Obama Chastises Liberal Censure on College Campuses

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Yes. So was the Cruz event earlier in the year. Here is a list for this Fall of all the speakers at Liberty.
http://www.liberty.edu/spiritualprograms/index.cfm?PID=2586

To be fair I disagree with forced attendance then and I see no issue with protests. However taking a strong stance against disruptions and attempts and ending or preventing certain events should be applauded.

I find it sad as a Christian that political speeches are what pass for "spiritual programs" to Liberty U. Sort of the same thing I felt when I personally wondered why Sarah Palin's book was in a Christian book store I went to.

But I've never been a huge fan of Christian book stores anyways. Only thing they are good for is finding a bible and a bible cover as they would have the best physical selection. Outside of that it's just whatever weird thing happens to be popular with protestants these days and books by conservative politicians. Outside of the bibles I don't think I found one book there that was written by someone who lived any time prior to the 1950's. Pretty sad for a 2000 year old church. </rant>

 

[naturalmwa]

To be fair I disagree with forced attendance then and I see no issue with protests. However taking a strong stance against disruptions and attempts and ending or preventing certain events should be applauded.

Probably, but not in your authoritarian model. You want to put the university on the hook for security and liability and threaten their federal funding. That just incentivizes shutting down all speakers maybe even all official student clubs too. It would be far easier for a university to simply say only faculty get to speak and official classroom lectures are the only things that can be tolerated on our property and if you want some outside speaker you can bring them in privately off campus. Your plan is a recipe for killing off student life.

Then you want students who heckle to be tossed out of school. That strikes me as a very chilling effect on actual free speech and teaches the little drones to keep their mouth shut. On all levels I find your plan objectionable and a real inherent threat to the very freedom you want to protect. If you really love freedom of expression, you got to protect the objectionable and the rude too.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Probably, but not in your authoritarian model. You want to put the university on the hook for security and liability and threaten their federal funding. That just incentivizes shutting down all speakers maybe even all official student clubs too. It would be far easier for a university to simply say only faculty get to speak and official classroom lectures are the only things that can be tolerated on our property and if you want some outside speaker you can bring them in privately off campus. Your plan is a recipe for killing off student life.

Then you want students who heckle to be tossed out of school. That strikes me as a very chilling effect on actual free speech and teaches the little drones to keep their mouth shut. On all levels I find your plan objectionable and a real inherent threat to the very freedom you want to protect. If you really love freedom of expression, you got to protect the objectionable and the rude too.

I said hecklers get kicked out of the event and admonished if you go back and look. Future disruptions by the same person should lead to stiffer penalties.

It's the people blocking the event, the people assaulting others, the people tripping off fire alarms, they need to be expelled. Also people making threats before an event... depending on the threat need to be punished appropriately.

They could probably even do without the university providing security (although the university needs to provide security for all events or no events.)

 

[thewop]

Good for the POTUS. Take that Janet.

In what may come as a surprise to his critics, President Obama took time at a town hall event on college education in Iowa on Monday to criticize the politically correct culture infecting America’s universities.

While the president disagreed with presidential contender Ben Carson’s proposal to halt government aid to schools with liberal agendas, Obama did acknowledge the fact that colleges are routinely stifling conservative viewpoints. He said such treatment is unfair:

“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.”

Several examples come to mind. Carson himself was pressured to withdraw his invitation to speak at Johns Hopkins University, for students were ‘concerned’ about his comments on gay marriage. Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, also backed out of a commencement address at Rutgers University following protests about her involvement in the war in Iraq.

In light of such headlines, Obama expanded on the perils of political correctness:

“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.”

If this educational discrimination is even being noticed by our liberal commander-in-chief, perhaps it’s time for universities to start acting like the centers of learning and diversity they pledge to be.

Liberty University is a breath of fresh air in today's intolerant campus culture. Most students at the Christian school likely disagree with most of what 2016 Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders stands for, yet he was greeted warmly by students and patiently listened to during his speech Monday, sans protests.

Well done Mr. Obama, thank you.

 

[86Hawkeye]

While we are on the topic of praising Liberty and its conservative students let us remember how they operate. Their students are forced to attend that weekly convocation and to behave under penalty. There's not a lot of liberty at Liberty U.

Don't they AGREE to do that when they CHOOSE to go to that school?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I didn't realize fundamental Christianity was liberal.

Christianity is fundamentally liberal. Fundamentalist Christians are another story.

 

[naturalmwa]

Don't they AGREE to do that when they CHOOSE to go to that school?

I said as much already. Which is why its not really a point that they are polite when they are forced to be such. And not a point that those who choose not to live that way should be forced to adopt their standards.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And to achieve this utopia you want to regulate away free speech. There is no other way to put this. You want to toss the baby out with the bath water to prevent heckling. I'm not willing to pay that price.

You're wrong about the cohersion at Liberty U too:
The university, founded by televangelist Jerry Falwell, requires its 13,500 residential students to attend as many as three events each week as part of a program called Convocation. There are sermons by guest pastors, performances from Christian entertainers and talks by leaders in many fields.

What happens if you don’t go?

The university’s student appeals court handbook has the list of consequences for various infractions. Missing Convocation is on the list. (A reprimand is a formal mark against a student’s record.) Here’s what the handbook says:

Each student should be familiar with these sanctions.

1 Reprimand:

Late for curfew (1 additional reprimand for each 30 minutes late)

Late for Convocation (1 additional reprimand for each 15 minutes late)

4 Reprimands + $10.00 Fine:

Absence from required meeting (Convocation, etc.)

Disturbance/non-participation during Convocation

Dress/hair code violation (male or female)
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...y-u-students-faced-fine-if-they-skipped-cruz/

Preventing someone from speaking isn't exercising free speech...it's the opposite. If you organize a campaign to prevent someone from speaking, you're not presenting a viewpoint other than "We don't want to let this person speak". That should be anathema if you value freedom of expression.

As for Convocation, that's part of the deal you agree to when you go to Liberty. Kinda like taking classes...you get penalized if you don't show up.

 

[naturalmwa]

Preventing someone from speaking isn't exercising free speech...it's the opposite. If you organize a campaign to prevent someone from speaking, you're not presenting a viewpoint other than "We don't want to let this person speak". That should be anathema if you value freedom of expression.

As for Convocation, that's part of the deal you agree to when you go to Liberty. Kinda like taking classes...you get penalized if you don't show up.

I disagree. Shouting down is free speech too. Rude, insensitive disruption is all part of the deal. We should be very careful about any plans to use federal regulation to block avenues of protesting. Sometimes shouting is the only way to be heard.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I disagree. Shouting down is free speech too. Rude, insensitive disruption is all part of the deal. We should be very careful about any plans to use federal regulation to block avenues of protesting. Sometimes shouting is the only way to be heard.

So freedom of expression means no one gets heard. No one is saying you can't shout. But if the shouting is only conveying the message, "YOU WON'T BE HEARD!!!" there's no freedom. Imagine southern racists flooding DC and shouting down MLK...no "I have a dream...".I have no problem with shutting down that "expression". Freedom of speech should be about an exchange of ideas...otherwise, it's meaningless. The only folks with the freedom to speak are those who can be the loudest.

 

[naturalmwa]

So freedom of expression means no one gets heard. No one is saying you can't shout. But if the shouting is only conveying the message, "YOU WON'T BE HEARD!!!" there's no freedom. Imagine southern racists flooding DC and shouting down MLK...no "I have a dream...".I have no problem with shutting down that "expression". Freedom of speech should be about an exchange of ideas...otherwise, it's meaningless. The only folks with the freedom to speak are those who can be the loudest.

Yes I would support the right of the opposition to try to shout down MLK. I suspect he would have been heard just fine however.

This theory that speech is a finite thing isn't obvious. The protesting and heckling produses just more expression. Both sides get their message out. Both get more attention. Freedom is maximized by not limiting the discourse.

 

[JRHawk2003]

When I was in college in the late 80's, I recall one time where I saw a guy in a full brown shirt SA uniform like Ernst Rhome or something. I just kind of shruggred and moved on....part of the college experience....

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Yes I would support the right of the opposition to try to shout down MLK. I suspect he would have been heard just fine however.

This theory that speech is a finite thing isn't obvious. The protesting and heckling produses just more expression. Both sides get their message out. Both get more attention. Freedom is maximized by not limiting the discourse.

You can "suspect" it but you can't ensure it. Speech isn't finite but the time to communicate is most certainly finite. When two sides spend all their time screaming at each other, there's no communication at all. How is that NOT limiting discourse? You can't support both the right to freedom of expression and the right to prevent freedom of expression.

 

[naturalmwa]

You can "suspect" it but you can't ensure it. Speech isn't finite but the time to communicate is most certainly finite. When two sides spend all their time screaming at each other, there's no communication at all. How is that NOT limiting discourse? You can't support both the right to freedom of expression and the right to prevent freedom of expression.

Of course I can. So long as I oppose the government taking a side. There is no guarantee of the right to be heard. I don't propose we try to ensure people communicate effectively. Given the state of communication avenues it's not correct to even think the time to communicate is finite. If you give a speech on Hoosier's campus and all is civil you will likely garner less attention and less actual communication than if you give one at my university and I show up to bird dog you. My protesting will help you get your message to the masses beyond that room. My protesting is a service. It deserves as much protection as your initial idea.