A lot of people's opinions on these matters seem to stem from a "you've won the battle, but you're going to lose the war" perspective, that it is not wise to "take the bait" of conservative flamethrowers who will end up using it against you. To that, I say screw that noise. If a speaker's POV diminishes your very humanity, if their premise is that you are less human than they, then all the open discussion, gamesmanship and tactical maneuvering won't accomplish anything. All you can do is just say "F*ck you" to the speaker as loud as possible. That's the only effective way to demonstrate that you are a full-on human being too.

(BTW, Middlebury '89 here)

From today's Best of the Web, published by the WSJ.  

Yale’s Quiet Majority

A new survey finds that most undergrads favor free speech, even if the loudest students—and Yale administrators—don’t.

At last, there’s hopeful news on intellectual liberty from a college campus. A new survey of students at Yale finds that a large majority favor free speech. Perhaps the kids can now also persuade the school’s administration of the virtues of academic freedom.

Your humble correspondent is an alumnus of the school and serves on the board of the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale, which commissioned the survey of 872 Yale undergraduates. Conducted from April 17th to the 23rd by the polling firm McLaughlin & Associates, the survey found that 72% of respondents oppose the idea of Yale “having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty,” while 16% favor the idea. Of course depending on one’s point of view, it can seem reassuring that free speech still wins in a landslide or disturbing that 16% of students actually want to surrender their right to express themselves. This column prefers to view the glass as 72% full.

The survey also asked the Yale students:

Which of the following statements comes closer to your own personal opinion? Yale should always do its best to promote intellectual diversity and free speech by allowing a wide range of people with differing views and opinions to speak on campus

OR

Yale should forbid people from speaking on campus who have controversial views and opinions on issues like politics, race, religion or gender

On this question, 84% opted for intellectual diversity and just 5% favored muzzling people with controversial views.

These findings are particularly encouraging because in 2015 Yale became infamous for some hypersensitive students who were unable to tolerate Halloween costumes. The costume kerfuffle and the recent removal of the name of alumnus John C. Calhoun from a residential college at Yale were among the campus events that inspired a recent episode of “The Simpsons.” In the fictional Fox sit-com, a Yale administrator informs a wealthy alumnus that “our students are highly entitled wusses.” Another Yale official then urges the alum to fund a chair in the “non-narrative cinema of self-identified pansexuals.”

dave23 said:

Norman_Bates said:

Kudos to Gettysburg College administrators for their decision not to succumb to oppressionism but, rather, to retain their integrity as educators.   According to President Janet Morgan Riggs, Gettysburg College adheres to the wisdom of Chief Justice Louis D. Brandeis [who famously wrote in regard to Whitney v. California 274 U.S. 357 (1927)]:   'If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.'"

https://www.insidehighered.com...

Is oppressionism a word?

No, technically speaking "oppressionism" is not a formal word.  As I was writing and pondering, however, it seemed an appropriate term to capture the attitude underlying the "unless I approve of it, it cannot be expressed" position that is articulated by some. My sincere apologies if the coining of such a term for my own purposes violated the etymological standards of MOL.

I've making this point all along.  Any research on this topic among students shows that they overwhelmingly support free speech.  The notion that all undergrads are "snowflakes" shutting down ideas they don't like is erroneous.

Certainly we all should be vigilant in protecting free speech and sharing of ideas.  But the sky is not falling on free speech on campuses. 

ice said:

From today's Best of the Web, published by the WSJ.  

Yale’s Quiet Majority

A new survey finds that most undergrads favor free speech, even if the loudest students—and Yale administrators—don’t.

At last, there’s hopeful news on intellectual liberty from a college campus. A new survey of students at Yale finds that a large majority favor free speech. Perhaps the kids can now also persuade the school’s administration of the virtues of academic freedom.

Your humble correspondent is an alumnus of the school and serves on the board of the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale, which commissioned the survey of 872 Yale undergraduates. Conducted from April 17th to the 23rd by the polling firm McLaughlin & Associates, the survey found that 72% of respondents oppose the idea of Yale “having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty,” while 16% favor the idea. Of course depending on one’s point of view, it can seem reassuring that free speech still wins in a landslide or disturbing that 16% of students actually want to surrender their right to express themselves. This column prefers to view the glass as 72% full.

The survey also asked the Yale students:

Which of the following statements comes closer to your own personal opinion? Yale should always do its best to promote intellectual diversity and free speech by allowing a wide range of people with differing views and opinions to speak on campus

OR

Yale should forbid people from speaking on campus who have controversial views and opinions on issues like politics, race, religion or gender

On this question, 84% opted for intellectual diversity and just 5% favored muzzling people with controversial views.

These findings are particularly encouraging because in 2015 Yale became infamous for some hypersensitive students who were unable to tolerate Halloween costumes. The costume kerfuffle and the recent removal of the name of alumnus John C. Calhoun from a residential college at Yale were among the campus events that inspired a recent episode of “The Simpsons.” In the fictional Fox sit-com, a Yale administrator informs a wealthy alumnus that “our students are highly entitled wusses.” Another Yale official then urges the alum to fund a chair in the “non-narrative cinema of self-identified pansexuals.”

ml1 said:

I've making this point all along.  Any research on this topic among students shows that they overwhelmingly support free speech.  The notion that all undergrads are "snowflakes" shutting down ideas they don't like is erroneous.

Certainly we all should be vigilant in protecting free speech and sharing of ideas.  But the sky is not falling on free speech on campuses. 

ice said:

From today's Best of the Web, published by the WSJ.  

Yale’s Quiet Majority

The survey also asked the Yale students:

Which of the following statements comes closer to your own personal opinion? Yale should always do its best to promote intellectual diversity and free speech by allowing a wide range of people with differing views and opinions to speak on campus

OR

Yale should forbid people from speaking on campus who have controversial views and opinions on issues like politics, race, religion or gender

Are those the only alternatives?

How about:

Yale should always do its best to promote intellectual diversity and free speech by allowing a wide range of people with differing views and opinions to speak on campus, so long as they do not advocate violence.

or

  Yale should always do its best to promote intellectual diversity and free speech by allowing a wide range of people with differing views and opinions to speak on campus so long as they do not advocate violence or limitation on any person's legal rights on account of that person's race, religion or gender.

Norman_Bates said:

No, technically speaking "oppressionism" is not a formal word.  As I was writing and pondering, however, it seemed an appropriate term to capture the attitude underlying the "unless I approve of it, it cannot be expressed" position that is articulated by some. My sincere apologies if the coining of such a term for my own purposes violated the etymological standards of MOL.

No need to apologize. You deserve credit for coining what will likely become a word. The Berkeleyites and the Coulterites will start using it any day now.

An article on the limits to Freedom of Speech.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/tension.htm

I ran across this excerpt from Nassim Taken.  A long but interesting read that may be applicable to this discussion.

The Most Intolerant wins. The dictatorship of the small minority

ml1 said:

I've making this point all along.  Any research on this topic among students shows that they overwhelmingly support free speech.  The notion that all undergrads are "snowflakes" shutting down ideas they don't like is erroneous.

Certainly we all should be vigilant in protecting free speech and sharing of ideas.  But the sky is not falling on free speech on campuses. 

ice said:

From today's Best of the Web, published by the WSJ.  

Yale’s Quiet Majority

A new survey finds that most undergrads favor free speech, even if the loudest students—and Yale administrators—don’t.

At last, there’s hopeful news on intellectual liberty from a college campus. A new survey of students at Yale finds that a large majority favor free speech. Perhaps the kids can now also persuade the school’s administration of the virtues of academic freedom.

Your humble correspondent is an alumnus of the school and serves on the board of the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale, which commissioned the survey of 872 Yale undergraduates. Conducted from April 17th to the 23rd by the polling firm McLaughlin & Associates, the survey found that 72% of respondents oppose the idea of Yale “having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty,” while 16% favor the idea. Of course depending on one’s point of view, it can seem reassuring that free speech still wins in a landslide or disturbing that 16% of students actually want to surrender their right to express themselves. This column prefers to view the glass as 72% full.

The survey also asked the Yale students:

Which of the following statements comes closer to your own personal opinion? Yale should always do its best to promote intellectual diversity and free speech by allowing a wide range of people with differing views and opinions to speak on campus

OR

Yale should forbid people from speaking on campus who have controversial views and opinions on issues like politics, race, religion or gender

On this question, 84% opted for intellectual diversity and just 5% favored muzzling people with controversial views.

These findings are particularly encouraging because in 2015 Yale became infamous for some hypersensitive students who were unable to tolerate Halloween costumes. The costume kerfuffle and the recent removal of the name of alumnus John C. Calhoun from a residential college at Yale were among the campus events that inspired a recent episode of “The Simpsons.” In the fictional Fox sit-com, a Yale administrator informs a wealthy alumnus that “our students are highly entitled wusses.” Another Yale official then urges the alum to fund a chair in the “non-narrative cinema of self-identified pansexuals.”

In 1951 the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of members of the Communist Party of the United States essentially for being members and organizers of the Communist Party of the United States, The decision was 6-2. The dissent was written by Yale Law School Graduate, former United States Senator and former member of the Ku Klux Klan, Hugo Lafayette Black:

In his dissent, Black wrote:

These petitioners were not charged with an attempt to overthrow the Government. They were not charged with overt acts of any kind designed to overthrow the Government. They were not even charged with saying anything or writing anything designed to overthrow the Government. The charge was that they agreed to assemble and to talk and publish certain ideas at a later date: The indictment is that they conspired to organize the Communist Party and to use speech or newspapers and other publications in the future to teach and advocate the forcible overthrow of the Government. No matter how it is worded, this is a virulent form of prior censorship of speech and press, which I believe the First Amendment forbids. I would hold 3 of the Smith Act authorizing this prior restraint unconstitutional on its face and as applied....

So long as this Court exercises the power of judicial review of legislation, I cannot agree that the First Amendment permits us to sustain laws suppressing freedom of speech and press on the basis of Congress' or our own notions of mere "reasonableness." Such a doctrine waters down the First Amendment so that it amounts to little more than an admonition to Congress. The Amendment as so construed is not likely to protect any but those "safe" or orthodox views which rarely need its protection....

There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions and fears subside, this or some later Court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high preferred place where they belong in a free society.

ice said:

From today's Best of the Web, published by the WSJ.  

...

These findings are particularly encouraging because in 2015 Yale became infamous for some hypersensitive students who were unable to tolerate Halloween costumes. The costume kerfuffle and the recent removal of the name of alumnus John C. Calhoun from a residential college at Yale were among the campus events that inspired a recent episode of “The Simpsons.” In the fictional Fox sit-com, a Yale administrator informs a wealthy alumnus that “our students are highly entitled wusses.” Another Yale official then urges the alum to fund a chair in the “non-narrative cinema of self-identified pansexuals.”

The inspiration for making fun of Yale was apparently more due to "The Simpsons" creative team being stocked with Harvard alums. 

http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/y...

Mr. Burns is a Yalie, and as the article describes -

"Put that many overeducated Harvard comedy types together, and there’s going to be some Yale-bashing, although the swipes at the university at New Haven are generally pretty chummy. ... Even here, though, the Yale gags are generic college stuff, something of a disappointment, considering the intimacy Westbrook and the series have with the milieu. A sign welcomes visitors to 'The Harvard of Connecticut,' which, okay, zing. And those damned a capella twits, the Whiffenpoofs, get taken down a few pegs, as Burns offers to endow a new library if the school has them killed."

As for Calhoun College, it was originally named for John C. Calhoun in the 1930s.  I understand that renaming it upset some conservative types, but it has nothing to do with the campus speaker issue.

I don’t know about “surprising”:

The Surprising Revolt at the Most Liberal College in the Country (The Atlantic)

Coulter types appear at universities to represent very small student groups in the hope of creating a stir among the vast majority of students, whom they despise. 

Better to hold a cross-burning event in a field so the general public can attend and the sane college community doesn't feel obligated to defend American values on their campuses.

Seriously, why does a Milo or an Ann want to speak at a Berkeley if not for the thrill of provocation.

GL2 said:

Seriously, why does a Milo or an Ann want to speak at a Berkeley if not for the thrill of provocation.

Well, sure. Though its limits are open to debate, provocation is in a college campus’s DNA.

Most college dissent is aimed at large establishment forces. The provocation has a purpose - to highlight inequities or champion social issues. The Milo/Ann provocation is intended to piss off the masses of college kids via the very few right wing organizations on campus. 

GL2 said:

Most college dissent is aimed at large establishment forces. The provocation has a purpose - to highlight inequities or champion social issues. The Milo/Ann provocation is intended to piss off the masses of college kids via the very few right wing organizations on campus. 

There you go: dissent [very few right wing organizations] aimed at large establishment forces [masses of college kids and the campus].

I have no problem with trying to prevent speakers like Milo or Coulter or Charles Murray from speaking at colleges. You'll win some, you'll lose some, but maybe the speakers will learn that enough people are sick and tired of their bullsiht that maybe they won't bother public speaking anymore.

One can only hope.

It's not like these people add anything useful to public discourse.

In a modern society, first amendment fetishism is a negative.