You're right on the money about education making citizens. The best and brightest of our founding generation repeatedly emphasized (and acted on the belief) that education was essential to making citizens, who were essential to making America. Even so, some of the commenters raise an equally valid and important point: some people with power on college campuses are abusing their power to oppress others and to repress the speech of others.
That problem highlights one of the most important lessons every citizen can (and should) learn: the power to oppress and repress is dangerous to individuals, as well as to society, and it should be used very sparingly. All citizens--including those exercising the power of government, as well as those with the power to influence government or segments of society--need to be better educated about how to flex their political power responsibly (in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution).
Some might say that the Constitution has no application to the speech of those who are not part of government. But it's well worth bearing in mind what James Madison wrote about the freedom of speech (in his Report of 1800 about the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 opposing the Sedition Act of 1798). “The truth declared” by the plain text of the Constitution is “[t]he authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions.” Sovereign citizens have the freedom of speech and press primarily for the purpose of influencing government. The “right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon” was initially implicit and subsequently explicit in our Constitution (and state Constitutions) precisely because such freedom has been “justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every” American “right.” The people are meant to be sentinels and guardians of the rights of the people, not oppressors of the equal rights of some people merely because the latter have less power.
Students on college campuses are learning right now. They are learning habits and cementing a mindset that is very dangerous to a free society. They need to be better taught about how to use the power of speech more responsibly. I recommend Jacob Mchangama's book "Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media" and his podcast "Clear and Present Danger." The common theme in all oppression and repression is that people with power abuse it.
Speaking of abusing the power of speech, it seems too many people are abusing terms like "antisemitism" and "genocide" to stifle intelligent thought and speech. Thank you for including a link to the so-called "definition" of antisemitism. It really is radical revisionism that flies in the face of the meaning of the word "Semite," which means people who used or use a Semitic language and comprises Arabs, as well as Jews.
A college exists to carry out its mission, expressed in its mission statement.
As noted, generally colleges state that they prepare citizens; and also state that they will do this in a collegial, respectful manner.
If a shy 18 year-old shows up on a campus that is roiling with action that seems to threaten the 18 year-old's beliefs, assumptions, faith, orientation, etc., there is little chance that the student will have the knowledge or skill to engage in debate or action. What 22 year-old has the courage and knowledge to stand up to a crowd?
A college is a not-for-profit entity. An important question, for a college, is whether financial support in the form of tuition income or alumni giving will continue. An endowment may pay for financial aid for half of an entering class; but the college will need to attract full pay students and meet budget. But why would a family want to send an 18 year-old to a college that targets for criticism (and worse) the group that the student belongs to? How is a hostile environment going to help the student focus on learning and growing in a community of learners? Where is the balance that would at least give the student an opportunity to engage in or listen to informed debate?
Demonstrations aim to mobilize groups for action. The intent of a crowd is not the "fearless sifting and winnowing" of knowledge" that is the purpose of higher education. (Fearless sifting and winnowing, University of Wisconsin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sifting_and_winnowing )
A definition of citizenship that privileges demonstration over deliberation is likely one that will increasingly privilege demonstration, because intimidation works. The shy 18 year-old will retreat to a dorm room.
It would be a truly countercultural, radical, and free-speech stance for a college to say that debate is encouraged, and that civility guidelines must be followed, out of respect for the learning process of the undergraduates. If a responsible academic opposing view is not forthcoming (because faculty members are people and people are not comfortable in facing a hostile audience) a faculty member might volunteer to represent the out-of-favor view. Even the Inquisition provided the accused with a devil's advocate.
There are plenty of physical and virtual spaces where students can engage in activism. Allowing demonstrations to intimidate minority-opinion students on campus is a slippery slope to group-think and college financial instability.
But what’s happening on many campuses isn’t peaceful protest--Jewish students have been both intimidated and threatened. Protesting students have entered buildings when they were not allowed to do so. And Claudine Gay’s response to the anti-Semitic comments at Harvard was disastrous
The author describes an optimal viewpoint. Peaceful protest, a rational discourse that is respectful exchange of ideas and the idea that there is no threat of violence and that local and State laws, such as no face mask or scarves covering the protesters face are followed. This has not been the case in many of these protest. Those in charge of these Universities have a duty to protect all of those who attend and are employed by the University as their foremost obligation. The student organizations mentioned in this article have failed to police their members in many of these Universities so it is not irrational that the State or the Universities themselves have taken proactive measures in order to protect others. What would be the rational response if a student KKK group showed up and started intimidating black students.
Fine, so I'm going to get a huge hurd of people together and we are going to Howard University to scream "bring back the noose" and I expect to be supported by their administration. That is basically the point of this post.
Down to the nitty gritty who really has the power in institutions, local. state, and national
That power should equally apply to all but seldom does.
You're right on the money about education making citizens. The best and brightest of our founding generation repeatedly emphasized (and acted on the belief) that education was essential to making citizens, who were essential to making America. Even so, some of the commenters raise an equally valid and important point: some people with power on college campuses are abusing their power to oppress others and to repress the speech of others.
That problem highlights one of the most important lessons every citizen can (and should) learn: the power to oppress and repress is dangerous to individuals, as well as to society, and it should be used very sparingly. All citizens--including those exercising the power of government, as well as those with the power to influence government or segments of society--need to be better educated about how to flex their political power responsibly (in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution).
Some might say that the Constitution has no application to the speech of those who are not part of government. But it's well worth bearing in mind what James Madison wrote about the freedom of speech (in his Report of 1800 about the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 opposing the Sedition Act of 1798). “The truth declared” by the plain text of the Constitution is “[t]he authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions.” Sovereign citizens have the freedom of speech and press primarily for the purpose of influencing government. The “right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon” was initially implicit and subsequently explicit in our Constitution (and state Constitutions) precisely because such freedom has been “justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every” American “right.” The people are meant to be sentinels and guardians of the rights of the people, not oppressors of the equal rights of some people merely because the latter have less power.
Students on college campuses are learning right now. They are learning habits and cementing a mindset that is very dangerous to a free society. They need to be better taught about how to use the power of speech more responsibly. I recommend Jacob Mchangama's book "Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media" and his podcast "Clear and Present Danger." The common theme in all oppression and repression is that people with power abuse it.
Speaking of abusing the power of speech, it seems too many people are abusing terms like "antisemitism" and "genocide" to stifle intelligent thought and speech. Thank you for including a link to the so-called "definition" of antisemitism. It really is radical revisionism that flies in the face of the meaning of the word "Semite," which means people who used or use a Semitic language and comprises Arabs, as well as Jews.
A college exists to carry out its mission, expressed in its mission statement.
As noted, generally colleges state that they prepare citizens; and also state that they will do this in a collegial, respectful manner.
If a shy 18 year-old shows up on a campus that is roiling with action that seems to threaten the 18 year-old's beliefs, assumptions, faith, orientation, etc., there is little chance that the student will have the knowledge or skill to engage in debate or action. What 22 year-old has the courage and knowledge to stand up to a crowd?
A college is a not-for-profit entity. An important question, for a college, is whether financial support in the form of tuition income or alumni giving will continue. An endowment may pay for financial aid for half of an entering class; but the college will need to attract full pay students and meet budget. But why would a family want to send an 18 year-old to a college that targets for criticism (and worse) the group that the student belongs to? How is a hostile environment going to help the student focus on learning and growing in a community of learners? Where is the balance that would at least give the student an opportunity to engage in or listen to informed debate?
Demonstrations aim to mobilize groups for action. The intent of a crowd is not the "fearless sifting and winnowing" of knowledge" that is the purpose of higher education. (Fearless sifting and winnowing, University of Wisconsin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sifting_and_winnowing )
A definition of citizenship that privileges demonstration over deliberation is likely one that will increasingly privilege demonstration, because intimidation works. The shy 18 year-old will retreat to a dorm room.
It would be a truly countercultural, radical, and free-speech stance for a college to say that debate is encouraged, and that civility guidelines must be followed, out of respect for the learning process of the undergraduates. If a responsible academic opposing view is not forthcoming (because faculty members are people and people are not comfortable in facing a hostile audience) a faculty member might volunteer to represent the out-of-favor view. Even the Inquisition provided the accused with a devil's advocate.
There are plenty of physical and virtual spaces where students can engage in activism. Allowing demonstrations to intimidate minority-opinion students on campus is a slippery slope to group-think and college financial instability.
But what’s happening on many campuses isn’t peaceful protest--Jewish students have been both intimidated and threatened. Protesting students have entered buildings when they were not allowed to do so. And Claudine Gay’s response to the anti-Semitic comments at Harvard was disastrous
The author describes an optimal viewpoint. Peaceful protest, a rational discourse that is respectful exchange of ideas and the idea that there is no threat of violence and that local and State laws, such as no face mask or scarves covering the protesters face are followed. This has not been the case in many of these protest. Those in charge of these Universities have a duty to protect all of those who attend and are employed by the University as their foremost obligation. The student organizations mentioned in this article have failed to police their members in many of these Universities so it is not irrational that the State or the Universities themselves have taken proactive measures in order to protect others. What would be the rational response if a student KKK group showed up and started intimidating black students.
Fine, so I'm going to get a huge hurd of people together and we are going to Howard University to scream "bring back the noose" and I expect to be supported by their administration. That is basically the point of this post.