WSJ Ranking of Colleges and Universities

[WhiteTrash]

It always comes back to Hunter. Even if - and especially when - the topic has nothing to do with Hunter.

How has Illinois silenced the GOP? The reality is Illinois used to be a fairly purple state. A Republican sat in the governor's mansion for 30 years between 1969 and 2009. There was a Republican governor as recently as four years ago. There was a Republican U.S. senator just six years ago. Republicans controlled the state senate for a decade between the early 90s and early 00s.
The unmaking of the Illinois GOP was self-inflicted. What do you expect when you make people like Alan Keyes, Jim Oberweis and Darren Bailey your standard-bearers?

You are so blinded by your personal politics you are painting an independent as a GOP apologist because I balanced out the conversation. You act like hateful absolutist ,as pointed out in this thread, since I am not drinking the Dem Koo-Aid 100% I must be an evil GOP voter to be vilified.

As an independent is see Keyes, Oberweis and Bailey along with Jackson Jr., Blagojevich and Hastings.

To say there is a different moral or ethical quality between Dems and Reps is foolish. But I think there is logic choosing a Democrat as the lesser of two evils. 
 

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Here is the WSJ opine on the Study  I think it is pretty measured

   https://www.wsj.com/video/wsj-opinion-cancel-culture-and-the-2024-college-free-speech-rankings/D99285A2-7B76-428A-8D55-250E67349C8D.html?mod=opinion_trending_now_video_pos5

[WhiteTrash]

Blocking attendance or disabling PA systems are criminal acts and should be treated as such.
People who shout so loud the speaker cannot be heard should be removed (especially during State of the Union addresses, right?).
Pressuring a school to cancel a speaker is a perfectly fine exercise of free speech. People who find a speaker objectionable have every right to say so.

This is not an example of shouting down a viewpoint leading to violence. Is your suggestion here that the conservatives attacked the protestors because they felt unheard?

I'm not picking a fight. I'm asking you to define your vague terms and defend your claims.
I'm not in favor of segregation by choice. I think it's a terrible idea. But if someone wishes to move to a neighborhood/school district where their students will attend school with mostly kids of the same race, they have that choice. I mean, that's been happening for decades, right? But mostly white people doing it. As is their right. Again, I disagree with that decision. I think it's small-minded and doesn't benefit the student.

I feel like we are speaking two different languages. If my example did not illustrate violence as a result of attempts to shut down speech, we are not going to even agree on what day of the week it is.

I know there are conservatives (wackos) that shut down liberal speaker too. Just as ugly.

We are at the point where your label of people who people choose a segregated schools as "small minded" as 1. Democrat will call you racist 2. Republican will call you anti-American. Or for most Americans, that don't get air time, will think you are resonable in your conclusion.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

You are so blinded by your personal politics you are painting an independent as a GOP apologist because I balanced out the conversation. You act like hateful absolutist ,as pointed out in this thread, since I am not drinking the Dem Koo-Aid 100% I must be an evil GOP voter to be vilified.

So Pakuni asks you questions about your viewpoints, and your response is to label him a "hateful absolutist" and accuse him of labeling you as an "evil GOP voter to be villified". He didn't call you a single name or call you dumb or stupid or anything of the like. He challenged some of your assertions with his own viewpoint and supplied a few facts to try and support his position. You responded to that by name-calling.

Are you sure that you are for having "open, thoughtful, and civil discussions of ideas"?

Open, thoughtful and civil discussions of ideas mean being able to hear criticism not as a personal attack but as a challenge to your ideas. A challenge that should be met with either refuting evidence, an open mind, or both.

[Pakuni]

You are so blinded by your personal politics you are painting an independent as a GOP apologist because I balanced out the conversation. You act like hateful absolutist ,as pointed out in this thread, since I am not drinking the Dem Koo-Aid 100% I must be an evil GOP voter to be vilified.

We must not be reading the same thread here, because nowhere did I say anything about your political leanings. It seems you're telling on yourself.

You "balanced" a conversation about free speech on college campuses by:
1. Saying some black people are segregationists
2. Claiming Illinois has "silenced" the GOP and when asked how completely duck the question with a personal attack
3. Dragging Hunter Biden into the conversation

What do any of these topics - all introduced by you - have to do with the discussion at hand? And how can you introduce these things and then accuse me or anyone else of being blinded by personal politics?

[MU82]

And those in the middle have seen states like CA, MA and IL marginalize and silence the GOP. The current President's son appears to be a felon and dad maybe involved. I'm not saying you are wrong in your facts, I'm saying you appear to be blinded to the sins of your own party.

Except for Bernie Sanders (who I'm not a fan of all his policies) I don't care for or respect anyone in office. Oh and you can add the Dems unjust treatment of Sanders to the list of their sins. Perhaps if the Dems would have let their constituents pick the canidate there would have never been President Trump.

Hunter Biden is under federal investigation and it would appear that charges are likely. If he is found guilty, I hope he gets whatever sentence fits the crime. If authorities suspect that his father has committed crimes, there should be an investigation. If the investigation uncovers serious crimes and misdemeanors, he should face consequences that could include House impeachment, Senate conviction and/or prison. Right now, there is zero evidence that Hunter's father has done anything such as strong-arming the president of a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political opponent - and obviously nothing as heinous and seditious as fomenting a violent coup attempt against his own country - but we'll see.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with what I said or what this freedom-of-speech conversation is about (and neither does the Sanders stuff), but there you have it.

I am a registered Unaffialiated (what NC calls independents). I voted for Kasich in the 2016 GOP primary and would have voted for him in the general election. Words can't describe how much better off the country would have been had "your own party" not lost its collective mind and let itself be hoodwinked by a lifelong charlatan who doesn't give a shyte about America or Americans.

[WhiteTrash]

We must not be reading the same thread here, because nowhere did I say anything about your political leanings. It seems you're telling on yourself.

You "balanced" a conversation about free speech on college campuses by:
1. Saying some black people are segregationists
2. Claiming Illinois has "silenced" the GOP and when asked how completely duck the question with a personal attack
3. Dragging Hunter Biden into the conversation

What do any of these topics - all introduced by you - have to do with the discussion at hand? And how can you introduce these things and then accuse me or anyone else of being blinded by personal politics?

I agree we are not reading the same thread.

1. I was agreeing with another poster who talked about the fact the society's morals or ethics or priorities change over time, hopefully for the better, and that some people now view segregation by choice as a valid position since the other poster introduced segregation (not me). Just a supportive response.
2. The post I was responding to only pointed to Republican ills. I did not dispute those. It seemed very disingenuous to only point out one side of the isle. A lot of us in the middle are not blind to both parties 'short comings'. I think polls support this. I would have written the EXACT same response if the original post was only damning the Democrats, but with Republican sins.
3. See 2.

[dgies9156]

This debate is amazing -- amazingly uninformed.

The First Amendment is a relationship between government and the people. It basically says government can't regulate speech unless, pursuant to Near vs. Minnesota, it involves illicit threats (i.e., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), national security or pornography. Of this group, pornography protections have been eroded dramatically.

As Christians and, in many of our cases, Roman Catholics, we owe it to our fellow human beings to treat them with respect. The effort to get people to refrain from hate speech, for example, rests more in our commitment to the teaching of Jesus Christ than it does any compliance with a governmental mandate, which probably is illegal.

When it comes to shouting down speakers, I find the idea repugnant. I don't care if the speaker is a hate-filled Imperial Wizard of the KKK, who would deprive me of my citizenship rights, or a far left eco-terrorist who would deprive me of all the conveniences of modern technology. They deserve to be heard. In a marketplace of ideas with an intelligent, well-educated populous, the cream will rise to the top and the crap will sink into oblivion not to be seriously considered again.

In that vein, if you don't like what's being said or taught on campus, go somewhere else! It's a free country. 

[WhiteTrash]

This debate is amazing -- amazingly uninformed.

The First Amendment is a relationship between government and the people. It basically says government can't regulate speech unless, pursuant to Near vs. Minnesota, it involves illicit threats (i.e., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), national security or pornography. Of this group, pornography protections have been eroded dramatically.

As Christians and, in many of our cases, Roman Catholics, we owe it to our fellow human beings to treat them with respect. The effort to get people to refrain from hate speech, for example, rests more in our commitment to the teaching of Jesus Christ than it does any compliance with a governmental mandate, which probably is illegal.

When it comes to shouting down speakers, I find the idea repugnant. I don't care if the speaker is a hate-filled Imperial Wizard of the KKK, who would deprive me of my citizenship rights, or a far left eco-terrorist who would deprive me of all the conveniences of modern technology. They deserve to be heard. In a marketplace of ideas with an intelligent, well-educated populous, the cream will rise to the top and the crap will sink into oblivion not to be seriously considered again.

In that vein, if you don't like what's being said or taught on campus, go somewhere else! It's a free country.

I fully endorse this post. Well said.

[WhiteTrash]

Here is the WSJ opine on the Study  I think it is pretty measured

   https://www.wsj.com/video/wsj-opinion-cancel-culture-and-the-2024-college-free-speech-rankings/D99285A2-7B76-428A-8D55-250E67349C8D.html?mod=opinion_trending_now_video_pos5

I think this report is far more informed than any of my post here. I don't do actual research on this topic.

[lawdog77]

This debate is amazing -- amazingly uninformed.

The First Amendment is a relationship between government and the people. It basically says government can't regulate speech unless, pursuant to Near vs. Minnesota, it involves illicit threats (i.e., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), national security or pornography. Of this group, pornography protections have been eroded dramatically.

As Christians and, in many of our cases, Roman Catholics, we owe it to our fellow human beings to treat them with respect. The effort to get people to refrain from hate speech, for example, rests more in our commitment to the teaching of Jesus Christ than it does any compliance with a governmental mandate, which probably is illegal.

When it comes to shouting down speakers, I find the idea repugnant. I don't care if the speaker is a hate-filled Imperial Wizard of the KKK, who would deprive me of my citizenship rights, or a far left eco-terrorist who would deprive me of all the conveniences of modern technology. They deserve to be heard. In a marketplace of ideas with an intelligent, well-educated populous, the cream will rise to the top and the crap will sink into oblivion not to be seriously considered again.

In that vein, if you don't like what's being said or taught on campus, go somewhere else feel free to protest respectfully and peacefully! It's a free country.

FIFY

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

In that vein, if you don't like what's being said or taught on campus, go somewhere else! It's a free country.

Or you know, join in the conversation. Or maybe learn a new perspective. Or protest. Or find like-minded people at that institution (because despite what some would have you believe, 99% of universities don't actually have a singular way of looking at things, they encourage and cater to people of a multitude of views and perspectives).

[Pakuni]

When it comes to shouting down speakers, I find the idea repugnant. I don't care if the speaker is a hate-filled Imperial Wizard of the KKK, who would deprive me of my citizenship rights, or a far left eco-terrorist who would deprive me of all the conveniences of modern technology. They deserve to be heard. In a marketplace of ideas with an intelligent, well-educated populous, the cream will rise to the top and the crap will sink into oblivion not to be seriously considered again.

Counterpoint 1: Not everybody deserves to be heard. Don't confuse the right to say something with the right to an audience or a forum. If someone wants to spout racist views, they're free to do so. But nobody owes them a platform, whether it be a microphone in a college lecture hall or a social media account.

Counterpoint 2: The idea that the cream will rise to the top and the crap will "sink into oblivion not to be seriously considered again" ignores human history. Facism. Communism. Theocracy. Racism. Jingoism. Antisemitism. The University of Notre Dame.
Plenty of bad ideas have risen to the top.
Certainly people are free to express these ideas, as terrible as they may be, but let's not pretend only the good ideas win out.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Counterpoint 1: Not everybody deserves to be heard. Don't confuse the right to say something with the right to an audience or a forum. If someone wants to spout racist views, they're free to do so. But nobody owes them a platform, whether it be a microphone in a college lecture hall or a social media account.

Social media account, agreed. College lecture hall? I personally don't. University obviously shouldn't offer a course supporting racism and they shouldn't be recruiting speakers to promote racism. But if a group of students wants to reserve a space that is reservable by students in order to bring a neo-nazi or a Klan member to speak, I think they should be able to do so. If other students want to respond to that by (peacefully) protesting the event? I think they should do that too.

Counterpoint 2: The idea that the cream will rise to the top and the crap will "sink into oblivion not to be seriously considered again" ignores human history. Facism. Communism. Theocracy. Racism. Jingoism. Antisemitism. The University of Notre Dame.
Plenty of bad ideas have risen to the top.

Nice

[🏀]

What’s everyone’s thoughts on having C U N T in large block letters on the back of your truck?

[WhiteTrash]

Social media account, agreed. College lecture hall? I personally don't. University obviously shouldn't offer a course supporting racism and they shouldn't be recruiting speakers to promote racism. But if a group of students wants to reserve a space that is reservable by students in order to bring a neo-nazi or a Klan member to speak, I think they should be able to do so. If other students want to respond to that by (peacefully) protesting the event? I think they should do that too.

I'd go so far as to say, that if a college wants to allow neo-nazis and the like and sponsor them, or heck even be know as the college for racist or hateful beliefs, so be it. Put all those people (I use that term loosely) in one place, on display so we know who and where they are. Then treat them as they would treat others and keep an eye on them 24/7.

Also, I think sometimes protesting these wack job hate mongers lends credibility to them than they do not deserve.

[GoFastAndWin]

FWIW, Lake Forrest College is a really good school. Not #27 in the nation good, but still good.
We should take these rankings about as seriously as the US News rankings, which is to say not at all.

Rankings are stupid is as stupid does.

[GOO]

Isn’t the primary purpose of the WSJ rankings to rank colleges by the increase in earnings over expected earnings?  Trying to rank colleges by how well their graduates do financially over what would have been expected…

If so, it is just another way of ranking at schools and another data point. How well the WSJ does, I have no idea.