UC and the Right to be Free of Expressions of Intolerance

[TatinG]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/11/university-of-california-considering-recognizing-a-right-to-be-free-from-expressions-of-intolerance/

As a public university the people who came up with this need an education themselves, in the meaning of the First Amendment.

[GMTplus7]

UC and the Right to be Free of Expressions of Intolerance

Is there any right to be free of BS?

[TatinG]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0916-intolerance-20150916-story.html

Even the LA Times thinks its a very bad policy.

[ucbalumnus]

That proposal refers to something discussed in the July meeting. Anyone want to look through the minutes of the July meeting to find out the background of it?
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/minutes-index/july15.html

A quick glance indicates that some of the usual activists on Israeli - Palestinian politics (which tend to get rather nasty, as one might expect) made public comments.

[TatinG]

They are voting on it today in the Regents meeting.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/anti-682840-semitism-israel.html

[Kajon]

I liked the last two paragraphs of the LA Times article:

A related phenomenon is the conviction that college students must be shielded not only from insults and harassment but also from ideas they find objectionable. President Obama had this to say on the subject this week: “I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.”

Before the regents adopt any policies inspired by the Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, they should reject its overly broad language and draw a clearer distinction between acts of intolerance and the expression of opinions that might potentially offend some students. No student should have to put up with the former, but the latter is a feature not just of a free society but of an intellectually vibrant university campus.

Would you all agree that having the same point of view or belief as another person or group does not make you a tolerant person. Tolerance comes from accepting a point of view/behavior different from your own.

Oxford: The ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with

Miriam-Webster: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own

[TatinG]

The university cannot in one breath say that they are for free speech and in the next breath say that expressions of ‘intolerance’ are against university principles. Simply having the Regents propose such a policy is a governmental damper of free speech. Can one side of an argument be forbidden but the other side allowed?

The Regents need to take a legal course on the First Amendment and maybe re-read “1984”.

[ucbalumnus]

Re: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/anti-682840-semitism-israel.html

This article makes it look like the whole thing is about the nasty Israeli - Palestinian politics that regularly pops up around college campuses. Usually, the loudmouth racists end up dominating the scene and media attention whenever the subject pops up.

[Hunt]

I like Volokh. He’s a free-speech absolutist, which I tend to be as well. I particularly like that he opposes speech restrictions in a bipartisan fashion–such as opposing “microaggression” restrictions AND restrictions on criticizing Israel.

[TatinG]

I like him also. His commentary on the First Amendment and other legal issues is very interesting.

(BTW, I apologize for the grammatical error in the heading. Posting before coffee).

[ucbalumnus]

This article gives more background on the proposal:
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Pro-Israel-students-upset-at-UC-Regents-6509647.php

@sfgate.com

For months, pro-Israel students and groups have urged the regents — with petitions signed by hundreds of people— to adopt the definition of anti-Semitism used by the U.S. Department of State, which includes “demonizing” and “delegitimizing” Israel in its description of anti-Semitism.

But University of California leaders won’t ask the regents to adopt any definition of anti-Semitism, despite the groups’ argument that Jewish students regularly feel marginalized by the rising popularity of anti-Israel activism across campuses, from mock Israeli border-guard displays to the recent banning of Sabra brand hummus from UC Riverside’s dining service (later reversed), and that these have inspired swastika graffiti and other acts of discrimination.

[ucbalumnus]

Proposal was rejected:
http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-Regents-blast-generic-intolerance-statement-as-6512293.php

[Iglooo]

How’s boycotting Israel anti-semitic? If anyone calls on Jewish people on their wrong doing, are they anti-semitic? Everybody should maitain repectful tone but that’s no reason to shut out the debate calling it anti-semitic
.

[TatinG]

That is the crux of the whole issue, isn’t it. We cannot have a governmental body like a public university defining what is kosher to say (pardon the play) and what is not. Of course, the graffiti on the Jewish fraternity at Davis is a criminal act and so are threats to do bodily harm, etc. But otherwise people just have to learn that sometimes you are going to hear points of view that make you uncomfortable.

[GMTplus7]

A lot of big name comics won’t do stand-up at college venues now bcs college students are so thin skinned.

[Vladenschlutte]

I did a ctrl+f for the word “constitution.”

It only appeared once. It states that the national constitution protects freedom of ideas and expressions, which is true. Obviously they don’t want to extend those rights on their campus, so I don’t know why they brought it up, but I don’t think there’s any sort of fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment on their part or anything. The university is allowed to limit speech on its campus. They’re not claiming they’re doing so to protect any constitutional rights anyone has.

[TatinG]

A university can limit time and place of speech on campus, such as not allowing loud demonstrations where they will disrupt classes. But a public university cannot discriminate on the basis of content of speech (absent specific threats to a person or group).

[warbrain]

A lot of big name comics won’t do stand-up at college venues now bcs college students are so thin skinned.

I always thought it was the comics who are thin skinned in that they don’t want anyone to criticize their routines.

[Vladenschlutte]

A university can limit time and place of speech on campus, such as not allowing loud demonstrations where they will disrupt classes. But a public university cannot discriminate on the basis of content of speech (absent specific threats to a person or group).

Do you have something to support that?

[Scipio]

UC proposing to curtail free speech? Mario Savio is rolling over in his grave.