SMU Prof: OK To Ban Speech If Speaker Is Not "Forthright"
In another remarkable statement of Darwinian Fundamentalist conviction, an SMU professor is asserting that it is just fine to shut down an academic conference if a powerful majority believes that the speakers have not been completely "forthright" about all their motivations and "intent" as reflected in their promotional materials. He also seems to suggest that speakers who hold certain personal religious convictions must fully disclose such convictions in the promotional literature before being allowed speak on a university campus.
He contends:
It is hardly censorship to demand both intellectual honesty and forthrightness in any public program on a university campus.
It is censorship when that "demand" is backed up with an attempt to shut down the conference. Let's look at the context: This statement is being made in defense of a group of established professors who tried to shut down a conference on Intelligent Design because, in their opinion, the speakers lacked sufficient "intellectual honesty" and "forthrightness." The attempt to "shut down" the conference is the language of The Dallas Morning News:
Professors opposed to the Bush library aren't the only angry faculty members at Southern Methodist University this week.
Science professors upset about a presentation on "Intelligent Design" fired blistering letters to the administration, asking that the event be shut down.
It should be obvious to all that this standard would have an enormously chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom in this country and in the university setting. If his standard were applied generally, nearly every politician in America would have to stop giving speeches immediately.
What is the dangerous idea that these professors want to ban from their campus? The idea that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, and that such inquiries can be considered scientific in some sense.
The eminent professor's opinion piece is full of dubious opinions about the conference speakers' motives and mischaracterizations of the nature of the conference. I wish I had more time to tear it apart bit by bit. If one were to apply the professor's standards to his own article, it would be banned as well. I, for one, am glad it is not.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 1:32 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
LOL! I would love to see some of the affiliations that the professor and the Darwinian crowd have, just for the entertainment of seeing them hoisted on their own petard.
But really, I agree with you. "Free speech for me but not for thee" is no motto for higher education.
As an SMU faculty member, I would like to point out that despite all of the twists and turns in this controversy, the administration ultimately refused to "shut down" the conference.
While you are being critical of those you disagree with, I would think you could offer praise for those who allowed your views to be promoted (whether they were views agreed with by the university community or not).
The ID conference does not break any laws and is sponsored by members of the university community. I suspect a large proportion of the faculty do not agree with or respect the conclusions, logic or methods employed by the ID theorists, but we have nonetheless welcomed them to our campus to enjoy the freedom to promote their arguments and views.
Surely there is room in the marketplace of ideas for community members to have mixed feelings about what visible ties the university makes with outside groups.
As an SMU faculty member, I would like to point out that despite all of the twists and turns in this controversy, the administration ultimately refused to "shut down" the conference.
There is an air of disappointment in your prose here.
While you are being critical of those you disagree with, I would think you could offer praise for those who allowed your views to be promoted (whether they were views agreed with by the university community or not).
"You sniveling, ungrateful worms should be singing high hosannas to us god-kings for allowing you to breathe! KNEEL BEFORE THE ALMIGHTY AMON-RA!"
Oh thank you, thank you Pharoah for your magnanimity! Praise your holy names forever!
Surely there is room in the marketplace of ideas for community members to have mixed feelings about what visible ties the university makes with outside groups.
Only if the "outside groups" are perceived to be slightly to the right of Mao Tse Tung, that is.
From Lawrence's link to the SMU Daily Campus (emphasis mine):
In fact, some of us have actively engaged in debate with creationists and ID supporters both in our own science classrooms and at public forums on campus. In 1992, the university hosted a three-day symposium on "Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?" Five evolutionists and five anti-evolutionists gave presentations and engaged in friendly debate. No intimidation. No censorship.
Wow. 1992. There was one symposium fifteen years ago, and these people think they're being overly generous in allowing the latest conference to be scheduled. It boggles the mind.
As an SMU faculty member, I would like to point out that despite all of the twists and turns in this controversy, the administration ultimately refused to "shut down" the conference.
There is an air of disappointment in your prose here.
None expressed or intended. Simply a response to the words presented. I don't think you know my positions or opinions.
While you are being critical of those you disagree with, I would think you could offer praise for those who allowed your views to be promoted (whether they were views agreed with by the university community or not).
"You sniveling, ungrateful worms should be singing high hosannas to us god-kings for allowing you to breathe! KNEEL BEFORE THE ALMIGHTY AMON-RA!"
Oh thank you, thank you Pharoah for your magnanimity! Praise your holy names forever!
You are, of course, free to interpret the words of others as you wish. But I don't think your words are an indication of MY arrogance.
Although I do believe it's spelled "pharaoh" ...
Surely there is room in the marketplace of ideas for community members to have mixed feelings about what visible ties the university makes with outside groups.
Only if the "outside groups" are perceived to be slightly to the right of Mao Tse Tung, that is.
Proof? Support of any kind? Or was this just a random attacked based on conjecture?
I wouldn't feel confident lumping the views of the anthropology department or any group in our community the way you have. And I probably have a bit more experience and exposure to the views expressed on our campus.
From Lawrence's link to the SMU Daily Campus (emphasis mine):
In fact, some of us have actively engaged in debate with creationists and ID supporters both in our own science classrooms and at public forums on campus. In 1992, the university hosted a three-day symposium on "Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?" Five evolutionists and five anti-evolutionists gave presentations and engaged in friendly debate. No intimidation. No censorship.
Wow. 1992. There was one symposium fifteen years ago, and these people think they're being overly generous in allowing the latest conference to be scheduled. It boggles the mind.
Correction. This quote cites the last formal debate involving our faculty, which was 15 years ago. There have been several presentations, meetings and discussions about a variety of religious, scholarly and cultural issues that pertain to these topics over the years.
But hey, don't let facts (or your lack of knowledge of our university) get in the way of your blind assertions and over-generalizations ...
To jrichardstevens:
I could have also sung the praise of Michael Behe and others, but that was not the point of the post. I did express happiness that both sides are allowed to speak.
You say "we have nonetheless welcomed them to our campus to enjoy the freedom to promote their arguments and views."
You call that a welcome?
I do not have time to enumerate all the false statements about the DI and the individuals speaking that I have read coming from the SMU faculty. They have not taken the time to do basic research on the position of the DI or the speakers or made any attempt to understand them. They have apparently believed pop conspiracy theories without spending a minute to look deeper. (Of course, they are not alone.)
This comes down to a disagreement on the nature of "science", the philosophy of science, and honest evaluations of the evidence. What I have seen are many false ad hominem attacks on individuals, a refusal to debate, and a failure to try to understand.
And here's the thrust of my point (earlier two posts and this one):
WE (the SMU Community) have welcomed these individuals to our campus.
I did not write anything about them, false or otherwise. I ask you to provide evidence if you are to make claims to the contrary. Nor have more than than 99% of the SMU faculty made an expressed opinion about this conference or its participants.
And yet you equate the statements of a handful of individuals to the opinions, positions and attitudes of 687 faculty (to say nothing of the staff and students) who have complex and diverse opinions about a good many topics.
And consider that the group that invited the ID theorists here int he first place are also members of this community. Are you suggestion THEY didn't welcome Behe et. al.?
(As an aside, there is no measure in existence that could make your sample statistically representative of the population).
Please don't presume to tar an entire faculty or campus community based on the actions of a few individuals with whom you have a disagreement.
WE have welcomed them. As a community.
Although I do believe it's spelled "pharaoh" ...
LOL! Thanks for the correction "concernign" my typo. This lowly peasant will put in a good word for you when he sees Anubis. Maybe he'll put his thumb on the scale to help you out.
But hey, don't let facts (or your lack of knowledge of our university) get in the way of your blind assertions and over-generalizations ...
Sure thing. You've helped me narrow down my choices for my son's college education, which is coming up entirely too soon. No sense in wasting tuition money on places that allow professors to fiddle away valuable time in pursuits not directly related to their field of study.
Sure thing. You've helped me narrow down my choices for my son's college education, which is coming up entirely too soon. No sense in wasting tuition money on places that allow professors to fiddle away valuable time in pursuits not directly related to their field of study.
Not sure what your implications are. If you know what my field is than I think you would know that community representation and the judgment of expression are quite in line with my expertise.
But by all means, please continue to level personal attacks based on scant information towards someone you don't know ...
JRichard,
You said "And yet you equate the statements of a handful of individuals to the opinions, positions and attitudes of 687 faculty (to say nothing of the staff and students) who have complex and diverse opinions about a good many topics."
I am not sure why you think that I did what you accuse me of (if you were addressing my comments). My posts are directed at the actions of two profs, and their defense of what a group of profs did. I never accused the whole faculty.
From what I understand, 3 depts tried to shut down the conference. Silence from the rest of the faculty. I am glad to hear from you that at least some of the silent ones are "welcoming." I was actually confident that was the case, but had no idea of the percentage break down.
I would love to hear if you agree with the 2 profs on their view of academic freedom and free speech. Do you think that their arguments are logical, coherent and based on fact? Here is your chance to show the world a different face of the SMU faculty.
JRichard,
You said in your first comment "Surely there is room in the marketplace of ideas for community members to have mixed feelings about what visible ties the university makes with outside groups."
Do you really think that allowing speakers on campus is a "visible tie" or any kind of endorsement? Surely the university has allowed many, many speaker on its campus and does not endorse any of them fully. Don't you think the students and community know that allowing speakers on campus is not an endorsement? Disagreement on ideas is what a university is all about. I assume SMU encourages a diversity of viewpoints, but does not endorse any one speaker fully.
What kinds of groups do you think should be kept off campus and why? Do you think this conference gets close to that standard?
Neither side of the debate on campus has been silent. But the whole debate hasn't been presented in the media (nor is it reasonable to expect it should be). I think outsiders see editorials in the local newspaper as representative of the various voices involved and regard any voice appearing elsewhere as "silent."
There has been MUCH discussion from various perspectives on campus. The administration obviously discussed it when they decided not to "shut down" the conference. But that was my point. One large group on campus organized a conference. Some faculty members protested (so already the majority is welcoming, the minority protesting). The administration allowed the event. Even if you limit your view to only these mediated events (ignoring the conversations not represented in the media), I don't see why you would portray the university as anything other than "welcoming." Members of the community INVITED these individuals. Members of this community refused to stop the event at the behest of the protesters. These individuals are using our facilities and our resources to present their ideas without opposition.
In your response to my post you conflated the actions of a few with the university's welcome:
You say "we have nonetheless welcomed them to our campus to enjoy the freedom to promote their arguments and views."
You call that a welcome?
I do not have time to enumerate all the false statements about the DI and the individuals speaking that I have read coming from the SMU faculty. They have not taken the time to do basic research on the position of the DI or the speakers or made any attempt to understand them. They have apparently believed pop conspiracy theories without spending a minute to look deeper. (Of course, they are not alone.)
My point, then as now, is that hearing from A faculty member (or even a few individuals) is not hearing from THE faculty, much less THE community.
So I say again, WE welcomed them.
As to my views on academic freedom, I believe that the university is the last free speech zone left in our society. So long as someone refrains from breaking laws during their expression, I believe that just about any view should be able to be expressed and discussed. I also do not believe that SMU has endorsed the ID perspective by granting them space to hold a conference, any more than it has endorsed any of the dozens of speakers who visit our campus each semester.
But I do not speak for the SMU faculty as whole. And neither do the few voices you've heard. And yet, several of the comments here have assumed sweeping generalizations about the opinions of more than 600 people (or more than 13,000 if you include staff and students) based on a handful of comments by a handful of people.
That's concerning, particularly in a discussion about misrepresentation of groups.
JRichard,
I frankly think it is you who are twisting my words. Here is what you quote me as saying:
"I do not have time to enumerate all the false statements about the DI and the individuals speaking that I have read coming from the SMU faculty."
That is entirely accurate and does not state or imply that the statements are coming from the entire faculty. If 2,4 or 10 faculty speak, it is accurate to say that the statements came from "the faculty." If you misread my meaning (and you did), my posts and other comments should have made it quite clear. My posts spoke of two people, and my last comment clarified that I was actually confident that some of the faculty were "welcoming."
You misread ambiguous language and concluded that I was assuming something that I was not assuming. That is concerning.
Regardless, thanks for standing up for free speech and presenting a different face of the SMU faculty. I wish more would do so, and do it in the more public forums.
If you read some of the past posts on this blog, you will understand why I think many faculty are intimidated by the tactics of the Darwin Only lobby and are afraid to speak up.
There are open-minded people on both sides. Unfortunately, what I call the Darwinian Fundamentalists often poison the conversation, and the mainstream media (mostly) turns a blind eye.
What is your field, by the way? You alluded to it earlier.
JRichard,
I see the SMU web site links to an opinion piece that contains false and defamatory statements about the Discovery Institute. That is an action by the university that is not "welcoming." http://www.smu.edu/newsinfo/stories/darwin-design-14april2007.asp
It says in part this:
"The organization behind the event, the Discovery Institute, is clear in its agenda: It states that what the SMU science faculty believes to be so useful (science) is a danger to conservative Christianity and should be replaced by its mystical world view."
Can you show me where the DI "states" this? Its web site contains many statements that directly contradict several aspects of this assertion.
This shows shoddy research and a very unwelcoming attitude.
Responses like this are why I felt there was a double-standard in earlier comments.
Sure, the SMU Web site links to the statements made by members of its faculty to the DMN. The university also provides space and information resources for the conference organizers and participants.
I would argue (and have been) that the university endorses nether position. The conference participants were welcomed to campus and those who objected were welcomed to do so. That's what the free exchange of ideas is all about. Both sides (or the dozens of sides on issues complex as these) have the space and opportunity to express themselves.
If you are suggesting that the words of three men (endorse by 20 others) represent the views and attitudes of more than 600 faculty, then I am asserting my objection to that suggestion once again.
If you are suggesting that the words of three men represent the official voice of the university, I am responding that you must not understand the purpose of the university environment: to allow a free exchange of diverse ideas removed from the financial and political pressures other public venues.
Three tenured faculty (and about 20 additional faculty) have raised objections to the views held by visitors to our campus. The visitors were allowed to express their views freely, why should you expect that faculty who disagree should not be allowed to express themselves just as freely?
I fail to see how you connect the actions of a few faculty to "the university," particularly when no one in the administration has echoed those sentiments in the press.
Please focus your displeasure and your disagreements towards those who actually express the sentiments with which you have objection. To do otherwise is to overgeneralize your positions and stereotype a large group of people you obviously do not know well enough to characterize.
I thought you might be a reasonable person, and a reasonable faculty member, but now I have my doubts. You repeatedly distort my words in order to criticize me. You wonder if I am suggesting something that I have specifically said I disagree with. What more can I do? If you insist on twisting my words and not hearing me explain myself, you are souring the conversation- not me.
I take your words at face value. You ignore mine and read in meanings that are contradicted by my explicit statements. By the way, that is precisely what the article does that the SMU web site links to.
You said, "If you are suggesting that the words of three men (endorsed by 20 others) represent the views and attitudes of more than 600 faculty, then I am asserting my objection to that suggestion once again."
I have already said that that is not what I am suggesting. How many times do I have to say it for you to hear me and understand it?
You said, "Three tenured faculty (and about 20 additional faculty) have raised objections to the views held by visitors to our campus. The visitors were allowed to express their views freely, why should you expect that faculty who disagree should not be allowed to express themselves just as freely?"
I have already said that they should be allowed to express themselves freely. But they should not shut down the conference. Are you also unable to see that distinction and the plain words of my post? Are there any faculty at SMU who can see that distinction?
You say, "Please focus your displeasure and your disagreements towards those who actually express the sentiments with which you have objection."
That is precisely what I did. You are the one reading in the other weird interpretation.
I cite the SMU web site and the link to the nasty article which contains clear falsehoods. I said "That is an action by the university that is not "welcoming." Is that not an action by the university? Who controls the SMU web site? Who is responsible for the statement on the SMU web site that I linked to? My criticism is clearly with the actions of the professors who wrote the article and the approving link from the SMU web site page. Please stop suggesting that it is anything other than that.
If you want to explain why the statement on the SMU web site is not coming from SMU, please do. My criticism is with the web site statement and link. It is reasonable to assume that the SMU web site has some connection to SMU and/or the SMU administration.
I said to you personally, "I am glad to hear from you that at least some of the silent ones are "welcoming." I was actually confident that was the case, but had no idea of the percentage break down."
I also said to you personally, "Thanks for standing up for free speech and presenting a different face of the SMU faculty. I wish more would do so, and do it in the more public forums."
I recognized our common ground, and then you turn around and distort my words (again) and then criticize me. This is classic "straw man" argumentation. You also did not answer many of the questions I asked you seeking more information about your position and thinking.
I thought you were putting a new face on the SMU faculty. I am not so sure the new face is that much better than the specific professors I criticized previously.
OK, let’s try this one more time, and then I’m giving up.
You said, "If you are suggesting that the words of three men (endorsed by 20 others) represent the views and attitudes of more than 600 faculty, then I am asserting my objection to that suggestion once again."
I have already said that that is not what I am suggesting. How many times do I have to say it for you to hear me and understand it?
But immediately after that, you disputed my statement that the university community welcomed the group to campus. More people planned the event than objected to it. I suspect far more people attended the event than objected to it.
But you continue (as you do below) take a single voice (which is comprised of three authors and 20 nods of support) and you portray SMU as unwelcoming of the event? How is this possible?
If more people are involved in the planning of this event than object to it, how can the words and voices of the fewer number be representative of the university?
More administrators, faculty and students voiced support for the ID conference participants’ right to present their ideas on campus than opposed the conference. How can this environment be described as “unwelcoming”?
Is there some reason the voice of the objectors count more than those in support of ID (Or at least in support of their right to be heard)? You haven’t offered any reason why they should.
Approximately 23 people publicly protested the event. We have more than 600 faculty and a couple of hundred staff members. There were more than 23 voices in active support of the conference.
How can you dispute my statement that the SMU community welcomed the conference participants to our campus? Were you even here to see what transpired at the conference?
You said, "Three tenured faculty (and about 20 additional faculty) have raised objections to the views held by visitors to our campus. The visitors were allowed to express their views freely, why should you expect that faculty who disagree should not be allowed to express themselves just as freely?"
I have already said that they should be allowed to express themselves freely. But they should not shut down the conference. Are you also unable to see that distinction and the plain words of my post? Are there any faculty at SMU who can see that distinction?
And as I repeatedly said, the conference was NOT shut down. There were more voices on campus arguing that regardless of one’s opinions on these issues, very group should be allowed to speak, particularly if invited by an SMU organization.
MORE people spoke in support of the ID participants’ right to be heard. The conference was not shut down by the administration.
Despite strong words by members of our community (as was their right, a point in which you appear to be in agreement), the conference was planned for, set up and held as planned. Members of the SMU community spent a lot of time and money trying to make the participants feel welcome.
You say, "Please focus your displeasure and your disagreements towards those who actually express the sentiments with which you have objection."
That is precisely what I did. You are the one reading in the other weird interpretation.
I’m sorry you feel this way. I am merely saying, as one who was HERE, that the university community did not and does not appear to support the canceling of conferences to which members of our community object.
And it seems every time I state that, you rebut with the words of one of the objectors? Why? They aren’t my words. They aren’t the words of any administrator who has discussed this issue in the press.
I cite the SMU web site and the link to the nasty article which contains clear falsehoods. I said "That is an action by the university that is not "welcoming."
Yes, and here is where we are in disagreement. I’ll explain:
Is that not an action by the university? Who controls the SMU web site?
It is no more an action of official endorsement by the university to link to an article in a newspaper than it is an official endorsement by the university to plan, organize and host a conference on Intelligent Design. Members of the SMU community produced and distributed hundreds of flier, advertisements, and yes – even posted content to the World-Wide Web about the conference. But that doesn’t mean the university supports the ID participants’ positions: only their right to express them.
And I think similarly, the SMU Web site link doesn’t endorse the statements made by faculty members to the Dallas Morning News: only their right to express them.
Who is responsible for the statement on the SMU web site that I linked to?
Who is responsible for planning, paying for, promoting and hosting the conference and all its materials?
My criticism is clearly with the actions of the professors who wrote the article and the approving link from the SMU web site page. Please stop suggesting that it is anything other than that.
Linking to a resource is CITING that source, not “approving.” Are YOU approving the Dallas Morning News story? You have a link to it on your blog.
If you want to explain why the statement on the SMU web site is not coming from SMU, please do. My criticism is with the web site statement and link. It is reasonable to assume that the SMU web site has some connection to SMU and/or the SMU administration.
Yes, but show me where you find a statement that says “The SMU administration (or community) supports the positions argued by its faculty who are calling for the conference to be terminated.” The conference WASN’T terminated. I am aware of no SMU official outside the 23 aforementioned faculty have expressed to the media any reservation about hosting the conference.
I said to you personally, "I am glad to hear from you that at least some of the silent ones are "welcoming." I was actually confident that was the case, but had no idea of the percentage break down."
I also said to you personally, "Thanks for standing up for free speech and presenting a different face of the SMU faculty. I wish more would do so, and do it in the more public forums."
And I appreciated those words, even if I did not acknowledge such to your satisfaction.
I recognized our common ground, and then you turn around and distort my words (again) and then criticize me. This is classic "straw man" argumentation. You also did not answer many of the questions I asked you seeking more information about your position and thinking.
I’m sorry you feel that way. There are 15 responses to your post (this is number 16). This post will by my 7th. There have been at least two other posters. I’m sorry that in all that communication some of your questions didn’t get answered.
I thought you were putting a new face on the SMU faculty. I am not so sure the new face is that much better than the specific professors I criticized previously.
Except that my SOLE point since my first post on your blog has been that an individual faculty voice does NOT (and should not) represent the official positions, policies or culture of the SMU institution or community.
I couldn’t understand why, as you were criticizing the few professors that objected, you weren’t celebrating the majority of members in the SMU community who didn’t or who spoke in support of the ID conference. I couldn’t understand why you weren’t thrilled that the SMU administration did not bow to the pressure exerted by 23 faculty members and chose instead to host the conference that members of its community had organized.
Why isn’t THAT the face of the SMU community you see? Why is it only the voices you disagree with?
I’m seriously asking you to examine this question.
I may not post here again. I am indeed sorry if my responses upset you or any of your readers.
I awaited your reply with baited breath. I asked myself, "What words will he put in my mouth this time?"
You did not disappoint: You said, "But immediately after that, you disputed my statement that the university community welcomed the group to campus."
Of course I did not dispute that. I made reference to one action on the university web site.
It has become laughable how you take my reference to a single action on the official university website, and then you twist my reference to "the university" into "every single person associated with the university, whether faculty, student or administration" which is not what I said or intended. You keep doing it and doing it, despite my saying explicitly that that is not what I think or believe or said or implied.
I have stated clearly that I am not criticizing every single person. But you just don't get it.
Let me make it clear as can be: some people were welcoming; some were not. Some actions were welcoming; some were not.
My criticisms were very specific, yet you continue to interpret them broadly so that you can attack me. Wow.
What makes it really funny is that you apparently get to make overstatements like "the university community welcomed the group to campus" when what you really mean is that some of the university community welcomed them. Why the gross double standard?
And I truly enjoyed this gem: "I couldn’t understand why, as you were criticizing the few professors that objected, you weren’t celebrating the majority of members in the SMU community who didn’t or who spoke in support of the ID conference." And "Why isn’t THAT the face of the SMU community you see? Why is it only the voices you disagree with? I’m seriously asking you to examine this question."
Are you kidding me? Since when is that a condition of commentary? I am supposed to celebrate the SMU faculty who did nothing? I am supposed to see people who sit on their cans and do nothing public and celebrate them? Amazing.
I wrote about two professors who made very public and very outrageous statements about free speech and academic freedom. Outrageous statements and attempts to shut down conferences are noteworthy. They are worthy of commentary.
Post a Comment
<< Home