Trump signs executive order on free speech on college campuses

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Washington Post

Higher Education
Trump signs executive order on free speech on college campuses

By Susan Svrluga
March 21 at 4:25 PM

President Trump signed an executive order Thursday afternoon protecting freedom of speech on college campuses, surrounded by student activists who have said conservative views are suppressed at universities. ... Trump said he was taking "historic action to defend American students and American values that have been under siege."

More than 100 students joined the president in the East Room for the signing, according to a statement from the White House, along with state legislators, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. The order directs 12 agencies that make federal grants, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, to ensure colleges are complying with the law and their own policies to promote free inquiry and debate. ... It does not tie student-aid money to the order.
....

Susan Svrluga is a reporter covering higher education for The Washington Post's Grade Point blog. Before that, she covered education and local news at The Post. Follow https://twitter.com/SusanSvrluga



Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/03/21/trump-expected-sign-executive-order-free-speech/

---

The article goes on:

Read the full text of the executive order here:

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

IMPROVING FREE INQUIRY, TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this order is to enhance the quality of postsecondary education by making it more affordable, more transparent, and more accountable. Institutions of higher education (institutions) should be accountable both for student outcomes and for student life on campus.

In particular, my Administration seeks to promote free and open debate on college and university campuses. Free inquiry is an essential feature of our Nation's democracy, and it promotes learning, scientific discovery, and economic prosperity. We must encourage institutions to appropriately account for this bedrock principle in their administration of student life and to avoid creating environments that stifle competing perspectives, thereby potentially impeding beneficial research and undermining learning.


The financial burden of higher education on students and their families is also a national problem that needs immediate attention. Over the past 30 years, college tuition and fees have grown at more than twice the rate of the Consumer Price Index. Rising student loan debt, coupled with low repayment rates, threatens the financial health of both individuals and families as well as of Federal student loan programs. In addition, too many programs of study fail to prepare students for success in today's job market.

The Federal Government can take meaningful steps to address these problems. Selecting an institution and course of study are important decisions for prospective students and significantly affect long-term earnings. Institutions should be transparent about the average earnings and loan repayment rates of former students who received Federal student aid. Additionally, the Federal Government should make this information readily accessible to the public and to prospective students and their families, in particular.

This order will promote greater access to critical information regarding the prices and outcomes of postsecondary education, thereby furthering the goals of the National Council for the American Worker established by Executive Order 13845 of July 19, 2018 (Establishing the President's National Council for the American Worker). Increased information disclosure will help ensure that individuals make educational choices suited to their needs, interests, and circumstances. Access to this information will also increase institutional accountability and encourage institutions to take into account likely future earnings when establishing the cost of their educational programs.


Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the Federal Government to:

(a) encourage institutions to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions;

(b) help students (including workers seeking additional training) and their families understand, through better data and career counseling, that not all institutions, degrees, or fields of study provide similar returns on their investment, and consider that their educational decisions should account for the opportunity cost of enrolling in a program;

(c) align the incentives of institutions with those of students and taxpayers to ensure that institutions share the financial risk associated with Federal student loan programs;

(d) help borrowers avoid defaulting on their Federal student loans by educating them about risks, repayment obligations, and repayment options; and

(e) supplement efforts by States and institutions by disseminating information to assist students in completing their degrees faster and at lower cost.

Sec. 3. Improving Free Inquiry on Campus. (a) To advance the policy described in subsection 2(a) of this Order, the heads of covered agencies shall, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, take appropriate steps, in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment, to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

(b) "Covered agencies" for purposes of this section are the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Energy, and Education; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Science Foundation; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

(c) "Federal research or education grants" for purposes of this section include all funding provided by a covered agency directly to an institution but do not include funding associated with Federal student aid programs that cover tuition, fees, or stipends.

Sec. 4. Improving Transparency and Accountability on Campus. (a) To advance the policy described in subsections 2(b)-(e) of this order, the Secretary of Education (Secretary) shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law:

(i) make available, by January 1, 2020, through the Office of Federal Student Aid, a secure and confidential website and mobile application that informs Federal student loan borrowers of how much they owe, how much their monthly payment will be when they enter repayment, available repayment options, how long each repayment option will take, and how to enroll in the repayment option that best serves their needs;

(ii) expand and update annually the College Scorecard, or any successor, with the following program-level data for each certificate, degree, graduate, and professional program, for former students who received Federal student aid:

(A) estimated median earnings;

(B) median Stafford loan debt;

(C) median Graduate PLUS loan debt (if applicable);

(D) median Parent PLUS loan debt; and

(E) student loan default rate and repayment rate; and

(iii) expand and update annually the College Scorecard, or any successor, with the following institution-level data, providing the aggregate for all certificate, degree, graduate, and professional programs, for former students who received Federal student aid:

(A) student loan default rate and repayment rate;

(B) Graduate PLUS default rate and repayment rate; and

(C) Parent PLUS default rate and repayment rate.

(b) For the purpose of implementing subsection (a)(ii) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon the request of the Secretary, provide in a timely manner appropriate statistical studies and compilations regarding program-level earnings, consistent with section 6108(b) of title 26, United States Code, other applicable laws, and available data regarding programs attended by former students who received Federal student aid.

Sec. 5. Reporting Requirements. (a) By January 1, 2020, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, a report identifying and analyzing policy options for sharing the risk associated with Federal student loan debt among the Federal Government, institutions, and other entities.

(b) By January 1, 2020, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, policy recommendations for reforming the collections process for Federal student loans in default.

(c) Beginning July 1, 2019, the Secretary shall provide an annual update on the Secretary's progress in implementing the policies set forth in subsections 2(b)-(e) of this order to the National Council for the American Worker at meetings of the Council.

(d) Within 1 year of the date of this order, the Secretary shall compile information about successful State and institutional efforts to promote students' timely and affordable completion of a postsecondary program of study. Based on that information, the Secretary shall publish a compilation of research results that addresses:

(i) how some States and institutions have better facilitated successful transfer of credits and degree completion by transfer students;

(ii) how States and institutions can increase access to dual enrollment programs; and

(iii) other strategies for increasing student success, especially among students at high risk of not completing a postsecondary program of study.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[Chakaconcarne]

1. Be careful what you sign executive orders for

LGBT knocking on your Christian University's door - you may no likey.

[OneBro]

31. Yup. I'm expecting invites to go out to Louis Farrakhan shortly.

I'd travel to Liberty University to hear each one try to out-hate the other. Liberty can't claim a religious exemption because it's rapid growth is reportedly due to federal student loans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/07/15/liberty-university-a-hub-of-conservative-politics-owes-rapid-growth-to-federal-student-loans/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.00235b4ec755

[Initech]

42. I would travel to Liberty University to see an LGBT pride parade there!

[rainin]

76. I hope this happens ASAP.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Trump To Sign Toothless Executive Order On Campus Free Speech In Bow To Far-Right Student Activists

This is probably the correct assessment:

Trump To Sign Toothless Executive Order On Campus Free Speech In Bow To Far-Right Student Activists

Vox reports:

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order Thursday on a cause célèbre for conservative activists: upholding free speech on college campuses.

But the executive order won’t do much more than reiterate the Trump administration wants schools to follow existing laws on free inquiry and direct the federal agencies that fund research to make sure that they’re doing so. It’s a largely a symbolic move meant to satisfy a key demand of Trump’s conservative base.

Trump first promised he would draft an executive order to protect free speech earlier this month during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
....

Except: it might be used to require the teaching of alternative approaches to evolution.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. My thoughts too. But should it / will it be challenged in court? Sets precedent, challenge or none.

[Initech]

10. Screw that, I say we start messing with it.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2019, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

How about an anti-MAGA parade, followed by a LGBT pride parade on Liberty University's campus?

To quote the Delta House - "Don't get mad, get even!"

[C_U_L8R]

3. What an unreadable hairball of words.

Does this vainglorious pronouncement change a thing?

[DRoseDARs]

6. See post #2, spoiler alert: No.

eom

[Itchinjim]

4. Satanists at Liberty university?

Works both ways.

[The Mouth]

14. If they take any federal research funds, hell yeah :-)

There are a few private conservative colleges that take no federal money for exactly this reason.

[walkingman]

28. I hope Louis Farrakhan goes to Liberty University.

[EarthFirst]

5. Proud Boys & Identity Evropa is "American Values"

Could you spell it out any fucking clearer?

Nazis and male gender identity groups are being discriminated against on college campuses nationwide.

So much so; that an executive order has been signed to ensure that their Nazi bullshit is acceptable.

I don’t even recognize this place any longer...

[A Former Republican]

18. On a university they should be expressed

That is what a university is all about. Nazi bullshit can be shown to be Nazi bullshit.

[ehrnst]

46. Can you specify what "can be shown to be Nazi bullshit" means?

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2019, 08:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Are you advocating for universities to allow Nazi rallies or speakers to use campus facilities?

That sounds very much like saying that statues that glorify Confederate leaders in town squares should be left there, to "teach" history.

[A Former Republican]

60. I did not say rally, I said present their ideas

There is a difference. Freedom of speech is the exact opposite of what Nazis stand for.

[ehrnst]

69. You didn't specify what form "presenting their ideas" means.

Because one person yelling on a street corner isn't "presenting their ideas."

I am talking about having space for a table at registration, having university run and maintained space that is not public, but is set aside for their use as presenting their ideas.

No one owes anyone a space or forum to officially "present their ideas." The whole "censorship!!" accusations when sponsors pulled out of Glenn Becks's show made the same mistake about 'free speech." Don't confuse having a right to free speech with everyone being owed a hall, a permit, a table, or a television show, etc by a University. They can go through the same approval process that everyone else does.

By your definition, sitting at bar drinking themselves into a stupor and ranting about POC is "presenting their ideas" but I don't think that's a good definition.

[Jedi Guy]

121. I'd make the argument that they should be allowed to speak for one simple reason beyond free speech.

In a nutshell, the protests and other tactics that keep them from speaking only allow them to claim victim status and point at the "violent left" shutting down a peaceful speaking engagement. This has been the case for right-wing speakers for years, from Ann Coulter to Milo to Ben Shapiro. The first two are just provocateurs, and while I don't agree with Shapiro, I at least respect his willingness to engage in civil debate with those who disagree with him.

I believe the answer to bad speech is not violence, but good speech. Let them have their say, then tear their arguments apart and expose the bullshit for what it is. Preventing them from speaking through violence only feeds their narrative. Furthermore, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? Are you okay with right-wing protests disrupting or silencing progressive speakers?

Tyrion Lannister may not be a real person, but he had a good quote for this situation. "When you tear out a man's tongue you're not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."

[NastyRiffraff]

8. This is worriesome:

b) help students (including workers seeking additional training) and their families understand, through better data and career counseling, that not all institutions, degrees, or fields of study provide similar returns on their investment, and consider that their educational decisions should account for the opportunity cost of enrolling in a program;
(Emphasis mine)

Does this mean that the government will promote certain "institutions, degrees, or fields of study" to the detriment of others that it deems less desirable (such as environmental studies, perhaps)? Will it steer prospective students away from colleges and universities that are seen to be at odds with the current government's ideology and towards those seen to be friendly to that ideology (such as Liberty University, etc)?

This thing may seem benign or meaningless, but forgive me if I'm paranoid about this administration's motives. Education is an important factor in a would-be or actual dictatorship. Particularly since they don't even try to hide that the core motivation for promoting free speech (like they care!) comes from some universities not allowing certain far-right speakers to speak officially on campus.

[sfwriter]

21. yes, and I doubt it would stand on free speech grounds.

Ironically, this entire thread of reasoning seems to violate the institution's free speech.

[Politicub]

24. It's already happening. STEM STEM STEM

So much STEM. I’m okay with anyone that wants to pursue a technical field. But we also need philosophers, historians, literary critics, artists, journalists, etc.

Accumulating the most money is important for some. But, for the rest of us, life is about so much more than money.

We should be alarmed, though. Every move Trump makes is malevolent.

[a la izquierda]

57. I'm a historian at a major university.

We’re pretty well fucked now, let alone with something like this.

[LiberalLovinLug]

9. I think immediately, a pro-choice women's group, or another liberal org should start booking talks

At Liberty University, as well as other high profile conservative Christian learning institutions.

[Socal31]

12. Those are generally private universities.

Regardless, this is another mediocre word-salad that's masquerading as "sticking it to the liberals".


Yawn.

[sinkingfeeling]

38. What counts is whether they receive federal research money or grants.

[Socal31]

39. It addresses private universities separately.

But all analysis I've seen says this was another fluff-order for his base that does absolutely nothing.

If that's not the case, I hope it gets brought here and to the media ASAP.

[Gothmog]

11. 'Not enough ewww in the world for this'

Link to tweet

[RhodeIslandOne]

13. My freeze peach neckbeards everywhere rejoice.

[Ford_Prefect]

15. It may run afoul of state statutes regulating hate speech at state universities.

It may also be constitutionally vague or over-reaching as past attempts to regulate "LIBERAL" speech and ideology have been.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

51. "Hate speech," whatever that is, is Constitutionally protected.

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2019, 10:25 AM - Edit history (2)

State statutes regulating hate speech, or any statutes regulating the content of speech, are in violation of the First Amendment.

Yes, I know there are some rare exceptions, but generally, the First Amendment is agnostic regarding so-called "hate speech." And I am using the scare quotes intentionally.

Cue that picture again:



Source: https://blog.library.gsu.edu/2012/03/23/secularists-descend-upon-d-c-for-reason-rally/

{edited to add:}

See post #54, by exboyfil:

Incitement to riot or fighting words

[Ford_Prefect]

56. Several campus situations I am aware of regulate according to intimidation and behavior rather

the spoken or written expression. They fall under the heading of public safety and are pretty well though out. They have so far stood up to 1st amendment challenges along the lines of you may not yell FIRE just because you feel like it and you don't have the right to intimidate or harass as personal expression because that would allow you to restrict someone else's speech.

See also post # 54 below.

1st amendment rights go through quite a lot of distortion in the hands of those right wing fanatics who want the privilege for themselves and no one else. Its interesting when you ask whom may NOT speak back to them. It suddenly seems that no one may contradict them without interfering with their rights. That is not in the Constitution yet they are certain it is the essence of the amendment.

Like certain evangelicals I have met they do not tolerate reasoned debate or questions derived from fact.

[JonLP24]

100. I've been online hate speech is very toxic

I learned about civil rights and Hitler in public schools. I don't learn anything from conservative bigots. I don't want to ban their speech I just want to stay away from them but the rhetoric can lead to violence. I'm not talking law here but right or wrong.

[ehrnst]

111. There is a difference between teaching the history of hate speech and genocide

and allowing/looking the other way at school events and in clubs.

[JonLP24]

114. What I was mainly addressing was "hate speech"

Which clearly exists and I have seen get worse especially with the rise of tech platforms allowing it. I mention what I learned in school because they talked a lot about stereotypes and hate speech. School probably focused more on the bad Hitler did rather than our own problems outside of slavery and the 60s rights movement which left me the impression that racism only existed in dark corners of society or in the past but I found out quickly how much I was wrong when I had a black girlfriend.

[ehrnst]

117. Got it.

[A Former Republican]

16. ALL SPEECH AND IDEAS SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN UNIVERSITIES

even hateful ones. A University is a place where all ideas are presented and clash. As someone who was a part of the free speech movement of the early '60s, I know this was the ideal that inspired us then. It should be the same ideal that inspires us now.

[ZZenith]

19. So, I should be able to stand in the middle of campus and advocate stuffing Jews into ovens?

Or lynching all the black people?

Is that what you’re saying?

[A Former Republican]

33. Yes, say what you will

Only in that way people will know how crazy you are. This is a university,the place for ideas to be tested, and then accepted or rejected

[ehrnst]

50. So you think a university should host a KKK rally to 'test' those ideas

even though we know exactly what those ideas are?

[Hortensis]

99. It's bigger and more insidious than that. Hard-core right wing

billionaires, by donating to universities, have been purchasing very highly organized "free speech" to not just flood the environment with their propaganda but to actually open schools of study in universities across that nation that teach what used to be intellectually indefensible hard-core conservative theories.

That actually is and has been happening for decades now. I believe I read that UCLA was one of very few that refused to allow hard-right billionaires to bribe them into allowing Kool-Aid schools in many fields, but that doesn't mean they haven't infiltrated campuses just as they infiltrated social media.

And over these decades they've been selecting graduates to place in positions of influence in virtually every field, private and government. This is just one, but hugely effective method of institutionalization of corruption.

Perhaps A Former Republican's complete commitment to free speech no matter what arises from failing to think a new idea though. Of course, all ideas and speech should be allowed in enthusiastic kids trying out new ideas, but not ALL ideas and speech should be fed by well-funded authorities to a constantly renewed supply of innocent victims.

[rzemanfl]

97. After people decide how crazy a person is, what next?

Do the Russians help elect them President?

[exboyfil]

54. Incitement to riot or fighting words

I think both examples could be prohibited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement

The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[30] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[31] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[32][33]

[A Former Republican]

62. I agree 100%, ideas not actions

I can think you are wrong and tell people why I think you are wrong. But I can not tell people to throw an egg at you. We should always have the freedom to think and tell people what we think. But we can not tell them to take any actions which tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace by provoking a fight

[exboyfil]

63. Convincing this board that the pie

in the face of Ann Coulter or egging the nimrod Aussie Senator who blamed the Muslims for the mosque shooting are counterproductive can be challenging.

I agree with you. I think Ben Shapiro should be invited to as many college campuses as he can muster funding from the students (or Koch). The only condition for him and others is that time be given in rebuttal to the finest students and staff to argue his points.

Seeing Rhetoric professors at Berkeley signing petitions to shut down speech is very discouraging.

[A Former Republican]

65. Yes, we no longer believe in talking with each other

We much prefer shouting at each other and not listening. Compromise is not selling out, it is the way democracy works

[ehrnst]

67. Speak for yourself.

I certainly didn't support those kinds of physical attacks.

[exboyfil]

68. I said the board in general

A blast from the past.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1685831

[ehrnst]

70. You said "convincing this board" of which I am posting on. (nt)

[Jedi Guy]

122. While I don't agree with him, I at least have some respect for Ben Shapiro.

He's willing to engage in civil debate with those who disagree with him. I've seen videos of some of his speeches at universities, and for the Q&A session at the end, his rule is that those who disagree with him go to the front of the line to make sure they get to ask their questions or challenge his views. He doesn't flinch from actually talking to people on the other side and, for the most part, keeping it civil. That's pretty uncommon these days.

The rest, like Ann Coulter and Milo and their fellow travelers, receive nothing but scorn from me. They're not out there to have a discussion, they're out there to provoke people so they can pat themselves on the back for "triggering the libruls."

[mahatmakanejeeves]

78. By the way, welcome to DU, where attempting to herd cats is not just a figure of speech, it's

a way of life.

[ehrnst]

118. Actions that incite, like yelling "Jews will not replace us" in a march, in unison?

Do you think that words are not actions?

Words are not threats, unless there are physical actions involved?

You think that there is no such thing as "hate speech?"

[Politicub]

25. Nazis should not be allowed in universities

Ideas can be studied and assessed without a bunch of skinheads in the quad.

[A Former Republican]

35. And who is to decide what is acceptable and what is not

At a university, ALL ideas must be allowed to be expressed. It is the place for the critical examination of ideas. This is its core function.

[Politicub]

36. As a society, we have decided that nazis are unacceptable

Have you been to college? At most schools, the core curriculum explores myriad points of view.

[ZZenith]

44. You know not of what you speak.

Your ideal of what a “University” is can never work in reality.

It is incumbent on a civilized society to not allow incitement to violence against minority populations. Your Libertarian Nirvana is actually Hell, but it’s clear that you can’t recognize it as such.

[ehrnst]

53. I'm thinking that it's not about 'knowing' about a topic

but the reactions of people here on DU to those statements.

[ehrnst]

45. Do you work at a university? A University has the right to choose who speaks at the University,

even a public university.

For instance, you or I could demand to be a part of a lecture series, but no university owes us a spot in that lecture series.

No, not all ideas are the same in terms of harm or harmlessness. Not all speakers are the same in terms of their expertise or good intentions.

For instance, s public university does not have to permit a White Supremacist Group to rally on campus.

And why should a University give a climate change denier, or other person who devalues science and education a platform?

A university has a set of values, and you seem to think those should not be applied to who speaks or what it taught?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

58. "why should a University give a climate change denier, or other person who devalues science and...."

Good morning. I think that's the whole point of Turning Point and this EO.

The conservative students want an alternative to evolution taught as well as evolution.

With this EO, they can say that their rights are being infringed.

I do not think that permitting Nazis to conduct a putsch at the student union is the point of this at all.

[ehrnst]

80. Yep, but there are those here who are defending the ideas in it

as actually supporting and expanding free speech - that "all ideas" should be "presented and clashed."

I used the example of a Nazi rally being included under that umbrella - because it's a clear example of how that "all ideas must be given equal time" can be counterproductive to say the least.

There is an idea that preferences, when they are conservative, have the same weight as civil rights and long held academic standards is the fallacy behind this EO.

It's the same mentality that leads white power groups to feel that if the culture moves away from what is familiar and pleasing to the straight white cis male, it is an attack on them, and an attempt to remove their 'rights' by 'heritage.'

[Socal31]

61. That is just factually incorrect.

Read the atricle.

[ehrnst]

71. It's factually correct, and I did read the article.

Sullivan in May said that while the university respects the right of free expression, the rally clearly meant to intimidate the black community. She said that such intimidation is “inconsistent with the values we profess.”

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/07/05/university-virginias-campus-roiled-hate-group-activities

[Socal31]

73. Public Universities host speakers that are not aligned with their politics.

There are several recent examples.

[ehrnst]

75. I didn't say that they didn't, shouldn't, or couldn't choose to.

Are you confusing me with another poster?

[Socal31]

77. They are required to, as stated in the EO, which changed nothing.

[ehrnst]

82. This is the post that you are refuting as non-factual.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2290333

How does the post stating what is in the EO make the post I linked to "non-factual?"

You are using short replies with vague pronouns - who is "they," who is "requiring them to" and what is it that "they" are being 'required" to do?

And how does that refute my statement that Universities currently have policies, supported by Title 9, that can indeed allow them to refuse to give a permit to a particular group?

Or are you saying that once the EO goes into effect, my post will no longer be factual?

[Socal31]

84. I'll let the professionals clarify my point.

[ehrnst]

85. Perhaps this expert might clear up your misunderstanding of what I stated...

For instance, a public university does not have to permit a White Supremacist Group to rally on campus.

I gave an example of a university that believeed the rally was a deliberate attempt to intimidate students of color, which is prohibited harassment of a protected class, of which race is one.

Just as restrictions on who may purchase firearms is not a violation of the second amendment, restrictions on where, when and how speech is expressed don't violate the first amendment. Or yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre can indeed be prohibited without violating free speech....

Of course, free speech is not absolute and can be punished when it incites illegal activity, constitutes a “true threat” that causes a person to fear imminent harm to his or her physical safety, or rises to the level of prohibited harassment.

This does not mean that campuses are powerless in the face of disruptive or hateful speech. Even though there is a First Amendment right to speak, that does not mean that protesters have the right to demonstrate in the middle of a freeway at rush hour. A campus surely could prohibit a large demonstration in a classroom building while classes are in session. Campuses can regulate when and where speech takes place in order to prevent disruption of school activities. Controversial speakers can be placed in auditoriums where it is easier to assure safety and prevent disruptions. Demonstrations can be placed in areas away from where classes are in session.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/10/25/16524832/campus-free-speech-first-amendment-protest

Is that clearer?

You do know that the experts that you cited have decided they will no longer defend the 'speech' of anyone who marches with weapons, for reasons related to the bolded text above, after Charlottesville.

[Socal31]

86. I have yet to see anyone argue that hate groups can rally.

Maybe we are having two different conversations. Either way, enjoy your day.

[ehrnst]

87. This is a long thread, and you likely haven't read all the posts

Nor seen the responses to people who have asked about such rallies.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2290552

You're welcome

Enjoy your day.

[A Former Republican]

64. The university does not have to endorse an idea

but it must give everyone equal access. Who is to decide what can be expressed, what is cool today might be repulsive tomorrow.

A University has the right to choose who speaks at the University, under the sponsorship of the university. But it has no right to deny the ability for anyone to speak in an area open to the public, where people are allowed to speak.

And why should a University give a person who believes in climate change, or other person who values science and education a platform if the community know the earth is the center of the universe.

[ehrnst]

66. Strawman and moving the goalposts....

Reputable universities, especially public universities, have academic standards, and those involve, among other things, not teaching junk science, unfounded conspiracy theories, etc as having equal weight as fact or the consensus of mainstream unbiased expertise. They are also held to policies of not permitting harassment or discrimination as per protected categories. A professor may not prohibit women from speaking in a class, nor discriminate based on legally protected categories. So, no, that sort of racist, sexist, homophobie "ideology" isn't going to have "equal access" for practice in a university classroom. If you think that it does, you don't have a very broad understanding of civil rights and ADA laws.

But it has no right to deny the ability for anyone to speak in an area open to the public, where people are allowed to speak.

Where did I say they weren't? There was an evangelist on my campus that stood in a plaza and yelled "Wicked women! You fornicate and wear slutty clothes, and will go to hell!!" People would laugh, and somoene actually got a bullhorn and opened a 5th floor classrom window overlooking the plaza, and bellowed, "This is GOD. Yes, I am a woman, and you are in trouble." I was talking about rallies and marches. Universities are allowed to require a permit for a planned rally or gathering, just as the national mall does, and that's public property. Large gatherings may require extra cleanup, and a certain number of porto-potties per hundreds expected to show up. And no, the University is not required to give any group requesting the permit a permit. As long as they can give a reasonable, equitable reason for the refusal, it is theirs to make. We have courts for those who want to challenge those reasons.

And why should a University give a person who believes in climate change, or other person who values science and education a platform if the community know the earth is the center of the universe.

You lost me here - what university community "knows the earth is the center of the universe?"

[LanternWaste]

81. Absolutism for its own sake is wholly irrational.

You really should re-think your position through the lenses of critical thought and established legal precedent.

Former, eh? Really?

[ehrnst]

48. I GUESS USING ALL CAPS MAKES YOUR INTERPRETATION THE ONLY VALID ONE.

Did the university you attended invite the KKK onto campus for the purpose of "presenting and clashing" of ideas?

[A Former Republican]

72. I was just shouting the truth as I saw it

I attended Columbia University in NYC during the'60s. And yes, a lot of my fellow students had their heads smashed because they had ideas that were different from the powers that be. So, please do not tell me what ideas should be expressed and not be expressed on a university campus. I volunteered for the draft because one of my fellow students asked me if I supported the war why was I not there. My fellow fighters for freedom were not only my brothers and sisters in uniform but also those who were fighting for it at Columbia and Kent State.

[ehrnst]

74. So you're not going to answer the question about

if the university you attended would invite the KKK for "presenting and clashing" of ideas.

It's clear that universities have changed in the last 55+ years since your fellow students 'got their heads smashed" for having "different ideas from the powers that be."

This executive order would like to turn back the clock on the progress made in free speech on campus by students.

Perhaps you are under the impression that things are the same on college campuses as they were in the early 60's?

[A Former Republican]

88. In answer to your question, you will not like it

The University itself would not invite a member of the KKK, but we Young Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom as a recognized university clubs could. The University did not review who spoke at our meetings. We had the right of free speech and our meetings were open. You know what, SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) would say nothing because they did not want the university reviewing who spoke at their meetings.

[ehrnst]

89. So, does that mean yes, you think that universities haven't changed at all since you went to one

in the early '60's?

And no, the university would not host a KKK speaker, but would look the other way if you wanted to, and that's something you think was a good thing?

[A Former Republican]

92. I do not know if Universities have changed,

but this discussion makes me suspect that they have. It is 50years since I have been enrolled in one. But yes, it is a good thing that the university would not host a KKK speaker, but would look the other way if you wanted to. It is called freedom of speech. Freedom - The condition of being free; the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraints - is the bedrock of democracy. I really do not know what is your problem with it. Remember we are talking about speech that is not intended to incite violence.

[ehrnst]

94. The term "freedom" has also undergone a change in the last 50 years, as well as "speech."

Remember that we are talking about the Trump administration's definition of "freedom" which now encompasses the religious right's "freedom" to discriminate against those they don't approve of.

That's not just "my problem" with this EO, but a "problem" for many others who have an understanding of public education in the US since 1964.

Maybe this will make more sense to you: Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. The condition of being "free" doesn't include the "freedom" to harass or threaten others out of a public education, which includes public universities, and "looking the other way" while that happens is unacceptable, and in violation of Title VI, which has been federal law for schools since 1964.

You're welcome for the update.

You may be disappointed to learn that this EO will likely be challenged as a violation of Title VI.

What is racial and national origin harassment?

Racial and national origin harassment is unwelcome conduct based on a student’s actual or perceived race or national origin. Harassers can be students, school staff, or even someone visiting the school, such as a student or employee from another school. Racial and national origin harassment can take many forms, including slurs, taunts, stereotypes, or name-calling, as well as racially-motivated physical threats, attacks, or other hateful conduct. Although none of the laws OCR enforces expressly address religious discrimination, OCR can investigate complaints that students were subjected to ethnic or ancestral slurs; harassed for how they look, dress, or speak in ways linked to ethnicity or ancestry (e.g. skin color, religious attire, language spoken); or stereotyped based on perceived shared ancestral or ethnic characteristics. Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, and Sikh students are examples of individuals who may be harassed for being viewed as part of a group perceived to exhibit both ethnic and religious characteristics.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/race-origin.html

[A Former Republican]

95. Now that we are talking we can reach understanding

"Remember that we are talking about the Trump administration's definition of "freedom" which now encompasses the religious right's "freedom" to discriminate against those they don't approve of." What is Trump's definition of Freedom that you are talking about?

Freedom of speech does not include the right to deny anything to anybody. "The condition of being "free" doesn't include the "freedom" to harass or threaten others out of a public education, which includes public universities, and "looking the other way" while that happens is unacceptable, and in violation of Title VI, which has been federal law for schools since 1964." Calling someone a name means nothing. Threatening physical harm to someone is a threat, not speech. As my mother used to tell me when I was a small boy and somebody called me a name. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Give me a break, harassment is only harassment if a person chooses to think it is. Friends call friends names all the time. Be like a duck and water, let a nasty name roll off your back; if there is no reaction the harassment will stop.

[ehrnst]

98. So let me get this straight: harassment doesn't exist unless the target chooses to be offended?

Be like a duck and water, let a nasty name roll off your back; if there is no reaction the harassment will stop.

So, if harassment continues, it's the target's fault for not ignoring it?

[ehrnst]

102. So you place the responsibility on the target, and not the harrasser.

You give everything its meaning for you.

So racist, misogynistic, homophobic, islamophobic, anti-semitic speech and actions aren't harmful unless somoene decides to be offended by it? And the onus is on the target to change their mind about the speech/actions, and not the harasser to stop the offensive behavior?

There is no fault, a person is always responsible only for their own actions.

So you're saying that the fault is with the target for being offended, at the same time, the harasser is not responsible for the effect their words or actions have on the target. The harasser is just trying to a response out of a target, and will stop - not not escalate- if the target just chooses not to be hurt or offended.

That is why friends can call each other names which if somebody else said would upset them.

So if your supervisor or professor calls you those names, you shouldn't be upset if your friends also call you those names?

A person says something to get a reaction out of you, your reaction is their reward, no reaction no reward.

So a harasser's actions and words aren't really a threat, unless the target rewards them with a response - such as the target reporting the harassment, or telling the harasser that they are being offensive?

Sooner or later the asshole will pick another target where he/she will get the reaction they are looking for.

So the harasser is not af fault, only those targets who react, and the only way to stop harassment is to try to pass off the harraser to another target?

[ehrnst]

113. If it fat jokes didn't affect you negatively, why would you report it as "inappropriate?"

If you don't choose to think of it as inappropriate, then there is no reason to report it as such - isn't that what you said?

Reporting the comment as 'inappropriate" doesn't make sense in light of what you explained here:

Calling someone a name means nothing. Threatening physical harm to someone is a threat, not speech. As my mother used to tell me when I was a small boy and somebody called me a name. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Give me a break, harassment is only harassment if a person chooses to think it is. Friends call friends names all the time. Be like a duck and water, let a nasty name roll off your back; if there is no reaction the harassment will stop.

I guess all those kids who have committed suicide due to bullying just "chose" to be upset, and they were the ones encouraging the bullies by "reacting" when if they just ignored the bullying, it would have all just stopped?

Interesting - people don't call people they "pity" assholes. It sounds as though you chose to be upset by what they said.

The rest were just assholes who for some reason were jealous of me.

So, if not getting mad or upset at being insulted, demeaned or harrassed is a choice that you can make at will, why would you even need to report any such comments as being inappropriate? I'm confused here:

What good will getting mad do, it will just ruin my day and not affect them at all. As a matter of fact, they might even enjoy it.

[ehrnst]

104. Do you think that Christine Blasey Ford was "choosing" to believe she was being targeted

and therefore was encouraging her harasser to continue by fighting back and being offended?

Do you think that she should have just ignored him to make him stop, so he would find someone else to target?

Was it Kavanaugh's responsibility to stop when she told him she was upset by his actions?

[ehrnst]

108. Words are actions, too. What about leaving pornography on someone's desk? (nt)

[ehrnst]

105. Do you think that Anita Hill was responsible for continued harassment by Clarence Thomas

by not "ignoring" him, and considering his behavior towards her to be disrespectful and demeaning?

If the harasser continues to harass on for years, and the targets pretend to ignore the harassment, does that mean there was no harassment?


This is what I hear you saying: If a target is offended or felt threatened by harassment, it is their own fault, not the harassers, because the targets "choose" to be demeaned or offended, when they could have made it stop by ignoring it. It is therefore the target is the one at fault for encouraging the harasser by 'reacting' (confronting them or reporting). The target is at fault for refusing to "let it roll off like water from a duck's back."

And if no target reports or confronts the harasser - ignoring them, as you say they should, the harasser is also not at fault for the hostile environment, because they weren't aware that others were offended by their words or actions.

Either way, the target of the harassment is the one who is worthy of rebuke, and not the harasser.

[ehrnst]

110. What is a WO?

And why would you report a harasser, if, as you said, ignoring them will make them stop and find another target, and reporting/confronting them gives them the attention that they are looking for? What makes being at work different that you were right to report them, and they were not being harmless?

Didn't you say this?

Give me a break, harassment is only harassment if a person chooses to think it is. Friends call friends names all the time. Be like a duck and water, let a nasty name roll off your back; if there is no reaction the harassment will stop.

Are you changing your mind? Does it not apply to you, and at your workplace? Why does it apply people who are a public educational environment?

Title 6 covers the public education environment, which is what the EO attempts to give conservatives more power to control to suit their preferences over academic standards and the rights of legally protected groups.

You say you are a former Republican. You sound more libertarian than Democratic.

Have you ever voted for a Democrat?

[ehrnst]

116. But isn't that supressing "free speech" to report someone when you could just ignore their words?

Report inappropriate behavior at work, where something can be done because it affects the smooth operation of the organization.

We're talking about words not actions, remember?

You said that people can just choose to pity someone who is harassing them - isn't reminding employees of that much simpler, and less disruptive of smooth operations than taking action against the harasser?

Which is it?

[NurseJackie]

123. The world will never know! *POOF!*

Which is it?

The world will never know!

[irisblue]

91. Hey Welcome to DU A Former Republican 👋

This bit here

..."we Young Republicans and Young Americans for Freedom as a recognized university clubs could. The University did not review who spoke at our meetings. We had the right of free speech and our meetings were open. You know what, SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) would say nothing because they did not want the university reviewing who spoke at their meetings."

The present tense, is difficult to look past. Please consider making your language a mite more clear as to your level of involvement in refuting republican points.

[A Former Republican]

93. Sorry, I will try to be more precise in my tense usage

English grammar was always my worse subject in school.

[bernie59]

125. You were fine with your tense usage - that quote did not imply present tense.

You might write better than you know.

[rzemanfl]

96. I never knew in my all 70 years that one could "volunteer for the draft."

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2019, 10:39 PM - Edit history (2)

Apparently volunteering for the draft was a two year hitch while enlistment was three. Please correct me if I got that wrong.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[rzemanfl]

112. I cannot help but compare your experience with that of a friend of mine.

He, all 125 pounds of him, was one of the few people drafted into the Marine Corps. He was wounded in Vietnam, came home to recuperate, was sent back and came home in a box.

Another friend had luck much like yours, only better. He had applied to law school and for Navy pilot training. Toward the end of the first semester of law school the Navy told him to report. He took his finals at Key West and learned to fly (while living with a woman on a boat). Just when he was supposed to start practicing landing on carriers he found out the navy had too many officers. Navy flying was all volunteer so he un-volunteered himself. He left the Navy with an honorable discharge, a draft card that said he'd done his service and the GI Bill. The law school had to take him back.

Those were crazy times.

[DesertRat]

17. "to enhance the quality of postsecondary education by making it more affordable"

Oh really.

The purpose of this order is to enhance the quality of postsecondary education by making it more affordable, more transparent, and more accountable.

[Beartracks]

27. All I saw was reporting annually on data to show students how expensive their education will be. n/t

[cstanleytech]

20. This is garbage. First of what if someone tries to go to a Christian college that has accepted

such money and wants to talk of the benefits of satanism? Is the college bound to let them or will they be allowed still to use the Chick-fil-A/Hobby Lobby defense?

[jmowreader]

22. Nothing says anyone has to listen to their bullshit...

...and nothing here says the Nazis can't be told, "you have the freedom to speak on this campus, and we have the freedom to give you a latrine on the third floor of the Science Building to do it in."

[Gothmog]

23. Just... gross

Link to tweet

[htuttle]

30. Oh, god. He's smelling her.

Where's his other hand?

[Gothmog]

41. Yes he was-this is so gross

[bluestarone]

26. Well here's another mess he got the RETHUGS in

What a dumb fuck!

[htuttle]

29. Looks like we're going to get some Zampolit or Zhengwei on campus

I know the far right thinks that they are already there, but HR department staff aren't motivated by federal policy directed by executive order. They're motivated and directed by the university's legal department.

[Sanity Claws]

32. What about free speech on dairy farms?

Nunes is suppressing the free speech of his cows.

[Doodley]

34. I thought Trump had taken the knife to cut out unnecessary government legislation.

[procon]

37. The takeaway line is this:

The relevant portion of Trump’s executive order instructs 12 federal agencies to ensure that the universities receiving research grants “promote free inquiry, but what the hell does that mean?

"Free inquiry is an essential feature of our Nation's democracy, and it promotes learning, scientific discovery, and economic prosperity. We must encourage institutions to appropriately account for this bedrock principle in their administration of student life and to avoid creating environments that stifle competing perspectives, thereby potentially impeding beneficial research and undermining learning.”

What this means in practical terms is universities must teach rightwing junk like climate change is a Chinese hoax, and neo-Nazi's are very fine people. Students must be taught that the Mueller investigation is a hoax is a witch hunt perpetrated by disgruntled Democrats over Clinton's electoral loss. Universities will promote the Republican agenda and teach abstinence only to college kids. Its important that students learn how to rake the forests to prevent wildfires.

History majors will be taught the Trump administration has accomplished more than any other administration in the history of mankind, and Russia did not influence electoral process, or conspire to assist Trump's win. Professors will tell students that all Democrats are radical socialists who want to model America’s economy after Venezuela.

See, it's basically Trump putting his weight on the scale to help Republicans sell their message when the lies never caught on from their own merit.

[ehrnst]

49. Yep, along with discouraging those whose parents can't pay tuition in full from enrolling

Last edited Fri Mar 22, 2019, 09:22 AM - Edit history (1)

as well as those who are pursuing anything in the arts or literature.

This is validation to his white non-college educated base.

[Nitram]

40. Conservatives should be careful what they wish for.

Let's start sending atheist, pro-life, and pro-LGBTQ speakers to Liberty University.

[Initech]

43. Exactly! Don't get mad, get even!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

124. This executive order may not apply to Liberty U.

The university doesn't get any "direct" government money. Yes, they get money from students who borrow from the government, but that probably doesn't count.

So, by not taking government money, they're exempt from permitting non-conservative speakers.

That's how I understand this order.



And, are you sure you meant to say "pro-life"? It seems "pro-choice" would fit better into your list of Liberty U antagonists.

[Nitram]

126. You're right, I meant to write "pro-choice."

[ehrnst]

47. This is a clear attempt to discourage attendance at universities. This is much like

"informed consent" that requries that women seeking abortions be told about "alternatives" and dangers, while women going in for their first prenatal visit are not.

This adminstration doesn't want middle class and low income kids going to university. If they were actually worried about the financial burden, they would work on making it more affordable.

I am NOT saying that job training programs and other alternatives to university are bad or wrong or less valuable. I am saying that a kid without a lot of money who wants to go to university and is a good fit shouldn't be disccouraged from going because of their parents income level.

[beachbum bob]

55. should allow liberal speakers at conservative schools unfettered access too....

[mahatmakanejeeves]

59. Behold the words of Glorious Leader!

Behold them on your own time. I'm not going to repeat them here.

FACT SHEETS

President Donald J. Trump is Improving Transparency and Promoting Free Speech in Higher Education
EDUCATION

Issued on: March 21, 2019

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order on Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities
EDUCATION

Issued on: March 21, 2019

[underpants]

79. Who gets to decide?

Is EVERYTHING open now?

This is just simple stoopid pandering

[DBoon]

83. the freedom for violent criminal gangs to recruit on campus

allowing white supremacists on campus is like inviting MS-13 to recruit on campus

[GemDigger]

90. There is no way that idiot came up with that himself. Sounds like a Stephen Miller, Steve King,

kkk, proud boys kind of thing.