Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Is wokeism in colleges forcing conservatives to self-censor? – Deseret News

In the world of on-campus activities, there arent many things that cause a news firestorm. For an organization like the Buckley Institute that focuses on intellectual diversity at Yale, news trucks only arrive when a speaker has been protested or shouted down. What brought journalists to Yale in November 2022 was the decision by federal appellate Judges James Ho of the 5th Circuit Court and Elizabeth Branch of the 11th Circuit Court to boycott future Yale Law students for prestigious clerk positions until Yale did something to address the intolerance on campus.

Earlier that March, over 100 students had protested and shouted down a panel on free speech that featured both a noted conservative and a prominent liberal. Police were called. But even after some of the disrupters left the room, they continued to shout and bang on the classroom walls, making it difficult for the event to proceed.

The previous fall, Yale Law administrators had pressured a Native American student to apologize for a party invitation, even warning it could hurt his career prospects. And who could forget how two Yale faculty ended up resigning as heads of a residential college after students demanded they lose their jobs simply for suggesting that college students could maturely handle a Halloween costume they found offensive?

At the invitation of the Buckley Institute, Ho and Branch gave an overflow crowd a chance to hear why a boycott was necessary and how they hoped Yale would improve quickly. But what really stood out was a comment from one Yale undergraduate who questioned whether it was really fair for life-tenured judges with total job security to ask students to put their futures on the line to stand up for free speech. Sometimes, she said, its better for me to just sit back, bite my tongue, and then in four years, Ill be able to say whatever I want.

That conservative students at one of the worlds preeminent universities self-censor during classroom discussion is, sadly, not a surprise. Seventy years ago, William F. Buckley Jr., for whom the Buckley Institute is named, wrote God and Man at Yale about his own experience with the campus orthodoxy. In 2011, I founded the Buckley Institute to address the still rampant monoculture at Yale.

As an undergraduate, I observed a lack of conservative or even heterodox viewpoints on campus. Yale celebrated diversity but not diversity of thought. In the basement of one of Yales residential colleges, a few friends and I launched what would become the Buckley Institute as a simple speaker series to bring intellectual diversity to campus.

One of our signature efforts, our annual college survey, shows that this problem is not unique to Yale. In 2022, 63% of college students surveyed nationwide said they often feel intimidated in sharing opinions different than those of their classmates; 58% because of their professors. Both records since we began asking this question in 2015, those two numbers represent a 13% and 8% increase from the previous years, respectively.

Tasha Dambacher, a sophomore majoring in history, feels this acutely. After all, she was the one who questioned Ho and Branch about the practicality of speaking up. She worries that sharing conservative views could negatively impact her grade in a class, graduate school applications or even future job prospects.

The pressure to self-censor can creep up in unexpected places. Aron Ravin, a junior, recalled a discussion seminar on The Iliad where the professor compared the violence in Homers epic poem to the killing of George Floyd and school shootings. Student groups had been calling for defunding the Yale Police Department, which Ravin called one of the few things that made students on campus feel safe in New Haven. Sick of the oppressive campus orthodoxy, he chose to speak up in defense of the police and pointed out that Homers work, published almost 3,000 years ago, had nothing to do with contemporary politics. Ravin hoped that doing so would embolden similarly-minded classmates who were afraid to share their perspectives.

Though conservatives are more worried about being canceled, progressive students are also concerned. Liberals (64%) were only 2% less likely than conservative students (66%) to report being intimidated from sharing an opinion in class because of their fellow students. Neither age, nor race, nor public or private university enrollment brought the share of those intimidated by classmates below 53%.

Yales religious students too feel the pressure. Though there isnt generally a feeling of hostility toward religious individuals, Ryan Gapski, the Buckley Institutes current student president, commented that theres a sense among students that religious perspectives shouldnt be lent as much credence as secular ones. Another religious Yale undergraduate, Marcos Barrios, expressed a similar sentiment and commented that, as a religious person, there is a certain level of caution you have before you speak on hot button issues.

Yale is welcoming to religious students, Barrios continued. Theyre just less welcoming when a persons religion means they have different views on the values the university professes.

Beyond expressing their views in the classroom, religious students at Yale also have trouble dealing with the administration regarding religious housing needs. The growing frustration even led to a recent rally. Gapski agreed that the administration was definitely a part of the problem here. Religious students had significant challenges in securing religious accommodations for housing as many dormitories have mixed-gender floors and communal bathrooms. The university did ultimately agree to offer a single-gender housing option after weeks of protest.

Some students sense that the Yale administration is more willing to accommodate the religious needs of its student body when those needs dont conflict with progressive orthodoxy. I believe its much harder, Barrios said, when the university doesnt agree with the students reasons.

If it seems like shout-downs are increasingly normal on college campuses these days, its probably because college students are more supportive of them than before.

Our 2022 survey found 44% of college students, the highest percentage on record, believe it is acceptable to shout down or disrupt speakers on campus. A record 41% believe it is justifiable to use violence to stop hate speech.

Alarmingly, students who are afraid to speak up support the very things that make them timid in the first place. With 63% of students afraid of their classmates and 44% supporting shout-downs, there is a cross section of students who fear social cancellation but still support censorship anyway. Among students, 43% believe political opinions they find offensive should be reported to administrators. And nearly two-thirds believe new university faculty and any new employees at any company should be compelled to sign a diversity, equity and inclusion statement.

Indeed, many current college students have turned away entirely from the principles that make America so uniquely welcoming to free speech in the first place. For the first time in the eight-year history of the survey, a plurality of students dont believe that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. A slim plurality of college students (33% to 31%) would prefer to live under a socialist system than a capitalist one. As Milton Friedman famously argued in Capitalism and Freedom, a free marketplace of ideas and a free marketplace of goods go hand in hand.

There can be social costs to speaking up, no doubt. Ravin decided early on to speak out and share his conservative perspectives: in the classroom, in the Yale Daily News and in various conservative outlets.

He related that one fellow student began harassing him over an op-ed he wrote and demanded Ravin issue an apology. The student then said Ravin would bear his grief unless Ravin donated to a fundraiser for black, transgender, homeless youth.

Dambacher told Judges Ho and Branch that shes seen conservative friends sniggered at as they walk across campus. Yale is a small community, she explained later. Once one person says something about you, everyone knows, so it can sometimes be safer to keep a low-profile.

The question that came to me over a decade ago was what to do about the lack of intellectual diversity on campus. During my time as an undergraduate, this was clearly an issue with regard to the faculty. Ten years later, Yale hasnt changed much. A 2017 survey by the Yale Daily News found that 75% of Yale faculty identified as liberal versus 8% who identified as conservative. In 2020, the Yale Daily News reported that less than 3% of faculty political donations went to Republicans.

The administration isnt much help either. Ostensibly, Yale supports free speech and expression on campus. Yale President Peter Salovey focused his second freshman address in August 2014 on free speech at Yale and stressed in his most recent freshman address that faculty and students must be open to engaging with diverse ideas, whether conventional or unconventional, of the left or of the right. The Woodward Report which calls for the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable and challenge the unchallengeable remains the universitys official free speech policy.

Yet, for all Saloveys words, Yale administrators seem unwilling to enforce the universitys own policies or take substantive steps to improve free speech on campus. No students were punished after the free speech panel was disrupted last March. And to add insult to injury, Yale gave graduation awards to two students who took leading roles in bullying a Yale professor during the Halloween costume controversy. Dambacher, the sophomore, commented that Yale administrators are a part of the problem. They are often willing to humor attempts from other students attempting to censor speech, and will not affirm the importance of intellectual diversity or free speech.

Indeed, an overweening bureaucracy is often the source of the free speech problems. The Halloween costume debacle began with an email from a paternalistic administrator. And it was a diversity director and an associate dean who warned the Native American law student of consequences over a party invite.

To be fair to Yale and the many university and college administrators around the country, they are in a tough position with regards to cancel culture in their own right. As Ravin put it, most of the administration wants to be supportive. The problem is that the administration also wants to support the DEI (diversity equality and inclusion)-driven progressives, the very people who shut down speech.

This is where organizations like the Buckley Institute can make a difference. By providing a counterweight in favor of free speech, the Buckley Institute gives supportive university administrators breathing space to do the right thing. If only the cancellers speak up, administrators who support free speech can do little to oppose them.

The most important work is directly with the students, though. The Buckley Institute brings diverse perspectives to campus on an almost weekly basis through our speaker series, Firing Line debates and seminars. Our annual Disinvitation Dinner introduces individuals who have been disinvited from other campuses to an audience that isnt too afraid to hear them. Last fall, we distributed 1,600 copies of Yales free speech principles to every incoming freshman, better equipping them to support free speech on campus.

But most important of all, what the Buckley Institute and similar organizations on other campuses provide is an environment where undergraduates can freely challenge ideas and be challenged. At Buckley, students learn that there are perspectives outside of the campus orthodoxy, even if they wont be exposed to them in the classroom.

There are many proposals about what to do to rescue the increasingly illiberal college campus. Some focus on tackling the DEI bureaucracies that have chilled speech for faculty and student alike. And Yales bureaucracy, which has at times included more than one administrator for every undergraduate, could definitely use reform.

But if Americas undergraduates want censorship, then these efforts will have little meaningful effect. If Americas undergraduates arent taught the value of free speech, all the legislation in the world will have little impact on the problems American universities are facing.

Educating the next generation about the importance of free speech is essential. Bringing speakers with diverse viewpoints, as the Buckley Institute does, is the only way to build a caucus in favor of a robust free speech culture on campus. Demonstrating that diverse viewpoints arent dangerous viewpoints will create a student body welcoming to ideas that challenge rather than conform.

As our polling shows, students at Yale and across the country are afraid to speak up in class. Unless we do something, the problem will only get worse.

Lauren Noble is founder and executive director of the Buckley Institute.

This story appears in the May issue of Deseret Magazine. Learn more about how to subscribe.

Originally posted here:
Is wokeism in colleges forcing conservatives to self-censor? - Deseret News

Lizzo Called on to End Support of Kids Online Safety Act Amid Concerns Over Censorship – Pitchfork

The activist group Fight for the Future wants Lizzo to stop supporting a bill thats been condemned by the ACLU, GLAAD, and the National Center for Transgender Equality

Earlier this month, Lizzo partnered with Dove to help promote the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) with an online petition. Her involvement with the project included a statement explaining her support of the bill. Social media is supposed to be a place where people can express themselves and be a source for beauty confidence, not anxiety, Lizzos statement in the campaigns press release reads. Seeing the negative impact social media is having on youth mental health today is devastating and has to stop. Join us and use your voice to help make change.

On Wednesday, April 26, the activist group Fight for the Future shared a petition calling on Lizzo to revoke her support for the bill. Opponents of the bill noted that its been condemned by organizations including the ACLU, GLAAD, and the National Center for Transgender Equality over concerns that the bills vague language could potentially lead to conservative-led censorship of LGBTQ+ content, reproductive health care resources, and more.

Fight for the Futures appeal to Lizzo notes her strong track record of support for the LGBTQ+ community. On Friday, April 21, Lizzo performed at an arena in Knoxville, Tennessee, where she brought out several drag performers in protest of the states anti-drag law.

View More

Young people need to hear Lizzos positive message, but the irony is that under KOSA, social media platforms would almost certainly be prevented from recommending her songs and videos to minors, said Evan Greer, musician and director of Fight for the Future. Lizzo has been a strong ally to the LGBTQ community. Im sure she wouldnt support this bill if she knew how many LGBTQ groups oppose it and how it would actually harm kids rather than helping them. Our hope is that this petition can get her attention and shell do the right thing and drop support for KOSA. Instead, she and Dove should focus their efforts on thoughtful efforts like strong privacy and antitrust legislation to hold Big Tech companies accountable and reduce their harm.

Pitchfork has reached out to Lizzos representatives for comment.

See the rest here:
Lizzo Called on to End Support of Kids Online Safety Act Amid Concerns Over Censorship - Pitchfork

Opinion: No one should be scared into self-censoring themselves in … – The Reveille, LSU’s student newspaper

Everyone self-censors. It might be a concerted decision to not spill the latest tea about Mike and Bailey making out at a Tigerland bar, or the whispering of something objectionable (not to be racist, but). Maybe its the lowering of the voice to avoid anyone hearing a cancellable opinion on gender, immigration, or any number of issues that might have Twitter trolls invading your replies.

On one hand, theres social utility to self-censorship. To be known as a gossip is to have a bad reputation. To have and advertise actual bigotry isnt conducive to making friends. To seek out controversy by commenting on every culture war issue, right or wrong, isnt good for ones employment status, not to mention the fact that its obnoxious.

On the other hand, too much self-censorship can be dangerous for oneself and for society. It can lead to a quiet killing of valuable parts of our public discourse, keeping allegedly unpopular opinions in minds of their thinkers, where they are doomed to live out their days squashed under the threat of ostracization.

The best example of this phenomenon is the case of conservative students and faculty in universities. Often, right-leaning students keep their opinions to themselves in the classroom. A 2019 College Fix poll reported that 73% of Republican college students withheld their political views in class for fear their grades would suffer.

Im a conservative, but my essays are very liberal, admitted one student from Mizzou in the poll

Why would I get myself killed to say Im a libertarian in a philosophy class, said another from North Carolina State.

I have had grades affected when I didnt withhold my views, confessed an Auburn student.

When writing papers for gen ed classes? Absolutely. I know a guy who chose to write a pro-border wall argumentative essay for our super liberal professor and the prof just wrote this whole paper is one big fallacy and bombed him. Me? I wrote about the evils of horse racing. Perfectly safe topic, a student at Clemson said.

Though these anecdotal outcries may not be justified (maybe that border wall paper was fallacious), there are still causes for concern that corroborates these students claims.

Journalist Conor Friedersdorf found in a 2020 study at the University of North Carolina that student populations are quite intolerant to a diversity of viewpoints, students of all political persuasions self-censor, students dont engage with differing opinions and disparaging comments about political conservatives are common.

These facts beg an important question. If it is the case that students, especially those with the conservative viewpoints, are having their social and academic currency taxed via an implicit threat of public or intellectual castigation, what happens to university culture and the world beyond?

The effect on universities is that conservative students will simply continue to self-censor for the sake of a good grade. They will tune out the opinions of their left-wing professors, never listening and thus never learning from what wisdom their educators do have to pass on.

It also means that liberal students will have their opinions unchecked by both conservative classmates, who are probably the only right-wingers on campus. In the least, such challenges almost certainly wont come from faculty, for there is a significant overrepresentation of left-wing over right-wing faculty and administrators in the university. A 2018 survey of Sarah Lawrence College, for instance, reported that liberal administrators outnumber conservative ones at a ratio 12 to 1. Across northeast schools, too, liberal faculty are more numerous than conservatives at a pace of 28 to 1.

Which means that former college students will in all likelihood carry their unchecked left-wing education and censorship with them from their campuses to their cubicles. Just as they learned about, say, finance and applied it to their jobs, they also learned about such fictions as microaggressions, toxic masculinity, or implicit bias and will subsequently rage around their workplaces making frequent demands of censorship against perceived ideological enemies. (Spotify employees demands of censoring Joe Rogan come to mind.)

The more conservative students keep their mouths shut on campus, then, the more society loses a valuable part of its public discourse. As more time passes, the more conservative values and voices will be washed out in an ecosystem of political and ideological one-sidedness.

Though this doesnt mean that conservatives are always right, or that they cant poorly communicate their ideas, it does mean that their persistence in self-censorship may ultimately lead to their extinction, which in turn extinguishes a robust part of our social heritage and culture.

Right-leaning, public-minded students can choose to continue the defensive game theyre playing shut up, listen and graduate or they can be proactive and go on the offensive by making the marked decision to stick their necks out and speak their minds, for the sake of broadening the interest of public opinion, and invest their social currency in diversifying the knowledge of the public, well outside their own private circles.

Benjamin Haines is a 24-year-old history graduate student from Shreveport.

Read this article:
Opinion: No one should be scared into self-censoring themselves in ... - The Reveille, LSU's student newspaper

Donald Trump Jr. Rips Into Fox News Over Not Inviting Him on in … – The Daily Beast

Donald Trump Jr.the self-proclaimed general of the meme warstore into Fox News on a podcast Monday, partly over the right-wing cable behemoth not welcoming him on their airwaves in nine months. Ive been watching the censorship happening, even in conservative mainstream media, Trump Jr. said on a Monday edition of the right-wing Steak for Breakfast podcast. You saw what Fox did to Tucker Carlson last week, and the week before that, it was Dan Bongino, and, you know, the people who would actually question some of that narrative like: Is it a brilliant plan to send $130 billion to Ukraine, one of the most corrupt nations in the world? Then the son of the former president took issue with the network over not having him on in months. I used to be on Fox 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 times a week. I havent been on in nine months. Not a call, not an invite, not anything, he continued. So I understand what it appears like theyre trying to do to the America First movement. You know, Tucker was another one of those voices, he concluded, suggesting Carlsons Fox News ouster was over the host talking about forbidden topics. A Trump Jr. spokesman declined further comment, while Fox News representatives didnt return The Daily Beasts request for comment.

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump Jr. Rips Into Fox News Over Not Inviting Him on in ... - The Daily Beast

Actress and BJP leader Vani Tripathi explains the OTT censorship rules in India – Indiatimes.com

Vani Tripathi had a brief but impactful career in films. After featuring in movies like Dushman (1998), Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani (2000) and Chalte Chalte (2003) she transitioned into politics and governance. Being a prominent leader with BJP and a crucial member or the CBFC, today Vani is a key name in India's cultural administration and governance. Speaking to ETimes, Vani explains how OTT regulation works in India right now and what steps need to be taken to ensure the country and its content creators are able to establish a fair and functional regulatory and censorship system. Read on...'OTT regulation is done through a 3-tier system right now''; var randomNumber = Math.random(); var isIndia = (window.geoinfo && window.geoinfo.CountryCode === 'IN') && (window.location.href.indexOf('outsideindia') === -1 ); //console.log(isIndia && randomNumber When on the face of it you look at the OTT regulatory pact, the government has put together a certain level of mechanism for a review whenever a complaint is received. I think its a 3-tier mechanism. The first tier is internal. The second is the industry body. And the third is headed by the joint secretary of the government. But remember that it only pertains to complaints being received whether it is at the level of community feeling sensitive about some content or religion and so on. But the problem is the way the word censorship is misused in India. Let me first tell you that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has got nothing to do with the certification of OTT content. It only looks at the theatrical releases of films.Congratulations!

You have successfully cast your vote

'Audience that feels uncomfortable with nudity, expletives and criminal content is not a minority. Its a very large number'

The audience which feels uncomfortable with frontal nudity, expletives, and criminal content is not a minority. Its a very large number. In the presence of families, these aspects make them feel uncomfortable. I must say that most OTT platforms are sensitive toward age-related classification. I think they need to be further educated on 16+, 18+, and PG guidance, which is given before every show. There are also disclaimers put out by producers which nobody reads. So, I think we still need to cross that bridge. What is for family viewing and what is for adult viewing needs to be thrashed out when youre looking at content. Theres a lot of education that needs to be done which is the responsibility of the streaming service and the audience as well.

I personally get mails and messages because Im also part of the CBFC. People think that I can pay attention to it. The sensitive audience is big in numbers.

'Frontal nudity is not a problem in France but it is an issue in USA, every country has its own cultural identity'

OTT platforms do show information about profanity and nudity. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the person who is also using the streaming service at their home. If it is collective viewing and if it is saying 18+, they should let the minors leave the room or watch it later.

But again, when it comes to responsibility, I dont think formal censorship will help. I think more literacy and attention being paid to age-related classification will be the way forward. I also think that on a lot of platforms, people are going overboard. What can be achieved if 4-5 expletives become 15-20? There are so many scripts where theres very little grammar in sentences; there are only cuss words. Now, youll again start screaming freedom of expression when I say this. But I think there is a certain cultural nuance to this country. For example, in the USA, frontal nudity is a problem and a gangster film is not. But in a uber-liberal country like France, frontal nudity is not a problem but a gangster film is. So, between Francis Ford Coppola and Jean-Luc Goddard, theres a difference that exists in every country with its cultural nuance. India also has one and content creators should understand it. Its non-negotiable.

'Content regulation has to be a collaborative effort between the creator, platform and the viewer'

However hard we work at CBFC, it is not foolproof. You see children in theatre in a UA-certified film. And that is the responsibility of the distributor and theatre owner. And it is not being adhered to. So, yes, the same underage viewer may watch the film online. But again, theres parental guidance and responsibility here. If youre going to hand over a smartphone to a child without having a parental lock on it. Then the responsibility is yours and not of the person creating the content. This is a collaborative process between content creators and viewers.

I always say that the objectification of women by large has stopped in the film industry because people stopped watching that garbage. So, it is a celebratory time for an independent filmmaker who used to struggle all the time to make films, distribute them and exhibit them. Today, that filmmaker has a democratic choice of going to an OTT platform. But the responsibility part cannot be veined away. When you are making content, you are very aware of which section of the audience youre making a film/series for. People who shrug their shoulders and say that its not their responsibility, I would only call them utopian and irresponsible.

'In the USA parents of children between 8 to 18 certify films'

Theres a deeper deliberation and debate required between content creators, streamers, and consumers. I must remind you that in the USA, parents of children between 8 to 18 certify films. So, its a process where people who are actually the consumer base of that content are the ones who certify it for theatrical releases.

In India, if you really want to create a mechanism where theres collaboration, debate, and deliberation, all these industry bodies should speak with the governance structures of the country. But most important is the person who is consuming the content, whatever the audience will respond to will become the norm of the times. You know we have seen decades and decades of similar content whether it was gangster films or love stories. Again, its a give-and-take scenario and a demand-supply business. Today, most films are not working in the theatres. I think the content creators need to take a step back and look at what they are pelting out, maybe the people dont want it.I am again saying that sitting down across the table and discussing what format should go out in terms of observation and reception of content should be the way forward. Just creating another body that starts certifying content will not be the only thing that will create consensus. A lot of the content is adult and it will get an A rating. But will people stop watching it?

'Violence and gore create an impact on impressionable viewers'

One of the other things that bothers me is violence and its impact on an impressionable mind. We often only talk about profanity and expletives and nudity. We often forget that blood and gore are furthermore damaging and the subconscious mind immediately responds to images like that. There are instances in the West where kids were exposed to such content and how they behaved throughout the year was far more damaging.

We have to create a system of equality. It just cant be dark and dense and it cant be just certified and censored. Whats important is to create a mechanism that is a win-win for all. Theres also a section of the audience that likes dark stuff. They should have a choice to watch it. And the ones who want to watch family content should have a choice to watch it.

Continue reading here:
Actress and BJP leader Vani Tripathi explains the OTT censorship rules in India - Indiatimes.com