Dartmouth Rescinds Speech Code

Hate speech codes are foul. I'm liberal, and the leftists who impose such codes are not. They are as bad as the book-banners on the right.

Also, good to see your site no longer groups the attribution with the wrong comment.

In order for words to be hateful the listener must give up their own personal power to the speaker. I never understood why people would do that; why people would let the words of others have so much impact on their souls and spirits. This is a step in the responsible direction.

and now we have another example from Toronto:
Here's Christopher Hutsul in the Toronto Star:

"Imagine, for a moment, a busy downtown intersection with no traffic lights, signs or sidewalks. There are no markers on the ground, no speed bumps, no police officer conducting the flow of vehicles. There's not even a curb. Every element of traffic _ pedestrians, bikers and drivers _ is left to fend for itself. Sounds like a recipe for chaos, right?

Wrong.

The implementation in a number of European communities of what some have dubbed "naked streets" has been hugely successful.

Urban planners in Holland, Germany and Denmark have experimented with this free-for-all approach to traffic management and have found it is safer than the traditional model, lowers trip times for drivers and is a boost for the businesses lining the roadway.

The idea is that by removing traffic lights, signage and sidewalks, drivers and pedestrians are forced to interact, make eye contact and adapt to the traffic instead of relying blindly on whether that little dot on the horizon is red or green.

Planners have found that without the conventional rules and regulations of the road in place, drivers tend to slow down, open their eyes to their environment and develop a "feel" for their surroundings.

In effect, every person using the street, be it an SUV owner or a kid with a wagon, becomes equal."

This is interesting to see, but it should be acknowledged that Dartmouth has been targeted by conservatives for years. The Dartmouth Review, formerly edited by National Review columnist Ramesh Ponnuru, was a slightly off-campus publication sponsored by some rather conservative off-campus people.

Why was Dartmouth targeted? Probably because it is one of the smallest of the Ivy League (translation: supposedly liberal) colleges.

Regarding speech codes, I'm of two minds, in large part because there are two situations. In the classroom, generally no speech code. In the dormitory, generally, there should be some brake that provide for civility among the residents of the dorms. If, for example, someone wants to rant and rail against a gay resident in the dorm, at some point someone has to put a stop to that. Unless someone wants to suggest that the dorm should have no gay residents.

What makes it even more compelling is that Dartmouth is a private college, so they did not legally have to do this.

As I understand it they do. The college still accepts federal loan amd gramt money from students, and courts have interpreted these loans and grants to carry the strings of the federal government.