As a disclaimer I am against any censorship of academia and think that even Charles Murray should be allowed to speak at a university (assuming he is invited by an academic department or student group) and that the university should never have veto power.
However, I think the example in the Atlantic is actually more mild than past cases: the John Carlson Lecture is a general audience talk that the university holds to boost its public image.
It’s not an academic talk discussing new research or a political perspective, but rather summarizes ideas for the public. If MIT wants to decide who should give such talks I don’t care.
In contrast, if a department or student group wants to invite a specific speaker for a specialized talk about politics, science, math, then the university censoring such discourse is what is truly dangerous.
In this light, the cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos who was invited by the College Republican club is much worse. Even though personally I do not think Yiannopoulos is anything but a provocateur, if someone (group/department) wants to invite him the university should not block him from speaking.
The article argues, and I agree, that a university is free to not invite someone if they view them as controversial. Where the problem really is is that they invited him and then retracted the invitation in response to a mob. The retraction is what makes this problematic.
EDIT: the other point that the article makes is that this professor's "controversial" views are held by upwards of 70% of the American public. The net result of applying this rule consistently would be that a strong majority of the American public cannot express their opinions on this subject because of a tiny vocal minority.
I think that every retraction of an invitation to speak in response to a mob is bad, so we are in agreement.
My only point is that this particular "John Carlson Lecture" is itself a public relations event whose purpose is to promote MIT to the local public and enhance its image, they allude to this in the official statement [1].
In my opinion, a PR lecture cancellation is different from telling a student group or department that they are not allow to invite a specific speaker: it is bad, but much less dangerous to academic discourse than previous cancellations (even if in past examples the speakers mentioned in the article had extreme or bizarre views).
> this professor's "controversial" views are held by upwards of 70% of the American public.
First of all, who says? Second of all, just because a majority believes something doesn't make it right. There was a time when the majority of Americans believed slavery was OK. Times change.
On the one hand, we have Abbot, who is an academic, being uninvited from a public lecture organized by the department that covers his field based on apparently little more than Twitter outrage.
On the other hand, we have Yiannopoulos, who is an activist, whose event was canceled by the College Republicans due to public safety concerns after 150 protesters blocked access to the venue. The next day, Yiannopoulos returned to UC Davis with supporters and marched across the campus in counter-protest at the cancellation of the event.
Censoring academic freedom of speech has a much more chilling effect on academic freedom than does restricting outside participation in campus speech.
Yiannopoulos has a national platform for his ideas, and indeed this kind of incident only bolsters it. In any case, he was ultimately able to visit the campus and express his message the next day.
Academics, however, depend on being able to publish, speak publicly, receive prizes and so on for their careers; there is truth in publish or perish. If their ability to participate in the academic discourse is going to end up limited for holding unpopular opinions (even unrelated to their work!), then the chilling effect is much larger.
There is a lot of focus on the Twitter aspect, but from the article that outrage comes from an article he published in a magazine explaining his views on affirmative action.
It’s not some random comment that got blown out of proportion, nor some accidental miscommunication, and the subject is also not unrelated to universities.
Why is it out of proportion to have a mob wanting this guy out of the university system for controversial views on students hiring he himself widely published ?
> In this light, the cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos who was invited by the College Republican club is much worse.
This isn't how I remember it. Milo thrived off of these confrontations and being "cancelled," but what really made him drop off were his comments on pedophilia. Being hounded by students legitimized him in his followers mind.
As a disclaimer I am against any censorship of academia and think that even Charles Murray should be allowed to speak at a university (assuming he is invited by an academic department or student group) and that the university should never have veto power.
However, I think the example in the Atlantic is actually more mild than past cases: the John Carlson Lecture is a general audience talk that the university holds to boost its public image.
It’s not an academic talk discussing new research or a political perspective, but rather summarizes ideas for the public. If MIT wants to decide who should give such talks I don’t care.
In contrast, if a department or student group wants to invite a specific speaker for a specialized talk about politics, science, math, then the university censoring such discourse is what is truly dangerous.
In this light, the cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos who was invited by the College Republican club is much worse. Even though personally I do not think Yiannopoulos is anything but a provocateur, if someone (group/department) wants to invite him the university should not block him from speaking.