
Turning College Into a No-Thought Zone - lsh123
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-14/turning-college-into-a-no-thought-zone?utm_content=bufferaa208&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
rayiner
I think there is a real way forward on this issue. Not too long ago, Penn
State abandoned its "free speech zone" policy in response to pressure. It was
heartening to see the change greeted warmly by folks on both sides of the
ideological rift: [http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-speech-
come...](http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-speech-comes-to-
penn-state.html),
[http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2206/CentreDa...](http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2206/CentreDailyTimesPSUFreeSpeechZones081706.htm).

A number of other universities have also abandoned similar policies. The
biggest step is probably the state of Virginia passing legislation designating
all outdoor areas of public colleges as public forums:
[http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-
campus...](http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus-free-
speech-zones).

An organization called FIRE has a great tool that lists speech-restrictive
policies at various universities:
[http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/](http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/)

~~~
venomsnake
How free speech zones are constitutional for any organization that deals with
federal money (which in usa is everyone if we see tax breaks as government
hangouts)?

~~~
rayiner
The Bill of Rights only applies to state actors, and receiving money from the
government does not, by itself, enough. Essentially, you have to be working as
an agent of the government. See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor).

Now, public universities are clearly state actors, and the First Amendment
applies. For such organizations, free speech zones are based on the principle
that certain "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech in public areas
are Constitutional:
[http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timepla...](http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm).
It probably wouldn't have been considered a violation of the First Amendment,
even in the founder's day, to charge someone with disturbing the peace for
protesting in a residential area in the dead of night, even if they were
standing on a public sidewalk.

Universities justify their regulations on "time, place, and manner" grounds,
but often stretch that category too far:
[http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-
manne...](http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-manner-
restrictions.\[1\]) It will be interesting to see further developments in this
area. The Supreme Court recently struck down Massachusetts' law banning
protests in a 35-foot "buffer zone" around abortion clinics:
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2014/06/26/325806464/sta...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-
way/2014/06/26/325806464/states-cant-mandate-buffer-zones-around-abortion-
clinics-high-court-says).

[1] On the flip side there are other people who argue that university grounds
are not public forums per se, but are rather private property that happens to
be owned by the government. They argue that university campuses are more like
a government office building than a public street in that regard. See:
[http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...](http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=ilj).

~~~
Natsu
Your link is being broken by your footnote. The working link is to -
[http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-
manne...](http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-manner-
restrictions/)

As it notes, people have tried stretching the notion that time, place & manner
restrictions are okay into all sorts of impermissible things, like placing
unequal burdens on disapproved speech, requiring preapproval to protest, or
using the restrictions to stifle speech rather than justifying them as the
least restrictive means to fulfill a legitimate purpose.

------
spodek
> _“The creation of the free-speech zones, and the enforcement of sound-level
> ordinances, was not to prevent free speech, but give religious or political
> speech a time, place, and manner that would allow speakers to address their
> messages to audiences on campuses without disrupting the other fundamental
> functions of the institutions,” wrote a retired physics professor commenting
> on a Chronicle of Higher Education report._

That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-
speech zone.

The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where
people _can_ speak. It defines where people _can 't_ speak.

The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the
administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's
showing what happens when a school breaks the law.

> _“Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the
> education /learning and safety of its students?"_

Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free
speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.

~~~
anigbrowl
_That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-
speech zone._

Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to
express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from
beneath your bedroom window.

 _Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused._

Again, it depends. Suppose that I and a crowd of my friends are dead against
spodek, and wish to run all the spodeks out out of town? It's easy to be
absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a
mob's hatred.

Now, I'm not endorsing the colleges' position here, which I think has become
absurdly restrictive in many cases. But I've seen many absolutist 'defenders
of free speech' tip over into shouting down their opponents, and I don't care
for ochlocracy any more than I care for institutional authoritarianism.

~~~
NoMoreNicksLeft
> Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home
> to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions
> from beneath your bedroom window.

If you did, the crime wouldn't be you speaking your mind... it'd be the
breaking and entering.

And if you want to serenade me without trespassing, as annoying as that might
be I don't see how I could stop you. By that, I mean I don't see how I could
ethically petition the government to make you stop (even if they'd do this).

> It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being
> the object's of a mob's hatred.

It's not the speech that would bother me, but the pitchforks.

People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort of
sociological theory that remains unspoken:

That (some) speech is capable of manipulating other people to do things they
might not otherwise do.

Now, this isn't particularly controversial, and I don't think I'd dispute it
(I might remain skeptical, but silently so).

If that theory is true, then is the person who manipulates through
communication the criminal, or is it the people who are manipulated into
crime? I contend that the latter are wholly culpable.

~~~
anigbrowl
On the serenading example, noise complaints to the police aren't really
controversial; the notion of a disturbance of the peace is an old common law
one that I think the founders would have recognized.

 _People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort
of sociological theory that remains unspoken: [...] If that theory is true,
then is the person who manipulates through communication the criminal, or is
it the people who are manipulated into crime? I contend that the latter are
wholly culpable._

I think both. If you're exhorting people to commit an act and they do it,
you're not morally blameless; the manipulation is itself an activity
notwithstanding the fact of its intangibility. This is why we have laws
against 'incitement to riot,' as it's a fact that that most people behave
differently in crowds and some people make a specialty out of leveraging that
to destructive ends.

------
cryoshon
The entire function of "free speech zones" whether on or off of a college
campus is to contain protests in order to limit the spread of ideas. I don't
know how the legal framework came about which permits this drastic curbing of
free speech, but it's here.

Thankfully, sometimes you can still speak quasi-freely on some places on the
internet even if free speech in meatspace is dead. Doesn't sound too "free"
when I put it that way.

~~~
stcredzero
I don't see the online free speech you describe. Instead, what I see is that
you can "ally" yourself with a particular viewpoint and shout that particular
one loudly. Others will then come to your aid and others will oppose you. But
dare to question both sides and think for yourself, and many of those who
demand free speech the loudest will be the first to come en-masse to drown you
out online without carefully reading what you wrote in the first place.

~~~
seanflyon
People "drowning you out" is not a limit on your free speech, It only limits
you right to be heard. A private website is like a private restaurant, you are
free to speak, but If people don't like what you say the owner is free to
demand that you leave.

~~~
stcredzero
This happens in places that are more like public squares. The drowning out is
done not by website employees, but by other commenters. My comment is not
about legality. It's about society. A society as I've described doesn't value
free speech, it's just a bunch of short sighted individuals who only value
their own speech. It values free speech in the same way a political party that
wins elections to abolish democracy values democracy.

Underlying free speech: Does the society value the interchange of ideas, or
does everyone just value their own ideas?

~~~
seanflyon
Free speech is a right. Listening to people (when they are polite and
reasonable) is common courtesy. I agree that many communities, especially
online communities are lacking in that area.

~~~
stcredzero
Rights are legal, so they represent minimum viable behaviors. Value in a
society is embodied in behavior that goes beyond this. It's the difference
between an organization where people are really working toward a goal like
quality, or if they are lawyering the rules.

~~~
seanflyon
I agree

------
uncoder0
Looks like these kinds of policies are creeping out of high schools and making
their way into public universities. Where would we be if we didn't allow free
speech at universities in the 1960's? I thought this fight had already been
won.[1] Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and
governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the
> 1960's?

In the actual 1960s ... the Free Speech Movement of 1964-1965 that you point
to was a response to the fact that denial of free speech was the _status quo_.

> I thought this fight had already been won.

Sure, there was ground gained, at least temporarily, by the Free Speech
Movement, but victory wasn't durable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the
violent suppression of non-violent on-campus free speech in 1970. [1]

> Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and
> governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.

Yeah, there's a reason that it is said that "The price of freedom is eternal
vigilance".

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings)

------
suprgeek
In the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" not only do we have "free
speech zones" but we apparently have so much in the non-free-speech category
that Watch-dog groups have to sue to get rid of some of them.

In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are
essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the
river.

While this might be a controversial comparison What we really need is a NRA
style rabidly pro-free-speech (First amendment- freedom of speech or press
clause) organization. This group will fight EVERY single "free speech zone"
crap on every public place - colleges, Borders, Govt buildings, what not.

~~~
stcredzero
_In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are
essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the
river._

A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many
activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need
to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social
justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and
reacting to that information.

I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a
pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to
people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are
excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as
some sort non-sentient subhuman.

Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that
in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better
place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals
are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism."

Hooray for judging books by their covers.

If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work
together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many
people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead,
it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the
others to do what we want through political and legal means or public
bullying.

~~~
Loughla
I think it all stems from a lack of understanding of subtlety in arguments.
For example, when you watch mainstream news, all you see are the extreme
points of an issue. You never really see the middle ground, and you never
really see any rational arguments. You see either fire and brimstone, or
puppies and sunshine.

Take climate change for instance. The only arguments that come up are that
either (a) it's not happening, so go fuck yourself; or (b) WE'RE ALL GOING TO
CATCH ON FIRE THEN DROWN AND IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. It's never; the world is
headed in a direction that we may have control over, but even if we don't, we
should probably try to do a better job than we've been doing.

I don't know when it started, but it seems that anytime an even remotely
controversial issue comes up, we never see a rational explanation, it's always
hyperbole and ridiculous nonsense. It's like people believe that every other
human is mentally incompetent, and need to be shown the most extreme example
that could possibly exist for an argument to be effective.

For good examples see global warming, immigration, and my recent favorite
source of 'the sky is falling' hyperbole - CISPA _.

_ Please note, I am neither endorsing, attacking, nor am I any other verb-ing
the items I listed. I am simply saying that a majority of the arguments about
those items come across as ham-fisted and ridiculous.

~~~
wyager
The middle ground is not better than extreme viewpoints just because it's
easier to get people to accept. A "subtle" argument is not a good thing.
Arguments should, ideally, be glaringly obvious.

A statement is either true or false. If you can't decide on one of those two
extremes, it means either your statement is ill-formed or your axioms aren't
consistent.

~~~
kansface
There are many statements we would agree to be neither true nor false; here
are a couple:

1\. The sun will rise tomorrow. 2\. This statement is false.

I'd agree with you the validity of a statement is not dependent on the
palatability of its consequences.

~~~
wyager
>There are many statements we would agree to be neither true nor false;

If they are neither true nor false, they are ill-defined.

>The sun will rise tomorrow.

Definitionally ill defined.

>This statement is false.

Inconsistent statement.

~~~
pjc50
If you're going be that pedantic, you rule out all statements of moral or
value judgement, all statements pertaining to the future, and most things
relating to abstract nouns. This makes it impossible to discuss anything
political at all.

~~~
wyager
No, you don't. You just need to state your moral beliefs as explicit axioms.

~~~
pjc50
Then they're not valid for anyone else who doesn't have exactly the same set
of axioms. You can only form sentences of the form "I believe it is wrong for
me to ..." and not "I believe it is wrong for _you_ to ..."

------
dkhar
For a point of contrast:

I attend the College of William and Mary in Virginia. In 2009, the College
dropped its speech codes and became one of the most free-speech-friendly
schools in the US. This has its ups and downs (in my opinion, mostly ups).

We have a fairly diverse studentry, but I haven't seen that many people with
incredibly strong opinions. Most people (myself included) don't really
regularly say or do things that would fall under PC speech codes. That said, I
do know a few activist types, and they relish the freedom they have at the
College. I've known people who go to DC to participate in protests on the
weekends, people who write articles on why the "government has failed its
mandate to protect our right to privacy" or "how the liberal media uses
misleading language to paint climate change as something that's actually
happening" (obviously different people). We've got EFF activists, marijuana
legalization activists, sexual health activists, hard-line family-values
conservatives -- basically, what should be the regular college gamut. It's a
shame that appears to be contingent on a free-speech policy that is relatively
extreme.

Free speech also has its downsides. Earlier this year, we made state and
national news when a fraternity member distributed this extremely misogynistic
letter, that various headlines describe as "The most hideous thing I've ever
read"[1] and "vomit-inducing"[2]. We drew censures from practically everyone,
and many people I talked to around that time wanted the College to boot the
offending fraternity. The College, of course, did no such thing, and the
fraternity voluntarily suspended operations (there could have been some under-
the-table coercion there, but I doubt it).

Anyway, the point is, if colleges allow free speech, they must also stand by
while some vile, vile things get published. All communities result in emergent
standards of discourse and systems of self-governance when those standards are
violated (after all, the backlash from that letter was strongest in the
student community), and these systems dull the effects of those vile things,
but they affect the community regardless. I personally think the benefits
outweigh the costs.

[1] [http://www.bustle.com/articles/14437-sigma-chi-frat-
brothers...](http://www.bustle.com/articles/14437-sigma-chi-frat-brothers-
save-the-sluts-email-is-the-most-hideous-thing-ive-ever-read)

[2] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/fraternity-
brother-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/fraternity-brother-
email-william-and-mary_n_4688160.html)

------
peckrob
When I was a student at Auburn, we had one of these. It was right in the
middle of campus, along the most heavily trafficked path through central
campus. There was a sign designating it a "first amendment area."

But I think it only applied to people not associated with the University.
Student organizations weren't required to use this space, and could set up
nearly anywhere outdoors, collect signatures, recruit, and generally do
whatever they like as long as they weren't disturbing classes.

Really, the only people who used it were the crazy itinerant preachers who
would come through campus a couple times a semester preaching hellfire and
brimstone. It always made for good fireworks when the new freshman would get
into yelling matches with them.

This was 10+ years ago, though, and that area now has a building right in the
middle of it, so I wonder what the current policy is.

------
autokad
I'm actually in favor of free speech zones on campus. this author and the
person talked about in it are twisting things. their grievance is actually
confusion over the talk between two people and FSV. what happened to them (at
least from the account provided) is wrong, but what they are attacking is
something else. obviously everything has limits

being a person that works on campus, when walking down the walk during certain
times of the year its a gauntlet. people lined up from one end to another
screaming over each other and stepping on front of you to offer you a
pamphlet.

thank god its only for certain times of day/days of the year.

~~~
pyre
What happens when your university decides to cut your pay, and you want to
picket outside of the work place?

"Oh, you need to protest at this location 20 miles away where no one relevant
will hear your message."

~~~
autokad
#1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely. #2 you'd call
the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your face and kept
trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line somewhere in between. #3
protesting / picketing, etc are quite different than soliciting (even if they
are ideas). theres a line in there somewhere, and a place and a time for both
former and later. they are not without limits, and all a FSZ is sets some of
that.

you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start
screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets. see where you end
up, heck, try it any government building. and thats 'public' property.
universities are private property, and they do have the right to make
decisions on how they see fit for creating the best environment for the
campus.

guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a
concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college
campuses.

~~~
pyre
> #1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely.

I didn't assume that you were in a union, but I was trying to paint a picture
that _might_ be more relevant to you. Just because it's not directly relevant
to you doesn't mean that the general idea isn't sound though.

> #2 you'd call the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your
> face and kept trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line
> somewhere in between.

Someone following you around screaming at you is harassment, not protest /
free-speech. We already laws against that. There's no need form a designated
'protest zone' where no one is allowed to protest / express non-status quo
ideas outside of this 'zone.'

At the same time, there is no 'right to not be annoyed' either. So there is
that.

> you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start
> screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets.

You keep repeating "there is something in the middle," yet you assume the
worst of me and use it as a strawman to proclaim victory over in the
furtherance of 'proving' your point.

> guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a
> concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college
> campuses.

So... free speech is analogous to concealed weapons?

~~~
autokad
again, i said there was somethign in the middle and showed you the extreme
that was wrong. i guess what you're not seeing is that YOU are in the extreme.
I consider people preaching/soliciting harassment if it goes overboard, and
thats what a FSZ would help circumvent.

and yes, exactly yes. Free speech is exactly analogous with the right to bear
arms, its why its in the bill of rights. No right in the bill of rights is
less important than any of the others.

------
retroencabulato
Reminds me of the documentary: Berkeley in the 60s
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEySwyM2ZQ0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEySwyM2ZQ0)

------
socrates1998
College, where it's okay to think freely, but only when, where and how the
administrators decide to.

Formal education is mainly about obedience, so this idea of a free speech zone
is just an expression of that.

Colleges (and most other educational places) aren't really concerned about
your thinking and growing. They are about making sure you obey and do what
they say.

The number one thing we learn from formal education is: do what we say, when
we say it.

No wonder most young, well educated people struggle with life outside the
bubble.

------
dobbsbob
I had no idea US campuses even had "free speech zones". Here students can do
whatever they want and there's never been a problem. Everyday some group was
handing out pamphlets on the way into the student union building for whatever
cause it wasn't the end of the world.

~~~
kghose
It's terrible here. Just terrible.

------
NickWarner775
There shouldn't be free speech zones on any campus, public or private. Unless
what people are saying is malicious, inappropriate or offensive then they
should be allowed to do whatever they want.

------
personjerry
This makes me glad I decided to go to Berkeley

