A public university restricting free speech? I hope their students realize how much of their student fees will be going to lawyers to pay for their futile defense of this in court.
Posted on 09/13/2015 2:43:09 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
The Regents of the University of California system are considering a proposal that bans intolerance and hate speech, but promises members of the campus community that their free speech rights will still be respected. Reassured? Yeah, me neither. Here is the proposal, which will be discussed at an upcoming meeting:
The University of California is committed to protecting its bedrock values of respect, inclusion, and academic freedom. Free expression and the open exchange of ideas — principles enshrined in our national and state Constitutions — are part of the University’s fiber. So, too, is tolerance, and University of California students, faculty, and staff must respect the dignity of each person within the UC community. Intolerance has no place at the University of California. We define intolerance as unwelcome conduct motivated by discrimination against, or hatred toward, other individuals or groups. It may take the form of acts of violence or intimidation, threats, harassment, hate speech, derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudice, or inflammatory or derogatory use of culturally recognized symbols of hate, prejudice, or discrimination. Everyone in the University community has the right to study, teach, conduct research, and work free from acts and expressions of intolerance. The University will respond promptly and effectively to reports of intolerant behavior and treat them as opportunities to reinforce the University’s Principles Against Intolerance.
But what would happen when the university’s state commitment to free speech conflicts with its stated desire to eliminate intolerance? And such a conflict is not unlikely, given how broadly UC defines intolerance...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Thoughcrime is alive today and quickly and ruthlessly enforced in America's schools, corporations, government agencies, and everywhere, though it is known by another name: Political Incorrectness. The University of California's thinkpol have not yet begun enforcement of thoughtcrime for believing in the rights of unborn babies, or disagreeing with same-sex marriage, or having a negative opinion regarding homosexual adoption, however it appears that codification of these types of laws are close. There can be no disagreement with political correctness as defined by "the party" in the USA. The prevailing politically correct Zeitgeist of thought and behavior forces Americans to live a lie by denying reality. Fear of thoughtcrime prosecution compels cognitive dissonance. If reality contradicts the "the party", it must be eradicated for PC is truth. The Bible foretells that it in the last days people would we persecuted for mere words (Isaiah 29:21).What can save us from this new totalitarian system? Perhaps only believing the words Jesus spoke to Pontius Pilate...
John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Tolerance For Tyrants?
Codifying a right to not be offended is itself offensive!
A public university restricting free speech? I hope their students realize how much of their student fees will be going to lawyers to pay for their futile defense of this in court.
UC graduates will be defenseless in the real world. They will be easy meat for the rest of us for a few years, and then collapse financially and emotionally. They wil be wards of the state for the rest of their lives.
If the jackasses want a “right to not be offended”, I say we have a war and let them fight for that “right.” We’ll kick their jackasses. “Rights” aren’t free.
The right not to be offended.. as long as it is a PC offence...
A Christian may be offended by a Gay
A Gay may be offended by Christian
Guess who’s going to win
Anything can be labeled a symbol of hate. Obviously the Confederate battle flag will be so classified, but the US flag could soon follow. Muslims may say that a cross is a symbol that must be banned...but the ACLU may have gotten rid of all of them before they have time to complain.
I am thinking that anything that bears the name of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington will soon be removed because they committed the greatest sin known to man...to own slaves, voluntary or non-voluntary...
One can feel offended because of others’ actions, and also because of what is (or isn’t) in one’s own mind. Others aren’t alone the cause of what a person feels. Each of us bears most of the responsibility for what we feel. If you are offended, look within yourself rather than assuming that someone else is to blame.
This law offends me.
It’s an embarrassment to me as a native Californian, where my generation supposedly fought for freedom of expression.
Pepper Brooks always has words of wisdom.
Someone should ask these clowns if that means you can't hate Nazis or the Klan.
The mascot of UCSC is the banana slug.
As Jimmy Buffet said: ‘shaker of salt’.
I am offended by:
Liberal, progressives, Marxist-socialists (all the same),
Queer activists,
Feminazis,
Reality TV,
Green fascists,
Dog lovers,
The NEA,
Spoiled adult children,
California.
Your offense is offensive to them and considered micro-aggression. As a student, you would be subject to discipline.
I think National Socialists would be right at home in this environment. Only Christians are discriminatory, hateful, and intolerant.
I’m offended that they would consider doing this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.