Should Free Speech be Limited on University Campuses?

[bhobba]

Hi Guys

This case is very famous here in Aus and involves my old Alma Mater, QUT, where I studied math and computer science:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/get-rid-of-section-18c-once-and-for-all/news-story/09857c729cbc94d0c0c24996349cb68e

It has been a bit divisive out here with most people on the students side (they were - IMHO - well screwed) but curios what those overseas think.

Thanks
Bill

 

[symbolipoint]

The link does not give an article. No topic to read.

"There's more to this storyBut it's a member-only story. Subscribe today to unlock it and more..."

Who wants to subscribe just to read the article?

 

[bhobba]

Sorry guys.

They obviously put it behind a paywall. I subscribe so it didn't affect me. I will post what it says:

Start of article (some irrelevant bits removed)

What happened to Alex Wood, 23, and his fellow Queensland University of Technology students could happen to anyone for expressing a mild opinion on Facebook.

<< Quote shortened by Mentors due to copyright issues >>

End of article

There is not much more I can say except he easily reached his target donation wise so didnt end up out of pocket.

He was represented pro bono by a QC (Queens Council - in the US they would probably be called something like Senior Council) - it outraged the QC so much. But there were still a few costs to pay even after he won in trying to obtain some recompense for the affect it had on his studies etc. He easily won that - but she is pretty much bankrupt so it ended up being out of his pocket.

Thanks
Bill

 

[OCR]

We owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for standing up to the totalitarian edifice of 18C and the HRC which enables it.

Couple questions...
Is this the RDA...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Discrimination_Act_1975

Is this 18C...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_18C_of_the_Racial_Discrimination_Act_1975

Is this HRC...?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Human_Rights_Commission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Human_Rights_Commission

 

[bhobba]

Couple questions...
Is this 18C...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Discrimination_Act_1975

Is this HRC...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Human_Rights_Commission

Basically - yes and yes - but have to head to the doctor right now (my blood sugar spiked) and will give a more complete answer when I get back.

Thanks
Bill

 

[OCR]

This case is very famous here in Aus and involves my old Alma Mater, QUT, where I studied math and computer science:

Is this the exact same story that you linked too...?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/18c-student-case-alex-woods-legal-bill-met-after-public-response/news-story/b612328dd555bf501dbf4206994ee5f6

EDIT: Link is pay-walled ...

 

[OCR]

Odd... that link is pay-walled too...?
It works from google though...?

It works from google though...?

Lol... only once, then the site sets some cookies and gets pay-walled... I guess ?

 

[bhobba]

Lol... only once, then the site sets some cookies and gets pay-walled... I guess ?

This pay wall stuff is weird. I subscribe digitally to a local newspaper and I am pretty sure they have reciprocal agreements with others so what I see is likely different to what you see. But they don't with others (I think the Australian is one they don't) and similar weird things happens to me.

Anyway the Australian article is just a rehash of what I posted.

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Basically - yes and yes - but have to head to the doctor right now (my blood sugar spiked) and will give a

Just in case anyone is interested my doctor said - forget about this spike which was picked up as part of other blood tests. He wants to see the other sugar test they do - the long term one. Also my BP was up - by the so called accurate automatic machine it was 220 over something or another. WHAT. He then pulled out one of those old-fashioned ones that are in fact more accurate - it was really 168 - not good - but not 220. It was possibly white coat pressure - but he will run some other tests just to be sure and check it again. It's still a bit high, I may have to increase my blood pressure medication - I am on a small dose right now and usually with that its 140.

Now to 18C and HRC.

18c is legislation that says its an offence to offend anyone based on race. That's right - if they feel offended you broke the law. Utterly ridicules - even looking at a woman can offend some of them. In fact when I had bad acne many moons ago at 19, I saw a beautician to clear out my pimples. She was a good looking well groomed Asian lady. I went to see her years later - my acne had cleared up but they are relaxing, I was on holiday so went back for a while. She remembered me and we chatted a bit, asking how I was, what I had been up to etc. Anyway out of the blue one day she started looking a bit sad - she is normally pretty happy - I said - what's the matter - men are always looking at me - it makes feel like a freak. I had to explain to her its not because she is Asian or anything like that - its just because she is good looking. It seemed to help her, she should have really told her husband not me, but Asians tend to hold stuff in - they have this so called thick face - black heart philosophy you can even buy a book on. Its an example of how just normal behavior can offend people - its an unenforceable standard even though of course it happens. You don't make laws about it - in fact there is nothing you can really do about it.

The HRC is the Human Rights Commission run by someone called Gillian Triggs who has recently left. Without going into details she is an incompetent loony left ninny - but like all heads of departments very politically astute. She was so bad the government asked her to resign. She refused to and we had to wait until her contract was up. She waited two years - that's right two years - before telling these poor uni students they had a complaint issued against them. Her excuse - she was sorry and would do things differently next time. I know of all sorts of other rubbish she did but just let's say - she is incompetent.

Thanks
Bill

 

[OCR]

Just in case anyone is interested my doctor said - forget about this spike which was picked up as part of other blood tests.

"It was possibly white coat pressure" .[COLOR=#black].. [/COLOR] [COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR] Please continue... this is very interesting!

Gillian Triggs...
Racial Discrimination Act controversy...

 

[gmax137]

... Cindy Prior, the university indigenous administration officer who had kicked the students out of the computer lab, lodged a racial hatred complaint against the students

... a lady who’s in financial ruin

I'm a little confused. Is the lady in financial ruin Ms. Prior? Why isn't Alex Woods suing the university for his legal fees? That's how you stop this nonsense. I think the people that caved and paid $5000 should get their money back, probably x3 or x5; again, paid by the university.

 

[Vanadium 50]

One reason you go to uni is to hone your critical thinking skills

That's not what many students here think. They think they go to college to get a certificate that entitles them to the job of their choice.

I don't understand where universities come into this. As far as I can tell from your description of 18C, it is a crime to offend, period. Nothing special about universities. Sure, this case happened at a university, but it had to have happened somewhere.

 

[bhobba]

That's not what many students here think. They think they go to college to get a certificate that entitles them to the job of their choice.

What can I say - hammer hitting nail. But some, like me, did. It wasn't about political rubbish like this - it was about what I was taught. It got so bad one lecturer said to me - Bill I can show you books that will answer your queries - but you wouldn't read them they are so boring. He was right.

I don't understand where universities come into this. As far as I can tell from your description of 18C, it is a crime to offend, period. Nothing special about universities. Sure, this case happened at a university, but it had to have happened somewhere.

Only in that it actually happened at a university and I wanted to hear what people think of free speech being muffled at tertiary institutions. Not only muffled but students that simply want to do what you said in the first bit going through needless trauma.

Thanks
Bill

 

[OCR]

I'm a little confused. Is the lady in financial ruin Ms. Prior?

Yes, I believe so...

 

[bhobba]

I'm a little confused. Is the lady in financial ruin Ms. Prior? Why isn't Alex Woods suing the university for his legal fees? That's how you stop this nonsense. I think the people that caved and paid $5000 should get their money back, probably x3 or x5; again, paid by the university.

Yes Mrs Prior is likely to be declared bankrupt. I don't know why they aren't suing the university - maybe costs.

All this is of course interesting, but not the intent of my post.

Its what do people think of university students being subjected to this?

Vanadium50 is right - this is a sub-forum about education - do people think this is just an unfortunate occurrence or something universities should be more active in ensuring it doesn't happen to students? It seems the QUT may have tried to cover it up. Is that OK for the greater good of the institution? What is other peoples view?

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Yes, I believe so...

WOW - she actually avoided bankruptcy - amazing.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Y One reason you go to uni is to hone your critical thinking skills - you can't do that when you are worried about being sued for just doing what you as a student are supposed to do - debate stuff.

Yep. Any real academic freedom presupposes a broad underlying 1st amendment freedoms (as we like to think of them based on the US Constitution) - free speech, free press, free religion, free assembly, petition, etc. In the US, we also have an important Constitutional principle banning ex post facto laws. Laws that ban conduct based on perception by others are inherently ex post facto, because citizens have no way of knowing how their actions will be perceived in the future, so that the meaning of a law can change over time as perceptions change.

That's not what many students here think. They think they go to college to get a certificate that entitles them to the job of their choice.

Yep. But professors and academics are not doing enough to change that perception during the time most students are pursuing their undergraduate degrees. Rather than debating the most offensive ideas, too many folks in academia are working harder and harder toward administrative muzzles (negative consequences) - almost like they are afraid or too lazy of open debate and discussion. Academics are overly eager to put to many offensive or controversial ideas in the box of "settled issues" and move on to other things. But if an offensive or controversial idea is popping up in campus conversations and has advocates on both sides, it is manipulative and dishonest to consider it "settled." Both sides of any debate or discussion should always be allowed without fear of negative consequence.

How do you know an academic environment (or other community) is truly free? The litmus test is whether an honest and open expression of "the other side" of any idea can be openly held and debated by a member of that community without fear or threat of negative legal or administrative consequences. If it's OK to express one position on homosexual marriage, then it must be OK to express any other position. If it's OK to express one position on race relations, then it must be OK to express any other position. If it's OK to express one position on gender equality, then it must be OK to express any other position. If it's OK to express one position on global warming, then it must be OK to express any other position. If it's OK to express one position on evolution, then it must be OK to express any other opinion,

If we're honest, we should realize that few of our institutions or even our own practices would fare well when tested by the above litmus test. We all have our sacred cows where we move from open debate to administrative or legal consequences for the ideas we fear the most. Before we address the issue with the Australian law too loudly, we should work a bit harder to get the log out of our own eye.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Let's return on topic and discussion relevant to the OP. Thanks!

 

[UsableThought]

Only in that it actually happened at a university and I wanted to hear what people think of free speech being muffled at tertiary institutions. Not only muffled but students that simply want to do what you said in the first bit going through needless trauma.

Vanadium50 is right - this is a sub-forum about education - do people think this is just an unfortunate occurrence or something universities should be more active in ensuring it doesn't happen to students?

I've done my best to Google for articles and commentary on this particular incident. Aside from newspaper articles, I found an op-ed piece from The Conversation, a U.S.-based academic journalism and commentary site, which seems pretty good at explaining what went wrong in this incident and more generally what the problems are with 18C and AHRC; it largely agrees with the version already posted here from The Australian. Here's the link: QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

Now, let's get back to the question that @bhobba posed in starting this thread, and which he reiterated in his comment #15: What does this incident say about free speech at universities in general?

My answer: 18C is a particular piece of Australian legislation (link here) that, as @Vanadium 50 has already pointed out, isn't specific to universities in the first place. So this incident in effect says nothing about the question of free speech at universities in general; not unless one made an analysis of how 18C has been carried out at universities specifically versus other places in Australia.

So to me the question remains a good one, but more substance would have been useful to start things off. Also, my personal preference, given that PF is a science-based and reason-based forum, is for an analytical approach to such questions, i.e. at a minimum establishing categories of concern, rather than merely throwing examples at the wall to see if they will stick. For example, in some cases a university's policies might be antagonistic to free speech, but in other cases it might be that a group of students independently demonstrated hostility toward free speech, following a meme that has become popular in academic culture. Also there is the question of what the ideal should be & why, which is something Dr. Courtney pointed towards in his comment.

 

[UsableThought]

A P.S. to my comment above: Even more interesting to me, as someone who formerly taught at the university level, would be what folks who teach do in their own classrooms to protect free speech, including that of students with politically unpopular views.

In my case I taught essay writing, including argumentative essays; and I remember having to instruct a classroom of mostly liberal students how to respond constructively rather than antagonistically to a student who had written an essay expressing a politically conservative point of view. In other cases I had to intervene in squabbles between individual students who had very different political views (e.g. pro- and anti-Israel), again with a goal of showing that civility and constructive dialog are both possible & desirable. I may have been lucky as a teacher in that my subject matter was directly aligned with developing the capacities required.

 

[Nidum]

http://www.cherwell.org/2017/02/18/oxford-deemed-hostile-environment-to-free-speech/

Google ' Oxford Union policy on free speech ' for more on same topic .

 

[Dr. Courtney]

http://www.cherwell.org/2017/02/18/oxford-deemed-hostile-environment-to-free-speech/

Google ' Oxford Union policy on free speech ' for more on same topic .

Very informative article on the topic of "free speech at universities." Thanks for the link.

I think we should all be challenged with how much we agree with this quote, and we should be ashamed at our dishonest pretense of academic freedom or free speech at universities if we disagree:

Spiked’s criteria for a red ranking is: “A students’ union, university or institution that is hostile to free speech and free expression, mandating explicit restrictions on speech, including, but not limited to, bans on specific ideologies, political affiliations, beliefs, books, speakers or words.”

The magazine emphasised that: “being compelled to express something is as corrosive to free speech as being prohibited from expressing something.”

So even if the restrictions on free speech apply more broadly to society and not _only_ to universities, faculty who value academic freedom and freedom of expression should be leading the resistance to protect the free expression of our colleagues and students.

 

[Nidum]

Nobody with anything more to say ?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Perhaps they are hoping another topic will eclipse this one.

 

[bhobba]

Nobody with anything more to say ?

I think all that can be said really has been said.

Its a free speech issue all right, but as pointed out, correctly, not peculiar to universities although it did affect university students.

Australia is a bit of a 'nanny' state compared to many other free democratic countries so its the type of legislation more likely to appear here than elsewhere and this kind of thing occur here rather than say in the USA. But it does illustrate we all must be on our toes so to speak to ensure free speech is maintained. I am sure the framers of this legislation didn't mean for it to to turn out this way - hence we must be eternally vigilant.

The other thing it highlights is even though you are entirely innocent the process itself can be a huge punishment as it was for these students - one even switching from studying teaching to law - again that sort of thing must be taken into account in any legislation that has free speech implications.

Nobody likes to be made to feel uncomfortable by others but its something you really can't legislate against. It's really part of living in a free society.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Nobody with anything more to say ?

I think all that can be said really has been said.

Its a free speech issue all right, but as pointed out, correctly, not peculiar to universities although it did affect university students.

I disagree. With the increasing number of examples of free expression violations on college campuses, there are a lot more examples that can be discussed. Those who would quash free speech always pretend that their proposed restrictions are reasonable - akin to banning attempts to incite violence or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. But they try and avoid the strict scrutiny that is due restrictions on 1st amendment rights.

Here's a nice example of a situation that is very much on the borderline of the university free speech issue:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...l-players-gay-slurs-homophobia-play/2915257/#

How can focus be sharpened without discussing the hard cases that challenge our perceptions of what the rules should be in the first place AND how due process should be administered in the path of ensuring liberty and justice for all?

Here's another hard case:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...lab-manager-who-said-he-was-fired-creationist

And one near and dear to my heart (as a resident of Baton Rouge and LSU graduate):

http://thehayride.com/2017/08/f-king-alexander-says-richard-spencer-trying-speak-lsu-says-no/

Everyone is a fan of free speech and expression when they agree with the ideas being expressed. The test of our character and our true commitment to liberty comes when we strongly disagree with the ideas being expressed. Do we still side with liberty, or do we begin to side with the censors?

 

[bhobba]

But they try and avoid the strict scrutiny that is due restrictions on 1st amendment rights.

Here in Australia we do not have your constitution, but of course we have laws guaranteeing free speech. Our constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of expression exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution.

I think in practical terms its tied up with something I discussed with a lawyer many moons ago. We have all sorts of contradictory laws that have never been put to the test in a court of law and precedent set. I believe your constitution pretty much trumps other legislation so you don't run into the same issue as much. When they are commonsense usually wins out - but the legal costs - well that's the kicker isn't it. Here is another example. In my working life someone I worked with got rather ill from a car accident. Her treating psychiatrist (she was under the care of a number of specialists) thought it would be important for her to attend her high school reunion and wrote a sick leave certificate to that effect. Now this organisation had an agency agreement giving the power to managers to overrule doctors on medical issues. Any ninny can see that's outrageous - they have no qualifications to do that - the correct procedure was to send her to the CMO (Commonwealth Medical Officer - it was a government department) but they rarely overrule other doctors especially specialists. So the manager overrules it - it was utterly silly. All it did was make her sicker, delayed her return to work etc etc. But this was not the first time managers got the idea they run things and outsiders like doctors can go you know where. Well this time the person concerned was so upset she took legal action - it cost upfront of course - but the court more or less said - you must be joking - what kind of qualifications do managers have to do that and it was overruled immediately and costs awarded so she got her money back. But agency agreements with this sort of rubbish had been around for years - yet it took this one case for something to be done. Just as an aside agency agreements are full of all sorts of rubbish like that but that is way way off topic.

Everyone is a fan of free speech and expression when they agree with the ideas being expressed. The test of our character and our true commitment to liberty comes when we strongly disagree with the ideas being expressed. Do we still side with liberty, or do we begin to side with the censors?

Well, while true, that one is straight out of Ayn Rand's writings - its hardly new. But few have taken on its central lesson.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Everyone is a fan of free speech and expression when they agree with the ideas being expressed. The test of our character and our true commitment to liberty comes when we strongly disagree with the ideas being expressed. Do we still side with liberty, or do we begin to side with the censors?

Well, while true, that one is straight out of Ayn Rand's writings - its hardly new. But few have taken on its central lesson.

I suspect Rand got it from The Federalist Papers (or possibly other 18th century thinkers). That's certainly where I got it.

“If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

— George Washington, first U.S. president

“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.”

— Benjamin Franklin, U.S. Founding Father“If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

— Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., U.S. Supreme Court justice

Freedom of speech is the great bulwark of liberty; they prosper and die together: And it is the terror of traitors and oppressors, and a barrier against them. It produces excellent writers, and encourages men of fine genius. - Cato's Letters

 

[UsableThought]

Everyone is a fan of free speech and expression when they agree with the ideas being expressed. The test of our character and our true commitment to liberty comes when we strongly disagree with the ideas being expressed. Do we still side with liberty, or do we begin to side with the censors?

One problem is that free speech of the sort you advocate (which I would advocate also) - and especially as envisioned by the U.S. Founding Fathers - presumes not only good intentions, but at least some understanding of the purpose of such speech in a democratic republic. The Founders themselves were the elite of their time - they were all educated (in some cases highly educated) property owners; and they had experienced what they considered unjust rule; so this was not an idle topic for them.

To take one of the examples you gave - freshman athletes calling out insults at actors in a theater class - they are not consciously exercising free speech of the sort necessary for a democracy; they are simply following a widespread subcultural meme that does them and their adult mentors (coaches etc.) no credit. My own experience at university with athletes is that they were coddled and protected for far worse behavior, including violent assaults on other students & townspeople; this was decades ago, but from the news stories that appear regularly, the various sorts of damage done by much of college athletics to actual education obviously persist. So not much sympathy from me for the athletes in that particular news story.

Now, granted some universities and some students seem to have lost their minds with "safe spaces" and "triggers" etc.; that would be an entire subject of itself. The writer and security expert Tom Nicols, in his book The Death of Expertise (essay excerpt here), points out that these new conventions not only infringe on free speech & cause harm to professors, other students, & the institution, but in addition make a joke of teaching and learning. In this respect, he says, today's "student activism" differs greatly from that in, say, the 1960s. From p. 190:

Today, by contrast, students explode over imagined slights that are not even remotely in the same category as fighting for civil rights or being sent to war. Students now build majestic Everests from the smallest molehills, and they descend into hysteria over pranks and hoaxes. In the midst of it all, students are learning that emotion and volume can always defeat reason and substance, thus building about themselves fortresses that no future teacher, expert, or intellectual will be able to breach.​

So in a sense, the free or protected speech problem is related to problems of degradation in skills for reasoning & research & debate; and in this sense too it afflicts our entire society, not just higher ed.

We might also see the problem as even broader than that. As a society governed by law we seem to be losing a consensus for how to behave as citizens; and our leaders seem to be losing a consensus for how to be leaders. The columnists I am starting to pay attention to these days aren't the ones writing furiously one way or another about He Who Shall Not Be Named, but rather, about the need to renew our political and social bonds & our joint culture in ways that will bring us together, even when we disagree; of course this should include protected speech; such speech is directly related to the quality of our society & our republic.

Nicols would agree, I suspect; he isn't so much concerned w/ free speech as an isolated issue as he is with our related incapacities; this is from the end of his book:

. . . laypeople forget all too easily that the republican form of government under which they live was not designed for mass decisions about complicated issues. Neither, of course, was it designed for rule by a tiny group of technocrats or experts. Rather, it was meant to be the vehicle by which an informed electorate - informed being the key word here - could choose other people to represent them and to make decisions on their behalf . . . This relationship becomes impossible to sustain, however, when laypeople have no idea what they're talking about or what they want.
​

In a quick search I wasn't able to find links to how the Founders envisioned the binding ties of citizenship; I did however find an essay on free speech as it relates to the Bill of Rights; see links below. They represent the same material in different format: The first is to a PDF of a series of essays on the Bill of Rights and its subsequent interpretation that I found posted on a State Department site; the writer was a prof. at Virginia Commonwealth University and the free speech section is Chapter 3. The second link is just a website quoting from that chapter; the format may be a bit easier to read. Some interesting history there.

https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/gov/peoplerights.pdf

http://www.ruleoflawus.info/freedom_of_speech.htm

---

P.S. And for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Vanadium 50]

— George Washington, first U.S. president
— Benjamin Franklin, U.S. Founding Father
— Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., U.S. Supreme Court justice

Washington and Franklin were slaveowners and Holmes was an imperialist. What have we to learn from such wicked men?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/2...orting-trump-is-relieved-teaching-duties.html

Lest there be any illusions of free speech in academia.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This thread has been bordering on politics from the beginning. We let it run for a bit and now is a good time to close up. Thanks for the interesting discussion all!