Per their definition of "free speech" administrators are telling the truth when they say that their campuses are safe for free speech. Don't forget that, to them, offensive speech is not free speech and that the majority of what they disagree with is offensive.
Thanks for a careful analysis and understanding of the scientific premises and results of surveys and their statistical properties! I am saying this seriously, not sarcastically. Many journalists and consumers do not understand how surveys are developed and the parameters of what they can survey. I am a great fan, and have been for a while now, of the content and methods of FIRE sampling and surveys. While no self-report (asking individuals about their experiences) can be perfect or comprehensive by its nature, self-report is the “gold standard” for opinions and subjective experiences. FIRE samples from the people who are experiencing the effects of suppression and oppression of free speech (it is oppressive to all, by the way, to stop an expert or invited speaker from having the opportunity to share their views on campus; it’s not protest but aggression against the speaker and those who invited the speaker). Whether I would have the “same” (it’s never the same between individual perceptions, btw) views as an undergraduate student or an administrator or a graduate student, does not matter. Asking about the experiences and views of the individual who are affected by campus policies, rules, and regulations is the best approach to take on the issues of free expression. Part of the BIG problem with trying to govern someone else’s speech, instead of self-governance of our own speech, is that we cannot know their experience or history. We have to let others speak for themselves if we want fairness, compassion, kindness and equality to guide our principles in education. FIRE has done a magnificent job in standing up to the media bullies and explaining the science of the survey methods they use. Bravo!
I have always thought Greg Lukianoff is a good person and FIRE does good works. They are truly on the side of the angels.
Allow me another blanket comment: college Presidents are not good people. Good people are not allowed to be college presidents. Free speech often uncovers what Prince John said,” wait until King Richard finds out what you’ve been up to while he’s been gone!”
Beating down free speech protects “what administrators have been up to.” It’s that simple.
One beef: in the list of 14 issues about which students are asked their comfort in discussing, neither "Covid Policies," nor "Claims of Widespread CV-19 Vax Harms" are one of the issues asked about.
Big lacuna, as we know censoring these were sins #2 and #1 committed amid the Biden admin's censorship-by-proxies orgy. If FIRE looked into it, they would find universities involved, and censoring on these topics on their own initiative.
Moreover, as Jeffry Tucker has established regarding most libertarian leaders, in his writings at Brownstone Institute, and as I have established regarding most conservative ones, in mine at PostModernConservative, these two topics, and especially the second, are the ones most subject to voluntary NEWS SUPPRESSION and SELF-SILENCING.
These two patterns do not directly violate the First, so there is some legitimate reason for FIRE avoiding discussion of them, but they are betrayals of those two movements' basic principles, and of the longstanding liberal-democracy commitment to Open Journalism. https://substack.com/home/post/p-148020970
The Omerta here adhered to here by so-called friends of Free Speech is setting the tone for deep trouble down the road. This stack and perhaps FIRE should be stirring trouble regarding it.
I strongly support FIRE's free speech mission...but we need to be honest that there are some huge problems with FIRE's college rankings and approach to defending free speech and academic freedom.
First, like much of academia...FIRE places far, far, far too much attention to the "elite" schools and cancellation events that impact high profile TENURED people, not the far more common bullying and censorship of faculty at institutions not included in FIRE's surveys. Faculty at high profile schools like MIT and Yale have the ability to move to other institutions in most cases if cancellation leads to termination. Faculty at lower tier schools, let alone untenured and contingent faculty invariably are pushed out of the profession.
Second, the focus on administrators and colleges/universities and outside political actors misses who really drives most cancellation and free speech violations...FACULTY themselves. Faculty are the people who lead the witch hunts in universities that the administrators respond to and it is faculty working via so called "professional" societies that exert most of the cancellation power in academia. FIRE incorrectly hides behind the idea that professional societies are independent organizations with the freedom of association but fail to consider that these organizations are more like public utilities that individuals in particular professions really cannot function without access to.
FIRE is doing good work...but is missing much of the problem and should broaden its horizons to address the real problem on campus...progressive faculty and the organizations they dominate and control.
Thanks for the article! Studies like these can be easy to misinterpret (and statistics easily manipulated), and I'm glad to see you providing clarification and standing up to those trying to mispresent your data. Appreciate the hard work FIRE puts in!
Journalism schools have turned into Social Justice training institutes and they have infiltrated/infected all areas of media. God, I’m sounding like a right -winger here.
Does anyone read TIME any more? Keep beating the drum!
Per their definition of "free speech" administrators are telling the truth when they say that their campuses are safe for free speech. Don't forget that, to them, offensive speech is not free speech and that the majority of what they disagree with is offensive.
Thanks for a careful analysis and understanding of the scientific premises and results of surveys and their statistical properties! I am saying this seriously, not sarcastically. Many journalists and consumers do not understand how surveys are developed and the parameters of what they can survey. I am a great fan, and have been for a while now, of the content and methods of FIRE sampling and surveys. While no self-report (asking individuals about their experiences) can be perfect or comprehensive by its nature, self-report is the “gold standard” for opinions and subjective experiences. FIRE samples from the people who are experiencing the effects of suppression and oppression of free speech (it is oppressive to all, by the way, to stop an expert or invited speaker from having the opportunity to share their views on campus; it’s not protest but aggression against the speaker and those who invited the speaker). Whether I would have the “same” (it’s never the same between individual perceptions, btw) views as an undergraduate student or an administrator or a graduate student, does not matter. Asking about the experiences and views of the individual who are affected by campus policies, rules, and regulations is the best approach to take on the issues of free expression. Part of the BIG problem with trying to govern someone else’s speech, instead of self-governance of our own speech, is that we cannot know their experience or history. We have to let others speak for themselves if we want fairness, compassion, kindness and equality to guide our principles in education. FIRE has done a magnificent job in standing up to the media bullies and explaining the science of the survey methods they use. Bravo!
Good article. Thanks.
When FIRE started taking non-student cases, I was concerned about mission creep. My fears were apparently unfounded.
The last guy to trust Time Magazine was a dude named Hans Gruber and we saw how that worked out for him.
Honestly using the ADL skews this. They believe any criticism of Zionism as a whole equals antisemitism which is absolute bunk.
They’re very likely counting those cases
I have always thought Greg Lukianoff is a good person and FIRE does good works. They are truly on the side of the angels.
Allow me another blanket comment: college Presidents are not good people. Good people are not allowed to be college presidents. Free speech often uncovers what Prince John said,” wait until King Richard finds out what you’ve been up to while he’s been gone!”
Beating down free speech protects “what administrators have been up to.” It’s that simple.
Overall, excellent awesome work, FIRE!
One beef: in the list of 14 issues about which students are asked their comfort in discussing, neither "Covid Policies," nor "Claims of Widespread CV-19 Vax Harms" are one of the issues asked about.
Big lacuna, as we know censoring these were sins #2 and #1 committed amid the Biden admin's censorship-by-proxies orgy. If FIRE looked into it, they would find universities involved, and censoring on these topics on their own initiative.
Moreover, as Jeffry Tucker has established regarding most libertarian leaders, in his writings at Brownstone Institute, and as I have established regarding most conservative ones, in mine at PostModernConservative, these two topics, and especially the second, are the ones most subject to voluntary NEWS SUPPRESSION and SELF-SILENCING.
These two patterns do not directly violate the First, so there is some legitimate reason for FIRE avoiding discussion of them, but they are betrayals of those two movements' basic principles, and of the longstanding liberal-democracy commitment to Open Journalism. https://substack.com/home/post/p-148020970
The Omerta here adhered to here by so-called friends of Free Speech is setting the tone for deep trouble down the road. This stack and perhaps FIRE should be stirring trouble regarding it.
I strongly support FIRE's free speech mission...but we need to be honest that there are some huge problems with FIRE's college rankings and approach to defending free speech and academic freedom.
First, like much of academia...FIRE places far, far, far too much attention to the "elite" schools and cancellation events that impact high profile TENURED people, not the far more common bullying and censorship of faculty at institutions not included in FIRE's surveys. Faculty at high profile schools like MIT and Yale have the ability to move to other institutions in most cases if cancellation leads to termination. Faculty at lower tier schools, let alone untenured and contingent faculty invariably are pushed out of the profession.
Second, the focus on administrators and colleges/universities and outside political actors misses who really drives most cancellation and free speech violations...FACULTY themselves. Faculty are the people who lead the witch hunts in universities that the administrators respond to and it is faculty working via so called "professional" societies that exert most of the cancellation power in academia. FIRE incorrectly hides behind the idea that professional societies are independent organizations with the freedom of association but fail to consider that these organizations are more like public utilities that individuals in particular professions really cannot function without access to.
FIRE is doing good work...but is missing much of the problem and should broaden its horizons to address the real problem on campus...progressive faculty and the organizations they dominate and control.
Thanks for the article! Studies like these can be easy to misinterpret (and statistics easily manipulated), and I'm glad to see you providing clarification and standing up to those trying to mispresent your data. Appreciate the hard work FIRE puts in!
America is fucked.
Next project should rank journalism schools on the education indoctrination sliding scale for their product being unleashed on the world.
And alleged 'journalism mags/rags like Time.
Journalism schools have turned into Social Justice training institutes and they have infiltrated/infected all areas of media. God, I’m sounding like a right -winger here.