WSJ Ranking of Colleges and Universities

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Orchestra concerts or a professor teaching classes are in public spaces (assuming a public university).  So, why can't they be shouted down?

A political candidate in a concert hall that requires a ticket to get into is also a public space. In other words, the same place and entry method (valid ticket) as the orchestra concert. But in this circumstance, it is allowable to shout them down.

So, yes, I need more explanation.

See Sultan's link. Being on a public university campus does not make something a public space. You do not have a right to go into a classroom while class is in session unless you are enrolled in the class (or have permission from the professor to be there). You do not have the right to go into examination rooms of the student health center while someone else is being examined. You do not have the right to go into the student rec center unless you have a membership there. You do not have the right to march into the President's office. TAMU has labs where research is done with radioactive materials, you do not have the right to go into where they are stored. Hell, most student unions are closed in the wee hours of the night, you don't have the right to go in the student union outside of business hours. This is not an exhaustive list, but just examples to show that of course not every thing on a college campus is public space.

Public universities (and most private universities) cannot control the content of others' speech. They do have a limited ability to control the time, place, and manner of the speech. Contrast that with private companies, they can control content, time, place, and manner and in most cases can fire you for it or slap you with trespassing charges.

[Skatastrophy]

So, MU is better than UW-Madison. Discuss. 

Lake Forest College in the Chicago burbs came in at #27. That's how you know the WSJ is taking this seriously.

[Pakuni]

Lake Forest College in the Chicago burbs came in at #27. That's how you know the WSJ is taking this seriously.

FWIW, Lake Forrest College is a really good school. Not #27 in the nation good, but still good.
We should take these rankings about as seriously as the US News rankings, which is to say not at all.

[WhiteTrash]

FWIW, Lake Forrest College is a really good school. Not #27 in the nation good, but still good.
We should take these rankings about as seriously as the US News rankings, which is to say not at all.

You are not going to make any fans in Madison. UW-Madison grads' reason for getting out of bed each morning is the US News ranking.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas. Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech. Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship
  Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts   “The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.
Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech.

Being denied the ability to speak one's perspective in class is not denial of free speech since that is not a forum where free speech is presumed to exist.

[Pakuni]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas. Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech. Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship
  Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts   “The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.
Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

Another person who doesn't understand what free speech or censorship means.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas.

Please give some examples. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a couple of isolated incidents throughout history but my guess is that your examples aren't what you think they are.

Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech.

In class? Absolutely not. There's no presumption of free speech in the classroom (Unless you want to go after DeSantis and Abbott for the laws they have passed limiting what teachers can say in the classroom). Outside? Depends on what you mean by outside.

Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship

Actually it is free speech. What you are advocating for is censorship. If someone says something that I find hateful or denigrating, that is free speech. My response telling them that what they said is hateful or denigrating is also free speech. Your insistence that I should not be allowed to label something hateful or denigrating is in fact you advocating for censorship.

Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts

No it doesn't.

“The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.

Not sure what this has to do with anything.

Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

Shouting down = Free speech. It's uncivil but if someone has the right to say something, someone else has the right to criticize it loudly. Depending on the venue, entities (including universities) can and often should remove those doing the shouting down.

Doxxing = Usually despicable but also usually free speech. This is by no means a defense of the practice just an acknowledgement that in most cases it is legal speech.

Intimidation = Depends on context. Direct threat against someone? Illegal and should be properly addressed. Threaten to show up in protest? Free speech. Obviously a lot of grey space between those two points.



Free speech is not freedom to speak whenever, wherever, about whatever, with absolutely no consequences. It just means that you cannot be punished by the government for the content of your speech (with limited exceptions). This means that you must endure both the neo-nazis and the anarchists. You must also endure people criticizing/protesting/firing you for your speech. Free speech for all!

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas. Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech. Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship
  Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts   “The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.
Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

Telling you that your hate speech is hateful is not censorship.

Another winger who thinks there should be no consequences.

[Uncle Rico]

Many instances where free speech has been denied on campuses even in supposedly open areas. Being denied the ability to speak one’s perspective in class or outside is denial of free speech. Classifying ideas one disagrees with as “hateful” or denigrating is a form of censorship
  Free speech means the ability to verbalize your thoughts   “The biggest impediment to truth is the belief that one’s position is universal” Nietsche.
Shouting down, doxing or trying to intimidate someone is a tactic to deny having to defend a viewpoint

Doxxing?  Where’s Keefe?  He was doxxing again this summer

[JWags85]

Actually it is free speech. What you are advocating for is censorship. If someone says something that I find hateful or denigrating, that is free speech. My response telling them that what they said is hateful or denigrating is also free speech. Your insistence that I should not be allowed to label something hateful or denigrating is in fact you advocating for censorship.

I think this is a tricky space.  You're not wrong, but there is hypocrisy on both ends of it.  People wanting to flex the censorship you describe and not let people label things hateful...but people also want to broad brush label things as hateful so that it can be removed or silenced due to T&C or policies or the like.  Like everything that isn't full throated supported for anything to do with trans is "transphobic" or anything remotely critical of a Jewish person or Israel is antisemitic.

Labeling something that someone says is whatever, but doing so with the aim of then silencing them cause you don't like what they are saying is problematic.
But yes, way too many people don't properly understand what free speech means.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think this is a tricky space.  You're not wrong, but there is hypocrisy on both ends of it.  People wanting to flex the censorship you describe and not let people label things hateful...but people also want to broad brush label things as hateful so that it can be removed or silenced due to T&C or policies or the like.  Like everything that isn't full throated supported for anything to do with trans is "transphobic" or anything remotely critical of a Jewish person or Israel is antisemitic.

Labeling something that someone says is whatever, but doing so with the aim of then silencing them cause you don't like what they are saying is problematic.
But yes, way too many people don't properly understand what free speech means.

If there are terms and conditions,  then it's not a free speech space

[WhiteTrash]

After see the discussion in this thread, I will retract my statement on colleges being the very low on the list of places accepting of 'free speech'.

I will say that colleges are a very poor place for open, thoughtful and civil discussions of ideas. The hateful actions and rhetoric at places like Liberty University and Berkley are equally disgusting to this guy.

If it were up to me, I would make it illegal to allow the KKK to shout down MLK at a peacefully organized event that people were allowed to attend or not attend. JMHO.

[Lennys Tap]

I think this is a tricky space.  You're not wrong, but there is hypocrisy on both ends of it.  People wanting to flex the censorship you describe and not let people label things hateful...but people also want to broad brush label things as hateful so that it can be removed or silenced due to T&C or policies or the like.  Like everything that isn't full throated supported for anything to do with trans is "transphobic" or anything remotely critical of a Jewish person or Israel is antisemitic.

+1. The line between truly hateful fringe groups and people advocating legitimate if controversial policy has been obliterated. If you don’t 100% support a group’s agenda/policy it makes some FEEL that they are being hated or marginalized. ,Debate and/or conversation is over, name calling ensues, rifts widen.

[tower912]

You aren't wrong, Lenny.    I remember being called a murderer by Jamie.  Good times.  There are frequently shades of gray and areas for discussion and compromise.   A lost art.

[Pakuni]

+1. The line between truly hateful fringe groups and people advocating legitimate if controversial policy has been obliterated. If you don’t 100% support a group’s agenda/policy it makes some FEEL that they are being hated or marginalized. ,Debate and/or conversation is over, name calling ensues, rifts widen.

But who gets to decide what is "truly hateful" and what is "legitimate if controversial policy?"
Because I'm pretty sure that in your lifetime, and perhaps mine, things like school segregation, poll taxes and redlining were seen as "legitimate if controversial policy."

And why should advocating for "legitimate if controversial policy" be free of criticism, including criticism that opines that such policy is hateful?
Should pro-lifers be banned from calling abortion murder?

[WhiteTrash]

But who gets to decide what is "truly hateful" and what is "legitimate if controversial policy?"
Because I'm pretty sure that in your lifetime, and perhaps mine, things like school segregation, poll taxes and redlining were seen as "legitimate if controversial policy."

And why should advocating for "legitimate if controversial policy" be free of criticism, including criticism that opines that such policy is hateful?
Should pro-lifers be banned from calling abortion murder?

I'll agree there needs to a be definitive rule on what is free speech and we need to be very thoughtful about it. I think free speech should go so far as to make people uncomfortable, or very uncomfortable, at times. But, allowing people to shout down opposing viewpoints is lighting a fuse for violence.

In America we have the freedom to not attend, view or listen to those we disagree with. Shouting down and silencing people like MLK would not be good. Allow people to speak and we will find that good ideas will find receptive ears and effect change.

Your example of school segregation is interesting and a good example of how things can evolve over time. There is a small minority of African-Americans who would prefer their children would attend mostly or all black schools because they are of the opinion that their children will feel more comfortable in that environment.

[MU82]

In the Tennessee state legislature, the very white GOP majority has repeatedly silenced two young, Black state reps.

In Wyoming, the state GOP canceled one of the most reliably conservative voters in Congress, Liz Cheney.

The former president, now a criminal defendant facing 91 felony charges, has continued to publicly intimidate witnesses despite judges threatening him with consequences for doing so.

Elon Musk calls himself a "free speech absolutist" ... and then fires employees who criticize him.

None of the above is any more of a freedom-of-speech issue than the college-campus behavior that bothers so many. I'm not defending that behavior, nor am I attacking it. Just building upon facts stated by TAMU, Wags and others.

[Pakuni]

But, allowing people to shout down opposing viewpoints is lighting a fuse for violence.

What do you define as shouting down opposing viewpoints?
And does it really light a fuse for violence? Do you have any examples?

There is a small minority of African-Americans who would prefer their children would attend mostly or all black schools because they are of the opinion that their children will feel more comfortable in that environment.

This is a bizarre non-sequitur. Even if this were true - and I have no idea if it is, or what you mean by "small minority" - there's a substantial difference between choosing to attend a mostly or all black school versus being forced to by the government.

[WhiteTrash]

In the Tennessee state legislature, the very white GOP majority has repeatedly silenced two young, Black state reps.

In Wyoming, the state GOP canceled one of the most reliably conservative voters in Congress, Liz Cheney.

The former president, now a criminal defendant facing 91 felony charges, has continued to publicly intimidate witnesses despite judges threatening him with consequences for doing so.

Elon Musk calls himself a "free speech absolutist" ... and then fires employees who criticize him.

None of the above is any more of a freedom-of-speech issue than the college-campus behavior that bothers so many. I'm not defending that behavior, nor am I attacking it. Just building upon facts stated by TAMU, Wags and others.

And those in the middle have seen states like CA, MA and IL marginalize and silence the GOP. The current President's son appears to be a felon and dad maybe involved. I'm not saying you are wrong in your facts, I'm saying you appear to be blinded to the sins of your own party.

Except for Bernie Sanders (who I'm not a fan of all his policies) I don't care for or respect anyone in office. Oh and you can add the Dems unjust treatment of Sanders to the list of their sins. Perhaps if the Dems would have let their constituents pick the canidate there would have never been President Trump.

[WhiteTrash]

What do you define as shouting down opposing viewpoints?
And does it really light a fuse for violence? Do you have any examples?

This is a bizarre non-sequitur. Even if this were true - and I have no idea if it is, or what you mean by "small minority" - there's a substantial difference between choosing to attend a mostly or all black school versus being forced to by the government.

Blocking attendance to or pressuring schools to cancel speakers or disabling PA systems or simply shouting so loud the speaker cannot be heard.
Example: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/3530/conservative-speaker-event-at-uc-davis-canceled-after-brawl

I don't know what you are asking. Define a 'small minority'? You are grasping at straws to pick a fight. I'll ask you, to be clear, you are in favor of segregation by choice?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Blocking attendance to or pressuring schools to cancel speakers or disabling PA systems or simply shouting so loud the speaker cannot be heard.
Example: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/3530/conservative-speaker-event-at-uc-davis-canceled-after-brawl

I agree this isn't good. But it's exceedingly rare.

[Pakuni]

And those in the middle have seen states like CA, MA and IL marginalize and silence the GOP. The current President's son appears to be a felon and dad maybe involved. I'm not saying you are wrong in your facts, I'm saying you appear to be blinded to the sins of your own party.

It always comes back to Hunter. Even if - and especially when - the topic has nothing to do with Hunter.

How has Illinois silenced the GOP? The reality is Illinois used to be a fairly purple state. A Republican sat in the governor's mansion for 30 years between 1969 and 2009. There was a Republican governor as recently as four years ago. There was a Republican U.S. senator just six years ago. Republicans controlled the state senate for a decade between the early 90s and early 00s.
The unmaking of the Illinois GOP was self-inflicted. What do you expect when you make people like Alan Keyes, Jim Oberweis and Darren Bailey your standard-bearers?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I will say that colleges are a very poor place for open, thoughtful and civil discussions of ideas. The hateful actions and rhetoric at places like Liberty University and Berkley are equally disgusting to this guy.

Spoken like someone with very little understanding and/or experience on college campuses. You pick two extremes and think that's somehow generalizable to tens of thousands of institutions around the country. And even in those two extremes, you are talking about fringe events, not everyday campus life.

[Pakuni]

Blocking attendance to or pressuring schools to cancel speakers or disabling PA systems or simply shouting so loud the speaker cannot be heard.

Blocking attendance or disabling PA systems are criminal acts and should be treated as such.
People who shout so loud the speaker cannot be heard should be removed (especially during State of the Union addresses, right?).
Pressuring a school to cancel a speaker is a perfectly fine exercise of free speech. People who find a speaker objectionable have every right to say so.

Example: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/3530/conservative-speaker-event-at-uc-davis-canceled-after-brawl

This is not an example of shouting down a viewpoint leading to violence. Is your suggestion here that the conservatives attacked the protestors because they felt unheard?

You are grasping at straws to pick a fight. I'll ask you, to be clear, you are in favor of segregation by choice?

I'm not picking a fight. I'm asking you to define your vague terms and defend your claims.
I'm not in favor of segregation by choice. I think it's a terrible idea. But if someone wishes to move to a neighborhood/school district where their students will attend school with mostly kids of the same race, they have that choice. I mean, that's been happening for decades, right? But mostly white people doing it. As is their right. Again, I disagree with that decision. I think it's small-minded and doesn't benefit the student.