Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

[TillEulenspiegel]

The last thread seemed that members were more concerned about the content of speech then the right and the forum it is presented in.
Lawrence Summers President of Harvard University in a speech given in a public forum with the expressed intention to ferment debate has caused an uproar. The area he opined on was the numerical differences between men and women in the sciences ( post-grad).

"In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination," he said."

Theres more but it appears to be relatively benign if not enlightened.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/18/harvard.transcript.ap/

So his position is more politically precarious then a "lowly" Prof. but again did he have the right to express these thoughts? Difference is that the board can remove him on a whim.

Thoughts on this case?

 

[RussDill]

I don't think necessarily that's what free speach means. He is free to say whatever he wants and not be arrested, but as a representative to an institution, he is held to a high standard. If he doesn't meet that standard, the institution is free to find someone who will.

 

[BPSCG]

I don't think necessarily that's what free speach means. He is free to say whatever he wants and not be arrested, but as a representative to an institution, he is held to a high standard. If he doesn't meet that standard, the institution is free to find someone who will.

Men and women's bodies work differently in different areas. Men are more prone to certain diseases than women, and vice versa. Men are more likely to get Hodgkins' disease, women more likely to get breast cancer, men more likely to get sickle-cell anemia, women to get osteoperosis.

Why is it inconceivable that men's brains might work differently from women's? Why is it inconceivable that men's brains (part of the nervous system, last I checked) might tend to have a greater aptitude for math and science than women's?

And why is discussing this hypothesis somehow taboo? Especially on a university campus, where the free and open discussion of ideas is supposed to be worshipped?

 

[Bjorn]

Why is it inconceivable that men's brains might work differently from women's? Why is it inconceivable that men's brains (part of the nervous system, last I checked) might tend to have a greater aptitude for math and science than women's?

Decades of private research has convinced me that it is conceivable that women can handle new languages better than men, however it is inconceivable that men can handle math better than women.

And why is discussing this hypothesis somehow taboo? Especially on a university campus, where the free and open discussion of ideas is supposed to be worshipped?

Would you dare to discuss the same if race were the issue?

 

[BPSCG]

Would you dare to discuss the same if race were the issue?

Hell, no. I value my life too much.

But why should any issue that has not been settled beyond a reasonable doubt be considered too dangerous to discuss?

 

[Bjorn]

Why should any issue that has not been settled beyond a reasonable doubt be considered too dangerous to discuss?

Because you value your life too much, isn't that what you're saying?

Seriously, I think free speech becomes problematic when the speech is about any group (gender, race, religion) that has been or is discriminated against - those belonging to the group might have problems seeing the difference between legitimate criticism/discussion and a continuation of the discrimination.

 

[Mycroft]

Thoughts on this case?

Sure.

Freedom of speech is nothing unless that speech is also an agent for change. Where different people or groups disagree and advocate for different changes, one or both is likely to be unsatisfied with the result.

In this case, the very taboos Summers violated with his speech were created by the free exercise of speech of those who came before him.

Whatever censor Summers gets from this will be the result of his ideological enemies exercising their freedom of speech against him.

So if you define "freedom of speech" as the state where nobody ever faces any negative consequences for what they say, that state can only exist where everyone is in agreement or where nobody feels strongly enough on any issue to take action on it.

I think we forget that free speech is supposed to incite conflict and to force change. There is nothing to it that promises that those who exercise their rights will not face consequences for it.

 

[kimiko]

"In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination," he said."

He's perfectly free to say whatever he wants, and those who oppose his views can say what they want. The quote above had him stating intrinsic differences outweigh socialization as an outright fact, but elsewhere he says "So my best guess, to provoke you". He deserves criticism for being sloppy on a complex issue. When reinforcing traditional stereotypes, you have to be accurate or it's offensive.

I also suspect some of the controversy is due to the impression of a taboo that people cannot talk about differences between the sexes or ways males outperform females. I disagree with this; any Gender class or other social science that mentions gender addresses biological differences.

 

[peptoabysmal]

From the story, I think Sopen Shah sums it up best when she says "He's the president of Harvard. When you're in that position you can't say controversial things without controversy."

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

I think we forget that free speech is supposed to incite conflict and to force change. There is nothing to it that promises that those who exercise their rights will not face consequences for it.

If there are "consequences" (aka jail, job loss, ridicule) for speech, doesn't that nullify any pretense of freedom?

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

If there are "consequences" (aka jail, job loss, ridicule) for speech, doesn't that nullify any pretense of freedom?

From that perspective, does anyone ever have freedom to do anything? What freedom imparts absolutely no responsibility?

 

[RussDill]

Men and women's bodies work differently in different areas. Men are more prone to certain diseases than women, and vice versa. Men are more likely to get Hodgkins' disease, women more likely to get breast cancer, men more likely to get sickle-cell anemia, women to get osteoperosis.

Why is it inconceivable that men's brains might work differently from women's? Why is it inconceivable that men's brains (part of the nervous system, last I checked) might tend to have a greater aptitude for math and science than women's?

And why is discussing this hypothesis somehow taboo? Especially on a university campus, where the free and open discussion of ideas is supposed to be worshipped?

The issue isn't what he said, the issue is that if the university fires him, is it or is it not abridgement of his constitutional right to free speech.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

If there are "consequences" (aka jail, job loss, ridicule) for speech, doesn't that nullify any pretense of freedom?

wow, you mean there are responsibilities, tears, and blood backing up our rights?

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

From that perspective, does anyone ever have freedom to do anything? What freedom imparts absolutely no responsibility?

That's the paradox.

It seems that speech isn't truly "free", the consequences of it have just become less severe.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

wow, you mean there are responsibilities, tears, and blood backing up our rights?

You didn't think before you wrote this huh?

 

[BPSCG]

The issue isn't what he said, the issue is that if the university fires him, is it or is it not abridgement of his constitutional right to free speech.

No, it's not. The first amendment simply says that congress shall make no law abridging free speech. It doesn't say an employer can't fire an employee because it doesn't like what he said.

That having been said, it is utterly antithetical to the purpose of a university to muzzle speech that inquires into unknown areas. A university is not a church, where you toe the line and accept the doctrine, or else get out. It is the exact opposite, in fact; a university is a place where we acknowledge that we do not have perfect knowledge, and that the search for perfect knowledge may bruise some egos, but is worth the cost. If you don't like the questions people ask at a university, you can leave, but don't forbid the question. And if you don't like the answers to the questions, then you can a) rebut the answers, or b) leave the university. But you can't damn the answer as heretical. That's what churches do.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

That's the paradox.

It seems that speech isn't truly "free", the consequences of it have just become less severe.

That's partly because you don't seem to understand what "free speech" usually means in US political discourse. "Freedom of speech," as secured by the Bill of Rights, refers to actions that the Federal government may or may not take (and by extension to acts the various state and local governments may [not] take).

It doesn't mean that private citizens or corporations can't take actions. The Fed may not be able to punish Dr. Summers for his comments, but Harvard University can. As a matter of fact, Dr. Summers almost certainly signed a contract with Harvard that covers this matter.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

That's partly because you don't seem to understand what "free speech" usually means in US political discourse. "Freedom of speech," as secured by the Bill of Rights, refers to actions that the Federal government may or may not take (and by extension to acts the various state and local governments may [not] take).

It doesn't mean that private citizens or corporations can't take actions. The Fed may not be able to punish Dr. Summers for his comments, but Harvard University can. As a matter of fact, Dr. Summers almost certainly signed a contract with Harvard that covers this matter.

Yes, I'm aware of all this. It doesn't really change my point since I'm speaking of "free speech" in the philosophic, not legal, context.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

That's the paradox.

It seems that speech isn't truly "free", the consequences of it have just become less severe.

Indeed. To steal a line from Stan Lee (via Spiderman), with great power comes great responsibility. I don't think you'll find many people who will argue that free speech can be very powerful.

The thing is, freedom to do something is not equivalent to being free of the consequences. In the US, when we say we have "freedom of speech" we really mean "the least amount of legal consequences possible".

Still can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, though.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You believe in freedom of speech take2

Still can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, though.

I'd like to see a source on that. I'd also like to see a source that says the speech, not the incitation of chaos and possible danger, is illegal.