That’s an interesting point, especially since most universities, even public ones, are no longer primarily government-funded. Are they really even “the government” anymore?
Of course they are. When you say they’re not government funded, what does that even mean? I’m a student at a public university, and when I pay tuition, my payment goes to a government institution.
You might be saying that they’re not primarily funded via general taxes, but that has very little to do with whether something is a government service or not.
I don’t have a reference handy.
I have read reports of many studies that show that nearly everyone has bigoted assumptions that are easily revealed. Such as the test of police officers—both black and white—who are much more likely to shoot unarmed black men than armed white people. Or that all people tend to view people of a different race through a cloud of prejudice.
I’m surprised that this seems to be a surprise to you.
What’s interesting to me is your confidence in expressing doubt of my claim.
Racism is merely a form of tribalism, who an inherent human trait, one that probably served us in our evolutionary past but one that harms us in a civilized, diverse, global society.
We as Americans have probably come the furthest of most societies in understanding that in order to be civilized, we must constantly fight our own instincts. At least half the country turns to Fox News to assure themselves they don’t have to engage in this self-struggle.
I think you’re right-- almost everyone (American or not) has some inherent prejudices.
But you are dead wrong about how many Americans tune into FoxNews. You’re not even close. O’Reilly’s show, which is the most popular on Fox, gets ratings in the single digits-- about 1% of adult Americans on “good” day. Often less. I doubt you’d be right even if you counted all the people in the US who watch Fox News for just 1 hour in a given year.
My point is that most of the money at many “public” colleges comes from tuitions and donations. That didn’t used to be the case.
Sure, this is true–and wholly irrelevant to the question of whether they’re government entities.
Pennsylvania distinguishes between state universities (Bloomsburg, Indiana, Kutztown, West Chester, etc.) and “state-related” universities (Penn State, Pitt, Temple, and Lincoln). I wonder whether that would have any legal significance.
I think that if, in order to enroll, students have to agree to follow a code of conduct that mentions that hate speech is forbidden, that sort of has them waive some of their 1st Amendment rights. And they’re not being imprisoned.
Have you read this thread? Have you read the responses from actual lawyers? Please don’t post nonsense that has already been posted and addressed.
I doubt it.
seems some folks are perfectly ok with trampling the constitution if they feel offended
there is no free speech if something like this gets you thrown out of a public school … free speech is free speech to protect this very type of speech …
not to mention it’s quite extreme to outright throw these students out in the streets so to speak, over words uttered in private of all places … not even in a public setting
Two things. First of all, the NYTimes reported that the lawyer hired by the fraternity chapter said of the two expelled students, “he believed those students — whom he does not represent, and who have publicly apologized — actually withdrew before the expulsion.” So if they in fact voluntarily withdrew, they wouldn’t have a case for a lawsuit.
Second, here are the statements made by the ACLU of Oklahoma with regard to this situation. Among other things they say, “Any sanction imposed on students for their speech must therefore be consistent with the First Amendment and not merely a punishment for vile and reprehensible speech; courts have consistently and rightly ruled as such. Absent information that is not at our disposal, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a court would side with the university on this matter.” But given that the SAE national organization closed the chapter, what penalty did the university impose on the unexpelled students?
With respect to the closing of the chapter building, if it’s on university property, or owned by the university and leased to the chapter, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a clause that says the lease terminates automatically if it ceases to be used for a chapter house. Once the national body pulled the plug on the local chapter, their rights under the lease would terminate.
Just speculation on my part, but I would think the university would want some control over buildings on the campus, and making it contingent on the local chapter being in good standing would be one way to do so.
Imagine that the code of conduct said that as a condition of enrollment, students must agree not to engage in homosexual conduct or have an abortion. Would that pass muster according to your theory? Remember, they are not being imprisoned.
The answer to both those questions is that I would consider going to court. I would need to assess whether or not the legal battle was worth my time and expense but if the conclusion was yes then I would go to court.
To be fair I don’t think I’d hire any 19 or 20 year old for a high profile position that required tact and judgment. Even a 22 year old graduate is unlikely to be hired for a high profile position requiring tact and judgment.
I wouldn’t hire most people for a high profile position requiring tact and judgment.
which kind of hints at the bigger picture and social/mob mentality…
Even if the evil gubment can’t punish you for your speech what about all the other possible social punishments?
Nobody will rent to you? Nobody will hire you? Everybody exudes “I’d kill you if I could get away with” vibe to you? And so on and so on.
At some point, if enough people in society AT LARGE are hostile enough to unliked speech…you STILL don’t have free speech.
Which is something IMO many folks need to think about before they take the hate to 11.
So what, you think we ought to limit the speech of people in response to other people’s speech? I’m not allowed to give off a meany vibe? How’s that gonna work?
There’s a hack for that 
I’ll admit the bad vibe part is a bit of sticky wicket but surely you can see my bigger point (not that you actually have to AGREE with it mind you).
Well, yeah, sort of. But it’s a very different conception of what free speech means.
I’m not a fan of the idea that free speech means, as you seem to imply, speech without social consequences. If I say something a potential employer finds distasteful–say, I call his mom a whore–I think it’s okey-dokey for him to choose not to hire me. He shouldn’t have to associate with me.
We may decide to carve out specific exceptions to this general policy. We’ve decided, for example, to extend extra-special protection to speech about religion. If I tell an employer that I’m Muslim, the employer may not choose on that basis to fire me. But those are exceptions, not the general rule, and they’re exceptions because they serve a social good.
But you seem to be suggesting that nasty insulting speech, say, speech about lynching people and joking about other illegal discriminatory acts, should carry no social consequences. And I don’t see any advantage to that.
The government shouldn’t impose those consequences, because that gives too much power to the government. But removing those consequences from members of the public is itself a limitation on freedom.
You can say what you want. Then I get to respond how I want. That’s freedom for you!