College Campuses: The Most Authoritarian Institutions In America
Free exchange of ideas? If you think that's what's happening on a college campus in this country, well, you haven't been on a college campus in a very long time.
Sohrab Ahmari writes in the WSJ about Greg Lukianoff, president of theFIRE.org (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and its mission and his to defend free speech rights on college campuses:
At Yale University, you can be prevented from putting an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote on your T-shirt. At Tufts, you can be censured for quoting certain passages from the Quran. Welcome to the most authoritarian institution in America: the modern university--"a bizarre, parallel dimension," as Greg Lukianoff ... calls it...."The people who believe that colleges and universities are places where we want less freedom of speech have won," Mr. Lukianoff says. "If anything, there should be even greater freedom of speech on college campuses. But now things have been turned around to give campus communities the expectation that if someone's feelings are hurt by something that is said, the university will protect that person. As soon as you allow something as vague as Big Brother protecting your feelings, anything and everything can be punished."
...In his new book, "Unlearning Liberty," Mr. Lukianoff notes that baby-boom Americans who remember the student protests of the 1960s tend to assume that U.S. colleges are still some of the freest places on earth. But that idealized university no longer exists. It was wiped out in the 1990s by administrators, diversity hustlers and liability-management professionals, who were often abetted by professors committed to political agendas.
"What's disappointing and rightfully scorned," Mr. Lukianoff says, "is that in some cases the very professors who were benefiting from the free-speech movement turned around to advocate speech codes and speech zones in the 1980s and '90s."
Today, university bureaucrats suppress debate with anti-harassment policies that function as de facto speech codes. FIRE maintains a database of such policies on its website, and Mr. Lukianoff's book offers an eye-opening sampling. What they share is a view of "harassment" so broad and so removed from its legal definition that, Mr. Lukianoff says, "literally every student on campus is already guilty."
At Western Michigan University, it is considered harassment to hold a "condescending sex-based attitude." That just about sums up the line "I think of all Harvard men as sissies" (from F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1920 novel "This Side of Paradise"), a quote that was banned at Yale when students put it on a T-shirt. Tufts University in Boston proscribes the holding of "sexist attitudes," and a student newspaper there was found guilty of harassment in 2007 for printing violent passages from the Quran and facts about the status of women in Saudi Arabia during the school's "Islamic Awareness Week."
At California State University in Chico, it was prohibited until recently to engage in "continual use of generic masculine terms such as to refer to people of both sexes or references to both men and women as necessarily heterosexual." Luckily, there is no need to try to figure out what the school was talking about--the prohibition was removed earlier this year after FIRE named it as one of its two "Speech Codes of the Year" in 2011.
At Northeastern University, where I went to law school, it is a violation of the Internet-usage policy to transmit any message "which in the sole judgment" of administrators is "annoying."
As Greg Lukianoff points out in his compelling book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, (from which all proceeds go to FIRE's pro bono defenses of those on campuses who've had their free speech rights violated), this speech-squashing hurts society as a whole.
Colleges now press out thought robots taught to never offend, but never taught to debate. We end up with polarized politics and people who think whatever the other side is, well, they're all the next best thing to (fill in name of evil person)...probably Hitler.







Mr. Lukianoff: "...in some cases the very professors who were benefiting from the free-speech movement turned around to advocate speech codes and speech zones in the 1980s and '90s."
Marxist theorist Nikolai Bukharin: "We asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties."
Ken R at November 17, 2012 6:24 AM
Or, as David Horowitz once explained to me: "We needed our rights so we could use them to take away everyone else's rights."
Cousin Dave at November 18, 2012 2:07 PM
Glad you used "in America". I think if you look at some foriegn countries that would be arguable.
Jim P. at November 18, 2012 6:33 PM
Leave a comment