Professor Rationalizes Censorship

PZ Myers, the increasingly obscure atheist activist,  rationalizes the need to censor non-Leftist views on campus by complaining that universities don’t have infinite time and resources.  The argument is basically as follows:  “We’d let you speak, but because our time and money is limited, we have to choose speakers whose speech we value.”  Of course, this is a coward’s justification, which is not surprising given that cowardice and censorship go hand in hand.  After all, many of these universities are places where the students need to be shielded from viewpoints that make them feel “unsafe.”

Jerry Coyne responds by appropriately mocking Myers as The Decider.

Look, if limited time and money is the problem, perhaps universities could adopt some form of Fairness Doctrine – for every leftist that speaks, it could be balanced by the right-winger.  I’m not sure why so many university professors feel the need to censor opposing political and social views.  You would think they would want to showcase such viewpoints as a “teachable moment” for their students.  That is, let the speaker make his/her case, and then use the opportunity to dissect the talk with critical thinking.  But instead, they prefer to shield their students from such viewpoints.  Of course, if it is true that more and more universities are engaged in indoctrination disguised as education, it makes sense the professors would rationalize censorship.  For a common feature of indoctrination is controlling what the converts hear and think.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in academia, Social Justice, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Professor Rationalizes Censorship

  1. Crude says:

    PZ Myers, the increasingly obscure atheist activist,

    Damn, Mike. 😀

    That said, it’s funny to see this split take place. I wonder if Coyne got sick of making exceptions for Myers – I remember way back in the days where Jerry had to bend over backwards to excuse Myers for things, like wrecking his ‘All rational people would/wouldn’t do this…’ kinds of rules…

  2. TFBW says:

    That is, let the speaker make his/her case, and then use the opportunity to dissect the talk with critical thinking.

    This is not how postmodernism works.

  3. Michael says:

    Damn, Mike. 😀

    That said, it’s funny to see this split take place.

    It’s even funnier.

    PZ: Please don’t ever cite the regressive Jerry Coyne here again, please. Not interested in anything he has to say.

    So the response to Coyne is to censor any mention of him. LOL. You can’t make this up.

    Never forget these are two men who proudly proclaim that they follow the evidence wherever it leads. As such, we have two men who zealously believe the evidence is “on their side.” Further support about just how right I am about the subjective dimension to evidence.

  4. Michael says:

    This is not how postmodernism works.

    Indeed. With education, all sides are considered and explored. With indoctrination, only one side is considered. Postmodernism thrives only in an environment of indoctrination.

  5. Mechanar says:

    Nothing but kindergarden children

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s