Why are Libs so afraid of free speech on college campuses?

Question

Why can't they stand opposing viewpoints? I remember when I was in college; we respected the other person's right to voice an opposing view. Thesis plus antithesis equaled synthesis. But now it's shout down ANY view that doesn't fit your narrow opinion of what's right. Emory university, Columbia, just to name a couple are guilty of disallowing free speech. How is this good for the Republic?

As was anticipated, tokoloshemani and many others on thsi site have refused to address the question: why can't the founder of the Minute Men not be allowed to speak on Columbia's campus but the President of Iran can? He was physically attacked! How's that for listening to opposing views! God, it's SO one sided!

Oh,Oh..I see our old friend honestamericanis at the Kool-Aid again! Hey dude, remember when the stus at Columbia ATTACKED the founder of the minutemen? The Cons were upset with the tin-pot dictator from Iran? Duh! And why not? but did they incite violence? NO! Only LIBS use violence to stop free speech!

Goldenrae9: when did I mention ROTC? I'm talking about free speech! As in the right of opposing viewpoints to be heard on campus; not shouted down or beaten up by a bunch of loud mouthed wackos! Remember free speech? You may have heard about it in a history class in a galaxy far, far away in a time long, long ago....

Debra H: Watch the news more often and you'll see you proof. Like when Ann Coulter is booed off the stage, just to name one. This is becoming more and more commonplace on our college campuses. I'm surprised you've not heard of it.

Answer 1

Because they cannot compete in the arena of ideas. Their arguments are baseless. It's easy to be liberal because you can state that all opposing views are racist or homophobic or xenophobic.

Answer 2

Liberals cherish free speech, so I don't know what liberals you're talking about.
One thing liberals don't like is hateful speech that is threatening or in poor taste, and in this direction I think liberals have gone a little too far. I think people have the right to offend others. I may want to call a pimp a filthy pig, and it might provoke a violent response - but that's the hazard of free speech. I also dislike Feminist puritanism about sexual jokes at work, but I know that some 25% of women have been the victims of sexual assault, and so I can understand some of the mixed feelings they have about this issue.
A noose on someone's doorknob steps over the line - it's hateful and in poor taste, and is a personal threat.
Then there are the Nazis and white supremacists. These people believe in suppressing the ideas and speech of people who oppose them; they are enemies of democracy and no one should be naieve about that. I wouldn't stop them from parading in my town, but I would sure be out there shouting at them.
Unfortunately, people's rights are in conflict with each other.
This is a very sad fact, and I see no solution to it, other than to practice courtesy.

Answer 3

The following is copied and pasted from the below listed website. I do not plagiarize! Tug
**********************************************************************
June 09, 2007 | Gene Edward Veith

The new liberalism: Ideology-free politics may be the wave of the future

Posted on 06/19/2007 3:39:34 AM PDT by rhema

With conservatives in disarray and floundering for leadership, the pendulum may be swinging back to liberalism. But liberalism today is different from that of its glory days in American politics, the era from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society.

The old liberals believed in an activist government, one that rights society's wrongs, controls the economy, and rights the wrongs of other societies overseas. They waged wars against poverty. They regulated business and tried to tax and spend their way out of economic downturns. They also waged wars against communism.

The new liberals also believe in an activist domestic government, but they are more open to free market economics than their Keynesian forebears. They do want America to right the wrongs of other countries, but a large and influential faction is essentially pacifist when it comes to waging war.

The old liberals had their base in the American working class, with farmers and factory workers, union members and "the common man." The conservatives, by contrast, were the small business owners and big business owners, the prosperous middle class demonized by the old liberal rhetoric as "the rich."

But because the old liberals were grounded in the culture of "ordinary people," they tended to be culturally conservative, upholding traditional values, sometimes—as in what was then the solidly Democratic South—even reactionary values.

New liberals sometimes still employ "rich against poor" rhetoric, but there has been a huge socioeconomic shift. Today the typical American "working man" has prospered enough to join the middle class. Farmers and blue collar workers with traditional values have—thanks to Ronald Reagan and the Christian right—gone over to the Republicans.

The social base for the new liberals is the New Class knowledge workers. Whereas the old liberalism and the old conservatism grew out of an economy that built or owned tangible things, we now have an "information economy." The highly educated cogs in this machine—high-tech experts, internet entrepreneurs, manufacturers of information such as the news media and the entertainment networks—join with more traditional information conveyers, such as teachers, academics, and artists, to form a new liberal elite.

These new liberals make a lot of money and so support the free markets that make it possible. But they hold to "progressive" ideas, scorning tradition and wanting culture change. Their personal moral values are strongly libertarian, especially in regardsto sex. They are mostly OK with pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and abortion. And yet, they can be very moralistic when it comes to the environment, the war, and other social values.

The old liberalism has its holdovers. People with low incomes are still strongly Democratic. So are blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and recent immigrants. New liberals have a strong political interest in policies such as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

On my Cranach blog (cranach.worldmagblog.com), David of Norcal, a self-described liberal, made a telling comment: "New liberals are motivated less by ideology than by simply wanting the party closest to their ideology to win. [They] are practical and would almost sell their souls to win an election because having the right ideals but no power means all the wrong ideals get implemented." By contrast, he said, "'60s radicals were not practical at all" but "were idealists. . . . We are skeptics, cynical yet savvy."

Postmodernists reject all ideologies. Power is everything. Since truth is relative, there are no overarching truths to guide our actions. The only philosophy that remains is pragmatism. We can act in practical ways to get what we want.

The new liberalism still has remnants of ideology, but the next liberalism may turn politics into a struggle between those who have an ideology and those who have none. Or, worse, between different power seekers who have no beliefs at all.

Answer 4

They're not afraid of it. There are always a large number of perspectives on campus.

If you are referring to Columbia not having an ROTC program. It is within their right not to have one and they do have students who do participate in other campuses ROTC programs. Plus the largest Army recruiting station in the nation is about 5 blocks away. The students will be fine.

Edit: I was unsure regarding the Columbia reference, as you were nonspecific in your reference and made the assumption that you were talking about the ROTC. Free speech is most certainly allowed on campuses. Certain campuses attract certain types of students, it's the students who express said voices.

Answer 5

I am not afraid of free speech on any college campus - as long as that speech doesn't incite violence, hatred or criminal acts, even if I don't agree with it - but they certainly can't expect to receive respect for their foolish opinions; but I'd at least let them voice them, even if I don't agree with them.

And only liberals use violence to suppress free speach? Don't make me laugh - how incredibly ignorant. You ever heard of police brutality? Hardly very liberal are they? Or how about the "with us or against us" chant of the Republicans? Not very tolerant is it?

Answer 6

It was the CONS who got all upset that Columbia invited the Iranian president to speak!!!!!
So the president of Columbia treated his invited guest with total hostility because.........because the cons made such a big stink about it!
So cons have a lot of room to talk about free speech and respecting others opinions!

Answer 7

We are not anti free speech . We are still waiting for many to say something of content and facts .. and Common sense no luck with the republicans in charge now !!

Answer 8

It must be all the Students for Ron Paul groups sprouting up across our nation.

Answer 9

How is letting China make everything we eat, wear and play with out of lead right? How is giving our jobs away to 3rd world contries right? How is having a president who bullies other countries into giving us oil when we have our own right? How is all of that right? You might also want to edit your question to ask why your question so one sided? Ask the Repulican Presidential candidates why they wouldn't go speak at black colleges and maybe those people can tell you why libs are so afraid of President Bush-wack selling this country down the river.

Answer 10

It isnt and it is a wide spread problem. Express your concerns to the head of the school, you are paying part of the wages. Choose your schools carefully and research. The marketplace can help determine the success of a school, if enrolement is down it will force them to ask why.