What the president of Yale should have said.
Note, as is often the case, that opposition to freedom of expression comes from the left.
13 thoughts on “About The Yale Frat Boys”
Comments are closed.
What the president of Yale should have said.
Note, as is often the case, that opposition to freedom of expression comes from the left.
Comments are closed.
I don’t know enough to take a side, but the arguments surrounding Virginia vs Black may be relevant. In that recent case, the Supreme Court considered when bans on cross burning are constitutional. It decided they are when intent is to intimidate or when there is a “true threat” (a new category for banning speech)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Black
Note that the court’s divisions were not strictly liberal vs conservative, nor did the liberals want to ban free expression more than the conservatives.
Anyway, I bring this up because I don’t know if the frat boys intended to intimidate, but I find it easy to imagine that at least some did and some didn’t.
College speech codes are driven mostly by PC (that is, leftist) values.
I don’t think sexual assault is really a left-vs-right issue. If the frat boys were making girls scared that they’d be raped or molested if they walked past the house (which is my limited understanding of the situation), I think a crackdown isn’t necessarily an expression of leftist values, but rather an expression of civilized values prized by the left and the right. (It is so pleasant to find an issue where I can say various nice things about right wingers!)
Our government and public institutions are designed to govern civil people. It is unsuitable for controlling barbarians. The machine is operating beyond its design margin. No one seems to notice this. When the machine finally breaks, will people blame the machine? Will they blame the long-dead engineers? I doubt those in the cockpit (whatever “side of the asile” they’re on) will attribute the failure to cockpit error.
Not sure how cross burning is in anyway an equivalent comparison. While rude, I doubt these kids wanted to rape people or intended to intimidate people with the threat of rape.
The unionistas in WI were shouting sexual attacks similar to this. I guess it is different when attacks are directed at political opponents. In the case of WI, there was a clear intent to intimidate.
Free Speech issues aside, the more troubling aspect to the linked article,
“One reason that I believe this particular obligation is a step in the right direction is that the criminal justice system, as opposed to the campus tribunal, is far better equipped to handle serious allegations like criminal sexual assault. From investigation to trial, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges are responsible for providing fair treatment to both the accuser and the accused. The same cannot be said for campus disciplinary bodies, often comprised of faculty members and administrators who have little to no training in how to handle serious cases. Reaffirming the obligation to report grave allegations to outside authorities is a step in the right direction.”
From the quote Titus provided, it sounds like political satire (in very bad taste) and then I think it should be protected speech, and I think our government is particularly well designed to handle it. But I heard (on radio) a different account of what happened, which sounded more specifically threatening — more threatening than, say, a Swastika on a banner would be. I’m not sure I want to read up on it.
P.S.: If you’re in college, don’t date women in school.
Really, it’s not worth it, even before the new Title IX guidelines that set the burden of proof of rape ~ a coin toss.
Titus,
Love is the answer (I know that for sure),
Love is a flower, you’ve got to let it grow.
(And you’ve got to take it slow).
Bob,
It puts the lotion on its skin,
or else it gets the hose again.
I’ve read too many accounts of college freshmen orientation sessions where the assumption is that all men are potential rapists. In that PC atmosphere, it’s quite likely that some women might’ve felt threatened by those stupid chants. It’s very likely that they were offended. In a PC environment, that’s enough. We all know that offending someone is just about the worst thing you can possibly do.
I’m only being partly sarcastic here. In more civilized times, when a bunch of wanna-be fratboys made women angry, they found themselves social pirahs, unable to get dates because the women didn’t want any part of them. Today, it’s a matter for the courts and government intervention. More is the pity. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from being offended, but it can and should have nonlegal consequences. Since when is being a jerk a legal offense?
@Bob-1:
The “quote that Titus provided” is from the article that Rand linked. Your comments about a linked article might actually prove topical and less ignorant if you actually, maybe, you know, clicked on and read the linked articles…
I dunno. I’m all for free speech, but this whole thing just makes me glad I never went away to college, but instead just went to community college (so I just lived at home as usual). Animal House is a real funny movie, but living it isn’t exactly the same thing, is it?
In the real world, we have laws against harassment, being a public nuisance, disorderly conduct, etc. You wouldn’t have to invent a new crime.