Well in the current ideological climate "silence is violence", as they say, damn this 1984ificaton of speech sucks. More specifically I think this is targeted at any views they don't like which really sucks.

It's a public university which means you have to see even the views that you don't like.

Exemplary modern dialogue shut-down tactic. Don't question me, don't debate me, don't ask me questions, don't think. If you don't do exactly what I say is good, you're problematic. If you're not as extreme as me, you're as bad as the enemy. Things like this have made me lose faith in modern civilization; we're watching the beginning of a catastrophic downfall.

Eh.

First of all, "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying.

Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority. It's easy to see someone get canceled on Twitter and jump to the conclusion that the Red Army is right around the corner. I'm not that worried in the long run. Be understanding, but push back, and remember that some people will always be jerks no matter what the context or what ideals they find themselves aligned with.

> "silence" historically has been and continues to be an avoidance tactic for dealing with racism. So there is truth in the saying.

Freedom, like freedom of speech and freedom of association, includes the freedom to inaction and silence. Assuming the worst (that someone is racist if they don't tweet about racism every day etc) is toxic behavior

> Second, the people taking this idea to extremes are a vocal minority.

But that's the problem, it's the extreme vocal minority who are calling for (and succeeding in) cancellations of perfectly reasonable individuals who want to speak at universities. See Jordan Peterson, etc.

This statement is exactly true after removing "as extreme" too. These days anyone with a different opinion can be considered an enemy, extreme or not.

Actually, when was it not a problem? I vaguely remember christianity's historical splits were caused by lesser disagreements (at least what was stated to be the cause).

It’s the exact same in-group/out-group tactic that the neo-conservative republicans were using in the early 2000s with terrorism e.g.

“if you’re not with us then you’re with the terrorists” == “if you’re not out protesting/twittering/tumblring then you’re with the white supremacy patriarchy.”

Actually quite interesting how you can use the same tactics in a totally different population and get people all riled up. Most likely just political maneuvering by parties to engage voters.

Looking at it objectively I also didn’t see the media covering the Tusla massacre (as abhorrent as it was) nearly as much as they have been in the last couple days, which does lead to the suspicion that the coverage is politically motivated.

Warning: Off-topic rabbit-hole follows.

I've seen "silence is violence" a number of times, and regarded it (justifiably, I think) as manipulative BS. Then I saw one sign that said "silence = additional deaths". That one I found a bit harder to dismiss.

If (if) you think the statistics indicate that blacks are getting killed at disproportional rates, and if you think that you can put enough political pressure on to change things, then silence is not direct violence, but it is letting things continue to happen the way they've been happening.

It at least made me think, which "silence is violence" didn't.

While that argument is more nuanced than "silence is violence", it has its own share of issues. Death is egalitarian but its judgement isn't based on Rawlsian principles. Rather, it is firmly staked in Darwinian ones. Suggesting one's "silence" or lack thereof has an effect on that is a false correlation.

The problem with these arguments as a whole is that they ascribe a two-dimensional zero-sum game to what is in fact a more complex issue with millions of variables involved. Remember that slogans exist as signaling for likeminded people and a publicity attractor to the rest of the crowd. They don't exist to persuade others of a point or provide a workable method for achieving an aim. The best way to obtain the latter is to present your case in full to a legal society.

Too bad silence and violence almost rhyme, otherwise no one would have thought up this stupid phrase.

Further, willfully damaging or destroying physical buildings and "things" is _not_ violence.

[1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/ny-times-reporter-says-destroy...

As you read in both the article and the policy, the word violence has been removed and clarified as "behavior which seriously threatens the health or safety of any person".

I wonder if they have the integrity to apply that to cigarette smoking, drinking alcohol, engaging in unprotected sex (while infectious with STD), or having a lifestyle that causes obesity.

"This post makes me feel unsafe"

This isn't a social media policy, so I still don't understand why everyone's focusing on "posts", but sure, if they apply this clause to anything that makes anyone feel unsafe, that would be bad. I guess you win there.

If you're able to come up with a useful set of rules that can't possibly be abused, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested to see them.

Can you help me find in the linked PDF an reference to "monitoring" or "surveillance"? I can't find any reference to anything of the kind. The word "monitor" doesn't appear in the document, and the word "surveil" only appears once, in the definition of "Stalking".

The portion you quoted appears to be a portion of the document that was deleted and rewritten. "pursuit of its mission" is, for example, deleted from the document and replaced with the phrase "in which the University can demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution".

Fair, however the text when updated includes:

"which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members"

Again, disruption to members can, and has been, classified as "making feel uncomfortable". The language of this, in any revision shown, is dangerous. Someone being upset could easily argue that the "disruption" caused them harm, and prevented them from carrying out the institution's academic goals. This is functionally the same point, just couched in slightly more vague terminology.

Okay, fine. I totally understand some people might have complaints with the previous language and the new language.

Can you help me understand how the headline of linked post isn't just...factually wrong, though?

The headline is: "University of Oregon will monitor students' social media statements". Unless I'm missing something that's just factually incorrect. What I'd like to get to is: Did I miss something, or is that headline just wrong?

A sentence from the article is: "Now, the Board of Trustees at the University of Oregon have approved a vague policy that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other “conduct” of its students"

I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document. Again, I'm trying to figure out: did I miss something or fail to understand something, or is that sentence just factually wrong?

> I can't find "social media" or any form of a "mandate" to "monitor" social media in the document.

You're correct. Digging deeper, I find no mention either. The title is factually incorrect. I will make updates to my comment to reflect this so as to avoid providing false information. That said, this sort of action is still deeply concerning given that someone can now bring social media posts and speech to the attention of the university for sanction.

Couldn't they do that before this change? And why is it deeply concerning? I'm pretty sure if someone tweeted "gonna plant a bomb on campus tomorrow" or "planning to burn down my professor's house at 123 Main St, anyone interested DM me, good luck @ProfessorBrown" the school could have done something about it even without this policy. And if not, this new policy is clearly necessary.

If you think the policy is too broad and covers more than just these extreme examples, I'd love to see a rule that only covers such extremes and can't possibly be abused.

The thing is, this sort of activity is already covered under criminal law like you said. The rules from the university form a redundant legal system, and as a result are open to abuses given the lower standards of harm and evidence used.

So, to answer your question, the regulation could sanction people convicted of violent offences when the violent offenses pertain the the university and/or it's members. Therefore:

"The university reserves the right to sanction members of its community who have been convicted of acts of violence, or convicted of making credible threats of violence, against it's members."

Ok, but since getting suspended or kicked out of school is a much lighter penalty than getting put in prison, we can easily imagine behavior that doesn't quite rise to the level of criminal assault or harassment, but does deserve university punishment. It's also common for the legal process to take years, and we can imagine a student continuing to attend the university normally and graduating, and then finally being convicted of something that happened in their junior year.

"lower standards of harm and evidence" are used because the consequences are lower. As the importance of an organization grows, the standards grow. At the lowest end of the spectrum, you don't need any evidence or process to kick someone out of a house party, because the stakes are very low. At the highest end, you need a ton of evidence and process to kick someone out of society by imprisoning them, because the stakes couldn't be higher. There's a big spectrum in between - banning someone from a store/sports stadium/airline, kicking someone out of a professional organization, firing someone from a job, etc.

I don't know the details of UofO's process, but I do think it's appropriate that they have lower standards and faster responses than a criminal prosecution.

If I take on $50,000 of debt to get a degree, and then they kick me out before I get it, that's a lighter penalty than getting put in prison, but it can still mess up my life for the next large number of years.

Not to mention that getting your degree revoked will likely get you blacklisted from nearly as many jobs as having a conviction of some sort on your record. Especially if someone can google your name and find that you were "charged" by your university for "causing disruptions".

I know, that's why I'm talking about a spectrum. They shouldn't kick you out on a whim, or with no evidence, but they also shouldn't weigh it like they're giving you a life sentence in prison.

Yes, but it doesn't say that the school is actively monitoring anything. The title of the article makes it sound like they are requiring passwords to people's social media accounts--like the US government does for visa applicants.

More likely they'll just dig through people's history as needed to get them to bend over and take whatever way the university is mistreating them that minute.

"thank you for contacting us to appeal your parking ticket, we would like to remind you of our policy on off-campus behavior (attached) and what you tweeted on 4/20/2015, if you would like to formally appeal your ticket please fill and return the appeal form (also attached)."

Yeah people freaking out over getting "cancelled" due to political views are missing the more mundane way this could be used to retaliate against students posting shit in general about the university.

I wish some day showing off purchases, vacations, parties, achievements, and any happy moments, will be classified as "producing emotional harm" and "creating hostile environment". And I think it is possible, because statistically some groups have more of those to show off than others, and group disparity indicates systematic discrimination.

So basically everyone on Instagram gets banned?

Not really, you can still post sad moments and words supporting all sorts of equity.

But sadness makes people sadder, so also negative.

Maybe cats and puppies unless some people aren’t allowed pets like some renters...

> "Students whose off-campus behavior has a significant adverse impact on the University community, its members, and/or the pursuit of its mission and educational objectives."

You grabbed the wrong quote. That was from an earlier draft. This is what is in the final draft:

"Student behavior which occurs off-campus in which the University can demonstrate a clear and distinct interest as an academic institution regardless of where the conduct occurs and a) which causes substantial disruption to the University community or any of its members, b) which involves academic work or any University records, documents, or identifications, or c) which seriously threatens the health or safety of any person."

This one is even worse. Now it is not necessary that disruption would have provably adverse impact, it can be any disruption.

Health includes mental health, so by definition anything you do that might be my “triggering” to somebody or some group is now banned

I'm OK with this, as long as the terms are well-defined and there is some form of recourse or due process for cases of mistaken and/or abusive accusations.

significant adverse impact on the University community

Should the school have the ability censure a student who posts openly hateful things on Twitter? I think they should; in my opinion, it's not different from shouting those hateful things at passersby on the campus lawn.

Should the school have carte blanche power to monitor all social media communication by students? Probably not. But where to draw the line is tricky.

Another problem is that University administrators with this level of power are not necessarily neutral, disinterested regulators. In the current political climate, it is absolutely feasible that the definition of "adverse impact" could change shape and size depending on who is causing the adverse impact. The example in the blog post is telling.

> I'm OK with this, as long as the terms are well-defined and there is some form of recourse or due process for cases of mistaken and/or abusive accusations.

What about mistaken and/or abusive applications of the process? What if you need protection, not from a student, but from an administrator?

> Should the school have the ability censure a student who posts openly hateful things on Twitter? I think they should; in my opinion, it's not different from shouting those hateful things at passersby on the campus lawn.

Twitter isn't the campus lawn. The campus lawn is university property; Twitter isn't.

It's not "absolutely feasible." It's already done.

But, I wouldn't judge too early. The university clearly caters to an audience which is voting with their borrowed/hard earned money to pay their tuitions [1]. It's not like your are forced to study there. If nothing else, other education providers will grow with the influx of new money.

[1] https://tuition.uoregon.edu/

yeah... in india this is the same feeling. you are not supposed to diminish or try to suggest ideas that would incite feelings of diminishing the authority of an institution, usually courts or ruling party or some professional institutions... The "image" of an institution is worth more than the life of an individual. Again, if i write a tweet critical of some public figure, i have somehow brought the wrath of an entire country because of this and this automatically vanishes my rights, usually now a days my right to live.

Agreed. This isn't slippery slope any more either, universities and other institutions have demonstrated a willingness to deliberately conflate "violence" with ideological transgressions even including _not_ speaking out on an issue a la "silence is violence".

Here are a smattering of cases in which universities suspend, fire, or pushed out faculty on the premise that they are creating "unsafe environments" (or similar implications/accusations) with their heterodox ideas (note that these are just professors, but there are certainly many more cases in which student transgressions result in suspensions, expulsions, etc):

* the Christakises were pushed out of Yale for arguing that the university didn't need to dictate to students what Halloween costumes were appropriate for students--that the students were adults who could decide for themselves. They weren't right-wing demagogues (far from it), but they didn't toe the party line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Free_speec...

* A professor was suspended for saying a Chinese word that sounds vaguely like a racial slur: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...

* Another professor was suspended for the tone of a letter in which he declined to grade black students differently than white students in the wake of the George Floyd murder. https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/06/10/ucla-professor-on...

* Another couple of university faculty (Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying) were pushed out of an Oregon university for declining to participate in a "no-whites-on-campus" day. When 50+ students assembled outside of classroom angrily chanting, accusing him of racism and white supremacy. Evergreen police were ordered to stand down, and told Weistein they couldn't protect him and that he should stay off campus. The mob also circulated names and photographs of his students and grafitied things like "fire Bret" on campus. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-tur...

* Another professor was fired for criticizing his university's handling of sexual abuse scandals and anti-semitic behavior by University employees. https://www.thefire.org/tenured-professor-abruptly-fired-aft...

* Northwestern Professor Laura Kipnis's is sanctioned by the university's Title IX tribunal for criticizing Title IX (criticizing Title IX is a violation of Title IX, apparently): https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endle...

* St Johns professor found guilty of violating Bias, Discrimination, and Harassment policies and accused of racism for asking students to weigh the pros and cons of the Columbian Exchange (a standard history question) https://www.thefire.org/teaching-history-not-permitted-st-jo...

* A U Chicago law professor is investigated for a quiz question referencing censored versions of slurs: "n___ and b___" (that's verbatim, the full words were not spelled out on the exam). The question was about legal recourse for a situation in which those words were used. https://reason.com/volokh/2021/01/15/tenured-law-prof-appare...

I'm done with it. I vote Republican now.

I'm certainly not going to tell you how to vote, but as a heads up this particular article seems to be factually incorrect.

As far as I can tell (and I'm asking for clarifications from people, in case I've misunderstood something) the headline is not supported by the linked document, and the key sentences from the article are not supported by the linked document.

The words "monitor", "mandate", "surveillance", and "social media" don't appear anywhere in this policy change. I can't find anything in the linked policy "that mandates the monitoring of the social media exchanges and other 'conduct' of its students".

Oh great, so voting restrictions, abortion bans and tacit support of violent right wing extremists are now comparable to a university enacting a vague policy that doesn't actually seen to imply that they will do any monitoring?

I would prefer if you just abstained from voting, honestly.

Well the tacit support for right wing extremists is kind of bullshit, but I'll give you the rest. This is usually the kind of response I get. "But the Republicans..." and they're right. But I'll take all of that shit over the party that doesn't respect my first or 2nd amendment rights, openly advocates for racial discrimination, and is now asking for an increase in federal police powers over the Jan 6 riot. The Democrats have a real problem handling disagreement and open debate. The right, for all it's problems seems fine with it.

The tacit support for right wing extremists is also entirely a red herring.

If I look at the policy history of Republican vs Democrat governments dating back to Nixon, I see a lot more to dislike in the former than the latter, and I don't see a whole lot of change over time.

The Democrats are having their very limp version of a Tea Party moment right now. Unlike the Republicans they fought it instead of embraced it. But that's not because they're dumber, it's because the extreme conservatism of the Tea Party was politically convenient for both parties, while leftism is politically inconvenient for both parties.

It's all shit, but at least I support the shit that might eventually help people one day, and not the shit that actively promotes "for me but not for thee"-ism.

> I would prefer if you just abstained from voting, honestly.

So it's your way or the highway huh? So much for freedom and all that other stuff in the Constitution.

Wanting secure voting is not restricting it. Fighting for rights of the unborn is not a bad thing when you believe they are alive at a certain point before birth (some people are fighting simply for abortion to be banned after birth). Antifa/BLM has done more damage and death in these past years of riots than anything the "right-wing extreme" has done in terms of body count and property damage. What right wing group and what event are you talking about? Jan 6th, the only person who was killed was shot by a cop. Something tells me you just wanted to lay hyperboles down in an unfair way and scuttle away.

Locally, the border issue matters greatly to me and I feel a strong stance is both the moral, economic, and secure choice. We shouldn't incentivize people to make that terrible trip. The cartels make more money off of trafficking humans than drugs. Letting wall parts rust that are already paid for is a stupid move. Complete the wall, it works. It frees up agents to handle other areas and keep the cartels from smuggling and lets more people come in legally.

All that being said, those issues aren't even on the table. Currently the important issues are the 1A and the 2A and the Democrats seem to HATE them, they vehemently support censorship and gun control for law abiding citizens. If you can't even support the first two amendments, how are you going to get my support?

> Wanting secure voting is not restricting it.

Which make it so weird that “secure” voting activities are targeted at specific types of legal voters, and are almost always accompanied with targeted efforts to remove the ability of those voters to meet requirements. Like restricting acceptable IDs and then closing a third of the locations to get those IDs, and they just happen to be majority areas for the other party [1]. It is also strange these efforts to “secure” voting can’t seem to show evidence of what they are securing against, and only seem to focus on tiny parts of the voting process that also have the effect of voter suppression.

> Fighting for rights of the unborn is not a bad thing when you believe they are alive at a certain point before birth

Which point? Since most abortions happen in the first 8 weeks. Only 1.3% of all abortions happen in the second half of pregnancy and are almost exclusively medically necessary for serious health reasons preformed on women that wanted the pregnancy.

> (some people are fighting simply for abortion to be banned after birth)

Who are they fighting against, since that isn’t legal in any state?

>Antifa/BLM has done more damage and death in these past years of riots than anything the "right-wing extreme" has done in terms of body count and property damage.

“Since 2015, right-wing extremists have been involved in 267 plots or attacks and 91 fatalities, the data shows. At the same time, attacks and plots ascribed to far-left views accounted for 66 incidents leading to 19 deaths.”[2] it is also passing strange that despite countless videotaped examples of police attacking, assaulting peaceful protestors exercising their right to protest, the only criminality you seem to care about the property damage. I think it could be argued that police acting above the rule of law and violently attacking people that criticize them might be a contributing factor to a riot.

> Jan 6th, the only person who was killed was shot by a cop.

Only one person was killed during the JFK assassination. Context is pretty important to what happened. An armed group of individuals breaching the Capitol Building filled with senior politicians, including the vice president, with the express purpose of preventing the transition of power by force is the context that is important. An attempted insurrection is not really on the same level as a burned up Arbys. You also seem to forget the police officer that was beaten to death with the American flag pole on the steps of the Capitol Building.

> Letting wall parts rust that are already paid for is a stupid move. Complete the wall, it works.

Walls at strategically placed locations based on evidence of crossings do actually work, which is why they had already been built. The current building of a wall across the entire border is a massive waste of money with no evidence of efficacy.

> Currently the important issues are the 1A and the 2A and the Democrats seem to HATE them

Weird how 1A protests against the police that were brutally and violently cracked down on by the police don’t seem to bother you, an actual 1A issue. I’d say the right to protest without the cops showing up in military cosplay and teargassing you is a pretty basic right. But what actual 1A issues are the democrats “HATING”?

[1] https://www.governing.com/archive/alabama-demands-voter-id--...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...

At this point I feel like we have 2 political parties trying to create different dystopian nightmares and there’s no non-dystopian option.

My vote goes to the candidate that supports free speech. Today that’s mostly republicans and I’ve come to terms with that. Yesterday it was Democrats and it may be Democrats again tomorrow.

I'm pretty sure Republicans are presently trying to pass a bunch of speech restrictions on campus aimed at curbing Critical Race Theory. CRT is hot garbage to be sure, but Republicans--unwilling to cede the moral low ground--are opting to solve the problem by way of speech codes and assaults on academic freedom.

They're not limiting any student from talking about it, just it from being taught, because it's indoctrinating Marxist bullshit. No different than them trying to teach Creationism.

Agreed that they're not banning students from talking about it and that it's BS, but as far as I know state governments don't have laws that forbid teaching creationism in public universities.

They have lawsuits preventing teaching creationism in public universities, based on the Establishment Clause.

This kind of thing is what helped me see that universities really have become institutions for social policing, rather than teaching objectivity and rational thought. It's tragic that people are so comfortable trampling over things like free speech under the facade of safety, and even more tragic that people fall for the deceit.