David Bernstein does make some good points about the problem of civil liberties in many universities today, but I wonder if a lot of the problem is not due to the fact that many of the programs which are bastions of radical leftist activism exist in the first place. I remain unconvinced that programs such as "Women's Studies" can ever produce anything of value that justify their inclusion in the list of majors at any respectable university. In fact, I would go so far as to say that by abolishing all of these "** Studies" programs and scaling back other majors such as Sociology and Political Science to a mere pittance of what they currently are on many campuses, that a lot of the problems could be naturally corrected. These programs are generally for those people who could not cut it in any other degree program.
Students also suffer from academic intolerance. Undergraduates frequently report to researchers that they feel intimidated into endorsing the political positions advanced by their professors. Many U.S. universities, though banned by the courts from enacting overt "speech codes," nevertheless enforce severe restrictions on freedom of expression under the guise of "anti-harassment" policies. UC Santa Cruz, for example, bans any speech or writing that "maligns another individual or group of individuals on the basis of age, creed, ethnicity, race, gender, gender identity, physical ability, political views, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status or other differences."
Primarily because of such policies, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit that promotes civil liberties in higher education, has ranked 16 of the 19 California state colleges it measured "red" -- the lowest rank -- for freedom of expression.
What is and isn't maligning is a matter of opinion. There is very little objective truth to this. One need only look at how thin-skinned many minorities and women are when forced to defend any belief or failure on their part to see the truth of that. It would, for example, require a finesse approaching that possessed by an Olympics gymnast to engage in any open debate with many of these people without deeply offending them because they use the political to explain away their personal failings. Ironically, the very people who need to be torn down to make them tougher, intellectually, are the very people who are protected by these sensitivity guidelines.
As always, freedom gets shot in the back of the head because some nebulous greater good must be served. Dr. Johnson was wrong. Patriotism is not the last refuge of scoundrels, the "greater good" is the last refuge of scoundrels.
It is interesting that the code protects "political views" which is really the only thing in that list that is entirely an issue of choice. No one forces you to believe a particular view nor are you born that way (tho genetics might play a tad part) What that code comes down to is you cannot discuss someones beliefs or effectively their behavior either as that stems from belief. If ideas, peopls and actions are off the table, just what is allowed to be discussed? Things? Not a very broad topic.
The code is there because they know these things will be discussed. It allows them to selectively enforce. They will say that people on their side are not disagreeable, though. That's one of the most irritating things about highly political people. They tend to think that their side is always civil and reasonable, and that the other side are the ones who are totally whacky and obnoxious.
I just throw scary words out at people like this. I tell them they're discriminating against me, and that their lack of respect for my feelings devalues me as a human being. I call their way of thinking fascist and hateful, and I do all of this while keeping a straight face. It's such a joy to see them squirm and struggle to come up with a PC response!
See, I just prefer to go for the jugular and point out that racism/sexism/homohatred/etc. is not required to feel the way I do about them. It's entirely about them, and there are no other reasons beside them being who and what they are that are needed to make me dislike them.