Much like Wooly Bumblebee, a superb artist in her own right who also honchoes Anti-Intellectuals while promoting this rad new site AkkadianTimes.com, I support freedom speech while recognising that this freedom is not unfettered. Much like Jordan Owen, I oppose SJW riots on campus. Mr. Owen and I are not alone in this regard. The Economist, an avowed opponent of Trump, Bannon and Brexit, also condemned a recent SJW riot at Middlebury College in Vermont, and has pointed out that, the more affluent the student body of a college, the more likely they are to have SJW riots. Like wise, The New York Times, a Most Favoured Target (after Syria) of Trump and Spicer, also condemned the Middlebury SJW riot.
As I said, I do believe in freedom of speech. Unlike Sargon and Vee, I would not call for a suspension of "SJW courses," even those given by someone as vile as Gail Dines, precisely because I believe in freedom of speech. I am also a reluctant supporter of the variant of freedom of speech that is "academic freedom." In principle, "academic freedom," sounds like a grand idea. In practice, at least as far as my university study of the sciences is concerned, "academic freedom" very quickly morphs into "crapademic freedom," a shield behind which incompetents who are superb at non-verbal thinking, and extremely lousy at verbal thinking and verbalisation (as many PhD scientists are wont to be in my experience), can hide from student feedback surveys and student complaints to the Administration that said incompetents just cannot teach. Said crapademic freedom also protects those superannuated science professors, and science professors with obvious mental defect, from being booted out of the classroom and relegated entirely to the laboratory where they belong. That being said, in my experience, crapademic freedom is a pathology that is largely confined to the sciences. History and management professors, unlike science professors, tend to be superb verbalisers, communicators and teachers. While I am not a Casanova to academic freedom, I also cannot demand its abrogation because science professors abuse it when history and management professors do NOT abuse it. It is unfair to penalise history and management professors because science professors have effectively bastardised academic freedom into "the right to be lousy."
But no right is absolute, and that includes the right to freedom of speech in general. That is why the sterile cockpit rule, although it manifestly violates the First Amendment, has never been successfully challenged before the Supreme Court. Aircrew do have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but that right ends where it puts airline passengers at risk, such as when aircrew engage in non-flight-related speech (such as political discourses) when the bird is airborne below ten thousand feet. Gail Dines has a right to teach her nonsense, and there is nothing Sargon and Vee can do about it. The right to free speech of the students at Middlebury who opposed Charles Murray speaking there ended when they hurled bottles and other field-expedient missiles at Murray, injuring the liberal Democratic Middlebury Professor who had invited Murray to begin with.
Sargon and Vee think that the way to stop things like the Middlebury riot from happening repeatedly is to stop the teaching of social justice courses. Exactly how many "social justice courses" were being taught in colleges in the 1960's when Students for a Democratic Society/The Weather Underground and Abbie Hoffman were up to their eyeballs in large-scale miscreantage?
Events last week in Québec suggest another way of dealing with SJW rioters, one that is more in the manner of Elliott Ness than in the manner of the Augusto Pinochet methods favoured by Sargon and Vee. A Montréal university was top-of-the-pops on the radio shows when Pepsi, with who the university has an exclusive contract, compelled the university to shut down a rival student beverage operation. Pepsi and other private companies, you see, have been throwing lots of money at cash-strapped universities in exchange for exclusive on-campus distribution rights for nearly two decades now. This practice has elicited controversy with professors' unions expressing concerns that such corporate largesse could translate into researchers being compelled to suppress findings deemed to be inimical to the corporate contractor's interests as a result of cash-strapped administrations not wanting to compromise this revenue stream, or as a result of the corporate contracts themselves.
Pepsi, or a contracting university's administration, suppressing a researcher's findings that are inimical to Pepsi's interests constitutes a clear violation of academic freedom and a perversion of the scientific process of a magnitude equal to that of substituting the Biblical book of Genesis for Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. Pepsi compelling the shutting down of a competing student business on a campus on which it, by contract, enjoys exclusive privileges, by contrast, is entirely kosher and in keeping with the common practice of Non-Competition Agreements.
How, then, to translate this into doing an Elliott Ness on campus SJW rioters? In this video, Jordan Owen convincingly argues that the recent controversial Pepsi-Kartrashian commercial quite accurately captures campus SJWs. In said commercial, Pepsi is trying to appeal to the SJW rioter demographic. Ostensibly, this would suggest that Pepsi is in the SJW rioters' pockets.
Except that Pepsi has a history, and that it is not entirely unreasonable to surmise that Pepsi's honchos read The Economist, including the articles linked to in the first paragraph of this entry specifically condemning campus SJW riots as "illiberal." That history of Pepsi I am talking about includes long ongoing operations in Burma under the SLORC dictatorship until public pressure forced Pepsi to leave Burma.
No corporate donor is going to like the idea of giving money to a university whose researchers publish results that indicates that said corporate donor's products and/or services are harmful, inefficient or simply not as advertised. Yet, even Yale, described as the "epicentre of student activism" in the third Economist article liked to in the first paragraph of this entry, specifically seeks out corporate donors, its Office of Corporate and Foundations Relations employing a staff of fourteen. At the same time, Pepsi, and all other corporate sponsors who do business abroad are required to abide by the rules of the Department of Commerce's Office of Anti-Boycott Compliance which, among other things, prohibits US companies from participating in foreign boycotts of Israel.
As long as it does not affect their interests, corporations usually remain silent on free speech issues, profit and not politics being their purpose in life. No corporation, however, likes to be associated with illiberal regimes. Pepsi and Burma's SLORC are not the only cases on point. The now defunct Canadian oil company Talisman did business with the dictators in Sudan, and, after receiving a lot of heat for this, sold its Sudanese holdings to a company in India.
The Economist, again, an avowed opponent of Trump, Bannon, Brexit and Breitbart's, has pointed out the extremely illiberal nature of violent SJW campus riots such as those at Middlebury College. It is therefore conceivable that a corporate donor, even to Yale, could, in exchange for agreeing to not bind researchers to suppress negative findings regarding its products/services, demand that colleges and universities not allow illiberal SJW groups to shut down opposing voices the way Burma's SLORC and Sudan's dictators did on penalty of the college/university losing the corporate money in question should a Middlebury erupt on its campus.