The CardBoard
New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 (/thread-24556.html)

Pages: 1 2

New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - cardcrimson - 11-08-2023

FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released their rankings of free speech on college campuses. Out of 248 schools, Stanford came in at #207; Harvard came in last. Surprisingly Cal came in at #147. 

Criteria included Openness (ability to have difficult discussions on campus), Tolerance of Liberal speakers, Tolerance of Conservative speakers, Admins support of free speech, Comfort expressing ideas (a students perception that they can share viewpoints without fear of reprisal), and a few others.

In general, pretty disappointing and some of the quotes that scroll across the page are disturbing.

https://rankings.thefire.org

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - Spiny_Norman - 11-08-2023

This would seem to be an improvement. Last year Stanford was listed among the 10 worst - https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2022/02/02/worst-free-speech-colleges-stanford-georgetown/8841643827403/

Free speech is on the rise at Stanford!

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - 82lsju - 11-08-2023

(11-08-2023, 10:57 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released their rankings of free speech on college campuses. Out of 248 schools, Stanford came in at #207; Harvard came in last. Surprisingly Cal came in at #147. 

Criteria included Openness (ability to have difficult discussions on campus), Tolerance of Liberal speakers, Tolerance of Conservative speakers, Admins support of free speech, Comfort expressing ideas (a students perception that they can share viewpoints without fear of reprisal), and a few others.

In general, pretty disappointing and some of the quotes that scroll across the page are disturbing.

https://rankings.thefire.org

the top 10 is an interesting mix...

1.  Michigan Technological University
2.  Auburn
3.  University of New Hampshire
4.  Oregon State
5.  Florida State
6.  Virginia
7.  Texas A&M
8.  George Mason
9.  UNC Greensboro
10. Colorado

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - cctop - 11-08-2023

My takeaways from skimming the report:

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - TrumpCard - 11-08-2023

It's possible I'm being overly technical here, but the term "free speech" seems like an implicit reference to the First Amendment.  People intuitively think that they have a *right* to free speech, which is the reason I am cautious about using that terminology.  

"Free speech" on campus may be a relevant term at public schools because such schools are arms of government.  Even then, the term "free speech" seems like it should be limited to school imposed rules, and not extend to the culture of the student body.  

I am not sure that "free speech" has any relevance whatsoever on the campus of a private school like Stanford, unless the police are involved.  Ivory tower or not, the campus of a private university is "the real world."  My understanding is that students don't have a right to speak their mind unencumbered by school rules or school culture.  Students at private schools stand in the same position I do as an employee at a private company.  If I say something offensive to people, I can face consequences.  I have to think about whether the thing I want to say is going to offend people in the room.  I think it's good preparation for life after college for students to see that their speech has consequences.  For that reason, I don't think being #1 on this list would be a good thing.

With that said, I do understand that the mission of a university aligns with openness towards different viewpoints because such openness gives students an opportunity to learn.  For that reason, being last on the list probably wouldn't be ideal either.  I just think it's a mistake to look at this list and say that #1 is better than #2 is better than #3 and so on (assuming for the sake of argument that the rankings accurately reflect the true openness towards different viewpoints at each school).

P.S. Look at me trying to have this conversation without mentioning the major current event that is banned from discussion here, but that everyone is talking about when it comes to "free speech" on college campuses.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - Mick - 11-08-2023

(11-08-2023, 12:20 PM)cctop Wrote:  My takeaways from skimming the report:
  • I'm surprised how narrow the margins are between the top- and bottom-rated schools. For example, abortion is the topic most reported as difficult to discuss, but the difference is 54% at the top schools versus 49% at the bottom schools. Almost every difficult-to-discuss topic is a single digit difference in reported percentages.
  • the situation on campuses sound pretty much the same as when I was in college in the 1980's.
  • the main difference nowadays is social media. I said a lot of stupid stuff and made mistakes when I was young of which I'm glad there's no permanent record.
  • rank the schools from best to worst if you want, but assigning one school a score of 0.00 is silly attention whoring. It reminds me of the Directors Cup adjusting the rules to get the result they wanted.

It's been a bit since I've read the report, but I seem to recall that Harvard actually scored in negative numbers, something like -10.89 due to three of the professors contending that they'd been de facto censored and reprimanded, and that Harvard's score was artificially raised to 0.00 because they would have otherwise been below the scale.  I may be misremembering, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - washingtonismoney - 11-08-2023

It's hard for me to believe you can numerically rank an abstract category like "free speech," much less compare the free speech concerns at a school like Stanford to the concerns of the putative number one school, Michigan Technological University.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - cctop - 11-08-2023

(11-08-2023, 01:10 PM)Mick Wrote:  It's been a bit since I've read the report, but I seem to recall that Harvard actually scored in negative numbers, something like -10.89 due to three of the professors contending that they'd been de facto censored and reprimanded, and that Harvard's score was artificially raised to 0.00 because they would have otherwise been below the scale.  I may be misremembering, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

Yeah, they say in the report that they raised Harvard's score from a negative number to 0.00.

I'd tell them not to artificially adjust their numbers for just one school.  Stick with your rating scale, or adjust your scale for all schools.  At the very least don't report your adjusted rating as being precise to two decimal places.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - cardcrimson - 11-08-2023

(11-08-2023, 12:20 PM)cctop Wrote:  My takeaways from skimming the report:
  • I'm surprised how narrow the margins are between the top- and bottom-rated schools. For example, abortion is the topic most reported as difficult to discuss, but the difference is 54% at the top schools versus 49% at the bottom schools. Almost every difficult-to-discuss topic is a single digit difference in reported percentages.
  • the situation on campuses sound pretty much the same as when I was in college in the 1980's.
  • the main difference nowadays is social media. I said a lot of stupid stuff and made mistakes when I was young of which I'm glad there's no permanent record.
  • rank the schools from best to worst if you want, but assigning one school a score of 0.00 is silly attention whoring. It reminds me of the Directors Cup adjusting the rules to get the result they wanted.

Harvard actually had a negative score, but they rounded up, apparently.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - fullmetal - 11-08-2023

Maybe "free speech" is just another way to say "no one gets loud at you if you voice one opinion or another." 

I think there definitely can be chilling effects when people holding extreme views shout down those making opposing points.  Sometimes you get people who react vigorously to loud, opposing views, and a vicious shouting match ensues.  The fewer loud/angry people on campus, the more you may encourage voicing of different, diverse opinions.

However, it's also probably true that fewer strident voices means that there are fewer engaged voices at either the local or global level.  Universities are often places where knowledge is gathered and applied to real life, and sometimes that leads to factually-derived opinions that are unknown or unpopular.

If we need to get loud, let it not be at other people.  Let it be to exhort other people.  Maybe I live in a bubble still, I don't know.

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 11-08-2023

When I was in law school, a student at the school decided to publish his notes online for anyone to see or use. Unfortunately, his notes referred to certain demographic groups by slurs that our society broadly considers repugnant. People got loud at him. IMHO, it was earned. That’s an extreme example, but it illustrates a point. Though our constitution guaranteed freedom from government encumbrance on speech, people can and should face consequences for violations of a code of conduct that would be illegal for government to establish. IMHO, the question is not whether there are lines people shouldn’t cross, but where those lines lie.

RE: TrumpCard - Goose - 11-09-2023

(11-08-2023, 11:55 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  When I was in law school, a student at the school decided to publish his notes online for anyone to see or use. Unfortunately, his notes referred to certain demographic groups by slurs that our society broadly considers repugnant. People got loud at him. IMHO, it was earned. That’s an extreme example, but it illustrates a point. Though our constitution guaranteed freedom from government encumbrance on speech, people can and should face consequences for violations of a code of conduct that would be illegal for government to establish. IMHO, the question is not whether there are lines people shouldn’t cross, but where those lines lie.
I think your statement is absolutely correct as written. However, establishment of such lines is IMO very difficult at best, and in "real life", almost impossible. Any group of "like-minded" individuals can easily decide that some particular point of view is unacceptable. If that group is a large majority, or a powerful enough minority, they can locate the line to forbid consideration of contrary speech. The ethos of a free society IMO requires that contrary points of view, however abhorrent to you personally, must be allowed to be expressed. One can't shout down people who express contrary ideas, no matter how "bad" they are. You can disagree with these ideas, you can speak loudly against such ideas, and you do not have to associate with or "like" those who express them. But you must not suppress these ideas by denying their expression.

As an example, for a very long time in our society, the LBTGQ community was very much forced "underground", both in word and deed. In many institutions, the line was set such that even discussing the "situation" was forbidden. Eventually, society evolved to the point that fewer and fewer institutions set the line in a place that forbade such discussion, at least in "the west". This evolution would have occurred much faster and probably with much less rancor if the ethos of society forbade setting such a line. Yes, "most people" would not have immediately decided to support "gay rights". However, if it was unconditionally accepted that people could express such ideas without being shouted down, the opportunity of the population to actually deal with the ideas presented would have been much greater.

As the OP states, this is not a "First Amendment" issue. It is a societal issue. The statement "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is about what "I" should do, not about what the government should do. It is not about what is said, which remains abstract, but is explicitly about the right to say it.

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 11-09-2023

I agree with your post as well. The lines are difficult to draw. But that’s what life is. We exercise judgment.

If a man tells a woman on a first date that she’s asking for sex because she’s wearing revealing clothes, should the response be “I’ll defend to the death your right to say that?” It sounds like you would concede that the woman has the prerogative to get up and leave, but is any further action acceptable in your view?  Is it wrong for her to warn her friends about the man?  Is it wrong for her to post negative comments about him online? If he someday is in the position of applying for a job where she’ll be his boss, should she have to overlook his speech and hire him if he has the best professional qualifications?I’d say his speech has consequences and all those consequences are fair game. Maybe the woman should avoid the literal act of “shouting him down,” but the fair consequences seem much worse.

Maybe this is another example that’s extreme. You’re talking about speech that’s more personal preference than personal affront. We probably all should draw our lines a little more flexibly, but we’re still entitled to those lines. And I stand by my view that I would not want to attend a college that’s at the top of the “free speech” rankings.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - jonnyss - 11-09-2023

"FIRE is a major proponent of the intellectual diversity movement which aims to dismantle the so-called liberal bias in higher academia."

link

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - AlbanyCardinal - 11-09-2023

I thought you were talking about men's hoops and I thought to myself, yeah, sounds about right.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - 82 Card - 11-09-2023

FIRE is not an unbiased observer. From the FIRE Wikipedia entry:  "FIRE has received major funding from groups which primarily support conservative and libertarian causes, including the Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and the Charles Koch Institute."

RE: TrumpCard - Goose - 11-09-2023

(11-09-2023, 09:41 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I agree with your post as well. The lines are difficult to draw. But that’s what life is. We exercise judgment.

If a man tells a woman on a first date that she’s asking for sex because she’s wearing revealing clothes, should the response be “I’ll defend to the death your right to say that?” It sounds like you would concede that the woman has the prerogative to get up and leave, but is any further action acceptable in your view?  Is it wrong for her to warn her friends about the man?  Is it wrong for her to post negative comments about him online? If he someday is in the position of applying for a job where she’ll be his boss, should she have to overlook his speech and hire him if he has the best professional qualifications?I’d say his speech has consequences and all those consequences are fair game.
As I said in my post, you do not have to like or associate with somebody whose views are incompatible with your own. Exactly what is permissible regarding somebody you do not "like" is a personal choice, as you say. You are, IMO, justified in refusing to hire him if his views are incompatible with your own. You must of course be aware that your actions too may have consequences, and be "OK" with that. You might get sued, and you might lose, depending on the exact situation and the jury.
Quote:Maybe the woman should avoid the literal act of “shouting him down,” but the fair consequences seem much worse.

Maybe this is another example that’s extreme. You’re talking about speech that’s more personal preference than personal affront. We probably all should draw our lines a little more flexibly, but we’re still entitled to those lines. And I stand by my view that I would not want to attend a college that’s at the top of the “free speech” rankings.
In general, I am talking about things that are public, not "personal" at all. In your example, if you see the man referenced above handing out pamphlets on the corner of El Camino and Embarcadero advocating a dress code for women to avoid sexual temptation of others, even if you think he is obviously mistaken, it is not admissible to physically prevent him from doing so.  You may not block his path or throw things at him. You may not use a megaphone to drown him out. You are of course free to follow him around and express a contrary point of view if you are so inclined :-).

If some ideas (that are "legal") can be suppressed, there is IMO no way to draw the line.  If the opposition can ever be shouted down (instead of being refuted or ignored), it becomes acceptable to shout anything down. History clearly demonstrates this is true. Eventually, the "idiots" will become the majority, at least for a time. If it is socially admissible to shout down the opposition, the "idiots" (define idiots however you wish) can legitimately do so, and reversing their majority status may become impossible.  IMO it must be the social norm that it is always impermissible to muzzle the "opposition", how ever odious they are to you personally. Otherwise, democracy cannot persist indefinitely.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - BostonCard - 11-09-2023

A nice article about the President of FIRE, Greg Lukianoff: Sick of Cancel Culture? One Man Has a Surprising Solution. - POLITICO

Lukianoff is a Stanford Law School grad.  Politics makes strange bedfellows; even though FIRE gets a substantial amount of funding from the Koch brothers, Lukianoff himself is a Progressive.

Quote:A near sui generis figure in American legal history, he’s the rarest of creatures in modern public life: someone dedicated to elevating principle over tribalism, a progressive who’s willing to ally himself with anyone — even the Koch brothers — who supports his larger cause.

And, as the article notes FIRE has consistently opposed threats towards freedom of expression, regardless of whether it has come from the left or the right.

Quote:The books are a call for humility and extending grace, at least temporarily, for the sake of clarification; for reason and due process over emotion and rushes to judgment; and an acknowledgment of the difficulty of resolving questions of fairness by situated actors.

It’s almost the precise opposite of modern academic and political discourse.

BC

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - dabigv13 - 11-09-2023

Small quibble, from the article it seems the only basis for him being a progressive is him labeling himself as such.

Seems mostly like helpfully heterodox branding, unless anyone knows any different.

RE: New rankings are out. Stanford #207 - washingtonismoney - 11-09-2023

(11-09-2023, 01:44 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Seems mostly like helpfully heterodox branding, unless anyone knows any different.

FIRE is not, like, the worst organization in the world or anything like that, but I agree the progressive branding is mostly that -- branding. Or to be charitable to Lukianoff, he's more of a progressive in the older-school ACLU type mode, that's free speech absolutist. It's a perfectly valid worldview, but its funders are primarily conservative: the Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradley Foundation. So I think it's missing some context if you simply say "I'm a progressive." With an asterisk, of course.* 

*(The Kochs, of course, can take somewhat complicated political stands sometimes and are, sometimes, happy to make alliances with progressives or liberals. That said, if you're a progressive or liberal you may want to watch out. They had a big criminal justice reform push that just happened to, quietly, push for lessened jailtime...for white collar criminals. To take just one example.)