Just saw this today: https://www.thefire.org/in-the-name-of-free-exchange-of-ideas-csu-los-angeles-resorts-to-censorship/
Not surprisingly, there’s way more to the story than the far right wing media is highlighting.
For what it’s worth, I don’t trust a dang word that comes out of anything Breitbart related. I know too much about how they operate from very conservative people who left them out of disgust with how they operate. (Mostly that they drum up controversy and then play the victim.)
The comments under the link you sent are interesting.
@romanigypsyeyes thanks for the link to the article from the CSULA University Times. More info (aka more speech) lets everyone sort through the facts and arguments and make their own judgment.
What if the CC moderators decided, for example, that Zinhead is only allowed to post about free speech issues at times and places set by the moderators and only when Romanigypsyeyes and Circuitrider are present to respond and the mods are online to delete offensive posts? Wouldn’t the rest of us think that the CC mods were being too paternalistic and not giving the rest of us credit for being able to sort through the views expressed? That’s basically what’s happening at CSULA. The president decided that the student group could only invite Shapiro to speak under carefully controlled conditions to “protect” the listeners and require the listeners to simultaneously hear the opposing view. FIRE says the first amendment prohibits those restrictions on the group’s freedom of association.
From the link above:
What a sad commentary on our educational system.
But is speech really free if a student, sensing that he or she is in the minority, and seeing what happens to students who share his point of view (or have another POV that is different from the norm on campus) decides that it is safer to keep silent?
For example, a student casually expresses support for Israel. Immediately, other students call him out on his “white privilege,” the fact that he is male, Jewish, etc. No one else speaks a word in his defense because anyone who supports him, or who thinks his point is valid, even if they don’t agree with it, is afraid to go against what appears to be the majority opinion. Another student, hearing this, decides not to say a word in a future meeting for fear of the same thing happening to her.
You can say that the students expressing the minority opinion need to suck it up and be bold, but when the consequences for doing so are very real, and more importantly, are far less escapable than they would be out in the real world, they will wisely refrain. And everyone loses because of this.
The student expressing the on-campus majority left wing views won’t have the benefit of hearing a rational person express an alternative view, and the students who have minority opinions won’t get to fully engage with other students.
@Massmomm - I think those are valid points but mostly beyond the college’s ability to control. Adcoms roam the country and invite families from all over the world to apply and cherry pick the best class they possibly can, but what happens after moving-in day Is largely a matter of the students own choices. There are plenty of conservative Wesleyan kids who have relished being the voice crying in the wilderness while others, like the fellow who published the anti-BML article get blind-sided by all the fuss. These are kids. It’s a learning process.
I think it’s important to choose schools wisely for the reason you cited, @Massmomm. There are some schools that have very strong political or religious reputations, and if there is a risk your kid will be marginalized and his personal growth stunted, then by all means, steer clear of them. No need to suffer that way and pay a quarter million for the privilege. The majority of big campus, non-religious schools aren’t that way, I think. Protests against a controversial speaker coming to campus is natural, whether the crackpot is Ben Shapiro or Cornel West. Unless the opinions are classed as hate speech or incitement of violence, I don’t think administrators need to step in. Professors who want protection from student protests should look for another profession because they are committing the same crime of censorship they accuse others of doing. I think having others challenge your ideas is healthy for the prof and for his students, and I don’t know how you could have a rigorous intellectual environment without these natural tensions, and occasional blow-up. Instead of clutching pearls when this happens, I wish we celebrated them more often. That these confrontations happen is a good thing.
I have a jaded view of the real world, particularly the corporate world. There are many, many times that people bite their tongues rather than stick their neck out at the risk of offending bosses, for example. Right or wrong, most people toe the company line even when it goes against their morals or business expertise/experience. So taking a stand (or developing coping strategies against the company’s positions) is definitely a life skill, and it’s not unlike the social traps we find ourselves in while studying at college.
So then you end up with incidents like the following at UIC.
^^ sounds like the jeering bordered on hate speech — the university police rightfully stepped in.
This is real life. If these Jewish students were doing a counterprotest at a city hall meeting on the same subject, they may also run into similar incident by those who disagree with them. So this example is in fact just like real life.
I don’t agree with the hate speech, no matter which side it comes from. But engaging in a controversial issue will challenge your fortitude and moral strength. It takes a lot of courage to be one of the voices in the minority. I hope the kids are not so traumatized they stop standing for what the believe – but instead find the “practice” of standing up for an unpopular opinion useful when they go into the real world. I hope those kids are okay.
FIRE’s ratings are questionable to say the least… This policy from Carleton College is apparently “red light”:
"Student Handbook: Policy Against Sexual Misconduct- Sexually Inappropriate Conduct
Speech Code Category: Harassment Policies
Last updated: January 27, 2016
Carleton College prohibits all forms of sexual misconduct, including sexual assault, sexual harassment, sexual exploitation, stalking, intimate partner violence, and other sexually inappropriate conduct.
…
Sexually inappropriate conduct includes unwelcome sexual conduct that may not rise to the level of sexual harassment. Conduct that may be considered sexually inappropriate may be isolated behavior not sufficiently serious to be sexual harassment under this policy.
Sexually inappropriate conduct may include, but is not limited to, crude, obscene, or sexually offensive gestures or behavior, or unwelcome sexual comments or communication. For purposes of this definition, communication may be oral, written, or electronically transmitted."
Ummmm I’m pretty sure it’s reasonable (and not a “red light”) to limit free sexual harassment!!
Update on the CSU-LA case…
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/02/26/cal-state-la-ends-ban-speakers-appearance
If you follow the link, you’ll see a picture of students blocking the entrance.
Likely issue is with the underlined sections, they are vague and could include almost anything. The first section says any conduct that doesn’t rise to the level of sexual harassment, is still covered by the policy. Accidently touching someone (which really does happen) for example, without “intent”, can be treated as a sexual misconduct case.
But Fire is likely focused on the second item, where saying something “crude” can get you pulled into a sexual misconduct case. Who defines “crude”? Also, note that sexually inappropriate conduct is “not limited to”, the behaviors they listed. Sexually inappropriate conduct can be anything they want it to be. If you say in class “I think the girls/boys at X are hot”, someone in the class could file a sexual misconduct case against the offending student.
Clearly every institution needs a sexually misconduct policy, but this one needs to be tighten up a bit.
@eyrar99 , I think @Gator88NE is right about FIRE’s analysis of the Carleton speech code. Its definition of sexual harassment is overly broad. I’m thinking of Colorado College and the Yik Yak case. In that case, a student posted a reply to the comment “#blackwomenmatter” on Yik Yak. The response read, “They matter, they’re just not hot.” For that, the student was given a two year suspension from the college. FIRE points out that Colorado College claims to respect freedom of speech while at the same time severely punishing conduct that would be protected by the First Amendment at a public university. The FIRE speech code data base and rating system is simply a resource for students, parents and alumni to use when choosing a college, or when considering pressuring the school to change its speech code.
Regarding Ben Shapiro and CSULA, I watched the video of his speech to see what the fuss was about. I’d never even heard of him before. His speaking style is definitely deliberately provocative in the style of Donald Trump. He uses lots of insults like fascist, morons, thugs, etc. He is a harsh critic of social justice movements like BLM. As best I could tell, his main argument is that diversity of values is the only kind of diversity that “matters.” He argues that not all “values” are equal and societies function best when everyone in the society shares the same basic values (e.g., Judeo-Christian values). He argues that IF a society shares the same values, then diversity of other things like skin color isn’t a problem because everyone is working toward shared goals. Where he gets into the most offensive territory is when he makes it clear that in his view, desirable “values” prioritize personal responsibility and he rejects the notion that society is responsible for problems like mass incarceration, racial oppression, police brutality, etc.
His style isn’t something I like (nor do I like Trump’s style). And I disagree with lots of his contentions. But I don’t think the protesters came off looking admirable. There was lots of pushing, shoving confrontations outside (captured on video) to physically block people who wanted to come in and hear the talk. And someone pulled the fire alarm during the talk to create a major noise distraction. And of course, unlike Carleton, CSULA is a public university and subject to the First Amendment.
More than anything else, I think the CSULA/Shapiro situation was a perfect example of the “Streisand effect.” The “Streisand effect” is where an attempt to censor or hide something has the unintended consequence of publicizing something much more than would have been the case without the attempted censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Although the article seems to be focused on school/student policy, I would find it interesting to see which campuses entertainers, especially, comedians are welcome. Or conversely, the comedians themselves feel welcome. A lot of them won’t play colleges any more because they don’t want to put up with the students complaining about their material. As an example http://www.thewrap.com/comedians-avoiding-campus-when-did-universities-lose-their-sense-of-humor/
Here are a couple of videos of the event CSU-LA from various sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8zdl7gSsrI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRVe6UCmq2I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmdYPnePJMQ
It is surprising that nobody got hurt.
Interesting. I think there was exactly one truly honest statement in those video. At 2:00 in the second link, a student says “I just wanted to get some pizza. . .”
Before there were policies codifying student conduct, a dean could summarily expel a student for “ungentlemanly-like behavior”. So, be careful what you wish for.
For those of us on the conservative side of the spectrum this is a very big issue. As far as I can see, many of the big universities are bereft of true free speech, unless of course you are liberal, think conservatives are evil and “haters”. What occurred at CSU Long Beach is a perfect example of that. Ben Shapiro was invited to speak on campus. His positions are not a secret, he has a radio talk show and writes a daily blog post. His views were considered hateful rather than differing.
As we have gone through the college search and decision process with our daughter there have been school that we will not even consider letting our daughter apply to. Those school which have demonstrated clear antipathy towards real diversity of ideas and thoughts and speech.
Colleges and universities are supposed to be just the place where there can be a free exchange of idea; where people come to learn about the world, not just have their own myopic world views reflected back to them. Why is that when someone espouses a view different than your wont is considered hateful?
At the vast majority of universities and in the vast majority of situations, an alternative/opposing view isn’t hateful. (Unless, of course, it is hateful like the group that was kicked off my undergrad campus for threatening violence against Jewish- if I’m remembering correctly- students.) There are conservative groups on just about every campus and they bring in conservative speakers without issue.
This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion by several conservative sources.
I go to what is often considered a very liberal university (University of Michigan) and am a PhD student in what is undoubtedly a very liberal department. And yet, I have conservative students who excel in my classes, other classes, and on campus.
Really, this is NOT a problem at most places. But, if you don’t want to let your kid apply to these places then that’s your prerogative. I would never pay for my kid to go to a religious or extremely conservative college but I’d let them apply there. It’s just on their own dime.