×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Colleges Being Remade Into "Repress U"?

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the don't-speak-out dept.

Education 527

The Nation has up a sobering article from its upcoming issue about how colleges and universities are being turned into homeland security campuses, in the name of preventing homegrown radicalization. Quoting: "From Harvard to UCLA, the ivory tower is fast becoming the latest watchtower in Fortress America. The terror warriors, having turned their attention to "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism prevention' — as it was recently dubbed in a House of Representatives bill of the same name — have set out to reconquer that traditional hotbed of radicalization, the university."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

527 comments

Free Speech Areas (5, Insightful)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145654)

I think I'm more troubled by the "designated free speech areas" that are springing up on campuses everywhere.

Not because people can (sort of) speak freely there, but colleges are banning free speech everywhere else.

Re:Free Speech Areas (5, Insightful)

Aeron65432 (805385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145936)

Agreed. This is one area where it's an advantage to attend a state-university than a private one.....public universities have to afford you the Bill of Rights. If you're on a private campus, they can do whatever the hell they want. (not exactly, but more than a public university)

Moreso, it'd be better if we had this article from a newsworthy source...not an article as blatantly partisan as the Nation. (For the record Reason magazine or National Review would be wrong, too)

Re:Free Speech Areas (4, Informative)

boarder8925 (714555) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146174)

Agreed. This is one area where it's an advantage to attend a state university than a private one... public universities have to afford you the Bill of Rights.
That's news to me. FSU's got "free speech zones." Maybe you could come and explain to them that they're not allowed to do this?

Re:Free Speech Areas (3, Insightful)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146538)

Reasonable restrictions on speech is allowed even by state and federal government. For example, the school in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case was free to punish that kid who was allegedly disruptive to the school's activities.

Re:Free Speech Areas (5, Insightful)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146818)

"Bong hits for Jesus" is the perfect example of just how over-controlling schools are becoming. Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event. [msn.com] So in the eternal bloating of government, students are now subject to the law of the school board even when they are not on school property. The fact that it was a "school sanctioned event" is irrelevant. The kid wasn't being disruptive to the schools activities he was being harmlessly disruptive to the Olympic torch passing. If you think that qualifies as a reasonable restriction you need to snap out of your sheep's mentality. Rights, like free speech, are not something that the government "allows". They are inherent to all humans, in places they are repressed by governments, in places they are repressed by cultures, but they always there. The difference is not trivial. In fact it is central to a free society.

Re:Free Speech Areas (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147012)

For example, the school in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case was free to punish that kid who was allegedly disruptive to the school's activities.

Personally, I disagree with the supreme court's ruling on this but, if I remember correctly, one of the reasons for the ruling was that the kid in question was merely being silly and did not intend to convey a serious political message.

That is not to say that "Bong hits for Jesus" does not have a serious political message. Based on objective measures, alcoholic beverages are more dangerous than marijuana (more addictive, more risk of overdose, more risk of violent behavior) but, despite this, a religion that centered around a ritual of taking a hit from a bong would be viewed much differently than religions that centered around a ritual of taking a swig of an alcoholic beverage.

Re:Free Speech Areas (1, Interesting)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146008)

The free speech areas actually make me somewhat optimistic.

The reputation for activism that American universities received as a result of the Vietnam War has largely faded. Corporations have invaded the collegiate research department decision making process en-masse. The Federal Government has used the threat of widespread disqualification for Federal funding to coerce administrators into making certain changes (FBI record access w/o warrant springs to mind).

Top this all off with the ever increasing trend of American apathy at the ballot boxes and you have a pretty dismal picture of tomorrow's leaders.

Let's see what the leaders of tomorrow do about highly visible restrictions on their freedoms on campus. Let's see what they have to say about all this. For all we know we these measures could put us on the verge of a major revitalization of the activist spirit of the American Student.

Hell, various European nation student bodies have maintained significant political clout over the years... Why not ours?

Re:Free Speech Areas (2, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147426)

Hell, various European nation student bodies have maintained significant political clout over the years... Why not ours?

Well, it's either one of two things:

a) You are a nation of pussies.
b) The powers that be have been slowly tipping the balance of power in their favour over the last 50 years, turning you helpless.

Option a) is the popular choice, but I'm firmly a believer of b). You're not asking for it, you're getting raped.

Sad but necessary (5, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146168)

I work on a University campus, so I know what's really going on. It's simple: too many people abused their "right" to free speech by making it impossible to hold classes, being rowdy and loud in the halls, preventing people from passing into buildings, etc. In essence, depriving the students of the very thing they paid for. End result? The university isn't about having "free speech all the time", it's where people pay for an education. So the Universities had to strike a balance, and they had to do something so that those who wanted to protest can do so, but WITHOUT DISRUPTING CLASSES.

You don't have the "right" to stand up and have a bitch-fest in a class you're signed up for, either - if you disrupt class, the professor has the right to order you out and call security if you don't leave. You don't have the "right" to prevent people from reaching classes either, and we had fuckwits from Code Pinko blockading the classrooms of engineering profs who had military service records and have some military research grants.

And that even includes the fuckwad professors who hold chemistry class bitching about Bush and why everyone should be antiwar, too. You want to protest them? Take it up w/ the Dean, in the student newspaper, in the courts, or on your own time - not in the class.

students at Hampton and Pace universities faced expulsion for handing out antiwar fliers, aka "unauthorized materials."

I don't care what you're doing - whether it's an anti-abortion flyer, a pro-abortion flyer, an antiwar flyer, a pro-war flyer, or an advertising for your frat/sorostitute group's drinking party. If you're trying to force it into people's hands, or putting it on their cars (which is what WE get all the time where I work)... no. If someone actively takes it from you? Fine. But you don't have the right to force crap into my hands and you don't have the right to fuck with my vehicle. And I'm 100% sure that's the bullcrap they are really referring to.

I also love this little gem:
1. Target dissidents. As the warfare state has triggered dissent, the campus has attracted increasing scrutiny--with student protesters in the cross hairs. The government's number-one target? Peace and justice organizations.
I'd trust the guys writing this so-called "report" more if those so-called "peace and justice organizations" weren't fronts for communist groups (ANSWER, International Socialist Workers Party, etc), anarchist groups, blatant racial supremacist organizations (MEChA and La Raza, motto "For the race, everything, for other races, nothing"), or international terrorist/genocide groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

I mean, really. We had a table of morons set up who were boldly collecting money that they admitted they'd be sending to Hezbollah. They should all have been deported for violating their visas - half of them had already dropped this semester's classes anyways, like they do every semester.

Almost forgot: (5, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146432)

3. Keep an eye (or hundreds of them) focused on campus. Surveillance has become a boom industry nationally--one that now reaches deep into the heart of campuses. In fact, universities have witnessed explosive growth since 2001 in the electronic surveillance of students, faculty and campus workers. On ever more campuses, closed-circuit security cameras can track people's every move, often from hidden or undisclosed locations, sometimes even into classrooms.

I helped get this established on our campus. Why did we do it? It has nothing to do with "tracking everyone" and everything to do with crime. We have cameras on the parking lots because we kept having "neighbors" from the black-dominated slums nearby breaking into cars and carjacking people, and so they now have someone watching to dispatch a cop to a problem spot 24/7. We have cameras on buildings leading to classrooms, and even a few IN classrooms, because of people committing rapes and getting into fights.

5. Track foreign-born students; keep the undocumented out.
Yeah. Because enforcing the law is a problem... how?
The American Immigration Law Foundation estimates that only one in twenty undocumented immigrants who graduate high school goes on to enroll in a college--many don't go because they cannot afford the tuition but also because they have good reason to be afraid: ICE has deported a number of those who did make it to college, some before they could graduate.
When every one that gets in displaces a legal citizen, legal resident, legal visa-holder who had the RIGHT to apply... yeah. I applaud such efforts.

Re:Sad but necessary (4, Interesting)

The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146572)

I'd trust the guys writing this so-called "report" more if those so-called "peace and justice organizations" weren't fronts for communist groups (ANSWER, International Socialist Workers Party, etc), anarchist groups
That's interesting. You're implying that anarchists can't want peace or justice?

Re:Sad but necessary (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146738)

You're implying that anarchists can't want peace or justice?

Peace I'd agree with you... but I'd be interested to hear an anarchist's definition of 'justice'.

Re:Sad but necessary (1)

The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146874)

Tell me, what is *your* definition of justice? And where does it come from?

Re:Sad but necessary (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147078)

My definition of justice is a mutually agreed upon set of compromises selected to ensure the maximum possible percentage of the population considers the handling of each particular situation as "fair".

Your turn.

Re:Sad but necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147146)

So stoning people in Iran for being gay is just?

Re:Sad but necessary (1)

The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147428)

According to their system of justice? Yes - *if* that is really the belief of *every* person who takes part in that system. But if they stone someone who believes that it's not ok to stone someone for being gay? Then my system of justice says that it's perfectly ok for me to rain down my own justice on them. That isn't to say that I absolutely am going to, just that I *could*.

Re:Sad but necessary (1)

The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147492)

Sorry, did a bad job of explaining. Ignore my other response. I believe that in order for a law or custom to be just, every member of the population must agree that it is fair. Notice that I say nothing about cases of upholding the law... for me at least, that's much more of a gray area, one which I'll freely admit, I have yet to come to any sort of firm conclusion on.

Re:Sad but necessary (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147464)

Anarchists just don't seem to exist anymore. I've been invited to "anarchist" events by "anarchists", and I always point out that organizing is the antithesis of anarchy, but they never seem to be sufficiently educated to grasp that point. When I was a kid the idea of anarchy was pretty universally understood -- no law, no rules, no-one in charge. I think kids today just like the fact that it sounds sensational, "I'm an anarchist, HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!!!".

Poor kids today got nothin'. They're still learning the punk and rap songs we wrote back in the '70s...

Re:Sad but necessary (1)

The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147830)

I'll bite. It seems to be you who doesn't seem to be sufficiently educated in the subject. I believe in the supreme sovereignty of individuals, which includes the right to participate in voluntary organization and governance. I'd be perfectly happy with a government, as long as participation wouldn't be mandatory. And that's it. If you have a better word than Anarchism for what this is, I'd be glad to hear it.

Re:Sad but necessary (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22146786)

I work on a University campus, so I know what's really going on.

I work on a university campus too, but I'm not sure I'd claim to "know what's really going on".

It's simple: too many people abused their "right" to free speech by making it impossible to hold classes...

I'm not sure if you mean "impossible to hold any classes at all, ever" or "this one time, a class didn't start on time". You may work on a very different campus than I do but, when I walk around the campus that I work on, classes seem to be taking place just fine.

And that even includes the fuckwad professors who hold chemistry class bitching about Bush and why everyone should be antiwar, too.

Again, I'm not sure if you mean "gives entire lectures against the Iraq war" or "makes an offhand remark about his personal opposition to the war". Where I work, it's more of the offhand remark if it happens at all. Back when I was taking classes, I used to like it when the instructors mentioned their backgrounds and views. I figured that if I just wanted to learn the material I could just study the textbook and skip the lectures.

If you're trying to force it into people's hands,...

I've walked across plenty of college campuses and I don't think I've ever had a flyer "forced" into my hand. I'm not even sure what that would involve - holding me down and applying some super glue, perhaps. It does take a certain amount of mental discipline to avoid the reflex of reaching out and accepting the flyer but, on days when I've been distracted enough to succumb to the reflex, there's usually a trash can a few steps away.

We had a table of morons set up who were boldly collecting money that they admitted they'd be sending to Hezbollah.

Wow, openly soliciting money for Hezbollah! How do people on your campus even walk around - they must need wheelbarrows for their balls. They must know that's a recipe for a free one-way ticket to Cuba.

I would imagine that there are people on my campus who opposed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Maybe some have even donated to humanitarian relief efforts in Lebanon (or the Palestinian territories, for that matter). I have yet to see a student both with donation jars labeled "Hamas" and Hezbollah".

Wherever it is you work, dude, that's one radical campus.

Re:Sad but necessary (5, Insightful)

TheGreatHegemon (956058) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147522)

Looking [slashdot.org] at [slashdot.org] your [slashdot.org] posts [slashdot.org] and even some others comments in this thread [slashdot.org] (black dominated slums...) I can tell you're a tad on the conservative side, which really isn't too much of a problem. However, I sincerely doubt the situation is as severe as you claim it to be - are you honestly telling me that we're more disruptive that students during the Vietnam era?

Believe it or not, Universities are traditionally considered bastions OF free thought and speech - these are the tools of learning. If I wanted to just learn from the professor in a classroom, then why don't we just simply call it "High School v.2"?

I'm at a public University, and guess what? No designated "Free Speech Zones" or anything. Do the students riot? Scream in classes? Block the professors? Never. And we do have some issues [wikipedia.org].

It's bad enough that the K-12 system starts students off on the idea of utter compliance (might even be part of the reason why your University has these issues now), but to even make Universities stifle speech - then what good is that pesky Bill of Rights?

Here's the interesting part: We're considered on of the more conservative University of California schools - nestled in the heart of a Conservative part of California.

I'd trust the guys writing this so-called "report" more if those so-called "peace and justice organizations" weren't fronts for communist groups (ANSWER, International Socialist Workers Party, etc), anarchist groups, blatant racial supremacist organizations (MEChA and La Raza, motto "For the race, everything, for other races, nothing"), or international terrorist/genocide groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Just because you don't agree with their agendas (I definitely don't), doesn't mean that they should be banned. It's the cost of free speech - and one that we SHOULD be willing to pay! ESPECIALLY at Universities, where people should be rational and educated enough to know what they should listen to!

Really? (1, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147532)

What I love about American culture (I was born and raised in the southeast) is the inability to try and comprehend why otherwise reasonable people engage in ultra-violent activities en masse. Sure, there are some sociopaths, but when your average citizen starts to follow sociopaths, there's likely a reasonable explanation. I think it's more likely that they live in perpetual poverty and are subject to random acts of violence directly by US forces or those who are backed by the US, rather than they "hate freedom."

You think Hezbollah and Hamas are evil organizations, and I'll assume because they kill people and advocate violence towards their enemies. Is that any different from statements from the Pentagon? We threaten "the use of force" and they threaten "death to American infidels," but is there, in fact, any difference in those statements? We are far more dishonest than terrorist groups because we pretend that we don't kill people, when in fact, we're responsible for more civilian death than any terrorist group that has ever existed.

This was all perfectly realized recently on the news. I laughed out loud when I saw the video about Iranians "harassing" the US Navy. When you look at the video, you have five off-the-shelf speedboats versus multi-thousand ton US warships. I really can't believe the Pentagon are taking themselves seriously anymore.

And the fact that "communist fronts" are even on your radar is really a testament to how narrow political discussion in the US has become. When "bullcrap" is having a flier forced in your hands, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is perfectly acceptable, grotesque doesn't begin to describe how ugly we must look to the outside world.

Re:Sad but necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147662)

I'd trust the guys writing this so-called "report" more if those so-called "peace and justice organizations" weren't fronts for communist groups (ANSWER, International Socialist Workers Party, etc)

I'm laughing my ass off at your "commentary." Do you think that it is unlawful for someone to be a socialist or to be a member of the socialist party?

Re:Sad but necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147834)

Where the hell do you work!

I go to a University in California and have visited friends on a number of other campuses in the state and none of them even remotely resemble what you claim. Every so often we'll get the crazy old guy yelling about hellfire and damnation on the quad along with the 50 or so Christian clubs(1 for each race because god apparently tells them not to mingle) and frats passing out fliers, but nothing disruptive of class or research.

On the other hand, a far greater problem is instructors who take half an hour to get powerpoint working. It's your job, learn to use the tools or find tools you can use!

You had me until communist (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147838)

"I'd trust the guys writing this so-called "report" more if those so-called "peace and justice organizations" weren't fronts for communist groups"

Err, so fucking what, what the hell is wrong with having people involved in socialist organisations?
They may well be idiots, but it's a perfectly valid political viewpoint.

Re:Free Speech Areas (1)

realityfighter (811522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147712)

Free speech areas aren't new, they're just getting a lot of attention these days. I lived on a campus that had a huge fracas over their long-standing speech zones back in 2000-2003 and may have sparked this entire issue, and I'm inclined to say this problem is a non-starter.

The reason these areas were created, and the reason a lot of campuses still maintain them, is that in most cases the "speech" we're talking about is recruiting/issue advocacy by a student organization that wants to set up tables with a staff of a few people - at the smallest. Sometimes we're talking about something bigger, like a jump castle, a blood donations bus, or even - in one memorable instance - a giant plyboard cube that students were encouraged to graffiti. Really what we're talking about is a logistics issue, not some speech fascism on the part of the college. Trust me, other forms of organized speech - flyering especially - aren't restricted at all.

Hell, I remember more than a few war protests that began AND ended outside the "free speech area".

Blacklist Areas. (1)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147826)

colleges are banning free speech everywhere else.

Registered speech is not free, so there is no free speech on campuses that have such areas. They call the police on anyone who does not register, regardless of where they want to talk to people. When you follow their rules, you get added to their blacklist. Perfect fuckdom.

It's also, paradoxally, used to advertise on public space. The given excuse for registration, in part, is to eliminate commercial speech. Yet large companies and the military are allowed use of university facilities that no student organization could hope for.

Welcome to the new student's paradise. It looks more like some kind of communist/fascist cock up every day. Keep your mouth shut, eat crappy fast food and support the Bush Forces. No party for you [lsureveille.com], say the wrong thing and you will be reported.

This is not how it begins, this is how it ends. Universities are the last bastion of free speech and thought in any country. The press is already monitored and dissiplined. Workplaces have been fucked for a long time. Communications have been tapped. Charges don't have to be filed for you to be put in jail and tortured. Dissidence will now be tracked and thwarted from the get-go. That's what's called a Police State.

We really need to bring democracy to the USA through regime change. The fascists have shown their hand and need to be removed before dissent is impossible.

Want to Prevent Terrorism? Impeach Bush (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22145662)

There is a trail of blood from the oil fields of Iraq, through dozens of sovreign nations to the Oval Office.

George W Bush is currently the world's most prolific terrorist, and no amount of fascism on campus will change that.

Fearmongering works on both sides (4, Interesting)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145742)

Can't say I'm a great fan of TWAT, but even so:

Target dissidents. As the warfare state has triggered dissent, the campus has attracted increasing scrutiny--with student protesters in the cross hairs. The government's number-one target? Peace and justice organizations.

The Weathermen were a "peace and justice organization".

Many campus police departments are morphing into heavily armed garrisons, equipped with a wide array of weaponry, from Taser stun guns and pepper guns to shotguns and semiautomatic rifles.

Dear me, police armed with non lethal weapons? They have guns in a gun owning society? We're all doomed, I say, doomed.

Track foreign-born students; keep the undocumented out

Enforce the law against illegal immigrants? A horrific sign of incipient totalitarianism.

Take over the curriculum, the classroom and the laboratory

I'm shocked by this one, frankly (even more so than I was by the tasers). A government department wants to sponsor research within it's remit?

Privatize, privatize, privatize.

a) this has fuck all to do with repression of academia, just a left wing fear of the private sector
b) giving contracts to private sector companies is not privatisation.

The new homeland security campus has proven itself unable to shut out public scrutiny or stamp out resistance to its latest Orwellian advances

Protip: Orwell wasn't warning about the right in 1984. If the average reader of the Nation got their way, only the targets would change. Any kulaks here?

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides (1)

Usekh (557680) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145802)

Protip:Orwell was a committed socialist.

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides (3, Insightful)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145890)

A committed socialist who saw the effects of left wing totalitarianism in Barcelona (along with several thousand dead anarchists and Trotskyists who presented an obstacle to Stalin's desire to turn Spain into a Soviet protectorate)

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides (4, Insightful)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145830)

The Weathermen?

1968 called - it wants its bogeyman back.

Geez, enough straw men in that field already? Crows have to eat y'know.

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides (1)

phoebusQ (539940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145922)

Your accusation of straw-manning is a straw man in itself, as he was not construction such. The article itself draws parallels that he was merely taking to a further conclusion.

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides (1)

mvdwege (243851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146332)

You would do well to read a little more Orwell than just the wing-nut commentaries. Start with his 1946 essay 'Why I Write' for an education.

In summary: Nineteen Eighty-Four was inspired by both totalitarian movements in Europe, both of the Left and of the Right. In fact, Orwell discusses this very point in a lenghty essay on the work of John Burnham, who he acknowledges as an inspiration for Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Mart

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides (1)

IgLou (732042) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147066)

Some people fail to realize that if you go far enough left or right you've really met back end up in the same place. Well, in a way...

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides (1)

Lane.exe (672783) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147288)

That would require reading. It's much easier just to pontificate online as if you know what you're talking about than actually, you know, research something. That's what I learned in college!

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147816)

'Totalitarian right'? That's technically a contradiction in terms, actually --- the source of most people's confusion in this regard is that left/right is overly simplistic, there are actually at least four poles (left/right/north/south), plus centrist ... take the world's smallest political quiz [theadvocates.org], it'll give a basic introductory overview of why. Usually when people speak of 'the right', at least in the US, they refer to freedoms (either economic freedoms and social freedoms, or just the former - where the confusion starts); I'm not sure what you mean by "totalitarian right", but under most definitions of "right", a "totalitarian right" can no longer be regarded as a true "right" system - certainly a 100% corporate-fascism-controlled crony-capitalist system would not be.

god, i love TWAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147022)

fat twat, skinny twat, thin twat, thick twat, black twat, white twat, long twat, short twat, wrinkly twat,

Give me a break (4, Insightful)

phoebusQ (539940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145820)

Fearmongering is considered a traditional tool of the Right, but the Left appears to have become its new master. Frankly, I'm tired of it from both sides.

Re:Give me a break (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22146074)

Frankly, I'm tired of it from both sides.
Yes, so vote Ron Paul!!!!!
Actually, I don't support Paul, not voting for him, just thought I'd advertise him as an all-purpose political panacea before some other annoying guy did.

Re:Give me a break (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22146408)

Well, it's only fair. The Right has recently taken a page from the liberal playbook and become the master of facetiously raising hue and cry (often funded through government spending!) over imaginary oppression.

Then again, they've put their fear-mongering twist on it, so I guess they're two for two.

Re:Give me a break (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147562)

Fearmongering is considered a traditional tool of the Right, but the Left appears to have become its new master.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying but the article on university repression, while a bit over the top, seemed to me to be more about outrage than fear - "we don't like being pushed around" rather than "we're afraid of being pushed around".

One thing that has struck me as a bit strange is that I've seen former members of the Bush administration get university faculty appointments. I know that universities like to be open-minded but, based on their speeches, I wouldn't have thought that members of the Bush administration had enough of a commitment to factual accuracy to be appropriate as university faculty. I mean, as a student, one does expect the instructor to provide some perspective and context but one would also be unpleasantly surprised to later discover that the instructor had dispensed with factual accuracy entirely.

What amazes me about this is... (4, Insightful)

riseoftheindividual (1214958) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145876)

... after we survived the radical 60s and proved to the world that free speech and tolerance of dissent works, the very generation that watched freedom of dissent work to fizzle out radicalism has come into the positions of power and are now acting as if it didn't work. Fear is truly the mind killer.

Re:What amazes me about this is... (2, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145940)

Obviously, they devoted their time in school to protesting and changing the world, instead of studying history textbooks.. ;)

But damn, everything our parent's generation did when they were kids, they have made illegal for the next generation. Did your parents go to parties when they were underage and drink? Did they get Cited by the police for it? What about smoking a bit of weed. Bet they would ground you! In my town, they used to cruise one of the main roads. Nowaday's there are signs posted saying you can be fined/jailed for driving down the street more than 3 times in a night.. (seriously!)

Re:What amazes me about this is... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145988)

Obviously, they devoted their time in school to protesting and changing the world, instead of studying history textbooks.. ;)
Some who learn from history seek to improve upon a repetition of it.

Re:What amazes me about this is... (1, Insightful)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146130)

I have always said that parenthood is a powerful poison of the mind; it seems to cause profound and uncontrolled reversion to instinct, something which is often harmful and dangerous to modern society and to the individuals thereof.

Then again, many of these individuals may not have been thinking beings beforehand: mindless children become mindless adolescents become mindless adults. :P

Re:What amazes me about this is... (1)

riseoftheindividual (1214958) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146162)

I believe you, we had similar crackdowns in the late 80s when I was a teen on cruising in my area.

It's like the older generations expect the younger ones to be more perfect than they ever were. I've been through it with my family, you should heard my mom and her siblings talk about me when I was a kid getting into trouble, making it sound like I was especially bad. Then as I became an adult, I became close friends with my grandfather and found out about *credit card fraud* and other outrageous things I never came close to engaging in that occurred with them. I got put through the child legal system as a result of what turned out to be my very minor in comparison legal infractions, they never did. They got off because they were just poor innocents who made mistakes, and me, well, you know... I did everything with malicious intent to be evil or something.

Boomers in general(speaking US centric now) seem to live as if they never made such mistakes and they vote accordingly, with no thought or concern that taking away the freedom of people to make mistakes is taking away freedom indeed. That's one thing that really annoys me about boomers in particular. It seems one of the most common threads of uninsightfulness with them, which is surprising coming from the generation that was known for the saying "don't trust anyone over 30".

Re:What amazes me about this is... (2)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146630)

Or you could think of it like Stephen Colbert does: The hippies of the 60s pissed everybody else off so much that they became conservatives.

Not amazing at all (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146070)

the very generation that watched freedom of dissent work to fizzle out radicalism has come into the positions of power and are now acting as if it didn't work. Fear is truly the mind killer.

Or... a whole generation of people isn't a monobloc that thinks alike. There were Young Republican types on those campuses as well.

Re:Not amazing at all (0, Offtopic)

riseoftheindividual (1214958) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146284)

"There were Young Republican types on those campuses as well."

True, but, in case you haven't been paying attention... so-called liberals are in on this stuff, people who were not young republicans. That generation has overwhelmingly embraced this type of stuff. The best and clearest example I can think of is, who backed the patriot act? Who voted for it? What are there backgrounds?

A whole generation is not a monobloc that thinks alike and I never implied they were. What is amazing is that a whole generation can live through watching freedom prevail over radicalism, and then grow up and forget what they witnessed first hand. I think that's amazing. I think it's amazing that they lived through a history of terrorism and radicalism being a thorn in the side of oppressive regimes around the world and in terms of acts of terror, hardly being a blip on the US soil by comparison.

But instead of paying attention to the history they lived through, they come into power and begin down the same path that the societies most plagued with terrorism have been on, apparently thinking we'll get different results.

Re:Not amazing at all (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146486)

*shrug* Politicians are megalomanics. It's pretty much a resume requirement these days to hold political office. They don't care about history other than how it might teach them to gain more power. They get aroused (literally, I sometimes think) at the thought of controlling people.

It's also possible for intelligent people to talk themselves into the most amazing things, especially when groups are involved. Insulated groups. Like Congress. ;-)

People make a mistake trying to look at it as a right and wrong issue. It's more of a "human minds fucking up in age old ways" issue. It's pretty much unsolvable.

I can't take anything seriously anymore (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145972)

"From Harvard to UCLA, the ivory tower is fast becoming the latest watchtower in Fortress America. The terror warriors, having turned their attention to "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism prevention' -- as it was recently dubbed in a House of Representatives bill of the same name -- have set out to reconquer that traditional hotbed of radicalization, the university."

Tonight... on 24! Jack Bauer delivers the glorious CTU smackdown to some girly man professors with their sights set on terrorizing the Heartland! Watch the Godless professors soil their undies as Bauer delivers a peer reviewed parcel of whoopass!

Presented in high definition Tyranovision!

Free Speech Zones (5, Interesting)

ProteusQ (665382) | more than 6 years ago | (#22145980)

I was teaching at Wichita State before the Free Speech Zones. They had to implement them because Women's Studies majors were interrupting class by blowing an air horn to announce "Take Back the Night"-type events. So, the left-wing administrators had to find a way to kept the far-left-wing advocates from interrupting class and came up with the zoning scheme as the solution.

If the right is truly repressing speech on campus via federal reg's, it's double-plus bad ungood; however, I contend there's far more internal repression of speech, and hence of thought, from the left on campus and has been for decades. (Why? Because they believe that true diversity will be achieved once everyone agrees with them.) So, if we want free speech on campus, let's make sure all of the sources of repression are dealt with.

Re:Free Speech Zones (1)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146264)

Does it really matter what the political affiliation of those who support and encourage this are? I would have thought that in the "Land of the Free" the limitation of freedom would be frowned upon. Moreover what worries me with these free-speech zones is that I have no idea what is permissible outside of them. I hope they don't catch on anywhere else, small protest exclusions zones in sensitive areas are bad enough but the reverse (i.e. small protest-zones with protests banned everywhere else) are frightening and potentially catastrophic for a democracy.

Re:Free Speech Zones (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146502)

Is there really a need for a "free speech zone" in this case? Why not just make a "don't be a dick" rule that says if you're disturbing classes then campus security (or cops) can haul you away. The restriction of free speech across the entire campus (save the parking lot behind the cheap bleachers on the far side of the campus) seems like gross overkill for the problem.

Re:Free Speech Zones (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146696)

You're kidding, right? College campuses house some of the most vocal left-wing advocates in the country, both student and faculty alike.

It works both ways. (2, Insightful)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146024)

A lot of colleges have agendas when it comes to allowing conservative students hold events and speak out, Which is ironic considering who is pushing this down our throats. Of course new-liberal types want to shut up consrvative speakers because they "know they are right". I say let both groups speak and if you don't like who is speaking you don't have to listen.

Re:It works both ways. (1)

blankinthefill (665181) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146678)

While I agree with your final conclusion, gross stereotypes help no one. Are there left wingers who want to shut everyone up? Yes. Are there right wingers that want to shut everyone up? Yes. Do they comprise the entirety of those that hold beliefs on either side? Hell no. Theres always going to be some wackos out there that believe that people need to be regulated, but they are spread across ALL demographics, and saying that "new-liberal types want to shut up conservative speakers" does everyone a disservice by giving people the ability to dismiss concerns with this kind of censor ship by point to one nut and saying "all those people that believe like him want to shut people up!" Kinda repetitive here, but meh, control of expression and speech for purely political reasons disgusts me WHEREVER I find it, no matter who is doing it.

Evidence? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146144)

Is there any evidence of this ever being a problem such that this is worth spending any money on?

Timothy McVeigh is the only example of home-grown terrorism I know about, and I don't recall him causing trouble at any institution of higher learning.

And to prove the opposite point, that government is over-reaching, we can cite, e.g. Kent State.

No wonder the Ron Paul rally I attended was overwhelmingly 20 & 30-somethings.

Re:Evidence? (1)

MicktheMech (697533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146554)

How about Ted Kaczynski [wikipedia.org] or in Canada the FLQ [wikipedia.org]. That said I think the American government has gone way to far. When I was young crossing the border was a decent way to kill a weekend. I don't do it anymore because your border guards scare the hell out of me. I strongly encourage all Americans to take a week and spend it in another western country. Just take the time to look around and realize how far you've gone to becoming a police state.

Re:Evidence? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146876)

How about Ted Kaczynski

According to Wikipedia there's a 10-year gap between the time he was associated with a university and when he did anything. He _targeted_ university folks, but nothing the TFA is talking about would have hindered him.

or in Canada the FLQ

I admit to knowing nothing about the FLQ, but Wikipedia doesn't say that its members were students - were they? It says that one of its cell leaders was a history professor.

Score: Terrorist Professors - 2, Students - 0

That said I think the American government has gone way to far. When I was young crossing the border was a decent way to kill a weekend. I don't do it anymore because your border guards scare the hell out of me. I strongly encourage all Americans to take a week and spend it in another western country. Just take the time to look around and realize how far you've gone to becoming a police state.

Last time I popped up to Sherbrooke for a day with the family, the border guards wanted to see all our passports and pretended like they could scrutinize our little girl with a 3-year-old passport to verify her identity. It was weird. Headed south they wanted to know if we'd bought anything and decided to let us through with a carton of milk for aforementioned daughter. What weirdless are you seeing?

this isn't the beginning (4, Insightful)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146256)

This is the beginning of the end. First, they own your money. Then they monitor your correspondence. Then they call you crazy if you call them on what they are doing. Then ignorance is called strength. And then universal surveillance is called freedom. So how's is Britney Spears doing today? Anyone caught the game?

Re:this isn't the beginning (2, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146588)

If "the game" is something Britney Spears has, I don't think I want to catch it.

Re:this isn't the beginning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147242)

America, Über Alles...or Weimar America?

have a nice day. :)

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (5, Informative)

Kohath (38547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146490)

The main watchdog for campus rights abuses is FIRE [thefire.org].

Speech codes and anti-harassment "respect" policies are the most common culprits when it comes to violating individual rights at colleges.

Re:Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146566)

Er...there is no way anyone who reads The Nation for more than a good laugh is going to see FIRE as anything other than a tool of the fascist-capitalist running dog oppressors.

Overly paranoid article (4, Informative)

georgewilliamherbert (211790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146510)

Two issues out of the article -

1. Police departments on campus getting more firearms, including semiautomatic rifles and pistols.

This is just dumb, for several reasons.

A. Students may not see it that way, but the reason that campus police have guns is to protect the students. Criminals love to target students. Better armed criminals argues for better armed campus police. Happy peaceful unarmed campus police equals soft target. And there are always some nuts out there. Campus police may seem intimidating to students, and part of their job is to keep students from rioting and burning campuses down during periodic fits of dissention, but their primary job is to go get the people who come from outside to prey on students.

B. 99% of police in the US now use semi-automatic pistols - they're just a better choice for officers than revolvers.

C. Semi-automatic rifles are, in many situations, less likely to hurt bystanders than shotguns, the more common shoulder arm police use. Police also have had some long-range issues (snipers, mass murders, etc) which rifles are needed to counter.

2. Blackwater as an example in the privatization

Blackwater has for a long long time been a police and security training company. They also got into private security in Iraq, yes, but what they do in the US is nearly entirely provide tactical and skills training to police officers. Do you want more professional, better trained police? Most people do... Doctors and Paramedics need continuing training, so should Police. Some departments are big enough to do most of their own training, but most aren't. Training is good.

Re:Overly paranoid article (1)

Thomas M Hughes (463951) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146816)

Regarding officers of the state having bigger and better firearms on campus.

I know you claim that it's "for our protection" (speaking as a student). However, some of us do still remember that in 1970, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on a group of students at Kent State. The students were, at the time, largely protesting national war policies. The details of what happened at Kent are most likely less important than the psychological image. There exist precedent for officials of the state utilizing lethal force on students attempting to make a political statement.

Having a law that focuses specifically on radical elements in Universities while at the same time increasing the presence of lethal force on University campuses is likely to just antagonize those radical elements even further, and further increase the probability of unnecessary bloodshed.

Re:Overly paranoid article (4, Insightful)

georgewilliamherbert (211790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147272)

The Ohio National Guard were not a campus police force. Campus police forces have never opened fire on demonstrating students in the US, and are extremely unlikely to... if you actually talk to any officers on a campus PD anywhere, they're among the most tolerant and least likely to overreact officers on any police force in the world.

While I was at Berkeley, we had a number of riots in the city, ostensibly over UC policies (related to Peoples Park, mostly) but almost entirely carried out by non-students. We had an incident where the UC Berkeley SWAT team had to shoot and kill a crazy guy who'd shot and killed one student and was holding about 15 others hostage, forcing the women to strip and sexually abusing them. We had a local small female protester who broke into the Chancellor's house and tried to knife two police officers who were trying to get her out, which unfortunately got her shot and killed.

The same SWAT officer who shot the first named crazy in the head was the same guy I saw months later just sitting there and shaking his head a bit as Andrew Martinez, "The Naked Guy", walked by in his usual disattire, distracting a whole bunch of people from the "Make Peace Not Atoms" protest on Sproul Plaza.

Yes, incidents happen. But for the most part, students get away with pretty much anything short of assaulting each other or destroying campus property. And for every legit police abuse case that came up while I was in school, there were multiple cases of "The officer saved our asses"... from a multiple rapist, from a band of teenagers who were randomly attacking students with 2x4s, from muggers who'd knifed someone a couple of months ago...

If I'd ever seen a legitimate case of an officer oppressing someone, I'd pay more attention to your and the article writers' fears. But I haven't. And I've seen the stuff they actually did do to protect people.

Your right to feel secure in your paranoia doesn't extend as far as disarming or removing those who legitimately help save students lives and safety.

Re:Overly paranoid article (4, Insightful)

fredklein (532096) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147004)

Criminals love to target students.

Why?

Because schools are a 'gun-free' zone'.

Better armed criminals argues for better armed campus police

No- they argue for better armed students. The cops are minutes away. The students are right there. The cops will 'form a perimeter' , then wait for SWAT to show up before going in. This can be many more minutes. The students are right there.

Who should be armed? The people who won't show up for 10 minutes? Or the people who are on the scene?

Re:Overly paranoid article (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147176)

Who should be armed? The people who won't show up for 10 minutes? Or the people who are on the scene?

Yeah! Allow a bunch of young adults (many of whom partake of alcohol and other mind-altering substances on a regular basis) easy access to firearms! That sounds like a success strategy to me!

Re:Overly paranoid article (1)

georgewilliamherbert (211790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147318)

Actually, in major mass shooting incidents, cops responding will form up pairs and go into the building after the shooter, in most departments. Forming a perimeter is so pre-Columbine...

I have to agree with the other responder - a lot of 18 and 19 year old students don't have great judgement on things like shoot / no shoot decisionmaking. And the law in the US prohibits handguns from anyone under 21 anyways, so that's 3/4 of the undergrads being unable to arm themselves anyways, unless you propose to change that law, too...

Informative? (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147282)

Do I detect another armchair cowboy?

"Criminals love to target students". Huh? In most cases of attacks on students these have been a result of students attack their own co-students.

". Semi-automatic rifles are, in many situations, less likely to hurt bystanders than shotguns." and in many/most cases the shotgun is superior because it is less likely to cause unintended damage. A rifle bullet can travel many miles and can also go through walls etc. Not a good thing in a situation where there are a lot of innocents around.

Blackwater is pretty handy for the forces "visiting" Iraq mainly because they are above the law and don't get hobbled by pesky military laws like US soldiers do.

Re:Informative? (2, Insightful)

georgewilliamherbert (211790) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147430)

Do I detect another armchair cowboy?

I don't know, but I smell one now.

"Criminals love to target students". Huh? In most cases of attacks on students these have been a result of students attack their own co-students.


Students beat each other up regularly. A bit. Rarely with any serious injury. With regularity, they date rape each other, unfortunately.

Forcible stranger rapes, murders, muggings, knifings, etc? Almost entirely off campus individuals.

I paid attention to statistics when I was in college, and my campus PD made them available.

". Semi-automatic rifles are, in many situations, less likely to hurt bystanders than shotguns." and in many/most cases the shotgun is superior because it is less likely to cause unintended damage. A rifle bullet can travel many miles and can also go through walls etc. Not a good thing in a situation where there are a lot of innocents around.


In some situations, a shotgun is safer. That doesn't include any attacker over about 60 meters away, anyone holding a hostage in front of them, etc.

Most rifle bullets don't go through walls. 5.56mm is notorious for being stopped by 2 sheets of drywall. Any professional knows this.

Yes, if fired upwards at high angles, some rifle bullets can travel a few miles. It's part of the risk and safety issues.

I smell armchair.

Blackwater is pretty handy for the forces "visiting" Iraq mainly because they are above the law and don't get hobbled by pesky military laws like US soldiers do.


Which is -

A. Completely immaterial to their police training operations in the US.

B. Completely false - the US government laws do cover Blackwater staff in Iraq, under any but the most paranoid interpretations of the law. The FBI are investigating the late 2007 big shootout and expect to be able to file charges if they find someone at fault. A defense attorney might wriggle out the legal ambiguity, but probably not. Judges aren't dumb. And Blackwater's head, and the head of the Diplomatic Security Service, asked for the law to be rewritten to clearly cover contractors for DSS.

Re:Overly paranoid article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147374)

Campus police may seem intimidating to students, and part of their job is to keep students from rioting and burning campuses down during periodic fits of dissention,...

Not in my view. If the students are burning down the campus then that would either be a job for the city/state police (or event the national guard, depending on the size of the riot).

...but their primary job is to go get the people who come from outside to prey on students.

There are different types of crimes. In rare cases, a police officer can prevent a crime from occurring but, in most cases, the role of the police is to apply punishment after the fact.

In cases where a real crime has already occurred (not just a violation of university policy - e.g. skateboarding in the halls) then the university police should hand the matter off to the city/state police.

In cases where a serious crime might occur (e.g. a suspicious person lurking in a university building), it is the job of the university police to determine whether the situation can be resolved without resorting to force. Once the university police determine that force is necessary then they should hand the case off to the city/state police at the earliest opportunity.

There may be an interval between determining that force is necessary and the arrival of the city/state police where it would be advantageous for the campus police to be armed - mostly for their own protection. On the other hand, arming the campus police increases the risk that the campus police will severely injure or kill innocent students.

Each campus is different. Some campuses may be sufficiently dangerous that the campus regularly need to defend themselves against serious injury or death. Other campuses may be safe enough that a heavily armed campus police is unnecessary.

The bottom line, though, is that it is nowhere near the primary responsibility of campus police try to prevent crime by shooting anyone who is about to commit a crime.

Re:Overly paranoid article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147482)

Training is good.

Not necessarily true. If they're training police for soldier-like combat, I'd say that's a bad thing.

Re:Overly paranoid article (3, Informative)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147778)

> B. 99% of police in the US now use semi-automatic pistols

That's a funny one for me... semi-automatic sounds so SCARY, but really isn't much different from a revolver.

With a revolver you have, one click = one shot.
With a semi-auto pistol you have, one click = one shot.

Only effective difference is reload time (and autoloaders close that gap with training), and rounds in a load (usually 6 for revolver, more for semi-autos)

Just part of the cycle.. (1)

wanax (46819) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146514)

While many of the things addressed in the article, especially about trying to shift the social environments of many colleges are troubling, in the end I don't think universities are going to be very easily overcome as centers of free speech and dissent. The really simplified reason behind this in my opinion is this: smart engaged people who's world view comes from 'the left' tend to make great teachers, and great teachers have profound impacts on their students opinion and thought processes. Smart engaged people who's world view comes from the right tend to make great leaders. Since the end of WWII, where the Montgomery GI bill opened education to the masses, we've seen two social trends:

First in the 1960s, the teachers had the first shot at a huge proportion of the population who hadn't been able to go to college, or spend much of their time formulating ideological positions. Then in the 1980s, the right produced a number of charismatic leaders, exemplified by Reagan and Gingrich, who focused their ideological positions through the media in a very compelling manner. The problem with the cult of leadership is that is has problems clearly conveying its ideas since it is based on personality and media control rather than pedagogy and individual interaction, the message drifts as the charismatic pull it in different directions for their own benefit. This the the stage we're at now.

As the media message either fractures or continues to diverge from the reality most people experience, they'll go back to the sources of information that are personally tangible: the teachers. This type of broad social cycle won't easily be broken by increasing surveillance, etc, because the lag times to acceptance are on the same scale as the social oscillations and surveillance doesn't work very well in communities that it isn't implicitly accepted in.

What are they so afraid of? (1)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146578)

It seems they are battening down all the hatches, going totally overboard as far as "Homeland Security" is concerned. The question is what for? Is it paranoia for its own sake or is something going to happen in the near future that they are preparing for?

They are not afraid. (2, Insightful)

gnutoo (1154137) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147858)

It seems they are battening down all the hatches, going totally overboard as far as "Homeland Security" is concerned.

They think they can get away with it.

Well, I suppose it makes a kind of sense (-1, Troll)

hey! (33014) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146686)

I'm not talking about chic radicalism of one end of the political spectrum or another, which has been a mostly harmless feature of academic life since the days of Hamlet.

But it turns out that terrorist do come from the ranks of educated, well to do people, not the oppressed masses. Radicalism is a luxury lifestyle; the oppressed masses are too busy eking out a living.

So, if you're concerned about terrorists, the university is the kind of place that will breed them. It's not the university's fault, they really can't do their job without exposing students to a variety of viewpoints, and that is what ensures there will always be fashionable radicalism on campus. Yet any person who has fallen under that spell can, under the right conditions, be transformed into a terrorist.

The right conditions seem to be this: living under a government that is oppressive, paternalistic, and deceitful.

Perhaps this story is best filed under "never do things by halves."

Re:Well, I suppose it makes a kind of sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22147120)

The question which naturally follows from this is, which national governments are not oppressive, paternalistic and deceitful?

Re:Well, I suppose it makes a kind of sense (2, Insightful)

The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147202)

Yes, it's a little known fact that all the suicide bombers in the world have all had Philosophy degrees. Grow up man, terrorists come from anywhere, the world isn't as black and white as you seem to think.

How long before we have a 2th kent state massacre? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22146774)

if thinks like students getting tased for trying for trying use the right for free Speech or because they are black / Muslim or any other thing that some rent a cop campus security keep happening. How long before some one gets shot?

Students and universities are under attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22146888)

Students and universities are under attack. Those who do nothing or collaborate are unpatriotic and expose the country to fascist danger. Fight back!

FYI (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22146946)

"Track foreign-born students; keep the undocumented out

Enforce the law against illegal immigrants? A horrific sign of incipient totalitarianism."

Not all foreign-born students are illegal immigrants.

Proof! (2, Insightful)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147394)

Finally we have proof that (all) Government(s) fear the education of the populace. As if there was any doubt before.

Free Speech Zone (3, Informative)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | more than 6 years ago | (#22147474)

I've worked for several colleges, and most had Free-Speech Zones where student organizations, community members where allowed to setup tables, pass out leaflets, etc. The other instututions that didn't have these, had a general understanding of "where" was appropriate to have peaceful protest, or speakers.

In all cases, these areas were central to the campus and often in areas where students tended to gather normally. I never observed police try to interfere with the students or speakers and only interfered outside these areas when they were breaking the law (e.g. using chalk on unviersity buildings walls where the rain wouldn't wash it off), harassing bystanders going to class, or were being loud as to interupt others right to peace. (e.g. interupting classes.)

Unfortunately in my experience, the only situations I observed censorship in higher ed were in the classrooms, where students were penalized in their academic work for arguing alternative theories (e.g. in the social sciences) that were not the prefered theories or ideologies of the professors. I found it was a lot easier to grit my teeth and agree in class and on paper with the professors than argue any alternative viewpoint.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...