Exposure to abhorrent ideas at University, does not make a Student, or anyone, strong. Unless they think Equality and Human Rights are abhorrent, for example.
The goal of Higher Education, is to have every Student finish School, all 52 Grades of School, with a Brilliant IQ Score, the Top Score. 52 Grades of School goes past the PhD degree. JD, MD, MBA, Masters are under the PhD degree, to give some perspective of what it means to be well-educated, highly educated, and also, just how long a person has to go to School to finish School, completely. Many, many years.
Strong is a Brilliant IQ Score, formally certified on a person's School Report Card. The School Report Card serves as a person's Resume, for many Top Level, World Class jobs, because these jobs require Brilliant IQ Scores, completion of all 52 Grades, or close to these Top Achievements. Strong decreases from there.
Intelligent Speech is an acquired skill learned at School. It is tested in Standardized Testing that goes beyond The PhD. Abhorrent, illiterate, unreasonable, disgusting, anti-equality, anti-intelligent, School Dunce ideas are not used for this Standardized Testing, and classes designed to expose Students to Brilliant ideas. Not abhorrent ideas.
Students should do their Academic Homework, and not waste time being exposed to trash, violence, vulgar, crude, anti-intelligent, illiterate expressions. If they want to be exposed to this, they can watch TV, read the newspaper, video games.
Whatever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never break me? The fears of our college students today pale in comparison to what the residents of one Illinois suburb had to put up with in 1977 when the State Supreme Court allowed members of the American Nazi Party the right to march in the predominantly Jewish suburb of Skokie based on the First Amendment argument. It guaranteed them the right to free speech and expression which meant they could spew hate and wear the swastika. Although they had the protection of the law, the Nazis failed to carry out their march in Skokie.
At the time a large number of Holocaust survivors lived in Skokie. For them, this event brought back many horrific and tragic memories. It also stirred the community into action by banning together to combat hate with education. They set up the Holocaust Museum and Education Center and the Holocaust Memorial Foundation to commemorate those who had died in the concentration camps.
The museum still exists today while the Nazi party in Illinois is no where to be found. Here's is one lesson our college students should be learning instead of covering their ears or resorting to tactics that would any fascist proud.
17
I’ve been a freelance software engineer for more than 25 years and for the last eight years I’ve also taught part-time at a local university. So, I’ve got my feet in both worlds.
Most of the students I teach are level-headed, and will do fine as they move into adulthood. But there is a fraction of tender students who naively think they can go through life and avoid or suppress situations they don’t care for.
Most of my students don’t grasp just how harsh adulthood can be sometimes. The clients in my business don’t give much of a hoot about my feelings, nor should they. I’ve had clients drop us in the middle of a project with no warning. That’s life.
It’s important my students develop skills to engage and work with people they don’t much care for and wouldn't want as a friend. People who have a far different view of the world. In their path through life they will encounter more people that are are significantly different than ones who are significantly simpatico.
21
As a recent graduate, I am always troubled by the comments to pieces on this subject. It is easy to throw universities and students under the bus as being overly sensitive and against the first amendment, but that’s not the case. “...a belief in a free speech may mean everyone has a right to speak — but not that everyone has a right to be invited to speak.” describes many students view on these speakers. I have no problem with Charles Murray and the like expressing their views, but I would rather not have my tuition dollars go towards giving them a platform to do so.
5
I've been thinking about this, that there are people who just can't handle people having different opinions from themselves.
I recall years ago, a discussion organized by a student group about some topic regarding careers and strategies for success. I was a grad student participating, I had been invited.
I said my piece, harmless, in my view. An older man literally burst out, practically yelling as he argued against my position. He might have been a faculty member in a different department.
I was shocked, but I refused to let him rile me and I refused to engage with him. The moderators and everyone else felt so uncomfortable as they had to deal with the aftermath of his outburst.
Afterward the program ended, I refused to engage with him but just stared until he got uncomfortable. The moderator tried to appease him that everything was okay.
Children who don't know how to handle civic disagreement on a college campus need to be give the equivalent of a time out in a corner.
10
"Mr. Axelrod, said, for example, that he would not invite Roseanne Barr, whose top-rated sitcom was recently canceled after a racist tweet, because “she has a long history of making comments like this that are offensive and incendiary, and that aren’t really the advancement of an idea. They are just purely the advancement of a prejudice.”
=========
The irony is that Academics advancing campus censorship and/or supporting student opposition to speakers because of their abhorrent views forget that THEIR freedom of speech is not only the bedrock of academic freedom, but the cornerstone of our democratic institutions without which they must necessarily degenerate into socio/political absolutism; i.e. dictatorships."
The best way to cure a boil is to lance it and expose the fester to the disinfectant of rhetorical sunlight. [Apologies to Louis Brandeis.]
As such, unless as they did in the past, academics don't resume teaching students to articulate and defend their ideas and principles, and urge them to take the initiative and go on the attack Mr. Axelrod's policy harbingers the future.
So, rather than protecting students from the realities they will face in the real world, the academy would do better to invite the "Roseanne Barrs," let them spew their pernicious views, and challenge students to enter the fray of ideas.
8
"And the incident is followed by a competing chorus of accusations about the rights of free speech versus the need to feel safe and welcome."
If you need to feel safe and welcome, you should be at home with mommy and daddy, not in college.
25
It seems to me that we ought to be able to differentiate hate speech and racist propaganda from informed discourse. It's one thing to invite speakers with whom we disagree on political or academic grounds, but it's another to have bigots like Richard Spencer give a talk at a university. There can never be an adequate justification for allowing people like that to spew vitriol.
I don't think there's anything wrong with students standing up to hate speech. That's something's inexplicably lacking among most right-wing politicians these days. You can disagree with the students, but at least they have a spine.
7
Why don't these colleges coddle these kids some more? That'll really prepare them for the real world.
15
I am Gen-X. A couple of years ago, I was called into my manager's office (also Gen-X) to discuss a complaint made against me by a millennial co-worker. This co-worker didn't like the way I left files on her desk for processing. "Too aggressive". My manager and I had a good chuckle and he checked the box for "handling" the situation.
In all seriousness though, colleges aren't preparing students for real life. That this person felt the proper channel for addressing a very minor workplace issue was to go right to the manager instead of just talking to me is troubling.
20
This is just crusty adults (of which I am one) yammering. The kids know right and wrong, mostly. They understand free speech but they understand bigotry and hate speech. And guess what? They say "No". Get over it "adults". These kids are our last best hope.
7
The complaints about "this generation" of students and their supposed "safe spaces" gets old to me. Watch an old film of student radicals from the 1960s, taking over buildings. Do you think no one called them overblown and childish? Do you think they were never overblown and childish? Of course they were. But weren't they, by and large, on the right side of history?
Young people who are ages 18 to 22 can be emotional. They can use overblown language. But that doesn't mean they are wrong.
Defending "free speech" without acknowledging power dynamics is empty. People who have power -- both personally and historically -- can wield damage that other people cannot. This is why it is worse for a white student to dress up as a black person than for a black person to dress up as a white person.
What these students want is to make all their classmates feel welcome and safe in class. To do this, what they are asking for is a serious consideration of power dynamics in discussions about who gets to speak, when, and about what. Their concerns are legitimate even if their tone can be strident. And I can assure you that any look at student radicals going back to the 1960s, or the 1840s, or before -- will find the same tone and stridency.
Let's not fall for the rhetoric that this generation is unusually frail, or whiny. If you want them to have a better discussion, then push them to elevate the discussion -- but don't try to tell them they're whiny for having it.
9
Many students view college as nothing more than a white collar trade. Witness the growth of undergraduate business degrees. Go to college so you can get a good paying job is all they hear. Nothing about learning any ideas that might conflict with their preconceived notions. Nothing about expanding their minds. Nothing about learning about how others might think or about how to persuasively argue to support their own points of view. It is no wonder that free speech is low on their list of priorities, especially the speech of those they disagree with. Maybe if they actually learned a skilled trade and had to work alongside folks from outside their bubbles, they would learn more on the job intellectually speaking than by sitting cossetted with their like-minded no-nothings. Thirty five years as a college mathematics professor taught me that intellectual engagement can be found anywhere, and your local bar is probably as good as your intro sociology course.
24
Make that "white collar trade schools" and "like-minded know-nothings". Hand faster than brain today.
2
The indoctrinated students will go into the real world and deal - if unprepared - with real world problems. But the faculty that radicalized them will remain to indoctrinate the next generation. What this means is that issue of real speech boils down to philosophy and civics: where is the dividing line between academic scholarship and ideology? Who makes the decisions to hire faculty who use "scholarship" to inflame racial, gender, social animus? Shouldn;t these people be responsible as well?
13
Before Trump's election, I would have agreed wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in this article: that everyone has a right to speak and that it's up to students to carefully analyze, and then reject, ideas with which they disagree. Now I'm not so sure. Not because of the election, mind you, but because of what it's unleashed.
When ideas are given platforms, they are much more likely to become mainstream. Many people have neither the time nor the inclination to think deeply about a topic. Many also harbor various animuses and antipathies that they generally keep buried, but which they likewise have not explored deeply. When these hatreds are given a platform, they become a part of the broader political discourse. They then become more likely to be acted upon.
Our society is currently going through a crisis of social norms. No one is really sure where we'll end up. But when the risk of losing the argument may literally be "you lose all your rights and have to go back in the closet or risk being dispossessed of your livelihood, your housing, and possibly your life," or "people are going to come and kill your family in the night because you were born to the wrong religion/race/whatever," it can be tempting not to give those views a platform in the first place. Perhaps some things are better kept buried.
3
so basically, the only ideas you feel should be heard are those that are acceptable to you. and your qualifications to be the judge of that are? you are exactly like the college students who shouted down the speaker. and you think that's acceptable? it's frightening.
22
No, certainly not. You're speaking to someone who literally wrote a brief to the Supreme Court defending the rights of anti-choice protestors to picket while his wife was working in an abortion clinic. The idea that I'm afraid of free speech writ large is laughable. However, the debate is more nuanced than this article lets on, and I can see why people are tempted to shut down speech that they deem not just offensive, but threatening.
Let's take an extreme example: Richard Spencer. By giving him a platform in which to express his views, colleges have given those views airtime. Airtime lends a view currency. It allows it to enter the mainstream debate. And Richard Spencer's views are essentially this: That my family and I should be forcibly deported from a country we've lived in since 1740, or maybe (said sub rosa) that we should all just be killed. If people are exposed to this idea frequently, it can become seen as acceptable. If it becomes acceptable, it's much more likely to happen.
There seems to be a general idea that people can't distinguish between general disagreements along a spectrum and views that are truly beyond the pale. I used to subscribe to this view myself. But when views that were formerly beyond the pale start to become policies that may be implemented, with potentially deadly results, we may need to take another look at what we're comfortable permitting in discourse. My line on this may be moving toward allowing some restrictions in the private sphere.
2
Pretty scary to see over half of college students feel "inclusiveness" more so important as to justify free speech - in College no less ! media and Hollywood need to look inward and ask themselves, just where did the students get those attitudes from ? They brought these to college in first place.. boomers didnt have to be "reeducated' as freshmen about the constitution or the manifest dangers of suppressing free speech for everyone. Those o us focused on micro aggression, cultural appropriation etc need to wake up and understand the constitution and our civil rights are all that are protecting us from Trump and an American version of authoritarianism -Van Jones is spot on- perhaps this should be the new definition of "woke"? As i look around I'm no worried millenials wont advance /be sensitive to the cause of URM- they will, and bravo- but they need to recognize this has to be down without compromising our/their /EVERYONEs rights to free speech.
7
Actually, this started with well-intentioned university programs that had (in my view) very laudable intention to increase diversity. Unfortunately, almost without exception, these programs were hijacked by resident radicals, who use them as the platform to promote their ideological and racial biases. Then a myriad of little-known administrative and funding initiatives from Obama administration catapulted the strife by championing the divisive memes (safe spaces, microaggression etc). Rosemary's baby, no less.
10
If you are bothered by the speaker, or feel threatened, don't go. If you do go, engage in an open dialog and learn from other perspectives. A closed mind is a sad thing. It is particularly troubling that speech viewed as conservative is most often targeted. The historical precedents for silencing one view, or going against one class of people, have always ended badly. As Niemoller said, "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists...." We should all remember how this turned out.
30
I hate to see this happening at colleges. Everyone has the right to speak and colleges and a few zealous students should not be censoring their speakers from the right wing. I am liberal and I have no issue with hearing different view points and welcome an educated argument.
39
The Snowflakes that are soooooo offend by the diverse opinions of others should also demand protection from dirty looks, offensive thoughts and offensive body language. Perhaps we could start Radio Free University and broadcast different opinions to the students, but Yale like North Korea would probably jam the frequency
24
We’ve heard the hate speech. We don’t want to hear anymore.
1
Then don't listen. Or call your parents for instructions.
15
we blanket everything that we don't agree with as "hate speech" and say it's offensive and we shouldn't have to hear it. nonsense. not all of it is true "hate speech". some of it is just a "different opinion". I'm not so sure I even know what determines hate speech. stop being so close minded, listen to others with an open mind, formulate an opinion and respond logically and rationally. it's called thinking.
16
"So we prevent individuals from making speeches that upset us."
11
A "liberal" college education is designed to teach students to think for themselves, to research facts, and try to argue both sides of an issue. This only benefits our democracy and allows the best ideas from multiple ideologies to rise to the top. It requires that people with different ideologies teach, I had that and it helped me gain different perspectives. But colleges must also have some criteria in terms of the honesty and integrity of those they hire to teach or talk to students.
To suggest a school must allow people preaching hate or dismissive of sexual assault (like Milo Yiannopoulos) is wrong and an attempt to use the open mindedness of colleges against them to spread propaganda and racism.
Not all speech is harmless. There has been a rise in hate crimes with leaders who not only tolerate hate speech but use it themselves. Lies about things like immigrant crime rates or the environment have real life consequences to our communities and democracy and colleges should not promote people and groups who show a disdain for science and for truth.
Far Right groups operate at the height of hypocrisy, attacking "liberal" education for not allowing every opinion including hate speech to be presented, while they themselves represent a total lack of willingness to accept any different viewpoints or compromise on any issue.
Colleges should continue to try to diversify ideologies, but not at the expense of the basic tenants of truth, integrity and human decency.
5
you make it sound like the liberals have the right and just opinions and the conservatives are just wrong.
btw, what % of illegal immigrants have committed a crime? answer: 100%. they committed a crime the minute they entered the country illegally.
13
Who decides who are the "people preaching hate? "
10
PC rant number 5, 397.....yes the problem is that the huge Marxist Left controls everything....just ask yourself something, how much free speech do you think you have at Liberty Baptist College?
10
What a wonderful illustration! I would love to have it hanging on my wall.
1
Please pass along—this illustration which I love, is stupendous art!
I think it is a mistake to view this as a new issue. I attended a liberal arts college in the northeast with a reputation of being very, very far to the left. When I began my first semester in the fall of 1988, the college's conservative newspaper had just lost it's funding from the college for publishing a piece that some found provocative and satirical and that others deemed racist -- under the guise of (they said) exposing the hypocritical racism of the left. The following year, the main building of the college was taken over and shut down by students protesting a speech by Daniel Patrick Moynihan of all people.
Battles over the First Amendment and free speech are as old as the amendment itself. The issues may have changed over the years, and they have been magnified and distorted by things like social media and the 24-hour news cycle. The one thing that has definitely changed, I fear, is that we no longer have conversations, but merely talk over and shout at one another.
And yet, there is a part of me that thinks we will only really need to be worried if and when the controversy stops.
9
Shouting down, name calling, emotional/verbal abuse are not going to win the day for ideas. If you don't like what someone is saying come up with something better. Have a counter argument. This emotional, attack tactic coming from the left only makes their opponent looks better and makes them look weak and out-of-control. It's fascinating and disturbing that liberal colleges don't seem to be teaching reason anymore.
11
I am extremely worried that elimination of exposure to hostile ideas will create extreme views and actions by our leaders to come. Whether the views are left or right an intolerance for listening to unwelcome viewpoints will shape intolerance with all of the ills that flow from that condition . Institutions of higher learning are there to provide insights into the human condition and not to raise unquestioning citizens intolerant of opposing views or backgrounds.As one who has advocated for application of constitutional principles to allow equal access to all citizens ,regardless of race, sex or disability status, to rights secured by the constitution I am disheartened by the current events described in the article.
4
Nobody has a right to be protected from what they consider offensive speech. This is the bargain were have made in our civil society. Speech, no matter how it may hurt, is to be free. in exchange we have freedom. Democracy is not for the faint of heart. But it is worth it.
Those who are not willing to keep the bargain are free riders. They want the freedom but not the bargain. There is no such thing as a free ride.
29
Offensive and threatening speech is understandably a concern. This effort by college Presidents is solid. What should concern everybody is an utter lack of civility and disruption. For example, BLM running through Dartmouth Libraries during finals period or expensive riots at Berkeley.
College is really expensive. Most students want to learn and build foundations for their future. And, most of these kids have grown up with some form of social indoctrination that is highly tolerant. Activists are fine, and they can make a difference. But, when they impinge upon the rights and safety of others, they have crossed a line. It is amusing when those seeking safety and tolerance use intolerant tactics.
Also, Universities also have built infrastructures that suggest a few things where students lack due process and are incredibly heavy handed, such as Title IX adjudication and bias, inclusion programs/police which seek to penalize students at the whim of an overheard (and sometimes erroneous) statement or action. All of this implies that some cohorts are guilty of something before they hit campus. And, if you are a parent of a white heterosexual male, the best advice is: “stay clear of anything that could remotely be misconstrued...” maybe that is for the best, but we have seen with Duke Lax and UVA rolling stone as well as other Title IX reversals, schools are responding not to facts, but perceptions - the very thing educators and an informed education should avoid!
8
"It is also true that a belief in a free speech may mean everyone has a right to speak — but not that everyone has a right to be invited to speak."
Isn't this "remedy" as pernicious as the disease? Who becomes the gatekeeper who gives a thumb up or thumb down to a prospective speaker? Who will be the judge as to which speakers may prove too bruising to the delicate psyches of the students? Will administrators be intimidated by certain student groups into dis-inviting more and more speakers until the silos that David Axelrod contends that the students have been raised in are merely propagated to, and institutionalized into, their college lives?
The issue is the current curtailment of free speech on campus. Keeping away speakers, by not inviting them, whose ideas have been, a priori, judged to potentially discomfit certain ears is a feelgood facile solution that dodges, and in no way addresses, the idea of the free exchange of ideas.
Let all ideas from all sources be made available and let the students judge for themselves whether they want to hear them. If they think they may be offended, or may be "scared" as alleged in the piece, they can self-select and not attend. What they should never be allowed to do is interfere with the speaker's right to speak and the listener's right to listen.
25
Journalists traffic in anecdotes. These incidents occasionally happen on college campuses. They are lamentable and need to be addressed. It is the special headache of college administrations do deal with these matters. The vast majority of students on college campuses are not shouting anyone down, however. Most faculty and students are in lab or the classroom or the library or engaged in organizations and internships. When you have tens of thousands of people in one location, there is always going to be a handful of intolerant, obstreperous people. Don't focus on that handful of people and declare "oh my gosh, the entire culture of college campuses is antithetical to free speech."
4
Early (and often) exposure to diversity of thought is the answer to the safe space mindsets valuing shielding over free speech that Mr. Axelrod and others describe. Waiting till they arrive as freshman in college to confront this attitude is like trying to board a subway car that is pulling out of the station. In an age of fake news and social media, students from elementary school on should be exposed to consuming media from differing responsible sources and having that instruction integrated into all their classes. Only very early exposure to differing viewpoints is going to change the mindset that being placed in a protective cocoon is a right that should placed above free speech. If it isn't already available, maybe schools can get site licenses from any publications willing to entertain offering accounts, and provide students exposure to a range of opinions and coverage.
4
It isn’t just at college that the idea police are active. In many business bureaucracies they pay good money to get outside consultants to point out what everyone in the organization can see but not speak to. Why do you think a company like Wells Fargo, for example, ends up creating such a dysfunctional culture? It’s because everyone is focused on the value of agreeing, and some things must not be mentioned.
3
I have the right to speak. You have the right not to listen. You have the right to speak. I have the right not to listen. I have the right to present my views. You have the right to counter them -- with cogent argument. You have the right to present your views. I have the right to counter them with cogent argument.
This is the academic -- and life experience. Face the world, the reality outside of one's bubble and perhaps comfort zone. Any attempt to deprive others simply because of one's own discomfort denies the other's right to make their own assessments.
42
I find myself wondering how can these students have graduated from high school without understanding the purpose and nature of freedom of speech?
Sadly, I have no similar illusions about where students learn hate speech: we need look no farther than our president.
The students who shouted down Murray and assaulted a professor have unwittingly allied themselves with the book burners of Nazi Germany. They are far more dangerous than Murray ever was and it is nothing less than shameful that Middlebury let them off with a wrist slap.
But Axelrod is right -- it would be wrong to grant platform space to someone like Roseanne Barr, whose currency is hate.
The distinction is obvious and I'm appalled that our high schools are apparently failing to teach it.
11
Axelrod does NOT write that it would be wrong to grant platform space to Barr! Axelrod states that he as an individual has a right NOT to invite her. Barr can share her hate on Twitter, and she can sing the national anthem to its demise, as she did in 1990. Private companies don’t have to buy her show or pay for her singing, and you don’t have to read her tweets or listen to her song. She still has the freedom to speak in a public forum.
5
Anyone remember the movie "The Boy in the Bubble," starring an almost-big-time John Travolta? He had no immune system, so he couldn't leave his little plastic enclosure.
Spoiler alert: He leaves it at the end. He wants to experience life and all its diversity, instead of isolating himself to his tiny environment. He is willing to swap his safety to embrace the world.
Courtesy of digital everything, now we're all in bubbles, and our moral and emotional immune systems are compromised, and getting weaker. I'm a real lefty, but there's no excuse to shout down people at campuses we disagree with; the right to speak freely is worthless when no one can hear. Listening to--even embracing--our political opponents keep our democratic immune systems strong.
13
The choice of universities to invite and permit far right speakers to air their views sends the signal, I would argue, to their minority students that their humanity is in some way open to academic debate.
Richard Spencer's views are not harmless and they do not merit thoughtful consideration. His fundamental position is that the United States should be ethnically cleansed: What is the point of listening to that?
Do the academics who put him on stages think there's some kernel of insight in ethno-nationalism that can be explored? Is there some hope of compromise?: 'OK, we've debated it and I think we can agree that Latinos are 75% human'; or 'OK fine, the American ethno-state can keep Jews, some Asians and lighter-skinned Latinos, but all the Arabs have to go'. If you want to know what his vision for America is you don't need a lecture, you can watch Schindler's List.
People are right to be afraid of white nationalists; their goal is to drag Americans from their homes and 'non-violently' deport them by the millions. To assert that there is some bracing, tonic-like quality in allowing universities to become platforms for that message is ridiculous. Richard Spencer is not, and should not be, jailed or prohibited from speaking by the government. Other than that, we should do everything possible to silence his message: as a community we gain more by protesting him than by sitting politely as he accuses friends and family of polluting white bloodlines.
19
People have a right to be afraid of white nationalists. And white nationalists have a right to congregate and share speech that can be heard in public spaces among themselves and among those who will listen. If you don’t want to hear their speech, then don’t go to their platforms. However, a free American society would never “no-platform” them in public, as would happen in England, Australia, and New Zealand, etc. CV, you’re from London, and perhaps British (or have lived in England for too long). This may not be true of “free speech” in England, but this is the meaning of “free speech” in America.
7
Often it is not academics who invite these controversial speakers--it is special-interest student groups aiming to stir things up.
3
Who designates what is far right? Often it's a knee jerk reaction to an idea, not the values held by the speaker.
8
There are two problems here. The first problem is simply an unwillingness to hear opposing points of view. College is supposed to be a place where opposing points of view can be shared. If the purpose of a liberal arts college is to teach kids to think, how can one learn to think if one's ideas are never challenged?
The second and greater problem is what I would call the demonization of the opposing side. Like it or not, a large plurality of Americans voted for Donald Trump. These people are not all "racists," "fascists", or "deplorables." They represent widely held views and a large portion of our society. By the mere fact that their ideas are so widely held, they are, by definition, not extreme, though they are characterized as such. Continued silencing of these ideas leads neither to understanding nor compromise.
I entered college as a socialist radical. At college, I was exposed many points of view-- many opposed to mine. These were articulated by both students and faculty. I left college as a free market libertarian. I have never stopped questioning what I believe, nor stopped listening to the other side. Now that I am a professor myself, I have encountered a number of conservative students who are simply afraid to express their views for fear of being accused of hate speech, or called some pejorative. Its simply not worth the trouble for them to get into arguments. So they keep silent, and there is no exchange of ideas. The censors have won.
51
No, Trump did not receive "a large plurality" of votes. He fell several million votes short of that, and it was the Electoral College that overrode the will of the majority and put him in office.
1
mea culpa...Trump received 46% of the vote, to Hilary's 48%. You are right, it was not a plurality. My point was that a large minority of Americans voted for him, and their views are widely held, and thus not extreme.
I wonder how these students are going to be able to function in the real world?
35
Reading the increasingly polarized New York Times (now featuring a “gender editor”), we can see that the echo chamber of self-reinforcing safe-speech zones extends well beyond college campuses. It’s no wonder that with the Balkanization of “mainstream media” (which no longer refers to an actual thing), our children are growing up without the ability to respect viewpoints that diverge from those they find safe and comforting. It would be refreshing to see the NYT and its readers own up to their own contribution to this problem.
84
Not this reader. I hate what has happened to the Times as much as you do. It's hard to see the newspaper that was once the model for impartial journalism turn into a propaganda organ on identity issues. And I say that as a card-carrying liberal. I don't want to read ideological reinforcement, I want to read an honest discussion.
There is still much fine journalism here if one ignores the slanted discussion of identity issues, but it's sad that it's happened and you're right, it's related to the intolerance we now see on campus.
87
College professors often need a refresher course in The First Amendment, as well, especially those who have not grown up as children in America. No other nation on earth has The First Amendment’s philosophy of free speech. It’ not uncommon that visitors to and new citizens of the USA lack in its understanding. The First Amendment’s philosophy of free speech is unique, and is essentially enculturated only in America.
7
Whats interesting is that Christina Paxson, the president of Brown University, is Jewish. You would think a jew would understand how dangerous nationalism and racism are. But alas, money talks.
3
When Charles Murray's book The Bell Curve was published in 1994, the response of the academic and intellectual communities was an avalanche of informed rebuttal (see the book, The Bell Curve Debate, 1995). Today's protesters prefer the lazy route -- shouting down a speaker as a substitute for the hard work of educating themselves to the facts that will prove him wrong.
63
The founding fathers wanted to be able to speak against the government without fear of reprisal, they didn't intend that you had the right to say what ever you want without expecting some form of consequence.
It's one thing to have an opposing view on something, it's another thing to spew hatred or incite violence by your words.
Colleges need to keep this in mind when asking anyone to give a speech and the student body needs to remember it when listening to others on campus.
2
I do wonder if certain interpretations of intersectionality theory might complicate the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality#Interlocking_matrix_of_o...
I own my comment as a white male, and yet i do wonder if we the conversation boxes itself into dissonant intractability when we reify and give too much weight to box-checked labels of identity.
There is an idea out there: that mere act of speaking across these lines is an act of oppression. And therefore, if you are a white male, or lie higher within the matrix of oppression, you are oppressing the other simply by exchanging ideas.
On this basis I notice mansplaining or whitesplaining being invoked regardless of the tone or dynamic of the actual words.
Perhaps the solution lies in a pragmatic balance: 1) there can be power in words and historical power positions--indeed for this reason hate speech is sometimes criminal, but 2) Depriving others of their right to take part in good-faith dialgue, and indeed to have their own pain, divides and isolates the country.
Meanwhile, all this matters big time: it is on the basis of unity as Americans--all subject to the same political order--that we will come together pragmatically to protect institutions of justice, the rule of law, and shape policy for better or worse.
1
Liberals hate speech they can't control.
19
Blanket assertions do not further discussion.
8
And conservatives are different how?
Remember the McCarthy era? The firebombings and arrests during the civil rights protests? Kent State?
How about the Reagan abortion doctor gag order, or the Trump resurrection?
I can point to example after example of conservative suppression of free speech.
12
Wow, what a reflective, nuanced, and subtle point.
4
Education is about content, not "feelings" of "inclusiveness" or anything else. If somebody is intimidated by hearing another viewpoint, they understand nothing about education, which begs the question why they are in college. That colleges and universities are becoming complicit in this hothouse culture of therapy proves only that the lunatics are now running the asylum.
56
Let's be clear: you don't invite Ann Coulter to a campus because "education is about content" as she has none to offer.
You do it because she validates your "feelings" including your objection toward "inclusiveness" particularly those for whom your "feelings" are dismissive of others you see as inferior to you on a basis other than "content." Lipstick on a pig doesn't turn dross into gold.
We have a problem here because educational institutions, in a misguided attempt at fending off (often deserved) charges of ideological narrowness, have abandoned all responsibility at ensuring minimum standards of "content" in these speaking invitations. Groups don't have to invite only other academics but it would be helpful if they invited persons whose achievement in life exceeded debunked pseudo-science (Murray), sophistry (Coulter), or unknown skills (Yiannopoulos).
Do leftist (not liberal!) students have a problem with confronting ideologically conflicted viewpoints? Sure. But the solution isn't to force them to attend a 7 part lecture series featuring Heinrich Himmler and Pol Pot.
If you claim otherwise, you understand nothing about education.
2
Joseph Glover, provost of the University of Florida, said of his students, “Some of them . . . . were viscerally afraid of him because of his organization, what he stood for, his policies, his advocacies.”
Why should “visceral fear” outweigh freely flowing discourse? The notion that a strong emotional response to the expression of ideas contrary to one’s own constitutes justification for limiting academic speech is not the product of a commitment to intellectual life. It follows instead prioritizing the business aspect of a university, a place where the student-consumers can trust their experiences will be as blandly pleasant as those experienced when watching a television show or attending a theme park.
David Axelrod gets it right when he suggests that as a rule students have not interacted extensively with people whose opinions, and, more importantly, unspoken assumptions sharply differ from their own. Intellectual life as well as meaningful preparation for the world requires that students be allowed to experience some discomfort, even when “visceral.” Defining differences of thought or belief as threats effectively rules out the possibility of dialogue. Such definitions are a tactic of politicians as well as media figures, but they do our society a disservice. Let speech be free and civil, and let individuals learn to manage their own emotions.
38
I'm reminded of when the Nazis gave a presentation called "100 Physicists Against Einstein." Einstein, who quipped that if he had been wrong one physicist would have been enough, attended the presentation, applauding loudly.
Today's students could learn something from his bravery.
15
Seems like the first amendment is battling a new right: to not be offended. What a gift to the extreme right! This helped bring us the Trump debacle.
9
Imagine if a far left progressive like Ed Schultz was to give a talk at Hillsdale or Grove City College. The students would be civil, respectful, and ask well thought out questions. A right leaning author is invited to Middlebury and is assulted by screaming, shrieking students. Evergreen State? Are you kidding? Which set of students would you want leading us down the road?
The University of Michigan now has a Bias Response Team, which goes into action whenever a student feels offended. These immature kids are weak, so weak.
46
Washington University handles this by never inviting, or letting student groups invite, anyone controversial. It used to have a widely publicized lecture series that invited major outside figures, some scholarly, some political. That has been replaced by small unpublicized lectures allocated to special interest groups---each ethnic or sexual organization gets one or two a year that it doesn't publicize outside its membership. Nothing that might lead anyone to question his prejudices is permitted.
You go to college to be confronted with unfamiliar, perhaps challenging or disturbing, ideas. A college that doesn't do or permit this is not worth the tuition.
20
Where are the parents in this? Surely they know when their adult children act like this because the videos are everywhere. If it were my child, he/she would be yanked out of school immediately. What responsible parent would pay for this kind of behavior?
7
It's ridiculous that some students feel "physically afraid" because someone is coming to campus to give a talk. It's also ridiculous that these extremely overly privileged sheltered little kids think it's acceptable to shout down and often violently protest a speaker. This from a generation who never had to serve their country in war.
Most of the nation just looks at it with disgust.
92
You speak as if not being a soldier is a bad thing. There are also countless soldiers that suffer from terrible PTSD, that destroys themselves and their families. Its great that America is a country so safe that most will never face those horrors and brutality; and so free that we do not have a draft.
The student's fear is not imagined. When a white supremacist comes to your school, and tells your "colleagues" that you are sub-human, and do not deserve basic human dignity, it puts a large bulls eye on your back.
7
It's also ridiculous that over privileged right wing provocateurs like Charles Murray are traumatized by a handful of students. The Right has free speech, what they want is freedom from criticism.
6
I don't think that's what Jackie is inferring. These sheltered children have never sacrificed nor understand the meaning of the word. I know of a very liberal woman of the world quite left of center who calls Palestinians "non-human". What would one infer from that Nix?
Speech is only free and accepted in college today if it slants far left. Any attempt to promote a conservative point of view is met with protests, outrage, and even violence. Diversity of opinion is a farce on campus today.
47
Unsupported blanket assertions do not forward discussion.
9
No unsupported, see Berkeley. Nine protestors arrested, there are others as well.
Alternative headline: College's try to ignore First Amendment.
14
Those students on campus who want to attend should be asked to explain what about Charles Murray's racist proclamations they finding enlightening. We can read 'Mein Kampf' but we should be leary of those who might want to go listen to Hitler speak. Although, I agree that a university should allow diverse (but not despicable) views to be expressed. Protesters should be kept from the hall and civil dissent is all that should be allowed.
2
Let me guess - you want to define what is 'despicable' for the world - or is this one of those 'everybody knows' arguments?
7
A key component of the "education" of students - their development of critical thinking skills - is objective exposure to all aspects of life. What they should be learning is that there is huge diversity of thought out there, and it is their responsibility to themselves and society to be able to assess the credibility and validity of these disparate opinions and find their own personal ground. In other words - decide for yourself but do it freely with knowledge and intelligence.
Children who are raised in narrowly restrictive environments need to be exposed to alternate philosophies for evaluation. If they are "told" what to believe, they are little more than robots in the Matrix. In the REAL WORLD (outside of Fox "News") they must live within that context, decide what THEY personally support and bear the consequences of their actions. This is "growing up" and this is necessary for a healthy society.
A "well-educated" student must be able to separate truth from propaganda and make decisions accordingly.
Evidently in today's electronically mesmerized society, these attributes are severely lacking and tribalism without thought is thus prevailing.
ALL PARENTS, AND STUDENTS, should demand objectivity and respect from their institutions of higher learning. The institutions, likewise, should demand a high level of respect for such from the students if indeed their goal of enabling critical thinking is to be accomplished.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
10
Unfortunately, the academic faculty too often plays a role in mobilizing student rejection of conservative free speech, let alone the views of someone like Mr Murray.
Politically correct free speech means only one thing on college campuses; the freedom of the left and the self - identified marginalized. For anyone else, not so much.
College free speech is just a mirror image of Fox News; all noise and no signal.
11
"Part of the problem...is that students now often come to college having rarely — or never — interacted with someone with a different opinion or lifestyle."
The old man shaking his fist shouting "in my day", creates a narrative based on revisionist wistfulness. This has been true since students began attending University. One is almost necessarily not exposed to other opinions and lifestyles until leaving the nest.
What has happened, however, is that we've allowed the younger generation to equate intellectual discomfort with danger. The mere labeling of things like "safe spaces" on campuses conflates actual physical danger with challenges to one's way of thinking.
We've also perpetuated an environment where we've basically told kids that "you have a right not to be offended".
Much of what we're dealing with is a result of Universities and other institutions acquiescing to pressures from small groups of people, all for the sake of tuition dollars and to avoid an uncomfortable press cycle.
42
In these days when students (young people) interact far more with their electronic devices than other humans, the art of conversation or even listening to another human being is lost. While I might not agree with what another human being says, I champion the right of my fellow human to say it. I listen, evaluate, and agree or disagree. This is an exchange of ideas and a fundamental part of being an educated person. Perhaps we need to put down those cell phones/tablets and just listen. While electronic devices are great sources of handy information, they are not a substitute for exchange or polite exchange of ideas. It has become clear that the art of listening is lost for many people in this country which is a basic part of the human-human interaction. As a professor, I try to counter this.
28
By the time students get to college it is very difficult to start to educate them on such basics as free speech and the First Amendment. Clearly, this should serve as a wake up call to return to the educational practices of decades past and actually teach younger students, early in high school, that old class called civics! Many adults today have no idea of the fundamental basics of our government, our rights, or our history. The corrosive effect of this becomes more evident by the day.
91
Colleges are not grappling with offensive speech. They are grappling with emotionally fragile students who cannot handle hearing anything different than reinforcement of their beliefs.
Higher education was at one time a place to expand your mental horizons and be exposed to many ideas and theories. No longer. Now it seems to be a place where a selected echo chamber is protected and propagandized and intellectual curiosity is the enemy. Both the profs and many students are becoming intolerant emotional infants.
163
"So fragile, so easily offended, kids today!"
I teach college. That's not what I witness. What I witness is students protecting and looking out for each other. More students today have openly gay friends, or trans friends, or black friends, and when they hear that an anti-gay bigot is coming to campus, they step up and protest. They aren't doing it because they are fragile, they are doing it because they are protecting each other and sending a message to their peers that they are loved, and welcomed. These students understand that for a gay student, who might be feeling threatened, or suicidal, the knowledge that an anti-gay bigot's point of view is sanctioned by the university could be upsetting.
Why do people constantly (and smugly) have to ascribe the worst possible motives to young people who are showing love and concern for each other's emotional safety and well-being?
When we mock that love and concern as "fragility," that says more about us than it does about them.
11
It’s a short path from strongly objecting to an unpopular point of view to suppression of speech and dictatorship. Those who pull fire alarms and seek to intimidate speakers are acting as fascists. Those colleges which cancel programs out of “fear of violence” are caving in to such intimidation and disregarding First Amendment rights.
The University of Michigan seems to have chosen a reasonable and measured policy for dealing with the issue. One other element should be added - the disciplining of students who repeatedly infringe on other’s free speech rights.
131
Cannot understand why those middle bury students were not disciplined - if some frat house boy had been found setting off alarms and damaging school property surely they would have been called to answer before the Dean...
15
The criterion for this kind of "speech" should be evidence and reason. It's possible to listen to an opposing position if there "is something behind it". Yiannopoulos and Coulter inflame campuses because their "facts" are fabricated and their logic is warped.
Condone an individual speaking blatant nonsense, and you are going to make people angry, Use limited campus resources to support it and you will make them furious. Especially in an institution which exists to make individuals capable of higher cognitive function. Do we teach "flat earth theory" in college?
No. Neither should we teach racism and homophobia.
24
Troubling issues, but I think there's a real danger in placing one's opinion above that of others. My opinion of Yiannopoulos and Coulter is no different than yours, but obviously, some people disagree. What gives us the right to declare that they can't be heard?
Also, given that a few mouse clicks will take us to their blather, are our students really so weak that they can't stand to hear someone with offensive views?
15
I would add that there is a difference between "speech" and what I call "angertainment", which is a product packaged and merchandised to make a profit by inflicting emotional pain on others.
2
Richard Spencer and his ilk preach white supremacy, not "alternate opinions". Isolationism vs globalism is a political stance. Being pro-life vs pro-choice is a political stance. Declaring that a group of people are genetically inferior or sub-human, is not. That kind of language leads to slavery and genocide.
These people hide "free speech" in order to push their bigotry.
I also find it ironic that these "professors" recite the First Amendment when allowing Alt-right pundits on their campuses. However, they disagree when students exercise their own right to free speech and protest. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
7
yes and yet, I would argue that their appearances constitute a media strategy of provocation. Despite the repercussions of their goals, their rhetoric appeals to a much broader psychology.
SO, every time they get shouted down or kicked out, and get press coverage, we are fueling the propagation of their narrative.
11
A protest that cuts off a speaker is not free speech, it is an attempt to end free speech.
And while I sure as hell won't defend Richard Spencer or the decision to defend the decision to invite him to speak, it's wrong to say that his belief is not a political stance. It is merely a stance with most of us disagree.
12
Which makes it worse! Criticize these people, and your a "triggered" liberal who hates the "truth." Ignore them and they spread their lies. Both lead to more hatred.
I can only wonder why so many of these comments address what they call reaction to "conservative" free speech. Just how has bigotry, racism and provocative Coulter-style emotional propaganda somehow morphed into conservatism? This is very sad. Mind you, I have no desire to interfere with Ms. Coulter's ability to spread her poison. But I do question the wisdom of inviting her to such forums in the first place.
26
Problem is once these offended students get out into the real world, these safety measures completely go away. If college is to prepare students for the real world then they are doing them a disfavor by quelling free speech on campus. It's very often a not so nice jungle outside of the ivy covered walls. The PC indoctrination on campuses is setting up young adults for massive disappointment in future workplaces and other endeavors. It's a mean, dog eat dog world. If you went around your life counting and reacting to daily, self interpreted microaggressions you'll waste your time and energy.
73
These children come from homes where they are told they are perfect, they should get rewarded for everything they do, and nothing else in the world matters but them. When they get to school they are shielded from those who might have a differing view. How's that working out?
Banned speakers at of all places Berkeley.
12
What many people do not realize is that freedom of speech has an equal and opposite obligation: the obligation to be offended and made uncomfortable. By uncomfortable, I mean in the extreme. The Supreme Court declared in the Skokie case that the public display of swastikas by Nazis to Holocaust survivors was protected speech. No college student in the past 20 years has ever approached that level of fear caused by a speaker on campus. The protection clearly includes hate speech, and any other speech that does not place a person in imminent physical danger. WIthout this obligation, free speech becomes meaningless.
To those that claim that "content" or "reason" are required for free speech, was it proper for the California courts to consider the "content" of the poem Howl by Allen Ginsberg to decide if its publication was a crime? Content is irrelevant when it comes to free speech. It is a free for all with only minimal rules.
As Larry Flynt said, "No one understands that the First Amendment is only important if you are going to offend somebody. If you're not going to offend somebody, you don't need the protection of the First Amendment."
73
Not too long ago, in many parts of this country, anyone giving a talk on evolution would have been booed and pilloried, if they were invited to speak at all. Mostly they were not. Now it seems that the poisonous speakers are all far-right folks or people peddling ideas that are not going to enhance understanding but instead dress inaccurate or half-formed ideas that encourage intolerance in the language of reason and science. That is appallingly common these days. And it is made popular by the purveyors of "fake news." Why on earth would an accredited university invite Murray to talk to its students rather than, say, any researcher on genetics who can reasonably discuss the differences among us as individuals and groups? Well, the reason they do is surely to foment distress. And that adds to our rather large body of ignorance. College students don't need to hear "offensive speech." They need active ideas, perhaps new to them, and the mental tools to ascertain the legitimacy of those ideas. Enough of this goading of young people already. Teach, teach, teach.
27