Posted on 04/12/2019 7:48:58 AM PDT by raccoonradio
It wasn’t until I took a sociology class during my freshman year at Northeastern University that I had to make an important decision: Do I lie to blend in? Or do I tell the truth — and risk being attacked?
We had a speaker come in and talk to us about the media, and he asked which of us watched MSNBC, CNN and Fox. In my class of more than 70 students, I was the only person to raise my hand for Fox. In retrospect, I doubt that I was really the only Republican in the room. But I can pinpoint that moment as the first time I decided that, in any class with political undertones, I would stand up for myself and my opinions, even if I was alone.
Fortunately, I’ve been lucky enough to have understanding and open-minded classmates and professors, but some have not been as lucky. Especially in today’s political climate, students and professors alike are experiencing political bias on campuses in a completely different way than I did when I began college in 2010.
According to a recent study by the National Association of Scholars, almost 40 percent of the best liberal arts colleges in the country do not have a single Republican full-time faculty member. Students come from all over the country, and some are bound to have different opinions from their professors, especially given this extreme lack of political diversity. When they walk into a classroom, what can they expect to happen when they express a belief or opinion that opposes that of the person meant to be teaching them?
William Mayer, a Northeastern University political science professor and adviser to the Harvard Republican Club, says that while he has never experienced any instances of political bias against him personally, he is aware that it is a problem and has heard stories from conservative students, mainly undergraduates, who felt that their opinions were either being silenced or held against them. On one occasion, a student had to seek advice when she realized, following an assignment in which she expressed her conservative beliefs, that her grades were suddenly decreasing for no obvious reason other than ideological bias.
Recently, the student president of the Tulane University chapter of Young Americans for Liberty found the door to his dorm room set on fire in an incident that the group is claiming was politically motivated. Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator and author, described his experience visiting the campus of California State University at Los Angeles back in February 2016. Despite being told by the university president that his visit had been canceled in response to anticipated protests, Shapiro decided to go anyway. When he arrived on campus with several security guards, he encountered mayhem in the form of police officers, helicopters, and “rioters … assaulting students who wanted to enter,” he wrote in a column for the New York Post.
This was far from the first time that a college has disinvited a speaker to its campus. In fact, there are several other examples, and though this issue occurs on both sides, based on the Disinvitation Database provided by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), more than 62 percent of the cases are prompted by opposition to the left of the speaker in question, with only 28 percent of the cases being caused by the right. These cases include prominent Republican figures such as Carly Fiorina, Laura Bush and John McCain being disinvited from campus engagements.
Adam Goldstein, a program officer with FIRE, says that this kind of censorship “doesn’t work,” and that it comes down to the personal more than anything else. Regardless of personal beliefs, he said, college officials and students must respect the fact that the United States offers every individual the right to his or her own opinion as well as the ability to express that opinion either on their campus or otherwise. Moreover, when handling situations in which a student is frustrated because of a professor’s bias, they must remind them that there is something they can do about it.
President Donald Trump also reinforced this protection of the First Amendment, as he recently signed an executive order ensuring that college campuses cannot silence opposing views — which, he acknowledged, was in response to too many universities becoming too far left and creating a hostile environment for students and professors who might think differently.
While it isn’t a secret that colleges tend to lean left, and have for some time, there are several theories regarding the cause of this sudden increase in political bias and attacks on the First Amendment. Shapiro offers some explanations of his own in his column for the New York Post. He details theories ranging from economic issues to race and technology, before explaining the theory that the problem may simply be that humans are reverting to traditional “human nature,” and forgetting the “foundations” we were built on.
The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby, a conservative columnist, says one issue he has noticed is that often the media are unable to acknowledge that they have a bias, so in the media, “‘left’ is seen as ‘center,’” which makes the “right” seem significantly more extreme than it actually is. Perhaps this is what is happening on campuses, too. As Jacoby explains, there is “less diversity of opinion than ever,” especially on college campuses, making it difficult for anyone with a different point of view to find a place to fit in and feel comfortable speaking out. If people aren’t recognizing the state of their environment, it would make sense that, for some, any challenge to their own confirmation bias is perceived as a threat.
I chose to attend Northeastern knowing that I would be heading into a blue state, so I know I can’t really complain when the inevitable moment of reveal happens in any class where politics come up and I find myself standing either alone or close to it. I could have gone to school in North Carolina or Florida (both swing states and where I’ve spent most of my life), but I wanted to be challenged academically, professionally and personally. And though I’ve learned to just roll my eyes during my father’s and brother’s weekly check-ins to make sure I haven’t turned into a liberal yet (they’re joking), I will always say how grateful I am to live in a country where I’m allowed to form my own beliefs, and express them how and when I see fit.
Suppressing someone’s opinions because they don’t align with your own is not only hypocritical, it’s damaging. Growth occurs when we expose ourselves to different ideas and hear the other side of the story. Respecting a person’s right to an opposing opinion doesn’t mean you have to agree with it.
The First Amendment is in place for a reason, and colleges have a responsibility to protect that for all students, professors and staff.
Madeline Olsen is a graduate student in the Media Advocacy program at Northeastern University.
More like !THEY! feel, no, know, that your opinion is irrelevant and will go to any lengths to ensure you’re not heard because anything about your opinion is somehow hate speech. Up to and including physical assaults. Funny how being prideful of your nation and it’s accomplishments is somehow hateful. Yet condeming Trump and anyone who supports him as ‘naught-Zees” is just fine and dandy.
I can remember a time when, if I had been asked to say if a professor was Republican or Democrat, I’d have resorted to flipping a coin.
Back then, professors seemed to have the quaint notion that they’d been hired to teach their subject matter.
Do I lie to blend in? Or do I tell the truth — and risk being attacked?
When i was in college - ‘60 - ‘75 - I felt no pressure to “fit in.” I took special pleasure in being cantankerous. I argued with everyone, but always from a rational, logical position. I prided myself on trying to be intellectual. By the time I received my second Masters I felt myself educated and intellectually vigorous. I would have been embarrassed about “safe spaces” and harassing guest lecturers.
The New York Times v. Sullivan 1964 SCOTUS decision is the root of political correctness. It was unanimous but it was a Warren Court decision, and the present court has a majority of justices who know that the Warren Court did some flakey things.Sullivan is not representative of modern media and political reality. First, the plaintiff was not officially a Republican but also was in bad odor with the Court because he was a southern Democrat. Nominally a Democrat, IOW - but not recognized as such by modern Democrats. In fact, today he would be David Duke - awarded honorary Republican status by Democrats and the media (pardon the repetition).
Second, “media and Democrats” is repetitive - a fact that was actually true in 1964 but was so true that it was not debated. It was the air we breathed, there wasn’t any competition ideologically among any journalists. To be representative of reality, there would have to be serious discussion of the monopolistic nature of wire service journalism. In Sullivan that didn’t come up.
The effect of Sullivan - that people think that government officials can’t sue for libel - actually means that Republican politicians can’t sue for libel. Seeing as Democrats don’t get libeled. And the effect of that is that Democrats are entitled, not only to their own opinions, but to their own facts. And that, Dear Reader, is PC in a nutshell.
I was hospitalized for several months in 2014 in a variety of facilities. Much of the time I was in a single bed room. I often had Fox News playing on my room TV. Across the spectrum, nurses would linger in my room to watch and listen to the news. More than a few told me all the other rooms were tuned to CNN and they were desperate to hear what was really happening. It was common to hear Fox was what they watched at home but didn’t dare to do so at work.
That’s SOOOOOO last century. LOL! Times have changed. Some for the good, a LOT for the, NOT so good.
That's all I had to know!
Don't do that. Time is precious.
I know a few who actually majored in sociology. Most gaseous bloviaters you'll ever meet. Convinced it is all earthly wisdom, but it's an inch-deep ocean.
Glad I was in college in the 70’s.
For later....
“Do I lie to blend in? Or do I tell the truth — and risk being attacked?”
Not only did I lie, I went so far to the left that my fellow lefty students were appalled at my behavior and asked me to tone it down. I made Lenin look like Reagan. “Imperialist Running Dogs” taken from the Chinese was my favorite saying.
Lesson one don’t take sociology
The matter what college you go to you don’t have any of these sorts of problems in engineering and mathematics
It’s only the stupid bubbleheads who take sociology , women studies , gender studies , this and that studies that have the lack of brain capacity to be taken in by the socialists Marxists and other types of losers who hate this great nation
No one can stop free speech in the United States of America
You left Leisure studies. In my final semester of college, I had to take find one elective to complete the prerequisites for graduation. I went for the the easiest-sounding class I could find “Leisure Studies”. On my first day in the class, I was approached by an attractive asian woman who told me that I had really nice hair. I fumbled the opportunity, having never received such a complement, just said thanks, but remembered thinking that I would be scoring a lot of chicks in that class. That was until the professor steamrolled his way on stage and began to scold those of us who took the class thinking it would be a cakewalk. The guy hand obvious chip on his shoulder from having not been taken seriously by anyone who ever took the class, and made sure to hammer the point home that you were sorely mistaken if you took the class thinking it would be a breeze. The guy’s approach towards leisure studies was a foreshadowing of how today’s progressives approach comedy, excitement, fun, or free thought. He was vehemently against anyone who sought to enjoy life, and let it be known that he intended to make his students suffer. “Fair warning, this will by far be the most difficult, most work-intensive class you will ever take in all your years of college. If you signed up for this class thinking you were gonna coast your way to an easy A, you were wrong. I strongly advise you to drop this class before the deadline.” I had never seen such a mass exodus in any of my classes as I did when this guy finished yapping. At least half of us, if not more, fled for the exits and promptly dropped that turd of a class.
I posted my reply without proofreading. Re posting with corrections. You left out Leisure studies. In my final semester of college, I had to find one elective to complete the prerequisites for graduation. I went for the the easiest-sounding class I could find “Leisure Studies”. On my first day in the class, I was approached by an attractive Asian woman who told me that I had really nice hair. I fumbled the opportunity, having never received such a complement, just said thanks, but remembered thinking that I would be scoring a lot of chicks in that class. That was until the professor steamrolled his way onto the stage and began to scold those of us who took the class thinking it would be a cakewalk. The guy had an obvious chip on his shoulder from having not been taken seriously by anyone who ever took the class, and made sure to hammer the point home that you were sorely mistaken if you took the class thinking it would be a breeze. The guy’s approach towards leisure studies was a foreshadowing of how today’s progressives approach comedy, excitement, fun, or free thought. He was vehemently opposed to anyone who sought to enjoy life or his class, and let it be known that he intended to make his students suffer. “Fair warning, this will by far be the most difficult, most work-intensive class you will ever take in all your years of college. If you signed up for this class thinking you were gonna coast your way to an easy A, you were wrong. I strongly advise you to drop this class before the deadline.” I had never seen such a mass exodus in any of my classes as I did when that guy finished yapping. At least half of us, if not more, fled for the exits and promptly dropped that turd of a class.
If it is yours, a LINK or a brief explanation of Sullivan would be helpful if you want others to pay attention to your opinion without having to do research to fully grasp what you are trying to say.
Not any more:
How Identity Politics Is Harming the Sciences by Heather MacDonald
Heather Mac Donald on Racial Preferences for STEM Admissions
In 1992 my graduate class was called into a seminar. The “seminar” consisted of a harangue from local homosexual rights leaders.
At one point a woman, a student and minister’s wife asked what sort of carve out would there be for those who disagreed. They verbally attacked and pounded her until she cried and fled the room.
I sat and watched the head of the department, all the profs and the dean all standing around the periphery of the room with blank looks on their faces. No one moved a muscle.
I have never looked at another situation where PC minority is attacking others without thinking of that day.
I use the blockquote function liberally to make my posts clear and easy on the eyes. And also when I quote from somewhere else - in which case my standard practice is to use the tt function to make the quote stand out - and also, of course, I will give attribution - generally in the form of a link.a LINK or a brief explanation of Sullivan would be helpful if you want others to pay attention to your opinion without having to do research to fully grasp what you are trying to say.Standard FReeper practice is to use italics only, when quoting from the source article of a thread, but I prefer to use tt instead for that, to distinguish it from a quote of the post that I’m responding to. Since I not infrequently find myself quoting from both sources when I reply to a post, I think that’s a useful convention.
Let me emphasize up front that I’m not a lawyer. And I once tried posting the New York Times v. Sullivan decision as an FR thread, but it defeated me. It couldn’t be easily summarized. At least not by me. But what I did learn was that Sullivan was a unanimous 1964 SCOTUS decision, thus a Warren Court decision. And all the justices were preening themselves that they had protected the First Amendment. You read it and you would like to cheer - but then you remember the reality of the MSM.Plaintiff Sullivan was a Southern Democrat officeholder who objected to an ad published by The New York Times, and sued. Right away, you can see that the reality of the MSM, which we know to exist as a de facto monopoly and the Times to be component thereof, was not on the table. Even the Times itself was not the origin of the piece, it was an ad. Since Sullivan was a Democrat, you couldn’t say that SCOTUS was favoring Democrats - except that Mr. Sullivan would be an (dis)honorary Republican today.
The Sullivan decision was emphatic that even judges couldn’t (readily) sue for libel. Look at what that implies WRT Justice Kavanaugh - who was libeled mercilessly during his confirmation battle.
Suing for libel is a natural right. Justice Scalia pointed out that the freedom of the press clause of 1A refers to "the freedom . . . of the press.” Not simply to “freedom of the press," but "the freedom of the press.” His point was that freedom of the press existed at the time the First Amendment was proposed - and so did libel laws and pornography laws. IOW, “the freedom of the press” was an elegant way of saying, “this constitutional amendment doesn’t change anything - all it does is say that nothing will change due to the adoption of the Constitution.” Thus, seeking redress for libel is a right of the people including people who hold public office - and for SCOTUS to say otherwise is an abuse.
The idea of freedom of expression is to “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred thoughts contend.” The idea of the journalism monopoly (which I insist is an artifact of the AP and other wire services) is precisely to the opposite effect. Giving the MSM free rein with no fear of legal repercussions gives rise to political correctness. Because it entitles Democrats (who align themselves with the MSM) the right to their own opinions and their own facts. If you can’t sue them for libel, what keeps them from lying???
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.