Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has issued its annual report on free speech on college campuses and it contains a little good news.
FIRE's fourth annual report on campus speech codes, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2010: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation's Campuses reports on policies at 375 of the largest and most prestigious American colleges and universities. FIRE found that while the percentage of public campuses that unconstitutionally restrict student speech dropped from 77 percent to 71 percent, the percentage of private campuses that similarly restrict freedom of speech has risen by 3 points from 67 to 70 percent.
A little good news, but that's still far, far too high. I repeat the call I've been making for years: the ACLU and other civil liberties groups should take such codes as seriously as they do other violations and should launch a major project to seek out plaintiffs and file suit after suit against such codes until the issue is simply way too hot for any university to dare having such a code.
The fact is that whenever university speech codes are challenged, they almost invariably lose in court. The problem is that most of them just end up changing their codes a little bit and continue to apply them. Unless more plaintiffs come forward to challenge the new codes -- and there can be a lot of pressure not to do so -- they go largely unchallenged and continue to be enforced with the same substance but in slightly different form.
That's why I continue to support FIRE in their efforts. It was formed by longtime ACLU stalwarts like Harvey Silvergate to focus on the specific problem of free speech on college campuses and their board of advisers has people like Nat Hentoff and Wendy Kaminer on it, people I consider first amendment heroes.
Incidentally, I recently received email from a teacher at a public university about a rather outrageous case in this vein. I'm hoping at some point I can make public the story of what he's going through, especially since it happens to be at a school that has already had one of the most egregious cases of anti-free speech nonsense I've ever encountered.
Politics
Comments
Is it possible that for some (significant) percent of these cases, what we have is simply old rules that remain "on the books" because they've never been formally removed, yet are never enforced?
Unenforceable but still on-the-books State laws are so common that we make jokes, stories, heck even page-a-day calendars out of them. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Universities - organizations not exactly known for their bureaucratic nimbleness - had similar legal detritus.
Posted by: eric | December 16, 2009 9:21 AM
Universities prohibit free speech? Isn't that entirely contrary to the purpose of universities?
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 16, 2009 9:24 AM
My opinion about this is that whatever speech is made that goes against some variety of civility should not be suppressed, but instead countered fairly vigorously by other speech.
It makes the other person look even dumber.
The idea of shaming morons into submission has always sat better with me than silence on anybody's part.
Posted by: Katharine | December 16, 2009 9:28 AM
For an outsider, it really does beggar belief that a nation that is so ostensibly concerned with liberty has so little collective idea that liberty is a real, practicable concept, not an empty word. And, of course, it seems that the Americans who view themselves as the most 'patriotic' (lit: arch-conservative) are the most eager to ensure that people have as little liberty as possible.
But I might have it wrong -- after all, I'm just a stupid foreigner who lives in a backward Westminster democracy.
Posted by: Nils Ross | December 16, 2009 9:31 AM
There is an argument that a private college and its students and supporters have a free exercise and free association interest in the college's power to judge and expel students on the basis of their speech. How else would an orthodox Catholic seminary, for example, maintain its rigid orthodoxy?
The countering legal argument would reference the cases that prevent businesses or malls from controlling speech by their employees or on their property. But there are relevant differences between a school, whose purpose might be to train students in an ideology, and whose students purposely seek that, and primarily commercial concerns. We all have to work and shop. No one has to attend a Catholic seminary or a Scientology seminar.
Now, yes, of course, liberals rightly look down on any college whose educational purpose is propagating ideology. And the free speech argument should hold at schools accepting public funds. But liberals also want those who are illiberal to be free to run their own seminaries and schools, however benighted they might be.
(I'm purposely addressing colleges and adults above. The issues for primary and secondary education are more complex.)
Posted by: Russell | December 16, 2009 9:37 AM
So, I think that what Students Organizing for Labor Equality at UofM did a few years back was still trespassing, but I wish that peacefully occupying Mary Sue Coleman's office was legal in some way. As I graduate and leave UofM next semester, I'm sure my respect for her will have gone down even further. Universities aren't about education, or speech, or anything noble anymore. Mary Sue Coleman, her job is to raise more money for the university. Then when she does that, she cuts GSI slots, funding for arts, and gets a big fat raise for her and the rest of the rats on the board and the executive.
Posted by: Matt S | December 16, 2009 9:55 AM
Nils Ross wrote:
Not on this issue. The push for hate speech codes is pretty much entirely a liberal cause in this country (though there are also many liberals who oppose them); conservatives are pretty much universally opposed to them. On other issues, of course, the reverse is true.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2009 10:18 AM
How much trouble do you think the ACLU is in from David Gelbaum ceasing his support?
Posted by: Brandon | December 16, 2009 11:11 AM
I attended UMass Amherst years ago and after reading your post I thought I'd check to see if they had any "campus speech codes." Through a Google search I found FIRE's website and their page for UMsss Amherst. They say UMass is a "red light" university, implying it doesn't get much worse.
I looked at the aspects of UMass's "speech code" that qualifies them as "red light" and found that 90% of it are rules prohibiting sexual harrassment. Apparently FIRE is out there fighting the fight to make sure students can make unwanted obscene phone calls to one another or follow each other around yelling racial epithets at one another.
I'm sorry, but if they can't tell the difference between actually suppressing free speech and supporting intimidation, coersion and harrasment then they're not a group worth supporting.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 16, 2009 11:17 AM
Nils Ross: Ed already answered, but speaking as another outsider (Soviet Canuk here), free speech is one of the few issues where I'm more critical of my own countries than the States - they have very strong free speech protections, outside of protests.
Posted by: Sivi | December 16, 2009 11:21 AM
Ed said: The push for hate speech codes is pretty much entirely a liberal cause in this country (though there are also many liberals who oppose them)
Maybe. Donohue (the real one, not the one who lurks here) tends to classify any speech he perceives as anti-Catholic to be 'hate speech."
Conservatives also tend to be behind bans of flag burning and efforts to ban "disloyal" or "unamerican" speech. And while you might burn the flag or make anti-american comments as a political or artistic statement, you can also do so out of hatred and intent merely to cause distress to the listener/viewer. Which should probably be counted in the hate speech category (which, just to be clear, I think is constitutional). It may be more accurate to say that many conservatives propose speech bans which overlap with/have a similar effect to liberal anti-hate speech proposals, even while they don't champion anti-hate-speech laws per se.
But I don't have a lot of specific examples to support my position, so I'm not whether people like Donohue should be considered counter-evidence to Ed's position or merely exceptions that prove the rule.
Posted by: eric | December 16, 2009 11:30 AM
Lynxreign wrote:
I'm afraid you didn't look closely enough. On FIRE's page on UMass you'll find numerous instances of the school violating free speech rights, including refusing to issue a permit for a pro-war rally after allowing an anti-war rally and charging an unconstitutional security fee for a controversial speaker.
As for the sexual harassment code, the problem is that it is entirely too vague and clearly restricts expression that is constitutionally protected. The policy forbids "jokes" and "remarks of a sexual nature" as well as the display of pictures that are "sexually suggestive." Someone could be punished by the school merely for having a picture of their girlfriend or boyfriend in a bathing suit under such a standard, or for merely telling a joke that offends someone.
Remember that UMass is a public school. That means it IS the government and is bound by the First Amendment. If a given expression is legally protected by the First Amendment -- and virtually all expression that is not explicitly threatening or libelous is -- then a state-run university cannot censor it. That will of course include lots of speech that you and I and others aren't going to like, but that's the price of freedom.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2009 11:59 AM
I looked closely enough to see that some of the examples FIRE lists as unacceptable restrictions include:
continued or repeated verbal abuse or innuendo of a sexual nature;
continued or repeated jokes, language, epithets or remarks of a sexual nature
letters directed to the person, the use of threatening language directed at another, harassing or threatening telephone calls, or the vandalism of a person’s room (e.g., graffiti).
[Harrassment that is] can be racial, sexual, or personal in nature and may be expressed through graffiti, obscene telephone calls
FIRE lists all of these on the page that details what they consider unacceptable restrictions at UMass. They also have a section that seems to support students completely disrupting classes.
Well, they revoked the pro-war rally permit after it had been issued and yes, they shouldn't have. As for the imposed fee, the campus cops imposed it. And the fee was refunded when it was brought to the attention of the university. This raises the status of UMass to Red? What have they reserved for places that are far more egregious?
Yes, some of the things listed on that page should be listed, like the parts about the posting of "offensive" pictures, but you'll notice the part about "continued or repeated" listed before "jokes" or "remarks of a sexual nature". This isn't saying those things aren't allowed, they're saying they aren't allowed when they rise to the level of abuse. They can't be punished for "merely telling a joke that offends someone" unless they follow that person about trying to offend them.
Merely having a picture of their boyfriend or girlfriend in a bathing suit also isn't punishable as you suggest. First, it'd have to be posted in a public place and second, it'd have to be "offensive or sexually suggestive" to a "reasonable person". Yes, that language is vague, but nowhere near as vague or restrictive as you make it sound.
The fact that FIRE lists "harassing or threatening telephone calls" and "obscene phone calls" as aspects of the speech code that are overly restrictive tells me they aren't worth supporting.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 16, 2009 12:26 PM
There is simply no way that most of those restrictions are constitutional, whether you want them to be or not. You're deliberately trying to read them as narrowly as possible, but the whole point of overturning such vague restrictions is because they are too broad and can be applied to things that are clearly constitutionally protected. Those standards would have to be drawn far more specifically and narrowly in order to be constitutional. And the point about it being repeated is irrelevant; if telling a dirty joke is constitutionally protected, so is telling 10 dirty jokes.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2009 12:39 PM
You also have to keep in mind that they need to be stated to students in a format that is clear and quickly readable or most won't bother. Drawing them as narrowly as you'd like would likely render most into legaleese that 99% of the poopulation will skip over, thus defeating much of the purpose.
And I've granted that some of the things on that list shouldn't be there or should be rephrased. I'd like to hear why you think obscene phone calls, harassing or threatening phone calls, graffiti vandalism of student rooms, class disruptions and intimidation should be protected speech.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 16, 2009 12:47 PM
Aren't all of those things illegal to begin with?
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 16, 2009 12:52 PM
You'd think so, but they're listed on FIRE's page as things they have problems with about the UMass harassment codes. Evidently they think these things are all fine and should be fought for.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 16, 2009 12:55 PM
Lynxreign:
They can't be punished for "merely telling a joke that offends someone"...
...The fact that FIRE lists..."obscene phone calls" as aspects of the speech code that are overly restrictive tells me they aren't worth supporting.
Lynxreign, I'm not sure how you can defend telling an offensive joke under freedom of speech and yet claim obscene phone calls can be banned. What if I tell my offensive joke over the phone, and the listener finds it obscene? How is that different from doing it in person?
Posted by: eric | December 16, 2009 1:01 PM
@eric
Perhaps you are unclear on the concept of an "obscene phone call". It is not simply the act of saying something obscene during a phone call. It is an unwanted phone call, often anonymous, made for the purpose of exciting the caller at the expense of the called. It is a form of intimidation, harrasment and threat.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 16, 2009 1:08 PM
eric - While I accept your examples of conservatives being against free speech, they aren't things you're likely to find in university speech codes, which are the subject of this post.
Posted by: Taz | December 16, 2009 1:19 PM
I have to say looked up my own alma mater, Carleton College, and found they rated a red. I looked at why they rated them red for and I think that FIRE's standards for a private, residential, undergraduate environment would require a code of behavior that would allow essentially no restraint on say sexual harrassment in the dorms, which many students are require to live in.
Also, according to what I could find on the website, there were no instances of the college ever enforcing the code in an overly restrictive way. Everytime anyone even made noises about something being inappropriate speech, free speech won.
I think Fire fail's to consider the environment. A private college that requires residence on campus is different than a public university that does.
Posted by: katydid13 | December 16, 2009 1:29 PM
A private college that requires residence on campus is different than a public university that does.
Actually, no, it isn't: in both cases, the college is obligated to make reasonable rules to ensure that its residences are a non-hostile environment for everyone required to live there. (Standard leases have language about tenants' right to "quiet enjoyment" of the premises; and a landlord could, in theory, take action against a tenant whose "exercise of free speech" was seen as infringing another tenant's "quiet enjoyment" of his apartment.) This includes basic rules of conduct that are appropriate to strangers living close together out of necessity.
I'm getting a little tired of needlessly obnoxious and infantile conduct being defended as "free speech," by people who then offer mealy-mouthed BS about how "morally regrettable" they know the behavior in question is. What people like CFN seem to ignore is that the basic purpose of a college is both to teach, and to maintain an environment conducive to learning. That is, in fact, what students and their parents PAY FOR: a place where students are able to learn and pursue ideas, free of ignorance, prejudice, hostility, or vested interests that might hinder learning.
Based on the examplees cited by Lynxreign, and my own brief perusal of what they said about UVA, I'm starting to think CFN is basically a right-wing group bravely standing up for "students'" rights to be assholes, push whatever boundaries of manners they encounter, and act in near-total disregard for the mission of a college. Check out this example from one of their quoted sources:
The most disturbing of University policies currently in place is one against bias that encourages the "reporting of bias complaints so that [the University] can investigate the alleged facts for possible violation(s) of University policy, including the Standards of Conduct, and refer such complaints to law enforcement to determine whether an independent investigation for violation(s) of criminal law is warranted." The danger in that policy is encompassed in the definition of a bias complaint which bars students from participating in, among other activities, vaguely defined "acts of bigotry." While a student behaving in a close-minded manner is morally regrettable, the idea that the University reserves the right to censor this type of activity boarders on absurdity. The University is an institution for higher learning where all ideas can be voiced.
What this person seems to be saying is that the mere act of investigating the facts of a complaint is, in itself, a chilling restriction of free speech; therefore the U. is infringing free speech merely by trying to figure out whether anyone broke a law or rule. (Notice, also, that the source fails to specify exactly what sort of "free speech" is being infringed, or who, exactly, is being hurt by these oh-so-burdensome rules.) And then there's the standard "colleges should teach all sides including the obvious crap" sentence at the end.
And check this out:
Robinson rightly focuses on both the school's constitutional duty as a public institution to respect the First Amendment as well as its moral duty as a university that claims to respect free expression to encourage, rather than stifle, that expression. As Robinson points out, enacting policies that chill and punish protected speech "goes against the basic democratic principles of both the University and the Constitution."
What about the principles of higher education? You know, polite rational discourse, sorting truth from lies, right from wrong, not letting the most ignorant or dishonest people dumb down discourse, that sort of thing? CFN seems totally unconcerned about such things, and contemptuous of rules of conduct in general. The article I quoted made ZERO reference to any specific instance of "expression of bigotry" that they consider "protected speech;" which raises serious questions of what, exactly, they're really defending.
And UVA got a red light too? These people are full of shit.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 16, 2009 2:39 PM
@lynxreign: Perhaps you are unclear on the concept of an "obscene phone call". It is not simply the act of saying something obscene during a phone call. It is an unwanted phone call, often anonymous, made for the purpose of exciting the caller at the expense of the called. It is a form of intimidation, harrasment and threat.
Then your original point @13 is irrelevant, because your definition of an obscene phone call is different from both what UMASS restricts and from what FIRE objects to.
The UMASS code says nothing about requiring a phone call to be unwanted. And its definition of harrasment includes display of cartoons that a reasonable person would find sexually suggestive. Exactly the example Ed gave, which you claimed no one was restricting.
FIRE lists pieces of the UMass code they find problematic. Some of this code mentions phone calls as an example behavior. You are making an enormous and unwarranted leap to imply that FIRE thinks all obscene phone calls are okay.
Moreover, FIRE clearly says in several places that it gives a "red" rating to Universities that have at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech. So it might not even be the bits that mention phone calls that FIRE strongly objected to - you simply don't know which one or more bits they found overbroad. Again, you're making an unwarranted leap.
Rather than your implication that they oppose any restriction on obscene phone calls, FIRE's actual treatment of the question of obscene phone calls seems to be that (i) that they look at phone use rules as part of their evaluation and (ii) sometimes think these rules may be overbroad. Which seems fine and reasonable to me.
Posted by: eric | December 16, 2009 2:56 PM
I'm fine with the core concept of the right to freedom of speech though I'm also comfortable with the fact that in are many democratic countries where even though that right is not seen as constitutionally sacrosanct, it isn't the start of a slippery slope to tyranny, even though there are occasions when the authorities cross the line.
What I am not okay with is how far things have gone in the name of defending an American's right to the freedom of speech -- most notably seen in the inability to place any meaningful restrictions on the colossal amount of money swilling around the American electoral system. The combination of the concept of corporate personhood (if that's the correct term) and the conflation of the right to spend money with the right to freedom of speech is turning our national (and even many state) politicians into a bunch of corporate lackeys. And while the candidate who spends the most money doesn't always win, it's patently obvious that the more money you spend, the better the odds of winning. The fate of American democracy should not hinge on whoever has the deepest pockets.
My next point is not meant as a criticism of any one forum or individual, but I'm coming to the belief that the continuing debate over the protection of the freedom of speech is drowning out the other, far more serious threats to America's free society.
Whenever a government entity or an educational establishment wrongly restricts free speech in some small way, it seems that half the political zone of internet fires up to express their indignation (right or left depending on the case). But when it comes to issues concerning with the over-punitive and borderline fascistic American justice system that results in American jails holding over seven times the number of prisoners (per capita) than the vast majority of other democratic nations, most of those same venues either don't care to know about it, or issue a collective shrug.
Ed, to his great credit, often speaks out about a number of issues relating to this -- prosecutor immunity, police corruption, lack of access to DNA evidence, etc., but it's clear for a large majority of Americans the constitutional right to freedom of speech has become just about the only symbol that represents "American freedom" (well, that and the right to bear arms, in right-wing circles).
The health of a free society depends on the health of all its freedoms, not just the right to free speech. While it always will be a core element of freedom, it is the overall balance that matters in the end. What use is your freedom of speech if you have been tagged as a sex offender for life for having sex with a 17 year old when you were just a few months older? Or what use is your freedom of speech when giving lip to a police officer leads of a fabricated arrest report and three months in jail? And what use is the freedom of speech when you are lying dying in a hospital bed because you couldn't afford the regular cancer screening procedures your family medical history warranted.
This is the type of thing that many people in other countries see and wonder about. They think, yeah, perhaps there are a few situations where I could theoretically get into trouble with the authorities if I spoke my mind, but I'm far less likely to be arrested, I'm far less likely to be gunned down in the street, I'm far less likely to be refused life saving medical treatment, and so on. Freedom is a multifaceted concept within which freedom of speech has its place (and a very important one), but for too many Americans it is the only aspect of freedom they are willing to speak up about.
Posted by: tacitus | December 16, 2009 3:07 PM
The UMASS code says nothing about requiring a phone call to be unwanted.
If the phone call was not unwanted, it probably wouldn't be reported in the first place.
Moreover, FIRE clearly says in several places that it gives a "red" rating to Universities that have at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.
But do they describe specifically what constitutes "substantial" restriction? Requiring students to hide overt racism and/or avoid conduct that has a good chance of causing needless offense doesn't seem all that "substantial" to me. Posting sexually suggestive cartoons? There aren't many places outside of a campus where that's routinely allowed.
...you simply don't know which one or more bits they found overbroad.
Based on my own reading, I suspect that's because they didn't specify which bits they found overbroad.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 16, 2009 3:08 PM
@eric.
I'm certain that if you were to go exercise you'd have no problems with pulling a muscle. Your response has enough stretching to protect an olympic athlete.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 16, 2009 3:42 PM
Raging Bee wrote:
You're missing one point: Public universities are the government and are therefore bound by the First Amendment. You may not like that, but it remains true. Private universities can enforce virtually any rules they like and the First Amendment is irrelevant (though I and groups like FIRE will still criticize them for it).
*shrug* Then perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a country without the First Amendment, where the government has the authority to decide which "obnoxious" and "infantile" statements can result in punishment and which ones can't. Of course, they might just decide that some of the things you say are obnoxious and infantile, and you'll have no principled defense left since you don't much care to protect other people's right to say what the government decides to be obnoxious and infantile.
Sorry, this is bullshit (and I have no idea who CFN is; we're talking about FIRE). Where in the world is it written that a university is a place free from ignorance, prejudice or hostility? If it was, you'd have to throw out every person that displays what the government determines to be ignorance or prejudice. And hostility? I am hostile to a great many ideas. You are too, including freedom of speech in many circumstances. Try to create a place free of all ignorance and prejudice through legal mandate and you will, in fact, undermine the opportunities for learning. One of the things you should learn at a university is that there is ignorance and prejudice in the world and that there are reasonable and unreasonable ways of dealing with that fact.
Ah yes, the old argumentum ad labelum - if you can just find a way to label those you disagree with as conservative, you think you've somehow weakened their arguments. Which would be illogical even if it was true, but in fact it's not. It would take a real stretch of the imagination to consider Harvey Silvergate (the founder of the organization) or Wendy Kaminer to be conservatives. These are longtime leaders of the ACLU who are, in fact, critical of the ACLU for not being zealous enough in their defense of the Bill of Rights. Conservatives? Not by any sane definition.
And they're right. Being "biased" is not a crime in this country and referring someone to the police for a criminal investigation for saying something "biased" is, in fact, a chilling restriction on free speech. You'd agree, too, if the government decided to refer some of your statements to the police as "biased."
Oh, of course. Because the best way to promote "polite rational discourse" is to file criminal charges against someone who says something you think is biased or bigoted. You could, of course, prove them wrong. You could engage them in argument. Those are the sorts of things universities should be encouraging, not criminal punishment of thought crimes.
The bottom line is that you want the government to punish the expression of views you don't like. A lot of people do. The First Amendment just doesn't allow it, nor should it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2009 4:07 PM
That's not a possible response to obscene phone calls, harrasment, threats or intimidation.
FIRE's criticism of UMass (the only page I've looked at so far) is an hysterical overreaction padded with objections to conduct they shouldn't objecting to and highlighting mistakes that were admitted mistakes later rectified. If you label everyone a Red Light level of misconduct you're no more helpful than the Terror Level warnings that never go below orange.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 16, 2009 4:17 PM
Public universities are the government and are therefore bound by the First Amendment.
Not to the extent that they have to allow their educatinal mission to be compromised by harassment or undue hindrance of students' or teachers' freedom to enjoy the benefits of university life.
Then perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a country without the First Amendment...
Ah yes, the standard republitarian refrain of "anyone who disagrees with me is a commie collectivist who hates our freedoms." Just another derivative of classic McCarthyism.
Where in the world is it written that a university is a place free from ignorance, prejudice or hostility?
What's wrong with a university TRYING TO BECOME such a place, and letting its paying clients know what's expected of them?
If it was, you'd have to throw out every person that displays what the government determines to be ignorance or prejudice.
According to these rules, "The Government" does not deterine what is ignorance or prejudice; college officials investigate claims made by students and/or teachers to determine whether the alleged ACTIONS (not the alleged ignorance or prejudice) violate their rules of conduct. There's a difference.
Being "biased" is not a crime in this country and referring someone to the police for a criminal investigation for saying something "biased" is, in fact, a chilling restriction on free speech.
The colleges are not making rules against "being biased;" they're making rules against certain expressions of bias, forms of expression which are or may be (at least in some people's opinions) the type of harassment that causes undue burdens on their targets. There's a difference. And the biggest problem with FIRE's article, as I and others have pointed out, is that they're crying about "free speech" being denied, and are suspiciously silent about what sort of expression, exactly, is being punished by those nasty college types. If we don't know these details, then we can't really make an informed decision as to how evil the rules really are. And I think it's extremely dishonest of both you and FIRE to avoid talking about these details. Lynxreign has mentioned some proscribed behaviors in a little more detail, and based on her quotes, I'd say the colleges are merely trying to enforce a code of manners, in order to encourage useful adult interaction, not stifle any specific set of opinions. If you cannot, or will not, recognize a distinction -- or admit that we can, in fact, recognize a distinction -- between enforcing manners and stifling ideas, then you really shouldn't be telling us who to support in this case.
Yes, public colleges are "the government." So is any other government agency that imposes rules of conduct on its employees and its clients, and tosses your ass out if you break them; including my employer's client, whose Rules of Behavior I can easily be fired for breaking (rules that sound rather similar in places to the "speech codes" FIRE is crying about).
The bottom line is that you want the government to punish the expression of views you don't like.
That's a flat-out lie -- a lie enabled, as I mentioned before, by the vagueness of FIRE's complaints, and by your refusal to discuss specific instances of punishment for specific violations of specific rules. They're just parroting all the right catch-phrases about free speech and the Constitution and "speech codes" and thoughtcrime and yada yada yada, and people like you are just following in lockstep without asking for details.
PS: CFN seems to be a major source, and possibly affiliate or ally, of FIRE. All of the articles referenced from the FIRE site that I read are on a CFN site. Different organizations, but a good bit of apparent overlap between them, at least on the Web.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 16, 2009 4:56 PM
Raging Bee wrote:
Nonsense. You may wish it was that way, but it isn't. Freedom of speech means people have the right to say all sorts of things that bother you (and me too). But the fact that their expressions of their views bother you (and me too) does not mean the government can punish them for it - anymore than the fact that your views bother me means I can have the government punish you for them. You may want that power but you can't have it. Me, I don't even want it.
The constitution forbids it. And it's a good thing too because if not, they might just decide that the views you express are obnoxious, childish, ignorant or biased and ban those too.
LOL. Yeah, the government doesn't do this, government officials do it and that's totally different. And calling an expression of a view you don't like an "action" does not negate the first amendment. Sorry.
No there isn't. The term "harassment" is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Someone may feel harassed when they overhear a dirty joke (or a non-dirty one, for that matter); that doesn't mean that the government can punish someone for telling a dirty joke. When the rules say you can punish someone for "expressions of bias" that is clearly unconstitutional.
Bingo! You've discovered exactly why such vague rules are unconstitutional, because they are so broad that they could encompass pretty much any expression anyone objects to. They serve as no guide at all to what is legal to say and what is not because they are entirely subjective and could be used to punish virtually any statement that someone else doesn't like. That's precisely why they're unconstitutional.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 16, 2009 5:11 PM
@Raging Bee: But do they [FIRE] describe specifically what constitutes "substantial" restriction?
Yep, right there on page 5. And they discuss a court case using the word 'substantial' on page 9.
Raging I do agree with you that they don't really specify which bit of code earned the red light. However, that's a side point - phone calls are not ever a main point of the UMass codes. They're always given as potential examples. It would be an actual stretch - rather than what Lynx thinks of as a stretch - to think that FIRE gave a red light because they thought a code was perfectly acceptable but didn't like one of the examples.
@lynxreign: I'm certain that if you were to go exercise you'd have no problems with pulling a muscle. Your response has enough stretching to protect an olympic athlete.
Awesome comeback. I compliment you on being able to find a response which meets the standard of rationality set by your original argument.
Posted by: eric | December 16, 2009 5:18 PM
@eric
There was nothing of substance in your response worth comment. You misstated what I said, what the FIRE site said and what Ed said. You seemed to be intentionally obtuse about what an "obscene phone call" is and it isn't worth the time to rebut your many erronious statements. Trolls will keep missing the point on purpose, as you did, just to keep the argument going.
You wouldn't know a "standard of rationality" if it bit you in the ass. Have fun with any inane response you'll likely make, it seems to be your standard around here.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 16, 2009 5:22 PM
eric: I presume you meant page 5 of the 2010 report? Here's what I'm hastily guessing you meant:
A “substantial” restriction on free speech is one that is broadly applicable to important categories of campus expression. For example, a ban on “offensive speech” would be a clear violation (in that it is unambiguous) as well as a substantial violation (in that it covers a great deal of
what would be protected expression in the larger society). Such a policy would earn a university a red light.
Okay, so which college rules, exactly, were "broadly applicable" to which "important categories of campus expression?" FIRE didn't say, at least not on that page. And on page 9, there's mentin of a guy named Lopez, whose speech "involving his Christian faith" was ridiculed by the teacher. But there's no mention of what exactly was said in that speech -- perhaps there was something needlessly insulting that had no place in the class in which it was made? Without details like those, FIRE's case is suspiciously vague.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 16, 2009 5:39 PM
I looked up University of Cincinnati, which got a red light, and was surprised at how ridiculous some of their policies are. This one is from the Residence Hall Handbook:
I don't think there's any reasonable way you can defend that one. That's outrageous.
FIRE also lists some policies about so-called "Free Speech Zones":
That one seems pretty absurd to me, as well. I will say, however, that in my experience it doesn't seem to be strictly enforced. I've seen crazy people literally preaching on a soap box, some crazy old conspiracy theorist who was trying to rally students to march on Washington with him, etc. on McMicken Commons (which is the busiest part of campus). These people were engaged by students and faculty with reasoned arguments and, in some cases, ridicule. The public sidewalks, etc. around the campus also have seen their fair share of protesters and crazy folk. One man was out with signs protesting the war in Iraq almost every single day for a year or so (bit of a fuzzy memory on the time frame).
None of that gives the university a pass on unconstitutional policies, I'm just noting that this particular policy doesn't seem to be enforced.
Posted by: havoc | December 16, 2009 6:13 PM
My college, IUPUI is red-lighted by FIRE. After going there for 3 years I would hardly consider it a place where free speech is regularly under jeopardy. The only actual case the site refers to is the KKK-related book incident and that is the only one. Considering all the talk I've heard from fellow students (be their speech anti-gay, anti-religion or atheism, anti-liberal arts, etc) I've yet to run across cases where such people were confronted for their speech by the school admin. I've sometimes raised my vocal disagreement to what those people have said, but that has simply been a free speech of my own. Every year we get the preachers visit the campus and they spend all day preaching. We've also had for years now a place where people can write their message on black boards in the middle of the campus, and they are sometimes quite entertaining reading.
Posted by: MarkusR | December 16, 2009 9:41 PM
I have to unlurk long enough to make some general comments.
You know the old adage: Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins?
A (public) college student's right to free speech ends when it starts interfering with another student's right to get their education in peace. It's not a libertarian free-for-all; if you're going to college, you are paying quite a significant sum of money (YMMV, it was for me and most other people who don't bleed cash) in order to obtain an education and the certification of such. College is hard enough without having to walk a gauntlet to class, and it's completely and utterly unacceptable for anyone on campus to be allowed to personally harass anyone else. For any reason. Ever.
Just by being a student, you lose your right to avoid douchebags. Someone wants to make a Fred Phelps wannabe presentation on how gays are going to hell? Every homosexual (and unbigoted straight) student has to deal with the heckling. What else are they going to do, miss the lecture and take that massive attendance hit? Skip a test? Puke on the creeps' shoes--wait, that's probably assault. You have to share a class with someone who calls you Tits McGee? Well, it's your fault for having the DDs; you'd better just drop it (lose the hours, you lose your insurance, and your money, and your time).
My old uni got a red light, too: A fundamental principle of the University of New Orleans is that there be an environment of mutual tolerance and respect, which is free of hostility toward, discrimination against, or harassment of any person based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, national origin, age, sexual orientation, marital or veteran status, or any other status protected by law. Every member of the university community is held strictly accountable for his or her behavior with regard to this standard.
That's a red light? That's ridiculous. (You're not allowed to call a single mom a slut? Mon dieu! Quelle horreur!) When I attended, they allowed regular protests by the chopped-up fetus anti-choice crowd, and let in preachers who rambled on about how Catholics were hell-bound Satanic cultists and queers were all bug-chasers. There were also the usual suspects on the liberal fringe. Nobody ever got reprimanded for a joke, and we all told some pretty filthy ones. In class, students were allowed to stand up and blab about Biblical mandates when the professor was trying to explain the principle of the First Amendment.
There's a difference between free speech and bothering some poor damned kids when they're trying to eat lunch and study. I've liked everything else on this blog, but I have neither pity nor sympathy for those FIRE... people.
No, it wasn't right to not let the pro-war people protest. And no, it wouldn't be right to kick someone out for their first few abuses towards fellow students. But holy hell, if you're going to go to a public college, you can't complain about the women and the coloreds also attending. College kids have a right to eat their damned lunch without crazies invading the food court and shouting at them about the end times. A guy who feels like wearing makeup to school shouldn't be hollered at by random people wandering onto campus.
College students aren't random people. They're paying money to be where they are, and they have to be where they are, and they can't avoid the abuse.
Been there, done that, and these FIRE morons are but flecks of fecal scum compared to the ACLU.
Posted by: db | December 17, 2009 3:24 AM
Lynxreign, I have received obscene prank phone calls in the past. However, you attitudes offend much more than the phone calls did. Would be be willing to voluntarily turn yourself in to the police so that government oficials may investigate you actions and determine a proper punishment to give you for the harassment you have put me through?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 17, 2009 5:12 AM
FIRE is a great organization. I'm really glad they exist. I'm very surprised to see how many people on this thread are defending campus speech codes, honestly. More proof that FIRE's mission is important and that it has a lot of work to do.
And Ed, great rebuttals on this thread.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 7:23 AM
Lynxreign:
Merely having a picture of their boyfriend or girlfriend in a bathing suit also isn't punishable as you suggest. First, it'd have to be posted in a public place and second, it'd have to be "offensive or sexually suggestive" to a "reasonable person".
The trouble is, most college/uni administrators and college students aren't "reasonable persons", especially when it comes to perceived sexism.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 7:25 AM
All of you people bashing FIRE ought to go to their website and start reading the horror stories of various students accused of "racism", "sexism", creating a hostile environment, etc. FIRE is really quite more reasonable--and campus speech codes are often more unreasonable-- than you are assuming them to be.
You'll also notice that some colleges and universities have yellow and green speech code ratings. Not all of them are red.
For how unreasonable college and university types can be regarding sexism, just look at what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard. There was no attempt to reasonably engage his actual argument (which was actually pretty innocuous in context) about women in science and mathematics. Just a lot of denouncing, villifying, and pearl clutching. Had Summers been a Harvard student rather than a college president, he would have probably been at the very least suspended for saying what he did.
And why shouldn't a student be allowed to give a presentation saying that gays are going to hell? That's a valid opinion to present as long as it isn't accompanied by "Go out and kill the gays! Beat up the sodomites!" calls to violence. Just because an opinion is unpopular doesn't mean it should be prevented from being uttered, fer chrissakes. If the presentation is poorly argued and irrational or inappropriate to the class being taken, that student will get a deservedly bad grade. And other students could, of course, offer rebuttals to the anti-gay presentation. No need to squelch the expression of an unpopular opinion.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 7:39 AM
The trouble is, most college/uni administrators and college students aren't "reasonable persons", especially when it comes to perceived sexism.
Wow, Adrienne, you just blew your credibility to Hell with that over-used over-generalization. "Most college/uni administrators?" Really? Including the tech schools, community colleges, Deep South colleges, religious colleges, military academies, public and private colleges, and the Ivy League and Ivy League wannabees? I don't think so.
db: Based on my own experience as a student, I'd say your post is spot-on. Most of these "speech codes" are really just rules of personal conduct, of a sort that grownups have to deal with just about everywhere, written or unwritten. Some may be better written or more fairly applied than others; and laws are always blunt instruments; but they're not a dire threat to free speech or the free exchange of ideas.
Harassment of any individual for any reason will not be tolerated. Harassment includes but is not limited to the infliction of mental or emotional abuse, ridicule, embarrassment, or intimidation.
I don't think there's any reasonable way you can defend that one. That's outrageous.
What's so outrageous about trying to deter harassment? Why is this suddenly such an alien concept hostile to our cherished freedoms? Yes, "harassment" is a rather vague term, but it's a concept well understood by the general public, and most sane adults are perfectly capable of figuring out what is and is not harassment. Same with emotional abuse, intimidation, and embarrassment. If people like FIRE can't point out a broad pattern of gross misapplication of these rules, then they really don't have much of a case. So far, I haven't seen them make such a case. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
The northwest section.. of McMicken Commons... is designated as the main free speech area. Individuals or groups wanting to use these areas must schedule the activity in the Campus Scheduling Office. Anyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing.
Yeah, this sounds kinda restrictive on its face, but when you consider that there might be a sizable demand for the use of this common space, it's perfectly reasonable to have some sort of scheduling procedures to make sure everyone gets a fair shot at the place and speakers don't have to shout each other down just to be heard.
This whole "campus speech codes" controversy is bullshit, and it's suspiciously congruent with the longstanding hatred and resentment that far-right fake-libertarians have been directing at academia and academics for about as long as I've been alive: colleges are liberal Stalinist feminazi elite establishment bastions where PC thugs routinely stifle and ostracize dissenting opinions from decent mainstream Americans etc. etc. And other than a handful of good anecdotes, these brave crusaders against educated elites really don't have anything to go on but transparently stupid generalizations misapplied to a huge and diverse lot of colleges and universities across a huge and diverse nation.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 17, 2009 11:05 AM
@valhar2000
Good job completely missing the point. I'm sure you have a great career in middle management ahead of you. You honestly can't tell the difference between harassment and random comments on a web page? Sad. You also didn't bother to note that I specifically said that merely being offended isn't enough to break the stated rules. Hell, being offended is part of going to college.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 17, 2009 11:47 AM
Lynxreign: I can tell the difference between harassment and comments; it surprises me to find that you can too. Why have you made such an effort to conflate them in your previous comments?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 17, 2009 12:03 PM
RB:
Wow, Adrienne, you just blew your credibility to Hell with that over-used over-generalization. "Most college/uni administrators?" Really? Including the tech schools, community colleges, Deep South colleges, religious colleges, military academies, public and private colleges, and the Ivy League and Ivy League wannabees? I don't think so.
In the US, colleges and universities are actually remarkably easy to generalize about because they are overwhelmingly run by the completely moonbatsh*t Left. Liberals who are basically the leftist equivalents of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck still rule academia with an iron fist (unfortunately).
The number of conservative institutions of higher learning in the US is so vanishingly small as to basically not count, so yes, my generalization holds.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 12:06 PM
Here's what one Yale student had to say over a dustup at that school that FIRE covered:
...[T]he notion that, with the words "I am offended!," any member of a community should decide what is or is not acceptable to say, is inimical to our ideals of free expression. Political correctness imposes the most tyrannical form of censorship, the censorship of hurt feelings.
There ya go. That sums up FIRE's attitude toward speech codes rather well.
RB@41:
This whole "campus speech codes" controversy is bullshit, and it's suspiciously congruent with the longstanding hatred and resentment that far-right fake-libertarians have been directing at academia and academics for about as long as I've been alive: colleges are liberal Stalinist feminazi elite establishment bastions where PC thugs routinely stifle and ostracize dissenting opinions from decent mainstream Americans etc. etc.
Way to overgeneralize yourself, there, RB. Ed is not far-right nor "fake libertarian", but he supports what FIRE does. I am neither myself, but I think FIRE is right on. FIRE upholds and promotes free speech in the same vein as the ACLU, actually, which is neither "far right" nor "fake libertarian".
And, it is true that on most US college campuses, the PC Marxists and thugs do hold sway. Look at what routinely happens when some right-leaning speaker like Tom Tancredo tries to give a speech on a college campus. Read about what happened at UNC Chapel Hill when Tancredo was there last spring. I'm not saying he's a great guy, but he was invited there to give a talk and he should have been allowed to do it without disruption and violence.
And it's far more than a handful of good anecdotes that FIRE is concerned with. Go to their website yourself and read some of their "top cases". In fact, even if it were just a handful of incidents (it's more than that), that doesn't make what FIRE does any less valuable or needed. One professor losing a job once a year due to some ludicrous "violation" of a sexual harassment or speech code policy would still warrant FIRE's attention and the support of people who value free speech.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 12:41 PM
In the US, colleges and universities are actually remarkably easy to generalize about because they are overwhelmingly run by the completely moonbatsh*t Left.
Really? Care to tell us how the "moonbatsh*t Left" (with a CAPITAL L no less) managed to gain control of military academies, state colleges in the Deep South, Brigham Young, a majority (or significant minority) of religious colleges of all denominations, the entire fucking Ivy League (with or without Stanford), and a solid block of both public and private educational institutions all over the 50 States? Do you have ANY actual evidence of such pervasive "moonbatsh*t Left" hegemony over ANY significant institution in the USA?
And if the "moonbatsh*t Left" was compenent enough to establish control over such a diverse lot of colleges and universities all over the US, then how did George W. Bush manage to get (kinda sorta) elected POTUS? Funny how these dastardly vast left-wing conspiracies are never around when you really need them.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 17, 2009 2:03 PM
Furthermore on the right-left thing, my wife is going to Wesleyan College and they are hardly left-wing.
he should have been allowed to do it without disruption
If the school had cracked down on the disruptors, wouldn't that be a case of PC thuggery? By FIRE standards, if these is a speaker giving a speech, a student, or a group of them, would have the right to yell them off the stage.
Posted by: MarkusR | December 17, 2009 3:35 PM
@Valhar2000
I haven't. You have. Nice case of projection you've got going on there. Have fun trolling, I doubt you'll ever have anything useful to add.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 17, 2009 4:00 PM
RB @46:
Really? Care to tell us how the "moonbatsh*t Left" (with a CAPITAL L no less) managed to gain control of military academies, state colleges in the Deep South, Brigham Young, a majority (or significant minority) of religious colleges of all denominations, the entire fucking Ivy League (with or without Stanford), and a solid block of both public and private educational institutions all over the 50 States?
Starting in the 1920s, institutions of higher learning began to be chock full of moonbatty leftists and Marxists, and that hasn't changed. Yet. The overwhelmingly leftist baby boomers who teach at and run colleges and universities haven't been replaced by younger, more conservative professors and adminstrators yet. But it also makes sense that hiring committees at colleges and universities are going to look for people who hold to and teach their own values.
Yes, there is a cohort of conservatives in academia, chiefly at religious colleges and the like, but they represent a small fraction of faculty and administrators in the entire US college and university system.
And academia is unique in terms of offering virtually guaranteed employment for life to its tenured faculty and senior administrators. There's not much turnover there compared to other industries such as IT. So old fogies with the same old crazy leftist ideas get in and stay in for decades.
*And*, the leftist academes hire and promote those who think like them and hold similar values. I mean, look at pro choice organizations. Do you think Planned Parenthood would ever hire an executive who was opposed to or even conflicted about legal abortion? No. They are going to hire and promote people with the same ideological mindset as the existing staff and management, right?
Do you have ANY actual evidence of such pervasive "moonbatsh*t Left" hegemony over ANY significant institution in the USA?
Yes. When college faculty and administrators are polled regarding political views, they poll overhwhelmingly politically leftist in terms of political and cultural beliefs. Far more so than the overall American populace in general.
Do you have ANY actual evidence of such pervasive "moonbatsh*t Left" hegemony over ANY significant institution in the USA?
LOL. Ha, yes. FIRE's speech code report is pretty damn good evidence right there. Look at who is writing those speech codes--the crazy anti-free-speech left thugs.
And if the "moonbatsh*t Left" was compenent enough to establish control over such a diverse lot of colleges and universities all over the US, then how did George W. Bush manage to get (kinda sorta) elected POTUS?
It has nothing to do with competence. More like a phenomenon of "birds of a feather flock together". And hire their own, of course.
Besides, this is terribly faulty reasoning on your part, RB. Why would leftist academes determine voting patterns for the population at large? Academics always overhwelmingly vote Democrat, but they aren't a large enough segment of the population to swing the entire presidential election. And, you know, there's that whole electoral college bit too.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 4:03 PM
MarkusR@47:
If the school had cracked down on the disruptors, wouldn't that be a case of PC thuggery?
Not at all. Free speech doesn't mean "free for all speech" and it doesn't refer to speech that is threatening or disruptive in a violent or near-violent way.
By FIRE standards, if these is a speaker giving a speech, a student, or a group of them, would have the right to yell them off the stage.
It's clear you have no idea what "FIRE standards" are. Nobody at FIRE is promoting thuggishly disrupting speeches. On the other hand, the UNC students opposed to Tancredo had the right of free speech also. They could have used this right to have staged peaceful counter demonstrations and speeches. And, in fact, I think some of them had planned to do just that. But unfortunately, some leftist PC thugs turned to violence and shouting down the opposition to stop Tancredo's speech by any means necessary.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 4:09 PM
@Adrienne
Yep, the "moonbattish left" is responsible for all that. Soon they'll be after your precious bodily fluids! What riviting analysis is next from you, how the Elders of Zion are controlling the money supply? Hope you've bought all the gold you can, just like Beck told you to!
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 17, 2009 4:14 PM
Oh, just to clarify something I said earlier...
*And*, the leftist academes hire and promote those who think like them and hold similar values. I mean, look at pro choice organizations. Do you think Planned Parenthood would ever hire an executive who was opposed to or even conflicted about legal abortion? No. They are going to hire and promote people with the same ideological mindset as the existing staff and management, right?
Rightist organizations do exactly the same thing. In fact, any ideologically-based organization is going to do the same thing. Rachel Maddow will never be an American Enterprise Institute spokeswoman, and Ralph Nader will never be a Cato Institute fellow. Sarah Palin is never going to be the face of American Atheists, and Rosie O'Donnell won't ever be a guest editor of Soldier of Fortune magazine.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 4:15 PM
Lynxrein@51:
Yep, the "moonbattish left" is responsible for all that. Soon they'll be after your precious bodily fluids! What riviting analysis is next from you, how the Elders of Zion are controlling the money supply? Hope you've bought all the gold you can, just like Beck told you to!
Another illustration of that timeless principle of the Internetz: when you can't answer an argument with anything resembling facts, logic, or rationality, it's time to drag out the strawmen, hyperbole, and ad-hominems.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 4:19 PM
Starting in the 1920s, institutions of higher learning began to be chock full of moonbatty leftists and Marxists, and that hasn't changed.
WHICH institutions of higher learning, exactly? How -- to repeat just one example from beofre that you're still ignoring -- did both sectarian and state colleges in the Deep South manage to get infiltrated by Marxists? You need names, numbers, statistics, that sort of thing, to prove your case, and all you're giving us is more groundless paranoid assertions. You haven't even bothered to define your crucial terms, "moonbatty leftist" and "Marxist." What -- to take just one example of your shoddy reasoning -- makes a professor "Marxist?" Is it actual explicit support for "Marxist" regimes, or does he just have to apply a bit of Marxian political-economic reasoning in his discussion of this or that past event?
When college faculty and administrators are polled regarding political views, they poll overhwhelmingly politically leftist in terms of political and cultural beliefs. Far more so than the overall American populace in general.
Specifics, please? And does "overhwhelmingly politically leftist...more so than the overall American populace in general" mean socialism, or does it just mean not buying into simpleminded popular mythology? Or is this just another example of the facts -- and the people who deal with them -- having that well-known liberal bias?
Also, there's a diffference between what professors say to pollsters, and what they do on the job and the consequences thereof.
I've heard right-wingers blather on and on about how those evil un-American leftie Marxists are in total control of our entire university system, and none of the wingers have been able to prove their case with anything more than a few scattered anecdotes. If this left-wing takeover is at all real, its only visible achievement will be to make Michael Dukakis look competent.
Posted by: Raging bee | December 17, 2009 4:22 PM
@Adrienne
when you can't answer an argument with anything resembling facts, logic, or rationality
Nah, it is that when you see drivel, you respond with mockery. Otherwise you get dragged into spending all your time showing the other person the Earth isn't flat at all. Your post was so far from rationality there wasn't anything worth responding to with "facts, logic or rationality." It is clear you don't actually know how university hiring systems work or have even a passing aquaintence with "facts, logic or rationality", so why would I waste any of it on you?
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 17, 2009 4:24 PM
RB,
To start your investigation of liberal bias in academe, why not go to FIRE's website and start reading their investigative reports? They are the research org, not me. I think if you look at their annual reports, you will see much more than a handful of scattered anecdotes.
http://www.thefire.org/
But here, I did a quickie google search on the liberal bias in academia, turned up this: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/universities-growing-liberal-bias-is-documented/66418/
Back to RB:
And does "overhwhelmingly politically leftist...more so than the overall American populace in general" mean socialism, or does it just mean not buying into simpleminded popular mythology? Or is this just another example of the facts -- and the people who deal with them -- having that well-known liberal bias?
Actually, some of both.
Facts tend to have more of what American political discourse today tends to construe as a "liberal" bias, yes. But then there are plenty of fact-free reigning ideologies on college campuses. Postmodernism is pretty much the rule in terms of humanities depts, for example, and that's been true since the 80s. Race and sex are mere social constructs rather than having any biological basis...that's another favorite left looney meme. Other favorites rife in academia: the authority of personal experience and interpretation, the overreaching and evil effects of patriarchy, the continued and pernicious effects of racism, the necessity of quelling "hate speech" and making "safe spaces".
Science/math depts are the least politicized, but they are still politicized. Think there *might* be any innate differences in average science and mathematical ability between the sexes? Larry Summers did, and said as much. Oops. Big mistake. Try reading the book Professing Feminism for some very eye-opening tales about the perception of sexism in academia.
And then there's what happened to James Watson. Even if he said something dumb, should he have been forced to effing retire after he apologized? No.
RB:
Also, there's a diffference between what professors say to pollsters, and what they do on the job and the consequences thereof.
And you know this how? Where's YOUR evidence of this assertion?
I've heard right-wingers blather on and on about how those evil un-American leftie Marxists are in total control of our entire university system, and none of the wingers have been able to prove their case with anything more than a few scattered anecdotes. If this left-wing takeover is at all real, its only visible achievement will be to make Michael Dukakis look competent.
The leftist reign over colleges and universities in the US is not really a tale of infiltration or takeover. This was done in plain sight. It's more of a clustering effect coupled with a the lack of job turnover unique to academia. Like, I don't accuse Greeks of infiltrating the diner market or Filippinos of taking over the cruise ship singer racket. Or Jews of infiltrating the deli world or Asians of infiltrating the ranks of professional cleaning and tailoring. You have one group of people get into a certain profession...they start to cluster and reach a critical mass, and they develop essentially a "niche market". They train other like-minded folks and they hire more likeminded folks, and the cycle perpetuates. Except, in academia, they don't leave. They stay for thirty years or more in one job. Kinda like the "ol' boys" networks of yore, except now they are more like "lefty boomer" networks of people who will stay in the same jobs for decades. That's how leftists came to dominate academia. It wasn't done through legerdemain or deceit, but it means that today it is very difficult to get a job at most colleges and universities if one is a vocal conservative...with some exceptions, yes. Brigham Young, Pepperdine, and George Mason come to mind. But they are still in the minority.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 5:11 PM
Lynxrein:
Nah, it is that when you see drivel, you respond with mockery. Otherwise you get dragged into spending all your time showing the other person the Earth isn't flat at all. Your post was so far from rationality there wasn't anything worth responding to with "facts, logic or rationality." It is clear you don't actually know how university hiring systems work or have even a passing aquaintence with "facts, logic or rationality", so why would I waste any of it on you?
Thank you for illustrating the second eternal principle of the Internetz: the best defense is a good offense. When in doubt, insult! And always, ALWAYS accuse the other person of speaking from ignorance, even when you yourself are plainly doing the very same.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 5:14 PM
Re Adrienne #56
Ms. Adrienne doesn't do her cause much good by referencing a far right wing rag like the New York Sun, which is one step below papers controlled by Rupert Murdock.
Posted by: SLC | December 17, 2009 5:31 PM
@Adrienne
I'm not in doubt, you're simply not providing anything of substance. You're simply using your cute little "rules" to imply that I'm making as little sensse as you are, which isn't true. That's ok though, you're a troll and it is nice that you have a way to rationalize your failings.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 17, 2009 5:41 PM
SLC @58
Ms. Adrienne doesn't do her cause much good by referencing a far right wing rag like the New York Sun, which is one step below papers controlled by Rupert Murdock.
Yes, I realize it's a right-wing source, and yes, I figured someone would jump on that. But just because it's in a right-wing paper doesn't automatically mean it's a meaningless finding. It means you should be skeptical, perhaps, but you have to look at the actual data to see what they say.
And really, any paper has bias. WaPo and NYT have a left-wing bias. That hardly means that anything published there is inaccurate or ought to be dismissed out of hand. Hell, Ed plainly has a bias on his blog, but that doesn't mean he isn't right.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 8:10 PM
Lynxrain @59:
That's ok though, you're a troll and it is nice that you have a way to rationalize your failings.
Third principle of the Internetz: when you're losing an argument badly, call your opponent a troll! Works every time.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 8:19 PM
But then there are plenty of fact-free reigning ideologies on college campuses.
I find irony in this kind of PC-policing by someone who doesn't claims to oppose political correctness. I mean, what's the matter, don't topics on patriarchy and institutional racism meet your standards for political correctness?
Posted by: MarkusR | December 17, 2009 8:29 PM
I find irony in this kind of PC-policing by someone who doesn't claims to oppose political correctness.
I certainly do oppose PC ideology when it interferes with or outright blocks free inquiry and free speech. Just as I oppose the same sort of interference from the right wing.
It's interesting that free speech has so many opponents on both sides of the political spectrum.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 8:48 PM
And actually, what I like so much about Ed's blog is that he doesn't shrink from exposing or examining the hypocrisy, the censorship, and the sloppy thinking of both liberals and conservatives.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 8:51 PM
"Other favorites rife in academia: the authority of personal experience and interpretation,..."
What exactly is wrong with "the authority of personal experience and interpretation?"
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 17, 2009 9:47 PM
daniel rotter @65What exactly is wrong with "the authority of personal experience and interpretation?"
Personal interpretation is not objective and unbiased. Therefore, it shouldn't be accepted unconditionally and unskeptically.
Remember the phrase "Women don't lie about rape"? That's exactly the kind of problematic and sloppy thinking I'm talking about. If a woman thinks she has been sexually harassed or raped, that is a serious charge that should be investigated, but her word and interpretation of events should not be accepted as unconditional fact. This is part of why those campus speech and sexual harassment codes are so dangerous; often, they assume that the accused is effectively guilty until proven innocent.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 17, 2009 10:18 PM
This whole conversation has turned to the irrelevant. These are legal questions, not political ones. Whether a university is controlled by liberals or conservatives simply isn't relevant to the legal question of what authority the government has to censor speech. That authority is limited by the First Amendment. A public university is an agency of the government and it cannot go beyond the same First Amendment limits that binds every other government agency. It cannot legally punish someone for saying something that would be constitutionally protected in any other setting. That means they can't punish someone for a wide range of statements that we might all find to be obnoxious and vile. Like it or not, people do have the right to be bigots and to express bigotry in this country. They can't do harm to anyone or violate their rights, but no one has a right not to be offended by another person's views. The people at the university can criticize such speech, they can disavow it, they can prove it wrong. But the university cannot legally punish it. This has been upheld in court ruling after court ruling and all the wishful thinking in the world doesn't change that fact.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 18, 2009 1:20 AM
Re Adrienne @ #60
And really, any paper has bias. WaPo and NYT have a left-wing bias.
Ms. Adriennes' depiction of the Washington Post as a left witn newspaper demonstrates how far to the right that political discourse has drifted in the United States. The Washington Post publishes columns by far right wing ideologues like Charles Krauthammer, Michael Gerson, George Will, etc. By European standards, the Washington Post is a right wing newspaper, just like President Obama would be regarded to the right of European conservatives like Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy, and British Conservative leader Cameron.
The New York Sun, like the fascist cable news channel and other Murdock propaganda outlets has no credibility.
Re Adrienne @ #66
Remember the phrase "Women don't lie about rape"? That's exactly the kind of problematic and sloppy thinking I'm talking about.
Here, I have to agree with Ms. Adrienne. Case in point, the Duke University lacrosse players who were accused of rape and persecuted by an unscrupulous prosecutor. One could only speculate what would have been the outcome of that case if the accused had not had the resources to contest the charges.
Posted by: SLC | December 18, 2009 9:55 AM
SLC: ah, yes, the leftist European governments. They aren't consistent champions of free speech either. Look how quickly they give in to Muslims on the "hate speech" and "blasphemy" complaints. And then there are the laws against publicly expressing denialist sentiments about the Holocaust. To be fair, though, I don't think any European countries have the equivalent of the first amendment of the US constitution.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 18, 2009 12:28 PM
Ed wrote:
This whole conversation has turned to the irrelevant.
I disagree. Certainly the comment discussion drifted from the original point of your post, absolutely. It changed from a discussion about the legality of speech codes into a discussion about how neither side of the political spectrum consistently upholds the right to free speech.
Which is an important point to remember, I think, and just continues to highlight how fragile that right is and also the need to continue to fight for it.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 18, 2009 12:35 PM
@ 40 - "All of you people bashing FIRE ought to go to their website and start reading the horror stories of various students accused of "racism", "sexism", creating a hostile environment, etc. FIRE is really quite more reasonable--and campus speech codes are often more unreasonable-- than you are assuming them to be."
I went to their website and put in the name of the university I knew best. There was jack-all in the way of actual infringements (I saw no reports of any incidents whatsoever) let alone "horror stories"--as I've said, crazed loons were allowed to demonstrate freely. They also let Planned Parenthood in.
UNO was red-lighted because of bog-standard boilerplate Asscoverese; the site provides no concrete proof whatsoever that anyone's rights were violated. Hell; I never even saw said sexual harassment policy enforced. Keep in mind that many students are also student workers, or have assistant teaching positions. If a student is also an employee, that means they're representing the university (and the state govt., as well) which means even if they're still a student, they have to behave like a professor if they're teaching a class. A TA can't date an undergrad in their class, yanno.
And lest you think I'm riding to my defense of my alma mater: With the exception of a handful of wonderful professors, attending UNO was quite possibly the second-worst experience of my life. I could write paragraphs about that, but crushing free speech was not one of those many failures. Being able to bitch, demonstrate, and basically be a college student was one of the few things the campus got right.
"And why shouldn't a student be allowed to give a presentation saying that gays are going to hell?"
To reiterate and clarify: It was allowed. It was not in any way prohibited. Bigots were allowed to embarrass themselves with impunity. Yet UNO got a red light because someone didn't like the way their sexual harassment policy was worded--not on any evidence of any rights-infringing incident.
(And after skimming 20 comments down, "Adrienne", this is all the response I deign to give you. Insert cuckoo-clock noise here.)
@ 67, Ed Brayton - I agree on topic derailment, but I'm going to hold firm to my stated stance here--sexual harassment policies are not the death of free speech on campus. There's a difference between general demonstrations in a public space and targeting individuals. Protesters can stake out territory in the middle of campus and yell about Leviticus, but if they decide to follow a gay student from class to class and target them personally, as an individual, that's too far. There's no such thing as a right not to be offended, but any private citizen has the right to not be actively stalked.
Posted by: db | December 20, 2009 2:59 AM