Disclaimer: I went to one of the schools mentioned in the article.
Honestly, I find many of the examples cited to be manipulative and not very compelling. Take for example the following:
Quote:
|
One of the PC campus’s worst excesses in suppressing unwanted speech is the drive by gays and their allies to banish or break Christian groups for their traditional beliefs on sexuality. Some 20 campuses have acted to de-recognize or de-fund religious groups that oppose homosexuality (as well as nonmarital sex), often accusing them of violating antidiscrimination rules—that is, refusing to let gays be members, or allowing them to belong but not serve as officers. The language of many policies would require a Democratic club to accept a Republican president, a Jewish group to allow a Holocaust-denying member, or a Muslim organization to accept a leader who practices voodoo.
|
Refusing to let gays be members is entirely different from refusing to let a Democratic club to accept a Republican president, and so on. Would we tolerate a whites-only club?
Or:
Quote:
|
In October, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal-immigration group. The students shouted: “They have no right to speak!”
|
First of all, Columbia allowed people like the Minutemen invited in the first place. It was disrupted (and it's unclear who started the melee, the college republicans or the chicano caucas), and secondly, the administration is looking into the appropriate disciplinary procedures.
Where do you draw the line between free expression and hate speech?
Hybrid Mode
