process to cancel any and all climate talks?

How is such a system more beneficial to the educational process of its student body then the classic contemporary model where a wide array of voices are typically offered through a university selection process conducted by staff? This sort of system you offer seems poised to shut down anything outside the student bodies collective group think. Which seems to be the antithesis to a good college education.

And there's an inherent assumption flaw throughout this thread that, based on the protestations of a vocal few, there's a wider consensus to form said group think.

Imagine this sort of university policy of canceling visiting speakers/guests based on an arbitrary level of student complaints when competing groups at colleges seek to ban speakers on the Israeli/Palestine conflict they disagree with.

 

[aeolist]

How are you going to feel when the shoe is on the other foot and anti-climate change students use the process to cancel any and all climate talks?

this one at least is easy, because there's clearly a right answer to the question of anthropogenic climate change

much like there is to the question "are trans people actually what they say they are"

standing up for bigotry and misinformation isn't good for free speech

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Clearly they don't understand her views on the subject as a number of her books have received critical acclaim and are viewed as extremely insightful and informational. They contain no anti-trans viewpoints as far as I have read/learned.

As for not being silenced, she wasn't officially, but that's 100% what the students were advocating for. They were trying to get her permanently banned from speaking at the university. The fact that she wasn't and she backed down is absolutely a fault of hers, but to pretend that the protesters were simply voicing concerns about her is very dishonest.

And? She has critical acclaim. She's still an unabashed bigot. People don't have to compartmentalize that if they don't want to.

You are unable to understand these protesters are allowed to protest. Your anger at them is weird since you champion Greer speaking: you're OK with her speaking even though she has some very toxic beliefs but don't believe protesters should protest because they should buck up (in a way be silent). In other words you can't be for free speech like this and say people can't protest.

 

[Jonm1010]

this one at least is easy, because there's clearly a right answer to the question of anthropogenic climate change

much like there is to the question "are trans people actually what they say they are"

standing up for bigotry and misinformation isn't good for free speech

That has no bearing on the premise that if the student body is against something the university should cancel it. Which was the argument put forth.

 

[Nairume]

I think it is.

Students are not educators, administrators or experts. Again though, spell out for me how this process works? Is 2600 random signatures on change.org the official policy? How does this system work? How do you deal with the chaos this will create? How are you going to feel when the shoe is on the other foot and anti-climate change students use the process to cancel any and all climate talks?

Students not being educators, administrators, or experts is irrelevant to this discussion (it's also not entirely true, either). University policies and spending both directly and indirectly impact students, often in significant ways. If the university is spending money on organizing something that a significant portion of the student population does not support, they should be allowed to express their grievances and be taken into consideration.

And, no, there does not need to be a system in place for this (beyond the systems that actually do exist for such dialog, that is). If students actually feel strongly enough about a subject that a significant amount of them make a visibly organized effort to let that be known, that should be enough for the administration to take them into consideration.

 

[Jonm1010]

Students not being educators, administrators, or experts is irrelevant to this discussion (it's also not entirely true, either). University policies and spending both directly and indirectly impact students, often in significant ways. If the university is spending money on organizing something that a significant portion of the student population does not support, they should be allowed to express their grievances and be taken into consideration.

And, no, there does not need to be a system in place for this (beyond the systems that actually do exist for such dialog, that is). If students actually feel strongly enough about a subject that a significant amount of them make a visibly organized effort to let that be known, that should be enough for the administration to take them into consideration.

So just to be clear we have changed the argument a bit. We have moved from if the student body is against it then the university should follow suit and cancel, to if the student body has a grievance they should take their grievence into account.

...And if they take that opinion into account and still book Greer next time?

 

[Subpar Spatula]

That has no bearing on the premise that if the student body is against something the university should cancel it. Which was the argument put forth.

Why not? Students give money to the university, so if a lot of students want X they should be entitled to ask or demand it. Let's say a university puts up a Creationist Museum. Should students just accept it as out of their control or should they advocate for change?

 

[Jonm1010]

Why not? Students give money to the university, so if a lot of students want X they should be entitled to ask or demand it.

You are paying for an education administered by the college(or the state is paying for it). You are not becoming a shareholder and decision maker on matters of spending and policy. You are not guaranteed a role in selecting speakers, professors or process.

If you think that should be the new policy of college then make the case.

And again, I keep putting forth this challenge, how do you implement such a system? And why is it a preferable alternative?

 

[aeolist]

That has no bearing on the premise that if the student body is against something the university should cancel it. Which was the argument put forth.

it's absolutely not, the post you replied to said that students should have a voice in this process, not that they should have the final say or veto power. the school still has to judge a protest on its merits.

 

[Hero Prinny]

I agree 100%, a lot of these college kids act like god damn babies wnd i say that as a college student

 

[Subpar Spatula]

You are paying for an education administered by the college. You are not becoming a shareholder and decision maker on matters of spending and policy. You are not guaranteed a role in selecting speakers, professors or process.


And again, I keep putting forth this challenge, how do you implement such a system? And why is it a preferable alternative?

Not a shareholder but your entitled to voice your opinion and ask for change.

As an alternative? I never said it was an alternative. It can coexist with university officials.

 

[Alexlf]

And? She has critical acclaim. She's still an unabashed bigot. People don't have to compartmentalize that if they don't want to.

You are unable to understand these protesters are allowed to protest. Your anger at them is weird since you champion Greer speaking: you're OK with her speaking even though she has some very toxic beliefs but don't believe protesters should protest because they should buck up (in a way be silent). In other words you can't be for free speech like this and say people can't protest.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm OK with both of them speaking. I've been saying, and continue to say, that it's stupid of them to try and get her banned from speaking. Counter intuitive to their education. I'm NOT saying people shouldn't be allowed to protest, or in any manner of speaking advocating for them to be silenced.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

Why not? Students give money to the university, so if a lot of students want X they should be entitled to ask or demand it. Let's say a university puts up a Creationist Museum. Should students just accept it as out of their control or should they advocate for change?

I think the argument (as it started as it seems the have changed mid argument) was at what percentage of the student body complaining/making representations should the administration take note/undertake action?

the example was if 10% (2600 of 26000) complained is that enough that the university should prevent something that it appears 90% are okay with

Its an interesting point i've not seen an answer to

 

[Jonm1010]

it's absolutely not, the post you replied to said that students should have a voice in this process, not that they should have the final say or veto power. the school still has to judge a protest on its merits.

No, he said very specifically "if the student body is against it(referring to a university offering Ann Coulter to speak) then no I think she shouldn't be paid and given a platform."

He implied exactly that the student body should have veto power. Now he has since changed his argument a bit so maybe some clarification is needed and he misspoke earlier.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm OK with both of them speaking. I've been saying, and continue to say, that it's stupid of them to try and get her banned from speaking. Counter intuitive to their education. I'm NOT saying people shouldn't be allowed to protest, or in any manner of speaking advocating for them to be silenced.

I find this hard to believe. You're not going to be this against the protest if you think they shouldn't have done it in the first place. Those who are for allowing speech don't question why a protest exists.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

An honorary degree is "just a pep talk"..?

I was referring to the commencement speech.

Not to mention the commencement speech is probably mandatory to attend, no? And There's no audience questions or debate.

Its a commencement speech, it has one goal and that is to motivate the students, not a place to give his opinion or his views thats why there is no questions or debate.

 

[aeolist]

i guess we need to let conservatives teach intelligent design in public school science classes then. we don't want to quash their freedom of speech or coddle kids, they need to be exposed to all competing views in the pursuit of a good education.

 

[Jonm1010]

Not a shareholder but your entitled to voice your opinion and ask for change.

As an alternative? I never said it was an alternative. It can coexist with university officials.

You aren't entitled to and guaranteed an outcome is my point. Nor should you be.

 

[Alexlf]

I find this hard to believe. You're not going to be this against the protest if you think they shouldn't have done it in the first place. Those who are for allowing speech don't question why a protest exists.

I DO think they shouldn't have done them in the first place. It's really dumb. That doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't be ABLE to.

 

[Perfect Blue]

lol more crap from Dawkins recently. These kids protested and she backed down on her accord, wtf is the big deal?

 

[partyphone]

lol more crap from Dawkins recently. These kids protested and she backed down on her accord, wtf is the big deal?

a combination of stretching to defend dawkins and/or agreeing with greer's bigotry to some degree. free speech absolutists tend to only defend speech they agree with or is convenient to agree with.

there's also the misguided notion that greer's views would somehow challenge the students when the opposite is true. her bigotry is commonplace and tedious not intellectually challenging.

 

[Nairume]

So just to be clear we have changed the argument a bit. We have moved from if the student body is against it then the university should follow suit and cancel, to if the student body has a grievance they should take their grievence into account.

Perhaps and I apologize for doing so, but both do apply in this case.

Universities *should* consider the grievances of students in regards to cancelling an unpopular event, and the university *should* follow suit an cancel an event shown to be incredibly unpopular.

But I agree that they don't *have* to, which is an important distinction. Maybe the university does have legitimate justification for going through with an unpopular event/decision (though "challenging students" isn't really a great argument for a one time presentation with a potential brief QA session at the end) and considering the grievances of the student will at least serve to help better explain that justification.

...And if they take that opinion into account and still book Greer next time?

Then that's on the administration if they have to deal with students protesting again, and I would hope that they offer up a reasonable justification for using university funds for such an event knowing that it's an unpopular decision.

 

[Perfect Blue]

a combination of stretching to defend dawkins and/or agreeing with greer's bigotry to some degree. free speech absolutists tend to only defend speech they agree with or is convenient to agree with.

there's also the misguided notion that greer's views would somehow challenge the students when the opposite is true. her bigotry is commonplace and tedious not intellectually challenging.

Now that you mention it it is so weird to me to see posts where people in this thread are looking at this from a "free speech" angle. Free speech just means the government can't arrest for your views it doesn't mean others need to give you a platform for saying stupid shit.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Now that you mention it it is so weird to me to see posts where people in this thread are looking at this from a "free speech" angle. Free speech just means the government can't arrest for your views it doesn't mean others need to give you a platform for saying stupid shit.

Yes it is weird. Very weird.

I mean, I know many of us on NEOGAF believe in equal rights regarding lesbian, gay and trans-sexual people.. so its strange to see people stretch to defend and advocate giving a bigot a platform..

I dont know... I get so confused sometimes

 

[Red]

Yes it is weird. Very weird.

I mean, I know many of us on NEOGAF believe in equal rights regarding lesbian, gay and trans-sexual people.. so its strange to see people stretch to defend and advocate giving a bigot a platform..

I dont know... I get so confused sometimes

The way I see it, if you ignore a cancer it will not spontaneously go away. Social issues have never been resolved by ignoring the offending party. It's not about free speech. It's about using every opportunity to mount a counter argument, to fight against injustice.

I don't think every idea has the same merit or should be offered the same platform. I would simply like bigoted beliefs to be publicly discredited.

 

[Jonm1010]

Perhaps and I apologize for doing so, but both do apply in this case.

Universities *should* consider the grievances of students in regards to cancelling an unpopular event, and the university *should* follow suit an cancel an event shown to be incredibly unpopular.

But I agree that they don't *have* to, which is an important distinction. Maybe the university does have legitimate justification for going through with an unpopular event/decision (though "challenging students" isn't really a great argument for a one time presentation with a potential brief QA session at the end) and considering the grievances of the student will at least serve to help better explain that justification.


Then that's on the administration if they have to deal with students protesting again, and I would hope that they offer up a reasonable justification for using university funds for such an event knowing that it's an unpopular decision.

Im fine with universities in some instances considering the substance of an argument against a policy or decision but the volume of disagreement should have little or no bearing.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

The way I see it, if you ignore a cancer it will not spontaneously go away. Social issues have never been resolved by ignoring the offending party. It's not about free speech. It's about using every opportunity to mount a counter argument, to fight against injustice.

I don't think every idea has the same merit or should be offered the same platform. I would simply like bigoted beliefs to be publicly discredited.

Interesting view point.

I would say that this could be a good thread on its own, if we are going to allow bigoted views to take a platform for the sake of combating it, who should provide said platform?

 

[Red]

Interesting view point.

I would say that this could be a good thread on its own, if we are going to allow bigoted views to take a platform for the sake of combating it, who should provide said platform?

I think higher education is the perfect place, which is why I'm conflicted about the situation here. On the one hand, I am emotionally with those who are glad Greer is being shunned. It feels good, like her bigotry is totally invalid and has no place. But I am intellectually for her being allowed to speak, preferably in a debate setting. I don't think avoiding confrontation in this context does anything to move trans rights forward. If you are walking along a straight path, and suddenly find a boulder in your way, you can try for a while to push it, and then give up and walk around, but it will be there for the next person. If they do the same, then it will be there for the next person, and the next, and so on. I know there is much solidarity in LBGTQ communities, and here is a perfect place to work together to pulverize that boulder, instead of stepping around it. By avoiding her completely that solidarity proves itself, in a way, but as long as there are other people with the same bigotry, that rock will block the path forward.

Preventing offensive speech from even being offered prevents it from being challenged. To me this makes the offending ideals impossible to change, which is anathema to a higher education. There are likely people on that campus who have the same ideas as Greer. It is unfair to them (to their education, and to the future) and to their fellow students to not allow some disputation, in hopes of achieving progress.

These are still human beings, after all, and are not shackled to their bigotry. You don't have to treat their views respectfully, but if you meet their hate in kind you build a wall in opposition. You do not allow them to join in human solidarity. They are doing a good enough job erecting that wall already, and there is no need to help them along. There can be no progress if both sides propose an impasse.

 

[Arkeband]

I was referring to the commencement speech.



Its a commencement speech, it has one goal and that is to motivate the students, not a place to give his opinion or his views thats why there is no questions or debate.

Except his past commencement speeches included his views on creationism. Are you just skimming the thread? I pointed this out once already.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

You aren't entitled to and guaranteed an outcome is my point. Nor should you be.

Then you don't care for an environment of change, challenge, and learning. Something you seem to agree with.

I DO think they shouldn't have done them in the first place. It's really dumb. That doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't be ABLE to.

You're doing what I consider silence by argument, not in that your argument is solid but you're invested enough that it's hard to consider you actually think they should be allowed to protest. What if they acknowledge it's counter-intuitive to their education but still protest? Will you drop your argument altogether and stop responding? I have a feeling you won't.

 

[Alexlf]

Then you don't care for an environment of change, challenge, and learning. Something you seem to agree with.



You're doing what I consider silence by argument, not in that your argument is solid but you're invested enough that it's hard to consider you actually think they should be allowed to protest. What if they acknowledge it's counter-intuitive to their education but still protest? Will you drop your argument altogether and stop responding? I have a feeling you won't.

I wouldn't stop responding, I'd probably say something akin to "then what's the point of attending university if you refuse to learn and expand your views?"

You can feel that I think they shouldn't have the right to protest all you'd like. You'd be wrong, but go ahead.

And if my argument isn't "solid" I'd very much like you to point out any flaws in it rather than just presenting vague notions without actually confronting anything I said.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

I wouldn't stop responding, I'd probably say something akin to "then what's the point of attending university if you refuse to learn and expand your views?"

You can feel that I think they shouldn't have the right to protest all you'd like. You'd be wrong, but go ahead.

And if my argument isn't "solid" I'd very much like you to point out any flaws in it rather than just presenting vague notions without actually confronting anything I said.

I already pointed out those flaws.

You said it's counter intuitive to their education, if they agreed but continued then you should drop from the conversation, but you wouldn't. This isn't "I accept your right to protest and here's my grievance", it's, "I accept your right to protest but I'm going to keep arguing because I can because you are completely wrong so you have no need to protest." This is why I consider it silence by argument: you have the need to tell them how wrong they are so I can only assume it comes from, "you have no legitimate reason to protest, so why protest?"

 

[Republic of Ezo]

I think higher education is the perfect place, which is why I'm conflicted about the situation here. On the one hand, I am emotionally with those who are glad Greer is being shunned. It feels good, like her bigotry is totally invalid and has no place. But I am intellectually for her being allowed to speak, preferably in a debate setting. I don't think avoiding confrontation in this context does anything to move trans rights forward. If you are walking along a straight path, and suddenly find a boulder in your way, you can try for a while to push it, and then give up and walk around, but it will be there for the next person. If they do the same, then it will be there for the next person, and the next, and so on. I know there is much solidarity in LBGTQ communities, and here is a perfect place to work together to pulverize that boulder, instead of stepping around it. By avoiding her completely that solidarity proves itself, in a way, but as long as there are other people with the same bigotry, that rock will block the path forward.

Preventing offensive speech from even being offered prevents it from being challenged. To me this makes the offending ideals impossible to change, which is anathema to a higher education. There are likely people on that campus who have the same ideas as Greer. It is unfair to them and to their fellow students to not allow some disputation, in hopes of achieving progress.

These are still human beings, after all, and are not shackled to their bigotry. You don't have to treat their views respectfully, but if you meet their hate in kind you build a wall in opposition. You do not allow them to join in human solidarity. They are doing a good enough job erecting that wall already, and there is no need to help them along.

I think this is valid. Her views are absolutely abhorrent, but that doesn't mean that a university should ban her from speaking entirely. I also think it's a slippery slope for universities to start deciding who should and should not have the right to speak in their halls because of their views. The debate setting as you mentioned accomplishes the goal of allowing her to speak and also gives a platform for her views to be publicly fought. Or even if there is an individual speech and not a debate, a lengthy Q&A afterwards would allow students to exercise their intellects and challenge her views directly. You don't win an argument by shutting down debate - you win by actually arguing, and it would be good to get the students themselves involved in that.

 

[Azih]

Protesters should definitely protest (it's their right) but they should *not* shut down a talk/lecture/debate/whatever. That's the balance that was not achieved here.

So outside the lecture hall, protest peacefully. Inside the lecture hall, observe the talk and ask a few pointed questions during any Q&A session (don't hog the debate) and then hold a separate event/write articles blogs etc. pointing out the ways that Greer is wrong and harmful.

 

[Alexlf]

I already pointed out those flaws.

You said it's counter intuitive to their education, if they agreed but continued then you should drop from the conversation, but you wouldn't. This isn't "I accept your right to protest and here's my grievance", it's, "I accept your right to protest but I'm going to keep arguing because I can because you are completely wrong so you have no need to protest." This is why I consider it silence by argument: you have the need to tell them how wrong they are so I can only assume it comes from, "you have no legitimate reason to protest, so why protest?"

Well, consider it "silence by argument" then? It's a very odd definition you've put forward, but It's relatively accurate. What's wrong with saying "you have no legitimate reason to protest, so why protest?"

In no way does it present any flaws in my arguments.

Unless you're saying they had a valid reason to to try and get her banned from speaking at the school, in which case I invite you to present it.

EDIT:

In case you missed it earlier in the thread, here's my "platform":
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183111432&postcount=873

 

[OuterLimits]

If the student body is against it, then no, I think she shouldn't be paid and promoted to speak on campus by the university in an official capacity for a publicized campus event (clubs specifically raising money to bring her to club functions is another thing).

My guess is it would usually be a conservative campus group that extends the invitation. For example in 2012 a republican campus group invited Coulter to speak at Fordham. The president of the university publicly scolded the club but said he would allow it because to not let her speak would do greater damage and would counter one wrong with another. Eventually the group cancelled the speech though.

She has given speeches at other college campuses over the years.

 

[aeolist]

I also think it's a slippery slope for universities to start deciding who should and should not have the right to speak in their halls because of their views.

this is exactly what universities are supposed to do. this is a major part of what "education" is.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Your lack of self-awareness here is baffling.



That would require the rare levels of rational, ideological consistency that would also keep us from getting into messes like wanting to ban speakers due to disagreements. Unfortunately, I don't think that either are going to be resolved anytime soon.

I really don't see how anyone can call themselves liberal and support the Clintons.

Am I wrong in asking that we stop calling it "banning people for disagreeing with you" because we don't want people who participate in hate speech speaking at Universities?

 

[archangelmorph]

This thread reads mostly like "I worship Dawkins personally, so I agree with everything he says..."

 

[Ayt]

lol more crap from Dawkins recently. These kids protested and she backed down on her accord, wtf is the big deal?

I agree. I don't see the issue here since she made the choice to cancel.

This thread reads mostly like "I worship Dawkins personally, so I agree with everything he says..."

I think it is more that people don't really take transgender issues seriously though many will give it lip service. Her bigotry is acceptable to a certain extent. If instead she had openly stated and written about how black people are subhuman, this thread wouldn't exist.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Protesters should definitely protest (it's their right) but they should *not* shut down a talk/lecture/debate/whatever. That's the balance that was not achieved here.

So outside the lecture hall, protest peacefully. Inside the lecture hall, observe the talk and ask a few pointed questions during any Q&A session (don't hog the debate) and then hold a separate event/write articles blogs etc. pointing out the ways that Greer is wrong and harmful.

This assumes bigotry is up for debate or reasoned analysis.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

I think higher education is the perfect place, which is why I'm conflicted about the situation here. On the one hand, I am emotionally with those who are glad Greer is being shunned. It feels good, like her bigotry is totally invalid and has no place. But I am intellectually for her being allowed to speak, preferably in a debate setting. I don't think avoiding confrontation in this context does anything to move trans rights forward. If you are walking along a straight path, and suddenly find a boulder in your way, you can try for a while to push it, and then give up and walk around, but it will be there for the next person. If they do the same, then it will be there for the next person, and the next, and so on. I know there is much solidarity in LBGTQ communities, and here is a perfect place to work together to pulverize that boulder, instead of stepping around it. By avoiding her completely that solidarity proves itself, in a way, but as long as there are other people with the same bigotry, that rock will block the path forward.

I like your boulder analogy, I just am conflicted of using educational facilities to set up that platform I guess

Except his past commencement speeches included his views on creationism. Are you just skimming the thread? I pointed this out once already.

I'm at work, I'm trying to keep up.

I didn't know that he infused his views into his commencement speeches?! That should not have been tolerated!

 

[Jonm1010]

Then you don't care for an environment of change, challenge, and learning. Something you seem to agree with.

That doesn't even make any sense.

You can voice your opinion as long as it is in the realm of the law, university rules and regulations but you are in no way guaranteed a response or outcome. Let alone the one you desire solely because you have established some subjective volume of voices echoing your argument.

If you are going to assert that such a system where some measure of arbritraty feedback should guarantee a certain outcome from the university the onus is on you to provide why such a shift in how universities operate will provide a superior environment for learning.

 

[Hex]

Dawkins is right, and OP calling him "Dick Dorkins" makes you seem like a five year old drooling illiterate who honestly does not merit a voice.