First thought when things like this are on the rise is that the rise is likely due to more reporting and less being dismissed.

It's a counter-intuitive phenomena that an early indicator of a problem being dealt with better is that it appears to become a lot more common.

What is this ****?

Do you need a safe space DMW?

not just this, but there is far greater acceptance of the more subtle versions of racism and so forth and a culture where we are more accepting of people talking about that and sharing their stories and not being ostracized or dismissed out of hand.

Again, like most things on this topic, this is a GOOD thinf

For those of you who believe critics of the safe space phenomenon must simply be very unconcerned with issues regarding race, LGBTQ rights and so on, and are simply making fun of student oversensitivities, I'd urge you to take a second look at the Atlantic article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...n-mind/399356/

Yes, there are very stark criticisms, and much of it builds on concern with a startling trend toward victimhood and censorship, but the authors are not blaming or making fun of students. In fact, they blame themselves, or at least speculate their generation of parenting and conditions during previous decades lead to the current situation, and are looking to find a way back to a place where students can have productive conversations on difficult topics again, instead of succumbing to emotional reasoning and the vindictive protectiveness that finds offense around every corner:

There's a lot more to chew on in the article, and while there is certainly room for disagreement, none of it should focus on a false belief that the authors are unconcern for students and marginalized groups. It's the opposite.

Here, co-author, Greg Lukianoff, constitutional law attorney and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, discusses several of the objections to the his article I've seen raised in this thread.

So you're just going to repost the things you already spammed the thread with?

spam?

The ruling doesn't appear consistent with previous rulings striking down laws preventing protests within 35 feet of an abortion clinic, or at funerals, or the right to demonstrate on the steps of other courthouses. In these cases they believe correctly that our freedom of expression guarantees our rights to peacefully assemble, but they wrongly believe that they alone should be "protected." It's not about them.

Our President is on the trail again, stumping for better discourse, encouraging students not to be fragile, not to shut their ears and retreat from ideas. He again shows his disapproval of deplatforming, even of Condoleeza Rice, someone with whom he strongly disagrees on many things. I think he is concerned about students' civil rights, but he sees a problem with their not being open to opposing ideas, and so he gives them healthy criticism and advise.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...university-new

Foldn, the only people finding this a "Startling trend" are pearl clutchers like you and clickbait hounding authors.

Why cant we toughen up these kids by allowing them exposure to life threatening peanut allergies?

Also

I mean, this is true sometimes and is a good thing as a general rule. Heck, I think students should actually seek out and listen to other viewpoints while they are in college (you know, what President Obama actually said).

Where some of our tone police/safe space friends go off track is that its not universal. Not all side's of an argument have merit. When the view in question is "gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married" or "we have to allow for urban residents to get punched in a face a few times so they will respect authority" or "having sex with women without their consent is OK if they're drunk" or "hey, here's a chain letter showing how Jose Illegal makes $100,000 a year pretax because of all these imaginary benefits and laws that don't exist" or "liberals are hypocrites. Mexico has a wall of their own, look I searched google images for 'Mexican Southern wall'" then, no, they don't have merit and they don't need to be acknowledged to have merit.

Where your safe space argument goes off the rails is where you argue that the speakers getting are getting censored or having their free speech rights violated. They aren't. You also don't seem to like when student's protest speakers either.

Posted right below Obama's, what, sixth time publically addressing the matter?

Again, I don't understand how people can still hold on tightly to this opinion when so many have come forward with the same concerns, like professors, psychologists, free speech advocates, students, even our own President who seems to be talking about it every other week these days. At some point it starts to look like the oblivious cop, "nothing to see here, move along" lol.

Speaking of cops, that's the same argument they use to defend themselves against what many view as excessive police overreach and violence. Nothing to see here, move along.

Do you think Obama would advocate for a campus where LGs topics were readily embraced? Where speakers who yearned for, say, segregation were invited to spread the word?

Asking schools to be open to C Rice and the expression of conservative foreign policy positions is one thing. Generalizing that and assuming Obama yearns for some of the more odious and hateful opinions to be freely expressed is something else entirely.

assuming Foldn yearns for those things to be debated is also a mistake DIB.

I generally assume no-one makes that mistake because it's so far-fetched, is it anymore than Flyian 'try to be mean' style?

Of course Obama wouldn't advocate for, say, Bob Jones University, or their racist policies of not so long ago, but I imagine he'd have jumped at the chance to give a commencement speech, arguing for civil rights.

I don't believe Obama yearns for hateful feelings to be expressed, and I don't either. But you're missing the point. I can very consistently support a group's right to protest, fight for that right, and also disagree with and criticize what they are protesting about. That is what Obama did there with Condi. I can completely disagree with someone who speaks against LGBT rights, even protest on the pro-LGBT side, but then turn around and protest against anyone trying to stop them from speaking. They are two different and very important rights.

Arguing for freedom of expression is for everyone. Everyone! Not just for those with whom you agree. We go down a very dangerous path when we start judging who "deserves" the right to express themselves. Sure, that may give some pretty odious ideas more exposure, but on the plus side, at least it's part of the foundation of liberalism and Western society. We chip away at that foundation to our own detriment.

Some light reading for you. http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/r...cartwright.pdf

Gratifying news story from the UK of an assaulter getting a suspended sentence but then being jailed for gloating about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-36427873

Right, but there are lines and limits. For instance I assume you're not for hate speech being warmly embraced in classrooms, or for bomb threats to be protected as a freedom of expression.

If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt I'd say this seems to just come down to differing levels of comfort WRT how much leeway one is comfortable giving in the name of free speech.

Sure, there are certain narrow limitations on free speech allowed, like bomb threats and "fighting words." Hate speech however is protected by the First Amendment. Though I certainly wouldn't embrace hatred in the classroom, I wouldn't ban "hate speech" for the same reasons it is protected by our First Amendment. Mainly, because it is often too difficult to determine who "hates," and everyone has their own ideas about what should be added to the offensive words list. It's not difficult to imagine how rules structured around preventing offense would be difficult to enforce fairly and become overly broad, which is why speech codes in schools have also been struck down as unconstitutional. There's some debate about hate speech here:http://www.americanbar.org/groups/pu...bate_hate.html

The 1st Amendment is a limitation on the powers of Congress. It's not a manual for TAs.

Like, yo, I wasn't allowed to bring firearms into class when I was an undergrad. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

While speech at public universities is, in fact, protected by the First Amendment, and speech codes have been consistently struck down by the courts, they do seem to keep finding their way back in, only to be struck down again and again when challenged.

I disagree with those rulings, too. Free speech is very important but should not trump all and devolve into a anything-anytime-anywhere-free-for-all.

Has the SC addressed this inconsistency? I can imagine that they value more the unhindered and unthreatened work of congress and the SC because their decisions have more far-reaching consequences.

I thought we explained time and place restrictions to him the other day, but I guess it didn't take.

Not to mention he skips the part where you have to get permits to protest. Westboro is even smart enough to go through that process. LOL FoldN