A new survey by FIRE investigates what students think about self-expression on campus.
The complete survey is here:
Seems like lots of students across the political spectrum support freedom of speech only in an ideologically selective manner (i.e. free speech for those they agree with, not for those they disagree with). Not surprising, and probably not all that different from non-students.
Again the question should be why is the incidence of hate speech increasing now? We understand that this type of vitriol is “protected” but why is it increasing? Why do some student groups feel the need to purposefully invite hateful people to campus who do not add anything to the conversation intellectually or academically speaking.
That’s the bigger question. Has FIRE looked into that?
That is a tad disturbing honestly
@tonymom The issue in my opinion is today students (and faculty) consider dissenting points of view ‘hate speech’ – you may vehemently disagree with some people for example Ann Coulter – I get it, she is far right and many people disagree strongly with her views. But it doesn’t make it ‘hate speech’. And yet it gets labeled as such.
I do not believe for a minute there is MORE actual bonafide hate speech - I think as a society people have gotten much more sensitive about labeling things as such that are NOT.
who funds FIRE? I hadn’t heard of them before, but everything they write seems subtly incendiary, if you’ll pardon the pun. They don’t seem interested in solutions, only in making people angrier.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter for those who want to judge for themselves.
“who funds FIRE?”
The Koch Brothers are the biggest financial backers of FIRE both directly and through other foundations they fund.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_in_Education
@ucbalumnus Thanks for pointing out parts of the report that show that students that lean Blue seem to be more tolerant of an important right of free speech - the freedom to protest.
Maybe those funding these studies should put the money towards the preservation of a free press, another 1st Amendment right, one that is under increased pressure and unjustified criticism from certain powerful corners.
I would urge you to read the actual survey article. The respondents were from Yougov’s opt-in research group and were offered incentives for participating. Is this something of a self-selected group or is it really random?
The actual article also said that 87% felt comfortable sharing their opinions in the classroom and 86% outside the classroom. Even though fewer conservative students felt comfortable sharing their opinions outside the classroom, 82% still felt comfortable. The most common reason for students not wanting to share their opinion was"that they thought they might be incorrect or mistaken" (53%), although many also thought they might be judged or would offend someone.
Not sure that self-censoring to avoid offending someone is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. It really depends on whether the opinion is one that would offend because it is different or if it is one that puts down another group. The latter may be considered being polite, rather than self-censoring.
^Thank you.
It seems the “free speech free speech!!” contingent is very capable of shutting down speech it doesn’t like as well.
It is funny how some people are quick to attack FIRE unless they are defending speaker they approve of.
You guys are all kidding, right? Some of you at least understand that this is troubling, don’t you?
And no, there is absolutely no equivalence between Chelsea Manning not getting to be a visiting fellow and half of college students believing that “hate speech” is not protected by the 1st amendment.
@Ohiodad51 I certainly do - heck I am totally okay with people’s right to protest even issues that I think are stupid or in places I disagree with and I am also glad I have the right to say that I disagree with the what or the venue.
It is troubling that so many students believe they can shut don’t speech they consider ‘hate’ which is clearly subjective anyway – oh the slippery slope
This specific study was funded by the John Templeton Fdn, a reputable group.
Not sure its fair to criticize the authors for the book that they did not write.
Correct, however that’s not what I said. The equivalence I am making is between provocative right-wing speakers being dis-invited/shut down, and Chelsea Manning being dis-invited/shut down.
Being a “visiting fellow” IS, essentially, being a speaker.
The list of fellows, current (like Spicer and Lewandowski) and former (tons of politicians, journalists and public figures of various sorts including pretty controversial ones) is available here: http://iop.harvard.edu/fellows/list
Manning didn’t get shut down by students, Manning got shut down by powerful adults.
Harvard rescinded the distinction being named a fellow, but allowed Manning to speak. Can you see the difference?
I see a difference in that Harvard said we are taking away your title but we will “let you” speak (for pay?), but when Lewandowski is kept on a fellow and Manning is not, there’s a double standard at work here - and not the one most people complain about here on CC.
But really, it was a big FU from Harvard. And they made some incredibly twisty pretzels trying to justify it because it is contrary to the stated goals of the visiting fellows program.
Harvard K backed down when pressure from some very powerful government officials was applied. IMO this is worse than students not wanting to hear a speaker and protesting.
@OHMomof2, I can’t believe that you don’t see a distinction between a student’s heckler’s veto and an institutional decision.