Slashdot Mirror


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."

10 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. Free Speech Areas by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Free Speech Areas by Aeron65432 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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)

    2. Re:Free Speech Areas by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      We are all just people.
    3. Re:Free Speech Areas by StarvingSE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I got nothin'
    4. Re:Free Speech Areas by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    5. Re:Free Speech Areas by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  2. Re:Sad but necessary by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  3. Re:Sad but necessary by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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!
  4. Re:Sad but necessary by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    --
    Caveat Utilitor
  5. Re:Sad but necessary by maccam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    --
    Half Word - Will Double, Wire Palindrome, San Francisco