I don't get it. Free Speech Under Threat At University? (Added Extra)

P. K. Qu'est Que Ce

New member
Feb 25, 2016
81
0
0
Another round of this delicious peach sherbet! Yum. Seriously though, this isn't about "Free Speech", it's about competing for a platform in a scholastic business, because that is what a university is. It's a big fucking money maker, part of a much larger scholastic economy which in turn generates trillions in debt. This is not about freedom of speech under any legal framework, it's just about changing social morays and the people who are (predictably) histrionic about it. If you can't talk about things in real terms, you're only inviting an echo not a discussion.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
How do you people keep these arguments going on and on in every new thread, day in and day out?

I'd honestly just be so tired of it by now that I wouldn't even be able to respond anymore.

erttheking said:
University bars a single person from speaking, people think it's an act of censorship and an attack on freedom of speech...

You know I'm glad that this is a thing. We have so many freedoms that non-issues like this are considered problems by people because those people have never experienced a day of oppression in their life.
Don't you know, cis hetero white guys (with constant internet connections) are literally the most oppressed people in all of history.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and sure, call it censorship. Whatever. Everything else is censorship these days, I guess this can be too.
 

Jarek Mace

New member
Jun 8, 2009
295
0
0
P. K. Qu said:
Another round of this delicious peach sherbet! Yum. Seriously though, this isn't about "Free Speech", it's about competing for a platform in an scholastic business. If you can't talk about things in real terms, you're only inviting an echo not a discussion.
There's such strong irony in your closing statement I'm not even sure of how to respond to it.
No, it's not about that. It has a tendency to do with the political leanings of an extremely vocal group on Western Campuses that attempt to silence opposition rather than respond to it.
 

P. K. Qu'est Que Ce

New member
Feb 25, 2016
81
0
0
Jarek Mace said:
P. K. Qu said:
Another round of this delicious peach sherbet! Yum. Seriously though, this isn't about "Free Speech", it's about competing for a platform in an scholastic business. If you can't talk about things in real terms, you're only inviting an echo not a discussion.
There's such strong irony in your closing statement I'm not even sure of how to respond to it.
No, it's not about that. It has a tendency to do with the political leanings of an extremely vocal group on Western Campuses that attempt to silence opposition rather than respond to it.
Holy F5 Warrior Batman! You got to my post in the minute between my posting it, and editing it. Yowza.

Here's my post now: "Another round of this delicious peach sherbet! Yum. Seriously though, this isn't about "Free Speech", it's about competing for a platform in a scholastic business, because that is what a university is. It's a big fucking money maker, part of a much larger scholastic economy which in turn generates trillions in debt. This is not about freedom of speech under any legal framework, it's just about changing social morays and the people who are (predictably) histrionic about it. If you can't talk about things in real terms, you're only inviting an echo not a discussion."

and maybe you can drop the "vocal minorities ruining it for me" shit, I don't love it.
 

Parasondox

New member
Jun 15, 2013
3,229
0
0
Hey Para?

Yeah?

You know what you just did right?

Opened up a can of hot worded worms?

Bingo. You dumbass!

I didn't mention the word "censorship" but it is the main word here. I just read all the responses and would like to say thank you. I am generally thanking you. I know, it's rare over the internet. Reason for this thread was for me to kind of get your views on the matter. The BBC at the moment isn't the best source but it has been spoken about in many news outlets here in the UK and some have even tried to compare Universities today to ones maybe 10-20 years ago. Where opposing views will clash, of course, and whether those opposing views should be "blocked" out. Of course hate speech is something that shouldn't tolerated because that is pretty much illegal here. I don't know about the rest of the world. Here, I am seeing both sides of the argument and valid point are being made. I respect both sides.

Final conclusion. There isnt one. My mind is still open to this discussion. It can still go on. Maybe because I haven't been to Uni, so it might be a bit differently to fully understand.

And lastly, dont be dicks towards one another. Once again, views will clash, but don't go down the slinging and slanging route.
 

Jarek Mace

New member
Jun 8, 2009
295
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
How do you people keep these arguments going on and on in every new thread, day in and day out?

I'd honestly just be so tired of it by now that I wouldn't even be able to respond anymore.

erttheking said:
University bars a single person from speaking, people think it's an act of censorship and an attack on freedom of speech...

You know I'm glad that this is a thing. We have so many freedoms that non-issues like this are considered problems by people because those people have never experienced a day of oppression in their life.
Don't you know, cis hetero white guys (with constant internet connections) are literally the most oppressed people in all of history.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and sure, call it censorship. Whatever. Everything else is censorship these days, I guess this can be too.
If you're ever so sick and tired of these discussions than it might be best not to actually join said discussion. It's like going into a pub for a drink whilst berating the regulars for drinking.

Cis Hetero White Guys aren't the most oppressed group in history. Then again, nor are the poor oppressed minorities who in a couple of cases out earn those DASTARDLY WHITE MEN, or those poor snowflakes who get given some nice quotas and affirmative action.
Point is, if you don't want people to point out when they suffer discrimination, then don't talk about when you suffer discrimination. Contrary to popular belief, the grass is not greener on the other side.
 

Jarek Mace

New member
Jun 8, 2009
295
0
0
P. K. Qu said:
Jarek Mace said:
P. K. Qu said:
Another round of this delicious peach sherbet! Yum. Seriously though, this isn't about "Free Speech", it's about competing for a platform in an scholastic business. If you can't talk about things in real terms, you're only inviting an echo not a discussion.
There's such strong irony in your closing statement I'm not even sure of how to respond to it.
No, it's not about that. It has a tendency to do with the political leanings of an extremely vocal group on Western Campuses that attempt to silence opposition rather than respond to it.
Holy F5 Warrior Batman! You got to my post in the minute between my posting it, and editing it. Yowza.

Here's my post now: "Another round of this delicious peach sherbet! Yum. Seriously though, this isn't about "Free Speech", it's about competing for a platform in a scholastic business, because that is what a university is. It's a big fucking money maker, part of a much larger scholastic economy which in turn generates trillions in debt. This is not about freedom of speech under any legal framework, it's just about changing social morays and the people who are (predictably) histrionic about it. If you can't talk about things in real terms, you're only inviting an echo not a discussion."

and maybe you can drop the "vocal minorities ruining it for me" shit, I don't love it.
I don't see anything about minorities in there. Do you? Maybe you could point it out for me. That'd be real nice of you.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Jarek Mace said:
You might want to read the fine print of his post. He said that he'd be tire of it, if he constantly had the discussion.

Key word here being a couple. As if a single black person earning more than a white person does anything to disprove that blacks on average make far less than whites. Affirmative action. Yes blacks have it so great because they occasionally get a pity scrap thrown at them. And quotas? Not actually a thing.

https://www.higheredjobs.com/articles/articledisplay.cfm?ID=246
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Parasondox said:
And lastly, dont be dicks towards one another. Once again, views will clash, but don't go down the slinging and slanging route.
Boy, you haven't seen how at-each-others-throats the community around here has become, have you?

Case in point...

Jarek Mace said:
shrekfan246 said:
How do you people keep these arguments going on and on in every new thread, day in and day out?

I'd honestly just be so tired of it by now that I wouldn't even be able to respond anymore.

erttheking said:
University bars a single person from speaking, people think it's an act of censorship and an attack on freedom of speech...

You know I'm glad that this is a thing. We have so many freedoms that non-issues like this are considered problems by people because those people have never experienced a day of oppression in their life.
Don't you know, cis hetero white guys (with constant internet connections) are literally the most oppressed people in all of history.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and sure, call it censorship. Whatever. Everything else is censorship these days, I guess this can be too.
If you're ever so sick and tired of these discussions than it might be best not to actually join said discussion. It's like going into a pub for a drink whilst berating the regulars for drinking.

Cis Hetero White Guys aren't the most oppressed group in history. Then again, nor are the poor oppressed minorities who in a couple of cases out earn those DASTARDLY WHITE MEN, or those poor snowflakes who get given some nice quotas and affirmative action.
Point is, if you don't want people to point out when they suffer discrimination, then don't talk about when you suffer discrimination. Contrary to popular belief, the grass is not greener on the other side.
Wat?

First of all, I usually don't join these discussions, because I know it's going to end up getting me a torrent of angry replies filling up my inbox for the next five days, because in the past year and a half this website swung from moderately progressive to Trump-is-God-King-Emperor.

The bit about white guys was a joke, by the way, because some of the loudest and most angry mothertruckers currently on the internet are cis hetero white guys (a group I belong to, which I only point out because your comment about not talking about when I suffer discrimination seems wildly unprovoked and out of place; for the record I don't complain about any perceived discrimination I may or may not experience) who are under some mistaken belief that if we treat everyone else like people, that means cis hetero white guys are suddenly going to become second-class citizens or something.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
May 2, 2020
2,905
32
53
Country
United States
K12 said:
Christ I really wished I hadn't watched these videos because now my youtube suggestions are completely full of "feminists are evil and stupid" videos by the million and one youtuber guys with an axe to grind.
You'll want to go into your YouTube watch history and clear them from it, or if not signed in just clear YouTube cookies and your stuff will be fresh.

Parasondox said:
Hey Para?

Yeah?

You know what you just did right?

Opened up a can of hot worded worms?

Bingo. You dumbass!
Be glad your name has nothing to do with pinecones.
I didn't mention the word "censorship" but it is the main word here. I just read all the responses and would like to say thank you. I am generally thanking you. I know, it's rare over the internet. Reason for this thread was for me to kind of get your views on the matter. The BBC at the moment isn't the best source but it has been spoken about in many news outlets here in the UK and some have even tried to compare Universities today to ones maybe 10-20 years ago. Where opposing views will clash, of course, and whether those opposing views should be "blocked" out. Of course hate speech is something that shouldn't tolerated because that is pretty much illegal here. I don't know about the rest of the world. Here, I am seeing both sides of the argument and valid point are being made. I respect both sides.

Final conclusion. There isnt one. My mind is still open to this discussion. It can still go on. Maybe because I haven't been to Uni, so it might be a bit differently to fully understand.

And lastly, dont be dicks towards one another. Once again, views will clash, but don't go down the slinging and slanging route.
I'd like to say thank you for even coming back into the thread. To the subject...

I'd say universities all over are in fact blocking out opposing viewpoints and becoming indoctrination centers more than institutes of higher learning.
I'd argue "hate speech" should totally be tolerated as the definition is clumsy and itself against free speech. When we're at the point where say, speaking on immigration in any way that isn't "slap dem borders open", it's referred to as hate speech.

shrekfan246 said:
First of all, I usually don't join these discussions, because I know it's going to end up getting me a torrent of angry replies filling up my inbox for the next five days, because in the past year and a half this website swung from moderately progressive to Trump-is-God-King-Emperor.
CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Joccaren said:
-EDIT- sorry, I quoted the wrong person somehow. I blame it on being tired.

Disregard what I said, I will respond to you later.

sageoftruth said:
I agree that the college is free to choose whom it gives a platform to, but these sound like cases where that decision was influenced by activism.
As was their selection in the first place.

As far as silencing people goes, there's a rather large difference between silencing people and not letting them speak on a given piece of property. It's very much along the lines of the difference between prohibition and "closing time."

"You don't have to go home, but you can't hate speech here."

shrekfan246 said:
because in the past year and a half this website swung from moderately progressive to Trump-is-God-King-Emperor.
Oh, it's been longer than that. about 2.5 years longer this this site even remotely had a progressive community. It only took about a month to go from people being outraged that a man said sexual harassment was an integral part of the community to people being outraged when a woman said sexual harassment was a thing.

I know I'm supposed to respond to you angrily, but your avatar just drains all my rage. Maybe if I cover it up...YOU SON OF A...no, it's bleeding through my hand. How is that possible!!??
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Something Amyss said:
shrekfan246 said:
because in the past year and a half this website swung from moderately progressive to Trump-is-God-King-Emperor.
Oh, it's been longer than that. about 2.5 years longer this this site even remotely had a progressive community. It only took about a month to go from people being outraged that a man said sexual harassment was an integral part of the community to people being outraged when a woman said sexual harassment was a thing.

I know I'm supposed to respond to you angrily, but your avatar just drains all my rage. Maybe if I cover it up...YOU SON OF A...no, it's bleeding through my hand. How is that possible!!??
Well, I was being a little charitable and working from the position that the community still hadn't completely switched over when Sarkeesiangate started in 2012.

Things would've been very different in 2014 if it had, after all.

I haven't been able to switch away from this avatar for almost precisely that reason, though. It's just too adorable!
 

BytByte

New member
Nov 26, 2009
425
0
0
A couple years ago, a video about black students on UCLA got some national recognition, and I happened to be walking right past them. It may be different elsewhere, but here at school, I've been able to say as much stupid shit as I wanted. There will never be enough crazies on campus to silence colleges as places of expression...


...unless you got to BYU or William and Mary or something.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,517
1,608
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Pluvia said:
Freedom of speech also means freedom from speech. You get to say whatever you like, but like a product, if no one's buying you don't get to force us to buy. Any company has the right to remove whoever they like from a premises unless there is a law against that (e.g. diversity movements, sometimes unions). In fact, governments are the only institution that has to consider minority groups

Freedom of speech also doesn't mean freedom from conviction. You get to say all the racist things you want but that doesn't mean that laws cant be passed outlawing racist remarks. See also deformation cases against civilians and companies Some clear exceptions here is any remarks on government and politicians.

Usually unis are run as a private organisation so they get to allow anyone onto their property that they want
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Some people aren't ready for higher education, and would limit the ideas to which others should be exposed on the basis of tortured definitions of safety and sensitivity.

They are destructive of the open discussion and free speech that are critical to genuine education, and frankly, they should stay home rather than seek to dilute and degenerate learning for everyone else.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Why is it when I read about college campus happenings that I just feel the need to do a Picard-facepalm? I'm not down on every erson who goes to college, but there are a group of people who always seem to make it an experience I'm glad I avoided, usually because they're the most vocal and least-worldly people I've met. Its just that some of them seem to have hyper-realistic expectations of humanity and how the world generally works, it makes me wonder if its because they're sheltered folks or what.

One can attempt to silence as many opposing viewpoints as one wants, but it won't ever get rid of them. Actually thats the worst thing one can do, especially since we can't have proper discourse without viewpoints we take opposite sides of. Its unrealistic to look at the world as if there's only one correct way of seeing things and all other perspectives are inherently wrong by way of being not the way you see things.

It leads me to feel there really is some form of entitlement culture thats been growing in the colleges, that they feel they must be exclusively catered to and any deviation from that catering is wrong and harmful. I just don't know how to put it exactly but it feels wrong. Extremely wrong.

Its a comedy and tragedy wrapped up in a very expensive package. Hence again why I'm so glad I avoided college, both because I'd have been extremely annoyed by people and trapped under a mountain of debt for a degree I may or may not use.
 

NiPah

New member
May 8, 2009
1,084
0
0
P. K. Qu said:
Gengisgame said:
MarsAtlas said:
No platforming is not censorship. A university is an organization that has debts to every student and should ideally work to accomodate as many students as it can with its limited resources.
Well yes that is censorship, that is a textbook definition of censorship "preventing someone from speaking there view to an audience because you don't like it"

Lets not pretend that's how it works, there is no democratic balancing act that takes into account what students want, certain views fall under protected umbrellas and certain views do not.
No kidding? "I like to fuck puppies!" is never going to get the public hearing as, "Stop shooting unarmed black people." The general observation that some views are preferred is neither wrong, nor suspicious unless you specify the views in question.
The issue being MarsAtlus saying this isn't censorship when this is censorship.
MarsAtlas said:
Gengisgame said:
Well yes that is censorship, that is a textbook definition of censorship "preventing someone from speaking there view to an audience because you don't like it"
No, thats not censorship, its merely withholding them a platform to speak from and not giving them money as payment for speaking.
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."
One of the major complaints against "No platform" is it's censorial nature, to call this not censorship would be erroneous.
 

Kameburger

Turtle king
Apr 7, 2012
574
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Kameburger said:
I feel like you're representing these things as though they are something that is happening through the democratization of university policy. University is not obligated to provide students with a representation of the world as they want to see it but rather to educate.
Yes, but what does curriculum have to do with guest speakers requested by students who are then accomodated at the expense of the university? They're two separate things. You can't no platform a class. At best you can question either the legitimacy of the course's teaching or, alternatively, question why its taught when attendance is poor enough and other, requested curriculum is requested by not taught. Still though, the students don't really have any say in that and its judged based on what the faculty thinks is important. Even if an econ class is unpopular its still important enough to the education of those who take it to warrant its existence. Recess was really popular in middle school but they cut that instead of algebra for a reason.

It is important for students to hear from Julie Bindel because she represents a point of view that people actually hold. Saying that her point of view is toxic may be a valid critique, but people that agree with her exist, and those people vote in a democratic society and their vote counts just as much as yours or anyone else's.
She's published books, you know. If one really wanted to see what she has to say they can request the book to be bought by the library. It'll accomodate pretty much any reasonable request and two copies of a book for $15 each is quite reasonable. Certainly much more so than however much it costs to have her speak. Thats democracy functioning well. If 95% of the student body didn't want the WBC to be paid to speak using their tuition they wouldn't be given the platform but there's nothing to stop them from speaking under other accomodations and their ideas aren't actually being restricted on campus. Its not like somebody can't talk about the ideas anymore.

Not clearly understand what she believes does the transgender student who might be offended by her, the MOST disservice. Ignoring problematic viewpoints doesn't mean those people go away, yet that's the precedent these universities are setting.
Who said that they didn't exist? This is about the tuition of the students not going towards certain objectionable things. This teaches people who to behave in a system of taxpayers. Some courses are more expensive and only serve a minority of people but they stay because those people are owed those while unnecessary things are more debatable and democratized.

LGBTQ people may not have to socialize with Jerry Falwell types of people, but they do have to vote with them, and trying to sweep them under the rug is what created movements like the religious sect of the Tea Party in the US.
Actually, the Tea Party became what it was being a bunch of people got pissy that democracy didn't go their way one time and a black guy got to be president. That is what the Tea Party is - a bunch of people who side with democracy except for when they're a minority. Thats what the Birther movement was too.

If a speaker draws no crowd, and no one want's to hear them speak that's one thing, but barring them from speaking etc, undermines education, because it hides a point of view from the world that actually exists.
Nobody is actually being barred from speaking. If she really wanted to speak Julie Bindel would speak. If a group of students wanted her to speak they'd organize something, whether it be in their dorm or a club. Just because she's not getting paid to speak and not being given the auditorium doesn't mean she's banned. There's no magic barrier preventing her from going on campus and talking to people. Hate preachers go onto college campuses all the time and students get to listen to them. They just don't get a nice, cushy auditorium and paycheck when they do so.

pquote]But let's say I didn't want to hear Anita Sarkeesian speak because she makes endless strawman arguments about male gamers, I'd be doing myself a disservice. On the contrary I want to here Anita speak BECAUSE I don't like the way she constructs her argument. Because people argue like she does. If I don't know how she think's and argues than I can't properly disagree with her, because I'm ill informed and I will not be taken seriously by anyone.
You being ill-informed would be your own fault, and not because she didn't speak at the campus. It would be because you never bothered to read her work. She's got her ideas out there, you don't need to hear her speak to understand them. If you did, well, nobody would be requesting her because nobody would know what she stands for. The people who come to speak have already published their ideas in one form or another and it'd be one's own fault for being lazy and no reading what is already out there. Kind of the whole point of books is that you don't need to actually meet and have a conversation with the person to understand what they're conveying.

Any student is entitled to find a way to feel as safe as they need to feel to get through their day, and I would never make an argument to the contrary, but there is a line, and whether you agree with this article or not there hasn't been a significant argument made by people who support banning speakers and erecting safe space rooms, that addresses the cold hard reality that the world has a vast array of opinions and you'll be at a severe disadvantage when you're no longer in college and you have to function in the real world.
Ah, the "they'll be coddled" argument. This presumes that the individuals have never come across contradicting opinions. Well, they have. I mean, if you're protesting a speaker its because you stand opposed to their ideas, which means you've been exposed to their ideas. So they actually have been exposed to the nastiness. This also neglects that students still get to be assholes to each other pretty much everywhere else on campus. Its ludricrous to assert that people aren't being exposed to hostility. People have been exposed to hostility since their first day in kindergarten and they're facing it on a daily basis in college. If a person doesn't think this happens at college its because they've never gone to college. Well, they've never gone to college while socializing with others or merely just paying attention to other students, which is more or less impossible.
[/quote]

I'm just gonna number these based on your quote order...

1. Yes it is different. But students inviting a speaker, for what ever reason should be just as protected as a student who doesn't want to go to that speech to not have to go. A no platform policy is basically explicitly stating that there is no place for your views here, which is basically deciding that the hearing of these ideas alone is somehow dangerous. If not than why would you have such a policy?

2. If I don't know who she is, I won't know who's book to buy... Also there is a reason to listen to authors rephrase and re-state their opinions or be opened for Q&A sessions so that you can see how they defend their ideas instead of existing in an unchallenged space. Seeing someone speak in person has the kind of advantages that books don't. Also if they are not obligated to go, or even if they are, again what's wrong with going and then questioning what you hear? Ask her what she feels about trans-phobia? maybe you'll get an interesting answer, maybe you'll get a better understanding on what these people feel.

3. I'm not saying anyone is, but if you have to leave the room anytime someone like them is around you can't exchange ideas and then ideas don'T grow.

4. The Tea Party movement is infinitely more complex than you just boiled it down to and agree with it or not, to write off the whole movement as simply a racist temper tantrum demonstrates exactly why universities need to push people to talk to people and hear from people they normally wouldn't. It's insanely arrogant to assume that everything is so simple.

5. If the movement was organized by students than why shouldn't the university compensate for it? In any case whether the university decided to pay for it or not they have created tiers on ideas, and what is valid and what is not. I assume you're for net neutrality? If internet universities shouldn't be allowed to value content differently, why should university administrators? This speaks to that radical ideas in and of thems are bad, but that's why witches were burned. Pardon me if I don't feel like every progressive idea on the planet is a special snowflake because it's intentions seem pure.

6. Yes if I am ill informed it may very well be my fault, but if you don't know all the different things in the world that you don't know, than who other than our professors and educators is going to show us what is out there? Willful ignorance is a different matter entirely from poorly educated. If you are pointed in a direction and CHOOSE to ignore it than yes by all means but if I don't know who someone is how can I be blamed for not knowing what they believe if I am never pointed in that direction? Contrary to your implication, not everyone's lives revolve around all these issues. I don't live in the united states and I am not confronted with trans issues, and feminist issues in the country in which I live is a much different issue than it is in the west as well. Julie Bindel is a name that is not brought up in any conversations regarding issues that are close to me. I am sympathetic to Trans issues because I don't think any group should be denied basic civil rights, but given that I could count the number of trans people I've met on one hand with fingers left over, the issues aren't close to me and it isn't my focus. I'm not going to know all the time why someone is problematic because I would have no one to educate me on the issue. But I also don't claim to be an expert, and I am open to learn about anyone who might tell me about it. I might hear this Julie Bindel speak and not knowing anything and spark my interest to look into those things based solely on the fact that I disagree with her assertions. But if I am denied different avenues to explore things than I may never skim the surface. Julie Bindel is not interesting to me by myself but if I heard she was speaking I might be tempted to educate myself on these nuances. How well are you informed on Russian Japanese territorial disputes? I don't presume to know how much, but I can assure you I have an opinion on it because I made a point to educate myself on the subject and I am grateful to my professors who challenged me by point me in the direction of various view points.

7. I'm not saying they're being coddled but again here you get very dismissive. You mentioned the Tea Party earlier in a manner which leads me to believe that you read the news you agreed with on the subject and indicates very little contact with any actual members or what they believe. I can deduce from that that you have very little understanding of how that movement started, who coined the term tea party and what it was in reference to, and the general roots in the movement all together. You think of people like Sarah Palin and the news backs you up on that, which I wouldn't judge you for, it's an easy conclusion to jump to given the environment. But the Tea Party term was coined by Rick Santelli on the floor of the Commodities exchange in Chicago in early 2009 in reaction to the bailing out of subprime lenders, and coined the phrase saying that he would like to mimic the Boston Tea Party by dumping derivative securities into the harbor. I am aware of that because I knew people who were investors and paid very close attention to financial news, and in the process where they fell in regards to that. It wasn't till much later that the Tea Party focused on issues like the ones you described. Just watching the news however gives you very little reason to do that kind of research and maybe for your function that is what the Tea Party was to you. I don't dispute that but ask yourself if you really understand that movement beyond just he said she said nonsense and what the media has told you it is. I don't care about coddling, what I'm saying is that they may have bosses that have beliefs that make them feel "unsafe" and when push comes to shove they may not get their way. I'm saying that surviving is important, and universities should be preparing people to function in professions that they will get to later. Right now people in companies look at these stories and say to themselves "my god, am I going to be ok employing these people? What happens if I employ someone with this kind of belief and all of a sudden they start raising all kinds of hell because I said something problematic?" If you don't like the word coddled, fine. Lets rephrase it. how about "poorly conditioned" to interact in a way that is advantageous to their career and future? I'm saying this because I am scared for that generation sincerely.