headerphoto


Banning freedom of speech, er ah limiting free speech at a Colorado college.

Banning freedom of speech


"Bias Motivated Incidents."  Interesting phrase. What does it mean to
you? Painting swastikas on a jewish house of worship, cross burned
into a black family's lawn, someone 'hung' from a tree in a mock
hanging? That is what I thought of before I read thids article on how the
University of Northern Colorado interpets"Bias Motivated Incidents." 
Something as simple as an off color joke told to the wrong person,
or someone overhearing you telling an off color joke might get you in
trouble at UNCO.


What kind of atmosphere are they trying to establish at UNCO? Is
it one where everyone is so nice to each other it is sickening? Or
are they setting up an atmosphere based on honoring the toxic
poisons of the left: Diversity(at all costs) Multiculturalism and being
perfectly politically correct at all times as to not offend anyone.
The officials at UNCO do not realize that this is mission impossible.
Trying to obtain those highest of hieights of asafe campus where
nothing will be tolerated if it is offensive to anyone, at any given
time. One will have to feighn being offended at whatever is said or
acted out, and then you may be toast. The author, Mike Adams takes
this a bit farther and I will let you read on for his take on this idea of
"Bias Motivated Incidents."


The Joke ban
Townhall.com
MIke Adams


The University of Northern Colorado (UNCO) has decided it’s time to prohibit "Bias Motivated Incidents." When you hear about a “bias motivated incident,” maybe you’re thinking about a cross burning, or something of that nature. But at UNCO the “bias motivated incident” could simply be an "inappropriate joke" that is motivated by some form of bias.


The UNCO policy also says that “Any discriminatory act is a violation of the Housing & Residence Life Student Code of Conduct.” Well, what do they mean by “any discriminatory act”? According to the UNCO handbook this includes, but is not limited to, “racism, ageism, sexism, and/or homophobia.” And (get ready for this!) included in the definition is “intentionally, recklessly or negligently causing physical, emotional, or mental harm to any person.”

This reminds me of a university, which formerly had a speech code banning “challenging” speech. That university apparently wanted students to go off to school for four years without ever being challenged. Does UNCO want an educational environment characterized by, and only by, discourse that could never be deemed controversial by anyone?


College administrators often fail to distinguish between speech that is severe and persistent enough to constitute harassment and simple isolated expressions of protected speech. It appears as if they are utterly unable to write a code that could pass constitutional muster. More likely, they are fully aware that they can sustain the code through the twin threat of internal formal sanction and social stigmatization. Many would like to defeat such a patently illegal policy. Few wish to be dubbed racist, sexist, or homophobic in the process.


Continue reading

0 Comments - Share Yours!: