I don't get it. Free Speech Under Threat At University? (Added Extra)

[Lightspeaker]

In this thread: lots of people who have no idea about the UK University system, the position of student unions, the state of internal student activism or the positions of student politics or any of the controversies of the past few years...comment on issues to do with the UK University system.

Don't you know, cis hetero white guys (with constant internet connections) are literally the most oppressed people in all of history.

Funny that you say that in connection to UK universities. Working class, white boys are actually significantly disproportionately underrepresented in UK Universities and have been for years. To the point that Universities are being specifically told to target them for recruitment.

This problem goes back as far as 2007, at least. Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6314055.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20898608
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35540700

Over the years in this country race and gender issues for university recruitment have for the most part disappeared as the primary problem, in fact I seem to recall an article which I can't find saying that this year had the highest number of girls going to University than ever before (significantly outstripping the number of boys)...but those issues have been replaced with major class-based and income-based issues, in part thanks to the stupidity of tuition fees.

You can take the piss all you like and callously trivialise the problem if you wish. But its a very real issue here, and isn't a joking matter for the Universities or the government.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread need to be reminded that the problems the US has aren't the same problems that everywhere else has.

 

[Areloch]

Just to attempt to ensure that people are aware of the definition of censorship(as it appears to be forgotten sometimes), allow me to quote myself:

https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship

An except right from the top:

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

Further, the definition of censorship:

"The system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc" [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship]

The system or practice of censoring, as enacted by a censor. So what a 'censor'?

"A person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc." [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring]

So the actual definition is the practice of someone(or a large body) examining books, movies, letters and thus the expressions or actions or ideas of a peice of content and removing things - obviously up to, and including, the entirety of the work.

Some more examples just so we can affirm I'm not cherry picking:

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship
http://www.yourdictionary.com/censorship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censorship
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=censorship+definition

And for giggles:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suppress

The word censorship does not mean 'evil and bad', it is merely the act of removing or suppressing the expression of certain ideas on moralistic or political grounds.
It's often USED for bad purposes, but the word itself does not imply as such.

A bunch of young adults complaining until a University denies a speaker or attempting to actively distrupt and stop a speaker who is currently presenting are acts of censorship, because it's people trying to stop someone from expressing their ideas based on their moralistic/political preferences.

Whether you think the definition is too broad or not is irrelevent in the face of what the definition of the word actually is.

 

[visiblenoise]

Argue all you like over the technicalities of whether it's "censorship" or not, it's still an incredibly shitty and immature approach that doesn't bode well for the near future when these kids will supposedly become fully functioning adults.

 

[shrekfan246]

You can take the piss all you like and callously trivialise the problem if you wish. But its a very real issue here, and isn't a joking matter for the Universities or the government.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread need to be reminded that the problems the US has aren't the same problems that everywhere else has.

Yes, I'm constantly reminded how white guys are incapable of taking the jokes that they throw out at everyone else.

I feel I should mention, however, that while it might have been easy to construe it as being such given the context of this thread, my comment was not aimed at any specific person who may have been the catalyst which caused the creation of said thread. Apologies if it wasn't clear that I'm actually just taking the piss out of the guys who do things like spend ten hours trawling through Twitter to find something one person said that they disagree with so that they can whip up all of their internet friends into a fury over it.

Also, on that note "working class" people usually tend to be ruled out of the generalization I made in the first place. Perhaps I'm making wild assumptions, but I have to figure that the angry white boys who spend all of their time whinging on the internet probably are better off in their lives than most working class folk; generally I consider the working class to be the people who actually, you know, work. Unless you live somewhere where the definitions of "working class" and "middle class" are interchangeable, in which case carry on.

(EDIT: Since I'm sure it'll get me some ire as well, I'm also not saying that middle class people don't work, just that the people who seem to have a disproportionate amount of free time to spend surfing the internet likely aren't in a position where they have to basically live paycheck to paycheck.)

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

No platforming is not censorship. A university is an organization that has debts to every student and should ideally work to accomodate as many students as it can with its limited resources.

Well yes that is censorship, that is a textbook definition of censorship "preventing someone from speaking there view to an audience because you don't like it"

Lets not pretend that's how it works, there is no democratic balancing act that takes into account what students want, certain views fall under protected umbrellas and certain views do not.

No kidding? "I like to fuck puppies!" is never going to get the public hearing as, "Stop shooting unarmed black people." The general observation that some views are preferred is neither wrong, nor suspicious unless you specify the views in question.

The issue being MarsAtlus saying this isn't censorship when this is censorship.

So... the issue is just one internet poster you know saying something that you don't agree with?! Oh fuck, I had no idea, light beacons, we must send to Gondor for aid! Seriously though, who gives a shit if it's censorship or pudding, or assholes with arms in them? A private institution trying to make money gets to choose who they PAY to speak at their institution. That's how shit works.

Are you seriously saying it was the SJWs that caused him to have a stroke? With their free speech? That stuff's dangerous, someone should do something about it...

The guy is 74 and he's constantly working.
He posted a silly Tweet and all of a sudden, his own community turned against him.
That can wear an old person out.
I'm not advocating for censorship (and neither would Dawkins).
What should happen is that people should stop pandering to these morons who can't take any form of criticism, while criticising everything and everyone themselves.

I just read an article about a group of student protesters in a US university who complained to the administration that homework and other school assignments are interfering with their activism (no, it wasn't The Onion).
These people are dumb and the whole world needs to see that.

Yes, SJW's entered an evil conspiracy with his lifetime of atherosclerosis and cholesterol deposits, and gave him a stroke.

ahhh HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"Take that, causality!"

normally I fall on the side of balking at overdone political correctness, but in this case, this is just stupid. It is not censorship if you do not allow someone to stand on your roof and shout, No association owes anyone a podium, and certainly not an audience.

It's not even that, it's if you don't allow people to PAY them to stand on your roof and shout. There is money changing hands here, which makes it even more laughable.

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

I'm currently studying at one of the Universities that was at the centre of a 'Free Speech/Censorship' shitstorm a whilst back (UoY) and well...Ive never actually met any of the 'radical authoritarian left' students you guys seems to be so hell bent on denouncing. Milo was meant to ( I don't think he ever even bothered to come to York) speak at one point, after being invited by the Tory and UKIP society, but after the labour and socialist (who are different from the Labour society because students) societies threatened (they literally only organised a facebook group) to have a demonstration outside (not inside disrupting the event, just outside of it pointing out that university resources which where already in short supply going to a man who had made some pretty beastly accusations at some students and faculty members) he didn't. Because the people inviting him couldn't find the resources to host and pay for his arrival.
The entire thing was much like the primary attraction of York, Shambles.

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

Another round of this delicious peach sherbet! Yum. Seriously though, this isn't about "Free Speech", it's about competing for a platform in an scholastic business. If you can't talk about things in real terms, you're only inviting an echo not a discussion.

There's such strong irony in your closing statement I'm not even sure of how to respond to it.
No, it's not about that. It has a tendency to do with the political leanings of an extremely vocal group on Western Campuses that attempt to silence opposition rather than respond to it.

Holy F5 Warrior Batman! You got to my post in the minute between my posting it, and editing it. Yowza.

Here's my post now: "Another round of this delicious peach sherbet! Yum. Seriously though, this isn't about "Free Speech", it's about competing for a platform in a scholastic business, because that is what a university is. It's a big fucking money maker, part of a much larger scholastic economy which in turn generates trillions in debt. This is not about freedom of speech under any legal framework, it's just about changing social morays and the people who are (predictably) histrionic about it. If you can't talk about things in real terms, you're only inviting an echo not a discussion."

and maybe you can drop the "vocal minorities ruining it for me" shit, I don't love it.

I don't see anything about minorities in there. Do you? Maybe you could point it out for me. That'd be real nice of you.

So you admit that the, "Extremely vocal group on Western Campuses" are the MAJORITY?!

*Walks away muttering to himself*

 

[Something Amyss]

It may be a little naive of me.
I like to hold faith in the idea that when exposed to a truly bad idea that common sense and reason will win out for the vast majority of people.

And this is how we end up with a guy who says Mexicans are rapists and suggests barring Muslims from entering the country within striking distance of the White House.

 

[Something Amyss]

If an alcoholics anonymous prevents a member from encouraging others to drink more alcohol, yes, it is censorship.

Okay, then. That's really all I needed to know. Censorship is truly a meaningless word. The very act of living in a society restricts freedom, and thus we are inherently censored all the time on pretty much every issue.

At that point, what is there even to discuss?

I haven't been able to switch away from this avatar for almost precisely that reason, though. It's just too adorable!

I'm pretty sure it would be a crime to switch it, anyway. The DAWWWWWs, dammit!

 

[Areloch]

If an alcoholics anonymous prevents a member from encouraging others to drink more alcohol, yes, it is censorship.

Okay, then. That's really all I needed to know. Censorship is truly a meaningless word. The very act of living in a society restricts freedom, and thus we are inherently censored all the time on pretty much every issue.

At that point, what is there even to discuss?

Presumably, whether the censorship should be occurring or not. As I said before, censorship isn't inherently bad or evil, but as a tool, it can be used for bad purposes.
The discussion should be about whether it should be used in this case or not, not whether it's censorship or not(because it is).

Most people agree that, for example, hardcore gore shouldn't be shown in public as well as public nudity(decency laws and all that). Acts of censorship, but ones we, as a society collectively agree are justifiable.

The question is, is what's happening with no platforming or people actively trying to disrupt speakers they dislike at universities justifiable censorship.

Edit: For further clarity on the matter, the definition may be broad, but it's hardly meaningless. You're implying that because 'censorship' covers such a wide stroke that the word has no value, but the exact same thing could be said about, say 'weapon':

Any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

A rock? Weapon. Knife? Weapon. Chunk of wood? Weapon. Using your same logic, the word weapon has no meaning, when obviously it does.

 

[NiPah]

No platforming is not censorship. A university is an organization that has debts to every student and should ideally work to accomodate as many students as it can with its limited resources.

Well yes that is censorship, that is a textbook definition of censorship "preventing someone from speaking there view to an audience because you don't like it"

Lets not pretend that's how it works, there is no democratic balancing act that takes into account what students want, certain views fall under protected umbrellas and certain views do not.

No kidding? "I like to fuck puppies!" is never going to get the public hearing as, "Stop shooting unarmed black people." The general observation that some views are preferred is neither wrong, nor suspicious unless you specify the views in question.

The issue being MarsAtlus saying this isn't censorship when this is censorship.

So... the issue is just one internet poster you know saying something that you don't agree with?! Oh fuck, I had no idea, light beacons, we must send to Gondor for aid! Seriously though, who gives a shit if it's censorship or pudding, or assholes with arms in them? A private institution trying to make money gets to choose who they PAY to speak at their institution. That's how shit works.
about it...

I'm not sure how much I care about the actual censorship itself, I'd have to learn a bit more about student unions in the UK before i could make an opinion that's worth a damn. I will say it seems the governing body banning groups because they disagree or believe their speech may be insensitive to others doesn't sit well with me but yeah I don't know so take that with a grain of salt.

My only issue is Mars saying this wasn't censorship when I believe it is, small issue I know but it's been an on going back and forth for awhile over what constitutes cnsorship and what doesn't.

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

No platforming is not censorship. A university is an organization that has debts to every student and should ideally work to accomodate as many students as it can with its limited resources.

Well yes that is censorship, that is a textbook definition of censorship "preventing someone from speaking there view to an audience because you don't like it"

Lets not pretend that's how it works, there is no democratic balancing act that takes into account what students want, certain views fall under protected umbrellas and certain views do not.

No kidding? "I like to fuck puppies!" is never going to get the public hearing as, "Stop shooting unarmed black people." The general observation that some views are preferred is neither wrong, nor suspicious unless you specify the views in question.

The issue being MarsAtlus saying this isn't censorship when this is censorship.

So... the issue is just one internet poster you know saying something that you don't agree with?! Oh fuck, I had no idea, light beacons, we must send to Gondor for aid! Seriously though, who gives a shit if it's censorship or pudding, or assholes with arms in them? A private institution trying to make money gets to choose who they PAY to speak at their institution. That's how shit works.
about it...

I'm not sure how much I care about the actual censorship itself, I'd have to learn a bit more about student unions in the UK before i could make an opinion that's worth a damn. I will say it seems the governing body banning groups because they disagree or believe their speech may be insensitive to others doesn't sit well with me but yeah I don't know so take that with a grain of salt.

My only issue is Mars saying this wasn't censorship when I believe it is, small issue I know but it's been an on going back and forth for awhile over what constitutes cnsorship and what doesn't.

...With some random person on the internet. Is the end of that statement. I'm sorry, I understand that for some reason it's important, this thing between you and MarsAtlas, but it's not the basis of a real argument or debate. Two people who are ignoring the actual issues at hand in favor of a running semantic argument isn't something that I think you should be proud of.

Maybe the issue with some of the "Why are people angry" thread can be summed up in your running semantic argument.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Apologies if it wasn't clear that I'm actually just taking the piss out of the guys who do things like spend ten hours trawling through Twitter to find something one person said that they disagree with so that they can whip up all of their internet friends into a fury over it.

Which is understandable. My point was more the fact that your post suffered somewhat from an unfortunately common problem around here of waving a very large paintbrush around, figuratively speaking.

Again, its hard to understand for people who haven't lived through it in the UK. Many years ago now University was funded by student grants. Over the intervening years there has been a gigantic drive by successive governments to commodify University in an American-style fashion in the name of getting more people into University (a cynic might say as part of the plot to get unemployment numbers down); and to achieve this a system of fees was introduced and government-backed student loans was brought into place.

This has had many and varied effects upon society and the place of University education within society. Particularly when the cap on fees was changed. Originally fees were capped at ~?3000 per year; the assumption was that some would charge less than the cap and the top Universities would charge at the cap. In practice this meant pretty much every University charged the maximum amount, because to do otherwise would be pointless and would also result in them being seen as a 'lesser' institution.

A few years ago that cap was raised. I can't remember the exact details (purely because I got in when it was ?3k, so I've not looked at fees since then) but as I recall the agreement was that the cap would be raised to ?9000, but to charge more than ?7000 the University would have to apply and argue that they needed to be able to charge higher. The assumption (again) was that many Universities would charge less. In practice it meant practically every University immediately set their fees to ?7k and everyone applied for 'special exemption' to charge ?9k. Which they now nearly all do, or close to that.

Couple that with the increased competition for jobs (thanks to VASTLY more graduates being around), damage to the economy and various other problems...its easy to see why its had not insignificant effects. With the poorest parts of society suffering the worst from it and white males from poor families apparently suffering the most.

I'm drifting off on a tangent here, but I thought the above might be informative. I was in University for quite a long time across multiple degrees, lived through the whole issue of fees and am friends with a significant number of people with enormous debts and no real way to pay them back. And so I feel quite strongly about the whole economic and class problem resulting from this; because I've seen how hard students from poorer backgrounds have had to work to get it together. I was in an extremely privileged position for my own degrees, as my grandparents offered to pay my fees (when I started they were still ?3k); but few others had an opportunity like that, and I'm acutely and constantly aware of how fortunate I am compared to many, many of my friends. So I take some umbrage when people dismiss such issues with a joke; but I accept I've perhaps read a little into your post more than you intended.

 

[sageoftruth]

I agree that the college is free to choose whom it gives a platform to, but these sound like cases where that decision was influenced by activism.

As was their selection in the first place.

As far as silencing people goes, there's a rather large difference between silencing people and not letting them speak on a given piece of property. It's very much along the lines of the difference between prohibition and "closing time."

"You don't have to go home, but you can't hate speech here."

I've been talking about this with my roommate. I can't yet tell where I stand on the matter. He made a good point when I brought up the whole "safe space" thing, simply by asking "what is it?". I tried to explain it to him, but only ended up showing myself how little I actually understand it. How exactly do these things work? How is everything enforced? And, I think what matters to me a lot is, are they intended to remove toxic conduct, toxic ideas, or both? I'm apologize if I'm assuming you're the expert on this whole thing, but I kind of lost sleep over this last night. Curiosity and uncertainty can do that to me. Feel free to go private if we're going too far off-topic.

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

I agree that the college is free to choose whom it gives a platform to, but these sound like cases where that decision was influenced by activism.

As was their selection in the first place.

As far as silencing people goes, there's a rather large difference between silencing people and not letting them speak on a given piece of property. It's very much along the lines of the difference between prohibition and "closing time."

"You don't have to go home, but you can't hate speech here."

I've been talking about this with my roommate. I can't yet tell where I stand on the matter. He made a good point when I brought up the whole "safe space" thing, simply by asking "what is it?". I tried to explain it to him, but only ended up showing myself how little I actually understand it. How exactly do these things work? How is everything enforced? And, I think what matters to me a lot is, are they intended to remove toxic conduct, toxic ideas, or both? I'm apologize if I'm assuming you're the expert on this whole thing, but I kind of lost sleep over this last night. Curiosity and uncertainty can do that to me. Feel free to go private if we're going too far off-topic.

It's probably more telling that it's such a non-issue for most of us that we haven't even heard of it.

 

[sageoftruth]

I agree that the college is free to choose whom it gives a platform to, but these sound like cases where that decision was influenced by activism.

As was their selection in the first place.

As far as silencing people goes, there's a rather large difference between silencing people and not letting them speak on a given piece of property. It's very much along the lines of the difference between prohibition and "closing time."

"You don't have to go home, but you can't hate speech here."

I've been talking about this with my roommate. I can't yet tell where I stand on the matter. He made a good point when I brought up the whole "safe space" thing, simply by asking "what is it?". I tried to explain it to him, but only ended up showing myself how little I actually understand it. How exactly do these things work? How is everything enforced? And, I think what matters to me a lot is, are they intended to remove toxic conduct, toxic ideas, or both? I'm apologize if I'm assuming you're the expert on this whole thing, but I kind of lost sleep over this last night. Curiosity and uncertainty can do that to me. Feel free to go private if we're going too far off-topic.

It's probably more telling that it's such a non-issue for most of us that we haven't even heard of it.

Well, it is a fairly new concept isn't it? It's been less than a year since it got brought up on this forum and then subsequently mentioned in the Economist, and then BBC.

 

[P. K. Qu'est Que Ce]

I agree that the college is free to choose whom it gives a platform to, but these sound like cases where that decision was influenced by activism.

As was their selection in the first place.

As far as silencing people goes, there's a rather large difference between silencing people and not letting them speak on a given piece of property. It's very much along the lines of the difference between prohibition and "closing time."

"You don't have to go home, but you can't hate speech here."

I've been talking about this with my roommate. I can't yet tell where I stand on the matter. He made a good point when I brought up the whole "safe space" thing, simply by asking "what is it?". I tried to explain it to him, but only ended up showing myself how little I actually understand it. How exactly do these things work? How is everything enforced? And, I think what matters to me a lot is, are they intended to remove toxic conduct, toxic ideas, or both? I'm apologize if I'm assuming you're the expert on this whole thing, but I kind of lost sleep over this last night. Curiosity and uncertainty can do that to me. Feel free to go private if we're going too far off-topic.

It's probably more telling that it's such a non-issue for most of us that we haven't even heard of it.

Well, it is a fairly new concept isn't it? It's been less than a year since it got brought up on this forum and then subsequently mentioned in the Economist, and then BBC.

I don't know, it's not something that I've ever paid attention to. Some things are so obviously outrage fodder to me that it's not worth it. I realize that I'll get "starving African child" for this, but this kind of thing is so agonizingly low on my list of worries or cares that I can't even pretend outrage. I'm more worried about getting hit by a car today than I am about the "Authoritarian Left" finally hitting that slippery slope everyone since Nixon has been warning of. The internet is great for this though, because it's slowly condensing and concentrating the hysterics, mentally ill, and just plain socially incompetent out of the mainstream by exposing all of us to them all of the time. We're building a new kind of immune system, and that always hurts a bit.

 

[Bad Player]

In this thread: lots of people who have no idea about the UK University system, the position of student unions, the state of internal student activism or the positions of student politics or any of the controversies of the past few years...comment on issues to do with the UK University system.

So... how do they work, then?

I think your last post provided valuable background information on the UK university system, but it doesn't explain/explore the particularities of the actual issue, which you're alluding to here.

 

[Terminal Blue]

As someone who actually works in a UK university.

1) "Free speech in universities" never existed. There are no specific protections for you to say whatever you want simply from being on campus grounds, it's just another public space with all the limitations on free speech which would apply to any other public space.

2) "Student unions" are not "universities". Student unions are private organizations run democratically by the NUS on behalf of students. The fact that they operate on university grounds is entirely incidental. Universities are public institutions, student unions are private institutions. That's a fundamental difference in terms of their mandate and responsibilities.

3) There is a difference between having the right to speak and being given a platform to speak. The fact that the Prime Minister gets to air his views on television and I don't is not a violation of my right to free speech, for example. The same is true in the case of speaking events organized by student unions, merely refusing to host someone or give them a timeslot in which to speak does not constitute a violation of their free speech. Unions have the right to final say as to the distribution of their resources and facilities, even if particular students who are members of the union disagree.

4) Our laws (well, actually European laws, which is one major concern if we leave the European union because those laws will no longer be constitutional) have a pretty rigorous definition of what constitutes free speech (or free expression). Importantly, this definition neither includes any of the things being described as necessary for "free speech" in this thread, nor does it prevent actual censorship by the government wherein that censorship can be seen as beneficial to the preservation of public order.

5) This is not to say that the general ethos of academic free speech is not genuinely under threat at the moment, it totally is, but this pointless tone argument about whether students are too angry when they do what they have the legal right to do merely detracts from he far more insidious effect that the commercialization and professionalization of higher education is having on academic free speech.

Universities are being treated as daycare centres for young adults, not by the "authoritarian left" or any of these meaningless buzzwords, but by the very real lack of understanding right wing neoliberal politicians tend to have for what actually makes the academic environment free. Talk about "empowering consumers" or "increasing competitiveness" sounds great if you're running a fast food restaurant, but these things cannot be applied to academia without eroding academic free speech at a pretty fundamental level. Academics cannot be free to say what they want and also responsible to "empowered consumers", they cannot be free to say what they want while also facing the risk of punishment for insufficient "competitiveness". There are huge advantages to professionalization in this regard and in some ways it's made academia a more inclusive and less elitist place, but in terms of free speech it's incredibly corrosive.

The fact that we focus so intensely on students as if they are important merely reflects the neoliberal idea that university is a service industry. This may sound insane, but what makes any of you think that the purpose of a university is to provide a service to students?

 

[sageoftruth]

As someone who actually works in a UK university.

1) "Free speech in universities" never existed. There are no specific protections for you to say whatever you want simply from being on campus grounds, it's just another public space with all the limitations on free speech which would apply to any other public space.

2) "Student unions" are not "universities". Student unions are private organizations run democratically by the NUS on behalf of students. The fact that they operate on university grounds is entirely incidental. Universities are public institutions, student unions are private institutions. That's a fundamental difference in terms of their mandate and responsibilities.

3) There is a difference between having the right to speak and being given a platform to speak. The fact that the Prime Minister gets to air his views on television and I don't is not a violation of my right to free speech, for example. The same is true in the case of speaking events organized by student unions, merely refusing to host someone or give them a timeslot in which to speak does not constitute a violation of their free speech. Unions have the right to final say as to the distribution of their resources and facilities, even if particular students who are members of the union disagree.

4) Our laws (well, actually European laws, which is one major concern if we leave the European union because those laws will no longer be constitutional) have a pretty rigorous definition of what constitutes free speech (or free expression). Importantly, this definition neither includes any of the things being described as necessary for "free speech" in this thread, nor does it prevent actual censorship by the government wherein that censorship can be seen as beneficial to the preservation of public order.

5) This is not to say that the general ethos of academic free speech is not genuinely under threat at the moment, it totally is, but this pointless tone argument about whether students are too angry when they do what they have the legal right to do merely detracts from he far more insidious effect that the commercialization and professionalization of higher education is having on academic free speech.

Universities are being treated as daycare centres for young adults, not by the "authoritarian left" or any of these meaningless buzzwords, but by the very real lack of understanding right wing neoliberal politicians tend to have for what actually makes the academic environment free. Talk about "empowering consumers" or "increasing competitiveness" sounds great if you're running a fast food restaurant, but these things cannot be applied to academia without eroding academic free speech at a pretty fundamental level. Academics cannot be free to say what they want and also responsible to "empowered consumers", they cannot be free to say what they want while also facing the risk of punishment for insufficient "competitiveness". There are huge advantages to professionalization in this regard and in some ways it's made academia a more inclusive and less elitist place, but in terms of free speech it's incredibly corrosive.

Thanks. Some context was badly needed for this thread.