Friday, January 19, 2018
CU regents consider new policies supporting freedom of speech, even if considered 'offensive' by some
The University of Colorado is discussing establishing new policies around freedom of speech on campus modeled after the University of Chicago's stance arguing colleges shouldn't ban speakers or censor speech, even if thought "offensive" or "disagreeable."
The proposal to craft CU's own free speech stance was brought during a CU regents' meeting Wednesday morning in Denver.
An excerpt of a draft proposal of CU's policy reads: "Speech related to political, academic, artistic, and social concern serve vital purposes, both in society and within the university itself. Speech related to these topics is within the boundaries of free expression, even when others construe that speech as wrong or insensitive. The proper response to ideas that members of the university community find offensive or unwarranted is to challenge those ideas through the exercise of reason and debate, rather than attempt to interfere with or suppress them."
The draft goes on to say free expression doesn't include speech that's "a true threat, fraudulent, harassing, obscene, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful."
Regents Heidi Ganahl, Republican at large, and John Carson, Highlands Ranch Republican, are spearheading the effort with Patrick O'Rourke, vice president of university counsel and secretary of the board, working on the language of the policy. Regents agreed, if moved forward, CU's policies would be more detailed and stronger than the University of Chicago's statement.
The motivation behind the push for stricter freedom of speech rules, Ganahl said, came from hundreds of conversations she had with students and faculty experiencing forms of political discrimination on campus.
"This would be giving voice to people who don't feel they have a voice," Ganahl said. "I am their voice now. I think this would send a very encouraging and strong message for them."
Free speech flared up on the Boulder campus last year when CU College Republicans and the CU chapter of Turning Point USA, a conservative activist group, organized a speaking event for conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.
Many lobbied CU officials to cancel the speech, in which Yiannopoulos made provocative statements about Muslims, obese people, gender studies professors, Native Americans and sexual assault.
Events promoting diversity and inclusion, including a talk by transgender actress Laverne Cox, sprung up on the same day as Yiannopoulos' speech.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Liberals believe that free speech is acceptable only if it agrees with their twisted ideas.
Those liberal snowflakes who claim Free Speech offends them and hurts the little feelings need to Get A Life and go Soak their Heads
2:48,
True.
But to be fair, the same can be said of us conservatives. For example, we oppose "free speech" when it leads to direct harm: "Kill so-and-so", "Fire!" in a crowded place when there's no fire, Libel and Slander, exposing National Security or military secrets, exposing trade secrets or things covered by NDA's, etc. We even call for limits on things like vulgarity and avoiding or euphemizing certain topics when the speech can be heard by young children.
There are some very real reasons for limiting such speech, but the left—in general—seems to lack the ability to understand the difference between concepts like "direct, provable harm" and "I disagree".
Post a Comment