On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM, IJ wrote:
RMS jumped in with the following:
I was wondering what people in CSAIL think about speakers including gratuitous political insults in their talks.
I was at a talk last week at HMS about systems-based analysis of disease. The speaker, Joseph Loscalzo (Chairman of Medicine at the Brigham), said that before Hippocrates people thought illness was caused by evil spirits. He then added that this view is shared by Republicans.
Coming from a background in industry where one often encounters very nice, very intelligent people of all political leanings, I found it shocking that the speaker would be so unprofessional as to insult people who, for whatever reason, have a political affiliation different from his own. Still worse was his subsequent joke that there might "even" be some Republicans in the audience, with its presumption that all or almost all of his audience must share his political views. I thought he would next suggest that if we spot one of these Republicans we might examine him or her as an interesting specimen!
As discussed in this New York Times article, and borne out by my own acquaintances, academia can be a hostile environment to people who are not liberal Democrats (www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/sc
ience/08tier.html). The researcher mentions how these non-liberals remind him of closeted gay students in the 1980's, how they "hid their feelings when colleagues made political small talk and jokes predicated on the assumption that everyone was a liberal." I know of medical students who were justifiably afraid that they would be discriminated against if their political affiliations were "outed".
I hope that in CSAIL we would not tolerate remarks like these that create a hostile environment for any of our members, students, or guests, whether they are women, gays, or even Republicans.
Does CSAIL have a policy on this?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
People are responsible for their opinions; criticizing and even
condemning political opinions is a normal part of political discourse.
Here's my take on it:
I really don't like the word "intolerance" however: the grand irony is that much of the time that this word is used, it is used to superciliously indicate that another person's views are quaint, and not broad enough to include one's own views. Whether or not that is true, unless one party is being harmed, tolerance must be extended in both directions, or a claim of intolerance is plain hypocrisy.
The word "intolerance" seems to have therefore lost a lot of its real meaning, because it is often used in this self-serving way. Is there a less worn-out word available for use than "intolerance"? (I guess this is why policies about this generally refer to harassment, not intolerance, because they deal with cases where one party is in fact harmed?)