First let me say I only used the word “oppressed” because Ascenray did. I don’t think you’re quibbling about the word though.
That said, here is a recent example. As college paper runs an editorial criticizing the tactics of the Black Lives Matter movement – in a way that is sympathetic to its cause, mind you, and only saying how it could be more effective.
Result? The author called a racist, etc. and the paper was partly defunded, among other things.
By the way, defunding the paper over a rather innocent and sympathetic editorial actually would count as “oppression” in my view (and even censorship).
The most annoying part of this is they are not just attacking someone for nothing more than a different point of view, they attacked an ally to their own movement. Even dissent within their ranks, about tactics, generated outrage and accusations of racism.
And that’s a classic example of my complaint about false accusations shutting down discussion, even among allies.
First, the issue is a little more complicated than the Blaze makes it out to be: the Argus is likely to face only a 16% drop in funding, and that funding is going to be distributed to other publications. If there are more publications on campus receiving funding, there’s a decent argument that the diversity of opinion will increase, not decrease.
Second, to the extent that it’s a retaliatory move for a conservative editorial, it’s a bad move, no question. The students who are calling for that move are, IMO, doing the wrong thing.
Third, this is how it almost always goes. On the one hand, we have people in positions of real power saying nasty things about black people (or about women or gay people or whatever). On the other hand, we have college students wanting to change funding for college papers. Which of these situations gives conservatives the vapors? Over and over they freak out over what teenagers are saying on campus instead of paying attention to what happens in the halls of power.
Take another campus controversy: choosing the president for North Carolina’s highly-regarded university system. The Republican legislature, apparently unhappy with the bastion of liberalism at Chapel Hill, packed the UNC board with campaign donors and other Republican activists, who demanded the resignation of the currently, highly-respected president, and installed a Republican activist in his place. This is after they closed several campus centers that engaged in research and activities the legislature didn’t like, such as African studies.
Which is more damaging to academic freedom: teenagers complaining about editorials, or legislators enforcing political compliance on campus? Which do conservatives complain more about?
If you’re complaining about teenagers and silent about political takeover of university administration, I admit I’m very skeptical of your true motives.
Not if those publications know that they could also lose that funding if they don’t tow the line.
Glad you agree.
So what? I was asked for an example of how speech is “oppressed” and I gave one. Do you think it doesn’t matter? Do you think this bodes well for our country if the young people who will inhabit the halls of power someday think like this?
Who cares? I don’t. I’m not a conservative. You’re playing the relative privation game here, trying to avoid the topic by saying there are worse incidents elsewhere.
And then you’re playing THAT game, which I’m not even going to address. Don’t talk about my motives, they are irrelevant. Talk about the issue please.
If the issue is, “Do teenagers and young 20-somethings sometimes do foolish things?” then the answer is, of course, “Yes.”
If the issue is, “What should we do about teenagers’ foolishness?” then the answer is, “Educate them.” If your answer is, “FREAK THE FUCK OUT AND ACT LIKE IT’S A MAJOR THREAT TO FREE SPEECH,” that’s a stupid answer.
If the issue is, “Is politicization of free speech a real issue on university campuses?” then the answer is, “Yes, but mostly from conservative politicians.” If your answer is, “YES, BECAUSE TEENAGERS ARE SUPPRESSING FREE SPEECH!” then you’re back to a ridiculous answer to the question.
So be clear on what the issue is. Only if you’re concerned about the maturity level of teenagers should you be focusing on examples like what the Blaze offers up.
To be even clearer: it doesn’t bode shit for our country if young people sometimes snipe foolishly at one another when they’re young. News at goddamn eleven: young people are sometimes foolish. That’s the only real takeaway from this story.
You should have just made up a hypothetical, because I’m having a very hard time taking you seriously given your ridiculous characterization of the piece.
[QUOTE=Bryan Stascavage]
Hence, my concerns that the movement is not legitimate, or at the very least, hypocritical.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, that’s “sympathetic.”
Anyway, that’s beside the point. We are talking about a privately funded college publishing a newspaper with its own money. It is not “censorship” if they withdraw funding, any more than it would be if the editor had said, “meh, I don’t think we’ll run your piece, Bryan.” It’s called “editorial control.”
I’m sure Rupert Murdoch orders that op-eds be pulled all the time. It’s his company and he can do that.
You’re the one misstating the piece, by taking one little sentence out.
I stand by my characterization.
The college funds the paper, but it doesn’t run it.
In any event, this really isn’t about what “censorship” is. It’s not even remotely “editorial control.” It’s an attempt to shut down speech by people outside the editorial staff of the paper because someone doesn’t like the speech. That’s the larger issue. You can play with technicalities, but that’s what happened.
Yes, and? Murdoch is outside the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal. It’s his paper and he can do what he wants with it. The *Argus *is the students’ paper and they can do what they want with it. The point is that private persons and entities are under no obligation to fund or disseminate the speech of others.
Like I said, technicalities missing the larger point.
Even if they have the power to do what they want with this paper, they should refrain from doing so. They should not try to shut down speech they don’t like. If they want to have a student newspaper that only supports the views of some groups of students, fine, that’s within their power, but I don’t think that’s the philosophy of this newspaper.
Funding a paper isn’t “owning” it though. The students distribute funding to many groups on campus but don’t claim to control or own those groups. But that’s a technicality.
Why should they refrain from doing so? What’s so important about the views of Bryan Stascavage that the students should pay for others to read about them? We’re not talking about a college professor being fired because of unpopular lecture topics. We’re talking about a student newspaper.
I see no difference between a college professor being fired for unpopular lecture topics and a student newspaper being partly defunded for running an unpopular editorial.
I’m surprised that you are so eager to excuse and dismiss this ugliness.
Let us suppose - for the sake of argument - that the student had written an editorial lionizing Pol Pot and arguing that every state should massacre its intellectuals and professionals in the name of social progress.
Would you still advise the student legislature to do nothing?