UC-Davis establishes rules to allow free speech
Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.
This could be a victory: A working group established by the administration of the University of California in Davis (UC-Davis) has recommended rules that will punish students who disrupt speakers and prevent them from speaking.
[T]he working group recommended the implementation of an “anti-disruption disciplinary rule” that would punish student who disrupt speakers, as was the case during Yiannopoulos’ visit to campus.“Although the determination of what constitutes disruption may be fact-specific and contextual in some cases and require the exercise of official discretion, the campus should clearly delineate disruptive behavior it deems presumptively unacceptable and provide clear notice to students engaging in such behavior that their conduct warrants a disciplinary response,” the working group explains.
Additionally, the report recommends regular “freedom of expression education events” to highlight the “values served by freedom of expression on a university campus.” Among such events, the working group suggests “interactive town halls and workshops” that would include discussion on the “theory of creative political expression to provide compelling examples of other, constructive and expressive options students have to respond to controversial speakers.”
This sounds good, but we will only find out if the administration means it when a conservative speaker decides to come to UC-Davis to speak. The article includes many comments from students who participated in the working group that opposed these recommendations and were hostile to allowing any dissenting voices on campus.
Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.
This could be a victory: A working group established by the administration of the University of California in Davis (UC-Davis) has recommended rules that will punish students who disrupt speakers and prevent them from speaking.
[T]he working group recommended the implementation of an “anti-disruption disciplinary rule” that would punish student who disrupt speakers, as was the case during Yiannopoulos’ visit to campus.“Although the determination of what constitutes disruption may be fact-specific and contextual in some cases and require the exercise of official discretion, the campus should clearly delineate disruptive behavior it deems presumptively unacceptable and provide clear notice to students engaging in such behavior that their conduct warrants a disciplinary response,” the working group explains.
Additionally, the report recommends regular “freedom of expression education events” to highlight the “values served by freedom of expression on a university campus.” Among such events, the working group suggests “interactive town halls and workshops” that would include discussion on the “theory of creative political expression to provide compelling examples of other, constructive and expressive options students have to respond to controversial speakers.”
This sounds good, but we will only find out if the administration means it when a conservative speaker decides to come to UC-Davis to speak. The article includes many comments from students who participated in the working group that opposed these recommendations and were hostile to allowing any dissenting voices on campus.
The actions by UC-Davis are less a victory for free speech than an illustration of how far removed colleges are removed from
American ideals.
We started with free speech and respect for opinions: decades of institutional destruction by Progressives have left a moral and emotional void in society. They have taken away without offering anything better, or really, at all.
Because the Left is petty and small-minded, and they lack self-control, discernment, or anything else associated with maturity, they believe others require a lot of rules, too.
The individual raised in a moral environment doesn’t require external controls: their behavior is guided by internalizing societal ethics.
UC-Davis and others would probaby do better to drop thier working/study groups and instead require students to take courses in Ethics and the Constitution.