Greg Lukianoff: Feds to Students: You Can't Say That

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Francis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

St_Francis

Guest
From the article: If that sounds hyperbolic, consider the letter itself. The first paragraph declares that the Montana findings should serve as a “blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country.” After outlining the specifics of the case, the letter states that only a stunningly broad definition of sexual harassment—“unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”—will now satisfy federal statutory requirements. This explicitly includes “verbal conduct,” otherwise known as speech.
The letter rejects the requirement, established by legal precedent and previous Education Department guidance, that sexual harassment must be “objectively offensive.” By eliminating this “reasonable person” standard—which the Education Department has required since at least 2003, and which protects the accused against unreasonable or insincere allegations—the right not to be offended has been enshrined in a federal mandate.
The letter further states that campuses have “an obligation to respond to student-on-student harassment” even when that harassment occurs off-campus. In some circumstances, the letter says, universities may take “disciplinary action against the harasser” even “prior to the completion of the Title IX and Title IV investigation/resolution.” In plain English: Students can be punished before they are found guilty of harassment.

Link

This ypsets me on so many levels!!! But one is that they force all this sexual information on *children, *and we have no recourse, and here they are mandating that no student offend anyone!

So, I have no right to keep my elementary-age children away from offensive sexual info being pushed on them, but suddenly when they go to college, *then *they are to be protected… from being offended by anything someone says.

It’s like seeing a dike made of sand with people continually plugging up this leak and that one, when if they would just make the dike out of rock, there would be no leaks at all.
 
What it comes down to is that We are Smarter than You Are, and therefore only We know what you and your children can hear, and when then can hear it, and when they shouldn’t hear it, and from whom, and when you should hear the opposite, and believe it as well, and you’d better believe it, you unenlightened Troll, or we’ll sic the Law on you so that you may be Shut Out from the sight of Decent, Rational, Tolerant and Open-Minded folks, who after all shall, and should, Inherit the Earth. Any questions? No? Thank you very much, and God Bless the United States of America.
 
For some time now, in colleges and universities, the First Amendment right to free speech has been undermined by the right not to be offended. And free speech has been losing.

And in some colleges, incoming freshman are subjected to ‘orientation’ programs designed to make them think they way they are supposed to think, and especially bury any type of Christian thinking that might be viewed as ‘traditionalist.’

Lukianoff wrote a book about this. In most cases, students simply go along to get along. Now the Dept of Education wishes to undermine their free speech even further.

And Lukianoff himself is no Christian traditionalist. He describes himself as an atheist liberal. He opposes thought control by both the left and the right. It is just that the left pretty much owns the universities and so have most of the control.
 
I’m already sick of this Government forcing unconstitutional junk down our throats.
We have another 3 years left of this from the Feds, but the States are doing it too,
at least the liberal States.
 
Times have sure changed.

Back when i was a student, it was considered quite the thing to go into a womens’ dormitory on some campus or other and succeed in coming out with a date for the evening. “Cold call dating”. Rather fun, and I think it was for the women as well.

It always worked, at least for me. But I will have to say sometimes the first inquiry or the second didn’t work out. I don’t think I ever offended any of them except perhaps those who were engaged and I didn’t know it. I will say that I always asked right away if they were engaged or in love and I would leave those alone.

Guys can’t do that anymore, I guess.
 
You put restrictions on people, you indeed can encourage rebelliousness. In this case, it might work for Conservatism.
 
St_Francis said:
From the article: If that sounds hyperbolic, consider the letter itself. The first paragraph declares that the Montana findings should serve as a “blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country.” After outlining the specifics of the case, the letter states that only a stunningly broad definition of sexual harassment—“unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”—will now satisfy federal statutory requirements. This explicitly includes “verbal conduct,” otherwise known as speech.
The letter rejects the requirement, established by legal precedent and previous Education Department guidance, that sexual harassment must be “objectively offensive.” By eliminating this “reasonable person” standard—which the Education Department has required since at least 2003, and which protects the accused against unreasonable or insincere allegations—the right not to be offended has been enshrined in a federal mandate.
The letter further states that campuses have “an obligation to respond to student-on-student harassment” even when that harassment occurs off-campus. In some circumstances, the letter says, universities may take “disciplinary action against the harasser” even “prior to the completion of the Title IX and Title IV investigation/resolution.” In plain English: Students can be punished before they are found guilty of harassment.

Link

This ypsets me on so many levels!!! But one is that they force all this sexual information on *children, *and we have no recourse, and here they are mandating that no student offend anyone!

So, I have no right to keep my elementary-age children away from offensive sexual info being pushed on them, but suddenly when they go to college, *then *they are to be protected… from being offended by anything someone says.

It’s like seeing a dike made of sand with people continually plugging up this leak and that one, when if they would just make the dike out of rock, there would be no leaks at all.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping:
 
JimG said:
Lukianoff wrote a book about this. In most cases, students simply go along to get along. Now the Dept of Education wishes to undermine their free speech even further.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that when you “go along” with something for four years and you didn’t agree with it at first, by the end, you probably do–or at least you agree with it more than you did.

In general, it goes like this (much of it not conscious, but it’s been proven to happen): You believe A. Someone tells you you must behave like you believe B. You don’t want to think you are a coward for not standing up for your beliefs, or an apathetic boor for not caring enough about them to mind acting contrary to them. So your mind sort of decides for itself that you must really believe in B at least a bit, or else you wouldn’t act as if you do. After four years of this, your beliefs can have shifted quite far in the direction of B, without any argument or reasoning at all. And if you think the thought control police don’t know about this effect, think again. It’s one of the standard effects of cognitive dissonance, and a particularly easy way to shift the beliefs of a large number of people toward a logically indefensible position.

Was there actually a time when universities were havens of free speech? If so, it’s long gone.

–Jen
 
revert_jen said:
The problem with this is that when you “go along” with something for four years and you didn’t agree with it at first, by the end, you probably do–or at least you agree with it more than you did.

In general, it goes like this (much of it not conscious, but it’s been proven to happen): You believe A. Someone tells you you must behave like you believe B. You don’t want to think you are a coward for not standing up for your beliefs, or an apathetic boor for not caring enough about them to mind acting contrary to them. So your mind sort of decides for itself that you must really believe in B at least a bit, or else you wouldn’t act as if you do. After four years of this, your beliefs can have shifted quite far in the direction of B, without any argument or reasoning at all. And if you think the thought control police don’t know about this effect, think again. It’s one of the standard effects of cognitive dissonance, and a particularly easy way to shift the beliefs of a large number of people toward a logically indefensible position.

Was there actually a time when universities were havens of free speech? If so, it’s long gone.

–Jen
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s true, and Mr. Lukianoff says somewhat the same thing toward the end of his book. Most of the campus “speech codes” which organization fights against are blatantly unconstitutional on their face–at least they were. Now, with the feds trying to limit the meaning of the first amendment to exclude speech which makes anyone uncomfortable, eventually it works itself into everyone’s understanding of the law, and we have lost a good portion of our freedom of speech.

(I expect that the same considerations will apply to the religious liberty protections of the first amendment.)
 
JimG said:
Y(I expect that the same considerations will apply to the religious liberty protections of the first amendment.)
Click to expand...
You mean like someone trying to turn “Freedom of religion” into “Freedom of worship?” Oh, wait, that’s already happening.

–Jen
 
revert_jen said:
You mean like someone trying to turn “Freedom of religion” into “Freedom of worship?” Oh, wait, that’s already happening.

–Jen
Click to expand...
While HHS undermines one part of the first amendment, Dep. of Education undermines another part…
 
revert_jen said:
You mean like someone trying to turn “Freedom of religion” into “Freedom of worship?” Oh, wait, that’s already happening.

–Jen
Click to expand...
A subtle difference but an extremely important one. As they say, the devil is in the details.

The communists gave Christians a freedom to worship…for a time… But then it of course was ripped out from under them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top