Free speech and the American University Campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

People who think like you will ruin our society. The cancel culture is completely out of control. Colleges need to take a stand against this (like UChicago has done) and embrace free speech principles, the exchange of ideas, and discussion in the public square. That's what education and intellect is all about. Nobody can be truly educated if they only hear one side of the issue all the time. There are two sides of most issues. You calling the other side "stupid and offensive" just proves the point made in OP's post.

Sigh, OP is on a tear with trying to spam the forums with absurd WSJ propaganda. It's really sad that since being bought by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has become such a pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Republican billionaires are putting big money into trying to suppress free speech on college campuses by convincing people that anyone who dares to point out the crushingly obvious systemic racism in this country is an out-of-controll woke mob. Of course, the billionaires are panicking because they realize the young Americans will no longer put up with a country that mistreats and oppresses non-white people in every possible arena. They know that banks like Wells Fargo (that just got in trouble AGAIN in 2022 for egregiously, intentionally, wildly racist conduct) was the bank whose executives joked on tape about "junk loans for mud people" in 2012. They've seen the studies -- FUNDED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS -- that show that police stop Black motorists more often than whites (except at night, when they can't see drivers' skin color), search Black people's cars more often than whites (despite whites being statistically slightly more likely to have drugs or guns), charge Black people with crimes like resisting arrest at rates far higher than whites who engage in identical behavior, and, of course, kill unarmed Black people far, far more often than they kill whites. And, they've seen the statistics that Blacks are convicted more often that whites with similar evidence, sentenced more harshly than whites for similar crimes, and denied parole more often than whites with similar records.

They've also likely seen the statistic that came up in OP's other pathetic WSJ propaganda post that Black people are far more likely to die when treated by white doctors than when treated by Black doctors, and they are aware that in 2022 many doctors still hold and promote crazy, unscientific, racist ideas that likely contribute to Blacks dying at a higher rate -- like the notion tha Black people don't feel pain.

But, OP feels that the most important thing they can do with their time is spam the forums about how sad it is that their right to see speeches by Nazis is being compromised. And make no mistake -- that's what the bruhahaha about "free speech" on campus is mostly about -- the Republican tactic of inviting the most offensive speakers they can find to college campuses exactly to provoke a reaction, and then to whine about "wokeness" and "free speech" -- which they clearly don't understand, since the first ammendment doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a speaking tour.

I’m a pretty moderate person who agrees with the idea that colleges should maximize free speech.

But it also looks as if Russia, Republicans or some Russian-GOP hybrid is spamming the hell out of DCUM and is smearing spam slime on all of its positions, including positioning that I agree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people don’t want to take responsibility for their words. Sure, you can say them—as in the instructor won’t kick you out of the class, a gang of students won’t beat you up, the university won’t expel you. But if you say something rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative, the natural consequences are that other people will challenge you, they won’t want to work with you or socialize with you, and the teacher will rightly assess that you are not a productive member of the class, and that might reflect on your grade if a portion of the grade is contributions to class discussions.

So, feel free to exercise your free speech. But understand that there will be consequences. Either adjust what you say and how you interact with people, or accept the consequences.

Why don’t you do the same. You’re making me uncomfortable: Now you just said if a professor doesn’t agree with your views, or a student complains about your views to the prof (very easy to label opposing views as insensitive and provocative afterall) they are justified in giving you a bad grade??

If I am making you uncomfortable, you may report my post, and as moderator, Jeff would get to decide whether to delete my post or even temporarily or permanently ban me. That would be his call as moderator and owner of this space. Just like a university would have the right to decide whether to allow you in their space, or ask you to leave, or ban you. See how that works?

People aren’t guaranteed admissions to state universities, sweetie. Did you not know that? Did you not know that state universities have CODES OF CONDUCT, and that if a student does not meet the code of conduct/honor code inside and outside the classroom, there are both peer governance and faculty governance to consider cases of removal? I’m glad I was able to educate you today. If you spout off homophobic, racist, sexist comments in the classroom, you don’t meet the code of conduct. Bye bye.

DCUM isn’t a government entity, but many colleges and universities are. And the government is not permitted to censor speech, but a private business or person isn’t held to that standard.
Now do you see how it works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

People who think like you will ruin our society. The cancel culture is completely out of control. Colleges need to take a stand against this (like UChicago has done) and embrace free speech principles, the exchange of ideas, and discussion in the public square. That's what education and intellect is all about. Nobody can be truly educated if they only hear one side of the issue all the time. There are two sides of most issues. You calling the other side "stupid and offensive" just proves the point made in OP's post.

Sigh, OP is on a tear with trying to spam the forums with absurd WSJ propaganda. It's really sad that since being bought by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has become such a pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Republican billionaires are putting big money into trying to suppress free speech on college campuses by convincing people that anyone who dares to point out the crushingly obvious systemic racism in this country is an out-of-controll woke mob. Of course, the billionaires are panicking because they realize the young Americans will no longer put up with a country that mistreats and oppresses non-white people in every possible arena. They know that banks like Wells Fargo (that just got in trouble AGAIN in 2022 for egregiously, intentionally, wildly racist conduct) was the bank whose executives joked on tape about "junk loans for mud people" in 2012. They've seen the studies -- FUNDED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS -- that show that police stop Black motorists more often than whites (except at night, when they can't see drivers' skin color), search Black people's cars more often than whites (despite whites being statistically slightly more likely to have drugs or guns), charge Black people with crimes like resisting arrest at rates far higher than whites who engage in identical behavior, and, of course, kill unarmed Black people far, far more often than they kill whites. And, they've seen the statistics that Blacks are convicted more often that whites with similar evidence, sentenced more harshly than whites for similar crimes, and denied parole more often than whites with similar records.

They've also likely seen the statistic that came up in OP's other pathetic WSJ propaganda post that Black people are far more likely to die when treated by white doctors than when treated by Black doctors, and they are aware that in 2022 many doctors still hold and promote crazy, unscientific, racist ideas that likely contribute to Blacks dying at a higher rate -- like the notion tha Black people don't feel pain.

But, OP feels that the most important thing they can do with their time is spam the forums about how sad it is that their right to see speeches by Nazis is being compromised. And make no mistake -- that's what the bruhahaha about "free speech" on campus is mostly about -- the Republican tactic of inviting the most offensive speakers they can find to college campuses exactly to provoke a reaction, and then to whine about "wokeness" and "free speech" -- which they clearly don't understand, since the first ammendment doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a speaking tour.

I'm not the OP of this thread, but I have posted WSJ pieces before (and will continue to do so, btw). Deal with it. Newsflash: that's not "spamming," it's simply posting pieces from one of the most well-respected news sources in the world. That you call it a "pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists" speaks volumes about YOU, none of it good.

Every word in your fevered rant makes it clear it is YOU who doesn't understand what free speech is and what the first amendment guarantees. No one cares if you disagree with a speaker - you have zero right to prevent them from speaking. If you don't want to hear them, don't show up. Trying to silence them and prevent anyone else from hearing views you can't handle just makes you a complete ignoramus. "Sigh," indeed.

No, YOU are the one who doesn’t understand. The GOVERNMENT is not telling them they can’t say these things. They are experiencing natural consequences of their choice to embrace and espouse willfull ignorance. Boo hoo. Here’s a tissue.

The natural consequence of your unhinged rants are that people correctly think you're an ahole with a huge chip on your shoulder. You might as well as sign on your forehead saying, "Avoid at all costs!" Bye, psycho.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

People who think like you will ruin our society. The cancel culture is completely out of control. Colleges need to take a stand against this (like UChicago has done) and embrace free speech principles, the exchange of ideas, and discussion in the public square. That's what education and intellect is all about. Nobody can be truly educated if they only hear one side of the issue all the time. There are two sides of most issues. You calling the other side "stupid and offensive" just proves the point made in OP's post.

Sigh, OP is on a tear with trying to spam the forums with absurd WSJ propaganda. It's really sad that since being bought by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has become such a pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Republican billionaires are putting big money into trying to suppress free speech on college campuses by convincing people that anyone who dares to point out the crushingly obvious systemic racism in this country is an out-of-controll woke mob. Of course, the billionaires are panicking because they realize the young Americans will no longer put up with a country that mistreats and oppresses non-white people in every possible arena. They know that banks like Wells Fargo (that just got in trouble AGAIN in 2022 for egregiously, intentionally, wildly racist conduct) was the bank whose executives joked on tape about "junk loans for mud people" in 2012. They've seen the studies -- FUNDED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS -- that show that police stop Black motorists more often than whites (except at night, when they can't see drivers' skin color), search Black people's cars more often than whites (despite whites being statistically slightly more likely to have drugs or guns), charge Black people with crimes like resisting arrest at rates far higher than whites who engage in identical behavior, and, of course, kill unarmed Black people far, far more often than they kill whites. And, they've seen the statistics that Blacks are convicted more often that whites with similar evidence, sentenced more harshly than whites for similar crimes, and denied parole more often than whites with similar records.

They've also likely seen the statistic that came up in OP's other pathetic WSJ propaganda post that Black people are far more likely to die when treated by white doctors than when treated by Black doctors, and they are aware that in 2022 many doctors still hold and promote crazy, unscientific, racist ideas that likely contribute to Blacks dying at a higher rate -- like the notion tha Black people don't feel pain.

But, OP feels that the most important thing they can do with their time is spam the forums about how sad it is that their right to see speeches by Nazis is being compromised. And make no mistake -- that's what the bruhahaha about "free speech" on campus is mostly about -- the Republican tactic of inviting the most offensive speakers they can find to college campuses exactly to provoke a reaction, and then to whine about "wokeness" and "free speech" -- which they clearly don't understand, since the first ammendment doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a speaking tour.

I'm not the OP of this thread, but I have posted WSJ pieces before (and will continue to do so, btw). Deal with it. Newsflash: that's not "spamming," it's simply posting pieces from one of the most well-respected news sources in the world. That you call it a "pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists" speaks volumes about YOU, none of it good.

Every word in your fevered rant makes it clear it is YOU who doesn't understand what free speech is and what the first amendment guarantees. No one cares if you disagree with a speaker - you have zero right to prevent them from speaking. If you don't want to hear them, don't show up. Trying to silence them and prevent anyone else from hearing views you can't handle just makes you a complete ignoramus. "Sigh," indeed.

No, YOU are the one who doesn’t understand. The GOVERNMENT is not telling them they can’t say these things. They are experiencing natural consequences of their choice to embrace and espouse willfull ignorance. Boo hoo. Here’s a tissue.

You’re confusing your parenting class with the constitution. Waaah. Here’s a diaper wipe.

Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people don’t want to take responsibility for their words. Sure, you can say them—as in the instructor won’t kick you out of the class, a gang of students won’t beat you up, the university won’t expel you. But if you say something rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative, the natural consequences are that other people will challenge you, they won’t want to work with you or socialize with you, and the teacher will rightly assess that you are not a productive member of the class, and that might reflect on your grade if a portion of the grade is contributions to class discussions.

So, feel free to exercise your free speech. But understand that there will be consequences. Either adjust what you say and how you interact with people, or accept the consequences.

Too funny. Ever consider that the speech that is rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative is... yours? Think about that for a minute. Puts the rest of your rant in context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

"Stupid and offensive" might be read instead to mean "I don't agree, I don't like it, I don't understand it, I don't want to try to understand why others might think like that, and consequently nobody should be able to articulate it or try to make a case for it. They must be silenced at all costs lest their pernicious position be heard by those too unwise to be able to decide for themselves whether it is reasonable, makes sense, is potentially actually valid".

Wait -- this is about the Florida bill banning teachers from mentioning that families like mine exist, right? That's the kind of suppression of free speech that you are opposed to, right?

There is no such bill. Talk about propaganda. The bill simply prevents instruction of gender identity in grades K-3. That's it. No one cares if your kid has two dads/moms, or if the teacher is LGBTQ. No one. But keep on frothing at the mouth about idiotic, non-existent "suppression."
DP

So how exactly does this work then, when kids in those grades are learning about their identity? I my DC’s school, they have units on identity starting in K, as a way to start teaching the child about their broader place in the world. How they define themselves, their family, etc. (I am a sister, I am a daughter, I am a Washingtonian, I am an American, etc.) so when they talk about their family, and let’s say they have 2 moms, they how does this continue without being able to explain (i.e. “instruct”) that some families are made up of 2 same sex parents? I mean, the kids of divorced parents, or intact m/f parents, or even kids living with grandparents can all discuss this openly. I’m just not sure how this works if you can’t teach the kids what it means.

Seriously? This is not difficult. If there are any questions about someone's family makeup, the teacher simply says that is what Larla's family looks like; she has two dads. Moving on... No instruction necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

I think you have a poor grasp of the sorts of things that get shouted down these days as too controversial to question:

It’s things like progressive education policy like questioning whether ending Gifted and Talented classes, or ap classes out of “equity”, is good policy. Or ending merit based, neutral testing for rigorous schools is allowable because of the disparate impacts on acceptance.

Or whether fare evasion, no bail, allowing speeders to speed and colllect thousands of dollars of tickets but keep their license because tickets “are oppression” or the youth rehabilitation act going to age 26, or basically questioning whether revising the dc criminal code to make it more equitable is a good idea.

It seems like there is this massive movement to immediately shut down anyone dissenting from new policy. Our times are shifting incredibly rapidly and the young generation seems to not be able to countenance any dissent from progressive orthodoxy. There are rigid ideological purity tests on the left and moral absolutism abounds.

That’s not to say the right isn’t insane, with Christian nationalism and trump and what have you. However, to dismiss out of hand concerns that the left is stifling free speech is wrong. They just feel the stifle speech out of altruism.

Well said. Any dissent is considered "hate speech." The left has gone off the cliffs of insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people don’t want to take responsibility for their words. Sure, you can say them—as in the instructor won’t kick you out of the class, a gang of students won’t beat you up, the university won’t expel you. But if you say something rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative, the natural consequences are that other people will challenge you, they won’t want to work with you or socialize with you, and the teacher will rightly assess that you are not a productive member of the class, and that might reflect on your grade if a portion of the grade is contributions to class discussions.

So, feel free to exercise your free speech. But understand that there will be consequences. Either adjust what you say and how you interact with people, or accept the consequences.

Incorrect. If you deviate from the bounds of “reasonable” conversation in class on a college campus, essentially talking as a Republican, your peers will brand you a bigot or worse.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/evidence-conservative-students-really-do-self-censor/606559/

+1
Very glad there is now a pushback. Those trying to censor anything that is not approved by the far left are going to be facing some serious backlash at the polls if they keep it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States are prohibiting teachers from talking about the history of race in America and saying “gay,” but cancel culture bullshit is what you’re worried about. Get a grip.

Show me where this is happening.

It's not. The PP is the usual liar.

[Anonymous]

The wsj is a rag.

It is literally propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

This. You are free to speak. I am free to think you are an idiot. As to refuse to deal with you because of what you speak.

DP. Agreed. And that absolutely works both ways. What you are not free to do is try and prevent me from speaking and prevent others from hearing me speak. Just go sulk in a corner if you can't handle opposing viewpoints.

But trying to prevent you from speaking if your views are abhorrent to me *is* my speech. Just like boycotting chick FIL a for their stance is my right. Now I may not be successful. You can laugh at me when my pathetic protest does no good. But I am free to do it and by speech, convince others to join me.

Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. Boycott all you want. What you're not entitled to do is interrupt a speaker or prevent others from hearing a speaker. And when it's turned around on you, you're the first one to bray about "free speech"!

You are conflating decorum with speech. The govt has to let you speak. Individuals do not. They can shout you down if they don’t like what you are saying. Your options are to give up and whine, shout over them, speak at a location where you control the audience, ask people to sign some kind of rules of engagement when entering the private event etc. But if you want to speak in public, you have to live with the consequences. Now if the protesters start doing things that are illegal, agitate to throw the book at them if you want. Like if they start doxxing people or threatening them with violence or brandishing a gun or whatever.

The civil rights protesters in the 60’s were actually breaking the law and decided to take the consequences (arrested) but they decided to do it anyway. Their cause was just, but they took risks (including with their lives) to protest. That is their right.

I have no doubt that if you were trying to speak in public and were shouted down by protesters, you'd be outraged about your first amendment rights being violated. At any rate, we're not talking about people just randomly speaking in public. We're talking about invited speakers on campus who are then mobbed by protesters, often violently, preventing others from getting to hear their speech. Or invited speakers who are then DISinvited due to protesters pressuring the administration - because they don't agree with the speaker and want to silence them.

Have you forgotten about the YLS idiots? Middlebury? Berkeley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:lifelong Democrat, and pretty liberal (by previous standards) b ut I would have liked to hear Ann Coulter speak at U.C. Berkeley - but protestors gathered and opposed even letting her speak - and the feckless (useless) college administrators sat back and did nothing. This is really the problem. Multiple examples of this on college campuses.

If you don't like what someone has to say just don't attend the speech.

I agree. And I'm sick to death of those feckless administrators. Smith College, Haverford, Oberlin, etc. Just grow a spine, already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

DP - it’s not as simple as you make it sound. In my experience the person that is opposing defund the police loudly, is saying they are justified in killing unarmed black people, will throw in crime statistics, and say it’s a tough job so they can’t be held accountable even for outrageously biased and racist behavior. I see a lot of the “I know people will call me a racist …” followed by a lot of racist bs. The line between questioning and hate speech IMO isn’t that close if you are starting from actually caring about the people involved and not partnering with people that don’t believe in their right to exist and have equal power.

I think the way you view this is scary. Just because a person does not support Defund the Police does not make them a racist who thinks others don't have a right to exist. BTW, the te are many people of color who do not support that movement.

Your rapid response to label them racists is very troubling. You wAnt to shut down opposing views. Why not have a civil discussion about it. At the end If you don't to see the other side then fine.

Have you personally gone into communities affected by gun violence to ask them how they feel? Or do you live in a wealthy liberal bubble? Serious question. The issue is complicated.

+100
Especially in light of the rise in black women purchasing guns - to protect themselves from the violence in THEIR OWN communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

People who think like you will ruin our society. The cancel culture is completely out of control. Colleges need to take a stand against this (like UChicago has done) and embrace free speech principles, the exchange of ideas, and discussion in the public square. That's what education and intellect is all about. Nobody can be truly educated if they only hear one side of the issue all the time. There are two sides of most issues. You calling the other side "stupid and offensive" just proves the point made in OP's post.

Sigh, OP is on a tear with trying to spam the forums with absurd WSJ propaganda. It's really sad that since being bought by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has become such a pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Republican billionaires are putting big money into trying to suppress free speech on college campuses by convincing people that anyone who dares to point out the crushingly obvious systemic racism in this country is an out-of-controll woke mob. Of course, the billionaires are panicking because they realize the young Americans will no longer put up with a country that mistreats and oppresses non-white people in every possible arena. They know that banks like Wells Fargo (that just got in trouble AGAIN in 2022 for egregiously, intentionally, wildly racist conduct) was the bank whose executives joked on tape about "junk loans for mud people" in 2012. They've seen the studies -- FUNDED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS -- that show that police stop Black motorists more often than whites (except at night, when they can't see drivers' skin color), search Black people's cars more often than whites (despite whites being statistically slightly more likely to have drugs or guns), charge Black people with crimes like resisting arrest at rates far higher than whites who engage in identical behavior, and, of course, kill unarmed Black people far, far more often than they kill whites. And, they've seen the statistics that Blacks are convicted more often that whites with similar evidence, sentenced more harshly than whites for similar crimes, and denied parole more often than whites with similar records.

They've also likely seen the statistic that came up in OP's other pathetic WSJ propaganda post that Black people are far more likely to die when treated by white doctors than when treated by Black doctors, and they are aware that in 2022 many doctors still hold and promote crazy, unscientific, racist ideas that likely contribute to Blacks dying at a higher rate -- like the notion tha Black people don't feel pain.

But, OP feels that the most important thing they can do with their time is spam the forums about how sad it is that their right to see speeches by Nazis is being compromised. And make no mistake -- that's what the bruhahaha about "free speech" on campus is mostly about -- the Republican tactic of inviting the most offensive speakers they can find to college campuses exactly to provoke a reaction, and then to whine about "wokeness" and "free speech" -- which they clearly don't understand, since the first ammendment doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a speaking tour.

I’m a pretty moderate person who agrees with the idea that colleges should maximize free speech.

But it also looks as if Russia, Republicans or some Russian-GOP hybrid is spamming the hell out of DCUM and is smearing spam slime on all of its positions, including positioning that I agree with.

Ah yes. "I don't agree with this, therefore it must be Russia Russia Russia." Do you even hear yourself?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people don’t want to take responsibility for their words. Sure, you can say them—as in the instructor won’t kick you out of the class, a gang of students won’t beat you up, the university won’t expel you. But if you say something rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative, the natural consequences are that other people will challenge you, they won’t want to work with you or socialize with you, and the teacher will rightly assess that you are not a productive member of the class, and that might reflect on your grade if a portion of the grade is contributions to class discussions.

So, feel free to exercise your free speech. But understand that there will be consequences. Either adjust what you say and how you interact with people, or accept the consequences.

Incorrect. If you deviate from the bounds of “reasonable” conversation in class on a college campus, essentially talking as a Republican, your peers will brand you a bigot or worse.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/evidence-conservative-students-really-do-self-censor/606559/

+1
Very glad there is now a pushback. Those trying to censor anything that is not approved by the far left are going to be facing some serious backlash at the polls if they keep it up.

Hilarious, have you seen some of the R senate candidates? I bet the GOP wishes that they weren’t being given a platform to speak