Study finds 75% of the time censorship in colleges is against the...

[GOATER]

Not really surprised......Even in Berkeley, I felt that the actual University/Professors were way more conservative than some of the students.

 

[lifelessheap]

Not really surprised......Even in Berkeley, I felt that the actual University/Professors were way more conservative than some of the students.

<45>

 

[GOATER]

<45>

It's true...My Political Science professors never hated on right wingers like the Alt-Right media wants to portray them.......Even the day after the election, they didn't really touch the subject of trump, only 1 professor did and it was because the students were in depressed mode lol.

All the professors I had, acted very professional and non partisan...They simply focused on the material.

My Community College professors had way more of an Agenda and said their opinions way more.

 

[lifelessheap]

It's true...My Political Science professors never hated on right wingers like the Alt-Right media wants to portray them.......Even the day after the election, they didn't really touch the subject of trump, only 1 professor did and it was because the students were in depressed mode lol.

All the professors I had, acted very professional and non partisan...They simply focused on the material.

My Community College professors had way more of an Agenda and said their opinions way more.

<45>

 

[AndroidRage]

Depends do depend, on what you're doing or eating that night.

Literally shit posting. Lol

 

[GOATER]

<45>

Sorry, the United States isnt as polar opposite as you think.

 

[Madmick]

Left. Yep its the left that get censored the most in higher education. However this commentary ought to piss off people on both sides and ought to be watched.

Kyle Kulinski is one of the dumbest political commentators from YouTube I've seen posted here on Sherdog. Here, let's examine the data without filtering it through a mindless moron like him. I don't need the clergy to understand the Bible, either, after all.

The Vox article is his source. It mentions this research was conducted by Georgetown's Free Speech Project. Okay, down the rabbit hole.

But a brand new data analysis from Georgetown University’s Free Speech Project suggests that this “crisis” is more than a little overblown.

Huh. That "brand new data analysis" links to the following Medium article, not the data analysis itself.

Knight Foundation recently released a report on the state of free speech on college campuses, which found that students have strong support for the First Amendment, though some say diversity and inclusion are more important to a democracy than free speech.

That's weird. Why wouldn't it just link to the report? Do you think maybe the Vox author didn't actually read the report? Okay, well, let's follow that Medium link.

As college campuses across the United States grapple with questions surrounding the power and limits of free expression, a new Gallup-Knight Foundation survey of U.S. college students provides a view into how attitudes about the First Amendment on college campuses are evolving and what that means for our democracy.

Wait, wtf? I just followed a Medium link to what I thought would be the report...but it's just another Medium article. Okaaaaay, let's keep going, click the above, and see where it takes us:
Free expression on campus: What college students think about First Amendment issues

First Amendment freedoms continue to be tested on U.S. college campuses as higher education institutions strive to achieve sometimes competing goals. These include encouraging the open discussion of ideas and exposing students to people of different backgrounds and viewpoints while making all students feel included and respected on campus.

In 2016, Gallup, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Newseum Institute conducted a landmark, nationally representative study of college students. The survey found students believed First Amendment freedoms were secure, and they generally preferred that campuses be open environments that encourage a wide range of expression. However, students did support restrictions on certain types of speech, such as hate speech, and many were sympathetic to student attempts to deny the press access to campus protests, such as those that occurred over race-related issues in the 2015-2016 school year.

The past year-and-a-half saw tensions over free expression and inclusiveness escalate amid the contentious 2016 presidential election, student objections to invited commencement speakers and a series of violent confrontations on college campuses when controversial speakers or groups expressed their views on campus.

In 2017, Gallup, the Knight Foundation and the American Council on Education partnered with the Charles Koch Institute and the Stanton Foundation to update key trends from the 2016 survey and ask about new developments in First Amendment issues. The new survey probed whether college students ever consider violence or shouting down speakers acceptable, whether they believe certain groups of students can freely express their views on campus and whether social media has displaced public areas of campus as the venue for discussing political and social issues.

The survey of 3,014 U.S. college students, including an oversample of 216 students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), was conducted November 1-December 10, 2017.[1]

Some of the key findings of the study include:

Students value both free expression and inclusion, though their commitment to free expression may be stronger in the abstract than in reality. Majorities of students say protecting free speech rights (56%) and promoting a diverse and inclusive society (52%) are extremely important to democracy. Students continue to prefer campuses be open learning environments that allow for a wide range of views to be heard than to prefer environments that prohibit certain types of potentially harmful speech, though not as widely as they did in 2016.

When asked whether free expression or diversity and inclusion is more important, they tilt toward saying diversity and inclusion are. Students are as likely to favor campus speech codes as to oppose them, and they overwhelmingly favor free speech zones on campus. Students do not believe the U.S. Constitution should protect hate speech, and they continue to support campus policies that restrict both hate speech and wearing stereotypical costumes.

Students have become more likely to think the climate on their campus prevents people from speaking their mind because others might take offense. More students now (61%) than in 2016 (54%) agree that the climate on their campus prevents some students from expressing their views. Although a majority of college students, 69%, believe political conservatives on campus are able to freely and openly express their views, many more believe political liberals (92%) and other campus groups are able to share their opinions freely.

College students say campus expression has shifted online. More students say discussion of social and political issues mostly takes place on social media (57%), rather than in public areas of campus (43%). At the same time, an increasing percentage of college students agree that social media can stifle free expression because people fear being attacked or blocked by those who disagree with their views. Also, eight in 10 students agree that the internet has been responsible for an explosion in hate speech.

Extreme actions to prevent speakers from speaking are largely, but not universally, condemned. Ninety percent of college students say it is never acceptable to use violence to prevent someone from speaking, but 10% say is acceptable sometimes. Thirty-seven percent of college students also believe shouting down speakers is sometimes acceptable.

College students continue to view First Amendment rights as secure rather than threatened, but compared with the 2016 survey, they are less likely to view each right as secure. Sixty-four percent of college students say freedom of speech is secure in this country, down from 73% in 2016. Sixty percent, down from 81%, say freedom of the press is secure. College students continue to believe freedom of assembly is the least secure First Amendment freedom, with 57% (down from 66%) saying that right is secure.

These findings make clear the college students see the landscape for the First Amendment as continuing to evolve. And as those changes occur, college students, like the officials who oversee their campuses, sometimes struggle to reconcile the tensions that can occur between respecting individual freedoms and respecting individual differences.

[1] See the methodology section at the end of the report for more detail on the student sample and its characteristics.

Finally, we found it. Published on March 11, 2018. Covered & tweeted by Vox on August 3, 2018. Picked up by Kyle on August 8, 2018. Good thing we have hard-hitters like Kulinski to stay right on top of "empirical" research, and communicate those findings back to us. He's an essential link in the chain, here.

This report is a survey of college students, and its indications obviously contradict the conclusive drift of the summaries reported by Vox and Kulinski, here, about the condition of free speech.

Those 90 incidents from the report which are 2/3 from colleges? Those are mentioned, but those are not the basis for the '75% of censorship is against liberals' figure. That was deliberately misrepresented when they piggy-backed the left-libertarian published report by Canadian professor Jeffrey Sach onto this Free Speech Project data. Well, I took the time to review his data, too:
Jeffrey Sach's Data (Google Spreadsheet)

Inevitably there were ambiguous cases. Some involved professors who resigned over withering public criticism but retained the support of their institutions (e.g. Areej Zufari at Rollins College, Dale Brigham at the University of Missouri). In others, the evidence was suggestive but ultimately too thin to establish causation (e.g. Daniel Browning at William Carey College). Such cases were excluded from the dataset. On the other hand, I chose to include deans and comparable non-faculty academics (e.g. Nicholas Christakis at Yale University, N. Bruce Duthu at Dartmouth College) on the grounds that doing so contributes to an overall assessment of the campus free speech situation.

In spite of the above, I knew digging through a few of those would produce an example of a wronged liberal he included that shouldn't be there. I smelled this one right away:
https://cookcountyrecord.com/storie...-wrongly-fired-for-advocating-gender-equality
That firing had nothing to with liberal speech. Where is the speech? Furthermore, where is the evidence the university fired her for "expressing support for gender equality"? It even says in his source, "alleged".

Got you, bitch. I won't waste more time on a purposely corrupted data set. BTW, thanks for contributing to confirm the precise liberal bias in academia being criticized, here, in the very moment you challenge it.

Moving on, perhaps Kulinski is too stupid, lazy, or dishonest to even read the Vox article itself. He flashes the data from the Niskanen Center which are the figures compiled by Sachs, not the Free Speech Project. No, he doesn't understand they are separate data sets. Start at 2:19 to see this. He is downplaying the 90 incidents from the Free Speech Project as just a few incidents, then immediately segues and flashes the jpeg from the Sachs report while pronouncing the 75% figure:

Right after that, he finally cites his 75% figure, visually, but with reference to a Tweet from Adam H. Johnson of Vox whose tweet mentions that, but is actually linked to the 7-to-1 report by a progressive media watchdog:
https://fair.org/home/nyts-campus-free-speech-coverage-focuses-7-to-1-on-plight-of-right/
I'm not sure why we're talking about yet another separate source in the same breath, but FAIR actually believes the New York Times is unfairly favoring conservatives due to the ratio of that coverage. These cognitively underdeveloped progressives are in dire need of a lesson I recently had to give to Jack V. Savage.

In this case, if you don't limit incidents singularly to a personality, when as the Knight Foundation pointed out, many of their incidents referred to a few conservatives who were repeatedly protested, like Milo and Shapiro, not to mention the fact the NYT coverage focused on these public speakers who became a focusing prism for the larger Presidential election, not local campus faculty scandals, then you realize this ratio is meaningless as well as irrelevant to the Free Speech Project report. Sell me the money/view/clickbait angle. At least that's compelling.

After all, did anyone catch that the Vox article cites the incident with Sonoma State president Judy Sakaki as one of these anti-liberal incidents? She was criticized for apologizing to a parent in attendance who complained she allowed a black student to read a poem critical of police at graduation. Nevertheless, the source of consternation wasn't the character of the content, but the five expletives included:

Sonoma State University President Judy Sakaki is facing public criticism from a group of college faculty, staff and students over her apology to a parent who was angry about a provocative, politically charged poem read last month by a student during a commencement ceremony, an address that Sakaki called a “mistake"....

“President Sakaki is, always has been and always will be a strong advocate and supporter of free speech and freedom of expression,” SSU spokesman Gary Delsohn said in an email. “But the bottom line is that profanity is not appropriate for a commencement ceremony, where entire families are in attendance.”

Gotta make sure those toddler nephews know what the fuck is up, amirite? No censorship actually resulted from any of this, and this is equated to Ben Shapiro not being allowed to speak because of rabid, frothing, violent college hordes?

Millenial/iGen liberals are so retarded it makes my eyes bleed. This is why conservatives taunt you with "fake news". Here's some intelligent coverage for people who value that sort of thing:
Reason Magazine >> Some Pundits Say There's No Campus Free Speech 'Crisis.' Here's Why They're Wrong.

Also at The Washington Post, Jeffrey Sachs makes a statement no less strong than Yglesias's and Hartman's: "The campus free speech 'crisis' is a myth. Here are the facts."

Sachs teaches at Acadia University, where an associate professor of psychology, Rick Mehta, is under investigation for voicing conservative opinions in his classroom. His department head complained that some of his students refuse to come to class because the experience of listening to him talk about why the gender wage gap is exaggerated produces too much anxiety. A professor of social work told the Toronto Star why she came down on the offended students' side, saying Mehta's opinion "does border on hate speech."

Sachs, Yglesias, and Hartman say we must set aside such anecdotes and dig into the data. But they are doing the exact same thing they accuse the propagators of the crisis narrative of doing: using an incomplete picture to make extreme and unsupported claims. While there's plenty of room to debate the extent of the so-called campus P.C. crisis, its detractors make too much of one part of the data while glossing over evidence that should concern everyone who claims to care about free speech....

To his credit, Sachs also mentions the GSS's significant limitations: The data include 18- to 34-year-olds who are not students, and it specifically excludes students who live in "group quarters," i.e. dorms. Additionally, the wording of some of the questions is outdated. A much larger proportion of the U.S. population is in favor of letting "homosexuals" and "communists" speak in public today than in 1975. But tolerance of homosexuality is (thankfully) at an all-time high, and communist speech doesn't invoke the same fears as during the Cold War. Put another way: The kind of speech people find offensive may have changed, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are more willing to tolerate the kind of speech they do find offensive.

Case in point: racist speech. In 1976, 73 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 34 thought a racist should be allowed to make a speech in public, according to the GSS. By 2015, that percentage had fallen to 56 percent. Young people went from being the age group most tolerant of racist speech to the age group least tolerant. On the question of "should a racist book be removed from the public library," the findings were similar: Youth support for censoring such a book increased from 25 percent to 39 percent.

At what point do you think the true foundation of the idea behind free speech-- that you have to tolerate what you don't like including opinions that enjoy plurality or majority consensus-- will be understood as the ruler measuring whether or not you truly support it? Because this shit...

To the extent that the Cato and FIRE findings contradict the GSS, I think it's because of the way the questions were worded. Students think gay people, communists, and atheists should be permitted to speak in public because they don't consider these people's views to be hateful, offensive, or intolerant. At the same time, some students think speech that denigrates racial minorities, gay people, women, the trans community, and Muslims is not just unacceptable, but equivalent to violence. The survey that best captured this result was undertaken by McLaughlin & Associates and published in New Criterion in November of 2015: 50 percent of people between the ages of 17 and 30 said a university should ban the publication of a political cartoon that criticized a particular religion or ethnicity.

...would make a Jihadist shed a tear of joy.

Spoiler: Earlier original 2016 Free Speech Project report for those interested

Free Speech on Campus

U.S. college students are highly confident that First Amendment rights are secure, yet a slight majority say the climate on campus prevents some people from saying what they believe because others might find it offensive, a Gallup survey has found.

The survey, sponsored by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and the Newseum Institute, revealed differences in the attitudes of students and the U.S. population as a whole toward First Amendment rights, as well as differences among male, female, white and minority students about whether it was ever appropriate to restrict free speech.

This study sought to better understand how U.S. college students interpret their First Amendment rights, and their views of how to balance those rights against other considerations.

 

[Andy Capp]

What is also amazing about Kyle is that he is one of the biggest progressive commentators around and yet he is arguing FOR the right of free speech for those on any side of political debate, is against safe spaces, against taking all the guns away from Americans, here is arguing for everyone to be careful when cheering for the censorship of Alex Jones and now is debunking the dual myth of bias against conservative ideas on campuses and that the accounts are even in sufficient numbers to worry about.......

Next thing you know it will come out that Hillary really is not a baby killer and Obama doesn't really have sex with 9 men a day........

@InternetHero
This is the sort of thing you should be supporting, not Shapiro. Seriously, don't give that charlatan any more page hits, mmkay?.

 

[Madmick]

Trending, btw:



"I hope that is the future of the Democratic Party."

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

Can I get sources without watching the video?

 

[WTF2008]

Trending, btw:



"I hope that is the future of the Democratic Party."

Wow.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

Even if the numbers are true and aren't fudged, which is rarely the case in these types of studies, it wouldn't mean what people on the left hope it means.

Why?

Because conservatives are greatly outnumbered on campus AND conservatives are far more likely to self censor. For example, democrats outnumber republicans on campus by a 10 to 1 margin. Then there's the survey that find 80% of centrists and conservatives say the political climate on campus prevents them from saying what they believe, whereas only 20% of left leaning people say the same. Combine these two factors and upwards of 97.5% of speech on campus is likely to be left leaning.

So if 97.5% of speech or so on campus is left leaning and only 75% of those censored for speech are left leaning, that would still represent a bias against conservatives. A big one at that.

 

[Concrete]

Kyle Kulinski is one of the dumbest political commentators from YouTube I've seen posted here on Sherdog. Here, let's examine the data without filtering it through a mindless moron like him. I don't need the clergy to understand the Bible, either, after all.

The Vox article is his source. It mentions this research was conducted by Georgetown's Free Speech Project. Okay, down the rabbit hole.

Huh. That "brand new data analysis" links to the following Medium article, not the data analysis itself.

That's weird. Why wouldn't it just link to the report? Do you think maybe the Vox author didn't actually read the report? Okay, well, let's follow that Medium link.

Wait, wtf? I just followed a Medium link to what I thought would be the report...but it's just another Medium article. Okaaaaay, let's keep going, click the above, and see where it takes us:
Free expression on campus: What college students think about First Amendment issues

Finally, we found it. Published on March 11, 2018. Covered & tweeted by Vox on August 3, 2018. Picked up by Kyle on August 8, 2018. Good thing we have hard-hitters like Kulinski to stay right on top of "empirical" research, and communicate those findings back to us. He's an essential link in the chain, here.

This report is a survey of college students, and its indications obviously contradict the conclusive drift of the summaries reported by Vox and Kulinski, here, about the condition of free speech.

Those 90 incidents from the report which are 2/3 from colleges? Those are mentioned, but those are not the basis for the '75% of censorship is against liberals' figure. That was deliberately misrepresented when they piggy-backed the left-libertarian published report by Canadian professor Jeffrey Sach onto this Free Speech Project data. Well, I took the time to review his data, too:
Jeffrey Sach's Data (Google Spreadsheet)

In spite of the above, I knew digging through a few of those would produce an example of a wronged liberal he included that shouldn't be there. I smelled this one right away:
https://cookcountyrecord.com/storie...-wrongly-fired-for-advocating-gender-equality
That firing had nothing to with liberal speech. Where is the speech? Furthermore, where is the evidence the university fired her for "expressing support for gender equality"? It even says in his source, "alleged".

Got you, bitch. I won't waste more time on a purposely corrupted data set. BTW, thanks for contributing to confirm the precise liberal bias in academia being criticized, here, in the very moment you challenge it.

Moving on, perhaps Kulinski is too stupid, lazy, or dishonest to even read the Vox article itself. He flashes the data from the Niskanen Center which are the figures compiled by Sach, not the Free Speech Project. No, he doesn't understand they are separate data sets. Start at 2:19 to see this. He is downplaying the 90 incidents from the Free Speech Project as just a few incidents, then immediately segues and flashes the jpeg from the Sachs report declaring the 75% against liberals figure:

Right after that, he finally cites his 75% figure, but with reference to a Tweet from Adam H. Johnson of Vox whose tweet mentions that but is actually linked to the 7-to-1 report by a progressive media watchdog:
https://fair.org/home/nyts-campus-free-speech-coverage-focuses-7-to-1-on-plight-of-right/
I'm not sure why we're talking about yet another separate source in the same breath, but FAIR actually believes the New York Times is unfairly favoring conservatives due to the ratio of that coverage. These cognitively underdeveloped progressives are in dire need of a lesson I recently had to give to Jack V. Savage.

In this case, if you don't limit incidents singularly to a personality, when as the Knight Foundation pointed out, many of their incidents referred to a few conservatives who were repeatedly protested, like Milo and Shapiro, not to mention the fact the NYT coverage focused on these public speakers who became a focusing prism for the larger Presidential election, not local campus faculty scandals, then you realize this ratio is meaningless as well as irrelevant to the Free Speech Project report. Sell me the money/view/clickbait angle. At least that's compelling.

After all, did anyone catch that the Vox article cites the incident with Sonoma State president Judy Sakaki as one of these anti-liberal incidents? She was criticized for apologizing to a parent in attendance who complained she allowed a black student to read a poem critical of police at graduation. Nevertheless, the source of consternation wasn't the character of the content, but the five expletives included:

Gotta make sure those toddler nephews know what the fuck is up, amirite? No censorship actually resulted from any of this, and this is equated to Ben Shapiro not being allowed to speak because of rabid, frothing, violent college hordes?

Millenial/iGen liberals are so retarded it makes my eyes bleed. This is why conservatives taunt you with "fake news". Here's some intelligent coverage for people who value that sort of thing:
Reason Magazine >> Some Pundits Say There's No Campus Free Speech 'Crisis.' Here's Why They're Wrong.

At what point do you think the true foundation of the idea behind free speech-- that you have to tolerate what you don't like including opinions that enjoy plurality or majority consensus-- will be understood as the ruler measuring whether or not you truly support it? Because this shit...

...would make a Jihadist shed a tear of joy.

Spoiler: Earlier original 2016 Free Speech Project report for those interested

Free Speech on Campus

 

[Scerpi]

Lol..... What a bunch of garbage. So all those mass protests of left leaning students acting like lunatics anytime a conservative speaker shows up is Fake News?

A Yahoo Editor might be getting fired this morning, but this article popped up last night.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unfiltered-left-practices-tolerance-superficial-ways-231505016.html

“For Straka, the left practices tolerance and diversity in a superficial way, with no regard to individual thought or personal belief: “If you express an opinion that’s outside of what is their ideology, there is no tolerance and there is no diversity.”

“I don’t think that being hostile towards heterosexual people helps gay people,” he says. “I don’t think that being hostile towards men empowers women. I don’t think that being hostile towards white people empowers black people.””

Of course this gay man has been vilified and ostrized by the left.

 

[Madmick]

Lol..... What a bunch of garbage. So all those mass protests of left leaning students acting like lunatics anytime a conservative speaker shows up is Fake News?

A Yahoo Editor might be getting fired this morning, but this article popped up last night.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unfiltered-left-practices-tolerance-superficial-ways-231505016.html

“For Straka, the left practices tolerance and diversity in a superficial way, with no regard to individual thought or personal belief: “If you express an opinion that’s outside of what is their ideology, there is no tolerance and there is no diversity.”

“I don’t think that being hostile towards heterosexual people helps gay people,” he says. “I don’t think that being hostile towards men empowers women. I don’t think that being hostile towards white people empowers black people.””

Of course this gay man has been vilified and ostrized by the left.

Brandon Straka isn't a journalist, isn't a member of a college faculty, and hasn't been censored (he was denied service by a salesman at Adorama camera, but another salesman quickly stepped in and completed the sale). He himself called for that employee to not be fired, which I really appreciate, and I don't know if they ultimately did.

So why the hell are you talking about a "Yahoo editor may be fired this morning"? Where is that coming from? Where is any of this coming from? Why are you derailing the thread?

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

Anyone who has been following the college campus protests knows that in 2018 that's just not true.

 

[lilelvis]

Kyle Kulinski is one of the dumbest political commentators from YouTube I've seen posted here on Sherdog. Here, let's examine the data without filtering it through a mindless moron like him. I don't need the clergy to understand the Bible, either, after all.

The Vox article is his source. It mentions this research was conducted by Georgetown's Free Speech Project. Okay, down the rabbit hole.

Huh. That "brand new data analysis" links to the following Medium article, not the data analysis itself.

That's weird. Why wouldn't it just link to the report? Do you think maybe the Vox author didn't actually read the report? Okay, well, let's follow that Medium link.

Wait, wtf? I just followed a Medium link to what I thought would be the report...but it's just another Medium article. Okaaaaay, let's keep going, click the above, and see where it takes us:
Free expression on campus: What college students think about First Amendment issues

Finally, we found it. Published on March 11, 2018. Covered & tweeted by Vox on August 3, 2018. Picked up by Kyle on August 8, 2018. Good thing we have hard-hitters like Kulinski to stay right on top of "empirical" research, and communicate those findings back to us. He's an essential link in the chain, here.

This report is a survey of college students, and its indications obviously contradict the conclusive drift of the summaries reported by Vox and Kulinski, here, about the condition of free speech.

Those 90 incidents from the report which are 2/3 from colleges? Those are mentioned, but those are not the basis for the '75% of censorship is against liberals' figure. That was deliberately misrepresented when they piggy-backed the left-libertarian published report by Canadian professor Jeffrey Sach onto this Free Speech Project data. Well, I took the time to review his data, too:
Jeffrey Sach's Data (Google Spreadsheet)

In spite of the above, I knew digging through a few of those would produce an example of a wronged liberal he included that shouldn't be there. I smelled this one right away:
https://cookcountyrecord.com/storie...-wrongly-fired-for-advocating-gender-equality
That firing had nothing to with liberal speech. Where is the speech? Furthermore, where is the evidence the university fired her for "expressing support for gender equality"? It even says in his source, "alleged".

Got you, bitch. I won't waste more time on a purposely corrupted data set. BTW, thanks for contributing to confirm the precise liberal bias in academia being criticized, here, in the very moment you challenge it.

Moving on, perhaps Kulinski is too stupid, lazy, or dishonest to even read the Vox article itself. He flashes the data from the Niskanen Center which are the figures compiled by Sach, not the Free Speech Project. No, he doesn't understand they are separate data sets. Start at 2:19 to see this. He is downplaying the 90 incidents from the Free Speech Project as just a few incidents, then immediately segues and flashes the jpeg from the Sachs report declaring the while pronouncing the 75% figure:

Right after that, he finally cites his 75% figure, visually, but with reference to a Tweet from Adam H. Johnson of Vox whose tweet mentions that, but is actually linked to the 7-to-1 report by a progressive media watchdog:
https://fair.org/home/nyts-campus-free-speech-coverage-focuses-7-to-1-on-plight-of-right/
I'm not sure why we're talking about yet another separate source in the same breath, but FAIR actually believes the New York Times is unfairly favoring conservatives due to the ratio of that coverage. These cognitively underdeveloped progressives are in dire need of a lesson I recently had to give to Jack V. Savage.

In this case, if you don't limit incidents singularly to a personality, when as the Knight Foundation pointed out, many of their incidents referred to a few conservatives who were repeatedly protested, like Milo and Shapiro, not to mention the fact the NYT coverage focused on these public speakers who became a focusing prism for the larger Presidential election, not local campus faculty scandals, then you realize this ratio is meaningless as well as irrelevant to the Free Speech Project report. Sell me the money/view/clickbait angle. At least that's compelling.

After all, did anyone catch that the Vox article cites the incident with Sonoma State president Judy Sakaki as one of these anti-liberal incidents? She was criticized for apologizing to a parent in attendance who complained she allowed a black student to read a poem critical of police at graduation. Nevertheless, the source of consternation wasn't the character of the content, but the five expletives included:

Gotta make sure those toddler nephews know what the fuck is up, amirite? No censorship actually resulted from any of this, and this is equated to Ben Shapiro not being allowed to speak because of rabid, frothing, violent college hordes?

Millenial/iGen liberals are so retarded it makes my eyes bleed. This is why conservatives taunt you with "fake news". Here's some intelligent coverage for people who value that sort of thing:
Reason Magazine >> Some Pundits Say There's No Campus Free Speech 'Crisis.' Here's Why They're Wrong.

At what point do you think the true foundation of the idea behind free speech-- that you have to tolerate what you don't like including opinions that enjoy plurality or majority consensus-- will be understood as the ruler measuring whether or not you truly support it? Because this shit...

...would make a Jihadist shed a tear of joy.

Spoiler: Earlier original 2016 Free Speech Project report for those interested

Free Speech on Campus

Godamn! Burn, baby, burn.

 

[Scerpi]

Brandon Straka isn't a journalist, isn't a member of a college faculty, and hasn't been censored (he was denied service by a salesman at Adorama camera, but another salesman quickly stepped in and completed the sale). He himself called for that employee to not be fired, which I really appreciate, and I don't know if they ultimately did.

So why the hell are you talking about a "Yahoo editor may be fired this morning"? Where is that coming from? Where is any of this coming from? Why are you derailing the thread?

It was a surprising article coming from Yahoo, which tends to have a left biased trend. It seems that the more he looked into why people voted for Trump and understand their reasoning, his liberal friends/colleagues started to shun him.

Anyway, I had never heard of that guy before. From what I understand, the jist of his message is that the left has evolved to immediately censor any dissenting opinion when they’re supposed to be the “open minded” group.

This seems to have become most extreme on campuses. So I it seemed to somewhat apply to this topic.

I don’t typically see huge groups of conservatives showing up at liberal speaking events and shouting them down.

 

[InternetHero]

@InternetHero
This is the sort of thing you should be supporting, not Shapiro. Seriously, don't give that charlatan any more page hits, mmkay?.

I understand where you are coming from, and draw a line between Sharpiro's youtube/podcast conduct and his writing.

His writing is generalized to be sure, but that is what most audiences are looking for, and understanding the general expressions and temperament of the right is something I find personally useful.

You may not, and all the better if you do not in your debates, life, ECT. , but I want to be able to move that audience.