I self-assign role of language police as I declare that “unsafe” refer to physical safety. I challenge students at the world’s best universities to mine the English language for more accurate and precise terms. I suggest, depending on situation that student response be “I felt disrespected, demeaned, belittled, stereotyped, etc.”
What is to be done with the gray area? What is a threat to physical safety? Is a crowd that is chanting "From the River to the Sea" a threat to physical safety? If a group of Chinese students chanted "Down with Taiwan," would this be a threat to physical safety? My point is not to answer those questions but rather pose the question "What counts as harassment or a threat to physical safety?" Neither side in my view has answered this question sufficiently.
I agree - it should be about physical safety. Many of us grew up on the old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Wise words that are now a relic of the past. Bullying used to mean physical bullying. It’s now expanded to verbal bullying, particularly in the age of cell phones and social media where it’s much easier to throw constant insults at someone, day and night and by multiple people at once. So in that sense, I do think a degree of speech aimed at someone that becomes harassment could make someone feel physically unsafe. Simply sitting through a class lecture by a person you don’t like on subject you don’t like would not rise to that level. I’m reminded of the statements of the three university presidents at that Congressional hearing - they kept saying context matters. And I think it does, given what I said above, but I think that context was present after 10/7 - within moments of the extermination of 1200 Jews, chants of “from the river to the sea” could reasonably make a Jewish person feel unsafe. Students of other races/religions etc. have gotten away with providing much less context for their ability to shut down speech.
Alison and Scott; If I am going to preserve my reputation as free speech absolutist; students have the to use language incorrectly. In my SF neighborhood, merchants wear necklaces where river to sea is all green or Muslim. As much as I dislike river-to-sea chant, it is free speech. But, post Oct 7 pro-Hamas American supporters went beyond that calling for actual violence and/or genocide against Jews/Israelis. Calling for physical harm and/or violence is not free speech. Besides I want to know who are the river-to-sea folks so that I can know to exclude them socially and financially.
I self-assign role of language police as I declare that “unsafe” refer to physical safety. I challenge students at the world’s best universities to mine the English language for more accurate and precise terms. I suggest, depending on situation that student response be “I felt disrespected, demeaned, belittled, stereotyped, etc.”
What is to be done with the gray area? What is a threat to physical safety? Is a crowd that is chanting "From the River to the Sea" a threat to physical safety? If a group of Chinese students chanted "Down with Taiwan," would this be a threat to physical safety? My point is not to answer those questions but rather pose the question "What counts as harassment or a threat to physical safety?" Neither side in my view has answered this question sufficiently.
I agree - it should be about physical safety. Many of us grew up on the old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Wise words that are now a relic of the past. Bullying used to mean physical bullying. It’s now expanded to verbal bullying, particularly in the age of cell phones and social media where it’s much easier to throw constant insults at someone, day and night and by multiple people at once. So in that sense, I do think a degree of speech aimed at someone that becomes harassment could make someone feel physically unsafe. Simply sitting through a class lecture by a person you don’t like on subject you don’t like would not rise to that level. I’m reminded of the statements of the three university presidents at that Congressional hearing - they kept saying context matters. And I think it does, given what I said above, but I think that context was present after 10/7 - within moments of the extermination of 1200 Jews, chants of “from the river to the sea” could reasonably make a Jewish person feel unsafe. Students of other races/religions etc. have gotten away with providing much less context for their ability to shut down speech.
Alison and Scott; If I am going to preserve my reputation as free speech absolutist; students have the to use language incorrectly. In my SF neighborhood, merchants wear necklaces where river to sea is all green or Muslim. As much as I dislike river-to-sea chant, it is free speech. But, post Oct 7 pro-Hamas American supporters went beyond that calling for actual violence and/or genocide against Jews/Israelis. Calling for physical harm and/or violence is not free speech. Besides I want to know who are the river-to-sea folks so that I can know to exclude them socially and financially.