Harvard Named Worst School for Free Speech Scoring 0 out of Possible 100

Our most well known and well respected LAW school isn't safe for the 1st amendment. It's over folks. I'm not being cheeky. USA is officially no more. Again, not being cheeky. I miss the USA. It had some good ideas.

"Liberal" "Liberty" "Freedom" "Restrict free speech".
My official diagnosis: This country has severe Schizophrenia.

I suspect a lot of the profs that claimed to be centrist or moderate are actually far left.

I've dealt with a LOT of people in the academic community that strut like lions on campus and are pretty helpless in the real world.

a reply to: ElGoobero

i tend to view those who claim to be centerists to actually be the most extreme as they use it to mask their extremism..

originally posted by: TheValeyard
"Liberal" "Liberty" "Freedom" "Restrict free speech".
My official diagnosis: This country has severe Schizophrenia.

sounds like new liberalism to me, the same kinds of new liberalism/new colonialism that caused the great liberal war.. (1914/18) ours started with the iraq war driven by religious crusaders like tony blair and his 3rd way politics..

To say that any Ivy League schools are right leaning is very misleading. There may be a few left-leaning schools where conservative viewpoints are still tolerated, like Princeton and Dartmouth and Penn, but they are far from conservative or right-leaning - except in contrast to the very leftist schools like Brown, Columbia, Harvard, and Yale don't even pretend to tolerate diversity in points of view.

An interesting read:

www.bostonglobe.com...

At the same time, he said, other students were expressing to the dean privately that there should be certain topics that Harvard should not teach because, by today’s standards, they are considered “sexist, classist, racist, or anti-semitic,” for example.

www.harvardmagazine.com...

While supporting the students’ right to protest, she made clear in a forcefully worded statement that they would not be allowed a “heckler’s veto” in the future.

In a course on argument and persuasion, Hall has developed a few strategies for overcoming differences of opinion and interpretation. First, he signals to students from the outset that by having discussions about controversial subjects they are making an investment in their own education. And then he asks small groups to work out logic puzzles together. For a complex puzzle, each student might initially follow a different path in their attempts to find the solution, disagreeing initially about how to solve it; but in the end, all converge effortlessly on a single answer without disagreement. And then the rest of the class reflects on the logic used to reach a solution. In this way, he demonstrates that “argumentation can be used as a way of forging a collective understanding. And then we move into talking about cases where the students will not end up agreeing, even though thoughtfully constructed argumentation as a vehicle for producing an understanding of a viewpoint still applies.” By being transparent about the aims of the exercise and by pointing out that “there are non-trivial emotional burdens that are not equally distributed” among the students, it is possible, he has found, to create a common sense of purpose and trust in the classroom.

There is a right way and a wrong way of doing it, IMO.

a reply to: FlyersFan

They've certainly lowered their admissions standards taking celebrity activist students even if their grades are not impressive. David Hogg is one example and jazz Jennings was another but she seemed to know that she'd never be able to handle college life. Even Obama got in and his grades were mediocre and he had to have his work done for him and that was over 30 years ago.