5 ms·

Yes, it's false. Students have a first amendment right to express opinions, even anti-Zionist ones. The administration is using baseless charges of antisemiti

Yes, it's false. Students have a first amendment right to express opinions, even anti-Zionist ones. The administration is using baseless charges of antisemitism as a cudgel to extract fealty and concessions from universities, which they see as opponents of their party.

cvoss 1y ago
The accusation from DOJ isn't about student speech, though. It's about the university's actions or inactions, which are not protected and are governed by obligations to Title VI discrimination law.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  You're right, but the university is not allowed to censor student speech based on content. The "actions" that the administration claims the university should have taken would have violated the constitution.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Furthermore, the redresses the administration has proposed in similar cases (like the university reporting students who protest to federal authorities) suggest this is more about federal power / censorship than furthering universal free speech.
    - fuzzfactor 1y ago
      Free speech just got a price put on its head, capisce? For a one-time payment it may be able to slide this time, didn't Columbia University have an offer they couldn't refuse? Pray the Don doesn't alter the deal . . .
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    > the university is not allowed to censor student speech based on content Hold on, didn't tenured professors get fired literally based on content of their speech a few years back under the other administration? I am confused And this does not have to be about censoring speech. There are rules of a place. As I said, you start obstructing a lecture, you get thrown out in a good university
  - davrosthedalek 1y ago
    I don't think this is quite correct, at least for private universities. They absolutely have the right to disallow protests on their property. The first amendment protects you from the government -- the government cannot force the university to take these action, but the university could totally do it on their own. It's a little bit murkier with state universities, because you could argue they are a part of the government.
throwaway290 1y ago
This is a strawman. Of course there is free speech. It doesn't mean it's okay to talk on the phone in a cinema or recite the Bible aloud during a math lecture. It doesn't mean it's fair play to shout obscenities on the train and spit on people. Idk about US but there is a thing called "verbal abuse" and police is 100% callable for that. That out of the way so how about hostile environment for students again? I was downvoted for asking a question and this did not answer it.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  Shouting obscenities on the train, as well as hate speech broadly, are constitutionally protected under the first amendment. Creating a hostile environment for students based on their religion would violate the Civil Rights Act. However, there is a paucity of evidence that the universities did that. Allowing protests probably isn't sufficient, especially when prohibiting those same protests would be unconstitutional. Even if the protesting students were spitting on Jewish students, that doesn't impact the legality of the protest. The spitting could be prosecuted as battery. I recommend reading this [1] great article about the sometimes confusing rhetoric used in the media about American free speech. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220313175157/http://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220313175157/http://popehat.co...
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    Okay so if I get it correctly they could be kicked out like in the cinema or not, because like I assume regardless of free speech there are rules, but this "cinema" cannot be prosecuted by US gov for NOT kicking a noisy jerk out of it because then it becomes a free speech thing. If taking away grants counts as prosecution? I guess that makes sense.
    - lupusreal 1y ago
      State schools like UCLA cannot restrict speech in the same way that private organizations could, because they are part of the government. The cinema analogy is therefore spurious.

cvoss 1y ago

The accusation from DOJ isn't about student speech, though. It's about the university's actions or inactions, which are not protected and are governed by obligations to Title VI discrimination law.

hackyhacky 1y ago
You're right, but the university is not allowed to censor student speech based on content. The "actions" that the administration claims the university should have taken would have violated the constitution.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Furthermore, the redresses the administration has proposed in similar cases (like the university reporting students who protest to federal authorities) suggest this is more about federal power / censorship than furthering universal free speech.
  - fuzzfactor 1y ago
    Free speech just got a price put on its head, capisce? For a one-time payment it may be able to slide this time, didn't Columbia University have an offer they couldn't refuse? Pray the Don doesn't alter the deal . . .
- throwaway290 1y ago
  > the university is not allowed to censor student speech based on content Hold on, didn't tenured professors get fired literally based on content of their speech a few years back under the other administration? I am confused And this does not have to be about censoring speech. There are rules of a place. As I said, you start obstructing a lecture, you get thrown out in a good university
- davrosthedalek 1y ago
  I don't think this is quite correct, at least for private universities. They absolutely have the right to disallow protests on their property. The first amendment protects you from the government -- the government cannot force the university to take these action, but the university could totally do it on their own. It's a little bit murkier with state universities, because you could argue they are a part of the government.

throwaway290 1y ago

This is a strawman. Of course there is free speech. It doesn't mean it's okay to talk on the phone in a cinema or recite the Bible aloud during a math lecture. It doesn't mean it's fair play to shout obscenities on the train and spit on people. Idk about US but there is a thing called "verbal abuse" and police is 100% callable for that. That out of the way so how about hostile environment for students again? I was downvoted for asking a question and this did not answer it.

hackyhacky 1y ago
Shouting obscenities on the train, as well as hate speech broadly, are constitutionally protected under the first amendment. Creating a hostile environment for students based on their religion would violate the Civil Rights Act. However, there is a paucity of evidence that the universities did that. Allowing protests probably isn't sufficient, especially when prohibiting those same protests would be unconstitutional. Even if the protesting students were spitting on Jewish students, that doesn't impact the legality of the protest. The spitting could be prosecuted as battery. I recommend reading this [1] great article about the sometimes confusing rhetoric used in the media about American free speech. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220313175157/http://popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220313175157/http://popehat.co...
- throwaway290 1y ago
  Okay so if I get it correctly they could be kicked out like in the cinema or not, because like I assume regardless of free speech there are rules, but this "cinema" cannot be prosecuted by US gov for NOT kicking a noisy jerk out of it because then it becomes a free speech thing. If taking away grants counts as prosecution? I guess that makes sense.
  - lupusreal 1y ago
    State schools like UCLA cannot restrict speech in the same way that private organizations could, because they are part of the government. The cinema analogy is therefore spurious.