Another college, another "free-speech zone":
Hawaii college sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution
Once again, administrators have to be reminded that the entire United States is a free speech zone.
I wonder when higher education institutions are going to stop falling into obvious traps like this one? Perhaps after an expensive legal action or two. As with the curious business at the University of Connecticut, it's much easier to let an outside organization spend a portion of a day standing with placards and handing out fliers than to create a scene that reveals the institution to be intolerant of open discussion or the promotion of free-thinking, not to mention woefully unaware of the guarantees in the Constitution.
Is this the result of creating a "participation trophy" generation? Is the new role of higher education to present a narrow spectrum of ideology, label it as that which is the only correct point of view, then refuse to present, thoughtfully engage, or encourage consideration of any perspectives outside of those so labelled?
If so, that means college students are not only incapable of critical thinking, but that those skills are no longer valued in education. Thus, the entire tradition of Western education, ranging back to Socrates, has now been significantly altered. Well, neutered, really.
When I was a college student, I was encouraged to visit a variety of points-of-view and use my own judgement, guided by the wisdom of our faculty, to determine a workable ideology. They never, ever, ever thought that their job was to "protect" me from conflicting perspectives. They could hardly have been called educators if they did so.
This meant, of course, that I went through stages that now embarrass me somewhat. In my youth, I was a socialist, an agnostic, a mild anarchist, the editor of an underground newspaper, an outspoken critic of Jane Austen [Horrors! for an English major], and a general pain-in-the-neck to authority figures. I suppose that I engaged in "incorrect" thinking from time to time, but only to those of a near-Soviet mind-set.
And what was the result of this intellectual pilgrimage? A successful career in education and a deep, abiding sense of faith. What has made me a priest and, more importantly, a committed Christian, is that I was able to engage a rich variety of ideologies and beliefs and determine my own path through them. I found agnosticism wanting, socialism naive, and anarchism to be juvenile; but I still don't care for Jane Austen.
I was also allowed to mature in my thinking, galvanized by experience and a lot of error. What awaits these poor, wan college students who need to be protected by their professors from conflicting ideas and "outsiders"? The world does not, cannot coddle anyone. Sooner or later, there is an intellectual reckoning that should be realized in youth rather than the cusp of middle-age.
P.S. A colleague made an interesting observation: "In the 1960s, college was affordable, faculty outnumbered administrators, and speech was free." Welcome to the brave, new world of the 21st century.