I think what has changed is the idea that a black student organization or similar is a “safe space”. When I was in college I thought they were meant to be supportive places for people with a mutual background to meet, and where interested outsiders would also be welcomed to learn. Not a place where someone who had a different skin color, ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation would be presumed to be hostile and treated like an unwelcome intruder.
led to this response:
The problem with the above response is that is falsely adopts the presumption of the accuser, i.e. that the accuser has a point. And that is often the issue with the reflexive charge of racism; the charge is based on an unknown sliding scale dependent only on the opinion of the accuser, often not on factual evidence of intent or actual constructive reasoning. No need for someone in a debate to respond to someone’s opinion, which is divorced from concrete arguments. Therefore, a better answer than “Am not” is not required. In reality, no response is even better, as no requirement to justify oneself to a stupid person charge.
Recall the dining hall kitchen at some college being called racists for serving the supposed “wrong” sauce with americanized Chinese food? To some student that was racist; to others it was cool because it joined to different cultures into a dish. Silly to have to even respond to the claim of racism in this case because it is a stupid claim.
Recall the young man being called racist for wearing his hair in dreadlocks as if he was stealing something owned by from a young black student? Again, one student saw the hair style as racist on a white person, and one student liked it and wore it because he thought it helped him express himself as an individual. No need to respond to this racism claim either, as here is no response that counter such silly opinion that she owned some hairstyle.
Etc., as many more examples could be listed.
Pull Quote:
Article above writes in reference to this NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html
(Emphases mine)
EDIT: I just saw Post #101 by @ihs76. Excuse the repeat info.
There’s an excluded middle here.
I, for one, never said the news media is creating this issue out of whole cloth. I did assert that the news media is (often wildly) exaggerating how widespread the issue is. That’s an important difference.
Let’s be honest, that has an extraordinary amount to do with the fact that the students are not subject to being drafted. I bet the campus was pretty calm post 1975 as well. And to be perfectly frank, the fact that there is a democrat in the White House helps a lot as well. Certainly Berkley was agog in protests about the Iraq war during the Bush administration. Syria, Lybia, Afghanastan (now), eh, not so much.
And I have no idea what watching Fox News or CNN has to do with anything. The videos of Jigglypuff, Melissa Flick, the Shrieking Girl, the kids at Dartmouth, and many more were exposed as the result of new media and cell phone cameras. It is very unlikely that someone who gets their news at 6:00pm everyday will have any idea about half of this stuff.
The issue shouldn’t be about being young or old. The issue is that our country has survived, and in many ways thrived, based on a series of principles, one of which is the ability to speak freely. And as you intimate, many millenials support some restriction on the right of free speech. Maybe we “old farts” should just shut up and say sure, you guys are 20 and obviously know everything. Do what you want. Chuck the constitution. Forget about honing your mind and testing yourself against other ideas. At no point in recorded history has any society ever done anything like that, but you never know, maybe it will work. Certainly history is filled with examples of great advances made by people who never faced adversity and were never forced to question their assumptions. What really do we have to lose, right?
I am assuming I am entitled to free speech.
Breitbart is a white supremicist web site.
^How about the Atlantic, Slate, the NYT? Can you safely ignore everything written there as well? All of those outlets posted about the referenced safe space at Brown. In fact the genesis of the story was the NYT. Surely the NYT is a bastion of all that is good and right in the world?
@dfbdfb, fair point, and it may be (probably is) true that the media attention on the incidents we see makes it seem like there are more efforts to stiffle debate and contrary thoughts than there actually are. However, I would posit that any such effort is a net negative on a college campus. And when you add in that we see basically the same story play out on different campuses several times a year, it is difficult for a layman to not see this is a systemic issue.
Fun facts from Gallup! From a poll earlier this year: http://www.gallup.com/poll/190442/college-students-adults-say-free-speech-secure.aspx
Here are the money bullet points, quoted from the summary:
[ul][]73% of [college] students, 56% of adults say free speech is secure in U.S. today
[]Students more positive than adults about all five First Amendment freedoms
[li]Students believe free speech rights stronger than in past; adults disagree[/ul][/li]So basically, I see this as those older than college students believing that freedom of speech is under threat, and matching their perception of reality to that perception.
ETA: Annoying, but a whole different issue: Contrasting “college students” with “adults”.
You were right the first time. My (white) D was invited to live in the black culture house on her campus. She also is and was welcome at any event sponsored by any cultural group, including the events supporting the protests in Missouri last fall.
Breitbart is a white supremicist website.
I worked with a guy who spouted hated. He has his gold buried in Northern California. Waiting for the end of the world. I think he is going to end first.
I was at a party with him. We get along well. We were sitting at a dinner together for an hour. He was hating. After about two minutes, I wanted a safe place. 
Post #110,… Yep.
We have a lot of projecting by older folks going on…
Here is one with a slightly different conclusion
40% of millenials ok with limiting speech offensive to minorities
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/
And here are a few quotes about the data from the entity that commissioned the poll cited by @dfbdfb, which indicates a differing understanding among millenials of what free speech is, or should be
and
If the last two sentences don’t bother you, then I will turn over my king.
I think the polls are showing young people are less racist.
Can we be for free speech and safe places?
No.
^The question then is how do you learn.
If you need a safe space to run to when someone on a debate stage at a college says something that challenges your assumptions, how in the world do you ever get smarter? If your preconceptions are not challenged, how do you ever form your beliefs? How do you hone arguments, and discover new things and theories if you are not exposed to contrary perspectives?
This topic is trending now on Twitter 
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=University%20of%20Chicago&src=tyah
I think people should be exposed to a very wide range of different perspectives including those that disagree with mine.
I read all kinds of perspectives including breitbart at times.
But, do I really have to listen to a neo-nazi? Is there a limit? A campus should invite a holocaust denier? I agree that people should know that holocaust deniers exist. After that…?
Can some guy walk next to me as I walk to class and just talk crap to me? Where are my rights to not have to listen to that crap?
I believe in as much free speech as possible, but does that mean everything goes? That facts don’t matter?
@Ohiodad51, when 600 people are demonstrating about changing the name of a building, that’s their right.
No it doesn’t. It assumes (a) that the accuser thinks s/he has a point and/or (b) that listeners might assume the accuser is right and (c) that the accused is involved in a discussion where s/he hopes to understand and/or be understood by others participating in the discussion. In other words, it assumes precisely the kind of conversation UofC is hoping to foster – a robust intellectual exchange among interlocutors who have very different perspectives but who could (and who hope to) learn from each other.
As I said in a previous post, the challenge is how to create the conditions where such exchanges happen. One part of the answer is a set of shared norms about how we talk to each other and another part is a set of strategies for holding people to these norms. In a classroom setting, individual teachers may do most of the heavy lifting wrt both of these tasks. But in a university where the hope is that intellectual discussions move beyond the classroom and into dorms and dining halls and quads, then it makes sense to give students some strategies for productive engagement. I hope UofC will tackle that challenge during O-week. My daughter will be an entering first year student and the Dean’s letter has already sparked some discussions along these lines here at home.
Of course it is. But what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I haven’t heard anyone say that you are required to listen to a neo nazi. That is a different thing than saying that a neo nazi is not entitled to air his opinions. And should a campus invite a holocaust denier? My personal opinion is yes. I believe the best way to expose the lunatics among us is to allow them a platform and a megaphone. Some of us old farts remember a saying; “Better to stay silent and be thought a moron than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” I believe in encouraging people to open their mouth.
And sure there are issues with harrassment, etc. But for my money, I think that we as a society should only restrict speech when the alternative is that the likely result of the speech is direct and tangible harm to another.