Posts

Majority of College Students Hostile Towards Free Speech

A new study released by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) confirms what many have long believed: college students don’t respect the First Amendment.

According to the survey, which FIRE calls “the most comprehensive survey on students’ attitudes about free speech to date,” a majority of college students self-censor during classroom discussions and support the disinvitation of controversial speakers, while a plurality even believe that hate speech is not constitutionally protected.

FIRE, with the help of nonpartisan research firm YouGov, surveyed 1,250 undergraduates between May 25 and June 8, finding that 48 percent of respondents think that hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment, including 13 percent who associate hate speech with violence, while only 46 percent recognize that it is. (Read more from “Majority of College Students Hostile Towards Free Speech” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Explosive: The Insidious Roots of Campus ‘Safe Spaces’

“Safe spaces.” “Speech codes.” “Consciousness raising.”

These are the slogans and catchphrases of the modern politically correct campus. For most Americans, they are simply expressions of political correctness run wild or of overly sensitive students being coddled. And while such developments might seem silly or stupid, most people certainly don’t regard them as dangerous . . .

Those behind this bizarre “new” phenomenon, Kengor shows in “The Marxist roots of the ‘safe spaces’ movement,” have drawn their influence from thinkers from the farthest reaches of the political Left, including:

Michel Foucault, an important theorist of the New Left, author of “A History of Sexuality” – and also a drug-obsessed homosexual and member of the French Communist Party;

Bell Hooks, a cultural Marxist, who worked to promote the idea of “education for critical consciousness,” which transforms the purpose of education from the transmission of knowledge and tradition, to turning students into agents of “deconstruction”;

(Read more from “Explosive: The Insidious Roots of Campus ‘Safe Spaces'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SHOCKER: Absurdly Expensive College Faces $5 MILLION Budget Crisis After Radical Loons Run Wild

Yet another American college is suffering an “unexpected” plunge in enrollment and a massive budget deficit after a series of outbursts by radical fringe protesters and professors.

This time, the school is Oberlin College, a private, 2,900-student enclave of progressivism in small-town Ohio where the cost for a single year of tuition, fees and room and board is $69,372.

Oberlin is facing a $5 million budget shortfall for the 2017–2018 academic year due to lower student enrollment and a related drop in revenue, reports The Oberlin Review, the student newspaper.

The chairman of Oberlin’s board of trustees, Chris Canavan, announced the financial woes in an email sent to professors and administrators this summer. The student newspaper obtained and published the full email late last week. (Read more from “SHOCKER: Absurdly Expensive College Faces $5 MILLION Budget Crisis After Radical Loons Run Wild” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

College Campus Flyer: Veterans Should Be Banned From Four-Year Universities — One Vet’s Powerful Response

The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs apparently approved the posting of a newsletter around the campus that calls for the banning of U.S. military veterans from attending four-year colleges and universities . . .

Blogger Paul J. O’Leary, an Army and law enforcement veteran responded to the newsletter on Friday. In a lengthy post titled “An Open Letter to a UCCS Student,” he wrote, in part:

Isn’t it wonderful that we live in a country where all of us are free to express our opinions in a public forum? Where we are all free to pursue educational excellence? […]

Why do you feel it is acceptable to minimize the safety and well-being of those who attend trade schools? Are you assuming there are no LGBTQQIP2SAA students going to trade schools?

Do you feel they are somehow less deserving of a safe and flourishing educational environment than their peers in the traditional four-year universities?

(Read more from “College Campus Flyer: Veterans Should Be Banned From Four-Year Universities — One Vet’s Powerful Response” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘Stress Reduction Policies’ Let Students Choose Their Own Grades

A professor at the University of Georgia created a “Stress Reduction Policy” that allows students who feel “unduly stressed” to choose their own grades, according to a Monday report.

Richard Watson incorporated the policy into two business courses, Campus Reform reported. The syllabi have since been updated to remove the policy, but an archived version of one is available.

“If you feel unduly stressed by a grade for any assessable [sic] material or the overall course, you can email the instructor indicating what grade you think is appropriate, and it will be so changed,” Watson said in a syllabus revised Friday for MIST 4610: Data Management. “No explanation is required, but it is requested that you consider waiting 24 hours before emailing the instructor.”

The “Stress Reduction Policy” also states that students may leave group work whenever they desire and choose to have their grade not reflect that segment of the course. All exams will be open-book. (Read more from “‘Stress Reduction Policies’ Let Students Choose Their Own Grades” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Let’s Hit Left-Wing Colleges Where It Hurts

Parents, taxpayers, and donors have little idea of the levels of lunacy, evil, and lawlessness that have become features of many of today’s institutions of higher learning.

Parents, taxpayers, and donors who ignore or are too lazy to find out what goes on in the name of higher education are nearly as complicit as the professors and administrators who promote or sanction the lunacy, evil, and lawlessness.

As for the term “institutions of higher learning,” we might start asking: Higher than what?

Let’s look at a tiny sample of academic lunacy.

During a campus debate, Purdue University professor David Sanders argued that a logical extension of pro-lifers’ belief that fetuses are human beings is that pictures of “a butt-naked body of a child” are child pornography.

Clemson University’s chief diversity officer, Lee Gill, who’s paid $185,000 a year to promote inclusion, provided a lesson claiming that to expect certain people to be on time is racist.

To reduce angst among snowflakes in its student body, the University of California, Hastings College of the Law has added a “Chill Zone.” The Chill Zone, located in its library, has, just as most nursery schools have, mats for naps and beanbag chairs.

Before or after a snooze, students can also use the space to do a bit of yoga or meditate.

The University of Michigan Law School helped its students weather their Trump derangement syndrome—a condition resulting from Donald Trump’s election—by enlisting the services of an “embedded psychologist” in a room full of bubbles and play dough.

To reduce pressure on law students, Joshua M. Silverstein, a law professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, thinks “every American law school ought to substantially eliminate C grades and set its good academic standing grade point average at the B- level.”

Today’s academic climate might be described as a mixture of infantilism, kindergarten, and totalitarianism. The radicals, draft dodgers, and hippies of the 1960s who are now college administrators and professors are responsible for today’s academic climate.

The infantilism should not be tolerated, but more important for the future of our nation are the totalitarianism and the “hate America” lessons being taught at many of the nation’s colleges.

For example, led by its student government leader, the University of California, Irvine’s student body voted for a motion, which the faculty approved, directing that the American flag not be on display because it makes some students uncomfortable and creates an unsafe, hostile environment.

The flag is a symbol of hate speech, according to the student government leader. He said the U.S. flag is just as offensive as Nazi and Islamic State flags and that the U.S. is the world’s most evil nation.

In a recent New York Times op-ed, New York University Provost Ulrich Baer argued:

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a 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 that community.

That’s a vision that is increasingly being adopted on college campuses, and it’s leaking down to our primary and secondary levels of education.

Baer apparently believes that the test for one’s commitment to free speech comes when he balances his views with those of others.

His vision justifies the violent disruptions of speeches by Heather Mac Donald at Claremont McKenna College, Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, and Charles Murray at Middlebury College.

Baer’s vision is totalitarian nonsense. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits people to be free to say and write those things he finds deeply offensive.

Americans who see themselves as either liberal or conservative should rise up against this totalitarian trend on America’s college campuses.

I believe the most effective way to do so is to hit these campus tyrants where it hurts the most—in the pocketbook. Lawmakers should slash budgets, and donors should keep their money in their pockets. (For more from the author of “Let’s Hit Left-Wing Colleges Where It Hurts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The 1 Change the Government Could Make to Drive Down College Prices

Over the past 20 years, the price of wireless service has fallen 46 percent, the price of software has fallen 68 percent, the price of televisions has fallen 96 percent, and the quality of these services and technologies has improved markedly.

But over that same time, the price of college tuition has risen 199 percent, and most parents would agree that the quality has not greatly improved.

But if prices typically fall as competition spurs quality advancement, as seen by the technological achievement of the last two decades, how has that not happened in education?

There is no one simple answer to this question, but the different regulatory environment facing higher education is a significant factor.

One hundred years ago, there were six regional, voluntary, nongovernmental institutions that helped universities and secondary schools coordinate curricula, degrees, and transfer credits. These institutions had no power to prevent the creation of higher education institutions.

This changed with the 1952 GI Bill.

After congressional investigators found thousands of sham colleges were created overnight to take advantage of the benefits provided in the first 1944 GI Bill, the federal government turned these voluntary institutions into accreditors.

As the federal government steadily ramped up its financial support for higher education benefits, it continued outsourcing the vetting of higher education institutions to these regional accreditors.

This makeshift system worked well for decades, but in recent years these regional accreditors have come under heavy criticism for both lax oversight over some online institutions and a heavy hand in killing some promising innovations.

No regulator is ever going to be perfect, but if they are going to be gatekeepers for a sector of the economy as important as higher education, they must be transparent and accountable to the American people.

Unfortunately, our nation’s regional accreditors are neither. They do not share how they make their accrediting decisions with anyone and their board members do not face accountability at the ballot box.

This needs to change.

That is why I have introduced the Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act. This bill would allow states to create their own accreditation system for institutions that want to be eligible for federal financial aid dollars.

Each state could then be as open or closed to higher education innovation as they saw fit. They could even stick with their current regional accreditors if they chose to do so.

But they could also enable innovators like Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, who recently signed a deal with the online provider Kaplan University, to go even further in their mission to expand higher education access to those who had limited access before.

Our higher education system should not be held captive to 100-year-old institutions that were never intended to be regulatory gatekeepers in the first place.

Instead, we should allow those communities that want to experiment with higher education policy the freedom and accountability to do so. (For more from the author of “The 1 Change the Government Could Make to Drive Down College Prices” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

College Sued for Banning Student’s Preaching as ‘Disorderly Conduct’

Sure, you can preach here, Georgia Gwinnett College told an evangelical student, right over there — on two spots making up just 0.0015 percent of the campus. Oh, also, the “public forum areas” are only open 18 hours a week and not on the weekends. And you have to ask permission three days in advance. Which we don’t have to grant.

Forced Out

Chike Uzuegbunam complied. Then the administration told him to stop doing it at all. A campus law enforcement officer told him that “people are calling us because their peace and tranquility is being disturbed.” His witnessing was “disorderly conduct.” That’s any expression “which disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” That means almost anything someone wants to complain about and the Student Affairs office wants to ban.

The college’s Freedom of Expression Policy says “the Student Affairs official must not consider or impose restrictions based on the content or viewpoint of the expression.” But the college doesn’t seem to mean it when the content or viewpoint are Christian.

The officer told him to stop preaching. He said Uzuegbunam could only speak one on one with students. He told him to use the methods of other religious denominations to relay his message. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“LDS”) regularly get approval to visit the GGC campus.

There was no claim that that Uzuegbunam caused any damage or behaved violently. He did not block anyone passing by or cause congestion. He did not use a microphone or carry a sign.

After he was told to stop preaching, Uzuegbunam went to speak with Aileen Dowell, GGC’s Director of the Office of Student Integrity. She said that it is a violation of GGC policy for anyone to express a “fire and brimstone message” on campus, even within the free speech zones.

The Lawsuit

The Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to GGC objecting to its policy three years ago. GGC never responded, so the ADF filed a lawsuit last December on Uzuegbunam’s behalf against the college. The complaint contends that the policy discriminates against religion, because non-religious students are accommodated. The ADF is asking the court to suspend the policies.

Handing out tracts and evangelizing is part of Uzuegbunam’s Christian faith, the ADF asserts. The school has “created and enforced a heckler’s veto.” Anyone who is offended or discomforted by students engaging in free speech can use the college’s policy to silence them. The school’s disorderly conduct policy is overly broad.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It applies to public places, including public colleges like Georgia Gwinnett College. The ADF lawsuit contends that Uzuegbunam is engaging in religious speech, protected by at least two clauses in the Constitution.

ADF Legal Counsel Travis Barham said, “a state college … has the duty to protect and promote those freedoms.” He went on, “Students don’t check their constitutionally protected free speech at the campus gate.” He ridiculed the school for hypocritically “touting commitments to ‘diversity’ and ‘open communications.”

The U.S. has a rich history of street preachers. It’s doubtful the college will prevail in ending this tradition, especially if the case makes it up all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court, tends to side in favor of religious freedom. (For more from the author of “College Sued for Banning Student’s Preaching as ‘Disorderly Conduct'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

If Freedom Hurts Your Feelings, College Crybabies, Watch out for This Truth Grenade

It’s getting rather difficult to write headlines and lede paragraphs for these sorts of things, since the same tripe keeps bubbling up over and over from the septic tanks of the American academy.

A college president must profess that freedom of speech is oppressive and objective truth is all a “myth,” according to the demands of an open letter from a group of students at one California college.

It has been over a week since conservative scholar Heather Mac Donald was chased off the campus of Pomona College by the illiberal ilk of the same whiny thugs who mobbed Charles Murray at Middlebury College earlier this year.

“This is not just my loss of free speech,” Mac Donald told Fox and Friends afterwards. “These students are exercising brute force against their fellow students to prevent them from hearing me live.”

A few days prior to the incident, the university’s outgoing president, David Oxtoby, sent an email that reiterated the college’s commitment to “the exercise of free speech and academic freedom.”

Now, with all the trappings of a modern-day witch-burning, a trio of underclassmen graduating in 2019 and 2020, along with some 20-plus signatories, have demanded that Oxtoby formally recant in the form of a revised email “apologizing for the previous patronizing statement, enforcing that Pomona College does not tolerate hate speech and speech that projects violence onto the bodies of its marginalized students and oppressed peoples …”

The letter was first reported by the Claremont Independent, an independent student paper at the Claremont Colleges. According to the outlet’s story on Monday, the signatories have demanded a response by Tuesday, April 18.

But the recant is not enough for Pomona’s heretic hunters; These kids want some scalps. They are demanding that Pomona College and the Claremont system “take action against the Claremont Independent editorial staff for its continual perpetuation of hate speech, anti-Blackness, and intimidation toward students of marginalized backgrounds.”

Such tittles, of course, are all typical battle streamers one should aspire to accrue when writing anything that drifts slightly right of center on a college campus these days.

Most of the eight-paragraph letter remainder reads as a semi-coherent mini-screed articulating what appear to be this month’s most recent intersectionalist shibboleths. For those of you who may not be familiar with the latest liberty-hating campus fad-philosophy, Andrew Sullivan has a worthwhile synopsis at New York Magazine.

“On the surface, it’s a recent neo-Marxist theory that argues that social oppression does not simply apply to single categories of identity — such as race, gender, sexual orientation, class, etc. — but to all of them in an interlocking system of hierarchy and power,” he explains. “It is operating, in Orwell’s words, as a ‘smelly little orthodoxy,’ and it manifests itself, it seems to me, almost as a religion,” the enforcement of which is reminiscent of New England Puritanism.

But it gets better. As if the entire exercise were not rich enough, the authors of intersectional bull then turn their attention to the concept of truth.

“Your statement contains unnuanced views surrounding the academy and a belief in searching for some venerated truth,” the letter continues.

“Historically, white supremacy has venerated the idea of objectivity, and wielded a dichotomy of ‘subjectivity vs. objectivity’ as a means of silencing oppressed peoples. The idea that there is a single truth–’the Truth’–is a construct of the Euro-West that is deeply rooted in the Enlightenment, which was a movement that also described Black and Brown people as both subhuman and impervious to pain. This construction is a myth and white supremacy, imperialism, colonization, capitalism, and the United States of America are all of its progeny.”

One wonders how often the professors who indoctrinated these kids have asked them to cite their sources. I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same Enlightenment, because it sounds like they have a philosophical movement focused on human liberty and empirical truth confused with a weird racist version of Marvel Comics’ Luke Cage.

There are two great ironies here. The first one is that those doing this disparaging of the concept of a universal truth as being “deeply rooted in the Enlightenment” don’t realize how being free to pursue that truth without coercion is itself an Enlightenment principle, or that the rejection of this liberty is typically what leads to real oppression. [See: Fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, Sharia supremacism, etc.] If freedom hurts your feelings, I don’t really know where else to send you, since you clearly also can’t handle true oppression.

The concept of an objective truth isn’t rooted in one philosophical movement; Rather, philosophy itself is rooted in the search for truth, which is rooted in human nature. The difference between those who believe in ‘oppressive’ Enlightenment concepts like free speech and those who don’t is that the former are far more likely to engage in debate than brute-force tactics and toddler-esque demands.

The second irony here is that the letter goes on to espouse a metanarrative of history right after disparaging the concept of objective truth altogether. That’s a flag on the play. You don’t get to call a narrative absurd — or have the audacity to make someone recant their beliefs — when just a moment before you removed the framework that lets you claim one set of beliefs is greater than another. A freshman logic class should remedy this.

Claims like these are best met with philosopher Roger Scruton’s famous quip: “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.” (For more from the author of “If Freedom Hurts Your Feelings, College Crybabies, Watch out for This Truth Grenade” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Cancer Eating Away at College Campuses

The average American has little knowledge of the extent to which our institutions of higher learning have been infected with a spreading cancer.

One aspect of that cancer is akin to the loyalty oaths of the 1940s and ’50s. Professors were often required to sign statements that affirmed their loyalty to the United States government, plus swear they were not members of any organizations, including the Communist Party USA, which sought the overthrow of the United States government.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down loyalty oaths as a condition of employment in 1964.

Today we’re seeing the re-emergence of the mentality that gave us loyalty oaths, in the form of mandating that faculty members write “diversity statements,” especially as part of hiring and promotion procedures. They are forced to pledge allegiance to the college’s diversity agenda.

For example, the University of California, San Diego requires that one’s “Contributions to Diversity Statement” describe one’s “past experience, activities and future plans to advance diversity, equity and inclusion, in alignment with UC San Diego’s mission to reflect the diversity of California and to meet the educational needs and interests of its diverse population.”

George Leef, director of research at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, has written an article titled “Loyalty Oaths Return with Faculty ‘Diversity Statements.’”

His article documents the growing trend of mandated faculty diversity statements—such as that at Virginia Tech, in which “candidates should include a list of activities that promote or contribute to inclusive teaching, research, outreach, and service.”

College diversity agendas are little more than a call for ideological conformity. Diversity only means racial, sex, and sexual orientation quotas.

In pursuit of this agenda, colleges spend billions of dollars on offices of diversity and inclusion, diversity classes, and diversity indoctrination. The last thing that diversity hustlers want is diversity in ideas.

By the way, the next time you hear a college president boasting about how diverse his college is, ask him how many Republican faculty members there are in his journalism, psychology, English, and sociology departments.

In many cases, there is none, and in others, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans might be 20-to-1.

Nearly 100 percent of political campaign contributions from liberal arts faculty go to Democrats. At Cornell University, for example, 97 percent of contributions from faculty went to Democrats. At Georgetown University, it was 96 percent.

A study by my George Mason University colleague Daniel B. Klein, along with Charlotta Stern, titled “Professors and Their Politics: The Policy Views of Social Scientists,” concluded:

The academic social sciences are pretty much a one-party system. Were the Democratic tent broad, the one-party system might have intellectual diversity. But the data show almost no diversity of opinion among the Democratic professors when it comes to the regulatory, redistributive state: They like it. Especially when it comes to the minimum wage, workplace-safety regulation, pharmaceutical regulation, environmental regulation, discrimination regulation, gun control, income redistribution, and public schooling.

The fascist college trend that we are witnessing today is by no means new. As early as 1991, Yale University President Benno Schmidt warned:

The most serious problems of freedom of expression in our society today exist on our campuses. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind.

What diversity oaths seek is to maintain political conformity among the faculty indoctrinating our impressionable, intellectually immature young people. Vladimir Lenin said, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

That’s the goal of the leftist teaching agenda.

You might ask, “Williams, what can be done?” Parents, donors, and legislatures need to stop being lazy. Check to see whether a college has diversity mandates for faculty. Check to see whether campus speakers have been disinvited.

College administrators have closed minds about their diversity agenda, but there’s nothing more effective ‘in opening up closed minds than the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut. (For more from the author of “The Cancer Eating Away at College Campuses” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.