If it isn't strong enough to withstand a challenge from dopey fucking kids, maybe it should be destroyed.

College kids have been disruptive and political forever.

Administrators and the institutions in the past have survived. They didn't cave in.

Blame the adults. It's their fault.

_________________

Whatever helps the Illini continue to win in the Braggin' Rights Series, I am for.

Damnit if Mizzou hasn't had some outstanding football teams in the past 10-12 years

Its definitely more than just academia conspiring to try and destroy it.

Do you seriously think that what's going on on campuses is any worse or more absurd than anything that's gone on for decades? I would suggest in fact that the main thing that has changed is coverage and access to information such that any random dustup at any university gets covered nationally thanks to Koch-funded conservative groups whose major aim is complaining about free speech crises on campus. I also think all of this concern about our precious leaders of tomorrow frequently seems inversely proportional to the amount of concern directed at our leaders today. I thought The Free Speech Grifters was a far better name for this group than The Intellectual Dark Web nonsense they somehow agreed to without being embarrassed.

Charles Murray

This influence of academia notion is an empirical claim. I would also add if we're talking about demographic differences, most of the campuses written about in all the cookiecutter "PC Culture Run Amok" articles are elite universities themselves, far separate from the college experiences of the vast majority of students. Conservative assholes like going to places like Berkeley and the Ivies above all else and the reason isn't just because they're so influential or where the leaders of tomorrow study. It's mainly because they're far more likely to get the desired reaction (or any reaction at all really) at those spots than they would be at the colleges that the real Americans they pretend to care about are far more likely to attend.

Charles Murray isn't to be taken seriously?

Yeah, this is worse and more absurd than what's been going on at college campuses. This is not protesting a war. It's finding outrage, and causing serious damage to the schools over less than nothing.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Not as any kind of a scholar or academic, no. He goes looking for any data and argument he can cherrypick to arrive at the same desired conclusion his funders have of "destroy the welfare state."


Again, students have always found outrage at campuses, even long after Vietnam. PC complaints have been going on for decades now. If anything I'd say the number of people who want to find outraged kids to be outraged at has gone up, as has the coverage of said outraged kids.

Then why have a number of comedians, such as Bill Maher, Jerry Seinfeld, and even Frank Caliendo stopped doing college campuses? Why do they say that they are much different than they used to be and that you can't say anything without offending someone?

Do you have examples from past decades of students not allowing pretty mainstream thinkers like Ben Shapiro to speak through the use of violence? Why are ideas such as "safe spaces" inventions of the last five years? You're saying these things were always around?

_________________

It's not just college kids. To my knowledge, nobody in the past has really tried to shut down free speech. I also no longer feel it's truly about progress but there is usually more of a self-serving bias.

Talk about cherrypicking to arrive at a desired conclusion. Please show that these "days of rage" were common in the 80s or 90s.

As for Charles Murray, I do not think anyone has questioned his methods in collecting data. Certainly his conclusions or recommendations have his political bent, but that does not mean he deserves to be assaulted if he is invited to speak on campus.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

No but those are the result of administrators caving in and not being adults anymore.

Kids are the same.

Adults have become pussies.

_________________

Kids are not the same. Almost half say the First Amendment does not protect "hate" or hurtful speech: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... ew-survey/

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

I'd say the kids have changed too, but that is likely a result of the attitudes of the adults.

_________________

How can so many of the white male population in this country be manipulated and fooled into thinking college students are posing a serious threat to our way of life?

Alt right trolls have been saying this decades before there was even a term for their paranoid tiki torch white man propaganda. Nothing of substance has happened as a result.

A few of you have let your insecurities be preyed upon.

Have some fucking back bone.

College kids are annoying. Maybe a little more than they used to be.

The End.

_________________

Yeah they seem worse because they are appeased.

Adults not acting like adults feeds the beast.

_________________

You don't think it's a problem that the majority of the future managerial class thinks freedom of speech doesn't count if it hurts someone's feelings?

Saying this is bullshit behavior is showing backbone. I'm not sure what you are doing. Getting mad at what exactly?

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

I think they mean well but they're mostly naive and idealistic. They still don't vote so ultimately it's just noise. MANY of their opinions will naturally evolve. It's laughable how MANY adults are bothered by this.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

In the body of the article it was noted that they didn't have the final enrollment numbers but were projecting such. Additionally, it's somewhat disingenuous to cite a 8 month old article that is almost as relevant to today's discussion as the weather. Especially if, as you claim, you know so much about the school, but deliberately chose to ignore the more recent trend. Why is that?

And militant activism as you cite it is a completely empty remark that means nothing without qualification. And frankly given your earlier postings here on language, probably is as suited to serve your narrow political aim.

But your concerns for college kids being "screamed" at for being privileged is oddly treating the kids you seen to consider as snowflakey while at the same time completely disregarding the experience and results of the other kids on campus. And if you claim to know so much about columbia, you know that it cuts across racial and darkly religious lines.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Managerial Class? Is that an insult or claim of value?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

No your point in response to Nas related to something more than hate speech on College campuses. As far as free speech and who advocates for it and agains it both sides are guilty of it frankly. Colleges for the most part probably do sway more liberal i guess but for the most part people tend to be liberal when they younger and more conservative as they get older. I don't think it is necessarily correct to quell conservative viewpoints but is it necessarily a "liberal thing" for one to do so? I doubt it and if pushed how hard would you think it would be for me to dig up all of the so called "liberal' causes that have been quashed on college campuses over the years? Quick answer would be not very.

_________________

Wait a second, are we talking about what people find or do not find funny or the issue of free speech? My suggestion wasn't that values remain fixed over time but that the idea of an impending free speech crisis has been going on forever, which it has. I don't really care if students don't find particular comedians particularly funny anymore, and I fail to see how certain comedians disinterest in going to campuses is supposed to be evidence of much of anything, particularly when the comedians in question are all pretty old at this point anyway (and in the case of the 3 you mentioned, not very funny anymore).

In the article I linked above, Bill Burr explicitly laughs at Maher's self-victimization on this issue.


I think if you think Ben Shapiro constitutes a "pretty mainstream thinker," this conversation is probably DOA. I also think that if I thought Shapiro was somehow mainstream, I'd definitely be a helluva lot more concerned about the state of discourse nationally rather than on campus.

More to the point and as I noted previously, one of the issues aside from the coverage of college incidents is the incentivization to invite speakers likely to cause them in the first place. This definitely applies to Milo, who almost singlehandedly accounts for spikes in disinvitations and violence in most numbers on this, but also IMO applies to someone like Shapiro as well. Guys like Milo and Shapiro are not going anywhere to engage in a good ol' fashioned exchange of ideas but to incite a reaction. And I'm not about to say that those who do react are therefore in the right, but I also have very little tears to shed for people who troll for a reaction and than whine about the reaction they wanted all along.

I see the rise in ridiculous safe spaces thing as an outgrowth of the consumer model of the university (and note here that I do think they're defensible in some contexts but not attempting to defend them altogether in this post). Demands like that are simply the result of the increasingly corporate nature of the university, and one of the fundamentals of that shift is the customer is always right. On that plank too, I don't have many tears for conservatives on that issue either since they're the ones who have been pushing the most for the corporatization of all domains of life, and I'd likewise add that the crying about people booing or heckling their very important speeches sounds to me like their own demands for safe spaces and positive rights.

If Ben Shapiro’s views are somehow now viewed as “whacky,” we’ve already gone off the rails for political discourse in this country. People like to call him a Nazi (even though he’s a Jew) and some right-wing nut job, and it’s completely preposterous. It’s a perfect example of how no one can handle views that simply disagree with their own. Ben Shapiro is nothing more than a Jewish Libertarian.

_________________

Well stated Zeph.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

So a Nazi?

_________________

You've just described Stephen Miller.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Yes but if I make the exact same case for Louis Farrakhan then somehow I am vilified for being a supporter of Louis Farrakhan. Remember or conveniently not there was a thread started where Obama was bashed like hell for holding a conversation with Farrakhan. Think about for a second. He was bashed for having the audacity to hold a conversation with Louis Farrakhan. Now the same people that had an issue with a guy for exercising "free speech" rights are hypocritically bashing students at Universities for killing free speech.

_________________

I guess it is all equal... I mean, right wingers protested and didn’t let Bernie Sanders speak at his rallies, so I guess it’s all even.

Oh wait, that was Left Wing protestors too!

_________________

Not a single book by Murray from Losing Ground on would ever come close to surviving peer review, even if the policy prescriptions were chucked out altogether. So yes, I am quite comfortable in maintaining my view that he shouldn't be taken seriously as a scholar. I guess now's the part where you can say that the reason his work would never be published in an academic context is because college professors are just too PC to grapple with his scholarly work citing numbers from Mankind Quarterly or something.

Racial and "darkly religious lines"? What does that even mean. The reach of your post is just jargon. You have a "narrow political aim". I enjoy talking about the basic tenets of this civilization. I am for free speech and equality. I am not for unwritten special rules based on your skin color. This goes both ways.

There should not be areas just for POC, just like there should not be whites only areas. I thought we established this years ago but apparently not.

If you think being yelled at for being white and sitting in the wrong area of the dining hall is ok just let me know. I can cite several other examples on campus.

As for enrollment you are cherry picking data. One is a clear reflection of what happened in the aftermath of the protests. The other is projected enrollment for the future. The damage was still done to many careers.

Notice the word "could" : http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/educ ... 33943.html

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Cherry picking the data here. Charles Murray has a PhD from MIT. His co-author of the Bell Curve was a Harvard Professor. What part of their research is in question?

This is not to support their conclusions, which are admittedly harsh at best. But how is their data in question.

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

It seems you are attacking a person rather than refuting the data. Slander isn't really argument.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don