How Free Speech Died On Campus 530
theodp writes "The WSJ catches up with FIRE's Greg Lukianoff and his crusade to expose how universities have become the most authoritarian institutions in America. In Unlearning Liberty, Lukianoff notes that baby-boom Americans who remember the student protests of the 1960s tend to assume that U.S. colleges are still some of the freest places on earth. But that idealized university no longer exists. Today, university bureaucrats suppress debate with anti-harassment policies that function as de facto speech codes. FIRE maintains a database of such policies on its website. What they share, lifelong Democrat Lukianoff says, is a view of 'harassment' so broad and so removed from its legal definition that 'literally every student on campus is already guilty.'"
Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
This guy is advocating racism and sexual harassment! Shall we defeat him, PC gang?
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, the greatest damage moderates and left-wing could do to the right wing extremists is to invite them to freely speak their minds. The resulting spew of homophobic, sexist, and racist non-sequiturs would likely shift most people just a bit to the left.
And somewhere in suburban Missouri, Todd Akin gets as the strange feeling that someone on slashdot is talking about him.
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
However.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah! (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the greatest damage moderates and left-wing could do to the right wing extremists is to invite them to freely speak their minds. The resulting spew of homophobic, sexist, and racist non-sequiturs would likely shift most people just a bit to the left.
The problem with this view is that its logical, but it also doesn't really work like that. Humans have awful psychology when it comes to political views and crowds. If you have a large group of people chanting racists slogans, very quickly people around them , onlookers, can find themselves chanting along, and believing those slogans and not asking themselves why. The cronulla riot in australia left many people who had joined in the racist violent asking themselves "What the hell did I just do? I dont understand it? I was just in cronulla for shopping and next thing I'm in a crowd of people bashing lebanese shopkeepers". The inverse of this is the "spiral of silence" effect where once a view becomes popular, everyone starts changing their view to the popular one because its popular, and the less popular view becomes more and more rare and dangerous to express.
Finally there is a large part of the population that research shows find themselves attracted to angry conservative type opinions and actually become MORE attracted to the opinion when evidence of its incorrectness is presented. Witness the absolute insanity of the anti gay-marriage league, or the "teach creationism in schools" league. It seems the more evidence as to why these guys are loons is presented to them, the more it convinces them that evolution/climate-change/drug-reform/gay-marriage/etc is some sort of evil communist plot.
There are so many sociological factors involved with why people adopt political positions that are not at all related to rationality or free/open speech.
Re: (Score:3)
We can only hope the people involved in cronulla will become less likely to be fooled again now that they have been driven to introspection.
The other cases will tune in to wingnut radio anyway no matter what we do. Blocking them from hearing it will, by your argument, cement them even firmer still in their crazy position.
I understand your concerns, but I don't see suppression of free speech as being at all helpful. It is, however, quite the slippery slope.
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you should go back to grade school and learn the meanings of words like "tolerance" and "silencing". My assertion is that there is are reasons why blacks, gays and women are not voting for conservative candidates, and these reasons are not attached to any sort of "librul media propaganda". Maybe they think being treated like full human beings is worth more than getting tax cuts for rich people?
Also, given the results of the election, it would seem these "minorities" aren't so "minor" after all. Maybe the GOP planners and leaders will realize there are more human beings in the USA than just the white straight male ones.
Re:Yeah! (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
That was a major issue at my University, StFX.
The entire "community code" was so vague, you were in violation of something at any given time. They put fines on student accounts for violations, and don't release transcripts unless they're paid.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that runs afoul of contract law.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nice thing about laws that make everyone guilty is that you get to selectively prosecute those you don't like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice thing about laws that make everyone guilty is that you get to selectively prosecute those you don't like.
I think George Orwell came up with that a long time ago.
Cheers,
Dave
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Norfolk State: "The policy broadly prohibits using any university internet technology resources "to further personal views" or "religious or political causes." It also prohibits downloading or transmitting "inappropriate messages or images," without defining "inappropriate."
Unfortunately, most universities don't have an explicit policy in place. If you're an undergraduate, rather than tell you they don't want opposing viewpoints, they'll just graduate you quickly with average marks. But if you're a graduate student? Your advisory commity will they'll revoke your funding (after the first year), your review committee will slow-walk your research, your lab-coordinator will have difficulty finding you space to work and - if you're lucky - you'll be forced to write massive changes into your thesis before you graduate. If you're not lucky? That's 3-5 years of study with no degree.
Graduate studies costs 4-5x more than undergrad studies, and carry a stigma of "Well, you couldn't cut it there, why would we accept you here?".
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Your advisory commity will they'll revoke your funding (after the first year), your review committee will slow-walk your research, your lab-coordinator will have difficulty finding you space to work and - if you're lucky - you'll be forced to write massive changes into your thesis before you graduate. If you're not lucky? That's 3-5 years of study with no degree.
This is true, I've seen this. But usually it's not because you are in the wrong party. In the cases I've seen, it's been some kind of weird personal vendetta.
In one case I knew a physics student failed his oral exams because he was too confident. In another case, for a music degree, a professor didn't like the student because he didn't take enough notes in his class. The student complained to other professors, and the answer he got was, "Yeah, it's not fair, but we have to live and work with him, we don't have to deal with you, so we're not going to do anything about it."
It's a lousy system, and it's as if professors feel they need to fail somebody, and if there isn't anyone bad enough to fail, they'll find some other reason to fail them.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a lousy system, and it's as if professors feel they need to fail somebody, and if there isn't anyone bad enough to fail, they'll find some other reason to fail them.
I had a prof who said 'I know what it takes to be a real physicist, and none of you have it' and failed the entire class.
We were all asked to leave after appealing.
Professors are high level employees, even though they seem relatively low in the university hierarchy they have a lot of independent authority and judgment, and the entire system is setup around professors being both professionally and ethically responsible to their discipline as a whole. If they don't think you've demonstrated the right behaviour they can be rid of you as a drain on that community, and as someone who would tarnish the universities reputation. The upshot of this is that professors can break all sorts of soft rules to get whomever they want as grad student, pay them past funding periods, run labs the way they want, run their own IT etc. But it also means the occasional asshole has quite a lot of authority to make your life miserable, and well, every department has at least one prof you just don't want to go near.
I'm in Comp sci, and we have a prof who repeatedly insists (via e-mail) that we should cut off internet access to the department. The last place I was had a professor who's entire workload was teaching 2 courses (no committees, no research), and he liked to teach courses on whatever was 'cool' (as defined by his teenage daughter I guess), even if this had nothing to do with the broader programme goals. Getting rid of a tenured professor is really really hard, it's expensive, and usually they don't go completely crazy until they're towards the end of their careers, so you don't want to fire someone with health problems etc. There's a huge legal expense, and bad press. And students sometimes love the crazy ones because they are certainly interesting.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, but it is worse than that. Universities these days want to hire young stars that will essentially bring in enough money to pay their own salary and keep a phalanx of students. This makes the department look like they are on the cusp of whatever passes for research in their area.
The emphasis is on "young" too. Age discrimination starts early in academia. If you aren't a star by 35, good luck. And if you get rejected for tenure at one place, expect the same at the next. Many professors only get to their really good research until their 50s when they've acquired a lot of experience and depth of thought.
I wish I had a fix for this system, but I don't. Every time I think of something, I can argue why it wouldn't work or even make things worse. There does need to be some sort of oversight. But professors won't agree to any oversight unless it is by their peers...who probably find nothing wrong with any professors behavior.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Professors are hired on their ability to do research. Most professors spend 39 hours a week doing teaching, administrative duties at the university, applying for grants and service to the field (peer review, organizing conferences, etc.). So when do they do their research? Well, they find time for research by working more than 39 hours a week. If you think about that for a moment, you will realize that most professors do research exclusively in their free time, yet their research ability is what they were hired for. There are only two positions that sometimes actually are research positions at universities: PhD student and postdoc. Also, there are far more postdoc positions than there are professor positions. So you end up with a rarefied group of people who were selected for research ability, luck and ruthlessness in pursuing their goals, and then you task them to a job's capacity with administration and teaching without much oversight. I don't know how anyone can think that the result of that should be good for research, for students or for professors.
Re: (Score:3)
... occasional asshat professors can get away with...
... having both ankles smashed with a ball-peen hammer, in a dark place with no witnesses, by someone wearing nondescript clothes, gloves, and a ski mask?
Re: (Score:3)
Not so crazy. Google "Dance Your PhD".
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Interesting)
In physics, it seems to me there is very little in the way of consolation prizes, at least within the field. (But in the end they always seem to do well enough outside their own field).
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Informative)
In any decent university there is an academic appeals committee where, if the professor isn't abiding by the terms laid out in the course syllabus, the professor's evaluation can be overruled. Furthermore, consideration of such cases often involves independent evaluation of student work. In my experience, if a student really is being treated unfairly, the situation usually gets corrected. I've sat on such a committee. It usually went 40:60 student versus prof's stories. I've evaluated plenty of examples where students thought they were being treated unfairly, but actually they were not.
The key in both situations is not to base it on "They don't like me", but "They said I'd be evaluated this way, and, here, take a look at this work for yourself and compare it to the rest of the class to see for yourself." The worst when sitting on that committee was hearing the student's story, then asking to see the work, and they've lost it or some other lame reason that may as well be equivalent to "the dog ate it". Well, I sympathize, but if it was that important and you were being shafted, you better keep that stuff or we can't help you.
I've also helped a student at graduate level who really was being treated unfairly. As it started to turn sour I told them to meticiously document the time they spent on their work, perform outstandingly in all their course work, keep copies of their work, records of e-mail exchanges, everything. The idea was that if it did come to the point where they had to make a case to others, they could show to any impartial person what went wrong (and that it wasn't them). When the time came they found plenty of support from other faculty, because the evidence was kind of obvious.
Profs can be unfair assholes, just like anyone else can, but on the whole most of them aren't. It's unpleasant and risky to deal with a situation like that as a student, because the prof is in a position of power. However, 9 times out of 10 the problem *is* with the student, and blaming the prof is just a convenient excuse. I know this, because I *strive* to be fair, yet I've heard all sorts of unjustified complaints. I don't mean the "prof is a hardass kind", but "prof said it would be X, but actually it was Y", even though I can go back to the syllabus and point at the part that does indeed say I'm expecting "X". Statistically, these aren't many cases anyway (most students are satisfied), but the ones that aren't, well, a lot of them are a bunch of whiners who want to blame everyone *else* for their problems. I've had people show up at my door at the end of term with a 49% saying "Oh, gee, Dr. X, can you please (arbitrarily) increase my mark by 1% so I can pass?" [Checks records. Student didn't do easy bonus point assignment X, Y, or Z, and lost 10% right there]. "Uh, no" == "Professor X is an unfair hardass" on Rate My Professor. Naturally, the the prof figures prominently when people get an F, not them, even if 90% of the class passed just fine. Go figure.
For the other tenth, the legitimate complaints, students need to look out for themselves and realize that the other profs will support them if the evidence is clear enough. For graduate work, one of the reasons there's a committee rather than a single supervisor is to ensure that a student has someone knowledgeable to turn to if someone is being unreasonable. It can still go horribly wrong, and profs do have a lot of power, but there are checks-and-balances for a reason, and students need to avail themselves of those if they discover that their supervisor is an ass. It is going to be messy and it doesn't always turn out well, but I've seen enough examples to know that it often does turn out ok.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Insightful)
so if you are using your personal computing device you need to go off campus to post your opinions??
also btw you are using the normal WRONG reading of the first amendment.
this should not be used to force me to be atheist.
Re: (Score:3)
What? People forget that the internet was subsidized through taxes?
In fact, all of the inventions we enjoy were either publicly researched or subsidized through taxes. Get your head out of your ass people.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Any "university" or "college" that can't tolerate non-PC opinions isn't a college at all. Instead, it's an indoctrination center. Which, apparently, is fine with you, as you support the goals of the indoctrination.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Taxpayer funded" means almost nothing in this context. Many, even most, students are "paying customers" who have the right to use the resources for which they are paying.
Neither the university, nor the public, has the right to curtail those rights by claiming that the internet belongs to them. In fact, they only own a few pieces of gear that interface with the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
so that means one can only use the resource in accordance with the additive restrictions of 1/n tax payers.. basically any resources funded by the public are useless under this assumption because everyone is gonna have different and conflicting expectations of use.
Re: (Score:3)
So you don't want professors to make these decisions and you don't want administrators and bureaucrats to make them. I suppose you want tax payers to fund universities that are then run by students as they see fit?
Re: (Score:3)
The policy we're talking about isn't about "tolerating" opinion, it is about using taxpayer funded resources to promote and advertise those opinions. That is not OK.
In class, you should be able speak your mind in whatever PC or non-PC way you like.
Actually, it is okay, up to a point. Constitutional Law has rules about what you're allowed to do at a limited public forum. And about what you're allowed to do in a fully public forum, like a sidewalk. Sidewalks are also taxpayer funded resources, but they still enjoy constitutional protection. The same goes for a plaza or public park, like Boston Common. There are limit on free speech that apply even in those places, but the rule isn't a cut-and-dried taxpayer funding issue.
Re: (Score:3)
When you are speaking on a sidewalk, it is obvious to everybody that you are speaking as an individual who happens to be in a public place. Furthermore, that sidewalk is there for any taxpayer to walk on; that's what makes it a public sidewalk.
The same does not apply to university computer resources. University computer networks are not "public", they are highly restricted in terms of who can get onto them. And when someone posts a page under a university domain name, the university's name and authority is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop promoting your personal view on slashdot and start commenting on your own site.
Hypocrite douchebag.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot is private; if the people who pay for it don't like what I post, they can ban me and I have no problem with that.
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that the 1st amendment also says that the government can't prohibit the free exercise of religion either, including its expression through speech and the press. There is a world of difference between a student or ordinary citizen expressing themselves in a voluntary manner (aka offering a prayer right before a test on their own or holding a prayer vigil on Christmas Eve in a public area... even on public property) as opposed to having the government mandate that you must pray to a certain god or have tithing extracted from your paycheck as a tax.
I don't have a problem with a student setting up a web page expressing their religious opinions using government funds... as long as you offer that same opportunity to all of the students on a reasonable basis to express whatever their opinion is including having no opinion or even being against organized religions in general. The problem is the censorship, and this attitude that religious expression is something that should be feared.
I think it would even be healthy to have a "debate corner" on a college campus where any student could express any political opinion they may have... including "hate speech" full of bigotry, sexism, and racism. If you think some sort of speech should be censored, you definitely don't understand the purpose or the philosophy behind the 1st amendment and why it was ratified in the first place. Suggesting that university websites, dorm doors, or even bulletin boards should be off limits to religious expression completely misses the mark... especially at a public school. Private schools have a little more latitude to ban some forms of speech as there is a contractual relationship to even attend. It definitely shouldn't be the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no censorship here. The NSU policy, a publicly funded university, prohibits "university internet technology resources to further personal views or religious or political caus
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see why; where do you see such a constitutional obligation? As long as their restrictions don't discriminate against specific religions or ideologies, those res
Re: (Score:3)
That obviously fails as a legal principle. For example, professors can kick you out of class and give you a failing grade if you start proselytizing in math lecture when called to do an integral.
AT&T is just a
Re: (Score:3)
That obviously fails as a legal principle. For example, professors can kick you out of class and give you a failing grade if you start proselytizing in math lecture when called to do an integral.
Not quite, what you are citing here is "disturbing the peace", a completely separate set of laws that have little if anything to do with free speech. If you are getting into somebody's face and doing something which is disruptive and preventing another person from being able to perform their work and to do the things they need to do in order to earn money by being a jackass, that justifiably needs to be punished.
You are not getting kicked out of the lecture hall because you are preaching a religious messag
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online. (Score:3)
Yeah, and if you want to say those things on the lawn of the university they need to be stopped too.
This can't say x on public this or that is just bullshit. Limiting speech in public areas is limiting speech. We shouldn't be required to buy our own private areas to exercise free speech. Universities should understand and be ardent supporters of this.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it's not in violation of the establishment clause. A violation would be it being required for some degree or attendance not relating to the rest of the courses. Religious schools can and do take public funding every day.
As for the personal views, some people are somewhat locked into university resources when they pay to stay in the dorms or a frat house. Those people do not lose any rights when they do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Those rules and restrictions do not exist because of the US constitution or the establishment clause which is missing from the constitution. Those are claims you erroneously made. The US military h
Re:Wow, don't have opinions online.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Poor analogy. The students are paying customers, who have the right to free speech. These universities might as well publish the fact that they require their students to be politically correct, or they are unwanted on campus.
Christian Bible colleges basically do that. If you're an atheist, a muslim, or maybe a wicca, Bob Jones University doesn't really want you studying on their campus.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for banning someone from presenting their own views as institutional views. However, using university facilities to present their views is something completely different.
Your analogy works on that - someone making death threats from your phone is a problem because you, not him will be the one to get in trouble for the illegal act. A better example would be someone running public phone booths (you pay for college, after all) and basically stating the list of allowed conversation topic to ta
Coporate Influence (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all because of greed. Universities have adopted corporate tactics to become and stay "more competitive in the marketplace" and that means shielding themselves from lawsuits and making themselves more appealing to donors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please. It's because universities are overwhelmingly run by a single ideology (in this case, leftism, but in another time or universe, rightism). Combine a monoculture of 'correct' thought, a hypersensitivity to hurting any favored/traditionally disenfranchised group's feelings and (as you said) fear of lawsuits and the professional outrage club and you get these codes. The fact that university faculty are usually the strongest supporters of and agitators for these codes should be shocking, but sadly it isn
Re: (Score:3)
It's because universities are overwhelmingly run by a single ideology (in this case, leftism, but in another time or universe, rightism).
Universities are not hotbeds of leftism, and they never really were. A few universities are or were, but for the most part, here is what life at today's universities is like:
Corporations generally don't care at all about what you say - they just want your money
Yes, they care about money. That's why they care about what you say:
http://w [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Coporate Influence (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're public universities, strong restrictions on free speech on campus are a consequence of restrictions on the use of public funds and resources to promote personal political and religious views.
Is muzzling free speech, simply because some find it offensive, not also promoting a personal political view? How can people speak of "tolerance" when they're unwilling to tolerate free speech on campus? Does it strike anyone else as ironic that those who hold "tolerance" in such high regard are amongst the most intolerant of speech that doesn't comport with their world view and ideological sensibilities?
Re:Coporate Influence (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, public universities have very little power to restrict student speech on campus. See, for example, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia [wikipedia.org], where the Supreme Court required the University to fund a Christian magazine on the same basis it funded student-run secular magazines. Just a few years before that happened, the University tried to defund a conservative magazine. The argument was that commenting on the activities of NOW and other liberal organizations was an inappropriate "political" use of student activity funds; no one seemed take into account that the activities being commented on were funded by those same fees. That one didn't go to court, because of a media storm.
The fact that the students are in some sense "using" state-funded resources doesn't really provide a constitutional basis to restrict their private speech. If resource are made available for private student speech, a public university has very little leeway to favor one viewpoint over another--and this includes attempts to exclude entire topics in a supposedly neutral manner. This error has been repeated quite often in this thread, and it's one reason organizations like FIRE are needed: the public is woefully uneducated on this issue. For example, if a public university allows students to hand out flyers on the quad as a general matter, they can't really control the content of those flyers. And if they restrict the flyers to "official" university functions, they have to ensure that the definition of official is precise and hat they don't allow exceptions.
Re: (Score:3)
Universities have adopted corporate tactics to become and stay "more competitive in the marketplace" and that means shielding themselves from lawsuits and making themselves more appealing to donors.
So, nothing new under the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
shielding themselves from lawsuits
The limiting liability part is valid. No one is going to sue students. They have no money. The university has money, so any lawsuits will be directed at them, even if the university had nothing to do with inappropriate behavior by students.
Yes, it's the same with sexual harassment. Nobody sues the offender, who has no money. The employer gets sued. For this reason, companies have explicit policies and education on sexual harassment.
It's simply astute business practice to avoid getting held accountab
Re:Coporate Influence (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of corporations, what the heck is up with the summary: "how universities have become the most authoritarian institutions in America"??
Hmm... the MOST authoritarian institutions in America. A little hyperbole? I suppose it depends on how you define "institution." If you mean "institution" as in "institute" which often implies a research organization, the claim is probably trivially true, since universities are probably the most common independent research organizations in America.
But that's a dumb reading. So if we interpret "institution" in the broader sense of an organization created for a particular purpose, how about... I don't know... the TSA, the military? They aren't "authoritarian" at all... [\sarcasm]
Or, for that matter, most corporations that have at-will employees. How many places could you keep your job if you acted in your workplace like many college students act on college campuses?
The article identifies a real issue, but colleges are now the MOST authoritarian organizations in the U.S.? Hardly.
Typical.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So in order to not offend ANYONE, NO ONE is allowed to say ANYTHING.
This goes right along with sports where there is no winner\ everyone gets a trophy to PC playgrounds with no jungle gyms.
I weep at what has happened to my country in the past 30 years. I think it's time to start again from scratch.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Free Speech Zone on campus (Score:2)
High conservative bent (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the examples in the article have a pro-conservative leaning. So I went to their FIRE database and tried to find some cases where I knew universities tried blocking left-wing people from speaking. Not surprisingly, I didn't find at least the ones I was aware of.
I think it's good someone is defending conservatives' right to speech. I simply feel they should be open about their partisanship.
Re:High conservative bent (Score:4, Informative)
Re:High conservative bent (Score:5, Informative)
No...the issue is that FIRE says it is concerned about freedom at campuses in general, but is largely silent whenever, for example, private religious institutions like Liberty University trounce all over their student's freedom of speech.
Re:High conservative bent (Score:4, Interesting)
Somewhere like Liberty has goals, and a legal status, very different than those of a state university.
The database contains both public and private universities.
The full Fordham University statement (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not surprised the Wall Street Journal allowed Mr. Lukianoff to mischaracterize the contents of Fordham's statement.
Read it for yourself and see if it really matches the tone of WSJ's article : http://www.fordham.edu/Campus_Resources/eNewsroom/topstories_2601.asp [fordham.edu]
November 9, 2012
The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.
To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative--more heat than light--and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.
As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.
"Disgust" was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.
Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.
The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter's (and the student organizers') opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy--and one another--stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community, and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President
Compare and contrast with
Mr. Lukianoff says that the Fordham-Coulter affair took campus censorship to a new level:
"This was the longest, strongest condemnation of a speaker that I've ever seen in which a university president also tried to claim that he was defending freedom of speech."
I guess in the print edition, the WSJ and Lukianoff can assume most people won't actually read the statement being attacked.
Re:The full Fordham University statement (Score:5, Interesting)
The conservative media doesn't report the news anymore. They take statements out of context and generate their own version of news. Weren't you here during the last election season? ;-)
Re:The full Fordham University statement (Score:5, Insightful)
The conservative media doesn't report the news anymore. They take statements out of context and generate their own version of news.
Not so very different from Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
The liberal media doesn't report the news anymore. They take statements out of context and generate their own version of news. Weren't you here during the last election season? ;-)
OK, now we've both got that out of our systems, how about we refuse to be gamed by the system with its false left-right divide which is only for sh
Re:The full Fordham University statement (Score:4, Insightful)
So, basically, it went like this:
College Republicans: We're inviting Ann Coulter onto campus to do her hate-schtick show.
University Officials: Go ahead, but you're making yourselves look like douchebags and this university look like a circus.
College Republicans: Uhmm.. OK, she's dis-invited.
College Republicans to the Wall Street Journal: WAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH! THE COMMUNIST LIBRUL UNIVERSITY IS CENSORING OUR FREE SPEECH!!!! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Teabagger douchebag: Universities are engaging in censorship! Free speeech!
Tubesteak: No, they're not. They let Coulter speak, just criticized the choice.
Teabagger douchebag: Universities have no right to free speech!
Do you guys have any sense of logical consistency purged in a special ceremony, or do you have to practice at it, or what?
Freedom is not granted by the administration (Score:5, Interesting)
Today's students can take back their freedom of expression, but will they have the guts to do so? Or will they continue to lament that "the man" doesn't allow them to say unpopular things?
Re: (Score:3)
That's all true. And how is that situation different from the campus protests in the sixties? Or, for that matter, Occupy Wall Street?
Ideology replaced culture (Score:2)
We have outsourced our own brains and the decisions normally made by cultural mores to ideology.
Ideology is a type of political theory that we assume is true, so we crusade toward it in the name of Progress and Utopia.
Naturally, because it is a theory, it's unstable. In fact, there is often proof against it. But its adherents cling to it even more, because it provides for them an identity separate from their real-world identity.
However, this instability leads to it having a need: as a symbol, it must prevai
Meaning of education (Score:2)
Rights apply everywhere (Score:3)
for citizens in good standing. That is the definition of unalienable. Sometimes you have to fight for them though! Not to worry, you are witnessing Peak College. Bloated, wasteful, dysfunctional institutions will vaporize with the credit that pays their ridiculous prices. Goods and services purchased with credit are altered by the supply of said credit. When we stop rewarding failure with bailouts, that is. Affordable education that caters only to the needs of the student body will be a welcome change!
"free speech zones" (Score:4, Interesting)
TFA focuses mainly on content-based restrictions, such as prohibiting people from quoting certain passages from the Koran. But along with these restrictions, many schools now have extremely onerous "time, place, and manner" regulations. Although these are written so as to be blind to the content of the speech, they're often absurdly restrictive. I teach at a community college in Fullerton, California, where last year the police murdered a mentally ill homeless man. This resulted in murder charges being brought by the DA, and a city council recall. I wanted to set up a card table on my school's grassy quad to collect signatures for the recall petition. I went through the process of registering officially, and the restrictions were just nuts. They have two very small patches of grass, over at the corner of the quad, which are marked on the map. I was forbidden from approaching people as they walked by. A lot of colleges refer to these tiny patches, apparently without any consciousness of irony, as free speech zones.
As far as I can tell, the intention is simply to create conditions that make it absolutely impossible for students to stage anything like an actual political rally or protest. You simply wouldn't be able to fit more than about 10 human bodies into one of these free speech zones.
Baby Boomers Sold Out and became the problem. (Score:3)
The students who hated all authority in the Sixties were RIGHT, but they sold out for the most part.
Kids, the Man is fucking YOU even harder than he did your predecessors.
Unless you get pissed off enough to act, "prepare your anus".
The Young Republicans of Fordham (Score:4, Informative)
The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise, and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization's mission, and the University's. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing, that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulterâ(TM)s invitation to speak at Fordham. We made this choice freely, before Father McShaneâ(TM)s email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings --- had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error, and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.
Ted Conrad, President
UPDATED: McShane Responds to College Republicans' Cancellation of Ann Coulter Event [fordhamobserver.com]
The Republican Club tried to get the Student Association to spring for George Will, but was capped at $10,000. Fordham College Republicans withdraw Coulter invite [dailycaller.com]
The Speaker's Bureau:
Campus Speaker & Board of Advisors Member - Ann Coulter [cblpi.org]
Click here to host an event with Ann on your campus!
Fun times:
The incident followed a Monday night lecture at the University of Western Ontario, where Coulter told a Muslim student to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying.
Coulter made the comment as she responded to a question from student Fatima Al-Dhaher, who asked about previous comments in which Coulter said Muslims shouldn't be allowed on airplanes and should take "flying carpets" instead. Al-Dhaher noted she did not own a flying carpet and asked what she should take as an alternative transportation. Coulter did not deny making the flying carpet comment and replied to the university student, "What mode of transportation? Take a camel," to jeers and cheers. It was a decidedly pro-Coulter audience. One man, who identified himself as a U.S. citizen, described U.S. President Barack Obama as a "Marxist."
She is well-known for her vehement views against Muslims. In a post-September 11 column, she wrote that the U.S. should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
Coulter, who often comments on Fox News, once said Canada is "lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent" after the Canadian government did not join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Coulter speech cancelled over fears of violence [ctvnews.ca]
What do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice ad hominem. Instead of reading the source and arguing with the points made, you drool on yourself and blabber on about Murdoch.
The fact is that free speech in America has been getting more and more curtailed. Some in a very overt manner (free speech zones). Some in a softer manner (How DARE you suggest that affirmative action is racist, you racist). But the US is not as free as it used to be. No, we are nowhere near a totalitarian state. But freedoms do not go away overnight. If we continue to let the slide continue, we'll be closer to the totalitarian state. Freedoms are hard to get back once they've been ceded.
But thanks for your idiotic response. If anything, it was a nice foil.
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting anonymous so I don't lose my mod points.
> Instead of reading the source and arguing with the points made ...
Everyone here, please read this. This is part of the problem. "If my guy does it, you're just overreacting if you disagree," and "if their guy does it, it's automatically suspect, move along, nothing to see."
Forget political parties. Forget Democrat or Republican, or WSJ vs. NYT. If speech is being curtailed, that should concern you.
Example: friend of mine works with my wife at the Social Security Administration, where the rules are so byzantine, they can mean anything you want them to this week. This friend jokes that says things like, "my, you're looking remarkably neutral and androgynous today." It's fun to watch their puzzled expressions as they try to decide whether it's a compliment, an insult, or something that merits a formal EEOC complaint.
Freedom of speech means FREEDOM OF SPEECH. As the Supreme Court of the US has ruled many times, even OFFENSIVE speech must be protected. Even speech with which you might personally disagree.
This should concern every one of you, regardless of your ideological bent.
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:5, Informative)
"If my guy does it, you're just overreacting if you disagree," and "if their guy does it, it's automatically suspect, move along, nothing to see."
Except, you and the guy you are supporting are completely wrong about what's going on here. This really is a Murdock propaganda piece. Look, sometimes a person is reliably and consistently stupid and evil. This means saying "oh, I'm sure Ghengis isn't riding towards those young girls to be nice to them" is not prejudice, just justifiable wisdom. Now your point would be really great if this was an exception. But let's see what I find if I look it up.
WSJ:
Actual policy [wmich.edu] (I'm not going to include the context here; please read yourself):
and in a separate paragraph near to but not related to the definition of harassment, the only use of the word condescending:
If something is put in a media outlet which belongs to Murdock, assuming that the truth is the opposite will only make you wrong about 10% of the time. In this case, it's about Murdock trying to attack the freedom of speech of the people at universities.
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
"If my guy does it, you're just overreacting if you disagree," and "if their guy does it, it's automatically suspect, move along, nothing to see."
Except, you and the guy you are supporting are completely wrong about what's going on here. This really is a Murdock propaganda piece. Look, sometimes a person is reliably and consistently stupid and evil. This means saying "oh, I'm sure Ghengis isn't riding towards those young girls to be nice to them" is not prejudice, just justifiable wisdom. Now your point would be really great if this was an exception. But let's see what I find if I look it up.
Even a blind pig occasionally finds acorns. My oldest made the comment that "children are nothing but a black hole of need." Some PC idiot said "you can't say that, that's racist." The teacher walked by and told her that she wasn't to make such racist comments in the future (and threatened her with explosion).
Universities are no longer liberal institutions where ideas can be freely discussed. Idiocy and censorship do abound. But feel free to shoot the messenger and ignore the problem.
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:4, Funny)
(and threatened her with explosion).
Shouldn't your daughter have reported her as terrorist?
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:4, Insightful)
The writer is selecting the parts that support the thesis, but says nothing inaccurate. The policy does in fact threaten sanctions for a "condescending sex-based attitude".
a) the writer says it is considered harassment to hold a "condescending sex-based attitude." where actually harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual conduct which is related to any condition of employment or evaluation of student performance. So the writer is actually saying something "inaccurate"
b) I can't see any sanctions clearly linked to not being "sensitive" which is the only context where this occurs. Now, I am not a lawyer, so I'm quite willing to bow to your 'expert' opinion, however please do explain how you parse the policy so that you see sanctions linked to a "condescending sex-based attitude". I have no doubt that my fascination will be fully aroused by your explanation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think it's clear at all there,
I'd agree there. It's an awful piece of writing which the university should be ashamed of. However it doesn't actually say anything threatening and if they did try it on they would lose of ever pushed to it.
this page [umich.edu] this page is more coherent, laying out the "hostile environment" terms. Whether harassment has occurred is "judged both objectively and subjectively", which is another way of saying "No Men Allowed."
I definitely support the principle that "The issue is not whether you are paranoid, the issue is whether you are paranoid enough" but in this case you are being paranoid ;-) The fact is though, that this is basically just a direct cut'n paste from Davis, the related supreme court judgement. For the U
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:4, Interesting)
Forget political parties. Forget Democrat or Republican, or WSJ vs. NYT. If speech is being curtailed, that should concern you.
You make a very good point. If free speech is being infringed by the government we should all be concerned, regardless of who brings that issue to our attention or if the act is being done by a specific political party. I think, however, you go a little too far in your equivocation. The trustworthiness of our sources of information are important and by excluding particular details or simply misrepresenting the facts an issue of speech not being subsidized by a specific organization can be misrepresented as that speech being censored, and make no mistake these are very different things.
When you write, "WSJ vs. NYT" red flags go off in my mind. You're presenting not just publications favored by political parties, but one publication with a very solid history of integrity and factual presentation of information with a publication owned by a very deceptive corporation. The Newscorp organization is a big fan of free speech, insomuch as they went to court to defend their free speech rights to publish news stories they knew were untrue and to fire the reporters who refused to present them. And hey, they're correct. They do have the right to tell complete untruths to their viewers and readers. But at the same time their actions make it abhorrent to mention them in the same breath as the NYT and make me think anyone who believes anything they read in Newscorp publications is an uninformed idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
If the WSJ is excluding details to make a point, it is the epitome of triviality to argue against those points by showing what was excluded. If the WSJ is wrong about something, prove it.
I think other posters have already covered that pretty well. The WSJ clearly was trying to misconstrue the facts and sensationalize.
Otherwise, just stuff it, because your cheerleading for the NYT at the expense of the WSJ won't convince anyone.
This isn't about "cheerleading". I'm not particularly a fan of the NYT, but I certainly recognize them as a a normal, reputable newspaper that does research, vets their sources, makes an attempt not to print outright falsehoods, and prints retractions. Newscorp owned properties are something else. To pretend they should be given equal weight on their face is just absurd at this
Re: (Score:2)
I think too, that as speech becomes based on private technology, there is a movement that "free speech" has to be "earned" on each said platform. If ever there was a time "he who pays the bills" has become the mantra.
The Free Speech and debating hall in the student union has now been rented to Starbucks. After all, it's not the University's job to provide places for students to discuss stuff not related to the coursework they pay for.
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact is that free speech in America has been getting more and more curtailed. Some in a very overt manner (free speech zones). Some in a softer manner (How DARE you suggest that affirmative action is racist, you racist).
You seem to have a misconception about what free speech is. Your first example is about restricting people to particular locations in order to prevent their speech from being heard... all good so far. Your second example, however, is about someone exercising their free speech to criticize someone else's speech. It is an example of free speech, not an example of free speech being restricted.
Nice ad hominem. Instead of reading the source and arguing with the points made, you drool on yourself and blabber on about Murdoch.
You make a good point that we should be judging articles on their merit, however, technically it was not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is the informal fallacy of claiming some argument is wrong based upon some characteristic of the person making the argument. The previous poster made no claim that the argument was wrong, but merely pointed out the untrustworthy nature of the publication and exposited on what they thought the content was likely to be. I highly encourage you to read a book on informal logic as it is a very useful tool/method and will help you not only argue with more precision, but refine your understanding of logically determining truths.
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Free speech" means that the government doesn't punish you for what you say. Legally, free speech has been increasing steadily: you can say things now about sex, politics, and religion that would have landed you in legal trouble half a century ago.
But "free speech" doesn't mean that you can say anything anywhere without consequences. Your fellow citizens can still punish you for what you say. Business can refuse to deal with you. Liberal universities can kick you out for spewing Christian fundamentalist nonsense, and Christian universities can kick you out for spewing progressive nonsense. That's what living in a free country means. And thanks to the Internet, we have more opportunity to engage in free speech than ever before.
The sky isn't falling on free speech; quite the opposite, free speech is legally protected than ever before and there are more venues for it than ever before. The only thing anybody might reasonably complain about is that tax dollars are used so widely to support one or the other viewpoint indirectly. That's not new, but that kind of (unconstitutional) government support has shifted from conservative causes to liberal causes. The answer is not to shift it back, the answer is to eliminate such government involvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Look, America has an unhealthy obsession with "private-good; public-bad". And guess what, the private sector does not need -- nor desires -- to enforce free speech. You want universities to be havens of free speech? It's a 2-step process:
- make them public / make the institutions which are necessary for the public good follow the same rules as public institutions.
- demand of the public institutions to respect your rights. This is actually pretty easy.
Also, the OP is right: it is a crybaby Mu
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, well, the site is retarded. They rated my University "red" because we have policies in place to prevent discrimination and hate speech. Heaven forbid the poor racist bastards would get punished if they make some other student who just wants their own educations life a living hell. Same with the sexual harassment codes. Nope, we have to get up in arms just cause you can't derogatorily call that black dude a nigger or the Chinese chick a chink, and damn it all who gives a shit what that chick thinks... we all know they just want the cock, am I right? Seriously, ro read what they have "issues" with the "openness" of the speech with the University of Wisconsin, it's a damn joke.
As long as you are not intentionally being offensive you can chalk messages on the sidewalk... just provide the chalk, no need for permission - this includes political views, religious views, and pretty much anything else you want. Same with dorm rooms, you want to post intentionally offensive stuff on your dorm room? Post it on the inside of the door, the harassment codes specifically state that as a matter of fact.
Shit, we just had an annual remembrance get-together remembering when a bunch of student had a huge protest in the 60's that had hundreds of arrests and over a hundred expulsions. The school provided funds to something that basically was just rubbing the schools face in the dog shit.
TL;DR: site was shit, just a bunch of whiny idiots complaining because they can't be racist / sexist / harassing anyone anywhere.
Re:Could the summary possibly be more slanted? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's basically a bunch of crybaby Republicans whining about how unwelcome on campus their harassment of women, minorities, gays, muslims, any anyone else not like them is.
Freedom of speech isn't free anymore when you stop crybaby Republicans from whining.
Re: (Score:3)
My kingdom for a mod point! Voltaire could not have put it better.
Re: (Score:3)
My kingdom for a mod point! Voltaire could not have put it better.
Wow, thankyou sir. I'm certain I've never received a nicer compliment on slashdot, and surely it is undeserved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What is not permitted is actual hate speech, behavior intended to incite violence toward a group, or intentionally cause emotional harm (arguably another form of violence, simply a non-physical one).
These are all protected under the US constitution, and for good reason.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a Republican and I'm not whiny. Let's look at it from my perspective. The colleges are indoctrinating the youth with no opposition.
Why does your perspective have to be so absolute? That seems to be the problem. Nothing prevents universities from bringing in any speakers they want so long as they do so within the bounds of the constitution and if they allow/pay one religion to speak they do the same for all. That seems to be the fundamental disconnect in my mind. When everyone is given equal opportunity, why do you whine about not being given more than equal opportunity?
Harassment of women: This is strictly about abortion.
Actually if you read the article and the actual policies at the uni
Re: (Score:3)
Another idiot using an ad hominem attack.
FIRE was founded about 15 years ago by a civil liberties professor. So your "Republican wing" comment is pretty stupid. It promotes free speech on campus, even those that might be the most upstanding or "socially polite". If anything, they are more like the ACLU than RNC.
But yeah, dismiss things out of hand with no factual basis. Then immediately afterward, pat yourself on the back for being an intellectual.
Re:Hate speech (Score:4)
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Exactly. Just look at how offensive she is! Anything that offends me must be destroyed.
Re:Hate speech (Score:4, Insightful)
This article appears to be bitching and moaning about the fact that hate speech has been universally recognized as out of the scope of free speech. Ann Coulter is generally regarded amongst the cognoscenti as a purveyor of hate speech, not free speech. I fail to see how denying her an audience of like-minded listeners could possibly be bad in any way.
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
Anyone who supports this Islamophobic nutbag is a like-minded nutbag who is not welcome on any university campus. Her ideas practically beg to be suppressed, so why should she be surprised when it happens? Good riddance to bad rubbish.
If she is wrong, let her speak and then rebut her remarks. Any suppression of free speech is a mistake. Her "like-minded listeners" will hear her anyway. I don't object to letting her speak. What I object to is "journalists" who report her garbage as though it is coming from a respectable source.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That worked for Springer, Stern, Coulter, Imas, and Limbaugh!
Right up until FOX has to step in and get the Supreme Court to declare "lying" as protected free speech... To keep them on the air.
The CONSERVATIVES RULE the airwaves for non-PC talk. Even Springer and Stern are "Right" shows because they treat their subjects as "freak of the week" while shouting "look how offensive I am!"
It's sad when NPR is the last "liberal" holdout.. As they make an honest attempt to have discussion . Even the BBC gets labeled