A number of other universities have also abandoned similar policies. The biggest step is probably the state of Virginia passing legislation designating all outdoor areas of public colleges as public forums: http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus....
An organization called FIRE has a great tool that lists speech-restrictive policies at various universities: http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/
How free speech zones are constitutional for any organization that deals with federal money (which in usa is everyone if we see tax breaks as government hangouts)?
> “The creation of the free-speech zones, and the enforcement of sound-level ordinances, was not to prevent free speech, but give religious or political speech a time, place, and manner that would allow speakers to address their messages to audiences on campuses without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions,” wrote a retired physics professor commenting on a Chronicle of Higher Education report.
That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where people can speak. It defines where people can't speak.
The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's showing what happens when a school breaks the law.
> “Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the education/learning and safety of its students?"
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.
Just because you have a right to say what you want, doesn't mean other people have to listen to you.
without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions
IMO this is the key part. You have a constitutional right to say what you want. You don't have a constitutional right to shout it from the front of a lecture hall in front of my professor. (Just as a random example)
That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused.
Again, it depends. Suppose that I and a crowd of my friends are dead against spodek, and wish to run all the spodeks out out of town? It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
Now, I'm not endorsing the colleges' position here, which I think has become absurdly restrictive in many cases. But I've seen many absolutist 'defenders of free speech' tip over into shouting down their opponents, and I don't care for ochlocracy any more than I care for institutional authoritarianism.
The entire function of "free speech zones" whether on or off of a college campus is to contain protests in order to limit the spread of ideas. I don't know how the legal framework came about which permits this drastic curbing of free speech, but it's here.
Thankfully, sometimes you can still speak quasi-freely on some places on the internet even if free speech in meatspace is dead. Doesn't sound too "free" when I put it that way.
I don't see the online free speech you describe. Instead, what I see is that you can "ally" yourself with a particular viewpoint and shout that particular one loudly. Others will then come to your aid and others will oppose you. But dare to question both sides and think for yourself, and many of those who demand free speech the loudest will be the first to come en-masse to drown you out online without carefully reading what you wrote in the first place.
Looks like these kinds of policies are creeping out of high schools and making their way into public universities. Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's? I thought this fight had already been won.[1] Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.
> Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's?
In the actual 1960s ... the Free Speech Movement of 1964-1965 that you point to was a response to the fact that denial of free speech was the status quo.
> I thought this fight had already been won.
Sure, there was ground gained, at least temporarily, by the Free Speech Movement, but victory wasn't durable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the violent suppression of non-violent on-campus free speech in 1970. [1]
> Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.
Yeah, there's a reason that it is said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." [0] This case illustrates one of the permanent forces to guard against: Well-meaning people routinely make shortsighted decisions to address a problem, at the expense of things that are far more important.
None of us is immune to the tendency. Each of us must eternally watch ourselves too. Political maturity comes when we can check our decisions by seeing both sides of an issue and carefully weighing the costs.
In the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" not only do we have "free speech zones" but we apparently have so much in the non-free-speech category that Watch-dog groups have to sue to get rid of some of them.
In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river.
While this might be a controversial comparison What we really need is a NRA style rabidly pro-free-speech (First amendment- freedom of speech or press clause) organization. This group will fight EVERY single "free speech zone" crap on every public place - colleges, Borders, Govt buildings, what not.
In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river.
A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and reacting to that information.
I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as some sort non-sentient subhuman.
Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism."
Hooray for judging books by their covers.
If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead, it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the others to do what we want through political and legal means or public bullying.
The need for the parenthetical is telling - various groups fight vehemently against some restrictions while accepting or promoting others. Some progressives advocate restriction on offensive or "hate" speech, while some conservatives, as mentioned in the article, advocate restrictions on speech perceived as threatening to national security or social mores (explicit lyrics or imagery, for example).
(context: after some occupy wall street protests were met with police violence, an armed Arizona militia watched over a local occupy movement to prevent police violence)
I attend the College of William and Mary in Virginia. In 2009, the College dropped its speech codes and became one of the most free-speech-friendly schools in the US. This has its ups and downs (in my opinion, mostly ups).
We have a fairly diverse studentry, but I haven't seen that many people with incredibly strong opinions. Most people (myself included) don't really regularly say or do things that would fall under PC speech codes. That said, I do know a few activist types, and they relish the freedom they have at the College. I've known people who go to DC to participate in protests on the weekends, people who write articles on why the "government has failed its mandate to protect our right to privacy" or "how the liberal media uses misleading language to paint climate change as something that's actually happening" (obviously different people). We've got EFF activists, marijuana legalization activists, sexual health activists, hard-line family-values conservatives -- basically, what should be the regular college gamut. It's a shame that appears to be contingent on a free-speech policy that is relatively extreme.
Free speech also has its downsides. Earlier this year, we made state and national news when a fraternity member distributed this extremely misogynistic letter, that various headlines describe as "The most hideous thing I've ever read"[1] and "vomit-inducing"[2]. We drew censures from practically everyone, and many people I talked to around that time wanted the College to boot the offending fraternity. The College, of course, did no such thing, and the fraternity voluntarily suspended operations (there could have been some under-the-table coercion there, but I doubt it).
Anyway, the point is, if colleges allow free speech, they must also stand by while some vile, vile things get published. All communities result in emergent standards of discourse and systems of self-governance when those standards are violated (after all, the backlash from that letter was strongest in the student community), and these systems dull the effects of those vile things, but they affect the community regardless. I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs.
When I was a student at Auburn, we had one of these. It was right in the middle of campus, along the most heavily trafficked path through central campus. There was a sign designating it a "first amendment area."
But I think it only applied to people not associated with the University. Student organizations weren't required to use this space, and could set up nearly anywhere outdoors, collect signatures, recruit, and generally do whatever they like as long as they weren't disturbing classes.
Really, the only people who used it were the crazy itinerant preachers who would come through campus a couple times a semester preaching hellfire and brimstone. It always made for good fireworks when the new freshman would get into yelling matches with them.
This was 10+ years ago, though, and that area now has a building right in the middle of it, so I wonder what the current policy is.
I'm actually in favor of free speech zones on campus. this author and the person talked about in it are twisting things. their grievance is actually confusion over the talk between two people and FSV. what happened to them (at least from the account provided) is wrong, but what they are attacking is something else. obviously everything has limits
being a person that works on campus, when walking down the walk during certain times of the year its a gauntlet. people lined up from one end to another screaming over each other and stepping on front of you to offer you a pamphlet.
thank god its only for certain times of day/days of the year.
I would equally defend their right to present their ideas, as I would defend your right to tell them to fuck off if they get in your face. You can't have freedom by limiting some else's freedom.
most campuses do not have narrow, unavoidable choke points as gathering places to distribute pamphlets/flyers. in fact, the popular locations are often intentionally chosen to be large plazas.
you have the choice to walk around them and avoid this "gauntlet".
College, where it's okay to think freely, but only when, where and how the administrators decide to.
Formal education is mainly about obedience, so this idea of a free speech zone is just an expression of that.
Colleges (and most other educational places) aren't really concerned about your thinking and growing. They are about making sure you obey and do what they say.
The number one thing we learn from formal education is: do what we say, when we say it.
No wonder most young, well educated people struggle with life outside the bubble.
I had no idea US campuses even had "free speech zones". Here students can do whatever they want and there's never been a problem. Everyday some group was handing out pamphlets on the way into the student union building for whatever cause it wasn't the end of the world.
There shouldn't be free speech zones on any campus, public or private. Unless what people are saying is malicious, inappropriate or offensive then they should be allowed to do whatever they want.
I'm not sure what right you are concerned about. There is no "right to not be bothered by political nonsense", but there is a right to free speech for other students. Just as you can't argue that billboards and talkative salespeople should be outlawed, I'm not sure you can realistically argue that students who want to talk politics should not be allowed near you.
Simple: you don't have that right. Consider a nation with a different set of laws, a greater degree of tolerance and open-mindedness, and/or home schooling.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
A number of other universities have also abandoned similar policies. The biggest step is probably the state of Virginia passing legislation designating all outdoor areas of public colleges as public forums: http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus....
An organization called FIRE has a great tool that lists speech-restrictive policies at various universities: http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/
[+] [-] venomsnake|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spodek|11 years ago|reply
That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where people can speak. It defines where people can't speak.
The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's showing what happens when a school breaks the law.
> “Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the education/learning and safety of its students?"
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|11 years ago|reply
without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions
IMO this is the key part. You have a constitutional right to say what you want. You don't have a constitutional right to shout it from the front of a lecture hall in front of my professor. (Just as a random example)
[+] [-] anigbrowl|11 years ago|reply
Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused.
Again, it depends. Suppose that I and a crowd of my friends are dead against spodek, and wish to run all the spodeks out out of town? It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
Now, I'm not endorsing the colleges' position here, which I think has become absurdly restrictive in many cases. But I've seen many absolutist 'defenders of free speech' tip over into shouting down their opponents, and I don't care for ochlocracy any more than I care for institutional authoritarianism.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cryoshon|11 years ago|reply
Thankfully, sometimes you can still speak quasi-freely on some places on the internet even if free speech in meatspace is dead. Doesn't sound too "free" when I put it that way.
[+] [-] stcredzero|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] uncoder0|11 years ago|reply
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement
[+] [-] dragonwriter|11 years ago|reply
In the actual 1960s ... the Free Speech Movement of 1964-1965 that you point to was a response to the fact that denial of free speech was the status quo.
> I thought this fight had already been won.
Sure, there was ground gained, at least temporarily, by the Free Speech Movement, but victory wasn't durable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the violent suppression of non-violent on-campus free speech in 1970. [1]
> Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.
Yeah, there's a reason that it is said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
[+] [-] davidp|11 years ago|reply
None of us is immune to the tendency. Each of us must eternally watch ourselves too. Political maturity comes when we can check our decisions by seeing both sides of an issue and carefully weighing the costs.
[0]: http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/eternal-vigilance-is-...
[+] [-] suprgeek|11 years ago|reply
In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river.
While this might be a controversial comparison What we really need is a NRA style rabidly pro-free-speech (First amendment- freedom of speech or press clause) organization. This group will fight EVERY single "free speech zone" crap on every public place - colleges, Borders, Govt buildings, what not.
[+] [-] stcredzero|11 years ago|reply
A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and reacting to that information.
I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as some sort non-sentient subhuman.
Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism."
Hooray for judging books by their covers.
If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead, it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the others to do what we want through political and legal means or public bullying.
[+] [-] ihnorton|11 years ago|reply
The need for the parenthetical is telling - various groups fight vehemently against some restrictions while accepting or promoting others. Some progressives advocate restriction on offensive or "hate" speech, while some conservatives, as mentioned in the article, advocate restrictions on speech perceived as threatening to national security or social mores (explicit lyrics or imagery, for example).
[+] [-] chaqke|11 years ago|reply
(context: after some occupy wall street protests were met with police violence, an armed Arizona militia watched over a local occupy movement to prevent police violence)
[+] [-] vezzy-fnord|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkhar|11 years ago|reply
I attend the College of William and Mary in Virginia. In 2009, the College dropped its speech codes and became one of the most free-speech-friendly schools in the US. This has its ups and downs (in my opinion, mostly ups).
We have a fairly diverse studentry, but I haven't seen that many people with incredibly strong opinions. Most people (myself included) don't really regularly say or do things that would fall under PC speech codes. That said, I do know a few activist types, and they relish the freedom they have at the College. I've known people who go to DC to participate in protests on the weekends, people who write articles on why the "government has failed its mandate to protect our right to privacy" or "how the liberal media uses misleading language to paint climate change as something that's actually happening" (obviously different people). We've got EFF activists, marijuana legalization activists, sexual health activists, hard-line family-values conservatives -- basically, what should be the regular college gamut. It's a shame that appears to be contingent on a free-speech policy that is relatively extreme.
Free speech also has its downsides. Earlier this year, we made state and national news when a fraternity member distributed this extremely misogynistic letter, that various headlines describe as "The most hideous thing I've ever read"[1] and "vomit-inducing"[2]. We drew censures from practically everyone, and many people I talked to around that time wanted the College to boot the offending fraternity. The College, of course, did no such thing, and the fraternity voluntarily suspended operations (there could have been some under-the-table coercion there, but I doubt it).
Anyway, the point is, if colleges allow free speech, they must also stand by while some vile, vile things get published. All communities result in emergent standards of discourse and systems of self-governance when those standards are violated (after all, the backlash from that letter was strongest in the student community), and these systems dull the effects of those vile things, but they affect the community regardless. I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs.
[1] http://www.bustle.com/articles/14437-sigma-chi-frat-brothers...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/fraternity-brother-...
[+] [-] peckrob|11 years ago|reply
But I think it only applied to people not associated with the University. Student organizations weren't required to use this space, and could set up nearly anywhere outdoors, collect signatures, recruit, and generally do whatever they like as long as they weren't disturbing classes.
Really, the only people who used it were the crazy itinerant preachers who would come through campus a couple times a semester preaching hellfire and brimstone. It always made for good fireworks when the new freshman would get into yelling matches with them.
This was 10+ years ago, though, and that area now has a building right in the middle of it, so I wonder what the current policy is.
[+] [-] autokad|11 years ago|reply
being a person that works on campus, when walking down the walk during certain times of the year its a gauntlet. people lined up from one end to another screaming over each other and stepping on front of you to offer you a pamphlet.
thank god its only for certain times of day/days of the year.
[+] [-] gambiting|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|11 years ago|reply
"Oh, you need to protest at this location 20 miles away where no one relevant will hear your message."
[+] [-] chaqke|11 years ago|reply
you have the choice to walk around them and avoid this "gauntlet".
[+] [-] retroencabulato|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] socrates1998|11 years ago|reply
Formal education is mainly about obedience, so this idea of a free speech zone is just an expression of that.
Colleges (and most other educational places) aren't really concerned about your thinking and growing. They are about making sure you obey and do what they say.
The number one thing we learn from formal education is: do what we say, when we say it.
No wonder most young, well educated people struggle with life outside the bubble.
[+] [-] dobbsbob|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kghose|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NickWarner775|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lhc-|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slucidi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krisdol|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] personjerry|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m0llusk|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]