You Can't Say That!
That's what many would like to have become of academic freedom.
You don't have to agree with Peter Singer's views -- or what seems to have been a joke by Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt -- to feel they should not lose their jobs over them.
(It would be another thing entirely if Singer were found to be killing babies out back behind his office or Tim Hunt were denying women places in the lab or promotion.)
The same goes for using charges of creating a "hostile work environment" simply for one's speech (written or spoken), as was the case with Northwestern film prof Laura Kipnis.
Here's the story on Singer, who's having disability activists demand his ouster from Princeton. Kate Hardiman writes for TheCollegeFix:
Protests have been launched against Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer, with disabled individuals and their advocates calling for the resignation of the scholar who openly argues that "killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all."A recent protest around the Ivy League campus blocked traffic and caused a stir, with activists in wheelchairs and others standing holding signs stating "Terminate Peter Singer" and "Every Life Matters." The group, several dozen in all, also chanted: "Hey Hey, ho ho! Singer's got to go!"
Protests are fine, including protests demanding a professor's resignation or firing. That's free speech.
What's wrong is what University College of London did to Hunt -- terminating a professor simply because you find his thinking and speech deplorable. The deplorable views are part of what should be -- and used to be -- free speech and free inquiry on campus.
An advocate for euthanasia, infanticide, physician-assisted suicide and embryo experimentation, Singer outspokenly champions his own brand of medical "ethics" that many members of the disabled community find objectionable. Moreover, in his book "Unsanctifying Human Life," Singer writes that some members of our species, specifically the disabled, should not even be classified as human.And in April Singer argued that it is "reasonable" for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare.
The problem is, when the government is in charge of your care, that's the sort of thing that can eventually happen. Not now. But eventually.
"The problem is, when the government is in charge of your care, that's the sort of thing that can eventually happen. Not now. But eventually."
Why not now? All a bureaucrat has to do is sit on your paperwork and wait. Just like the VA did.
Radwaste at June 22, 2015 6:34 AM
Right, Raddy. That can be a de facto death sentence -- and, I understand re: VA care, it too often is.
Amy Alkon at June 22, 2015 7:18 AM
Exactly Radwaste.
It's already happening on several fronts and we need to force suburban Moms, Liberals, and youth to see it.
States imposing "requirements" on abortion providers, States not enforcing "requirements" on abortion providers allowing them to act outside the law, IRS actions on groups the President does not like, Hiliary's email server being treated differently than any other employee's, the President stating "... we need to change the way we report news ...".
Now we are waiting to see if the SC will agree that words actually mean what they are defined as.
Being polite in discussions has caused actual discussion to be dangerous.
It is past time to get into PC/liberal faces when hijacking words, avoiding stating exactly what they want, and hiding behind 'feelings'.
Bob in Texas at June 22, 2015 7:22 AM
What does one expect of progressives? they were champions of eugenics until it became widely unpopular.
Again, they advocate for experts to be in charge of everything including your life. You get to live until you are no longer useful to Big Brother. It is your patriotic duty.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 22, 2015 8:36 AM
from WSJ article:
"...Mr. Gruber received nearly $400,000 from HHS for his work focusing on health-policy computer models, according to public records.
The White House has described Mr. Gruber as having a limited role in crafting the law."
This is an example of (in this case the MSM) not forcing discussion to be factual. How on earth can you pay someone $400,000 and have them be defined as having a "limited role"?
Simple. As in "Was he limited only to drafting the wording and not in passing the bill?"
Bob in Texas at June 22, 2015 8:42 AM
"The problem is, when the government is in charge of your care, that's the sort of thing that can eventually happen. Not now. But eventually."
No, not eventually. Now. In many nations where government is in charge of your care, that is exactly what happens.
llater,
llamas
llamas at June 22, 2015 9:20 AM
If we assume that Singer has a point and agree that the costs to society in financial terms are of greater import than the moral costs to society of willfully murdering an infant, at what point do we draw the line?
That's a discussion the folks who make these kinds of statements never want to discuss - because it showcases the depravity of their position.
Do we kill babies with a genetic predisposition to certain diseases? Those with anything that might cost society time and money to provide care? At what cost to our collective psyche?
========================
Of course it does. Anything with which someone disagrees these days is called "hate speech" - which is why I deplore the term and those who say the government is obligated to ban it.
========================
Death panels, anyone?
Conan the Grammarian at June 22, 2015 9:23 AM
A guy that thinks killing animals for food is unethical but babies with disabilities isn't?
I mean why the fuck should I care if this leftist turd gets a taste of his own medicine? Free speech shouldn't stop a university from firing a pretentious twat. There is nothing wrong with demanding the termination of someone. You can say whatever you want doesn't mean it's free of consequences. Firing you is up to whoever hired you for whatever reason including that you pissed people off. If they employed any other tactics besides protests then I'd have an issue.
I always think there's an air of condescending superiority with the likes of Singer or Dawkins. This issue isn't something you tell people what they should think objectively.
Ppen at June 22, 2015 9:27 AM
It is already happening today.
Look at the NHS in Britain, where gatekeeper referrals are necessary to gain access to higher levels of care. The NHS process uses a "medical priority" basis to determine queuing - prioritizing patient access by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
Singer's proposal would be the mirror image of that - the Quality of Life Index indicates that this severely diabled baby will have a low QoL score, so "off with his head!"
Conan the Grammarian at June 22, 2015 9:36 AM
Why stop at babies? Why not smokers? The obese? Skydivers?
All of these will eventually cost society healthcare resources - resources better spent keeping brilliant liberal thinkers like Singer alive in their dotage.
Conan the Grammarian at June 22, 2015 9:39 AM
His argument isnt solely financial it's also environmental. Notice how his concern for social financial costs skip when discussing factory farming.
Ppen at June 22, 2015 9:46 AM
I am not sure if I should be smugly satisfied or appalled that the nation is taking six and more years to see what I did at once.
Radwaste at June 22, 2015 4:44 PM
That quote from TheCollegeFix
"Moreover, in his book "Unsanctifying Human Life," Singer writes that some members of our species, specifically the disabled, should not even be classified as human."
grossly misrepresents what Singer says. Reposting it is *not* a good idea.
flow at June 23, 2015 1:22 AM
This is happening here and now. A relative has a baby with Trisomy 18, a life-limiting genetic condition. Children have lived to 19 or so. Doctors define the condition as "incompatible with life" therefore the available treatment is all but non-existent.
I'll admit that I have very mixed feelings about treatment for this baby. Where do you stop treatment for a baby like this? The hospital said that the family could just leave the baby at the hospital. The hospital did not feed the baby and asked the parents if they were going to feed her and sent her home with hospice. The baby's parents sent hospice away and decided to do everything they could for their baby. The average life span is 30 days, however since evidently most aren't even fed, it is hard to know a realistic life-span with care. They have been struggling to find care. Most doctors refuse to even see them.
Do we make judgements based on life expectancy? IQ? Loss of function? So tricky. I am lucky. I have made decisions about my life but I don't presume to make decisions about other people or their families.
Jen at June 23, 2015 6:30 AM
I don't presume to make decisions about other people or their families.
How bout this.
Your money, you can do what ever you want.
My money, I can do what ever I want.
Public money, whatever has the best financial outcome.
IE, is legalizing drugs cheaper than jailing drug offenders.
Is keeping a baby alive as long as possible when it as no chance of survival a better use of funds then giving out free vaccines at a low income clinic?
Which costs less, an abortion or 18 yrs of welfare payments to an unwed mother?
lujlp at June 23, 2015 12:17 PM
@ lujlp
Why not adoption on a first come first serve regardless of race instead of abortion?
As long as the "market" is there why not let black babies be adopted by white "couples".
What is the obsession w/abortion?
It's too inconvenient to carry a baby w/free clinics/meds for those that can't pay? It's "my body" so ...
Do we let the "village" decide the outcome/worth for the unborn and "unproductive" as well? (That has not worked well for a lot "undesirables".)
Bob in Texas at June 24, 2015 7:33 AM
I agree, adoption is better.
But they need to stop letting mothers change their minds, or letting mothers sign off on adoption without informing the father.
And I agree that they should stop preventing cross race adoptions. I'd also say anyone trying to adopt who turns down a kid due to the skin color should be, at the very least, dropped to the back of the line if not dropped entierly
lujlp at June 24, 2015 1:32 PM
Leave a comment