More breaking news: he has just resigned from Breitbart News.
However, colleges by the virtue of their educational function/credibility need to be allowed to assess whether granting prospective invited speakers or Profs who aspire to teach there a platform for their ideas and the manner in which they express them will further that or detract from that.
Examples of those which detract from that mission include speakers who have had a history of encouraging harassment and doxxing(releasing private address/information) of those s/he disagrees with/dislikes, STEM Profs who hope to teach Lysenkoism or “Intelligent Design” as valid peer-reviewed science, History Profs who teach Holocaust denialism*, or Profs who demonstrated/work in fields where publicized beliefs in conspiracy theories have a direct impact on the field/courses they will be teaching/researching.
- This was what Milo Y. has been accused of doing during the gamergate episode along with the infamous twitter harassment campaign against actress Leslie Jones which prompted twitter to ban him for violating their TOS against harassment as twitter underscored when it cited “prohibiting participating in or inciting targeted abuse of individuals.” as the reason for their banning him from their social media site.
** Thought experiment, would known and judicially declared Holocaust denier David Irving be considered to have his free speech violated if his application to be a tenure-track or even adjunct History Professor at a US college be legitimately considered denied if his application was not only summarily tossed in the circular file, but publicly laughed at in light of his history and judicial ruling against him on record calling him a Holocaust denier?
Hmm. It always gives me pause when people call illegal aliens “immigrants”. Does he really complain about legal immigrants? I’ve never listened to anything he’s said or read what he had written.
Well perhaps this is all good news in that it is a start in finding some common ground. There isn’t much that that alt right and the far left agree on, but it does seem now that both agree Milo just goes too far.
delete wrong thread
“Thought experiment, would known and judicially declared Holocaust denier David Irving be considered to have his free speech violated if his application to be a tenure-track or even adjunct History Professor at a US college be legitimately considered denied if his application was not only summarily tossed in the circular file, but publicly laughed at in light of his history and judicial ruling against him on record calling him a Holocaust denier?”
This wouldn’t be a free speech issue, either at a public or private college, granting tenure as far as I know (and those in the academic world can probably comment more directly than I can) is based on their published work. If Irving applied as a history professor and in his body of work he claimed that the holocaust never happened as documented history, published academic articles and books citing ‘facts’ that have been proven wrong, then they would have every right to deny him tenure, the same way that if the guys many years ago who claimed to have invented cold fusion would have been denied tenure based on that, because it was proven to be basically experimental error (both gentleman were already tenured professors in Chemistry). On the other hand, if Irving were a tenured professor of history based on work that academically stood up, then if he started propogating the Holocaust denier stuff because of tenure, he would be protected in the name of academic freedom…there was a professor at CCNY in NYC back in the 1980’s that promoted this whole theory of race where Caucasians were the “Ice People”, devoid of emotional warmth and morality, while blacks and other people of Color were “Sun People”, who had those attributes caucasians were missing, and he promoted that as a teacher (I think he was their head of what was then known as black studies, the guys name was Leonard Jefferies I believe) and they couldn’t fire him or take away the chair privilege, I vaguely recalled the Koch administration tried taking it to court and lost. It gets even more hazy if a professor comes up with stuff outside his realm, like a professor of let’s say Geology promoting a theory of race that has nothing to do with his core competency, even that is covered from what i know.
@busdrive11:
Without igniting a debate about the politics of it, an immigrant is a person who moves from one place to another, immigrant doesn’t automatically assume they are legal, so when people refer to those who came here illegally as immigrant, they are correct, the illegal alien is simply semantics, it doesn’t change that people who come here are immigrants, legal and illegal is a descriptive label (and that doesn’t mean I support or don’t support immigrants being here illegally). Milo has gone off on legal immigrants who happen to be Muslim and he also speaks of those who came here illegally as if they are animals, or to quote other politicians, that they are criminals who overwhelmingly are rapist, murderers,etc, he talks of them as if they are vicious animals coming here to prey on people living here, rather than as people seeking a better life, which most of them are from what i can tell, it is the tone he sets (and again, I am not going to debate about whether people here illegally should be allowed to stay, whether they are a good thing, etc, I am simply saying that denigrating them as animalistic predators is wrong, they are human beings).
Of course denigrating specific groups as being animalistic predators is wrong. But certain human beings definitely are predators.
People who have snuck over the border or overstayed their visa, have committed an illegal action in this country. Probably illegal in most countries, that could get you a prison term in some places. Conflating that with immigrants who applied and came here through legal means has been a play on words that has been going on for some time, and I’m not sure what the end game is. That anyone should have the rights of an American citizen whether they went through the immigration process or not? Maybe.
I am not a supporter of deporting people, but I think some of this word play is trying to steer people towards an open border policy, which is supported by some purely because they think their party can then control the vote forever. And that certainly isn’t a way to run a country…and much of the reason we are in this plight today. The pendulum swings too far one way, it goes the other direction.
Actually, while they couldn’t outright fire him totally once he had tenure, CCNY was able to eventually deprive him of his chairmanship of the department and he was replaced when the court reversed its prior ruling in 1995: Jeffries v. Harleston, 52 F.3d 9 [2nd Cir. 1995].
Also my hypothetical was asked about someone who wasn’t an established scholar with prior valid scholarship, but someone whose reputation had already been undermined by his public Holocaust denialism and a court ruling confirming his actions constituted such on record before he even applied for a tenure-track/adjunct position as History Prof.
Last I checked, the Libertarian Party (which presumably supports something at least close to “open border” immigration) has not won many elections in the US.
Evangelicals, who still have significant pull with Breitbart and the rest of the right institutional apparatus, just couldn’t get with a gay dude. It’s that simple.
Well, they had a miniscule shot this time, and blew it. But I was not talking about the Libertarian party.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php
3.27% of the popular vote. 0% of the electoral votes. Didn’t know what Aleppo is.
Immigrants aren’t citizens and don’t vote. They’re not animals, regardless of documents. A guy who thinks pedophiles is good for teenage boys shouldn’t be given credence for his beliefs on immigration, or anything else.
Neither the Democrats nor Republicans appear to be for open borders on immigration, although the Democratic platform is vague enough to encompass the possibility of that as well as more restrictive possibilities (it mainly refers to specific subissues like DREAMers rather than an overall desire for more or less immigration). The Republican platform states a desire to reduce legal immigration. Both parties have constituencies with various viewpoints on immigration.
Perhaps, but certain demographics definitely aren’t and it’s disingenuous to label a huge swath of people with a term and then try to restrict it to individuals.
Being a predator has nothing to do with gender, skin color, hair type, nose type, eye color, creed, sexual orientation, family life, or anything else that would fall under the typical classifications used by the pedophilia-advocate. He very explicitely says consent is bogus (and doesn’t believe rape is real, apparently) so 13 year olds are fair game to adults. Freedom of speech stops where there’s apology/defense of a crime.
“Also my hypothetical was asked about someone who wasn’t an established scholar with prior valid scholarship, but someone whose reputation had already been undermined by his public Holocaust denialism and a court ruling confirming his actions constituted such on record before he even applied for a tenure-track/adjunct position as History Prof.”
Tenure from what I know can be denied for anything and freedom of speech doesn’t apply there. Unless they can prove it was something illegal under general work laws (race, gender, religion), tenure often is denied with no real explanation from what I know.
Interesting about Jefferies, I hadn’t followed through, but unpopular ideas are still protected by academic freedom, though they can do other things, like take away perks like being the chair of a department. There is a professor of psych at Northwestern by the name of Michael Bailey who has gotten into a lot of trouble with controversial positions on transgender women and his research methods, and also more recently got in trouble with a class in human sexuality that had a rather ‘interesting’ demonstration in it. he ended up being removed as chair but is still teaching there, despite the controversy around him.
No wish to defend Milo, whom I find generally abhorrent, but technically, there is a difference between pedophilia (attraction to pre-pubescent children of either sex) and ephebophilia (attraction to youth of either sex who have gone through puberty). From what I’ve read, it seems he was advocating for the latter.
Where the age cutoff is is a matter for debate.
Personally, I abhor the hyper-sexualization of children, tweens, AND teens. (For the latter, see HS girls staffing carwashes clad in bikinis or slightly less scanty attire. We’ve discussed this here before.)