There is a disturbing story how this week concerning the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and specifically Commissioner Michael Yaki, a Democratic appointee who was a former senior adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Yaki spoke on sexual harassment law in education, a subject on which I have previously written to express my concerns over the loss of due process rights for accused students. Yaki’s comments however seem to threaten core free speech principles as he laid out his view of the need to curtail harmful speech. Yaki spoke of the need to outlaw unpopular or what he considers degrading speech because college students are too impressionable.
He highlighted the types of speech that he want banned as including certain types of fraternity or parody displays considered offensive. He also included pageants as possible speech crimes due to the dangers inherent in “a situation involving women” in which they “parade around in skimpy clothing and turn in some show or something.”
He then added: “I mean where do you think you can, that the university can’t deal with ensuring the route it has environment that is not oppressive or hostile because obviously a campus, especially certain types of campuses where there’s a lot of — where — that are geographically compact, that have a lot of working and living situations in a close area to create a campus atmosphere . . . Doesn’t that gravitate toward having greater ability to proscribe certain types of conduct that have the ability to escalate beyond what anyone would consider to be reasonable or acceptable?”
Whatever that may mean, Yaki then made the most dangerous turn of his comments in suggesting that speech limitations are appropriate on college campuses under the same theory as applied to elementary students: “It has to do with science. More and more, the vast majority, in fact — I think — overall in bodies of science is that young people, not just K through 12 but also between the ages of 16 to 20, 21 is where the brain is still in a stage of development.” Yaki’s distinction between “the juvenile or adolescent or young adult brain processes information” and “adult brains” would allow for sweeping speech limitations. He simply declared that even college brains are “vastly different from the way that we adults do.” He added that “when we sit back and talk about what is right or wrong in terms of First Amendment jurisprudence from a reasonable person’s standpoint, we are really not looking into the same referential viewpoint.” This distinction, he argued, offers “very good and compelling reasons why broader policies and prohibitions on conduct in activities and in some instances speech are acceptable on a college campus level that might not be acceptable say in an adult work environment or in an adult situation.”
We have seen in recent years increasing demands for the curtailment of speech as hate crimes or forms of discrimination. We have even seen professors engage in alleged crimes to stop speech on subjects like abortion. While Republicans were once criticized in the 1960s as hostile to campus speech, it now appears that Democrats are more often demanding the criminalization or the banning of different forms of speech. The suggestion that college brains are undeveloped and requiring protection from bad speech is truly unnerving.
Source: Yahoo. Eugene Volokh first reported on these statements by Yaki.
JT just tweeted he’ll be on NPR tomorrow[Diane Rehm] @ 10 ET. Discussing executive orders.
leej, Kudos. Twitter is probably perfect for a grammatically challenged guy like him. I would hope an intelligent adult[rules out his mentor] has gotten to him and told Yaki he can’t say what he really thinks. He needs handlers.
I tweeted to him after reading this post.
@Yakiblog hope u don’t mean ur comments about restricting speech on college campuses that is not the American way U need read Bill of Rights
He replied: Michael Yaki @Yakiblog · 1h
@leejcaroll No. I am pretty much a First Amendment absolutist. But I pose questions to clairify or highlight challenges in an issue.
(I just replied then he needs to clarify cause didn’t sound like a question. will be interesting to see if he further responds.)
I hate soy, never eat it. Fermented soy such as soy sauce is safe I hear.
Phytoestrogens.
Soy has a constituent, I forget the exact name, which mimics BPA, which is a hormone disruptor that downregulates testosterone in males and upregulates testosterone in females. I wouldn’t recommend soy for any female, unless she wants to grow a beard or be more butchy to attract more nellies. Or unless she wants to use it to gender bend her man.
Samantha, those men should really not eat soy products, the mainstay of vegetarians looking to add protein to their diets. Soy burger=male boobies. o_O
Samantha, Women should not be allowed to drive.
My dad thinks all this male alignment with feminine dogma has to do with the down-regulation of testosterone, caused by gender-bending hormone disruptors in the food supply — and Hollywood. Testosterone-challenged, males no longer have sufficient testosterone that otherwise begets females, so the male strategy is to pay fawning attention in hopes females will beget them.
Males, unlike females, are loyal to each other only in the absence of females. A corral of stallions are best friends only until you introduce a mare. It’s why women had been mostly kept out of the military, to preserve loyalty among soldiers and protect lives. Thus, when it comes to endearing the opposite sex, males do not care about the civil rights of their brothers, such as we always see in rape accusation cases. It’s an old instinct that men just can’t seem to rise above.
However, when it comes to the workplace, I think power has also become a substitute for testosterone, explaining why the workplace has been a hotbed for sexual-harassment awards. And the usual suspects are not always men. While sexual harassment by women might be less common (excepting the lesbian factor), sexual discrimination is not, explaining why it is nearly impossible for a male to land a job with the government, the bureaucracy having been overrun by feminazis, unless he has papers to certify liberal leanings (low T, sycophant, take your pick), or unless such job is very low on the pay grade. Gays and trannies are especially welcome.
Just thinking out loud here today, passing time on a road trip. No, I am not driving the vehicle.
This guy has a bizarre understanding of human physiology and free speech rights. How do individuals like this get into leadership positions? Oh, political favoritism rather than merit. I understand now.
As the first avenue for free speech…. I think this bozo is wrong…
The Nickers are in a knot.
Jane L,
Deliver us all from junk brain science.
…
=============================
Another chapter in the Agnotology textbooks.
Squeeky, how does Hillary Clinton reflect your political philosophy? She’s against most of what you appear to be in favor of. How do you reconcile that?
Leej, I’ve noticed the same thing, but it’s par for the course when the rightist readership increases on any blog, I’ve seen it happen time after time. At least JT attempts to keep things somewhat civil, which is unusual for a blog that leans right.
Annie – one of the things I have noticed is that most of the ad hominem attacks come from the left, not the right.
@KarenS
Right on at your 11:13am comment!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Paul, One fundamental difference. Jesuits teach you HOW to think. Liberals teach you WHAT to think.
Yaki is a Whack-O
Yaki needs to move to Saudi Arabia, or Iran….
They are already curtailing the speech rights of students suspected or accused of rape. And since liberals dominate college campuses, then it is only their speech that is going to be heard.
Yaki is right that the brain does not seem to fully form until age 23. So liberals are taking the same view as the Jesuits “Give me the child, and I will give you the man.”