> “in such a blatant manner” that it made them “feel targeted and unsafe.”
That and $4 will get you a drip coffee at Starbucks. Thing is, if it isn't actually a direct call to violence against a specific person or persons, it's expression protected by the first amendment, no matter how reprehensible. That doesn't mean I think the governme…
> “in such a blatant manner” that it made them “feel targeted and unsafe.”
That and $4 will get you a drip coffee at Starbucks. Thing is, if it isn't actually a direct call to violence against a specific person or persons, it's expression protected by the first amendment, no matter how reprehensible. That doesn't mean I think the government should be giving any funding to these schools at all, only that freedom of speech applies to all parties in the US equally and it's unconstitutional for the government to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.
The liberal position is that the answer to bad speech is more and better speech. We need more people on both sides willing to stand up for the principle of free expression. Thankfully, we have Greg Lukianoff and FIRE pushing for the primacy of this principle over the grievances of any one faction.
And so you think in the unlikely event that a Columbia student ever insulted or harassed a group of transgender students that the Columbia administration would recognize the primacy of the first amendment?
Your confusion is why Americans need to stop using the word "liberal" to describe those who are more accurately labeled "left-wingers" or "progressives".
I'm just going to go out on a limb and suggest that ten minutes out of your life spent learning about America's founding philosophy will better enhance your knowledge and understanding than arguing with a schmoe like me.
That says a lot more about you and the schools than it does about me. Wow. Imagine admitting in public that you taught American history and don't know what "liberalism" is.
> “in such a blatant manner” that it made them “feel targeted and unsafe.”
That and $4 will get you a drip coffee at Starbucks. Thing is, if it isn't actually a direct call to violence against a specific person or persons, it's expression protected by the first amendment, no matter how reprehensible. That doesn't mean I think the government should be giving any funding to these schools at all, only that freedom of speech applies to all parties in the US equally and it's unconstitutional for the government to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.
The liberal position is that the answer to bad speech is more and better speech. We need more people on both sides willing to stand up for the principle of free expression. Thankfully, we have Greg Lukianoff and FIRE pushing for the primacy of this principle over the grievances of any one faction.
And so you think in the unlikely event that a Columbia student ever insulted or harassed a group of transgender students that the Columbia administration would recognize the primacy of the first amendment?
No, because they're unprincipled. The answer to that isn't to be unprincipled in response.
"The liberal position is that the answer to bad speech is more and better speech."
This is a joke?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Your confusion is why Americans need to stop using the word "liberal" to describe those who are more accurately labeled "left-wingers" or "progressives".
Happy to discuss ideas with you but I don't need reading assignments.
I'm just going to go out on a limb and suggest that ten minutes out of your life spent learning about America's founding philosophy will better enhance your knowledge and understanding than arguing with a schmoe like me.
Taught American history at the college level for many years so happy to discuss ideas but please enlighten me don't give me reading assignments.
That says a lot more about you and the schools than it does about me. Wow. Imagine admitting in public that you taught American history and don't know what "liberalism" is.
Good luck with your hate.