4 ms·

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:

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.
  - Perceval 17y ago
    Well, no one should shout racist and sexist slogans whenever they want--inside academia or out. Nevertheless, people--inside academia and outside--should have the right to say controversial and offensive things, express themselves, and read the books they choose to. I am not clear why people outside of academia should enjoy broader freedom to speak their minds and read controversial books than people inside academia. I entirely agree with you that behavior intended to disrupt or harass should not be tolerated, but the speech codes are clearly written with the intent to prevent certain types of speech, opinions, or political positions.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
Most of the schools mentioned in the article are government schools: Purdue, Wisconsin, Cincinnatti, UConn, Texas A&M, Murray, Idaho, Delaware (probably more). Also, most private schools get lots of money from the federal and state government.
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  The state school versus private school thing is a red herring. Most public universities are run as trusts somewhat separated from the state governments that sponsor them. Moreover, a state school pretty much has have policies equivalent to private universities. Freedom of speech means the state doesn't go out and restrict what people say in their own property or in public areas. The constitution's Freedom Of Speech claus isn't a freedom of speech on government property as such; your speech is very much restricted inside a courtroom, for example and even Rush Limbaugh hasn't been dumb enough to challenge that one. Elementary school students aren't accorded freedom of speech either. Perhaps they should be but that's not the kind of freedom Rush Limbaugh is after, I think.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Public universities are government agencies, and as such, must obey the constitution. Their funding comes (in part) from taxpayers, their employees get state employee pensions, etc. I would also demand that private universities which take government money respect constitutional limitations. In any case, no one is demanding free speech inside a courtroom. Also, no one is demanding free speech inside a final exam. What is being demanded is free speech in government spaces of public accommodation. This means that the government can't restrict speech in the plaza in front of a courthouse, a national park, or a college quad (except in content-neutral ways).
    - jon_dahl 17y ago
      Public universities are government agencies I'm pretty sure this is not true in the US. "State schools" (eg University of [state]) are private organizations that are chartered by the state, and partially funded by the government. So there is definitely a strong public link, but they're still private, and there is a big difference between a public university and (say) a public secondary school. Not to disagree with your overall point; public funds should come along with some basic respect for the Bill of Rights.
Zak 17y ago
Legally, I think you're right. Private universities should not be told what sort of speech they have to forbid or permit by the government. That said, there are many forms of social pressure that may be brought to bear on a private organization - publishing articles at reason.com, for example. I'm all for putting pressure on universities and employers place unreasonable restrictions on free speech. Of course, everyone has a different interpretation of reasonable.
ytinas 17y ago
This isn't so cut and dry. How many rights do you expect to hold over people in your private store? I had a boss tell me that if he was paying me I had to do anything he said. If I didn't like that I had the "right" to quit. Fantastic. Imagine if every company worked like that.

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.
- Perceval 17y ago
  Well, no one should shout racist and sexist slogans whenever they want--inside academia or out. Nevertheless, people--inside academia and outside--should have the right to say controversial and offensive things, express themselves, and read the books they choose to. I am not clear why people outside of academia should enjoy broader freedom to speak their minds and read controversial books than people inside academia. I entirely agree with you that behavior intended to disrupt or harass should not be tolerated, but the speech codes are clearly written with the intent to prevent certain types of speech, opinions, or political positions.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

Most of the schools mentioned in the article are government schools: Purdue, Wisconsin, Cincinnatti, UConn, Texas A&M, Murray, Idaho, Delaware (probably more). Also, most private schools get lots of money from the federal and state government.

joe_the_user 17y ago
The state school versus private school thing is a red herring. Most public universities are run as trusts somewhat separated from the state governments that sponsor them. Moreover, a state school pretty much has have policies equivalent to private universities. Freedom of speech means the state doesn't go out and restrict what people say in their own property or in public areas. The constitution's Freedom Of Speech claus isn't a freedom of speech on government property as such; your speech is very much restricted inside a courtroom, for example and even Rush Limbaugh hasn't been dumb enough to challenge that one. Elementary school students aren't accorded freedom of speech either. Perhaps they should be but that's not the kind of freedom Rush Limbaugh is after, I think.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Public universities are government agencies, and as such, must obey the constitution. Their funding comes (in part) from taxpayers, their employees get state employee pensions, etc. I would also demand that private universities which take government money respect constitutional limitations. In any case, no one is demanding free speech inside a courtroom. Also, no one is demanding free speech inside a final exam. What is being demanded is free speech in government spaces of public accommodation. This means that the government can't restrict speech in the plaza in front of a courthouse, a national park, or a college quad (except in content-neutral ways).
  - jon_dahl 17y ago
    Public universities are government agencies I'm pretty sure this is not true in the US. "State schools" (eg University of [state]) are private organizations that are chartered by the state, and partially funded by the government. So there is definitely a strong public link, but they're still private, and there is a big difference between a public university and (say) a public secondary school. Not to disagree with your overall point; public funds should come along with some basic respect for the Bill of Rights.

Zak 17y ago

Legally, I think you're right. Private universities should not be told what sort of speech they have to forbid or permit by the government. That said, there are many forms of social pressure that may be brought to bear on a private organization - publishing articles at reason.com, for example. I'm all for putting pressure on universities and employers place unreasonable restrictions on free speech. Of course, everyone has a different interpretation of reasonable.

ytinas 17y ago

This isn't so cut and dry. How many rights do you expect to hold over people in your private store? I had a boss tell me that if he was paying me I had to do anything he said. If I didn't like that I had the "right" to quit. Fantastic. Imagine if every company worked like that.