The Presidents of Harvard, MIT, Penn, Columbia should be forced to resign

Yeah, this whole issue is a head scratcher. If campuses want to be unequivocal that speech causes harm with the need for "safe spaces" or canceling eccentric/un-PC professors, then these presidents can't go back to the whole "All Speech Should Be Protected" boilerplate that libs are frothing and furious at Trump for exploiting and violating.

Can someone explain to me what "it violates the code of conduct if it turns into action" means for them? I tried with a 1st page google search but it still doesn't make sense to me.

If I catcalled a woman across campus and said "your ass looks nice", as long as "it doesn't turn into action" (physical?), then I'm safe?

Or are these presidents covering their cowardly asses knowing that they've made action and speech indistinguishable on their campuses?

MIT's Kornbluth is Jewish, yet she toed a weird and tortured party line.

 

Actually they are. For example I was watching the Broncos Texans game and my friend who is a die hard Broncos fan started yelling “Kill him” when CJ Stroud started scrambling.

That’s not nice but I couldn’t call the police on him for hate speech directed at CJ Stroud. I could run in the Texans victory though.

 

This is a r****ded topic

 

I will agree that many of these university officials are hypocrites in regard to what speech they allow, see the Milo Yannipoulis example. That said it’s pretty ironic though for people who were arguing that campuses shouldn’t be restricting speech now to demand the firing of college presidents for not restricting speech.

 

Yelling “kill him” isn’t a death threat?

I just said there was hypocrisy among college campuses. I’m also not seeing a lot of ideological consistency between who made this thread
https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...t-an-excuse-for-government-censorship.320060/
and this current thread.

 

I’m generally for disallowing hate and harmful speech. But in the US, hate and harmful speech is allowed. A ‘Death to all xyz’ slogan is protected speech in the US. It’s ugly, unacceptable, but protected.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/spee...dment to the,matter how offensive its content.

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Restrictions on speech by public colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. Such restrictions deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive. An open society depends on liberal education, and the whole enterprise of liberal education is founded on the principle of free speech.


To be clear, the First Amendment does not protect behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. But merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level, and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis. Restricting such speech may be attractive to college administrators as a quick fix to address campus tensions. But real social change comes from hard work to address the underlying causes of inequality and bigotry, not from purified discourse. The ACLU believes that instead of symbolic gestures to silence ugly viewpoints, colleges and universities have to step up their efforts to recruit diverse faculty, students, and administrators; increase resources for student counseling; and raise awareness about bigotry and its history.


Q: Does the First Amendment protect speech that invites violence against members of the campus community?

A: In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it intentionally and effectively provokes a crowd to immediately carry out violent andunlawful action. This is a very high bar, and for good reason.