This is scary. It’s all secondhand, and I don’t know any of the people involved, but the person passing this along seems generally reliable and I have no reason to believe it’s not true. Here’s the story, from Cheyney Ryan, a retired University of Oregon law professor:
The University of Oregon Administration has been bringing student conduct charges against students involved in protesting Gaza. Its actions have raised–and continue to raise–serious questions about the violation of due process and respect for students. . . .
1/ The first protester, called her Mary, received a letter at the end of fall term charging her with “disrupting classes” by speaking over a bullhorn for “3 to 5 minutes” in front of Lillis. She was told she faced suspension for her actions. She was informed that there would be two meetings about it—one an informational meeting about the charges against her, the second a meeting to determine the outcome. . . .
Neither the letter charging her, nor its supplementary materials, provided ANY evidence that any classes had been disrupted. There were no complaints from professors, no complaints from students, no complaints from anyone. Zilch. . . . So, they had apparently charged this young woman–and threatened her with suspension–without having a shred of evidence for the charges in question. (By then, they had had two months to collect such evidence.)
The hearing officer assured us that this would be dealt with at the second hearing. It wasn’t. At the second hearing, there was still no evidence that any classes and been disrupted. . . .
2/ The second case is shorter, but continues the same theme. Protester number two, call him Mark, received a letter threatening him with suspension and charging him with writing a slogan on the steps of Johnson Hall with chalk. I asked Mark ahead of time if he had done it, and he told me he wasn’t even on campus that day.
At the first hearing, the hearing officer (a different one from the first case) told us that the evidence for the charge were videos taken by campus security, but they did not have the videos––nor had they seen them themselves. At the second hearing, we were shown two video clips taken of the other side of Johnson Hall, on 13th Ave. The first video clip only showed a pedestrian walking his Labrador Retriever along 13th Ave. The second, much longer video showed nothing at all. It apparently had been taken when literally no one was on campus.
I asked the hearing officer, “Is that it?” They responded, “I work with what I’m given.” Then they sensibly dismissed all charges. But I immediately raised the question: “Do you mean to tell me that you have charged this young man and threatened him with suspension without a single shred of evidence for what is being alleged?” The hearing officer rather sheepishly responded that they were not the one who decided to bring charges; again, they only dealt with what they were given.
Sounds pretty Kafkaesque, I’d say. One of the advantages of being at a public university is that they have to follow some procedures, so these stories did get out. But, threatening students with suspension based on zero evidence? That ain’t cool.
If you look up Ryan, you’ll see he’s an antiwar activist, which helps explain why he went back to Oregon to help out these students. If you read carefully, you’ll see that he labels them as “protesters,” and I assume they did something that was annoying enough to motivate the administration to pursue unsubstantiated charges against them. But, again, that’s no excuse for the administration’s behavior! It’s not appropriate, if someone does action A that annoys you, for you to then prosecute them under the pretext that they did action B.
Yes. Sounds like those J6 prosecutions. What is the world coming to?
Kurt:
You can agree or disagree with the people who entered the Capitol building on 6 Jan 2021 and you can agree or disagree with the people who were protesting at the University of Oregon. In my post, I’m not talking about the justness or unjustness of their cause. I’m taking about them being threatened based on zero evidence. There was a lot of evidence against the January 6th demonstrators. They were convicted in court. So it’s a different story entirely.
Kurt –
It’s really remarkable how many people seem to think something unjust can be reconciled by observing thst something else was unjust. Whether or not you think people were prosecuted unjustly for J6 isn’t directly relevant to the issue at hand.
It sounds so childish to say “Two wrongs don’t make a right” but it’s incredible how many people online fail that basic logic.
I like to hope that’s just a sampling problem. But I do have my doubts about that.
> It sounds so childish to say “Two wrongs don’t make a right” but it’s incredible how many people online fail that basic logic.
The argument implied when people bring things up in this way is not “two wrongs make a right”, but rather something along the lines of “You didn’t care when the same injustice was done to my side. Why should I care now?”
I have issues with that argument too – we should care because we are honorable people, we are not hypocrites. If the Left used to party with glee over the trampling of “Freeze peach”, and now they suddenly care about it now that it’s their ox being gored, we ought to welcome them nonetheless. Liberalism is great.
Maybe Kurt was making a different argument than what I infer. Regardless I am fairly certain that nobody believes that “two wrongs make a right”, and in bringing it up you are constructing a strawman. The first step to arguing with someone is to understand their position, you know?
Anon:
Kurt seems to be saying that, because some people he agrees with (the January 6 protesters) were tried and prosecuted, that it’s ok for some other people he disagrees with (the Oregon protesters) to have been threatened with suspension by the university. I and others pointed out the difference, that there was evidence that the January 6 protesters committed crimes, and this evidence was used in their arrests and trials, but the Oregon protesters seem to have been threatened with suspension based on no evidence.
Regarding your last sentence, I can’t speak for Kurt or Joshua, but I almost never want to use the comments in this blog to “argue with someone.” The goal here is to explore ideas, which includes trying to understand what other people are saying, without trying to assign people particular “positions.” I think that both you and Joshua are doing that here, in different ways.
I do find the comparison to J6 pretty poor. I wanted to focus on the “two wrongs make a right” thing, which seems to fundamentally misunderstand the motivation behind “You didn’t care about X but now you care about Y!”
J6…let me jog my brain – wait, was that the insurrection against the US government wherein violence against law enforcement was filmed on hundreds of cameras, dozens of angles, 4K resolution, 60 frames-per-second? Where hundreds of pages of testimonies, internal memos, and unencrypted chat logs from extremist militia groups openly reveal a seditious conspiracy to subvert the peaceful transfer of power?
You mean the riot incited and committed by man- and woman-children with delusions of grandeur?.
Anon:
The participants in the riot were adults, not children. And “delusions of grandeur” is not a legal (or moral) defense.
Andrew, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have been convicted, I’m just saying it was essentially a temper tantrum. “Insurrection” is just a propaganda term. Try to find a legal definition of that in any of the high court cases related to this. Most of the rioters were convicted of “obstructing an official proceeding”.
If this is true, then I see certain parallels with strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). There is probably no university in the world that has an anti-SLAPP policy. I also wonder whether this kind of behaviour is in conflict with existing laws – it’s wrong in so many ways. After all, this SLAPP-like behaviour seems to be a violation of the First Amendment. Moreover, ubi non accusator, ibi non iudex (where there is no accuser, there is no judge). Bridging to a post from a few days ago, this is a case where one of the Ten Commandments can be appropriately applied: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
As a University of Oregon professor, I’ll point out that I agree: this is awful!
I suspect that similar things are going on elsewhere, but we have a better culture of airing dirty laundry. (Thanks especially to one valiant person.) I attribute a lot of this to administrative incompetence plus the massive growth, at all US universities, of the size of the administration — a shadow world with opaque hiring policies, little feedback, and delusions of superiority.
Raghu:
Yes, agreed that it’s gotta be happening elsewhere. I hear stories at Columbia too, but there I’m almost too close to the situation–I hear different stories from different people and don’t know what to think. The UO thing is simpler because there’s just one story, and it’s coming from what seems like a generally trustworthy source.
Regarding the problem with the administration: One way I’ve stated this is that academic and corporate environments are characterized by an executive function with weak to zero legislative or judicial functions.
There’s a good reason to have three branches of government!
presently subject to debate – we may be about to see whether we have 3, 2, or only 1.
Dale:
Right now the U.S. has three branches of government. They just all happen to be controlled by the same faction of the same party. The last time this has happened was in the 1960s.
Andrew
Party control is only one consideration. When Congressional actions can be ignored by the Executive branch (not yet decided, but a large part of the issue with the now-rescinded executive order on disbursements, probably to be revisited in any number of other executive actions), it becomes an open question whether the legislative branch has any independent control over the executive branch. And, for the judicial branch (supposedly without party affiliation) we know that is presently an open question. So, it isn’t just a matter of party control – it is a matter of precedent and what limits, if any, can be placed on the executive branch. Making it an issue of party control underestimates the issues at stake, in my opinion.
Dale:
Yes, but I think some of that is itself conditional on party control. Or, more specifically, on the three branches of government not just all being controlled by one party but also all being controlled by one wing of one party. I think that if Congress wanted to stop the controversial executive orders, it could easily do so by just refusing to confirm presidential appointments who could clearly make their votes contingent on the executive branch behaving constitutionally (as they see it).
Just by comparison, when Obama was elected president the Democrats had a comfortable majority in both houses of congress, but it was not a majority of a single faction of the party, and this showed up in issues including recovery spending and the health-care bill. In addition, the judicial branch at the time was controlled by the Republican party (but not, at the time, by a single wing of that party), so that limited what the executive could do, or would try to do.
Andrew
Where are the 3 branches of government? As of today, despite a court injunction against the sudden closure of US AID, employees showed up for work and were turned away from entering. And, the US AID website is nonexistent for now – the link goes to a blank page. As with everything else, wait a few minutes and these things might change. The only think Trump’s actions show is that he believes he can do whatever he wants and answers to nobody. And he found in Musk, a similar figure. Congress and the Courts still exist, but the former won’t act given the party in power, and the latter are being tested in real time – and apparently failing.
Dale:
The three branches of government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. Currently all three are controlled by the right wing of the Republican party. Congress and the Supreme Court have the ability to stop various controversial executive actions but have not done so.
Andrew
Having the ability but not exercising it raises the question: are the checks and balances solely a function of power? In other words, our system of government is merely a function of party power – when a party controls all 3 branches (the judiciary used to be somewhat independent of party, I believe) then there are no checks and balances. I don’t remember that being the case like it is now.
In any case, I think there used to be some degree of conscience. Even a party in power exhibited some restraint. Now there seems to be none. And when there is none, then there are only 3 branches in name. Is this really what the framers of the Constitution had in mind? I can’t read minds, but why go to all the trouble of establishing 3 branches if they intended for a party able to capture all 3 to be unrestrained? Was it simply an oversight that they failed to account for one party to control all 3 branches? Our system is much more fragile than I ever imagined, and nothing to be admired.
Dale:
The last time one wing of one party controlled all three branches of government was the Democrats in the 1960s, and they did a lot of things. They didn’t pardon any insurrectionists, but they did a lot of actions which would not have been possible under divided government.
The other thing is that the courts have changed in recent years: they now seem more likely to overturn laws passed by Democrats and to interfere with criminal prosecutions for corruption for both parties.
(This is in response to Dale’s comment about all branches being controlled by one party.)
The Founders did not anticipate the formation of political parties– the concept of “party control” would have been foreign to them. That’s why the president and vice president were the winner and runner up in the electoral college. The college, they thought, would vote for the “best men”, so the runner up would be the “second-best man”, not an opponent of the winner.
Parties almost immediately came into being, which quickly led to the 12th amendment, by which the president and vice president ran together as a ticket (i.e. allies of the same party).
Andrew, Gregory
Thank you both – this is not my expertise, so I’d like more information. If there is a good data source on Congressional voting records (somewhat pre-processed), please let me know. I do see voting records on govtrack.us. I was looking at the 1960s (where Democrats controlled the 3 branches) and it looks like the substantive bills were not party line votes (or even close to that). Things feel different now and I am wondering if there is data available to investigate that (my “feelings for what things were like in the 1960s is somewhat jaded by the fact that I was busy doing or not doing other things at the time).
Dale –
I was looking at the 1960s (where Democrats controlled the 3 branches) and it looks like the substantive bills were not party line votes (or even close to that). Things feel different now
You might want to look at Ezra Klein’s book, “Why We’re Polarized.” I haven’t read it but I think his thesis is interesting. He argues that the level of polarization that we see now isn’t particularly unusual historically speaking, but that what’s unusual is the degree to which the polarization falls out strictly along party lines. He says that previously there was more heterogeneity within parties even if there was still a lot of strong disagreement.
For what it’s worth, I was able to find data showing all Congressional votes for each bill, and party affiliations. Polarized voting has definitely increased since WWII but I didn’t find anything consistent with it being more or less polarized when one party controls both Congress and the Presidency. I did find evidence that the number of bills has increased both with time and when one party controls both branches. I haven’t been able to include control of the Supreme Court – my data is post WWII and there haven’t been that many years where a party controls all 3 branches. But, more importantly, there is not supposed to be anything like party control of the Supreme Court. Presidents nominate Justices and the Senate votes to confirm, but after that the Justices are “supposed” to be impartial. They may not be, but that is a failure of that branch if that is the case.
Andrew,
You write, “I hear stories at Columbia too, but there I’m almost too close to the situation–I hear different stories from different people and don’t know what to think. The UO thing is simpler because there’s just one story…”
Why, when you know from personal experience that there are often multiple, conflicting accounts of events, would you conclude that there’s “just one story” at UO? Particularly in the context of FERPA restrictions and litigation mitigation?
Aaron:
Sorry, I meant that “there’s just one story” in front of me. Not that there aren’t other things happening at the University of Oregon.
Dale:
Yes, parties are much more ideologically polarized than before, and we see this in all three branches of government, with party-line voting in Congress, ideological conformity in the cabinet, and partisan voting in the Supreme Court.
Anonymous –
It’s really remarkable how many people seem to think something unjust can be reconciled by observing that something else was unjust. Irrespective of whether hardened criminals are protected from deportation, and irrespective of the “grooming” story in the UK, those stories aren’t directly relevant to the issue at hand.
It sounds so childish to say “Two wrongs don’t make a right” but it’s incredible how many people online fail that basic logic.
I like to hope that’s just a sampling problem. But I do have my doubts about that.
Joshua:
Part of it is that two wrongs don’t make a right. Another part is that free speech and free assembly are an important part of the democratic process. So that’s one reason that, even though “cancel culture” is associated with relatively minor consequences to the people being canceled, it’s something that I think is a legitimate concern. Sure, these two UO students didn’t end up getting suspended, but I’m bothered that the university was trying to suppress their freedom of expression by hassling them based on no evidence.
This in some ways is similar to my concerns about junk science. Science fraud, or even milder things such as sloppy science, are minor offenses, but science and technology are a big part of our lives, so I think it’s reasonable for me to be bothered by bad science.
Getting annoyed at the DMV . . . ok, that really is minor, but I get it, as it’s symbolic of the arbitrary power that large organizations have over us.
And getting annoyed at spammers, I think that’s a justified annoyance in that the way spam works is to take advantage of our naive trust, and the result of spam is to decrease our trust, thus throwing grid into all our interactions. It’s better to be in a happy, trusting society.
I looked up “25 Most Liberal Colleges in the U.S. in 2024” and University of Oregon was ranked #6
IMO this is the most “Kafkaesque” event since I spilled my coffee this morning.
If you ask me the “Kafkaesque” part of it is that a mundane event is being blown up into a serious event by histrionic people who live in tiny opaque Progressive bubbles. In the mean time it it was discovered that various lefty cities around the country were protecting thousands of hardened criminals from deportation, but apparently that’s not “Kafkaesque” enough to warrant a blog. Not to mention the whole grooming story in the UK. Should I give you a break on that one because it occured in another country? I don’t think so. For all practical purposes Labour, Democrats, the European Greens and Hamas are the same party, which I’m sure is why this blog has been mums on the reprehensible pro-palistinian student protests until it’s writers could find some miniscule grain of sand to stand on to claim the pro-palestinian protestors had suffered some injustice. Meanwhile all the other injustice that they have inflicted on others is just well, no comment.
Anon:
Sorry to hear about your coffee. I hope it only landed on the newspaper and did not fry your computer!
And, yes, I do think it’s Kafkaesque for people to be threatened with suspension based on zero evidence.
An experience can be Kafkaesque without it being literally terrorizing. Just google *Kafkaesque DMV* and you’ll see lots of examples. Indeed, the fourth link is to a Reddit post entitled, “I had a DMV experience that *wasn’t* what I could call Kafkaesque?”, which suggests that attaching the “Kafkaesque” label to the Department of Motor Vehicles is so common as to be a cliche. No one’s being tortured or killed at the DMV; it’s still Kafkaesque when a bureaucracy sends you in circles and gives you no reason.
On your other points:
1. I agree with you that there are a lot of really bad things happening in the world, murders and rapes and all sorts of things–not just in the U.K. either. By describing the University of Oregon events as Kafkaesque, I’m not saying that they’re the worst thing happening in the world. Murder, rape, assault, aggressive war, etc. etc.: Yes, these are much much worse than people getting kicked out of school or losing their jobs. For that matter, I’ve expressed lots of outrage over the years regarding scientific fraud and other forms of white-collar crime, but as I once wrote, this is better than mugging old ladies for spare change or selling Herbalife dealerships.
I often write about things that are close to my professional life, which includes bad things done by universities (including my own) and also bad things done by scientists. I don’t see it as my role to complain about every bad thing that’s happening in the world. I write about what comes to mind. In this case, I happened to go to the UO Matters site (it’s come up before) and noticed this Kafkaesque story. If you want to write about other injustices that bother you, go for it: there’s space in the blogosphere for everyone.
2. I don’t think that Labour, Democrats, the European Greens and Hamas are the same party, “for all practical purposes” or in any other sense. You can do some quick googling, for example, here (“the brutal terrorists of Hamas”), here (“We condemn the horrific terrorist attacks committed by Hamas in the strongest way possible”), and here (“The terrorist group Hamas sought to destroy the promise of that vision on October 7, 2023,
but they will not succeed. The United States strongly supports Israel in the fight against
Hamas”). It’s enough for you to say that, for various reasons, you disagree with the policies of Labour, Democrats, the European Greens, and Hamas. Just because you disagree with all of these political organizations, it doesn’t mean that they are themselves allies, let alone being “for all practical purposes the same party.” Politics is not one-dimensional–especially so when you’re comparing political groups in different countries.
“The first protester, called her Mary, received a letter at the end of fall term charging her with “disrupting classes” by speaking over a bullhorn for “3 to 5 minutes” in front of Lillis.”
Did she or did she not do that? Were classes in session at the time?
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then I think that constitutes evidence she disrupted classes.
Anon:
From the linked post: “Neither the letter charging her, nor its supplementary materials, provided ANY evidence that any classes had been disrupted. There were no complaints from professors, no complaints from students, no complaints from anyone. . . . The hearing officer assured us that this would be dealt with at the second hearing. It wasn’t. At the second hearing, there was still no evidence that any classes and been disrupted. . . .”
Anonymous –
The comment below belongs here:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2025/01/29/cancel-culture-at-university-of-oregon/#comment-2391242
You are being manipulated by incredibly powerful people with billions of dollars and unfathomable networks of propaganda. I sincerely hope that you realize this one day.
The German Green party is very pro-Israel. Just saying.
Uh, wait. Did Mary, in fact use a bullhorn in front of a class building in the first case?
And in the second, some one wrongly charged had the case dismissed?
This is what you’re freaking out about?
Apparently, yes, she did, but there haven’t been any consequences thus far.
If this is what you e got for “scary” you live a deeply sheltered life.
Total:
I definitely live a sheltered life! As does the person who wrote the “Kafka Goes to the DMV” article. As discussed above, I recognize that there are a lot worse things in the world than getting threatened with expulsion from college.
Indeed, look at the title of the post: “Cancel culture at University of Oregon.” The term “cancel culture” is generally understood to be a complaint by comfortable, sheltered people that their life is not as comfortable and sheltered as they’d like.
Most of the things we write about on this blog are concerns of comfortable, sheltered people. We write about academic disputes, statistical models in sports, literature, movies, white-collar scams, Jamaican beef patty restaurants, statistical computing . . . Overall, I think it’s fair to call this a “first world” blog. I’d like to feel that ultimately our research is making the world a better place, but that’s mostly indirect.
Also, I’m not “freaking out”; I just think it’s a bad thing that the university is threatening students with suspension based on zero evidence. The stakes are low; it’s still bad. Similarly, I remain angry with Columbia University for faking its U.S. News numbers even though this too is not a violent crime.
For no particular reason, I would like to remind readers that some people get paid to spread misinformation on the internet, sow dissent, and try to cancel any discussion on topics their paymasters consider illegitimate, which of course also eggs on people with similar views to do the same. For example, last year, it was revealed how the Sweden Democrats funded several troll accounts: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/17/sweden-far-right-media-nordic-model
The writings of such people seem to often connect with topics discussed in relation to bad science on this blog, such as poor measurements, poor definitions, and taking an observation of something that can mean many different things as proof specifically of one’s own theory (e.g. taking “a lot of people with alleged hardened criminal backgrounds are now arrested” as evidence that those people had specifically previously been “protected”, while not presenting other possibilities, like that a lot more people can now be arrested because people who are not proven “hardened criminals” are now provided less protection). As well as of course ignoring evidence that points in a different direction than they would like, such as pretending that they did not read that no evidence was provided for a charge they would like to be legitimate.
The comment you are referring to that referenced ‘hardened criminals’, ‘Opaque progressive bubbles’, and equating Labour to Hamas also struck me as strange. Not sure that it is likely that it means it is a troll or bot – some people really do think this stuff! I wonder though how they came across the blog as it doesn’t strike me as the typical readership/commenter.
Jamie:
All sorts of people are interested in statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science! This includes people who have various confused political views. That’s ok. People with confused political views can still benefit from and contribute to statistics–look at J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher, for example.
Yes absolutely – I only meant that the typical comments I see, while often coming from perspectives I don’t agree with, aren’t often of quite such a pure distillation of that worldview. It was a bit out of distribution for what I usually see here!
I may be incorrect on this, but I believe that the individual named “Anonymous” recently (January 25, 2025) claimed in this blog that with regard to birthright citizenship, females from countries he does not like, were flying to the U.S. just to have a baby on U.S. soil and then returned home.
The whole point of anonymous-posting is to avoid bringing in old baggage, and let each discussion stand on its own merits. We anonymous posters do not have to build facades and fit our posts within some overarching, consistent character arc in fear that paul alper will make accusations of hypocrisy or deplorableness. We do not risk reputational damage when posting stupid shit. Thus, we can be creative and tread ground that none have tread before us.
Very strange comment. Posting anonymously to avoid bringing in extraneous baggage makes a certain amount of sense to me. But avoiding the risk of reputational damage does not. If you post stupid stuff, then you should be accountable for that. Everybody makes mistakes and I don’t think mistakes should cause reputational damage. But failure to acknowledge mistakes, and views that are not mistakes but are actually your views, should be part of your reputation.
It’s the 4chan ethos and it has its pros and cons. With less concern for reputation, it’s easier to be mean or stupid. You trade civility for creativity and nonconformism. Post quality gets more volatile.
If you are advocating for the right to be mean and stupid, then I’ll pass. You have that right and I don’t appreciate it. But I may have misunderstood you.
I was struck by paul alper’s unfamiliarity with posting anonymously and tried to explain how it works and why it’s done. When I say that anonymous posts are more likely to be mean and stupid, it’s precisely because I am not “advocating” but trying to provide a balanced view which does not ignore the negatives. Conversely if I were to talk about reputation, I would not talk about how things “should be”, but about how they are. As adults I hope we are all capable of seeing and discussing the world in more nuance than pure black & white.
“unfamiliarity with posting anonymously blah blah blah”
It takes a bit of courage to blog on controversial topics with your name on it, and your e-mail address readily available. (Now I know Andrew would want me to point out that it does not take the sort of courage one needs to climb out of a trench and charge a machine gun nest.)
Because all the bloggers here use their real name, it creates an accountability gap with anonymous posters. I chose to use my real name because I not only don’t need that gap, I don’t want it. If you are the type of person to send Andrew a death threat, well, you can probably find me and do that to me too. That means we can discuss issues on a more equal footing
There are at least two posters here that hide behind their anonymity precisely to avoid accountability. The word for that is “cowardice,” and it has nothing to do with baggage.
I post “anonymously” in that Bob76 is not my real name. I adopted this alias because, when I posted as just plain Bob, others used that name and there a possibility of confusion.
I don’t use my real name because I don’t want a web search on that name to find my posts here because they are not as carefully reviewed as material I make public under my own name. That is, I am trying to avoid reputation damage when I post stupid shit.
I use this name consistently so that people can form their own opinions regarding which topics I say things that are useful.
It would be easy for Andrew to track down who I am. The easiest way would be to email me and ask.
Bob76
Don’t “blah blah” me, the guy posted as if there’s one Anonymous poster in total across threads.
You can also post under your real name, be a standard-issue socially aware human (aka coward), and self-censor. No courage required. Many such cases!
> Because all the bloggers here use their real name, it creates an accountability gap with anonymous posters.
Absolutely. The bad posts can also rub off on the bloggers. Back in the day Scott Alexander disabled anonymous posting on SlateStarCodex because it brought most of the MRA and PUA posts. At some point no matter how nice your blogging is, when you allow the comments to be full of misogynous discussions, you stop getting invited to parties.
Another way in which the writings of people egged on by such bad actors resembles bad science is in how they often write as if being “aware” about certain topics equals “cowardice” and “self-censorship”. This of course the antithesis to a scientific approach – trying to understand the phenomenon under discussion in detail, and without personal biases and foregone conclusions. When being “aware” is something bad, there is no need to rely on and evaluate all relevant evidence – just spew whatever uncensored and undeveloped “thoughts” you happen to have at the moment and then cherry-pick whatever supports you. No awareness needed. And if other people are trying to be aware? Well, then they are just being cowards and self-censoring – there can be no honest motivations to understand things in greater detail from them, and no validity to the counterpoints they provide. Don’t think about it. No need to be aware. Just go back to sleep.
Anonymous
Your last statement I can’t make any sense out of. I literally have no idea what you are saying.
For me, I understand completely the rationale for posting anonymously – I do so on many blogs, especially Marginal Revolution. There are so many trolls on that blog that I’d be a fool to use my real name. I use my name here, despite the risks, out of respect for the people on this blog. I have no desire to hide who I am when the vast majority of participants are honestly trying to exchange ideas. I’m not making any judgement about your posts or your desire to remain anonymous – but I find your recent posts in this stream largely unintelligible. You say things like
“You can also post under your real name, be a standard-issue socially aware human (aka coward), and self-censor. No courage required. Many such cases!”
I don’t know what this means but it sounds like you are saying that using your real name is no different than posting anonymously. If so, then I don’t agree. In one case you have no accountability and the other you do. Self-censoring can indeed be done by anyone but I don’t see that as having any relationship with anonymous posting. If using your real name causes you to self-censor, that is your choice, not mine.
My two cents.
I think a lot of people draw too many conclusions based simply on whether someone posts comments anonymously or not. There are a lot of anonymous and non-anonymous people who post crap and plenty of a anonymous and non-anonymous people who post gold.
I really think maybe there are generalizeable patterns in the margins, but I would guess significant differences are limited. It could be an empirical question and I’d think it has been studied.
The broad designations of “cowardice,” or “creativity,” either way, seem to me to be self-serving more than anything else. (I.e.,I’m willing to guess an almost lockstep association between the quality of attributes assigned to anonymity, and whether the “assigner” comments anonymously).
Here, I’ll post my name with this comment. Will it change your impression of anything I’ve ever posted previously? Will it make this comment creative or cowardly?
Joshua Brooks
Joshua Brooks.
The problem is that “accountable” is what’s known as a “social conjugation”. Something like:
“I’m holding you accountable. You’re harassing me. They’re committing stochastic terrorism”.
After all, defenders of McCarthyism might claim they were holding dangerous Communist sympathizers “accountable” for unAmerican activities.
Or, present-day example:
https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-threat-problem
Nobody has figured out a good way to allow only “good” anonymity (speaking truth to power) but not “bad” anonymity (trolling, etc).
I tend to self-censor because I post anonymously; my feeling is that posting anonymously requires that you are careful to be respectful. So even if I disagree vehemently with someone I tend to let it pass and only respond if I can make some statement of fact about the subject…even if I can be a little trenchant. If I feel strongly about something I write the post seperately and only post after a bit of thought as to its fairness and to tone down the trenchant qualities a little.
If I find myself being trolled, which has occasionally happen on this blog, I (the trollee!) follow only so far and then give the troller the last word. If someone posts a link or refers to a paper or two, I give them the courtesy of looking at the linked material. I try to respond as specifically as possible to questions.
I look at this blog and post only occasionally as a way of finding out about stuff and as a stimulus for my own research into a subject. I occasionally try to counter some of the mild (and not so mild) anti-science sentiment that can be displayed here.
(can’t think of any more sentences starting with “I”)
I am bothered by much of this discussion since I have no idea what really happened and I have no particular reason to trust the sources about what these 2 individuals did or did not do and whether those actions did or did not interfere with classes. However, the reactions and discussion raise important questions – perhaps more relevant to current/forthcoming actions. The latest foray into university free speech appears to concern student visas for foreign students perceived to be supporters of Hamas. The boundaries of “free speech” and who has such rights is destined to become a bit issue – I’m not sure whether the appropriate term is Kafkaesque or not. But I think the issue of what evidence is required for infringing on free speech is a serious matter. The UO cases may not be the best examples since we really don’t know what happened. Anonymous’s comments above don’t help – the “thousands of hardened criminals” protected by “lefty cities” assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, the whole question is really about evidence and rights, and these important issues are better discussed without resorting to wild innuendo or specific cases based on personal accounts that we can’t verify (yes, I am discounting Ryan’s claims since I don’t know this person and have no reason to trust the accounts as facts).
What happened at universities last year (e.g., UCLA, Columbia, etc.) and others exposed the complete fraudulence of most “campus free speech” commentary. Organizations like Betar USA (run by Ross Glick, who has a revealing NY Post profile) and others proudly dox, harass, and now apparently coordinate with the state to identify and deport students accused of wrong think, in this case being critical of Israel or, crucially, their own universities involvement with obvious violations of international law and basic morality. The examples from the University of Oregon are part of the same top-down repression, and there are countless more examples. I’m glad the charges against these students were eventually dropped, and it’s revealing that they went so far in the first place.
The objection in Mary’s case appears to be that she was charged with “disruption” but they didn’t collect testimonials that classes were disrupted. But the requirement for testimonials is seemingly just made up, and the text strongly implies that Mary did in fact violate the student code of conduct:
https://policies.uoregon.edu/vol-3-administration-student-affairs/ch-1-conduct/student-conduct-code
<>
This all seems to hinge on the semantics of “disruption” and a made-up requirement for testimonials.
I suspect it’s not in fact true that Mary was “threatened” with suspension. Instead what probably happened is that suspension was listed as one possible consequence.
If you do a *very* close reading of “I asked Mark ahead of time if he had done it, and he told me he wasn’t even on campus that day”, it would also appear that it could be that Mark could have written the slogan on some other day, and given how the story about Mary is written to imply things that are seemingly not true (that she didn’t violate the COD; that she didn’t disrupt classes; that testimonials are required to prove she didn’t violate the COD) I’m not sure it’s unfair to make inferences here.
This is not to say that it’s appropriate to suspend students over this kind of thing — clearly not — and not to even say it’s appropriate to summon students to a hearing over this — I think also not — but this letter is written in an extremely annoying way.
Mark’s case appears to be the opposite of Kafkaesque — it was pointed out they didn’t have the evidence and the case was dismissed. Mary’s case does not appear to be Kafkaesque either — it appears she did violate the COD. It does appear that there is some incompetence going on. It’s plausible that there are instructions from above to pursue these cases, but it’s hard to go off the evidence here.
It is possible that Mary did violate the code of conduct but that the violation did not result in disruption of classes. Where did she use the bullhorn, and at what volume? To what extent did the sound created penetrate the classrooms: how nearby are the classrooms, and, consider also that at this time of year the windows would almost surely be closed. Asking for some kind of evidence that disruption actually occurred is quite reasonable when the accused is charged with disruption! And what kind of evidence for that other than testimonials could there be? Are UO classroom equipped with some kind of equipment that would monitor decibels arising from noise that is known to be of external origin by virtue of using directional microphones?
I looked at the code of conduct linked by Anonymous above, and it seems to me, the only violations consistent with the evidence disclosed are of sections 3.c.i and ii, which are about “…disruption, obstruction, or interference…” The code does not, as far as I can see, regulate the use of sound amplification equipment per se. So, if the facts about the procedure are truly as presented, this was an illegitimate disciplinary process because the University did not even attempt to show any of these adverse effects. It is the use of the disciplinary mechanism to harass Mary.
Hi, I’m the Anon above.
The simple truth is that neither of us were there for either the hearing or for when Mary supposedly did whatever she did at whatever decibel level.
But — going off the evidence presented in the letter, it appears highly likely that Mary did violate the CoC.
That is because the CoC prohibits “Disruptive behavior: Engaging in behavior that could reasonably be foreseen to cause, or that causes, the disruption of, obstruction of, or interference with…” etc. Note “could reasonable be foreseen”. Demonstration of adverse effects is not required.
The entire point of standing outside a building with a bullhorn is to draw attention to your message, and therefore away from other things, including classes.
The obvious rhetorical excesses of the letter indicate that if there was reason to believe that Mary did not succeed in disrupting classes, that reason would have been presented prominently.
“Are UO classroom equipped with some kind of equipment that would monitor decibels arising from noise that is known to be of external origin by virtue of using directional microphones?”
This is more rhetorically excessive than even the letter.
Did she try to disrupt classes. The answer, based on the letter, is that obviously she did.
The entire idea of presenting testimonials is just made up.
Do you need some kind of evidence for a disciplinary procedure? Sure. Do they have it? Yes, or else how would they know what happened? Did they present whatever witness/video they had? IDK.
This is separate from broader concerns about whether and how this should be charged. But I don’t get how people get from a letter that basically admits she did it to saying this is illegitimate.
Anonymice (the plural of anonymous? –
Imagine a student played some music very loudly in campus.
And then received a letter threatening suspension for having done so. No complaints from anyone that the loud music disrupted or disturbed anyone. No evidence produced to a disciplinary panel that the event even occurred.
Do any of our anonymice here think that would ever happen?
What seems to be ignored here is important context – that the disciplinary action taken was largely an issue of “censoring” political speech.
What turns this issue on its head is how many people who have been very animated about “censorship” of speech as a political rallying cry, have an interesting inconsistency in their concern.
As someone who was raised in a tradition of civil liberties, it’s pretty frustrating to see the issue being so transparently twisted to serve a political agenda.
1. As I had said, “This is not to say that it’s appropriate to suspend students over this kind of thing — clearly not — and not to even say it’s appropriate to summon students to a hearing over this — I think also not — but this letter is written in an extremely annoying way.”
2. “Do any of our anonymice here think that would ever happen?”
2a. No, in the sense that, as per above, “I suspect it’s not in fact true that Mary was “threatened” with suspension. Instead what probably happened is that suspension was listed as one possible consequence.” It is highly likely that this didn’t even happen in the situation here, in my opinion.
2b. Yes, in the sense that some kind of disciplinary procedure resulting in from security seeing you doing something weird and disruptive on campus could definitely happen
2c. Maybe, in the sense that clearly there is a difference between having the intent to disrupt (as in Mary’s case) and not (as in cases where the goal of playing loud music is sometimes not to disrupt other people)
3. “What seems to be ignored here is important context – that the disciplinary action taken was largely an issue of “censoring” political speech.”
No, that is an incomplete description of the situation.
There is a difference between speech simpliciter and intentionally disruptive political action. Obviously, what is being penalized is primarily (though not exclusively) intentionally being distruptive.
That is not to say that intentionally being distruptive is not “OK” in some sense.
Anonymous –
You seek to be assuming a lot of things that don’t seem to be in evidencez and certainly neither of us has the full story. But given that connecting very vague dots here is likely to just be projection, let’s for the sake of argument assume the report is true.
Obviously, what is being penalized is primarily (though not exclusively) intentionally being distruptive.
That doesn’t seem to me to be the case, given that apparently no complaints about disruption occurred (if a tree falls in the forest…) Just playing loud music could or could not be with an “intent” of disruption but I without mind-reading skills if no one complains about being disrupted how would you decide whether to implement disciplinary actions?
Regardless, I feel reasonably confident that someone playing music loudly on campus, when there were no disruptions reported, would not face disciplinary action of this sort.
We have seen a double standard since Oct 7, 2023 where people who talk the loudest about the importance of “free speech” equate almost any criticism of Israel or Zionism with “antisemitism,” and as such, police “antisemitic” political language. I think this case falls into that kind of category..
Maybe we’ll get more details and we can go from there.
“That doesn’t seem to me to be the case, given that apparently no complaints about disruption occurred (if a tree falls in the forest…) Just playing loud music could or could not be with an “intent” of disruption but I without mind-reading skills if no one complains about being disrupted how would you decide whether to implement disciplinary actions?”
Ordinarily, I would say that this is the same problem as with any law, where you don’t know the intent of the person and intent is very difficult to glean and also key to determining consequences. But not here, because specifically with a bullhorn — yes, the intent is to disrupt. I don’t get why I need to even point it out.
“We have seen a double standard since Oct 7, 2023 where people who talk the loudest about the importance of “free speech” equate almost any criticism of Israel or Zionism with “antisemitism,” and as such, police “antisemitic” political language. I think this case falls into that kind of category..”
I’m aware of three groups talking loudly about antisemitism and free speech:
1. Claudine Gay, Liz Magill, and co: generally pro-free speech, pro-Palestinian-speech, maybe not pro-Israeli speech, not inclined as of late to punish speech as opposed to action
2. FIRE: generally pro-free speech, including (maybe not enthusiastically always) pro-Palestinian speech
3.Chris Rufo etc: not really prof-free speech, but pro-anti-Palestinian speech. Arguably intellectually inconsistent, but has nothing to do with U of Oregon Admin and therefore irrelevant here.
(1) and (2) are not inconsistent at all and don’t help your case, even though they might have connections (intellectual or otherwise) to the admin.
Anonymous –
. I don’t get why I need to even point it out….
The use of a bullhorn wouldn’t necessarily signal intent to disrupt. For example, when students at a football rally use a bullhorn. Assuming it’s that no disruption was reported in this case, it could be because the use of a bullhorn didn’t disrupt anything and wasn’t intended to do so. Of course it could also signal that people were too intimidated to report disruption or perhaps other things as well. Without more information, we silly don’t know. But I think your interpretation of intent relies on mind-reading skills that I doubt you possess.
I’m aware of three groups talking loudly about antisemitism and free speech:
First, I think your groups are described as mutually exclusive in a way that doesn’t match reality. For example, Jonathan Haidt who’s a key figure in FIRE has sent out tweets aligning with Bari Weiss’s classic hypocrisy re: “free speech” when it overlaps with criticism of Israel. So I think your “maybe not enthusiastically always” misses critical specifics.
Further, your dubiously exclusive groups leave at least one enormous cohort out – like Stefanik and others who without any sense of irony champion “free speech” even as they explicitly seek to create laws to punish people for criticizing (a particular branch of) Zionism under the contention that it (necessarily) equates to antisemiticism. Trump has ridden this wave of dubious “free speech” advocacy despite his classic strongman tactics to limit political speech, as has Elon “free speech absolutist” Musk as he’s gamed “free speech” on a massive scale.
Before Andrew gets mad for me getting too political by mentioning particlar names, I’ll add that I’m under no illusion that such questionable gaming of “free speech” to pursue a political agenda only occurs on the right side of the ledger. That’s not my point. My point is that at the current moment in our country, the simultaneous suppression of political speech by those who claim to be free speech advocates has become ubiquitous, and I think more prevalent than I’ve ever seen before.
So…
but pro-anti-Palestinian speech. Arguably intellectually inconsistent, but has nothing to do with U of Oregon Admin and therefore irrelevant here.
Given the ubiquity of what I believe I’ve seen as described and without more information than what I’ve seen so far, my default is that it is that the University of Oregon incident is likely part of a larger patten whereby, because of the power of pro-Israel donors and pro-Israel legislators, there’s a distinct double-standard that’s being applied to suppress anti-Israel speech, along with pro-Palestinian speech, along with pro-Hamas speech, along with antisemitic speech. I’m willing to extent some sympathy for those past two, and I think they merit discussion as to where the boundaries should lie. The first two, not so much
Even if this incident is completely removed from the Israeli/Palestinian context, I still think it relates to the larger trend. The exact same dynamics are playing out along other vectors imo, like with respect to pronouns or bathrooms or DEI, etc. Perhaps the best related examples point to the blatant hypocrisy (on both sides) around “cancel culture” and “merit,” imo. Imagine how someone like Trump, who has empowered a long line of incompetent people (even by his own description) not based on merit, but because of fealty, while claiming to be a champion of elevating “merit” over discrimination. These, imo, are all part of the utterly facile way that people are treating important issues like “free speech.”
It’s a mess.
This is going in circles and also expanding to analysis of general vibes.
0. We do not have complete information
1. If we want to try to infer what happened, we should go by the information presented. This includes what’s in the letter as well as what would have been in the letter if it were true and helpful to Mary (e.g., that actually she was using a bullhorn, but at a football pep rally). Larger trends should absolutely go into that as well, but applied to the specific context of blue-state campuses. I had argued for my interpretation of what likely happened above, I think quite reasonably. In sum, I believe the likeliest interpretation is that the CoC was violated by standing outside of the building with classes going on and using a bullhorn, with the predictable and desired consequence of classes being disrupted.
2. Intent is always part of the law, as well as of disciplinary procedure. You can always try to argue for solipcism if you like, but that’s not how the vast majority of people view the world.
3. I do not agree with the analysis of larger trends as applies to blue-state campuses. Non-left-wing protest and political speech on campus is *more* restricted than left-wing protest, for equivalent levels of disruption and aggressiveness. Maybe this changes with Trump, but it hasn’t yet. I believe that to argue with this, you would need to show the equivalent of encampments, building occupations, and right-wing militant slogans on campus, and see how those are policed. In general, you can’t, because they barely happen.
4. I’m not familiar with all of Haidt’s twitter feed, but from cursory Googling, he’s essentially saying (4), which is just true, as well as arguing about a double standard (which he says goes the other way) with respect to non-disruptive and non-aggressive speech https://x.com/JonHaidt/status/1734209119689544069
I am sure that AI will eventually reveal this, so instead I will confess that in the 1950s I wrote for my college newspaper using the pseudonym, “Lance Sterling.” Although I am not quite sure, but I believe the name was already taken and sort of represented someone from the prevailing Protestant, male, white power structure. Later in life, I wrote a poem or two as “Luap Repla.” In neither instance, did I ever allege, as Anonymous did, that “females from countries he does not like, were flying to the U.S. just to have a baby on U.S. soil and then returned home.”
It’s not an allegation. Birth tourism in a real phenomenon. And I don’t hate any country.
Also Paul, weren’t you the one years ago who got the vapors because some NASA employee wore a shirt with female superheros designed by his famale friend? You boomers kill me with this stuff.
Anon:
Paul is no boomer, as some simple subtraction will demonstrate to you given the text of his above comment.
This is Cheyney Ryan, who wrote the post referenced at the start of this article. I can assure you that the situation in Oregon is actually worse than I describe, I left out matters for the sake of brevity. Plus I only reported on the cases I have been directly involved with. As I note, there 10 to 20 others. Let me first say that anyone who is interested in the Oregon situation is welcome to contact me via my Oxford email, [email protected].
I should mention that the administrations witch hunt is already elicited strong protests from mainstream faculty venues, starting with the University of Oregon Senate. I am not involved enough of the University to know how these discussions are proceeding, but the University faculty and students have a long standing commitment to the values of free speech and political protest.
At this point, it is difficult to say what is really going on in Oregon. The administration has not actually suspended any students for their activities, but it continues to threaten sanctions and ways that seem designed to stop protest. The documents that students have been provided themselves note, I think quite disturbingly, that the acts of persecution are being carried out in conjunction with the Hillel organization. I cant imagine anything worse all around than this being true.
Again, anyone wanting to know more about this can contact me. I am back in Oxford now, but stay in touch daily.
A day later reflection: One of the main purposes of organizing and participating in demonstrations is to instigate a bit of disruption. Unless people just want to vent, the rational goal is to confront bystanders and the general public and push them to consider your point of view. To oppose all disruption is to oppose all but the most invisible forms of protest. Marching down the middle of the street is disruption. Using a bullhorn that non-demonstrators can hear is disruption. Simply holding a sign aloft in a public space is a kind of disruption, particularly if the message on the sign bothers or provokes others. Of course, there is a limit to how much disruption should be permitted, but the democratic answer is not zero.
Aside from that, any administrative decision about how much disruption to allow should be neutral with respect to the politics of the demonstrators. If use of a bullhorn above a certain decibel level or in a particularly sensitive location is prohibited, that should hold equally for left and right, Zionist and pro-Palestinian, atheist and fundamentalist, etc. Again, there are limits to neutrality, mainly about direct threats demonstrators make to the personal safety of others in the community and damage to property. Aside from that, no. Further, any action taken against those who disrupt beyond whatever line is set should be proportional to the scale of the disruption, and that proportionality should be applied neutrally too.
It is quite clear from the pattern of suppression around the country that these principles are not operative. There is a great fear among higher ed administrators that visible protest against Israel will fan political flames that will overwhelm them. In a few cases big donors have outsized power. The question of why this particular issue has been handled so disastrously is important, and the answers are not the same in each case. I think civil libertarians, if they want to be effective, will have to work on two levels. They need to uphold democratic values on a case by case basis, and they need to examine the underlying forces behind illiberalism, so they can be exposed and countered.
Agree that some protest in public space is completely OK.
Disagree that disrupting classes is OK if you think it’s really important for your cause.
Unclear on how people come with the idea of a double standard — disruptive protest on campus, with bullhorns, building occupations, provocative slogans, etc. is almost exclusively a left-wing thing (as of Jan 2025).
During the Vietnam War virtually all of the campus protests, often disruptive, were anti-war. Are you saying that was not OK?
You question where the idea of double standard comes from. I see the double standard as prohibiting people from using their chosen pronoun, erasing all signs of DEI, and requiring proof of conformity with the Trump agenda as all forms of limiting free speech. That is the double standard in my mind – I don’t see that is must be reflected in disruptive campus protests. Just as in the Vietnam war case, when there is a power imbalance, you are likely to see one “side” engaged in such disruptive protests.
I’m not advocating for disruptive protest, although I think it does have a limited place. I’m questioning your puzzlement over views that differ from your own.
I am saying that in order to demonstrate a double standard regarding disruptive protest on campus, you need for both left-wing and right-wing protesters to engage in such protest, just as a matter of logic.
The original claim was about the University of Oregon and univisities more generally, not the Trump admin. And, of course, universities more generally do the exact opposite of what you’re describing.
It is clear that the Trump admin is engaging in quite draconian regulation of left wing institutional expression. (That is bad, but hardly a double standard because, again, left-wing and right-wing institutional expression is so different)
There is plenty of reason to mistrust Ryan’s account. He’s a longstanding anti-Israel leftist palestinianist.
Gb:
What in particular of Ryan’s account do you dispute? Do you think, for example, that his statement, “Neither the letter charging her, nor its supplementary materials, provided ANY evidence that any classes had been disrupted. There were no complaints from professors, no complaints from students, no complaints from anyone,” is false? I don’t know; I wasn’t there. I guess what I’m saying is, he seems like a legit law professor and it seems unlikely–not impossible, but unlikely–that he’s making things up here. Just the fact that he has public views on foreign policy that differ from yours, that doesn’t seem like enough for me to distrust his account.