NYT: Trump Says He Will Sign Free Speech Order for College Campuses

Let's see if he does any executive order and what it says. This free speech idea sounds anti-free speech to me. It impacts private universities that have free speech rights of their own. He is trying to put an obligation on universities' speech by holding funds hostage. A research institution can't really say no to government money because the whole industry is built on these federal grants. Putting strings on that money makes universities vassals of the state. Of course, we are probably already well down that road with other state interventions and strings (like title 9 requirements). But I don't really feel all that warm and fuzzy about this free speech push.

 

Agreed. However, there are some logistic/security concerns that universities in particular face on this issue. Forcing their hand may create more problems than it solves.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...ve-order-barring-research-funds-colleges-dont

To me this is a solution looking for a problem. Being generous, you can probably count the number of universities that practice blatant ideological censorship on one hand. Why is this? Because it's an enormous risk and grounds for a lawsuit 8 days a week. The typical punching bag is UC-Berkley, but even they, as an administration, actually do go out of their way to accommodate. It's the dumbass students who basically brute-force censor things.

If a student body like UC-Berkley goes apes*** allergic whenever Ann Coulter comes to town, that's their own loss. The best reaction is to simply ignore. You deny the speaker attention and, most importantly, don't cost your own institution money in repairs, security, and lawsuits that could have otherwise gone to educating the damned students.

Of course in reality we know extreme authoritarian liberals won't do that. So, if they want to self-own by rioting, that's their problem. Don't force the university to blow money so that a hot-take artist can have 30 minutes at a podium. Let them be the victims of their own ignorance/closed-mindedness and let the speaker enjoy an added profile boost from being "too hot for TV".

 

I'm also interested on who is doing the suppression. Given the risk of lawsuit, my guess is the colleges themselves are not suppressing free speech. But they could be pressured to cancel events or move events due to the overwhelming push by the student body causing security or other legitimate concerns. In a way, effectively, free market is at work, where what students want is pushing college to react appropriately. The bigger issue here isn't a suppression of free speech, but of intolerance by the study body as a whole. The government should be in no way choosing and picking which college gets funding based on the make-up of their student body.

 

the problem goes far beyond just allowing folks to set up political tables and/or inviting controversial speakers to visit campus. Groups like Heterodox Academy and F.I.R.E. have argued that the limitations on speech extend to the faculty as well. This is the bigger, more significant issue in my view.

 

Is there limit on "free speech"? Can someone give speech to promote the extermination of a group of people or a particular Religion? If there are limits, what are those?

 

No, they most certainly do not.

 

... I remember the "good old days" when conservatives would want to ban the display of controversial works of art or controversial lyrics in songs. And even now, comedy shows that satirize the current president...

 

Faculty discrimination/censorship is its own beast -- but you're going to have a hell of a time navigating this from the executive office.

A top-down policy from Trump could likely cause more problems than it solves. Like using a sledgehammer when you need a scalpel.

So, you're looking at a policy that is either clumsy, or one that is basically un-manageable/ineffectual. Proving that someone is being discriminated against based on their ideology is very hard to prove, and even harder to adjudicate.

It's been shown that schools whom practice such ill-advised behavior suffer. The marketplace of ideas eventually wins out and schools like Evergreen State eat themselves alive.

I think this issue is self-correcting, and devoting executive resources to trying to "fix" it will either cause more problems or waste resources, or both.

But hey, it makes for good marketing in conservative circles, so smart of Trump to bang that drum.

 

Also, if students have to go 40 grand in debt to attend "public"(usually implies affordable or free to the public), I say they have a right to say which edgelord can come to their campus and speak.

 

Stormy Daniel's free speech?

 

maybe, maybe not. It's analogous to demonstrating systemic ethnic and/or racial discrimination. If for example 98% of every sociology dept's faculty is registered Democrat, that's a de facto indication that there *might* be a problem. A conservative Republican applicant for a job in one of those departments might have an argument to make--and currently there is no real organized investigative/oversight effort for intellectual viewpoint discrimination. If Trump's effort (or something like it, it doesn't have to be Trump's suggested framework necessarily) begins to formalize the review of potential viewpoint discrimination, that would be a good thing--just as such review has since the 1960s helped increase the ethnic, racial, and gender diversity of the academy.

 

That is true, the question is always where do you draw the line at? Take that Black Israelite group... Should they be permitted to do that on a college campus? Should a college be required to allow a White Nationalist to come speak?

Should such a rule apply to all schools, not merely colleges?

 

The bill of rights actually protects this speech. Free speech zone is essentially an oxymoron. So regardless of student opinion or any other orders, limiting speech in a public place is against the first amendment. A university is a place where all ideas should be discussed with a liberal open mindset, including ideas you may find unsettling. This is why I consider myself a classical liberal and a true liberal at the end of the day. I am at least more liberal than you and anyone here against free speech on campuses.

 

Eh. Discrimination based on skin color or nationality or gender seems a lot easier to prove (and rectify) than discrimination based on ideology. It's not an apples-apples comparison. Further -- the conservative position has typically been against time/resources into stopping such discrimination, even against immutable characteristics.

Not necessarily. Some fields are far more attractive to liberals and some are far more attractive to conservatives.

I'm pretty sure any liberal applying to a conservative field, or vice versa, are going to run into the same problems. I'm not convinced this is a problem that can be fixed, or is worth trying to fix, especially at the executive level. Trying to eliminate human ideological bias seems like a fool's errand. If a flaming hippie tries to get a job in the fossil fuel industry, they're probably going to face a similar uphill battle. Granted that's private industry (although they do receive a crapton of federal subsidy), but you get my point. Education funding is such a complex subject, that threatening to pull federal funding over something that may be happening in .0001% of the university's framework seems misguided at best.

I've never been for tokenizing race or gender in the first place, so I'm not sure that tokenizing ideology is a good idea either.

 

They have a right to upgraded dorms, campus wide wireless broadband and T1, round-the-clock reliable HVAC and physical plant, on campus dining options with stable pricing, and administrators and instructors compensated well enough to keep teaching them. Each institution has to decide what kind of rights and privileges they have with regards to the relevance or disruptiveness of individual guest speakers.

 

good case illustration how students' ideological rigidity is rearing its ugly head at Harvard Law School

https://theweek.com/articles/826995...w-could-undermine-legal-rights-everybody-else

 

It is hard to believe that these students are among our best and brightest. Just dismantle our legal system when you a find a particular accused to be offensive.

 

Nothing wrong with having KKK rallies on campus right?

 

Why make such macro claims about individuals incidents?

Also keep in mind there are 18-22 year olds, not fully grown adults with fully developed frontal lobe.

 

Part of the problem IMO, is that the people with the loudest and most influential voices are the professors and they tend to side with the liberal students at certain colleges. Not saying all of them do but it does seem to be a trend where most college professors are liberal on already liberal campuses which is an issue for someone with differing viewpoints. They feel ostracized and are quieted if they want to have a discussion about an opinion that is more conservative. Let's face it, colleges already lean pretty liberal (even in parts of Texas) which is also why it is good for students to hear from a Republican/conservative viewpoint every once in a while and at least respect where that person is coming from rather than labeling them something they most likely aren't just because it shuts them up.

I know several people that were more liberal in college but have become more and more conservative as they have gotten older, had kids, earn a respectable living, etc. People and ideas change and it is okay to talk about them in a peaceful manner so people can grow. Colleges no longer seem to be that place so hopefully this will inspire more logical discussion on campuses instead of dividing people or keeping a certain group quiet for fear of being ostracized.