Why are colleges shutting down free speech?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The paradox of "liberals" no longer being "liberal" is nothing new, nor is it particularly worth remarking upon; the same ought be said for those on the right now suddenly clinging to free speech. What is, perhaps, worth noting is the specific manifestation this has taken regarding the somewhat reversed attitudes they each possess regarding individual vs. environment.

Regarding point 1: Since apparently this needs explaining, for centuries, those identified as liberals supported the breakdown of a number of barriers. Years later, those following in their ideological lineage would suddenly seem to reverse course. It's part of a general flow of progress: to break down old barriers in order to erect new ones. The most obvious one would be economic structure itself, where liberals and capitalists supported the smashing of the old feudalist/mercantilist orthodoxy in favor of some sort of "free" market. Much, much later, liberal Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal in the United States as one of the single greatest expansions of government in history. The case of "free speech" is perhaps most demonstrative of this process' structure and aims. Liberals burst forth into mid-century America where certain thoughts and ideas, even forms of speech, were taboo if not outright sanctioned by certain institutions. This stood in direct opposition to not merely their principles ("free speech"), but also their ideological aims ("social egalitarianism", put most succinctly). As such, "free speech" would not be just the principle, but the tool by which they managed to dissolve certain modes of thinking in favor of a sort-of intellectual free-for-all*. Now, having, in many respects won that battle, their ideological descendants are tasked with erecting a new norm of speech to suit their overall goals. In this case, the principles fall somewhere along the lines of "freedom from" as opposed to "freedom to", even though the overall primary goal might remain the same. States rights, as well, was initially a liberal invention to oppose the order of the day, but would have to ultimately be shattered by the new order that later liberals would erect. I'm typing entirely out of my ass when I contemplate this, but perhaps only Marxism saw this natural progression and gave it some sort of conceptual framework. Not enough to liberate the serf and make him free labor, he must be provided for as well!

Regarding point two, the specific forms of this progression today, this is perhaps what is most amusing. Conservatives, as late as the 1990's, sought to regulate the sale and distribution of music and other media with "explicit" content. The argument was essentially that it could set a bad example for children who might emulate the behavior. "Progressives" today spout the same rhetoric. While conservatives were perhaps more afraid of "gang culture" and progressives "the patriarchy", the concept of person-in-environment is the same. Conversely, what would a 1990's liberal have said? Probably something to the effect that people were smart enough to make their own decisions about what they listened to and watched. After all, just because someone plays a first-person shooter video game doesn't mean they're going to go on a killing spree! This is the same self-congratulatory type of folk wisdom now being propagated among "libertarians" and the "alt-right" of today.

*NOTE: None of these things were ever fully realized; that's not really the point, though, is it? The point is that they concept is there; in the case of the liberal "We've finally achieved free speech and some level of tolerance!", for the conservative "We used to have free speech in this country!"

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Regarding point two, the specific forms of this progression today, this is perhaps what is most amusing. Conservatives, as late as the 1990's, sought to regulate the sale and distribution of music and other media with "explicit" content. The argument was essentially that it could set a bad example for children who might emulate the behavior. "Progressives" today spout the same rhetoric. While conservatives were perhaps more afraid of "gang culture" and progressives "the patriarchy", the concept of person-in-environment is the same. Conversely, what would a 1990's liberal have said? Probably something to the effect that people were smart enough to make their own decisions about what they listened to and watched.

You're miss-remembering.  The mainstream left was often very much in bed with the conservatives on this.  Tipper Gore was the most important person in the PMRC.

Hardly mis-remembering- I wasn't born! I was generalizing, yes, but I think my point stands. Merely because Clinton didn't have a problem executing a mentally retarded man doesn't mean "liberals" supported the death penalty either. My terminology was referring to people nominally to the left of Clinton/Gore.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

They aren't. They're promoting it, but some people are just not comfortable with hearing alternative points of view.

If they can't hear different points of view, they don't belong in college. This is what happens when you bring the lowest of the low into prestigious institutions. Unqualified morons. And they aren't studying engineering. Useless majors like Women's and Men's Studies, etc. I don't see what that major can provide in terms of a paycheck.

It's spreading all over the Western world. A Canadian American Trump supporter wore the hat and a SJW called it "unsafe". How foolish. She thinks her little bubble revolves around her and her type. Wonder what job she'll get in the future?

How many people with actual "gender studies" majors are there? And you do realize that, outside of just engineering, both private corporations and the government require managers, administrators, social analysts, cultural and regional experts, and so on--positions where the workforce is not reaped from a campus engineering building, right?