8 ms·

71 percent of top colleges still have policies that severely restrict speech

72 points by JacobAldridge 17y ago

pyre 17y ago
The title seems rather meaningless. Saying 71% of 'top colleges' where 'top colleges' has a rather fluid definition doesn't say very much. <anal_retentive> You should probably refer to them as 'universities' since from my experience people outside the US (specifically Canada, but I understand Australians and Europeans are the same) understand 'college' to refer to what Americans view as the 'community college.' When you say college they wouldn't understand you to be including MIT, CalTech, UCLA, etc under that term. </anal_retentive>
- hga 17y ago
  You have a point, but I suspect the tier of colleges below "the top" are just as bad if not worse. So the statement is probably fundamentally true.
- JacobAldridge 17y ago
  It's a fair point (too late for me to change it) although as an Aussie I did understand what it meant. I felt the original title ("PC Never Died") was either vague or misleading, so went with a paraphrased quote from within the article ("71 percent of the 375 top colleges still have policies that severely restrict speech") that I thought summed up the content and relevance to HN.
  - pyre 17y ago
    No worries. The entire comment is a little anal (the last part being even moreso).
  - ramchip 17y ago
    I think any Canadian with sufficient exposure to the Internet will get it, but here in Quebec we don't really use the words 'college' or 'community college'. I remember being a bit confused about its meaning at first.
    - pyre 17y ago
      I've come across people that were mildly confused. Even with non-trivial amounts of exposure to American language-isms/culture it's still possible to over-look the nuances. There are probably a lot of instances where the context doesn't allow the listener to make the distinction between whether the 'Canadian definition' or 'American definition' of the term is being used (unless you're really paying attention for that sort of thing; like if someone told you to pay attention to it).
- manbearpig 17y ago
  Yeah but this is an article about American colleges, and Americans don't read 'college' as 'community college'. College = undergrad. If people from outside the US don't understand this, then here is a chance to learn the vernacular.
- netcan 17y ago
  Actually, in Australia, "College" is used in a few different ways, I think varying by state. Where I went to Uni, college was where you lived. This has been now changed to "residential hall" though it is still referred to colloquially as college. In some states, College means the final two years of school (16-18 yr olds). Since I graduated (3 years ago), my old university has substituted "college" for what used to be called "Faculty." I think previously they still used it as an alternative organizational structure (Faculty of Arts vs College of Fine Arts). Today it seems that The University is now divided into colleges divided into colleges, divided into faculties & schools divided into departments, more or less. Basically, the term is a moving target down here. Anyway, we know what americans mean because all of that wonderful TV that seems to be the number one Yankie export. What I don't understand is the term "community college," other then the fact that is not as good. I'm not sure we have an equivalent. We have crap Universities, obviously, but it's a scale rather then a different creature altogether. Apart from Universities there are TAFEs. These are pretty much "everything else" from 1 week OHS courses to multi-year diplomas similar to University courses, training for 15 year old apprentices and professional training for every class of profession. They are not bound to any particular format.
dunstad 17y ago
This on top of the nonexistence of student rights in grade schools. Why do we think all students are murderers and race/sex/religionists? This issue also bears similarity to airport security after 9/11. America's becoming an expert on inconveniencing the many based on the actions of a few.
- pyre 17y ago
  > This on top of the nonexistence of student rights in grade schools. I think this is mostly because in grade schools students aren't legally considered adults. If I was being really cynical, I could say that the only reason there aren't 'student rights' in grade schools is because grade-schoolers don't vote.
  - Perceval 17y ago
    Minors don't necessarily have the full array of rights that people of majority age have. Schools for a very long time operated in loco parentis -- essentially possessing the same ability to restrict a minor's actions as a parent would have. The doctrine of in loco parentis has been mostly dismantled since the 1960s, but not wholly.
- kinghajj 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines Students in public schools have the right to free speech, so long as it doesn't interfere with the operations of the school.
  - dgordon 17y ago
    No they don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick I consider these decisions disgusting, wrong, and anathema to the Constitution, but there you are.
karzeem 17y ago
There's an important distinction to be made here between public and private colleges. Can't private colleges, being private entities, restrict speech however they see fit, in the same way that your company can?
- mhb 17y ago
  Yes. And the article addresses that distinction. Public institutions are legally obligated and private colleges are morally obligated as well as presumably also motivated by a desire to not appear hypocritical.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    Having just done a word search in the article after reading the article, I don't think the article claims that there is any such distinction. The author of the article, of course, advocates that students generally enjoy broad free speech rights on campus, and gives examples from many different colleges and universities (state-operated and privately operated) where those rights have been severely restricted. I don't think the article gives any comfort on a LEGAL basis that private universities can be substantially more restrictive than public universities in this regard. "And of the 13 legal challenges launched since 2003 against codes that FIRE has deemed unconstitutional, each and every one has been successful. Given the vast differences across judges and jurisdictions, a 13-0 winning streak is, to say the least, an accomplishment."
    - mhb 17y ago
      Yet FIRE has determined that 71 percent of the 375 top colleges still have policies that severely restrict speech. And the problem isn’t limited to campuses that are constitutionally bound to respect free expression. The overwhelming majority of universities, public and private, promise incoming students and professors academic freedom and free speech. When such schools turn around and attempt to limit those students’ and instructors’ speech, they reveal themselves as hypocrites, susceptible not only to rightful public ridicule but also to lawsuits based on their violations of contractual promises.
johnswamps 17y ago
This is pretty shocking as a Stanford grad student. Apparently several students sued the university 15 years ago (Corry v. Stanford University) and won. You can read response of the university president at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/950309corry.html http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches...
mynameishere 17y ago
The student desperately explained that it was an ordinary history book, not a racist tract, and that it in fact celebrated the defeat of the Klan in a 1924 street fight. Just so you guys understand: This is the point of the speech codes (and similar laws in Europe [1]). It is very difficult to get people to make strident affirmations of their political allegiance...unless you start making threats, even if they are crazy threats. This pattern is common. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241994/Businessman-arrested-wife-son--anti-gipsy--email-didn-t-write.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241994/Businessman-...
- pyre 17y ago
  > It is very difficult to get people to make strident affirmations of their political allegiance...unless you start making threats, even if they are crazy threats. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. How is this any different than McCarthyism? Aren't you just trying to publicly 'call people out' on something in an attempt to embarrass them or shame them (or get them arrested)? Even in the story that you linked to, that guy's reputation will be sullied over being arrested for something that he didn't do, much the same as someone being accused/arrested for child rape/porn. Even if the person is innocent, people will always wonder, or know him/her as 'that guy/gal that was arrested for being a pedo.'
scorciapino 17y ago
This is what happens when we cede terrain to these idealistic and demented pressure groups, such as the feminists and the racialists.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  Okay, I actually partially agree with you, but I also think I know why you're being downvoted and how you could comment a little differently so it doesn't happen. I firmly dislike works-in-theory fails-in-world idealism. It's a terrible thing, it causes all sorts of hell and misery. That said, you're probably getting downvoted because you didn't back up your claims to add to the conversation much, and generalized too much. There's sane feminists, and crazy radical feminists. Then, while "idealistic" conveys information, "demented" doesn't add anything. You'd be much better served just pointing out what the dementia specifically is, and dropping the word demented entirely as it's just mudslinging. So, I reckon if your comment had read more like: "This is the end result of ceding terrain to people who are highly idealistic but don't care if their plans work in the real world and don't think about the secondary effects of their actions. For instance, take Radical Group XYZ (link to Wikipedia) - it sounds like a nice cause at first, but it's done a lot of damage." I think that comment would get upvoted quite a lot, as I agree with your general sentiment but slightly disagree with its presentation (I upvoted you though, you were -2 when I came along).
ryanwaggoner 17y ago
I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I understand the case he's making in the article. But on the other hand, a private university is just that: private. If someone comes into my home or a small shop that I own and says something that I consider derogatory to my family members or employees, shouldn't I have the right to eject them? Shouldn't I have the right to fire an employee who is disrespectful to other employees? How is a private school any different?
- Perceval 17y ago
  It's not any different. It is hypocritical however, given that academia is premised upon 'academic freedom.' It's defense of tenure and the controversial statements of professors is based on the notion of academic freedom. Yet the same academic institutions turn around and severely restrict the means of their students to engage in free academic inquiry. And, like the author of the article notes at the end, it is a civic-moral issue. Freedom is not an abstract concept, nor is it simply the absence of coercion. Freedom is a practice—a way of thinking about freedom that goes back to Tocqueville at the very least. Habituation is a very important part of the learning process, and if students are habituated into practices that are antithetical to a free society, we will be profoundly injuring the sustainability of our republic. Simply because private institutions can restrict speech does not mean that they should.
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    Hmm, Universities have traditionally had codes of conduct. They weren't invented by pot-smoking hippies. Tenure is based on the idea that after working like a dog and reaching to top of your field, you should then get an unrestricted forum to express yourself - you've earned it. The examples of someone being falsely accused and convicted of racial harassment don't prove that students should be able to shout racist and sexist slogans whenever they want. It shows that universities should correctly aply statutes against harassment in a reasonably limited fashion. So, of course, universities should restrict some speech. They certainly go overboard in some cases but that's a different matter.
    - 17y ago
wooster 17y ago
Newsflash: School Administrations Hotbeds of Misguided Authoritarianism
lionhearted 17y ago
This kind of thinking terrifies me: > Not content to limit speech, the program also informed resident assistants that “all whites are racists” and that it was the university’s job to heal them But it doesn't terrify me for the reason it would terrify most people. Me, I'm pretty international, from what I know of genetics I'd actually prefer to have mixed blood and bi-cultural children. So why am I terrified? Because this kind of nonsense is really the only way that a vicious white nationalism could make a comeback. It's been thoroughly beaten down, but you could generate a hell of a backlash if you kept up with this kind of "all whites are racist" (direct quote!) type stuff. Really, I think we need to put all forms of nationalism down. White nationalism, yes, but also various fanatical patriotism, religious nationalism, and other forms of racial nationalism - including amongst minorities. This isn't a popular opinion right now, but I think encouraging people to make their skin color part of their identity is likely to lead to adversarial relations. I understand the historical reasons and practical considerations on why it can be beneficial. But at some point you've got to take the high road and stop playing that card, lest you risk resurrecting white nationalism, which certainly wouldn't be a good thing. At the very very least, cut out the "white people are the enemy" thing - the vast majority of educated whites in Western democracies are very open minded, accommodating, and even go a little out of their way to look out for people from tougher backgrounds. The only thing that could be done to screw that up is repeatedly ostracize them... which is exactly the strategy some people are taking. Seems like a very bad idea to me, on pretty much all levels.
- catzaa 17y ago
  There is nothing wrong with a group wanting to protect their language, culture and identity (what you label as XXX nationalism). IMHO, it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would protect/fight for their rights.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > (what you label as XXX nationalism) Not my definition - I'm using "nationalism" to mean the belief that your group should be distinct/superior/excel more than other groups. As an example - wishing to preserve and continue the Spanish literature tradition in Spain wasn't Spanish Nationalism. Prohibitions against teaching, learning, and using English under Francisco Franco was Spanish Nationalism. The former is good, the latter is bad. > IMHO, it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would protect/fight for their rights. The Greeks used to fight like crazy amongst themselves, for instance, the Peloponnesian Wars. There was lots of bloodshed and destruction and waste. The Greeks had a nationalistic loyalty to their particular city-state. This ended when the Persians showed up, who were orders of magnitude less appealing to the Greeks, and that did away with a lot of inter-Greek warfare and nationalism. I believe the same can be said of races and religions these days. Conflict between races is like conflict between the various Greek city-states: A damn waste. We've got bigger problems to solve, and can probably work on a better level than that. Thinking that black people and white people, etc, etc can look after each other might sound now like the idea of Spartans and Athenians and Macedonians all on the same side. Crazy, but when it comes to pass, we'll be better off. I understand the purpose of the nationalism, but it's got to stop at some point if we want a better world. At the very least, enemy-centric nationalism where other groups are villainized needs to stop ASAP. Bad will come of it.
Gupie 17y ago
That a college would prosecute a student for reading a book is shocking. However most of the article is about colleges banning thing like "using any email message to insult or embarrass". This is not "severely restricting speech". It is just protecting students from bullying and harassment. Sending an insulting email could be at disciplinary offence at work. It is reasonable not to allow them in colleges.

72 points by JacobAldridge 17y ago

pyre 17y ago

The title seems rather meaningless. Saying 71% of 'top colleges' where 'top colleges' has a rather fluid definition doesn't say very much. <anal_retentive> You should probably refer to them as 'universities' since from my experience people outside the US (specifically Canada, but I understand Australians and Europeans are the same) understand 'college' to refer to what Americans view as the 'community college.' When you say college they wouldn't understand you to be including MIT, CalTech, UCLA, etc under that term. </anal_retentive>

hga 17y ago
You have a point, but I suspect the tier of colleges below "the top" are just as bad if not worse. So the statement is probably fundamentally true.
JacobAldridge 17y ago
It's a fair point (too late for me to change it) although as an Aussie I did understand what it meant. I felt the original title ("PC Never Died") was either vague or misleading, so went with a paraphrased quote from within the article ("71 percent of the 375 top colleges still have policies that severely restrict speech") that I thought summed up the content and relevance to HN.
- pyre 17y ago
  No worries. The entire comment is a little anal (the last part being even moreso).
- ramchip 17y ago
  I think any Canadian with sufficient exposure to the Internet will get it, but here in Quebec we don't really use the words 'college' or 'community college'. I remember being a bit confused about its meaning at first.
  - pyre 17y ago
    I've come across people that were mildly confused. Even with non-trivial amounts of exposure to American language-isms/culture it's still possible to over-look the nuances. There are probably a lot of instances where the context doesn't allow the listener to make the distinction between whether the 'Canadian definition' or 'American definition' of the term is being used (unless you're really paying attention for that sort of thing; like if someone told you to pay attention to it).
manbearpig 17y ago
Yeah but this is an article about American colleges, and Americans don't read 'college' as 'community college'. College = undergrad. If people from outside the US don't understand this, then here is a chance to learn the vernacular.
netcan 17y ago
Actually, in Australia, "College" is used in a few different ways, I think varying by state. Where I went to Uni, college was where you lived. This has been now changed to "residential hall" though it is still referred to colloquially as college. In some states, College means the final two years of school (16-18 yr olds). Since I graduated (3 years ago), my old university has substituted "college" for what used to be called "Faculty." I think previously they still used it as an alternative organizational structure (Faculty of Arts vs College of Fine Arts). Today it seems that The University is now divided into colleges divided into colleges, divided into faculties & schools divided into departments, more or less. Basically, the term is a moving target down here. Anyway, we know what americans mean because all of that wonderful TV that seems to be the number one Yankie export. What I don't understand is the term "community college," other then the fact that is not as good. I'm not sure we have an equivalent. We have crap Universities, obviously, but it's a scale rather then a different creature altogether. Apart from Universities there are TAFEs. These are pretty much "everything else" from 1 week OHS courses to multi-year diplomas similar to University courses, training for 15 year old apprentices and professional training for every class of profession. They are not bound to any particular format.

dunstad 17y ago

This on top of the nonexistence of student rights in grade schools. Why do we think all students are murderers and race/sex/religionists? This issue also bears similarity to airport security after 9/11. America's becoming an expert on inconveniencing the many based on the actions of a few.

pyre 17y ago
> This on top of the nonexistence of student rights in grade schools. I think this is mostly because in grade schools students aren't legally considered adults. If I was being really cynical, I could say that the only reason there aren't 'student rights' in grade schools is because grade-schoolers don't vote.
- Perceval 17y ago
  Minors don't necessarily have the full array of rights that people of majority age have. Schools for a very long time operated in loco parentis -- essentially possessing the same ability to restrict a minor's actions as a parent would have. The doctrine of in loco parentis has been mostly dismantled since the 1960s, but not wholly.
kinghajj 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines Students in public schools have the right to free speech, so long as it doesn't interfere with the operations of the school.
- dgordon 17y ago
  No they don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_v._Kuhlmeier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick I consider these decisions disgusting, wrong, and anathema to the Constitution, but there you are.

karzeem 17y ago

There's an important distinction to be made here between public and private colleges. Can't private colleges, being private entities, restrict speech however they see fit, in the same way that your company can?

mhb 17y ago
Yes. And the article addresses that distinction. Public institutions are legally obligated and private colleges are morally obligated as well as presumably also motivated by a desire to not appear hypocritical.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  Having just done a word search in the article after reading the article, I don't think the article claims that there is any such distinction. The author of the article, of course, advocates that students generally enjoy broad free speech rights on campus, and gives examples from many different colleges and universities (state-operated and privately operated) where those rights have been severely restricted. I don't think the article gives any comfort on a LEGAL basis that private universities can be substantially more restrictive than public universities in this regard. "And of the 13 legal challenges launched since 2003 against codes that FIRE has deemed unconstitutional, each and every one has been successful. Given the vast differences across judges and jurisdictions, a 13-0 winning streak is, to say the least, an accomplishment."
  - mhb 17y ago
    Yet FIRE has determined that 71 percent of the 375 top colleges still have policies that severely restrict speech. And the problem isn’t limited to campuses that are constitutionally bound to respect free expression. The overwhelming majority of universities, public and private, promise incoming students and professors academic freedom and free speech. When such schools turn around and attempt to limit those students’ and instructors’ speech, they reveal themselves as hypocrites, susceptible not only to rightful public ridicule but also to lawsuits based on their violations of contractual promises.

johnswamps 17y ago

This is pretty shocking as a Stanford grad student. Apparently several students sued the university 15 years ago (Corry v. Stanford University) and won. You can read response of the university president at: http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/950309corry.html http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches...

mynameishere 17y ago

The student desperately explained that it was an ordinary history book, not a racist tract, and that it in fact celebrated the defeat of the Klan in a 1924 street fight. Just so you guys understand: This is the point of the speech codes (and similar laws in Europe [1]). It is very difficult to get people to make strident affirmations of their political allegiance...unless you start making threats, even if they are crazy threats. This pattern is common. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241994/Businessman-arrested-wife-son--anti-gipsy--email-didn-t-write.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241994/Businessman-...

pyre 17y ago
> It is very difficult to get people to make strident affirmations of their political allegiance...unless you start making threats, even if they are crazy threats. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. How is this any different than McCarthyism? Aren't you just trying to publicly 'call people out' on something in an attempt to embarrass them or shame them (or get them arrested)? Even in the story that you linked to, that guy's reputation will be sullied over being arrested for something that he didn't do, much the same as someone being accused/arrested for child rape/porn. Even if the person is innocent, people will always wonder, or know him/her as 'that guy/gal that was arrested for being a pedo.'

scorciapino 17y ago

This is what happens when we cede terrain to these idealistic and demented pressure groups, such as the feminists and the racialists.

lionhearted 17y ago
Okay, I actually partially agree with you, but I also think I know why you're being downvoted and how you could comment a little differently so it doesn't happen. I firmly dislike works-in-theory fails-in-world idealism. It's a terrible thing, it causes all sorts of hell and misery. That said, you're probably getting downvoted because you didn't back up your claims to add to the conversation much, and generalized too much. There's sane feminists, and crazy radical feminists. Then, while "idealistic" conveys information, "demented" doesn't add anything. You'd be much better served just pointing out what the dementia specifically is, and dropping the word demented entirely as it's just mudslinging. So, I reckon if your comment had read more like: "This is the end result of ceding terrain to people who are highly idealistic but don't care if their plans work in the real world and don't think about the secondary effects of their actions. For instance, take Radical Group XYZ (link to Wikipedia) - it sounds like a nice cause at first, but it's done a lot of damage." I think that comment would get upvoted quite a lot, as I agree with your general sentiment but slightly disagree with its presentation (I upvoted you though, you were -2 when I came along).

ryanwaggoner 17y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I understand the case he's making in the article. But on the other hand, a private university is just that: private. If someone comes into my home or a small shop that I own and says something that I consider derogatory to my family members or employees, shouldn't I have the right to eject them? Shouldn't I have the right to fire an employee who is disrespectful to other employees? How is a private school any different?

Perceval 17y ago
It's not any different. It is hypocritical however, given that academia is premised upon 'academic freedom.' It's defense of tenure and the controversial statements of professors is based on the notion of academic freedom. Yet the same academic institutions turn around and severely restrict the means of their students to engage in free academic inquiry. And, like the author of the article notes at the end, it is a civic-moral issue. Freedom is not an abstract concept, nor is it simply the absence of coercion. Freedom is a practice—a way of thinking about freedom that goes back to Tocqueville at the very least. Habituation is a very important part of the learning process, and if students are habituated into practices that are antithetical to a free society, we will be profoundly injuring the sustainability of our republic. Simply because private institutions can restrict speech does not mean that they should.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Hmm, Universities have traditionally had codes of conduct. They weren't invented by pot-smoking hippies. Tenure is based on the idea that after working like a dog and reaching to top of your field, you should then get an unrestricted forum to express yourself - you've earned it. The examples of someone being falsely accused and convicted of racial harassment don't prove that students should be able to shout racist and sexist slogans whenever they want. It shows that universities should correctly aply statutes against harassment in a reasonably limited fashion. So, of course, universities should restrict some speech. They certainly go overboard in some cases but that's a different matter.
  - 17y ago

wooster 17y ago

Newsflash: School Administrations Hotbeds of Misguided Authoritarianism

lionhearted 17y ago

This kind of thinking terrifies me: > Not content to limit speech, the program also informed resident assistants that “all whites are racists” and that it was the university’s job to heal them But it doesn't terrify me for the reason it would terrify most people. Me, I'm pretty international, from what I know of genetics I'd actually prefer to have mixed blood and bi-cultural children. So why am I terrified? Because this kind of nonsense is really the only way that a vicious white nationalism could make a comeback. It's been thoroughly beaten down, but you could generate a hell of a backlash if you kept up with this kind of "all whites are racist" (direct quote!) type stuff. Really, I think we need to put all forms of nationalism down. White nationalism, yes, but also various fanatical patriotism, religious nationalism, and other forms of racial nationalism - including amongst minorities. This isn't a popular opinion right now, but I think encouraging people to make their skin color part of their identity is likely to lead to adversarial relations. I understand the historical reasons and practical considerations on why it can be beneficial. But at some point you've got to take the high road and stop playing that card, lest you risk resurrecting white nationalism, which certainly wouldn't be a good thing. At the very very least, cut out the "white people are the enemy" thing - the vast majority of educated whites in Western democracies are very open minded, accommodating, and even go a little out of their way to look out for people from tougher backgrounds. The only thing that could be done to screw that up is repeatedly ostracize them... which is exactly the strategy some people are taking. Seems like a very bad idea to me, on pretty much all levels.

catzaa 17y ago
There is nothing wrong with a group wanting to protect their language, culture and identity (what you label as XXX nationalism). IMHO, it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would protect/fight for their rights.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > (what you label as XXX nationalism) Not my definition - I'm using "nationalism" to mean the belief that your group should be distinct/superior/excel more than other groups. As an example - wishing to preserve and continue the Spanish literature tradition in Spain wasn't Spanish Nationalism. Prohibitions against teaching, learning, and using English under Francisco Franco was Spanish Nationalism. The former is good, the latter is bad. > IMHO, it is naive for individuals to assume that someone else would protect/fight for their rights. The Greeks used to fight like crazy amongst themselves, for instance, the Peloponnesian Wars. There was lots of bloodshed and destruction and waste. The Greeks had a nationalistic loyalty to their particular city-state. This ended when the Persians showed up, who were orders of magnitude less appealing to the Greeks, and that did away with a lot of inter-Greek warfare and nationalism. I believe the same can be said of races and religions these days. Conflict between races is like conflict between the various Greek city-states: A damn waste. We've got bigger problems to solve, and can probably work on a better level than that. Thinking that black people and white people, etc, etc can look after each other might sound now like the idea of Spartans and Athenians and Macedonians all on the same side. Crazy, but when it comes to pass, we'll be better off. I understand the purpose of the nationalism, but it's got to stop at some point if we want a better world. At the very least, enemy-centric nationalism where other groups are villainized needs to stop ASAP. Bad will come of it.

Gupie 17y ago

That a college would prosecute a student for reading a book is shocking. However most of the article is about colleges banning thing like "using any email message to insult or embarrass". This is not "severely restricting speech". It is just protecting students from bullying and harassment. Sending an insulting email could be at disciplinary offence at work. It is reasonable not to allow them in colleges.