Chicago Principles | Hacker News Reader

Chicago Principles

en.wikipedia.org

> the responsibility on the part of the university community for maintaining a climate of civility and mutual respect, is not a justification to prevent "discussion of ideas, even if "some or even by most members of the University" find them "disagreeable", "offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed."[1]

I'm all for allowing discussion of ideas even though they may be disagreeable or offensive, or even unwise, immoral, etc. But debates on this concept always end up at the Holocaust denial level. It's a fine line. Are you going to let someone come in and talk seriously about that, providing "evidence" and alternative histories, etc?

"I'm all for allowing discussion..."

"Are you going to let someone..."

The use of language such as 'allowing' and 'letting' suggests that someone lacks permission until and unless it's granted to them.

If someone expresses a point, supported with evidence and/or reasoning, and is willing to listen to and engage honestly with critics, what grounds would we have to restrict the expression of their ideas?

In this case, 'allow' is in the context of speeches on universities, where of course the universities get to decide who is allowed on their property. It is not a country-wide government restriction, or even censorship by a quasi-monopolist such as Google/Facebook.

"where of course the universities get to decide who is allowed on their property"

If a student-run organization wants to invite a particular person (someone from outside the university) to speak at an on-campus event, do you think:

A) The university authorities must first grant permission, or

B) The university authorities must be notified, and given the opportunity to disallow that speaker, or

C) Neither A nor B, but the university authorities can intervene (during) or sanction (after) for breaking the rules/principles of the university, or

D) None of the above.

My choice would be (C). But your comment "the universities get to decide" suggests you may disagree, and perhaps you believe A or B is better?

All the options you list seem reasonable to me. The effective differences are subtle, and it's hard to say which is better. C might seem the most permissive, and is the one I'd personally lean towards, but it also forces students to guess what is allowed, and face sanctions if they get it wrong, so they might end up self-censoring more harshly than if the rules were explicit.

So while I prefer the spirit of C, in practice I'd choose B - if there's censorship, it should be out in the open. I'd also prefer if none of the choices dominated all universities, to avoid a monoculture.

The university is responsible for safety of its students so yes, I think the authorities need to grant permission at least to ensure this outside person isn't a complete maniac who is going to attempt to incite a riot, or who otherwise is likely to disrespect the policies of the university, whatever they may be. Option C is too late, options A and B are basically the same aside from semantics. I'd be fine with either if I were responsible for that speaker's presence.

"The university is responsible for safety of its students"

I live in California, where the court of appeals has ruled that this isn't so:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/09/california-ap...

"We find no basis to depart from the settled rule that institutions of higher education have no duty to their adult students to protect them against the criminal acts of third persons"

> Are you going to let someone come in and talk seriously about that, providing "evidence" and alternative histories, etc?

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

Maybe the rules should be seen more as guidelines. Something to aim for to allow a broader range of opinions, but not blindly follow to allow literally everything.

In that sense, they're not much different from any other rules about something as subjective as which opinions should be permitted. If you follow them too rigidly, you get absurd results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com