I admit that the concept isn't flawless, but I defy anyone to come up with a better one. It's like democracy and capitalism--they're bad, except for everything else.
Anyway, you need to read the whole thing in order to plumb the depths of this particular professor's insanity. Seriously, go read it.
The lecture, given by Prof. Carolyn Rouse, Chair of the Department of Anthropology and Director of the Program in African Studies, was entitled “F%*# Free Speech: An Anthropologist’s Take on Campus Speech Debates.”Oh, a "studies" person. Nice.
And here's where we learn that Professor Rouse doesn't know much history:
Towards the beginning of the lecture, Rouse noted that JMP (the James Madison Project) “censored” the lecture title by listing it by a different name on its website—omitting the vulgarity used in other publicity materials. Rouse made a point to “rub it in” that JMP made the edit “to be politically correct,” clarifying that “I use the term ‘politically correct’ deliberately, because ‘politically correct’ simply means ‘appropriate.’”The origin of the phrase "politically correct" is Stalinist, and what might be "appropriate" if you want to stay alive in Stalin's Soviet Union doesn't quite approach anything that might be considered even marginally related to "truth", if Professor Rouse even believes in any "truth" other than what the marble that rolls around in her skull causes her to believe in at any given moment.
4 comments:
I would love to read it as you suggest. Could you link to it please? I could not find anything but the lecture announcement and the professor's bio at the links you posted. Google search couldn't find a transcript either. Thanks.
Doh! I failed to provide a link! Need to fix that pronto.
I didn't have a transcript, just several paragraphs quoted in the article from which I quoted.
OK, read the article and not sure what you are fired up about. OK, some of her examples are the standard leftist assumptions such as man-made global warming is a fact. However, the main gist of her talk according to the article is that you really can't speak your mind in open society. You always have to watch what you say because not everyone thinks like you do. The article said she had two main points:
1st:
"The central thesis of the lecture was twofold. Firstly, Rouse argued that words and grammatical constructs can have different meanings in different contexts, and that cultural competence requires knowing how to self-censor according to context, in order to avoid being misunderstood."
Yep, have to agreed with her there. This happens everyday. I will tailor a concept I am trying to get across to someone differently based on their point of view & beliefs.
2nd:
"Rouse asserted that “free-speech absolutism” has never been treated as a core value of academia. She appeared to use the phrase to refer to the notion that all propositions, arguments, opinions, etc.—however absurd—are deserving of equal consideration, without reference to any peer review process or any system of credentials."
Absolutely. You have the right to talk about how you believe that the Government is controlled by Martians, but please don't think I am going to listen to you nor do you have a right to be published in the school newspaper or academic journal. Your idea is censored by the editors as not worth anyone's time.
My guess is that there might be ideas in her talk that were over the top, but they didn't come out in the article posted. The only thing I can think set you off was her talk's title which I think was just to grab attention more than anything else.
If you ever come across a transcript I'd love to see if her ideas are as crazy as you stated. From the article I didn't get that impression. Not saying I agree with everything from the article says she said, but I find some of her points worth discussion (if not agreement).
I may be more willing to "read between the lines" of her words than you are--but I don't think I'm wrong to do so.
Post a Comment