Skip to main content

Claims of "free speech"

Forbes posted this article in response to a Washington Post opinion piece (funded by the Koch brothers) who were lamenting the decline of the Freedom of speech on college campuses. 

"When characters like Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Charles Murray appear on campus, their appearances are funded by extremist donors and their events are orchestrated by outside groups. Finding students among the organizers, attendees, protestors, or counter-protestors is a challenge. This is theater and the university is a prop."

Any thoughts?

Comments

  1. AnonymousSeptember 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM

    (1/2)

    I'm very surprised to read about how this survey suffered from severe methodological errors. When I initially read the op-ed on the Washington Post's website a few days ago, I took the poll fairly seriously considering the results were published under the Brookings Institution - one of the most well-established and respected think tanks in the country. (A 2005 report published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that it was the most frequently cited think tank by US media and politicians.) I think the Guardian article (cited by the Forbes opinion piece) does a very good job in detailing where exactly where the poll goes wrong, such as the absence of a probability sample and the lack of any peer review. These critical errors are enough to question the validity of the results entirely.

    However, I think the Forbes article, for lack of a better phrase, goes completely overboard in trying to discredit the poll and those who are pushing it. In the words of Chris Ladd, the writer:

    "In a rich marketplace of ideas, conservatives are failing, and they are not losing with dignity. Our phony free speech crisis is a pet theory of people triggered to sputtering outrage by a black man who fails to stand for the national anthem. Whining like pampered little snowflakes, they scramble to establish some form of “safe space,” some preserve insulated from the intellectual competition that threatens to scour from them our future political landscape."

    Most of this piece (at least to me) read as outlandishly hyperbolic and immature. This language being used is obviously meant to make fun of those on the right who use the terms "safe space" and "snowflake" in a derogatory sense, but I believe the use of such phrases is petty and low-bar no matter who they're coming from. Fostering the marketplace of ideas that Ladd refers to multiple times throughout the article starts with eliminating these useless character attacks and instead focusing on substantive conversation.

    Through the title of Ladd's article and a paragraph later on, he also appears to completely dismiss the idea of any intolerance of speech on college campuses outright. He writes:

    "Empirical data suggests that free speech is alive and well on campus, but what about the evidence of our eyes? Over the past year or so we’ve been treated to an escalating cycle of apparent violence aimed at conservatives. This is not an accident. It is engineered by the same class of wealthy donors who produced that poll."

    I was unable to find a link in this article for the "empirical data" Ladd referred to. After a Google search, I found a Gallup poll that I can only assume is what he's citing. The poll reveals that 72% of college students believe universities shouldn't censor political views that could be offensive to certain groups (27% support such measures). I believe this is a noteworthy number, though obviously not as alarmist as the Brookings poll mentioned earlier. I believe it's important to gather more reliable, peer-reviewed data on this topic.

    However, Ladd's assertions later on that this violence seen towards conservative speakers is somehow engineered by "wealthy donors," in my opinion, borders on the conspiratorial. He cites no evidence to support this claim. If his implication is that groups like those who caused property damage at UC Berkeley in lieu of Milo's speaking event (which were proven to be outside individuals, not students) are somehow funded by the Koch Brothers or similar groups, this is an astonishingly baseless claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 25, 2017 at 6:53 PM

      (2/2)

      If I'm interpreting Ladd's thesis or various claims incorrectly in this article, then I would love for someone to respond to this and let me know. The whole piece strikes me as an overcompensation in analyzing the subject of free speech on campuses and the questionable, often bigoted figures that some student groups choose to invite. I think it's possible to have a conversation about this topic, but that involves grounding the subject in hard evidence without resorting to hyperbolic claims and inviting figures who are going to foster a civilized discussion.

      Sources:

      Beckett, Lois. “'Junk Science': Experts Cast Doubt on Widely Cited College Free Speech Survey.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 22 Sept. 2017, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/22/college-free-speech-violence-survey-junk-science.

      Gallup, Inc. “College Students Oppose Restrictions on Political Speech.” Gallup.com, 5 Apr. 2016, news.gallup.com/poll/190451/college-students-oppose-restrictions-political-speech.aspx.

      Grossclose, Tim, and Jeffery Milyo. “A Measure of Media Bias.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXX, no. 4, Nov. 2005.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more