4 ms·

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 stat

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.

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.