The actual website hosting the editorial is down.
Many outside sources have painted us as a bunch of hot house flowers ...
Kind of ironic to see the word “hot” associated in any way with the Wellesley Girls.
Thanks for the update. I was getting tired of saying "snowflakes" all the time.
So, "hothouse flowers it is".
We are in a debt-inspired bubble of “higher education” that is no different from the housing bubble and HUD/Fannie bubble of the early 2000’s.
End the low interest debt crack to students and end Federal aid and this all ends immediately.
“Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.”
So they are unintentionally (because they don’t know grammar for their $65k/year) correct:
The shutting down of free speech IS a form of hate speech.
"Shut up! I keel you!"
The illiteracy of the author shines through when he/she/xi/fee/fi/fo/fum writes, “Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech.”
“Did a horse kick you in the face, or did you go to Wellesley?”
She would be better off if you sent her to Pyongyang University. The tuition is much less, the professors are better and more open to ideas, the student body is more diverse, controversial views are more accepted, and at graduation you'd have a chance of her coming out knowing and appreciating the US Constitution.
Talk is cheap. They threaten “adapt” or “what,” exactly.
So you wrote an article that proves their point in spades. LOL
At least hot house flowers contribute something to humanity.
What the article actually said: “Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging…
We have all said problematic claims, the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society. Luckily, most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way. It is vital that we encourage people to correct and learn from their mistakes rather than berate them for a lack of education they could not control. While it is expected that these lessons will be difficult and often personal, holding difficult conversations for the sake of educating is very different from shaming on the basis of ignorance.
This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted. If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so. Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better.”
These snotty little Red Guard pseudo-intellectuals think that they are our moral and intellectuals superiors, and so they don’t think that we are worthy of First Amendment protections. They are the true fascists.