Study: UNC Stifles Free Speech And Conservative Students Are 300 Times More Likely To Self-Censor Views

report, titled, “Free expression and constructive dialogue at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,” is latest study to confirm what many of us have said for years: universities and colleges are becoming increasing hostile environments for free speech generally and for conservatives specifically. The study of the UNC environment found that “The current campus does not consistently promote free expression and constructive dialogue across the political spectrum.” It further found that conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor their views to avoid repercussions from students and faculty.

Two of the findings of the report are all too familiar if understated: “although students across the political spectrum report facing challenges related to free expression, these challenges seem to be more acute for students who identify as conservative.” The report found that conservative students are four times more worried about being open about their views with faculty out of concern for retaliation or poor reviews.

Free speech was once the touchstone of American education. However, in the last couple of decades, faculty members have pushed through speech codes and regulations that have created a chilling affect on free speech. These speech controls fall heavily upon conservative students. Indeed the study found that “[c]ompared to self-identified liberals, self-identified conservative students express greater concern about potential academic consequences that might stem from expressing their views (Finding 6).
Students across ideologies report commonly hearing disparaging comments about political conservatives (Finding 9) and conservative students are at greater risk of social isolation.”

We have been discussing the erosion of free speech on campuses with rising speech codes and ambiguous rules barring “microaggressions.”  A small percentage of students and faculty often push for such speech codes and regulation.  However, it is often difficult for students and faculty to object at the risk of being called intolerant or microaggressors.  We discussed previously a Gallup poll confirming that most students feel that they are no longer able to speak freely at college due to this minority of speech intolerant students and faculty. Ninety percent of Pomona students said that they did not feel free to speak openly or freely. It is an indictment of not just Pomona but many of our colleges. Nine out of ten students said that “the campus climate prevents them from saying something others might find offensive.” Nearly two-thirds of faculty feel the same.  Seventy-five percent of conservative and moderate students strongly agree that the school climate hinders their free expression.  Notably, that is “nearly 2.5 times higher than very liberal students.”

We have been discussing how faculty around the country are supporting the abandonment of free speech principles to bar speakers and speech with which they disagree. The most extreme form of this rejection of classical liberal values is the antifa movement.  We have seen faculty physically attack speakers or destroy messages that they oppose.  We have also seen faculty physically attacked and intimidated.  In some of these incidents, other faculty have supported students in shutting down speakers or fellow academics (here and here).

The UNC study adds to the ample evidence of rising intolerance against free speech led by faculty members and administrators at our universities. We are destroying the very essence of what defines us by remaining silent in the face of this trend. In rewriting school codes and using disciplinary procedures, certain faculty have used higher education to create an echo-chamber for their own views and intimidated those students, particularly conservative students, who hold opposing views and values.

The study was compiled by Jennifer Larson, Department of English and Comparative Literature; Mark McNeilly, Kenan-Flagler Business School; and Timothy J. Ryan, Department of Political Science

81 thoughts on “Study: UNC Stifles Free Speech And Conservative Students Are 300 Times More Likely To Self-Censor Views”

  1. Leftist Intimidation Absent From This Blog

    But Abuse From The Right All Too Common

    Two years ago, when I first started writing on these threads, a certain old man who still comments here presumed to play the gatekeeper.  This old man was alarmed by the liberal nature of my opinions.  He feared I might be a communist!  Therefore this old man wanted me to answer a series of questions he had for liberals.

    I was already familiar with these question games.  The questions are designed so that only one answer is logical; the answer your questioner wants you to give.  So I wisely declined to play.  This enraged the old man who then stalked me on these threads warning everyone that I ‘refused to answer his questions’.  A creepy woman, using the name of a Charles Manson follower, assisted the old man in hounding me.

    Then there came a point where a commenter,  with the written voice of a catty old queen, presumed to have ‘research showing I lived in West Hollywood.  This made me ‘gay’, of course.  Never mind that I’m not gay and never lived in West Hollywood.  To the Trumpers on this blog I ‘had’ to be gay because that conforms to their idea of who liberals are.

    Since this ‘gay’ accusation first surfaced, almost a year ago, a deeply disturbed commenter keeps stalking me with homophobic taunts that strongly suggest that ‘he’, in fact, is gay.  I mean, do straight guys really waste their time dogging other men with homophobic taunts?  Maybe in 7th Grade they do, but it’s really not that common beyond Middle School.

    More recently a commenter, with the written voice of a mean drunk, decided that he was going to tag me with the name “Paint Chips”.  The ‘joke’, if you can call it that, is I must have been exposed to leaded paint as a child.  This explains why I hold liberal views and post excerpts from The New York Times.  Healthy children, by contrast, grow up to watch Fox News, as everyone knows.

    Currently the old man and catty queen keep referring to me as ‘Paint Chips’.  But with Trumpers the joke is always on them.  Trump’s compromised EPA has greatly loosened standards for the amount of Mercury permitted in the air.  Most interestingly American industry never asked for these low standards.  Yet Trump’s compromised EPA has issued these low standards as a gesture of spite more than anything.

    So when Professor Turley cranks out these ‘Tyranny From The Left’ columns, one has to seriously wonder if Turley has the slightest inkling of how abusive Trump supporters are on the threads of this blog.  It’s hard to imagine any particular faction being more obnoxious.

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/476374-epas-independent-science-board-says-agency-ignored-their-advice-on

    1. you paint with a broad brush when you say Trumpers this and Trumpers that

      then you complain that you’ve been painted with a broad brush

      just sayin

      we also saw how a petite girl was attacked by a mob of Bernie supporters on a university campus like yesterday. forgot her name, she has the sin of having associated iwth Alex Jones, that’s why they were pelting her with water bottles and hot coffee. lucky she had a seven foot tall bodyguard to get her out. yes the campuses are awful and that’s why Turley writes these updates. it’s nothing against you seth-peter.

      back to the real tragedy of today. more people locked down in quarantine in the PRC than the ENTIRE POPULATION OF THE US

      cases mounting, more incinerators on their way to Wuhan to send the undiagnosed corpses up in smoke

      Japan cases mounting

      crazy Wall Street Hits all time highs

      people suffering real pain in China under in the “Workers Paradise” with its supposed free health care which was awful even before the virus hit… now watch this and tell me if you really want a socialized medicine regime?

      1. I had to turn it off, it was getting me all choked up just to see the level of that woman’s pain, and the pain of the ppl of China that she is describing at the hands of demonic possessed Winnie the Pooh…..

    2. This explains why I hold liberal views and post excerpts from The New York Times.

      Paint Chips, it’s not surprising in the least that you’ve completely whiffed on the genesis of that label. Your ideology and sources don’t explain your condition. Our blog host holds liberal views and he will cite those same sources. The difference is our host has proven to have the ability for critical-thinking…you have not.

      Long before you earned the paint chips label, myself and many others would question the reason and logic of your views. We’d ask you what would be normal, thought-provoking questions and we’d seek out clarity on your responses. Without fail, not only would you fail to address the questions asked, more often than not, you’d double-down on your previous comment. Thus prompting the obvious question of whether you’ve got any connectivity with the left-half of your brain. The archives prove this out.

      Lastly, for some odd reason, you’ve made it a habit of changing your user name without even pretending to be anything other than what you are. You might find it cute to get others to use your new name, but you’re not Sybil with multiple distinct personalities. You are the same left-brain deficit individual with multiple names.

      You are Paint Chips.

  2. It is time for justice.

    The administrators who created the “UNC environment” egregiously violated fundamental law and, wittingly or unwittingly, aided and abetted the enemies, whoever they may be, of the Constitution and of the United States, which aiding and abetting enemies irrefutably constitutes treason.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “The UNC study adds to the ample evidence of rising intolerance against free speech led by faculty members and administrators at our universities. We are destroying the very essence of what defines us by remaining silent in the face of this trend. In rewriting school codes and using disciplinary procedures, certain faculty have used higher education to create an echo-chamber for their own views and intimidated those students, particularly conservative students, who hold opposing views and values.”

    – Professor Turley
    _______________

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton
    __________________

    “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,…”

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  3. Another In Turley’s Series Of ‘Tyranny From The Left’ Columns

    Why Then Is Turley Cheering Bernie Sanders..??

    Those of us who have followed Professor Turley have become accustomed to seeing columns like the above.  Typically they concern the chilling climate at major universities where conservative students find themselves having to self-censor amid leftist standards of correctness.

    Turley, a leading academic, may speak with authority here.  Why then is Turley constantly telling us that Democrats have an ‘obligation’ to let Bernie Sanders hijack their party??  If Sanders were to get said nomination, and actually won the White House, one can be sure that leftist tyranny would surge as a national movement.

    It could be a national nightmare: ‘Hordes of energized Bernie Bros marching in the streets’.  The very stupidest people demanding stupid rights!  It is inconceivable that Professor Turley would welcome any such development.  One can only conclude that Turley’s ‘sympathy’ for Bernie is disengenous at best.

    1. Turley isn’t “cheering Bernie Sanders.” He’s pointing out wrongdoing against Bernie Sanders. This has been explained to you before.

      If someone punches Bernie Sanders in the face, and you state the obvious, that it’s wrong, that does not mean you support Sanders’ politics.

      Obviously.

      People need to abandon the ad hominem of attacking the messenger and learn how to reason.

      1. Again, you’re expecting Paint Chips to have a set of procedural principles, something partisan Democrats just don’t develop.

      2. Karen, for the record, I dont look to Trumpers here for ‘explanations’ about any pressing issues. ‘Explanations’ are found in the detailed stories of well-written newspapers.

        1. newspapers are toilet paper, they’re soiled with the ink of lies, half truths, slanders and distortions. The filthy ink rubs off on the hands and the mind. don’t touch the filthy US newspapers anymore!

        2. Seth:

          Let me repeat:

          “Turley isn’t “cheering Bernie Sanders.” He’s pointing out wrongdoing against Bernie Sanders. This has been explained to you before.

          If someone punches Bernie Sanders in the face, and you state the obvious, that it’s wrong, that does not mean you support Sanders’ politics.

          Obviously.

          People need to abandon the ad hominem of attacking the messenger and learn how to reason.”

          You keep attacking Jonathan Turley on his own blog.

    2. “Why then is Turley constantly telling us that Democrats have an ‘obligation’ to let Bernie Sanders hijack their party?? …
      It could be a national nightmare: ‘Hordes of energized Bernie Bros marching in the streets’. The very stupidest people demanding stupid rights!”
      *****************
      Winning primaries is hardly “hijacking the party.” Go Bernie. Go! Oh and then there’s this about losing what you have:

    3. One can only conclude that Turley’s ‘sympathy’ for Bernie is disengenous at best.

      Only if One’s childhood existed on a diet of paint chips. There are other reasonable explanations that have nothing to do with your perception that JT has sympathy for Sanders, or socialism.

      Let me give you an example.

      I was trained as a federally certified strategic planning (SP) facilitator in the Navy. I’ve done it for large and small military commands, government agencies, non-profits and for-profit businesses. Facilitating the SP process is technically not that difficult. I’ve seen this taught in master’s degree programs. There is one critical aspect of this process that doesn’t appear to be taught and that is the requirement the facilitator must not inject their own personal bias into their planning process. The Master Chief (a black man) that taught me describe it this way; he could facilitate a planning session for the KKK and they would walk away with a plan that would lead them successfully toward their vision.

      What JT is describing is a primary process being tampered with by those that want it to turn out a specific way. The voters are supposed to decide and not those within the DNC that run this process. If the Democrats run this process objectively and end up with a Socialist candidate as the last man standing at the convention, then that is the will of the people. You’d think they would have learned their lesson after the 2016 fiasco, but then that would require humility they have yet to display.

      By the way, tampering is a disease not limited to the electoral process or just one political party. It’s also how you build a massive, bureaucratic state, despite the clear limitations of the constitution. But we can save that for another day.

  4. Every young person/student endures the push and pull of acquiescence and rebellion to authority. Some learn to understand the framework, as provided by parents, teachers, and others who influence their thought processes, and they attempt to succeed within it. Some learn that framework so well that they learn how to succeed within it and eventually rebel against it. Those who rule with an iron fist will experience success most of the time, as their authority will spark fear in those required to acquiesce, but there will be others. The others will spend their lives trying to be more individualistic and creative, and they will spend their lives trying to prove themselves smarter and better than those who taught them. It’s human nature, especially among the young, unformed types who are trying to define themselves. If I were to advise them in the art of persuasion, I would instruct them to focus on the persuasive techniques over the heavy handed techniques that might foster rebellion more than anything else.

  5. Students were meant to learn and not be heard. No wonder they gravitate to the supid party. Once a melted snow flake it’s hard to admit 16 years down the drain.

  6. Do high schools still have “Debate Clubs” where students learn how to debate the “message” instead of attacking the “messenger”? Maybe it should be a required class for students along with American Civics.

  7. This would almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad:

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized China’s action, saying: “The United States condemns China’s expulsion of three Wall Street Journal foreign correspondents. Mature, responsible countries understand that a free press reports facts and expresses opinions. The correct response is to present counter arguments, not restrict speech. The United States hopes that the Chinese people will enjoy the same access to accurate information and freedom of speech that Americans enjoy.”

    Wsj Feb 19

  8. “A report, titled, “Free expression and constructive dialogue at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,” is latest study to confirm what many of us have said for years: universities and colleges are becoming increasing hostile environments for free speech generally and for conservatives specifically.”

    It’s a national trend. Universities no longer are bastions are higher learning. They are far Left madrassas where conservative students pay to be harassed and oppressed. Many of these universities turn out utterly useless degrees, such as gender studies, that render the graduate in debt, and unemployable.

    Many are a waste of time.

    How much longer will parents save their money, or students plow into debt, to get useless degrees unsuited for employment? Answer: forever if student debt gets forgiven and universities become yet another taxpayer funded black hole.

    Trade schools and certain specific degrees are the path to well paying careers. The rest are just hobbies and time wasters.

  9. The only difficulty I’ve had with Professor Turley’s coverage of this issue is that he does not pay attention, nearly to the same degree as he does to this infantile behavior on college campuses, to other, clearly more significant threats to freedom of speech, which demand the same constant attention and opposition that he has exerted here. For example, I have not seen for a long time a post by Professor Turley on the predicament in which Julian Assange has been placed due to the outrageous actions of the Swedish, British, and U.S. governments, which if they are successful will neutralize freedom of speech completely, rendering it (to paraphrase Orwell) first a deadly sin, then a meaningless abstraction. Professor Turley initially linked the Assange case, correctly, to the case of John Peter Zenger, which was the origin of freedom of speech in the United States (and the world, for that matter), showing how high indeed the stakes are in Assange’s case, but then has rarely, if ever, followed it up.

    Similarly, Professor Turley has covered some, but not enough, of the clear attempts on the part of certain persons and organizations in and around the political establishment and the media, such as the Atlantic Council, the NYT, and the zombie Hillary Clinton, to deploy the bugaboo of alleged Russian interference in “American democracy”, U.S. elections, or whatever (discussing this interference as if it were an established material fact), toward internet censorship on the sinister, red-baiting ground that expression of unacceptable criticism, whether of the Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard variety, or that of any of the publications that appeared on the shadowy “Prop or Not” hit list in the Washington Post after Trump was elected, is emanating from the Kremlin and so must be heavily regulated or shut down – and the results of this campaign in incremental, imperceptible, and rarely covered subversion of freedom of speech by technology companies including Twitter, Google, and Facebook, which selectively blacklist political views deemed by them or their government overseers to be inadmissible. Here’s a recent example: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2020/02/19/scandal-ridden-opcw-now-using-twitters-hide-replies-function/.

    In other words, yes – Professor Turley should cover these campus threats to freedom of speech, but he could also do a lot more to highlight the much more forbidding threats to its existence than the intellectually dishonest, effete, sectarian left.

    1. Wartberg says the host should be paying attention to what Wartberg wants him to talk about.

      Which is definitely not the little people getting their free speech on campus squelched. Only marquee names get Wartberg’s attention.

  10. Years ago I asked a friend how she juggled a full time job with her pursuit of a Master’s degree at night at NYU.

    Easy, she said. You determine the professor’s point of view and give it back in class discussion and in tests and papers. The professor thinks you’re a genius and you bank the A grade.

    Years later, I passed the information on to my son (NYU) and my daughter (Mcgill). The feedback was the system works.

    Given where most faculty are on the political spectrum, a SJW would find this easy to do. A conservative student would find the exercise wildly amusing.

      1. I am guessing that if the lynch mob was Republican, the story would be more believable to you…just guessing.

  11. The UNC study adds to the ample evidence of rising intolerance against free speech led by faculty members and administrators at our universities.

    Both the faculty and the bar understand themselves to be among the Anointed. The rest of us are the Benighted, and do not deserve to make known our opinions or affect public policy in any way. The problem lies in the professional cultures you inhabit. You persistently refuse to recognize that.

  12. A small percentage of students and faculty often push for such speech codes and regulation. However, it is often difficult for students and faculty to object at the risk of being called intolerant or microaggressors.

    1. The Administration will do absolutely nothing to protect students or employees who are harassed by these types.

    2. Other faculty will do nothing to limit the influence of the problem faculty, or to use their influence (on committees and such) to see that satisfactory administrators are hired. Neither will they act to prevent the hiring of bad actors.

    They do nothing because (1) they don’t really disapprove of the behavior of bad actors and / or (2) they don’t figure the bad actors will threaten anything they care about.

    The cause of this problem is all around you.

    Higher education is what Paul Shaughnessy, SJ called ‘sociologically corrupt’. It lacks the resources to reform itself through it’s own efforts. Only elected officials can fix higher education, and our elected officials have been perfectly otiose.

    For gosh sakes, read the cr!p posted by David Benson in every godforsaken thread. No conscientious person of good character would write these things. That’s the professoriate.

    1. TIA:

      “For gosh sakes, read the cr!p posted by David Benson in every godforsaken thread. No conscientious person of good character would write these things. That’s the professoriate.”
      ***********************
      True dat. It’s the absolute dearth of real physical work that corrupts these folks. Given ’em a year sabbatical washing dishes or landscaping and they’d get an education Harvard couldn’t touch with their Chinese gilded fingers.

      1. I once thinned trees on 40 acres. That was a lotta wood, which brought a little income.

        Can you say the same for manual labor?

        Thought not.

        1. DBB:

          “I once thinned trees on 40 acres. That was a lotta wood, which brought a little income.
          Can you say the same for manual labor?
          Thought not.”
          *********************
          Thought wrong. Unlike you I spent every fall playing a demanding sport and every summer and weekend carrying block, lifting shingles up ladders and carrying 150 lb beef hindquarters for $2.10 an hour. it gave me an appreciation for the folks who make this country work and even more for the pointy-headed fools who think they do.

          1. “ I spent every fall playing a demanding sport and every summer and weekend carrying block, lifting shingles up ladders and carrying 150 lb beef hindquarters”

            you should stop writing these types of alpha-male, testosterone-laden, uber masculine stories. Peter Shill says it is taking the curl out of his naturally curly hair

            @2:44

        2. “Can you say the same for manual labor?” Are you talking about unskilled, entry level grunt work, or the skilled trades? Because the skilled trades can lead to a six figure income. See Mike Rowe Works.

          Physical labor brings home the message of hard work, applying yourself, and seeing a job through to the end. Too many people don’t want to get their shoes or hands dirty today. Many of those look down on the trades. Frankly, were there ever to be some catastrophe, it would be the trades who would be instrumental in rebuilding the country and keeping it running.

          Academics and most white collar jobs are luxuries that only a thriving country can support.

      2. Lots of people have office jobs all their lives, with some detours into generic service employment. They neither think nor behave like college faculty. It’s quite local to the professional-managerial stratum and to certain lesser guilds (HR, social work, junior grade mental health trade, and elements of the schoolteacher trade).

      3. That’s why Mao and Saloth Sar shipped the useless social parasites from ivory towards out to the countryside and let them dig ditches for their bread.

        See, they had at least that one good idea. LOL

      4. Whittaker Chambers learned conservatism from hard work.

        “Witness”

        – Whittaker Chambers
        ___________________

        “As long as humanity speaks of virtue and dreams of freedom, the life and writings of Whittaker Chambers will ennoble and inspire.”

        – President Ronald Reagan

      1. No, I observe institutional behavior. You just don’t care to have someone calling attention to what you did do and didn’t do.

        Over time, higher education is run for the comfort and convenience of the tenured faculty. They don’t get what they want today, but they’ll get what they want in the next 15 years unless it’s superlatively expensive. Mostly what they want is more of everything but accountability.

        Institutions do cater to donors as well. The trouble is, 9.5x out of 10 what donors want is an edifice with their name on it, more swag for the athletic complex, or a berth in the freshman class for their grandson. They have no interest in any institution’s integrity and seriousness of purpose. One vector ruining higher education is the essential frivolity of the plutocratic element in this country. Look at the late George Bush the Elder, a man with so many talents and accomplishments. What would he have done to repair a troubled institutions were he on the board? Answer: not a damn thing. He’d like write letters to the editor huffing and puffing at anyone who complained.

    2. It’s the party, stupid!

      It goes along to get along.
      _____________________

      “We all float down here!’

      – It, Stephen King

  13. The UNC study does not say what JT claims. He writes:

    “The UNC study adds to the ample evidence of rising intolerance against free speech led by faculty members and administrators at our universities….”

    No, it specifically does not. Go to page 18 where the authors state that both liberal and conservative students agreed that with only a limited few exceptions, professors and instructors strove to be fair and open to all viewpoints in their classes.

    https://fecdsurveyreport.web.unc.edu/files/2020/02/UNC-Free-Expression-Report.pdf

    Why misrepresent the study unless JT has not reviewed it, but is relying on Fox or some other wing nut source for his “news”? The alternative is that he is being dishonest.

    1. btb:

      “Go to page 18 where the authors state that both liberal and conservative students agreed that with only a limited few exceptions, professors and instructors strove to be fair and open to all viewpoints in their classes.”
      *********************

      Got some ice cream to go with that cherry?

      (for btb: that’s a reference to seizing a small part of a study and disregarding the conclusion draw. Like saying since the study says there’s oxygen in tap water then it must float in the air. It’s called “cherry-picking” hence the comment.)

      1. Mespo is another who only reads into what is written what his … limited precepts … allows.

        I’ve tryed to be kind …

        1. DBB:

          “MMespo is another who only reads into what is written what his … limited precepts … allows.
          I’ve tryed to be kind …”
          *****************
          Oh, don’t be. But my guess is you’ve never argued before a Supreme Court, various state Courts of Appeals, Federal District Court or Federal Court of Appeals and prevailed against equally smart people.

          When you have and the stakes were more than some puny academic dust-up, let’s talk about reading comprehension, exposition and persuasion.

    2. bythebook:

      You actually were cherry picking. You selected one paragraph, and then did not include what followed:

      “While the first theme above undermines some common critiques of higher education, our research nevertheless points to some areas of concern. Specifically, although most students perceive that instructors generally adopt an inclusive posture in the classroom, many students also worry that if they express their sincere political views openly, instructors and/or peers will think less of them, or do something to embarrass them. Some students even worry their course grades might be affected, and a substantial proportion of students—24.1% to 67.9%, depending on student ideology—report engaging in self-censorship (Finding 5). Overall, though, students report worrying more about censure from fellow students than faculty (Finding 7). The survey results also showed that students harbor negative stereotypes about students who disagree with them (Finding 8), are unwilling to interact socially with people who hold opposing political views, and even disagree that UNC needs political diversity at all (Finding 10). Finally, a substantial proportion of students—over 25%—reported that they would endorse blocking or interrupting events featuring speakers with whom they disagree (Finding 11).
      3) Although students across the political spectrum report facing challenges related to free expression, these challenges seem to be more acute for students who identify as conservative.

      Compared to self-identified liberals, self-identified conservative students express greater concern about potential academic consequences that might stem from expressing their views (Finding 6). Students across ideologies report commonly hearing disparaging comments about political conservatives (Finding 9) and conservative students are at greater risk of social isolation (Finding
      1
      10). Additionally, self-identified liberal students are more likely than self-identified conservatives to endorse blocking a campus speaker with whom they disagree (Finding 11).”

      You claimed that Jonathan Turley was wrong by cherrypicking a specific paragraph, that was at odds with everything that followed, as well as the conclusion of the study.

      1. Karen, you have misstated what I posted, which was pointed at a specific and critical element of JT’s column, including the headline. Try to follow.

        The study aims to gauge 2 concepts. One is self censoring and student tolerance for opposing viewpoints. The other is institutional censoring and intolerance, I think we all would agree that of those, institutional censoring and intolerance would be the more serious problem, and JT claims the study found that. It did not. It found the opposite and my quote from the study clearly demonstrates that critical point. Given this explanation, hopefully you can re-read my first post and understand what I wrote and how wrong JTs summary was. I did not address what you are highlighting – student self censoring – an area of concern, but of more complex factors.

        1. bythebook says, “Karen, you have misstated what I posted.”

          Nope. You claimed that Turley was being dishonest and brought up Fox. You consistently personally attack the host of this blog and make defamatory statements about his character and motivation. That is the definition of trolling. You do that a lot. You go onto Jonathan Turley’s blog and then you call him names, and other commenters names, and then you do it all again tomorrow. Do you know what the most precious treasure on Earth is? Time. And you waste yours trolling. Returning over and over again to satisfy the urge.

          1. if you had liars like this in the family you would have to disown them, or ban them from the home

            it will come to that for us to, what shape that takes, remains to be seen

          2. If you don’t like bythebook’s comments, just ignore them.

            I doubt that Jonathan even bothers to read the comments.

          3. If either Karen or Kurtz have the horsepower to discuss the clear misrepresentation in JTs column which I have clearly stated and sourced, let’s hear it and try to clarify the real issues brought up by the study. I assure you both that it is not about me and one wonders why you avoid it.

          4. “Do you know what the most precious treasure on Earth is? Time. And you waste yours trolling. Returning over and over again to satisfy the urge.” Pontificating Karen.

            You “waste” your time by commenting, Karen. “Precious” time, Karen. Oh, all the things you might have done. What you might have become. And it’s all Obama’s fault. Were it not for the ACA, you might not be posting comments…

  14. (music to tune of Four Dead in O Hi O)
    This summer I hear them coming…
    They’re problee on our way…

    Gotta get down to it!
    Soldiers are cutting us down!
    How can ya run when ya know?
    Etc

  15. “We have been discussing how faculty around the country are supporting the abandonment of free speech principles to bar speakers and speech with which they disagree. The most extreme form of this rejection of classical liberal values is the antifa movement. We have seen faculty physically attack speakers or destroy messages that they oppose. We have also seen faculty physically attacked and intimidated. ”

    Notice how seldom any of this is condemned by D politicians. As if no one notices that Antifa and SJWs are acting as muscle for the D Party agenda. In Portland, Antifa is even an open component of the local political machine.

  16. This is not news. It was apparent even in my college days (class of ’72) though to a lesser extent. The germs of PC and censorship of conservative thought were already present. My question is why it took half a century to acknowledge something apparent to any on the right for so long.

  17. Balderdash. I taught @ UNC for 3 years.

    Those are not conservatives. Rather, white irredentists; unable to accept that pale skin is good and dark skin is bad.

    Being unable to see a way to resolve this tension, I left. Here I see continued progress in having all the diverse cultures appropriately represented and even celebrated.

    1. DBB:
      “Here I see continued progress in having all the diverse cultures appropriately represented and even celebrated.”
      ******************
      More Leftist irrationality. My guess is they ushered you out of UNC back when some semblance of standards existed. If you want to have a society, you get one culture not some hodgepodge of nattering identities with conflicting goals clawing at each other. We’re Americans without the hyphens.

      You celebrate it all you want; it’s a woke wake.

      1. mespo727272, I left UNC despite the fact that the department would certainly have me there for another 3 years.

        You just Make Stuff Up.

        After 50 years of prodding, pointing out to fellow faculty their illiberalality, several presidents later, Washington State University has finally an appropriate culture of acceptance. Of the diverse cultures which make up this region.

        You appear to be too narrow minded to understand.

        1. “You appear to be too narrow minded to understand.”
          *******************
          You mean too disciplined of mind. There’s a difference. Oh, and the word “guess” is in your OED. Look it up and be amazed.

    2. Those are not conservatives. Rather, white irredentists; unable to accept that pale skin is good and dark skin is bad.

      Those are the fictions you tell yourself to help you feel better. To a disinterested observer, that’s just another indicator of why you should not be allowed discretion over anything more consequential than a Chia pet.

Leave a Reply