SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
An editorial in the Wellesley College student newspaper that called for "shutting down" some forms of hateful rhetoric became the latest flashpoint in a contentious national debate over free speech and its limits on college campuses.
The editorial, published Wednesday in the Wellesley News, argues that the campus community will "not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible."
"Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech," the editorial states. "The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging."
The editorial was widely criticized on social media as antithetical to the free exchange of ideas that is critical in a democracy and in liberal arts education. It comes as colleges across the country are wrestling with how to protect free speech in an era of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and even assaults on incendiary speakers invited to campuses.
Free speech for all. Unless they disagree with us on something...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday April 17 2017, @12:58PM (2 children)
Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.
Except that there are other rules which also apply. They can't use public funding to do that because then it becomes First Amendment territory. And if they advertise themselves as being free speech territory, then they are beholden to truth in advertising laws. For example, their president has repeatedly stated strong free speech positions [wellesley.edu] like:
Freedom is central to our mission and, more broadly, to liberal arts education. Wellesley supports diverse opinions and the rights of all members of our community to voice their views. Active, open debate enriches and illuminates—it is fundamental to how we create new ways of seeing and thinking.
Robust debate is also critical to the College’s process for addressing challenging issues—disagreement is a necessary part of that process, and something we should welcome rather than fear. The Freedom Project’s invitation to Laura Kipnis, the SAAFE students’ videotaped rebuttal, and the CERE faculty’s statement are all expressions of our commitment to active, open debate.
If after that, they punish people for unpopular "hate" speech, then that's a deceptive advertising practice at the least. It may also be a violation of the contract between the college and the party (if they are a student or faculty member).
Colleges often create restrictions on their ability to censor speech through stuff like this. It's not some private blog where the owner does whatever they want without legal consequence because nobody expects differently or cares. Colleges routinely create a reasonable expectation that free speech is permitted and perhaps even a contractual obligation to honor it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @01:47PM (1 child)
Then it's up to you to show they accepted public funding to carry their day to day educational work.
(public funding used for research does not count - they delivered on a contract. Neither public money used for students tuition - they delivered the agreed level of educational services to those publicly sponsored students)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 18 2017, @04:08AM
Then it's up to you to show they accepted public funding to carry their day to day educational work.
It'd have to be even more specific than that. For example, if they were funding hate speech tribunals with public funding, then that would qualify. And I don't have to show that they were doing that, but rather that it is an exception. After all, the original assertion was universal.
Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.
One merely needs to show an exception can exist.