Higher Education & Free Speech: Do Universities Care?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A student walks on the campus of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., November 12, 2015. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters) If Yale Law School doesn't stand up for free expression, it will teach students that the way to win is through belligerence and mobs rather than persuasion, critical thinking, and civility.
NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEFinding a university that voices support for free speech is easy. You would be hard pressed to find one that does not. Finding a university that puts such support into practice today is more difficult, if not impossible. And while I've known this for some time, I experienced it firsthand recently at Yale Law School.
Yale's policy on free expression states that it is "committed to fostering an environment that values the free expression of ideas." According to the policy, "the exercise of free expression on campus is subject to three general conditions: 1) access to a university event or facility may not be blocked; 2) a university event, activity, or its regular or essential operations may not be disrupted; and 3) safety may not be compromised.”
Speakers are “generally free to express their views, even if unpopular or controversial.” Students that disagree “may protest and express disagreement, but they may not interfere with a speaker’s ability to speak or attendees’ ability to attend, listen and hear.”
So far, so good. But a university cannot satisfy its “commit[ment] to fostering an environment that values the free expression of ideas” simply by enacting a policy. That type of commitment requires much more. At a minimum, it requires enforcing the policy. Unfortunately, Yale appears unwilling to put its money where its mouth is.
I recently spoke at Yale Law School on the topic of remedies for First Amendment violations. The subject is not controversial; in fact, it is one on which members from both sides of the political spectrum agree. I am a conservative Christian, and I was joined on a panel by another lawyer — a progressive atheist, from the American Humanist Association. While we disagree on some very important issues, we wanted to demonstrate that we can still engage in civil discourse and find common ground when protecting civil rights. One issue we agree upon is a free-speech case I argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that united both sides of the political spectrum.
Sadly, 120 or so law students showed up to hurl insults and disrupt our discussion. Rather than listen and engage in civil dialogue, the vitriolic mob shouted down their professor who was moderating, and then me. After they were asked to leave, they chanted, pounded on classroom walls, and reportedly disrupted nearby classes, exams, and meetings. Even members of the Federalist Society, the student group that organized the event, were harassed and physically threatened by their fellow law students.
Think about that for a moment. At what is supposed to be one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, a room full of future lawyers, legislators, jurists, and corporate executives chose to bang on walls, use obscene gestures, and engage in name-calling and physical intimidation rather than act like adults.
One would think that an institution that is “committed to fostering an environment that values the free expression of ideas” would actually enforce its free-expression policy. At a minimum, it would strongly condemn these students who sought to silence ideas and people they disliked through bullying and intimidation. Unfortunately, Yale did neither.
Instead, Yale issued a weak statement that defended the student protesters and grossly downplayed their disruptive and petulant actions. Even more disturbing, Yale falsely claimed that the students did not interfere with the speakers’ ability to be heard. I, for one, was not able to speak without disruption. Have a listen to multiple audio clips of the event, and judge for yourself. Finally, the university said that a police presence was not needed. Again, that’s not true. The situation was so volatile that we required an armed police escort to leave campus in a patrol car.
Actions speak louder than words. Yale says it is committed to creating an environment of free expression. Its actions tell a different story, first through its inaction (refusing to enforce its policy) and then through its action (issuing a weak and inaccurate statement). Yale’s response demonstrates that it is less interested in its commitment to creating an environment of free expression than it is in appeasing the two-thirds of the Yale Law students who signed a letter complaining that police got involved in what the students mischaracterized as a “peaceful” protest.
“Fostering an environment that values the free expression of ideas” requires more than mere platitudes. It requires effort. It requires courage. Sometimes, it requires standing up to a mob and saying “Enough.”
Yale Law School supports free expression in theory, as do most other institutions of higher learning. But if it doesn’t muster the courage to enforce its policy and insist on a culture of free speech, it will teach our nation’s future leaders that the way to win is through belligerence and mobs rather than persuasion, critical thinking, and civility.
And that’s what tyranny looks like.
Tags
Who is online
418 visitors
There is only one way to put an end to it. We need to end federal funding to universities that teach leftist ideology.
I feel that day is coming soon.
based upon my observations of that particular conservative age demographic, they had better hurry...
LOL! Welcome to the Memory Hole...... Who say's what is "leftist ideology" ?? You? Sounds like McCarthyism reborn and repackaged for the TikTok generation.
I would say that this points more towards a worsening of civil discourse in our country than any one ideological leaning or the other. Over the past several years the volume has grown on both the arguments being made and those trying to counter those arguments, to the point where some would be forgiven if they thought that the "other side" was not listening. Eventually, the people who feel that they are not heard protest because they want whatever issue they are for/against to be acknowledged, or the people who hold an opinion feel emboldened to act because (they feel) society has granted them the permission (for whatever reason) to do so.
So, we have the uneard and the unabashed of all stripes running around being selectively reinforced by their particular bubble... What could go wrong? S/
We see what can go wrong demonstrated by this article. Some of us would try to affix the blame on one ideological or political leaning, scapegoating the particular "-ism" and trying to ban the discussion of anything relating to such. We've tried that before, many times. Didn't work then, I see little reason why the results should be anything different were we to do it yet Again. (Oh! We are doing it again! I guess that humanity is just full of slow learners.) We could have an open exchange of ideas and fact. Through this open exchange of ideas and fact we are then allowed to formulate some kind of (hopefully) lucid interpretation of reality that we could then apply to ourselves and, if we so chose, share it with others so that they could in turn make up their own minds.
Projection.
That's lame and untrue. Articulate something!
What? My desire for a free and open exchange of ideas? I would never project that on you, Vic. What I gave you in my response is called analysis.
I actually agree with the author, in that she should have been given the courtesy of being allowed to speak uninterrupted. Before she spoke and after she spoke would be the time to express the law students' disagreement.
Was that an example of leftist ideology? I think it was an example of immature older children who should have but never were given a damn good spanking when they misbehaved. It was an example that proves that child psychology is just a pile of shit.
The more things change, the more they stay the same ..... much of the time. Colleges maybe getting worse with their indoctrinating ways but one thing is for sure. The break down of the family unit is making it easier for them to program kids today.
Single parent homes have nearly doubled in the last 50 or so years. Not the best trend.
What lead you to that unfounded conclusion Sparty?
Just the facts dulay ..... even the most casual of observers knows it.
Funny how he mentions facts when he never provides them.
Which you utterly fail to cite.
Oh so your conclusion is based on observation.
Great, tell me about what you observed that led you to that conclusion Sparty.
Shouldn’t need to Dulay, since that information is readily available and known by the most uninformed moron out there.
Not conclusions, facts Dulay. Which regularly present themselves to anyone with a modicum of intellectual curiosity and have the integrity to accept them.
As noted Dulay, only a moron wouldn’t already have that information or perhaps also folks who’ve been living under a rock the last few decades.
Well, when one is a member of the indoctrinated.....
Great! So now all you have to do is PROVE IT Sparty.
Let's be clear, this is what you should prove.
The 'them' you are talking about is colleges.
Conversely, you can continue with the bullshit evasive comments, as is your MO.
It's an utterly juvenile practice but no one can force you to post comments worthy of adult discussion.
[deleted]
Sparty, your comments have devolved to the point of rendering your participation of no value to those who are here to actually conduct adult debates and discussions.
Lol .... there are few left leaner here that know how to have a truly honest and unbiased “adult conversation.” Certainly not you or the many TDS ridden but take heart. All those opinions are completely meaningless in the end.
Most simply like the sound of their own voices more than they like the truth. Outside of NT .... their opinions mean nothing.
Nothing at all .....
Yep
You 'truly honest' conversation is galactically hypocritical Sparty.
You posted an opinion, pretending it to be fact. When asked to support it, you deflect and/or falsely claim that you've already supported the bullshit your post. You haven't and every member can see that for themselves.
That statement would be meaningful if you and yours were introspective enough to recognized that it describes most of your participation here.
Yawn ..... SOSDD ....
Yes it is Sparty. Your non-responsive comments are the same old bullshit , day in and day out.
I can remember back in the day when your comments were relevant.
One has to wonder why you bother now.
Oh, so that was the problem. The supposedly "readily available" information that "Colleges maybe getting worse with their indoctrinating ways but one thing is for sure. The break down of the family unit is making it easier for them to program kids today" was "known by the most uninformed moron out there". Clearly those with more than half a brain can see that total bullshit narrative was invented by sad drop out dip shits who spent most of their worthless lives ridiculing higher education because they sucked so hard and flunked out of college but were determined to come up with reasons why it was the colleges fault and not their own.
Only a moron would attempt to push a bullshit narrative they couldn't actually prove and thus had to fall back on the "only a moron" 'wouldn't know the claim was true' defense. Of course by not providing any proof of their claim they can only prove themselves the moron, not the one asking for proof.
[Deleted]
[Newsvine Policy]
[Members shall not engage in badmouthing Newsvine or ex-Newsvine members in any manner.]
One couldn’t expect a moron to grasp such concepts. Nor true believers.
[Deleted]
Why? Were there a lot of members who practiced your MO of posting non-responsive bullshit comments, day in and day out?
I didn't flag your comment Sparty. So be a [Deleted and stop assuming.]
You would have to have posted some 'truth' for that to be true Sparty. Alas...
Oh and BTFW, why pretend that you are a victim of some secret political faction here on NT?
[Deleted]
Didn’t say you did .... who assuming now? You are ..... but no worries. [Deleted]
The truth is all around those who want to see it. [Deleted]
[Deleted]
So another conservative misusing the 1st Amendment argument? Color me surprised! /s Neither the government nor the university shut these people down. It was other people using their speech rights. If there's an argument to make perhaps it should be one of respect, but that would mean most of the people who are making these specious arguments to self assess their message in the first place.
The federal government doesn't have to fund an evil ideology.
We already know your opinion on education.
Actually, you don't.
Whatever... now you're being droll. If you have an argument, make it.
I did. Post 4.1
Education is an evil ideology. Thank goodness that we have our uneducated on NT pointing that out.
No, you made a statement of opinion. An argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
“The federal government doesn't have to fund an evil ideology.”
The day our federal government cedes the responsibility of the funding of education, regardless of purely partisan (or personal) expectations, is the day we cede our standing as a leader in anything.
That is how important this is.
Not sure of your own obviously personal beef, but the system in place has enabled many to achieve their own personal desires, to the betterment of all of us by extension.
That's true, you still haven't explained why you against college education.
Please proceed.
Our readers would like to see a block quote of exactly where he said that.
Please proceed.
'Our readers' know full well that is part of an ongoing discussion between Vic and I. Try to keep up.
Doesn't change the fact that he never said what you so graciously have attributed to his mouth. You may want to reread the thread.
[deleted]
That's pretty fucking hilarious coming from YOU Jim. You're the guy who failed miserably at trying to call me out on fabricated bullshit from a different seed.
BTFW, EVERY time I have asked Vic to explain his aversion to college education, he has failed to reply. I guess his thumbs up buddies feel the need to speak for him now.
Pathetic.
No what is truly pathetic is your constant trolling of Vic and his comments so that you can argue something he didn't say. THAT is pathetic.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Cry me a fucking river Jim. Since you feel free to cite statements from prior seeds, so shall I.
NONE of my comments in this seed have been ticketed. If either you or Vic have an issue, take it up with the PTB.
I note that your only comment in this seed is an attempt to 'troll' my comment.
Oh, and I see Vic's thumbs up buddies are now throwing the victim card for him.
THAT is pathetic.
[deleted]
How can you be so wrong so often? See this...
thread 4.1 is locked
deleted
Comment was deleted since it was made after a lock due to caching. [ph]
Conservation students don't shout down or shut down speakers with opposing viewpoints. Leftist students have been doing so for decades. Liberals have created a legacy they can't escape from
There are plenty of places like Liberty University where the Uni itself stifles speech. The University told it's own students they couldn't have an anti-Trump column on the school paper and is ranked the worst for free speech by those who track it.
It's less about liberals and conservatives and more about a lack of respect. Americans don't respect each other these days AND there are too many people that benefit from keeping it so.
Law schools and by extension this country in the future, are in trouble. Future lawyers are indulged by allowing them shout down ideas they don't like (or even words that cause them to go into hysterics). One group of students got a professor suspended and almost fired just for using the n word on exam question dealing with racial discrimination. Now schools like Yale, who I believe in one of them are taking CRT from the fringe and making students take mandatory classes in it.
They are creating a generation of legal snowflakes who can't stand to be disagreed with or offended and who are taught to disdain the Constitution and the the protections therein.
Link?
http:// hill.cm/PsQuJgh
Lot's of snowflakes in SD.