MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

New Poll: Most Students Favor Mandatory Trigger Warnings, Speech Codes

First Amendment is outdated, students say

Free speechDreamstimeA depressing new poll demonstrates the extent to which open contempt for free expression has become the default position of college students: a slim majority of surveyed students support regulating permissible speech on campus, and 63 percent believe trigger warnings should be mandatory.

That’s according to a forthcoming survey in New Criterion’s November issue, The Wall Street Journal reports:

To put some numbers behind that perception, The William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale recently commissioned a survey from McLaughlin & Associates about attitudes towards free speech on campus. Some 800 students at a variety of colleges across the country were surveyed. The results, though not surprising, are nevertheless alarming. By a margin of 51 percent to 36 percent, students favor their school having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty. Sixty-three percent favor requiring professors to employ “trigger warnings” to alert students to material that might be discomfiting. One-third of the students polled could not identify the First Amendment as the part of the Constitution that dealt with free speech. Thirty-five percent said that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech,” while 30 percent of self-identified liberal students say the First Amendment is outdated.

We should be clear about what these results mean. It is not merely the case that most students like trigger warnings and think responsible faculty ought to include them. No, students think trigger warnings should be mandatory. Their concerns about the emotional needs—real or perceived—of their classmates comes first; the faculty’s free speech rights come second.

Given the rest of the results, it’s worth wondering whether students’ plainly awful views on this subject are born of pure ignorance. It seems to me this oddly popular, patently false idea that hateful speech is an illegal category of expression might inform students' views on speech codes and trigger warnings.

It also seems clear that many young people—particularly liberal young people—see the First Amendment as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than a fundamental bulwark that safeguards their own rights. This is a significant social change; the ‘60s leftists, for instance, properly understood that advocates of radical ideas had to fight for unfettered expression for all in order to guarantee that their own views would be shielded from repression. But perhaps campus leftists can no longer imagine a world where their ideas are broadly vulnerable to censorship—they see the First Amendment as something that only racist, bigoted conservatives need.

Freedom of speech is not just one of many important freedoms, but a precondition for being able to recognize and articulate all others. Put another way, it’s the First Amendment for a reason. The fact that college students don’t think they need the sort of protection it offers—and in fact view it as a hindrance—is reason for great dismay.

Photo Credit: Dreamstime

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.

  • Citizen X||

    When none of these fragile children are employable in 10 years, it's going to be HILARIOUS.

  • ||

    The problem is, normal people will age and retire, leaving the workplace to these pantywaists. Then it's all their way, all the time.

    Hopefully I'll be retired by then. There's already a MASSIVE douchebag factor at my workplace because of all the Obamatrons that the White House sent us.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    They may start getting their way, until they realize that they don't necessarily agree on all things. Then they'll be racing to see who can claim victimhood first.

  • Señor Loco||

    Hopefully, I'll be dead by then.

  • Señor Loco||

    Hopefully, I'll be dead by then.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Have more respect for your rulers to be. (Not hilarious).

  • ||

    Except that they'll also be voting, which is less hilarious for the rest of us. Still, I'm not going to worry too much about a headline that really boils down to "college students say dumb shit in poll". People always say stupid crap in polls, and it doesn't always have a lot of connection to the rest of the world.

  • Free Society||

    They'll be voting and they'll pass bar exams and eventually sit as judges and run as politicians et cetera. This is problematic.

  • UCrawford||

    And it's college students...the know-nothings of the labor force. College students were just as stupid back when I was an undergrad, 25 years ago, as they are now. Eventually, though, they leave college and have to get jobs where people expect them to be able to *do* things and produce results and they'll either succeed or fail miserably and fall by the wayside.

    That's the wonderful thing about the free market...bullshitters only last so long before reality weeds them out. Except for the more cunning bullshitters who go into politics so they can leech off the public.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    But 25 years ago, less than 40% of college-age people were actually going to college. So they were a minority and had to step in a work-a-day world filled with people who never went to college.

    Now 60% of the age group does go to college and will enter a workforce with a growing number of participants who did go to college. Their concept of productivity will be a lot different than it was 25 years ago.

  • Lib Lib||

    What will be even more hilarious is when they get jobs, get promoted, and become our bosses.

    Oh sorry. I meant even more hideous.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    this, so much

    *goes back to quivering under the covers*

  • ||

    Dark. Age.

  • Lee G||

    Heresy!

    Apostasy!

    Blasphemy!

  • ||

    Progress.

  • ||

    Libertarian Moment!!!!

  • John||

    But they support gay marriage and legalized pot. This whole free speech stuff is just a distraction from the important issues.

  • PapayaSF||

    I'm increasingly worried that Reason is losing the war by focusing too much on less important (or outright trivial) battles. Yes, I understand that libertarianism covers many issues, and often writers write on topics they choose, but cripes, while covering every case of puppycide, the libertarian roots of the country are being undermined (if not dismantled).

    I think the real issues are things like the astonishing rise of "socialism" as a good thing. Not only among Democrats and independents: I saw a survey that said 11% of Republicans liked the word! WTF? Reason needs to get on the job and publish more articles demolishing the theory and practice of socialism.

    Another core battle we are losing is the rise of identity politics. (Also, the threat of mass Third World immigration into broke welfare states addled by the new God called "Multiculturalism," but I know I'm in the minority on that issue around here.) The left has now totally abandoned equality before the law as a goal. It's now equality of outcome. That's utterly corrosive and must be stopped and reversed.

    I know that Reason covers these things at times, but they are crucially important. As Napoleon said, the way to win a battle is to destroy the enemy at his strongest point. The strongest points of anti-libertarianism in the US today are beliefs in socialism and identity politics. Destroy those, and libertarianism might advance. Everything else is a side issue.

  • ||

    It's awesome when someone as xenophobic and identity-based as you whines about "identity politics". You *live* identity politics.

    Your self-unawareness is incredible. And you will now proceed to abjectly fail to recognize that as you whine that you aren't.

  • GILMORE™||

    yes, but is he wrong?

  • ||

    Uh, he's whining about there not being enough coverage of undermining of libertarian values...in the comments of an article talking about the possible majority undermining of free speech (and presumably libertarian) values.

    Doesn't that seem a bit absurd to you?

  • GILMORE™||

    I thought his point was more about the fact that there is a less-consistent focus @ Reason on these "Core Issues" like Free Speech...

    ...While wasting lots of print on the smaller-symptoms of the police-state (puppycide) or other miscellaneous Nanny State issues....

    i.e. that the emphasis tends to be to mildly moan about attacks on core-libertarian principles.... while spending lots of time focusing on things most people don't disagree terribly about (e.g. Cops shooting people too often is bad)

    I get that you think Papaya's frequent moaning about mexicans and sharia disqualifies him; but i think he raises a very good point = that this magazine generally seems to fiddle about trying to find overlap with the left on marginal issues, while generally failing to strongly-defend the most important principles of libertarian thinking.

    It seems that the most-vigorous writing in defense of free-speech is often coming from sources other than Reason. (*see Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic, versus Robby's first take on the Ant-Gay-Pizza kerfuffle)

    Not only soft on defense = Reason doesn't really do anything to point out the screaming flaws in US Lefty assumptions about European Social-Welfarism, or the utter insanity of populist identity politics, where suggesting "all lives matter" has become coded-racism.

    Basically i think he's right. You saying Papaya is goofy about mexicans is true, but besides the point.

  • Robby Soave||

    I can't even take this comment seriously. Free speech is certainly one of our most covered areas. Indeed, I write about little else. https://reason.com/people/robby-soave/all

    Conor is a terrific writer and libertarian voice; I can't overstate my respect for him. In fact, his take on the anti-gay pizza place was pretty similar to mine--he even cited me in his piece about it: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....ts/389273/

  • GILMORE™||

    "I can't even take this comment seriously."

    I can't even can't even.

    As if this is the first time its been noted.

    " I write about little else"

    Yes, and its seemed like you're constantly apologizing for doing so, lest anyone confuse you with those scum who say unpopular things.

    Re: Conor's shout-out to you .... was in reference to your piece on the indiana RFRA over-reaction... and didn't quite echo your piece on the Pizza-Parlor-shitshow....which went out of its way to =

    - specifically accuse a pizza parlor of being "Anti-Gay".... because someone who worked there offered an unpopular answer to a hypothetical question

    - suggested 'everything short of violence' is fair game as far as social-justice-mob-ostracism goes; that their goals were noble, if their methods 'not the best'

    - that ""Government's most vital function is to protect the rights of minorities""

    and so on.

    And never once was anything about "Freedom of Association" even mentioned. Because even if you disagree with the "reprehensible" views of the proprietor, its worth mentioning that they should have every right to refuse business for any reason.

    Which was exactly why I pointed out that Conor's piece was far more a full-throated rational defense of Free Speech, instead of tossing it a bone while throwing those exercise it under a bus.

  • GILMORE™||

    But then.... most of these same points were made back then...

    .... as was the comment that The Atlantic seemed to be providing "the more un-apologetically libertarian" of the arguments .... and was consequently cited as such, saving anyone at Reason the bother.

  • ||

    Hardly. If there's an occasion of something done right, why not ask there for more to be done right? That being said, he responded to John and expanded that. Even less absurdity in that. -- I'll leave your recursive absurdity aside.

  • John||

    Aren't you always saying the culture war is silly?

  • ||

    Who said a single thing about KULTUR WAR? Only you, it seems. Can you explain what your point was supposed to be?

  • PapayaSF||

    No, I don't "live identity politics." Objecting to multiculturalism is not "identity politics." Neither is pointing out that illegals burden our broke welfare state, and give California five extra electoral college votes.

    And stop misusing "xenophobic." A phobia is an irrational fear. It's entirely rational to prefer one's American culture over Latin American or Islamic culture. And as I've often said (and which gets ignored by the open borders maniacs): quantity matters. Some immigration is good, but you can always have too much of anything.

    And I'll bet that my neighborhood is at least as racially mixed as yours, if not more so.

  • ||

    Yeah, the way some people use "xenophobia" presupposes that anything new will be good. Not to mention that what they deem "new" often isn't even new. So they merrily err on both parts of the word.

  • PapayaSF||

    "Xeno" means "foreign" or "other," but yes.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Neither is pointing out that illegals burden our broke welfare state"

    No that's just innumeracy and ignorance on your part.

    " It's entirely rational to prefer one's American culture over Latin American or Islamic culture."

    True. Still not the government's job to support your culture.

    "Some immigration is good, but you can always have too much of anything."

    Not for you or the government to decide.

    Tell us how VDARE are totally reasonable people Mr. Not Racist. Tell us about the 'Muslim Colonization of Europe' while you're at it.

  • PapayaSF||

    You know, Cytotoxic, I always try to civil in online discussions, but I have had it with you calling me a racist. Fuck off, you self-important, Canuck asshole twerp. Don't respond to me unless you learn some manners, which you apparently never learned from your mother the whore.

    As for "innumeracy," half of immigrant families get welfare of some sort in the US.

  • DesigNate||

    Wait Cytotoxic , aren't you the same guy who rails about the evils of letting all the "refugees" immigrate into Europe?

  • MarkLastname||

    Hey! If you don't like 'murica, then you can git out!

  • Zeb||

    I think you are right about what the most important issues are (putting aside our disagreements about immigration).
    But one reason for putting so much into the side issues is that those are the issues that are likely to actually get somewhere and for which there are clear ways forward. And I also think that they are more likely to attract new people to libertarian ideas. It was drug policy stuff that set me on the path to where I am now politically.

    It would be good to see more coverage of the "socialism" stuff, and perhaps more about the harm done by over-regulation.

    The identity politics stuff seems to get pretty good coverage, largely through the reporting on college ridiculousness. But it's hard to know what to do about that besides hoping that enough people eventually get fed up with it and start to push back more as it encroaches on more and more people's lives.

  • GILMORE™||

    "side issues...are the issues that are likely to actually get somewhere "

    do you think that there will be any significant criminal justice reform in the next presidency due to "Libertarian" efforts?

    is the trend towards marijuana legalization is actually going to reduce the number of reasons police have to arrest people for 'weed-related' issues?

    will gay-marriage lead to a wider appreciation of freedom-of-association?

    Do you think pro-immigration views @ reason are going to produce something other than a Real ID type national policy?

    I'm curious what these "real ways forward" actually are

    "And I also think that they are more likely to attract new people to libertarian ideas. "

    Which raises the question = from 2008-to-now, has all the millenial-polling and focus on the "shared interests" between the left and libertarians.... produced anything in terms of Simpatico between the typical Slate/Salon/Gawker-Reader and libertarianism?

    Because it was during this period of time that i've seen the most heated and vicious demonization of libertarians in the left-leaning media.

    In short - i'm not buying the "libertarianism needs to sell itself better" thing.

    I think there are people out there who are already libertarians and dont' know it. they don't need to be 'sold'. My personal belief is that the magazine should probably put a little more effort into "Being" libertarian rather than trying to appeal to non-libertarians

  • SIV||

    Reason's favored immigration policy is going to double the number of armed agents of the state. MORE BORDER PATROL is written into any comprehensive reform proposal and the left loves increasing the federal work force.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I love how you can't actually fight Reason's immigration position, so you staple on some bullshit about an increase in the border patrol being a part of it no matter what.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes, yes, yes

  • GILMORE™||

    You do make an interesting point, re: the strategic approach leftists take vs. the way libertarianism seems to want to market itself.

    they spend all their time attempting to undermine the most important points of libertarianism - things like Free Speech, basic Economic liberty

    contrarily, publications like reason mostly spend their time nitpicking on policy margins, trying to find areas where "we agree" with the left = liberalization & reform of immigration law, ending the drug war, and reducing military interventions abroad...

    ...though despite this ....even when there is some superficial agreement about the headline-direction of any given policy, there remains serious fundamental disagreements about *Why* it should change, or *How*...

    ....because ultimately the left still wants their police-state to enforce the "good" laws (aka the ones that punish Wrongthink and Enforce Social Harmony, mandating Soft Carrots for all)... never mind their foreign policy worldview, which is closer to what people wrongly call "Neocon" in its belief that US power should be used for 'good' - aka, Policing the World

    I agree with you that the magazine would probably better-promote libertarianism overall by defending core economic principles while attacking the left on their own fundamentals - like Identity Politics and Control-Economics.

    I doubt that's happening anytime soon, however. Who is heir to Welch's throne?

  • Microaggressor||

    It's the socialism that scares me the most. As a Certified Millennial, I can't tell you how bothered I am by how popular Bernie is among my cohort. It's like he's god's gift to America, the Only Uncorrupt Politician who Truly Believes In His (retarded) Ideas. I'd like to see Reason do more hit pieces on him, rather than nodding furiously about how much they agree with regards to pot, Mexicans, and ass sex.

  • Zeb||

    Bernie doesn't agree on the Mexican issue, as far as I can see. He's a labor protectionist.

    It is scary how much support that man is getting. I retain a little hope that it has a lot to do with the complete awfulness of the rest of the candidates. Whatever gets me through the day, I guess.

  • ||

    That's because they haven't lived through socialism in practice. And even when they see it with their own eyes (ie Cuba, Venezuela) they manage to romanticize it.

    I think there's a belief that Grandpa Gulag is an 'American' style socialist ergo there's no way his policies would ever go as far as eroding basic liberties for the greater good.

    But this is PRECISELY what socialism is. To take liberty and collectivize it.

    It's not complicated people.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Grandpa Gulag

    Stolen. Appropriated. Borrowed. Whatever...

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Socialized?

  • Trigger Warning||

    I style thee Ser Threadwinner.

  • MarkLastname||

    To be sure, Ron Paul enjoyed a great deal of support from the youth, but that never got him anywhere near the white house.

    On the other hand, people naturally hate the incumbent system, even if it's a comparatively good system. And capitalism is the current system, as far as most millenials can see (that is, we are ostensibly less socialist than most other industrialized countries). Hence we are due for a change, no matter what. Even unprecedented prosperity of recent decades, consistently rising standard of living, etc. isn't enough to overcome generational malaise. And that's why we have young people falling head over heels for Bernie and his bullshit about the 'good old days' before the Koch bros, back when we all died before we were 60 and spent almost twice as much of our lives working at infinitely less pleasant jobs.

    So the way I see it, we're gonna have to do socialism for a while. Long enough for the next generation or the one after to see that the grass is not in fact greener, before people start moving back in the right direction. I really don't think there's any way around it. Except when it comes to technology, history is more cyclical than any generation likes to believe. And we may just be entering a socialist period in the cycle. Let's just hope a few decades of socialism doesn't fuck us up as bad as the Russians before we get the chance to recover from it.

  • ||

    The strongest points of anti-libertarianism in the US today are beliefs in socialism and identity politics. Destroy those, and libertarianism might advance. Everything else is a side issue.

    I agree with you in the context of the value Reason can bring to the liberty, rights and freedom discussions. I'd like to see more journalism dedicated to libertarian refutation of the truly abysmal social constructs being pushed by the right and the left, and a little less time spent on preaching to the choir.

  • ||

    There's something weird going on. Like everybody receiving new thoughts daily from the central program. I remember a few months ago multiple people (that don't really have much to do with each other) I knew confronted me with the same question within the course of a few days: "What's so bad about socialism, really?" I've encountered similar cases where numerous people suddenly start spouting off some new thought using precisely or very nearly the same language within a span of a couple days, sometimes astonishing things I would have never expected of them before.

  • MarkLastname||

    I believe those were called 'memes.' I mean, before 'meme' came to mean pictures of cats with bread on their heads and whatnot. An idea or thought or belief that got rapidly replicated through the population.

  • Swiss Servator||

    I came here to say this, but Kristen is quicker on the snark-draw.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    I hear she's using a Cross Breed™ rig - maybe you should check one out.

  • ||

    RAYCIS!

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    je m'accuse

    *bows head*

  • Jordan||

    It also seems clear that many young people—particularly liberal young people—see the First Amendment as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than a fundamental bulwark that safeguards their own rights.

    To be fair, that's how they feel about the entire Constitution.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, yeah! The only way to get anything done is with government, and that stupid Constitution puts limitations on what government can do! Since government is the people and the people are government, then the Constitution limits what the people can do! So the Constitution is in fact a constraint on all of society!

  • ||

    One of the fundamental characters of progressivism is that all things become legitimate targets of state interference. Constitutionism, common law, and so forth, must go. The problem with the royalists, was that most of them had adopted the Norman doctrine of the divine right of kings, which ended up placing royal authority also beyond any restraints.

  • Charles Easterly||

    I was in a very positive frame of mind....

  • R C Dean||

    I was still kinda hoping that the crazies were a fringe, and most students either didn't care or couldn't be bothered.

    The question isn't: will this lunacy collapse on its own. Of course it will. The question is: How much damage will it do before it is discredited.

  • PapayaSF||

    This kind of mass delusion can go pretty far before collapsing on its own. It needs a push, and Reason does some pushing, but not enough in the right areas. See my comment above.

  • ||

    Problem is that they've gone so deep into it that there's no easy way out of it anymore. There are generations of people that would have no idea how to regain any grasp of the reality principle. So, for them, collapse of the delusion means a decent into total chaos with no ability to even feed themselves, and so deeper is the only viable option.

  • John||

    If society at large doesn't value freedom, you are not going to remain free for very long no matter how good your constitutional and legal protections. These nasty little retards are going to be in positions of authority some day. They will be judges and legislators. The Left, by taking over the education establishment, has created an entire generation of utterly ignorant and oppressive minions.

    I would like to think they will get smarter as they get older, but I honestly can't see that. The left by denying them an education, has effectively denied them the ability to think. What is worse, is when reality finally does hit them in the face, thanks to our completely broken education system, they are unlikely to have the reasoning skills to interpret and understand what is going one and will lash out or follow any nasty demagogue who comes along offering an explanation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not everyone is as stupid as Tony.

  • John||

    True. If this poll is to be believed, however, the majority of those under 25 apparently are.

  • sarcasmic||

    They only know what they've been taught, and they haven't learned how to learn yet. Some like Tony never learn how to learn, but like I said not everyone is that stupid.

  • Free Society||

    I've learned not to underestimate the overwhelming propensity of everyone around you to be fucking stupid. Especially where it concerns issues of law and society.

  • ||

    "They only know what they've been taught, and they haven't learned how to learn yet. Some like Tony never learn how to learn, but like I said not everyone is that stupid."

    yeah, because they have never spent any fucking time moving through space governed by natural laws... This is bullcrap. In earliest childhood one has to come to grips with reality to function at the minimallest level. It's not something that a person needs to be taught. Rather, these folks must have spent a lot of effort obliterating any awareness of the reality principle from their strategies of living. It takes a lot of work to get that stupid.

  • Raven Nation||

    What is worse, is when reality finally does hit them in the face

    One of the major goals of the PC/Trigger warning et al campus movement is to re-design reality. This is why academics don't deal with "what will happen when students hit the real world." The goal is to re-make the world into the mold of college campuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    The goal is to re-make the world into the mold of college campuses.

    A bunch of drunks having sex with complete strangers? I can live with that.

  • R C Dean||

    The goal is to re-make the world into the mold of college campuses.

    Which are rife with sexism, racism, incompetence, immaturity, fraud, waste, and all-around abuse.

    And don't get me started on the students.

  • Raven Nation||

    Hmm, allow me to re-phrase: the goal is to re-make the world into the mold that academics believe campuses to be - or will soon be.

  • Jerryskids||

    Drunks having sex with complete strangers may describe the larger part of the campus community, but the dweebs taking this shit seriously are our future political leaders. Well, your future political leaders, I'll be long dead before the next wave of sanctimonious do-gooders start making your life a living hell in the name of saving your soul from eternal damnation.

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    RAPE DENYERZ!!!1!!!11!!!

  • Rasilio||

    Yeah but don't forget that every one of those drunken hookups will be considered rape should the female in the pair ever decide she was less than happy about the encounter

  • Lib Lib||

    "A bunch of drunks having sex with complete strangers? I can live with that."

    That is so '90s. Now drunks having sex with complete strangers is something that colleges (nay, college students) censor and condemn.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And like I say below, what do they think happens when they get rid of all those icky protections and find those in power have a different idea in mind about how they want society modeled?

  • GILMORE™||

    " what do they think happens when they get rid of all those icky protections"

    Duh, then they can Ban all the Wrongthink and no one will ever have bad thoughts ever again. And Top Men Shall Rule With Wisdom. The End.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And if they decide the Top Men aren't wise, well, a rifle butt in the teeth usually clears up that misconception.

  • Libertymike||

    John, your first sentence echoes Learned Hand.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Of course, these imbeciles assume that they'll be the ones holding the whip. It never occurs to them that "those people" might some day come to power and that it might wind up their faces getting stomped on. And their trashing of people of goodwill who disagree with them will make it all the likelier that, when their opposition comes to power, it will be just such people.

    In principle, I'd like to think I'd oppose it. But, I can't help but wonder how much sense it makes to stick one's neck out for the liberty of totalitarians.

  • R C Dean||

    Me today, you tomorrow.

    As with all Iron Laws, lost on the proggy crypto-totalitarians.

    I can't help but wonder how much sense it makes to stick one's neck out for the liberty of totalitarians.

    Reminds me of Tony's take on libertarians trying to deny him the freedom of running everyone's life, and punishing those who displease him.

  • ||

    It's not all doom and gloom; my daughter is a millennial and argues with her peers at every turn. She also recently had a showdown with the school board over some of the worthless crap they were trying to pass off as curricula. She's as pissed off as I am at most of the PC shit that's being force fed to her family and has grown quite resistant to its' effects.

    So, there are rational, thinking, resisters out there.

  • TheseusTheGreek||

    Don't trust anyone under 30.

  • sarcasmic||

    nice

  • Raven Nation||

    +1 Logan's Run - movie version.

  • Almanian's Rusty Woodchipper||

    Reading this just makes me appreciate my three kids all the more - they are the opposite of these wusses. #1 son is the last in college - he's becoming smart at avoiding the derp while not giving in.

    It makes me proud....

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

  • Bern-o-Matic 5000||

    Well done, sir. I truly fear for the world of derp that my children will be entering.

  • Jerryskids||

    This is a significant social change; the ‘60s leftists, for instance, properly understood that advocates of radical ideas had to fight for unfettered expression for all in order to guarantee that their own views would be shielded from repression.

    Citation needed.

    Some people who happened to be leftists advocated free speech for all. Plenty of leftists concern wasn't over unfettered expression, it was merely a concern of who got to do the fettering. i.e., they favor free speech not as an end in itself, but merely as means to achieve other ends.

  • B.P.||

    I agree, but you just made my browser explode.

  • SusanM||

    OT: Sorry to interrupt the rant about how 30% of students (or "most" as Rico would say) don't know about the Constitution, but this little tidbit on Ben "Docta Pimp Hand" Carson may amuse:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-.....nald-trump

    On NBC, Carson continued: “I am soft-spoken. I do have a tendency to be relaxed. I wasn’t always like that. There was a time when I was, you know, very volatile. But, you know, I changed.

    “As a teenager, I would go after people with rocks, and bricks, and baseball bats, and hammers. And, of course, many people know the story when I was 14 and I tried to stab someone. And, you know, fortunately … my life has been changed. And I’m a very different person now.”
  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Choco-Cheney?

  • Swiss Servator||

    I larfed.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Or this bit on Dr. Carson, which should ensure he never sniffs the GOP candidacy, never mind the White House.

    Ben Carson: I Would 'Love' to See Abortion Law Overturned

    Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson said he would "love" to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, making abortion illegal nationwide, with almost no exemptions.

    "I'm a reasonable person and if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I'll listen," Carson said on Meet the Press.

    While the Republican candidate said he opposes abortions for unwanted pregnancies and in cases of rape and incest, the retired neurosurgeon told moderator Chuck Todd he might be open to allowing abortions to preserve the life and health of the mother.

    "That's an extraordinarily rare situation," Carson said. "But if in that very rare situation it occurred, I believe there's room to discuss that."

    What the fuck? I swear to God, the GOP are fucking zombies, racing to throw themselves on land mines whenever some reporter asks them about abortion.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I mean, do they enjoy writing off 70% of women from voting for them? How hard is it to say that, at the most, it's a state-level issue, Roe is currently the law of the land, and that other issues are more important, like [launch into stump speech]?

  • ||

    Also, do politicians (of all stripes) not know that you can't "overturn" a Supreme Court decision? It's not like you can say "We took a vote, and now the Supreme Court said something different." The best you can do is try and write a law that works within what the SC said was acceptable. (Or wait for enough justices to die and be replaced.)

  • GILMORE™||

    "do politicians (of all stripes) not know that you can't "overturn" a Supreme Court decision?'

    Maybe. But they sure as hell know that the general public *doesn't*.

    "The best you can do is try and write a law that works within what the SC said was acceptable. (Or wait for enough justices to die and be replaced.)"

    I think the technical trick is to file a suit that shows that "What the SC said" was flawed the first time around and requires revisiting.

    Mere death/replacement of certain justices doesn't mean the court can just up and vote on whether old-laws are No Good anymore.

  • GILMORE™||

    Does Dr. Ben have to choke a bitch?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    New Poll: Most Students Favor Mandatory Trigger Warnings, Speech Codes
    First Amendment is outdated, students say

    I'll just um, go be depressed now. Thanks America.

  • ||

    Uh, since polls are shit--always--I'd be interested in seeing the specific questions asked, as always. Because I have a feeling the pollsters were looking for a particular, depressing result that seems to have worked damn well.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Quiet you! I am too busy being depressed to worry about methodology, push polling and such!

  • Microaggressor||

    Yeah, I'm wondering what the response rate was.
    Methinks most of the kids who don't give a shit about hurt feelings didn't respond.

  • Rhywun||

    And I was wondering if the results are any different from what would have been reported 10 or 20 years ago. Which I guess is another way of saying that I also believe polls are shit.

  • ebohlman||

    I remember a poll from around 10 years ago that found that most high-school students thought that news outlets should have to get government approval before running with a story. Today's college students are just slightly younger than them.

    Agreed that the results aren't very meaningful without a comparison group. Also, most research suggests that most students' basic attitudes don't change very much during college, so what's happening is probably not indoctrination; more like administrative complicity with pre-existing attitudes.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It also seems clear that many young people—particularly liberal progressive young people—see the First Amendment as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than a fundamental bulwark that safeguards their own rights.

    Fixed.

  • R C Dean||

    Oopsie. I think you misspelled "fascist" in your correction.

  • Zeb||

    Same thing, isn't it?

  • CatoTheChipper||

    The whole "trigger warning" is just another ridiculous example of disclosure requirements. In a sane world, it would be trivial to satisfy this concern of children entering college. The application to the college need only disclose that students may find the lectures and coursework to be disturbing or challenging to their views of the world. The disclosure should also provide explicit warnings that sensitive children and delicate flowers should apply elsewhere. Of course, the disclosure would have to be drafted by lawyers, so it would probably be as long as, say, the Apple iTunes agreement. Of course, applicants would be no more likely to study the disclosure than they did their Apple iTunes agreement. But, by signing off on the disclosure, the whining children would forfeit the legitimacy of any complaint regarding "triggering". However, I'm sure that the whining children would eventually argue that they lacked the capacity of adults when they signed off as having read and understood the disclosure.

  • Gray Ghost||

    I'm sure that the whining children would eventually argue that they lacked the capacity of adults when they signed off as having read and understood the disclosure.

    +1 25 year-old on parents' healthcare plan.

  • Loki||

    Of course, the disclosure would have to be drafted by lawyers, so it would probably be as long as, say, the Apple iTunes agreement. Of course, applicants would be no more likely to study the disclosure than they did their Apple iTunes agreement.

    And then they'll all be in for a big surprise when they end up the middle link in a Human Cent-iPad.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I don't really know much about statistics, but is 800 out of 17.5 million a sample size that you can draw a reasonable conclusion from?

    Also, how were the questions worded?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    In Mandarin, hopefully.

  • R C Dean||

    That's a big enough sample size, I believe. The sample size translates to the margin of error, really, and most surveys with a margin of error of under 4% or less have samples in that neighborhood.

    And, its odd, but above a certain relatively small sample size (if memory serves, in the low thousands), you really don't increase the accuracy of your survey in the US.

  • ebohlman||

    True; the only reason for using a sample larger than 1000 or so is to have an acceptable margin of error for subgroup analysis (e.g. if you wanted separate results for men and women, both with 4% MOE, you'd need around 2000).

    That's for political/attitudinal polling. If, say, you were trying to determine the prevalence of a rare disease, you'd need to examine tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

  • brady949||

    That's kind of how polls work.

  • grrizzly||

    800 participants should be sufficient.

    http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

    How many people are there in the group your sample represents? This may be the number of people in a city you are studying, the number of people who buy new cars, etc. Often you may not know the exact population size. This is not a problem. The mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining. This means that a sample of 500 people is equally useful in examining the opinions of a state of 15,000,000 as it would a city of 100,000.
  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    Assuming the sample is a fair representative of the whole. As always, cherry picked responders will skew the data.

  • Zeb||

    That's always the big question. Even if subjects are chosen entirely at random, anyone can decline to respond, which could mean some kind of self selection bias.

  • SugarFree||

    And the fear that your responses might get out and your job prospects are destroyed by Tumblrellas.

  • GILMORE™||

    National "omnibus*" polls done by news orgs or people like Pew, etc are typically done with a sample size of about ~3,000 qualified respondents to describe 'general opinion' of 300m+ Americans...

    *i.e. when measuring "general opinion" on broad topics across a diverse population .... as opposed to trying to establish specific sub-group opinions and qualitatively break them down further

    Meaning, for something as broad and simple as "support for X"... yes, a sample of 800 isn't at all necessarily insufficiently robust to describe the prevailing views of 17m college students. 1000+ would be better, but only if they were also trying to split out the differences between students by State vs. Private schools, or by Major

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    but only if they were also trying to split out the differences between students by State vs. Private schools, or by Major

    Or by triggerability.

  • lap83||

    Also, how were the questions worded?

    I was curious about this too. I don't put a lot of stock into polls. Most of them are so manipulative.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So I think that we can in fact conclude, that 800 was too many.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Most Students Favor Mandatory Trigger Warnings, Speech Codes

    Most students also in debt up to their eyeballs.

    I'm pretty sure the inability to handle simple consumer finances goes hand in hand with the disdain for free speech and property rights.

  • Free Market Socialist $park¥||

    I'm thinking this whole thing is just going to have to play itself out and come to its own natural conclusion. The ship has been set in the channel and there's no turning it around. The best bet is to speed it up and come out the other side faster.

    As Agent Smith said, like the dinosaurs, our time is done. Now it's their time.

  • Matrix||

    Communists and socialists invaded and took over academia decades ago, pushing this extreme statist and hard leftist bullshit.

    I think it's about time that libertarians started to invade and take over academia.

  • ||

    Marxists are more organized than libertarians.

    I think.

  • Sevo||

    And we're not promising free shit, either.

  • ||

    And libertarians don't see themselves on some kind of holy mission from God like the Marxists do. But what the fuck good is the Academia ne ways? Burn it down and be done with it.

  • Rich||

    30 percent of self-identified liberal students say the First Amendment is outdated.

    30 percent of self-identified liberal students should be rounded up for engaging in HATE SPEECH!

  • Rich||

    63 percent believe trigger warnings should be mandatory.

    "By matriculating at this institution, the undersigned understands that xi may hear, see, and/or experience some upsetting shit."

  • JW||

    When they first came for the simpering dolts, I said nothing, because I didn't want to trigger them.

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    The article says something about the efficacy of "Social Studies" classes, doesn't it?

  • ebohlman||

    I think what it really says is that education doesn't change people's basic attitudes and values as much as many think. For example, people who graduated from college are, in general, less religious than people who didn't. A lot of people interpret that as meaning students "lose their religion" in college, and either think that's a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. But most actual research suggests that students' religious beliefs don't change much from the beginning of their first year to the end of their last year. The same applies to findings that college graduates tend to be more liberal than non-graduates.

    The key reason for this is that college students are a self-selected group, one who have decided to pursue more education than they're legally mandated to. All kinds of personality and attitudinal factors enter into that decision. For example, someone whose personality makes it very uncomfortable for him to admit to himself that there are lots of things he doesn't know is unlikely to make that decision, and those same personality traits are also likely to make rigid/doctrinaire religiosity and hardline conservatism attractive to him.

    Thus (stereotypically), the Right fears that college will indoctrinate kids into leftism and the Left hopes that it will, but they're both mostly wrong.

  • ||

    I hope these kinds of numbers are remembered when Bernie goes on his "free" college spiel. Even if the cost to taxpayers was somehow nil, why would we want to produce more of these little authoritarians?

  • John||

    I think Gilmore and Papya make good points above. The problem this magazine and many Libertarians have is two fold; they don't understand the limits of reason or the importance of culture in shaping a person's reasoning. Libertarians often think their positions are self evidently reasonable and anyone can be persuaded by them if only they are reasonable. This is not true. Reason is value neutral. You can "reason" anything provided you start with the right assumptions. And your assumptions in the political and moral context come primarily from your culture. Libertarians often fail to grasp this. Freedom and limited government appeals to Libertarians come from a culture and have a set of underlying assumptions that makes them reasonable and appealing. If they had a different culture and set of assumptions, small government and freedom would not appeal to them.

  • John||

    Leftists have an almost feral grasp of the importance of culture that Libertarians don't. Worse, Libertarians rarely understand how Leftists view culture. Libertarians are classical liberals. They see a distinction between the personal and the political. Leftists are totalitarian and don't see such a distinction. As a result leftists are constantly duping Libertarians into undermining their own culture and causes, most often by getting Libertarians to embrace the faux values of tolerance and equality. A libertarian hears "tolerance" in the political context and thinks "yes, the government ought not be running people's lives and should be tolerant of whatever choices people make". What the libertarian doesn't understand is that the leftist doesn't see the distinction between the person and the government. So when a leftist hears "tolerance" he sees it as a value that everyone should adopt or be forced to adopt if they won't do it voluntarily. This of course is totally antithetical to freedom. Libertarians often don't see that and thus can't understand that what might be a short term gain in personal freedom in the long term undermines freedom if it is done for the wrong reasons.

  • John||

    Two good examples of this are gay rights an abortion. Taking the issue of when life begins out of it, legal abortion is in immediate terms, an increase in freedom. Indeed, if we have legal abortion because the government and society recognizes the importance of individual autonomy, it is a very important part of being free. If, however, we have legalized abortion not because of any general recognition of personal autonomy but instead because we don't think women should not have to face the consequences of their actions, in the long term it is antithetical to freedom. The same thinking that gave us legalized abortion gives us welfare and the general erosion in the value society places on personal responsibility.

    Gay rights are the same way. If the principle is gays should like everyone have a right to live in peace free from government interference, gay rights is an important advancement of freedom. If, however, gay rights are protected because everyone has some generalized right to acceptance by society, gay rights becomes a weapon of oppression.

    The Left is devious and brilliant about taking what should be gains in freedom and turning them into either weapons of oppression or to use in undermining society's culture and commitment to freedom. And Libertarians sadly are often useful idiots in that cause.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I would agree, except (I bet you didn't see this coming) that I don't see legalized abortion as *ever* expanding the scope of freedom. Legalizing abortion is a type of outlawry - taking away a human being's right to legal protection for his or her life. 800 years ago, King John was forced to recognize that arbitrarily taking away a free man's right to legal protection of his life, is oppressive and evil. Since then, this principle has expanded from free men to all human beings. Arbitrarily taking away someone's right to the legal protection of his life is the same as arbitrarily taking away his or her life.

  • John||

    Take the issue of human life out of it. Assume that life begins at birth. Then you see my point. I am not talking about the when life begins issue.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    I see your point about libertarianism versus leftists and how the former can be manipulated by the latter.

  • R C Dean||

    Very nicely put, John.

    And this is why it drive me nuts when libertarians uncritically accept the premises of the proggy crypto-totalitarians. Once you accept their premises, reason will drive you to agree with their conclusions.

    Don't do that.

    I get why Reason wades into the culture wars so much, I really do. My fear is that, in seeking to use hot-button culture war issues to engage new people in our debate, Reason feels compelled to ease the newbies into libertarianism by accepting the premises of the enemies of liberty. Less "Rape culture is a problem, and here's why the proggie fascist approach is bad" and more "Rape culture is not a problem. Snap out of it.", please.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    There seems to much more of a focus on reaching out to the cultural leftists and little or no focus on reaching out to the SoCons.

    Indeed, it's as if the Reason writers go out of their way to signal their disgust at SoCons - "ewww, icky, get it off me!"

    This is all the more unfortunate because (a) on more and more issues today the SoCons are (say what you will of their motives) on the "libertarian side," and (b) beyond that, many of the philosophical views of the SoCons are pro-freedom as a general rule, even if you think they make too many exceptions (porn, drugs, defense).

    Generally, you will find SoCons supporting liberty except for certain issues, and SoLibs supporting the state except for certain (rare) issues.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    Eg, the SoCons tend to believe in the free will and the accountability of human beings (not a lot of genuine Calvinists nowadays). Your leftist is more likely to talk about social conditions and use scare quotes around "individual responsibility."

  • Notorious UGCC||

    You want to get a laugh in a SoLib audience? Just talk, in a sarcastic tone, about "all those Republicans who think we should pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps - just pull you pants up, get a haircut and a job, and everything will work out! [laughter] You know, like those millionaire Koch brothers who inherited all their dough! [laughter and applause]."

    Or mock "those rich one percenters who say they shouldn't pay so many taxes because they quote-unquote earned their money - what about the teachers and blah blah?"

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    I'd be happy with: Rape Culture - see "Sharia Law" or "Correctional Officer's Union". But that flies in the face of cultural diversity and the all-powerful-and-benevolent government.

    For all intents and purposes, "compulsory education" - aka brainwashing - is really the same thing as "intellectual rape".

  • Sevo||

    "...One-third of the students polled could not identify the First Amendment as the part of the Constitution that dealt with free speech...."

    Needs more data; how many of these kids were 'educated' in gov't schools?

  • Wizard with a Woodchipper||

    Thank you, public school indoctrination.

  • wef||

    I'd bet there is not much "significant social change." It’s more superficial, a decay of a myth. First, half the population will forever be of less than median intelligence. And the bulk of the population has always been a gullible, slavish mob; the young are particularly credulous. Note that the percent of the population enrolled in college has increased steadily, drawing in an ever greater proportion of philosophically shallow and uncritical dullards. And more provocatively, the percentage of 18- to 24-year-old women enrolled in college has more than doubled since Robby's halcyon 1960s. Women now outnumber men in enrollment (have since early 1990s). Oh, and taxpayers and foolish parents today support a bloat run by officious bullies, padded with bullshit fields, staffed by a commensurate professoriate of mediocrities.

    Outside some rare spaces for a few, universities were never generally havens for some Socratic ideal of intellectual inquiry. Still the (patriarchal!) elite ran academe and power worshipers repeated the fiction, for a while. Today’s mass university is not viewed as an enclave of intellectual freedom: students are more representative of the mass, and cynical professors and admins know that superstition and gooey ecumenicalism sells, as usual. So unsurprising that the habits of censorious mobs in the broader society, once relying on religious bs and community standards, now are to be found on campus, relying on social justice bs and community standards.

  • ebohlman||

    The trouble with this analysis is that the problem seems to be far worse at elite schools of the sort that attract the same general kind of student that they did 50 years ago. You don't see much of it at community colleges or lower-tier institutions that mostly enroll students who wouldn't have been considered college material in earlier times.

    I suspect that what's going on is that today's elite students have spent their whole lives being micromanaged in an attempt to get into elite schools, and as a result they're unable to appreciate freedom because they've never had a chance to experience it. In fact, they're scared of it. For example, they've never experienced the process of making friends because their parents always picked their friends for them. So now they fall apart when they encounter people who, while not nasty to them, simply aren't interested in striking up a friendship. In the environment they grew up in, that was considered "bullying" and they were supposed to run to adult authorities when that happened (bullying is a genuine problem, but it doesn't encompass ordinary interpersonal rejection).

  • OldMexican||

    We should be clear about what these results mean.


    It means college is officially more fun than ever now that you can piss off many more students at once!

    Let's bring back Bertolt Brecht!

  • Notorious UGCC||

    To dissolve the students and elect a new one?

    Or to produce an in-your-face ideological play?

  • solution||

    20% of those at Yale are Asian and 27% are Jewish. Could a cultural factor be at work here?I'd like to think this isn't representative of most young people.

  • solution||

    So it doesn't seem like I'm engaged in mere bigotry or trolling, here are two articles to consider (one by an Asian woman, the other by a Jewish woman):

    http://www.apa.org/science/abo.....brief.aspx

    http://www.therebel.media/when.....n_t_get_it

  • solution||

    From a less respectable albeit more detailed source: http://www.theoccidentalobserv.....ee-speech/

    I'm just saying this: let's not give up hope.

  • GILMORE™||

    Only racists reply to their own comments

  • ebohlman||

    I don't believe the survey was restricted to Yale students.

  • Loki||

    Let's hear the one about how the millenials are the most libertarian generation EVAH and how thanks to them the "libertarian moment" will happen any moment now. That joke never gets old.

  • Free Society||

    The millennials as a group might have more libertarians in their midst than previous generations. But they also have far far more tyrants, nannies and intolerable douchebags in their ranks than any other generation. And as a group, the ratio of pro-liberty versus pro-tyranny is probably further in the pro-tyranny camp than any other generation.

    It definitely doesn't add up to a libertarian moment.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I can't get a handle on millennials other than to say the ones I've talked with aren't deep thinkers and seem to react with the herd. I think their education has failed them.

  • GILMORE™||

    "I think their education has failed them.'"

    Or that its masterfully achieved its purpose.

  • Loki||

    the ‘60s leftists, for instance, properly understood that advocates of radical ideas had to fight for unfettered expression for all in order to guarantee that their own views would be shielded from repression. But perhaps campus leftists can no longer imagine a world where their ideas are broadly vulnerable to censorship—they see the First Amendment as something that only racist, bigoted conservatives need.

    I'm pretty sure now that a lot of their ideas are mainstream they see an opportunity to shut down their political opponents, now that those EVUL conservatives are the out group. Nothing gets progressives harder than the thought of getting some good old fashioned pay back for perceived slights.

    I say "perceived slights" because these shitheels were born after the '60's and have never seen or experienced anything even remotely resembling real oppression, they're just desperate to be able to claim victimhood.

  • Cytotoxic||

    1) Response rate? Non-response by people who don't care will make these results look uglier than they are.

    2) There is a need to 'de-college' America so we can produce less bullshit and increase mass immigration to wash the bullshit we have out. Ending college subsidies should be even higher on the Libertarian agenda than ending Ocare.

  • John||

    What makes you think people immigrating are going to think any differently? Very few places on earth protect speech and very few cultures outside of ours value it.

  • wFt||

    So 267 of these 800 students do not know what the First Amendment is, and another 240 [who presumably do know what it is] think it is outdated. That's totals 63% of the respondents.

    Holy shit. People,a lot of people, died for that [and suffer all over the world to this day for lack of it]; and just so these mollycoddled emotional infants can discount it like so much chaff.

    Fuck it; I'm moving to the woods.

  • Nicholas||

    Article should be re-titled "Poll finds most students are sensitive and sheltered little p*ssies"

  • JoeCorrao||

  • ||

    People love to slam Millenials for their ridiculously thin skins and totalitarian leanings. I believe that Millenials are what our culture has made them. After a quarter century of political correctness indoctrination, what else can we expect?

  • Giulio Prisco||

    As others have noted, this is very disturbing because this generation will hold power in a couple of decades.

    "But perhaps campus leftists can no longer imagine a world where their ideas are broadly vulnerable to censorship - they see the First Amendment as something that only racist, bigoted conservatives need" is probably the right interpretation of this trend - they think they can't be victims of oppression, so they feel they can oppress others safely.

    They have forgotten the lesson of First They Came... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
    Perhaps the world needs periodic reminders of that lesson, which is too bad because such reminders tend to be painful.

  • Andrea Ostrov Letania||

    Boomers opened the gates of libertine anarchism among the young.
    They reveled in it themselves.

    But once they got old and filled positions of power, they got frightened by young people acting out of control.
    So, they filled young minds with all these fears, and those fears gave the boomer authorities the justification to enforce policies to control the young who, since the 60s, lost their sense of respect for authority.
    PC is sold as protecting the weak and young from the powerful but it is really meant to protect the powerful and well-connected from the everyone else. (Jews esp support PC in the name of protecting blacks from the KKK, but it's really to shield Jewish power from any challenge.) If you fill up minds with fears, the people will ask for protection and give up their own rights & freedom. The powerful that is providing the 'protection' gains the real advantage.

    This was the dynamic of the cold war and war on terror.
    In both, the powerful made the people fear that they were gonna be attacked by communists or terrorists.
    Filled with fear, the people wanted protection and were willing to give up their rights and liberties for security.
    In the end, the powerful benefit since the people submit to its authority for providing the protection.

    The great irony is that the boomers and the Jews who once called out on stuff like McCarthyism are now the powerful who spread fears to make people comply with their agenda.
    Millennials are too dumb to figure this out.

  • handsomechuck||

    It also seems clear that many young people—particularly liberal young people—see the First Amendment as an obstacle to be overcome, rather than a fundamental bulwark that safeguards their own rights.

    There's enough blame to spread across the political spectrum, nor is this a novel problem. Over the decades millions of conservatives have advocated censorship or outright proscription of books, and also legal restrictions on other forms of expression, such as flag burning.

  • Anthony Bergs||

    It might be out of the topic, but I would like to mention that some of the students pay to have homework done and don't even think how it can affect their future. True, that sometimes there is no time in the world to do your homework, but when you do it, like every time, the result is lamentable.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online