WSJ Ranking of Colleges and Universities

[WhiteTrash]

WSJ rankings came out:

56. Marquette University
.
.
.
.
.
.
79. University of Wisconsin - Madison

 

[Galway Eagle]

Now broadcast this everywhere and spread articles of why it's a better ranking than US World News

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Better than Harvard of the Midwest?

[Scoop Snoop]

Better than Harvard of the Midwest?

My wife tells people that one of the things that impressed her when we first met was that I am an alumnus of Marquette, which she refers to as "the Harvard of the Midwest".

[Herman Cain]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/wsj-college-pulse-college-rankings-methodology-f010fc11

[WhiteTrash]

Better than Harvard of the Midwest?

Get it right, you sound like an MU grad.

Harvard is the UW-Madison of the East Coast.

[Not A Serious Person]

2024 College Free Speech Rankings

Presented by College Pulse and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings is a comprehensive comparison of the student experience of free speech on their campuses. These rankings are based on the voices of over 55,000 currently enrolled students at over 250 colleges and are designed to help parents and prospective students choose the right college.

https://rankings.thefire.org/

#230 Marquette, rated as poor

#248 (last place) Harvard University

Larry Summers, former President of Harvard

@LHSummers
I am proud to be on @TheFIREorg's advisory board as it does vitally important work standing up for open debate on college campuses. I was dismayed to discover that
@Harvard ranks last out of 248 schools in their free speech rankings.

@LHSummers

While I am sure that the procedures can be challenged, @Harvard clearly needs reforms to protect free speech and insure a culture of open debate.  I hope this will be a leadership priority going forward.

[rocket surgeon]

Get it right, you sound like an MU grad.

Harvard is the UW-Madison of the East Coast.

   and berkeley of the left coast

[WhiteTrash]

2024 College Free Speech Rankings

Presented by College Pulse and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings is a comprehensive comparison of the student experience of free speech on their campuses. These rankings are based on the voices of over 55,000 currently enrolled students at over 250 colleges and are designed to help parents and prospective students choose the right college.

https://rankings.thefire.org/

#230 Marquette, rated as poor

#248 (last place) Harvard University

Larry Summers, former President of Harvard

@LHSummers
I am proud to be on @TheFIREorg's advisory board as it does vitally important work standing up for open debate on college campuses. I was dismayed to discover that
@Harvard ranks last out of 248 schools in their free speech rankings.

@LHSummers

While I am sure that the procedures can be challenged, @Harvard clearly needs reforms to protect free speech and insure a culture of open debate.  I hope this will be a leadership priority going forward.

I think if I had to come up with a top 100 list of places in America where free speech is embraced, college campuses would be about 101, but just right before Evangelical churches.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I think if I had to come up with a top 100 list of places in America where free speech is embraced, college campuses would be about 101, but just right before Evangelical churches.

Are you spending a lot of time on college campuses and evangelical churches?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Are you spending a lot of time on college campuses and evangelical churches?

That's where the babes are.

[Efficient Frontier]

My wife tells people that one of the things that impressed her when we first met was that I am an alumnus of Marquette, which she refers to as "the Harvard of the Midwest".

I am sure your wife is an exceptional woman. However this take is baffling to me.

I say this with an unblemished record of staunch MU support.

I wouldn’t want MU to be Harvard. Crimson basketball sucks.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think if I had to come up with a top 100 list of places in America where free speech is embraced, college campuses would be about 101, but just right before Evangelical churches.

Spoken like someone with either no knowledge of college campuses or no knowledge of free speech. Possibly both.

[Scoop Snoop]

I am sure your wife is an exceptional woman. However this take is baffling to me.

I say this with an unblemished record of staunch MU support.

I wouldn’t want MU to be Harvard. Crimson basketball sucks.

I never said anything to the contrary. If she wants to think and say that, who am I to say"What?"

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

2024 College Free Speech Rankings

Presented by College Pulse and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the 2024 College Free Speech Rankings is a comprehensive comparison of the student experience of free speech on their campuses. These rankings are based on the voices of over 55,000 currently enrolled students at over 250 colleges and are designed to help parents and prospective students choose the right college.

https://rankings.thefire.org/

#230 Marquette, rated as poor

#248 (last place) Harvard University

Larry Summers, former President of Harvard

@LHSummers
I am proud to be on @TheFIREorg's advisory board as it does vitally important work standing up for open debate on college campuses. I was dismayed to discover that
@Harvard ranks last out of 248 schools in their free speech rankings.

@LHSummers

While I am sure that the procedures can be challenged, @Harvard clearly needs reforms to protect free speech and insure a culture of open debate.  I hope this will be a leadership priority going forward.

Uh huh.

"The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is funded by donations from individuals, foundations, and businesses. While FIRE does not disclose its donors, tax filings confirm donations from the John Templeton Foundation ($2.5 million in 2016), 8 the J. P. Humphreys Foundation ($1.15 million in 2019), 9 and the Charles Koch Foundation ($1 million in 2019)."

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/foundation-for-individual-rights-and-expression-fire/

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Spoken like someone with either no knowledge of college campuses or no knowledge of free speech. Possibly both.

Yeah I would argue that we have done a poor job as a society with understanding what free speech means.

First, free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want without consequence.

Second, free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want in whatever setting you want.

In my experience, the issues with free speech on college campuses usually fall into one of the two categories above. Sure there are incidents where people shout one another down to prevent them from saying anything - those are unfortunate, uncivil and need to be addressed.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Right, the very term free speech has been corrupted by a certain faction to mean, as they use the term, that every private entity should be forced to platform their views, that any criticism of their expressed views impinges on their free speech, and there should be absolutely no consequences when they express their hateful and/or batsh!t crazy ideas.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Sure there are incidents where people shout one another down to prevent them from saying anything - those are unfortunate, uncivil and need to be addressed.

And bluntly, someone shouting someone else down (as long as its not the university itself), is someone using their free speech in response to someone else's free speech.  It is uncivil but it is still a form of free speech.

[Pakuni]

Uh huh.

"The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is funded by donations from individuals, foundations, and businesses. While FIRE does not disclose its donors, tax filings confirm donations from the John Templeton Foundation ($2.5 million in 2016), 8 the J. P. Humphreys Foundation ($1.15 million in 2019), 9 and the Charles Koch Foundation ($1 million in 2019)."

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/foundation-for-individual-rights-and-expression-fire/

I'm less concerned with FIRE's donors than the methodology of this "study."
How much stock ought we put in a study based on the results of a self-selecting online poll?

[Not A Serious Person]

And bluntly, someone shouting someone else down (as long as its not the university itself), is someone using their free speech in response to someone else's free speech.  It is uncivil but it is still a form of free speech.

Shouting down speakers is mob censorship: Part 14 of answers to arguments against free speech from Nadine Strossen and Greg Lukianoff
https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/shouting-down-speakers-mob-censorship-part-14-answers-arguments

Shouting down a speaker to stop an event from proceeding is mob censorship, full stop. It gives the shouters the power to dictate what anyone else is able to say or to hear. The idea that a group — or even a single individual pulling a fire alarm or banging a cowbell — can decide what others can and cannot listen to is incompatible with pluralism. It replaces the free exchange of ideas with a system of “might makes right,” and it is especially egregious for this to happen in the university context where the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to seek out any information is most important.

This is so obvious that, I believe, those who make this argument either do so in bad faith, or have not thought through the implications of this position. For example, no one would argue that one has a right to go to a university orchestra concert and play electric guitar from their seat. It is equally hard to imagine that those sympathetic to shout-downs at Yale and Hastings would make the same argument if, for example, a pro-choice speaker was shut down by rowdy pro-life protestors, or if a student shouted down his professor for the duration of class. And yet all of these examples logically follow from the asserted free speech “right” for some audience members to take over an event.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Shouting down speakers is mob censorship: Part 14 of answers to arguments against free speech from Nadine Strossen and Greg Lukianoff
https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/shouting-down-speakers-mob-censorship-part-14-answers-arguments

Shouting down a speaker to stop an event from proceeding is mob censorship, full stop. It gives the shouters the power to dictate what anyone else is able to say or to hear. The idea that a group — or even a single individual pulling a fire alarm or banging a cowbell — can decide what others can and cannot listen to is incompatible with pluralism. It replaces the free exchange of ideas with a system of “might makes right,” and it is especially egregious for this to happen in the university context where the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to seek out any information is most important.

This is so obvious that, I believe, those who make this argument either do so in bad faith, or have not thought through the implications of this position. For example, no one would argue that one has a right to go to a university orchestra concert and play electric guitar from their seat. It is equally hard to imagine that those sympathetic to shout-downs at Yale and Hastings would make the same argument if, for example, a pro-choice speaker was shut down by rowdy pro-life protestors, or if a student shouted down his professor for the duration of class. And yet all of these examples logically follow from the asserted free speech “right” for some audience members to take over an event.

Time and place, dear Heisey. If someone is disrupting a scheduled event in a controlled space (like an orchestra concert or a professor teaching a class), they can and should be removed. If someone is saying something or an event is taking place in a public space, those around have every right to use their free speech to respond. FIRE knows this, and claims to support free speech, but they use ridiculous comparisons like playing over an orchestra or shouting during class time to try to use false parallels to push a certain agenda.

And I resent the assertion that I wouldn't make the same argument if a pro-choice speaker was being shouted down by an anti-abortion speaker in a public space. I would commend them for using their free speech to respond to free speech.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Time and place, dear Heisey. If someone is disrupting a scheduled event in a controlled space (like an orchestra concert or a professor teaching a class), they can and should be removed.

And that's the type of shouting down I was talking about.

[Not A Serious Person]

Time and place, dear Heisey. If someone is disrupting a scheduled event in a controlled space (like an orchestra concert or a professor teaching a class), they can and should be removed. If someone is saying something or an event is taking place in a public space, those around have every right to use their free speech to respond. FIRE knows this, and claims to support free speech, but they use ridiculous comparisons like playing over an orchestra or shouting during class time to try to use false parallels to push a certain agenda.

And I resent the assertion that I wouldn't make the same argument if a pro-choice speaker was being shouted down by an anti-abortion speaker in a public space. I would commend them for using their free speech to respond to free speech.

Orchestra concerts or a professor teaching classes are in public spaces (assuming a public university).  So, why can't they be shouted down?

A political candidate in a concert hall that requires a ticket to get into is also a public space. In other words, the same place and entry method (valid ticket) as the orchestra concert. But in this circumstance, it is allowable to shout them down.

So, yes, I need more explanation.

[WhiteTrash]

So, MU is better than UW-Madison. Discuss. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Orchestra concerts or a professor teaching classes are in public spaces (assuming a public university).  So, why can't they be shouted down?

A political candidate in a concert hall that requires a ticket to get into is also a public space. In other words, the same place and entry method (valid ticket) as the orchestra concert. But in this circumstance, it is allowable to shout them down.

So, yes, I need more explanation.

There is a difference between a "public space" that is accessible to the public with little or no regulation involved, and a government-owned space.

Here is a good summary

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/access-public-property

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Orchestra concerts or a professor teaching classes are in public spaces (assuming a public university).  So, why can't they be shouted down?

A political candidate in a concert hall that requires a ticket to get into is also a public space. In other words, the same place and entry method (valid ticket) as the orchestra concert. But in this circumstance, it is allowable to shout them down.

So, yes, I need more explanation.

See Sultan's link. Being on a public university campus does not make something a public space. You do not have a right to go into a classroom while class is in session unless you are enrolled in the class (or have permission from the professor to be there). You do not have the right to go into examination rooms of the student health center while someone else is being examined. You do not have the right to go into the student rec center unless you have a membership there. You do not have the right to march into the President's office. TAMU has labs where research is done with radioactive materials, you do not have the right to go into where they are stored. Hell, most student unions are closed in the wee hours of the night, you don't have the right to go in the student union outside of business hours. This is not an exhaustive list, but just examples to show that of course not every thing on a college campus is public space.

Public universities (and most private universities) cannot control the content of others' speech. They do have a limited ability to control the time, place, and manner of the speech. Contrast that with private companies, they can control content, time, place, and manner and in most cases can fire you for it or slap you with trespassing charges.

[Skatastrophy]

So, MU is better than UW-Madison. Discuss. 

Lake Forest College in the Chicago burbs came in at #27. That's how you know the WSJ is taking this seriously.

[Pakuni]

Lake Forest College in the Chicago burbs came in at #27. That's how you know the WSJ is taking this seriously.

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.

[WhiteTrash]

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.

You are not going to make any fans in Madison. UW-Madison grads' reason for getting out of bed each morning is the US News ranking.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas. Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech. Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship
  Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts   “The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.
Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech.

Being denied the ability to speak one's perspective in class is not denial of free speech since that is not a forum where free speech is presumed to exist.

[Pakuni]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas. Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech. Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship
  Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts   “The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.
Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

Another person who doesn't understand what free speech or censorship means.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas.

Please give some examples. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a couple of isolated incidents throughout history but my guess is that your examples aren't what you think they are.

Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech.

In class? Absolutely not. There's no presumption of free speech in the classroom (Unless you want to go after DeSantis and Abbott for the laws they have passed limiting what teachers can say in the classroom). Outside? Depends on what you mean by outside.

Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship

Actually it is free speech. What you are advocating for is censorship. If someone says something that I find hateful or denigrating, that is free speech. My response telling them that what they said is hateful or denigrating is also free speech. Your insistence that I should not be allowed to label something hateful or denigrating is in fact you advocating for censorship.

Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts

No it doesn't.

“The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

Shouting down = Free speech. It's uncivil but if someone has the right to say something, someone else has the right to criticize it loudly. Depending on the venue, entities (including universities) can and often should remove those doing the shouting down.

Doxxing = Usually despicable but also usually free speech. This is by no means a defense of the practice just an acknowledgement that in most cases it is legal speech.

Intimidation = Depends on context. Direct threat against someone? Illegal and should be properly addressed. Threaten to show up in protest? Free speech. Obviously a lot of grey space between those two points.



Free speech is not freedom to speak whenever, wherever, about whatever, with absolutely no consequences. It just means that you cannot be punished by the government for the content of your speech (with limited exceptions). This means that you must endure both the neo-nazis and the anarchists. You must also endure people criticizing/protesting/firing you for your speech. Free speech for all!

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas. Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech. Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship
  Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts   “The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.
Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

Telling you that your hate speech is hateful is not censorship.

Another winger who thinks there should be no consequences.

[Uncle Rico]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas. Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech. Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship
  Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts   “The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.
Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

Doxxing?  Where’s Keefe?  He was doxxing again this summer

[JWags85]

Actually it is free speech. What you are advocating for is censorship. If someone says something that I find hateful or denigrating, that is free speech. My response telling them that what they said is hateful or denigrating is also free speech. Your insistence that I should not be allowed to label something hateful or denigrating is in fact you advocating for censorship.

I think this is a tricky space.  You're not wrong, but there is hypocrisy on both ends of it.  People wanting to flex the censorship you describe and not let people label things hateful...but people also want to broad brush label things as hateful so that it can be removed or silenced due to T&C or policies or the like.  Like everything that isn't full throated supported for anything to do with trans is "transphobic" or anything remotely critical of a Jewish person or Israel is antisemitic.

Labeling something that someone says is whatever, but doing so with the aim of then silencing them cause you don't like what they are saying is problematic.
But yes, way too many people don't properly understand what free speech means.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think this is a tricky space.  You're not wrong, but there is hypocrisy on both ends of it.  People wanting to flex the censorship you describe and not let people label things hateful...but people also want to broad brush label things as hateful so that it can be removed or silenced due to T&C or policies or the like.  Like everything that isn't full throated supported for anything to do with trans is "transphobic" or anything remotely critical of a Jewish person or Israel is antisemitic.

Labeling something that someone says is whatever, but doing so with the aim of then silencing them cause you don't like what they are saying is problematic.
But yes, way too many people don't properly understand what free speech means.

If there are terms and conditions,  then it's not a free speech space

[WhiteTrash]

After see the discussion in this thread, I will retract my statement on colleges being the very low on the list of places accepting of 'free speech'.

I will say that colleges are a very poor place for open, thoughtful and civil discussions of ideas. The hateful actions and rhetoric at places like Liberty University and Berkley are equally disgusting to this guy.

If it were up to me, I would make it illegal to allow the KKK to shout down MLK at a peacefully organized event that people were allowed to attend or not attend. JMHO.

[Lennys Tap]

I think this is a tricky space.  You're not wrong, but there is hypocrisy on both ends of it.  People wanting to flex the censorship you describe and not let people label things hateful...but people also want to broad brush label things as hateful so that it can be removed or silenced due to T&C or policies or the like.  Like everything that isn't full throated supported for anything to do with trans is "transphobic" or anything remotely critical of a Jewish person or Israel is antisemitic.

+1. The line between truly hateful fringe groups and people advocating legitimate if controversial policy has been obliterated. If you don’t 100% support a group’s agenda/policy it makes some FEEL that they are being hated or marginalized. ,Debate and/or conversation is over, name calling ensues, rifts widen.

[tower912]

You aren't wrong, Lenny.    I remember being called a murderer by Jamie.  Good times.  There are frequently shades of gray and areas for discussion and compromise.   A lost art.

[Pakuni]

+1. The line between truly hateful fringe groups and people advocating legitimate if controversial policy has been obliterated. If you don’t 100% support a group’s agenda/policy it makes some FEEL that they are being hated or marginalized. ,Debate and/or conversation is over, name calling ensues, rifts widen.

But who gets to decide what is "truly hateful" and what is "legitimate if controversial policy?"
Because I'm pretty sure that in your lifetime, and perhaps mine, things like school segregation, poll taxes and redlining were seen as "legitimate if controversial policy."

And why should advocating for "legitimate if controversial policy" be free of criticism, including criticism that opines that such policy is hateful?
Should pro-lifers be banned from calling abortion murder?

[WhiteTrash]

But who gets to decide what is "truly hateful" and what is "legitimate if controversial policy?"
Because I'm pretty sure that in your lifetime, and perhaps mine, things like school segregation, poll taxes and redlining were seen as "legitimate if controversial policy."

And why should advocating for "legitimate if controversial policy" be free of criticism, including criticism that opines that such policy is hateful?
Should pro-lifers be banned from calling abortion murder?

I'll agree there needs to a be definitive rule on what is free speech and we need to be very thoughtful about it. I think free speech should go so far as to make people uncomfortable, or very uncomfortable, at times. But, allowing people to shout down opposing viewpoints is lighting a fuse for violence.

In America we have the freedom to not attend, view or listen to those we disagree with. Shouting down and silencing people like MLK would not be good. Allow people to speak and we will find that good ideas will find receptive ears and effect change.

Your example of school segregation is interesting and a good example of how things can evolve over time. There is a small minority of African-Americans who would prefer their children would attend mostly or all black schools because they are of the opinion that their children will feel more comfortable in that environment.

[MU82]

In the Tennessee state legislature, the very white GOP majority has repeatedly silenced two young, Black state reps.

In Wyoming, the state GOP canceled one of the most reliably conservative voters in Congress, Liz Cheney.

The former president, now a criminal defendant facing 91 felony charges, has continued to publicly intimidate witnesses despite judges threatening him with consequences for doing so.

Elon Musk calls himself a "free speech absolutist" ... and then fires employees who criticize him.

None of the above is any more of a freedom-of-speech issue than the college-campus behavior that bothers so many. I'm not defending that behavior, nor am I attacking it. Just building upon facts stated by TAMU, Wags and others.

[Pakuni]

But, allowing people to shout down opposing viewpoints is lighting a fuse for violence.

What do you define as shouting down opposing viewpoints?
And does it really light a fuse for violence? Do you have any examples?

There is a small minority of African-Americans who would prefer their children would attend mostly or all black schools because they are of the opinion that their children will feel more comfortable in that environment.

This is a bizarre non-sequitur. Even if this were true - and I have no idea if it is, or what you mean by "small minority" - there's a substantial difference between choosing to attend a mostly or all black school versus being forced to by the government.

[WhiteTrash]

In the Tennessee state legislature, the very white GOP majority has repeatedly silenced two young, Black state reps.

In Wyoming, the state GOP canceled one of the most reliably conservative voters in Congress, Liz Cheney.

The former president, now a criminal defendant facing 91 felony charges, has continued to publicly intimidate witnesses despite judges threatening him with consequences for doing so.

Elon Musk calls himself a "free speech absolutist" ... and then fires employees who criticize him.

None of the above is any more of a freedom-of-speech issue than the college-campus behavior that bothers so many. I'm not defending that behavior, nor am I attacking it. Just building upon facts stated by TAMU, Wags and others.

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.

[WhiteTrash]

What do you define as shouting down opposing viewpoints?
And does it really light a fuse for violence? Do you have any examples?

This is a bizarre non-sequitur. Even if this were true - and I have no idea if it is, or what you mean by "small minority" - there's a substantial difference between choosing to attend a mostly or all black school versus being forced to by the government.

Blocking attendance to or pressuring schools to cancel speakers or disabling PA systems or simply shouting so loud the speaker cannot be heard.
Example: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/3530/conservative-speaker-event-at-uc-davis-canceled-after-brawl

I don't know what you are asking. Define a 'small minority'? You are grasping at straws to pick a fight. I'll ask you, to be clear, you are in favor of segregation by choice?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Blocking attendance to or pressuring schools to cancel speakers or disabling PA systems or simply shouting so loud the speaker cannot be heard.
Example: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/3530/conservative-speaker-event-at-uc-davis-canceled-after-brawl

I agree this isn't good. But it's exceedingly rare.

[Pakuni]

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.

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?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I will say that colleges are a very poor place for open, thoughtful and civil discussions of ideas. The hateful actions and rhetoric at places like Liberty University and Berkley are equally disgusting to this guy.

Spoken like someone with very little understanding and/or experience on college campuses. You pick two extremes and think that's somehow generalizable to tens of thousands of institutions around the country. And even in those two extremes, you are talking about fringe events, not everyday campus life.

[Pakuni]

Blocking attendance to or pressuring schools to cancel speakers or disabling PA systems or simply shouting so loud the speaker cannot be heard.

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.

Example: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/3530/conservative-speaker-event-at-uc-davis-canceled-after-brawl

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?

You are grasping at straws to pick a fight. I'll ask you, to be clear, you are in favor of segregation by choice?

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.
 

[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.