Topic: University of California: The Right Not To Be Upset By The Speech Of Others. (Read 1065 times)

Even 0bama is tired of this.... !!!! Pigs are flying out of his ears...




Obama Slams Liberal PC Culture on College Campuses: Students Shouldn’t Be ‘Coddled’


President Obama condemned the rash of liberal political correctness seen recently in American colleges Monday, saying “that’s not the way we learn” and that college students shouldn’t be “coddled and protected from different points of view.”

Speaking at a town hall in Iowa about affordable college education, Obama launched into his remarks after a question about Dr. Ben Carson’s proposal to stop government funding to schools with political biases. Obama slammed Carson’s idea, but he segued into his criticism of left-wing intolerance for opposing viewpoints that have popped up on campuses around the country.

“Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too,” Obama said. “I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women.

“And you know, I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. You know, I think you should be able to—anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, ‘You can’t come because I’m too sensitive to hear what you have to say.’ That’s not the way we learn either.”

The examples of what Obama was talking about are endless: “Trigger warnings” for course readings that could be anguish-inducing, angry demands that conservative speakers not be allowed to give talks on campuses, an attempt at the University of Michigan to ban American Sniper from being shown because it made students feel “unsafe,” a “safe space” with coloring books and videos of puppies at Brown for students unable to handle a debate on sexual assault, and an online forum at Oberlin for students to report “microaggressions,” a term for subtle ways some students may feel marginalized by others.

A UCLA professor was accused of such a microaggression recently for correcting grammar on his students’ papers.


http://freebeacon.com/culture/obama-slams-liberal-pc-culture-on-college-campuses-students-shouldnt-be-coddled/

This is why Trump is dominating.. The Silent majority is sick and tired of this PC bull shit.

Government is not necessarily evil, not even university government.

At the time of the formation of the United States of America, people in the lands that would become states were very free - far freer than people in America are today. Also, they were not organized enough to fight a more powerful enemy - like King George and his forces.

The questions at the time were, how do we make a government that can organize us to become a force to be reckoned with? And how do we keep that government from becoming a "King George" over us, so that we can maintain our freedom?

The American Constitutional government is the kind of government that can do it. There are two parts to this Constitutional government. The one part is the strong, King George like, central government part. This is the part that is in force today. The other part is a hidden part that has more authority than the central government part. It is the common law part where each person, individually, can put the government down, any time he wants, if he only recognizes how to do it. Or he can unite with like minded people, and they can do it together, legally, and they can't legally be stopped by any others.

Now that things are getting rough, with the dictatorial, King George like government taking away freedom, it is time to stand up and put the dictatorial government down, thereby taking the university governments down as well.

The answer to the hidden part is tricky to see. It had to be somewhat hidden at the time of the formation of the American government, so that the government could become strong. But now that the government is too strong for its own good, here is the answer to setting it in its place.

The answer is in the 7th and 9th Amendments, and to a lesser extent, the 6th Amendment. But the answer is not used THROUGH these Amendments. It is only listed there so that government people can be held to their limitations.

How do we use these Amendments against government people? We don't. We might remind them of the Amendments. After that we simply do the things that we did before there was an American government, because that's what these Amendments essentially say that we can do. Our power does not flow out of the Amendments. The power always is inherent in each person individually. It was placed there by God in that no person or group of people has the right to dictate how other people may live, or what rights they have.

In other words, my statements against government (if that's what I want to state) have just as much authority and strength as other peoples' statements in favor of government. They can use government with themselves if they want. But they have no right to dictate their government onto me, just as I don't have the right to dictate their government away from them.

There are other parts of the Constitution besides the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments that show this. One of the strongest is the Preamble to the Constitution. Nowhere in the Preamble do the PEOPLE place themselves under the government. They simply set up the government to benefit themselves and their posterity. The people are always ABOVE the government, individually and as a group... just as they were when they took the authority to set the government up and NOT place themselves under it.



EDIT: If you are at all interested in hearing about this so that you can begin to free yourself from the dictator government, listen to the audios here http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/.

I have ZERO credibility. I am not selling anything. Not even a vpn service. I just like to share ideas I like AND ideas I dislike. I am perfectly OK having ZERO credibility and you having 1000% credibility. You rather have 100000% credibility? Sure. I am all for it.

Really. Your speech does not upset me. That is the core subject of this thread by the way...

 

Wil, read before you write. I was being saracastic, but I'm glad I don't disappoint you. More importantly, I didn't write "TL:DR", I defended some poster who did. Finally, I DID read the article before responding...see the part of my post where I write...


Maybe I should shut up, you're doing such a good job killing your credibility on your own!

I shall never be disappointed by you. This how the flow of ideas roll. I told you it would have been wiser to read the article first. But you tl;dr'ed it.
Again, I never block my threads. You do not need to reply the second you see it up. Take your time. Play outside. Let life be. Then, come back and go like: "hmm.. Where was that thread that ass Wilikon wrote so I can tell how HIS rants are soooooo disappointingly long and boring... Oh Yeah! here it is... I'll make it concise..."

You took your time to not read then reply on my thread, instead of doing something else. I thank you.

 

Yeah, because that'll help their all important ranking in the various publications that rank students and generate high interest from future students.

You conspiracy theory guys and gals are dime a dozen, that's literally how much value your comments are - zero insight, just regurgitating someone else's article with some a long link to a very weak conclusion.

It's ironic, your comments are starting to sound "blind and mindless, indoctrinated and brainwashed"...stop looking for zombies and wake up!

They're ensuring themselves that they will continue to churn-out nothing but blind and mindless, indoctrinated and brainwashed zombies.

Reminds me of the old Pink Floyd song. "Welcome to the machine..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt-udg9zQSE

You disappoint me (and of course your purpose here is to not disappoint me.) I thought you were producing something new, genuine for all of us to discuss? You're just copy and pasting something someone else wrote. Why do you waste our time with such things?

P.S. Conservatism has it's share of censorship. Both parties need to disappear, their purpose has passed its prime.

• Don't be an ass.
• The reason most people on this forum don't respond to your rants is not because they're rants but because they're too damn long!
• try to be concise.

1) Liberalism is a cancer eating everything, then itself
2) The author of this article, not me, is a tenured faculty member
3) 

this is more or less going back to something i posted here some days ago about microaggressions; while it is a university's job to prepare students for the harsh "real world," they are effectively babying these students. i can understand things like blatant racism or hate speech being disallowed, but disallowing what is essentially free speech goes to a whole different level of what shouldnt be.
i havent read up on europe's situation regarding things like this, but i do hope it doesnt get that severe in the US, censorship is already a problem as it is.

ill go ahead and disagree with that statement, but just that statement. there's a lot on this forum and the world in general that leads me to think otherwise. 
that said, this article looks interesting, ill be reading it in bits and pieces over the next hour.

this is already much worse in europe, its not just in some schools but enshrined into law everywhere. if you say something that offends sodomites or people of colour you can be fined or even imprisoned.

Don't be an ass.

In the business world if you can't give someone the answer first they don't have the time to wait for the end of your story to find out. The reason most people on this forum don't respond to your rants is not because they're rants but because they're too damn long! This isn't novel writing, it's a forum thread - get to the point!

Ok...allow me 20 minutes to ready your position paper...

So your point, or question, is the bolded underlined section below?


My answer: Yes, they'll feel free to speak openly about these topics as long as their purpose of discussion is related to...


If students don't like these rules, or see them as stifling the education process, they can apply to and attend one of the other public or private schools in the country.

You say you're tenured faculty member - not at UC I presume otherwise you'd be sharing your concern with an audience that actually has a vested interest in the University of California policies (rather than a Bitcoin forum that has an audience that is largely international.) What's your faculty role?

I think a better question for you to ask yourself - if you hold so much contempt for these policies - is what are you doing to change what you think is an injustice or bad course of direction? What are you doing to affect change? What are you doing to cure "this cancer" as you call it?

I look forward to your thoughts, try to be concise.

No. 140 characters or less are for people who can't read or think. Everyone in this this forum can. Of course if one likes to form an opinion without reading anything... That's OK too...

 

Can we get a TL:DR?

Universities, like businesses, are entitled to define the attitudes that are expressed and the discussions that are had as long as it doesn't discriminate against protected classes (i.e., race, age, etc.) If their students or customers don't like those attitudes or discussions they can go to a different university or business. University of California is not limiting people's rights, they're defining their culture.

Not surprising. At this point, I would tell any teenager, don't focus on college, focus on finding a job. You can learn on the job, you can take a few classes as a local college. These universities are money-sucking indoctrination factories these days.

[...]
So let’s look closely at this:

1. The policy specifically condemns the expression of particular viewpoints as “intolerant,” as having “no place at the University of California,” and a violation of others’ rights to be “free from … expressions of intolerance.” For instance, articulating a view that people with various intellectual disabilities are incapable of various intellectual tasks, or people with various physical disabilities are incapable of various physical tasks, would be condemned by the authority of the University. (“University leaders will take all appropriate steps to implement the principles.”)

Articulating a view that there are cultural (or even biological) differences between ethnic and racial groups in various fields — condemned by the authority of the University, without regard to the arguments for or against the particular assertion. It’s just an up-front categorical rule; whatever you want to say along these lines, we don’t want to hear it, we don’t care what your arguments are, we’ll condemn it, and faculty and students have a right not to hear it. Even “depicting” such a view, whatever that means, is “intolerant” and “has no place at the University.”

Saying that illegal aliens (or noncitizens who are legally here) ought not be appointed to be, say, the student member of the Board of Regents — likewise condemned. And this isn’t limited to situations where the speaker is a participant in a selection decision, which the participants are obligated to make in a nondiscriminatory way. It equally applies to, say, a student newspaper that condemns the appointment of noncitizens to leadership positions. (For a recent controversy along these lines in a local city, which could equally arise at a university, see this story about two illegal aliens named as volunteers to city commissions in an L.A.-area town.)

And these are just examples. The policy obviously extends to the other categories traditionally joined to race, ethnicity, and disability, such as sex, sexual orientation, or religion.

Defending traditional exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, by arguing that same-sex couples aren’t as good at raising children as opposite-sex couples? (I suspect that view is wrong, but we can only know it’s wrong if people are able to freely debate it.) Discussing purported differences in temperament, cognition, and more between men and women? Sharply criticizing certain religious denominations, and suggesting that people who are genuinely committed to those religious denominations are misguided or morally reprehensible?

Presumably all that, no less than statements about the disabled, is likewise “intolerance” that “has no place at the University of California” and that violates students’ and faculty members’ rights to be “free from … expression or intolerance.” You can’t “depict[] or articulat[e]” such ideas here — we’re a university!

2. The policy does say, “This statement of principles applies to attacks on individuals or groups and does not apply to the free exchange of ideas in keeping with the principles of academic freedom and free speech.” But what does that mean?

“Attacks on individuals or groups,” after all, often are free speech, especially recognizing that “attacks” is used here far beyond physical attacks (or threats of violence and speech that falls within the other narrow First Amendment exceptions). Certainly the third and fourth examples given in the “Addendum” are “free speech” under any existing legal definition of free speech, as is the second. Obviously the authors of the proposal have a much narrower view of “free speech” in mind. Likewise with “the free and open exchange of ideas.” The authors of the proposal love free and open exchange of ideas, until some ideas they dislike about, say, disabilities are expressed.

3. The policy also says, “This statement shall not be interpreted to prohibit conduct that is related to the course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or public commentary of an individual faculty member or the educational, political, artistic, or literary expression of students in classrooms and public forums that is protected by academic freedom or free speech principles.” But note the careful limitations in this language.

A student newspaper isn’t a “public forum” in the legal sense of the term. (“Public forum” is a legal term for government-owned property that has been opened for speech by the public at large, or by some objectively defined group of speakers on some defined topics. A newspaper isn’t open to every student to speak, and is instead subject to the editors’ editorial control, which is why students can’t sue to get access to writing in the pages of a newspaper under a “public forum” theory.)

A student group’s Web site isn’t a “public forum.” An e-mail exchange among a group of acquaintances about, say, supposed biological differences between racial groups isn’t in a “public forum” or “public commentary.” A conversation over lunch in the cafeteria isn’t public commentary or in a public forum. The “This statement shall not be interpreted …” proviso quite clearly doesn’t safeguard this sort of speech.

4. Now I’m a tenured faculty member, and I’ll keep on expressing my views despite this sort of policy. But what about undergraduates? Graduate students, who might be relying on the university for teaching assistant positions, progress in their departments, and more? Lecturers who don’t have tenure? Tenure-track faculty members who don’t yet have tenure?

When these students and faculty members are told that certain views about disabilities, about race or ethnicity, or (by obvious extension) about sexual orientation, sex, or religion have “no place at the University” — and violate others’ rights to be “free from” such “expressions” — will they feel free to openly discuss these topics? Or will they realize that they had best follow the orthodoxy?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/11/university-of-california-considering-recognizing-a-right-to-be-free-from-expressions-of-intolerance/


-----------------------------
Cancer. Spreading.