Posted on 06/24/2014 7:01:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
College campuses are becoming increasingly hostile towards certain forms of speech. One of the main reasons for the hostility is the admission of students who are too emotionally immature to tolerate dissenting opinions. In addition to lacking emotional maturity, many of these students lack humility. They believe that their emotions trump the ideas of others. Obviously, I disagree. In fact, I think that these students need to be weeded out early in the college application process. I think I have a specific plan that can help make that a reality.
We already ask students a lot of questions in the typical college application process. Some of the questions deal with diversity issues. But, strangely, no one ever tries to assess the prospective students' willingness to tolerate dissenting opinions. I propose adding ten questions to every college application in order to do just that. Because they are simple true/false questions, they will not take long for admissions committees to grade and evaluate. But they will help us weed out those students whose admission would impede the free flow of ideas on the campus. My proposed entrance exam questions are as follows:
1. Feminist students have a First Amendment right to chant the word "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues (note: please assume that no one is required to attend).
2. Anti-feminist students have a First Amendment right to criticize feminists for chanting "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues.
3. Liberal students have a First Amendment right to advocate for same sex marriage.
4. Conservative students have a First Amendment right to argue against same sex marriage.
5. Female students have a First Amendment right to argue that abortion is a constitutional right.
6. Male students have a First Amendment right to argue that aborting a man's children without his consent is an unconscionable act of murder.
7. Marxist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.
8. Anti-communist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.
9. Black students have a First Amendment right to argue for race-based affirmative action.
10. White students have a First Amendment right to argue that affirmative action should be banned altogether.
The grading for this portion of the college application is pretty simple since the answer to every single question is "true." In fact, I would propose that this test is so easy that anyone missing a single question should fail the exam and be prevented from attending the university. This plan may sound harsh, but it would have numerous advantages. Here are just a few:
1. It would protect conservative students. Most conservative students hold ideas that are fully protected by the constitution but that somehow end up being defined by some students as “hate speech.” These filter questions will likely keep students who cry "hate speech" from enrolling at the university. Conservative students will therefore feel more comfortable expressing their views is discussions with fellow students.
2. It could protect liberal students, too. This test will also filter out any conservative censors of liberal speech. I've never seen one at my university, but there's nothing wrong with taking a little extra precaution.
3. It would prevent public relations headaches for college administrators. Students who cry "hate speech" are also more likely to file false charges of sexual and racial harassment. Getting rid of these students will likely reduce lawsuits. It will also likely reduce the number of false accusations of rape on college campuses. People who abuse speech codes in order to hurt people are also likely to do so the same thing with the criminal code. Sociopaths tend to be resourceful.
After we administer the test to prospective students, we should also administer it to the entire faculty. And we should fire those who fail the test. This would likely result in the need to shut down the departments of Sociology, English, Women's Studies, Social Work, and the entire School of Education.
In other words, my free speech entrance exam would weed out the most emotionally immature and intellectually insecure members of our university community - thus leaving the university in the hands of serious people committed to debating serious ideas. It would be hard to imagine a greater service to the cause of genuine tolerance and intellectual diversity.
Most college liberal professor would get a guaranteed HALF of those questions wrong.
He left out that women have the right to argue that abortion is murder
He put that in
All good ideas but in today’s America, not likely to happen any time soon. Liberals and other perverts won’t go down easily. No, I’m not a defeatist, I’m a realist.
We have to start taking our country back, that’s for sure but liberals didn’t take it quickly and we won’t take it back quickly. We can make a start in November 2014.
No, he only mentioned that aborting a child without the father’s consent was murder. DuncanWaring’s point (which is also mine) is that, even with the father’s consent, it still is an unconscionable act of murder.
I don’t think Dr. Adams was actually advocating such a test. He was merely pointing out the double standard being applied to free speech on campuses across the country.
We need to take his even-numbered points and start enforcing TRUE freedom of speech on college campuses. The repressed students on these campuses need to take a stand and refuse to be bullied into silence by PC fascists. They should avail themselves of every judicial remedy open to them, including civil action against those who would arbitrarily restrict their civil rights — ironically — in the name of “tolerance.”
bkmk
Thus the italics.
8. Anti-communist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.
##############
Correction...It is not a “fundamental” individual right...
It IS an unalienable “individual” right...A right granted by an authority HIGHER than any government instituted in the civilized world!!!
When you bring the word “fundamental”, either because it sounds correct, or is done so, overtly, or covertly, you are opening up a legal challenge, in that “fundamental” by its definition, subject to scrutiny...Unalienable (as enumerated in our founding documents) is to be intended (not interpreted, or questioned, only learned) as undeniable, cannot be infringed, or regulated...
THAT is the intent of those words, they are as inspired, as they are the authority to which we should be willing to sacrifice everything to protect those rights for future generations...
Those that want to do away with them, are fully understanding how that would enable the further decline of civilized, free societies...
Our nation is NOT the only nation with freedoms and liberties...To think so is an injustice to them as they understand how well our founding principles are the example to aspire to, to emulate, to duplicate and defend...
I really do agree in a large part the intent of the author, and the person who would want this to be a part of a corrective measure for our schools of higher learning...
But some people need to really be careful of the words they use, myself included...It may sound and look good, but the devil is in the details and interpretations, definitions that some will utterly go overboard to try and discount, or discredit because of a media driven, pre-ordained “narrative” that passes for news, that is today’s bread and butter for the low-information voters in this country...
Just my opinion...
Fundamental is (IMO) a “determination” by an individual, or body (group) to be, at the time of that determination, to be acceptable, either by legality, or social condition...
Unalienable, is something I believe, and many might see as well, as undeniable, pre-ordained, moral, without a need to question or modify...
Just something I should have added to my previous post...
You all know that Mike is the most advanced thinker in The Academy, don’t you?
I’d have been privileged to have a professor like him when I was in college, but we didn’t need them as much between 1959 and 1964 as we do today!
Back in my day, it was VERY RARE that a professor tried to impose a particular belief system on his/her students.
Happened to me once (he tried to convince us that FDR was a great President!), and I dropped his class, complained to the administration (who did nothing, a harbinger of things to come!) and moved on.
But, unknown to us, the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist/Fascist takeover of colleges was underway. We did not recognize that “under the radar” movement, and in a few years, the revolution was complete.
If we are to take our country back, we need a hellofalot more Mike Adams out there pushing back against these evil people!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.