Slashdot Mirror


America's Ten Most Oppressive Colleges

An anonymous reader writes: A new review of free speech on campuses across the United States has listed the country's ten most oppressive colleges, with examples of why they earned this odious status.

The first link is the actual report, while the second provides a good quick summary. In either case, the behavior of college officials in attempting to squelch dissent is quite disgusting. Far more horrifying and worrisome for the future were the number of cases where the students themselves moved to stamp down on opposing views. They are the future, and that future does not look pleasant. In South Carolina students are suing their college for interrogating them for daring to hold an event in support of free speech that offended some students.

9 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Fuck you and your "safe space" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have no right not to be offended.

    Shove your idea of "microagressions" right up your ass. So it can be near your brain.

    1. Re:Fuck you and your "safe space" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have no right not to be offended.

      Shove your idea of "microagressions" right up your ass. So it can be near your brain.

      My employer made me and everyone in the department (that's thousands of people) take a microagressions training session. Utter bullshit. "Pretend to be nice to hopeless incompetents, because it's their bad feelz that makes them hopeless engineers" seemed to be the message.

       

  2. All awful but the bias is interesting by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So let's be clear: pretty much all of these situations are completely unacceptable, and most disturbingly they show a tendency for much of these sorts of problems to occur on the left, what essentially amounts to the "illiberal left" http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/. However, FIRE's own biases are coming into play in this list, in that every example they decide to include is on the left or has no political aspect. But there were a lot of rimilar activities with an apparently right-wing bent, such as the situation at Wheaton College https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/06/wheaton-illinois-moves-fire-professor-who-wore-hijab. It may be that FIRE's top list is still more of an issue for legitimate reasons because many of these universities are large, public universities and thus engaging in trampling on free speech is even more serious, but it does seem like FIRE's own biases may be having a role in what they've decided to highlight.

    However, the general upshot should be clear: trampling on free speech is not ok. And we should support free speech whether or not it is speech we agree with. Universities must be bastions of free expression for them to effectively do their jobs. And groups of all sorts should remember that even if they have power now to censor others, they may not always be the ones in power.

    1. Re:All awful but the bias is interesting by redmid17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So let's be clear: pretty much all of these situations are completely unacceptable, and most disturbingly they show a tendency for much of these sorts of problems to occur on the left, what essentially amounts to the "illiberal left" http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/liberals-and-the-illiberal-left/384988/. However, FIRE's own biases are coming into play in this list, in that every example they decide to include is on the left or has no political aspect. But there were a lot of rimilar activities with an apparently right-wing bent, such as the situation at Wheaton College https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/06/wheaton-illinois-moves-fire-professor-who-wore-hijab. It may be that FIRE's top list is still more of an issue for legitimate reasons because many of these universities are large, public universities and thus engaging in trampling on free speech is even more serious, but it does seem like FIRE's own biases may be having a role in what they've decided to highlight.

      However, the general upshot should be clear: trampling on free speech is not ok. And we should support free speech whether or not it is speech we agree with. Universities must be bastions of free expression for them to effectively do their jobs. And groups of all sorts should remember that even if they have power now to censor others, they may not always be the ones in power.

      So to be clear, private colleges (not all) *can* and do stifle free speech and are exempt from many parts of Title XIV or free speech restrictions. Thus concentrating on a private school is pretty dopey. Granted if they accept federal funds in any capacity they have to adhere to some part (not that I know them offhand).

      When a publicly funded institution violates constitutional laws, it is a much bigger deal as they are AGENTS OF THE STATE. FIRE concentrating on large public institutions makes perfect sense because it affects far more people than private institutions and they shouldn't even be *thinking* of doing stuff like this, yet do anyway.

  3. Re:Not really by chispito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Religious universities have doctrinal statements you sign when you enroll. If that offends you, don't go there.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  4. Re:Why shouldn't free speech have consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't like free speech, then why don't you go to any one of the number of countries where it doesn't exist?

    I am a millennial, born in 1987, and let me tell you, the stereotype is true. Most of my generation are soft, squishy, and hypersensitive. Those are the best definitions I've ever heard, and I thank you for them. Most of my people CAN'T handle the real world. And people who use the term "inflammatory speech" are the soft, squishy types who can't handle the real world.

    If someone says something you don't like, YOU IGNORE THEM. Ignoring the blowhards is the easiest way to get them to stop. You don't fight with them, it just causes them to double down on their opinions. And remember, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them wrong. You sound EXACTLY like one of these millennial pukes of my generation who are the special snowflakes who can't handle ANY kind of criticism or ANY kind of opinions that fall outside of or make them question their worldview. The fact that you invoke Donald Trump just proves my point.

    I want a country of 300 million people, all speaking their minds, and all understanding that not everyone will agree with them at every turn. The fact that Donald Trump (since you brought him up) has so many supporters just tells me that there is a large swath of the population that is disenfranchised, and that contrary to popular belief, they seem to fall across all racial, demographics, and educational boundaries. People who are taxpaying members of society just like you and me who deserve to have their voice heard. Whether or not I agree with them. But you would have them silenced, because their opinions aren't the correct ones. They aren't "falling in line" with what YOU think is right. That's not freedom. Period.

    You see, that's the beauty of a free society, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about you. You don't have to "fall in" with the party line. You can stand up and give the finger to whoever you want, and you AREN'T PUNISHED FOR DOING SO. Punishing people for speech, as you are advocating, is dangerous and tyrannical. And I don't understand why people just don't get it. Freedom is the best thing to ever happen, and the soft squishy types like yourself only seem to want to put it back in the bottle. It makes me sick.

  5. Re:Not really by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    willing to enroll students of any faith/non-faith who are will to abide by the conduct codes

    The code of conduct is misleading, for serious students they're usually not that onerous, just focus on your studies and you probably will never have disciplinary issues. But you can't live some place for 4+ years and be a castle, particularly not with modern group-based education practices. My sister went to Liberty, I don't know why, but I hear-tell if you are even mildly catholic, never mind some heathen non-Christian religion, you won't feel very welcome. I don't know how it is now that Falwell is gone, but I felt it clearly standing there during graduation. There's a secret handshake in the vocabulary they use, and the interpretations they use.

    Unless there is some very compelling reason to be at a religious university, I think it's just not worth pretending to be someone you are not. There are plenty of good secular schools. In the US at least most of the secular schools offer both better educations and better reputations anyhow, with a few exceptions I can think of.

  6. Re:Oppressive by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want oppressive colleges, try the Electoral College.

    Actually, the Electoral College is a necessary equalizer for the states...without that, a very small number of states would perpetually run roughshod over the other states....and one of the conditions of becoming a state was that you'd get your equal representation on the federal level, and this is VERY important.

    Remember, you are a member of your state first....THEN you are a member of the United States.

    At least..that's how it was set up.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  7. Re:Not really by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most places don't ask such questions

    Most places are not religious institutions.

    I'd love to see those idiots if people were allowed to refuse them service because of their religion.

    This is already true. A church is free to refuse service to muslims. A mosque is free to refuse service to christians.