The 10 Worst Colleges For Free Speech: 2017

[Zinhead]

From Huffpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58ac64bfe4b0417c4066c2f1

There isn’t a week that goes by without a campus free speech controversy reaching the headlines. That’s why it’s as important as ever that we at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) review the record each year and shine a spotlight on the 10 worst schools for free speech.

Since FIRE’s first “worst of the worst” list was released in 2011, the number of colleges and universities with the most restrictive speech codes has declined. However, 92 percent of American colleges still maintain speech codes that either clearly restrict—or could too easily be used to restrict—free speech. Students still find themselves corralled into absurdly-named “free speech zones,” taxed when they invite speakers deemed “controversial” by administrators, or even anonymously reported on by their fellow students when their speech is subjectively perceived to be “biased."

[HRSMom]

Everyone wants free speech…as long as the agree it is not offensive:(

[Corinthian]

Note that FIRE includes Fordham on the Top Ten list for restricting the Students for Justice in Palestine and Georgetown for restricting Bernie Sanders supporters from speaking.

[Zekesima]

Nobody knew about that at UCB a month ago. I heard a lot of people in the crowd calling him a homophobe. ETA: Please don’t start arguing with me about Milo–I am in no way a supporter or defender of his. Just pointing out how ridiculous it is to call him anti-gay.

[Corinthian]

I hope this isn’t going to turn into a thread about Milo.

MODERATOR’S NOTE; Balance of post deleted.

[ThankYouforHelp]

Just for the record, the article was not written by a reporter, but rather by Greg Lukinoff, the head of FIRE himself. I have found in the past that FIRE does not always fairly represent the controversies that it complains about. Sometimes I agree with them, but sometimes they exaggerate the hell out of things to get headlines and funding.

I do not have the facts to question his top ten list this year, I just wanted to put the article in context.

[colfac92]

Regardless of the top 10, or controversies around current provocateurs, I found it interesting to go to the FIRE site and search their database for colleges I am associated with one way or another to see what sorts of “free speech” issues they might have identified on those campuses. FWIW.

[perspectivestude]

Cal

[skieurope]

MODERATOR’S NOTE

I hope this isn’t going to turn into a thread about Milo.

Nope. Going too far off topic. Plus there is an entire thread devoted to that topic already. 5 posts deleted.

[marvin100]

“FIRE” is a partisan ideological astroturf group, funded by such delightful interest groups as “The John Templeton Foundation,” which “tries to encourage the integration of religious beliefs and free-market principles into the classroom.”

More “FIRE” funders:

[The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation](Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation - SourceWatch)

Harry Bradley was one of the original charter members of the far right-wing John Birch Society, along with another Birch Society board member, Fred Koch, the father of Koch Industries’ billionaire brothers and owners, Charles and David Koch.

[The Sarah Scaife Foundation](Scaife Foundations - SourceWatch)

Bankrolling Anti-Immigration Groups
Cordelia Scaife May, founder and director the Colcom Foundation until her death in 2005, was an environmentalist committed to population control and believed limiting immigration was a way to succeed in this endeavor. Since 2001, Colcom has been the primary funder for many groups in the anti-immigrant John Tanton Network, giving over $17 million to NumbersUSA, almost $15 million to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and more than $6 million to the Center for Immigration Studies.[17]

Richard Scaife, through his management of the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and together with the Scaife Family Foundation (controlled by Richard Scaife’s children since 2001) has donated more than $4 million to FAIR and more than $3 million to CIS since the early 1990s. Additionally, since 2001, the foundations have given ProEnglish $285,000 and NumbersUSA $987,500. The Scaife Family Foundation is also the sole funder of ProEnglish.[17]

Funding Islamophobia in the United States
Research from the Center for American Progress (CAP) indicates that a Scaife foundation has funded various organizations and individuals contributing to anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States. The organization contributed $7,875,000 to Islamophobic groups between 2001 and 2009. Some of the main recipients included the Center for Security Policy, the Counterterrorism & Security Education and Research Foundation, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

[url=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Castle_Rock_Foundation]Castle Rock Foundation/url.

[url=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Family_Foundations#Contributions_of_the_Claude_R._Lambe_Charitable_Foundation]The Claude R. Lamb Charitable Foundation/url.

[droppedit]

sourcewatch.org - LOL

[marvin100]

That’s a compelling counterargument, @droppedit . Care to do better?

[droppedit]

Nope. You can read all about CMD yourself. I especially like how one CMD front quotes another CMD front as a reference in defending itself (sourcewatch.org defends prwatch.org and vice-versa).

[marvin100]

None of your weird innuendo remotely counters the factual evidence I provided, and the fact remains: FIRE is not really a “free speech” defense but astroturf, funded by extraordinarily wealthy individuals and special interest groups that are deeply against freedom and are actively working on profoundly anti-American causes. The evidence is right here for all to see.

[TooOld4School]

I found it interesting that Northern Michigan University had a speech code prohibiting talk of suicide. NMU gets around 150 inches of snow per year and it gets really, really cold (-20 to -30 deg) on occasion. Mix in the hard drinking culture of the UP+ short winter days and it does not seem like a coincidence.

[Corinthian]

@marvin100 You frequently post about your objections to FIRE but can you please cite specific instances where FIRE has challenged speech policies in a way that you feel is “profoundly anti-American”? You always point to the ideology of some of FIRE’s donors, but I am not persuaded that a non-profit takes on all the ideologies of its donors. The Koch brothers have also given large donations to Habitat for Humanity. Is Habitat for Humanity now anti-American?

Consumer Reports currently rates FIRE one of their top 5 charities for human and civil rights causes, right next to the ACLU and Human Rights Watch. http://www.consumerreports.org/charities/best-charities-for-your-donations/. FIRE also gets 4 out of 4 stars from Charity Navigator. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10234

FIRE, like the ACLU, often finds itself in the position of defending speech its staff considers abhorrent, but that protection is necessary for the cause of freedom of speech. See: https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus. Nadine Stossen, who was President of the ACLU for 17 years, recently stated:

“FIRE plays an absolutely critical role because the assaults on free speech on campus are of epidemic proportions and there’s no other organization—including the ACLU—that has the resources to focus specifically on that very widespread, very important problem,”

https://www.thefire.org/former-aclu-president-nadine-strossen-on-fires-critical-role/. Are you aware of any instance where FIRE and the ACLU have been working in opposition to each other on a campus speech case? I am not.

[Hunt]

FIRE sometimes makes decent points, but they always stack the deck by leaving out restrictive religious colleges. For example, it’s a laugh to include Harvard for restricting students rights of free association, while leaving out many other colleges that restrict student organizations much more tightly.

[OHMomof2]

I’ve read that their point there is that some colleges SAY they restrict speech so it’s OK. But i agree, @Hunt .

[Corinthian]

@hunt, as you presumably know, unlike public universities, which are of course government actors, private universities are not legally obligated to uphold the First Amendment rights of students on campus. Among private universities FIRE considers whether the private university holds itself out as a bastion of freedom of speech and academic freedom. Many religious colleges are very clear that they do NOT promise free speech rights.

For example, Brigham Young University (BYU) is quite forthright in its stated policies that students entering BYU are not guaranteed robust free speech rights. One BYU policy says the following about free expression: “[T]he exercise of individual and institutional academic freedom must be a matter of reasonable limitations. In general, at BYU a limitation is reasonable when the faculty behavior or expression seriously and adversely affects the university mission or the Church.” It would be clear to anyone attending BYU that they are not entitled to unfettered free speech on campus. If a private college clearly does not promise free speech, and the college makes this known publicly and consistently, entering students have given informed consent and have voluntarily chosen to limit their own rights-in much the same way students entering military academies or theological seminaries understand that they are relinquishing many rights they would enjoy at a state college.

https://www.thefire.org/in-court/state-of-the-law-speech-codes/. Harvard by contrast claims that “The principles of free speech and the free interchange of ideas are fundamental to the Harvard community.” http://osl.fas.harvard.edu/events-policies-and-resources#freespeech. So Harvard opens itself up to criticism about whether it is delivering on its promise. You can argue about the validity of that criticism, but my point is that FIRE has a clear reason for leaving out many restrictive religious colleges from its criticisms.

[MassDaD68]

Most schools require you to check your rights at the door as a stipulation for entry. Don’t agree, then don’t come.

My 18+ year old son asked be the other day if he could carry some Advil in his backpack in case he needed it. I informed him that the school has a zero tolerance policy on drugs and although he was a legal adult in every way like the teachers, he was unable to because he was a “student”. They set up these rules with good intentions but sometimes it does lose it in translation.