And the DSM-5. From the VA's website, since my DSM is at work:
It should but many people picked sides before any more information came out anyways. There should be sympathy for both parties until more evidence is obtained. Being wrongfully accused is pretty awful too. If it turns out that he did it then I’m happy to unload on him too.
Man or woman would be options
Fully agree Pragma.
Have stayed out of both these discussions to this point not out of neutrality, but more because I tend to find myself getting sucked into these conversations and I am trying to better triage ways I spend my time these days. As in the broader political arena, I find both sides attempting to "win" rather than moving towards a productive solution that will inevitably entail some level of compromise. Going to share my conflicts on this an effort to help move things to the middle.
I am going to take it for granted that everyone agrees that individuals who have committed violent felonies should not sit on the supreme court. I am also going to take it for granted that everyone agrees an accusation alone should not be enough to levy consequences against someone - certainly not criminal, but also not personal (loss/denial of job). If you disagree with either of these assumptions, I would be interested to hear the reasoning.
Assuming both are true, I would be interested to hear both sides views on the following.
1) For folks who would support a Kavanaugh nomination - part of politics is that there is always some degree of doubt about candidates and some element of "where there is smoke, there is fire." It is a very ugly game. Where exactly would you draw the line for "how much smoke" before you (personally) would reject a candidate? Note, I am not asking about criminal charges or even removal from existing role, just consideration for a new one. Heck, take politics out of it completely and pretend you are a hiring manager for a private company. I am guessing most would not require guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" before choosing someone else...so where are you drawing the line? Would you vote for a candidate that "everyone knew" was a serial killer who had never been convicted? I assume no...so you have some grey on the innocent until proven guilty issue in the political arena. Where is it?
2) For folks against a Kavanaugh nomination - there is also always some doubt on the other side. So where exactly do you draw the line on this front? Assuming you agree that any accusation should not immediately disqualify someone, what are the relevant parameters for you in deciding what should Is it the topic of the allegation? If Kavanaugh was accused of money laundering or robbery, would you feel differently? Is it about the credibility of the victim? As much as we all might wish it wouldn't matter whether a victim is a professor or a drug dealer, I think the reaction would have differed enormously if that were true here. What protections would you have in place to make sure false allegations do not become the new norm?
My apologies to the OP for the continued derailment, but we already seem well down that path so I figured why not - last one got locked before I threw this into the mix. Hopefully the above questions are at least tangentially related in the sense that these are the questions I think a good educational setting should be asking
Seeing if we can find some common ground here and I have not seem either side really address these issues.
I don't think courts are always right, so a conviction isn't always the mark of "proof" although all criminal accusations should be investigated there. One of the benefits of a criminal trial is it requires all the evidence to be brought out to be seen by both sides.
I wish there was a “love” option for this post.
I think the line for me is how the candidate handles the accusation NOW as well as the evidence that exists that he did treat girls poorly. The accusation is an accusation, and taken by itself, it would be important to me but not something that I could say meant that he could not be on the SC, because it could just be an accusation. I've been in the field of psychology long enough to know that people a) make stuff up and b) have false memories.
No. Absolutely not. There shouldn’t be requirements or restrictions like that on guest speakers
1. Of course, provided there is academic merit to the speech. If the sole goal of the speaker is to be inflammatory, or to target a specific population of people, then no (for conservatives or anyone else). Conservative viewpoints with academic merit should actively be sought, in my opinion, along with progressive and other viewpoints.
What is to stop labeling any speech one dislikes as hate speech and banning it?
Guidelines, and a vetting board from different political perspectives. Really, none of this stuff is as simple as you make it out to be.
But at a govt university, if they have a sponsor, there shouldn’t be someone else vetoing it because they don’t like it even if they drape that dislike in “it has no merit”
Good catch on that, i’ll fix it
And universities that create such policies go through an approval process governed by the faculty. If you do not have a group of faculty that are considered politically diverse, then your policies governing speech are being created by a politically homogeneous group of people.
Racism & sexism have the weight of power behind them. I think the question is whether the power shifts with terms like privilege, mansplaining, and so on, and in what context. The thing is, there is merit to those concepts. And at the same time, they get brandied about as a way to always "win" a discussion. It boils down to "you're a whiner!" "well you're a racist!" and it just gets exhausting. I have hope that we will get somewhere constructive with these conversations though.
I don't work on a college campus but there must be some committee that decides who is going to speak, and so on. There's always a committee, isn't there, for just about everything? As for free speech, that's why they have Speaker's Corner in London, and I guess street corners in the US.
Usually speakers get invited by departments. Not sure there is a committee for choosing speakers but there are committees that govern policies.
I don't set the standards, but it seems reasonable to me that a college campus could decline a speaker that incites people to violence/harm to others. NAMBLA gets nominated by a department, NAMBLA gets declined by a vetting committee. I'm sure that must happen. Otherwise, I think all bets are on for speakers. (And as per usual, interesting, nuanced and quieter speakers will get four people in the audience while the loudmouth name-callers will fill the house.)
I’m pretty sure there is no vetting committee in a lot of places.
I would hope the standard would be actual physical harm or abuse vs. a differing viewpoint. I get that there's a potential slippery slope there. Maybe the line should be drawn in the same place that we draw the line for reporting to CPS/APS.
I think the issue is usually the reverse - they want to prevent people from engaging in variant viewpoints.
I think it's tough. I also get it from a liability perspective. College approves speaker who incites hate, incited audience member drives a car through the counter-protestors... who is the family going to sue? I was also a paralegal in a formal life. First rule of torts: look for someone with deep pockets.
I think that sounds great, and also not entirely realistic, and also expensive as is pointed out.
I think the organizations sponsoring the events should foot the part of the bill that's over and above normal security. Tuition is high enough without now rolling in the need to protect Richard Spencer and/or whatever his leftist equivalent would be.
Good question. I’ve heard the costs of police and fire presence to keep leftist protestors alive at the RNC conventions have been astronomical.
I think those who are riled enough to drive a car into a crowd of people will not be deterred by threat of felony.
But those that throw glass bottles at people and police officers might be, which would be good.
I agree in terms of it being helpful to reduce harm, but I don't think it'll do much to lower security costs since there will still have to be preparation made for the car into the crowd, the person with the gun, and so on.
There are security costs involved whenever there is a protest. By default, it seems to fall on the local municipality to be prepared to handle any public events.
