So a college can evade criticism from FIRE by admitting upfront that it doesn’t respect free speech? Hmmm. So I guess FIRE is not a free speech watchdog, but is actually a watchdog against hypocrisy about free speech (or free association, if it can’t resist the urge to ding Harvard). It’s a living, I guess.
You keep on using that word anti-American. I do not think it means what it you think it means.
@Zinhead “Anti-American” is a term without meaning. It never has had meaning. I’d argue that the term is anti-American!
@hunt Consistent support for the principle of freedom of association leads FIRE to (1) criticize Harvard for blacklisting members of sororities, fraternities and finals clubs, and (2) recognize that religious colleges (and those who voluntarily attend them) may exercise their right to decide for themselves whether to subordinate free speech values to other values. Here’s a link to the full page ad FIRE took out in the Harvard Crimson. https://assets.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/documents/3455129/Dear-Harvard-PrintAd.pdf
@Corinthian - literally every criticism FIRE has made of decisions made by private colleges is not about free speech.
This won’t surprise many, but I’m a huge advocate of FIRE. Northern’s bad mark is really surprising and i hope it’s a wake up call for them. I can understand a college asking a student with mental health issues to take a leave of absence and seek help, and Huff Post tends to bend the truth, but not so much FIRE so there much be some validity to it. But in general there have been many posts and many links of colleges tromping on student and professorial rights. I am glad there is a watchdog organization that at least challenges when educational institutions ran amuck where it concerns religious freedom, legal equality, civil rights and due process and their point is well taken…walk the talk so to speak.
Shrieking of any ideological bent might be tolerable on campuses after-all we’re talking about barely formed young people, but I draw the line at cancelling invited speakers under pressure from shriekers – for me that is not appropriate. Where FIRE gets it’s funding or the fact that they call out colleges for being liars about free speech is not very relevant…anyone who has a national position gets funding from somewhere. Since when is advocacy only correct if it’s only “certain” advocacy that is allowed? And since when is it wrong to call out any organization that doesn’t walk their talk… but I’m straying…
Let me fix that link, CC clipped it:
[url=<a href=“http://prospect.org/article/conservatives-behind-campus-%E2%80%98free-speech%E2%80%99-crusade%5Dhttp://prospect.org/article/conservatives-behind-campus-%E2%80%98free-speech%E2%80%99-crusade%5B/url”>http://prospect.org/article/conservatives-behind-campus-%E2%80%98free-speech%E2%80%99-crusade]http://prospect.org/article/conservatives-behind-campus-%E2%80%98free-speech%E2%80%99-crusade[/url]
I find it interesting to compare the comments of @momofthreeboys and @emilybee. It seems that one of you distrusts HuffPo (presumably because it is seen as leaning liberal?) and one of you distrusts FIRE (presumably because it is seen as leaning conservative, or gets funding from conservatives?). So what to do when the supposedly liberal HuffPo publishes an article written by the supposedly conservative director of FIRE? In my opinion, the answer is to dig a little deeper. For example, with the Northern Michigan case, take a look at the campus newspaper and see what its version is: http://www.thenorthwindonline.com/campus-email-draws-outrage-from-students/. I see a lot of comments on CC that are some version of “don’t believe anything you read from
Regardless of where FIRE gets a lot of donations, its record shows that FIRE defends both liberals and conservatives.
https://www.thefire.org/censored-on-campus-fire-will-defend-you/ (with hyperlinks for each example that links to specific cases they’ve handled).
Harvey Silverglate was one of FIRE’s founders. Astroturfing? Nah, just a gadfly to those who’d expect to define civility on only their terms.
Thanks for the link…I know quite a few kids at Northern now and i wanted to read more this weekend about what was going on. And frankly, I think all media is biased…maybe moreso now than 40-50 years ago, but biased none the less. You have to read all sides just to develop your own opinion these days. Same with weather people on TV, right now one is calling for a blizzard and another outlet is calling for a “light dusting”…only time will tell.
It is perfectly appropriate and justifiable to look at where FIRE or any other group gets their funding. Money talks and buys influence. To assume it does not is either incredibly naive or purposefully obtuse.
@tonymom I agree it’s appropriate and justifiable. I just think you don’t stop there. It would be like judging the Clinton Foundation solely on the basis of where it got its money (which included foreign governments and political donors) and never looking at what it actually did with the money it raised (HIV/AIDS and other global health projects, sustainability projects, climate initiatives, disaster relief, etc.). You need to do both for a complete picture of the foundation.
A little difficult to gain access to all sides and read a variety of opinions when certain news sources are now barred from WH briefings. Talk about controlling FREE SPEECH…but I digress 
I think the debate about control of speech at the collegiate level is an interesting one but the narrative is often skewed.
Someone in this thread described “Shriekers” about debate and speech and that’s very telling in terms of how many attempt to discredit the larger discussion by using these terms. Civility and transparency is required on both sides.
I don’t like the word “shriek” either, partly because I think it has sexist connotations. How often are men accused of shrieking? I also agree that there is biased reporting from various news outlets about protests or other activities on campuses, and in that sense I also agree that the narrative is often skewed. But that is really separate from the work FIRE does. People may disagree with press releases from FIRE about situations it is challenging, but FIRE has a lot more accountability than the College Fix, for example, because it has to prove its case in a court of law or at the very least persuade a college’s lawyers that FIRE is likely to prevail.
@Corinthian
Ditto!
Add hysterical to shriek and I would certainly have to have a certain talk, historical highlights and all, with anyone using that phrase. I wouldn’t shut down their right to use it but I’d certainly school them…
The Koch brothers also donate extensively to cancer research. I am just waiting for marvin to retort they only fund conservative cancers and ignore the liberal ones.
Why is there a photo of Duke university on the CC ad for this post? Duke is not one of the listed schools that egregiously violates free speech.
Good question @Steglitz90. I assume it’s the fault of CC. Not only is Duke not mentioned as one of the top ten in the article, FIRE actually gives Duke a “green light” rating for its speech code. https://www.thefire.org/schools/duke-university/