Censorship on college campuses, and how it relates to Valpo

[VU2022]

Recently, there has been a huge discussion in the media about free speech and censorship on college campuses, brought to the forefront by the current fighting between Palestine and Israel. Schools such as Harvard and UPenn (and many others as a quick google search will reveal) have been embroiled over controversies regarding statements over the conflict and whether or not the university should pick a side or censor student opinions, especially when wealthy donors threaten to pull their donations if they do not get their way. Professors have been accused of pushing their agenda onto others in the classroom (for both sides of the conflict). Additionally, people are calling for administrations and employers to punish students for statements that they have signed/made.

I feel that free speech and a well rounded college environment in terms of beliefs is something that Valpo has done well. While there are always extremists anywhere you go (like the student body president trying to circulate a petition to remove someone from VU), Valpo seemed to blend a variety of groups and people with different opinions and religious beliefs very nicely, and has dodged some of the bullets that other schools have been taking the past few years. Additionally, from what I saw as a student there, the administration was pretty hands-off in imposing their beliefs on others both inside and outside the classroom (a lighter example, the University is not censoring the torch even though the views about the art sale are intensely critical to the administration. From my graduate school experience, there are definitely schools/programs that wouldn't hesitate to pull something like that).

I believe that the University needs to market this openness in terms of ideas in some way. As I have stated before on other posts, Valpo has a reputation for being a religious school, and some people are still put off by this as they think that they will not be welcome if they are not Lutheran/very religious. I am aware that free speech/campus culture is an intrinsically difficult thing to market, but it may be worth trying if it reels in some additional amount of students a year for the enrollment numbers. It is also worth diving into, as there is always a chance that Valpo ends up in the media crosshairs over this issue the same way some of these bigger schools have. Just wanted to get a discussion started on this, as free speech, academic freedom seem to be an urgent and pressing issue for colleges and academia right now.

[crusadermoe]

I have always wondered why thousands of donors and the hundreds of conservative university board members don't fight back more often against the blatant censoring from the left on campuses.  As we know some donors kept strings and caveats on their gifts and will start pulling them back.  Florida has been a leader and they hired former senator Ben Sasse as U of F president in that very spirit of balance and logic.

The irrational "progressive" logic is about to explode. I had pointed out many times on this board over the years how odd it is for liberals to back Islamic ideology, but then also defend the rights of women and gays from a view that is in DIRECT conflict with that ideology. The word "progressive" is laughable and other viewpoints need to stop conceding that term to these extremists who don't read history.   

I am fully in favor of free speech across ALL POINTS of view. 

[crusader05]

I think this is a topic that has higher salience to those that work in higher ed or have a vested interest in how it's run and how it interacts with the world. My guess is most college students are still looking at the basic things: Cost, majors/opportunities, feel of the college, size/location, some sense of prestige for certain groups.
That's actually colleges are such a hot bed for certain things. Most of them really aren't thinking about those things until they get there and get to try on ideas and behaviors much like they try different majors and organizations.

For example at the end of the day part of the reason I think I picked Valpo over other schools was I went in summer and it was nice and I knew my tour guide and so my tour was rally nice and fun. Since it was on par educationally with the other schools I applied to those things carried the day.

Now this was before the age of the common app and applying to schools all over. So you only applied to schools you were actually interested to and often within the same parameters: size/location etc

[vu84v2]

My guess is most college students are still looking at the basic things: Cost, majors/opportunities, feel of the college, size/location, some sense of prestige for certain groups.

I have probably talked with three to four hundred prospective students and their parents over the last 5 years. My experience is consistent with crusader05's guess...but I would add dorms and having one or more prestigious/visible sports teams.

[crusader05]

I don't feel like my assumption excluded any of those things which would be included under cost, majors and opportunity. But the reality is also that Valpo is not a top 25 university and is in fact a university of good standing surrounded by many other universities of good standing, most of whom have either better dorms, sports, location or college atmosphere. My point was that sometimes are marketing ideas focus on highly specific things that are important to us when at the end of the day bread and butter will always be most important to the meal.

[usc4valpo]

BTW, great response by the law firms bagging Harvard and Columbia protesters of their jobs. Student need to be held responsible.

[VU2022]

usc4Valpo, I definitely think soft censorship methods like pulling people's job offers is a dangerous road to tread. "Holding people responsible" for their speech is one of the main arguments that the left used to try to censor the speech on college campuses and in general, especially during COVID.


I fully agree with the recruitment discussion, and I think that people's college reasoning does vary greatly from person to person even if some of the general criteria remains the same. Even if the campus culture and speech doesn't actively bring people in, the lack of negative media attention to the University over the issue won't turn people away. I do think that prospective students (or at least some) care about those sorts of things, even if it is lower on the list then say affordability, nice dorms, location, and the social scene. Maybe there is a low effort low time way to communicate Valpo's values and diversity of ideas to prospectives, perhaps just a sentence or two in the recruitment propaganda they show/hand to students during their visits. If they bring in 1000 prospectives and 1% are swayed by this for one reason or another, thats 10 students added to the enrollment for very little work.

[usc4valpo]

I will say this - if there are students protesting supporting racism or terrorism, there is certainly no way I would want them to join my company or firm.

[David81]

While Gen Z definitely leans left, there must be plenty of folks within that generation who welcome a campus environment that creates space for different points of view and promotes the freedom to grow one's worldview. And frankly, for any relatively open-minded, tolerant young person, it can be a plus not to be at a campus where virtually every statement or activity is filtered through a harshly judgmental political lens, left or right.

I think that VU can capture more of those students, as well as build on some of its traditional constituencies, even if they are smaller in number than half a century ago. And to bolster enrollment, we're talking about attracting a few hundred more of these applicants into each entering class, not thousands.

[valpopal]

I will say this - if there are students protesting supporting racism or terrorism, there is certainly no way I would want them to join my company or firm.

You are going to need an extensive and effective weeding out process. According to the current Harvard/Harris poll a majority of Americans in the 18-24 college-age group (51-49) believe the massacre by Hamas, though genocidal, "can be justified by the grievance of Palestinians." The 25-34 age group does not fare much better, 48-52. Is this an indictment of the educational institutions? College educated young people justifying actions they admittedly characterize as genocidal?
[tweet]1716076094799949995[/tweet]

[vu84v2]

Most companies - and certainly the larger companies - scan social media postings for potential new hires. A CFO who meets with my students said her firm does this and every other firm she knows of does this too. I also know personally of a firm in Chicago who (several years ago) was going to hire two graduates from a major university (not Valpo and not the university that employs me), but rescinded the offer when they found anti-semetic posts from the two students. So, there already is a pretty extensive weeding out process.

[crusadermoe]

Yes, indeed the applicants are being culled.  If nothing else it shows poor judgment and a severe lack of maturity.

The Wall Street Journal today featured an article on the mega-donor rebellion that has finally pushed back hard vs. the elite universities.  It had percolated during the embarrassing wokeness. But this terrorism straw broke the camel's back.  I hope they cut off money. They don't want to restrain speech, but they feel they can only counter blatant biases by getting the attention of woke CEOs. Some Penn donors say they will give nothing until the President and board chair resign.

[valpopal]

In the Harvard/Harris poll cited previously, I discovered another disturbing response by college-age Americans. When asked if "the United States should stand with Israel, back Hamas, or not be involved at all," those 18-24 responded with 30% behind Israel, 29% support for Hamas, and 41% for absolutely no involvement. After the poll already established in previous questions how Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to genocide that committed a massacre not just against Israelis, but also slaughtered at least 31 Americans, as well as others from 30-plus countries, and still threatens over 200 innocent hostages, 70% in this college-age cohort either support Hamas or prefer no involvement at all. Something is seriously wrong here.

[usc4valpo]

That's a Harvard poll, not a national collegiate poll.  I would presume at Valparaiso that that poll would be more toward Israel.

I certainly believe in free speech; but there is also is responsibility in what is said.

[valpopal]

That's a Harvard poll, not a national collegiate poll.

Not true: This was "a national poll conducted online in the United States for Harvard by the Harris Poll Oct. 18 through 19 among registered voters and held a margin of error of +/-2%."

[crusadermoe]

I think Valpo22 analysis seems really wise about the post 9-11 generation. 

For me this a big line of demarcation in foreign policy was the Reagan presidency. Boomers and older generations understood the soviet bloc and the evil empire of the USSR.  I always felt a sense of chill in watching the precision of USSR and eastern block Olympians. Maybe they were just a lot more determined and focuses on world conquest than we could imagine.  So our generation's where you you moments were the Berlin Wall knock down and the "Miracle on Ice" during the last Carter year.  If those two events bring you a shoulder shrug from you or a blank stare, then you don't really get the historic evils of communism and the old Soviet Union restoration threat Putin is seeking.

Yes, I think the new post-911 generation is probably numb to venturing overseas for no evident benefit. Unfortunately they are probably numbed to any wise policy debate. There has been a whirlwind of political noise and fatalism from both sides ever since Obama's first year. He said openly that he would fundamentally transform America.  Maybe you like that idea or maybe you don't. But the noisy media wars that ensued in 2008 between patriots and globalists has deafened the ears of our post 9-11 generation.   

[valpopal]

Thank you, Valpo22 and crusadermoe, for your comments explaining a possible reason for the response of "no involvement." I guess I am most concerned that when asked if they "side more with Israel or Hamas," 18-24 year olds were split 52-48%, nearly half specifically "side with Hamas." This despite 62% of the same group agreeing Hamas attacks were "genocidal" and 64% said it was a terrorist act, yet 51% said such attacks were "justified." Consequently, a majority regard as "justified" attacks that most agree were "genocidal" and a "terrorist act." This set of responses on a particular event fresh in mind with its horrible details seems to expose a clear absence of morality.

[crusader05]

Some of this I think falls down to wording in the poll.

I think most people would say full stop: Terrorisms etc is not good. BUT I  can see how those questions are designed to get the exact emotional reaction we are getting out of it vs pulling out what is most likely much more nuanced views. It seems like a poll based on enflaming social media arguments than anything.
I know many people who feel that 1. what happened in early October to Israeli Citizens is horrible but also 2. The Palestinian people have been treated poorly and unfairly and 3. the way Israel's government manages the situation has enflamed tensions, made things worse and is perhaps partially to blame for dynamics that make terrorisms flourish. I think also , from my own personal perspective that it moved so fast that before a lot of people even had time to absorb the horrors of what happened the bombing had started and the dynamic was that the most horrifying images coming out were what was happening in Gaza.

[valpopal]

Some of this I think falls down to wording in the poll.

I think most people would say full stop: Terrorisms etc is not good. BUT I  can see how those questions are designed to get the exact emotional reaction we are getting out of it vs pulling out what is most likely much more nuanced views. It seems like a poll based on enflaming social media arguments than anything.

I don't buy this at all, and I don't believe there is a "BUT" applicable here. How is it that only the 18-24 age group was manipulated by the wording? More than half of the 18-24 group declare "the Hamas killing," a genocidal act (62% of that same group agree it was "genocidal," 64% admit it was terrorism), was "justified"; however, 90% of older age groups state the terrorist massacre was "not justified." Are younger people not literate enough to understand the question asks about "the Hamas killing"? Since all age groups answered the identically worded questions, this has nothing to do with the language, it has to do with shared senses of values and morality by members of their generations. Perhaps the apparent lack of a moral center by the younger respondents relates to differing backgrounds in experiences and education. 

[crusadermoe]

ValpoPal asks,  "Are they not literate?..."  I say perhaps they are literate in the strict sense,but I doubt that 10% of that generation are truly rational thinkers. They have been taught by our fine modern schools to emphasize how they "feel" rather than how  to "think." And worse, our universities teach them the privileged college kids "what" to think rather than "how" to think. 

They are also taught to constantly view things through the lens of a theoretical DEI victmology concept. So they reflexively view the Hamas/Palestinians as the "oppressed" and therefore view them as righteous in any action they take. After all, police buildings in Minneapolis were burned down for no rational reason. In July a CNN cameraman rolled footage of the two story flames there. rising two stories high behind a CNN reporter as the reporter talked of "peaceful protests." Is burning a building or denying facts rational? Is defunding your police protection rational? Young idiots will answer a poll saying that global warming is a more urgent and existential threat than China or today's crisis in Ukraine. They seek a 1.5% percent limit over the next 50 years. Dead people won't feel the 1.5%

[vu84v2]

OK OK, now let me offer some perspective as someone who engages every day with the students that you reference. First, good teaching at the university level should be "how to think" and not "what to think" and I can honestly say that the vast majority (though certainly not all) of faculty teach "how to think". One can always find the case that supports the story you want to tell or support (and our media does a great job of that), but reality is far less in the manner projected. Second, while it is deplorable that some people/groups at some elite universities say that the Hamas attacks are justified...this deplorable behavior is not happening at other universities (OK, I am sure that someone can find the exception). So, while the criticisms towards Penn, Harvard, etc. are justified, criticism of the entire university system is not. As for the students, they are socially and environmentally more conscious - some of which is good and some of which probably needs greater critical thinking. But where is an average 18-22 year old college student's mind focusing? Classes/grades, family, the party this weekend, an existing or potential relationship with a significant other, getting a job/internship, gaming (for some), other activities. Spend a lot of time with them and listen and this is pretty clear. World events are not on their radar unless there is a specific reason for them to be (e.g.,  a student planning to study in Europe next Spring will be more attentive to geopolitical issues in and around Europe). Thus, if you ask them about the Israeli conflict, they are likely not going to understand the history or recent events and will revert to basic beliefs of compassion for all people.

One more thing. People talk about problems of what is taught in K-12, but they seldom consider the excessive emphasis on American history over World history. When my daughter was in 6th grade, the students in her class debated the Isreali-Palestinean conflict...which really fosters learning. Why did she have this type of educational experience? Because she was going to school in England at that time (can you imagine a middle shool teacher doing this in the US?). It was horrible for her to be exposed to such a broad perspective in 6th and 7th grade and then come back to the narrow American-based focus in US schools. Herein lies the issue...many want to increase US history in K-12 when we really need to increase world history and understanding of current world events.

[David81]

This awful situation in the Middle East is turning out to be something of a global civics test for American higher ed. So far, the failing grades are disproportionately coming out of the elite schools, with some of the supposed best and brightest students showing (1) an inability to separate the Palestinian people from Hamas; (2) a remarkable knack for sweeping, extreme rhetoric indicating a lack of judgment and self-control; (3) in certain instances, strong anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic biases.

Of course, the lack of more nuanced civic understanding, and the lack of knowledge of how to become better informed, are not limited to the tonier schools. In fact, you know what scares the daylights out of me? How few younger folks regard reading at least one decent newspaper an everyday ritual. On Facebook the other day, one journalism prof at a state university flagship polled his students on where they got the bulk of their daily news. The overwhelming winner was Tik-Tok.

When ignorance and thin understanding prevail (along with, at elite schools, presumably some entitlement), it shouldn't surprise us that students' responses on sensitive issues of the day are sometimes sophomoric and knee jerk.

[valpopal]

Of course, the lack of more nuanced civic understanding, and the lack of knowledge of how to become better informed, are not limited to the tonier schools. In fact, you know what scares the daylights out of me? How few younger folks regard reading at least one decent newspaper an everyday ritual. On Facebook the other day, one journalism prof at a state university flagship polled his students on where they got the bulk of their daily news. The overwhelming winner was Tik-Tok.
When ignorance and thin understanding prevail (along with, at elite schools, presumably some entitlement), it shouldn't surprise us that students' responses on sensitive issues of the day are sometimes sophomoric and knee jerk.

The news media have nobody to blame but themselves for abandonment by readers. I can't think of "one decent newspaper as an everyday ritual" that I would feel is reliable for honest journalism. That obviously applies to television and radio news as well. The alternative for me is seeking varieties of open source journalism by individuals with diverse views as well as locating original verified documents available online and testing those reports against one another. When used wisely and with a skeptical approach, primary information available on the Internet often opens the curtain and frequently reveals the manipulating words by wizards in the nation's news media. Unfortunately and understandably, most people—especially "younger folks"—do not have the time or inclination for seeking out multiple sources, perhaps with opposing perspectives, for evaluation; therefore, the detrimental and disproportionate influence of a site like Tik-Tok on college students is regrettable. [PS: I thought it ironic that you cite Facebook as your source for a journalism professor's finding.] 

[Just Sayin]

As of this article written on October 26, I don't see Valpo University on the list. Why is that?
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/100-colleges-and-universities-across-the-nation-form-coalition-standing-with-israel-against-hamas-301968953.html

[crusadermoe]

What did you really expect if we are already ashamed of the name "Crusaders" for actions taken 800 years ago.

It's not quite as prevalent as it sounds in calling it "100 universities."   There are over a dozen SUNYs (not Sunnis), and nearly all of the schools very small. Not coincidentally, they probably don't rely on enrolling a lot of students who despite Israel. 

Notably I see no Lutheran schools of any kind.  I didn't see at a glance any major flagships.  I didn't see any elite or ivy privates. That should be no surprise.  Those schools are reaping what they have sown in teaching that grievance is virtue and protesting signals that virtue. If you really want virtue points you enforce a faculty clause to reflexively seek out minorities and presume their virtue. When you do, you create oppressed people as an industry and that teaching now takes on a life of its own. Hard to feel sorry for them now.  Good luck to Cornell, Columbia, and Penn working with their mega-donors.  MLK tried to go in the direction that all are equal and need to be viewed as individuals. But the DEI and grievance industry took root, finding its most fertile soil on campus and media.