Religion is a Mental Illness

Psychologists: ‘There is no alternative to free speech’ | Cornell Chronicle

Psychology’s extensive study of bias offers an important lens through which to view and reduce conflicts about free speech and hate speech,

Cornell Chronicle

Colleges and universities across the country are struggling with the question of who decides what is acceptable speech on campus. When does a controversial topic become hate speech? When should it be allowed as free speech?

Two Cornell researchers say psychological science’s extensive study of bias offers an important lens through which to view these conflicts, as we strive to understand and reduce them.

There is no alternative to free speech, say co-authors Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams in “Who Decides What Is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech Is Not the Answer.” Their analysis appeared May 2 in Perspectives in Psychological Science as the lead article in the issue.

“There is no alternative to free speech, because every controversial topic has a substantial group of people who view it as hate speech,” said Ceci, the Helen L. Carr Professor of Developmental Psychology. “If we define unacceptable speech in terms of topics students say should be banned because they make them feel marginalized or uncomfortable, then we remove all controversial topics from consideration.”

Added Williams, professor of human development: “Feeling discomfort and angst at hearing words is not a legal reason to shut down other people’s rights to say those things.”

Since the 1950s, psychological science has demonstrated that many types of bias can prevent opposing sides from accepting the validity of each other’s arguments, the authors say.

Selective perception makes opponents on an issue literally see things differently. In 1954, researchers showed a film of a 1951 football game – Princeton versus Dartmouth, well-known for its competitive, rough play – to two groups: one of Princeton fans and the other of Dartmouth boosters. Each team’s supporters saw the majority of flagrant violations as having been committed by opposing players.

For people with selective bias, “it’s not just that they interpret their perceptions differently; they actually see different things,” Ceci said.

In “myside” bias, people look for evidence that supports their opinions and ignore or downgrade evidence that contradicts them. “Blind-spot bias comes from deep identification with a cause. We believe we are especially enlightened, while our opponents’ affiliation with the opposite side leads them to be biased,” Ceci said. Similarly, naïve realism makes people feel their views are grounded in reality but their opponents’ are not.

These and many other biases explain why a sizable percentage of students favor banning nearly every controversial topic, the authors said.

For example, a Cato Institute survey of 3,000 Americans with university experience found:

• 40 percent would ban a speaker who says men on average are better than women at math;
• 51 percent would ban claims that all white people are racist;
• 49 percent would ban statements that Christians are backward and brainwashed;
• 49 percent would ban speech that criticizes police;
• 41 percent would ban speakers who say undocumented immigrants should be deported;
• 74 percent said universities should cancel speakers if students threaten violent protest;
• 19 percent said violence is justified to stifle speakers who might make others uncomfortable;
• and 51 percent said it was OK to prevent others from hearing a speaker.

“In such a climate, the heckler’s veto reigns supreme and any expression that is offensive to any subgroup on campus would be banned,” Williams said.

College experiences should involve challenging our beliefs, even when those experiences go beyond our comfort level, and no campus group has the right to determine for the entire community what can be discussed, the authors said.

Universities can take several steps to help students avoid the biases that prevent them from valuing other points of view and to reduce extremist views and confrontations, they said.

Just as colleges require that freshmen understand codes of conduct for sexual harassment, plagiarism and intoxication, they could require freshmen to understand the differences between free speech and hate speech, between First Amendment protections and speech codes, and the meaning of “evidence.”

Role-playing exercises could be woven into controversial seminars in which supporters of each side are asked to switch sides. And universities could organize civil debates on controversial topics.

Students should be made to understand they are entering a place that believes deeply in the importance of dialogue and free speech, Ceci said.

“Free speech isn’t just for opinions that we all share. That kind of speech doesn’t need protecting,” he said. “It’s for expressions that can be vile and hateful and disgusting. That has to be part of the cultural understanding.”

New Rule: Great news about a new award show. Listen to this. About a year and a half ago, I was asked to moderate a discussion at the home of a very prominent Hollywood producer. And the attendees that night was a who's who of A-listers and stars. If a bomb went off in that room, there'd be nothing on TV next year but, well, let's just say it would be a great year for Kevin Sorbo. I can't say exactly who was there, but if there really is a Jewish space laser, these guys have the codes.

Anyway the subject we all wanted to talk about that night was cancel culture. It's funny. If this was 10 years ago, this group would have been talking about censorship from the right. Back then it was the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons, the Bill Bennetts and Rush Limbaughs who kept us up at night. I mean besides the cocaine. The book banners and boycotters then were Republicans, like the ones that got me fired after 9-11.

But that's in the past now. And by the past, I mean Florida. And of course not just Florida, today's Republicans have shown that when it comes to canceling they're still more than capable. They canceled Colin Kaepernick for taking a knee, Liz Cheney for defying Trump, Kathy Griffin for performance art. Just last week the redneck royalty of the music world threw a hissy fit because they think Anheuser-Busch is turning their beer gay.

But there's no getting around the fact that what was on the mind of the Liberals that night in Brentwood, or wherever we may have been, was that the most powerful witch hunters now were coming from Twitter, the Ivy League and the progressive left. JK Rowling used to be a villain to the right because she wrote books about witchcraft. Now she's a villain to the left because she has the crazy belief that there's more to being a woman than pronouns and lipstick.

So, that was the point of the evening: how do we take a stand against cancel culture? And I suggested since we were mostly all in show business that we start an award show to honor the brave people who have fought back. Well, I got to tell you, the idea was met with great enthusiasm by everyone, and in short order different people were suggesting the ways that their varied talents could be put to use. And then of course, being Hollywood, nothing happened.

But it's still a good idea. So I'm gonna do it, right here, right now. And not only that, we're gonna do it every year. Ladies and gentlemen, you know the Emmys, you know the Grammys, you know the Tonys, now say hello to the Cojones.

Thank you and welcome to the Cojones. I'm your Master of Ceremonies, and if you're triggered by the word "master" you're in the wrong room. Tonight we present these solid brass balls to the individuals and organizations who others have tried to silence and who answered, "that's not a rule, fuck you."

Our first award goes to the president of my alma mater, Cornell University: Martha Pollock. This month students there demanded trigger warnings before all the lectures in case any of the adult subjects you specifically went to college to learn about came up. And Martha said, "yeah, no, we're not doing that." She didn't cave in or hire a new Dean of Sensitivity. She just said, "no college is for introducing you to new ideas, not for kissing your ass and making you feel wonderful and always right." You're thinking of brunch with your parents. I'm just amazed at how this generation can simultaneously be too sensitive for anything distasteful, and somehow also so into eating ass. So, Cornell, I present you with these balls. I sure could have used them when I was there.

Our next award goes to the place where many Cornell grads will be working next year: Trader Joe's. Trader Joe's, who for years have been selling a line of ethnically themed products trading on the name Joe. For example, they have Trader José's beer. So of course one teenager on Twitter heard the word "José" and said it was racist, and then there was a petition, and then Trader Joe's management did the right thing. They burnt down all their stores and killed themselves. No, they didn't. They said "fuck off you oversensitive little shits, get a life and a sense of humor," and released this statement: "We disagree that any of these labels are racist and we do not make decisions based on petitions." You see how easy it is? So, to the home of the 19 cent banana, here have some nuts.

This next Cojone goes to a man who's dear to my heart for standing up for stand-up. When dozens of Netflix employees walked out over Dave Chappelle's reckless decision to perform comedy on his comedy special, CEO Ted Sarandos could have pulled the special and replaced it with more episodes of "Who Wants to Watch Koreans Get Killed?" But instead he reminded his Netflix employees that comedy exists to push boundaries, and told them, "If you'd find it hard to support our content breath, Netflix may not be the best place for you." So for making the phrase "don't let the door hit you in the ass" never sound better, this is for you Ted.

And you know, when movie lovers get together these days, one phrase that comes up a lot and always makes me sad, "is yeah, you couldn't make that one today." Top of that list is the great "Tropic Thunder" which these scolds have been after for years. But in February, Ben Stiller tweeted, "I make no apologies for Tropic Thunder. It's always been a controversial movie since when we opened. Proud of it and the work everyone did on it." See, people? It's not that hard. He said it and he still got a commercial.

And the lesson is, if you stand up to the mob for just a day or two, their shallow, impatient, immature, smartphone-driven gerbil minds will forget about it and go on to the next nothing-burger, and you? You still will have your Cojones.

Should College Come With Trigger Warnings? At Cornell, It’s a ‘Hard No.’

When the student assembly voted to require faculty to alert students to upsetting educational materials, administrators pushed back.

nytimes.com

Last month, a Cornell University sophomore, Claire Ting, was studying with friends when one of them became visibly upset and was unable to continue her work.

For a Korean American literature class, the woman was reading “The Surrendered,” a novel by Chang-rae Lee about a Korean girl orphaned by the Korean War that includes a graphic rape scene. Ms. Ting’s friend had recently testified at a campus hearing against a student who she said sexually assaulted her, the woman said in an interview. Reading the passage so soon afterward left her feeling unmoored.

Ms. Ting, a member of Cornell’s undergraduate student assembly, believed her friend deserved a heads-up about the upsetting material. That day, she drafted a resolution urging instructors to provide warnings on the syllabus about “traumatic content” that might be discussed in class, including sexual assault, self-harm and transphobic violence.

The resolution was unanimously approved by the assembly late last month. Less than a week after it was submitted to the administration for approval, Martha E. Pollack, the university president, vetoed it.

“We cannot accept this resolution as the actions it recommends would infringe on our core commitment to academic freedom and freedom of inquiry, and are at odds with the goals of a Cornell education,” Ms. Pollack wrote in a letter with the university provost, Michael I. Kotlikoff.

To some, the conflict illustrates a stark divide in how different generations define free speech and how much value they place on its absolute protection, especially at a time of increased sensitivity toward mental health concerns.

After decades of university battles over tinderbox issues of students’ rights, speech codes and how best to grapple with unpopular speakers and ideas, proponents of free speech are lauding Ms. Pollack’s quick and unequivocal action. They characterize it as part of a larger national shift, marked by university leadership more forcefully pushing back against efforts to shut down speakers and topics that might offend.

“What was unique about the Cornell situation is they rapidly turned in a response that was a ‘hard no,’” said Alex Morey, the director of campus rights advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan organization focused on issues of free speech. “There was no level of kowtowing. It was a very firm defense of what it means to get an education.”

Ms. Morey called it the “Stanford Effect,” referring to a 10-page open letter written in March by Jenny Martinez, dean of Stanford University Law School, in which she affirmed her decision to apologize to Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Donald J. Trump-appointed federal appeals judge, after hecklers interrupted his speech.

Earlier this month, Neeli Bendapudi, the president of Pennsylvania State University, released a four-minute video explaining why she believed a public university like Penn State had a legal and moral obligation to host speakers who espouse views that many may find abhorrent. “For centuries, higher education has fought against censorship and for the principle that the best way to combat speech is with more speech,” she said.

Ms. Morey called it the “Stanford Effect,” referring to a 10-page open letter written in March by Jenny Martinez, dean of Stanford University Law School, in which she affirmed her decision to apologize to Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Donald J. Trump-appointed federal appeals judge, after hecklers interrupted his speech.

Earlier this month, Neeli Bendapudi, the president of Pennsylvania State University, released a four-minute video explaining why she believed a public university like Penn State had a legal and moral obligation to host speakers who espouse views that many may find abhorrent. “For centuries, higher education has fought against censorship and for the principle that the best way to combat speech is with more speech,” she said.

Cullen O’Hara, co-editor-in-chief of The Review, said that the editorial board did not believe the student assembly represented a majority of students and saw the resolution as endemic of broader free speech issues.

“We are very opposed to trigger warnings which we think would chill the discussion in classrooms, which we already believe are one-sided,” said Mr. O’Hara, a senior.

The student assembly will discuss the trigger-warning resolution with the administration on Thursday, at a previously scheduled meeting between Ms. Pollack and the assembly.

“I think the response is purposeful in focusing on the wrong part of the resolution,” said Valeria Valencia, a senior and the Cornell University Student Assembly president, “turning it into an issue of academic freedom and not one of protecting students, when both things can coexist.”

Ms. Ting, the writer of the resolution, said she is considering amending the proposal. “But first I want to do more due diligence and reach out to faculty and administration to see how we can find the right balance,” she said.

"an issue of academic freedom and not one of protecting students, when both things can coexist."