Ken WhiteApr 23, 2023

FIRE notes that TPUSA targeted 61 professors in 2021. FIRE doesn’t note that it sponsored a TPUSA “free speech” event in 2017. One of my criticisms of FIRE is that it occasionally has difficulty distinguishing between free speech supporters and people who support speech they agree with.

https://www.thefire.org/news/report-scholars-punished-their-speech-skyrocketed-over-last-three-years

REPORT: Scholars punished for their speech skyrocketed over last three years

A new report from FIRE finds that attempts to punish college and university scholars for their speech skyrocketed over the past two decades, from only four in 2000 to 145 in 2022.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Show threadSapphic LawyerApr 23, 2023

@Popehat

It's a conservative org masquerading as a free speech org, and occasionally the mask slips.

Show threadKen WhiteApr 23, 2023
@SapphicLawyer it’s litigation history doesn’t support that. But I believe it makes bad PR and emphasis choices sometimes.
Show threadSapphic LawyerApr 23, 2023

@Popehat

Straight from its Wikipedia page.

Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023

@SapphicLawyer @Popehat

Hi, worked at FIRE for ~6 years. Can tell you from personal experience, having been a department head who set priorities and managed case intake, that no donor ever influenced or shaped the work we did--it was never even a thought in anyone's mind.

If someone had tried, they'd have been rebuffed. Otherwise, I'd have resigned in protest (along with everyone else).

The argument that an org is conservative if some of its donors are is intellectually lazy.

Show threadRighteous HazardApr 23, 2023

@AriCohn @SapphicLawyer @Popehat Nope, it is a “facile conclusion”. You are right to cite your experiance to combat a simplistic implication.

But, since you brought it up, a failure to question a fairly obvious source of influence is “intellectually lazy”.

The fact that your experience cuts against the question is great, but asking questions is literally the opposite of “intellectual laziness”.

Show threadAri CohnApr 23, 2023
@bertwells @SapphicLawyer @Popehat There was no question asked. There was only a conclusion.
Show threadRighteous Hazard

@AriCohn @SapphicLawyer @Popehat Honestly, not trying to debate or dispute your testimony. The whole internet debate team thing sucks, imo.

The best way outta that is good faith engagement. I know it isn’t easy to avoid making accusations like “intellectual laziness”, especially when you feel, from your POV, that you must defend against something that looks like facile analysis.

But I maybe people who point out financial influence are owed the benefit of the doubt in this oligarchic “pay to play” era?

Apr 23, 2023 at 3:05amWeb