A new “consortium of scholars” wants to expose—and discredit—the movement for civil dialogue and viewpoint diversity. Its method is guilt by association.
These people are just antisemites who are upset that people who disagree with them haven't been silenced or cowed into submission (yet). The AAUP's endorsement of Sayed is shameful. I'm glad I never joined it.
On the Uncivil website is the following statement: "It’s not because there’s any evidence that students are reluctant to engage with diverse ideas. Organizations like FIRE have tried for years to produce such evidence, and still their own research shows the opposite." As someone who has been looking at FIRE student results for years, I would like to know how Uncivil came to that conclusion. Here are FIRE's rating of student results from Harvard: 47% of students say they have self censured at least once or twice a month, 32% say using violence to stop someone from speaking is acceptable. Overall FIRE's summary of openness at Harvard:
COMFORT EXPRESSING IDEAS
F
SELF-CENSORSHIP
D-
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
F
POLITICAL TOLERANCE
F
Would someone from Uncivil be willing to debate someone from FIRE, or is debate about Uncivil views off limits?
One wonders if our universities are beyond repair.
It's not a coincidence that people supporting violent terrorism politically on the object levelare themselves opposed to civility on the meta level.
These people are just antisemites who are upset that people who disagree with them haven't been silenced or cowed into submission (yet). The AAUP's endorsement of Sayed is shameful. I'm glad I never joined it.
But on the plus side, it’s one more way to be antisemitic with a veneer of not being antisemitic…
On the Uncivil website is the following statement: "It’s not because there’s any evidence that students are reluctant to engage with diverse ideas. Organizations like FIRE have tried for years to produce such evidence, and still their own research shows the opposite." As someone who has been looking at FIRE student results for years, I would like to know how Uncivil came to that conclusion. Here are FIRE's rating of student results from Harvard: 47% of students say they have self censured at least once or twice a month, 32% say using violence to stop someone from speaking is acceptable. Overall FIRE's summary of openness at Harvard:
COMFORT EXPRESSING IDEAS
F
SELF-CENSORSHIP
D-
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
F
POLITICAL TOLERANCE
F
Would someone from Uncivil be willing to debate someone from FIRE, or is debate about Uncivil views off limits?
“As someone who has been looking at FIRE student results for years, I would like to know how Uncivil came to that conclusion.”
One word: Orwelliansim.
I am sure I know some of the founders of this formal attempt to smear HxA, FIRE, etc. Sad.