because free speech is universal. You can't cherry pick what topics/views/opinions are protected based on your world view.
Also, "Free speech" refers to the fact that the government cannot bust in to your house with a SWAT team and arrest you for speaking something that they don't like. Private companies can enforce whatever speech rules they like, and that doesn't interfere with the free speech of the individual. They can walk outside and state those things. There are already numerous hate speech laws covering the fact that the first amendment does not mean that you have a right to say whatever you want in a private space.
I don't disagree with Harvard's decision, or any decision made by a private institution or person.
I disagree with the notion that certain types of speech or thought are universally wrong. Personally - I believe racism is wrong - but I disagree with the notion that it's "wrong think". It's simply a different world view.
To re-iterate: I don't agree with what the students said or did. I agree with Harvard's decision. I don't agree that protecting someone's right to speak freely and openly supports their agenda.
One that states that people with more melatonin are fundamentally inferior and should be subservient to people with less melatonin. It is a point of view that is objectively and morally wrong.
I wonder whether you would support the right of people to state that PoC should be sterilized, or the rights of people to call people to attack PoCs. Because that is what more and more people have been calling for in America. That is what Richard Spencer, one of the leaders of the alt-right, advocates.
The problem with these 'different world views' is that even without directly stating that people should attack minorities, these statements lead to people beating up black people on the streets. The more these ideas and 'world views' are accepted, the more acceptable it will become to think and state such things, leading to a resurgence of people who think that PoCs should be murdered. That will then directly impact the probability of someone acting upon those beliefs.
The reason why the rest of the world does have as bad a racism problem as America, is because they took steps to alienate people who had such views.
To answer you question - Yes, I would support the rights of people to state whatever they wish. I also support the rights of individuals such as you or myself to call those people morons, and to not associate with them.
Suppressing speech, and demonizing people for their views (no matter how "objectively wrong") does not solve any problem. It only breeds hate and contempt and radicalizes people more.
Of course there is. If I have the world-view that I am the most successful person in the world, yet 90% of people have not heard of me, then that world-view is false. If I have the world-view that climate change is just something made up the scientists to get more funding, then that world-view is false. If I have the world-view that some people are inferior because of their skin-colour, then that world view is scientifically false. As best as we can objectively measure, those world-views are false.
> Suppressing speech, and demonizing people for their views (no matter how "objectively wrong") does not solve any problem.
You are incorrect, and you mistake how facism works. Facism is not after the truth, facism is not after peace. The only peace that facism, and facists want, is peace through the absence of justice. The only goal of white supremacists, is to create a world in which PoC either no longer exist, or are subjugated. They will abuse any system and platform that you give them, to spread their philosophies and ensure more people join their cause. They continue to be a thriving community because the educated population have ignored them out of politeness. The sole goal of them is to further their philosophy. The only way we can stop that, is by depriving them of platforms from which to speak their hate.
Let us not forget the last time we tried to bargain with white supremacists. Several deals were forged, and as soon as the facists had got a firm position, they went back on the deals and moved into Poland, and meanwhile began exterminating parts of their populations that they deemed inferior. The only reason they were able to do that was because they were ignored and thus tolerated by the educated population.
If you think I am being paranoid, let us look at what the leader of the large political movement called the "alt-right" stated only a few years ago:
""""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. """"[0].
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna...
Also worth pointing out that Harvard receives a lot of public dollars, so it's not the canonical private institution. Remember when everyone freaked out that the salvation army wouldn't employ openly gay preachers (but would employ homosexually in any other role) because though they were a private entity, they received NYC tax dollars, and then everyone freaked out when the SA announced that they would decline those tax dollars and reduce the scope of their work in the city accordingly?
So, yes, I'm quite comfortable with this hill. It has a nice shining city on it. Shame its originators abandoned it. (They never really liked it anyway.)
Do you have an actual argument, or are you just whatabouting?
Such as?
Everyone knows that. Nobody (except the most ill-informed) dispute it. But the First Amendment is not and was never intended to be the end-all and be-all of free speech. Freedom of speech is a value held by society. The First Amendment is a legal protection afforded that value in law.
When people and organizations start clamping down on speech, yes, that is a violation of the principle of freedom of speech, even if it has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Yes, there has to be a reasonable balance between your freedom to associate with people who say obnoxious things and their freedom to say obnoxious things. Nobody disputes that either.
But there's been an increasingly clear trend of people being banished from workplaces, universities, and other spaces because of their speech, people who would not have been so punished in the past. Part of it is the Internet puts our words in a public space, accessible to everyone. Part of it is the Internet foments mobs of offended people who come after you. Part of it is that people seem to be becoming more and more intolerant of dissenting views.
This is an extremely dangerous long-term trend. It points to a more factious, divided populace. It points to eventual government restrictions on speech. Authoritarian governments rarely start out by banning speech everyone supports. They start banning speech everyone finds dangerous and offensive. Having Brownshirts beating up Communists for their speech ends with Nazis rounding up Communists.
> There are already numerous hate speech laws covering the fact that the first amendment does not mean that you have a right to say whatever you want in a private space.
Care to point these laws out?
The government can't arrest you but people can shun you.
Relevant xkcd, as always!
This is no different than students posting offensive material on a physical message board on some main through fare on campus.
Edit: Actually, it's somewhat unclear to what degree and what material was required to be posted on the main chat, and what portion was in a separate private chat (still likely associated with Harvard in some way?). The article is unclear on these points. Harvard still has the right to gate admissions how they like (and they state that includes "moral character"), so if they are able to determine you are participating in actions they don't approve of, then they have grounds to reject you or revoke your prior acceptance. Just as if they Google'd you on your initial application and found verifiable and unsettling information.