Since last week's post highlighting some criticisms of the Site Visit Committee's report about Colorado, I have been struck by the divergent reactions, both in comments, in e-mail, on Facebook, and on some other blogs. Some readers appeared to think the criticisms never should have been aired at all; others thought it was salutary to air the criticisms, and agreed with many of them, but were afraid to say so in public; still others thought it was useful to air the criticisms, and to permit effective rebuttals of them.
I am curious what the sentiment is among philosophers about all this, hence the poll. I realize the three choices may not correspond to all possible positions, but since the poll is anonymous, try to fit your view into one of the three. For example, if you thought some of the criticisms had merit, but others didn't, you should still choose the first option. But if you thought most of the criticisms were without merit, then choose the second option. And if you think these criticisms, overall, should not have been "dignified" with a forum and responses, choose the third option.
UPDATE: So with about 1240 votes cast, 644 or 52% voted for the first option (the discussion was worth hosting, and the criticisms had some merit), 375 or 30% voted for the second option (the discussion was worth hosting, but the criticisms did not have any merit), while 225 or 18% chose the third option (the discussion should not have been hosted at all). I am relieved that 82% of readers thought the discussion was worth having, since I had heard, somewhat disproportionately (though not surprisingly, I guess) from what turns out to be the censorious minority. I do think it is worrisome, though, that so many, albeit a minority, would deem the criticisms not worth airing at all. As to the substance of the criticisms, opinion appears to be evenly split, with the caveat that some (maybe most or all) who selected the first option might well agree that most of the criticisms were without merit.
Recent Comments