I appreciate what you and your colleagues are doing in organizing FAIR. While this does not seem to be its focus (except incidentally to protect free speech), one thing that would certainly help the cause is to provide a forum for old fashioned debates about controversial topics of current interest.
I appreciate what you and your colleagues are doing in organizing FAIR. While this does not seem to be its focus (except incidentally to protect free speech), one thing that would certainly help the cause is to provide a forum for old fashioned debates about controversial topics of current interest.
There is a fairly consistent pattern among leftists in fervently stating that they are promoting the only true path (backed by science and various flavors of righteousness), but at the same time not offering up anyone to actually debate their positions in a neutral forum.
Those who disagree with critical race theory are just racists, pure and simple, and that is all that needs to be said.
The practice of enforcing silence is longstanding (thanks Al) in the area of climate change. Those who want to assess costs and benefits and "science" are deniers, and again that's all that needs to be said.
I have participated in some programs put on by Heartland Institute, in which seemingly sober, soft spoken people in dark suits with gray hair and glasses and PhDs in relevant areas of science (not education or communications) effectively critique the more extreme versions of climate alarmism. Heartland advertises some of the programs as debates, but NEVER has present a spokesperson for the opposing view. That makes it harder for the uninformed observer (like me) to find the truth. I asked why, and they say the opposition is always invited but never shows (or even responds). The media of course provides cover by not calling them out when they dig their heads in the sand.
Apparently, universities won't, or at least don't, fill in the gap by featuring traditional debates on current topics.
What about FAIR? Could it sponsor some structured public debates (stated differently, could it not just promote free speech in the abstract but also be a host)? And with its sponsors' network of contacts and internet billboards, could it not find some informed and rational people willing to debate from the left and right?
What about a debate about the risks and rewards of opening schools between a parent group and a teachers' group?
If not FAIR, then other suggestions for debate host organizations would be welcome.
And to be clear, I'm thinking of the kind of structured debate where each side speaks and the other responds, for an hour or 90 minutes, on prescribed topics or themes that are narrow enough so that they can't be talked around. Example: It is morally right to judge people not individually but based on what group they are in? Are increases in temperature good or bad for the planet? What are the costs and benefits? What is the current best evidence of the extent of global warming?
In any event, not the cable news kind of display where people chosen for their gladiatorial skills talk over each other in a rising crescendo of babble for 2 minutes, and the commentator, pleased with the orchestrated carnage, says "Well I guess this debate will continue" before turning to a commercial flogging a prescription drug for seniors.
ON DEBATES AND FAIR.
I appreciate what you and your colleagues are doing in organizing FAIR. While this does not seem to be its focus (except incidentally to protect free speech), one thing that would certainly help the cause is to provide a forum for old fashioned debates about controversial topics of current interest.
There is a fairly consistent pattern among leftists in fervently stating that they are promoting the only true path (backed by science and various flavors of righteousness), but at the same time not offering up anyone to actually debate their positions in a neutral forum.
Those who disagree with critical race theory are just racists, pure and simple, and that is all that needs to be said.
The practice of enforcing silence is longstanding (thanks Al) in the area of climate change. Those who want to assess costs and benefits and "science" are deniers, and again that's all that needs to be said.
I have participated in some programs put on by Heartland Institute, in which seemingly sober, soft spoken people in dark suits with gray hair and glasses and PhDs in relevant areas of science (not education or communications) effectively critique the more extreme versions of climate alarmism. Heartland advertises some of the programs as debates, but NEVER has present a spokesperson for the opposing view. That makes it harder for the uninformed observer (like me) to find the truth. I asked why, and they say the opposition is always invited but never shows (or even responds). The media of course provides cover by not calling them out when they dig their heads in the sand.
Apparently, universities won't, or at least don't, fill in the gap by featuring traditional debates on current topics.
What about FAIR? Could it sponsor some structured public debates (stated differently, could it not just promote free speech in the abstract but also be a host)? And with its sponsors' network of contacts and internet billboards, could it not find some informed and rational people willing to debate from the left and right?
What about a debate about the risks and rewards of opening schools between a parent group and a teachers' group?
If not FAIR, then other suggestions for debate host organizations would be welcome.
And to be clear, I'm thinking of the kind of structured debate where each side speaks and the other responds, for an hour or 90 minutes, on prescribed topics or themes that are narrow enough so that they can't be talked around. Example: It is morally right to judge people not individually but based on what group they are in? Are increases in temperature good or bad for the planet? What are the costs and benefits? What is the current best evidence of the extent of global warming?
In any event, not the cable news kind of display where people chosen for their gladiatorial skills talk over each other in a rising crescendo of babble for 2 minutes, and the commentator, pleased with the orchestrated carnage, says "Well I guess this debate will continue" before turning to a commercial flogging a prescription drug for seniors.
Just a thought.