So a couple of days ago I read where some 70+ feminist groups had sent a letter to the Dept of Education, Civil Rights Division (go figure) demanding that universities be given “guidance” concerning Yik Yak. Apparently, Yik Yak allows anonymous posts that are aggregated around a local setting, such as a university. Well, some of these posts are disrespectful, some are a bit off-color, some are sexist, some are racist, and most are just inane.
Feminist groups, however, want Yik Yak policed. Yes, they want to control, monitor, investigate, and sanction those who post things they deem offensive. I ALMOST commented about the issue when the letter came out. It is a good example of how freedom of speech is under attack and how colleges/universities promote victimhood.
And then I received an email from UC’s President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff,
I have read a series of comments that have appeared recently on the anonymous social media platform Yik Yak concerning our students participating in the #Irate8 dialogue. Some of the comments are highly insensitive and racially charged and run counter to UC's commitment to inclusiveness and diversity. I ask everyone in our community to join me in condemning such comments and for all of us to fully embrace civility and respect. Furthermore, I have asked for an immediate investigation into a particularly offensive post and will look after the safety of our students.
Sincerely,
Santa J. Ono
President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This, of course, gets front page coverage, setting off a social media firestorm::
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/10/29/ucs-ono-condemns-racist-comments/74799516/
Let me say from the outset that I fully embrace civility--even the type that results in conflict. We can and should disagree but we should do so in a way that is respectful and not demeaning. Let me also say, again, that while I disagree entirely with BLM and most with the Irate8, they have every right to say what they wish. Yes, this includes calling cops murderers and chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon” which BLM recently did in New York--one day after a black officer was killed by a black recidivistic thug.
I personally find the speech deplorable and will say so. Imagine, however, if we empowered President Ono with the authority to monitor, to regulate, to investigate, and to prosecute speech HE found “insensitive and racially charged.” What will happen if we give well meaning people the authority to investigate anonymous posts made on a social media app? Restrictions on free speech are always predicated on some declaration of need. In this sense, UC “needs” to protect students from nasty anonymous comments made on Yik Yak. Why also not on bathroom walls? Why not in the classroom? Why not at Frat parties? Why not in newspaper editorials? Why not at basketball games? Why not in books?
This is the type of liberal authoritarianism I write about in my book. It wraps itself in “good intentions,” claims a mandate by aggrieved parties, and justifies its actions as “necessary.” In the end, however, we all lose because we can no longer speak freely, talk openly, or take solace in our privacy.
If you don’t like what is posted on Yik Yak, the solution is to not read it.
See also, this posting:
http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/10/yik-yak-latest-target-of-the-anti-free-speech-left/
JPW
Feminist groups, however, want Yik Yak policed. Yes, they want to control, monitor, investigate, and sanction those who post things they deem offensive. I ALMOST commented about the issue when the letter came out. It is a good example of how freedom of speech is under attack and how colleges/universities promote victimhood.
And then I received an email from UC’s President:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Students, Faculty and Staff,
I have read a series of comments that have appeared recently on the anonymous social media platform Yik Yak concerning our students participating in the #Irate8 dialogue. Some of the comments are highly insensitive and racially charged and run counter to UC's commitment to inclusiveness and diversity. I ask everyone in our community to join me in condemning such comments and for all of us to fully embrace civility and respect. Furthermore, I have asked for an immediate investigation into a particularly offensive post and will look after the safety of our students.
Sincerely,
Santa J. Ono
President
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This, of course, gets front page coverage, setting off a social media firestorm::
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/10/29/ucs-ono-condemns-racist-comments/74799516/
Let me say from the outset that I fully embrace civility--even the type that results in conflict. We can and should disagree but we should do so in a way that is respectful and not demeaning. Let me also say, again, that while I disagree entirely with BLM and most with the Irate8, they have every right to say what they wish. Yes, this includes calling cops murderers and chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon” which BLM recently did in New York--one day after a black officer was killed by a black recidivistic thug.
I personally find the speech deplorable and will say so. Imagine, however, if we empowered President Ono with the authority to monitor, to regulate, to investigate, and to prosecute speech HE found “insensitive and racially charged.” What will happen if we give well meaning people the authority to investigate anonymous posts made on a social media app? Restrictions on free speech are always predicated on some declaration of need. In this sense, UC “needs” to protect students from nasty anonymous comments made on Yik Yak. Why also not on bathroom walls? Why not in the classroom? Why not at Frat parties? Why not in newspaper editorials? Why not at basketball games? Why not in books?
This is the type of liberal authoritarianism I write about in my book. It wraps itself in “good intentions,” claims a mandate by aggrieved parties, and justifies its actions as “necessary.” In the end, however, we all lose because we can no longer speak freely, talk openly, or take solace in our privacy.
If you don’t like what is posted on Yik Yak, the solution is to not read it.
See also, this posting:
http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/10/yik-yak-latest-target-of-the-anti-free-speech-left/
JPW
RSS Feed