Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) (1 Viewer)

[NatMorton]

I'm still learning about the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), but they seem to be an organization worth getting to know. With the ACLU long ago abandoning its commitment to free speech in favor of progressive ideology, FIRE seems to have filled the void. You may have noticed they've been in the news this week with their college free speech rankings and the Congressional testimony from, in particular, the presidents of Harvard and UPenn; literally, the two lowest scoring schools on FIRE's free speech index.

FWIW, here are the major findings from their 2023 college free speech survey:

1. Michigan Technological University is the top-ranked school in the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings. Auburn University, the University of New Hampshire, Oregon State University, and Florida State University round out the top five.
2. Harvard University obtained the lowest score possible, 0.00, and is the only school with an “Abysmal” speech climate rating. The University of Pennsylvania, the University of South Carolina, Georgetown University, and Fordham University also ranked in the bottom five.
3. The key factors differentiating high-performing schools (the top five) from poorly performing ones (the bottom five) are scores on the components of “Tolerance Difference” and “Disruptive Conduct.” Students from schools in the bottom five were more biased toward allowing controversial liberal speakers on campus over conservative ones and were more accepting of students using disruptive and violent forms of protest to stop a campus speech.
4. Deplatforming attempts that occurred at schools ranked in the bottom five had an alarming 81% success rate.
5. More than half of students (56%) expressed worry about damaging their reputation because of someone misunderstanding what they have said or done, and just over a quarter of students (26%) reported that they feel pressure to avoid discussing controversial topics in their classes. Twenty percent reported that they often self-censor.
6. When provided with a definition of self-censorship, at least a quarter of students said they self-censor “fairly often” or “very often” during conversations with other students, with professors, and during classroom discussions, respectively (25%, 27%, and 28%, respectively). A quarter of students also said that they are more likely to self-censor on campus now — at the time they were surveyed — than they were when they first started college.
7. Almost half of the students surveyed (49%) said that abortion is a difficult topic to have an open and honest conversation about on campus. A notable portion of students also identified gun control, racial inequality, and transgender rights, respectively, as topics difficult to discuss (43%, 42%, and 42%, respectively).
8. Student opposition to allowing controversial conservative speakers on campus ranged from 57% to 72%, depending on the speaker. In contrast, student opposition to controversial liberal speakers ranged from 29% to 43%, depending on the speaker.
9. More than 2 in 5 students (45%) said that students blocking other students from attending a speech is acceptable to some degree, up from 37% last year. And more than a quarter of students (27%) said that using violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable to some degree, up from 20% last year.
10. More than 1 in 5 students (21%) reported that their college administration’s stance on free speech on campus is not clear, and more than a quarter of students (27%) reported that it is unlikely their college administration would defend a speaker’s right to express his or her views if a controversy occurred on campus.

Source: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

Intellectually speaking, I can't think of many things more backward than a college or university actively suppressing debate. Then again, tolerance of others' ideas isn't something our friends on the left generally show in our out of school.

 

[gman]

I'm still learning about the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), but they seem to be an organization worth getting to know. With the ACLU long ago abandoning its commitment to free speech in favor of progressive ideology, FIRE seems to have filled the void. You may have noticed they've been in the news this week with their college free speech rankings and the Congressional testimony from, in particular, the presidents of Harvard and UPenn; literally, the two lowest scoring schools on FIRE's free speech index.

FWIW, here are the major findings from their 2023 college free speech survey:

Source: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

Intellectually speaking, I can't think of many things more backward than a college or university actively suppressing debate. Then again, tolerance of others' ideas isn't something our friends on the left generally show in our out of school.

Let the whining, wailing, and gnashing of teeth begin!

 

[Hari Seldon]

I'm still learning about the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), but they seem to be an organization worth getting to know. With the ACLU long ago abandoning its commitment to free speech in favor of progressive ideology, FIRE seems to have filled the void. You may have noticed they've been in the news this week with their college free speech rankings and the Congressional testimony from, in particular, the presidents of Harvard and UPenn; literally, the two lowest scoring schools on FIRE's free speech index.

FWIW, here are the major findings from their 2023 college free speech survey:

Source: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

Intellectually speaking, I can't think of many things more backward than a college or university actively suppressing debate. Then again, tolerance of others' ideas isn't something our friends on the left generally show in our out of school.

How does moms for three ways and rape rate on the fire list? How about the don't say gay laws?

 

[NatMorton]

How does moms for three ways and rape rate on the fire list? How about the don't say gay laws?

You'll need to clarify your point if you want me to comment on it.

 

[US&THEM]

I'm still learning about the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), but they seem to be an organization worth getting to know. With the ACLU long ago abandoning its commitment to free speech in favor of progressive ideology, FIRE seems to have filled the void. You may have noticed they've been in the news this week with their college free speech rankings and the Congressional testimony from, in particular, the presidents of Harvard and UPenn; literally, the two lowest scoring schools on FIRE's free speech index.

FWIW, here are the major findings from their 2023 college free speech survey:

Source: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

Intellectually speaking, I can't think of many things more backward than a college or university actively suppressing debate. Then again, tolerance of others' ideas isn't something our friends on the left generally show in our out of school.

It is amazing how you only care about it when you have a different view.
These colleges like every business have standards of conduct.

 

[Hari Seldon]

You'll need to clarify your point if you want me to comment on it.

I just think it's funny when the cons bring up free speech issues but have no problem banning books and regulating speech related to sexual issues. Not allowing research on fire arms is another one because it might conflict with their love of unfettered 2a access. Happy holidays!

 

[NatMorton]

It is amazing how you only care about it when you have a different view.
These colleges like every business have standards of conduct.

Yes, and seeing as how they accept large amounts of federal funding I think we have a right to criticize their "standards of conduct" when those standards are politically biased.

 

[NatMorton]

I just think it's funny when the cons bring up free speech issues but have no problem banning books and regulating speech related to sexual issues. Not allowing research on fire arms is another one because it might conflict with their love of unfettered 2a access. Happy holidays!

Sorry, you've been spun. Curating is not banning.

 

[US&THEM]

Yes, and seeing as how they accept large amounts of federal funding I think we have a right to criticize their "standards of conduct" when those standards are politically biased.

Ivy League schools accept late amounts of federal dollars?

 

[NatMorton]

Ivy League schools accept late amounts of federal dollars?

Yes, they absolutely do. Harvard, for example, received $625 million from the Federal government in 2021.

See page 5.

https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy21_financial_overview.pdf?m=1634228445#:~:text=Federal%20funding%2C%20which%20accounted%20for,relatively%20flat%20at%20%24302%20million.

 

[nullus]

I'm still learning about the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), but they seem to be an organization worth getting to know. With the ACLU long ago abandoning its commitment to free speech in favor of progressive ideology, FIRE seems to have filled the void. You may have noticed they've been in the news this week with their college free speech rankings and the Congressional testimony from, in particular, the presidents of Harvard and UPenn; literally, the two lowest scoring schools on FIRE's free speech index.

FWIW, here are the major findings from their 2023 college free speech survey:

Source: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

Intellectually speaking, I can't think of many things more backward than a college or university actively suppressing debate. Then again, tolerance of others' ideas isn't something our friends on the left generally show in our out of school.

What a load of lying crap.
Didn't the ACLU file an amicus brief on behalf of trump?

 

[beefheart]

I just think it's funny when the cons bring up free speech issues but have no problem banning books and regulating speech related to sexual issues. Not allowing research on fire arms is another one because it might conflict with their love of unfettered 2a access. Happy holidays!

Also, they are envious of Universities, seeing as so many never attended higher education.

Ignorance is bliss for them.

 

[NatMorton]

Also, they are envious of Universities, seeing as so many never attended higher education.

Ignorance is bliss for them.

Exactly the sort of hubris that cost Magill her job.

 

[Airyaman]

Hillsdale scores pretty poorly for one of the "approved" "conservative" colleges.

 

[Irredentist]

I'm still learning about the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), but they seem to be an organization worth getting to know. With the ACLU long ago abandoning its commitment to free speech in favor of progressive ideology, FIRE seems to have filled the void. You may have noticed they've been in the news this week with their college free speech rankings and the Congressional testimony from, in particular, the presidents of Harvard and UPenn; literally, the two lowest scoring schools on FIRE's free speech index.

FWIW, here are the major findings from their 2023 college free speech survey:

Source: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/2024-college-free-speech-rankings

Intellectually speaking, I can't think of many things more backward than a college or university actively suppressing debate. Then again, tolerance of others' ideas isn't something our friends on the left generally show in our out of school.

These findings don't really seem to have anything to do with the schools themselves, but rather with the political opinions and actions of the student body, which the college only has limited control over. It's a bit unfair to blame the college just because their students are extremely progressive. That's not their fault.

 

[AGENT J]

I'm still learning about the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), but they seem to be an organization worth getting to know. With the ACLU long ago abandoning its commitment to free speech in favor of progressive ideology,

and that is where the wheels instantly fall off and the op instantly fails and cant be taken seriously by anybody honest, topically educated and objective
incoming deflections and dodges in 3 . . .2 . . . .

 

[beefheart]

Exactly the sort of hubris that cost Magill her job.

But, it is 100% true.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Sorry, you've been spun. Curating is not banning.

Maybe those universities are "curating" as well.

 

[Slartibartfast]

This is just one of the legalistic expressions of fascism.

 

[NatMorton]

These findings don't really seem to have anything to do with the schools themselves, but rather with the political opinions and actions of the student body, which the college only has limited control over. It's a bit unfair to blame the college just because their students are extremely progressive. That's not their fault.

You get what you tolerate.

 

[NatMorton]

Maybe those universities are "curating" as well.

There's a difference between curiating based on age-appropriateness vs doing so to maintain intellectual conformity.

 

[US&THEM]

Yes, they absolutely do. Harvard, for example, received $625 million from the Federal government in 2021.

See page 5.

https://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/fy21_financial_overview.pdf?m=1634228445#:~:text=Federal%20funding%2C%20which%20accounted%20for,relatively%20flat%20at%20%24302%20million.

Majority of thes schools have billions in endowments, none should receive anything from any govt entity.

 

[NatMorton]

Majority of thes schools have billions in endowments, none should receive anything from any govt entity.

I think that's a reasonable argument, but it's not relevant to this discussion. The fact is that many (probably most) of these schools receive considerable money directly from the federal government. They also receive an indirect subsidy by charging full freight to students who receive federal tuition grants.

So it's perfectly reasonable for we as taxpayers to ask what our money is subsidizing.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

It is amazing how you only care about it when you have a different view.
These colleges like every business have standards of conduct.

Collages have always had issues with making sure their donors stay happy over behaving consistently and ethically. If they think they will lose large donors over something basically everything else goes out the window.

@NatMorton on this, I think we actually agree to some extent at least.

We on the left bear some responsibility for creating the conditions for the political attacks now being waged against our “side”. Cancel culture sets dangerous precedents. Once the idea of punishing “offensive” speech gains acceptance, both on and off campus, anyone with political power can get in the game.

To return to a place of sanity in public debate, we must take the principles of free speech both seriously and literally.

Is a new McCarthyism punishing pro-Palestine speech at US universities? Our panel reacts | Panelists

Researchers and civil liberties advocates call for the safeguarding of protected speech amid an uproar over campus activism

www.theguardian.com

I've never been a massive fan of "hate speech" laws either for this reason. I think anything truly harmful, like repeatedly calling someone a slur, can and should fall under laws punishing harassment. I don't really care about a lot of the results of the poll because I don't have an issue with social consequences for speech. College students are young and generally progressive, and them protesting conservative speakers is free speech too.

Where I have an issue is when the school itself starts coming down on speech.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

There's a difference between curiating based on age-appropriateness vs doing so to maintain intellectual conformity.

Saying discussions and books on gender and homosexuality have to be banned is an attempt to maintain intellectual conformity. And even if you are being obtuse on that issue, banning books due to CRT moral panic is definitely an attempt to maintain intellectual conformity by definition.

You are essentially making the argument you only care about speech you agree with being quashed. If you disagree with speech, suppression is perfectly fine. That is hypocrisy. You are not serious about free expression if you only care about so-called conservatives having their say.