If you’ve been trying to complain to UVM about their decision to bring in Ben Stein as a commencement speaker, some of your arguments may have fallen on deaf ears. Richard Dawkins reports:
Someone with a real axe to grind had to have been on the committee
that picked this old fraud”. Layla Nasreddin, posting on
RichardDawkins.net, has found the probable answer to the identity of
that ‘someone’. Ben Stein is an old pal of the President of the
University of Vermont, Daniel Fogel. One is bound to wonder, therefore,
whether the letters that many of us have been writing to Fogel will cut
any ice. If you have written to Fogel, therefore, it would be a good
idea to Forward your letter now to the entire Board of Trustees of the
University of Vermont, and the two administrators in charge of the
Trustees. Here’s a handy list of three addresses:
I think it is highly unlikely that you’ll get UVM to rescind an invitation, but you can make them squirm a little bit so that they’ll think twice before inviting old cronies who happen to be ignorant jerks to this kind of thing.
An hour-long C-Span interview reveals Stein to be an incoherent mess, not the conniving opportunist I had assumed him to be. He says he’s ghost-written an autobiography for Jesse Jackson, and he was planning to vote for Ralph Nader in 2008, so he is not easily pigeonholed as just a Nixon/Ford speechwriter who’s moved on to other right-wing causes.
I thought he was being cynically manipulative toward the dupes who follow him when he said that “Darwinism cannot explain gravity, it cannot explain thermodynamics …,” but it turns out he really thinks that way. See
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/stein-darwinism-gravity-2/
(with links to the CSpan page with video & transcript links)
I shall certainly forward my email, along with an offer to be Professor Fogel’s new friend. Given his current choices, one can only assume he doesn’t have too many.
Oh, and PZ, my comment on the Durston thread (about 5 mins ago) may give some ideas for the next clash. I suspect Durston won’t want to challenge you again. You can see him coming now.
I actually think that rescinding Stein’s invitation at this point would be a (albeit small) public relations victory for him. He would be able to point to himself and pull the Expelled! card.
I think much better would be for him to speak but for the protest to be so loud and “in your face” a la Andy Card at Amherst (Yes. I know that I already posted a link to that video in the other thread, but it’s just too perfect and appropriate) that Fogel and the board (and BS himself) are thoroughly and utterly embarrassed.
This was what I attached to the forward of the email I sent yesterday.
I imagine it might raise a smile or two….
Science Pundit- thanks a lot for the link to the video about Andy Card at Amherst. Priceless.
I think this is going to turn out to be a beautiful event in all of our lives…
I am particularly looking forward to the creative ideas all of you will think up to circumvent this academic disgrace.
we just need a high powered alumnus to threaten withdrawal of their financial support to the university.
“I think much better would be for (Stein) to speak but for the protest to be so loud and ‘in your face’ a la Andy Card at Amherst.”
I marvel at how illiberal liberals tend to be.
I bet students themselves will come up with something creative and….memorable ;-)
I long ago stopped marvelling at how stupid people like Jim in Vermont are.
I wonder if the students could organize a walk-out or something when he comes up to speak? By sitting there they’re unfortunately condoning his presentation. But if a significant portion of the faculty of science were to get up and walk out that could send a pretty powerful message. And if enough do it than the university can’t really discipline them.
Jim in VT (#8):
Yes, because the liberal thing to do is to allow other people to select a deeply unpopular personage to speak at your momentous once-in-a-lifetime occasion.
You don’t… “get” things, do you?
Oops, PZ! Closing BLOCKQUOTE tag is missing…
I agree that having B.S.’s invitation revoked (not likely to happen anyway) will only make him an ‘Expelled’ martyr.
It would be MUCH more desirable when B.S. DOES show up, and has to give his speech to, say, 7 or 8 people. The rest of them standing outside, in a peaceful and silent protest.
Shouldn’t be too hard to organize .. reading this: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Daniel-Fogel
Dear Trustees of the University Of Vermont,
Please ask your president, Daniel Vogel, to reconsider the invitation to Ben Stein to speak and receive an honorary degree. Stein is a historical fraud who has stated – in so many words – that “science leads to death and destruction”. He has blamed the Holocaust on Darwin, and taken part in a campaign to undermine biology instruction in the United States. He is no asset to academia.
Granting Stein an honorary degree cannot enhance the reputation of your institution; indeed it will do the opposite.
Sincerely,
I think the best option is to boycott the event. Empty seats will speak volumes. So, let the idiot speak. It doesn’t mean that anyone has to listen.
In addition to being a speaker, receiving an honorary degree, and insulting the science departments simply by his presence, B.S. will also be handling out several honorary degrees. I wonder if any—better, all—of those recipients should or will refuse the honour?
@Jim in Vermont (#8)
My hovercraft is full of eels!
So, I guess it’s more important to be ‘an old pal’ of the university head than to actually be WORTHY of an honorary degree…
All together now: It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.
One could make the case that Stein represents a conflict of interest. Stein was selected because of his relationship and is just getting his pocket lined.
Probably not a great case to made – but why not.
You can avoid all the other controversies over it.
I don’t understand why the graduating seniors don’t get to choose (or at least have some real participation in the process of choosing) the speaker at their commencement. When administrators do it, the person is inflicted upon them, and there’s really no way for them to protest without disrupting what should be a happy ceremony celebrating their accomplishments.
During Stein’s address, people could don Charles Darwin masks or beards in silent protest. Stein can’t claim expulsion, the proceedings aren’t disrupted, and a nice dig is made at Stein’s support for creationist tripe.
I agree (if anyone cares …).
Stop bothering the trustees and VC. Get hold of the students instead. Don’t they have a union of some sort? A CASH chapter? What about those infamous fraternities?
Better to make a complete circus of the affair than get BS eXpelled *jazzhands*.
Since this is the thread for repeating oneself: fuck the traditions!
LOL wut? BS has objectionable views, way beyond the fringe of respectability. Remember he’s not just a creationist; he thinks science in itself leads to murder and this is honour is being given by a research university. You claim that allowing him a privileged platform and responding only through the students asserting their right to peaceful protest is illiberal.
If someone of similarly extreme views on the left – say the Secretary General of the United States Communist Party – were delivering the address, how do you suppose conservative and libertarian groups on campus would react. More importantly how would you say students should react in either case?
#18
his bothercraft is full of squeals.
*fixed*
What is wrong with Stein is well known and exhaustively documented inasmuch as he babbles constantly for a living.
The real question. What is wrong with Daniel Fogel? This is an astounding lapse in judgement. Picking Stein insults scientists, Jews, people who followed his bogus financial advice and lost their money, the students and faculty of UVM and anyone who is a fan of intellectual honesty and accomplishment.
Daniel Fogel needs to have his head examined and the UVM community needs to figure out if he is the best they can do.
The Science Pundit #3 wrote:
For some reason I can’t get that video to work — it says it’s “unavailable” — so I’m only going by people’s descriptions, which suggest that the speaker was shouted down and not allowed to speak.
No. Imo, that’s not a good way to protest, because it sends the wrong message re freedom of expression and repression of ideas. I prefer the suggestion that those in the audience turn their backs, march out, or refuse to attend — or, better yet, hand out pamphlets detailing exactly why Stein’s views on pseudoscience make him unfit for an honorary degree.
Stein shouldn’t be the commencement speaker; that’s easy. Writing to stop it is a good idea. But once the speaker is up there, heckling and shouting him down is bullying. It’s a different situation than preventing him in the first place.
I’d think the same if Christians were protesting Dawkins as speaker.
You may have a point about letting his voice be heard as a statement about free-speech.
Collectively mooning him sounds perfectly legitimate though.
I agree with Science Pundit – give Stein the Andy Card reception. The UVM students should also plaster the campus with posters featuring Stein’s juiciest quotes, including “Science leads you to killing people” and whatnot, and also hold these quotes on placards at the commencement. That ought to be embarrassing.
Maybe the students could also demand that before Stein enters the auditorium he surrender his cell phone, sign his name before the students, be searched for digital cameras by men sporting night vision goggles, and have his young date (he admits that he hangs around young girls and doesn’t see his wife very often) thrown out of the building before the event!
PZ and Richard, do you want to go? ;-)
I’ll repeat my suggestion to organize an alternative commencement. I bet you could raise some money online to defray expenses if you promote it as statement in defense of science. The content of the commencement wouldn’t need to refer to the controversy, or even science, at all. Just plan a nice ceremony and ignore the other one.
Seems like the science departments might get behind it for starters. Who knows? Maybe a prominent speaker would find the opportunity appealing.
“Yes, because the liberal thing to do is to allow other people to select a deeply unpopular personage to speak at your momentous once-in-a-lifetime occasion.
You don’t… “get” things, do you?”
Unpopular shouldn’t have anything to do with it. The real reason to be upset is Stein’s huge paper trail of lies, unfounded assertions, and dishonest representations of science and society.
I’m not sure why it is “illiberal” to be against these things and the people who practice them. Perhaps Jim in Vermont would say that the uproar is due to Stein’s conservatism, and that the Stein’s characteristics described above are good conservative behavior?
I hope the student media at Vermont takes this up. There is a weekly student newspaper – the Vermont Cynic.
http://www.vermontcynic.com/home/generalinformation/
Editor-in-Chief:
Dakota Rubin
E-mail: cynic@uvm.edu
Phone: (802) 656-8482
UVM Student Television
http://uvmtv.blog.uvm.edu/
WRUV Radio
http://www.uvm.edu/~wruv/
Student Media page with contact link for Chris Evans, student media adviser
http://www.uvm.edu/~stdmedia/
Taunting Ben Braveheart style would be good.
UVM Students – the world is watching you. This looks like a great opportunity for you to take a stand.
I like the idea of Darwin masks-a sea of Charles Darwins staring back at him. I would add a bit of absurdist theater: when he makes a joke be silent, when he says something “serious” laugh good and loud.
Maybe they could get John A. Davison to educate Ben about evolution……….
I love it so!
Seems to me that Jim in Vermont is just a sniping little troll trying to get a rise out of us. Maybe we should ignore him?
@27
They didn’t shout at him while he was speaking. They just booed as he was introduced and had signs. I’d say it was perfectly reasonable.
#34
We’re on it. UVM students and faculty are currently filling Fogel’s inbox with complaints. Posters of Stein’s idiotic quotes will soon grace the walls of every science and history building on campus. Petitions will be written and signed.
And if that doesn’t stop his visit, there will be protests.
I like the Darwin beards idea (#22). How about lab coats with Nazi armbands? That would get some attention…
I despise the word “blessed” because it connotes a gift from a higher power – but I do feel extremely fortunate to live in a nation where this free wheeling discourse can take place without fear of retribution or pay back.
I was truly impressed with the UMass reaction to Card’s “honorary” degree: most excellent!
Now if only we could convince the religionists that our constituion has NOTHING To do with an evangelical god. Wouldn’t that be great?
Joshua #38
The trouble is, people unfamiliar with Expelled would just be shocked and offended and it could backfire. Sticking with the visage of good ol’ Charles would mildly confuse people unfamiliar with Stein’s film (and as a bonus, really mess with any creationists’ heads) and hopefully spark some interest about what why it’s being done. Plus, as he looks over the crowd, Stein would know full well why people are doing it.
@ Sastra
“…once the speaker is up there, heckling and shouting him down is bullying.”
Heckling and shouting down is **not** bullying in the usual sense of “intentionally inflicting harm”. It’s just preventing the willfully ignorant voice from being heard.
Would you really feel the same if Asshat Rev. Phelps was railing his theological hatred at your son’s or brother’s or cousin’s military funeral, blaming his death on faggots? I think you might, in that circumstance, be the first to prevent Phelp’s voice from being heard – and perhaps might have trouble restraining yourself from the physical and / or emotional abuse that constitutes bullying.
Preventing a voice of ignorance and intolerance in a setting where it is not appropriate (Stein’s view of science, Phelp’s tortured sense of christianity, ACTUP’s throwing blood at a cardinal during easter mass) is not bullying in any sense.
Well, that’s scaled-down economy for you: killing one Fogel with one Stein. Conventional wisdom is to take two birds with one stone, but maybe the caliber is insufficient for effective penetration in this case.
@Jim in Vermont & Matt Heath
What’s with illiberal? I don’t know what that means. I assume that it’s some kind of rejection of my suggestion on the basis that I was claiming that a loud protest was the liberal thing to do. That reveals more about your mindsets than it does about my proposition. Nowhere in my comment did I bring up (left/right) politics. You’re the ones who did that!
Also, if you read my comment, you’ll see that I suggested that option as an alternative to to a letter writing campaign to get his invitation rescinded on the grounds that a protest won’t allow Stein to play the martyr card, NOT because getting his speaking invitation rescinded is somehow illiberal (again, whatever that means).
@Sastra
In the video, you see that the students–as well as the faculty–do most of the things that you suggested. What happens is that when Card gets up to speak, the boos are so loud that instead of just pushing forward through the jeers (as in the Prime Minister’s questions), he takes his seat again. I see nothing wrong with booing somebody off the stage. It’s a legitimate form of protest and I don’t think it sends the wrong message. Rioting in the streets, flipping over cars, and burning down buildings sends the wrong message. I don’t see booing somebody off the stage as being as being any more impolitate than staging a walk-out. Both send the same clear message and are insulting and embarrassing to the speaking.
OK, one more comment on this and then I’ll shut up.
Disruptive/distracting protests during the commencement would be justified and entertaining for some, but would rob the parents and students who don’t care about B(en)S(tein) of the solemn ceremony they deserve. As a parent of a college student, I would prefer an alternative drama-free event. The empty seats at the main ceremony and publicity surrounding the dual commencements would make the needed statement.
I think that those worried aboup martyrdom are too ready to allow the ‘tards to set the agenda.
BS should be expelled. As long as the reasoning is made clear: (that what he said about atheists was straight-up anti-semitic holocaust denial, just the same as razi and his SS PiXies), then it won’t be considered unjust.
And how about expelling the UVM prez while we’re at it.
Science Pundit (@3) is right–if Stein is cut, he will immediately start yammering about academic bias against . . . well, idiots.
However, letters from alumni, the new graduates, students or anyone else who might be expected to eventually donate to the school, addressed to the trustees–with CCs to the fundraising department, heads of the various science departments (who I can’t believe aren’t outraged about this), maybe the local papers, etc.–to the effect that as long as Fogal (or specifically, whoever green-lighted this decision) is on the payroll, they needn’t expect a dime from them–might do something.
Joshua from UVM @38,
I’d be really careful about the armbands or any other nazi symbols. Ever hear of Goodwin’s Law? If the only, or first, nazi reference is from the students (or anyone other than B.S.), that could easily send the wrong message.
What might work is not showing or wearing the armbands until B.S. starts speaking. Have the armbands ready, but keep them out of sight. Then, when he starts to speak, silently put them on. When B.S. is done, silently take them off, and again put them away out of sight. (For extra credit, silently hand them to B.S. if you get the chance, after he’s done speaking and you’ve put the armbands away. Insist that he takes them. (Slapping him in the face with them is, I admit, tempting…—but perhaps unwise?))
Loudly booing B.S. before he starts to speak, and when he’s done, is axiomatic. Wearing Charlie breads (or masks) would be a nice touch. And handling out pamphlets before the event is worth considering. But handle nazi symbols with extreme care and forethought—they can easily backfire!
What can Ben Stein say about being “expelled” if the effort is coming from the students? He, like Charles Foster Kane, has only himself to blame for claiming to speak for the “common people” – until the people speak for themselves in a way he doesn’t like.
The earliest universities were organized principally by students. The structure was influenced by existing guilds of artisans and craftsmen. The students were responsible for the establishment of rules and regulations, and for the hiring of faculty. The university was, in some senses, a collective bargaining unit. – John M. Budd, The Changing Academic Library
Revolution! Isn’t that what Stein called for? Isn’t it? I guess he didn’t really mean it if he wants an honorary degree from a bunch of Nazi Darwinists.
Stein is a hypocrite and a media whore of colossal proportions, and now it’s time for him to eat his words.
And, agreeing with charley, its precirely to avoid ruining the students’s day that bs should not be there at all.
Booing might not be as effective as humor. Might I suggest a collective, heartfelt cry of “Beuuuuuuhler?” at each nugget of idiocy instead?
Science Pundit:
Don’t lump me with Jim from Vermont!
“Illiberal” is a fairly common term in British political discourse; it means roughly “authoritarian”. Being a Brit I read Jim’s claim as such. In Britain “liberal” is a term most politicians would want to associate themselves with (even the Tories); it’s generally held to be orthogonal to left-right and about openness and human-rights. “Illiberal” is what libertarians and leftists alike attack the current Labour government for being. Obviously Jim in VT is an American resident but I assumed that he intended roughly the same usage.
Now, read again what I wrote in response to Jim. I said he wasn’t justified in calling what you suggested “illiberal”, I responded to his claim with outright mockery. And then I made pretty much that same argument you did that giving BS a platform and then protesting peacefully was the very definition of respecting free speech.
So how about reading what people have written before flaming them?
The students should all wear blindfolds, put their hands over their ears and shout.
Stay away from Nazi armbands. That will become the story, likely a national one, and your message will be completely lost.
I vote for the students standing up and turning their backs to him while he speaks. Silent and dignified. Then, when he’s done, turning back and sitting back down. Make him squirm up there.
I like blf’s suggestsion @ #47 about
It would inject some much needed bailout money into the local bakery-economy and provide a tasty snack for the students during a long tedious lecture.
Matt Heath: “…I made pretty much that same argument you did that giving BS a platform and then protesting peacefully was the very definition of respecting free speech.”
What do you call it when the effort being made is to prevent Stein from speaking altogether? I call that effort “illiberal.” Another suitable adjective would be “bigoted” (i.e., intolerantly devoted to one’s own opinions). It’s astounding how intolerant the voices of tolerance can be.
Have those who are protesting BS carry in a bottle of Visine and the Darwin or Dawkins book of choice. I also like the idea of turn their chairs away from Stein when he addresses the crowd.
I haves taken ut the spelinz chekeeer and shot it,
I like the idea of Darwin masks. This could easily be done.
Just draw a Darwin face with a beard. Run off a zillion copies on a photocopy machine using oversize paper, legal or ledger. Cut them out and reinforce holes for the rubber band or string with tape or white glue on circles. Cut out the eyes to see.
The more artistic students could color theirs in with colored pencils or crayons.
Just wait until Stein is up, put them on with a show of ceremony and humor and take them off when he slithers off the stage.
Inexpensive, quick, easy, and more or less nondisruptive.
@Matt Heath
After reading your explanation and rereading your original comment, I realize that I did misinterpret your comment. Please accept my sincere apologies for lumping you in with Jim in Vermont.
How intolerant, wanting to dis invite a hack who cannot put together a coherent argument. Can Darwinism explain the big bang theory? That is the man who should address the various science majors in attendance. What an insult.
‘It’s astounding how intolerant the voices of tolerance can be.’
If you are going to make a fool of yourself carry on…doing a fine job so far…
The correct phrase is..
The voices of tolerance do not tolerate intolerance!
Fixed that for ya…no cost mind…I am tolerant!
Nice idea Raven.
No one is preventing Stein from speaking. He is a professional babbler, that is how he makes his money. There are countless venues for him to spread his venom and he takes advantage of all of them. TV, movies, the internet, the newspapers, the magazines.
What we are questioning is his suitability as a commencement speaker at UVM. He is not. Stein is a suitable as Stormfront, the KKK, Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind. A self described enemy of western civilization.
Would a church allow PZ Myers to give the sermon? Isn’t preventing him from speaking to the Martin Luther Lies of the Jews congregation depriving him of the right to free speech. Not really, he has other places and opportunities.
Of course, the US is far from the only country in which this is the case. Just a year ago was this in Italy, for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7188860.stm
Incidentally, I noticed this as one of today’s headlines:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7862804.stm
Iceland has an openly lesbian Prime Minister!
[And – Bolivia’s constitution passed (still unofficial till Thursday)! Just when I was most annoyed with the influx here of conservatives and market fundamentalists who live in their own minds, real-world events give me hope.]
“The voices of tolerance do not tolerate intolerance!”
Quite so. As we’ve seen here, they promote it.
It’s not like Stein the Nixon speechwriter was ever tolerant towards scientists. He blamed them for the Holocaust, Nazism, Communism, and called them killers.
Why should anyone be tolerant toward an evil, crazy, dishonest kook like Stein. I’m not especially tolerant towards racists, creationists, or wackos like Jim either. Way it goes, deal with it.
Why is lemming like collective behavior called for? Wouldn’t each individual responding in accordance with their own judgment be sufficient, and most revealing of who that individual is? Is the coordination needed to provide the “courage” of mob anonymity?
I think the real crime that is being overlooked here is that Fogel is not doing this for the students as much as he is doing it for B.S. The frau in the course of her work has developed friendships with Mark Ptashne and Mario Capecchi. When she calls on those prestigious men, she does not do it to further her career, she does it to help her students.
Fogel is inviting B.S. not to benefit the students, he’s doing it to give B.S. a veneer of respectability in academic circles. IMHO, this action is not only reprehensible but is grounds for his removal. He is putting the welfare of his friends above the reputation of the university and needs of the students. This demonstrates a willful disregard for goals of the university and the education of the students.
Not stopping him from talking at all. He is free to stand on a soap box and sprout his nonsense. He can post videos on YouTube. I will defend to the death his right to shout crazy-ass crap in a bus station.
Protesting his use of an honoured platform in an institution whose aims he has expressed contempt for is legitimate. Are you saying there is nobody alive it would be legitimate to boo?
Once again I must insist that disdain for Stein be prevented from smearing the good name and product-branding of VisineTM, an excellent and effective product that has kept people in authority from suspecting much for decades.
Stein, in fact, shilled for the competing product Clear EyesTM (again confirming for us how the Market improves things for everybody!).
Science pundit: Apology accepted. My first post could have been clearer :)
Jim In Vermont: Tolerant Of The Intolerant.
What about passing out fliers with details of BS quotes, lies, and stupidity prior to, and the day of, the event? Surely there is enough information available from http://www.expelledexposed.com/ Keep it simple or it will never get off the ground.
Sven, you missed the point. If every protester were holding a bottle of Visine, it means that they bough a competing product. Thus, not buying Clear Eyes.
60613 #41 wrote:
Preventing an intolerant speaker from speaking through means of persuasion and rational argument so that he is either not hired, or nobody comes, is not ‘bullying.’ Neither are peaceful forms of protest, such as Darwin masks, turning one’s back, booing the introduction, carrying signs, or handing out pamphlets.
But preventing someone from speaking through shouts, heckles, horns, etc. which drown him out is not peaceful protest. It’s bullying, and it undercuts the message of tolerance and free speech that the protest is supposed to highlight.
The Science Pundit #43 wrote:
I still see a big difference, because booing someone off the stage aggressively interferes with open speech, and so the “clear message” is now muddled. People who have come to an event in order to hear the speaker — either because they agree, don’t know the issue, or want to know how to effectively demolish the rationale — are being prevented from hearing and considering.
There are effective ways to insult and embarrass the speaker that do not simultaneously insult and embarrass the values being defended by the protest. I think heckling someone down is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive, inefficient, and inconsistent.
Jim in Vermont at . . . various posts:
You seem to have confused the idea of being liberal with the idea of allowing anything and everything whatsoever, no matter what, without saying anything against it.
This is a common mistake. Consider one example: many liberals opposed segregation and Jim Crow laws, but rather than allowing said to continue, they protested, often very vocally (they took other actions, too, like voting, voter registration, economic boycott, etc.). What those liberals were expressing was tolerance for those who were being discriminated against based on their skin color, and simultaneously they were expressing opposition to racist and and arbitrarily discriminatory laws and traditions resulting in disenfranchisement of a significant portion of the minority population. That’s just one example.
The larger point is that being liberal doesn’t mean “Anything goes, baby! It’s all cool!” despite popularized depictions and stereotypes suggesting that.
If you have any further confusion about some of these liberal ideas, just ask! This is a great blog for clearing up things like that; there are far better minds than mine who post here regularly, so if my explanation seems insufficient, please ask around. Thanks, and have a great day!
No kings,
Robert
No effective mass action would have ever happened if people didn’t have reasonable confidence that they weren’t going to be the only one putting their necks out. If it wasn’t for “lemming like collective action” most of us would be serfs.
Good point. Fogel seems to have picked Stein solely because they are buddies. While insulting everyone else.
Stein is just a toad being a toad.
My email will go to the trustees. It will suggest that they trustees do their damn job. Investigate Fogel, give him a fair trial, and fire his ass.
@Africangenesis
Why should players of a sports team adopt the lemming like behavior of playing off the same playbook? Wouldn’t each individual doing their own thing send a stronger message to the fans and to the other team? Is coordination and teamwork needed to provide the “courage” of team anonimity?
[/snark]
The point of a coordinated protest is that it gets noticed and sends a strong message. A sea of uncoordinated individual protests will not get noticed and truly make the individuals anonymous.
ps—Nice try with the appeal to individuality, but nobody here is buying it.
No matter what is the reason, this is great news.
@Dr. Dawkins
Thanks for the update!
Matt Heath#77,
Mass action “democracy”, can also be quite unrepresentitive and yet still manage through threats and intimidation to impose its will on others.
If it’ too late to un-invite him, maybe the audience will take care of it?
MegawOOt! You’ve just made my day.
It was a stupid decision to have an incompetent boob speak at the commencement.
However, I’m with those who wouldn’t bother trying to disinvite Stein for the commencement speech. These are dull tedious speeches, often given by unqualified celebrities, and I think Stein fits right in with the dregs of commencement speakers.
Point and laugh at UVM for having such an ignorant anti-science boob speak, but commencement speeches have never been a place where high standards have ruled. I feel sorry for the graduates having to hear a failed economist and failed documentary writer/narrator babble stupidly on what should be a happy day (and I hope it is, otherwise), yet, unfortunately, Stein won’t be the only worthless speaker that graduating seniors in the US will have to endure.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Onkel Bob #68 wrote:
This is a very good point. A lot of cranks can be nice guys, but you don’t have them as commencement speakers. This isn’t about politics, it’s about science. Having a pseudoscience-promoter like Stein at an academic function is like having Eric Von Daniken or Deepok Chopra. Of course they argue that they’re on the side of science and reason. They all do that — to a gullible public where they go on talk shows. The university’s graduation ceremony is not supposed to be a gullible public forum where you let your crank buddies talk.
yes which is why the ethics of collective action is rather complicated but an outright ban is ridiculous (unless you like serfdom).
Richard Dawkins #80 wrote:
From Fogel:
Ah, good news — though I’m curious as to what sort reason Stein evidently gives for being “unable to receive an honorary degree” from a university.
There’s always a problem when famous people are “famous” for several things — and at least one of them conflicts with the theme of the event. Whether you think Stein is a lousy economist or not, his speaking at a commencement ceremony on that topic doesn’t raise the same red flag that his pseudoscientific attacks on evolution do. That trumps his academic fitness, to my mind.
But atheists have similar problems. Most atheists are secular humanists — so what do you do with otherwise reasonable famous atheists who have some sort of “crackpot” theory they’re pushing, such as alternative medicine or 9-11 truthers? Or even things that aren’t exactly crackpot pseudoscience, but something many atheists dislike, like Penn Gillette’s strong Libertarianism, or Chris Hitchens’ support for the war? Are they invited to speak?
Not always easy. But I think Stein was pretty clearly a horrible choice, given Expelled, so this is a relief.
Raven: “(Stein) blamed (scientists) for the Holocaust, Nazism, Communism, and called them killers.”
This is the kind of misrepresentation of Stein’s views that has become the urban legend that informs those who want to prevent him from speaking at UVM. Had you actually seen “Expelled,” you would have heard Stein saying that “evil can sometimes be rationalized as science,” which – with respect to the Nazis – happens to be true. That’s not an indictment of science; it’s an indictment of those who use science – however logically or illogically – to “justify” their evil projects. You would have also heard Stein say: “I know that Darwinism does not automatically equate to Nazism.” This is not something he would have said had his intention been to blame Darwin’s theory for the Holocaust. Instead, his intention was to show that evil men can use science (specifically, Darwinian principles) in evil ways. If Stein’s critics actually saw “Expelled” (which, in most instances, appears not to be the case, given what they say about the movie), it seems that they watched it with their emotions, but not their minds, fully engaged.
Janine, SA, indeed, I had missed that point, thanks.
Interesting development there; thanks to Prof. Dawkins for posting the e-mails.
Jim Clueless In Vermont
Had you actually seen “Expelled,” you would have heard Stein saying that “evil can sometimes be rationalized as science,” which – with respect to the Nazis – happens to be true. That’s not an indictment of science; it’s an indictment of those who use science – however logically or illogically – to “justify” their evil projects.
Here is Stein pimping his movie.
When you are lecturing people, make sure you know facts facts better then your audience.
JIM in VT@90 Note how the text you quoted from Raven doesn’t mention Expelled at all. he made the blanket “If you believe in science you end up with mass murder comments in interviews with Christian media shows when he was doing the publicity tour to pimp the movie.
“…please know that it was our expectation that his remarks would address the global economic crisis and that he would speak from his widely acknowledged area of expertise on the economy. We regret that he will be unable to do so.”
Uh…Stein’s expertise on economics is about as sound as his views on evolution. This was the guy who dismissed warnings about the subprime markets as “drivel” last year and called WaMu stock a good buy. Somehow I find Fogels explanation disconcerting.
Huzzah! Whoopee!
Jim in Vermont #90:
Have YOU actually seen Expelled? Or are you just continuing to spew ignorantly about things you have no idea about? I know, it was hard to get through, with the constant outright lying and insults to the viewers intelligence, but if you’d actually watched the whole thing, the conclusions he was trying to draw were pretty clear. Stein directly blames science and evolution for the holocaust.
Better yet, have you seen his interview about Expelled with Trinity Broadcasting? We don’t have to draw conclusions about his intention from the movie alone, he specified his position clearly in that interview. Quote: “that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you… science leads you to killing people.”
It’s quite clear he’s an anti-science wingnut who is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant. It’s also quite telling of you that you choose to defend him.
You accuse us of being intolerant towards dishonesty and ignorance. I don’t see the problem with that.
Fogel’s salary: $301,144 in 2007.
Vermonters are having to pay $12,844 a year to attend UVM.
Attending from out of state? That’ll set you back $29,682.
http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/tag/daniel-fogel/
For that kind of money, students deserve better than Ben Fucking Stein.
Jim, you can stop lying any time. What are you, a Ben Stein clone or something? Stein blames the Holocaust, Nazism, and Communism on science. His most famous quote, “science leads you to killing people.”
A real insult to scientists. We brought about a 21st century that looks a lot different from the 11th century, lifespans increased 30 years in the last century, and we feed 6.7 billion people. The USA lead in science is largely responsible for our place in the world, a fact not lost on the government or the Pentagon which supports it with 40 or so billion dollars a year. For often times meager pay and insults from ignorant crackpots like Stein.
PZ – I just cc’ed you on an email to one of Burlington’s best feature writers for our alternative weekly. Kevin Beck and I have been in touch with each other, and I’m trying to stoke some actual press coverage of the Stein invitation, which we’re not getting from the corporate-owned daily here in Vermont. I’ll do what I can here in Burlington to get the message out.
Raven: “Jim being stupid: ‘What do you call it when the effort being made is to prevent Stein from speaking altogether?'”
And: “No one is preventing Stein from speaking. He is a professional babbler, that is how he makes his money. There are countless venues for him to spread his venom and he takes advantage of all of them.”
Oh, good grief. Context, Raven. Was it really necessary for me to write: “What do you call it when the effort being made is to prevent Stein from speaking AT UVM altogether”? Apparently so.
Janine: “When you are lecturing people, make sure you know facts facts better then your audience.”
Context, Janine. Regardless of how careless Stein might have been in uttering “science leads you to killing people” (and who among us hasn’t said something that – in retrospect – we wish we had said diffently?), it’s abundantly clear that he had in mind the Nazi scientists who experimented on, and killed, some of his people.
In any event, the voices of tolerance can rest. Stein apparently won’t be speaking at UVM after all. More’s the pity. His last talk at UVM was intelligent, entertaining, and enlightening.
“Context, Janine. … it’s abundantly clear that he had in mind the Nazi scientists who experimented on, and killed, some of his people.”
No, not true at all. It was said in the broader context of condemnation of evolution and science he chooses not to believe in.
“His last talk at UVM was intelligent, entertaining, and enlightening.”
Highly doubtful, unless one is as dishonest as Stein himself.
Language Politeness, please, meine Herren: “students deserve better than Ben Fögeling Stein.”
It’s his money, I guess…
Ben Stein’s speaker’s fee range: 50-70K.
http://www.keyspeakers.com/bio.php?Ben_Stein
Seems like an very expensive way to stave off boredom for an hour.
Anyway, congratulations PZ! Looks like you helped cracker yet another nut.
Nothing shows your displeasure like Long White Beard.
Context like the whole of the quote Janine posted, starting “When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were”. That sounds a lot like his problem with things PZ was speaking in favour of. Now, if you can show us PZ saying anything that might reasonably be interpreted as supporting the abuses of science the Nazi’s performed you will be credible in saying that what Stein is criticising only Nazi abuse of science. If you can’t show us any such statements by PZ it will be clear that Stein in fact meant exactly what he said (Science leads to killing).
What I remember PZ talking about was science as free and unbiased enquiry into the natural world and the rejection of dogma.
Jim: Respecting freedom of speech does not obligate any private party to provide a platform for any given form of speech, nor does it obligate any individual to remain silent when a private party in which they have a legitimate interest opts to provide a platform for appalling and dishonest uses of said freedom.
I think that Stein is confusing science with the no-holds-barred criticism of western philosophy that lead to nihilism in both the cartesian and hegelian branches. He fears that such “super” rationalism gives license to freethinkers to improve the species with grand plans and to view other humans as lab animals to be experimented upon for any reason at all. After all, humans are just another animal, albeit with pretensions.
But the toppling of absolutes is distinct from the granting of license or the absence of values. Stein is probably not the only person who doesn’t find that distinction reassuring enough.
Jim Clueless In Vermont
Context, Janine. Regardless of how careless Stein might have been in uttering “science leads you to killing people” (and who among us hasn’t said something that – in retrospect – we wish we had said diffently?), it’s abundantly clear that he had in mind the Nazi scientists who experimented on, and killed, some of his people.
He sure has careless a lot. Does Darwinism explain gravity? Does Darwinism explain the big bang? Even for this non scientist, it is evident that Stein does not know what he is talking about when the topic is science. So I expect carelessness from him. And because of his carelessness, I feel safe in dismissing everything he has to say.
As for their being scientist that were Nazis, yes there were. But did science lead then to being Nazis? No. Some were of a fascist mind set before the Nazis took power. Some became Nazis because it was expedient. Some, it mattered not who was in charge. And some scientists fled for their lives.
To have context, one must have a clue.
And just to piss you off some more, fuck off you dim little pissant.
Janine: “…fuck off you dim little pissant.”
With pleasure. I prefer adult conversation, something that is hard to find on Pharyngula.
Will you keep your promise? Have fun with your “adult conversation”. Sure is dull.
Just like his movie Expelled I’m sure. A creationist film financed by an ugly group of Xian Dominionists that lied a lot and slandered the group of people, scientists, who made our world the way it is today. It was almost universially condemmed by everyone except…xian fundie Death Cults.
Sorry Jim, your anti-intellectual paradise of rabid right wing nuts and religious kooks is over with. Bushco wrecked the USA economy which spread to the world economy and left piles of bodies in a pointless war.
The US population wants something better. You will just have to cry and lie and hope another opportunity to recreate the Dark Ages comes around.
Absolutely fantastic news. This has been on my mind since I just applied for a PhD at UVM. Thank you, Prof Dawkins, and thanks to this blog for raising the alarm.
There you go again Janine, proving you are the Queen of Assholes. I’m trying to keep up, but it’s ruined my nails.
Oh, damn! A new title.
There are two misconceptions about freedom of speech.
1. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from restricting speech. It says nothing about what individual citizens (or even non-citizens) may or may not do to others.
2. One has freedom to say whatever one wants* but that does not require anyone else to listen.
*There are various exceptions like slander, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, “fighting words,” and sedition.
See how you are!
I’m going to pout, nobody ever calls me a vile anything. *snort*
Patricia, I would gladly call you vile but I am afraid it would be seen as a pity move.
That’s true. I’m just going to have to work harder.
I myself wrote to the UVM president that Stein was a bad idea, and so, perhaps in my small way, or it was totally me who squashed it, was a contributer and the Devil’s right hand, as it were. Or God. It could have been the almighty, we, all who are open minded, must acknowledge that is possible.
It’s too funny seeing these two pissing on each other with polite language. The emails, translated:
Dear Professor Dawkins,
I’ll call you “Proferssor” rather than “Richard” to make obvious the point to that this reply is only a professional courtesy.
As one who has been deeply instructed by your work and who applauds your scientific leadership,
I know you’re writing as one of those “militant atheists” but I’m only acknowledging you because of your scientific expertise.
I was honored to find a personal email from you in my inbox,
…surprised and curious why you would be writing to me
but very sorry indeed that the occasion was the decision to invite Ben Stein to be a Commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient.
…complete pissed-off that you would presume to challenge me on my choice of commencement speaker.
Although we have recently learned that Mr. Stein will be unable to receive the honorary degree here or to serve as Commencement speaker,
…have come to a private agreement with my friend Ben that this year’s commencement may not be the best time or place for us to pursue our personal agendas.
please know that it was our expectation that his remarks would address the global economic crisis and that he would speak from his widely acknowledged area of expertise on the economy.
…we were going give him a platform to share his god fearing, real american, anti-lefty-pinko-commie-pallingaroundwithterrorists-ifyournotwithusyouragainstus-perverthomosexualloving-taxandspenddemocrat-atheiststaretoblamefortheholocaust message under the guise of “expertise” on the economy.
We regret that he will be unable to do so.
…we regret that you’re able generate enough embarrassing publicity to force us to change our plans.
With thanks again for writing,
…piss off
with admiration,
…you atheist bastard
and with every good wish
…may you burn in hell
–Daniel Mark Fogel, President, The University of Vermont
…I’m making to point to sign my name with my position and affiliation to show that I’m an important person and that you should respect me and my opinions because of it.
And Dawkins’ reply:
Dear President Fogel
…so you’re going to be a prick
Thank you very much indeed for your extremely gracious letter.
…I can play the “politely rude” game too
I cannot disguise my gladness that Ben Stein will not be going to Vermont.
…pwnd!
Thank you very much for letting me know.
…I know how much you hate me for spoiling you plans
I wish you, and your great university all good fortune.
…hope your University survives you pathetic leadership
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
…I’m ready fight you and your nonsense anywhere, any day
With my very best wishes, and thanks again for your letter
…kiss my ass
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
I’m making a point of NOT using my titles or affiliations to make the point that I’m confident my arguments will stand on their merits.
Oh crap, posted that to the wrong thread. sorry
Jim in Vermont: “With pleasure. I prefer adult conversation, something that is hard to find on Pharyngula.”
I think you are telliing another lie (I know the final portion of your sentence is a lie). You don’t like adult conversations, you like conversations where you are not called on your intense dishonesty. Here, faced with the fact that your assertions don’t hold merit, you resort to name-calling. The only difference between you and a 3-year old is that a 3-year old will eventually stop whining when he’s caught fibbing.
Jim in VT:
The context, you dimbulb, is a commencement speech, not “speaking at UVM altogether”.
Stein could even speak at UVM in the context of a regular speaking event, where students are not merely a captive audience to his foam-at-the-mouth drivel, and can actually answer back.
Apparently he has done it before, after all:
Yes, I’m quite sure you thought so.
No, Jim, you don’t want adult conversation, you want conversation that plays by kindergarten rules where everyone has to be super nice and can’t say that hurts anyone’s pweciou feewins. Adults are perfectly within their rights to call bullshit when the likes of you spew it.
Deal with it.
Dickwad.
I missed this whole exchange with the odious Jim from Vermont, but reading over it now I can’t help but wonder what point he was trying to make.
Darwin simply pointed out what is – how does it, even if it could be shown that the Nazis were ‘fans’ of his, make any difference at all to the validity of the TOE?
Understanding that natural selection affects populations* didn’t allow the Nazis to actually achieve anything; in that sense it’s far stupider, even, than criticising the Wright Brothers because the Nazis used aeroplanes. It’s more like criticising zoologists because they reveal animals kill other animals; or denigrating historians, archaeologists or anthropologists because they mention historical evidence of tribal warfare.
*I’m not a biologist; if this isn’t an appropriate way in which to summarise an aspect of evolutionary theory I don’t mind being corrected.
@Dawkins #80
I cried, literally and with predictably salty tears. Their licking only enhanced the sweetness of our swift victory.
A million thanks and cheers to all who stood behind our emancipation!
A final message before I keep my promise to depart from this repellent blog….
I don’t need to say that the level of discourse here is overwhelmingly childish. Any sentient observer would notice that it is. Children think that name-calling wins arguments (or at least, that it establishes their superiority), and from what I’ve seen, most (if not all) of the proponents of evolutionary theory here – beginning with the ringleader – routinely engage in that childish form of argumentation, apparently under the delusion that their vulgarity makes it all quite adult. My expectation – and my hope – is that Pharyngula’s level of discourse will remain what it is. People who argue at a childish level are not influential in the marketplace of ideas. Pharyngula is marginalized by the level of discourse that characterizes it. I see that as a good thing.
I’m done posting here now, but I’ll check back in later to read the abundant confirmation of my observation that will no doubt follow.
Shorter Jim from Vermont: “I got nuthin’.”
Oh, I see. A lot of you want to play Gatekeeper, huh? All the people who sent the e-mail have shown they are all totalitarians.
Yes Tom, expressing displeasure at a choice of speaker does indeed imply the wish to have the state control every element of people’s lives.
Jim in Vermont @128:
:)
Poor Jim in Vermont, he so wants to play with the bigs boys, but his ideas are so minor league. Maybe a real education in science would help.
Jim in Vermont,
Take a moment to read the “Truth behind the Fiction” section at ExpelledExposed, compiled by the National Center for Science Education. Stein was the pitchman for a fraudulent piece of agitprop, and anyone who cares about science or the Holocaust was fully justified in requesting that he not speak at UVM.
And yet, thanks to people like us, lying scumbag like Ben Stein is kept from having his ego boosted and from diminishing the reputation of a learning institution and denigrating the achievements of its student by having a unctuous anti-science shill speak at the commencement.
So much for ‘not influential’.
Yes, because acting like a pompous fool and predicting that the few people who bothered to pay attention to you will correctly label you as such for your pompous foolishness is indicative of a superior intellect.
What an odious creep you are.
Why is it that the “righteous” cannot keep their promises? The problem is not the name calling, the problem was that we would not stop and consider Ben Stein’s “reasonable” words, place them in “context” and show all due respect.
Jim in Vermont: “People who argue at a childish level are not influential in the marketplace of ideas.”
Wowbagger: “And yet, thanks to people like us, lying scumbag like Ben Stein is kept from having his ego boosted and from diminishing the reputation of a learning institution and denigrating the achievements of its student by having a unctuous anti-science shill speak at the commencement.”
Wowbagger, you moronic, dogmatic, lying evolunatic (I hope I’ve lived down to Pharyngula’s standards), what influence is that? You don’t know that people like you caused Stein to decline the invitation to speak at UVM, and the likelihood that you’ve changed any skeptic’s mind about the merits of evolutionary theory is nil. Skeptics ignore people who tell them they’re stupid. For that reason, I don’t expect what I’ve just written to influence you, which doesn’t bother me in the least. Like Jim in Vermont, I love it when apologists for Darwinism marginalize themselves with their childish rhetoric.
Jackie, your baseless high self regard is just so attractive.
Oh, there is a new post about how Jonathon Wells distorts what DNA is for. Show off your superiority and show that PZ is wrong.
evolunatic
Jackie, sugar walls, it isn’t enough to argue at a childish level; one must also be on the right side of the argument. When the argument is over, and has been for 150 years, the only people who won’t cede the point are the ones who not only argue at a childish level, but are being petulant little brats. No lollipop for Ben Stein.
Ah, we are zeroing in on the problem, I think.
I love it when you call me names.
Does this mean that you’re against Stein and his vile name-calling done against scientists?
Or are you just a pathetic hypocrite?
BTW, intelligent people come up with names and categories, and if they are decent folk they use them properly. ONly in that way can honest conversation occur.
That’s why we call Stein an ignorant liar, and you an idiot.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Only if they truly are.
Jackie if you have such a problem with Evolution how about addressing it.
You can start by picking one piece of currently accepted evolution research. Second, tell us what is wrong with it. Most importantly third, give us your research or someone else’s research that you are using to come to the conclusion that the piece of research in the first step is wrong.
You can also provide us with a competing explanation for the bio-diversity on earth. But please, remember to show your work using current research that supports what you think explains it.
Rev. BigDumbChimp: “Jackie if you have such a problem with Evolution how about addressing it.”
Oh, I have fun doing that very thing on forums where the conversation is conducted at an adult level. Pharyngula is not such a forum.
By the way, don’t ask what those forums are. I don’t want to see them dragged into the gutter by the Pharyngula herd.
I’m content to let the herd make a shameful spectacle of itself here.
Dodge.
The last post by Jackie is one of the funniest things I have seen in a while.
Please, show off your brilliance, it is wrong of you to leave us in the dark.
But I have a question, how would an adult level talk about creationism sound?
1) God did it.
2) All praises for His holiness.
With cause. I have no interest in participating in the rhetorical spit-ball fights that characterize Pharyngula. That kind of thing is for children.
Ta-ta, kiddies.
LOL @ Jackie.
“I’m not playing cause you are meanies!” The proper term is “concern troll”, isn’t it?
Jackie, snookums, put up or shut up.
Well, snuggie bear, you have at least proved that you are a liar. You keep promising to leave, but here you are. Talking down to us.
Yet you keep coming back here doing nothing but behaving like a child.
Seems like you’ve got some cognitive dissonance issues.
That and I doubt you can do either of the two things I requested above.
I think the apple fritter is lying. She is all taunt and no ideas. But, damn it, she made me laugh.
You got to hide your brilliance away.
it was our expectation that his remarks would address the global economic crisis and that he would speak from his widely acknowledged area of expertise on the economy. We regret that he will be unable to do so.
Earth to UVM President: Ben Stein is a bigger economic crank than he is a biology crank.
Ben Stein: Please eat your hat: “Some bad columns only ripen to their true fullness of wrongheadedness after the slow passage of time. And so it is with Stein. Never mind the ostensible thesis of the column — that Goldman Sachs runs the universe and was pushing dire forecasts of the economic future to boost their own trades. … I dare say few got it wrong with such a tour-de-force of willful arrogance as Ben Stein.”
Lectures on Frugality from Ben Stein: “Does anyone remember back in July when Stein told readers “we’re dodging the worst?” How about the great piece from a bit over a year ago telling us about the “Chicken Littles” who were getting so worried over the problems in the subprime mortgage market. … It is only people like Ben Stein who have the right to completely mess up on their job all the time and still collect a paycheck”
And so on. The UVM community just dodged a bullet, no thanks to their hapless and clueless president.
Jim in Vermont writes:
A final message before I keep my promise to depart from this repellent blog….
I’m a veteran of JNET, notes, usenet, and now the blogosphere, and I have to say how much I love it when someone posts a “one final word before I go…” posting. I’ve seen literally thousands of them – some long, some short, some poignant, and some bleating like a frustrated bitch. This one doesn’t even make the top 100. Sorry. Better luck in your next incarnation.
For an interview with UVM’s president Dan Fogel about the Stein controversy: http://straightfromthesource.wordpress.com/
PZfan, your use of irony is so biting. Why, I think your moniker is meant to be ironic. Devastating.