Harvard writer: Free speech threatens liberalism and must be destroyed

[petegz28]

If this Harvard University student got her way, free speech on campus would be abolished and professors with dissenting views fired, because radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy and the First Amendment is a barrier preventing modern colleges from fulfilling their proper role as indoctrination camps.

Her name is Sandra Korn. She is a senior at Harvard and columnist for the Harvard Crimson.

In a recent column, Korn unambiguously insisted that the university should stop guaranteeing professors and students the right to hold controversial views and pursue research that challenges liberalism.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” asked Korn in her column.

The column’s subtitle was even more direct: “Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice.”

Korn cited several instances of perspectives that clashed with her own being banned from campus as triumphant examples of the way Harvard should be run. The firing of Subramanian Swamy, a Harvard summer school instructor who was dismissed for his anti-Islamic views, was one such triumph.

She also invoked the academic boycott of Israel — something condemned by Harvard President Drew Faust and numerous other university presidents — as an example of the kind of tactics leftists should defend and use in order to get their way on campus.

Korn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Her sharp rejection of intellectual freedom — a value enshrined by U.S. law and central to the success of American institutions of higher learning — is common among left-wing activists at elite colleges. Last week, Erin Ching, a sophomore at Swarthmore College, took a similar view when she criticized her university for committing the unforgivable crime of allowing a conservative — Christian thinker Robert George — to speak on campus.

“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,” she said, according to the Daily Gazette. “I don’t think we should be tolerating [George’s] conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”

George, a Swarthmore alumnus, came to campus to debate Cornell West.

Pro-life students at the University of Alabama were victims of a similar belief that conservative views should not be publicly espoused on campus. (RELATED: U. of Alabama censors pro-life students for ‘offensive’ poster)


And at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, merely emailing an inoffensive .gif of President Barack Obama kicking a door triggers an investigation. The perpetrator was forced to apologize for committing a racial insensitivity. (RELATED: Student forced to apologize for emailing pic of Obama kicking a door, because RACISM)


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/23/ha...#ixzz2uOjks5wn

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

The guy from Kansas was tweeting that he was hopeful that gun rights supporters would be gunned down in cold blood, as I recall, and that was the reason for the outrage. Not that he was pro-control per se, but more that he was pro NRA folk being gunned down in cold blood...which is what Baby Lee was referring too, and what clearly went over your head.

No, that's not really what he said.
But even if he did--the principle is the same--you're admitting there is some line where faculty should be disciplined for what they say. You're the same as the Harvard girl. You just have different opinions on where the line is. 10 people will have 10 different opinions where the line is.

But the Daily Caller article is calling her out for suggesting ANY LINE when a line is exactly what righties have been calling for ever since it was decided that every college professor is a communist.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

No, that's not really what he said.
But even if he did--the principle is the same--you're admitting there is some line where faculty should be disciplined for what they say. You're the same as the Harvard girl. You just have different opinions on where the line is. 10 people will have 10 different opinions where the line is.

But the Daily Caller article is calling her out for suggesting ANY LINE when a line is exactly what righties have been calling for ever since it was decided that every college professor is a communist.

Yes, it really is. He tweeted that he hoped the sons and daughters of NRA supporters would shot and killed. Here is a link to a story with the tweet in it--

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4164298.html

I made sure to use a liberal approved link.

The Kansas professor advocated a commission of a crime---murder by handgun, specifically. The Daily Caller is calling out the Harvard girl for advocating that their be no line...that they simply not let anyone voice anything that is not liberal approved.

If a conservative professor at Harvard were to say he hoped Obama got shot tomorrow and called the First Lady a wookie, then I would certainly agree with him being removed.

The gal at Harvard is advocating banning speakers before they speak (she is advocating that those speakers she opposed not be allowed onto campus in the first place)...while in the Kansas situation, no one prevented him from speaking, they merely held him accountable for what he said.

Not that I expect you to see the difference....criticizing the left is something that no one in DC has ever seen you do.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Yes, it really is. He tweeted that he hoped the sons and daughters of NRA supporters would shot and killed. Here is a link to a story with the tweet in it--

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4164298.html

I made sure to use a liberal approved link.

The Kansas professor advocated a commission of a crime---murder by handgun, specifically. The Daily Caller is calling out the Harvard girl for advocating that their be no line...that they simply not let anyone voice anything that is not liberal approved.

If a conservative professor at Harvard were to say he hoped Obama got shot tomorrow and called the First Lady a wookie, then I would certainly agree with him being removed.

The gal at Harvard is advocating banning speakers before they speak (she is advocating that those speakers she opposed not be allowed onto campus in the first place)...while in the Kansas situation, no one prevented him from speaking, they merely held him accountable for what he said.

Not that I expect you to see the difference....criticizing the left is something that no one in DC has ever seen you do.

I know what he said--that next time there's a shooting, let it be the NRA supporters kid killed. He wasn't wishing for a shooting.

Like I said, the point is that you agree there's a line that can be crossed. You're arguing about details when the article is whining about the suggestion of a line in the first place.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I know what he said--that next time there's a shooting, let it be the NRA supporters kid killed. He wasn't wishing for a shooting.

Like I said, the point is that you agree there's a line that can be crossed. You're arguing about details when the article is whining about the suggestion of a line in the first place.

The article is not suggesting a line...the article is suggesting that there be nothing but silence. There is a difference that you seem to fail to comprehend. A difference, I would wager, that you would readily see if the roles were reversed, and the Harvard article was written by a conservative.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

The idea that this article is some great example of liberal intolerance and problems with universities is dumb. It needs to be pointed out. Also, disagreement is not a requirement for commenting on overzealousness.

It seems like a pretty good example of liberal intolerance to me.

[Easy 6]

No worries, my child is only going to a 75K Commie Camp.

College professors, please include your defense of ideas here...

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by patteeu

It seems like a pretty good example of liberal intolerance to me.

That sounds like a you problem.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

That sounds like a you problem.

Actually, mr. t, it is a great example of what is wrong with liberalism. Long has it been stated that the "Tolerant Left" is anything but. Korn could not have given a better example of this. Agree with me or be forced to . She and others view disagreement and debate as "obstruction" to their agenda as if they are entitled to their agenda coming to fruition.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Actually, mr. t, it is a great example of what is wrong with liberalism. Long has it been stated that the "Tolerant Left" is anything but. Korn could not have given a better example of this. Agree with me or be forced to . She and others view disagreement and debate as "obstruction" to their agenda as if they are entitled to their agenda coming to fruition.

Do you think southern white racists make good examples of what is wrong with conservatives?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Do you think southern white racists make good examples of what is wrong with conservatives?

"I'm not saying the Tea Party is racist, but there's certainly a racist element"

Says someone on left left every God damned day.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

"I'm not saying the Tea Party is racist, but there's certainly a racist element"

Says someone on left left every God damned day.

Pretty much. But then the same would get outraged if someone said, "I'm not saying all black people are criminals, but it seems like every time you see someone get arrested on TV they're black."

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

"I'm not saying the Tea Party is racist, but there's certainly a racist element"

Says someone on left left every God damned day.

And?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by blaise

Pretty much. But then the same would get outraged if someone said, "I'm not saying all black people are criminals, but it seems like every time you see someone get arrested on TV they're black."

Hopefully you see the important difference between the two...

[blaise]

Originally Posted by Fish

Hopefully you see the important difference between the two...

Not really. Both generalizations are normally used to try and unfairly categorize a group in a certain way.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by blaise

Not really. Both generalizations are normally used to try and unfairly categorize a group in a certain way.

You don't see the difference between making generalizations about a political group and making generalizations about a racial group?