In the tumultuous 1960s far-left student radicals launched the "free speech movement" at the University of California-Berkeley. Cruelly exploiting anti-Vietnam War and civil rights sentiments, the movement soon spread across the country to other campuses, often resulting in violence, property damage and shutdowns of universities and colleges -- at least temporarily until police were finally called in.
These young thugs, who were christened the "New Left" by generally friendly national media, were no more interested in free speech than they were in signing up for a stint in Vietnam. What they really sought was free speech for themselves, but not for anybody else -- especially those who disagreed with them.
As New Left radicals aged, many carved a niche for themselves in academia and are now professors or administrators, or hold other levers of power. And their contempt for free speech, other than their own, hasn't changed one whit over the decades.
This is what has given rise to political correctness and speech codes that not only affect college campuses, but to a large extent have spread beyond the campuses into the broader culture. One horrendous example of free speech intolerance was the recent firing of a professor at a San Jose, Calif., community college for leading a discussion on the controversial "nature vs. nurture" debate regarding sexual orientation. All it took was one student complaint to get her booted out.
She has a good chance, however, of getting her job back because she has enlisted the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. FIRE, as it is more widely known, is a nonprofit organization that has successfully mounted strong legal challenges against campus speech codes.
Just this month FIRE got San Francisco State University to scrap speech codes that, in effect, muzzled campus Republicans. Right here in Georgia, FIRE currently is battling a preposterous Valdosta State University regulation that permits free speech for only two hours a day at a tiny venue that must be reserved days in advance.
Before Berkeley's free speech movement, American universities were bastions of free speech and, in fairness, some still are. But all too many are overtly opposed to free speech, open inquiry and controversial discussions. This not only is inimical to the mission of higher education, but as FIRE has often proved in court, restricting speech clearly violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
It's a shame that it takes an outside entity such as FIRE to go to court to enforce that fundamental right. Free speech should be flourishing on all the nation's campuses -- challenging and inspiring young minds -- not subjecting them to Stalinist restrictions. Thank heaven for FIRE. It is establishing important strategic beachheads in trying to keep campuses open and free.
Comments
The good thing about the universities is that at least you don't HAVE to attend a particular one. What about our "government (aka "public") schools"? In many school systems, they have become a nesting area for squawking liberals. It's time let me choose.
Berkley is a wonderful school. Where else can you get such a good socialistic indoctrination? Without Berkley and schools like it, kids might graduate with a knowlege of economics and a sense of civic duty......and who wants that?
In the 1850s the Manifesto laid out a plan to control the population of a large country. The second part of the plan was to deny inheritance, establish a progressive income tax, demand universal education(by the government), and control all communication and transportation by the state. (You may notice this sounds like the platform of one of our major parties) The "freedom of speech" part of our constitution interferes with a lot of the manifesto. THAT'S why political correctness and speech limits are so popular in academia. FIRE is one of the best warriors of freedom in this country.
And let's not forget that California wants to hold parents criminally liable for home schooling their children.
This letter is another example of conservative propoganda that bends facts to fit opinions. It was Nixon who allowed the murder of Kent State "liberals" for expressing opinions and free speech. Conservatives see free speech only when it is they who speak.
liberal faith, sounds as if you are talking about yourself and your deme buds!
And liberals do not? Right! There is a long list of conservatives who push "political correctness." Let's see...there's.......................give me time...I'll think of one.
Liberal Faith, you sure are consistent. Seldom right, but very consistent.
In most cases, home schooling is to the childs detriment, mostly because the parents involved have no business procreating. Much less educating their creation.
Liberal Faith, typical liberal bull splatter and revisionist history. Though it was sad that students were killed at Kent State, those students were throwing rocks, bricks and bottles at those National Guard troops not to mention they were also burning down school property. It is those same 60s leftists that are now sitting as DIMocRATS in Congress who would silence talk radio because talk radio constantly exposes these people for what they are-socialists. They are also the ones on college and university campuses poisoning our kids minds with socialist doctrine where free speech is not longer tolerated. The Ivy Leagues schools are the most notorius in the East. Berkley has always been a shining example of socialist doctrine and it has spread throughout academia because students dare not disagree with their spewings.
Republicant, in most cases, if the parents aren't involved in raising their children, home schooling won't take place. Most parents aren't qualified or willing to take the time to educate their children as well as a formal school will. It's the slanted approach of the agenda oriented left that most people object to.
Do you all ever get tired of this Liberal -V- Conservative bull? I mean everything does not always have to be us - V- them. I am willing to bet if they did away with the party system, half of the people on here would be too lazy to research where each person running stood on the issues.
The only reason California wants to stop home schooling is because they have no control over what crazy ideas are pushed into the developing minds that way.
Jack, all the democrats are asking for is enforcement of the fairness doctrine. I believe there needs to be changes to the fairness doctrine, because it, like FISA, was written before the tech. advances of the current era, where bandwidth is not nearly as limited so equal time is not for opposing viewpoints on a particular show is not as urgent.
The FCC stated: "We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."
A review of conservative literature discussing the Fairness Doctrine attributes the explosive growth of right-wing talk radio to the elimination of this regulation. Freed from the unpleasant obligation of having even the slightest obligation to provide a balanced point of view (the "inhibition" mentioned by Ronald Reagan's FCC above), corporate America has embraced the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage with a vengance. This is what conservatives would like to portray as "an upsurge in public affairs programming and discussion of controversial issues" on the radio.
In actuality, the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine has had almost no effect in this area outside of right-wing talk radio. Research demonstrates "that there was not a mass effort by broadcasters to begin or cease editorializing after the Fairness Doctrine was set aside by the FCC in 1987". In fact, only two stations, out of 306 surveyed, began to broadcast editorials at that point.
According to Citizens for Independent Public Broadcasting (CIPB), "Research demonstrates that news and public affairs substantially declined after termination of the Fairness Doctrine, contrary to broadcaster promises. What did increase were right wing talk shows and religious right ministries, now free to editorialize against their favorite demons without fear of contradiction."
Corporate America and the right-wing sound the alarm every time that the idea of restoring the Fairness Doctrine is raised: "It will be the death of talk radio." It will "end discussion of controversial issues... rather than risk having to provide equal time, broadcasters will simply not cover anything." Horsepucky, in my opinion - no sane manager would pull Rush Limbaugh off the air, just because they might have to provide an hour of "liberal" programming or some other opportunity for an opposing viewpoint to be heard. What conservatives and corporate America are really afraid of, is that some fire-breathing liberal or leftist (god-forbid) will prove to be economically viable, and put the lie to the proposition that "liberals aren't entertaining or interesting".
Liberal Faith, now you have gone and done it. Your statement will forever make anything else that comes out of your brain via you mouth suspect. "It was Nixon who allowed the murder of Kent State "liberals" for expressing opinions and free speech. Conservatives see free speech only when it is they who speak." That ranks up there with Bush and Katrina. If I were you, I would seriously consider deleting that comment.
Oh, and don't forget to hold Clinton responsible for the Davidian compound, in case you hold steadfast in the blame game.
If you have the time, you could probably find numerous examples of the silencing of free speech on college campuses. Columbia, Harvard and Berkeley are just a few examples of universities where free speech is endangered.
I believe the President of the Minutemen Project was invited to give a speech at Columbia in 2007, but was shouted down at the event and eventually had to leave because students stormed the stage. So much for free speech. (For the record, this was the approach used by the Nazis when they gained a foothold in the Riechstag - shoutdown and intimidate your opposition.) Even if you disagree with the Minutemen and their agenda, let them speak. If you want to expose them, what better way than to have their representative on record.
Famous quote - " I may disagree with you, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Damn, Republicant, we totally agree on the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine. To re-implement it today to silence talk radio would bankrupt the folks who own the stations by having to GIVE equal time for an opposing view vice PAY for it as do talk radio sponsors. Airhead America proved that the majority of Americans are not interested in their liberal POV/bashing GW Bush daily.
Republicant, those who havee different point of view from Rush, Boortz, Hannity, Ingrahm can voice those views any time they get the sponsors to PAY for their time as do the talk radion hosts you folks hate som much. The reason the left hates the likes of Rush, et al, is that they expose daily just what the libs in government are all about and it infuriates them. You nor anyone else can point to a lie by any of the leading talk radio hosts. furthermore, if they do make a mistake, they apologize and correct it, something you never heard on Airhead America. Neither do you see a balanced program that allows differing points of view as does Hannity and Colmes on any other channel than Fox unless the conservative has a stacked opposition of two or three to one on the like s of the Communist News Network (CNN), et al. "The View" is a prime example of stacking the liberal deck against ONE conservative on the program (Hasselback, the most intelligent on on there).
Republicant, Airhead America's inability to get sponsors because they had no listeners poo poos this comment by you-"put the lie to the proposition that "liberals aren't entertaining or interesting"."
In simple terms, sponsors who support the left and their views can pay for the air time. Why does this not happen? Maybe it's because sponsors are business people and they have different views. Get YOUR people to chip in to sponsor the liberal views. Maybe a big grassroots sponsorship from academic America. No, not happening. What about the big rich guilt ridden liberals? Still not happening. Wonder why.
Hasselbeck, the most intelligent on on there? Thats like being honors graduate at summer school. Isnt that sherri whatever a conservative? At least she is a religious nut, so thats one box checked. But you are right, Jack. There's not as many charismatic lib talk radio hosts. Jon Stewart and Colbert are def. funnier than Dennis Miller, though.
ACLU--FIRE sounds like the same organization!
Finally there is some balance, reddog. About time.
What in the hell does Kent State have to do with speech codes???
The Fairness doctrine is completly necessary! How else will the liberal socialist POV be broadcast? We tried using sponsors, but there was no money in it, but since we liberal know what is good for the rest of the country, far better than the people know themselves, our POV is vital!
johnsmith, Liberal Faith believes that LIBERAL free speech is protected even when it is backed up with violence. Conservative speech, however, must be stifled with the fairness doctrine.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
