• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Students Say Free Speech Is Alive, With One Big Exception

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
First reaction: From my vantage point, it seems colleges and universities bend over backward to accommodate blacks. :shrug:
Students Say Free Speech Is Alive, With One Big Exception

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/u...K&kwp_0=132128&kwp_4=593996&kwp_1=309800&_r=0

Quote from article:
"...most students don’t believe that their First Amendment rights are under attack, according to a new Gallup survey: 73 percent said they thought their freedom of speech was secure.

There was one notable exception along racial lines: While 70 percent of white students said that their right to assemble was secure, just 39 percent of black students said the same."
Random concerns:

1) The survey, while interesting, is deeply flawed, IMO, and possibly even intentionally divisive. It focuses only on blacks and whites. No other races/ethnic groups. A proper survey would strive to be more all-inclusive so that we can compare and contrast what everyone thinks and feels.

If Asians and Hispanics are closer to the white point-of-view, then maybe the blacks are being whiny and unrealistic. On the flip side, if Asians and Hispanics are closer to the black point-of-view, then maybe the survey is onto something. Problem is, per the survey, we don't know. The complete answer would help dictate what direction might be taken to hopefully remedy the disparity, because the solution would be different depending on the complete answer.

Note: There is one chart that includes Asians and Hispanics, but it is generic and the overwhelming content of the survey ignores them.

2) I find it highly disturbing, but not all that surprising, that many students favor curtailing free speech rights in certain situations. Situations where they can properly discern another's mind, I'm sure.


The survey itself can be found here.
(There is a link in the above article, as well.)
 
Last edited:

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
First reaction: From my vantage point, it seems colleges and universities bend over backward to accommodate blacks. :shrug:

Random concerns:

1) The survey, while interesting, is deeply flawed, IMO, and possibly even intentionally divisive. It focuses only on blacks and whites. No other races/ethnic groups. A proper survey would strive to be more all-inclusive so that we can compare and contrast what everyone thinks and feels.

If Asians and Hispanics are closer to the white point-of-view, then maybe the blacks are being whiny and unrealistic. On the flip side, if Asians and Hispanics are closer to the black point-of-view, then maybe the survey is onto something. Problem is, per the survey, we don't know. The complete answer would help dictate what direction might be taken to hopefully remedy the disparity, because the solution would be different depending on the complete answer.

Note: There is one chart that includes Asians and Hispanics, but it is generic and the overwhelming content of the survey ignores them.

2) I find it highly disturbing, but not all that surprising, that many students favor curtailing free speech rights in certain situations. Situations where they can properly discern another's mind, I'm sure.


The survey itself can be found here.
(There is a link in the above article, as well.)

I'm trying to understand what a member of the Progressive Machine is trying to accomplish by hiring Gallup to conduct their survey. Is the Knight Foundation trying to hide their involvement in supporting actions and activities that seek to limit constitutional rights?
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,447
Reaction score
21,410
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is the actual survey...

http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/FreeSpeech_campus.pdf

There are several questions posed to the respondents about various freedoms, including free speech. Our issue that we should be talking about is the asinine idea that freedom of speech means freedom from consequence for whatever you say.

The survey also asks about "allowing" offensive speech. Overwhelmingly there is support for "open speech" but also there is also contradictory overwhelming support for restriction on "slurs and other language that is intentionally offensive to certain groups."

The literal contradiction that suggest on college campuses where this survey was offered that open speech is okay as long as it is not offensive. And this speaks volumes to my point, we have departed from the idea that your freedoms come with the inherent responsibility of having them. Now we exist in a culture where censorship is the answer, where "restriction" on the First Amendment is the ideal.

We have really screwed up with the education of our youth on what rights really mean.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,447
Reaction score
21,410
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Did you miss the same link in the original post?

I was just making sure people saw it, the context of the questions asked illustrate the point you cut out of the quote.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Here is the actual survey...

http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/FreeSpeech_campus.pdf

There are several questions posed to the respondents about various freedoms, including free speech. Our issue that we should be talking about is the asinine idea that freedom of speech means freedom from consequence for whatever you say.

The survey also asks about "allowing" offensive speech. Overwhelmingly there is support for "open speech" but also there is also contradictory overwhelming support for restriction on "slurs and other language that is intentionally offensive to certain groups."

The literal contradiction that suggest on college campuses where this survey was offered that open speech is okay as long as it is not offensive. And this speaks volumes to my point, we have departed from the idea that your freedoms come with the inherent responsibility of having them. Now we exist in a culture where censorship is the answer, where "restriction" on the First Amendment is the ideal.

We have really screwed up with the education of our youth on what rights really mean.
Right. Who gets to decide what is "approved" and what is not?
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,447
Reaction score
21,410
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Right. Who gets to decide what is "approved" and what is not?

It is a reasonable concern, it turns over to whatever authority exactly where someone's First Amendment stops. All things considered this nation has had this debate many times over, the question for this generation is the expectation of government to explicitly dictate what is offensive language and stop there. We know historically that tends to lead to bad things, and for the most part once a government obtains power along those lines it does not stop continually deciding new methods to inflict with it.
 

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,574
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
It is a reasonable concern, it turns over to whatever authority exactly where someone's First Amendment stops. All things considered this nation has had this debate many times over, the question for this generation is the expectation of government to explicitly dictate what is offensive language and stop there. We know historically that tends to lead to bad things, and for the most part once a government obtains power along those lines it does not stop continually deciding new methods to inflict with it.
Maybe it's just me, but in my observations it never "just stops there".

Not saying even what they want is reasonable or right, of course.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,316
Reaction score
7,561
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is a reasonable concern, it turns over to whatever authority exactly where someone's First Amendment stops. All things considered this nation has had this debate many times over, the question for this generation is the expectation of government to explicitly dictate what is offensive language and stop there. We know historically that tends to lead to bad things, and for the most part once a government obtains power along those lines it does not stop continually deciding new methods to inflict with it.

I think we also need to make the distinction between freedom of speech as a concept and the 1st amendment protection. It seems that liberals who mostly operate under the legal=moral doctrine throw that out the window when it comes to speech they don't like. I don't think anyone is suggesting that violence inciting hate speech is covered under the general concept of freedom of speech, but getting people fired for holding a politcal view that a large % of the country holds is ludcris for anyone that supports the freedom of speech.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,447
Reaction score
21,410
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think we also need to make the distinction between freedom of speech as a concept and the 1st amendment protection. It seems that liberals who mostly operate under the legal=moral doctrine throw that out the window when it comes to speech they don't like. I don't think anyone is suggesting that violence inciting hate speech is covered under the general concept of freedom of speech, but getting people fired for holding a politcal view that a large % of the country holds is ludcris for anyone that supports the freedom of speech.

A few things, but we do generally agree.

Far right social conservatism is just as likely to want certain speech banned as far left liberalism, for the exact same reason applied differently. Some moral or social justice reason.

My thing is the whole idea of having rights came with an inherent responsibility of having them. Best I can tell from looking over this I did not find a single document, or speech, or quote from our founders that suggested the intention of Freedom of Speech was to ensure there was never consequence for what was said. It was simply based on the idea that one was free to say something, but the rest of us are also free to voice our opinion as well.

Violence inciting hate speech does bring up an interesting point on one action prescribing another action, same story with speech that ends up causing harm to another (the ole "yelling fire in a crowded theater" when there is no fire and someone ends up hurt in the commotion argument.) There was always supposed to be consequence for whatever was said, the idea was to not put the government in the position of deciding what speech needed to be excluded from that freedom.

What this "study" shows us is on college campuses today there is a call to restrict speech that is "hurtful." I doubt any of those respondents understands the implications of restricting speech, including that which is hurtful or "politically incorrect."
 

Socrates1

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
2,782
Reaction score
469
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First reaction: From my vantage point, it seems colleges and universities bend over backward to accommodate blacks. :shrug:

Random concerns:

1) The survey, while interesting, is deeply flawed, IMO, and possibly even intentionally divisive. It focuses only on blacks and whites. No other races/ethnic groups. A proper survey would strive to be more all-inclusive so that we can compare and contrast what everyone thinks and feels.

If Asians and Hispanics are closer to the white point-of-view, then maybe the blacks are being whiny and unrealistic. On the flip side, if Asians and Hispanics are closer to the black point-of-view, then maybe the survey is onto something. Problem is, per the survey, we don't know. The complete answer would help dictate what direction might be taken to hopefully remedy the disparity, because the solution would be different depending on the complete answer.

Note: There is one chart that includes Asians and Hispanics, but it is generic and the overwhelming content of the survey ignores them.

2) I find it highly disturbing, but not all that surprising, that many students favor curtailing free speech rights in certain situations. Situations where they can properly discern another's mind, I'm sure.


The survey itself can be found here.
(There is a link in the above article, as well.)

It's no secret liberals are in favor of free speech as long as you DON'T have an opposing view ! :shock:
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,955
Reaction score
17,346
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think you're taking too big of swipes without seeing the bigger picture. While Gallup was correct to notice an emerging (or previously already emerged, but still prominent) difference in the viewpoints of women, blacks, and Democrats versus the others, there's a great deal of consistency all the same.

To a large extent, the survey itself largely (but not completely), seems to focus on national & governmental impacts of speech. This is different from the campus environment. Let's look at pages 7 and 8 of the Gallup survey. In this regard, minorities will interpret their ability to assemble and speak their mind quite a bit differently from secured majorities. The "outside world," as it were, is indeed more hostile to racial, ethnic, and other minorities.

How does this differ from the minority's perception about their relative safety and freedom on campus? Well, the gallup poll doesn't get at the point in which university and campus students feel that the university is a free speech, freedom of assembly haven. It does, however, have a consensus that the racial environment on campus is positive (page 16-17), and that the environment is generally cordial (page 18).

There is the overwhelming preponderance, however, that universities should strive to be open (page 12). The results are reflective of that, but not in matters of decorum. In that regard, students are largely of one mind: restrictions ought to be an option.

*On the matter of restricting political views upsetting groups, 72% of students say no. In fact, majorities in all measured demographic and political affiliations agree that political view restrictions on campus should not be instituted.

*On the matter of restricting the use of slurs & other language on campus, once again, a clear majority of each demographic and political affiliation agree that that is appropriate.

*On the matter of being able to restrict costumes that stereotype racial and ethnic groups, once again, all measured demographic categories and political affiliations agree that should be a potential campus policy.

Where Gallup spends its time is in which demographic group is more likely to support restrictions on expression of political beliefs and public decorum. In this matter, it is absolutely clear that women and blacks are more likely to support restrictions in all three categories. Only on the matter of restricting political beliefs do the three political party identifiers seem to stabilize. In that question, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike were within the same target range of mid-to-upper 20%'s. Thereafter, Independents and Republicans were largely on the same page. The difference between whites and blacks maintained noticeable margins.

One wonders how this would have played out among other ethnic or racial minorities. You may have differences between them, but perhaps a preference for maintaining what they see as decorum. We have a clue here. Racial minorities are indeed more likely to hear or perhaps recognize inappropriate comments regarding race, ethnicity, and religion (page 18). It seems that white people are certainly less aware of the import of comments being made. If white people make comments about race that they think are innocuous, but people of color don't feel that way, then there's a problem.

Still, what is troubling is the nature of this. I accept that injustices are regularly committed by comfortable majorities against ill-thought minorities. So perhaps to some extent these social and code of conduct regulations were be reflective of wanting to remove X number of arguments that are thought innocuous by the majorities, but which the minority knows means something completely other than innocuous. There's reason to be cognizant of that.

However--however, this social mobilization among the Left to shut out an assortment of, what I do interpret as, differences of opinion and the most micro of the infamous micro-aggressions does a disservice to the cultivation of their intellect and can indeed in turn become a form of its own sort of micro-tyrannies. In the interest of my sincere fairness, I shall put a qualification on these so-called micro-tyrannies as well.

To what extent does a Sorority and Frat house party rile my imaginations? Not much in either direction. I have neither the proclivity to try to defend them, nor do I have the intense desire to rid it from the campus. I find it stupid, perhaps offensive, but not offensive enough, not injurious enough to spend one's energy trying to eradicate it. There's much more promising issues to deal with, and as most minorities like myself know (I'm not a racial/ethnic minority, so keep that in mind), there's certainly no shortage of them around. Let's focus our attention on that instead of playground social politics. The university is perhaps a reflection of society, but its reflections pale in comparison to what exists outside of it.
 
Last edited:

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
First reaction: From my vantage point, it seems colleges and universities bend over backward to accommodate blacks. :shrug:

Random concerns:

1) The survey, while interesting, is deeply flawed, IMO, and possibly even intentionally divisive. It focuses only on blacks and whites. No other races/ethnic groups. A proper survey would strive to be more all-inclusive so that we can compare and contrast what everyone thinks and feels.

If Asians and Hispanics are closer to the white point-of-view, then maybe the blacks are being whiny and unrealistic. On the flip side, if Asians and Hispanics are closer to the black point-of-view, then maybe the survey is onto something. Problem is, per the survey, we don't know. The complete answer would help dictate what direction might be taken to hopefully remedy the disparity, because the solution would be different depending on the complete answer.

Note: There is one chart that includes Asians and Hispanics, but it is generic and the overwhelming content of the survey ignores them.

2) I find it highly disturbing, but not all that surprising, that many students favor curtailing free speech rights in certain situations. Situations where they can properly discern another's mind, I'm sure.


The survey itself can be found here.
(There is a link in the above article, as well.)

That survey seems much more positive than I would have suspected.
 
Top Bottom