学术自由修辞的“灰色地带”

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 N/A LITERATURE PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0090
M. Bernard-Donals
{"title":"学术自由修辞的“灰色地带”","authors":"M. Bernard-Donals","doi":"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:The tension between freedom of speech and academic freedom results from the contradiction between democracy and expertise, resulting in a rhetorical \"gray zone\" that stymies faculty appeals to due process and constitutional protection. It's not so much that certain \"uncivil\" words and utterances cannot be said in this gray zone; it's that such words, when said, require one's ejection from the (academic) demos. In an examination of the case of Steven Salaita, I'll show how the tyranny of the demos, in the guise of \"civility,\" \"community standards,\" or \"institutional values,\" trumps academic freedom, and how the commonplace of democracy—understood as public opinion—can and does compel faculty silence.","PeriodicalId":46176,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academic Freedom's Rhetorical \\\"Gray Zone\\\"\",\"authors\":\"M. Bernard-Donals\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0090\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"abstract:The tension between freedom of speech and academic freedom results from the contradiction between democracy and expertise, resulting in a rhetorical \\\"gray zone\\\" that stymies faculty appeals to due process and constitutional protection. It's not so much that certain \\\"uncivil\\\" words and utterances cannot be said in this gray zone; it's that such words, when said, require one's ejection from the (academic) demos. In an examination of the case of Steven Salaita, I'll show how the tyranny of the demos, in the guise of \\\"civility,\\\" \\\"community standards,\\\" or \\\"institutional values,\\\" trumps academic freedom, and how the commonplace of democracy—understood as public opinion—can and does compel faculty silence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0090\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0090","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:言论自由与学术自由之间的紧张关系源于民主与专业之间的矛盾,导致了一个修辞上的“灰色地带”,阻碍了教师对正当程序和宪法保护的诉求。与其说某些“不文明”的词语和言论不能在这个灰色地带说出;正是这样的话,一旦说出,就需要从(学术)演示中退出。在对史蒂文·萨莱塔案件的研究中,我将展示民众的暴政是如何以“文明”、“社区标准”或“制度价值观”为幌子,凌驾于学术自由之上的,以及被理解为公众舆论的普通民主是如何能够也确实迫使教师保持沉默的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Academic Freedom's Rhetorical "Gray Zone"
abstract:The tension between freedom of speech and academic freedom results from the contradiction between democracy and expertise, resulting in a rhetorical "gray zone" that stymies faculty appeals to due process and constitutional protection. It's not so much that certain "uncivil" words and utterances cannot be said in this gray zone; it's that such words, when said, require one's ejection from the (academic) demos. In an examination of the case of Steven Salaita, I'll show how the tyranny of the demos, in the guise of "civility," "community standards," or "institutional values," trumps academic freedom, and how the commonplace of democracy—understood as public opinion—can and does compel faculty silence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Philosophy and Rhetoric is dedicated to publication of high-quality articles involving the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric. It has a longstanding commitment to interdisciplinary scholarship and welcomes all theoretical and methodological perspectives that advance the journal"s mission. Philosophy and Rhetoric invites articles on such topics as the relationship between logic and rhetoric, the philosophical aspects of argumentation, philosophical views on the nature of rhetoric held by historical figures and during historical periods, psychological and sociological studies of rhetoric with a strong philosophical emphasis, and philosophical analyses of the relationship to rhetoric of other areas of human culture and thought, political theory and law.
期刊最新文献
Michel Foucault’s Rhetorical Practice: The 1961 Preface to History and Madness Lockean Natural History and the Revivification of Post-Truth Objects Revisiting Reverse Eikos: Dialectical Evaluation of a Rhetorical Argument The Genres of Swahili Philosophy Guest Editor's Introduction: The Time of Africana Philosophy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1