Internet

Orwellian University Blocks Students' Access to Harmful Sites, For 'Civility'

|

NIU
Andy McMurray / Wikimedia Commons

Northern Illinois University is restricting students' access to certain websites. For their own good, of course. The internet is a dangerous place, and we wouldn't want students inadvertently coming across something controversial, now would we?

Students who attempt to visit an unauthorized site through the campus network are redirected to a creepy "Web Page Access Warning." The "warning" is that the students are about to go somewhere that probably violates NIU internet policy. One student reported the policy to Reddit after he received a warning for trying to access the Westboro Bapist Church's Wikipedia page. That's right, its Wikipedia page.

NIU cites "common sense, decency, ethical use, civility, and security," as its various rationales for the policy. Yes, a public institution of higher learning believes that it is just common sense—and ethical—to dissuade students from visiting websites deemed harmful by administrators.

Susan Kruth of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education writes that NIU's internet policy is laughably unconstitutional:

Whether students are prohibited from visiting a website altogether or simply greeted by this bizarre threat of punishment, NIU's enforcement of its policy is an egregious act of censorship. ..

While a corporation like Ford or General Electric might have valid reasons for limiting Internet access to some sites (for instance, to promote employee productivity), there's a vast—and obvious—difference between private employees and public college students. The fact that the Reddit user who relayed his experience with the Internet filter was simply trying to access information about the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) paints a disturbing picture about the breadth of NIU's censorship efforts. It seems that NIU students who want to use the Internet to find out why the WBC is so controversial are simply out of luck.

As Kruth notes, the policy instructs students not to use the internet to visit social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, conduct business, or participate in political activity. Some rebellious student should try buy an advertisement on a political candidate's Facebook page; campus security officers would no doubt escort the rulebreaker to Room 101 for immediate re-education.

FIRE is "looking into the situation," according to Kruth.

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. Report abuses.

141 responses to “Orwellian University Blocks Students' Access to Harmful Sites, For 'Civility'

  1. It’s for your own good.

  2. FFS! Just who TF do these people think they are? Immediate firing for all involved.

    1. They are our glorious intellectualist overlords. They are the vanguard of civility and correct opinions. All hail the state and the intelligentsia whose endless supply of euphemisms provide the intellectual cover necessary for the state to plunder and have the victims asking for more.

    2. Same nonsense that goes on down in lower education, starting to creep up. In grade school settings, these are the admins that send students home because of a Pop Tart that was chewed into the shape of Idaho (also a gun) or because some high school girl took a Motrin during her period.

      These are the idiots that are taking over our educational systems, instilling state sponsored compliance education and the thought process that the state knows what’s best for everyone in all circumstances.

      It’s a one size fits all ideology where college seniors being exposed to a Wikipedia page on WBC is viewed with the same need for control as to protect a second grader who accidentally might stumble on a porn website. I realize that there will always be those who think the line should be moved this way or that, but this notion that the state has to be everyone’s daddy has long since passed any definition that involves the use of common sense.

      1. These are the idiots that are taking over our educational systems, instilling state sponsored compliance education and the thought process that the state knows what’s best for everyone in all circumstances.

        It’s no wonder that highly pro-statism curricula, position papers and outright lies flow from virtually all of the world’s academic institutions, in age where most people believe state run education is a right and obligation. Think of the all Krugmans and Elizabeth Warrens that the system produces and publishes every year.

        Then they have the nerve to put a gun to your head and effectively force the majority of people to send their kids to the government reeducation camps they claim to be schools.

  3. I would be curious to know, if you’re doing a history paper on WWII would you be unable to do a Google search for ‘Hitler’ but ‘Stalin’ would be fine?

    1. It would be more refined – Hitler Bad/Stalin Not so bad to good sites get through, Hitler Good/Stalin Bad would be blocked, Hitler Bad/Stalin Bad will have the serfing* device release a poison gas because you’re simply an incorrigibly lost cause…

      *spelled correctly. This gives new meaning to “serfing the internet”.

  4. The Great Firewall of Illinois. Next up: The Great Leap Forward.

  5. So, Wikipedia bad, Reddit good?

  6. Susan Kruth of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education writes that NIU’s internet policy is laughably unconstitutional

    I don’t see why this even needs to be portrayed as a Constitutional issue.

    This is a laughably moronic policy on its face; an “institution of higher learning” so terrified of actual nonconforming ideas that it attempts to block them should just shut its doors due to a complete lack of both student applications and financial donations.

    Or they could re-charter as a religious institution.

    1. they could re-charter as a religious institution.

      +1 tax exempt status.

  7. I know I’ve said this before. I like FIRE’s intent. I appreciate their mission to allow students to be able to express themselves in institutions of higher learning. But I hate, I FUCKING HATE, that they use 1A as their goto crutch. It’s not their fault really…but it shows clearer than anything else how perverted our whole higher educational system has become as it sits under the thumb of the Federal government.

    In libertopia, FIRE would still exist, but it would be all about attacking the public image of these ludicrous restrictions. It would not be leveraging a hammer that only exists because of Federal grants, loans and the “public” nature of certain institutions (air quotes because the whole subsidy system that truly makes these “public” is a complete clusterfuck of mismatched incentives).

    1. Well put.

    2. NIU is a state school.

      For me, it’s the whole fucked up meta-context that sees much of academia thinking the subsidization of loans means it’s perfectly OK for the government to force private schools to deny due process for certain defendants; but, suggest that such subsidization should also mean the schools have to obey the 1A and they’ll think you’re some sort of freak beyond polite society. Oh no, government shouldn’t have any say in that.

      (Not that I necessarily think government trying to force 1A compliance is an unalloyed good, as I’d expect the government to abuse the power. It’s just that even suggesting taking government money leads to this is beyond the pale.)

      1. It’s something that the shady colleges do – play both the private property and public property cards whenever they want to enact some rule or punishment.

        The essence of “FYTW” – “we’re a private company so we can restrict 1A…but we’re public property, so no dancing.”

    3. What? Are you saying state funded and run institutions would not be bound by the 1st Amendment if they didn’t also receive federal funding?

    4. “In libertopia, FIRE would still exist, but it would be all about attacking the public image of these ludicrous restrictions.”

      This is what they do for private schools. NIU is a public school. Also, I’d argue that the private schools are often guilty of contract violations (if the school handbook promotes free speech) and/or false advertising.

      1. Yeah, this really shows that any claims to being a place for free and open inquiry and research are lies.

    5. Let me try to clarify what you mean here. You don’t hate FIRE for using the 1A to legally attack these cases, you hate that society is so inured to “government is right” that FIRE has to resort to using the 1A legal attacks instead of public humiliation.

      Am I reading you right?

  8. Am I the only one who thinks “Orwellian University” would be a cool name for a school?

    1. “All our courses are 101!”

      1. Note to self: Read comments before posting.

    2. You should write a movie about it. It could be like PCU, except funny.

      1. I thinnk PCU was kind of funny, but probably mostly because I actually went to college there (or to the place that it is largely based on).

    3. I see five fingers.

      1. There are four lights.

    4. I love that idea. If nothing else, it would make a great satirical website. Do up a fake university website for Orwellian University and fill it with the most outrageous but true bullshit you can find.

      For example, you could have a special page for “sexual assault” and talk about how every form of sex is really rape and how the university is committed to achieving a 90% conviction rate before university disciplinary tribunals for sexual assault cases.

      1. +1 South Hampton Institute of Technology

        1. Harmon, not Hampton.

    5. It would be offensive to the memory of George Orwell to name a university after him that embraced all he was opposed to.

      1. He embraced it all before he opposed it all.

        1. Sure, and when he realized how wrong he was he wrote possibly the strongest indictment against it ever written.

  9. “Susan Kruth of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education writes that NIU’s internet policy is laughably unconstitutional:”

    Fortunately, NIU already has a mechanism in place to stop students from learning about this.

    1. Intro to political science, Professor O’Brien.. room 101.

  10. Hear no evil, see no evil.. speak no evil. They certainly wouldn’t want impressionable young minds inadvertently seeing things on the internet without a trusted and tenured professor present, to put it all in context.. The results could be harmful, and cause permanent damage, undermining everything the educators and academia have worked so hard to create. Plenty of time for the free exchange of knowledge, news, and opinion… after they graduate.

  11. I wonder if it blocks porn. Nah, the students would have rioted by now.

    1. It only blocks rape porn.

      1. All porn is rape porn. [/radfem]

      2. IOW, it only allows lesbian porn. Because all hetero sex is rape. /JezzieDerp

        1. Nope, shitlord. That’s eroticizing lesbian couples, which literally makes you worse than Hitler. It’s Not For You.

    2. Actually, if you RTFA (the ‘Acceptable Use Policy), it does forbid porn.

      Also, it doesn’t actually forbid social networking, it forbids employees from visiting social networking sites at work if it interferes with their duties.

      Bizarrely, the notice is worded so as to apply to employees, but apparently intercepts students too (it’s way too cumbersome to filter for unacceptable sites and user role).

      Not that I don’t think this is an excessively stupid move on the part of the administration, and I hope FIRE embarrasses the hell out of them.

      1. That’s crazy, everyone knows that the jesus freaks are the one’s that are into people’s sex lives not liberals. Except in
        regards to subsidizing birth control, forcing pornographers to wear condoms and banning porn.

  12. Remember, Universities are just little communities. If Progs ever actually got the power they want, they would make the entire country like this.

    1. And they’ll do it in the name of tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality.

  13. But remember: Campus diversity really is about letting people of differing perspectives learn from one another and is not at all the identity-politics spoils system that those meanies outside of the left say it is.

    1. I tried to Google who those people were, but I was blocked.

      I haz a sad 🙁

      1. White cisgendered men might start appropriating those diverse perspectives as their own if the university doesn’t keep those filters in place.

  14. I hate government (and by extension public universities as well) as much as anyone else, however, if the university is providing the internet service doesn’t the university get to dictate the terms of usage?

    At work you’re not allowed to frequent certain sites as well. Is my employer infringing on my rights by not allowing me to visit certain sites on the company bandwidth? I think not.

    1. Whether or not the sites in question should be banned is irrelevant. If you’re providing me with internet service you get to dictate to me how I may use it.

      1. If the government provides a public space, say a sidewalk, do they get to dictate what speech is allowed there?

        1. We know the answer to that: they do.

          Reason #3,948 for eliminating government.

          However, being a libertarian, I’d admit that without government a private entity would have to provide the sidewalk. That private entity would make the rules, just as you make the rules at your own house.

          So, either way, do you really have free speech? I guess you do if you provide the sidewalk yourself.

          1. An effort to apply either common sense or ethics to the knotted up string of Christmas lights that is government coercion I find nearly impossible. The contradictions are insurmountable for me.

            So the government forcibly took the funds to build the sidewalk, supposedly for the benefit of those they stole. The internet and the sidewalk are public property, a commons. Which would mean the public’s free speech should be guaranteed if not ethically (since each individual owns and undivided share), at least through the government’s own constitution under which it is supposedly granted the original power to tax the free speech of the citizens is guaranteed. By playing by this government’s own rules, 1A would seem to apply.

            Discussing it in terms of a voluntary society and ethics we’d expect between individuals is not really practical. The sidewalk and internet began within an involuntary framework.

            1. The internet is not public property in that the government didn’t create it nor does it control it (at least not yet).

              Oh yeah, I forgot about Al Gore…he created the internet.

              As for public property there is no such thing in the real sense. You and I don’t own 1/320,000,000 of public land in the US.

              If everybody owns something then nobody does.

              If it’s owned by anyone it could be argued that it is owned by the government, and you and I are not the government.

              1. I disagree. You do own 1/320,000,000 of it. The government manages it. The government has powers, not rights and can therefor, NOT own property.

                (I’ll cede, however, the government believes otherwise)

                1. Therefore, in reality, the government owns it.

                  Reason # 3,949 to oppose the State.

                  1. Practically…sure.

                    But I put it to you that this way of thinking about it is detrimental. Gives the government the impression that they are in charge. Once they start thinking like that (yes, too late) they start acting like that.

              2. Not talking about the internet in general, I thought it was a State school providing the internet access? The access is, at least in part, taxpayer funded?

                Again, a knot that defies untying with anything remotely resembling ethics or rational thought.

                1. When the government is involved ethics and rational thought are thrown out the window.

                  Reason #4,987 to oppose the State.

      2. Obvious difference — the government has to obey 1A, private entities do not. And, for good reason. you don’t have to deal with private entities.

        1. Actually, the government doesn’t have to obey anything. It doesn’t obey anything. It does want it wants. Therefore, 1A and everything else in the Constitution is meaningless because it isn’t being enforced by the States and is ignored by the federal government.

          The first amendment may as well not even be there at all.

          1. Touche.

            But, that is the difference between a state university limiting internet content and a private employer doing it. One is unconstitutional (and therefore worthy of scorn), while the other is simply a private entity exercising its legitimate property rights.

            1. There’s also the difference in company computers/company system vs. personal computers using an internet network connection.

              The latter makes sense – if the uni owns the computers and magically has its own internet company, then as a “private” company it can do that.

              Private companies often own the computers and rent/operate own servers in order to keep a system locked.

              Slight difference, but the uni shouldn’t restrict access on someone’s private property, which seems to be the case here.

              UP NEXT: The bedroom in the university – Unsafe and why men deserve no privacy in private!

    2. Re: Jeffrey,

      I hate government (and by extension public universities as well)

      It is fortunate that we don’t yet live in a country where people go to jail for reading things like that….

      ..wait, there’s someone at the door…

      1. The Alien and Sedition Acts are still alive and well, my friend.

    3. No, because your employer’s computers and network are theirs, so they can set rules on use, setup filters, etc. A public (government funded) university is supposed to be bound by the Constitution.

      1. As we’ve mentioned before the government is not bound by anything.

        The States do not enforced the Constitution and the federal government ignores it. The Constitution is meaningless unless it is enforced. Clearly, the federal government (which includes the Supreme Court) isn’t going to enforce a document that limits its own power.

        1. With a few glaring exceptions, they do pretty well on free speech.

    4. Sure. A truly private university, at least, should be able to dictate their own terms.
      But if they claim to be an institution devoted to open inquiry and academic freedom and rigor, they still deserve to be publicly shamed and possibly sued by students who spent thousands of dollars there expecting academic freedom and open inquiry.

  15. I’m feeling so triggered right now.

  16. Fortunately, my son’s school hasn’t reached this level of retardation. Probably only a matter of time.

    The fact that any student would sign up to attend such a place is what I find – troubling. Maybe kids don’t look for what kind of information the school has available – but I know I did. Now that we have the intewebs (yeah, I went to school so long ago, the interweb was just being invented by Al Gore – we were concerned about stuff like whether the library had lending agreements with big universities so we could borrow stuff not in the local collection), that’s just an extension of the same idea. “I want to ensure I have access to as much information as possible, even if it doesn’t reside on this campus somewhere. ESPECIALLY if it doesn’t reside on this campus somewhere.”

    “We deny access to certain information that we think….”

    *Almanian leaves materials on table, thanks them for their time, and heads down the road looking for a real college to attend*

  17. Orwell was simply a litte premature.

    1. He was and he gave people too much credit. An actual totalitarian state, while horrible is nowhere near as efficient and rational as the one in 1984. People are just not that bright and rational. Orwell was at heart a socialist and really believed in top men. So much so he gave even the evil ones too much credit. He missed the mark. Real totalitarian states and real totalitarians are fucking clown shows.

      1. Yes and no. Winston can’t get a good cigarette or good gin. The chocolate ration is cut and reflected upon at length- this is a good critique up of Sovietization and how socialism causes shortage and famine..

        1. War causes these things as well.

          Another good reason to oppose war?

          1. The only reason not to oppose war is when the alternative conditions under peace are worse. War always sucks. It is just that occasionally peace sucks worse.

            1. It can be argued that here in the US things suck pretty bad under peace.

              However, are we ever really at peace when the government is constantly at war with other governments and with the citizens of this country as well?

              1. There you go. We live under constant and growing scrutiny. Party people get orivileges in business and justice and access and the vast majority of our fellow citizens are ignorant, emotional and jingoistic- easily manipulated- just the way the government likes them…

          2. “War” is a tool. We have to ask ourselves why we are fighting in order to determine if the war is just or prudent. But yeah we use it way too much.

            1. War is NEVER “just”. It cannot be, as you are killing people without due process.

              But there are times it must be done anyway.

              1. A defensive war can most certainly be just.

                1. When is the last time the US government had a truly defensive war?

                  Muslims shooting at US government military personal occupying their country does not count.

                  1. I don’t know the last time we fought a defensive war, if ever. I’m speaking to the absolute principle what defines a just war, not whether or not our nation has fought one.

                  2. 1812-1814 mostly. If you ignore the invasion of Canada.

                2. Can be, but can often is not.

                3. Nope. I disagree.

                  You are killing without due process.

                  Calling a war “just” is simply a way to ease the consciences of the politicians who start them. They are wholly immoral. That guy I kill with the rifle, over there, had about fuck-all to do with starting the conflict. Hard to claim I’m acting in self defense by killing him.

                  But again, it doesn’t mean they aren’t sometimes necessary.

                  The “just war” line of thinking allows politicians to use the military as other than absolute last resort, simply by redefining the word “just”. I don’t give them that option. If they involve people in war, they live with that responsibility and shame. Maybe then they will think twice.

                  1. If somebody is pouring tanks across our border, I think it’s just to blow those tanks to,kingdom come.

                    You don’t?

                    1. I would certainly do it. But I’m blowing up a man in that tank without giving him due process. I can’t square that with “just”.

                      It is a necessary evil. It is the very UN-justness of war that makes war something to be avoided.

                    2. Due process =/= a trial in cases,of invasion and declared war. An invading army, having had war declared on it’s host nation, has been given due process and any participant in the invasion by extension has been given due,process.

                      I’d strain to declare it just in the case of a conscripted soldier being part of that invading force.

                    3. Interestingly enough, isn’t this one of the aspects of PTSD a lot of soldiers face – that can’t write off the killing?

                      And necessary evil is all it’s going to be. Defeating Nazis or the North Koreans is “just” – but the death of millions and utter waste and destruction of humanity is always horrific.

                    4. I find it just to shoot a robber in my house without due process.

                    5. I find it just to shoot a robber in my house without due process.

                      You were defending your rights from the person violating them. Self defense.

                      In a war, the offender is sitting in a cushy chair in a government building, while sending people who had little, if anything, to do with the conflict to do their bidding.

                  2. Kind of like referring to the taxes you are forced to pay as “voluntary contributions”. Or claiming that “we are all the government”. Or that “we all own it” in reference to “public land”.

                    1. I see nothing wrong with the concept of joint ownership.

                    2. I have no issue with citizens claiming ownership of public land when the alternative is ceding any form of control or oversight to the government.

                    3. But we both know when AmSocFedGov says “we are all the government” it’s a dumb language trick in order to justify technocratic rules – “you voted for me, I appointed people, therefore, it’s your rules.”

                      It’s denying culpability for their own actions. FedGov will place all the bad on collective ownership, yet litigate and destroy if you try to use public property for private purposes.

          3. Opposing war is like opposing sex. Like it or not, it’s just one of those things people have an irresistible urge to do. Feel free to oppose it til you’re blue in the face.

            1. I have no irresistible urge to go to war…

              I take it that you do?

            2. IMHO. War is not an urge of ‘people’ its a byproduct of statism. A government which holds the monopoly of violence in a geographic area has self interest and a different cost/benefit for conflict than an individual. This difference in cost benefit creates the lowered bar for conflict.

              1. Reason #4,948 for opposing the State.

                1. Switzerland is a state.

                  1. The government of Switzerland is not OUR State. Therefore, it is not The State. The United States Federal Government is our State. It is The State in that it dictates to other governments and to us (its slaves) how we are to act and live. It tell us what our “rights” are and that they can (and do) change whenever the State wishes to change them.

                    I oppose the State. The people of Switzerland can deal with their own government.

                    1. The word “State” is usually used to define formal governments, not just that of the USA.

                      And I’d reckon that when you wrote “I oppose the State”, most people believe you oppose the principle of a State, not just the nation,you,live in.

                    2. I do oppose the principle of the State, since the State is the reason for most of our unhappiness.

                      Many libertarians oppose the principal of the State, since the principle of the State is to control you and I and every aspect of our lives.

                      We can try to believe that the State can work, but a lot of progressive theories look, while they look good on paper, suck in real life.

                    3. since the principle of the State is to control you and I and every aspect of our lives.

                      That’s hardly the case 100% of the time. And you’re confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Most libertarians likely believe in a state that enforces contracts and individual rights.

                      I’m a supporter of a State. I want one to do what I listed above as well as provide for a defense in cases of invasion or attack. I don’t believe in taxation however.

                    4. I can see you don’t really know what libertarianism is. Normally I would say that you’d come to the right place if you want to learn about it, however, with all the statists that post here I’m not so sure…

                    5. Nancy Pelosi reminded us that our taxes are voluntary contributions…

                      Be that as it may, if you are a supporter of the State, yet oppose taxation, how do you expect the State to function?

        2. What is missing is how in real Soviet Russia people would game the system. The “ration” such as it was, wasn’t really the ration. It was the ration for those not connected enough or clever enough to get around it. What is also missing is the outright lunacy of how the system worked. For example, the Soviets had a real problem delivering bread in time for anyone to get fresh bread. Their solution was to tell people to toast the bread. Toasting bread became a patriotic duty. The only problem was almost no one had a toaster and there was one toaster factory in the entire country. Orwell missed the comic tragic shit like that.

          1. I think Winston reflects at length on the madness of the system and that Party members are privileged while the proles are allowed more “freedom” in recognition of the fact that they are ignorant, emotional morons.

          2. All government systems are known for their inefficiency as well as rationing.

            One of the kids I work with (I volunteer to help with handicapped kids) is considered a special needs child. Was labeled as such since birth. He had a major setback a few years ago and needed a special wheelchair. The State of Michigan took over a year to produce one for him. Everyone was so upset about this that after a few months we got a couple of wealthy donors to cover the tab and got him what he needed almost a half a year before the government produced one. When they finally delivered we told them to take a hike.

            1. All government systems are known for their inefficiency as well as rationing.

              See the US military.

              1. Indeed. It should be cut in half immediately. Along with all other government programs.

                Agreed?

                1. I think with the right foreign policy (non-interventionism), you could get away with cutting it in half. Maybe a bit more than half and be strong enough that no one would fuck with you.

                  1. I’d say a lot more than half. The government spends over 1 trillion dollars annually on the military (it hides some of the spending under different program headings so as to mask the total cost).

                    Now, how about cutting all the other massive big government programs. The one’s that are bleeding the country dry. The massive transfer payments from you to me that statists love so much. We’ll cut those in half as well, yes?

                    1. Actually, the part of that trillion the military itself gets is about $700 B (six and change, if I recall correctly).

                      If you are talking SS/medicare, I would phase it out entirely.

                      The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

              2. The US military is wildly inefficient. I am always amazed when ignorant Progs, who have never been within the mile of a base much less a war, point to it as some ideal for society.

                The military has to be inefficient because of what it does. It is trying to do the impossible job of disciplining and organizing people to kill and get killed. A giant bureaucratic machine is really the only way to do that. It is a necessity not a fucking model for anything else.

                1. I disagree. It is not necessary to spend over 1 trillion dollars a year on a massive program that terrorizes people around the world in your name.

                  It can be done more efficiently and end up being a lot less expensive.

                  1. Jeffrey, my point went right over your head. A bureaucratic system is a necessity of running a military. Just because a bureaucracy is necessary for fighting a war doesn’t mean that it is a good idea for anything else.

                  2. Jeffrey – Another huge military cost we in the US have is that we subsidize other countries’ military budgets, as well as providing soldiers in their national territory (bases which we pay for).

                    That’s why NATO countries aside from the UK tend to have pretty small military budgets. South Korea is pretty much the exception as they have a massive military, but we still pay rent and give them tons of money.

                2. The reason the military is inefficient is because the reward system (promotion) is not based upon its stated goals. There is no reason to be efficient if I can get promoted without being efficient.

                  In short…no profit motive.

                  Not sure it can be fixed.

                  1. Is this the reason why everything that the government does is bloated, inefficient and does more harm than good?

                  2. Fransisco,

                    The reason why the military is inefficient is because it has to be uniform. You can’t have uneven results. Every soldier has to be equipped, fed, housed and trained based on some kind of uniform system. For this reason, you can’t have a market system. Markets are wonderfully efficient but they are not uniform. If you want uniformity, you have to have a bureaucracy and all of the inefficiencies that come with it. The military has always been and will always be necessarily a socialist system. This is why Progs think it is so great, even though of course they would never lower themselves to living under it.

                    1. Therefore, all big government statists, Republicans and Democrats, love the military. Whether they admit it or not.

                    2. As I said…

                      Not sure it can be fixed.

                      For the reasons you state, it will NEVER be efficient.

  18. WTF. So once the precious snowflakes leave their overprotective helicopter parents, they go to college. Where they’re presided over by helicopter administrators. And after that? Helicopter government. We’re so fucked.

  19. Sounds like a plan to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.Anon-Surf.tk

  20. Orwellian University, now THERE’S an alma mater!

  21. And these shitbirds wonder why I ashcan their fund raising letters, hang up on their calls and delete the emails begging for $…

    1. Doesn’t matter. They are State entities. They are too big to fail.

      Therefore, they’ll get you money one way or the other.

  22. NIU cites “common sense, decency, ethical use, civility, and security,” as its various rationales for the policy.

    A planet where Marxian ideologues impose censorship?

  23. All of the information you need is at Jezebel or Planned Parenthood. Who needs more than two websites?

  24. A public university is supposed to be bound by the Constitution, is it not? College students are usually over 18, are they not? Why is this even happening?

    1. Unfortunately it has been happening since the beginning of the federal government. It dates back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, if not earlier.

      The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It’s just toilet paper unless it is enforced.

  25. What is it about people with “education administration” training? They always seem so completely clueless. What are they taught in those education masters programs, anyway? Certainly not history, civics, or common sense.

  26. Would be nice if Reason actually interviewed someone from NIU’s administration. Or even just spend a couple of minutes reading this:
    http://www.niutoday.info/2014/…..-security/

    1. Hahaha! The IT guy in the photo went to my high school and graduated two years ahead of me.

    2. Hard for me to see how blocking *some* pages on Wikipedia jives with your border protection excuse.

    3. I read it. It basically sounds like he’s saying “if we’re blocking a website that you think is ok, let us know and we’ll get back to you.

      So if a student wants to do research on, say, some right-wing political movement, he has to disclose that to the administrators to try and get those sites unblocked? Or if he’s into some kinky porn, the same goes?

      That sure sounds like a recipe for chilling of free speech or free association.

    4. Statist always have a good excuse for taking away your personal liberties.

      Taking away your liberties via the Patriot Act is good for you because it helps keep you safe…and to speak out against that which takes away your liberties is unpatriotic! In fact, you must be with the terrorists!

      See how it works?

  27. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

    ???????????? http://www.jobs700.com

  28. 574 There are many styles derived, which are: the classic models, the youth will never fade RGB models, the Olympic rings models and so on. Each pair of shoes the color is determined by the integrity, and for 574, its color is compared under a trendy young vibrant.
    new balance shoes
    new balance outlet
    In fact, for us, more importantly, through their own personalized dress, give yourself a surprise, a moving, as well as a unique charm of their own, different colors can represent each of us one day is not the same mood. In addition, it is compared to the 996 version will be more movement and more giving a vibrant sense of youth.

  29. I agree, there is a huge difference between private employees and public college students. And you know an employee and a student can access all prohibited websites outside office or college. Very often students need assistance of custom dissertation writing service or consultation because they can’t get it from their own educators. I don’t believe that blocking access to sertain website will bring positive effect, as students have to decide on their own.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.