http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings
Namely that a traffic light system is a huge, huge, HUGE oversimplification of complex issues. While the analysis seems fairly transparent, I don't think many people will actually look into it past the traffic light.
I checked out the uni I went to: apparently the students union got an amber light because of "no tolerance to sexual harassment". How exactly does that violate free speech? The right to free speech unequivocally does not give you the right to harass people in any way. Similarly "Rules and Regulations for the Use of Information and Communications Technology" is an amber for institutions: does that mean all AUPs are in violation of freedom of speech? Most of them come down to "please don't hack our infrastructure or download anything that will make the police come round".
Also when things like "bans on specific ideologies" are very likely to get misconstrued. Banning groups which verbally harass others is likely going to be seen as a ban on free speech, despite the fact that such bans may be warranted.
The whole analysis and ranking system seems biased, and completely garbage to me.
Edit: since I'm an idiot and didn't realise that you could expand the amber/red points on the site, my uni SU's "no tolerance to sexual harassment" was due to them adopting the NUS (National Union of Students) guideline that sexual harassment is defined as ‘any unwanted comments which makes someone uncomfortable’, and the ICT rule was ‘Users must ensure that the content and tone of their email messages cannot be considered offensive.’
Both of these appear reasonable to me. There's some genuine debate to be had over the issue of no-platforming but all this site is doing is furthering their own agenda, which seems to be that they should have the right to insult and harass people however they want. As always, this is relevant here: https://xkcd.com/1357/
And that rather than "watering down" ones thoughts, understanding the implications of language and avoiding unintended ones actually expresses your ideas better?
Or, in short, he grew up.
Seems like in 137 he's saying that he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear. He's accepting the risks that come with making his opinions public, and challenging assumptions that he should just shut up, in part because he has confidence in the validity of his beliefs and a willingness to defend them.
The more recent one is about people who publicize poorly constructed opinions with no consideration to the potential consequences it will create for their interpersonal and community relationships. Those folks are welcome to say "fuck that shit" like the character in 137 and go build their own forums or whatever to spread and defend those ideas. But most of these types would prefer to whine and call themselves victims.
Exactly. Just apply that to the fear of running afoul of draconian speech codes designed to reduce the amount of "offence" people experience.
And who gets to decide what is acceptable?
My college had an atheist club that hung up a banner saying "Religion is for the feeble minded" - that's offensive to billions of people.
Can we shut them down and boot them off campus?
My college also had communist clubs with communist slogans - many of my extended family were killed by communists so that's obviously offensive.
Can we shut them down and boot them off campus?
> The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend.
By the time people like Milo come along hundreds of legitimate speakers have already been silenced - that's how people like Milo realize it's an easy and lucrative market to take advantage of.
Twitter and Reddit and the like are public platforms that belong to a private entity. So it's private property and the people who own it can curate or be selective if they choose.
All that said, I'm no fan of "no-platforming", but it's not as prominent as you might think, at least on the public college level. I went to a college where random fire and brimstone preachers would stand in front of the library, bang on buckets and call women "whores" as they passed by. Nobody invited them, they just wanted an audience. And though I hated those guys, I understand their right to do that (with a permit) and to say whatever. Likewise, it was my right to laugh in his face, call him an asshole. Because he was being a jerk.
I feel like we have our wires crossed - the parent was talking about university/college policy and not social media.
I'm saying if universities/colleges want to police speech for any offensive content then they need to apply the policy uniformly and ban the atheist and communist clubs.
> but it's not as prominent as you might think, at least on the public college level.
I think the crazy preachers are a bad example - a normal person who just wants to give an interesting talk does not want to put up with screaming protestors. They don't want the stress. They don't have a security detail. Etc.
The people who don't mind are the crazy preachers and the people who get paid for controversy like Milo.
The moderates have already been de-platformed.
In UK universities they have no such protection, and similar clubs have been shut down.
My alma mater, University College London, banned the Nietzsche Society: https://thetab.com/2014/06/03/thus-spake-the-su-14611
Your comment honestly does make me feel uncomfortable.
Why is it ok on hn to make unwelcome and uncomfortable comments but not in a university setting?
Can we label you a harasser?
>Define "sexual", define "harassment".
I have seen it said before that if you ask a girl out once its fine. If she says no and you continue to do it then its harassment. Except that how a lot of relationships begin. Pretty sure that the story of how Barack Obama got Michelle.
At one end of the spectrum its obvious. At the other end it's not.
Sure, some people won't mind being asked out repeatedly, or maybe even find it flattering, but some people will find it very uncomfortable, and forcing those people to deal with that just so some people get to enjoy a silly courtship ritual is not really fair.
And are they being reasonable or not?
I know people who find it very uncomfortable to leave their house.
I know people who find it very uncomfortable to talk to someone they don't know.
I personally find any kind of sales and advertising incredibly uncomfortable.
Almost everyone finds it very uncomfortable when they have their views challenged.
Just because something makes some people uncomfortable doesn't make it bad.
I can't say I find your examples particularly justifying. I think we should leave agoraphobic introverts alone if that's what they want. I think sales and advertising are obnoxious and society would be better without them. And I think people should be free to explore different views at their own pace, as long as they're not hurting anyone. Or if they are hurting someone, then that discomfort caused by challenging their views is justified, but it's still a bad thing in itself.
Way outside of the norm. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at?
> And why do you think that justifies taking actions that we know are likely to cause someone else discomfort?
1. Is causing discomfort immoral? Sometimes but it can also be a good thing.
2. What makes you think it's likely to cause discomfort? It's a tiny minority who are truly bothered.
The reason guys will ask multiple times is because it works - Millions of happy relationships have started after an initial rejection.
3. Why do you only consider one persons discomfort?
Not being able to find a life partner is incredibly discomforting.
What about the discomfort faced by the many many women who like being chased?
>It's a tiny minority who are truly bothered.
I don't think women feeling harassed by men's advances is remotely "outside the norm", or a "tiny minority". It's very common, which is exactly the problem.
>What about the discomfort faced by the many many women who like being chased?
If people like this kind of courtship, they should be willing to communicate that, rather than making it impossible for anyone to say "no" just so they can get their kicks. If there's no safeword for this "chasing" it shouldn't be considered consensual.
By college students on campus?
That's not at all the impression I get from my daughter or her friends who finished college recently.
Her opinion is the men are way too timid.
> If people like this kind of courtship, they should be willing to communicate that
Why? Why isn't it up to the minority of people who have a problem to communicate clearly?
> impossible for anyone to say "no" just so they can get their kicks.
It doesn't make it impossible to say no. What are you talking about?
What it means is a women might have to say no a couple of times over time or make it clear they have no interest at all.
I've asked a friend to meet up for coffee 3x this fortnight and he has said no each time. Should I never ask him again to get coffee?
If I keep asking him does that mean he can't say no?
That is the issue. Just because someone considers something offensive does not make it so. With a tiny bit of effort, so many things can be "considered offensive". A generous interpretation would be that a governing body must consider it offensive, but more likely this means the recipient of a message can take offense where none is given.
But far more importantly, students should not be given protection from being offended. Harassment, sure, but offense? That's part of growing up.
I agree with the principle in theory. Of course outright banning anything "offensive" without clearly defining what is and is not offensive is very open to interpretation and can be abused. But when it comes to writing rules regarding offensive communication and harassment I think it's better to be over-zealous and treat all incidents on a case by case basis, especially in organisations where they're more concerned with incidents being made public and the organisation getting bad PR.
Also an important point is the "cannot be considered offensive" rule is an IT policy, not a general university one. Every employer I've had has made me sign an acceptable use policy from IT that says (among other things) "don't send offensive emails". It's not that much different. As I said in the original comment, the site is an oversimplification of a complex problem, and generic IT policies shouldn't really be considered anti freedom of speech for various reasons.
> Both of these appear reasonable to me.
How is that reasonable?
Essentially it makes sexual harassment entirely subjective.
That is ridiculously open to abuse.
This doesn't seem reasonable at all. "Considered offensive" - those are just weasel words. How can I be expected to have a perfect model of other people's minds and the things they would be upset by?
>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16911880
tldr is that it's an IT policy not a university one, and every single employer whose email server you ever used has exactly the same policy in place. I actually looked up a few more universities and all the times the "no offensive speech" policy was cited it was an IT policy.
The Counter Terrorism and Security Act of 2015 imposes a statutory duty on universities to have a "due regard to the need to prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism". This means that institutions now have a statutory duty to participate in the government's Prevent strategy. This means UK universities have a legal obligation to narc on students who are too Muslim.
As a whole, universities have tried to finesse this attack on free expression this by defining violent radicalism as a signal of mental illness and telling us lecturers that we should feel obliged to refer struggling students to mental health services. Ultimately, though, when the intent and design of the rules is fundamentally bigoted, there is only so far that technical compliance can mitigate that.
People who are referred are assessed, and most appropriate help should be provided. For some people this will be mental health services. For others it might be befriending services, or access to non-radicalising social groups.
People have mentioned external speakers. Here's the guidance for Higher Education in England and Wales.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
---begin 6. We would expect RHEBs to be delivering in the following areas.
External Speakers and Events
7. In order to comply with the duty all RHEBs should have policies and procedures in place for the management of events on campus and use of all RHEB premises. The policies should apply to all staff, students and visitors and clearly set out what is required for any event to proceed.
8. The RHEB clearly needs to balance its legal duties in terms of both ensuring freedom of speech and academic freedom, and also protecting student and staff welfare. Although it predates this legislation, Universities UK produced guidance in 2013 to support institutions to make decisions about hosting events and have the proper safeguards in place: http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Pages/Extern...
---end
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
That potentially covers any and all of homophobia, sexism, support for Rangers FC, signing up for the Army, animal rights, etc.
The actual guidance says
> vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs
and calls out Islamic fundamentalism and white supremacism. That raises the question, should the BBC's recent broadcast of the "Rivers of Blood" speech have been referred to Prevent for white supremacism?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
That feels reasonable so long as it's focussed on extremists: we had a spate of "fire bombing" incendiary attacks on department stores in the 1980s; and one group dug up a human corpse.
individuals wanting to commit violent acts can arguably belong to any set of beliefs, it's the extent of their beliefs and the specific belief that violence is needed to implement their vision that is the problem being discussed (imo).
I think Islamic fundamentalism and white supremacism are specifically called out because they are the most visible current threats. In case you were being serious, the BBC broadcast clearly falls under journalistic protection. An individual recreating the speech would likely be tried for hate speech.
Do you realise that you're saying devout Muslims are terrorists? That may not be what you intended. Obviously prevent is not about people who are "too muslim", but about people who are drawn to violence for political or religious means.
This includes islamic extremists, but also includes some animal rights activists or far right extremists.