When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Acclaimed British conductor has been fired from a prestigious American music festival after a seemingly innocent joke he made to a black friend was labelled racist.
Matthew Halls was removed as artistic director of the Oregon Bach Festival following an incident in which he imitated a southern American accent while talking to his longstanding friend, the African-American classical singer Reginald Mobley.
It is understood a white woman who overheard the joke reported it to officials at the University of Oregon, which runs the festival, claiming it amounted to a racial slur.
...
The singer, who was born and raised in the southern state of Florida, said the concert had an “antebellum” feel to it, of the sort associated with Gone With the Wind and other rose-tinted representations of the pre-Civil War south.
In response Mobley says that Halls “apologised on behalf of England”, before putting on an exaggerated southern accent and joking: “Do you want some grits?”, in a reference to the ground corn dish popular in the south.
“I’m from the deep south and Matthew often makes fun of the southern accent just as I often make fun of his British accent,” said Mobley. “Race was not an issue. He was imitating a southern accent, not putting on a black accent, and there was nothing racist or malicious about it.”
But the singer suspects that a white woman who overheard their conversation and spoke to him moments later went on to report it to the university, alleging Halls had made a racist joke.
The Orpheum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee, will no longer screen Gone With the Wind after the theater’s board said it had received “numerous comments” from viewers who called the 1939 film “insensitive” and “racist.”
While we've been talking about this for a while, seeing actual hard data regarding how few college students actually understand the first amendment is kind of horrifying.
A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech
By Catherine Rampell Opinion writer September 18
Demonstrators march during a free speech rally in Berkeley, Calif. (Josh Edelson/AP)
Here’s the problem with suggesting that upsetting speech warrants “safe spaces,” or otherwise conflating mere words with physical assault: If speech is violence, then violence becomes a justifiable response to speech.
Just ask college students. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”
That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor.
In August, motivated by concerns about the “narrowing window of permissible topics” for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges. Financial support for the survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation, which Villasenor said had no involvement in designing, administering or analyzing the questionnaire; as of this writing, the foundation had also not seen his results.
Many of Villasenor’s questions were designed to gauge students’ understanding of the First Amendment. Colleges, after all, pay a lot of lip service to “freedom of speech,” despite high-profile examples of civil-liberty-squelching on campus. The survey suggests that this might not be due to hypocrisy so much as a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually entails.
For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, incorrect. Speech promoting hatred — or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred — may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected.
Results based on online survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities, all U.S. citizens, conducted Aug. 17-31. For a confidence level of 95 percent, the margin of error is between approximately 2 percent and 6 percent, depending on the group.
There were no statistically significant differences in response to this question based on political affiliation. But there were significant differences by gender: Women are more likely than men to believe hate speech is not constitutionally protected (49 percent vs. 38 percent, respectively).
Students were asked whether the First Amendment requires that an offensive speaker at a public university be matched with one with an opposing view. Here, 6 in 10 (mistakenly) said that, yes, the First Amendment requires balance.
The most chilling findings, however, involved how students think repugnant speech should be dealt with.
Villasenor offered a hypothetical that may sound familiar to those who recall recent fracases at California State University at Los Angeles, Middlebury College , Claremont McKenna College and other institutions:
Let’s say a public university hosts a “very controversial speaker,” one “known for making offensive and hurtful statements.” Would it be acceptable for a student group to disrupt the speech “by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker”?
Results based on online survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities, all U.S. citizens, conducted Aug. 17-31. For a confidence level of 95 percent, the margin of error is between approximately 2 percent and 6 percent, depending on the group.
Astonishingly, half said that snuffing out upsetting speech — rather than, presumably, rebutting or even ignoring it — would be appropriate. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to find this response acceptable (62 percent to 39 percent), and men were more likely than women (57 percent to 47 percent). Even so, sizable shares of all groups agreed.
It gets even worse.
Respondents were also asked if it would be acceptable for a student group to use violence to prevent that same controversial speaker from talking. Here, 19 percent said yes.
Results based on online survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities, all U.S. citizens, conducted Aug. 17-31. For a confidence level of 95 percent, the margin of error is between approximately 2 percent and 6 percent, depending on the group.
There were no statistically significant differences in response by political party affiliation. Men, however, were three times as likely as women to endorse using physical force to silence controversial views (30 percent of men vs. 10 percent of women).
None of this bodes well for the alt-right’s Berkeley Free Speech Week events next week.
Judging from the lineup — which includes professional troll Milo Yiannopoulos and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich — the apparent goal of this event is not to help students face hard truths or grapple with thoughtful conservative viewpoints. It’s to say disgusting things in an attempt to provoke liberals into doing something stupid, surrendering any claim to moral high ground. If that happens, President Trump’s “both sides” comments will ring a little truer, while liberals and colleges are further cemented as whataboutist bogeymen for the right.
In truth, lefties can do more to call out threats to civil liberties perpetrated by their ideological allies. And colleges can do more to promote freer debate. But many of Villasenor’s results — like those from other data sources — show that the right is also astonishingly open to shutting down speech.
What’s more, colleges alone are not to blame for these findings. Other data suggest that freshmen are arriving on campus with more intolerant attitudes toward free speech than their predecessors did, and that Americans of all ages have become strikingly hostile toward basic civil and political liberties.
Colleges provide a crucible for America’s increasingly strained attitudes toward free discourse. But they are just the canaries in the coal mine.
"Weaponizing a narrow interpretation of the First Amendment?"
What would a "broad" interpretation of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" look like? I ask seriously.
"Shadowy political element?" Reminds me of a quote from The Abyss: "We all see what we want to see. Coffey looks and he sees Russians. He sees hate and fear. You have to look with better eyes than that."
“Eevie Bellini” is a spunky, nerdy 20-something who nicknamed herself The Banana_Butcher and charges $20 for a three-paragraph **** critique. If you’re looking for something more substantial, $30 will get you a custom-made nude video reaction to your dick pic, evaluating the “length, girth, grooming, veins, *****.” Bellini has been in the sex industry for about five months, and sells her services on Reddit to help pay off student loans through the online **** marketplace r/sexsells, alongside hundreds of other women who make a living (or at least some beer money) providing homebrew sexual services. Bellini, like most of the merchants, has a vast erotic repertoire — she sells panties, premade clips and domination packages — but dick ratings are her prime export, and she’d be nowhere without anxious men wondering if they have nice dicks.
"Weaponizing a narrow interpretation of the First Amendment?"
What would a "broad" interpretation of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" look like? I ask seriously.
"Shadowy political element?" Reminds me of a quote from The Abyss: "We all see what we want to see. Coffey looks and he sees Russians. He sees hate and fear. You have to look with better eyes than that."
I guess I'm the only one that took the teachers slides as dripping with sarcasm/satire? And the student's response another uninformed, "special" student?
I guess I'm the only one that took the teachers slides as dripping with sarcasm/satire? And the student's response another uninformed, "special" student?
I guess I'm the only one that took the teachers slides as dripping with sarcasm/satire? And the student's response another uninformed, "special" student?
Sadly, I think Brainey is on point here. I'm coming to accept that attitudes and opinions which I once intuitively identified as sarcastic are increasingly being expressed in a sincere, if appallingly uninformed, manner.
09-11-2017, 04:34 PM
0
