University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos argues against the rising tide of intellectual cowardice on college campuses. He believes universities should be havens for difficult conversations and the pursuit of truth, even when uncomfortable or unpopular. Alivisatos contends that avoiding controversial topics or shielding students from challenging viewpoints hinders their intellectual growth and their preparation for a complex world. He champions the Chicago Principles, which emphasize free expression and open discourse, as a crucial foundation for genuine learning and progress. Ultimately, Alivisatos calls for universities to actively cultivate intellectual courage, enabling students to grapple with diverse perspectives and form their own informed opinions.
This blog post discusses the New Yorker's historical and occasionally inconsistent use of diaereses. While the magazine famously uses them on words like "coöperate" and "reëlect," representing a now-archaic pronunciation distinction, its application isn't entirely systematic. The author explores the diaeresis's function in English, highlighting its role in indicating a separate vowel sound, particularly after prefixes. They note the New Yorker's wavering adherence to its own style guide over time, even within the same issue, and suggest this inconsistency stems from the fading awareness of the diaeresis's original purpose. Ultimately, the author concludes the New Yorker's use of the diaeresis is primarily an aesthetic choice, a visual quirk that contributes to the magazine's distinctive identity.
HN commenters largely discuss the inconsistent and often incorrect usage of diaereses and umlauts, particularly in English publications like The New Yorker. Some point out the technical distinctions between the two marks, with the diaeresis indicating separate vowel sounds within a single syllable and the umlaut signifying a fronting or modification of a vowel. Others lament the decline of the diaeresis in modern typesetting and its occasional misapplication as a decorative element. A few commenters mention specific examples of proper and improper usage in various languages, highlighting the nuances of these diacritical marks and the challenges faced by writers and editors in maintaining accuracy. Some express a sense of pedantry surrounding the issue, acknowledging the minor impact on comprehension while still valuing correct usage. There's also some discussion about the specific software and typesetting practices that contribute to the problem.
Summary of Comments ( 468 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43568655
Hacker News users generally agreed with the sentiment of the article, praising the university president's stance against intellectual cowardice. Several commenters highlighted the increasing pressure on universities to avoid controversial topics, particularly those related to race, gender, and politics. Some shared anecdotes of self-censorship within academia and the broader societal trend of avoiding difficult conversations. A few questioned the practicality of the president's idealism, wondering how such principles could be applied in the real world given the complexities of university governance and the potential for backlash. The most compelling comments centered around the importance of free speech on campuses, the detrimental effects of chilling discourse, and the necessity of engaging with uncomfortable ideas for the sake of intellectual growth. While there wasn't overt disagreement with the article's premise, some commenters offered a pragmatic counterpoint, suggesting that strategic silence could sometimes be necessary for survival in certain environments.
The Hacker News post titled "A university president makes a case against cowardice," linking to a New Yorker article about University of Chicago president Robert Zimmer's views on free speech on campus, generated a moderate amount of discussion with varied viewpoints.
Several commenters expressed appreciation for Zimmer's stance and the University of Chicago's commitment to free speech. They viewed his arguments as a crucial defense against the increasing prevalence of self-censorship and the chilling effect of potential backlash on open discourse, particularly within academic settings. Some specifically praised the Chicago Principles, mentioned in the article, as a valuable framework for protecting free expression.
However, other commenters offered more critical perspectives. Some argued that Zimmer's focus on free speech neglected the complexities of power dynamics and the potential for harm that certain speech can inflict, particularly on marginalized groups. They suggested that a focus solely on abstract principles of free speech can inadvertently create an environment where harassment and discrimination can flourish under the guise of protected discourse. The idea of "safe spaces" was brought up in this context, with some arguing for their importance and others dismissing them as antithetical to true intellectual inquiry.
Another line of discussion revolved around the practical implications of these principles. Some questioned whether universities could truly uphold such strong commitments to free speech in the face of external pressures, such as donor influence or political backlash. Concerns were raised about the potential for these principles to be selectively applied, protecting certain types of speech while suppressing others.
Finally, a few commenters offered more nuanced takes, suggesting that the issue wasn't a simple binary between free speech absolutism and censorship. They advocated for a more balanced approach that recognizes the value of free expression while also acknowledging the need to create a respectful and inclusive environment for all members of the university community. The difficulty of finding this balance and the ongoing debate surrounding it were acknowledged.
Overall, the comments section reflects a diverse range of opinions on the complex issue of free speech on college campuses, with no single viewpoint dominating the conversation. The discussion highlights the tension between the abstract ideal of free expression and the practical challenges of implementing it in a diverse and sometimes contentious environment.