Oberlin College
Re: Oberlin College
And I have friends whose kids were expelled from Catholic school for having 2 moms. If schools can enforce those types of rules, they should also be able to enforce a code of conduct for their professors that reflects their values.
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 26031
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: Oberlin College
I was wondering why Oberlin popped up in a D1 thread section and have read back to the beginning of this discussion...I wasn't aware that the most recent social hot button for some had reared its head in lacrosse, but I guess it was inevitable.
I googled a bit and don't see much actual issue in trans athletes playing women's lax happening in the real world (very few such athletes at any level), but not entirely non-existent.
And, apparently, something reasonable people could feel the need to create some reasonable rules around, as apparently World Lacrosse is attempting to do:
https://worldlacrosse.sport/article/wor ... -equality/
That said, this discussion seems to also be about the parameters of decisions made by colleges, of various sorts, on the public political, social hot button stances their employees take and the repercussions of such choices in whatever their respective roles might be at such college.
It feels like some of those commenting most angrily or stridently (at least as I read them) about this administrative decision at Oberlin have a particular view in support of the merits of the coach's public stance.
I tend to agree that academic institutions that operate in the marketplace, like corporations of all sorts, should be free to make whatever choices they wish about the desirability of an employee, absent a contract that demands otherwise, with regards to "free speech". Government censorship is another matter, but unless government is paying for 100% of the institution's cost, it's at least a semi-private/public entity. In Oberlin's case, there's no governmental protection of free speech.
so, it's more a matter of "should" the college decide what speech is appropriate and what is not? Different colleges will come to different conclusions along a spectrum of possibilities, and these answers are free to compete in the marketplace.
The argument about a "liberal arts" college versus, what, a technical school??? doesn't really change that. Sure, a college might well decide to position itself as a defender of all speech on campus...that's certainly a fine position, but is it truly ideal? I dunno, but it certainly is not reality, and really never has been. My own preference would be to attend a school closer to this view than not, but there's certainly types of speech that I'd have a tough time justifying paying someone to utter to students on an ongoing basis...
And it's certainly not a hey, 'the lefties are controlling speech' exclusive matter, as pointed out above. In all sorts of colleges of ostensibly higher learning, liberal arts etc, some colleges take a marked stance to the rightward on various issues, making it extremely uncomfortable or impossible to utter certain views and maintain one's job. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Again, I'd hew to allowing most speech, but that's each school's call...(caveat that I don't like the idea of politicians deciding to insert themselves and their power in what their "public" institutions allow or proscribe...that's partisan government censoring...)
I'm a bit perplexed by the suggested differentiation between ideology and religion, as if religious institutions of higher learning are fully justified in limiting speech whereas non-religious are not...I dunno what religion is if not a form of ideology, some more dogmatic than others.
and oh yeah, I know plenty of faithful Catholics, certainly 'believers', who are highly critical of the history of abuse and cover-up in the Catholic Church. Not sure it holds that one should be fired for that view...but if the school chooses to do so, and one disagrees, don't go to that school, don't donate, don't cheer for them...go ahead an express your disagreement on that basis. But not on the right for them to make a choice...
There are some far right, often religiously based schools that I would avoid sending my kid to like the plague. I'm fine with my children or grandchildren hearing such views in an academic setting in which such views are also challenged, but not where that's the exclusively allowed view. Likewise, there are a few left oriented schools that might give me pause as to whether it's ok to challenge left wing dogma...but that's me...fortunately, most schools, from Notre Dame to Harvard, don't skew too far one way or another that it would be intolerable...
Back to this coach. She certainly has a right to have views and to express them, just as anyone does, but like all of us, there are consequences for how and when we express them. For instance, in an academic setting, a discussion of provocative topics, with differing views presented, might well be quite educationally enriching. IMO, a professor who does so should not be fired (at my 'closer to' free speech environment) as long as the discussion does not suggest that performance in the class requires conformance with the professor's view or that the views are presented in such a way that might incite violence...(not a big fan of 'micro-aggression objections, but some views are truly hateful and dangerous; If I'm a BD member, I'm not paying people to spout them, thank you).
But here we have a coach...and sure, her role is educational as well, if not particularly 'academic'. But a coach has a power dynamic greater than a single professor with whom one disagrees. That creates additional responsibility in how that power is exerted.
I can see a coach leading a discussion on a team about various social issues in an effort to heal tensions or resolve interpersonal issues or some such goal of creating team cohesion, but how such would be done with a coach expressing her own views with vehemence and yet have the outcome be mutual respect and ultimately cohesion, I'm not so sure.
And here, we don't seem to have a coach doing so with any educational intent, just the demand that she express herself vehemently regardless of her role and responsibilities to manage a team of young women over a four year period in their lives.
It sounds like the coach was on notice that her prior public pronouncements had created divisions on the team. Strife not cohesion...and for what educational purpose?
I googled a bit and don't see much actual issue in trans athletes playing women's lax happening in the real world (very few such athletes at any level), but not entirely non-existent.
And, apparently, something reasonable people could feel the need to create some reasonable rules around, as apparently World Lacrosse is attempting to do:
https://worldlacrosse.sport/article/wor ... -equality/
That said, this discussion seems to also be about the parameters of decisions made by colleges, of various sorts, on the public political, social hot button stances their employees take and the repercussions of such choices in whatever their respective roles might be at such college.
It feels like some of those commenting most angrily or stridently (at least as I read them) about this administrative decision at Oberlin have a particular view in support of the merits of the coach's public stance.
I tend to agree that academic institutions that operate in the marketplace, like corporations of all sorts, should be free to make whatever choices they wish about the desirability of an employee, absent a contract that demands otherwise, with regards to "free speech". Government censorship is another matter, but unless government is paying for 100% of the institution's cost, it's at least a semi-private/public entity. In Oberlin's case, there's no governmental protection of free speech.
so, it's more a matter of "should" the college decide what speech is appropriate and what is not? Different colleges will come to different conclusions along a spectrum of possibilities, and these answers are free to compete in the marketplace.
The argument about a "liberal arts" college versus, what, a technical school??? doesn't really change that. Sure, a college might well decide to position itself as a defender of all speech on campus...that's certainly a fine position, but is it truly ideal? I dunno, but it certainly is not reality, and really never has been. My own preference would be to attend a school closer to this view than not, but there's certainly types of speech that I'd have a tough time justifying paying someone to utter to students on an ongoing basis...
And it's certainly not a hey, 'the lefties are controlling speech' exclusive matter, as pointed out above. In all sorts of colleges of ostensibly higher learning, liberal arts etc, some colleges take a marked stance to the rightward on various issues, making it extremely uncomfortable or impossible to utter certain views and maintain one's job. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Again, I'd hew to allowing most speech, but that's each school's call...(caveat that I don't like the idea of politicians deciding to insert themselves and their power in what their "public" institutions allow or proscribe...that's partisan government censoring...)
I'm a bit perplexed by the suggested differentiation between ideology and religion, as if religious institutions of higher learning are fully justified in limiting speech whereas non-religious are not...I dunno what religion is if not a form of ideology, some more dogmatic than others.
and oh yeah, I know plenty of faithful Catholics, certainly 'believers', who are highly critical of the history of abuse and cover-up in the Catholic Church. Not sure it holds that one should be fired for that view...but if the school chooses to do so, and one disagrees, don't go to that school, don't donate, don't cheer for them...go ahead an express your disagreement on that basis. But not on the right for them to make a choice...
There are some far right, often religiously based schools that I would avoid sending my kid to like the plague. I'm fine with my children or grandchildren hearing such views in an academic setting in which such views are also challenged, but not where that's the exclusively allowed view. Likewise, there are a few left oriented schools that might give me pause as to whether it's ok to challenge left wing dogma...but that's me...fortunately, most schools, from Notre Dame to Harvard, don't skew too far one way or another that it would be intolerable...
Back to this coach. She certainly has a right to have views and to express them, just as anyone does, but like all of us, there are consequences for how and when we express them. For instance, in an academic setting, a discussion of provocative topics, with differing views presented, might well be quite educationally enriching. IMO, a professor who does so should not be fired (at my 'closer to' free speech environment) as long as the discussion does not suggest that performance in the class requires conformance with the professor's view or that the views are presented in such a way that might incite violence...(not a big fan of 'micro-aggression objections, but some views are truly hateful and dangerous; If I'm a BD member, I'm not paying people to spout them, thank you).
But here we have a coach...and sure, her role is educational as well, if not particularly 'academic'. But a coach has a power dynamic greater than a single professor with whom one disagrees. That creates additional responsibility in how that power is exerted.
I can see a coach leading a discussion on a team about various social issues in an effort to heal tensions or resolve interpersonal issues or some such goal of creating team cohesion, but how such would be done with a coach expressing her own views with vehemence and yet have the outcome be mutual respect and ultimately cohesion, I'm not so sure.
And here, we don't seem to have a coach doing so with any educational intent, just the demand that she express herself vehemently regardless of her role and responsibilities to manage a team of young women over a four year period in their lives.
It sounds like the coach was on notice that her prior public pronouncements had created divisions on the team. Strife not cohesion...and for what educational purpose?