7
8

What's the deal with FIRE? (self.SRSDiscussion)

miscu が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]miscu[S] [非表示スコア]  (3子コメント)

Okay, but my question is, when their attempts to achieve a goal of promoting free speech in universities accidentally supports hateful people...is that a goal worth achieving, at least in the way they're doing it?

On the other note, I've read incidents where sexual assault victims in universities are restricted in what they can say with regards to the cases, where the university gives them grief over actually publicly speaking out about what they're dealing with. I've only skimmed FIRE's site, but I had trouble finding articles where this was even a point of concern for them.

I would really like to be proven wrong on this and see a side of this organization that does honestly care about the marginalized peoples of United States universities, but what they're pursuing here just seems to be supporting mainly toxic privileged types.

[–]Dan-Morris [非表示スコア]  (2子コメント)

Okay, but my question is, when their attempts to achieve a goal of promoting free speech in universities accidentally supports hateful people...is that a goal worth achieving, at least in the way they're doing it?

Yes. Bigots exist in this world, we both know it. Should we shelter college students from that fact? Should we shelter them in how to deal with hard, important discussions about race, gender, history, religion and so on? Colleges are supposed to be a market place of ideas where discussions of all types are had so students can learn and proposer.

Hate speech already has a strict, Constitutional definition, and often colleges might not follow through with adhering to what SCOTUS has ruled.

Banning speech, in the very place it's supposed to be most free, is problematic.

[–]miscu[S] [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

Let's say a woman has to deal with a specific person sexually harassing her virtually every day on a college campus, and she decides to report it to the university both out of a desire for peace of mind and a fear that things could escalate (because I don't need to tell you that sexual assault is a very real fear in college environments).

If the the college decided to put that harasser on probation, possibly leading up to an outright ban from the university if they continued their actions despite this, would it be morally acceptable for a group like FIRE to step in and protect that harasser from seeing discipline for their speech? Because if they did and the harasser was free to stay at the college without facing consequences, it would have the knock-on effect of silencing that woman because an outside group has implied that her concerns are basically invalid if they possibly threaten the ideal of free speech in any way.

I'd really like to know if FIRE is a group that would reject this series of events. If so, great! If not, then I really want to know what about the person's harassment was so valuable that it was worth protecting here.

[–]Dan-Morris [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Already posted this to you, but I'll post it again for prosperity's sake. This is from FIRE's student guide:

In the landmark case of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), the Supreme Court defined student-on-student hostile environment harassment as conduct "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim"s access to an educational opportunity or benefit." By definition, this includes only extreme and usually repetitive behavior—behavior so serious that it would prevent a reasonable student from receiving his or her education. For example, in Davis, the conduct found by the Court to be actionable harassment was a months-long pattern of conduct including repeated attempts to touch the victim"s breasts and genitals and repeated sexually explicit comments directed at and about the victim.

...

Put simply, to be legally punishable as harassment, students must be far more than simply rude or offensive. Rather, they must be actively engaged in a specific type of discrimination, as defined by law. Under this doctrine, there is a pattern of behavior that may involve speech so strikingly awful and persistent, and so focused on a person"s status as a member of a protected class, that the law must treat it not simply as speech, but as discriminatory behavior that constitutes a civil rights violation. Precisely because the Supreme Court cases describe only very extreme forms of speech as "harassment," we believe that it makes good sense to think of speech-as-harassment in terms of time, place, and manner restrictions that the Constitution permits: If the speech is repeated, is uttered at inappropriate times and places, and is so uncivilized and pervasive so as to make the victim unable to attend to his or her studies and other activities, then it risks being prohibited and punished. In other words, protected speech cannot become unprotected harassment merely because of its message; rather, to qualify as harassment, one must consider how, when, and where the message was communicated.

That answers your question, yes?