A blogger at The Bellman takes issue with a prior pw post from our host Jeff, the offending portion of which read as follows:
…those who constantly remind us that giving “offense†is commensurate with “hate speech,†and as such, is worthy of special remedies (â€Âdiversity training†for benighted “haters,†a rather nuanced reconsideration of free speech that turns “tolerance†on its head, or  at best, the rise of “free speech zones,†which are nothing more than a progressive attempt at Jim Crow-ing the First Amendment)
“DR” responded:
I just don’t understand what is being alleged here. As far as I know, so-called ‘free-speech zones’ have uniformly been created by entrenched power in an attempt to isolate and disempower[1] dissenting voices. Do the wingnuts really think that this is a progressive idea? More to the point, what the Hell could possibly be meant by ‘Jim Crow-ing the First Amendment’? Is there a literacy test involved? Could this test be used to ban particularly stupid bloggers?
A good place for the uninformed to start informing themselves on the Left’s prediliction for censorship would be “Codes of Silence,” by Alan Charles Kors and Harvey Silverglate, from the Nov. 1998 issue of Reason magazine, addressing the proliferation of speech codes on college campuses:
The contemporary movement that seeks to restrict liberty on campus has its roots in the provocative work of the late Marxist scholar Herbert Marcuse, a brilliant polemicist, social critic, and philosopher who gained a following in the New Left student movement of the 1960s. Marcuse developed a theory of civil liberty that would challenge the essence and legitimacy of free speech. Although he repeatedly declared his belief in freedom and tolerance, Marcuse built on the work of Rousseau, Marx, and Gramsci to articulate an alternative conception of liberty, placing him at odds with the Free Speech Movement, the U.S. Supreme Court’s First Amendment doctrines, academic freedom, and the values of most liberal democrats. This alternative framework, which used some traditional terms but assigned them new meanings, became the foundation of academic speech codes.
In a 1965 essay entitled “Repressive Tolerance,” Marcuse concluded that America’s supposedly neutral tolerance for ideas was in reality a highly selective tolerance that benefited only the prevailing attitudes and opinions of those who held wealth and power. Such “indiscriminate” or “pure” tolerance, he argued, effectively served “the cause of oppression” and the “established machinery of discrimination.” For Marcuse, as long as society was held captive by militarism and by institutionalized, pervasive social and economic inequality–what he characterized as “regressive” practices–“indiscriminate tolerance” necessarily would serve the highly discriminatory interests of regression…
***
Marcuse focused on the education of the young: “The restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teaching and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior.” Because students already were so heavily brainwashed to think in the manner that established power had ordained, true “autonomous thinking” was virtually impossible, and one had to take steps to wrench students from the regressive channels into which society had cast their minds. “The pre-empting of the mind vitiates impartiality and objectivity,” he wrote. “Unless the student learns to think in the opposite direction, he will be inclined to place the facts into the predominant framework of values.” Marcuse mocked the “sacred liberalistic principle of equality for `the other side,'” because “there are issues where…there is no `other side’ in any more than a formalistic sense.”
It is precisely this Leftist theory that has led to turning many of our colleges and universities into “free speech zones” which are anything but.ÂÂ
Nor was Jeff’s analogy to Jim Crow any sort of exaggeration, as noted by Profs. Charles W. Nuckolls and David T. Beito in an essay at HNN about a resolution passed by the Faculty Senate at the University of Alabama:
The resolution calls on University officials to “develop clear policies restricting any behavior which demeans or reduces an individual based on group affiliation or personal characteristics.†The pretext for passage was an incident involving alleged anti-gay comments by a comedian at an event sponsored by the University. Just why a university should pay professional comedians to entertain the students is another question.
But the resolution goes further. It covers “any approved University program or activity.†If taken literally, of course, the effect would be to punish football fans at Alabama games who shout slogans that “demean†or “diminish†players on the opposing team. Not a single member of the Faculty Senate voted against the proposed measure, although one fretted unconvincingly, “I think I know what is right and wrong but it’s all that stuff in the middle.â€Â
If the members of the Alabama Faculty Senate thought this attempt to restrict free speech was original, they were wrong. In making their vote, they had cast their lot with a long and unsavory tradition in the Deep South. In 1956, for example, a bill debated by the Mississippi state legislature had remarkably similar wording to that approved by the Faculty Senate. It proposed making it a criminal offense to use “oral or printed†words “which tend to expose a person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to degrade or disgrace him in society.â€Â
To be sure, the sponsors of the Mississippi and Alabama resolutions had different goals. Those in Mississippi were leading defenders of segregation including the governor and the Speaker of the House. Their resolution was part of a “package†of segregationist legislation intended to obstruct enforcement of the Brown decision and quash the civil rights movement. The sponsors of the Alabama resolution, by contrast, were primarily leftist faculty who pride themselves on their politically correct views.
Jeff left a comment at The Bellman suggesting that readers inform themselves about the work of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which was founded by the aforementioned Kors and Silverglate. They have a wealth of information about “progressive” censorship of free inquiry at the very institutions that purport to promote free inquiry.
Not that I expect anyone associated with The Bellman to open their minds on the subject, given that “DR” jokes about banning bloggers with whom s/he disagrees and tags the post “links that should not be followed.” Quite the commitment to free expression and inquiry over there. Not to worry — so long as there are enough people like Jeff, stupid bloggers like DR will be free to spout uninformed dogma without ever having to examine the intellectual foundations of their own oppressive views.
curiouser and curiouser said Alice.
Heres a Doris Lessing piece Aldo linked me.
u know Karl, the Bellman never caught a snark.
it turned out to be a Boojum.
Aldo said this was pure Goldstein, but actually it is Lessing.
Because when I think of bastions of right-wing power, I think of college administrations…………
Well fuck me running, Karl is capable of writing on topics of interest rather than solely belting out anti-Obama screeds consisting of equal parts horrid journalistic ethics, racial bias, libel, right-wing nuttery and partisan hackery.
A new dawn of awakening. If there’s hope for Tiger Woods knee then there is hope for Karl too, why didn’t I think in those terms originally? Because KK pisses me off, why yes.
Thanks for the interesting thread, Karl. (not an easy comment to type, trust me)
If you can get the true believer on the left to admit that free speech zones was a move made by progressives, he will likely tell you that it had to be done as a way to prevent some right wing evil.
Hmmmmm, I always heard the term “Free Speech Zone” applied to the little fenced in areas where protesters were allowed to be at the Republican National Convention in New York last election.
thor,
Given that you are a lying, racist hack with serious projection issues, I acknowledge how difficult that was.
Either way: As explained by Karl or by Ken Mehlman – Free Speech Zones are suckassed ideas. I would prefer dimwits to spout their crap in the full glare of the sunlight – so that I can point and laugh. I am wary of “hate speech” laws and people banning shit because they don’t want to discuss something.
Now, we mustn’t get ourselves confused here: Saying something stupid in public and are then excoriated and deeply humiliated is not censorship. Often, the publicly bitchslapped and scornheaped party will cry that everyone piling on and flaming them is “censorship” which is utter bullshit.
Lisa, that was the Democratic National Convention in Boston.
I’m no good at html, so search for “DNC Boston Free Speech Zone” or hopefully this link doesn’t break the blog
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2004/07/64349
BTW: Colleges are terrible terrible places for errant crankery and totalitarian bullshit to flourish. The fetishization of mediocrity coupled with the hothouse environment for experimental and often crazy ideas is a bad combination.
Actually, the use of “free speech zones” at the conventions dates back at least as far as 1992 — or so says Wikipedia, fwiw.
The Bellman had bought them a map of the sea
without the least vestige of land,
And the Crew were much pleased when they found it to be
a map they could all understand.
“What’s the use of Mercator’s north Poles and Equators
Tropic Zones and Meridian lines?”
So the Bellman would cry, and the Crew would reply:
“They are merely conventional signs!”
In fact, the reason I did not talk about the conventions in the main post is that the post and coimments at the Bellman led me to believe that sufficiently Left that pointing out that the Dems used them would not matter to them.
#9: Yes, you are correct. Thank you. It was the DNC then the RNC that utilized that atrocious idea.
mojo,
If you do things like that, you’ll totally blow our cover as uneducated wingnuts. Don’t make me censor you!!!!eleventy!!!
Comment by Karl on 6/19 @ 11:25 am
thor,
Given that you are a lying, racist hack with serious projection issues, I acknowledge how difficult that was.
Do fuck off, chowder head.
Ah, back in my comfortably worn shoes. Feels good!
The zones at conventions are typically justified by appealing to public safety issues (not unintelligently, either). But at universities, the idea is, well, practically surreal.
Want to talk about concerns that race-based affirmative action is perpetuating racial animus? Take it to the free speech zone. Otherwise, it is unacceptable hate speech that could offend someone, and as such, has no place in the classroom or curriculum. READ YOUR DIVERSITY PLEDGE!
The anti-intellectualism of this is so stunning as to be, as I noted before, surreal. This is the US. The whole fucking thing is supposed to be a free speech zone.
I wrote a few days back that progressives, for the most part, haven’t really examined the weave of their own ideological security blankets. Bellman David R is a shining example, it seems to me, of one such brainwashed Linus.
Does political correctness have a good side? Yes, it does, for it makes us re-examine attitudes, and that is always useful. The trouble is that, with all popular movements, the lunatic fringe so quickly ceases to be a fringe; the tail begins to wag the dog. For every woman or man who is quietly and sensibly using the idea to examine our assumptions, there are 20 rabble-rousers whose real motive is desire for power over others, no less rabble-rousers because they see themselves as anti-racists or feminists or whatever.
Yeah. Revolutions always end up being overtaken by the Robespierres and the Lennins.
Too bad.
They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;
They pursued it with forks and hope;
They threatened its life with a railway-share;
They charmed it with smiles and soap.
;)
Lenins…
Cant spell.
#17: True. I work at a university that is not as crankish as the big ivy leagues have gotten, but still gives lip service about free speech zones and diversity pledges and all that.
I suppose that stating “we support freedom and diversity of thought” is not a horrible thing. But actually trying to enforce some doctrine that “No One Should Ever Be Offended Ever On This Campus” is just fucking stupid. And that is what people natter on about trying to do: “We want all of our students to be free from harmful speech at all times” which, aside from being absurdly impossible, is not preparing them to debate like fucking adults or face the fact that they might have a stupid idea and get challenged. Nor does it teach them that other people are allowed to have ideas that might piss them off or make them feel really bad.
I review academic appeals as part of my job. I cannot tell you how many times a student has used their gender, race, or religion to attempt to bully me into overriding a decision by a faculty member. Kids suck. And giving them the idea that they should never, ever have to be offended is just one more weapon they use in their arsenal of tricks to get around actually earning their grades.
Not to mention that it is precisely the opposite of the kind of tolerance that free speech requires under the first amendment.
Er, you haven’t actually addressed the issue. You’ve written a post about political correctness which, obviously, I would acknowledge to be an idea that emerged from the left. Free speech zones are something different. Want to give it another try?
“Although he repeatedly declared his belief in freedom and tolerance, Marcuse built on the work of Rousseau, Marx, and Gramsci to articulate an alternative conception of liberty,…”
In other words, he’s a fascist thug.
Got it.
dr,
Yes, I realize that you are an ignoramus. What do you think speech codes have turned college campuses into, if not something worse than the free speech zones you seem to be obsessed with? They ban dissenting thought more than the “zones” you mention, with less justification. BTW, the issue of such zones at the conventions is addressed here in the comments. As I note, I did not put them in the main post because I presume you are so far to the Left that pointing out that Democrats have been using them since 1992 would not matter to you in the slightest.
The post was too long for him, is all.
Anyone who doubts the seriousness of the Left’s assault on free speech has not heard of the University of Delaware’s brainwashing program for students in university housing (which should be described in detail at the FIRE link Karl provided). More here on that:
Er, you’re wrong again, dr. The impetus for such zones comes from a faculty/bureaucracy who have embraced the leftist arguments noted by Kors and Silvergate. That’s the point. You can’t even HAVE free speech zones — a segregating of free expression of ideas away from the university community in toto — without first accepting certain assumptions about speech. And those assumptions are being pushed by progressives, after having first been articulated by Marxists.
And as I linked to in the
originalfollow-up post, you’ll find progressives making arguments about tolerance that enable such constructs as free speech zones. They provide the justification by way of redefining tolerance in a way that is antithetical to the First Amendment’s understanding of the term.Whereas you won’t see classical liberals or, for the most part, conservatives (beyond certain social conservatives, who are mocked here for doing so), doing any such thing.
I should add that focusing on the popular label “free speech zone” as opposed to what is the same or worse (just without the popular label)demonstrates the intellectual depth of a small soap dish. As originally noted, I’m not surprised.
translated dr: If a progg calls something a “free speech zone” it is one; if someone else uses the term, they must be wrong. Because only proggs get to define the terms of debate. Because of their commitment to free speech.
So what do we do Karl? I have spoken with parents of all stripes. More times than you know, even a very conservative parent will grab and run with the whole PC “this professor offended my child and disrespected his religion/race/sexuality. He is now distressed and should be able to retake the final”.
While I will agree that this crap generates from cranks on the left, it is an entire generation (>coughcough< and their even worse progeny that validate this shit by using it whenever it pleases them/is useful to them (contrary to some of their protestations of disgust about it all).
And the paper-maché puppets. Can’t forget them.
The limitations on protesting in front of abortion providers is also an example of the progressive commitment to free speech.
Lisa,
The complaints you mention are people (of any ideological stripe) who are simply applying the Alinsky-esque tactic of holding the institution strictly accountable to its own standards. Get rid of the speech codes and the complaints lose their force.
What is the zone outside the free speech zone called? It should be the doublespeak or newspeak zone but I would imagine the Gramscians were too careful to allow such honesty on a college campus.
Please, Karl, if you would, be exacting. You mean Certain proggs! Either that of come to grips that nishi quoted Doris Lessing, the crustiest crypto-Marxist cunt “in the World!” (use a Olbermann voice over).
The width of your stance when you whip out your ideology labels is frightening indeed. Everyone can smell your butt, and, personally, I to feel like I’m swimming in your enema’s discharge.
Fix it! Certain of Progg-manity has the right not to be categorically labeled with the retards of freedoms.
Comment by Lisa on 6/19 @ 11:34 am #
“#9: Yes, you are correct. Thank you. It was the DNC then the RNC that utilized that atrocious idea.”
Actually, isnt it the doing of the respective city governments?
thor
I think Jeff could school you on the difference between (non-classic) liberals and proggs.
Wouldn’t the “you can’t protest within X feet of an abortion clinic” be another example of these “free speech” zones?
The issue goes far beyond university campuses. The Left is now using a version of John Kerry’s “global test” to justify Canadian-style free speech limitations on the right. This can be seen in the reaction to to Mark Steyn Hate Speech show-trial:
Maybe you’re right (not easy to type that) KK, but still, nobody demands to wag their ugly tongue as I, and nobody grants others the same right of tongue as I (clear hero self-worship). Yet I’m constantly the victim of your terminal lumpology (the sweet science of categorically lumping), and it’s annoying.
I’m the Marxist. I’m the Progg. I’m the whitey-hater. Because.I.Like.Obama. I don’t like many of his friends, ain’t a Democrat, not even a politically driven a ideologue or failed harpy, like you, yet I’m lumpimized all the time.
Stardate: June 19th, 2008. thor Victimhood successfully attained. World Safe. Aliens impregnated.
Interesting, Aldo. As I’ve been arguing for some time, we have set ourselves up linguistically for just such nonsense. Peter Wood discusses it with respect to “diversity,” but the implications are far and wide, and it was Kennedy’s opinion, with respect to diversity, that could turn out to be the swing vote that empowers legal progressivism.
Sorry to hear about your victimhood thor. I’d be willing to put in on one of those musical greeting cards if it would help lift your spirits.
Certain proggs take on the mantle of victimhood — and get incrementally proggier!
O!
#33: Yes I agree.
I think thor should change his name to Atlas.
Also #26 and Jeff.
The program continues at University of Delaware, only now they have purged the website of the program details and simply refuse to talk about it. They actually called it “the treatment.”
Mind boggling, it is.
More here at Lamplighter in March:
What was that again about liberals and fascism? This college is about an hours drive south of where I live, fer cryin’ out loud.
No shit. They call it “the treatment”?
*shudder*
I, the Progg Almighty, wouldn’t care to post in a “fuck you thor” free zone.
How would I know which of you wanted to date-rape me if you didn’t come out and admit it?
Karl, all —
Seems our old pal Hpennypacker is over at Bellman taking his potshots. The guy can’t seem to quit me. Like others before him. You might want to head over there and “discourse” with him.
Ironically, one commenter over there bemoans the broad brush I used to paint the entirety of the left — this, despite the fact that I specifically separate out progressives from Dems, and those progressives who understand the underlying assumptions of their worldview from those who simply adopt progressivism out of political fashion.
This, even as the host uses “wingnuts” to refer to, evidently, everyone not like him.
Sometimes I wonder how these people manage not to trip over their own knots.
Well maybe it ain’t all members of the left and maybe it ain’t all progressives but let’s just take a minute and meet the creator of that lovely program at U. of Delaware. I give you the transcendently bi-racial, the gloriously perpetually victimized, the lighbringer shining on white oppression everywhere, ladies and gentlemen (you too, thoratlas) I give Dr. Shakti Butler!
Some highlights:
Oh, I’m wiping my eyes and dry heaving at the same time. But, wait, there’s more!
no … no … must not think of it … transformative …learning … TOO … MANY … JOKES!!!!!
A suggested edit.
cranky-d,
I think it’s really easy to explain why they don’t trip over their own dicks.
I QUESTION THE
TIMINGPREMISE!!!Following up on BJTex’s post, this caught my eye:
California Institute of Integral Studies in the School of Transformative Learning and Change
Wow. So I visited their website. Basically, crystal-humpers who somehow grant doctorates. Makes me glad the only PhD I have is a Post-hole Digger.
(Back to lurking to see if bellman ever actually figures out what a free speech zone is.)
#17 – the fact that th eprogressive left is creating free speech zones on campus demonstrates how far their tide has receded. In the late sixties-early seventies, the Supreme Court had to tell Dr. Spock that US military bases were not places where a protest could be held. The good doctor was agitating for free speech on military bases to allow an anti-war protest there.
So far fallen…and so desperate in retreat that they have to argue for a special exemption in their own strongholds are the leftist progressives, advocating the argument that they had rejected. It is sign of an ideology under siege, not one that is advancing.
#18 Lisa – ours wasn’t.
Ain’t it great that George Washington rejected the role of Lord Protector when it was offered to him?
I think he was a giant.
[…] on the Left’s love affair with […]
#20 Lisa
“we support freedom and diversity of thought†and “No One Should Ever Be Offended Ever On This Campusâ€Â
Are mutually exclusive. And all who hold to that can have breakfast at Milliway’s!
#20 Lisa:
Again, what you described is protectionism. Protecting a staus quo from outside challenge. It does not lead to a robust intellect if no challenge can be raised and debated on the merits. It is, as you described, the tactic of a sophmore.
You, however, are robust; you can debate. You do not need artificial protection to thrive in a hostile environment. Lord, I really like having you here. You are willing to fight, and you do not claim an exemption based on non-pertinent factors; you meet everyone toe-to-toe with what they bring and do not complain.
If you are not happy with that, you should be; and your parents ought to be damned proud they raised such a strong-minded daughter. Salute!
What X is talking about are ‘time, place, and manner’ resrictions, not restrictions on the content of speech. The two are very, very different. No one should be able to use a bullhorn to broadcast any speech in a residential neighborhood and definitely not when many people who are not the subject of the protest are trying to sleep.
That is just an example from the jurisprudence on the First Amendment.
Interesting, Aldo. As I’ve been arguing for some time, we have set ourselves up linguistically for just such nonsense.
As evidenced by the utter failure of Jill and the gang to even comprehend your “whitey” post. If the entire post except for the words “whitey” and “nigger” had been written in Egyptian heiroglyphics or nonsense words the response could have been the same. The progs have achieved such complete control of the language in certain areas that genuine discourse is no longer even possible.
“We demand RIGIDLY DEFINED areas of uncertainty and doubt!”
— Philosophers, “The Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”
“…complete control of the language in certain areas …”
Hopefully these areas are confined to space between their ears and encroach no further on the rest of us.
…so long as there are enough people like Jeff, stupid bloggers like DR will be free to spout uninformed dogma without ever having to examine the intellectual foundations of their own oppressive views.
Someone like DR cannot be reached with reason. The benefit of challenging such progs is usually found in the minds of lurkers — people reading but not commenting, yet noticing which side makes the most sense, or “Common Sense,” as Tom Paine might say.
What’s fascinating to me is that DR doesn’t seem to grasp that on any given university campus, the “entrenched power” is progressive.
” Comment by DoDoGuRu on 6/20 @ 3:52 am #
What’s fascinating to me is that DR doesn’t seem to grasp that on any given university campus, the “entrenched power†is progressive.”
Denial is the first step!
He naturally thinks that if it’s big and powerful and “corporate,” it must naturally be right wing.
One wonders if this dude has ever been on a college campus at all.
#67
Oh! You mean like labor unions?
They’re not right wing, but just as powerful as Big-put your corporate logo here.
Hi I was reading your blog and it made me think about a company I have used for years. It’s
called PEPID . We have used there medical apps for years
and found that they have the most well rounded knowledgebase and are the most up-to-date over
all their competitors. They update there mobile medical apps and their drug databases at least once a month. They make mobile medical apps for Palm, Palm Pre, Android, BlackBerry and Iphone. I hear <a href="http://www.pepid.com/PEPID apps to work on the iPad as well. Anyway don't take my word for it check them out yourself, they offer free trials. It would be worth your time. Here is the web address http://www.pepid.com
Nice Post
Thanks Tim