A look back at hate speech on and around Grounds this semester

[Draggingtree]

Cavalier Daily :

A look back at hate speech on and around Grounds this semester

 

Fall semester sees several bias-motivated incidents

 

by Alexis Gravely | Dec 01 2016 | 10 hours ago

 

Throughout the fall semester, a number of bias-motivated incidents have occurred on Grounds targeting a variety of minority groups.

The University took note of the increased number of incidents and several administrators condemned what they called “acts of bigotry and bias” in a Nov. 2 email.

 

“There are several theories for why this may be occurring, including the tone and tenor of the ongoing national election,” the email — which was sent out days before Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the presidential campaign — said.

 

In response to the incidents, a campaign called “Eliminate the Hate” was founded to provide the University community with solidarity and education regarding hate speech.

 

Other student responses included a protest at the Board of Visitors meeting Nov. 11 called on the University to provide a safe space for victims of hate crimes.

 

[Draggingtree]

Censoring Jefferson to Safeguard Ignorance

By Robert F. Turner on Dec 2, 2016

 

This piece was originally published in the UVA Cavalier Daily.

 

At the risk of offending 469 UVA faculty colleagues and students who protest President Sullivan’s practice of quoting UVA founder Thomas Jefferson “in light of Jefferson’s owning of slaves and other racist views” (“Professors ask Sullivan to stop quoting Jefferson,” Cavalier Daily, Nov. 13), I would submit another Jefferson quote:

 

“This institution [uVA] will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”

 

Jefferson did not want to suppress “error,” but to allow competing claims to the truth to do battle in the intellectual marketplace of ideas. We call that “academic freedom.”

 

Facts affirm the wisdom of Jefferson’s vision in this instance. Censuring President Sullivan’s references to Thomas Jefferson would impoverish our students and faculty alike, and—as is so often the case with censorship advocates—it is premised upon ignorance. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/censoring-jefferson-to-safeguard-ignorance/

[Valin]

@Draggingtree

Related

America Needs a Sane Left Radicalism at one end of the political spectrum means radicalism at the other.
Ian Tuttle
December 2, 2016

(Snip)

The Left has been relentless in giving to every partisan dispute the moral urgency of warfare. It’s the Left that turned Supreme Court nominations into nasty affairs. It’s the Left that co-opted America’s health-care industry on a party-line vote. It’s the Left that scrapped the filibuster. It’s the Left that forced nuns to purchase contraception. If the Right was willing to countenance a great deal of heterodoxy in 2016, it’s in part because they perceive a Left that has become unconscionably radical.

That is not to say the Right does not have serious problems of its own creation. Trump’s success would not have been possible without a real, and alarming, moral and intellectual vacuity. Opportunism in right-wing media trades on the emotivism of talk-radio listeners eager to have their worst fears about the country confirmed, and ideological zealotry has made the necessary task of compromise more difficult.

But radicalism breeds radicalism, and the Left, in the aftermath of a massive defeat, should recognize that. A Left that ensconces itself in a sanctimonious refusal to consider the world from the perspectives of its detractors is a Left destined to become more politically impotent and nastier. That may work to Republicans’ short-term gain. But a nastier Left means a nastier Right.

America needs a sane Left. At its best, the Left balances right-wing excesses. Where the Right elevates the individual, the Left attends to the good of collectives. Where the Right values social solidarity, the Left values difference. The Right emphasizes the best parts of our common traditions; the Left is sensitive to how those traditions have left certain people vulnerable, marginalized, or disenfranchised.

This is worthy work. But it can’t be imposed, and shouldn’t be. A Left that can temper its sense of apocalypse by recognizing the legitimate moral prerogatives of its political opponents would aim to persuade rather than coerce — but, for that reason, would be able to expand its coalition and be better able to find common ground with the Right.

A sense of common cause would be vastly preferable to our current moment of extreme polarization and defensiveness. But it requires a bit of humility. The Left, not its myriad scapegoats, is most responsible for its failures this year. A Left that can acknowledge that, and respond accordingly, will lead to a less radical Right, and a healthier politics overall.