NationStates Jolt Archive

Yep, another thread relating to those Danish cartoons.

First, read this. It explains the news release of the situation Prof recieves threat over Muhammad cartoons (http://thechronicleherald.ca/Search/482996.html).

A little background information. I am a student at this university, and I didn't even notice this. Nor did I watch the news last night, as it apprently happened yesterday.
I heard about this from my Spanish professor who also told me that Dr.March (A Philosphy prof.) had origonally put the cartoons up as a prelude to one of his classes (Ethics of Modern Life I believe). As I have understood, this is the whole point to philosophy course, but Dr.March has, from what I understand, decided not to discuss this topic.

Now what I want to know is, should academic freedom, especially that in relation to philosophy, be curtailed because people take offense to the subject matter it involves?

Now what I want to know is, should academic freedom, especially that in relation to philosophy, be curtailed because people take offense to the subject matter it involves?

Leave out the "especially that in relation to philosophy". Science is also being badly damaged by the whole creationismmovement - which finds the notion of "evolution" repulsive.

If you want to know what you are talking about, you have to study it. Calling it offensive without knowing what it is is stupid. No curtailing in other words.

Professors should have the same restrictions and freedoms as everyone else: No more, no less, obviously.

There is nothing magic about being a professor that gives you the right to say something that no-one else is allowed to.

There is nothing magic about being a professor that gives you the right to say something that no-one else is allowed to.

What knowledge, pray tell, should be "forbidden" ?

Now what I want to know is, should academic freedom, especially that in relation to philosophy, be curtailed because people take offense to the subject matter it involves?

No.

No.

I concur

What knowledge, pray tell, should be "forbidden" ?

Eh? Obviously no knowledge should be forbidden. And I personally follow Hugo Black's opinions on free speech. That said, not everywhere grants the latitude of freedom of expression that I would wish, and depending upon where this professor is giving his lectures, he should follow the local law, not be granted an exemption in the name of 'academic freedom.' That's all.

Further, if the campus has sensitivity and speech codes - usually instigated at the behest of the professors themselves - he should naturally be subject to them himself in the event that his conduct ran afoul of them. His tenure should have no bearing on the matter.

Academic freedom, depending on faculty should always be compliant with ethics. For instance i do believe genetics research is good, how ever i would strongly disagree with cloning human beings. As for the Arts, it's all about taste and expression... and that should be without limits!

Professors should have the same restrictions and freedoms as everyone else: No more, no less, obviously.

There is nothing magic about being a professor that gives you the right to say something that no-one else is allowed to.
What are they saying that no one else can?

I thought freedom of speach was something most non third world countries prided themselfs in

Eh? Obviously no knowledge should be forbidden. And I personally follow Hugo Black's opinions on free speech. That said, not everywhere grants the latitude of freedom of expression that I would wish, and depending upon where this professor is giving his lectures, he should follow the local law, not be granted an exemption in the name of 'academic freedom.' That's all.

You do realise those two statements conflict ? If a professor is not allowed to teach certain subjects because of speech restrictions - like e.g. showing offensive cartoons, reading from a book that conflicts with the dominant religious scripture of the region or saying bad things about your countries "benevolent" leader) - you are forbidding knowledge. Talking about things is a professors job.

Of course, one could *ask* the professor to stay as objective as possible. To not turn a class into a campaign for ideal X. But one should not forbid topics of lectures just because they might offend.

Eh? Obviously no knowledge should be forbidden. And I personally follow Hugo Black's opinions on free speech. That said, not everywhere grants the latitude of freedom of expression that I would wish, and depending upon where this professor is giving his lectures, he should follow the local law, not be granted an exemption in the name of 'academic freedom.' That's all.

Further, if the campus has sensitivity and speech codes - usually instigated at the behest of the professors themselves - he should naturally be subject to them himself in the event that his conduct ran afoul of them. His tenure should have no bearing on the matter.


Nothing against this in the local law, and the school has no codes against what can and can not be said.
The cartoons were offensive and he posted them on his door, and the scool had him remove them for that reason.
I'm a little more concerned with his decsion to not discuss the cartoons in class, like he planned, because of this.
I see in this matter the academic freedom of discussing such a thing in a philosophy class as being restricted. Especialy considering the nature of threats against him for it, and from what I have seen, no action taken against those who made the threats.

You do realise those two statements conflict ? If a professor is not allowed to teach certain subjects because of speech restrictions - like e.g. showing offensive cartoons, reading from a book that conflicts with the dominant religious scripture of the region or saying bad things about your countries "benevolent" leader) - you are forbidding knowledge. Talking about things is a professors job.

Of course, one could *ask* the professor to stay as objective as possible. To not turn a class into a campaign for ideal X. But one should not forbid topics of lectures just because they might offend.

Actually, my point was that special exemptions shouldn't be granted just because he's professor. So my statements don't conflict.

Nothing against this in the local law, and the school has no codes against what can and can not be said.
The cartoons were offensive and he posted them on his door, and the scool had him remove them for that reason.
I'm a little more concerned with his decsion to not discuss the cartoons in class, like he planned, because of this.
I see in this matter the academic freedom of discussing such a thing in a philosophy class as being restricted. Especialy considering the nature of threats against him for it, and from what I have seen, no action taken against those who made the threats.

Then he, of course, has the absolute right to speak to this subject. As should anyone have.

Futher law enforcement should seek out the individuals making the threats, and they should be punished appropriately.

A little devlopment on the issue. This time constituting an internet "WTF?" moment.

Dr.March apparently participated himself in a march protesting him today.
How weird is that?

A little devlopment on the issue. This time constituting an internet "WTF?" moment.

Dr.March apparently participated himself in a march protesting him today.
How weird is that?
Not weird at all, for a philosopher. ;)

And I would like to know when it became okay to threaten a person. It seems to be the trend nowadays to clamp down on expression of ideas but to let threats slide and make excuses for actual violence -- and I don't mean just in the Danish cartoon context. It's all over -- any where there is a controversy. Is oppression and thuggery now being promoted as wholesome family fun for right-thinking peoples?