They’ve been hacked. That’s the only possible explanation.
Or perhaps they finally see how such vague rules can be used against liberals. For example, what would happen if male college students started filing formal sexual harassment complaints every time a professor ranted about “male priviledge” or the school put on the “Vagina Monologues”? Go full Alinski on them and make them live up to their own rules. Punch back twice as hard and all that. While the schools’ initial reaction would be to summarily dismiss all such complaints from men, bad publicity could make things uncomfortable for them.1
That would be a possibility only if the “judges” of such complaints weren’t themselves prone to ranting about male privilege. That’s WHY the rules are so vague — so they can interpret them harshly against the enemy, and leniently against their allies.
Yes, of course that’s true but remember the case of that 14 year old boy who was arrested and threatened with up to a year of jail time for wearing an NRA t-shirt at school. The prosecutor even tried to get a gag order instituted for the kid’s own good. Yeah, right. Anyway, the more harsh publicity that comes down on academia’s head for heavy handed crap like that, the more they end up backing down. If nothing else, it brings public pressure to either change the policies or get rid of those people.
When the campus kangaroo courts try to hide behind closed doors, record them. If they refuse the accused permission to be represented by a lawyer, sue them and name them personally as defendents. Go public, go loud and punch back twice as hard. Either that, or young men should completely abandon academia. Men still make up over 40% of students. If men boycotted applying to college for a year or two, something tells me that the schools would have to pay attention.
It’s worth remembering that the current “judges” have really cushy jobs, good pay, and no real responsibilities. Getting into a no-holds-barred power struggle combined with considerable opprobrium from the public is work. I think they’ll buckle under fast to any direct attack. Instead, they’re more likely to engage in a decades long passive aggressive resistance, pulling hijinks whenever no one is looking and backing off promptly when someone is.
For example, the current assault on freedom of speech comes from a couple of no name bureaucrats. Who gave them the power and authority to make this kind of decision?
23 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, things have turned decidedly surreal in the US of A. Speech codes are rampant in our institutions of higher learning. Scientists are being blacklisted for not toeing the government line. The IRS is persecuting enemies of the regime. The NSA is listening in on our phones. And, a dissident from our shores is seeking asylum from Russia (!).
Did we really win the Cold War?
Speech codes are rampant in our institutions of higher learning.
Those were in the works when I was an undergrad — before the Wall came down.
They’ve been hacked. That’s the only possible explanation.
Or perhaps they finally see how such vague rules can be used against liberals. For example, what would happen if male college students started filing formal sexual harassment complaints every time a professor ranted about “male priviledge” or the school put on the “Vagina Monologues”? Go full Alinski on them and make them live up to their own rules. Punch back twice as hard and all that. While the schools’ initial reaction would be to summarily dismiss all such complaints from men, bad publicity could make things uncomfortable for them.1
That would be a possibility only if the “judges” of such complaints weren’t themselves prone to ranting about male privilege. That’s WHY the rules are so vague — so they can interpret them harshly against the enemy, and leniently against their allies.
Yes, of course that’s true but remember the case of that 14 year old boy who was arrested and threatened with up to a year of jail time for wearing an NRA t-shirt at school. The prosecutor even tried to get a gag order instituted for the kid’s own good. Yeah, right. Anyway, the more harsh publicity that comes down on academia’s head for heavy handed crap like that, the more they end up backing down. If nothing else, it brings public pressure to either change the policies or get rid of those people.
When the campus kangaroo courts try to hide behind closed doors, record them. If they refuse the accused permission to be represented by a lawyer, sue them and name them personally as defendents. Go public, go loud and punch back twice as hard. Either that, or young men should completely abandon academia. Men still make up over 40% of students. If men boycotted applying to college for a year or two, something tells me that the schools would have to pay attention.
It’s worth remembering that the current “judges” have really cushy jobs, good pay, and no real responsibilities. Getting into a no-holds-barred power struggle combined with considerable opprobrium from the public is work. I think they’ll buckle under fast to any direct attack. Instead, they’re more likely to engage in a decades long passive aggressive resistance, pulling hijinks whenever no one is looking and backing off promptly when someone is.
For example, the current assault on freedom of speech comes from a couple of no name bureaucrats. Who gave them the power and authority to make this kind of decision?
23 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, things have turned decidedly surreal in the US of A. Speech codes are rampant in our institutions of higher learning. Scientists are being blacklisted for not toeing the government line. The IRS is persecuting enemies of the regime. The NSA is listening in on our phones. And, a dissident from our shores is seeking asylum from Russia (!).
Did we really win the Cold War?
Those were in the works when I was an undergrad — before the Wall came down.