Stanley Fish: "Free Speech is Not an Academic Value"

[@aulaferadovitor7011]

Anyone can understand what Fish is saying without much effort: if there is freedom of speech in the classroom, the teacher does not need to teach his/her subject and can talk anything other than the subject he/she teaches. Freedom of speech is something to exist on Facebook, on the streets, on social media... Not inside the classroom. It's the most obvious thing in the world.

[@mattyj4852]

Spot on Fish, if only the John Hopkins non-extracurricular model was the norm.

[@TheWaxworker]

Free speech, as commonly understood, is that speech which expresses opinions (right and wrong). It does not refer to speech that invokes or causes harm, violence, or mayhem. Those kinds of speech are not covered under the word "free." It also does not include speech that represents itself as scientific or professional when it is not. Beyond these caveats, free speech is fundamental to our democracy and fundamental to academia and should be protected.

[@brandgardner211]

it is clearly just as they always say: a fish rots from the head

[@MrChassmith]

What a bunch of collective, a priori BS. He's saying "institutional goals" determine whether speech is worthwhile, or even PERMITTED. (Censorship comes first). Where do these "institutions" come from? Am I not free as an INDIVIDUAL to make any statement that challenges these institutions? Institutions (formalized and socially constructed ways of behavior) are always SECONDARY to individual thought and speech.

[@robertszatkowski9775]

You obviously don't understand the whole line of his argument. If you want to change academy do it in proper way. Go to direct authorities which FOUNDED universities. And say to them: make a new institution (like Stanley Fish correctly describes as a "playground").

[@dutchymcdutch2553]

Have you read anything of what Fish wrote? My guess is: NO.

[@l.w.paradis2108]

@@dutchymcdutch2553 Yeah, maybe, but has Fish read the relevant Supreme Court cases?

[@dickgoblin]

Putting the individuals first is a priori too...

[@l.w.paradis2108]

Just how many First Amendment Supreme Court precedents has Stanley Fish read? I don't see much evidence that he has read and pondered any of them. Thomas Hobbes is an interesting political theorist, but Leviathan has no bearing on American constitutional law. Here, he confuses time, place, manner restrictions with content-based restrictions. He also confuses access with content-based restrictions, although these distinctions are certainly mych less clear. Nadine Strossen deserves a close reading, before anyone pronounces on the issue. I don't agree with everything she says, but I acknowledge that she is the authority. If you disagree with her, you better be clear about your reasons. She certainly has thought this through.