Vox: President Obama blasts liberal political correctness on college campuses

[gobears10]

Last edited Mon Sep 14, 2015, 09:36 PM - Edit history (2)

DES MOINES, Iowa — People concerned about liberal political correctness on college campuses have a powerful ally: President Obama.

At a town hall here on college affordability on Monday afternoon, one student asked Obama to respond to Republican presidential contender Ben Carson's proposal to cut off funding to colleges that demonstrate political bias.

Unsurprisingly, Obama didn't like it much. "I have no idea what that means, and I suspect he doesn’t either," he said, then continued: "The idea that you’d have somebody in government making a decision about what you should think ahead of time or what you should be taught, and if it’s not the right thought, or idea, or perspective or philosophy, that person would be — they wouldn’t get funding, runs contrary to everything we believe about education," he said. "That might work in the Soviet Union, but that doesn’t work here. That's not who we are."

After that criticism, he went on to give his opinion about what's been called the "new political correctness" on college campuses:

"It’s not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem. Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, 'You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say.' That’s not the way we learn either."

Read full article here: http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness

[arcane1]

1. "I have no idea what that means, and I suspect he doesn’t either"

[mindwalker_i]

9. Yeah no kidding

That was the money shot right there.

[mike_c]

2. hear hear!

eom

[Maedhros]

3. Colleges and universities are intended to be marketplaces of ideas.

One is supposed to be challenged and pulled outside one's comfort zone - that's how one learns and expands one's worldview.

[gobears10]

4. Exactly.

I'm extremely pro-choice, and pro reproductive rights. However, if there was someone who was a Republican, and "pro-life," I would let them speak their mind and argue their positions. Then, I would proceed to crush them with reason, logic, and constructive arguments, and promote my pro-choice standpoint. If they are open-minded, maybe they will find my points convincing and adjust their stances. If not, maybe onlookers who are on the fence about the issue may be swayed by my points, and become pro-choice on abortion.

However, I wouldn't censor their opposing views, and prevent them from not speaking in the first place. I wouldn't "disinvite" them from speaking at campus just because they were conservative, just because i vehemently disagree with their views.

[hifiguy]

6. I second this completely.

The pwecious widdle fwowers who can't bear to hear anything with which they disagree have no place being in any university that deserves the name.

And they are in for one hell of a big wakeup call when they have to go out into the unfiltered, asshole-filled real world.

Somewhere in Greece Socrates is spinning like a dervish in his grave.

[GummyBearz]

35. IMO this is on instructors/admin

18-22 year olds are idealistic, and can have good ideas but wrong approaches. The professors need to make sure ideas are discussed, not disrespected. I know administrators often tie professors hands, so there is that. I think I may have caught the trailing edge of when people weren't shouted down when I was an undergrad. Although the Israel/Palestine speakers came pretty close (both parties equally guilty).

[nomorenomore08]

38. When I was at UCSC a decade or so ago, there was one right-wing Christian student who wrote

constant editorials complaining that his views were being disrespected and/or censored. The irony of being able to freely publish such sentiments in a student newspaper authorized by the University, was clearly lost on him.

[GummyBearz]

45. I loved the student newspapers at UCI and UCLA

They definitely let students say what they wanted to say. I killed many hours in between classes reading them. In several ways those student newspapers actually put today's "journalists" to shame.. hah

[nomorenomore08]

46. Few people are more passionately opinionated than college undergrads.

Which has its good and bad points, to be sure.

[DemocraticWing]

49. You have no clue about what college students are like, do you?

Don't listen to the fearmongers who whip up fear about young people. We're doing just fine, and we aren't coming for your freedoms.

[A Simple Game]

13. Exactly why I disagree with having protected political groups on DU. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

16. Then you must be in favor of opening DU up to all political points of view, as well.

Protected groups on DU, from which you can be banned if you act offensively by the definition of the group are no different that DU, from which you can be banned if you act offensively according to the TOS.

DU (and the protected groups within DU) is not a college environment. They serve very different purposes - and unless you disagree with the premise that DU should be able to ban conservative voices, it seems to me a bit hypocritical to disagree with the premise that within the democratic umbrella there might also be groups in which certain voices are not welcome.

[A Simple Game]

24. But you don't even have to be offensive to be banned from some groups on DU.

I was banned from the Hillary group for politely stating a fact, which was not even about Hillary, that one of the hosts agreed with and then banned me for not deleting my post. How "democratic" is that? I do disagree with banning conservatives on DU, and if we did it would be very quiet around here, conservatives may not be the majority but they are the most vocal group on DU at present. Our democracy in the US at present is married to capitalism, would you ban talk of socialism? Is it OK to compare our way to the more socialistic Scandinavian countries, to a monarchy?

I want a political forum not a mutual back patting society. I mostly disagree with conservatives but not all of their ideas are bad and most of them do not wish for the downfall of our society, nor do most liberals contrary to what the most vocal conservatives say. Discussion with polite disagreement is fine and enlightening and where new and improved ideas and compromises come from, disruption on the other hand is probably what you are referring to and on that we can probably agree. Disruption is handled well on DU for the most part.

Some protected groups on DU are fine and I understand why they function better that way, but not the political ones, a political web site should be about discussing and defending political options including types of government and the people voted or appointed to run such a government, anything less should not be called democratic in any form. If you are afraid to defend your candidate(s) and or form of government perhaps you should be asking yourself why you should be supporting them. Politics is fluid and so should be it's discussion.

Here's my bottom line, you either feel that your political and economic philosophy is the best way to regulate a society or you don't. If you feel it is the best way then you should be more than happy to defend it's strong points and willing to improve it's weak points. I believe a mix of democracy and socialism along with liberalism are the best ways and do not fear defending or improving them.

[Ms. Toad]

31. Nice dodge.

While I agree that many DU members are more conservative than I would like, you know darn well that my question was not about the conservative end of the spectrum of democrats.

If you really believe that voices should not be banned based on politics, then you should not be participating in DU, because your participation perpetuates the system you say you disagree with.

[A Simple Game]

32. I didn't intend to dodge anything, if you could point out this question you mention I will

be happy to answer it.

[Ms. Toad]

34. "Then you must be in favor of opening DU up to all political points of view, as well."

Your response was not directed to opening DU up to ALL political points of view, but to the reality that the democratic party is not uniformly liberal. Your assertion that DU doesn't ban conservatives (and if we did {ban conservatives} it would be very quiet around here} is relevant only the conservative end of the spectrum within the democratic party, not conservatives in general. That is hardly "all political points of view."

Participation in DU, which expressly bans "Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here {} certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like."

It is inconsistent to participate in a forum that bans the above, yet to condemn the practice within DU of granting protected groups the same rights.

As for your contention that you were banned even though you did not say anything offensive - that is up to the group to decide, just as it is up to DU (via admins or MIRT) to decide when someone is to be banned from DU as a whole because they are "Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here {} certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like." I expect some of those folks who were unceremoniously dumped from the DU roster didn't believe they said anything offensive either.

[A Simple Game]

37. I am more socialist than liberal and am not a member of the Democratic party.

So I guess you don't think I belong here. But I have lasted for over 10 years and I haven't even been in stealth mode yet.

This is my last post, I don't see this conversation going anywhere constructive.

[Ms. Toad]

59. Still avoiding the point.

Just seems a tad inconsistent to take advantage of the core operating principle of DU:

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;

. . .

(from the first paragraph of the "about" page)

yet condemn it when groups within DU are given the same privilege - the ability to limit participation to like-minded people.

Whether limiting participation to like-minded people is objectively good or bad - or whether you politically fit within DU - are not questions I raised. I was merely pointing out that supporting political isolation by your participating in DU is inconsistent with complaining about the practice of permitting groups within DU to do the same thing.

[yeoman6987]

30. When condi rice tried to speak, she was told to go away

I don't think that is particularly open mind especially since students were not given the chance to ask her questions on some decisions she made. I think that would have been beneficial.

[nomorenomore08]

39. Listening and asking questions is generally a better approach, I agree.

But there are cases where I'd be more ambivalent, such as Don Feder - infamous for his rather blatant hate speech against Muslims and LGBT people - being invited to UMass several years ago. He was initially allowed to speak, but his speech wound up being cut short by protesting students. On the one hand, I'm usually inclined to support people's freedom of speech, right-wingers included; on the other hand, campuses have the responsibility to protect their students, minority groups included, and students have the right to object to speech/rhetoric which they feel demeans them as human beings.

So in the end, I sort of take these things on a case-by-case basis. Merely being "offended" should not be sufficient reason to bar a certain speaker from campus, but students and administrators have the right (if not responsibility) to protest speech which may cross the line into incitement.

[branford]

47. Incitement is a legal term, and the type of speech you're referring to

comes nowhere near meeting such a difficult criminal standard.

The standard you appear to try to definite is free speech is acceptable, unless it's just too offensive to your (or my) sensibilities. That's unworkable at most universities, and likely totally unlawful at state institutions. "Hate speech" is most definitely still free speech, at least here in the USA, and universities are under no obligation, legal, moral or educational, to shelter adult students from such rhetoric.

If you or others believe speech is particularly offensive or vile, it provides all the more reason to peacefully protest. The answer to bad or offensive speech is more speech. Explicitly or effectively attempting to silence speech, such a physically preventing a duly invited speaker from giving a speech with which you disagree, is not really peaceful or acceptable.

[nomorenomore08]

62. I agree that peacefully protesting is the best way to counteract offensive speech.

In the case of shouting down particularly odious speakers, as I said, I'm ambivalent. Speech which helps create a hostile environment for certain (usually racial/sexual/religious minority) groups of students, is certainly still legal, but are students and/or administrators necessarily obligated to passively tolerate it? I don't think there's a cut-and-dried answer to that.

[branford]

64. If the students are attending a state institution,

there is indeed a cut-and dried answer. There is no "hate speech" exemptions to free speech, and forcibly preventing a speaker from speaking based upon the content of the speech is an actionable offense. Again, students and administrators cannot actively, or through willful or passive inaction, discriminate against certain speakers based on the content of their views at a state institution.

Your standard is essentially that you're willing to tolerate offensive speech so long as it's not too offensive or doesn't target certain minorities. Such a standard swallows the rule, is the very definition of the slippery slope, and doesn't comport with centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence that govern state colleges and universities. How would you feel if the people deciding what speech does not deserve to be tolerated were conservative, and those advocating liberal policies were silenced because they created a hostile environment for conservative religious groups?

Thankfully, President Obama understands the important legal and social concerns, and supports vigorous debate at colleges and universities even when he vehemently disagrees with the views of the speakers.

[nomorenomore08]

65. I guess for me, it's more a question of where the *students'* right to object ends.

Protesting outside the event, I think we agree, is perfectly legitimate. Taking more direct (albeit non-violent) action against a certain speaker, while I do see the problem from a legal/constitutional standpoint, is perhaps somewhat understandable in the case of a speaker who willfully dehumanizes, or incites hatred/violence toward, certain groups of people. And I would have the same qualms in the case of, say, an extreme left-wing speaker advocating violent overthrow of the government. Same basic idea.

"How would you feel if the people deciding what speech does not deserve to be tolerated were conservative, and those advocating liberal policies were silenced because they created a hostile environment for conservative religious groups?"

I'm fairly certain this happens all the time on more conservative campuses, even publicly funded ones. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, mind you, just that your example isn't necessarily hypothetical.

[branford]

66. The vast majority of college campuses, particularly state institutions,

are decidedly liberal, and virtually all silenced speakers have been conservatives who've been properly invited to speak. That's precisely why President Obama felt the need to comment on the issue and it was so newsworthy.

For example, compare Senator Sander's reception at Liberty University (a private, religious and very conservative school) with the innumerable stories of fairly mainstream conservative speakers shouted down or forced to stop speeches due to security concerns at prestigious universities, many of them all or partially public such as Columbia, UCLA and UC Berkeley.

I may agree with many of the people protesting these conservative speakers, but I find their tactics in silencing speech aberrant, and believe they should be severely (and lawfully) disciplined and/or the schools subject to civil damages of they tolerate it. If our beliefs are strong, rationale and defensible, we need not silence anyone. Silencing is nothing less than abject cowardice and proof of the lack of intellectual rigor.

[yeoman6987]

48. Great way of putting it. I agree.

[ProfessorGAC]

57. Asking Questions?

Do you think that Rice was actually going to solicit opinion and address direct questions? If i was a college student today, i'd have serious reservations about the presence of some speakers who are not valid thinkers but merely propagandists.

So, there seems to be an edge on both sides on this blade.

[nomorenomore08]

61. Scalia did it, so why not Rice?

Otherwise I agree with you. Unthinking defenders of the status quo are certainly not the best choice of on-campus speaker.

[LeftOfWest]

55. okay n/t.

[hifiguy]

5. I have many policy beefs with the POTUS

but there is a metric ton of truth in his comment here:

"But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, 'You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say.' That’s not the way we learn either."

Bravo, sir.

[nomorenomore08]

15. Exactly. Those who confine themselves to an echo chamber (which DU can be, somewhat, at times)

can't claim to be worldly or well-informed.

[840high]

7. Well ok - only because

I don't like PC.

[retrowire]

10. Mac user? n/t

[840high]

11. lol

[Demonaut]

8. was that Vox's title for the article??? no?

nice way to twist a view point when it's being twisted already

[Prism]

12. Oh snap

That's a shot across the bow of the fringe goofy brigade currently stupiding up social justice issues.

Tumblrs will have many sads. Pictures with captions will be posted!

[nomorenomore08]

14. Unrec for disingenuousness. They took a perfectly reasonable statement and made it sound reactionary

[The Green Manalishi]

17. Thank you for saying this, President Obama

There are many views I find abhorrent.

But under no circumstances with he possible exception of specific calls to violence such as riot and murder, would I ever say someone shouldn't be allowed to speak.

I have loathing for anyone who would try to prevent someone speaking on a campus.

As the saying goes- don't like abortions? Don't like gay marriages? Don't have one. Somebody saying something you don't like regarding Israel/Palestine, guns, abortion? DON'T GO. Picket if you feel you should, but prevent or try to prevent by methods other than reasoning someone from going? Shame on you, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Dr. Jill Biden has hopefully gained his ear on this subject

As a community college instructor and professor, she knows this struggle personally.

So glad Obama spoke of this.

K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. I wonder how many people here didn't want to hear that.

[nomorenomore08]

40. Either way, it is to their benefit, whether they realize it or not.

Allowing all voices in the public realm, strengthens freedom of speech as a whole.

[tblue]

20. I 100% agree. But protests are free speech too.

But yeah, if Pat Robertson wants to make a speech at a college, sure, he shouldn't necessarily be denied because of his point of view. Makes me shudder to say that but it's right. This is the Obama we saw giving the One America speech. He's consistent now with what he said then.

[YOHABLO]

21. Does anyone understand what comes out of Ben Carson's mouth? Talk about lunatic.

Education = Critical Thinker .. that's what that diploma represents. Hopefully

[LittleBlue]

22. This academic fascism needs to be challenged

At some point in everyone's life, they will experience something that offends them. We can't sanitize every aspect of society to accommodate them.

[gobears10]

23. yup yup

eom.

[nomorenomore08]

41. On the one hand, being "offended" shouldn't be sufficient reason to silence anyone's voice.

On the other hand, too many people use "anti-P.C." as an excuse to be an asshole, and not much else.

But either way, the solution to offensive speech is more speech, not less.

[Nye Bevan]

25. Universities should be hotbeds of unfettered free speech, protest, furious debate, and controversy.

Not places where the main priority is to shelter special snowflakes from "microaggressions".

[nomorenomore08]

42. Other than cases where "anti-P.C." is used as an excuse for deliberate bullying, I agree.

Merely stating an unpopular opinion should not be considered harassment etc.

[marmar]

26. Seems like Vox crafted the "liberal political correctness" headline on its own.

I absolutely believe in an open exchange of ideas on campus. I remember spirited debates with right-leaning students on campus. Can't say anyone's mind was changed, but the debate was healthy.
But let's be honest, there are a lot of people who use political correctness as a perjorative who are pissed because women, African-Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians etc. have gained rights and attention, and established their own language about how their communities are described. The derisive use of "political correctness" is often a dead giveaway that someone is insecure and threatened, at least from my observations.

[nomorenomore08]

43. Well said. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

50. Exactly.

[Ichigo Kurosaki]

27. Would this

question of PC include the banning of certain words just because someone might be offended?
Awhile back I saw some of the words that were being banned and a couple of them I had to laugh about then I just shook my head.
Some people are just way too thin-skinned and are going to get upset when they leave college.

[HughBeaumont]

28. What if you're too much about historical correctness to hear what they have to say?

Should we entertain New Deal Denialists? People who think Hitler was a lefty? Those who think the US was founded on Christianity? Guys who want to put Reagan on our money? The "Miss Me Yet?" crowd? Anarcho-Capitalists? Creationists? Lost Causers?

Sometimes, entertaining an idiotic point of view is giving it more of a platform than it deserves.

[nomorenomore08]

44. Right to free speech =/= right to an officially sanctioned platform. n/t

[tularetom]

29. Well,its good training for certain groups on DU

There are a few groups here where "liberal political correctness" is implicitly part of the group rules.

[proverbialwisdom]

33. One step up (OP) and two steps back (just on BloombergTV screen scroll, R-side in all caps)

What Makes You Click? The U.S. Government Intends to Find Out

Page 1 of 2

The Obama administration is dipping into research in behavioral economics and psychology to scrutinize federal documents, websites and procedures to get a better sense of what's working - and what's not working - to make the most of government programs from college aid to veterans benefits.

Page 2 of 2

Building off an initiative begun last year by a White House social and behavioral sciences team, President Barack Obama on Tuesday directed all federal agencies to apply 'behavioral science insights' in designing how they present and seek information from the public.

[proverbialwisdom]

67. Oversight?

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american

PRESS RELEASE
September 15, 2015

Executive Order -- Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights -- research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them -- can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people.

Where Federal policies have been designed to reflect behavioral science insights, they have substantially improved outcomes for the individuals, families, communities, and businesses those policies serve. For example, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation in retirement savings plans have made it easier to save for the future, and have helped Americans accumulate billions of dollars in additional retirement savings. Similarly, streamlining the application process for Federal financial aid has made college more financially accessible for millions of students.

To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy.

NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby direct the following:

<>

MORE:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/fact-sheet-president-obama-signs-executive-order-white-house-announces
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/09/15/designing-federal-programs-american-people-mind
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/cass-sunstein-making-government-logicalhtml.html

[Eleanors38]

36. Hell, some lobby in ATA to banish the Gungeon.

[ellisonz]

51. Disputes over commencement speakers don't tend to leave blood stains.

[Eleanors38]

60. Pretty weak. But how you been doing, anyway?

[graegoyle]

52. Problem here is, it's not just that the students don't want to hear opposing views:

Part of it is that the students don't want their tuition money laundered and given to arguable war-criminals in the form of large speaking fees.

[OneGrassRoot]

58. Good point. Why is everything about $$$$ ????

The speakers usually being discussed aren't exactly living in poverty. If they want to share their views, why should they get paid to do so at a university? At a business convention or luncheon or whatever, fine. But I don't think any "celebrity" should be paid for speaking at a school.

[leftynyc]

53. Good

I'm sick of people looking for reasons to be insulted. Such delicate little flowers.

[Waiting For Everyman]

54. This is the best example of cognitive dissonance

that we will probably ever see on DU. This is "a keeper".

Thank you, President Obama!

"That might work in the Soviet Union, but that doesn’t work here. That's not who we are."

That's not who we are. Exactly.

[RedCappedBandit]

56. Not about being coddled - it's about not wanting my hard earned money to line the pockets

of some uber wealthy RWNJ bigot

[nomorenomore08]

63. Good point. Always be suspicious of "grass-roots" conservatism on campus. n/t