

71 percent of top colleges still have policies that severely restrict speech - JacobAldridge
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/11/pc-never-died/singlepage

======
johnswamps
This is pretty shocking as a Stanford grad student. Apparently several
students sued the university 15 years ago (Corry v. Stanford University) and
won. You can read response of the university president at:
[http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-
provost/president/speeches...](http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-
provost/president/speeches/950309corry.html)

------
mynameishere
_The student desperately explained that it was an ordinary history book, not a
racist tract, and that it in fact celebrated the defeat of the Klan in a 1924
street fight._

Just so you guys understand: This is the point of the speech codes (and
similar laws in Europe [1]). It is very difficult to get people to make
strident affirmations of their political allegiance...unless you start making
threats, even if they are crazy threats. This pattern is common.

[1]
[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241994/Businessman-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241994/Businessman-
arrested-wife-son--anti-gipsy--email-didn-t-write.html)

~~~
pyre
> _It is very difficult to get people to make strident affirmations of their
> political allegiance...unless you start making threats, even if they are
> crazy threats._

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. How is this any different than
McCarthyism? Aren't you just trying to publicly 'call people out' on something
in an attempt to embarrass them or shame them (or get them arrested)?

Even in the story that you linked to, that guy's reputation will be sullied
over being arrested for something that he didn't do, much the same as someone
being accused/arrested for child rape/porn. Even if the person is innocent,
people will always wonder, or know him/her as 'that guy/gal that was arrested
for being a pedo.'

------
wooster
Newsflash: School Administrations Hotbeds of Misguided Authoritarianism

------
pyre
The title seems rather meaningless. Saying 71% of 'top colleges' where 'top
colleges' has a rather fluid definition doesn't say very much.

<anal_retentive>

You should probably refer to them as 'universities' since from my experience
people outside the US (specifically Canada, but I understand Australians and
Europeans are the same) understand 'college' to refer to what Americans view
as the 'community college.' When you say college they wouldn't understand you
to be including MIT, CalTech, UCLA, etc under that term.

</anal_retentive>

~~~
JacobAldridge
It's a fair point (too late for me to change it) although as an Aussie I did
understand what it meant. I felt the original title ("PC Never Died") was
either vague or misleading, so went with a paraphrased quote from within the
article ("71 percent of the 375 top colleges still have policies that severely
restrict speech") that I thought summed up the content and relevance to HN.

~~~
ramchip
I think any Canadian with sufficient exposure to the Internet will get it, but
here in Quebec we don't really use the words 'college' or 'community college'.
I remember being a bit confused about its meaning at first.

~~~
pyre
I've come across people that were mildly confused. Even with non-trivial
amounts of exposure to American language-isms/culture it's still possible to
over-look the nuances. There are probably a lot of instances where the context
doesn't allow the listener to make the distinction between whether the
'Canadian definition' or 'American definition' of the term is being used
(unless you're _really_ paying attention for that sort of thing; like if
someone told you to pay attention to it).

------
ryanwaggoner
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I understand the case
he's making in the article. But on the other hand, a private university is
just that: private. If someone comes into my home or a small shop that I own
and says something that I consider derogatory to my family members or
employees, shouldn't I have the right to eject them? Shouldn't I have the
right to fire an employee who is disrespectful to other employees? How is a
private school any different?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Most of the schools mentioned in the article are government schools: Purdue,
Wisconsin, Cincinnatti, UConn, Texas A&M, Murray, Idaho, Delaware (probably
more).

Also, most private schools get lots of money from the federal and state
government.

~~~
Locke1689
_Also, most private schools get lots of money from the federal and state
government._

Just because you receive money from the government doesn't make you part of
the government. Much of that is in research grants, as well.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Receiving money from the government does impose various governmental
restrictions on you (e.g., Title IX).

~~~
allyt
It isn't so simple. There are a variety of institutions receiving money under
a variety of contracts from "the government" (which, itself, encompasses a
large variety of institutions). Not all impose the same restrictions.

------
dunstad
This on top of the nonexistence of student rights in grade schools. Why do we
think all students are murderers and race/sex/religionists?

This issue also bears similarity to airport security after 9/11. America's
becoming an expert on inconveniencing the many based on the actions of a few.

~~~
kinghajj
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines>

Students in public schools have the right to free speech, so long as it
doesn't interfere with the operations of the school.

~~~
dgordon
No they don't.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick>

I consider these decisions disgusting, wrong, and anathema to the
Constitution, but there you are.

------
Gupie
That a college would prosecute a student for reading a book is shocking.
However most of the article is about colleges banning thing like "using any
email message to insult or embarrass". This is not "severely restricting
speech". It is just protecting students from bullying and harassment.

Sending an insulting email could be at disciplinary offence at work. It is
reasonable not to allow them in colleges.

------
lionhearted
This kind of thinking terrifies me:

> Not content to limit speech, the program also informed resident assistants
> that “all whites are racists” and that it was the university’s job to heal
> them

But it doesn't terrify me for the reason it would terrify most people. Me, I'm
pretty international, from what I know of genetics I'd actually prefer to have
mixed blood and bi-cultural children.

So why am I terrified? Because this kind of nonsense is really the only way
that a vicious white nationalism could make a comeback. It's been thoroughly
beaten down, but you could generate a hell of a backlash if you kept up with
this kind of "all whites are racist" (direct quote!) type stuff.

Really, I think we need to put all forms of nationalism down. White
nationalism, yes, but also various fanatical patriotism, religious
nationalism, and other forms of racial nationalism - including amongst
minorities. This isn't a popular opinion right now, but I think encouraging
people to make their skin color part of their identity is likely to lead to
adversarial relations.

I understand the historical reasons and practical considerations on why it can
be beneficial. But at some point you've got to take the high road and stop
playing that card, lest you risk resurrecting white nationalism, which
certainly wouldn't be a good thing.

At the very very least, cut out the "white people are the enemy" thing - the
vast majority of educated whites in Western democracies are very open minded,
accommodating, and even go a little out of their way to look out for people
from tougher backgrounds. The only thing that could be done to screw that up
is repeatedly ostracize them... which is exactly the strategy some people are
taking. Seems like a very bad idea to me, on pretty much all levels.

~~~
catzaa
There is nothing wrong with a group wanting to protect their language, culture
and identity (what you label as XXX nationalism).

IMHO, it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would
protect/fight for their rights.

~~~
lionhearted
> (what you label as XXX nationalism)

Not my definition - I'm using "nationalism" to mean the belief that your group
should be distinct/superior/excel more than other groups.

As an example - wishing to preserve and continue the Spanish literature
tradition in Spain wasn't Spanish Nationalism. Prohibitions against teaching,
learning, and using English under Francisco Franco was Spanish Nationalism.
The former is good, the latter is bad.

> IMHO, it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would
> protect/fight for their rights.

The Greeks used to fight like crazy amongst themselves, for instance, the
Peloponnesian Wars. There was lots of bloodshed and destruction and waste. The
Greeks had a nationalistic loyalty to their particular city-state. This ended
when the Persians showed up, who were orders of magnitude less appealing to
the Greeks, and that did away with a lot of inter-Greek warfare and
nationalism.

I believe the same can be said of races and religions these days. Conflict
between races is like conflict between the various Greek city-states: A damn
waste. We've got bigger problems to solve, and can probably work on a better
level than that.

Thinking that black people and white people, etc, etc can look after each
other might sound now like the idea of Spartans and Athenians and Macedonians
all on the same side. Crazy, but when it comes to pass, we'll be better off. I
understand the purpose of the nationalism, but it's got to stop at some point
if we want a better world. At the very least, enemy-centric nationalism where
other groups are villainized needs to stop ASAP. Bad will come of it.

~~~
catzaa
> The Greeks had a nationalistic loyalty to their particular city-state. This
> ended when the Persians showed up, who were orders of magnitude less
> appealing to the Greeks, and that did away with a lot of inter-Greek warfare
> and nationalism.

By replacing it with pan-Greek nationalism? The Greeks shared a lot of
attributes (language, ideology, etc…). What you are railing against is
“Geographic nationalism”. There is more to nationalism than that.

> I believe the same can be said of races and religions these days. Conflict
> between races is like conflict between the various Greek city-states: A damn
> waste.

The word “race” is a loaded word.

IMHO nationalism is not a waste. Each and every group should have the right to
their own culture, religion, language and self-determination. As the UN
Charter states:

> To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
> principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take
> other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace

> All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right
> they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
> economic, social and cultural development

> We've got bigger problems to solve, and can probably work on a better level
> than that.

To what end? Are problems really so big that the religious and cultural
identities should be destroyed? Are our “problems” really bigger than a
hundred years ago (when almost everyone died of Polio)?

I think that the common trend in many places is to replace culture with some
Americanised version of culture and replace all native languages with English.
I think this is a huge step backwards.

------
karzeem
There's an important distinction to be made here between public and private
colleges. Can't private colleges, being private entities, restrict speech
however they see fit, in the same way that your company can?

~~~
mhb
Yes. And the article addresses that distinction. Public institutions are
legally obligated and private colleges are morally obligated as well as
presumably also motivated by a desire to not appear hypocritical.

~~~
tokenadult
Having just done a word search in the article after reading the article, I
don't think the article claims that there is any such distinction. The author
of the article, of course, advocates that students generally enjoy broad free
speech rights on campus, and gives examples from many different colleges and
universities (state-operated and privately operated) where those rights have
been severely restricted. I don't think the article gives any comfort on a
LEGAL basis that private universities can be substantially more restrictive
than public universities in this regard. "And of the 13 legal challenges
launched since 2003 against codes that FIRE has deemed unconstitutional, each
and every one has been successful. Given the vast differences across judges
and jurisdictions, a 13-0 winning streak is, to say the least, an
accomplishment."

~~~
mhb
_Yet FIRE has determined that 71 percent of the 375 top colleges still have
policies that severely restrict speech. And the problem isn’t limited to
campuses that are constitutionally bound to respect free expression. The
overwhelming majority of universities, public and private, promise incoming
students and professors academic freedom and free speech. When such schools
turn around and attempt to limit those students’ and instructors’ speech, they
reveal themselves as hypocrites, susceptible not only to rightful public
ridicule but also to lawsuits based on their violations of contractual
promises._

~~~
tokenadult
"Constitutionally bound" is not the only form of "legally required." To give
the example of race discrimination in admission, the Supreme Court has HELD
certain public university practices to be illegal under the fourteenth
amendment, but it has also opined that the same practices are illegal for
private universities under the federal statutes related to nondiscrimination
by entities that receive federal funding. Just about all universities in the
United States receive federal funding through channels that trigger federal
statutory regulation. And, as the submitted article itself pointed out, any
state legislature can regulate a private university in its territory (and the
example of California regulating Stanford, a private university, was prominent
in the article).

~~~
mhb
The OP (karzeem) inquired whether there is a distinction between public and
private colleges with regard to their obligations not to inhibit free speech.
The article addressed that.

You might argue that the acceptance of strings-attached public money bears on
whether a private college is truly private, but this does not change the fact
that a truly private college and a public one operate under different legal
regimes regarding free speech.

------
scorciapino
This is what happens when we cede terrain to these idealistic and demented
pressure groups, such as the feminists and the racialists.

~~~
lionhearted
Okay, I actually partially agree with you, but I also think I know why you're
being downvoted and how you could comment a little differently so it doesn't
happen.

I _firmly_ dislike works-in-theory fails-in-world idealism. It's a terrible
thing, it causes all sorts of hell and misery.

That said, you're probably getting downvoted because you didn't back up your
claims to add to the conversation much, and generalized too much. There's sane
feminists, and crazy radical feminists. Then, while "idealistic" conveys
information, "demented" doesn't add anything. You'd be much better served just
pointing out what the dementia specifically is, and dropping the word demented
entirely as it's just mudslinging. So, I reckon if your comment had read more
like:

"This is the end result of ceding terrain to people who are highly idealistic
but don't care if their plans work in the real world and don't think about the
secondary effects of their actions. For instance, take Radical Group XYZ (link
to Wikipedia) - it sounds like a nice cause at first, but it's done a lot of
damage." I think that comment would get upvoted quite a lot, as I agree with
your general sentiment but slightly disagree with its presentation (I upvoted
you though, you were -2 when I came along).

