Campus Free Speech

UConn Students Fighting for Broader Free Speech Protections Face Backlash on Campus

Despite the outraged response from his peers, student Isadore Johnson is still optimistic about the future of free speech at UConn.

|

"The University of Connecticut is permitted to, and will, limit expression in order to protect public safety and the rights of others," states the university's official policy regarding campus speech, adopted in 2017. "This includes expression that is defamatory, threatening, or invades individual privacy. Protected speech may also be reasonably regulated as to the time, place, and manner of the expression."

To Isadore Johnson, a rising senior at the University of Connecticut (UConn), this didn't sound like a very free speech–friendly policy at all.

Johnson—a founder of UConn's Students for Liberty (SFL) chapter—delights in debating and befriending people he disagrees with across the political spectrum. So he was dismayed by the university's statement and worried it would be misinterpreted by students to shut down speech with which they disagree.

"I think many universities, including UConn, take it for granted that students appreciate the protections and values of open discourse and discussion," Johnson tells Reason. "Many students do not, and it is incumbent on the university to clarify and explain such values so students know what rights are protected. The right to argue vigorously and sometimes offensively is part of our civic culture, and students ought not be protected against that."

Johnson was determined to improve free speech rights on his campus, no matter the social cost. That commitment was put to the test after a statement he proposed to the student government to protect freedom of speech on campus created a storm of outrage from his peers.

The proposed statement on the freedom of speech and expression—submitted to the undergraduate student government last spring by Johnson, other members of the SFL chapter, and student body President Michael Hernández—was based on the well-regarded Chicago Statement. It includes quotes from free speech advocates across history, such as academic Michael Poliakoff and philosopher John Stuart Mill.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education said the students' "UConn Statement" employs "gold-standard free speech policy language" but nothing "groundbreaking." Nonetheless, Johnson and his friends received significant and sometimes vitriolic pushback from their peers on campus. 

In a number of public Instagram stories, opponents of the statement called Johnson, Hernández, and their friends racist, bigoted, and white supremacists because they did not care about "accountability."

"The backlash on campus surprised me," says Johnson. "I was of the opinion that many students on the surface enjoyed free speech, but didn't know much about it. I was somewhat uncomfortable getting threats, as I'm sure anyone would be. In particular, I found it especially surprising and troubling how the human rights organizations on campus remained indifferent if not hostile to our goal."

One Instagram message sent to him asked, "Can I call you a greasy haired cracker or is that not free speech?" Another contained a screenshot of a Google Images search for "cracker thats doing too much," followed by a video of an ISIS beheading.

More moderate opposition, as expressed by contributor Nell Srinath in an article in UConn's student newspaper, suggested the statement was unnecessary and a net negative. While stating that "freedom to safely express one's own thoughts and ideas is a central pillar to the culture that we as a student body would like to build," Srinath also warned that "frolicking around this idealist realm, however, will soon bring to light a sobering conclusion: The freedom of speech, when evoked by groups carried by centuries of racial capitalism and patriarchy (see: white cis men), is a euphemism. It does not represent a commitment to the liberties of their broader, multicultural community, but a call to a lost love — the ability to apologize for racism, transmisogyny, ableism and other social ills with impunity."

"Naturally," Srinath argues, "the consequence of [adopting the new speech proposal] would be forcing students to tolerate bigoted speech in their student government, in their learning environment and in campus life."

This spring, Hernández and his supporters officially pulled their legislation from consideration after they said that the undergraduate student government violated its own procedures to keep the issue from even being raised for a vote. One committee, Johnson says, went as far as to pack a committee meeting with opponents to keep the statement from being proposed. 

So Johnson turned the statement into a petition, posted it to Facebook, and received 139 signatures from UConn students and faculty within the first 10 days.

Hernández's support of the statement led to the student government approving a vote of no confidence against him as president. This made Hernández one of four presidents of the student government last year. Typically presidents serve for one entire year.

"I am not perfect but I care about our rights," Hernández told The College Fix on the issue. "One of my family members ran for mayor of a city in Honduras and was killed during the campaign trail for opposing the political orthodoxy. In much of the world speech is not free. On the contrary, some people have to pay for it with their lives."

The chaos caused the UConn administration to step in, sanctioning the student government and appointing an administrative monitor of the organization.

Going into the fall of his senior year, Johnson is still hopeful about the cause of freedom of speech at UConn, and is planning to use SFL to bring a number of speakers to campus to talk to students on the issue. He is also still promoting the UConn Statement via an Instagram page.

"I'm not sure exactly how this problem will be resolved, but I'm optimistic that it will be," Johnson says.

He hopes that by making people outside of campus aware of what is going on, donors and taxpayers who contribute to the school—not to mention Connecticut lawmakers—will listen and help make action happen.

"I think raising awareness about the problem is the first step to solving it," he says.

He tells Reason, "I understand that many libertarians are uncomfortable with the way that institutions like academia are functioning. Getting involved, even as an individual, can and does make a difference." 

NEXT: A Houston Man Framed on Drug Charges Is Suing the Lethally Corrupt Cop Who Sent Him to Prison

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.

  1. “In a number of public Instagram stories, opponents of the statement called Johnson, Hernández, and their friends racist, bigoted, and white supremacists because they did not care about ‘accountability.'”

    Awesome.

    It’s like every day we Koch / Reason libertarians get more evidence we totally made the right call when we explicitly allied with Democrats and progressives. I’d be willing to bet a lot of money those progressive UConn students agree with us on our defining issue — open borders.

    #LeftLibertarianismIsTheFuture

    1. It’s mostly just you, man. The rest of us are trying to protect people’s rights.

      1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in kSx the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

        See……………VISIT HERE

      2. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

      3. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

    2. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month.DEn I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

      You can check it out here……… VISIT HERE

  2. UConn Students Fighting for Broader Free Speech Protections

    *sigh*

    What are the Young Republicans going on about now?

    1. Freedom of speech and conscience is fascist, far-right nuttery. Only a practically Hitler could be anti-censorship.

    2. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable WDa but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

      Learn more about it here……. VISIT HERE

  3. To Isadore Johnson, a rising senior at the University of Connecticut (UConn), this didn’t sound like a very free speech–friendly policy at all.

    But ONLY to Isadore Johnson. To right-thinking people everywhere, a perfectly reasonable set of standards to constrain America’s young students who, let’s face it, are the future.

    1. It’s college, they’re adults.

      1. They weren’t beaten nearly enough by their parents. Plus the government schools did a number on the, growing up.

        Most college kids need at least one savage beating to teach them a valuable lesson about not fucking with other people.

  4. The proposed statement on the freedom of speech and expression—submitted to the undergraduate student government last spring by Johnson, other members of the SFL chapter, and student body President Michael Hernández—was based on the well-regarded Chicago Statement.

    So… was that the original one or the watered down second draft, man?

  5. “Student government” is the jokiest of all jokes. It’s absurd. Unfortunately, they do have the power to tax, and students have to pay a fee to the student government so they can print up fliers and shit to tell students how to think.

    1. They don’t really have the power to tax, do they? They don’t set student fees AFAIK.

      1. Many places they do.

      2. Yeah they do

    2. The problem is less their power to tax and more that it is considered a political / activist job qualification. This is a stepping stone for idiot left wingers, so whatever crazy they internalize at this point they carry forward into their future political activism.

  6. More moderate opposition, as expressed by contributor Nell Srinath in an article in UConn’s student newspaper, suggested the statement was unnecessary and a net negative. While stating that “freedom to safely express one’s own thoughts and ideas is a central pillar to the culture that we as a student body would like to build,” Srinath also warned that “frolicking around this idealist realm, however, will soon bring to light a sobering conclusion: The freedom of speech, when evoked by groups carried by centuries of racial capitalism and patriarchy (see: white cis men), is a euphemism. It does not represent a commitment to the liberties of their broader, multicultural community, but a call to a lost love — the ability to apologize for racism, transmisogyny, ableism and other social ills with impunity.”

    CRT is just a discussion about racism in American and the structural inequities we’re surrounded by and unwittingly contribute to.

    *lights a thai stick*

    1. I forgot to bold “the more moderate opposition”. If that’s the ‘moderate opposition” we’re truly fucked.

    2. This summarized is: freedom of speech is often invoked by people who don’t really care about it but rather want to protect themselves from social consequences of saying outrageous things about minorities, women, etc. You don’t think that’s moderate?

      1. Properly summarized:

        Freedom of speech is often invoked by bad people we believe don’t care about it but rather want to protect themselves from social consequences of saying outrageous things we declare as racist by viewing them through the lens of problematized discourse , therefore freedom of speech will be restricted by a board of like-minded individuals who will decide which speech is, and isn’t “free”.

        1. I think you had it up to here: “Freedom of speech is often invoked by bad people we believe don’t care about it but rather want to protect themselves from social consequences of saying outrageous things we declare as racist”

          As to the rest you added:

          “by viewing them through the lens of problematized discourse”
          No, at least a lot of the time it’s stuff that’s fairly widely seen as outrageous, no ‘problematized discourse’ necessary.

          “speech will be restricted by a board of like-minded individuals who will decide which speech is, and isn’t “free”.”

          The UC statement was pretty black letter speech law in the US: defamation, privacy, threats and time/manner restrictions are long standing exceptions.

          1. No it wasn’t. It was, itself a racist screed that singled out a population by the color of their skin and their sexual orientation as being something to be opposed.

            1. I was talking about the original UC policy statement, but I can see where I’m guilty of confusion there, you (and in part I) were talking about Srinath’s statement too.

              As to Srinath’s I think they should have used more qualified language, such as ‘often’, in that part. But that lack of qualification is, sadly, often lacking in our current political discourse.

          2. No, at least a lot of the time it’s stuff that’s fairly widely seen as outrageous, no ‘problematized discourse’ necessary.

            And a lot of the time it’s not. A lot of the time it’s “someone used that phrase 200 years ago to insult an Armenian, therefore you are racist.”

            The UC statement was pretty black letter speech law in the US

            The UC also tried to make it a violation of the code of conduct to point out that Affirmative Action is a system of racial preference. They got pilloried, which resulted in the policy to which you refer.

            1. Sure, sometimes people strain to see something as something that is widely outrageous, but there’s nothing new about that. I don’t think it would be good to move to where nothing was seen as outrageous, either.

      2. I mean, a lot of people who yell about the evils of ‘cancel culture’ are:

        1. People who don’t seem to care much about protecting speakers in other contexts (wanting athletes to be punished for taking a knee, threatening tv licenses, wanting to ‘tighten up’ defamation law, etc.,).

        and
        2. Often invoke free speech values exactly when they’re just facing outrage/backlash at something they said a la Walter Sobchak

        1. Such a delightful defense of the hecklers veto.

          1. How so?

          2. Analthea isn’t here for the hunting.

          3. If this doesn’t give away that QA is White Knight/Mike Laursen’s sockpuppet, nothing will.

          4. Nothing says ‘support of civil liberties and rights’ like the continuous support for policies and actions that degrade or remove those liberties and rights. Its selfish focus on a perceived need for safety, demonstrated in its irrational fears and insistence that others cater to its needs by masking says much. Much, and none of it good.

      3. You don’t think that’s moderate?

        Creating a double standard so you can judge people you hate differently than your allies is moderate? I suppose it is among the insane but among responsible adults it’s an obviously extreme and easily rejected position.

    3. Srinath’s “sobering conclusion” that white men defend freedom of speech so they can apologize for their racism, sexism and other bad behavior without being punished for it, is BS.

      People can be punished for bad behavior, and are, in nations with and without freedom of speech. And there’s other big holes in this argument, which is basically a racist (only applies to whites) and sexist (only applies to men) statement, falsely paints all whites as racists, and implies people of other races can’t be racist. Worse, it’s essentially a declaration of war against freedom of speech.

      As for going low, isn’t calling one sex of one race sexist, racist, ableist, and ill, going low? That’s the beauty of freedom of speech, it allows people to remove the euphuisms and say it clearly.

  7. So it’s been established that “the moderate opposition” is racist AND sexist at the same time. The Overton window is on the back of a freight train, moving due west.

    1. If they had said ‘often’ after ‘is’ and before ‘a euphemism’ would it still be? And if one word is so key you forgot the word ‘more’ in front of ‘moderate.’

      1. Quit pettifogging, White Mike.
        Your chicanery isn’t convincing anyone.

      2. GFY

  8. I’m not masochistic enough to read U-Conn’s entire speech policy, but I found this passage about what can be done if an incorrect speech happens on campus:

    “First, opportunities or programs to discuss or present alternative views can be made available so that a discussion of competing ideas can take place. This supports Justice Brandeis’s assertion, that “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” (Whitney v California, 1927) Second, community members who are negatively affected should have an opportunity to meet with community members who are speakers or program planners to share their perspectives about the speech and its consequences. These opportunities for sharing are not meant to necessarily result in mutual understanding but to provide a forum so that community members can express how they are affected or hear how their speech is affecting the others in the University.”

    Perhaps this is the part which “would be misinterpreted by students to shut down speech with which they disagree.”

    1. Is it the second part you’re referring to?

      1. Duh, of course I’m referring to the second part.

        If I left out the first part, the U-Conn defenders would be saying I was taking the second part out of context.

        1. Ok, I thought so but I wanted to make sure, you sometimes get pretty mad if you think I’ve assumed your position.

          So, the idea here is probably that

          1. A university is not just a place where people teleport to classrooms and have abstract discussions and then teleport away. They are also *communities* in the truest sense and that’s a value they offer (lots of the important stuff learned in colleges is learned outside of classrooms).

          2. As a community (if only of those whose tuition dollars we want to keep coming in!), when some are really insulted/outraged by the speech of another, we’d like for the latter to hear from the former what they think insulted/outraged them, and the former should get an opportunity to respond.

          3. This might help preserve the community values, but doesn’t *necessarily* restrict any speech.

          1. Or community cohesiveness (or maybe just ‘respect), better said.

          2. The fear was that this “would be *misinterpreted*” to justify disruption.

            It’s open to misinterpretation since it contemplates a face-to-face confrontation between the speaker and the people who don’t like the speaker’s ideas. It’s “not meant to necessarily result in mutual understanding but to provide a forum so that community members can express” blah blah.

            I’m sure that the administrators in their ivory towers would reject the idea that they’re endorsing disruption of speech, but how do you think the disruptors will take it? Especially if the campus cops are absent, or told to stand down?

            That’s why the petition asks for a specific commitment by the university to stop disruptions.

            And that, I hypothesize, is why the fascist element doesn’t like the petition.

            1. So you think that an organization shouldn’t have a provision that if some one or group in the organization is seen by another someone or group in the organization to insult/outrage them then the two sides should have to sit down and discuss it? That’s *necessarily* a restriction on speech?

              1. “Johnson—a founder of UConn’s Students for Liberty (SFL) chapter—delights in debating and befriending people he disagrees with across the political spectrum. So he was dismayed by the university’s statement and worried it would be misinterpreted by students to shut down speech with which they disagree.”

                I can’t speak for Johnson, but I did manage to find a section of U-Conn’s policy which could certainly be “misinterpreted” to allow “shut[ting] down speech.”

                1. Which is why a specific commitment to stop disruptors is a very good idea.

                  Will the offended group just pick up its bullhorns and picket signs and leave once it’s had a couple minutes to have their “discussion”? That’s what we have cops for.

                  Call it a paradox if you want, but sometimes free speech means having Taser-wearing cops telling would-be disruptors to allow a duly-scheduled speech to proceed – or face prosecution for the disruption.

                  1. Disclaimer – I think a lot of education can simply move online. Not all of it, but more of it than today.

                    And physical disruption of speeches would be less of an issue. *Speeches* would be less of an issue, because more students and “visitors” would be communicating…like we are, digitally.

                    But if the university schedules a live speech, it should protect the speaker, and that means arresting people if they don’t stop their disruption.

                2. Is this like a section of an anti-CRT law that could certainly be misinterpreted to allow shutting down of speech?

                  1. Cuz you’re on record with me here that we trust the courts to sort that kind of claim out, if it comes.

                    1. Would you mind giving a cite?

                    2. Or a link to my supposed statement.

                      My memory may be failing, because I’m trying to recall my exact phrasing about CRT.

                  2. You solemnly claim to have a “record” of my saying a certain thing. But when challenged, you fail to produce this “record.”

                    Are you one of the Kraken lawyers?

                    1. “Queen Amalthea

                      “August.20.2021 at 7:20 pm

                      “…you sometimes get pretty mad if you think I’ve assumed your position.”

                      In this particular instance, I’m not mad, but irritated…and somewhat disappointed in you.

                    2. “In this particular instance, I’m not mad, but irritated”

                      Mission accomplished then. Mike Laursen always activates his Queen Anathema sockpuppet when he wants to be cunty.

                    3. I don’t know if (s)he is Mike Laursen or not, I’ve seen him/her on Volokh. I wouldn’t call the behavior “cunty” by Reason standards, though that’s grading on a curve. To be sure.

                    4. But it’s difficult to see anything more productive than saying “but what about this thing I claim you said?” when

                      1) Generally I didn’t say it and

                      2) It hijacks the conversation away from anything remotely constructive.

                    5. “unproductive,” not “productive.”

                    6. “But on some unspecified occasion, you said something about Critical Race Theory, in an unverified statement which you’ll have take my word you said, so let’s not discuss student mobs disrupting regularly-scheduled speakers!”

                      Given what’s been happening at many universities, it would be a worthwhile precaution for any university to adopt a policy saying they’ll intervene to protect duly-scheduled speakers from disruption.

                      “But what about those poor teachers who are required to teach a specified curriculum? You conservative hypocrites should defend *them,* not worry about mob attacks!”

                      Because it’s truly a violation of free speech if teacher isn’t allowed, on government time, to teach that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that white people are bad. /sarc

                    7. Queenie isn’t here to be constructive.

          3. Are not the taxpayers of the Nutmeg State members of that community, however unwillingly?

            Privatize the University of Connecticut! At least then they’d belong in the current version of the Big East.

            Also, doesn’t calling the sports teams at Storrs Cow College Huskies smack of cultural appropriation? Shouldn’t that be retired to appease indigineous Alaskans? [/sarc]

  9. And this seems to be the key paragraph of the proposed free speech policy the petition is calling for:

    “Members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest the views of speakers who are invited to speak on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it”

    I hypothesize this is what is triggering the fascists – the prospect that they might get punished for disrupting a duly-scheduled speech they don’t happen to agree with.

    1. “triggering the fascists”

      Isn’t this article about brave libertarian/conservatives upset about the policy, and the ‘fascists’ are defending it?

      1. The fascists in my metaphor (not so very metaphorical in recent years) are the people disrupting regularly-scheduled meetings with which they disagree.

        1. If only conservatives and libertarians are worried about those things, then the whole world should be conservative and libertarian.

        2. Oh, so you started talking about something not going on in this article. Ok. It’s strange then that you would reference the policy from this article, but, ?

          1. “It’s strange then that you would reference the policy from this article”

            The article provides links to the U-Conn policy and the petition.

            These links provide information which isn’t detailed in the article.

            Such omissions often take place in Reason articles.

            See?

          2. This is a notorious Laursen trick when he’s losing. He suddenly declare that you’re no longer talking about the subject, but just a small part limited strictly to the article.
            It’s not even sophistry at the point, just pathetic.

  10. Oh yeah? What about Trump being censored on Facebook and Twitter? Reason never talks about that! They all voted for Biden! They wanted this to happen! And Ashli Babbitt! 230! Private corporations are arms of a fascist government run by Democrats! Aaaauuugghh!

    Think that covers it.

    1. sarcasmic
      August.12.2021 at 4:45 pm

      I only show up to watch the clowns duke it out, while tossing in this or that provocation. Bread and circuses. This is a circus.

      https://reason.com/2021/08/12/cdc-took-mistaken-data-on-delta-variant-transmissibility-from-a-new-york-times-infographic/#comment-9044167

      Piss off, troll.

  11. https://twitter.com/larryelder/status/1428797252928163840?t=8hyICAqI9iUFtmb2KVq5Cg&s=19

    In today’s LA Times.
    You’ve got to be real scared and desperate to play the race card against the brother from South Central.

    [Link-
    Column: Larry Elder is the Black Face of White Supremacy. You’ve been warned.]

    1. So that wasn’t you with the tannerite bomb.

      1. This gang is more Nardz style:

        87 locals charged in biggest gang bust in state history

        Police say 77 of them are a part of the Ghostface Gangsters street gang. It’s one of the fastest growing gangs in the country and a group mostly made up of white supremacists. The crimes range from attempted murder, drug trafficking, to aggravated assault to an officer.

        https://www.wrdw.com/2021/07/23/87-locals-charged-biggest-gang-bust-state-history/

        Nardz picture is the sixth one from the top left.

        1. One white supremacist crack dealer and 86 undercover FBI agents.
          I see Buttplug is super enthusiastic about the FiBBi’s and enforcing drug laws. But remember, he’s totes libertarian. Just ask him, he’ll tell you all about it.

          1. He’ll tell you all about in between watching kiddie porn and planning his next child rape.

      2. No, I’m not a fed.

        1. …just what a fed would say……

      3. What tannerite bomb, sarcasmic?

        You and Buttplug must have been devestated to have another cherished narrative go *poof*, and vanish in a cloud of fire extinguishers.

        Have another tallboy and smack the dog around a little. Pretend that it’s your wife.

        1. Stop calling his daughter a dog.

        2. EVERYONE called this false flag so quickly the media buried it as soon as he was “taken into custody”

  12. Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt exonerated in internal probe
    A Capitol Police memo obtained by NBC News says “no further action will be taken in this matter” after the officer was exonerated for use of force.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/capitol-police-officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-exonerated-internal-probe-n1277336

    Another wingnut talking point bites the dust.

    1. Remember from 2009 to 2016 when you used the WBNWI (Warren Buffett Net Worth Index) rather than GDP growth to prove Obama created the best economy ever?

      The WBNWI went up another $243 million today for a total of $16.2 billion this year.

      Biden is totally in the zone this week!

      #LibertariansForBiden

    2. You’re kidding, right? Facts don’t matter anymore. They will always believe that the election was stolen by Democrats, revere Babbitt as a martyr murdered in cold blood by a Democrat, and that masking, distancing and vaccinations are nothing more than a Democrat plot to take away all our freedoms. They’ve lost their minds.

      1. “Facts don’t matter anymore”

        Not for you anyway.
        An unarmed woman was shot and killed by a cop for doing exactly what hundreds of side-shaved lesbians did, not even a year before at the Kavanagh hearing.
        Yet here you two are, masturbating furiously, because Qualified Immunity is superb when the blood is spilt for orangemanbad.

        Fuck the pair of you evil cunts. Hope you two experience the same kind of justice Ashley did one day.

        1. The officer who shot an unarmed white woman is the only cop he has ever supported. She must remind him of his ex.

      2. Needs moar microchips!

    3. Yes, an internal investigation where the police exonerate one of their own. Yet they won’t publicly release the report or even the name of the officer involved! That just screams out transparency and confidence in their decision.

  13. the protest are good, but hard to say which is better, i know it affects the health

  14. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 4 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ago and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… Read More

  15. “The freedom of speech, when evoked by groups carried by centuries of racial capitalism and patriarchy (see: white cis men), is a euphemism. It does not represent a commitment to the liberties of their broader, multicultural community, but a call to a lost love — the ability to apologize for racism, transmisogyny, ableism and other social ills with impunity.”

    “The freedom of speech, when evoked by groups carried by centuries of anti-racial communism and women’s equity (see: Two-Spirits), is a euphemism. It does not represent a commitment to the liberties of their broader, multicultural community, but a call to a lost love — the ability to apologize for ignorance, suffering, murder and other social ills with impunity.”

    See how freedom of speech works?

  16. *This* is what happens when people get *free* sh*t from the government. Commie-education has become nothing but a breeding ground of miserable, careless, whiny spoiled brats ….. BECAUSE …. Gov-Grants, Loan Forgiveness, A whole slew of bureaucratic dictation.

    You don’t get this kind of mess when the people of any collective organization !!-PAYS-!! the pricetag for it and are held responsible. No-one would work for such idiocy.

    Get the Gov-Gun-Forces away from education.

  17. The newspaper contributor, Nell Srinath, perfectly summarized the hypocrisy of the progressive left – free speech is great, so long as it is my speech. Sadly, many of them don’t even realize they are hypocrites at all; they think they are ‘enlightened’ in the same way that Hitler thought he was ‘just.’

  18. We will limit your rights to protect your rights.
    Some people might have their feelings hurt if you speak the truth, so you’ve got to go.

  19. As this story illustrates, the left does not care about free speech because they already have it. They can call people anything they want.

    Speech codes like this are meant to silence any sort of dissent.

  20. i alrdy know and that is really true no hoax i know it 100%

  21. I find it odd that they claim they are against hate speech, but clearly and explicitly use racist and sexist language along with hate and even death threats.

  22. “The freedom of speech, when evoked by groups carried by centuries of racial capitalism and patriarchy (see: white cis men), is a euphemism. It does not represent a commitment to the liberties of their broader, multicultural community, but a call to a lost love — the ability to apologize for racism, transmisogyny, ableism and other social ills with impunity.”

    This is an interesting argument, mostly with regards to how this student reached such a tortured and contrived conclusion.

    The underlying logic, most likely, is that freedom of speech, like most Constitutional/natural rights, was never truly extended to all peoples. This is a true statement and few would debate it.

    The bizarre part is how that student decided that a defense of free speech serves as a front for more sinister bigotry. The current rules deny freedom of speech. You can’t say that greater protections enable bigotry when those protections actively counter the bigotry we see today. That’s a slippery slope if ever there was one.

    The last part clarifies precisely what that student’s intent was. They feel that unrestricted freedom allows you to be a horrible person, ergo freedom should be restricted. This person is an authoritarian. In terms of the death penalty, they suggest that everyone should be put to death, lest one guilty man walk free. Given a choice between hurting the innocent and failing to punish the guilty, they chose to hurt the innocent.

    Such people are psychopaths and should be avoided at all costs. Do not engage with their ‘arguments’ and never let evil take root.

    1. The funny part is that questioning racism, and the movement that gave us the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts could never have happened without the relatively recent expansive view of free speech which this student is condemning.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.