Efforts to stifle speech by colleges, students 'honored' with Jefferson Muzzle Awards
Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 12:28 PM - Edit history (2)
Source: Charlottesville Daily Progress and AP
Posted: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 12:01 am
BY DEREK QUIZON
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) The "Jefferson Muzzles," those dubious awards shaming the nation's worst free-speech offenders, are taking aim at higher education this year from tarring those at Yale who warned students against donning culturally insensitive Halloween costumes to feathering others for muzzling the press and more.
This is the 25th edition of the awards announced each year around the April 13 birth date of Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. president and ardent free speech advocate. The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression said the campus-themed Muzzles respond to an "epidemic of anti-speech activity" at colleges and universities in 2015 and continuing.
....
At the University of Missouri, a now-fired assistant professor made the Muzzles cut for her call for "some muscle" to remove a student photographer from coverage of a public demonstration.
And at Yale University, the center said, it took to task those who issued an advisory to students about Halloween costumes. That said, professors and others came to the defense of instructors who questioned the student advisory on costumes.
....
The complete list of Muzzle winners is available at tjcenter.org/muzzles.
Derek Quizon is a reporter for The Daily Progress. Contact him at (434) 978-7265, dquizon@dailyprogress.com or @DPHigherEd on Twitter.
Read more: http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local/efforts-to-stifle-speech-by-colleges-students-honored-with-jefferson/article_898a3167-de4c-54c9-8e19-1d88c24090fd.html
The story also appears with a 12:44 a.m. time stamp as an Associated Press story.
ASSOCIATED PRESS |
....
Follow Steve Szkotak at http://twitter.com/sszkotakap . His work can be found at http://bigstory.ap.org/content/steve-szkotak .
An epidemic of anti-speech activity swept across the campuses of American colleges and universities in 2015 and shows little sign of abating in 2016. Not long ago, these same institutions were at the vanguard of First Amendment issues; students demandedthen made powerful use ofexpanded speech rights on campus, and administrators held academic freedom sacrosanct.
These positions reflected a shared understanding that intellectual inquiry requires an environment in which debate is uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, even if it occasionally results in unpleasant or offensive exchanges. Today, however, the focus seems to be on limiting rather than promoting the open exchange of ideas. Students who once protested to have their voices heard now seek to silence those they disagree with or find threatening. Meanwhile, university administrators appear locked in a competition to determine which school will take the toughest stand against offensive, unpopular, and hurtful speech. First Amendment principles have given way to identity politics, trigger warnings, and so-called safe spaces, and the Free Speech Movement has, at many colleges, become the Anti-Speech Movement.
....
The recipients of the 2016 Jefferson Muzzle awards are presented below, divided into the following five categories: Censorship of Students, Censorship by Students, Efforts to Limit Press Access on Campus, Threats to Academic Freedom, and Censorship of Outside Speakers.
1. Censorship of Students:
If you want to single out a tipping point in the spread of anti-speech activity on campuses last year, look no further than the University of Oklahoma. In March 2015, a video emerged showing a busload of tuxedo-wearing Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity members singing a racist chant. Within 48 hours of the video going public, OU president David Boren severed all ties with the fraternity and expelled two students identified as leading the chant. Imploring other administrators to adopt the same zero tolerance policy against racist speech, Boren vowed that OU would be an example to the entire country of how to deal with this issue. Unfortunately, he was right. Robert Shibley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) notes that colleges have seized on the University of Oklahomas unconstitutional actions as a signal that they have an all clear to toss free speech and basic fairness out the window. Borens actions were both clearly unconstitutional and extremely populara dichotomy that we will see repeatedly among this years Muzzles. Most importantly, though, the OU expulsions set the bar for nearly every incident to come. Anything less than zero tolerance would be condemned by many campus communities as a tacit endorsement of exclusionary or inflammatory rhetoric.
2. Censorship by Students:
Shortly before Halloween, the Intercultural Affairs Committee at Yale sent an email to students cautioning them against wearing costumes that could be perceived as culturally unaware or insensitive. When one professor had the temerity to gently and respectfully suggest that students might be capable (and perhaps even better off) navigating these waters themselves rather than relying on university oversight, she was condemned, shouted down, and ultimately chased off campus.
3. Efforts to Limit Press Access
4. Threats to Academic Freedom
5. Censorship of Outside Speakers
Google SAE Oklahoma at DU
All this talk of Jefferson has me in the mood of riling people up. Here's a blast from the past (March 2015):
Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court
Akicita
(1,196 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts). . This reminds me of the dynamic I've seen in the "religious freedom" legislation coming out of the red states.
My religion insists that I discriminate against you..
If you don't like what you're hearing, SPEAK UP!..
Akicita
(1,196 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 03:46 PM - Edit history (2)
activists. Campus activists should be allowed to set up a system where a central committee, or politburo, is formed consisting of activists whose duty would be to determine which free speech is deemed offensive. Members of the politburo should be paid and granted many perks for their service. An enforcement bureau reporting to the politburo would be formed to guard students from any offensive free speech. This Kampus Guardian Bureau, KGB, would develop informants in the dormitories, sororities and fraternities, classrooms, and faculty lounges to inform on anybody using free speech deemed offensive by the politburo or anyone who dares criticize the campus activists in the politburo.
The KGB would then determine the guilt or innocence of any accused students or faculty and whether they should be punished or expelled. No need for any outdated concepts like campus judicial proceedings, although a few show trials may be deemed useful. All attempts should be made to extract groveling confessions from the offenders before they are banished to multiculturalism and diversity re-education camps or expelled from school.
Setting up a system like this on each of our college campuses would do away with the onslaught of triggers our students must face each and every day on campus. It would nip offensive free speech in the bud and obviate the need for large campus demonstrations, protests, and sit-ins that often times are disruptive to campus life. Students of all backgrounds would finally be able to live a tranquil life on campus without the constant fear of being offended. The entire campus would become a safe space for all students.
I love it!
branford
(4,462 posts)Akicita
(1,196 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)is offensive, you could potentially miss a whole bunch of other things that the group never even considered could be offensive to someone. It's important to have everyone's input.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)to the smaller politburo at the top? Good idea.
branford
(4,462 posts)In the real world, no less an adult educational environment, people are constantly exposed to new, strange and uncomfortable ideas and speech that often challenge preconceived notions or transcend traditional norms and mores. We call this "learning," and its a basis for tolerance.
Many of the liberal activists from yesteryear that many of us once admired for challenging the status quo and advocating progressive ideas have joined the academe as professors and administrators, and sadly have not only become the veritable fascists they once protested against, but inculcated their students with such drivel that they are "triggered" by "microaggressions" and require a constant protective bubble of "safe spaces." The thought that any orthodoxy, progressive or otherwise, cannot or should not be constantly challenged is anathema and decidedly illiberal.
The drafters of the First Amendment and much of the nation weeps in despair...
hughee99
(16,113 posts)and punishing those who violate it.
7962
(11,841 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)If the SSP6FMRC (Serbian single parent 6-fingered midget rowing club) doesn't want people to wear a Novak Djokovic halloween costume (Djoko is over 6' tall so his image might be unsettling to "little Serbs" , then they should get their veto.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
UNANIMOUSLY approved
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1422219
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Midget"?? Really? I wonder if the poster knows how offensive this term is.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:23 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: over-the-top
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Most people honestly DON'T know it's an offensive term, really. I'm surprised how much cultural traction the word still has.
Better to calmly explain that it's offensive rather than seek to punish the miscreant. Most DUers are happy to stop using terms that offend once so informed.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: What the fuck did I stumble in to here? Nuke it from space. Hide all.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, if you think the poster is ignorant, enlighten him.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
For the record I was Juror #2. "Midget" is a fairly outmoded and offensive term best avoided.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)You should be ashamed of yourself.
branford
(4,462 posts)You might have noticed that not only was the post not hidden, but that you are virtually alone here in your seemingly antagonistic relationship with the First Amendment and centuries of strong American free speech jurisprudence.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)elljay
(1,178 posts)I think all activists, nay, all students, should carry it at all times. In fact, it should be part of the physical education requirement to wave it over one's head, alternating hands, for at least 30 minutes a day.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,484 posts)The gummint's already on it.
Smoking's bad for you? Simply take the cigarette out of Jackson Pollack's mouth:
Mary Walker wore men's clothing?
Don't use that picture. Find something frilly.
At least that one is actually legit, although the picture was reversed:
I'm glad to see everyone here is being such a good comrade.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)our college activist politburos to cleanse our college campuses of anything they deem offensive? Like changing statues and paintings and rewriting books and stuff?
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,484 posts)Alert coming in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ....
7962
(11,841 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)freedom of speech does indeed allow them to say anything they want, even if some or a great many find it offensive.
Others can certainly peacefully protest with their own speech, but silencing or punishing people is prohibited.
Akicita
(1,196 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Make things much simpler...
Codeine
(25,586 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,484 posts)Curry professor speaks on concept, impacts
by Jessica Qiao | Apr 19 2016 | 17 hours ago
The Minority Rights Coalition hosted a lecture titled Microaggressions and You in Clark Hall Tuesday night, featuring Curry Prof. Blaire Cholewa.
Citing Derald W. Sue, a professor of counseling psychology at Columbia University, Cholewa said microaggressions are insults or slights that communicate negative and disparaging messages to individuals based upon their membership in a marginalized group. Whether intentional or unintentional, microaggressions can lead to psychological distress and anxiety. ... During the lecture, Cholewa introduced the term microaggressions, discussed its impacts on life and encouraged students to reflect upon their personal experiences.
I aim to contextualize microaggressions in our daily lives and the potentially negative impact microaggressions can have on our mental health, Cholewa said in an email statement. I view the discussion as an opportunity to use the microaggression literature as frame for engaging in a discussion and reflection on our own personal stories and narratives.
....
Priyal Gandhi, a third-year College student, said she considers microaggressions a reminder of how much more we have to learn about the world we live in and the people around us, because she said even the most well-meaning of people can be imperfect. ... If you feel badly about something, it is a microaggression. You should own it and you should honor that feeling and you shouldnt deligitimize your experience, Gandhi said. And even being the victim of [a] microaggression doesnt mean that you are the one who doesnt give a microaggression.
I personally am being microaggressed against right now.
7962
(11,841 posts)Pretty soon a bad hair day will be termed as a "microagression" and allowed as an excuse to miss a midterm
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)This is one of the days where DU starts to resemble FreeRepublic.
7962
(11,841 posts)Once that shit starts we're only a short drive to changing the label "president" to " Dear Leader".
And if the right gets the control, will you be ok with THEM blocking everything THEY consider a "microagression"?
I'm not. Dont like someones point of view? Speak out against it. But shutting it down is un American and unconstitutional.
branford
(4,462 posts)Always remember that you and those you agree with might not be the people deciding what's "offensive" and disallowed?
Also recall that much of our strong free speech jurisprudence developed in response to institutional and cultural punishment of liberal ideas like socialism, feminism, labor rights, opposition to militarism, etc. The left are largely the ones that set the free speech standards in our country, and whether you like it or not, they apply to everyone, not just those you agree with. As you alsol likely know, we don't need things like the First Amendment to protect uncontroversial speech.
romanic
(2,841 posts)Monk06
(7,675 posts)It was the Chinese Communist Party who invented the term Political Correctness
By that they meant only party approved speach
Microagression is a term that functions in exactly the same way as Politcial Correctness functioned for the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution
It is the language of ruthless and intolerant ideologues
7962
(11,841 posts)It bothers me how so many folks here have NO problem when someone from the right is silenced. But the outrage when it happens to someone from the left.