"But that's what viewpoint diversity requires: You amplify ideas even if you don't agree with them. It's positively bizarre when people arguing for viewpoint diversity declare that any statement by an employee or a writer must be the official position of an institution. You can't have viewpoint diversity unless you allow dissenting voices and reject the belief that every writer speaks for the publisher or the college or the organization."
"Lukianoff, Abrams and Goldstein have an alarming view of viewpoint diversity, one that makes academic freedom contingent upon it: "If the classroom ceases to be such a marketplace, academic freedom ceases to be necessary, because its primary value to society is to ensure the freedom to challenge orthodoxy in the institutions where orthodoxy has traditionally been challenged." This is a particularly dangerous idea, because they are suggesting that"
The AAUP is accused of generalizing its positions and of portraying critics as acting in bad faith. Critics claim that publishing a manifesto signals institutional tolerance or amplification of controversial ideas. Viewpoint diversity is defended as requiring amplification of ideas regardless of agreement and as incompatible with treating every employee or writer statement as an institutional endorsement. Genuine viewpoint diversity depends on allowing dissenting voices and on rejecting the belief that every writer speaks for the publisher, college, or organization. Making academic freedom contingent on viewpoint diversity is portrayed as alarming and potentially dangerous because it ties freedom to a contested marketplace condition.
Read at Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Events and Jobs
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]