From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
I submitted this answer:
It would be proper to report the student only if the student’s behavior is disrespectful and disruptive. But really, it is the professor’s job to control his classroom.
That aside, the university’s “Prevent” policy is certainly within the University administration’s right. But that doesn’t make it right. The vague term “extremism,” like the term “hate speech,” is a smear tactic useful only in intimidating and silencing an opposing voice. Racial supremacism may be “extreme”; but so is the view that “all men are created equal” and should be treated as such under the law, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
It is intellectual cowardice to report the student for his views, thus silencing him in the classroom. It is also impractical.
Hehe
“That aside, the university’s “Prevent” policy is certainly within the University administration’s right. But that doesn’t make it right.”
So, now we’re concerned about some action being the right thing to do? It passed the “Objectivist”/”Libertarian”/”Rationalizing Assholery” Litmus test. It’s their right to have the policy, end of story. Nothing we can do! Move on!
“It is intellectual cowardice to report the student for his views, thus silencing him in the classroom.”
So… which trumps which? A person’s rational self-interest in attempting to silence what they perceive to be incorrect/false ideology or intellectual courage?
“They can only be defeated by intellectually discrediting, and then by countering with a better viewpoint.”
Oh, yes. I see the hate-mongers and racists all over the internet being defeated and silenced with the power of words and being shown examples of how they are factually wrong.
“Prohibition does not work. It didn’t work with alcohol.”
Yes, because alcohol is the same exact thing as believing a certain group of people have less rights or have an inferior status to other groups of people. Prohibiting alcohol is totally on the same level as prohibitting hate speech.
“Truth-seeking is about exposing and debating, not burying and retreating into an “echo chamber.””
Right. Except there’s no debate here. ” are second class citizens/inferior/whatever” How does one debate this? A debate requires both sides to recognize they are involved in an exchange of ideas. A vocal student in class spouting white supremecy isn’t there to have a measured, factual conversation. Also, racism and the belief in a group of people being inately inferior to another shouldn’t be given the legitamacy of being perceived as being intellectually equal. This is pernicious.
“The right move is just the opposite of reporting it. You should vigorously defend the “right wing student’s” right to express his views.”
And when people do this we see innumerable articles and whining online about Right-Wing Speakers getting shouted down and bullied.
“It is shocking that, with the record of fascism and communism still fresh in our history, that the tactic so beloved of dictatorships, intellectual oppression, is rising again in the land of the First Amendment–and on the campuses of so-called “institutions of higher learning” no less.”
Intellectual Oppression. What’s shocking is that Mr. LaFarrera chose this topic to chime in on. In Mr. LaFarrera’s own example, the “Right Wing Student” labeled those with opposing views “Communists”. You’re not having a debate at this point, you have someone actively being hostile to the debate Mr. LaFarrera wishes the poster to Quora had had with the poor “Right Wing Student”. He’s advocating for something that isn’t even possible with the example he presents. The Quora poster, then, should be lauded for exercising their rational self-interest in removing the hostile-to-intellectual-courage viewpoint from their class.
Honestly… really? Intellectual Cowardice? A person spouting white supremecy isn’t citing facts… so they’re not demonstrating that they are “arguing” from an intellectual stance.
This is all very reminiscent of conservatives arguing that liberals who preach tolerance must tolerate everything, even if doing so leads to more intolerance.
Someone who genuinely cares about free speech or tolerance cares about the consequences that some policy has for that value. Conservatives (and libertarians in particular), being more rule-driven than utilitarian, rather consistently discount the moral significance of consequences in general. Their moral reasoning is stunted accordingly. They cannot see that our rules exist for a reason and are not the ends in themselves or that blindly following the rules can lead to the destruction of those rules anyway.
If faith in the “free market of ideas” is all LaFerrara has to fall back on as a defense even against the sort of people described in the question here and even in these times of fake news and false accusations thereof, then he is nothing more than an enabler. But he probably wouldn’t even care if it all fell apart — as long as we followed his rules.