When students come to believe that censoring rival points of view is not only permissible but laudable, the potential damage goes far beyond campus. Our colleges and universities produce our scientists, our business leaders, our lawyers, and our legislators. The habits formed in college inevitably seep into the other major social institutions.
In 1957 the U.S. Supreme Court said of the nation’s colleges, “Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.” The Court was right. The next generation needs to learn the practices of a free people. If it doesn’t, we shouldn’t be surprised if, when it takes its turn to run our republic, values such as free speech and tolerance are treated like rusty, battered antiques: quaint, mysterious, and best kept in the basement.
Greg Lukianoff (greg@thefire.org) is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
The Libertarian Guy|1.11.10 @ 12:08PM|#
Typical PC horseshit... and typical leftist hypocrisy.
|1.27.10 @ 7:38PM|#
Did you read the entire thing? It ain't always the left doing this. Or do you think the left would try to censor someone for having an Obama poster?
|1.31.10 @ 11:15AM|#
"Typical PC horseshit... and typical leftist hypocrisy."
That comment is gay!
Not sure if that means happy, in your face prideful or just plain unnatural but there you have it, PC at its best.
Mary @ Big Booty|5.11.11 @ 11:19AM|#
@The Libertarian Guy
Please Read the article before commenting. Using those terms arent really very goood.. or cool..
bigbootylove|8.26.11 @ 7:14AM|#
What i hate the most is, people cant understand the difference between PC and OS ! seriously, what the heck.. The comparisions like PC vs Mac makes me mad !
PC means personal computer, not windows !
Geez, people !
Enemy Of The Revolution|1.11.10 @ 12:27PM|#
"Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction."
That generation started passing through college 20 years ago. That explains a lot about where we are now.
Barry Loberfeld|1.11.10 @ 12:30PM|#
From here:
One of the most stark examples — a rebuke to those who pronounce “political correctness” dead or mythological — is the recent blitzkrieg of slander waged against economist Walter Block. The particulars are simple: After giving a speech at Loyola College of Maryland, Block was vilified as a racist and sexist by sundry university (e.g., the “Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force”) and outside entities for not explaining the white-black and male-female wage gaps solely in terms of the mandatory societal-bias model. A solid scholar, he beat back these ad hominem attacks. But it is a telling indictment of that model that it can be sustained only with the imposition of an ideological litmus test — and in opposition to any intellectual standards.
It is not merely a dogmatic model, but one applied incoherently, i.e., hypocritically. Ehrenreich’s unwillingness to hypothesize women’s advantage over men in academia is one example. Another: If blacks are disproportionately “represented” in the penal system, that in itself “demonstrates” that there must be bias against them and in favor of whites. But if males are disproportionately incarcerated, no one — least of all feminists — argues for the culpability of a systemic bias against men and in favor of women. So, what proves what? What kind of egalitarianism can’t maintain “equality” even in its own postulates … and yet presumes to do so for the entirety of society?
Michael Ejercito|1.11.10 @ 12:42PM|#
Clearly, our criminal justice system is sexist against men.
Michael Ejercito|1.11.10 @ 12:42PM|#
Clearly, our criminal justice system is sexist against men.
|1.11.10 @ 1:32PM|#
Clearly, our criminal justice system is sexist against men.
Banjos Kick Ass!|1.11.10 @ 2:14PM|#
Clearly, our criminal justice system is sexist against men.
Sorry, I thought we were chanting...are we chanting?
Some Monk|1.11.10 @ 4:02PM|#
We are always chanting.
|1.11.10 @ 12:32PM|#
Yeah, what about all those men in prison? What's that about?
Diva Cup|1.11.10 @ 12:46PM|#
Considering that 104% of women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime, I'm sure those XY monsters are guilty of something.
The Libertarian Guy|1.12.10 @ 9:56AM|#
104 out of 100 women are sexually assaulted?
Bill Clinton|1.12.10 @ 10:19AM|#
Hey, I'm not as young and sprightly as I usedta be, but I still try to do my best...
History Buff|4.5.11 @ 12:10PM|#
Something about Men not being able to pull of short skirts, see through shirts, and ample cleavage in the court of law.
|1.11.10 @ 12:40PM|#
Was the prof who called the cops on students who were giving a presentation about concealed carry fired? He was, right? Please tell me he was.
thumbs up|1.11.10 @ 12:46PM|#
Nooge = Sexist!!
... or she was fired, right.
Barry Loberfeld|1.11.10 @ 12:52PM|#
Nah, "non-sexist language" won't win you any points. From here:
Consider ... one of the Left's more asinine projects: Is the purpose of "politically correct" Newspeak to construct a language free from bias? An intriguing answer can be found in the example of feminist "thealogian" Mary Daly. Using a sometimes-specific term in a universal sense (e.g., "the pseudo-generic 'man'") will earn an accusation of sexism, while using only universal terms (e.g., "human") will draw an accusation of deliberately trying "to avoid confronting the specific problems of sexism." No matter what language a person uses, the Left reserves the right to condemn it for bias -- and to damn him as evil.
(And to exempt itself from any standard. After all, if not to "gender angle" the tragedy of violence, why speak of only a "rape culture"? What about other acts of violence against women -- robbery, assault, murder? Has it anything to do with the fact that these, too obviously, are also crimes against males?)
thumbs up|1.11.10 @ 12:55PM|#
ahh..
Okay, how about: IT was fired!
|1.11.10 @ 1:02PM|#
You are suggesting that they are a neuter and denying them agency of self-address.
brotherben|1.11.10 @ 1:03PM|#
If you call them a Warty that would cover all the bases, no?
|1.12.10 @ 9:27AM|#
brotherben, please start referring to yourself in a gender neutral manner. Siblingben is the correct term. Thanks.
|1.11.10 @ 1:07PM|#
I was taught (by a female English professor) that use of the word "man" when referring to the human species as a whole indicates both males and females. That's how I use it, and will continue to use it. That probably makes me a knuckle-dragging rapist or something.
☺|1.11.10 @ 2:04PM|#
It makes you an old knuckle-dragging rapist or something.
anonymous|1.11.10 @ 2:24PM|#
No, the fact that you are male and white makes you a knuckle dragging racist.
☺|1.11.10 @ 2:47PM|#
anonymous,
finally, a clever remark.
|1.11.10 @ 1:04PM|#
"I have a great sense of humor. Here's all the things you can't make jokes about."
brotherben|1.11.10 @ 1:20PM|#
Now there's a person I can laugh at. My God. I just can't bring myself to be that serious about life.
|1.11.10 @ 1:28PM|#
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. She's confusing "bitching about people one despises" with this other elusive thing normally referred to as humor. In this parlance, jokes consits of whining about horrible people like Christians and teh rich.
Bill|1.11.10 @ 2:30PM|#
Heh.. some of those classes she would have a pass on mocking -- creating a hostile environment even, you might say -- are covered by EEOC law at the national and state level... Laws that, no doubt, she's all for. And of, course it, would fall exactly in the bullseye of many over-vague speech codes since you can't make a speech code that says you can bash christians but not other groups like Jews and Muslims.
Reflecting on such stuff and Lukianoff's piece, the best way to confront such dishonest behavior, even though you may strongly oppose speech codes, is to use such codes against the people who are supposed to be using it to shut you up. Suddenly the get revisited. And if not, then the dishonesty of the powers that be are highlighted in sharp relief.
Left Shoe meet Right foot.
Bill|1.11.10 @ 2:30PM|#
Heh.. some of those classes she would have a pass on mocking -- creating a hostile environment even, you might say -- are covered by EEOC law at the national and state level... Laws that, no doubt, she's all for. And of, course it, would fall exactly in the bullseye of many over-vague speech codes since you can't make a speech code that says you can bash christians but not other groups like Jews and Muslims.
Reflecting on such stuff and Lukianoff's piece, the best way to confront such dishonest behavior, even though you may strongly oppose speech codes, is to use such codes against the people who are supposed to be using it to shut you up. Suddenly the get revisited. And if not, then the dishonesty of the powers that be are highlighted in sharp relief.
Left Shoe meet Right foot.
Pope Jimbo|1.11.10 @ 5:55PM|#
Oh man, I had a flash back to the mid 90's.
I worked for a woman who had no sense of humor at all. Not that she was mean, but that she didn't even understand the concept of funny.
True Story:
My boss was talking to one of our workers from Manila in the cubes where we all could hear her. For some reason they got on the Newhart show.
Boss: There was this show and there were three brothers that were in it. Their names were Larry, Daryl and pauseDaryl.
Other guy: sort of chuckles
Boss: See how funny that is. The only difference between the names of the two brothers is that one has a pause before it!
As soon as she said that there was about a 5 second pause while all of us wondered if we had totally missed the point for years. Then we realized that it wasn't us and hilarity ensued.
Until I read that post, I have never thought I would find anyone as humor impaired as my old boss.
Anomalous|1.11.10 @ 1:10PM|#
Q. How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. That's not funny!
Zenmaster|1.11.10 @ 1:46PM|#
+1
☺|1.11.10 @ 2:12PM|#
Q. How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
A. What? Pay taxes for electricity....You have got to be a statist...the welfare Queens are stealing my electricity...
|1.11.10 @ 2:23PM|#
Dang, I've always paid an electric "company" for my electricity. Should I re-file my taxes for last year? Shit I really hope I don't get audited now!
Enyap|1.11.10 @ 2:25PM|#
Government owns the electric companies?
Banjos Kick Ass!|1.11.10 @ 2:33PM|#
No, they just grant monopolies to the utility companies.
TP|1.11.10 @ 2:41PM|#
Mine does.
The Libertarian Guy|1.12.10 @ 10:07AM|#
Not yet.
|1.11.10 @ 2:32PM|#
That's about 150 watts of FAIL.
☺|1.11.10 @ 2:44PM|#
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08102.pdf
|1.11.10 @ 2:51PM|#
You just screwed your FAIL into a three-position switch.
☺|1.11.10 @ 3:53PM|#
SugarFree, the government subsidizes electricity directly and indirectly. The good news is they don't care what you do with your three-position "switch".
|1.11.10 @ 4:28PM|#
Your joke sucked. But please keep compounding your suckage. It amuses me far more than your original feeble attempt at insulting humor.
☺|1.11.10 @ 7:02PM|#
SugarFree,
"That's about 150 watts of FAIL."
"You just screwed your FAIL into a three-position switch"
Wrong twice but you are less of a little bitch for not running away.
FIFY:
Your joke succeeded. Please keep on correcting us because we are silly little libertarians.
Jake|1.12.10 @ 5:31PM|#
Q. How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. It's the LIGHTBULB that has to change.
☺|1.13.10 @ 2:31PM|#
Jake,glad you got it. One less man to train.
|1.31.10 @ 11:35AM|#
Not my joke but probably falls into the category of speech the left would ban.
Q. How many President Obamas does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. One, Barack holds the bulb while the world spins around him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BkIh1R5utY
President Leon? Anyone?
JB|1.11.10 @ 1:17PM|#
According to Democrats and the MSM, it's now ok to criticize or praise black people based on how much 'negro dialect' they have or how 'clean' they are.
Democrats, as the party of slavery, really should start watching their mouths; they may actually start scaring people off the plantation.
|1.11.10 @ 1:30PM|#
There are some here who would scream racism in regards to your last phrase, "scaring people off the plantation."
Of course, they would be the racists.
JB|1.11.10 @ 2:21PM|#
The Democrat party sure looks like a plantation to me.
'If you toil for us, we just might give you a stale crust of bread.'
The Gobbler|1.11.10 @ 2:31PM|#
Juba this and Juba that
Juba this and Juba that
Juba kill the yellow cat.
Juba kill the yellow cat.
Bend over double trouble, Juba
bend over double trouble, Juba, ha-ha, Juba.
You bake the bread
you bake the bread
and you give us the crust
and you give us the crust
You cook the meat
you cook the meat
and you give us the skin
and you give us the skin
And that’s when my mama’s trouble begin
I say Juba. Juba.
ddd|1.11.10 @ 10:30PM|#
Am I the only one that thinks this stuff is not clever?
|1.31.10 @ 11:38AM|#
Calling Obama "President Leon" based on the following video surely would fall into that same category.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BkIh1R5utY
plantation owner|1.11.10 @ 1:46PM|#
I can't abide that kind of scarage.
Paul|1.11.10 @ 1:21PM|#
Ahh yes, "I'm all for free speech, but..."
Here's one of my favorites:
TickleStick|1.11.10 @ 1:28PM|#
Speaking of smokescreens:
Science Project? Or Smoking Device?
Why not both!
|1.31.10 @ 12:08PM|#
Is this Burt Neuborne the fella who wrote the memo to the local offices not to criticize the national office in public?
|1.11.10 @ 1:33PM|#
Once again, we should realize that free speech absolutism is the answer. What is not the answer is the intellectually feeble pov that even when it comes to free speech, we should be troubled by absolutism.
|1.11.10 @ 1:35PM|#
One of the last refuges of a scroundel, in addition to weeping at statism's symbols, like cheering for the troopsies, is the assertion that everything is relative and that advocacy of anything absolute is a sign of a lack of sophistication and understanding.
Pingback| 1.11.10 @ 2:00PM
P.C. Never Died links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|1.11.10 @ 2:07PM|#
When you repeatedly say people "are found guilty," this makes it sound like they are being tried in criminal court, when they are not.
You should explain that they are going before review boards at universities (or whatever) and what is at stake. Presumably the inalienable right to attend a liberal university.
Bill|1.11.10 @ 2:21PM|#
The consequences of being found "guilty" by a university judicial committee can be considerable, especially when schools take on certain offenses that should be left to the local DA's office (City of Durham not-wisthanding) where the accused will have more access to due process - often not handled in the university level handling of such offenses.
More still, a comparative misdemeanor thought-crime, may involve penalties from expulsion from indelible marks on their records (and transcripts, screw FERPA, we have higher truths to deal with!) that effectively "fine" the student in lost money wasted on tuition, fees, etc, when he or she thought they were going to a school that, on paper, favored an environment of academic freedom.
Add to that the loss of confidence that you will be treated with professionalism, respect and due process, the chilling environment such petty kangaroo courts encourage, and the cost becomes shared across the campus community among those who do not follow their empowered better's scripts.
Bill|1.11.10 @ 2:24PM|#
Gah! "From Expulsion to indelible ..." (and no doubt much MUCH more!)
Gilbert Martin|1.11.10 @ 3:25PM|#
Well when you are talking about public universities financed by taxpayers money, the universities should not be allowed to establish policies that violate Constitutional rights to freedom of speech.
In private universites as well, receipt of federal funds for grants, programs, etc. has been used as rationale for imposing federal mandates such as Title IX for Athletics, etc.
That same logic can apply to protecting freedom of speech.
Tony|1.11.10 @ 2:38PM|#
Universities should of course promote very liberal policies on free speech, given their nature as crucibles for experimentation and learning, but you'd be hard pressed to find other institutions that aren't more restrictive. I presume you guys favor near-dictatorial speech rules in private businesses.
Jordan|1.11.10 @ 2:54PM|#
Welp, my previous comment was supposed to appear as a reply here.
Anyway, you're free to say whatever you want on your own property, just as you're free to kick anyone off of your property for any reason, including what they say. Because it's, you know, you're property.
Tony|1.11.10 @ 3:31PM|#
Yeah and universities are someone's property too.
Jordan|1.11.10 @ 3:46PM|#
Yeah, the public's.
Tony|1.11.10 @ 3:52PM|#
But who cares about people who go to public universities?
Big John|1.11.10 @ 10:36PM|#
Ahh, a little elitism from the left...
The Libertarian Guy|1.12.10 @ 10:11AM|#
That's an everyday thing, Big.
|1.11.10 @ 3:50PM|#
Not a public university's. That belongs to the citizens. But you knew that, didn't you?
Tony|1.11.10 @ 4:02PM|#
So do libraries, and they make you whisper.
|1.11.10 @ 4:31PM|#
Well I'm going to sue my local library now. Thanks for the idea.
|1.27.10 @ 7:47PM|#
There's quite a difference between regulating volume of voice and content of voice.
You can have the cops called on you if you play music on your own property too loud whether it be Classical or Heavy Metal
Paul|1.11.10 @ 3:28PM|#
I agree with this to a limited point. It just seems such a glaring hypocrisy. I mean, yeah, if you join the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, I'd imagine that you can't say what you want, when you want when you're down at the lodge. But the Elks' don't bill themselves as an institution encouraging free thought, and a pathway to wisdom and knowledge through the free exchange of ideas.
And while I can't speak from experience, your college record might have an effect on your future employment or even other higher education opportunities.
If you've got a mark on your record for harsh and offensive racist behavior because you were caught reading "racist literature"... it just lands with a different weight.
Tony|1.11.10 @ 4:52PM|#
I'm kinda playing devil's advocate here since I am pretty absolutist when it comes to free speech. But anecdotes don't amount to much in terms of evidence of a systemwide problem. I'm wary of people obsessing over speech codes, because it's usually always directed at liberals and is an excuse for wanting affirmative action for your nutty beliefs.
|1.11.10 @ 7:44PM|#
Citations, please?
The Libertarian Guy|1.12.10 @ 10:12AM|#
Aren't most speech codes drawn up by the left?
They're wrong no matter WHO comes up with them, mind you, but the question remains.
Jordan|1.11.10 @ 2:49PM|#
Er, yeah. Nobody tells you what you can and can't say in your own house.
The Libertarian Guy|1.12.10 @ 10:13AM|#
Not yet.
|1.31.10 @ 12:14PM|#
This guy is obviously not married. :-)
BeesInTheBrain|1.11.10 @ 3:00PM|#
University administrators are looking at their primary and secondary school counterparts with their "Zero Tolerance" rules with envy.
Paul|1.11.10 @ 3:16PM|#
Where's Mary Stack? This blogpost has her written all over it.
Pingback| 1.11.10 @ 6:11PM
How Can They Return if They Never Went Away? « Guns, Germs and Blogs links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|1.11.10 @ 6:21PM|#
"Because America’s universities tend to tilt left, and because many targets of P.C. censorship are socially conservative, campus censorship has too often come to be understood as a niche issue for the conservative media and blogosphere. This is a bizarre development, not only because free speech was once a central liberal cause but because liberals are by no means immune from campus censorship."
I couldn't agree more. Not only is it (a) unfair to anyone persecuted under this insanity and (b) counter to true liberal values, it has a third unintended consequence: it produces stupid liberals. There was nothing more disheartening for me as a fairly liberal student than being represented by vapid, dimwitted group-think trolls who don't understand their own positions because they've never had to defend them against any substantial criticism. I always secretly envied the embattled position of the young republicans on campus because they looked so much smarter by comparison to the PC fucktards stomping around. It may have been projection on my part, but I attributed the election of Bush in 2000 to people's exhaustion with the self-righeous social piety of the left.
Big John|1.11.10 @ 10:40PM|#
+1
|1.12.10 @ 8:47AM|#
+1 (uh...again)
Bill|1.12.10 @ 10:39AM|#
Arguably, this is why the campus left too often engages in "direct action" (newspaper theft, heckler vetos, etc) rather than open debate. When confronted with articulate opposition (heck, ANY opposition) they cannot debate since they don't know how, or worse been told that they don't need to. Therefore, they have little alternative other than cry racism (and dishonestly play a skewed campus judicial system) or smash things (and enjoy doing so with tacit administrative support). The libertarians and conservatives on campus have fewer friendly agents in administration to help them game the system or grant them immunity from gross misconduct and, conversely, have no alternative but to play the high ground -- and be subsequently punished for it.
|1.13.10 @ 1:06AM|#
It's not just the campus control of student speech; it's also the one-sided nature of the lessons.
Example: the standard history textbook version of the New Deal: http://historyhalf.com/new-deal-politics/
Pingback| 1.11.10 @ 6:42PM
Greg Lukianoff: My Article ‘PC Never Died’ in Reason Magazine | Deconstructing The N links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.11.10 @ 6:43PM
Greg Lukianoff: My Article ‘PC Never Died’ in Reason Magazine | Deconstructing The N links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.11.10 @ 7:53PM
Daily Right 1/11/10 « The Quantum Conservative links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|1.11.10 @ 8:53PM|#
Does anyone what kind of legal argument FIRE uses against private universities?
MR&MRS; HELLER|1.11.10 @ 11:32PM|#
"Does anyone [^] what kind of legal argument FIRE [S] uses against private universities?" Yes. Our son can't write one fucking sentence and we would like our money back.
|1.13.10 @ 12:55AM|#
Oops I missed a word. I'm glad no one made a big deal about it and pointed it out to everyone as if it was important.
"Does anyone [know] what kind of legal argument FIRE [there is no S here, retard] uses against private universities."
Interpreting Teacher's Comment|1.13.10 @ 12:08PM|#
Heller,"there is no S here": bad sentence / reconstruct: S
Bill|1.12.10 @ 10:42AM|#
If they say that they promise free speech but don't FIRE will "shame" them with a "red light" and some bad PR. However, if it's one of those schools that says screw free speech (and there are a few of them) they get a groovy munchie inducing Black Light.
|1.13.10 @ 12:58AM|#
I'm all for free speech, but if they're trying to get the government to restrict a private university's property rights, then screw them. Sure students can say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean the university can't kick them out for whatever reason it wants. They should make some kind of student contract to avoid these kinds of things.
rather crazy than libertarian|1.13.10 @ 2:24PM|#
"I'm all for free speech"....really?
Space Fiend|1.15.10 @ 12:38AM|#
On the contrary, almost all private universities explicitly guarantee free speech in their tuition and employment contracts.
|1.13.10 @ 2:55PM|#
I believe that FIRE goes after private universities for hypocrisy and violation of their own policies. If, for example, a private school says that they provide "a Christian Education grounded in traditional values" and has a speech code that enforces that, then fine. If you don't want that sort of education, you don't go to that school. On the other hand, if a school promises "A broad-based education based on free-inquiry, including a commitment to free-speech" but has ridiculous speech codes, FIRE will do their best to nail them to the wall.
|2.24.10 @ 4:32PM|#
Breach of contract. Also, some states have statutes that grant students at secular private colleges free speech rights that are coextensive with the First Amendment. California has such a statute.
FrenchHash|1.11.10 @ 10:46PM|#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
my guide to all things PC
|1.31.10 @ 12:23PM|#
"my guide to all things PC"
Dennis Miller is mine "gays can take a dick but they can't take a joke?".
I Heart Capitalisms|1.12.10 @ 12:45AM|#
PC is primarily a tool of the left. The right can always hit back by using the same tactics and language to whine about all the sexist/racist/classist stuff that comes out of the left about the affluent white male, but that means sinking to their level and acting like pussies* when that's actually one of the great things about NOT being a leftist.
* I realize that equating weakness with female genitalia is sexist and serves to reinforce society's hegemonic capitalistic patriarchal discourse about female identity. My balls made me do it.
|1.12.10 @ 5:33PM|#
lol. Too bad that's what the right has done. I think the mainstream conservatives I've encountered as an adult in the real world have embraced all the attitudes and postures I despised in leftist campus activists. Sarah Palin is, to me, the epitome of that transition. People debate whether she's a feminist, but of course she is. She's an ignorant self-entitled woman who blames all her short comings on other people. But if you disagree with her it's because you hate her large family. lol.
Mike|1.17.10 @ 1:27PM|#
"My balls made me do it"
...and you wonder why there are so few women posting on this article.
|1.12.10 @ 7:30AM|#
The decades long indoctrination of kids in grade school has caused the pervasive niggardly use of the english language. People are afraid to call a spade a spade. This intentional misuse of of the language has led to dishonesty in peoples' speech and how they express themselves in the written language. The zeal to avoid offending some has resulted in everyone being insulted.
|1.31.10 @ 12:28PM|#
Oh boy! Its getting cold in here I'd better throw another faggot into the fire.
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 8:57AM
Instapundit » Blog Archive » GREG LUKIANOFF: Think campus censorship disappeared in t links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|1.12.10 @ 10:54AM|#
How does a thinking adult attend one of these colleges today?
At one time the young men and women attending college were treated as young men and women. Today they are treated as children in an advanced PC Indoctrination Program.
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 9:47PM
Twitter Trackbacks for P.C. Never Died - Reason Magazine [reason.com] on Topsy.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Sarah|1.13.10 @ 8:46AM|#
Right on, Maxwell.
I'm also fairly liberal, and dislike the kind of mushy thinking that dismisses rather than engages with conservatives. Some of them are smart! Their arguments have to be addressed!
That said, I'm actually fairly ambivalent about PC as a cultural practice. I was raised with it from very early childhood (I remember how frustrated I was that Marx Brothers movies had minstrel numbers interspersed with the good stuff) and I think of it as an extension of simple politeness. "Please" and "Thank You" grease the wheels of social interaction; so does sensitivity to different kinds of people. It's common sense, and it's a learning process. (I didn't know much about disability advocacy until this year; I've only recently started to make a note of Ramadan so I don't invite people to lunch when they're supposed to be fasting.)
I do think schools should teach sensitivity, at least K-12 schools, because school is to a large extent about behavioral skills as well as academic skills. School teaches you to cooperate, delay gratification, and so on... it should also try to teach you not to call people nappy-headed ho's. At the college level, though, I don't want the school to be in loco parentis, so there's no sense restricting speech. We generally concede that a college student's personal behavior is up to him.
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 10:44AM
Natural Hair Care | Hair Care Beauty Wisdom links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|1.13.10 @ 10:59AM|#
There's also the issue of selective enforcement. How can universities bend over backward to protect the sensitivities of designated minority groups in the interest of "civil discourse" yet turn a blind eye toward Brownshirt tactics used by leftist groups on campus? The universities are obviously biased, and they're promoting liberal political agendas at taxpayer expense.
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 2:01PM
Speech codes are (still) unconstitutional - Riley Waggaman - The Diploma Mill - True links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 1.14.10 @ 5:15PM
fix my credit, on fix my credit, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|1.14.10 @ 5:22PM|#
"Please" and "Thank You" grease the wheels of social interaction
It's called civility. It's always annoyed me that so many people today can't seem to tell the difference between that and PC. Some seem to be deliberately UNcivil, rude, and impolite (to be redundant) as if they are proving how un-PC they are. Maybe it's just an excuse.
|1.31.10 @ 12:55PM|#
In my opinion one should always preface their opinion with "in my opinion" otherwise people might think you to be a know it all. :-)
Pingback| 1.14.10 @ 6:59PM
Jonny Newton entering the whirlpool » Campus censorship links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
runbei|1.19.10 @ 10:55AM|#
The PC gulags are the product of an educational establishment dedicated to reason and logic at the expense of the heart. As J. Donald Walters argues in his fine book, Education for Life, it is feeling, balanced but not bullied by reason, that enables us to know what is right and wrong.
Pingback| 1.21.10 @ 7:36AM
skepticlawyer » Political correctness on campus links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Wjb|1.21.10 @ 10:14AM|#
This reminds me of my friend who used the word "blackball" in a college paper to reference Hollywood types who were suspected commies.
His prof. thought it was a racist word and had a meeting with him--threatening to bring the "case" to the administration.It ended OK, but I'm sure my friend's reputation and grade shrank because of collegiate ignorance.
Fat Steve|1.26.10 @ 10:22PM|#
How can the author say that it is 'beyond left and right', when he clearly only considers liberals capable of censoring on campus speech.
When I was at school, I was suspended due to calling a conservative Christian teacher a 'fucking moron,' because he didn't believe in evolution. My other friend was forced to change his T-shirt at a state college (not a religious one) because his shirt featured a picture of Jesus masturbating.
Conservatives are even worse than liberals when you start insulting their sacred cows.
Dave in California|1.30.10 @ 12:43PM|#
Thanks, Steve, for pointing this out. The reason PC hasn’t died is because the people who use to oppose it ended up embracing its tactics instead. I graduated from the University of California in 1993 and have been tremendously disappointed at how all the things I hated about PC have been adopted by people on the right. “Criticizing Bush means you hate the troops” is the conservative equivalent of “criticizing affirmative action means you hate blacks.”
Finding someone guilty of racism for reading the wrong book isn’t that far removed from kicking someone out of a public event solely because they had a “John Kerry” bumper sticker on their car.
Correct language: the demand of conservatives that people use conservative wording exclusively to prove that they don’t have an anti-conservative bias. For example, “death tax” instead of “estate tax”. Or “private account” instead of “Social Security privatization”, and then “personal account” instead of “private account” when “private account” didn’t poll well.
Free speech zones? Conservatives embraced them happily when they were used to suppress leftist anti-war protestors, and protestors at Republican conventions.
I’d like to think that libertarians would hate all these tactics no matter who employed them, but from reading the comments in this thread, it’s sadly obvious that what most of the posters here find so offensive is that it’s not so much these tactics, but the use of these tactics by leftists.
|2.24.10 @ 4:41PM|#
It helps to read the article. The author criticizes the intimidation of anti-war and pro-Obama individuals by school administrators. Unless you think that liberals were responsible for that.
|2.25.10 @ 12:19PM|#
"When I was at school, I was suspended due to calling a conservative Christian teacher a 'fucking moron,' because he didn't believe in evolution. My other friend was forced to change his T-shirt at a state college (not a religious one) because his shirt featured a picture of Jesus masturbating.
Conservatives are even worse than liberals when you start insulting their sacred cows."
That's your argument? Calling a teacher a "fucking moron" is roughly equivalent to not believing in evolution on the stupidity scale. And wearing a shirt featuring a masturbating Jesus isn't much brighter, but as parameters of good taste in a communal setting go, I'd love to see you try and prove that the reaction would have been any different if the masturbator on the shirt had been anyone else.
Pingback| 1.31.10 @ 6:52AM
Political correctness gone mad - TheNewTopical.com links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
|1.31.10 @ 11:27AM|#
Personally I'd like to see "homo erectus" removed from science vocabulary because the definition implies that man once thought with his penis.
Pingback| 4.30.10 @ 10:51AM
Deja vu links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
abercrombie milano|5.27.10 @ 3:23AM|#
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on
wfgrf|5.29.10 @ 10:51PM|#
That's your argument? Calling a teacher a "fucking moron" is roughly equivalent to not believing in evolution on the stupidity scale. And wearing a shirt featuring a masturbating Jesus isn't much brighter, but as parameters of good taste in a communal setting go, I'd love to see you try and prove that thereplica omega reaction would have been any different if the masturbator on the shirt had been anyone else.
Lavone Protz|6.11.10 @ 5:31PM|#
Thats a really great writeup. IT took me a while to read it and all the comments. Some of you commenters have got some great points.
peterlin|8.25.10 @ 4:00AM|#
That's your argument? Calling a teacher a "fucking moron" is roughly equivalent to not believing in evolution on the stupidity scale. Trisodium Phosphate suppliers
surpa shoes|9.2.10 @ 5:02AM|#
Now you can Google most of these other places and see they have histories of not providing products or having terrible customer service.
50 Inch Flat Screen Tv|9.24.10 @ 5:01AM|#
Another excellent post, thank you, this is why I continue visiting here!
nfl jerseys|11.4.10 @ 11:54PM|#
gert
Sheepskin Boots Sale|11.22.10 @ 6:41AM|#
Most of the negotiation auction Uggs Australia Outlet boots you like. The alarming and equally bad advice and the facts do not really abuse this brand. Which is used as Ugg Boots On Sale boots are your friends in the winter.
Sheepskin Boots Sale|11.22.10 @ 6:47AM|#
gives Ugg Boots Online Store boots access most alarming affection air using the price of power.Ugg Boots Outlet Apparently the name is always used cast name. ?
Sheepskin Boots Sale|11.22.10 @ 6:49AM|#
for you. because to achieve simple Sheepskin Ugg Boots can be the figure par excellence of architecture today. Not really fits photos as they are. Ugg Boots Online Store chestnut can entertain your power needs. among the best atom important is the achievement that
Sheepskin Boots Sale|11.22.10 @ 6:51AM|#
There are all kinds of Ugg Sheepskin Boots accept that abound in the market. It complicated the implementation of the agencies that fails that a margin will apparently be the best. But we are in a range to raise awareness of the Ugg Sheepskin Boots Bailey button
Pack a Day Smoker|12.25.10 @ 1:45PM|#
We expect the new year to come in with a bang and 2010 to go down in smoke. "Go Down in Smoke", you say? That's right we literally mean that we want to help you put down those nasty cigarettes from 2010. And start the new year off right by "Kicking the Smoking Habit"!
www.psp.com|1.6.11 @ 4:40AM|#
Good stuff.
Finnish Spitz|1.21.11 @ 2:51AM|#
I used to be coached (by any feminine Uk professor) which technique phrase "man" whenever with reference to that individual kinds in its entirety signifies both men and women. That is certainly just how POST utilize it, but will always utilize it. Which possibly can make me personally any knuckle-dragging rapist as well as some thing.
|5.8.11 @ 12:34PM|#
No matter what the article is about, I find the comment section both informative and entertaining!
Joe
http://www.wildplanettours.com/
Plantar wart removal|5.14.11 @ 6:17PM|#
Censorship is never good, but there has to be some filters on what we see and hear everyday.
nike air max|8.2.11 @ 2:10AM|#
is good
cheap wholesale|8.12.11 @ 2:42AM|#
so perfect
Detroit Lions|8.24.11 @ 5:57AM|#
very good
Adrienne Landau|8.29.11 @ 10:50AM|#
Censorship will always exist at schools and on campuses.
Kendrick Breckenstein|9.27.11 @ 8:18AM|#
it is in early Alpha, but it is surprisingly excellent.
sannianeban|10.20.11 @ 2:44AM|#
good
mbt shoes outlet|12.2.11 @ 12:49AM|#
good
guorizi|1.6.12 @ 5:31AM|#
it is perfect