Comedy on Campus Criticized As Too Insensitive

Dec 2018
1,679
1,047
Wisconsin
#41
It is much better for students or the audience to protest speech than to have the government get involved with regulating speech, and the current protests, while seemingly anti-humor, should be seen as significant indicators of problematic speech.
As I mentioned, at one point, many forms of humor were embraced and accepted but NOW are not. Social expectations change, usually in the US for the better. Let is ride...
Small jab aside, I agree the notion that college campuses are not a place where students should have their thoughts "protected". They should be challenged, debated, and yes they should be offended. I've said for years that when nut jobs like Gavin Mcinnes and Alex Jones were doing campus speaking tours, people shouldn't protest their appearances. They should've put hundreds of cameras on them and let the world see how ridiculous their positions are and let their own words burn them. Simply shutting them down and not allowing them to speak was never a good solution.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Nov 2018
3,647
1,784
Inner Space
#42
Small jab aside, I agree the notion that college campuses are not a place where students should have their thoughts "protected". They should be challenged, debated, and yes they should be offended. I've said for years that when nut jobs like Gavin Mcinnes and Alex Jones were doing campus speaking tours, people shouldn't protest their appearances. They should've put hundreds of cameras on them and let the world see how ridiculous their positions are and let their own words burn them. Simply shutting them down and not allowing them to speak was never a good solution.
This is the fallacy of equivalence. All speech is not equal and not protected by government. In the public square, speech is generally unconstrained. However, the use of college resources for a platform for any speech at any time is not possible and should not be possible. Furthermore, an institutional forum becomes a type of endorsement and publicity has a value. So allowing ALL speech on ANY supject does not represent the appropriate mission of a university. It is an entirely inappropriate waste of resources for there to be discussions of "heaven" in astronomy classes or "hell" in geology classes.
Intelligent design is not an alternative scientific theory-- it is a religious explanation. These deviations can be justified based on the concept of "equality". However, it is unfair to the mission of an educational institution to get bogged down in "equal" speech arguments.
 
Dec 2018
1,679
1,047
Wisconsin
#43
This is the fallacy of equivalence. All speech is not equal and not protected by government. In the public square, speech is generally unconstrained. However, the use of college resources for a platform for any speech at any time is not possible and should not be possible. Furthermore, an institutional forum becomes a type of endorsement and publicity has a value. So allowing ALL speech on ANY supject does not represent the appropriate mission of a university. It is an entirely inappropriate waste of resources for there to be discussions of "heaven" in astronomy classes or "hell" in geology classes.
Intelligent design is not an alternative scientific theory-- it is a religious explanation. These deviations can be justified based on the concept of "equality". However, it is unfair to the mission of an educational institution to get bogged down in "equal" speech arguments.
I don't think I was very clear. I'm refering to speakers/performances on college campuses and all aspects should be welcomed, no matter how damn insane or offensive they can be.

I agree with your notion though that not all ideas should be presented in the classroom. Intelligent design doesn't deserve to be taught in science classes because it doesn't have any foundation in science, but it should be taught in religious studies or philosophy classes.
 
Likes: Sabcat
Nov 2018
3,647
1,784
Inner Space
#44
I don't think I was very clear. I'm refering to speakers/performances on college campuses and all aspects should be welcomed, no matter how damn insane or offensive they can be.
How does that work with a limited resource or the issue of cost of providing a venue?
I have no problem with colleges deciding who, when and where non-classroom speech can occur.


I agree with your notion though that not all ideas should be presented in the classroom. Intelligent design doesn't deserve to be taught in science classes because it doesn't have any foundation in science, but it should be taught in religious studies or philosophy classes.
So you are in favor of some discrimination, just not everywhere? Colleges are not any more a public space than a government office building or military base and some are completely private property. The auditoriums and conference halls are just other venues for college academic activity. While diverse opinions are fine, I think it is impossible to legislate "equal" in any way which will always be consistent with the college purpose.
 
Dec 2018
1,027
14
U.S
#45
(I find this recent process of scrutiny of comedians to be curious more than some sort of constitutional crisis of free speech infringement. Historically, many jokes or comedy has fallen out of favor. There was a time when telling jokes about some racial or ethnic group was part of casual conversation. Now, those are generally disparaged as inappropriate or promoting racial stereotypes. I suspect that colleges are just a bit ahead of the curve on this one...)

Columbia students boot comedian off stage, citing offensive jokes

The Asian American Alliance at Columbia University last week interrupted an act by a relatively prominent Indian American comedian and former writer for Saturday Night Live, Nimesh Patel, during a cultural event the group sponsored.

His offense: jokes -- including some about black and gay people -- that alliance members perceived as insensitive. Organizers kicked Patel offstage in the middle of his set, criticizing his gags on race and sexual orientation but letting him deliver brief closing remarks before cutting off his microphone.

Patel was performing at cultureSHOCK, the group’s annual charity and display of Asian-related arts. The alliance was in charge of booking him. Patel did not respond to a request for comment.

The episode has prompted a campus debate about how to ensure an inclusive environment for students from all backgrounds and whether it was appropriate to kick Patel off the stage. Critics said it reinforces the stereotype of a liberal college kids -- derogatorily referred to as “snowflakes” -- who are unable to stomach mild jokes outside those that are “politically correct.”

Some professional comics, including Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock, previously have said they will no longer work college circuits because they consider students to be too thin-skinned for their brand of humor. Yet up-and-coming comedians can find success at lucrative campus gigs by tailoring their acts to college audiences, which tend to not enjoy jokes that target minorities.

The alliance, which directed a request for comment to a statement on its Facebook page, apologized for bringing Patel to campus….

Sounds as if these persons that stopped the show or protested against the comedian were uncomfortable with the subject matter and the way they were being portrayed. It's funny how noone from those groups being 'defended' ever seem to be the ones protesting though.


There are more non black, 'black lives matter' proponents, you have more non LGBT, 'LGBT lives matter' proponents, more non Muslim, 'MUSLIM lives matter' proponents than they themseilves doing the 'protesting'.


But it must be nice to be so loved... :)
 
Last edited:
Nov 2018
3,647
1,784
Inner Space
#46
Sounds as if these persons that stopped the show or protested against the comedian were uncomfortable with the subject matter and the way they were being portrayed. It's funny how noone from those groups being 'defended' ever seem to be the ones protesting though.


There are more non black, 'black lives matter' proponents, you have more non LGBT, 'LGBT lives matter' proponents, more non Muslim, 'MUSLIM lives matter' proponents than they themseilves doing the 'protesting'.


But it must be nice to be so loved... :)
Generally, I think the problem is that targeted speakers just crumble. If their message is important or the right to speak, they should just push on. Comics seem to be well able to handle hecklers and the hecklers could be asked to leave in private venues. So, the real goal should be to support speech and not "suppress speech to protect speech". We had to destroy the village to save it...
 

Similar Discussions