There is a new free speech lawsuit on a college campus this week after three University of Houston students sued over a new anti-discrimination policy. The students are unnamed in the complaint, which was brought by Speech First. They alleged that they are chilled in expressing their views on issues like gender because they are now treated as forms of discrimination or harassment.
Under the new policy, discrimination or harassment on campus is now defined as including “negative stereotyping,” “threatening, intimidating or hostile acts,” and “denigrating jokes.”
In fairness to the university, it does include (unlike some universities) a rejected subjectivity as the basis for complaints:
“An individual’s subjective belief that behavior is intimidating, hostile, or offensive, in and of itself, is not sufficient to establish Discrimination or Harassment. The behavior must create a hostile environment from both a subjective and objective perspective such that it unreasonably interferes with, limits, or deprives a member of the university community of the ability to participate in or to receive benefits, services, or opportunities from the university’s education or employment programs and/or activities.”
The policy, however, includes microaggressions that can result in action if there is a pattern.
“Minor verbal and nonverbal slights, snubs, annoyances, insults or isolated incidents including, but not limited to microaggressions, are not sufficient to establish Discrimination or Harassment. However, if such incidents keep happening over time and are targeting a Protected Class, they can constitute Discrimination or Harassment in violation of this Policy.”
We have previously discussed microaggression policies and the free speech concerns raised by this ill-defined and highly subjective concept. Notably, a professor at the University of North Texas just won a critical motion in his case involving criticism of microaggression policies.
Free speech demands bright lines to avoid a chilling effect on speech. The new policy however is sweeping in its terms:
“Examples of Harassment include, but are not limited to: epithets or slurs, negative stereotyping, threatening, intimidating or hostile acts, denigrating jokes and display or circulation (including through e-mail or virtual platforms) of written or graphic material in the learning, living, or working environment.”
The most concerning terms are how “negative stereotyping, . . . intimidating or hostile act, denigrating joke” are defined. Since graphic material are include, it would likely include cartoons or other material containing such challenged views or comments.
A recent poll found that 65 percent of students feel that they cannot speak freely on campuses. Another poll at the University of North Carolina found that conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor themselves due to the intolerance of opposing views on our campuses. In a relatively short time, faculty and administrators have destroyed the status of campuses as bastions of free speech. Students now expect less freedom of speech in higher education where a new orthodoxy and speech intolerance has taken hold.
It is a death knell for our higher education, particularly at private universities, which are not directly impacted by First Amendment protections. The anti-free speech movement is making public universities the last line of defense for those struggling to preserve forums for free speech.
If this trend continues, students interested in seeking higher education without losing free speech rights may have to increasingly look to public universities. As someone who has taught at private universities for almost four decades, that would be a sad result not just for higher education but the country as a whole.
Here is the complaint: Speech First v. Khatur
It was apathy that allowed the Left to take over the public education system and academia.
Stir and resist the Democrat madrassas. Sue.
Karen,
Suing is chilling.
Karen+S,
I disagree with you on this one Karen.
I do not think suing will achieve anything meaningful.
First, homeschool (IIRC, you are) with a focus on reading, writing, math, sciences (actual science), history in context, and critical thinking. NOT wokeism indoctrination.
Then, create universities that teach the same. NOT wokeism indoctrination.
Graduates from both homeschools and universities will have the skills, knowledge, and mature adults, attractive to businesses that need those skills and that level of professionalism.
Businesses do not want employees who need safe spaces at work, or bring their activism to work.
It was apathy that allowed the Left to take over the public education system and academia.
Apathy a little bit. But a greater influence has been the constant drum beat to “listen to the experts”.
Educational “experts” have been telling us whats best for our children since WWII, and all the GI’s came home and started to do what came naturally. That got super charged with LBJ and the Great Society,vote buying free for all. LBJ promised to make US education system the best in the world. (but it already was the best in the world), and with that, the millions flowing into the Dept of Education was forced to do everything different…… and claim it was better.
Sight reading, new math, sex education, driving education.
Think of all the crap forced on the kids, and all the gas lighting about how it was better.
Listen to the experts is the problem.
Education
Climate Change
Gun control
Covid mandates.
Sentencing reform
All the disasters we have endured because of experts
I forgot the big one.
CHEVRON
Chevron has been written into the constitution. Chevron says govt “experts” should have deference in the courts rulings. Why? Yep. They are the “experts”
Is college worth the bs? Or hs?
“[I]f such incidents [e.g., “snubs”] keep happening over time and are targeting a Protected Class, they can constitute Discrimination or Harassment in violation of this Policy.”
That’s just dandy:
Letitia: “Three times I waved to Joe across the Quad. He never once waved back. He *snubbed* me. I was so triggered I spent extra days in the safe room, hugging my safe bear. His snub made me miss important educational activities, like the symposium on “Reimagining the Police,” and three seminars of my course on “Western Civilization’s Assault on Ethnic Hair.”
Kangaroo Committee (KC): “Joe?”
Joe: “Who’s Letitia?”
Letitia: “See, he’s *slighting* me.”
KC: “Joe, we don’t think you’re a good fit for UoH.”
P.S. If you think that scenario is an exaggeration, you’ve never been involved in a university KC — as I have.
Thanks for providing such a clear example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Thanks for being an apologist for the horror of campus speech codes, and for the inherent injustice of university KCs.
I seriously question the value of a college degree these days. Wokeism is not a valued asset in the work place. If anything it creates hostility and division.
If I owned a business, I would give that high school graduate who got good grades, has a good work ethic, a paid internship. Teach them how business actually works. After a period of time, then offer them a job at the industry rate of a college grad. No college debt, no useless liberal arts requirements.
Accredit the student. Not the institution
Thank you Joe Biden for showing Putin that America is a paper tiger. This never would have occurred in this fashion under a JFK or any administration except one that yields to the far left.
Missile Strike in Eastern Ukraine Kills 50 Awaiting Train to Escape
It’s time for NATO to supply Ukraine with heavy hitters.
Cruise missiles & ICBMs that can reach deep into Russia.
A simple question. Is it those on the left who want to cancel free speech or is it those on the right? Those on the left are always saying that those on the right are trying to destroy our Democracy while calling for the limiting of the very bedrock of Democracy. The speech of the founders of our nation was prohibited by the Crown of England and labeled as treason. A better example of authoritarian government in history can not be found. So which political party today is more like England was in their desire to curtail free speech? A simple question. A simple answer.
A stupid question.
You don’t want a truthful answer, which is that many people on the right and the left work to curtail speech they object to, and other people on the right and the left work to protect speech even when they object to it. You also do not wish to distinguish between restrictions on speech by the government (which is generally unconstitutional) and restrictions on speech by non-government entities (which is generally protected by the First Amendment).
“A better example of authoritarian government in history can not be found.”
Glad to know that you think the Crown of England was a more authoritarian government than any Communist Chinese government, than any Russian/Soviet government, than the government of Nazi Germany, …
Anonymous, at the time England was just as iron fisted as any nation in history. I simple knowledge of history will confirm my statement. England even required the housing of troops in peoples homes at the expense of the home owner. If you spoke against the Crown you would be punished for sedition. Sedition was devised as a tool in 13th century Britain to suppress the freedom of the printing press and its ability to criticise the King. The Sedition Act, 1661 imposed punishment on anyone who wrote, printed or preached any words against the King. Is this authoritarian enough for you? People on the right point out where your thinking may be incorrect but people on the left work to keep you from expressing your opinion. Please provide an example of when Republicans have tried to keep you off of any media platform. We will be waiting for that day that will never come. You might look into a book on the History of England. I know books are so old fashion when you have twitter to supply all the information you need.
Both Republicans and Democrats keep some people off social media. Are you aware that the Board and top admin at Facebook are a mix of Democrats and Republicans? If you want examples of Republicans who have a lot of power there, start with Joel Kaplan and Peter Thiel.
It’s the Russians stupid! Not just Putin.
They are war terrorists and the worst criminals since the Hitler days.
“Another poll at the University of North Carolina found that conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor themselves due to the intolerance of opposing views on our campuses. ”
That can be read that conservatives are 300 times more likely to demand the right to abuse those whom they don’t like or disagree with. Fortunately, Turley provides this space where no such barriers exist.
Enigma, I think we should stop you from calling people racist, nazi, fascist, homophobic, transphobic when you don’t agree with them. When you do this I believe you should lose your means of livelihood so that you will loose your house and will no longer be able to feed your children. I believe that you should be prohibited from posting on this blog. Of course I don’t believe that any of these things should happen to you but you believe they should happen to me. Rest assured I will not stand idly by.
I rarely use any of those terms, and disagreement has nothing to do with those times. You seem to be making my point.
Enigma, I noticed that you said that you rarely use any of those terms that I presented but you did not say that you never do. You are correct in your qualification. Remember we have read your previous posts.
I certainly have used the terms. Some of you qualify. I rarely call George a racist though there is no doubt that he is. Ironically, George has a better understanding of a limited portion of American history than most of the people here. He knows what this country intended itself to be. Most here can’t accept that so they replace actual history with what they wish it to have been.
I converse with those whom I have called racist, some have admitted it like Squeeky Fromme, most of you choose to attack me instead. I don’t want any of them gone (except the troll) and even them don’t try to have their views eradicated. You on the other hand (an hour ago) said you wanted me banned from the board.
You should go to the source of the problem – find a way to stop the parasites and dependents from coveting, while simultaneously engaging in and actually enjoying self-reliance, the “pursuit of happiness.”
Now that would be an accomplishment for the ages, nay, eons.
Imagine, an end to the constant caterwauling and demands.
Whatever did LBJ do, exactly, to have those ——- voting democrat for 200 years?
However did Lincoln escape and evade his duty to enforce and execute immigration laws in 1863?
The Israelites were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers.
Enigma, you conveniently left out the part that stated that 65 per cent of the students said that their right to speak was being prohibited. It must then follow that a lot of liberal students must also believe that they can not speak freely. The number of people who consider themselves liberal at a young age has always been higher than those who consider themselves to be conservative. Even the liberal students think that they can not speak openly. Is this what you want in our institutions of higher learning? When reading your postings it must be determined that you are in favor of censoring those you disagree with. Your pattern of thinking can be found throughout history in the people who demanded total control of what people were allowed to say. Are these the people really the ones you want to side with?
I think you’ll be hard pressed to find examples of me seeking to censor people, projecting much? This is you ten minutes ago:
” I believe that you should be prohibited from posting on this blog. Of course I don’t believe that any of these things should happen to you but you believe they should happen to me. Rest assured I will not stand idly by.”
Unlike yourself, I’ve never called for anyone to be thrown off this blog or forbidden to speak anywhere. Now I don’t think free speech is the same as the right to call anyone any name and there can be consequences. I have asked that something be done about a certain troll that uses at least three anonymous names to constantly insult me and comment on my every post. I don’t want him gone, just to leave me the F* alone but Turley fails to respond. Here is a portion of one of the trolls latest comments”
“. White Democrats still own your black ass.”
Enigma, there is no question that your viewpoints are leftist viewpoints. Do you think that is the people on the right on the campuses who are trying to limit speech or is it the people on the left? Another poster asked you to name someone on the right who has tried to limit your speech. You have yet answered but have only dodged the question.
I think both sides are guilty. I think the right is far more vocal about their restrictions from calling others names and lying about elections. They have a large tv network dedicated to airing their complaints.
I have had a number of people here try to limit my speech, telling me to go away and in some cases “go back to Africa.” I barely keep track. The next time someone besides yourself tries to limit my speech, I’ll let you know.
Your definition of “leftist” eludes me. What does it mean to you?
Are you suggesting that expressing an opposing view of any kind is abuse, or just conservative views?
Not at all, it does seem apparent that so-called conservatives wish to use free speech to persecute others. One need only look at the examples where they feel they are being denied.
Sorry, but I’m not getting it. Can you one of those examples?
This is what Turley is finding objectionable.
“Examples of Harassment include, but are not limited to: epithets or slurs, negative stereotyping, threatening, intimidating or hostile acts, denigrating jokes and display or circulation (including through e-mail or virtual platforms) of written or graphic material in the
learning, living, or working environment.”
Here is an example of free speech so-called conservatives exercising their right.
https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2015/05/1_hello_n_gger_conservatives_welcome_president_obama_to_twitter/
Your example is about ignorant Tweets on Twitter made in 2015. I thought we were discussing policing free speech on college campuses. Getting back to that, one of the views a conservative student might want to express on campus might be something along the lines that suggests affirmative action is not working or is unfair to some students. Would you consider those opinions abuse? Many on college campuses today do, and worse they look to hurt any students and/or professors who might express such an opinions.
Also, so that I might better understand your views, where do you stand on allowing conservative speakers, like Ben Shapiro, speak on campus?
I think anyone can speak on a campus, I don’t think everyone has the right to be paid from student funds to do so.
Thanks, thats good to know. But who wouldn’t have that right if they’ve been invited by a student group or a department of the university? Did the speakers recently shouted down at Yale not have a right to speak because they were being paid from student funds? Even though they they had been invited by students.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/yale-law-students-bipartisan-free-speech-police
Carpslaw,
I am opposed to shouting down any speaker. A more effective protest would be to walk out of the room, or to stand up and turn one’s back to the speaker as he talked. Mooning is optional.
Good to hear you’re opposed to shouting down speakers! And while walking out is likely an effective way to register your protest, I would rather you (and those who disagree) stay, listen, consider the ideas, and challenge respectfully with your own points and questions. Let’s hear all views, challenge all views and let the best ideas win. Name calling doesn’t count, nor does it ever change anyone’s mind.
Carpslaw,
Unlike you, I don’t want to hear racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic views. I have considered them sufficiently to decide, “Enough already!” On the other hand, I agree with you that name-calling only makes one’s opponent dig-in her heels but not change her mind. I abhor Conservatives calling Liberals such names as “Marxists,” “Communists, “child-killers,” “America-haters,” “globalists,” etc.
Correction: I meant to say “baby-killers” not “child-killers” referring to Conservatives attacking advocates of abortion of a fetus not a baby.
Sounds like we agree on the name calling. But I’ll be honest, you weren’t specific, but it is likely I don’t see the views you’re calling “racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic” that way.
That’s fine. We will never agree on that. So what. What do we agree on? The point is that we as citizens are perfectly free to ignore speech and refuse to listen to that which we find intolerable. It’s up to the speaker to find an audience willing to listen; he has no right to be heard.
You are supposed to be an attorney. Attorneys are trained in litigation and words. It is silly for an attorney to moon or stand, turning his back to the speaker. Why did the attorney attend?
Since you are an attorney, one would think you would welcome the chance to debate and ask questions to convince the conservatives that the speaker is wrong. I have seen Horowitz, D’Souza and others take questions from people and debate them on the spot giving considerable time to the opposition. We generally don’t see that type of free debate from Liberals that are likely to close down questions.
D’Souza was in my class at college. He was a jerk then as well.
“D’Souza was in my class at college. He was a jerk then as well.”
I wonder what made him a jerk? He is quite successful with about a dozen books, some best sellers on the NYT list. He also had a few successful documentaries.
If you actually knew him, you would know he wouldn’t have had much time to engage in your type of activities.
He was on the nascent “The Dartmouth Review” which was very controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dartmouth_Review
“In March 1982, The Dartmouth Review published an article in which the unnamed author (widely assumed to be Dinesh D’Souza) criticized affirmative action policies by donning the persona of a disaffected African American student. Entitled “Dis Sho’ Ain’t No Jive, Bro,” it was written entirely in Ebonics and included such excerpts as “white folk be itchin’ to be puttin’ us back into [fetters]” and “we not be includin’ dat Uncle Tom, Tom Sowell, in dis.”[1] In response, several campus groups and faculty members voiced concerns about the stereotypical nature of the column and its potential effects on race relations at Dartmouth.[1] The Review’s editors defended the piece by pointing out that writers like Mark Twain and Damon Runyon had previously used racial dialects in social satire and that, since many claim jive is a viable alternative to traditional English, the article was the equivalent of publishing a feature in French, Spanish, or Latin.”
——-/
I could relate an unflattering story from my own personal experience with him, but you wouldn’t believe me, so what’s the point.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a politicized Internet encyclopedia. When controversial issues exist, their reports will be biased and even lie. You base your comments on that, so it is easy to discard them. With such usage of useless information, I suppose you are correct that your credibility has been jeopardized. Still, never the less I would like to hear your rationalization over your earlier statement when you called D’Sousa a jerk.
D’Souza believes in conservative values and has used them by writing excellent books and creating superb documentaries. We know politically you disagree with him, but that is not a reason to call him a jerk. We also know that you have hateful feelings towards anyone you disagree with, so we have to consider them when you tell us about anyone or anything.
I am curious. Dinesh didn’t have much time to engage while at Dartmouth except for the time spent creating his fine mind and adjusting to a new environment. Tell us why you think he is a jerk.
Anyone but you.
Of course, anyone but those that persist in making you prove what you say. You talk and say little.
Dinesh doesn’t think he remembers you though he met some pretty stupid people who only succeed because their parents have money to force it to happen.
The speakers weren’t shouted down at Yale. Even your Fox news article states “the protesters exited the event” after getting a warning from Prof. Stith. They were later chastized by the Law School Dean: https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/message-dean-gerken-march-10-protest
Even though they did try, I stand corrected and will regard it as a ray of hope.
Enigma, that is entirely correct, but well known respectful speakers have been denied the ability to speak even if the cost is absorbed by themselves or funded by those wishing to hear them.
Carpslaw asks:
“where do you stand on allowing conservative speakers, like Ben Shapiro, speak on campus?”
Whete do you the respective students stand on allowing Louis Farrakhan to speak at Hillsdale College or Richard Spencer at Brandeis University?
Good question. One significant difference, both your examples have called for genocide in some form. It could be argued that’s a “clear line”. Still, if they were invited, I would hope they would be allowed to speak. I believe, letting there ideas be heard will only stand to decrease their popularity and make them even less relevant then they are now.
So we let them speak. We hear; we consider; we decide, “Thanks, but no thanks.” How many times must we listen to the same old hatred before WE are FREE to reject it by saying, “We’ve heard it all before”?
Wish I knew what you’re talking about. I don’t hate people and none of the conservatives I know, or listen to, hate people. We likely have different perspectives on how you best serve people and societies. For example, I’m guessing you think I hate immigrants and that I’m a racist, because I would like to see us control the southern border and be deliberate about who we let in. Not controlling who’s coming into our country is resulting in more dangerous drugs, human trafficking as well as criminals (and potentially terrorist) coming into our country. The result s more harm to US citizens of all races. I don’t want controls because I’m racist, I want them because they would make us safer and reduce some of the harm that is already being done to people.
Carpslaw says:
“I’m guessing you think I hate immigrants and that I’m a racist, because I would like to see us control the southern border and be deliberate about who we let in.”
You guessed wrong. Liberals do accuse Conservatives who want to limit immigration as “racists.” It’s wrong, and I don’t. By the same token, it is wrong for Conservatives to call Liberals “baby-killers” who are pro-abortion.
We must stop the name-calling on both sides which both sides are equally culpable because it is a flaw of human nature not of ideology.
Don’t attend, but it is obvious you haven’t listened to conservatives talk. Generally, there is a topic that has been announced in advance, so one can skip it if they heard it or are not interested. There is no need to stop people from listening if they are interested.
Did I stay I would stop people from listening? What did I say? I said I would not heckle a liar. I would simply turn my back to him to express my disgust to those around me listening.
If you’re concerned about people in the US illegally, I hope you know that about half of them entered the US legally — through ports of entry all over the US — and then overstayed their visas.
Under Biden, almost all entering the country daily are illegal, not people that overstay their visas. They are illegally being sent all over the nation, and at the end of next month, Biden will end a policy that will cause even more to enter.
Anonymous the Stupid supports the policies that cause these illegals to enter the country even though murderers, rapists, terrorists, and Fentanyl come with them. Fentanyl kills our young and destroys the fabric of the nation. I’m not sure, but it seems Anonymous the Stupid has a grudge against the young, even those in the womb.
Hillsdale is a private college that receives no public funds. They are very clear as to their positions. Show us examples of their discrimination. Hillsdale is relatively diverse.
Richard Spencer promotes the policies of the left.
Obama, friend of Louis Farrakhan: https://www.phillytrib.com/news/hidden-photo-of-obama-and-farrakhan-released-in-new-book/article_0b95a0d4-05fe-5b90-b9c7-23206514acea.html
Feel that they are denied, or are denied?
Allan?
“Allan?”
No. I think the last response to you didn’t resonate well with you. I am interested in solutions. I was hoping you were as well, but I see you continue to prefer grievance. Here is that last response.
—-
I agree many black people value education, which has been proven by the many black people who have succeeded in medicine, economics, law, and many other disciplines. One tries to believe that black leaders would separate politics from the proper education of black children in NYC. They should be expressing themselves loud and clear in demanding more charter schools.
Those schools have paved the way for many black children to graduate from high school proficient in English and math to enter college based on their own merits. They can continue to excel in the medical or law school they attend based on their merits. They can do that no matter what anyone says.
The naysayers are the ones who obstruct such progress. They are too invested in historical black disadvantage. Such investment distracts the young from what they can do. They should cease looking backward and demand a better education for their children.
If the leaders and elders do not change the tactics involving victimhood and the blame game, success will be harder for these valuable young children.
You compliment Turley for providing a free speech area, yet your post suggests you don’t think college campuses should be allowing free speech. Why wouldn’t it be a good thing on college campuses as well as on this blog?
That can be read that conservatives are 300 times more likely to demand the right to abuse those whom they don’t like or disagree with.
Thank you for the Schiff-like imagination.
I listen to the constant whining and that’s exactly what it sounds like.
For me it’s tinnitus caused by the constant noise during numerous naval shipyard overhauls. I’ve gotten used to it.
Take note how a former FBI agent pled guilty on evidence tampering. We have seen a lot of that going on in D.C. with Democrat coordination. Take note of the abuses left-wing prosecutors are capable of. Further take note how the tax payer had to pay legal costs of the left-wing politicians.
“The Missouri Supreme Court ordered on Friday that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner comply with a public records request from Just the News Editor-in-Chief John Solomon regarding the prosecution of former Gov. Eric Greitens. …
According to a 73-page memo by Chief Disciplinary Counsel Alan Pratzel, Gardner allegedly engaged in 62 acts of misconduct that resulted in 79 false representations during her prosecution of Greitens.
On March 23, Gardner’s chief investigator for the Greitens prosecution, ex-FBI agent William Tisaby, pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor evidence tampering and was sentenced to probation, which was immediately suspended.”
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/missouri-supreme-court-sides-john-solomon-sunshine-law-case-against-st-louis?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter#article
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-04/Court%20of%20Appeals%20Mandate.pdf
Irregularities in the 2020 election that may have been responsible for fraudulent voting and election results that must be questioned.
Court Reinstates Louisiana AG’s Lawsuit Against Zuckerberg’s Election-Meddling Group
The reason: “private contributions to local election officials and the election system in general are unlawful and contrary to Louisiana law.”
“the Louisiana Constitution provides that the secretary of state is the ‘chief election officer of the state,’” and that “he shall prepare and certify the ballots for all elections, promulgate all election returns, and administer the election laws, except those relating to voter registration and custody of voting machines.” The appellate court further stressed that “the secretary of state is also responsible for paying all election costs and expenses.”
“Zuckbucks created “a ‘shadow’ election system with a built-in structural bias,”
https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/court-reinstates-louisiana-ags-lawsuit-against-zuckerbergs-election-meddling-group/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=court-reinstates-louisiana-ags-lawsuit-against-zuckerbergs-election-meddling-group
It’s time for the snowflakes to feel the heat. The only way to fulfill that speech code is to go to class and never speak. Speech is an integral part of socialization and the development of the human mind. No speech and we stop and stagnate. The world is not a kind place and all of us have to learn how to deal with the slings and arrows and brickbats of life. You have left your cocoon and now you have to survive. Once upon a time college was where you learned to deal with other points of view, hurt feelings, insufficient preparation and it’s consequences and also learned to respond with sharp responses and outstanding command of your subject. I can guarantee you a humiliating experience will teach you more than any wonderful success whether it be in speech or action.
When I was a 1st year resident at Baylor in Houston in the 1970’s, we had the best cardiac surgeons in the world in people like Denton Cooley, Michael Debakey and several others. I had the pleasure of being loudly condemned with colorful language about my actions in the ICU by one the “Great Men” in regards to a patient of his that I was managing. It was a tirade, really. Virtually every nurse and other physician in that ICU that day was leaning away from me, hoping to avoid the backsplash of what was falling on me. I had to take it until he finally took a breath and asked me why I had followed the procedure I did. I calmly (although shaking inside) told him why I did what I did and that I had cleared all of my actions with his Cardiovascular Fellow the previous night. This same CV Fellow stood mute while I absorbed this abuse, knowing that I had called him.. My reward was a response from the ‘Great Man” which was “Oh, well OK” and he moved on. I did not learn how to respond to that overnight. It was the result of years of learning, mistakes and an occasional humiliation but we all need to learn how to deal with it. You just can’t fold up and cry. Even that day I learned something. Nobody else is going to protect you, best be ready to do it yourself. You walk away from something like that episode thinking “I survived” but be careful because there are a lot more mines on your path and they love to hit you right after a “success”.
“No speech and we stop and stagnate. The world is not a kind place and all of us have to learn how to deal with the slings and arrows and brickbats of life.”
Great post.
Did you know M. D. ? I am providing initials only.
Small world. Dr. Denton Cooley saved my life. I would likely have been dead for over 40 years now if not for him. That was back in the 60’s, when open-heart was major stuff.
I hope Dr. Cooley wasn’t the one who mistreated you. In any event, physicians like you are my personal heroes 🙂
Click, over to Althouse.
She has several posts up looking at University of Wisconsin.
A student group was going to send out a lengthy survey of Students measuring their perceptions of Free Speech, on campus.
Except the Student Senate delayed it so they can see if it will make students scramble for their safe spaces
In short, Students are censoring, a survey about censorship.
In twenty years these fragile flowers will be the worker bees at the Dept of justice, in charge of spying on parents going to local school board meetings.
The speech code seems to attempt to mirror federal workplace harassment and Title IX case law. I suspect that the phrase “unreasonably interferes with, limits, or deprives a member of the university community of the ability to participate in or to receive benefits, services, or opportunities from the university’s education or employment programs and/or activities” will save the speech code since federal law says a University is not allowed to discriminate to that level. Free speech rights do not give you a right to deprive others of educational services.
will save the speech code since federal law says a University is not allowed to discriminate to that level. Free speech rights do not give you a right to deprive others of educational services.
FANTASTIC!
All you have to do is charge the crime. Hold a trial. Due process runs its course. Freedom prevails.
But just like the Universities running secret rape courts, side stepping due process, following the law is the last thing the policy is after.
Turley says:
“Another poll at the University of North Carolina found that conservative students are 300 times more likely to self-censor themselves due to the intolerance of opposing views on our campuses.”
Self-censoring conservative students from saying the n-word is bad? We should chill speech which is universally unacceptable, e.g., neo-Nazi hate speech, Race-hustlers, bald-faced liars and groomers.
The use of the n-word by Liberals is many multiples of such use by conservatives who rarely use the term. Ignorance makes some forget that the n-word was a prominent noun for Democrats and used as frequently as a proper name. Richard Spencer, the Nazi, supports most leftist political thought, so if he uses the n-word, blame Liberals. Race-hustlers are commonly seen, especially where money is concerned. The most numerous and prominent are Liberals. When it comes to bald-faced liars, it’s been proven on this blog that the left wins the title. When it comes to groomers, I think we have all seen how some of the left acts on this blog.
Definitely a troll lives here.
Yes, the troll who lives here posts under various names, including Allan, S. Meyer, Mark N, Kayla, and Anonymous.
It seems GEB was talking to you, Anonymous the Stupid. You are obviously hurt by my outing your alternative aliases such as green anonymous, Sammy, Edison, Molly G. and more. I could also include your pretend friends. I understand that and sympathize with you. You want to hide. I understand that as well, for a person without principles needs to hide.
Why don’t you create a new identifiable icon and name it hypocrite? With that name, everyone will know you want to start a new life, and you can join the world of civilized human beings again.
A bright line already exists.
Charge a person with a crime or keep moving. Everything else is freedom
The students who feel their constitutional rights to free speech are being denied must continue to hit the administrations in their pockets. $$ have a tendency to speak louder than words and make people more reasonable.
Turley says:
“Free speech demands bright lines to avoid a chilling effect on speech.”
Wouldn’t it be swell if the good professor just ONCE gave us HIS example of a “bright line.” Instead of complaining about vague lines, show us teacher!
I suspect it’s easier said than done…
If you need ” a safe space” because you are ” triggered’ by a ” microaggression” grow a pair. Don’t know what the female equivalent would be. Don’t want to be sexist.
In fact, conservatives want a safe pass to be free of any consequences for being as bigoted and hateful to others as they like.
Jeff, the bigots surround you and your ideas. They are mostly ignorant.
Equity demands conservatives have the right to be just as bigoted as leftists. But it’s a high bar set by Democrats
I have never even heard a conservative use the 3 terms I referred to. Those are colloquialisms of the Left. And I know many liberals who are bigoted and hateful. Those are not traits of conservatives exclusively. Far from it.
Paul,
I too know of bigoted and hateful Liberals. There are just oodles more bigoted and hateful Conservatives.
Jeff, I know this is going to surprise you. In my life, the metric is just the opposite. Maybe we need to define bigoted and hateful. like what the meaning of is, is. Or what the meaning of ” in kind” is.
The female equivalent is ovaries. Our misogynist culture values balls, not ovaries, so there is no corresponding quip telling a woman to grow ovaries. Our culture doesn’t associate ovaries with courage.
I stand corrected . If you need a ” safe space ” because you are ” triggered ” by a ” microaggression ” , grow some ovaries.
And if you are a man with similar feelings you are a ” p* ssy.
Is a woman with similar feelings a pr!ck?
Anon, No, The connotation of being a p*ssy is being weak.. Being a pr!ck connotation is an individual who is abusive or belligerent.
Paul, I meant it as a rhetorical question, just to underscore that female sex organs are used as insults for men (p* ssy), but male sex organs aren’t used as insults for women (pr!ck).
Anon, I know. I was being sarcastic. I guess our world is just overwhelmed with misogyny. ( Sarcasm). If you can’t use a pejorative equally ( sex organ) to insult a woman as a man, our society is doomed. ( Sarcasm).
Jeff, you are a lawyer, and you don’t even understand the concept of line-drawing. That is your bad. Can you tell us what type of law you practiced? Alternatively, did you get a law degree and never pass the bar or practice law? It certainly seems that way.
I think the market will heal itself if given enough time to do so. People aren’t going to pay a zillion dollars to send their kids to Brainwash U. As a result, Brainwash U will lose students and funding and status, when all the cool people are going to Tri C,and will eventually rediscover the joys of freedom. It’s a shame that people can’t just do things the easy way as opposed to the hard way but tell that to Adam and Eve.
@deboluccia – Sadly the parents you speak of are graduate’s of Brainwashed U.
It will take withdrawal of support from alumni to send the message to colleges and universities that intolerance and impeding freedom of thought and freedom of speech will have financial, possibly very deep financial consequences.
It will take withdrawal of support from alumni
YES,
Having several friends that have made the choice to exercise their altruistic desires through their alma mater. Univeristies will jump through crazy hoops to keep the money flowing. And we are talking ~10k a year not large sums. The receptions they are invited to, are great hunting grounds for like minded souls. A letter signed by 10 of these lowly donors will move the needle.
The Deans/Leaders of these institutions are recruited, on a large part, by their ability to raise $100’s millions a year from the alumni.
Good for them. Their parents (grandparents?) stood up for free speech in the 60’s. It’s time for these people to do likewise