Sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me....

Universities were once known as a breeding ground for free thought. A place where scholars and students alike could gather and participate in the exchange of ideas. It was a place to be offended, to learn, to discuss and compromise. This is how we grow and learn as humans; by listening to other’s points of view and then deciphering among ourselves whether or not we concede or reject their philosophies, theories and ideas. I use past tense words such as “were” and “was” because it is seemingly not the case anymore, regardless of what the school administrations insist.

Recently, a speaker by the name of Milo Yiannopolous has brought forth this issue into the spotlight and made an example, using himself as a provocateur, and showing us the bias that exists within the collegiate population. (Now, this thread is not about your personal feeling towards him, I am merely using the most recent example. Please do not let your personal feeling on the speaker cloud your judgement on this particular subject.) There seem to be several forces driving the suppression initiative of silencing conservative students and inspiring abhorrent behavior under the guise of attempts to overcome intolerance, or “hate speech” if you will.

To truly see how this is effecting our student government and arguably the future of our government in its entirety, we must look at what is not being said publically rather than what is being shouted over megaphones and painted onto signs. We need to look at the war being waged behind the hushed doors of “tolerance” and “social justice” to see the hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed oppressed.

LELA VS BOARD OF TRUSTEES

This was a very hard case to separate my own personal bias from, so I will start with this. The summary of this case is as follows:

Plaintiffs contend that on or about January 16, 2014, plaintiff Lela contacted WCC requesting to distribute flyers on the school's Sugar Grove campus. Lela was referred to WCC employee Debby Wilhelmi, who asked to see copies of the leaflets plaintiffs intended to distribute. Plaintiffs provided Wilhelmi with two flyers: "The Uncensored Truth About Homosexuality;" and "`Gay' Activism and Freedom of Speech and Religion." Both flyers promote an anti-homosexuality message. The flyers were sponsored by Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment ("H.O.M.E."), an organization founded by Lela. On January 21, 2014, Lela received a letter from WCC's Executive Vice President of Finance and Operations, David Quillen, denying Lela's request to distribute flyers at the college. Quillen's letter stated that WCC "is not an open public forum" and that "[t]he college consistently limits campus activities to events that are not disruptive of the college's educational mission."

Hans Bader responded to these instances with a very well, thought out rebuttal.

First Amendment Protections on Public College and University Campuses

While colleges could theoretically raise First Amendment objections to the Education Department’s overly broad definition of harassment, they are unlikely to do so, because the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) could cut off all their federal funds, or subject them to an extremely costly investigation, for failure to comply. It is generally cheaper for a college to violate the First Amendment than to be accused of violating laws against sexual harassment or discrimination, as I explain later on.

It would be a mistake for this Congress to overlook OCR’s overreaching, given the tendency of liberal civil-rights officials to classify commonplace conservative (and even moderate) views as racist in effect, if not intent.33 For example, a civil-rights historian argued in a Washington Post op-ed that “the tea party movement’s assault on so-called Big Government,” “despite the sanitized language of fiscal responsibility,” “constitutes an attack on African American jobs,” because “public-sector employment . . .has traditionally been an important venue for creating a black middle class.” 34 Even the use of the term “black” rather than “African-American” is viewed as a racial provocation by some school racial equity officials.35

TheFire.org

The above organization also touches on key concerns that many have about the obvious suppression of basic vocal freedoms on America's campuses.

Nevertheless, freedom of speech is under continuous threat at many of America’s campuses, pushed aside in favor of politics, comfort, or simply a desire to avoid controversy. As a result, speech codes dictating what may or may not be said, “free speech zones” confining free speech to tiny areas of campus, and administrative attempts to punish or repress speech on a case-by-case basis are common today in academia.

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ― Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood, The Busy-Body, and Early Writings

My question to you is, where do you draw the line? Where is it appropriate to take away someone's right to speak freely? When is it considered abusive? When it hurts your feelings? Don't we teach children at a young age that words cannot physically hurt you and can only effect you if you listen to them? This seems to be a growing trend and is pretty disturbing, IMO.

Thanks for reading! SDB

The free exchange of thoughts and ideas...until you don't like some new diretions in thought. Not all colleges and all students are looking for safe spaces or running from speech that somehow emotionally hurts them. That is WAY overblown.

If it hurts your feelings, you should be able to say so and why. I don't think it should impede another's ability to keep speaking, though, unless it is extremely hateful, racist or somehow against the code of conduct at the school.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Your right, it used to be sticks and stones... but now it's word can hurt too. The continued pussifaction of America. Next thing you know, they will have social laws about how to name your kids and what color socks you can wear without offending some jack wagon. I teach my kids to stand their ground, if somebody says something you don't like move along (if you don't like me well leave me alone) but if they lay a hand on you, break it off and make em choke on it.

I understand full and well that I will not like what everyone has to say. I am not sure why this is a hard concept for everyone else to get.

originally posted by: reldra
The free exchange of thoughts and ideas...until you don't like some new diretions in thought. Not all colleges and all students are looking for safe spaces or running from speech that somehow emotionally hurts them. That is WAY overblown.

If it hurts your feelings, you should be able to say so and why. I don't think it should impede another's ability to keep speaking, though, unless it is extremely hateful, racist or somehow against the code of conduct at the school.

But what happens when the scope is broadened on the terms you described? "Racism" by definition is bad but it is being practiced most by the groups that claim to fight against it the most.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

If I were to present a Dean with a bulletin board leaflet entitled "Students Against Sunrise & Morning" I would fully expect it to be rejected. You see in such a case I am not being discriminated against for having an ardent agenda against morning and sunrise. My bulletin board notice is being rejected because it protests an unchangeable reality about which nothing can or should be done.

Some people are homosexual. They have an agenda which is pretty much the same as your agenda or my agenda. They want to live free of bullies and condemnation and yes even "concern trolls". They like you and me want to make a decent living at an interesting job or profession. They want to have enough to eat and warm place to sleep. They want to meet someone and fall in love and live happily ever after.

All of what I have described is simply reality. It needs to be accepted and respected as such. Colleges are right NOT to promote a view of academic freedom that allows such freedom to be used to advance grandiose arguments that are simply flying cover for hatred.

originally posted by: lunatux
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

They want to have enough to eat and warm place to sleep. They want to meet someone and fall in love and live happily ever after. All of what I have described is simply reality that needs to respected NOT promoted into a grandiose argument that is simply flying cover for hate.

People of their community are not going to be effected by the leaflets so the idea that it would hinder their chances to fall in love is pretty moot. I agree that people SHOULD be respectful but they also should not be silenced.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Certainly people of their community (human beings) are going to be offended by literature that opposes their very existence. How could they not be?

Yet the actual thrust of the argument I made was that both academic freedom and bulletin board space are better used to debate actual issues not prosaic realities that someone simply does not want to accept. I don't have to like sunrise or mornings; I do have to accept them. And if I want to be so silly as to protest sunrise and mornings I don't merit the support of an institution of higher learning in pressing on with my folly.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

If I wanted a population of idiots, if I wanted a population of obedient sheep that would cave at the slightest indication of friction, I would start in the schools and breed these timid, useful idiots like docile cows.

But only if I wanted a population that was obedient and easily controllable.

a reply to: reldra

If it hurts your feelings, you should be able to say so and why. I don't think it should impede another's ability to keep speaking, though, unless it is extremely hateful, racist or somehow against the code of conduct at the school.

Define hate using objectivity ie without feelings

ETA

Not all colleges and all students are looking for safe spaces or running from speech that somehow emotionally hurts them. That is WAY overblown.

This is an accurate reflection of college campuses in the UK. I have taken a keen interest inn this for several months.

The Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) is the UK’s first university rankings for free speech. We’ve surveyed all British universities, examining the policies and actions of universities and students’ unions, and ranked them using our traffic-light system. Read our analysis below and get clued up on the bans and bureaucracy stifling free debate.

Some stats

30 universities have banned newspapers, 25 have banned songs, 42% of universities have censorious equality policies, 39% have no-platform policies, 33% have censorious zero-tolerance policies.

Its a repugnant septic disease totalitarianism.

Link

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
"Racism" by definition is bad but it is being practiced most by the groups that claim to fight against it the most.

But not in the mind of the Social Justice Warrior.

And when the light of truth illuminates their hypocrisy, they shut down for a bit, take their argument elsewhere and try again. You see, when there are no consequences, the losses don't count against you. Only the victories matter.

I agree we make a choice to be offended...I realised this a while ago and now just say "well that's your opinion man.
I much prefer folk speaking their mind even if it is racist or bigoted at least I know folks true colours.

originally posted by: lunatux
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Certainly people of their community (human beings) are going to be offended by literature that opposes their very existence. How could they not be?

Yet the actual thrust of the argument I made was that both academic freedom and bulletin board space are better used to debate actual issues not prosaic realities that someone simply does not want to accept. I don't have to like sunrise or mornings; I do have to accept them. And if I want to be so silly as to protest sunrise and mornings I don't merit the support of an institution of higher learning in pressing on with my folly.

So if you truly believed in your cause, that make it important? Maybe not to others but at least to you? I get that you are exaggerating an issue that probably no one else has, but people also used to shun philosophers as heretics about their ideals and yet we still study them to this day. Just because an issue is not important to someone does not mean it is not important to anyone or any less worthy of some attention. Just look at some of the threads on here.... I could not care less about some of the subjects discussed but sometimes by jumping in on discussions of ideology you can learn more about your own personal beliefs.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
"Racism" by definition is bad but it is being practiced most by the groups that claim to fight against it the most.

But not in the mind of the Social Justice Warrior.

And when the light of truth illuminates their hypocrisy, they shut down for a bit, take their argument elsewhere and try again. You see, when there are no consequences, the losses don't count against you. Only the victories matter.

I tend to agree. Should the administration really be made to punish students for their collective ideas? This is where I am at a loss. I understand that certain things hold more of a personal meaning to certain people. My mother was taunted in HS for being Italian American. They called her such words as half-breed, dego, WOP, and multitude of other slurrs. I have extended family that are Black, Mexican and even Filipino as well as some extremely racist family members (it's fun at the family reunions). I have spoken with them all on this issue and the collective narrative is "That's their opinion and it isn't hurting me any." This is how I was raised. So I am perplexed by the idea that people can take such offense and others be made to walk on egg shells around each other.

originally posted by: reldra
The free exchange of thoughts and ideas...until you don't like some new diretions in thought. Not all colleges and all students are looking for safe spaces or running from speech that somehow emotionally hurts them. That is WAY overblown.

If it hurts your feelings, you should be able to say so and why. I don't think it should impede another's ability to keep speaking, though, unless it is extremely hateful, racist or somehow against the code of conduct at the school.

You and I both know there is an agenda there to put an end to "free thought" . To force people to think the same way about everything. To accept "things" they normally would not. It is one thing to debate , discuss the issues. It is another to create laws to end that selfsame debate.
How many times have you had your feelings hurt in life ? Think.The name for it is "opposition" . Did it make you a better person ? It did me. I used each an every time to improve and toughen myself. To be shielded from life's bad times only serves to create weak willed people. I can see the point of it all .Weak willed people are easily overcome. In any case , they feel beat down, they have no response to it all. Which is the better case ?

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

S+F. We must always have the freedom to hate.

In one of my recent threads I tried to demonstrate why. Censorship drives hate underground where it festers and grows unchallenged. It also deprives us of the ability to see, challenge and dent hateful ideology.

They should be teaching this to all students.

originally posted by: Morrad
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Censorship drives hate underground where it festers and grows unchallenged. It also deprives us of the ability to see, challenge and dent hateful ideology.

They should be teaching this to all students.

exactly

a reply to: Morrad

Political correctness, inhibition of words and phrases just makes a society of liars.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Morrad

Political correctness, inhibition of words and phrases just makes a society of liars.

I agree. It also breeds resentment because you aren't allowed to hear what other people think.

youtu.be...

This is the recent events that occured.

One student even said about protesting opposition "should be marginalized".

Ending free speech is not okay.