The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
YLS professor GAPES liberals in lengthy screed (article
| Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard | 03/23/15 |
| Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard | 03/23/15 |
| onyx floppy party of the first part | 03/23/15 |
| Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard | 03/23/15 |
| Mildly autistic lodge national security agency | 03/23/15 |
| motley orchestra pit boistinker | 11/08/15 |
| Salmon persian mental disorder | 11/08/15 |
| Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon | 03/23/15 |
| fear-inspiring carmine shrine | 03/23/15 |
| Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon | 03/23/15 |
| apoplectic adventurous factory reset button | 03/23/15 |
| Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon | 03/23/15 |
| apoplectic adventurous factory reset button | 03/23/15 |
| Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon | 03/23/15 |
| apoplectic adventurous factory reset button | 03/23/15 |
| Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon | 03/23/15 |
| carnelian base half-breed | 03/23/15 |
| Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon | 03/23/15 |
| comical fortuitous meteor circlehead | 03/23/15 |
| Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon | 03/23/15 |
| apoplectic adventurous factory reset button | 03/23/15 |
| comical fortuitous meteor circlehead | 03/23/15 |
| Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard | 03/23/15 |
| brass station | 11/08/15 |
| Mischievous roast beef | 04/24/16 |
| Exhilarant location scourge upon the earth | 04/24/16 |
| nubile twinkling feces trump supporter | 11/08/15 |
| Aggressive Area Mother | 04/24/16 |
| Mildly autistic lodge national security agency | 03/23/15 |
| Mildly autistic lodge national security agency | 03/25/15 |
| Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard | 03/25/15 |
| Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard | 03/25/15 |
| Filthy angry site | 11/08/15 |
| cyan bateful resort legal warrant | 04/24/16 |
| Salmon persian mental disorder | 11/08/15 |
| Filthy angry site | 11/08/15 |
| harsh trailer park ratface | 11/08/15 |
| Aggressive Area Mother | 04/24/16 |
| Vivacious cruise ship | 04/24/16 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 23rd, 2015 12:48 AM Author: Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard https://theamericanscholar.org/the-embattled-first-amendment/#.VQ-asYpHaJI (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27539168) |
Date: March 23rd, 2015 12:58 AM Author: Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard In recent years, however, some influential scholars have shifted their attention to the harm caused by racist hate speech—to Words That Wound, as the legal scholars Mari J. Matsuda, Charles R. Lawrence III, Richard Delgado, and Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw called it in the title of their essay collection. They choose equality over liberty, fair speech over free speech. Relying on the principle of equality, they argue that racist speech is intrinsically harmful because it is wrong at its core. They argue that the ridicule to which it subjects minorities harms them as a group by holding them in an inferior social position, and as individuals by isolating and humiliating them. In addition, Lawrence argues, it “infects, skews, and disables” the marketplace of ideas, whose vitality Justice Holmes regarded as essential to American governance. Holmes advised “that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”
The arguments about sexist and racist hate speech have prevailed at hundreds of colleges and universities, which have codes banning speech that offends because of what it says about sex or race. Since 1999, an organization called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education—FIRE—has scrutinized the disciplinary policies at colleges and universities. It now reports that, of the 427 institutions studied, 59 percent have codes that “seriously infringe upon students’ speech rights,” though many institutions vigorously dispute that. FIRE has brought a series of successful lawsuits against public institutions, which are covered by the First Amendment and must uphold the free-speech rights of their faculty and students. Private institutions are not covered by the First Amendment and can adopt speech codes, but that doesn’t make them immune from FIRE’s vigilance. It calls them out for hypocrisy, because they claim to be bastions of academic freedom where all viewpoints can be expressed, whereas their speech codes are proof that they aren’t. |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 1:00 AM Author: onyx floppy party of the first part FIRE is 180 and has been way ahead of the curve on this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27539227) |
 |
Date: March 23rd, 2015 1:03 AM Author: Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard FIRE has taken stances on campus sexual misconduct policies; for example, it denounced the American Association of University Women's report on sexual harassment as "fatally flawed"[13] and sided with the defendants in joining[14] an amicus brief in Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions et al
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_in_Education |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 1:12 AM Author: Mildly autistic lodge national security agency libs, how irate does this make you, you fascists? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27539277) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:34 PM Author: motley orchestra pit boistinker did u read the part where he bashes Citizens United (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#29138867) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:40 PM Author: Salmon persian mental disorder tea tard shitcons are against CU too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#29138899) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 10:45 AM Author: Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon I'm a lib and I agree with this perspective, but this is classic con-style arguing: "We COULD be right about the problems and therefore don't create any new ideas or systems." Cons make their idea as simple as possible and then say, well you agree with this don't you? No, because hate speech, sexual harassment and rape are huge problems at these universities, much bigger than the issue of restricted free speech (and they cause much greater harm to the victims). Of course we need to balance these competing objectives. But, currently, we should err on the side of solving these problems rather than allowing all speech. The issue is more complicated than: "1st amendment! 1st amendment!" Plus literally every conservative thinks it applies to private (e.g., but inevitably i.e., employer action), "they fired me because I kept tweeting racist rants supporting ted cruz, they violated my 1st amendment rights" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540222) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 10:53 AM Author: fear-inspiring carmine shrine "hate speech, sexual harassment and rape are huge problems at these universities, much bigger than the issue of restricted free speech"
damn boy. you got that slow flame cooker working early.
Harm caused by hate speech = 1,000,000 little microagressions burning in the pit of everyone's stomach
Harm caused by rape = literally 25% of all women are presently being raped at this moment
Harm caused by sexual harassment = at a college? lol. you got me trolled. |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 10:58 AM Author: Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon Fair enough, this usually dovetails into two issues. (1) Free speech vs. being subjected to harmful speech and (2) due process afforded the accused in university rape accusations/tribunals. My main thing is that colleges have no business handling an actual crime, so rapes should be turned over to the police. Always. The speech issue isn't a illegal (unless the school's action is a 1st amendment violation) so it makes sense for the school to handle it according to its code and rules. Either way, I don't think people are having difficulty expressing unpopular opinions (particularly when those unpopular opinions are sexist or racist) so I'm more focused on solving the other issues. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540277) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:00 AM Author: apoplectic adventurous factory reset button "But, currently, we should err on the side of solving these problems rather than allowing all speech."
The problem with this is you want to put the definition of forbidden speech in the hands of shitlibs, who are all too happy to eat each other alive to show how "enlightened" they are. Almost everything can be called hate speech. The Vagina Monologues, a bastion of feminism 10-15 years ago, is now hate speech to some b/c it's so "cis-bigoted" and not inclusive enough to the trans community.
Rather than ride that slippery slope, doesn't it make much more sense to allow ALL speech that isn't a direct threat or danger, rather than to allow some committee to subjectively decide what can be said? |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:04 AM Author: Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon Agree about the slippery slope and direct danger, I was on the con/libertarian side for OU SAE (and now maybe the baseball guy, although that was just so stupid). But that runs the other way too. You have these idiot freshman who are pissed they can't call their teacher a dumb cunt because she cut off their oratory on john locke. That's not a free speech issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540296) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:11 AM Author: apoplectic adventurous factory reset button The thing that pisses me off right now is the all or nothing approach. No one gets warnings anymore and apologies mean nothing. The baseball guy could have been suspended for a game or two, encouraged to do community service, etc. Something that proved a point or did some good without fucking his entire life. Now he's off the team and a complete pariah for one stupid tweet that he probably wrote while drunk. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540331) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:14 AM Author: Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon Cool, agreed, I think the expulsion thing is insane (although I guess the OU guys may have withdrawn in time). If you get expelled at the age of 19, your life is essentially over. That's ridiculous and insane. We don't have enough capable people to throw away as many lives as we do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540347) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:19 AM Author: apoplectic adventurous factory reset button I agree that you shouldn't be able to call a prof names to their face in their classroom, and a prof should have the ability to throw a student out for that kind of belligerence, but then you get the profs who throw out students for every "micro aggression," like daring to say that the rape or income disparity stats that everyone quotes are completely inaccurate. So I don't know how you can reconcile those two very easily.
I'd rather err on the side of allowing speech than to restrict it. You have these coddled/protected millennials now who are traumatized by hearing any kind of differing opinion. That shit needs to be squashed. Restricting speech just feeds into it, as does catering to the internet rage machines. |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:24 AM Author: Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon haha "catering to internet rage machines." Yeah, I hate that 77 cents on the dollar, whatever, liberals are terrible because even though (I think) they're generally right, they use awful examples and are horrible at getting people to adopt their points of view. Basically I think conservative ideas are simpler (not to say there aren't smart conservatives) and most people are dumb, so conservative ideas have a better chance. I never saw a prof throw anyone out of a class in UG or LS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540398) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:04 AM Author: carnelian base half-breed lol at "hate speech" being a "huge problem" at any university anywhere (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540298) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:06 AM Author: Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon Cons: "That speech contained a minor exaggeration, ignore everything anyone ever said and return to the stone age." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540306) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:17 AM Author: comical fortuitous meteor circlehead Pretty sure rape ain't a "huge problem" on campus either, i.e, its not especially prevalent there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540362) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:19 AM Author: Judgmental concupiscible tanning salon Hard to tell either way because data for general population isn't considered reliable (although that doesn't mean that's the case). So, difficult to tell whether its relatively higher, but the percentage of women who will experience sexual assault at college is high enough that I think it's a huge problem. Another point is that it's actually easier to stop it there because it's so often acquaintances etc. that this makes it an easy place to attack it. Formative age in the kids' lives, there's lot of good reasons (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540377) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:22 AM Author: apoplectic adventurous factory reset button Studies have shown that women of the same age who are not in college are MORE at risk of sexual assault than those in college. Don't forget the original study said ALL unwanted sexual contact (forced kiss, butt grab, etc), and the best they could get was 2% saying yes. Colleges as a whole are pretty safe spaces. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540387) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 11:22 AM Author: comical fortuitous meteor circlehead Shut the fuck up with this "sexual assault", shitlib. Its rape or its bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27540389) |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 8:53 PM Author: Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27543531) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:34 PM Author: brass station one of my friends was wearing a dress during the summer on a crowded subway and some guy got up close to her (New Yorkers know how packed a train like the 4/5 can get during rush hour), put his hand up her dress and grabbed her pussy
totally right and ok according to you because it wasn't full-on rape
*rolls eyes* |
|
Date: April 24th, 2016 8:05 AM Author: Mischievous roast beef Welp, I'm hard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#30336027) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2016 9:42 AM Author: Exhilarant location scourge upon the earth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#30336144) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:59 PM Author: nubile twinkling feces trump supporter the issue is more complicated than the 1st amendment the issue is more complicated than the 2nd amendment the issue is more complicated than the 9th amendment the issue is more complicated than the 14th amendment that fucking constitution just doesn't respect my right to a safe zone! |
|
Date: April 24th, 2016 8:16 AM Author: Aggressive Area Mother "No, because hate speech, sexual harassment and rape are huge problems at these universities, "
Citation needed |
|
Date: March 23rd, 2015 9:18 PM Author: Mildly autistic lodge national security agency bump for libs (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27543710) |
|
Date: March 25th, 2015 12:55 AM Author: Mildly autistic lodge national security agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27550806) |
|
Date: March 25th, 2015 1:41 AM Author: Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27550969) |
|
Date: March 25th, 2015 7:31 PM Author: Translucent sticky brethren gay wizard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#27554496) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:29 PM Author: Filthy angry site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#29138848) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2016 8:01 AM Author: cyan bateful resort legal warrant (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#30336025) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:36 PM Author: Salmon persian mental disorder Honestly I think most smart libs, even in academia, are not on board with the SJW squawking about hate speech, but they are curiously silent about it. Kind of like how most elite conservatives don't want to do anything insane like building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico but don't really say much about it.
The only issue where there is a clear divide is CU, where libs want corporate $$$ out of politics (excluding union money & media orgs, of course) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 5:42 PM Author: Filthy angry site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#29138912) |
|
Date: November 8th, 2015 6:09 PM Author: harsh trailer park ratface "anything insane like building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico "
gas yourself |
|
Date: April 24th, 2016 8:21 AM Author: Aggressive Area Mother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#30336044) |
|
Date: April 24th, 2016 8:39 AM Author: Vivacious cruise ship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2836736&forum_id=2#30336063) |