even the comments here. it looks like most people dismissed this without giving it a chance. the amount of "we cant tolerate this type of thinking here" really only enforces the point the article makes, despite its provocative title turning people off before they understand that.
Personally, "its (author|publication) is biased in a way I dont agree with" seems like MORE reason to read it, not less.
>Although the 87 professors who demanded that the invitation to Bannon be revoked asserted that they represented ‘the breadth of the University’s intellectual community’, in fact 36 of them – nearly one-third – teach at either the school of social work (20) or in the English department (16).
Considering the topic Steve Bannon, I'm baffled it wasn't more. But besides, I'm more baffled the author attempts to disclaim concern for platforming Bannon with a mere third of "automatically reject-able" professors, and then continues the argument with less than a sixth.
I think the criticism in the article resonates with many people and I doubt we see editorialized content. Independence is an issue for newspapers, but it would be dishonest to start here with this topic.
Agreed. I'd like to have a discussion about the truthfulness of this event. If it has credibility then we should worry about it and discuss resolutions.
It's unfortunate that HN has already marked this as "dead".
Wouldn't this behavior mirror that from university staff accused of silencing debate? To me, this behavior looks exactly like something the author describes, even if he might exaggerate.
For those liberals and the rest of the political spectrum out there who dislike the censorious aspects of today's progressivism, remember that your votes in primaries and on Election Day can never be flagged or canceled. Please vote.
There are certain sources where the mere source itself raises these about concerns about editorialized and politicised content over accuracy. e.g. "The Daily Mail" is one. "Spiked Online" is another.
It resonates with many people because it's been drilled into their minds for literal decades. Decades of right-wing academia rejects shouting "I've been silenced!" on literally every media avenue until people actually believed universities were orweillian nightmares (and not just very bland binge-drinking places).
Reputation of a source matters. An anti-vax publication would rightly get a negative reception here too. This is Hacker News. People shouldn't be posting garbage like this. Go to Reddit.
Can you specify exactly what we should be looking for here? To put it another way, what moved you to post this comment with this content? There must be some takeaway you expect readers to have. What is it?
Good luck with that in the current climate of social media raised, anxiety-ridden student body.