[Peace-discuss] Support free speech at UI

Tue Oct 17 04:26:03 UTC 2017

An example of LIDS - Liberal Israel Derangement Syndrome. Jim seems able to live with that massive contradiction.

Of course he’s right about free speech and quite wrong about Salaita.

A couple of people have written me about Salaita/free speech - I’ve urged them to write the N-G about academic freedom.

From the OED: asseveration, n.

Etymology: < Latin assevērātiōn-em, noun of action < assevērāre : see assever v. <http://www.oed.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/view/Entry/11867#eid36925281> and -ation suffix <http://www.oed.com.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/view/Entry/12523#eid35366623>. Compare Italian asseueratione (Florio 1611).

 1. The action of asseverating; solemn affirmation, emphatic assertion, positive declaration, avouchment.

1566   Briefe Exam. Certaine Declar. sig. ******2v   You so confidently bare the matter downe with your vndoubted asseueration.
1605   Bacon Of Aduancem. Learning i. sig. G3   Men ought..to propound things sincerely, with more or lesse asseueration: as they stand in a man's owne iudgement, prooued more or lesse.
1782   W. Cowper Conversation in Poems 215   Asseveration blust'ring in your face Makes contradiction such an hopeless case.

 2. That which is asseverated; a solemn or emphatic declaration or assertion.

1551   T. Cranmer Answer S. Gardiner 75   Suche abomynable and beastly asseuerations as you neuer heard.
1658   T. Wall God's Revenge 25   The wise man's constant asseveration, by pride only cometh contention.
1753   T. Smollett Ferdinand Count Fathom II. li. 135   Incensed at this asseveration, which he was not prepared to refute.
1855   Macaulay Hist. Eng. IV. 520   In spite of the solemn asseverations of his wife and his servants.

(Maybe I should have said ‘avouchment.’) —CGE

> On Oct 16, 2017, at 10:40 PM, Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
> 
> Did you admire the attack by Dey on the free speech rights of Steven Salaita? Dey persecuted that man in the columns of the N-G. Total hypocrisy? Also, curious word you employ—asseveration = Solemn affirmation?
> 
> mkb
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 15, 2017, at 2:25 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> I’ve admired Jim Dey’s investigative reporting - particularly on legal matters - for some time, but I often disagree with his political opinions.
>> 
>> I think he’s quite right, though, in his column in today’s News-Gazette -  especially his asseveration “that so-called ‘hate speech’ is constitutionally protected.”
>> 
>> Noam Chomsky (with whom Mr. Dey would perhaps not often agree) pointed out long ago, “If you don’t believe in free speech for people you despise, you don’t believe in it at all.”
>> 
>> I think that’s correct, and I appreciate Dey’s speaking up for it.
>> 
>> His greatest sin in that piece is the solecism, “...these kind of events...” Surely he means “...this kind of event...”
>> 
>> —CGE
>> 
>> ==========================
>>  <http://www.news-gazette.com/>
>> Sunday, October 15, 2017 
>> 
>> 
>> Jim Dey: Free speech: It's not a hard concept
>> 
>> A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
>> 
>> Bear that old aphorism in mind when members of a proposed campus task force charged with developing policies on maintaining free speech and a welcoming campus environment for all finally get around to turning in their report.
>> 
>> The way things are going in connection with this issue on campus it should be considered a plus if the free-speech horse the committee configures only resembles a camel, not something even more unrecognizable. But even that hope is a stretch given the hand-wringing nervousness displayed by campus higher-ups on an issue that is just not that complicated.
>> 
>> The reality surrounding free speech can be, and sometimes is, contentious. But the issue itself is relatively simple.
>> 
>> Let everyone speak. Let people decide on their own whether to listen or not to listen. Provide security, if necessary, to ensure the rules of decorum are followed. Impose disciplinary measures against those who would try to silence a speaker or take over a meeting where a lecture is being presented.
>> 
>> That seems to be pretty much what happened at a recent event, where audience members inside the Illini Union listened to a guest speaker while protesters outside denounced the speaker as, according to one sign, "a fascist alt-right sympathizer who looks like a mashed potato."
>> 
>> Some on campus seemed to be scandalized this particular speaker was a conservative who spoke enthusiastically about free-market capitalism as the best method of building wealth and reducing poverty.
>> 
>> Most people would find that type of event wholly ordinary on campus. At the same time, most people would be similarly undisturbed if a liberal gave a talk on why single-payer is the best approach on health care, a socialist asserted government should take over private enterprise or a libertarian advocated the legalization of illegal drugs.
>> 
>> These speakers advocate points of view, and people make of them what they will. No nannies are needed to ensure that dissenters' feelings not be hurt by being exposed to an opinion they do not share.
>> 
>> But that common-sense viewpoint seems alien to members of the campus community, which explains why University of Illinois President Timothy Killeen has decided to appoint a task force made up of faculty, administrators and students to develop permanent policies addressing speech issues.
>> 
>> (By the way, will there be any requirement that members of this group actually understand what the free speech clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution actually means? There should be because it appears that only a few people outside the law school faculty actually understand that so-called "hate speech" is constitutionally protected.)
>> 
>> Killeen has been wasting his and a lot of people's time for weeks now on this issue. Maybe there's a method to his madness.
>> 
>> But this task force likely appears to represent another exercise in somehow trying to appease faculty members, like Bruce Rosenstock, as well as campus groups that resent the possibility that the UI might host a speaker of whom they do not approve.
>> 
>> UI officials characterize these kind of events as "challenging conversations" and say they want to avoid "divisive things."
>> 
>> Given what's transpired on other campuses, that concern is easy to understand. But the division on campus is being sown by those who seek to limit speech on topics, even innocuous ones, they do not wish to be addressed.
>> 
>> Here are some examples:
>> 
>> — On Oct. 6, a group of thuggish students took over a platform at the University of Oregon and refused to allow President Michael Schill deliver his annual "State of the University" speech.
>> 
>> — On Oct. 9, a member of the Texas Legislature was shouted down before he could deliver a talk about the Texas Southern University Law School.
>> 
>> — On Oct. 11, a speech by noted author Charles Murray at the University of Michigan was severely disrupted. News reports indicate "Murray was able to speak only for brief periods in between disruptions lasting 40 minutes."
>> 
>> Here's the answer to the problem those events created — universities shouldn't put up with that kind of behavior. That kind of mindless authoritarianism is not only an affront to good manners but an assault on civil society.
>> 
>> There always will be those who wish to distinguish, based on their personal opinion, between good speech that should be heard and bad speech they believe should not be heard. The question, of course, is who decides.
>> 
>> The answer is to let the speakers compete in the marketplace of ideas, letting audience members decide for themselves whether their remarks make sense or not.
>> 
>> In a cliche-ridden resolution he considered offering to the UI Faculty Senate, Professor Rosenstock called for "ways to balance freedom of speech and academic freedom" with "the goal of creating a welcoming climate and safe environment for all university members who want their voices to be heard and respected in our common struggle against the alarming growth of open displays of intolerance and bigotry on college campuses today."
>> 
>> Rosenstock — and others like him — don't mean his speech rights should be balanced against anything because he considers himself on the side of the angels. But it's a different story altogether for those who, in his view, are not similarly situated.
>> 
>> If the UI wants to adopt a policy on speech issues that sets the proper standard, it can look to the positions taken at Purdue, the University of Chicago or other institutions who have indicated that their campuses will remain forums for the free exchange of ideas.
>> 
>> If that's not good enough,let President Killeen say that theFirst Amendment sets the proper standing.
>> 
>> By bobbing and weaving and hemming and hawing, President Killeen, Chancellor Robert Jones and acting Provost John Wilkins only demean themselves, their positions and this great university with their continuing profiles in vacillation and cowardice.
>> 
>> Jim Dey, a member of The News-Gazette staff, can be reached by email at jdey at news-gazette.com <mailto:jdey at news-gazette.com> or by phone at 217-351-5369.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20171016/8c7bed9b/attachment-0001.html>