Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Tagline To Be Decided By Poll

Topic: Free speech on campus (Read 964 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Free speech on campus
 :stopper:  :stopper:  :stopper:  :stopper:  :stopper:  :stopper:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-campus-speech-20170313-story.html

Quote
Consider a dual appearance of former Vice President Joe Biden and former House Speaker John Boehner at Notre Dame's commencement last year. FIRE lists these as the target of disinvitations, but its only evidence is a letter from 89 students saying they were "disappointed and discouraged" by the invitations chiefly because of Biden's tolerance for abortion. But the students didn't call for the invitations to be rescinded or for Biden and Boehner to be prevented from speaking. When commencement arrived, they spoke, peaceably.

Quote
Moreover, not every protest results in a speaker's invitation being withdrawn. Only 24 "disinvitations" in 2016 resulted in a true withdrawn invitation; in FIRE's full database of 331 incidents going back to 2000, only 145 were true disinvitations. Is a protest that fails to result in a withdrawn invitation a blow against free speech? Hardly. In many if not most cases, it's an expression of free speech. Or is an invitation to give a talk on campus supposed to be immune from comment once it's tendered?

The biggest flaw of the FIRE database is its conflation of commencements with campus talks and debates. As anyone knows who has spent even a semester on campus, one of these things is not like the others. Commencements account for about 40% of the incidents in FIRE's database of 331 "disinvitations" dating back to 2000, and seven of the 43 cases last year.

http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/3/7/14841292/liberal-universities-conservative-faculty-sizzler-pc

Quote
The right is still intent on undercutting what they see as the liberal political power of the university. But they're taking a different tack, pursuing their goals in more structural ways: weakening tenure, slashing budgets, upping teaching loads. It would be easy to dismiss this as simply a result of austerity programs, which have cut public services to the bone in states across America. But in states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, however, the cuts have been accompanied by rhetoric that makes the true goal clear: attacking curriculums and professors who seem too liberal, and weakening the overall power of the university.

Take North Carolina. Since Republicans took over the state government in the Tea Party wave of 2010, the state's universities have been under constant attack. Centers on the environment, voter engagement, and poverty studies have all been shuttered by the Board of Governors, which is appointed by the state legislature.

No sooner had Pat McCrory come into the governor's office in 2013 than he began making broadsides against the university, using stark economic measures to target liberal arts programs, like gender studies, with which he disagreed. His stated view was that university programs should be funded based on how many of their graduates get jobs.

Notably, the McCrory campaign was bankrolled by Art Pope, founder of the Pope Center for Higher Education (now the Martin Center), an organization dedicated to increasing the "diversity of ideas" taught on campus. As its policy director, Jay Schalin, explained in 2015, the crisis at the university stems from "the ideas that are being discussed and promoted": "multiculturalism, collectivism, left-wing post-modernism." He wants less Michel Foucault on campus, more Ayn Rand.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/11/forget-what-the-right-says-academia-isnt-so-bad-for-conservative-professors/?utm_term=.ef2ecc1673d2

Quote
As two conservative professors, we agree that right-wing faculty members and ideas are not always treated fairly on college campuses. But we also know that right-wing hand-wringing about higher education is overblown. After interviewing 153 conservative professors in the social sciences and humanities, we believe that conservatives survive and even thrive in one of America's most progressive professions.


  • ksen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #1
Quote
we believe that conservatives survive and even thrive in one of America's most progressive professions

This can't be right.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #2
FIRE is reactionary garbage. Anyone who thinks people are entitled to give commencement speeches and be paid money/given honorary degrees and that anyone who objects to or protests a specific speaker is destroying muh free speech is an idiot.

It's great that a bunch of reactionaries now control most of the governments across the country and are actively destroying education and the environment though.

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #3
Yeah, I mean, I tend to fall on the side of promoting free speech and a wide range of different types of speakers, but I have zero problem with students protesting in response. And I completely agree that commencement speeches and honorary degrees are entirely different than an evening lecture or panel discussion. I also don't think there's much wrong with institutions having hard lines on what speakers they'd allow on campus, even if people might disagree on where to draw those lines. I see no value to anyone to have a public university paying someone an honorarium to extol the virtues of pedophilia, for instance, all in the name of intellectual inquiry.

And, honestly, it also depends on the context. If the vet school used tuition money to invite some fucking anti-vaxxer to talk about how vaccines are poison or some PETA asshole to talk about how pet ownership is slavery and vet med is evil, you're damn right I'd be protesting it and trying to get whoever was in charge to invite someone else instead. I'm not paying $50,000 per fucking year for them to invite speakers who contribute absolutely nothing to our education and push content that runs completely counter to what we do. But if you had those same people on some panel discussion for Philosophy Club or some shit, that'd be different.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #4
in line with that vox piece: "Who's Really Placing Limits on Free Speech?"

Quote
It's true that these battle lines are drawn across all campuses to one degree or another, but what many people don't realize is that they are the most pressing concerns only for elite private institutions like Oberlin and Yale.

This one-sided representation of campus speech doesn't reflect my 14 years teaching in large public institutions in Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin. In that time, no student has ever demanded that my classes include a trigger warning or asked for a safe space. But my colleagues and I have been given much more reason to worry about the ideological agendas of elected officials and politically appointed governing boards. Students can protest on the campus mall, demanding that policies be changed; elected officials can pass laws or cut resources to reflect their beliefs about how a campus should operate. One group has much more power than the other

  • ksen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #5
Read this the other day about this topic:

'Hiring Out' to Understand the White Working Class

Quote
After I wrote about last week's protest at Middlebury College, one of my most thoughtful email correspondents, Brown University medical school student Ronald Ray Magee Jr., wrote in with a different perspective.

As a staunch proponent of free speech and cross-ideological dialogue, he objected, along with so many others, to the protesters who prevented Charles Murray from speaking (and hoped for the speedy recovery of the injured professor). But he also argued that the rationale students offered for bringing Murray to campus--that some wanted to understand the white working class voters who supported Donald Trump--highlights a failure of diversity at the institution. What if Middlebury, a residential college where students are meant to learn partly by living together, could get more of those insights from within its community?

. . .

He writes:
Quote
I do not support the violent actions demonstrated by a contingent of the protesters last week; they were wholly unjustified and likely inimical to the interests of those most marginalized by the views of individuals like Dr. Charles Murray. As a Black man educated in predominantly white spaces, the value of free speech and engagement with opposing or even hostile views is already known to me. My mission in life is to aid my race in ameliorating the deep and painful scars of years of oppression; much of the little progress I or others around me have made towards that end has been won in moments when we reach across the proverbial aisle in an effort to understand and hopefully change the views of those who would seek to perpetuate a history of harm against my color. It can be frustrating, isolating, and sometimes just plain dark, but my experience so far has been that the gain is worth the pain.

After much reflection on the shutting down of Dr. Murray at Middlebury, taking the events on their own terms and in continuity with similar occurrences on campuses throughout the nation, my position is that the stance against shutting down speakers like Dr. Murray and for engagement with even the most noxious ideas is still the right one.

But it is a stance that Middlebury and most of higher education in this nation lacks the moral authority to make.

The narrative pushed by a lot of detractors of this protest and others like it is reducible to this: if elite college liberals are unwilling to engage with such-and-such highly public and highly controversial figure, then they risk remaining an echo chamber and their education will be the poorer for it.

Those should not be the only two options.

Middlebury should not have to hire out to find someone who can speak with them about the white working class or conservative ideals; there are quite a few people who bear one or both of those labels and I imagine that a number of them may even want to go to college. Yet I look at Middlebury and I see an institution where, according to the New York Times, 23% of the student population comes from families in the top 1% of American earners.

I see an institution where the free exchange of ideas and benefits of academic debate has an entrance fee of about $61K. I see an institution ranked as "most selective" by U.S. News and World Report, based in large part on test scores that do more to reflect a student's income or ethnicity than their intelligence level or capacity for success, especially if they are afforded the resources available at an institution with the financial endowment of Middlebury.

Taken together, it is pretty clear that the environment of free debate at Middlebury is actually tightly walled off to certain populations for reasons that have much less to do with the quality of their ideas or capacity for debate than with the lack of dollars in their pocket. And I imagine many, if not most, at the school would agree with me. Some of the facts I mention above are from an excellent editorial on the school's challenges regarding socioeconomic diversity, published in The Middlebury Campus in January of this year. But it is not enough to agree; the perilously high economic barrier to pursuing higher education represents a threat to both free speech and the ideals of justice and equality themselves on college campuses.

On one level, this barrier represents a direct extension of historical injustices. When the high tuition and over-reliance on standardized testing that clearly favors those with resources meet our society's longstanding racial wealth gap and rising income inequality, the result is too many students left unable to gain admission or matriculate for reasons that have less to do with merit and more to do with our historical amnesia; these students are silenced just as effectively as Dr. Murray was silenced last week, if not more so since few of them will go on to write bestselling books. In the face of this, it is important to remember Dr. King's assertion that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". Those are not mere words; it is incredibly difficult for a university to make an appeal to students based on the lofty values of free speech and exchange of ideas when it is abundantly clear that much of their academic experience is decided on the basis of far lowlier concerns.

On a deeper level, if the only time college students come into contact with those that disagree with their most strongly held views is when they are debating those very same views, I do not anticipate many gains in understanding on either side. At the end of the day, engaging with Dr. Murray or anyone who thinks like him on one occasion to discuss all the reasons you disagree is insufficient to gain true understanding; that sense of perspective comes when the two of you both make an intentional decision to participate in the hundreds of different interactions in nearly as many contexts that form the work of community-building.

College can be a vessel for those sorts of interactions, but we will have to work to make it so.

Dr. Murray was invited to Middlebury, at least in part, so that the campus could refute his views on the connection between race/socioeconomic status and intelligence. Yet, if Dr. Murray were provided with a demographic snapshot of Middlebury,  he would find much there to support his views. This is my plea to Middlebury and any other institution struggling with how to balance a respect for free speech with a respect for the lived experience of the marginalized: Do not just make the argument; be the argument.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #6
Community is the key. I entirely agree with that.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #7
oh hey there was a thread for this topic


  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #8
I've been pointing that out a lot lately, and the response has generally been "well that's different because it's just different, okay?". It's a disgrace for Oberlin students to write an opinion piece in their student paper about the cafeteria food, but it's totally okay for Brigham Young to expel students for just being gay and to ban all sorts of student organizations from campus.

Fully confirmed to myself that FIRE is full of absolute fucking shit because they rarely go after schools like that. Search their page for Liberty University, and they have one news release from 2016 and then older shit saying basically that students know what they're signing up for when they go to Liberty, and Liberty has the right to decide its institutional values.

lolololololololololololol fuck all these assholes


  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #10
I've been pointing that out a lot lately, and the response has generally been "well that's different because it's just different, okay?". It's a disgrace for Oberlin students to write an opinion piece in their student paper about the cafeteria food, but it's totally okay for Brigham Young to expel students for just being gay and to ban all sorts of student organizations from campus.

Fully confirmed to myself that FIRE is full of absolute fucking shit because they rarely go after schools like that. Search their page for Liberty University, and they have one news release from 2016 and then older shit saying basically that students know what they're signing up for when they go to Liberty, and Liberty has the right to decide its institutional values.

lolololololololololololol fuck all these assholes
Turns out they had a recent post, which pretty much reiterated that point:

Quote
At FIRE, we classify colleges that outright state in their policies that they place other values above free expression as "warning" institutions in our Spotlight database, meaning that students should be warned beforehand that they won't possess the same free speech rights as their peers at public institutions or other private institutions that explicitly promise free speech rights. As our database explains, "FIRE believes that free speech is not only a moral imperative, but also an essential element of a college education. However, private universities are just that--private associations--and as such, they possess their own right to free association, which allows them to prioritize other values above the right to free speech if they wish to do so."

Although oddly enough, Liberty doesn't make the list at all. BYU does, with a "does not promise free speech" warning (and pretty much no articles since 2013).


  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #12
For reference, though - nearly all of the usual free speech crowd (FIRE, popehat, National Review, Reason, etc.) are following principle on this, saying she shouldn't be investigated (at least, for the statement; there is some mixed feeling on her posting a suicide hotline as troll bait, though I don't see any of them coming down on the side of encouraging the investigation).

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #13
i'm not really too invested in what those orgs specifically are doing tbh

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #14
Turns out they had a recent post, which pretty much reiterated that point:

Quote
At FIRE, we classify colleges that outright state in their policies that they place other values above free expression as "warning" institutions in our Spotlight database, meaning that students should be warned beforehand that they won't possess the same free speech rights as their peers at public institutions or other private institutions that explicitly promise free speech rights. As our database explains, "FIRE believes that free speech is not only a moral imperative, but also an essential element of a college education. However, private universities are just that--private associations--and as such, they possess their own right to free association, which allows them to prioritize other values above the right to free speech if they wish to do so."

Although oddly enough, Liberty doesn't make the list at all. BYU does, with a "does not promise free speech" warning (and pretty much no articles since 2013).

I get the argument, but I don't really buy it. They complain an awful lot about what some private schools do, but I'm not convinced they would stop if those schools suddenly changed their mission statements and scrubbed all references to The Almighty Discourse and free speech. And if limiting speech really is so dangerous and detrimental, why should it matter what a school's values and mission statement are?

Plus, all those private schools that "prioritize other values" still get plenty of government funding, so shouldn't we also care about them?

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #15
Ack, sorry, forgot to post the link.
https://www.thefire.org/is-speech-suppression-at-religious-colleges-the-invisible-free-speech-crisis/

They also answer that:

Quote
However, neither accreditation nor receipt of public funds is sufficient to bind schools to the First Amendment. (As we explain in FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus, "accepting governmental funds usually makes the university subject only to the conditions--sometimes broad, sometimes narrow--explicitly attached to those specific programs to which the public funds are directed.")

Which sounds like they're trying to say that they stick to two major things: whether a university lives up to standards set by agreement with federal funding, and whether it lives up to standards it itself sets.

Whichh, yeah, isn't entirely convincing. And the final section is honestly really tone-deaf:

Quote
#5. The indifferent response to students who lack rights at religious colleges often lacks empathy and fails to offer solutions

...

So what should students do if they have something to say but fear punishment for doing so?

That's pretty much all that section has -very little about FIRE's advocacy in that section at all. The most they mention is this:

Quote
As Sarah indicated, policy change takes time and work, but FIRE is ready to help students improve their free speech rights on campus, whether their college is a religious private institution, a secular private institution, or a public institution.

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #16
Those SJWs are out of control, man: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/04/19/syracuse-suspends-engineering-fraternity-for-racist-anti-semitic-homophobic-video/

Quote
"Do you know what you signed up for today?" a fraternity member says in the video as he stands in front of a young man kneeling on the floor.

The young man on his knees then proceeds to make sexually explicit gestures as laughter erupts around him. Asked to recite "the oath," he says: "f‑‑‑ black people" and uses a racial slur to describe a person of Hispanic descent.

"I solemnly swear," he says, repeating after the standing fraternity member, "to always have hatred in my heart for ..." He then says several racial slurs to describe African Americans, Hispanics and Jews.

The six-minute video was originally posted on a secret Facebook group associated with Theta Tau, an engineering fraternity at Syracuse University, according to the Daily Orange, the student newspaper, which made the video public on Wednesday.

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #17

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #18
goddammit, that thread never shows up when I click new posts so I totally missed all that.

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #19
I'm honestly still kinda hoping to get an answer to my question on the next page; the whole thing looked like it was a deliberate (if drunken) production but lacked even the coherence you'd usually find at a frat. So wtf was it? And did I hear right, that the "oath" was ascribed to the "rivals", not the group itself?
  • Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 06:50:13 PM by uncool



  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #22
Different universities (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo for the first, California State University, Fresno for the second). Both part of the same system, but different people responding.

Yes, the latter is clearly wrong.
  • Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 06:57:16 PM by uncool

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #23
Huh. Hadn't heard of this one, a year ago, also at Fresno:

http://kmph.com/news/local/professors-response-to-fresno-states-president-statement

Professor (apparently without tenure?) not rehired after tweeting "Trump must hang"

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #24
Different universities (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo for the first, California State University, Fresno for the second). Both part of the same system, but different people responding.

who cares, this shit is systemic

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #25
Different universities (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo for the first, California State University, Fresno for the second). Both part of the same system, but different people responding.

who cares, this shit is systemic
Because blatantly deceptive arguments are worse than no arguments. I do think the difference between a person in charge of a system being racist and a system itself being racist matters, and the tweet obfuscates that difference.

When you say "this shit", what are you referring to? More tolerance for racists acting racist than for leftists expressing their views?
  • Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 07:37:50 PM by uncool

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #26
the reasons why a frat boy in black face gets a pass and shit talking a dead politician's wife gets you in hot water don't really resolve to individual flaws of specific office holders. these decisions by different people are made in the same broad cultural context of white supremacy (wherein blackface can just be a harmless prank and barbara bush gets to be a saint despite the gross shit she said about katrina victims) and the incentive/power structures of a university system (wherein causing trouble for student-customers is bad and disciplining faculty-workers is good)

also the article pretty clearly says "State school system accused" so i'm not really sure what you think is being obfuscated here. idgaf about the text of the tweet tbh, often i share articles in tweet form because it's easier.

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #27
Main reason I posted that was in response to the tweet, the headline, and the first few paragraphs of the article. Yeah, the subheadline says that, but I honestly see that as pretty vague - the system being accused of hypocrisy could easily happen even if it were a single school, and a single person making the decisions. The headline ("California university", singular) and first two paragraphs ("the university's tone", again singular, with no mention of a second university) pretty clearly imply that it's not just the same school system, but the same university implying the same administration. It's not until paragraph 6 that the article has any indication that these are even different campuses, let alone administrations that have nothing in common until 2 levels higher than one of the presidents (Fresno is a part of the California State University system, which is a part of the public university system in California).

I do appreciate your answer, as a note.
  • Last Edit: April 20, 2018, 08:42:47 PM by uncool


  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #29

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #30
Lol. Well played.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor


  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #32
lol:


And the investigation is over:

I'm guessing it took counsel 2 days to explain how fucking stupid they were, and 3 days for them to write this letter.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #33
haven't read it yet but



edit: summarizes a lot of stuff seen itt before but the part at the end about faculty firings seems original and is good
  • Last Edit: April 27, 2018, 05:43:17 PM by the idea of Harambe

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #34
George Mason allowed the Charles Koch Foundation to have its people sit on faculty hiring committees in exchange for donations:
https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889

Quote
In an email sent to faculty, students and staff Friday night, Cabrera said some gift agreements accepted by the public institution in Northern Virginia "raise questions concerning donor influence in academic matters."

"The agreements did not give donors control over academic decisions, and all but the earliest of these agreements explicitly stated that the final say in all faculty appointments lies in university procedures," Cabrera wrote. "Yet these agreements fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet."

The gifts supported faculty positions in economics, and the agreements granted donors "some participation in faculty selection and evaluation," Cabrera said. The pacts were accepted between 2003 and 2011, and all but one have expired. Agreements ­obtained by The Washington Post show that, in some cases, committees that helped select professors included members designated by a donor.

The email from Cabrera does not directly name the gift agreements that were troubling, but a George Mason spokesman confirmed that the note was related to funding from the Charles Koch Foundation, among other donors. Koch, a billionaire industrialist, is a backer of conservative political causes and a major donor to universities.

Quote
The Washington Post obtained a batch of agreements from a George Mason spokesman Friday night. Several of those agreements involve the Mercatus Center, a free-market research group that is based at the university but is an independent organization.

"It's now abundantly clear that the administration of Mason, in partnership with the Mercatus Center and private donors, violated principles of academic freedom, academic control and ceded faculty governance to private donors," said Bethany Letiecq, an associate professor of human development and family science at George Mason.

Letiecq, who is president of George Mason's chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said she was bothered by language that indicated donors had power in faculty hiring and a voice in decisions about whether professors remain at the school.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/george-mason-president-some-donations-fall-short-of-academic-standards/2018/04/28/bb927576-4af0-11e8-8b5a-3b1697adcc2a_story.html

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #35
Corporations are people too my friend.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • meepmeep
  • Administrator
  • zombiecat queen
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #36
From that Jeffrey Sachs piece - pointing out the big problem I have with FIRE:

Quote
Nevertheless, politics can be a factor. Stevens and Haidt cite data from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's (FIRE) Disinvitation Database to show that the political left is responsible for the vast majority of "disinvitation incidents", defined as episodes in which members of the campus community attempt to block an outside speaker from speaking on campus.

But we should be skeptical of this conclusion. First of all, the Disinvitation Database is incomplete. It especially undercounts disinvitation incidents at religious colleges and universities, of which there have been many over the years. All of these examples were instigated by the right. All of them were successful. None are in FIRE's database. And while some were cancelled due to quiet intervention by the university, others were the result of well-funded, nation-wide campaigns. Whatever the cause, the absence of these cases makes the imbalance between the left and the right seem much greater than it actually is.[5]

But even so, we should expect there to be more disinvitation attempts coming from the campus left than from the right. After all, that's where more of the students are (35% vs. 22% of incoming freshmen, according to one recent survey). The implication of Stevens and Haidt's argument is that liberal students are worse on free speech than conservatives. Maybe. Or maybe there are just a lot more of them.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #37
man, I came here to post that GMU story

the campus left at it again!

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #38


cool that all these federalist society loons are being made into lifetime federal judges

  • uncool
Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #39
Hahahaha
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/leaders-of-turning-point-usa-bail-on-college-kids-to-hang-out-with-kanye-west

Good time for the kids to learn: these guys are grifters who give absolutely zero fucks about you, except as money and props.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #40

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #41
Same vp had previously come out in defense of Confederate monuments!

The coffee shop closed their campus location, offered employees jobs at their other nearby locations, and offered to rehire or pay severance to the two that were fired

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #42
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

Heard this on NPR friday night driving home, part 1 and 2 are great and the ending comment is awesome.

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #43
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/645/my-effing-first-amendment

Heard this on NPR friday night driving home, part 1 and 2 are great and the ending comment is awesome.

The article referenced in the TAL story:

https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/state-of-conflict


Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #45
smh can't believe the campus left has struck again

Wolf researcher who accused WSU of silencing him gets $300K to settle lawsuit and go away

Quote
A leading wolf researcher has agreed to leave Washington State University at the end of the spring term in return for $300,000 to settle a suit he brought over infringement of his academic freedom.

Robert Wielgus, director of the Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University, pioneered research of wolf behavior in cattle country as the predators began their return to Washington.

Wielgus tracked the behavior of wolves and cattle and learned that the state's policy of killing wolves that had preyed on cattle was likely to lead to more cattle predation, not less, because it destabilized the structure of wolf packs.

The research was unpopular with ranchers, who complained to lawmakers in the Washington State Legislature, who, in turn, cut Wielgus' funding and removed him as principal investigator on his ongoing work, passing the funds through another researcher. It was a highly unusual move that eliminated Wielgus' money for travel, speaking at conferences or for research in the summer, the peak field months for his work.

feed all ranchers to wolves

Re: Free speech on campus
Reply #46
crosspost

US State Passes Law Defining Any Criticism of Israel as 'Anti-Semitic' Just As They Kill 60 Civilians

headline is slightly exaggerating, but only slightly

Quote
According to the text of the measure, the definition of "anti-Semitism" will now include:
  • a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities;
  • calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews; making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective; accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
  • accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust;
  • accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations;
  • using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis;
  • drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;
  • blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions;
  • applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
  • multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations;
  • denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist, provided, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

As can be determined by the long list of ways in which South Carolina will now define "anti-Semitism," individuals will be forced to tiptoe around a legitimate subject, and expressing an opinion that is no longer considered politically correct can now be legally used against them.

i expect defenders of free speech to shortly go berserk over this