The alt-left influence on higher education

[TheBigC]

After perusing good ol' Aussie politics, I stumbled upon an article in the Sydney Morning Herald: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/education-minister-foreign-students-a-threat-to-academic-independence-20181021-p50azp.html
It aims to delineate the effect of liberal SJWs on the education system and how this politicisation is negatively affecting the methods of teaching on university campuses. In my own introspection, I am in strong agreeance with the education minister, what are the sentiments of other AN members?

[hums_student]

It aims to delineate the effect of liberal SJWs on the education system and how this politicisation is negatively affecting the methods of teaching on university campuses. In my own introspection, I am in strong agreeance with the education minister, what are the sentiments of other AN members?

The article brings up two points, international students and the far-left, and whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything he mentioned I think he's right. I don't think we should call for a ban, or reduce the number of foreign students coming to Australia to study, BUT we shouldn't change our education system to specifically suit their needs either.

As for far left influence, I completely agree. It's more prevalent in US colleges but you're already seeing the influence in Australia. Students in my global politics class (mainly those who plan on voting for the Greens) are particularly passionate about making sure that people from the right (or even centre) side of the spectrum don't get a voice. A couple of months ago my school was planning on a debate on certain social issues, but was cancelled after ~30 students emailed the principal claiming that it fuels 'hate speech'. Also, my school has a lunchtime club for 'Young Australian Progressives', but a proposal for 'Young Australian Conservatives' was rejected. I can only imagine it being worse in uni.

The right has a problem with free speech too. But with the left becoming more and more influential I think Australia really should do something before our uni campuses turns into those in the US.

That's just my two cents. Keen to hear what other opinions people have.

[EEEEEEP]

I am in strong agreeance with the education minister, what are the sentiments of other AN members?

I think it's total rubbish.

Given that the current government is totally liberal and right wing... it's unexpected (not) that they use right wing talking points.
"far-left group think"
"created a monoculture that has narrowed robust debate to the point of non-existence".
"safe spaces"
"virtue-signalling activists"

These are phrases that are often used in right wing echo chambers of the US campuses and colleges.  Without safe spaces, people of minorities would not have had safe areas to voice discussion.

"virtue-signalling activists" ?? So ... Virtue signalling activists result in change.  The ring wing government is just not in tune with the population!

"created a monoculture" - There are literally many discussions on TV! Right wing talk shows, Left wing talk shows. Centre talk shows. Debate is not restricted at all!

[TheBigC]

The article brings up two points, international students and the far-left, and whilst I don't necessarily agree with everything he mentioned I think he's right. I don't think we should call for a ban, or reduce the number of foreign students coming to Australia to study, BUT we shouldn't change our education system to specifically suit their needs either.

As for far left influence, I completely agree. It's more prevalent in US colleges but you're already seeing the influence in Australia. Students in my global politics class (mainly those who plan on voting for the Greens) are particularly passionate about making sure that people from the right (or even centre) side of the spectrum don't get a voice. A couple of months ago my school was planning on a debate on certain social issues, but was cancelled after ~30 students emailed the principal claiming that it fuels 'hate speech'. Also, my school has a lunchtime club for 'Young Australian Progressives', but a proposal for 'Young Australian Conservatives' was rejected. I can only imagine it being worse in uni.

The right has a problem with free speech too. But with the left becoming more and more influential I think Australia really should do something before our uni campuses turns into those in the US.

That's just my two cents. Keen to hear what other opinions people have.

That is the inherent issue, the liberalist ideology that if you are not offending someone else then you are doing the right thing. It truly prevents any useful dialectical discourse, thence hindering many intellectual pursuits. I am really surprised, however, to hear that this is occurring at your school! I already thought universities were the primary place where these ideologies were being fostered..apparently not.

I think it's total rubbish.

Given that the current government is totally liberal and right wing... it's unexpected (not) that they use right wing talking points.
"far-left group think"
"created a monoculture that has narrowed robust debate to the point of non-existence".
"safe spaces"
"virtue-signalling activists"

These are phrases that are often used in right wing echo chambers of the US campuses and colleges.  Without safe spaces, people of minorities would not have had safe areas to voice discussion.

"virtue-signalling activists" ?? So ... Virtue signalling activists result in change.  The ring wing government is just not in tune with the population!

"created a monoculture" - There are literally many discussions on TV! Right wing talk shows, Left wing talk shows. Centre talk shows. Debate is not restricted at all!

Nobody is claiming that currently free speech is non-existent, however, the alt-left are advocating to eradicate free speech as we know it. Look at Canada, they have created legislation that legally obligates one to use the 'correct' gender pronouns when addressing transgender people.

Mod edit: merged double post. Please use the modify post button in future. --Calebark

[EEEEEEP]

Nobody is claiming that currently free speech is non-existent, however, the alt-left are advocating to eradicate free speech as we know it. Look at Canada, they have created legislation that legally obligates one to use the 'correct' gender pronouns when addressing transgender people.

Well that is offensive speech really.

Would you say the same towards obligating one to not use racial words like n****r and g**n?

[TheBigC]

Well that is offensive speech really.

Would you say the same towards obligating one to not use racial words like n****r and g**n?

Yes. I would say the same. Bigotry, no matter how offensive, should not be banned. Banning speech is a very dangerous act, and totally against the principle of thought. If we cannot speak what we desire then we cannot think as a society. Furthermore, the use of 'correct' gender pronouns is absurd. What is offensive about telling the truth pertaining to one's gender/sex? Man = man, woman = woman. I find it more offensive that one requests that I lie to someone else. By the same token, would you tell a schizophrenic individual that the voices they hear are real? No, you wouldn't. It is indecent to agree with someone's delusions.

[Bri MT]

I'd suggest that whether or not the use of particular words should be accepted might be a different debate (than the one proposed by this thread title).

It can be easy to follow tangents but I'd encourage all participants in this thread to stay close to the original topic

[hums_student]

I think it's total rubbish.

Given that the current government is totally liberal and right wing... it's unexpected (not) that they use right wing talking points.
"far-left group think"
"created a monoculture that has narrowed robust debate to the point of non-existence".
"safe spaces"
"virtue-signalling activists"

These are phrases that are often used in right wing echo chambers of the US campuses and colleges.  Without safe spaces, people of minorities would not have had safe areas to voice discussion.

"virtue-signalling activists" ?? So ... Virtue signalling activists result in change.  The ring wing government is just not in tune with the population!

"created a monoculture" - There are literally many discussions on TV! Right wing talk shows, Left wing talk shows. Centre talk shows. Debate is not restricted at all!

With all due respect, I don't completely agree with your points. Yes, we currently have a centre-right party in parliament, but that doesn't mean we're controlled by the right. For example, the left dominates our media. And I'm not saying that the right is perfect, because obviously many right wingers don't take too kindly to people with different opinions either. In my opinion, both the left and the right censor opinions that don't align with their agenda, however as our media and popular culture is currently predominantly left wing, the censoring of free speech by the left is more apparent.

Going back to the original topic of left-wing influence in the education system, I think it's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed. I'm not saying we should eradicate leftist influence, but we should also bring in those from other sides. The left and the right should both be represented.

I don't agree with the concept of safe spaces. University students are adults and as adults they should be ready, or at least be getting ready to face the real world. There are no safe spaces in the real world.

[Lear]

Some very strong opinions in this thread. I'd just like to say that we can all strive to be respectful members of society regardless of our personal opinions, beliefs or affiliations.

[K888]

Just reiterating miniturtle's and Lear's messages.

AN prides itself on being a welcoming and respectful place for everyone. Any comments and users that infringe on this can expect serious consequences.

[PhoenixxFire]

I don't agree with the concept of safe spaces. University students are adults and as adults they should be ready, or at least be getting ready to face the real world. There are no safe spaces in the real world.

What do you mean by ‘safe spaces’? It’s something I’ve seen thrown around a lot by both sides of the debate, but I’ve always interpreted it to be a good thing. Surely for there to be productive debate, it has to occur in a way where everyone is able to share their opinion without gettting attacked for it or by it (that’s what I consider to be a safe space).

I don’t really agree that uni should necessarily be like the ‘real world’ -in the same way that you wouldn’t expect high school to be like uni. I think it’s important that genuine debate is allowed - I don’t consider hate to be a genuine debate. I think you guys have a point about censoring, but I think it’s more related to stereotypes. The right is generally regarded (and reported by the media) to be a horrible entity - and I think that stifles debate. It’s hard to have a genuine discussion on policy etc. when both sides are too busy attacking each other.

Re: the article. I do think there should be more opportunity for discussion from both sides - but if the discussion is not conducted in a respectful manner then it’s fairly useless

[hums_student]

What do you mean by ‘safe spaces’? It’s something I’ve seen thrown around a lot by both sides of the debate, but I’ve always interpreted it to be a good thing. Surely for there to be productive debate, it has to occur in a way where everyone is able to share their opinion without gettting attacked for it or by it (that’s what I consider to be a safe space).

Safe spaces are mainly for people, especially those of disadvantaged/minority backgrounds to come together and express their opinions without getting verbally attacked by others. The idea has good intentions and I'm sure it has the students' best interests at heart, but safe spaces (in North America at least) sometimes results in students who cannot listen to another side of the debate at all, instead shutting it down by claiming that it's 'hateful', even when the other side is just respectfully presenting an opinion.

I reckon uni should in many ways replicate the 'real world'. High school is different to uni because high school students aren't adults, they're teenagers. In uni you're expected to be on top of your own work, you don't have lecturers chasing up on overdue assignments, you have to manage your own life etc. So why should political debate be any different?

I agree with your point on the fact that many times, both sides are too busy attacking each other to see logic or to have genuine conversations. I'm glad that it's not happening on AN

[jazcstuart]

I think it’s important that genuine debate is allowed - I don’t consider hate to be a genuine debate.
...

Re: the article. I do think there should be more opportunity for discussion from both sides - but if the discussion is not conducted in a respectful manner then it’s fairly useless

I think this really sums it up for me. Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinions, however I love the quote "I will respect your opinion unless your opinion disprespects someone's existence". I think this is one of the important things about safe spaces, which provide spaces for anyone who feel like they are being judged or even attacked for who they are, regardless of the intentions of such opinions. I don't think it's a matter of shielding people from the real world, I think it's a matter of allowing people to feel safe and supported for as long as possible, with support they may not get once they leave uni. Lsjnzy13 raises an interesting point though, that it can cause people to disengage from debate, causing more damage when they leave the relative shelter of these spaces. Maybe then the discussion should be about instead of just getting rid of safe spaces altogether, how to allow people to feel safe and supported while still allowing exposure to a range of other opinions? I guess that's another issue though.
I think it is damaging in any sort of debate when it becomes an "us vs them" situation, which can occur with the "left" vs "right", which I think just promotes stereotypes surrounding the views of these political ideologies. For example this quote from the article:

"Support Israel? You are a conservative troglodyte who supports the murder of children. Have religious beliefs? You are an anti-intellectual homophobe. Have a balanced view of European history and post-colonial Australia? You are a jingoistic imperialist with racist tendencies.

This shows the stereotypes against right wing opinions, and I think there are similar stereotypes that are applied to left wing opinions. So I think one of the most important things in debate is being open to accepting the range of different political opinions, and genuinely listening to all opinions and the reasons behind them. It is so important not to become cemented in your views and defending them at all costs, which is extremely difficult and something I'll admit I am still trying to practice myself. This is what creates genuine "intellectual" debate, rather than just people trying to speak their own opinions the loudest.
I also felt that in the article it was almost posing the situation in universities as "international students vs Australia". Obviously this is an exaggeration, and I think the concerns are very valid surrounding changing the curriculum to suit the opinions of only one group, such as Chinese students. However I think we also need to look at the benefits of having international students, as they can be the very people that stimulate new types of interllectual debate. This is complex and probably not something I know enough about to discuss properly.

Definietly agree though with all the sentiments expressed by others that debate must always be respectful, otherwise it is extremely counterproductive. Sorry for the really long post, hopefully I am also being respectful and contributing to worthwhile discussion 

[TheBigC]

Just reiterating miniturtle's and Lear's messages.

AN prides itself on being a welcoming and respectful place for everyone. Any comments and users that infringe on this can expect serious consequences.

Great stuff. I would just like to elucidate that I am not expressing resent, contempt or nefariousness within my declarations. I am purely hoping to participate in a strong (a.k.a fun) and welcoming debate.

I think this really sums it up for me. Everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinions, however I love the quote "I will respect your opinion unless your opinion disprespects someone's existence". I think this is one of the important things about safe spaces, which provide spaces for anyone who feel like they are being judged or even attacked for who they are, regardless of the intentions of such opinions. I don't think it's a matter of shielding people from the real world, I think it's a matter of allowing people to feel safe and supported for as long as possible, with support they may not get once they leave uni. Lsjnzy13 raises an interesting point though, that it can cause people to disengage from debate, causing more damage when they leave the relative shelter of these spaces. Maybe then the discussion should be about instead of just getting rid of safe spaces altogether, how to allow people to feel safe and supported while still allowing exposure to a range of other opinions? I guess that's another issue though.
I think it is damaging in any sort of debate when it becomes an "us vs them" situation, which can occur with the "left" vs "right", which I think just promotes stereotypes surrounding the views of these political ideologies. For example this quote from the article:This shows the stereotypes against right wing opinions, and I think there are similar stereotypes that are applied to left wing opinions. So I think one of the most important things in debate is being open to accepting the range of different political opinions, and genuinely listening to all opinions and the reasons behind them. It is so important not to become cemented in your views and defending them at all costs, which is extremely difficult and something I'll admit I am still trying to practice myself. This is what creates genuine "intellectual" debate, rather than just people trying to speak their own opinions the loudest.
I also felt that in the article it was almost posing the situation in universities as "international students vs Australia". Obviously this is an exaggeration, and I think the concerns are very valid surrounding changing the curriculum to suit the opinions of only one group, such as Chinese students. However I think we also need to look at the benefits of having international students, as they can be the very people that stimulate new types of interllectual debate. This is complex and probably not something I know enough about to discuss properly.

Definietly agree though with all the sentiments expressed by others that debate must always be respectful, otherwise it is extremely counterproductive. Sorry for the really long post, hopefully I am also being respectful and contributing to worthwhile discussion 

Really well put. The problem with the "real world" is that it isn't safe, people aren't respectful and we need to cater toward reality. Safe spaces foster intellectual indolency and victimhood. The left loves to believe that it is the victim of the oppressive right, but believing you are a victim is often another way to insinuate that you are too lazy to account for your own shortcomings. Most people cannot face the ideology that they simply are not being discriminated against, they are - instead - simply and merely incapable.

Mod edit: merged double post. Please use the modify post button in future. --Calebark

[Sine]

Before this thread get's too derailed, here is just remainder to keep all discussion respectful and on topic

If you wish to discuss any tangential issues you are welcome to create new topics.