Posted on 06/05/2017 10:39:07 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Since the federal government heavily subsidizes most of our colleges and universities through grants and loans, is it too much to expect that the officials who run them would take steps to protect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty members?
Some of them make little or no effort at doing so, as exemplified by the recent absurdity at Evergreen State College in Washington, where the administration smiled benignly on the raucous student protesters who disrupted a biology professor’s class because they had declared that white people were to remain off campus on their proclaimed “Day of Absence.” (If you’re not familiar with that affray, you’ll find the details in this essay on Minding the Campus by Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars and this article on National Review by Tiana Lowe.)
Around America, free speech on college campuses is under attack. We find invited speakers being disinvited or shouted down, “bias incident” reporting systems that encourage students to complain when they hear anything they don’t like, and professors who demean students who dare to question their assertions.
In the fairly recent past, most higher education leaders would have admitted that the assault on free speech was bad, but tried to say that it isn’t really much of a problem. But now we find that some actually praise it, such as New York University professor Ulrich Baer, who recently argued in the New York Times, “The idea of freedom of speech does not mean blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of the community.”
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Unless it's a community college or some other federal/state operation, the campi are private.
The kids should have been dealt with WAY long before college.
Now it's a police matter.
Stop sending money
Defund.
But a case really needs to work its way up to the Supreme Court to reiterate that the first amendment exist equally and for all.
Justice dept might be able to get involved at some point.
Require a demonstration of college level (that’s as in REAL college courses, not the pablum offered by many lib arts departmets) capability before allowing student loans. That’ll eliminate 99% of the basket weaving SJW cretins.
It seems to me in the case of public (state) institutions if the National
Guard was sent out to integrate them in the 60s then they’d be good enough to be sent out to Berkeley, Missouri et al
Places like Harvard seem to be able to privately do as they please to regulate speech
It’s up to the parents. Stop sending decent kids to places that strive to destroy everything decent and patriotic in their children.
Go Soup Nazi on them. “No federal money for you. One year!” If you don’t have policies and rules in place to fix these problems by then, no money two years, and so on. Any discrimination laws that can be proved to have been broken, jail time, regardless of how high your position is at the university.
You have to make it hurt or it will only get worse.
Withdraw all funding.
Why worry about only protecting campus free speech?
I was wondering in amazement about this being the the New York Times... until I noticed that the top link is labeled wrong: it’s a Forbes piece, which makes a lot more sense.
Meanwhile: if those victimized by the radical left want a remedy before they start collecting social security, then they had better start making use of the same tool liberal have been using against us for decades: the courts.
Money still talks and and financial penalties for the violation of basic civil rights is the best, fastest weapon - not Washington.
DEFUND socialist/totitarian collectives, foreign and DOMESTIC.
No, no, no.
All colleges that receive federal funds are beholden to Washington whether they like it or not. There is no reason to fund colleges that deny students their basic rights or fair treatment or subject them to harassment as a condition of their education.
I read it yesterday. It is available as a pdf for download.
It REALLY opened my eyes as to why colleges are the way they are now.
"Since the federal government heavily subsidizes most of our colleges and universities through grants and loans, ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the state sovereignty-ignoring feds the specific power to tax and spend in the name of vote-winning INTRAstate schooling.
In fact, note that President Thomas Jefferson had indicated in a State-of-the-Union speech that the states would need to first expressly constitutionally delegate to the feds the specific power to tax and spend for intrastate schools, something that the states have never done.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Consider that one of the very few domestic policy issues that the states have actually expressly constitutionally delegate to the corrupt feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for is to run the US Mail Service (1.8.7).
So the only thing that lawless, post-17th Amendment ratification federal lawmakers probably have in mind with respect to any federal social spending program is to buy votes from low-information ctizens, citizens who are likely clueless that the states never given the feds the express constitutional authority to establish such programs in the first place.
When the states quit sitting on their hands and repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, they need to include a provision in the repeal amendment that requires the courts to presume the feds guilty of attempting to unconstitutionally expand federal government powers with respect to any bill or action of the feds that has questionable constitutional justification.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
Any campus receiving Federal funds either direct (programs etc.) or indirectly (student loans etc.)that does not abide by the Constitution of the United States should have that funding ceased forth with.
Again, FU NYT. You helped create this mess so quit bitching about the repercussions. There is only one solution - you and the left must forever disavow the idea that pandering to and appeasing so-called “victims” bring out their better nature. It does the exact opposite. Until you stop reinforcing the culture of victimhood in the hood, this will never end. I’m afraid it’s only going to get worse into a full-blown hostilities and we’ll have to take up arms to save your sorry a$$es again.
Correct. No fed money if you can’t display some adult and mature objectivity
Repeal Title 9. Punish colleges using it to set up rape tribunals that deny due process, assume guilt and say it is a violation of the law to talk to an attorney or classmates. Deny funding to any college that doesn’t comply.
Require a repeal of “speech codes” that under the name “diversity and respect” get used to silence conservative opinions.
Defund all social justice programs.
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.