I don’t disagree that these college kids need guidance from adults to dial the temperature down, but censorship efforts, doxxing, etc increase the heat. People must be free to speak their mind without fear of retribution.
3 Likes
It depends on your definition of “retribution”. Yes, they should be able to speak their minds. But colleges should also condemn hate speech regardless of who it’s directed against.
4 Likes
Free to speak yes, free to intimidate, harass, or threaten others “without retribution” - absolutely not - if consequences for those actions means they feel like the heat’s turned up, that’s of their own doing. But they shouldn’t be coddled or inappropriate behavior be excused for sake of turning down temperature. It’s like disciplining kids / they need to be told what their boundaries are because they clearly do not get it.
5 Likes
Fair points, @HelicopterParent1 and @MDparent22 , but it is impossible to define hate speech, speech that intimidates, and boundaries in a way that is agreeable by all. Certainly, direct threats and actual violence are off limits, but there are a lot of opinions on a lot of different things that are in a gray area.
Getting right up in someone’s face or confronting them when they’re not even part of your protest or a counter protest? Banging on the windows - should be clear.
3 Likes
Disagree. These are extremely well educated young adults who are “speaking their mind”, and if they have the power of their conviction, they should be proud to accept any consequences, not hide behind anonymous masks.
Back in the dark ages, getting arrested and booked for demonstrating was a badge of honor.
2 Likes
That aside, some of these schools are in open campuses - if people demonstrating acting as students but are actually outside agitators, it’s in students’ best interest to know that. Should not be any masks allowed in protests. At very least, there should be registration required to participate so it’s clear only students are participating.
A. Why?
B. Again, these are supposedly some of our best and brightest young adults. If they are ignorant as to who they are demonstrating with, that’s on them.
C. And, if an “open” urban campus, and they are demonstrating on city streets, everyone is welcome to demonstrate peacefully, professional agitators and newbies. If they are on an ‘open’ campus but still private college property, that college should follow its written rules and procedures for demonstrations AND for its conduct code (against harrassment for example).
Although, that seems to be a scene I see regularly in many sports events (and even other facets of life), as is banging on windows or other materials.
I’m a wimp, so this kind of stuff always intimidates me, but I wouldn’t consider it hate directed at whatever minority - in particular if it happens between opposing fans/activists.
1 Like
Mainly because if I’m a parent sending my kid to school, I expect the school to keep my kid safe - if there’s outside agitators taking part who have interest in dialing up the heat so to speak, to the point that tensions may erupt and make the school environment feel unsafe, that’s my prerogative as a parent (and the student). Not all students are even politically interested, but they too are caught up in this.
The Tulane incident I think comes to mind - where student was assaulted and there were outside protesters involved. I could be wrong about specifics, but outside protesters should not be welcome on school property to protest since the school can’t control those people’s conduct or keep their students (sometimes not protesting but just bypassing) safe from them.
1 Like
… and then we had Kent State.
@bluebayou Absolutely - and I agree with you that those should face consequences.
But the heavy policing of the “dark ages”, e.g. getting arrested just for demonstrating, has proven not to calm matters, and is more likely to escalate matters - to the point of tragic results.
1 Like
I wouldn’t use the fact that it happens at sporting events to mean that’s not intimidation. And anyone getting in the face of potentially an 18 year old shouting will/should feel intimidating.
3 Likes
Different situation: Many protesting on campuses today are making threats and inflicting emotional harm on fellow students which the colleges have a moral and ethical as well as legal obligation to protect.
3 Likes
I am wondering at this point what is in a gray area and what is protected free speech. For example, my son said that a student at his school was demonstrating with a sign saying “Hitler was right.” Would this be considered free speech or incitement of violence? My son felt threatened.
Some may remember that early on, my son WAS wearing recognizably Jewish stuff such as Hillel t-shirt when walking past protestors, and did not feel afraid for his safety on campus. This has changed for him. He has now informed me that at this point, he and most other Jewish students that he knows are avoiding wearing or doing any recognizably Jewish stuff. He is also staying silent on the issue when talking with people in his dorm, since he overheard some scary opinions voiced by otherwise nice people (he actually spoke to me in a low voice on the phone about this), and he said that many students are now also afraid to be seen walking to Hillel. “Mom, you wouldn’t believe the level of antisemitism right now, it’s crazy.”
3 Likes
I’d call it an incitement of violence. And also disgusting.
3 Likes
I think the right to “free speech” does not attach to private spaces, and while I generally support free speech on campuses, I also respect the ability of private institutions to have standards of behavior and time/place/manner restrictions. So protesting in a free speech square is ok, but shouting at and intimidating people who are just trying to go to class or get a meal is not.
It’s hard, because I have given to FIRE for years to help them with their free speech work, and 100% believe the solution to bad speech is more speech, and that campuses shouldn’t engage in viewpoint discrimination, but what I am seeing now is so despicable that I want all of these people publicly identified on social media and am cheering when antisemites lose their jobs at big law firms.
5 Likes
2 Likes
This - free speech has to be balanced against other people’s right to not be subjected to verbal or emotional abuse. I think everyone agrees physical crosses a line but seem to think shouting and getting in people’s personal space is protected?
Years ago, throughout the country, they got rid of smoking in bars/restaurants. You’re free to buy and smoke cigarettes but not in a private space that subjects the other patrons to your smoke. Well the other students walking to class minding their own business don’t want these protesters’ smoke blown in their faces. The school has a duty to protect them too.
4 Likes
That is absolutely vile and disgusting. And, I am pretty sure it is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
By that, I don’t mean it is consequence free speech, nor do I think it should be consequence free. The person carrying that sign could be socially ostracized, could be fired from their job (as long as they weren’t employed by the gov’t) and could find there are people who want nothing to do with them (refuse to serve that person at restaurant, etc).
Our 1st Amendment rights are fundamental (imo) to what makes America, America. While I would love everyone who has that right to not be anti-semitic, racist, sexist, or a generally terrible person - our rights don’t get assigned based on worthiness, they are given to all.
I think that is why it is so important for us as individuals, and collectively, to remember that we can assign consequences while not asking the gov’t to infringe upon the 1st Amendment rights of others with whom we disagree. It is a slippery slope to allow the power of the gov’t to infringe on speech some (or even most) disagree with. The majority of American didn’t support MLK Jr. while he was alive. I am glad he was able to use his 1st amendment rights.
I think law firms and other businesses and individuals who have decided to rescind employment, stop donations to organizations they don’t agree with, etc are the correct response to these latest anti-semitic attacks and displays. I would be equally supportive of those same groups of people/businesses who decide they want to exercise their 1st Amendment freedom of association to not support or hire those who are Islamaphobic, anti-Palestinian or are supporting war crimes such as collective punishment.
I am sorry your son is dealing with this kind of anti-semitism. I hope he is also seeing people on his campus openly supporting Jewish students, faculty and staff as they navigate through this time.
7 Likes
I agree that applying social and financial pressure is more appropriate than threats of violence or jail time.
My son is also feeling threatened by some previously non political campus organizations getting involved in the BDS movement. Given this political climate, it’s caused him to be afraid of interacting with people associated with these organizations.
My response to him was that even though there are a lot of problems with BDS in my view, at least its intent is to accomplish its goals through social and financial pressure rather than violence. In principle I support the rights of individuals and businesses to apply such pressure in pursuit of their political goals. BDS is certainly preferable to violence.
The problem is that once students get wrapped up in the excitement of the BDS ideological bubble, it is easy for them to go farther and express support for violent actions as well. Rhetoric about “colonialism” and “genocide,” as used by the BDS movement and others, can cause students (and some faculty!) to excuse terrorist actions as glorious freedom fighting, and can likewise encourage antisemitic views that can lead to violence.
Not so much openly, right now. It sounds like there are private chat groups in which students advise each other what to avoid. I am sure there are private chat groups on both (many?) sides.
1 Like