We recently discussed the courageous stand of the University of Chicago in favor of free speech (a position followed by schools like Purdue). We can now add the Cardiff University in Wales as a school standing with free speech principles over demands for censorship and “safe zones”. Conversely, student leaders at Tufts University unanimously voted against a measure protecting free speech by addressing the vague and fluid terms used to curtail free speech.
Cardiff took a strong stand for free speech in breaking away from other schools which have have imposed stringent speech codes and regulations. The university pledged to end its past censorship and platforming rules. It declared that it would not bar controversial speakers and that “censorship is not the answer.”
Instead, Cardiff passed a motion that was entitled “Challenge, Don’t Censor.” The motion declared that “students are capable of challenging intolerable views through rigorous debate; censorship is not the answer.”
Amen. This is particularly impressive in Europe where free speech is being sharply curtailed.
Across the pond, the students of Tufts University unanimously stood against free speech and in favor of vague standards used to regulate speakers on campus. Tufts have received the lowest grade for free speech by the organization FIRE. The students defeated a resolution from Tufts student Jake Goldberg that called for adding clarifications to the university’s speech guidelines. The resolution identified vague terms like “demeaning” language in seeking greater clarification in the lines of allowable and prohibited speech.
Students leaders denounced a resolution as creating an “unsafe” environment and declared that the resolution itself is harmful to students.
One student leader explained that “clarity in itself is subjective.” That certainly ends all debate. If clarity is subjective, isn’t all language subjective? If so, Tufts speech code sets student adrift on a sea of subjectivity – subject to discipline based on the subjective feelings or interpretation of the most offended or sensitive members of the community.
What is truly distressing are comments from students like senator Nesi Altaras who reportedly challenged the importance given free speech and said “there are other countries with free speech issues, and some countries handle them better than America.” Really? Which countries are those? This country has some of the highest protections for free speech. Those countries “handle” free speech by abridging it. There is of course the standard in 1984 where “The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
Senator Ben Kesslen denounced the free speech resolution as “instantly” creating the view of an “unsafe” campus by even being proposed. He added “By passing this resolution, we [would be] making more students feel unsafe on a campus they already might not feel safe.”
Clearly these students have found a home at Tufts. Free speech is now viewed as a dangerous and threatening element on campus by students. Faculty who have pushed this pro-censorship line have succeeded in warping a generation of students into believing that speech regulation is a good thing and that free speech makes them unsafe. Where college students once marched against limitations on speech, they now readily defend such codes and the silencing of those with whom they disagree.
So there you have it: two divergent paths by two leading universities. In the end, however, the path chosen by Tufts will lead it further away from the core mission of educational institutions to challenge and stipulate thought in an open and free academic environment. Tufts and other universities are producing a generation of Orwellian “Little Brothers” — eager citizens supporting government restrictions on their own liberty. The impact of that trend will be felt far beyond the confines of our academic institutions.
As stated in the novel 1984, “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Tufts students appear to have learned that true freedom is to be protected from free speech.
Here is the resolution’s language:
A Resolution Requesting Free Speech Rights for All Members of Tufts University
WHEREAS the TCU Senate has already unanimously passed “A Resolution Supporting Freedom of Expression,” on April 15, 2012, which urged the university to “respect and protect freedom of speech and freedom of expression at Tufts University, now and forever”;WHEREAS Tufts’ Board of Trustees has previously declared, on November 7th, 2009, that freedom of expression and inquiry are fundamental to Tufts’ academic pursuits;
WHEREAS Tufts’ President Monaco has expressed the necessity of having a campus culture that protects the free and unfettered exchange of ideas, a deep concern of calls to silence speech on our university, the need to protect all points of view regardless of their unpopularity, and the need to respond to offensive speech with more speech rather than censorship;
WHEREAS Tufts University stated on October 26, 2016 that the university remains “committed to a campus climate that protects free speech and an open and vigorous exchange of ideas”;
WHEREAS The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education has stated that Title IX and the First Amendment are entirely compatible;
WHEREAS Students Advocating for Students has identified threats to free speech due to the vagueness and lack of clarity in Tufts’ Sexual Misconduct Policy (SMP). The SMP prohibits the following conduct if it is sufficiently serious, pervasive or persistent as to create a “demeaning” or “sexually offensive” environment: inappropriate communications via letters, telephone calls, emails, or texts; sexual jokes or describing of sexual conduct; comments on an individual’s body or appearance; comments about sexual activity or experiences; innuendos of a sexual nature; use of nicknames or terms of endearment; sexist statements or behavior; verbal conduct against those who are perceived to be failing to conform to expected notions of masculinity or femininity;
WHEREAS Students Advocating for Students has identified threats to free speech due to the vagueness and lack of clarity in Tufts’ Sexual Misconduct Brochure: the prohibition of gender bias; verbal conduct that creates an offensive environment in which to work; making statements that convey insulting or degrading attitudes or opinions based on gender; making sexually explicit jokes or statements;
WHEREAS Students Advocating for Students has identified threats to free speech due to the vagueness and lack of clarity in Tufts’ Bias Incident Reporting Procedures, as the following may lead to disciplinary punishment: taunting; biased-fueled jokes; derogatory language or negative images;
WHEREAS Students Advocating for Students has identified threats to free speech due to the vagueness and lack of clarity in Tufts’ Guide to On-Campus Living: the prohibition of speech that creates emotional harm; inappropriate language, inappropriate gestures, or hurtful words; and acts of intolerance and hate;
WHEREAS Students Advocating for Students has identified threats to free speech due to the vagueness and lack of clarity in Tufts’ Student Code of Conduct policy: the prohibition of speech that is not becoming of a Tufts’ student;
WHEREAS Students Advocating for Students has identified a threat to free speech due to the vagueness and lack of clarity in Tufts’ Email Policy: the prohibition of sending offensive emails;
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED that the TCU Senate urge the administration to add clarifying language to the above identified policies, and all other similar campus policies, with First Amendment parameters and principles, so that we the students are fully aware of exactly what conduct violates Tufts’ policies and simultaneously receive the full protection of the First Amendment in regards to speech.
Considering the composition of Trump’s appointments the idea that a progressive voted for Trump sounds like a cruel joke.
Dave, Progressives who voted for Trump voted for the lesser evil aka the unknown. We did not want Obama 2.O so even if something good comes out of his presidency we will be happy. We already knew what HRC represented – TPP/TTIP and endless war.
We can only hope that there are many students who silently disagree with these speech codes, but who are focused on academic achievement and just want to graduate and find employment. There was a recent survey suggesting that this is the case.
Ralph, you need to get a grip and realize there is a “yuuge” difference between Liberals and Progressives. The former are special snowflakes and supported HRC- many are wearing safety pins and still grieving the election results. Progressives do not support identity politics and yes, we supported Bernie Sanders because he has integrity unlike HRC. When he was kneecapped during the primaries by the DNC we went Bernieorbust – which means a sizable number chose to vote for Jill Stein, stay at home and in swing states even vote for Trump. The states he won mirrored the same places Bernie won — indeed many of my staunch Republican friends would have voted Bernie over Trump.
We are sick and tired of the status quo and share many concerns such as defeating the TPP and the influence of money in politics. ALL of the independent Progressives I tune into stressed again and again that HRC was more dangerous than Trump. A majority of us also support Milo BTW.
Don’t paint all those who come from a different perspective with a broad brush.
Nothing surprising about Tufts University. Like the University of California Berkeley, Tufts is known to be a haven for Leftists. And, as I’ve explained too many times to count, Leftists HATE free speech, hate freedom, hate liberty, and, at core, hate America. Some have even come up with scores to analyze how “liberal” or “conservative” a particular school is. (See link below.) Although the term “liberal” is passe and does not reflect the extreme Leftism that has taken hold of the mentally deficient in America, as evidenced by the rise of such Leftists as Bernie Sanders and Keith Ellison, it’s good enough for this purpose. As noted below, Tufts gets a score that puts it somewhere in the middle of the politics of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I’d say that;s about right. https://www.crowdpac.com/games/lookup/universities?name=Tufts%20University
And somehow this environment of squashed speech is new? Ummm, thinking of UC Berkeley, Stanford and UofOre in the 60-70s.
For the last 10yrs or so, I’ve watched many privileged kids (Harvard, Princeton, Yale for a few) come thinking their degree entitles them to executive positions only to find they needed to prove themselves in supporting roles. That also is one of the great equalizers of entry into the military and naval services.
Overall the best managers who also are upcoming leaders come from the path of JCs to college and care less of the social rules. They learn to adapt with integrity (not lose their values). They are the majority of ones who can see the hypocrisy and yet work with it. They have the bigger picture. The successful ones are not intimidated.
So let the colleges do what they want and spawn. Look at the nature of survival the animal kingdom, of which we are apart,
A NROTC XO once told a class of entering midshipmen that only 1/3 will make it to commissioning. 25 of the original 75 made it. Of the 25, few made it to Commander (Lt Col.) as selection boards would only take, by law, certain percentages (of those still in) at each promotion point. Fortune 100 companies weed in the same manner. And, the vet is much more pragmatic and willing to go where the job is.
So let the little darlings dance to their hearts content. The music will stop and they’ll go home to mommy, and daddy if he’s there.
Orwellian Little Farts.
Superb comments! Thanks for the great frosting on JT’s fantastic cake!
If the Tufts feel anxious and unsafe in the proximity of different ideas, then it sounds like an epidemic of mental illness, and they need to see a doctor.
By the time they graduate they will be unable to tolerate a ride on rapid transit, let alone employment. They will be suited only for government work on panhandling.
I suppose this settles the question of nature vs nurture. Reading a child in a self centered entitled world view, and finishing him in a school that emphasizes that they must go to great lengths to protect themselves from intellectual discomfort and challenge yields anxiety, anti social behavior, and narcissism.
So perhaps this has been a sociological experiment all along.
“students are capable of challenging intolerable views through rigorous debate.”
That’s just it. They are not capable of doing that. Today’s students lack debate skills. Too many have brains like a broken steel trap where one idea is caught and that trap can never be pried open ever again. For some people dealing with new information is too painful. They resolve to advance one idea and never deviate from that mission.
Don’t get me started…..
I did read that the UK was changing speaker’s policies for all speakers, which would knock out speakers like Milo.
JT – “Tufts and other universities are producing a generation of Orwellian “Little Brothers” — eager citizens supporting government restrictions on their own liberty.”
These “little Brothers” will also love regulations controlled by the govt against industry and the population. The likes of Isaac must be be drooling with the thoughts of this generation out there controlling us and stealing more of our freedoms by non elected agencies. As self ingenuity passes us by, we will surely fall behind more and more at which point the “system” will take more control blaming the peasants are incapable without their interference. Dark times ahead…
Student government attracts and retains organization kids. Without a doubt, the youngsters trading in this are reflecting what are now the default settings among the professional-managerial bourgeoisie in the coastal cities, the legal profession, academe, and corporate HR more than any other place. These are likely leavened by minorities who have to justify to themselves the mulligans they’ve received, most especially if they’re having academic problems. It’s depressing. Twenty years ago, the young ignored the silly fixations of the faculty and administration. Schools like Yale and Tufts have now recruited youths who are worse than the shmucks who run those places.
Well put.
Several months ago, in response to the explosion of criminal and anti-social behavior of BLM college students, someone on Fox, possibly Krauthammer, suggested the source of the angst and misery of black affirmative action beneficiaries on college campus is that they attend the best ivy league schools when their academic level is best suited to HS remedial courses. Duh! I wonder why they suck at school? Don’t worry, it’s all whitey’s fault!
My two favorite examples, caught on video, of BLM rioters this year, both black females: one ran through the college library screaming epithets at whites attempting to do home work (how racist of them honkies). The other stood outdoors screaming epithets at a white male faculty (AKA dog feces to BLM types), telling him to shut up and listen to her, because he’s dirt, after all.
Thank baby quasi-black Jesus Obama, who fostered this mess, exactly as his black racist teachers taught him, Saul Alinksy, etc. Be in a constant state of agitation, regardless whether or not any reason exists for it.
JT appears to have misread the Tufts resolution, which supports free speech and urges clarification of policies that could be read to limit it.
The resolution was struck down. That was the point of the article. The existing code could get a student disciplined for making a joke to a friend. I pity the fool who incorrectly read the article.
Whereas, Whereas in between the Whereas’s is there time for instruction. When they get a job the only Whereas will be Workas or Walkas.
The latest “workaround” regarding work is the explosive growth under Obama of persons who find a medical doctor to support their claim for disability payments under social security. $1300/mo may not seem like much to others, but for such persons, the prospect of collecting $1300 to sit around and eat Cheetohs all day watching Oprah is a grand bargain compared to the alternative of getting a minimum wage job.
I know first hand a certain number, apparently large, suffer only from personality defects like sloth, and simply flat out refuse to take orders from a supervisor. Such persons collecting food stamps and/or public welfare should have to put in a solid six to eight hours cleaning public or private facilities.
As JT points out, this PC speech virus is spreading to all aspects of our culture. The latest assault came from Obama and his work wife, Angela Merkel. They want to control alleged, “fake news” and the sycophant MSM are on board w/ that eviscerating the 1st Amendment. And, as we discussed yesterday, the virus is also starting to affect Trump.
Milo, He did just a few days ago.
There is a way to control freedom of speech. Watch actor Martin Sheen get his loud mouth zapped.
GW stands low on the totem pole. When is JT going to stand up for free speech at his own asylum?