Censorship In Our Universities

[scribblet]

Read this excellent piece in the NP, here we have universities shutting down opposing opinions at the same time in the U.S. Al Sharpton and Rockefeller want Fox news closed down.... not to mention Avaaz trying to stop SunTV We should be very afraid....

Something is very wrong with Canadian campuses these days. Left-wing students and outside agitators get away with shouting down speakers they disagree with, smashing windows to prevent lecturers they don’t want to hear, even chaining themselves to a stage and screaming “racist, racist, racist” at the University of Waterloo to prevent Christie Blatchford from talking about her new book. Student unions routinely decertify pro-life clubs, and administrators frequently cater to the demands of a handful of vocal socialist anarchists.

But when right-of-centre student groups attempt to protest the censorship they face, or demonstrate against leftist speakers and those they believe are hateful, they are met with threats of lawsuits or expulsion by administrators or student unions.

The most recent example of this double-standard came Monday, when the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA) banned a pro-life club from operating on campus or even using campus meeting rooms. The CUSA said Carleton Lifeline could regain its official status — if it renounced pro-life beliefs.

We doubt CUSA would ask campus Marxists to renounce socialism, or require Muslim groups to convert to Judaism, yet they are demanding the equivalent backflip from pro-lifers.

In just the past five years, students or administrators at Lakehead University, the University of British Columbia-Okanagan, the University of Calgary, Newfoundland’s Memorial University and Toronto’s York University have either severely restricted or banned pro-life activities. Typically, they have made the bogus claim that calling for an end to abortion amounts to prejudice against women and therefore can be banned as hate speech.

Meanwhile, administrators at York University have threatened to sue Jewish groups that announced plans to protest an on-campus address by British MP George Galloway, a high-profile apologist for terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The university maintained the campus was private property and insisted it would take action against any member of the public who protested Mr. Galloway’s speech. It even urged protesters not to use public spaces near campus for demonstrations because it “might provoke others to disturb the peace.”

This is the same York University, of course, that annually witnesses an anti-Semitic hatefest known as Israel Apartheid week, and which has been accused in the past of providing insufficient protection of its Jewish students from threats and intimidation by supporters of the Palestinian cause.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/18/national-post-editorial-board-canadas-universities-bastions-of-censorship/#ixzz15eoo6TGv

[eyeball]

We should be very afraid....

I bet a few right-wing death squads would smarten up them damn lefties.

[scribblet]

Get real!!!

[DogOnPorch]

Get real!!!

Indeed...but you'll get used to it after the 4th or 5th time...lol.

[Shwa]

Read this excellent piece in the NP, here we have universities shutting down opposing opinions at the same time in the U.S. Al Sharpton and Rockefeller want Fox news closed down.... not to mention Avaaz trying to stop SunTV We should be very afraid....

Figures the last thing you would says is that we should be "very afraid." Sheesh.

Universities have been hotbeds of religious, political and sexual censorship for centuries. Why change now?

[Bob]

I remember seeing those anti-Semitic hatefests at York back when I studied there almost a decade ago. It was terrible.

[Bonam]

I remember seeing those anti-Semitic hatefests at York back when I studied there almost a decade ago. It was terrible.

Unfortunately those aren't only at York. They are held every year at most Canadian universities and are breeding grounds for vile antisemitism. Still, freedom of speech must be held as a paramount consideration, and I would accept the bad with the good. Unfortunately,this permissiveness is not applied uniformly.

Universities have been hotbeds of religious, political and sexual censorship for centuries. Why change now?

What kind of argument is that? People lived in caves for hundreds of thousands of years. Slavery was a common practice for centuries, millenia even. Why change? You tell me.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Bonam

[Shwa]

What kind of argument is that? People lived in caves for hundreds of thousands of years. Slavery was a common practice for centuries, millenia even. Why change? You tell me.

No, you tell me, I am the one asking the question. And while you are at it, tell us how we ought to change it. Your answer ought to be fun.

[Wild Bill]

Perhaps the real reason Universities have gone down this path is simple - young people today just aren't as smart as they used to be!

By 'smart' I don't mean raw intelligence. That is likely genetic and fairly constant from generation to generation. Rather, I mean wisdom.

It's been proven that the adolescent brain is not fully developed. Where it lags compared to an adult is with the ability to envision future consequences and with seeing contradictions between new data and old assumptions.

In past generations the compensation came from how young folks were taught. They were given values that may not always have been 100% positive but virtually always did not impart any harm. The idea of free speech and respectful tolerance of opposing views was one of those values.

Today's teachers seem to be overwhelmingly leftwing, particularly at the university level. It is they who are imparting their values to adolescents, who tend to swallow them without question. Once you have accepted the idea that "left is good" and "right is evil" it is very easy to seize the 'drama' of striking a blow for good by silencing an 'evil' speaker.

These young people likely are not even seeing the contradiction they're causing to the concept of free speech! They aren't seeing the consequences! To them, if a speaker opposes what their leftwing profs have taught them they see him as the 'devil'. Who wouldn't try to oppose the devil? The very act of doing so must automatically make yourself more 'good'! Their thinking is just too shallow to realize that it is wrong to stifle contrary views, or that it would justify someone else stifling their own.

Fortunately, give their brains another 10 or 20 years of development and most of these students will have learned to see contradictions between what they've been taught at school and what life and their own pursuit of knowledge has imparted to them.

You don't see many 35 year old protesters trying to silence Christie Blatchford.

Still, something should be done about the 'brainwashing' of the typical university student. Perhaps academics should be forced to undergo survival training, or agricultural working, or anything that directly teaches cause and effect. I've met many arts profs who I swear have no idea where to put the fulcrum to work properly with a lever yet consider themselves experts on the merits of their political philosophy.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Wild Bill

[bloodyminded]

Figures the last thing you would says is that we should be "very afraid." Sheesh.

Yeah, isn't that the part directly preceding the true horror spiral, in which Jeff Goldblum takes on more and more attributes of a fly?

[bloodyminded]

In past generations the compensation came from how young folks were taught. They were given values that may not always have been 100% positive but virtually always did not impart any harm. The idea of free speech and respectful tolerance of opposing views was one of those values.

In past generations, authority was not only more respected; it was venerated. The ordinary working Joe was expected to be respectful and deferential to professionals and to Men of Means. Universities were far more stultifying, and professors, held in higher esteem, would "hold court" with favoured students, who were like dewy-eyed acolytes sponging up the Professors' philosophical wisdom like the Word of God.

You can get a hint of this if you read Allan Bloom's massively overrated conservative tome, The Closing of the American Mind. Bloom adored the idea of imparting his magnificent wisdom to impressionable youngsters. While the "brainwashed" students were outside protesting the Vietnam War and the treatment of African-Americans, Bllom's more conservative--and servile--students sat at the feet of the great man while he explained the proper authoritarian hierarchies as according to his reading of Plato.

Yeah, that's awesome.

"In past generations," too, authorities could carpet bomb and kill without any great fear of public outrage. Now, it's far more difficult. Sycophants decry this state of affairs, but most of us recognize it as an overall raising of consciousness...a greater wisdom, if you will.

Whatever one thinks of MacLean's columnist Barbara Amiel (and personally, I don't think much of her), she has made at least one interesting point: she says she preferred the old days, when "political correctness came from the right, not the left," and wealth and power were more reflexively adored.

Still, something should be done about the 'brainwashing' of the typical university student.

They're not being brainwashed, and are a lot more varied and intellectually and ideologically complex than you seem to think. How many students are disrupting speeches, in comparison to how many students there are in Canada? Think about it.

At any rate, to complain about the supposed leftiness of universities is ultimately to indict conservatives for not stepping up to the plate, as it were.

Edited November 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bonam]

They're not being brainwashed, and are a lot more varied and intellectually and ideologically complex than you seem to think. How many students are disrupting speeches, in comparison to how many students there are in Canada? Think about it.

At any rate, to complain about the supposed leftiness of universities is ultimately to indict conservatives for not stepping up to the plate, as it were.

As someone that spent over 9 years in universities, I think I can speak to the idea of ideological leanings of students and universities.

For one thing, it is impossible to generalize across the university, because there is a huge variation across departments. For example, among people I knew in engineering, by far the most common political outlook was a mix of conservatism and libertarianism. While few courses taken by engineering students related to such ideological issues, the overall mindset, of analyzing things rationally, solving problems, and not expecting someone else to do it for you, definitely fit with a libertarian mindset.

The same could be said of science students, though to a lesser extent compared to engineering students.

Now if you take a look at some of the english/humanities/arts type students, a major left-leaning bias is impossible to miss. The positions of a typical university student in these programs are from my experience so far to the left that they would make even the NDP blush. In class debates, some of these students were literally shocked to hear about the concept of personal responsibility, apparently me bringing it up in a debate (about environmentalism) was the first time many of them had heard of it.

Whether these differing mindsets in different departments are really the result of the university's influence though is a question. Students sort themselves into these departments on entry, or in their 1st or 2nd year depending on the program and the university. So, there is a major self-selection bias. Perhaps more left-leaning students are more likely to be interested in social studies as they see them as ways to help others and improve society while more right-leaning students are more likely to be interested in technical and business related majors which will help them make money and produce things of direct practical value. I would say that by the time they've reached university, many students already have at least the beginnings of an ideological viewpoint, and that the major they select reflects this at least in part. Once in that major, their existing viewpoints will be reinforced by getting to know many other people of similar mindsets.

Additionally, there is a huge polarization in university of ideological views based on gender. The proportion of girls with conservative/libertarian views in university is tiny, absolutely tiny, compared to the proportion of guys with such views. Of course, that fits perfectly with the fact that there are tiny numbers of women enrolled in engineering and science compared to men, and hugely more enrolled in humanities-related subjects. There is also a major racial polarization here. You will find Asians are hugely over-represented in technical fields and whites hugely over-represented in non-technical fields. Again, political viewpoints split similarly, with many of these Asians holding values much more in line with their culture, which is significantly more conservative than western culture in many ways. Almost all my Asian friends in university mentioned at some point or another that they are in university to get a degree that will get them a job to make lots of money, become successful, and have a big family. Traditional conservative values there. My Caucasian friends on the other hand were mostly there "for fun" or because they wanted to "follow their dreams" or because they found the subject interesting. Few listed money as a reason for their being there, including even the people I knew who were business majors.

[bloodyminded]

As someone that spent over 9 years in universities, I think I can speak to the idea of ideological leanings of students and universities.

For one thing, it is impossible to generalize across the university, because there is a huge variation across departments. For example, among people I knew in engineering, by far the most common political outlook was a mix of conservatism and libertarianism. While few courses taken by engineering students related to such ideological issues, the overall mindset, of analyzing things rationally, solving problems, and not expecting someone else to do it for you, definitely fit with a libertarian mindset.

The same could be said of science students, though to a lesser extent compared to engineering students.

Now if you take a look at some of the english/humanities/arts type students, a major left-leaning bias is impossible to miss. The positions of a typical university student in these programs are from my experience so far to the left that they would make even the NDP blush. In class debates, some of these students were literally shocked to hear about the concept of personal responsibility, apparently me bringing it up in a debate (about environmentalism) was the first time many of them had heard of it.

Whether these differing mindsets in different departments are really the result of the university's influence though is a question. Students sort themselves into these departments on entry, or in their 1st or 2nd year depending on the program and the university. So, there is a major self-selection bias. Perhaps more left-leaning students are more likely to be interested in social studies as they see them as ways to help others and improve society while more right-leaning students are more likely to be interested in technical and business related majors which will help them make money and produce things of direct practical value. I would say that by the time they've reached university, many students already have at least the beginnings of an ideological viewpoint, and that the major they select reflects this at least in part. Once in that major, their existing viewpoints will be reinforced by getting to know many other people of similar mindsets.

Additionally, there is a huge polarization in university of ideological views based on gender. The proportion of girls with conservative/libertarian views in university is tiny, absolutely tiny, compared to the proportion of guys with such views. Of course, that fits perfectly with the fact that there are tiny numbers of women enrolled in engineering and science compared to men, and hugely more enrolled in humanities-related subjects. There is also a major racial polarization here. You will find Asians are hugely over-represented in technical fields and whites hugely over-represented in non-technical fields. Again, political viewpoints split similarly, with many of these Asians holding values much more in line with their culture, which is significantly more conservative than western culture in many ways. Almost all my Asian friends in university mentioned at some point or another that they are in university to get a degree that will get them a job to make lots of money, become successful, and have a big family. Traditional conservative values there. My Caucasian friends on the other hand were mostly there "for fun" or because they wanted to "follow their dreams" or because they found the subject interesting. Few listed money as a reason for their being there, including even the people I knew who were business majors.

No question that the "liberal arts" have become "liberal" in the more contemporary sense, I agree. I also agree that it has more to do with students than with some professors keen on leftwing indoctrination.

The thing is, my personal leftiness occurred after university. I don't consider universities radical at all. The humanities are, at most, establishment-liberal, the sort of institution more likely to produce a Bill Clinton than a Noam Chomsky (I mean his politics, not his linguistics, which is a different matter).

Students in, say, English are arguably disproportionately liberal in their outlook; but very few are radical left. That's quite rare, conventional "wisdom" to the contrary. And it comes ultimately from a great conservative tradition of art appreciation, of learning the great literary works and their historical ramifications.

There's some minor politicization that occurs, say in the study of women's literature, or Postcolonial (once "Commonwealth") literature; but these are not overwhelming the discipline, some outraged cries to the contrary. Shakespeare and Joyce and Hemingway and the Bronte's etc still quite decidedly rule the roost.

It's not a hotbed of "leftist indoctrination," which is the specific claim to which I was responding. That's crazy talk. Like yourself, I spent years embedded in that situation...which included conferences and meeting students from many Canadian and American universities. It was not at all a politically-charged atmosphere.

As for it being "too liberal"....like I said, all conservatives have to do is step up. It's fascinating to me to watch people explain why conservatives don't enter the English faculties in one breath (ie money, "practicality"...that insult left unnoticed, evidently)...and then, in the next, to complain that there are too many liberals there, as if it's the liberals' fault. Too good!

Edited November 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[pfezziwig]

The Left Wing only support free speech when it agrees with their opinions.

If it doesn't support their radical beliefs they label it racist, sexist or discrimatory and try to censor it. Ironically the Right Wing are more tolerant then the Lefties nowadays. The Right have been push overs for so long now they've forgotten how to stand up for their own beliefs, choosing to let the Lefties run wild, as so they have and will continue to.

[bloodyminded]

The Left Wing only support free speech when it agrees with their opinions.

There is no monolithic "left wing" that fits into your categorization. There are certainly people inclined towards the left who have an austere and ridiculous intolerance. But the broad brush isn't accurate.

If it doesn't support their radical beliefs

Which beliefs are "radical," exactly...and which aren't?

they label it racist, sexist or discrimatory and try to censor it.

Whoa, hoss, you're talking two different things. Labelling certain views, or criticizing them, is not tantamount to "censor[ing]" them.

Some people seem to believe that "free speech" is defined as saying what you want, without anyone disagreeing or criticizing your words.

But that's not a wish for free speech; that's a wish against free speech.

Ironically the Right Wing are more tolerant then the Lefties nowadays. The Right have been push overs for so long now they've forgotten how to stand up for their own beliefs, choosing to let the Lefties run wild, as so they have and will continue to.

I think you overstate the power and influence of the lefties, and understate the will and efforts of the righties.

Edited December 16, 2010 by bloodyminded