Colleges Being Remade Into "Repress U"?

The Nation has up a sobering article from its upcoming issue about how colleges and universities are being turned into homeland security campuses, in the name of preventing homegrown radicalization. Quoting: "From Harvard to UCLA, the ivory tower is fast becoming the latest watchtower in Fortress America. The terror warriors, having turned their attention to "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism prevention' — as it was recently dubbed in a House of Representatives bill of the same name — have set out to reconquer that traditional hotbed of radicalization, the university."

Comments

Free Speech Areas

[ShakaUVM]

I think I'm more troubled by the "designated free speech areas" that are springing up on campuses everywhere.

Not because people can (sort of) speak freely there, but colleges are banning free speech everywhere else.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Aeron65432]

Agreed. This is one area where it's an advantage to attend a state-university than a private one.....public universities have to afford you the Bill of Rights. If you're on a private campus, they can do whatever the hell they want. (not exactly, but more than a public university)

Moreso, it'd be better if we had this article from a newsworthy source...not an article as blatantly partisan as the Nation. (For the record Reason magazine or National Review would be wrong, too)

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Original Replica]

"Bong hits for Jesus" is the perfect example of just how over-controlling schools are becoming. Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event. So in the eternal bloating of government, students are now subject to the law of the school board even when they are not on school property. The fact that it was a "school sanctioned event" is irrelevant. The kid wasn't being disruptive to the schools activities he was being harmlessly disruptive to the Olympic torch passing. If you think that qualifies as a reasonable restriction you need to snap out of your sheep's mentality. Rights, like free speech, are not something that the government "allows". They are inherent to all humans, in places they are repressed by governments, in places they are repressed by cultures, but they always there. The difference is not trivial. In fact it is central to a free society.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Sylver Dragon]

I think it's more along the lines of it was first 'a' and now it's becoming 'b'.
The American people gave up on taking responsibility for themselves when the Great Depression hit. They had screwed up and instead of working themselves out of it, they turned to government to fix it. Ever since, when troubles arise, instead of working it out themselves, people turn to government to fix it. It should be no surprise that our leaders have used that blind trust and faith to garner power and money for themselves and their cronies. The end result is where we are now, the people have given up their superiority over their government and unless we the people decide it's time to take responsibility for ourselves, and actually do it, it's going to be a fun ride into whatever form of tyranny we end up with (I've got my money on a "Brave New World" type central authoritarian system).
And to think, I consider myself a patriot. But, I'm not so blinded by it to be unable to see that we have screwed up royal and that we're in trouble.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[StarvingSE]

The kid was being silly, but he was also making a political point. The political point wasn't "Bong Hits for Jesus," it was that he should have the right to say something as silly as that.

This is a country whose government allows skinheads/KKK to parade in downtown Toledo and lets the westboro baptist church protest soldiers funerals. Yet, saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" gets you yanked out of school and into court.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[CajunArson]

He might not have been standing on school ground, but he was out of his normal class with school permission under school control at a school sponsored event. The kids are in school to learn, they had no "right" to see the torch go through, but they were still let out and the kid abused the privilege. He also expressly refused to put the sign away when the teachers who were there (because it was a school event) told him to. The sign was factually shown to be disruptive... he did it to grab attention and it worked. If you want to see how an actual political protest IS allowed in schools see the Tinker decision in which case there was an actual political protest that did not disrupt the educational process and was allowed. The Court has never said students don't have free speech, but free speech does not mean you can act like a jackass on the school's time and not have to worry about getting a (pretty normal) punishment for it.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Valdrax]

Is hate speech free speech?

Unequivocally, yes. Odious though it may be, the alternative of defining standards over what is and isn't a politically acceptable view to have is even worse. The solution to hate speech is to speak back and to be more persuasive, and not to simply censor it. Truly obnoxious speech will generally lose out in a society committed to freedom, though it may take some time.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[mwlewis]

You misunderstand the point of the Bill of Rights, as do most modern readers. The point was to explicitly limit the powers of the federal government. Perversely, I think that it helped to change the focus of the Constitution and our view of the government's powers from the original intent, namely that the government had no powers except those explicitly granted by the Constitution, to the current mess where if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say no, then all bets are off. And even if it does say no, just ask the 9 robed wonders for a waiver (see McCain-Feingold for a perfect example).

This was why the original supporters argued that the BoR was unnecessary. The Constitution never said that the government could regulate speech, so of course such laws would be unconstitutional. Sadly, the supporters of the BoR were probably right, and the existence of the amendments has probably slowed down the growth in the power of government.

Give me a break

[phoebusQ]

Fearmongering is considered a traditional tool of the Right, but the Left appears to have become its new master. Frankly, I'm tired of it from both sides.

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides

[Stanistani]

The Weathermen?

1968 called - it wants its bogeyman back.

Geez, enough straw men in that field already? Crows have to eat y'know.

What amazes me about this is...

[riseoftheindividual]

... after we survived the radical 60s and proved to the world that free speech and tolerance of dissent works, the very generation that watched freedom of dissent work to fizzle out radicalism has come into the positions of power and are now acting as if it didn't work. Fear is truly the mind killer.

this isn't the beginning

[superwiz]

This is the beginning of the end. First, they own your money. Then they monitor your correspondence. Then they call you crazy if you call them on what they are doing. Then ignorance is called strength. And then universal surveillance is called freedom. So how's is Britney Spears doing today? Anyone caught the game?

Re:Free Speech Zones

[jandrese]

Is there really a need for a "free speech zone" in this case? Why not just make a "don't be a dick" rule that says if you're disturbing classes then campus security (or cops) can haul you away. The restriction of free speech across the entire campus (save the parking lot behind the cheap bleachers on the far side of the campus) seems like gross overkill for the problem.

Re:Overly paranoid article

[fredklein]

Criminals love to target students.

Why?

Because schools are a 'gun-free' zone'.

Better armed criminals argues for better armed campus police

No- they argue for better armed students. The cops are minutes away. The students are right there. The cops will 'form a perimeter' , then wait for SWAT to show up before going in. This can be many more minutes. The students are right there.

Who should be armed? The people who won't show up for 10 minutes? Or the people who are on the scene?

Re:Sad but necessary

[Profane MuthaFucka]

So you're in favor of suppressing the freedom of speech in some places so that we can have ORDER. I get it - you want the trains to run on time!

Re:Overly paranoid article

[georgewilliamherbert]

The Ohio National Guard were not a campus police force. Campus police forces have never opened fire on demonstrating students in the US, and are extremely unlikely to... if you actually talk to any officers on a campus PD anywhere, they're among the most tolerant and least likely to overreact officers on any police force in the world.

While I was at Berkeley, we had a number of riots in the city, ostensibly over UC policies (related to Peoples Park, mostly) but almost entirely carried out by non-students. We had an incident where the UC Berkeley SWAT team had to shoot and kill a crazy guy who'd shot and killed one student and was holding about 15 others hostage, forcing the women to strip and sexually abusing them. We had a local small female protester who broke into the Chancellor's house and tried to knife two police officers who were trying to get her out, which unfortunately got her shot and killed.

The same SWAT officer who shot the first named crazy in the head was the same guy I saw months later just sitting there and shaking his head a bit as Andrew Martinez, "The Naked Guy", walked by in his usual disattire, distracting a whole bunch of people from the "Make Peace Not Atoms" protest on Sproul Plaza.

Yes, incidents happen. But for the most part, students get away with pretty much anything short of assaulting each other or destroying campus property. And for every legit police abuse case that came up while I was in school, there were multiple cases of "The officer saved our asses"... from a multiple rapist, from a band of teenagers who were randomly attacking students with 2x4s, from muggers who'd knifed someone a couple of months ago...

If I'd ever seen a legitimate case of an officer oppressing someone, I'd pay more attention to your and the article writers' fears. But I haven't. And I've seen the stuff they actually did do to protect people.

Your right to feel secure in your paranoia doesn't extend as far as disarming or removing those who legitimately help save students lives and safety.

Re:Sad but necessary

[TheGreatHegemon]

Looking at your posts and even some others comments in this thread (black dominated slums...) I can tell you're a tad on the conservative side, which really isn't too much of a problem. However, I sincerely doubt the situation is as severe as you claim it to be - are you honestly telling me that we're more disruptive that students during the Vietnam era?

Believe it or not, Universities are traditionally considered bastions OF free thought and speech - these are the tools of learning. If I wanted to just learn from the professor in a classroom, then why don't we just simply call it "High School v.2"?

I'm at a public University, and guess what? No designated "Free Speech Zones" or anything. Do the students riot? Scream in classes? Block the professors? Never. And we do have some issues.

It's bad enough that the K-12 system starts students off on the idea of utter compliance (might even be part of the reason why your University has these issues now), but to even make Universities stifle speech - then what good is that pesky Bill of Rights?

Here's the interesting part: We're considered on of the more conservative University of California schools - nestled in the heart of a Conservative part of California.

I'd trust the guys writing this so-called "report" more if those so-called "peace and justice organizations" weren't fronts for communist groups (ANSWER, International Socialist Workers Party, etc), anarchist groups, blatant racial supremacist organizations (MEChA and La Raza, motto "For the race, everything, for other races, nothing"), or international terrorist/genocide groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Just because you don't agree with their agendas (I definitely don't), doesn't mean that they should be banned. It's the cost of free speech - and one that we SHOULD be willing to pay! ESPECIALLY at Universities, where people should be rational and educated enough to know what they should listen to!

Re:Sad but necessary

[daigu]

Have an agenda? Want to make the argument that Quakers are communists?

At least four of the incidences of surveillance uncovered were activities coordinated or supported by the American Friends Service Committee, a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947. Founded by Quakers in 1917, the Service Committee began as a vehicle for conscientious objectors to the First World War to contribute to binding up the wounds of war: by building houses for war victims, feeding hungry children, and clothing the displaced. AFSC has historically felt called to witness against war and for changing the conditions that cause violent conflict.

Your commentary that free speech zones are necessary to make sure there aren't disruptions in people's education is silly. It's not a factor and doesn't explain the sudden emergence of this kind of activity. And your anti-communism? It belongs to the 1950s. It's this kind of thinking that shows the bankruptcy and enablity to tolerate diversity of thought that is the hallmark of people calling themselves conservatives these days. I feel sorry for you.

Re:Sad but necessary

[cicho]

Moderators on crack again. Parent is slightly inflammatory but makes a valid illustration of the idea expressed in GP. Security and liberty should not be a zero-sum game.

Re:Sad but necessary

[clang_jangle]

If you have a better word than Anarchism for what this is, I'd be glad to hear it.

Fantasy is the word which comes to mind... :)

In real life it doesn't work to say to the officer who pulls you over for speeding, "Gee thanks, but I don't subscribe to your government". Realistically speaking, anarchy can exist only as an extremely fleeting state which is always followed by some form of government. Human nature dictates this, and the proof is the complete and utter lack of successful anarchist societies.

Before you fire back with that example, note I said "successful". As in "still working". I know there are legends, and of course there have been fleeting periods, but no real working examples of what you describe. Hence, the word for what you are calling anarchism is "fantasy". It never existed and it never will.

Re:Free Speech Zones

[OakDragon]

Why not just make a "don't be a dick" rule that says if you're disturbing classes then campus security (or cops) can haul you away.

Because everyone thinks "You're being a dick; I, on the other hand, am airing a legitimate greivance."

Re:Sad but necessary

[rossz]

In most universities, that "bastion of free speech" only exists for the far left. A conservative student making a statement will typically have a rough time. Free speech MUST include speech you don't necessarily want to hear. You don't have to listen, but you don't have any right to make the speaker shut up -- unless he's disrupting class, then it's ok to beat the crap out of him. :)

Re:Sad but necessary

[maccam]

Your comments imply that hippies took over the colleges, which is why universities are perceived to have a left wing bias (aah for the good old 1950's where the world was perfect and people knew their places).

The reason "campus Republicans" are perceived to be the campus underdogs is that at this point in history the right tends to produce ideologues, who don't deserve and rarely qualify for university positions. This lack of open-mindedness is the biggest hinderance to right-leaning scholars playing a bigger role on campuses. The ideologues have all the answers and simply must find away to make data and evidence fit their ideology; whereas, a credible and open-minded conservative can soundly analyze data, let chips fall where they may. The manufactured threat that accompanied the run up to the Iraq war is a perfect example of the soft thuggery of the neocons (leave out contradictory evidence, use the most bizarre interpretation of data--the Al centrifuge tubes come to mind). The intellectual conservatives, the kind that fit in an academic environment, happen to be out numbered at the moment.

Sincerely,
Boomer-aged Faculty