“I share your opinion that students should be allowed to engage freely over the list-serv about their political and other opinions. I personally did not sign on to any statement made to the Dean.
I happen to think that the more pernicious dynamic here is, as I said, LSJP's refusal to condemn acts of terror against…
“I share your opinion that students should be allowed to engage freely over the list-serv about their political and other opinions. I personally did not sign on to any statement made to the Dean.
I happen to think that the more pernicious dynamic here is, as I said, LSJP's refusal to condemn acts of terror against civilians and the immediate rush by other organizations to sign on to that. I thought there was a powerful statement to be made about the actual substance of their statement and what ‘progressivism’ has mutated into in the law school environment -- and the rhetorical choices made to shame anyone who disagrees with their narrative (even where the statement contains bald-faced lies). Those who spoke out against LSJP via email were not the same group of students who went ‘running to the administration to complain.’ It does a disservice to those who did choose to fight speech with more speech to characterize their responses as ‘complaining’ to the list-serve about anti-Semitism; those students can hardly be said to be throwing a tantrum over free speech. Your piece suggests the opposition to LSJP's statement was monolithic and whiny. Respectfully, it wasn't.”
A fair point. To be totally clear, I fully support students criticizing the LSJP statement on the list-serv, which is exactly the kind of counter-speech I endorse. My saying that these students “complained” on the list-serv should not be viewed as criticism (since, after all, many complaints are justified).
From an NYU law student:
“I share your opinion that students should be allowed to engage freely over the list-serv about their political and other opinions. I personally did not sign on to any statement made to the Dean.
I happen to think that the more pernicious dynamic here is, as I said, LSJP's refusal to condemn acts of terror against civilians and the immediate rush by other organizations to sign on to that. I thought there was a powerful statement to be made about the actual substance of their statement and what ‘progressivism’ has mutated into in the law school environment -- and the rhetorical choices made to shame anyone who disagrees with their narrative (even where the statement contains bald-faced lies). Those who spoke out against LSJP via email were not the same group of students who went ‘running to the administration to complain.’ It does a disservice to those who did choose to fight speech with more speech to characterize their responses as ‘complaining’ to the list-serve about anti-Semitism; those students can hardly be said to be throwing a tantrum over free speech. Your piece suggests the opposition to LSJP's statement was monolithic and whiny. Respectfully, it wasn't.”
A fair point. To be totally clear, I fully support students criticizing the LSJP statement on the list-serv, which is exactly the kind of counter-speech I endorse. My saying that these students “complained” on the list-serv should not be viewed as criticism (since, after all, many complaints are justified).