7 ms·

Universities can now penalize students for what they do in their private lives'? Well that's dystopian. Reading the article, it's pretty clear this can, and wil

Universities can now penalize students for what they do in their private lives'? Well that's dystopian. Reading the article, it's pretty clear this can, and will, be used for ideological ends: "Students whose off-campus behavior has a significant adverse impact on the University community, its members, and/or the pursuit of its mission and educational objectives." They do specify that violence is one of the two reasons, however in the current ideological climate, violence has been classified in a super broad way that does not match the conventional description of violence. Some institutes have classified some speech acts as violence. Which is alarming. Also, disrupting the university's "pursuit of its mission" is a very ominous turn of phrase. It's reminiscent of the phrase "anti-revolutionary acts". Imagine being sanctioned for "acts which disrupt the mission of the institution"? Others have pointed out that I grabbed an old version of the document to quote. Fair, that said however the text when updated includes: "[that] which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members" Again, disruption to members can, and has been, classified as "making feel uncomfortable". The language of this, in any revision shown, is dangerous. Someone being upset could easily argue that the "disruption" caused them harm, and prevented them from carrying out the institution's academic goals. Different wording, same impact. ' Updated from initial wording to avoid spreading mistaken information.

ixacto 5y ago
Well in the current ideological climate "silence is violence", as they say, damn this 1984ificaton of speech sucks. More specifically I think this is targeted at any views they don't like which really sucks. It's a public university which means you have to see even the views that you don't like.
- tines 5y ago
  Too bad silence and violence almost rhyme, otherwise no one would have thought up this stupid phrase.
- silicon2401 5y ago
  Exemplary modern dialogue shut-down tactic. Don't question me, don't debate me, don't ask me questions, don't think. If you don't do exactly what I say is good, you're problematic. If you're not as extreme as me, you're as bad as the enemy. Things like this have made me lose faith in modern civilization; we're watching the beginning of a catastrophic downfall.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    Eh. First of all, "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying. Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. It's easy to see someone get canceled on Twitter and jump to the conclusion that the Red Army is right around the corner. I'm not that worried in the long run. Be understanding, but push back, and remember that some people will always be jerks no matter what the context or what ideals they find themselves aligned with.
    - silicon2401 5y ago
      > "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying. Freedom, like freedom of speech and freedom of association, includes the freedom to inaction and silence. Assuming the worst (that someone is racist if they don't tweet about racism every day etc) is toxic behavior
    - CodeGlitch 5y ago
      > Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. But that's the problem, it's the extreme vocal minority who are calling for (and succeeding in) cancellations of perfectly reasonable individuals who want to speak at universities. See Jordan Peterson, etc.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    This statement is exactly true after removing "as extreme" too. These days anyone with a different opinion can be considered an enemy, extreme or not. Actually, when was it not a problem? I vaguely remember christianity's historical splits were caused by lesser disagreements (at least what was stated to be the cause).
- eplanit 5y ago
  Further, willfully damaging or destroying physical buildings and "things" is _not_ violence. [1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroying-property-is-not-violence/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroy...
- burkaman 5y ago
  As you read in both the article and the policy, the word violence has been removed and clarified as "behavior which seriously threatens the health or safety of any person".
  - floren 5y ago
    "This post makes me feel unsafe"
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - burkaman 5y ago
      This isn't a social media policy, so I still don't understand why everyone's focusing on "posts", but sure, if they apply this clause to anything that makes anyone feel unsafe, that would be bad. I guess you win there. If you're able to come up with a useful set of rules that can't possibly be abused, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested to see them.
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    I wonder if they have the integrity to apply that to cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol, engaging in unprotected sex (while infectious with STD), or having a lifestyle that causes obesity.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Warning: Off-topic rabbit-hole follows. I've seen "silence is violence" a number of times, and regarded it (justifiably, I think) as manipulative BS. Then I saw one sign that said "silence = additional deaths". That one I found a bit harder to dismiss. If (if) you think the statistics indicate that blacks are getting killed at disproportional rates, and if you think that you can put enough political pressure on to change things, then silence is not direct violence, but it is letting things continue to happen the way they've been happening. It at least made me think, which "silence is violence" didn't.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    While that argument is more nuanced than "silence is violence", it has its own share of issues. Death is egalitarian but its judgement isn't based on Rawlsian principles. Rather, it is firmly staked in Darwinian ones. Suggesting one's "silence" or lack thereof has an effect on that is a false correlation. The problem with these arguments as a whole is that they ascribe a two-dimensional zero-sum game to what is in fact a more complex issue with millions of variables involved. Remember that slogans exist as signaling for likeminded people and a publicity attractor to the rest of the crowd. They don't exist to persuade others of a point or provide a workable method for achieving an aim. The best way to obtain the latter is to present your case in full to a legal society.
silicon2401 5y ago
This kind of thing is what helped me see that universities really have become institutions for social policing, rather than teaching objectivity and rational thought. It's tragic that people are so comfortable trampling over things like free speech under the facade of safety, and even more tragic that people fall for the deceit.
ncallaway 5y ago
Can you help me find in the linked PDF an reference to "monitoring" or "surveillance"? I can't find any reference to anything of the kind. The word "monitor" doesn't appear in the document, and the word "surveil" only appears once, in the definition of "Stalking". The portion you quoted appears to be a portion of the document that was deleted and rewritten. "pursuit of its mission" is, for example, deleted from the document and replaced with the phrase "in which the University can demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution".
- trutannus 5y ago
  Fair, however the text when updated includes: "which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members" Again, disruption to members can, and has been, classified as "making feel uncomfortable". The language of this, in any revision shown, is dangerous. Someone being upset could easily argue that the "disruption" caused them harm, and prevented them from carrying out the institution's academic goals. This is functionally the same point, just couched in slightly more vague terminology.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Yes, but it doesn't say that the school is actively monitoring anything. The title of the article makes it sound like they are requiring passwords to people's social media accounts--like the US government does for visa applicants.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    Okay, fine. I totally understand some people might have complaints with the previous language and the new language. Can you help me understand how the headline of linked post isn't just...factually wrong, though? The headline is: "University of Oregon will monitor students' social media statements". Unless I'm missing something that's just factually incorrect. What I'd like to get to is: Did I miss something, or is that headline just wrong? A sentence from the article is: "Now, the Board of Trustees at the University of Oregon have approved a vague policy that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other “conduct” of its students" I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document. Again, I'm trying to figure out: did I miss something or fail to understand something, or is that sentence just factually wrong?
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
More likely they'll just dig through people's history as needed to get them to bend over and take whatever way the university is mistreating them that minute. "thank you for contacting us to appeal your parking ticket, we would like to remind you of our policy on off-campus behavior (attached) and what you tweeted on 4/20/2015, if you would like to formally appeal your ticket please fill and return the appeal form (also attached)."
- lamontcg 5y ago
  Yeah people freaking out over getting "cancelled" due to political views are missing the more mundane way this could be used to retaliate against students posting shit in general about the university.
fallingknife 5y ago
I'm done with it. I vote Republican now.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  I'm certainly not going to tell you how to vote, but as a heads up this particular article seems to be factually incorrect. As far as I can tell (and I'm asking for clarifications from people, in case I've misunderstood something) the headline is not supported by the linked document, and the key sentences from the article are not supported by the linked document. The words "monitor", "mandate", "surveillance", and "social media" don't appear anywhere in this policy change. I can't find anything in the linked policy "that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other 'conduct' of its students".
- arbitrary_name 5y ago
  Oh great, so voting restrictions, abortion bans and tacit support of violent right wing extremists are now comparable to a university enacting a vague policy that doesn't actually seen to imply that they will do any monitoring? I would prefer if you just abstained from voting, honestly.
  - throwaway292893 5y ago
    Wanting secure voting is not restricting it. Fighting for rights of the unborn is not a bad thing when you believe they are alive at a certain point before birth (some people are fighting simply for abortion to be banned after birth). Antifa/BLM has done more damage and death in these past years of riots than anything the "right-wing extreme" has done in terms of body count and property damage. What right wing group and what event are you talking about? Jan 6th, the only person who was killed was shot by a cop. Something tells me you just wanted to lay hyperboles down in an unfair way and scuttle away. Locally, the border issue matters greatly to me and I feel a strong stance is both the moral, economic, and secure choice. We shouldn't incentivize people to make that terrible trip. The cartels make more money off of trafficking humans than drugs. Letting wall parts rust that are already paid for is a stupid move. Complete the wall, it works. It frees up agents to handle other areas and keep the cartels from smuggling and lets more people come in legally. All that being said, those issues aren't even on the table. Currently the important issues are the 1A and the 2A and the Democrats seem to HATE them, they vehemently support censorship and gun control for law abiding citizens. If you can't even support the first two amendments, how are you going to get my support?
jrsj 5y ago
At this point I feel like we have 2 political parties trying to create different dystopian nightmares and there’s no non-dystopian option.
- ed25519FUUU 5y ago
  My vote goes to the candidate that supports free speech. Today that’s mostly republicans and I’ve come to terms with that. Yesterday it was Democrats and it may be Democrats again tomorrow.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure Republicans are presently trying to pass a bunch of speech restrictions on campus aimed at curbing Critical Race Theory. CRT is hot garbage to be sure, but Republicans--unwilling to cede the moral low ground--are opting to solve the problem by way of speech codes and assaults on academic freedom.
    - throwaway292893 5y ago
      They're not limiting any student from talking about it, just it from being taught, because it's indoctrinating Marxist bullshit. No different than them trying to teach Creationism.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        Agreed that they're not banning students from talking about it and that it's BS, but as far as I know state governments don't have laws that forbid teaching creationism in public universities.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        They have lawsuits preventing teaching creationism in public universities, based on the Establishment Clause.
2Gkashmiri 5y ago
yeah... in india this is the same feeling. you are not supposed to diminish or try to suggest ideas that would incite feelings of diminishing the authority of an institution, usually courts or ruling party or some professional institutions... The "image" of an institution is worth more than the life of an individual. Again, if i write a tweet critical of some public figure, i have somehow brought the wrath of an entire country because of this and this automatically vanishes my rights, usually now a days my right to live.
temp8964 5y ago
I wish some day showing off purchases, vacations, parties, achievements, and any happy moments, will be classified as "producing emotional harm" and "creating hostile environment". And I think it is possible, because statistically some groups have more of those to show off than others, and group disparity indicates systematic discrimination.
- mc32 5y ago
  So basically everyone on Instagram gets banned?
  - temp8964 5y ago
    Not really, you can still post sad moments and words supporting all sorts of equity.
    - mc32 5y ago
      But sadness makes people sadder, so also negative. Maybe cats and puppies unless some people aren’t allowed pets like some renters...
tzs 5y ago
> "Students whose off-campus behavior has a significant adverse impact on the University community, its members, and/or the pursuit of its mission and educational objectives." You grabbed the wrong quote. That was from an earlier draft. This is what is in the final draft: "Student behavior which occurs off-campus in which the University can demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution regardless of where the conduct occurs and a) which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members, b) which involves academic work or any University records, documents, or identifications, or c) which seriously threatens the health or safety of any person."
- gentleman11 5y ago
  Health includes mental health, so by definition anything you do that might be my “triggering” to somebody or some group is now banned
- lostmsu 5y ago
  This one is even worse. Now it is not necessary that disruption would have provably adverse impact, it can be any disruption.
schleiss 5y ago
But, I wouldn't judge too early. The university clearly caters to an audience which is voting with their borrowed/hard earned money to pay their tuitions [1]. It's not like your are forced to study there. If nothing else, other education providers will grow with the influx of new money. [1] https://tuition.uoregon.edu/ https://tuition.uoregon.edu/
nerdponx 5y ago
I'm OK with this, as long as the terms are well-defined and there is some form of recourse or due process for cases of mistaken and/or abusive accusations. significant adverse impact on the University community Should the school have the ability censure a student who posts openly hateful things on Twitter? I think they should; in my opinion, it's not different from shouting those hateful things at passersby on the campus lawn. Should the school have carte blanche power to monitor all social media communication by students? Probably not. But where to draw the line is tricky. Another problem is that University administrators with this level of power are not necessarily neutral, disinterested regulators. In the current political climate, it is absolutely feasible that the definition of "adverse impact" could change shape and size depending on who is causing the adverse impact. The example in the blog post is telling.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  It's not "absolutely feasible." It's already done.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > I'm OK with this, as long as the terms are well-defined and there is some form of recourse or due process for cases of mistaken and/or abusive accusations. What about mistaken and/or abusive applications of the process? What if you need protection, not from a student, but from an administrator? > Should the school have the ability censure a student who posts openly hateful things on Twitter? I think they should; in my opinion, it's not different from shouting those hateful things at passersby on the campus lawn. Twitter isn't the campus lawn. The campus lawn is university property; Twitter isn't.
throwaway894345 5y ago
Agreed. This isn't slippery slope any more either, universities and other institutions have demonstrated a willingness to deliberately conflate "violence" with ideological transgressions even including _not_ speaking out on an issue a la "silence is violence". Here are a smattering of cases in which universities suspend, fire, or pushed out faculty on the premise that they are creating "unsafe environments" (or similar implications/accusations) with their heterodox ideas (note that these are just professors, but there are certainly many more cases in which student transgressions result in suspensions, expulsions, etc): * the Christakises were pushed out of Yale for arguing that the university didn't need to dictate to students what Halloween costumes were appropriate for students--that the students were adults who could decide for themselves. They weren't right-wing demagogues (far from it), but they didn't toe the party line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Free_speech_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Free_speec... * A professor was suspended for saying a Chinese word that sounds vaguely like a racial slur: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus... * Another professor was suspended for the tone of a letter in which he declined to grade black students differently than white students in the wake of the George Floyd murder. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/ucla-professor-on-leave-gordon-klein/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/ucla-professor-on... * Another couple of university faculty (Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying) were pushed out of an Oregon university for declining to participate in a "no-whites-on-campus" day. When 50+ students assembled outside of classroom angrily chanting, accusing him of racism and white supremacy. Evergreen police were ordered to stand down, and told Weistein they couldn't protect him and that he should stay off campus. The mob also circulated names and photographs of his students and grafitied things like "fire Bret" on campus. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-tur... * Another professor was fired for criticizing his university's handling of sexual abuse scandals and anti-semitic behavior by University employees. https://www.thefire.org/tenured-professor-abruptly-fired-after-raising-allegations-of-anti-semitic-speech-by-linfield-universitys-president/ https://www.thefire.org/tenured-professor-abruptly-fired-aft... * Northwestern Professor Laura Kipnis's is sanctioned by the university's Title IX tribunal for criticizing Title IX (criticizing Title IX is a violation of Title IX, apparently): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endless-trial-by-title-ix https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endle... * St Johns professor found guilty of violating Bias, Discrimination, and Harassment policies and accused of racism for asking students to weigh the pros and cons of the Columbian Exchange (a standard history question) https://www.thefire.org/teaching-history-not-permitted-st-johns-bulldozes-academic-freedom-punishes-professor-for-posing-question-about-columbian-exchange/ https://www.thefire.org/teaching-history-not-permitted-st-jo... * A U Chicago law professor is investigated for a quiz question referencing censored versions of slurs: "n___ and b___" (that's verbatim, the full words were not spelled out on the exam). The question was about legal recourse for a situation in which those words were used. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/15/tenured-law-prof-apparently-suspended-for-racial-harassment-lawsuit-problem-on-a-civil-procedure-exam/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/15/tenured-law-prof-appare...

ixacto 5y ago

Well in the current ideological climate "silence is violence", as they say, damn this 1984ificaton of speech sucks. More specifically I think this is targeted at any views they don't like which really sucks. It's a public university which means you have to see even the views that you don't like.

tines 5y ago
Too bad silence and violence almost rhyme, otherwise no one would have thought up this stupid phrase.
silicon2401 5y ago
Exemplary modern dialogue shut-down tactic. Don't question me, don't debate me, don't ask me questions, don't think. If you don't do exactly what I say is good, you're problematic. If you're not as extreme as me, you're as bad as the enemy. Things like this have made me lose faith in modern civilization; we're watching the beginning of a catastrophic downfall.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  Eh. First of all, "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying. Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. It's easy to see someone get canceled on Twitter and jump to the conclusion that the Red Army is right around the corner. I'm not that worried in the long run. Be understanding, but push back, and remember that some people will always be jerks no matter what the context or what ideals they find themselves aligned with.
  - silicon2401 5y ago
    > "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying. Freedom, like freedom of speech and freedom of association, includes the freedom to inaction and silence. Assuming the worst (that someone is racist if they don't tweet about racism every day etc) is toxic behavior
  - CodeGlitch 5y ago
    > Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. But that's the problem, it's the extreme vocal minority who are calling for (and succeeding in) cancellations of perfectly reasonable individuals who want to speak at universities. See Jordan Peterson, etc.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  This statement is exactly true after removing "as extreme" too. These days anyone with a different opinion can be considered an enemy, extreme or not. Actually, when was it not a problem? I vaguely remember christianity's historical splits were caused by lesser disagreements (at least what was stated to be the cause).
eplanit 5y ago
Further, willfully damaging or destroying physical buildings and "things" is _not_ violence. [1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroying-property-is-not-violence/ https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroy...
burkaman 5y ago
As you read in both the article and the policy, the word violence has been removed and clarified as "behavior which seriously threatens the health or safety of any person".
- floren 5y ago
  "This post makes me feel unsafe"
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - burkaman 5y ago
    This isn't a social media policy, so I still don't understand why everyone's focusing on "posts", but sure, if they apply this clause to anything that makes anyone feel unsafe, that would be bad. I guess you win there. If you're able to come up with a useful set of rules that can't possibly be abused, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested to see them.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  I wonder if they have the integrity to apply that to cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol, engaging in unprotected sex (while infectious with STD), or having a lifestyle that causes obesity.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Warning: Off-topic rabbit-hole follows. I've seen "silence is violence" a number of times, and regarded it (justifiably, I think) as manipulative BS. Then I saw one sign that said "silence = additional deaths". That one I found a bit harder to dismiss. If (if) you think the statistics indicate that blacks are getting killed at disproportional rates, and if you think that you can put enough political pressure on to change things, then silence is not direct violence, but it is letting things continue to happen the way they've been happening. It at least made me think, which "silence is violence" didn't.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  While that argument is more nuanced than "silence is violence", it has its own share of issues. Death is egalitarian but its judgement isn't based on Rawlsian principles. Rather, it is firmly staked in Darwinian ones. Suggesting one's "silence" or lack thereof has an effect on that is a false correlation. The problem with these arguments as a whole is that they ascribe a two-dimensional zero-sum game to what is in fact a more complex issue with millions of variables involved. Remember that slogans exist as signaling for likeminded people and a publicity attractor to the rest of the crowd. They don't exist to persuade others of a point or provide a workable method for achieving an aim. The best way to obtain the latter is to present your case in full to a legal society.

silicon2401 5y ago

This kind of thing is what helped me see that universities really have become institutions for social policing, rather than teaching objectivity and rational thought. It's tragic that people are so comfortable trampling over things like free speech under the facade of safety, and even more tragic that people fall for the deceit.

ncallaway 5y ago

Can you help me find in the linked PDF an reference to "monitoring" or "surveillance"? I can't find any reference to anything of the kind. The word "monitor" doesn't appear in the document, and the word "surveil" only appears once, in the definition of "Stalking". The portion you quoted appears to be a portion of the document that was deleted and rewritten. "pursuit of its mission" is, for example, deleted from the document and replaced with the phrase "in which the University can demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution".

trutannus 5y ago
Fair, however the text when updated includes: "which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members" Again, disruption to members can, and has been, classified as "making feel uncomfortable". The language of this, in any revision shown, is dangerous. Someone being upset could easily argue that the "disruption" caused them harm, and prevented them from carrying out the institution's academic goals. This is functionally the same point, just couched in slightly more vague terminology.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Yes, but it doesn't say that the school is actively monitoring anything. The title of the article makes it sound like they are requiring passwords to people's social media accounts--like the US government does for visa applicants.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  Okay, fine. I totally understand some people might have complaints with the previous language and the new language. Can you help me understand how the headline of linked post isn't just...factually wrong, though? The headline is: "University of Oregon will monitor students' social media statements". Unless I'm missing something that's just factually incorrect. What I'd like to get to is: Did I miss something, or is that headline just wrong? A sentence from the article is: "Now, the Board of Trustees at the University of Oregon have approved a vague policy that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other “conduct” of its students" I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document. Again, I'm trying to figure out: did I miss something or fail to understand something, or is that sentence just factually wrong?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

More likely they'll just dig through people's history as needed to get them to bend over and take whatever way the university is mistreating them that minute. "thank you for contacting us to appeal your parking ticket, we would like to remind you of our policy on off-campus behavior (attached) and what you tweeted on 4/20/2015, if you would like to formally appeal your ticket please fill and return the appeal form (also attached)."

lamontcg 5y ago
Yeah people freaking out over getting "cancelled" due to political views are missing the more mundane way this could be used to retaliate against students posting shit in general about the university.

fallingknife 5y ago

I'm done with it. I vote Republican now.

ncallaway 5y ago
I'm certainly not going to tell you how to vote, but as a heads up this particular article seems to be factually incorrect. As far as I can tell (and I'm asking for clarifications from people, in case I've misunderstood something) the headline is not supported by the linked document, and the key sentences from the article are not supported by the linked document. The words "monitor", "mandate", "surveillance", and "social media" don't appear anywhere in this policy change. I can't find anything in the linked policy "that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other 'conduct' of its students".
arbitrary_name 5y ago
Oh great, so voting restrictions, abortion bans and tacit support of violent right wing extremists are now comparable to a university enacting a vague policy that doesn't actually seen to imply that they will do any monitoring? I would prefer if you just abstained from voting, honestly.
- throwaway292893 5y ago
  Wanting secure voting is not restricting it. Fighting for rights of the unborn is not a bad thing when you believe they are alive at a certain point before birth (some people are fighting simply for abortion to be banned after birth). Antifa/BLM has done more damage and death in these past years of riots than anything the "right-wing extreme" has done in terms of body count and property damage. What right wing group and what event are you talking about? Jan 6th, the only person who was killed was shot by a cop. Something tells me you just wanted to lay hyperboles down in an unfair way and scuttle away. Locally, the border issue matters greatly to me and I feel a strong stance is both the moral, economic, and secure choice. We shouldn't incentivize people to make that terrible trip. The cartels make more money off of trafficking humans than drugs. Letting wall parts rust that are already paid for is a stupid move. Complete the wall, it works. It frees up agents to handle other areas and keep the cartels from smuggling and lets more people come in legally. All that being said, those issues aren't even on the table. Currently the important issues are the 1A and the 2A and the Democrats seem to HATE them, they vehemently support censorship and gun control for law abiding citizens. If you can't even support the first two amendments, how are you going to get my support?

jrsj 5y ago

At this point I feel like we have 2 political parties trying to create different dystopian nightmares and there’s no non-dystopian option.

ed25519FUUU 5y ago
My vote goes to the candidate that supports free speech. Today that’s mostly republicans and I’ve come to terms with that. Yesterday it was Democrats and it may be Democrats again tomorrow.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure Republicans are presently trying to pass a bunch of speech restrictions on campus aimed at curbing Critical Race Theory. CRT is hot garbage to be sure, but Republicans--unwilling to cede the moral low ground--are opting to solve the problem by way of speech codes and assaults on academic freedom.
  - throwaway292893 5y ago
    They're not limiting any student from talking about it, just it from being taught, because it's indoctrinating Marxist bullshit. No different than them trying to teach Creationism.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      Agreed that they're not banning students from talking about it and that it's BS, but as far as I know state governments don't have laws that forbid teaching creationism in public universities.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        They have lawsuits preventing teaching creationism in public universities, based on the Establishment Clause.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

yeah... in india this is the same feeling. you are not supposed to diminish or try to suggest ideas that would incite feelings of diminishing the authority of an institution, usually courts or ruling party or some professional institutions... The "image" of an institution is worth more than the life of an individual. Again, if i write a tweet critical of some public figure, i have somehow brought the wrath of an entire country because of this and this automatically vanishes my rights, usually now a days my right to live.

temp8964 5y ago

I wish some day showing off purchases, vacations, parties, achievements, and any happy moments, will be classified as "producing emotional harm" and "creating hostile environment". And I think it is possible, because statistically some groups have more of those to show off than others, and group disparity indicates systematic discrimination.

mc32 5y ago
So basically everyone on Instagram gets banned?
- temp8964 5y ago
  Not really, you can still post sad moments and words supporting all sorts of equity.
  - mc32 5y ago
    But sadness makes people sadder, so also negative. Maybe cats and puppies unless some people aren’t allowed pets like some renters...

tzs 5y ago

> "Students whose off-campus behavior has a significant adverse impact on the University community, its members, and/or the pursuit of its mission and educational objectives." You grabbed the wrong quote. That was from an earlier draft. This is what is in the final draft: "Student behavior which occurs off-campus in which the University can demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution regardless of where the conduct occurs and a) which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members, b) which involves academic work or any University records, documents, or identifications, or c) which seriously threatens the health or safety of any person."

gentleman11 5y ago
Health includes mental health, so by definition anything you do that might be my “triggering” to somebody or some group is now banned
lostmsu 5y ago
This one is even worse. Now it is not necessary that disruption would have provably adverse impact, it can be any disruption.

schleiss 5y ago

But, I wouldn't judge too early. The university clearly caters to an audience which is voting with their borrowed/hard earned money to pay their tuitions [1]. It's not like your are forced to study there. If nothing else, other education providers will grow with the influx of new money. [1] https://tuition.uoregon.edu/ https://tuition.uoregon.edu/

nerdponx 5y ago

I'm OK with this, as long as the terms are well-defined and there is some form of recourse or due process for cases of mistaken and/or abusive accusations. significant adverse impact on the University community Should the school have the ability censure a student who posts openly hateful things on Twitter? I think they should; in my opinion, it's not different from shouting those hateful things at passersby on the campus lawn. Should the school have carte blanche power to monitor all social media communication by students? Probably not. But where to draw the line is tricky. Another problem is that University administrators with this level of power are not necessarily neutral, disinterested regulators. In the current political climate, it is absolutely feasible that the definition of "adverse impact" could change shape and size depending on who is causing the adverse impact. The example in the blog post is telling.

fallingknife 5y ago
It's not "absolutely feasible." It's already done.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> I'm OK with this, as long as the terms are well-defined and there is some form of recourse or due process for cases of mistaken and/or abusive accusations. What about mistaken and/or abusive applications of the process? What if you need protection, not from a student, but from an administrator? > Should the school have the ability censure a student who posts openly hateful things on Twitter? I think they should; in my opinion, it's not different from shouting those hateful things at passersby on the campus lawn. Twitter isn't the campus lawn. The campus lawn is university property; Twitter isn't.

throwaway894345 5y ago

Agreed. This isn't slippery slope any more either, universities and other institutions have demonstrated a willingness to deliberately conflate "violence" with ideological transgressions even including _not_ speaking out on an issue a la "silence is violence". Here are a smattering of cases in which universities suspend, fire, or pushed out faculty on the premise that they are creating "unsafe environments" (or similar implications/accusations) with their heterodox ideas (note that these are just professors, but there are certainly many more cases in which student transgressions result in suspensions, expulsions, etc): * the Christakises were pushed out of Yale for arguing that the university didn't need to dictate to students what Halloween costumes were appropriate for students--that the students were adults who could decide for themselves. They weren't right-wing demagogues (far from it), but they didn't toe the party line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Free_speech_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Free_speec... * A professor was suspended for saying a Chinese word that sounds vaguely like a racial slur: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus... * Another professor was suspended for the tone of a letter in which he declined to grade black students differently than white students in the wake of the George Floyd murder. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/ucla-professor-on-leave-gordon-klein/ https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/ucla-professor-on... * Another couple of university faculty (Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying) were pushed out of an Oregon university for declining to participate in a "no-whites-on-campus" day. When 50+ students assembled outside of classroom angrily chanting, accusing him of racism and white supremacy. Evergreen police were ordered to stand down, and told Weistein they couldn't protect him and that he should stay off campus. The mob also circulated names and photographs of his students and grafitied things like "fire Bret" on campus. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-tur... * Another professor was fired for criticizing his university's handling of sexual abuse scandals and anti-semitic behavior by University employees. https://www.thefire.org/tenured-professor-abruptly-fired-after-raising-allegations-of-anti-semitic-speech-by-linfield-universitys-president/ https://www.thefire.org/tenured-professor-abruptly-fired-aft... * Northwestern Professor Laura Kipnis's is sanctioned by the university's Title IX tribunal for criticizing Title IX (criticizing Title IX is a violation of Title IX, apparently): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endless-trial-by-title-ix https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endle... * St Johns professor found guilty of violating Bias, Discrimination, and Harassment policies and accused of racism for asking students to weigh the pros and cons of the Columbian Exchange (a standard history question) https://www.thefire.org/teaching-history-not-permitted-st-johns-bulldozes-academic-freedom-punishes-professor-for-posing-question-about-columbian-exchange/ https://www.thefire.org/teaching-history-not-permitted-st-jo... * A U Chicago law professor is investigated for a quiz question referencing censored versions of slurs: "n___ and b___" (that's verbatim, the full words were not spelled out on the exam). The question was about legal recourse for a situation in which those words were used. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/15/tenured-law-prof-apparently-suspended-for-racial-harassment-lawsuit-problem-on-a-civil-procedure-exam/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/15/tenured-law-prof-appare...