I've been in academia for more than a decade. We're a regional school with lots of foreign students as well as commuter students. The professors that I've interacted with regularly (and are in a dept that deals with that stuff) have never been anything but professional and they understand the importance of rigor. I've yet to see them make emotional caustic and overreaching claims because they can. I suspect most of academia is like this, you just don't hear about it, cause it's boring. If you desire it, you too can work at bad wages for 2 decades before hoping for tenure at a place you barely get to choose.
Many of these terms that cause so many issues are those that are working jargon within a domain and make sense within the context of that domain with lots of awareness of the terminology, but when they are extracted out of that context and used by people (for a variety of reasons) for political and cultural battles, it becomes an issue.
So academia is perhaps responsible, but all of academia is not.
But this definition is, ironically, the polar opposite of free speech.
Losing your livelihood, being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like.
This is obvious, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.
No they don't; we're talking about verbal disagreements and resignations in the workplace. None of these things deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights. If someone verbally disagrees with you, they are not infringing on your right to free speech; by insinuating that they are, you are taking an anti-free-speech position.
the OP said “harassment isn’t acceptable.”
you said “why is that in the discussion?”
I said “bec some ppl here think it is.”
you respond by quoting free speech case law.
We’re not arguing about the merits of how the SCOTUS rules on the 1st amendment. It’s a discussion of the appropriate response to encountering someone you disagree with.
You calling my employer now and telling them they should fire me is not an appropriate response no matter whether or not it’s protected by the first amd.
No, I didn't. You are making this up to win an argument. There is no reference to case law or SCOTUS whatsoever in my comment. What a bizarre fabrication. I see there is clearly no point in continuing this if you're going to argue in such bad faith.
Moreover, a response you deem "inappropriate" is subjective. Either your free speech is being denied or it isn't. My boss can fire me for saying a lot of things they don't like; that doesn't infringe on my right to free speech. This is the way it has always been.
That’s specifically not the discussion: you quoted the part of the OPs comment that called out the inappropriate behavior many like to engage in and agreed that it was wrong, but questioned its relevance to our discussion, it’s relevant bec many ppl don’t see it as inappropriate. Whether or not it’s legal is an entirely different discussion.
That is what you are trying to do here, and it is nonsense. Just because you feel outnumbered does not mean you are being harassed or bullied. If I swear at a customer and they complain to my boss, that does not mean I'm being harassed or bullied. How utterly childish.
Soo in your opinion this is ok? I’m so confused...
Where do you think this ideology and hypersensitivity originated?
""they assume racism is present in everything and look for it “Critically” until they find it.""
that doesn't seem like the scientific method to me. am I the dumb?
edit: also the founder of the linked site is critical of Critical Race Theory - so maybe there is bias in this article. Whatever, I asked for a place to start - so, thanks again.
It’s basically all target painting.
Edit:I’m getting pretty heavy downvoting without any responses... anyone interested in actually explaining why they disagree?
Now the priest hand down by divine inspiration. Don’t question the orthodoxy.
What does this have to do with academia?