Have Amercian Colleges Failed US

[TGHusker]

I received this eml link recently and thought I'd share for discussion. Questions that it brings up:

 

Is political correctness getting in the way of quality education?

Is political correctness getting in the way of 1st amendment free speech?

Is PC damaging the ability to have free expression of thought in the class room?

 

Of course PC can cut both ways. We tend to think of it as a 'liberal' issue now under the current cultural environment - it is the most dominant PC position. Liberals are suppose to be all about free expression (thoughts, words, love and otherwise) yet it is only free within certain perimeters of acceptability which is defined by them. To be otherwise (outside of the perimeter) is to be intolerant. So they are intolerant of those who think otherwise (the 'intolerant'). It is possible that this could cut the other way also. If our country's media, education, political environment was more conservative perhaps we would see a 'reverse PC'.

 

So the discussion isn't about liberal PC or Conservative PC (We might observe conservative PC at a very conservative or religious college) it is about PC regardless of slant and its affect on 'liberal' education.

 

The person who emailed this to me stated:

It is a quick read (pasted below) that highlights how freedom of expression is being lost under the guise of “inclusive language campaigns" and campus speech codes.

I find it a bit ironic that the conservative Christian college that I am associated with seems to enjoy more intellectual liberty than many of its counterparts who seek to purge certain thoughts and words from their communities because they find them intolerable under their banner of "tolerance?”

 

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/americas-colleges-have-become-political-correctness-indoctrination-centers

America’s Colleges Have Become Political Correctness Indoctrination Centers

By Michael Snyder, on February 9th, 2015

 

Most parents assume that when they send their kids to college that they will receive training which will prepare them for a lifetime of employment. Sadly, the truth is that very little time is actually spent imparting practical skills to students at most of America’s colleges. Instead, an extraordinary amount of classroom time is spent telling students what they should think and what they should believe. At this point, most institutions of “higher learning” in this country have been transformed into political correctness indoctrination centers. There is a reason why college towns have a reputation for being extremely liberal. The truth is that they are bastions for “progressive” thought. Each and every day, millions of young adults all across America are literally being systematically brainwashed. In case you are wondering, I know what I am talking about. I spent eight years getting three degrees at public universities. And it doesn’t even really matter what area of the country you attend school. The “education” that students are receiving at schools in very liberal states is virtually the same as the “education” that students are receiving at schools in very conservative states. Our young adults represent the future of this nation, and they are receiving a level of indoctrination that is so comprehensive that it would make Joseph Goebbels proud.

Colleges and universities all across this nation spend an extraordinary amount of time and effort to alter the belief systems of their students. This even extends to teaching them what words are “appropriate” to use and which words are not. For example, just check out what is happening at the University of Michigan…

Dozens of posters plastered across the University of Michigan caution students not to say things that might hurt others’ feelings, part of a new “Inclusive Language Campaign” at the state’s flagship public university that cost $16,000 to implement.

Words declared unacceptable through the campaign include “crazy,” “insane,” “retarded,” “gay,” “tranny,” “gypped,” “illegal alien,” “****,” “ghetto” and “raghead.” Phrases such as “I want to die” and “that test raped me” are also verboten.

But this isn’t just an advertising campaign. In fact, University of Michigan students are actually being asked to sign a pledge that they will use “inclusive language” from now on…

Students have been asked to sign a pledge to “use inclusive language” and to help their peers “understand the importance of using inclusive language,” according to campaign materials.

If you think that this is just an isolated incident, you would be wrong.

One survey of 409 colleges conducted in 2013 discovered that 62 percent of them have “speech codes” that “severely departed from First Amendment standards”.

Meanwhile, these “institutions of higher learning” are failing miserably at what is supposedly their primary task.

Today, the average college freshman reads at a 7th grade level. In a desperate attempt to get as many students through the system as possible, most college courses have been so “dumbed down” that the family dog could pass them.

If only parents knew. The amount of useful knowledge that their kids are actually receiving is very small. But most parents are utterly clueless and they just keep writing huge tuition checks semester after semester.

It would be hard to describe how utterly useless some of these college courses are. For instance, there is one college in upstate New York that is offering a course entitled “The Sociology of Miley Cyrus: Race, Class, Gender and Media“.

Do you think that is going to prepare your child for the real world?

And here is a list of some other actual college courses that have been taught at U.S. colleges in recent years…

-“What If Harry Potter Is Real?”

-“Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame”

-“Philosophy And Star Trek”

-“Learning From YouTube”

-“How To Watch Television”

-“Oh, Look, a Chicken!”

Are you starting to get the picture?

No wonder so many students “graduate from college” but are still dumb as a rock.

The following are some numbers about the quality of college education in the United States that come from an article that appeared in USA Today…

-“After two years in college, 45% of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36% showed little change.”

-“Students also spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago”

-“35% of students report spending five or fewer hours per week studying alone.”

-“50% said they never took a class in a typical semester where they wrote more than 20 pages”

-“32% never took a course in a typical semester where they read more than 40 pages per week.”

But even with so little being demanded of them, most college students in the United States still cannot manage to graduate from school on time.

Federal statistics show that only 36 percent of all full-time students receive a bachelor’s degree within four years, and only 77 percent of all full-time students have earned a degree by the end of six years.

Instead of studying hard, most college students treat college like one giant party.

No wonder so many of them want to extend it for another year or two or three.

And when these kids get away from their parents, their morality tends to go into the toilet.

For example, just check out what one survey discovered about male college students…

A third of male students questioned in a survey admitted they would rape a woman if they could get away with it.

The study found that 31.7 per cent of the mostly white American participants questioned admitted they would force a woman to have sex in a ‘consequence-free situation’.

Academics quizzed volunteers on how they would act in a situation where they could have sex with a woman against her will ‘if nobody would ever know there wouldn’t be any consequences’.

These are the leaders of tomorrow?

Are you kidding me?

Our system of college education is deeply, deeply broken. Like I stated above, I speak from experience. I earned three degrees from “good schools”, and I saw firsthand how pathetic the system is.

So what do you think?

Is there any way to fix our institutions of higher learning?

Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

[knapplc]

Every time you post this crap I can't help but think you're a paid shill for conservative propaganda groups.

They were uncovered on Digg a few years ago. It's a pretty obvious strategy - post the very kind of scare-tactic nonsense you keep posting, and whether people believe it's true or not, they at least see the propaganda. The goal isn't belief, but influence. It's cloaked in the innocent "I just want to start a conversation" or "I just want to see what people think."

 

Of course, there's every chance you actually believe this stuff, which is even more sad.

[ZRod]

Read the first paragraph and no more. This is just crap. I knew just as many conservatives in my time in college as liberals, and I earned 2 degrees. Nobody told me how to think or what to think. They presented information, methods of analysis, historical data, and personal experiences to me.

 

And on the student involvement side of things I would say those organization are overwhelmingly conservative, with the exception of ethnic and LGBT organizations.

[Moiraine]

What a load of sh#t, lol.

[BigRedBuster]

Hmmm.....how is the best way to brain wash a population??? Convince them that their educational system is horrible and they shouldn't partake in this.

Let's see, what group is well known for doing this? Can we all say....Taliban?

This is what I think about when I see crap like this. Let's just convince everyone that their children will be ruined if they send them to college so they aren't educated and we can brain wash them into believing anything we want them to believe.

[TGHusker]

Guys you are missing the whole point of the post. Perhaps the posted article was a bit overboard as an example - it was to spring board the real discussion but was probably too big of a distraction - I could have left it off as it took away from my point but it was a part of the eml sent to me. My apologies for it.

 

Read my portion and I said PC can occur both ways but tends towards the liberal bent (on most campuses but this isn't always the case). My 3 questions are essentially about opening up free speech on campus and the post is the complete opposite of 'convincing people to be 'brain wash'. Come on BRB the Taliban - really!! I'm wanting more free speech and you use the Taliban. BRB, I've probably agreed with you on more things than not and now you bring up the Taliban in response to my post. Pretty disappointing.

 

You guys are starting to prove my point. Intolerance of my position is met wt name calling and dismissed out of had without addressing the core issue I brought up - 1st amendment rights on campus. So I will present the purpose of the original post from a liberal position, by a liberal 1st amendment lawyer instead - so that Knapp cannot falsely accuse me of being a conservative shill - even after I said the same issues could be observed at conservative or religious schools as well.

 

Knapp - on a personal note, I've done nothing but to show you the highest respect in my posts and in PMs even when we've been on the opposite side of the debate (there have been many times I've agreed with you and have told you so, or I have given you credit for my moderation). Name calling is beneath the respect I've given you.. most disappointing in all.

 

 

First George Will, conservative, talks about & agrees with the book Unlearning Liberty by Greg Lukianoff ( the liberal author) This issue spans the political spectrum

http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20121204/WIRE/312039985?p=1&tc=pg

George Will notes in the above link: (bold emphasis mine)

“Ample evidence is in "Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate" by Greg Lukianoff, 38, a graduate of Stanford Law School who describes himself as a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lifelong Democrat who belongs to "the notoriously politically correct Park Slope Food Co-Op in Brooklyn" and has never voted for a Republican "nor do I plan to." But as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), he knows that the most common justifications for liberal censorship are "sensitivity" about "diversity" and "multiculturalism," as academic liberals understand those things.” end of quote

 

(TG Comment: Lukianoff’s book addresses ‘censorship’ across the political spectrum)

 

Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate

Author: Greg Lukianoff

Published: 2014

Publisher: Encounter Books

ISBN: 9781594036354

Format: Retail PDF

Reader Required:Adobe Reader, Foxit, Nitro, Adobe Digital Editions

 

For over a generation, shocking cases of censorship at America’s colleges and universities have taught students the wrong lessons about living in a free society. Drawing on a decade of experience battling for freedom of speech on campus, First Amendment lawyer Greg Lukianoff reveals how higher education fails to teach students to become critical thinkers: by stifling open debate, our campuses are supercharging ideological divisions, promoting groupthink, and encouraging an unscholarly certainty about complex issues.

 

Lukianoff walks readers through the life of a modern-day college student, from orientation to the end of freshman year. Through this lens, he describes startling violations of free speech rights: a student in Indiana punished for publicly reading a book, a student in Georgia expelled for a pro-environment collage he posted on Facebook, students at Yale banned from putting an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote on a T shirt, and students across the country corralled into tiny “free speech zones” when they wanted to express their views.

 

But Lukianoff goes further, demonstrating how this culture of censorship is bleeding into the larger society. As he explores public controversies involving Juan Williams, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Larry Summers—even Dave Barry and Jon Stewart—Lukianoff paints a stark picture of our ability as a nation to discuss important issues rationally. Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate illuminates how intolerance for dissent and debate on today’s campus threatens the freedom of every citizen and makes us all just a little bit dumber.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Unlearning-Liberty-Campus-Censorship-American/dp/1594037302/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428680058&sr=8-1&keywords=Unlearning+Liberty%3A

Greg Lukianoff is an attorney and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. His writings on campus free speech have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, in addition to dozens of other publications. A regular columnist for the Huffington Post, he is a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and has made numerous television appearances, including on the CBS Evening News and Stossel. He received the 2008 Playboy Foundation Freedom of Expression Award and the 2010 Ford Hall Forum’s Louis P. and Evelyn Smith First Amendment Award on behalf of FIRE. Lukianoff is a graduate of American University and Stanford Law School.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.unlearningliberty.com/reviews/

 

 

 

A liberal mag article by Greg Lukianoff

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/harvard-and-how-silence-i_b_3072123.html

 

A conservative mag article by Greg Lukianoff

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/26/fau-college-student-who-didnt-want-to-stomp-on-jesus-runs-afoul-of-speech-code/

 

Other articles listed below the reviews.

 

Note the reviews below: from all sides of the political, religious, non-religious spectrum Even the former President of the ACLU approves of the book below:

Reviews for ‘Unlearning Liberty’

“Modern societies grant their universities many privileges, from subsidized partying for students to lifelong tenure for professors. In return, universities are supposed to be laboratories of ideas, where diverse theories—including new and unpopular ones, which history tells us have some chance of being correct—may be broached and evaluated. In this alternately entertaining and shocking book, Greg Lukianoff shows how modern American universities have abdicated this responsibility. Their bloated bureaucracies, enabled by cowardly leaders and mobilized by politically correct crusaders from the left and the right, have clamped down on free expression, with the tragicomic result that you have far more freedom to express opinions outside a university than within one. Lukianoff is an engaging exposer of this scandal, combining good storytelling with clear principles and a serious purpose with a light touch.”

Steven Pinker, Harvard College Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, author of The Blank Slate and The Better Angels of Our Nature

“Greg has spent over a decade working to bring the Constitution back to campus. In Unlearning Liberty, he brings to life his many fights with university censors and shows the abandonment of fundamental freedoms on campus for what it is—an issue of grave importance to every single American. Anyone concerned about the future of higher education, the state of national discourse, or the future of our civil liberties should read this enlightening and revelatory book.”

Nat Hentoff, journalist, author of Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee

“Here’s a book full of sunlight—the best disinfectant for campus censorship.”

Jonathan Rauch, guest scholar, Brookings Institution, author of Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought

“Greg Lukianoff’s Unlearning Liberty is destined to be a classic work on freedom in America. His beautifully written account—as riveting as it is distressing—covers all areas of higher education, including student orientation, life in the dorms, speech in the public forum, the conduct of student judicial systems, and learning in the classroom. Lukianoff’s findings should occasion a call to metaphorical arms: rather than teaching the lessons of living as free people, American higher education is doing the opposite. It is encouraging students to “unlearn” the liberty that is their constitutional heritage. Those who care about the fate of our republic must read this important book.”

Donald Alexander Downs, Alexander Meiklejohn Professor of Political Science, Law, and Journalism, University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus

“American universities have been described as islands of intolerance in a sea of freedom. Unlearning Liberty is a meticulous and inspiring guide on how to liberate the islands!”

Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute, author of The War Against Boys

“’Brazenly unconstitutional and hypocritical’ is how Greg Lukianoff, president of FIRE, characterizes the bizarre and even comical restrictions on free speech that have become routine on college campuses over the past few decades. In Unlearning Liberty, Lukianoff uses intelligence, passion, and common sense to describe and denounce the censorship and punitive vigilance that have come to prevail both in the classroom and out. Exposing the incoherent politics that ensue when vigorous debate and dissent are seen as too dangerous, too upsetting, to be tolerated, he shows that being offended is not only the price of liberty but is intrinsic as well to the process of genuine thought and learning. Lukianoff argues brilliantly and with wit for the importance of free expression in a society that hopes to produce free human beings rather than craven conformists. All those who suspect they might one day want to express an unorthodox thought or take an unpopular stance need to read this book. Now!”

Daphne Patai, professor, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, University of Massachusetts Amherst, author of What Price Utopia?

“Unlearning Liberty shows why free speech rights on campus are more important than ever, and how controversy is still a great teacher.”

Mary Beth Tinker, plaintiff in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District

“Beautifully written and powerfully argued, Unlearning Liberty is a dismaying chronicle of the sorry state of free speech on today’s campus – and beyond. Lukianoff demonstrates how pervasive campus censorship corrodes the intellectual independence that is essential for liberty and democracy to thrive in our larger society. Most readers will be shocked to learn how even the most respected higher education institutions, while paying lip service to academic freedom, in fact systematically suppress dissent and criticism. An essential wake-up call!”

Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, New York Law School, former President, American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008), author of Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights

One reviewer on Amazon stated: America used to be a tolerant society. In part, Lukianoff's book laments the degradation of tolerance in our society. What's going on reminds me of what Camile Paglia recently said.

"The left has destroyed the principles & the legacy of free speech & tolerance fought hard for & won at great price by the counterculture revolution of the 1960s." ~ Camile Paglia, author, one of the founders of the feminist movement, openly gay lesbian, once proud Democrat, & a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. Media Reviews of Unlearning Liberty

 

• “Learning Censorship on Campus,” Luke Sheahan, The Journal of Value Inquiry, Jun. 18, 2013
• “Civility and Sex Speech,” Carlin Romano, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jun. 17, 2013
• “Lukianoff’s Ashes,” Les Sillars, Salvo, Jun. 8, 2013
• “Unlearning Liberty Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate by Greg Lukianoff,” What Would The Founders Think, Jun. 3, 2013
• “Review of Unlearning Liberty,” Steve Macek, Academe, May 8, 2013
• “College: Where Free Speech Goes to Die,” Bruce Thornton, Defining Ideas, Hoover Institution, Feb. 28, 2013 (Also published in Real Clear Politics, Feb. 28, 2013)
• “Dismantling Dissent,” James D. Hoff, The GC Advocate, Feb. 15, 2013
• “Unlearning Christianity,” Benjamin Wiker, Catholic World Report, Feb. 10, 2013
• “Unlearning Liberty: The Uncertain Future of Free Speech,” Julia Thompson, tothesource, Feb. 1, 2013
• “Books in Brief,” Evan Sparks, Philanthropy Roundtable, Winter 2013 magazine
• “Campus Censorship Breeds Societal Dysfunction,” Harvey Silverglate, Forbes, Jan. 16, 2013
• “Unlearning Liberty (Book Review),” Deone Emineth, Great Plains Examiner, Jan. 12, 2013
• “Unlearning Liberty,” Harry Lewis, Bits and Pieces, Jan. 12, 2013
• “Unlearning Liberty: Hazelwood at 25,” David Moshman, The Huffington Post, Jan. 6, 2013
• “Free Speech at Risk in the Universities,” Matthew Hurtt, America’s Future Foundation, Doublethink Online, Jan. 4, 2013
• “Campus Liberty Under Siege by Liberal Academia,” Melvyn L. Fein, The Marietta Daily Journal, Jan. 7, 2013
• “Free Speech in Higher Education,” Kenneth L. Marcus, The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 26, 2012
• “Preoccupied with Regulating Student Thought Crime, Universities Ignore Binge Drinking,” J.P. Freire, Acculturated, Dec. 10, 2012
• “Colleges Hate Free Speech. Why Should I Care,” David French, National Review Online, Dec. 6, 2012
• Speak Loudly and Carry a Big Stick,” Danielle Charette, Swarthmore College’s The Phoenix, Dec. 6, 2012
• “It’s a Beautiful Thing, the Destruction of Words.,” The Legal Satyricon, Dec. 5, 2012
• “Colleges Have Free Speech on the Run,” George F. Will, The Washington Post, Nov. 30, 2012
• “Unlearning Liberty,” Tim Black, The Spiked Review of Books – Issue no. 62, Nov. 30, 2012
• “Unlearning Liberty,” Denyse O’Leary, MercatorNet, Nov. 28, 2012
• “Barone: The Tyranny of Good Intentions at U.S. Colleges,” Michael Barone, The Washington Examiner, Nov 27. 2012
• “Young: Political Correctness on Campus Chills Debate,” Cathy Young, Newsday, Nov. 26, 2012
• “Cool Justice: Shouting Fire: Antidote for Mind-Numbing Political Correctness,” Andy Thibault, The Register Citizen, Nov. 26, 2012 (Also published in the Housatonic Times, Nov. 27, 2012)
• “The Imperiled Freedom the Candidates Ignored,” Peter Berkowitz, Real Clear Politics, Nov. 21, 2012
• “Weekend Interview: How Free Speech Died on Campus,” Sohrab Ahmari, Wall Street Journal – Weekend, Nov. 16, 2012
• “Review: Unlearning Liberty,” Bonnie Pritchett, World on Campus, Nov. 15, 2012
• “Working Together to Liberate the Quad,” Bruce Walsh, Metro Newspapers, Nov. 11, 2012
• “Free Speech on FIRE,” Robert VerBruggen, National Review Online, Nov. 9, 2012
• “Unlearning Liberty: A Must Read to Deter the Degradation of Discourse,” William R. Toler, Independent Register, Nov. 6, 2012
• “For Men, Little Due Process on the College Campus,” Helen Smith, PJ Media, Nov. 2, 2012
• “FIRE Singes the Censors,” Donald A. Downs, Minding the Campus, Nov. 2, 2012
• “A Psychological Solution to Bullying,” Izzy Kalman, Psychology Today, Nov. 1, 2012
• “Unlearning Liberty: Censorship on College Campuses,” Rachel Moran, Reason, Oct. 26, 2012
• “Campus Censorship: ‘It’s Much Worse Than People Think,” Jennifer Kabbany, The Daily Caller/The College Fix, Oct. 24, 2012
• “Putting on the Fresh Person Fifteen,” Mike Adams, Townhall.com, Oct. 29, 2012
• “Unlearning Liberty,” Mike Adams, Townhall.com, Oct. 23, 2012
• “Teaching the Wrong Lessons,” George Leef, The Pope Center, Oct. 23, 2012
• “Unlearning Liberty: An Important But Frightening Tale of How We’re Being Taught to Accept Censorship,” Ken White, Popehat, Oct. 23, 2012
• “Fighting for Free Speech,” Andrew Evans, The Washington Free Beacon, Oct. 22, 2012
• “Book Review: Unlearning Liberty,” Sol Schindler, The Washington Times, Oct. 18, 2012
• “Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate,” Publisher’s Weekly, Sep. 24, 2012

Greg’s Writing in Connection with Unlearning Liberty

NOTE – his writings are on Liberal and Conservative sites

• Wall Street Journal, “Greg Lukianoff: Feds to Students: You Can’t say That,” May 16, 2013
• Minding the Campus, “6 Ways to Defeat the Campus Censors,” Apr. 21, 2013
• The Huffington Post, “Harvard and How Silence Isn’t Golden,” Apr. 12, 2013
• The Daily Caller, “The New Victorians strike yet again,” Apr. 12, 2013
• CNET, “Twitter, hate speech, and the costs of keeping quiet,” Apr. 7, 2013
• Forbes, “FAU College Student Who Didn’t Want To Stomp On ‘Jesus’ Runs Afoul of Speech Code,” Mar. 26, 2013
• ACS Book Blog, “Campus Censorship, Unlearning Liberty, and the New American Echo Chamber,” Mar. 21, 2013
• Wall Street Journal, “Campus Clampdowns on Free Speech Flunk Their Legal Tests,” Feb. 16, 2013
• National Association of Scholars, One Hundred Great Ideas for Higher Education, “Teach the Habit of Debate,” Feb. 7, 2013
• The Huffington Post, “Breaking: Federal Jury Finds College President Personally Liable in ‘Facebook Collage’ Case” Feb. 1, 2013
• Ricochet, “Six Years After Expulsion for a Peaceful Protest, Decision May Come Any Minute in Infamous ‘Facebook Collage’ Case,” Jan. 30, 2013
• Forbes, “A Canadian College Student Vandalizes Free Speech Wall, Then Claims Moral High Ground,” Jan. 30, 2013
• The Huffington Post, “Censorship on Campus in 2012: From Benghazi to Free Speech Zones at the University of Missouri,” Dec. 31, 2012
• Forbes, “Speech Codes: The Biggest Scandal On College Campuses Today,” Dec. 19, 2012
• The Daily Caller, “Campus Censorship, Chilled Speech and ‘Unlearning Liberty,’” Nov. 14, 2012
• The Huffington Post, “Censored: Top Ten Pics Too Hot for Campus,” Nov. 12, 2012
• New York Daily News, “N.Y.’s Ivory Towers vs. Free Speech,” Nov. 11, 2012
• Breitbart, “Presidential Debates Would Have Violated ‘Speech Codes’ of Host Universities, Oct. 25, 2012
• The New York Times, “Feigning Free Speech on Campus,” Oct. 24, 2012
• The Huffington Post, “Censorship on Campus Is Everyone’s Problem,” Oct. 17, 2012
• The Daily Caller, “How campus censorship makes us all a little bit dumber,” Oct. 15, 2012
• The Daily Caller, “Unlearning Liberty: Auburn’s Censorship of Ron Paul Poster is Part of Larger Problem,” Sep. 20, 2012

 

 

This is just one liberal authors' view which I agree with. And he seems to be back by many from all sides of the political landscape. If people from the right and from the left see it as an issue than maybe it just might be an issue worthy of discussing.

 

TG: Now we can either discus the essence of my post: Is free speech being limited unfairly on campuses? What kind of speech can and should be limited? (a related topic) Or we can call names and demonstrate that the Huskerboard itself is not a place for free speech at least in the Political/Religious forum. Why is this topic important to me? Because I teach as an adjunct part time and I encourage free speech and open sharing of ideas in my classes (yes they are business related - so you can't get too 'far out' there but there is still plenty of opportunity regardless)

[BigRedBuster]

This has been going back and forth for decades and my reaction is the same. Both ideological sides believe they know best when it comes to education and what is PC and what isn't. I remember working with a lady years ago that went to Washington State (I think). She (very liberal) was telling me how disappointed and angry she was when the student body voted to support Reagan in the election. Her comment was..."This is when these kids need to be the most politically active".

What she was blind to was that these kids WERE being politically active, but just had different views than she did. She said she was so upset she almost transferred to a different school. Really???

The fear always is that when a kid is at college age, they are very very very susceptible to being convinced of various points of view. They don't have life experiences enough to understand fully the real world. After all, they really never have been in the real wold yet.

 

So, both sides are always scared that the other side is getting into their minds more.

So, this all comes out as outrage if something isn't viewed as PC.

 

What I call BS about is the idea that somehow our college's have failed us. In reality, it is our political extreme sides that have failed us and neither wants the other side's views talked about or debated.

[TGHusker]

This has been going back and forth for decades and my reaction is the same. Both ideological sides believe they know best when it comes to education and what is PC and what isn't. I remember working with a lady years ago that went to Washington State (I think). She (very liberal) was telling me how disappointed and angry she was when the student body voted to support Reagan in the election. Her comment was..."This is when these kids need to be the most politically active".

 

What she was blind to was that these kids WERE being politically active, but just had different views than she did. She said she was so upset she almost transferred to a different school. Really???

 

The fear always is that when a kid is at college age, they are very very very susceptible to being convinced of various points of view. They don't have life experiences enough to understand fully the real world. After all, they really never have been in the real wold yet.

 

So, both sides are always scared that the other side is getting into their minds more.

So, this all comes out as outrage if something isn't viewed as PC.

 

What I call BS about is the idea that somehow our college's have failed us. In reality, it is our political extreme sides that have failed us and neither wants the other side's views talked about or debated.

Understood and I am a firm believer in higher ed - I teach part time as I noted. I agree on the political extremes causing the failure - it seeps into college as well. The Failed part I was alluding to is not college as a whole but the free speech issue and as you note swings both ways.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

tl;dr

 

Everyone has a right to free speech, which means that, when you blurt out ignorant and hateful phrases like "that dumb, little f****t", you lend yourself vulnerable to people calling you a bigot. This argument is basically saying, "You can't insult me for insulting someone based on the first amendment." It makes no sense.

 

I can't imagine what the world would look like if we stopped qualifying people on the basis of personal aspects which they themselves have little to no control of. When you qualify a person by their race, political affiliation, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age, et cetera, you automatically place them into this artificial group that's defined by your perceived characteristics of that group which--contrary to popular opinion--are more wrong than they are right.

[Whistlebritches]

What I call BS about is the idea that somehow our college's have failed us. In reality, it is our political extreme sides that have failed us and neither wants the other side's views talked about or debated.

There are some 4th graders in my wife's classroom that aren't allowed read Time for kids because it's a "liberal rag". As a parent I obviously want my kids to believe in the same things that I do but I also value them making up their own minds. Hearing stories of 10 year old kids complaining about how bad Obama sucks is just depressing.

[BigRedBuster]

 

What I call BS about is the idea that somehow our college's have failed us. In reality, it is our political extreme sides that have failed us and neither wants the other side's views talked about or debated.

There are some 4th graders in my wife's classroom that aren't allowed read Time for kids because it's a "liberal rag". As a parent I obviously want my kids to believe in the same things that I do but I also value them making up their own minds. Hearing stories of 10 year old kids complaining about how bad Obama sucks is just depressing.

 

Obviously if a 4th grade kid comes to school claiming any President sucks, that child is just mimicking what they are hearing at home.

 

What I always found fun with my kids is, as an example, if my kid would say, "Obama sucks", I immediately take the opposite view and question their beliefs. It's actually kind of fun. I've done it with a lot of views that I actually agree with them on but I think it's important for them to be questioned and have to go through the thought process as to why they feel that way.

[knapplc]

Here's how what I described in post #2 works, from a PR guy commenting on Reddit:

 

Former PR worker here, 99% of our job is to convince people that something that is -screwing- them over is actually good for them. The whole concept of 'shills' has somehow became a conspiracy theory when in reality it's just PR workers who are paid by a company to defend their product/service. My last job was defending fracking.

 

Anytime a post containing keywords was submitted to a popular website we where notified and it was our job to just list off talking points and debate the most popular comments. Fracking was an easy one to defend because you could paint people as anti-science if they where against it. The science behind fracking is sound and if done properly is safe, so you just focus on this point. You willfully ignore the fact that fracking is done by people who almost never do it properly and are always looking to cut corners.

 

Your talking points usually contain branching arguments if people try to debate back. For example my next point would be to bring up that these companies are regulated so they couldn't cut corners or they would be fined, all the while knowing that these agencies are either underfunded or have been captured by the very industry they are trying to regulate.

 

The final talking point, if someone called you out on all your counterpoints, was to simply try to paint them as a wackjob. Suggest they are crazy for thinking agencies who are suppose to protect them have been bought and paid for. Bring up lizard people to muddy the waters. A lot of people will quickly distance themselves from something if it is accused of being a conspiracy theory, and a lot of them are stupid enough that you can convince them that believing businesses conspiring to break the law to gain profit is literally the same as believing in aliens and bigfoot.

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

Here's how what I described in post #2 works, from a PR guy commenting on Reddit:

 

Former PR worker here, 99% of our job is to convince people that something that is -screwing- them over is actually good for them. The whole concept of 'shills' has somehow became a conspiracy theory when in reality it's just PR workers who are paid by a company to defend their product/service. My last job was defending fracking.

 

Anytime a post containing keywords was submitted to a popular website we where notified and it was our job to just list off talking points and debate the most popular comments. Fracking was an easy one to defend because you could paint people as anti-science if they where against it. The science behind fracking is sound and if done properly is safe, so you just focus on this point. You willfully ignore the fact that fracking is done by people who almost never do it properly and are always looking to cut corners.

 

Your talking points usually contain branching arguments if people try to debate back. For example my next point would be to bring up that these companies are regulated so they couldn't cut corners or they would be fined, all the while knowing that these agencies are either underfunded or have been captured by the very industry they are trying to regulate.

 

The final talking point, if someone called you out on all your counterpoints, was to simply try to paint them as a wackjob. Suggest they are crazy for thinking agencies who are suppose to protect them have been bought and paid for. Bring up lizard people to muddy the waters. A lot of people will quickly distance themselves from something if it is accused of being a conspiracy theory, and a lot of them are stupid enough that you can convince them that believing businesses conspiring to break the law to gain profit is literally the same as believing in aliens and bigfoot.

 

 

So, a "shill" is someone who goes into threads that are talking about a certain topic and act like they are debating an issue only to actually be diverting the discussion away from the real issue and painting the person making the argument on the other side as a wackjob.

 

Ummm....isn't that what you basically just did in this thread?

 

TG brought a discussion point to the board and created a thread. You then came in and instead of debating the issue, you immediately discredited him for even thinking of starting the thread and called him something that I'm sure he would prefer to not be. Thus....taking away from actually debating what he was wanting to talk about.

[TGHusker]

Good points. What I would like to see more of is what BRB said about challenging his kids but only on the college level. Let me give a personal example, I took a sociology class way back in my undergrad days (1970s - yea I'm old) I wrote a pretty detailed paper, while strong grammatically and in structure was opposite the view the teacher took on the subject. At that time I could not be classified as a conservative (I voted for George McGovern for Senate and chose Hubert Humphrey as my major history subject), yet I was to the right of the teacher. She attacked me not on the merit of the paper but on the position of the paper. She did not challenge me with counter points or as BRB says a contrary position but solely on my position alone being the issue.

 

I tell all of my students, that I'm looking for "thinking' in their paper. A thought process that is clear in regards to the subject is what I look for. They don't have to give me a long paper to earn a good grade, they can even be what would be generally considered to be 'wrong' on the subject, & they don't have to try to agree wt me. But simple, facts only answers without thought process won't garner a good grade. Critical thinking is one of the most important skills a student can learn during their college days. (Something I myself need to remember in the political forum - too easy to respond with emotion!! )

 

In some cases PC may be an institutional wide issue/philosophy but in many cases it may be more limited to departments and individual instructors. College should be like a good Husker Board exchange - in which opposing ideas are the desired goal, where the instructor leads by inspiring open discussion, and which the instructor's own views are somewhat veiled - can't nail him/her down because their goal isn't to make robots who think like them but rather students who think. Even though at times we many know what an instructor's position may be, he/she should facilitate the free expression of ideas without fear of retaliation if a student's paper or speech in contrary. Here is where I think the failure is at and BRB touched on it. Administrators have allowed instructors (most of the time tenured - thus untouchable) to act as little kings in their classrooms to the detriment of the student learning environment. The political extremes, both sides, can creep into the learning environment and can shut down speech/opinion and school administrations too often either look the other way, sanction it/lead it or are just indifferent to it. It is up to the admin to create the environment for critical thinking and free expression and the instructors to inspire it.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Here's how what I described in post #2 works, from a PR guy commenting on Reddit:

 

Former PR worker here, 99% of our job is to convince people that something that is -screwing- them over is actually good for them. The whole concept of 'shills' has somehow became a conspiracy theory when in reality it's just PR workers who are paid by a company to defend their product/service. My last job was defending fracking.

 

Anytime a post containing keywords was submitted to a popular website we where notified and it was our job to just list off talking points and debate the most popular comments. Fracking was an easy one to defend because you could paint people as anti-science if they where against it. The science behind fracking is sound and if done properly is safe, so you just focus on this point. You willfully ignore the fact that fracking is done by people who almost never do it properly and are always looking to cut corners.

 

Your talking points usually contain branching arguments if people try to debate back. For example my next point would be to bring up that these companies are regulated so they couldn't cut corners or they would be fined, all the while knowing that these agencies are either underfunded or have been captured by the very industry they are trying to regulate.

 

The final talking point, if someone called you out on all your counterpoints, was to simply try to paint them as a wackjob. Suggest they are crazy for thinking agencies who are suppose to protect them have been bought and paid for. Bring up lizard people to muddy the waters. A lot of people will quickly distance themselves from something if it is accused of being a conspiracy theory, and a lot of them are stupid enough that you can convince them that believing businesses conspiring to break the law to gain profit is literally the same as believing in aliens and bigfoot.

 

 

So, a "shill" is someone who goes into threads that are talking about a certain topic and act like they are debating an issue only to actually be diverting the discussion away from the real issue and painting the person making the argument on the other side as a wackjob.

 

Ummm....isn't that what you basically just did in this thread?

 

TG brought a discussion point to the board and created a thread. You then came in and instead of debating the issue, you immediately discredited him for even thinking of starting the thread and called him something that I'm sure he would prefer to not be. Thus....taking away from actually debating what he was wanting to talk about.

 

You summed up my feelings BRB. Of course part of my problem in starting threads sometimes is that I don't always express myself the clearest to avoid a charge like Knapp's. I'll read something and in my enthusiasm in thinking that this might be a good discussion topic, I'll post the article when I haven't fully made up my mind on the article yet myself. Sometimes I won't make up my mind until I see and understand other people's thoughts on it and say 'yea that makes good sense'. However, I'll fail to say - I haven't made up my mind on this yet and someone may assume I agree wt every sentence of the article or the tone of the article. All I know is that this should be discussed. Since most of my reading comes from right of center sources that is where I get the topics from. Knapp knows I'm more center right then he but I've been moving from far right - so it is easy for him to assume (and I don't hold this against him - as my past strong right positions would give him that assumption) that I just am a shill for the right. However, I don't see the same label placed on those who bring consistently left of center topics and articles - are they shills for the liberal causes? Regarding this article in the OP, I don't agree wt the tone of the article. I do agree that too much speech is denied but I point out as a counter balance in my comments that it happens in conservative colleges as well.