Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why can’t conservative students claim a hostile environment?
We know that all the academic speech codes and safe space stuff is aimed at keeping any debate with the right at bay. Right? Why don’t conservative students use these against their professors and against any poster with leftist speakers?
If there is any hate speech going on now in the universities it is by the professors — in the damn classroom — and by the administrations’ handling of violence and protesting on the campus. These should all qualify as a hostile environment if these terms mean anything at all.
Discuss.
Published in Education
This movie is the reality on almost every college campus in America.
Parents should demand meaningful change and an end to the hostile environment.
Because all the Powers That Be are liberal, and will not in any way believe that their policies create a hostile environment for anyone. The people that run the EEOC are liberal, same deal. No one would listen to them. Maybe if they appealed directly to Betsy DeVos they might be listened to.
I just mean use the kangaroo courts that are already in place.
The whole reason behind the concept of the “protected class” is to protect their anti-white, Christian, male bias. Even if you should somehow get these fiends to admit their hostility, they would then fall back on their hostility being just. Thus, this argument is pointless.
Welcome to post-modernism.
Shouldn’t conservative students be expected to have a greater respect for freedom of speech and an aversion to the victim culture?
Yes, so we have two reasons, it’s pointless to those making the rules and it’s out of character for conservatives.
Probably true that any university/school is, or is rapidly becoming, a hostile environment for conservatives. The only thing I would say about it though is it only makes us stronger. Overcoming adversity is, I think, a virtue possessed by most who consider themselves conservatives, and I’d like it to stay that way. Let the liberals curl up in the fetal position and whine. Let us stand tall and prosper.
Conservatives generally don’t believe in a culture of victimhood. What this means is that they can be legitimately victimized, but they won’t complain about it.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t help fix the problem at all.
Until the right starts forcing the left to live up to its own rules — which may require using leftist-style tactics against them — nothing will change.
We have to make them follow their rules until they beg us to change those rules.
Very good point. The way to know yourself and your own positions is by regularly subjecting them to challenges. Someone who understands both what he believes and why he believes it is on firmer ground than the person who is ruled by emotion and the ever-changing spirit of the times.
Which doesn’t help solve the problem in higher education, but it’s definitely worth factoring in.
Higher education isn’t going to change until conservatives do the “long march through the institutions” that leftists have done so well. It may take three generations to see a difference, but it really has to be done.
Tuition costs continue to rise. College enrollment continues to decline. Something that can’t go on forever won’t.
Political beliefs are not a protected category under most anti-discrimination laws. The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say anything you want, but no law prevents non-governmental parties from discriminating against you as a result of that speech.
One of the complaints of free speech advocates is that it’s too hard to define “hate speech”. I think this is inaccurate. It’s actually really easy to define “hate speech”: Any speech which offends someone who is specifically protected by anti-discrimination law.
Well, lots of virtue signaling so far.
This is a war and we need to use any tool that comes to hand.
It’s not “victimhood” if you are an actual victim.
You might be right with regard to the actual wording of these codes but I am pretty sure a case could be made for conservatives being victimized by the power structure.
a) Not a legal case.
b) If political beliefs were included as a protected category in anti-discrimination laws, then who gets to decide what qualifies as a “political belief”. If I believe that 2+2=5, does that mean I can sue a math teacher for discriminating against my political beliefs?
Do you people agree that there is a hostile environment for conservatives on the campuses?
Let’s start there.
So compromise one’s principles to win? Does virtue signaling include respecting someone’s right to speak without whining about it?
Indeed. A fact, not whining.
Winning is a principle. No compromise in that.
Exactly.
No one disputes that, but it’s a fact that need have no bearing on the response.
Wasn’t that Gordon Gekko who said that? We’re clearly on different wavelengths here. I’ll go with two wrongs don’t make a right.
It’s the only fact I’m wanting a response on.
On the one hand, there’s merit to the argument.
On the other, it reminds me of the first of many Stanley Cup disappointments as a 10-year old Rangers fan. Dave Schultz viciously beat Dale Rolfe, a finesse player, while the entire Rangers squad stood and watched. The Rangers lost the series with their tails between their legs.
“We’d rather lose playing our style of hockey than win playing theirs” was the weak refrain.
Many conservatives are simply tired of losing in the media, in the academy, in the Gosnell clinics, in the corporate HR departments and in our elementary school bathrooms playing our style of politics.
Yes, winning is a principle, a good principle.
As far as “safe places,” the academics in our society have already decided that “true racism” cannot occur against the “dominant force” in a society. So if a white person at a college or university even attempts to establish a need for protection from detrimental actions that deprive them of the right to speak, or to allow on campus speakers and leaders they wish to invite, they are treated with scorn.
This video details that white people as part of a dominant culture must not be allowed to claim any privilege relating to their privileged class’ need to avoid being discriminated against, or to avoid having their free speech rights considered. To get to the meat of this discussion you can skip over to the five and a half minute mark. When a person views this “educational” video, it becomes understandable why the horrendous mob violence occurred against Professor Weinstein at Evergreen College.
I’m not sure there is such a thing as political belief. I’m pretty sure the Marxists would tell us that your political positions are a function of your group identity. Didn’t Judge Sotomayor say as much at her confirmation hearing?
The dominant force in our society is the Media/Celebrity/Academia/GovernmentEmployee complex.
Yes, Marxists love to mess with the meaning of words and they know they’ve got got it just right if the meaning comes out exactly reversed from the simple meaning. Like social justice — one thing’s for sure it ain’t justice.
She’s such a simpleton that I don’t even think she realizes how racist she is.
I loath that I first read those words and the ideas that embodies this notion because I never heard of the name Alinsky until our 44 president was described as a disciple of old Saul. I hope he got his wish and is residing with his mentor for whom he decided his life work in a book.
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer
Sometimes calling something “virtue signaling” is, itself, virtue signaling.