Respect

[Lewkowski]

https://heatst.com/politics/bernie-s...lege-campuses/

"The senator stated that “people have a right to speak” on campus, even if their speech is considered disagreeable or problematic. In February, leftist activists at UC Berkeley shut down a speech by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos using violence.

“And you have a right, if you are on a college campus, not to attend. You have a right to ask hard questions about the speaker if you disagree with him or her,” Sanders said. “But what — why should we be afraid of somebody coming on a campus or anyplace else and speaking? You have a right to protest. But I don’t quite understand why anybody thinks it is a good idea to deny somebody else the right to express his or her point of view.”"

I appreciate his principled stance on the issue.

[RandBlade]

Completely agreed. If there is anywhere we should expect a free exchange of controversial ideas it should be at university.

[Aimless]

Don't forget the free exchange of private information about students without their consent

[EyeKhan]

An argument can be made that speakers at college campus' ought to have something academic to say in order to fall under a free speech protection. For example, if the author of a book that argues cutting taxes is always good no matter what, and here's the numbers that prove it, wants to speak, then she should not be refused. Same goes for someone, thoughtfully and with analysis, arguing for the Southern Wall or for limiting the right to vote or banning abortion. But Milo and Ann are not academic speakers in any way. They're touring to sell an intentionally inflammatory brand, they want to upset people to get free publicity, to sell more books, and that's why they go to universities to speak. The know students will protest, they want the protests, and a riot is the best possible outcome for them. There is no academic value in that, it's really an exploitation of the university system -- institutions, remember, for the purpose of education, which should not be expected or required to expend limited resources to protect speech that is not in any way of educational value. Those resources are tax and tuition dollars and they are specifically intended to support educational experience, not to help shock entertainers make a buck.

[RandBlade]

Garbage. Who becomes the arbiter of what is "academic" and what is not? That's just censorship by another name.

If you want to deny Milo and Ann the protests they crave then don't protest them. Give them the silent treatment. Denying them the right to speak is not the solution.

[Timbuk2]

Much as Ann is an idiot, she can speak on campus as much as she likes.

I'm a bit less comfortable with giving someone who condones fiddling with underage boys a platform to speak. Even Breitbart no longer gives him a platform.

[RandBlade]

That's not what the protests were about though.

[Ominous Gamer]

Scheduled and approved speeches that don't directly harrass or inconvenience students should be left alone. The morons behind them only plan them hoping for the outrage so they can get attention. Like a toddler acting out, like the majority of the shit lewk posts.

What we need to stop are the graphic "preachers" that stand in main walkways with megaphones and loudspeakers who verbally attack students about being sluts/demons and going to hell. That's not adding anything productive to anyone's lives, it can turn a school into a hostile environment, defeating the entire purpose of higher education.

[Aimless]

Much as Ann is an idiot, she can speak on campus as much as she likes.

I'm a bit less comfortable with giving someone who condones fiddling with underage boys a platform to speak. Even Breitbart no longer gives him a platform.

That was just snark and cynicism of the kind you can see in any number of raunchy stand up comedy acts. Insignificant compared to publicly outing trans* students and the children of undocumented immigrants.

[RandBlade]

Scheduled and approved speeches that don't directly harrass or inconvenience students should be left alone. The morons behind them only plan them hoping for the outrage so they can get attention. Like a toddler acting out, like the majority of the shit lewk posts.

What we need to stop are the graphic "preachers" that stand in main walkways with megaphones and loudspeakers who verbally attack students about being sluts/demons and going to hell. That's not adding anything productive to anyone's lives, it can turn a school into a hostile environment, defeating the entire purpose of higher education.

Agreed there's no place for harassment. I never saw that occur at uni and would not welcome that.

[EyeKhan]

Garbage. Who becomes the arbiter of what is "academic" and what is not? That's just censorship by another name.

If you want to deny Milo and Ann the protests they crave then don't protest them. Give them the silent treatment. Denying them the right to speak is not the solution.

Oh, it's censorship for sure. And it's limiting free speech too. That is not my argument. And my argument is not for denying the free publicity that Ann and Milo are manipulating university students into giving them. My argument is that universities have an interest and a right, or should have a right, to censor and limit who can speak on campus, based on obviously non-academic content, if for nothing else than to avoid expending all-too-limited resources required to protect and enable said speakers. And the nuts and bolts of fairly determining what is reasonably academic, or not, is not an insurmountable barrier. On the other hand, if Ann or Milo, or those inviting them to speak, want to pay for the required security and whatever other costs are involved to maintain order at their speaking events, so it is not a drain on the university, then let them speak.

[Ominous Gamer]

Agreed there's no place for harassment. I never saw that occur at uni and would not welcome that.

Picture an endless barrage of shit like this as soon as you leave your dorm or when trying to get to classes between buildings.



It's context like that to help explain why students are getting fed up with places giving people like that a level of validty by allowing them to use campus resources.

[wiggin]

Oh, it's censorship for sure. And it's limiting free speech too. That is not my argument. And my argument is not for denying the free publicity that Ann and Milo are manipulating university students into giving them. My argument is that universities have an interest and a right, or should have a right, to censor and limit who can speak on campus, based on obviously non-academic content, if for nothing else than to avoid expending all-too-limited resources required to protect and enable said speakers. And the nuts and bolts of fairly determining what is reasonably academic, or not, is not an insurmountable barrier. On the other hand, if Ann or Milo, or those inviting them to speak, want to pay for the required security and whatever other costs are involved to maintain order at their speaking events, so it is not a drain on the university, then let them speak.

Hmm. I think it's really hard to make the 'academic' standard stick for the simple reason that most universities are more than merely academic institutions - they are cultural and political institutions that often drive changes in the rest of society (e.g. civil rights, the Vietnam War, etc.). I think it's inappropriate to try to make the university into 'gatekeepers' who determine which speech is sufficiently 'academic' to pass muster. Obviously there is scope for some common sense restrictions due to e.g. security concerns but in general these should be limited in their application.

This reminds me of the admissions essay I wrote for undergrad many years ago. My university had that year been targeted by Matthew Hale (famed white supremacist and now convicted felon) by pamphleteers and an attempt to form a 'religious' group on campus that would invite him to speak. His attempt failed (though it was unclear if the school would have barred him from speaking had a student group indeed invited him to speak), but the essay question was essentially asking about the parameters of free speech on university campuses. One of the more interesting and relevant essay questions I answered on college applications. My general take had been that most speech should be tolerated (if occasionally publicly repudiated) if it was legal (e.g. not incitement or hate speech or whatever). I am not convinced that it is easy for universities to articulate a coherent policy to restrict distasteful speech following any other standard.

Don't know if they liked my take, but hey, I got accepted.

Picture an endless barrage of shit like this as soon as you leave your dorm or when trying to get to classes between buildings.



It's context like that to help explain why students are getting fed up with places giving people like that a level of validty by allowing them to use campus resources.

Is this actually a thing? Because I've spent about half of my life on university campuses and I've never seen anything like this.

[Ominous Gamer]

I saw it every day at USF and I didn't even live on campus. Youtube comes up with 65,000+ results for just "campus preacher." Professors have been arrested for removing the more graphic signs of showing abortion.

Heres a student going ballistic in Texas


Thats a great location for students to be, converse, rest, and they are all to commonly hijacked by assholes who will harass anyone who comes within earshot.

[wiggin]

I saw it every day at USF and I didn't even live on campus. Youtube comes up with 65,000+ results for just "campus preacher." Professors have been arrested for removing the more graphic signs of showing abortion.

Heres a student going ballistic in Texas


Thats a great location for students to be, converse, rest, and they are all to commonly hijacked by assholes who will harass anyone who comes within earshot.

We had the occasional nutjob who's set up shop in 'public' areas on campus - I fondly recall the anti-globalist anti-war socialists who had a delightfully kooky homemade set of laminated posters they would set up on a table outside the main engineering building back in undergrad - but I've never see harassment except from other students at e.g. political rallies (you know, rhetoric about Zionazis or the like). I suspect this may be a function of either the location or the school.

I do think that there's a distinction between someone setting up a few anti abortion posters (I believe I have previously mentioned my grudging admiration for the dogged anti-abortion protesters outside our local abortion clinics every single day) and someone shouting at you about how you deserve to be raped. The former, while distasteful and annoying, is IMO not problematic, while the latter is obviously concerning (not that I have every seen it).

[Ominous Gamer]

I've never seen a prolife display on a campus that wasn't manned by loudmouth assholes going after everyone who looked their way. They will do whatever they can to own whatever space they are occupying.

You don't like the Rape Preacher at ASU, what about the more common slut shaming for PDA and "revealing clothing"?

[Loki]

Garbage. Who becomes the arbiter of what is "academic" and what is not? That's just censorship by another name.

If you want to deny Milo and Ann the protests they crave then don't protest them. Give them the silent treatment. Denying them the right to speak is not the solution.

Is that a serious question? Other academics. What ever happened to decentralization and giving each community some level of autonomy and self-government?

[wiggin]

I've never seen a prolife display on a campus that wasn't manned by loudmouth assholes going after everyone who looked their way. They will do whatever they can to own whatever space they are occupying.

Maybe the prolife types I see are better behaved? Massachusetts Catholics might be more uptight.

You don't like the Rape Preacher at ASU, what about the more common slut shaming for PDA and "revealing clothing"?

All of the above are problematic - but the worst I've seen was the frats putting out signs saying, 'Girls, it's skirt weather!' once the temperature rose above freezing. Offensive, but hardly what you describe. I'm really curious if this is a function of geography or school.

[Lewkowski]

Picture an endless barrage of shit like this as soon as you leave your dorm or when trying to get to classes between buildings.



It's context like that to help explain why students are getting fed up with places giving people like that a level of validty by allowing them to use campus resources.

You mean like the protest that *physically* prevented students from attending class by blocking the entrance way? Guess which 'side' decided to do that?