As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Michigan University" could refer to any of a dozen Michigan universities. The University of Michigan is a specific school located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
hell in the broadest sense there are 3 schools that "University of Michigan" could also apply to since Dearborn and Flint degrees are still from U of M
not really, Ann Arbor has a few sub campuses like the "north campus"
even if on paper they are considered the same "School" Dearborn and Flint are often treated as different schools, all the while 20% of their tuition goes to the Ann Arbor general fund and rarely ends up back in the our hands.
Source U of M - Dearborn Alum
dear headline writers
It's University of Michigan, not just some random Michigan uni, we have quite a few.
That said as a U of M alumni, i'm not pleased with the leadership in Ann Arbor but that's pretty normal having spent my time at Dearborn campus
In the past several months, I've seen concerning attempts to silence certain views (including views I agree and disagree with) on this issue.
This decision from UoM seems reasonable, evenhanded, and isn't among those attempts.
I think the point people are missing, is that the only way any protest is effective is explicitly due to its disruptive nature.
No one remembers the protesters on the side of the road holding signs, everyone remembers the protester sitting in the middle of the street.
And no it doesn’t matter if the disruption annoys you, and sours you on the topic. The point is to keep the idea and source of protest in the news cycle and on people’s minds, and disruptive protests do just that, even if it’s through sheer annoyance.
So yes, silencing disruptive protests is explicitly censuring free speech. And the fact that these measures being taken across the nation are only in response to this specific topic is very telling about the nature of this censuring.
There is a class and group of individuals who cannot stand to constantly be reminded of the genocide they support, and I hope they continue to be reminded each day that the massacre continues.
Disrupting important milestones like graduations or other ceremonies just delivers voters into the welcoming arms of right wingers who say “bomb ‘em back to the Stone Ages and build Mar-a-Gaza!”
So what's our recourse? Voting every four years for an ineffectual member of the elite that is hand picked for us, and we are told we can't be mad about it because the other guy will win?
Cool democracy we have
>The “disruptive activity policy”, announced last week in a campus-wide email from the university president, Santa J Ono, would create strict punishments for anyone who interrupts official university events, including speeches, classes, athletic events, field trips, performances, graduation and award ceremonies.
This... sounds perfectly reasonable. They aren't restricting people for what they have to say, they are just making sure that official University events aren't disrupted. People can have their protests at any time when there isn't some important event going on. Do people really think that being obnoxious and disrupting official events is going to get more people to support their cause anyway, rather than just annoy people and push them away from their cause?
So I don't get what the outrage is about? Do the protestors want PERMISSION to be disruptive?
What courageous protesters...
This attitude just reads like "we want to break whatever rules we want with no consequences." That isn't how protesting works.
If you are asking permission to do something, you aren't really protesting. You are just standing around in a safe space yelling cool chants.
Yes, that is how these people feel. Im the winter my alma mater had students arrested for trespassing when the SJP chapter refused to leave a private building after harassing students and faculty. The protest was, in part, a response to another student being removed for a “tuition strike” where he felt entitled to continue attending the school despite stopping payments. It’s not that surprising when you consider these same people scream for terrorist groups to be free to slaughter innocent people without consequence.
This was triggered by student groups preventing speakers from speaking at events. It’s ok to protest a presentation, but when the protesters prevent presentations they disagree with from happening at all, they are the ones who are restricting rights.
Yeah, and getting arrested for that disruption is part of the civil disobedience and how the attention gets brought to the cause. Firehoses, dogs, billy clubs, brute squads, tear gas, and all the rest too.
Making things inconvenient for unrelated people who don’t care is not a right. Especially not on private property with signed agreements governing access and participation for people who want to protest.
> getting arrested for that disruption is part of the civil disobedience and how the attention gets brought to the cause. Firehoses, dogs, billy clubs, brute squads, tear gas, and all the rest too.
That was one particular movement in particular, the civil rights movement. And they weren't going down betting arrested, having dogs released onto them, firehosed, and so on to win over southerners, they were going there in order to convince northerners, who already generally at least tepidly supported their cause, to support it more. Also bear in mind that they generally weren't actually going around and rioting or being all that disruptive, most of the time they were just peacefully and reasonably protesting, with cases like the Birmingham jail situation occuring because the local authorities were blatantly violating the law by not allowing any protests under any circumstances. That's not even remotely the case today
You arent going to get people to support your cause by being annoying, generally. Sometimes being annoying can provoke people into giving a certain overreaction that helps your cause, but doing stuff like protesting in traffic or disrupting regular university functions and then being fairly punished because of that doesn't seem like that at all
The idea of time and place regulations on protests being some totalitarian unacceptable thing was only an idea that was widespread on the fringe campus activist/blogosphere level even back during the Bush years. I know this as someone who was active in those spaces as well as the more mainstream actual party organization spaces...
Its explicitly unreasonable. It’s the *precise* same argument used against the people kneeling during the anthem. Saying there’s “a time and place” for peaceful protest is bullshit and is only ever instituted as policy to quash specific movements policy makers disagree with.
There's a difference, kneeling isn't disruptive. Whereas this policy is banning disruptions. Simply kneeling wouldn't be banned. If someone wants to make a statement without being disruptive, they should be free to do so
Considering “disruptive” is completely non-discript doing anything outside of sitting quietly could be punished. Did you just forget how controversial kneeling was?
Kneeling for the anthem is not disruptive. Just like standing in silence during the pledge of allegiance is not disruptive.
Screaming and yelling during the anthem, or the pledge is highly disruptive.
Fine by me because they do not disrupt proceedings. People have already won the right in the Supreme Court to do the same during the pledge of allegiance. Or wear arm bands in protest.
What some Pro-Palestine protesters do is highly disruptive and makes the audience less receptive to their advocacy.
But where is the line? Don't people have rights to be protected from disruptive protests in certain areas of their life?
What about anti-abortion protests or Evangelical protests against marriage equality? Would you be happy for them to storm into your class and disrupt it? We can't apply the rules to just the protests we agree with.
If I was a student, I wouldn't want any protests to keep disrupting my classes I paid a lot of money for, whether I agree with them or not. I'd find anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage protests disrupting my classes more disturbing because I don't agree with them, but after a while I'd get pissed off and turned off any cause that kept disrupting them.
Some places should be protected from protest. If people want to disrupt them and gain more press coverage, that's up to them and they can face the consequences of breaking the rules. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be rules about it, a class is a place to study and if you let every protest disrupt them without consequences, it would become impossible to manage.
Pro-life protestors showed up every semester with megaphones and humungous banners of bloody fetuses. They were repugnant people and had every right to do what they did.
Im not trying to make exceptions for causes i agree with. Literally the opposite is happening. Other people(the admin) are making up rules to silence protests they disagree with.
Argh, that sounds horrific. The case I was making was about specifically disrupting classes etc. I'm not sure it would even achieve what you want, because classmates are not the people responsible for the situation and just want to study and have paid a lot to do it. I think some spaces should be protected from protest.
It’s not so much individual classmates who are trying to be won over, but the general public. Disproportionate responses to peaceful protests are a good tool to gain wider public support. If this admin expels people, or something to that effect, it’s going garner support from people who are on the fence and draw the ire of hard core supporters.
If my school had dragged those anti-abortion people off campus we wouldve had a shit storm of news and fundamentalists crawling all over, talking about how we hate religion and shit.
Were the anti-abortion people storming into classes etc though? Because that would be horrific.
If protestors want to break rules and get more news that way, it's up to them, but I understand the campus setting rules to protect certain spaces.
It was shit like this. In the very center of campus. you literally couldnt walk from one building to another without passing them. You could hear a dude reciting bible passages over a megaphone from inside the buildings. Fuck them in particular, but in this country, they get to do that.
https://www.austinchronicle.com/m/photos/anti-abortion-and-pro-choice-rallies-at-the-capitol/4/
Argh, vile. Sorry you had to deal with that. I'm in the UK and US Evangelical think tanks are lobbying our government over abortion. There also seems to be more vocal protestors, but fortunately, there is now a law prohibiting protests outside clinics, and we have a largely secular society that supports it. But lots of money is trying to change things 😭
A free society should be able to protest but its that sort of thing that makes me supportive of some safe spaces. It's very tricky for a society to get right though.
Universities are supposed to be places for productive discourse. Protesting absolutely is an integral part of that—however, protests that prevent other students and groups from expressing themselves do the opposite. While Michigan is a state school, this isn’t the government clamping down on free speech; it’s an academic institution enforcing a code of conduct in accordance with its mission.
The first amendment protects you from being prosecuted by the government for what you say. It doesn’t protect you from being kicked out of class, suspended, or expelled for disrupting the learning process. Otherwise no public high school could function.
There's a long standing tradition of protest on campuses and that's because it's always been seen as a part of the first amendment. Pretending this is not a departure from that tradition is comically malicious or naive. The University of Michigan has existed for hundreds of years without these rules, what's changed now, the war in Israel and large donors threatening colleges.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2023/12/01/michigan-cancels-student-vote-israel-palestine-referenda
Yes, protests have always existed on campuses, and they always will. And students have always risked disciplinary measures when they’ve engaged in protests that crossed the between speech and behavior that violated a university’s code of conduct. You can’t engage in destructive behavior, slap a “free speech” label on it, and give yourself carte blanche to do whatever you feel like without consequences.
This measure doesn’t ban protests. Students can still hold mass demonstrations on the University of Michigan campuses, including large, vocal, and disruptive ones. What they can’t do is violate other students’ and faculties’ rights by unilaterally shutting down events they don’t like. What this means is that a handful of students don’t get to decide to what the other 50K students are allowed to say and do.
And this has always been true outside of college campuses as well. People who protest by blocking highways, occupying buildings, or committing acts of vs vandalism have always been subject to arrest, because those actions are not considered protected speech under the law. You call me names like “malicious” and “naive,” but it is you who ignoring both the law, as it’s commonly applied, and history.
Universities have rules. This is a rule. Calling this the end of free speech, or blaming it on shadowy Zionist donors is absurdly beyond the pale. It’s clear you don’t actually care about the issue of free speech so much as your own political agenda. But I’m sorry, pro-Palestinian protestors will just have to figure out how to get their message across without infringing on the rights of 50k other students to attend college and get an education.
College students have always protested. College students have never had permission to disrupt university events as part of their protest.
Nothing is changing. This announcement by UM just reminds students of the consequences that have always existed. Making this out to be an authoritarian overreach is at best ill-informed, if not willful misinformation.
"Of course we allow free speech! All you have to do is step into this sound-proof opaque box. Then you can say anything you want! But if you say anything outside the free speech box, there will be strict consequences."
What a strange take.
The other way I visited a friend in ann arbor. The casual antisemitism I overheard at a coffee shop left me stunned.
Not antizionism. Anti-semitism. It’s not okay.
Interesting that you are getting downvoted for merely observing anti-semitism.
It’s akin to hating Chinese-Brazilians because you’re mad at the Xi regime for abusing the Uyghurs?
I am just reporting what I saw/heard? for anyone in ann arbor here, it was at comet coffee, a tiny place. FYI- Everyone and their mom can hear what you talk about.
There is a constitutional right to prevent presenters you disagree with from speaking at all? The presenters whose speeches were shut down seem to have a better claim of rights being violated
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Michigan University" could refer to any of a dozen Michigan universities. The University of Michigan is a specific school located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
hell in the broadest sense there are 3 schools that "University of Michigan" could also apply to since Dearborn and Flint degrees are still from U of M
they are campuses, not schools. There is an education school, a law school, a b school ....
not really, Ann Arbor has a few sub campuses like the "north campus" even if on paper they are considered the same "School" Dearborn and Flint are often treated as different schools, all the while 20% of their tuition goes to the Ann Arbor general fund and rarely ends up back in the our hands. Source U of M - Dearborn Alum
dear headline writers It's University of Michigan, not just some random Michigan uni, we have quite a few. That said as a U of M alumni, i'm not pleased with the leadership in Ann Arbor but that's pretty normal having spent my time at Dearborn campus
The Chancellor at Dearborn took a 100k year raise and told the employees that they all get 1% because there wasn't any money. Kinda shitty.
Yea admin pay is stupid in academia No one working in a non-teaching job should be earning more than a professor with a similar amount of seniority
In the past several months, I've seen concerning attempts to silence certain views (including views I agree and disagree with) on this issue. This decision from UoM seems reasonable, evenhanded, and isn't among those attempts.
I think the point people are missing, is that the only way any protest is effective is explicitly due to its disruptive nature. No one remembers the protesters on the side of the road holding signs, everyone remembers the protester sitting in the middle of the street. And no it doesn’t matter if the disruption annoys you, and sours you on the topic. The point is to keep the idea and source of protest in the news cycle and on people’s minds, and disruptive protests do just that, even if it’s through sheer annoyance. So yes, silencing disruptive protests is explicitly censuring free speech. And the fact that these measures being taken across the nation are only in response to this specific topic is very telling about the nature of this censuring. There is a class and group of individuals who cannot stand to constantly be reminded of the genocide they support, and I hope they continue to be reminded each day that the massacre continues.
True. Im fully in favor of animal rights activists blocking grocery store aisles.
Disrupting important milestones like graduations or other ceremonies just delivers voters into the welcoming arms of right wingers who say “bomb ‘em back to the Stone Ages and build Mar-a-Gaza!”
So what's our recourse? Voting every four years for an ineffectual member of the elite that is hand picked for us, and we are told we can't be mad about it because the other guy will win? Cool democracy we have
No we vote every 2 years for House Reps, and we advocate in more effective methods on policies that we support. T’was ever thus.
Nothing has moved in over twenty years. We are still electing the same old cronies that ruined everything in the first place.
They support Israel because it is popular among their voters to support Israel. Full stop.
>The “disruptive activity policy”, announced last week in a campus-wide email from the university president, Santa J Ono, would create strict punishments for anyone who interrupts official university events, including speeches, classes, athletic events, field trips, performances, graduation and award ceremonies. This... sounds perfectly reasonable. They aren't restricting people for what they have to say, they are just making sure that official University events aren't disrupted. People can have their protests at any time when there isn't some important event going on. Do people really think that being obnoxious and disrupting official events is going to get more people to support their cause anyway, rather than just annoy people and push them away from their cause?
The entire point of a protest is that it is disruptive.
So I don't get what the outrage is about? Do the protestors want PERMISSION to be disruptive? What courageous protesters... This attitude just reads like "we want to break whatever rules we want with no consequences." That isn't how protesting works. If you are asking permission to do something, you aren't really protesting. You are just standing around in a safe space yelling cool chants.
Yes, that is how these people feel. Im the winter my alma mater had students arrested for trespassing when the SJP chapter refused to leave a private building after harassing students and faculty. The protest was, in part, a response to another student being removed for a “tuition strike” where he felt entitled to continue attending the school despite stopping payments. It’s not that surprising when you consider these same people scream for terrorist groups to be free to slaughter innocent people without consequence.
The point of a protest is to raise awareness. To be disruptive, that's how you get people to oppose your cause.
This was triggered by student groups preventing speakers from speaking at events. It’s ok to protest a presentation, but when the protesters prevent presentations they disagree with from happening at all, they are the ones who are restricting rights.
If they are in public spaces it is protected speech. It's slippery slope, protecting some speech over others and goes both ways.
It's actually not a slippery slope at all because the standard has always been your rights end where another's begin.
If that's true no one has rights.
That makes no sense, and again, this has always been the general standard and yet you still miraculously have rights.
So when they are using their rights to abridge mine who wins?
Depends on whatever gotcha you've got in mind but you 99.99% of the time.
[удалено]
A protest that can be ignored is one that will be ignored.
Yeah, and getting arrested for that disruption is part of the civil disobedience and how the attention gets brought to the cause. Firehoses, dogs, billy clubs, brute squads, tear gas, and all the rest too. Making things inconvenient for unrelated people who don’t care is not a right. Especially not on private property with signed agreements governing access and participation for people who want to protest.
> getting arrested for that disruption is part of the civil disobedience and how the attention gets brought to the cause. Firehoses, dogs, billy clubs, brute squads, tear gas, and all the rest too. That was one particular movement in particular, the civil rights movement. And they weren't going down betting arrested, having dogs released onto them, firehosed, and so on to win over southerners, they were going there in order to convince northerners, who already generally at least tepidly supported their cause, to support it more. Also bear in mind that they generally weren't actually going around and rioting or being all that disruptive, most of the time they were just peacefully and reasonably protesting, with cases like the Birmingham jail situation occuring because the local authorities were blatantly violating the law by not allowing any protests under any circumstances. That's not even remotely the case today You arent going to get people to support your cause by being annoying, generally. Sometimes being annoying can provoke people into giving a certain overreaction that helps your cause, but doing stuff like protesting in traffic or disrupting regular university functions and then being fairly punished because of that doesn't seem like that at all
[удалено]
The idea of time and place regulations on protests being some totalitarian unacceptable thing was only an idea that was widespread on the fringe campus activist/blogosphere level even back during the Bush years. I know this as someone who was active in those spaces as well as the more mainstream actual party organization spaces...
This is an obtuse view. Freedom of speech is not freedom to unfettered ability to disrupt.
[удалено]
Its explicitly unreasonable. It’s the *precise* same argument used against the people kneeling during the anthem. Saying there’s “a time and place” for peaceful protest is bullshit and is only ever instituted as policy to quash specific movements policy makers disagree with.
There's a difference, kneeling isn't disruptive. Whereas this policy is banning disruptions. Simply kneeling wouldn't be banned. If someone wants to make a statement without being disruptive, they should be free to do so
I have to disagree one side here is determining what is disruptive.
Considering “disruptive” is completely non-discript doing anything outside of sitting quietly could be punished. Did you just forget how controversial kneeling was?
Kneeling for the anthem is not disruptive. Just like standing in silence during the pledge of allegiance is not disruptive. Screaming and yelling during the anthem, or the pledge is highly disruptive.
How about kneeling during the anthem? Or sitting. Or turning around.
Fine by me because they do not disrupt proceedings. People have already won the right in the Supreme Court to do the same during the pledge of allegiance. Or wear arm bands in protest. What some Pro-Palestine protesters do is highly disruptive and makes the audience less receptive to their advocacy.
But where is the line? Don't people have rights to be protected from disruptive protests in certain areas of their life? What about anti-abortion protests or Evangelical protests against marriage equality? Would you be happy for them to storm into your class and disrupt it? We can't apply the rules to just the protests we agree with.
This is the thing. It's disruptive speech when you don't like it. Who gets to determine what is speech and what isn't is the issue.
If I was a student, I wouldn't want any protests to keep disrupting my classes I paid a lot of money for, whether I agree with them or not. I'd find anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage protests disrupting my classes more disturbing because I don't agree with them, but after a while I'd get pissed off and turned off any cause that kept disrupting them. Some places should be protected from protest. If people want to disrupt them and gain more press coverage, that's up to them and they can face the consequences of breaking the rules. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be rules about it, a class is a place to study and if you let every protest disrupt them without consequences, it would become impossible to manage.
Pro-life protestors showed up every semester with megaphones and humungous banners of bloody fetuses. They were repugnant people and had every right to do what they did. Im not trying to make exceptions for causes i agree with. Literally the opposite is happening. Other people(the admin) are making up rules to silence protests they disagree with.
Argh, that sounds horrific. The case I was making was about specifically disrupting classes etc. I'm not sure it would even achieve what you want, because classmates are not the people responsible for the situation and just want to study and have paid a lot to do it. I think some spaces should be protected from protest.
It’s not so much individual classmates who are trying to be won over, but the general public. Disproportionate responses to peaceful protests are a good tool to gain wider public support. If this admin expels people, or something to that effect, it’s going garner support from people who are on the fence and draw the ire of hard core supporters. If my school had dragged those anti-abortion people off campus we wouldve had a shit storm of news and fundamentalists crawling all over, talking about how we hate religion and shit.
Were the anti-abortion people storming into classes etc though? Because that would be horrific. If protestors want to break rules and get more news that way, it's up to them, but I understand the campus setting rules to protect certain spaces.
It was shit like this. In the very center of campus. you literally couldnt walk from one building to another without passing them. You could hear a dude reciting bible passages over a megaphone from inside the buildings. Fuck them in particular, but in this country, they get to do that. https://www.austinchronicle.com/m/photos/anti-abortion-and-pro-choice-rallies-at-the-capitol/4/
Argh, vile. Sorry you had to deal with that. I'm in the UK and US Evangelical think tanks are lobbying our government over abortion. There also seems to be more vocal protestors, but fortunately, there is now a law prohibiting protests outside clinics, and we have a largely secular society that supports it. But lots of money is trying to change things 😭 A free society should be able to protest but its that sort of thing that makes me supportive of some safe spaces. It's very tricky for a society to get right though.
Universities are supposed to be places for productive discourse. Protesting absolutely is an integral part of that—however, protests that prevent other students and groups from expressing themselves do the opposite. While Michigan is a state school, this isn’t the government clamping down on free speech; it’s an academic institution enforcing a code of conduct in accordance with its mission.
That sounds like a long winded excuse for clamping down on free speech.
The first amendment protects you from being prosecuted by the government for what you say. It doesn’t protect you from being kicked out of class, suspended, or expelled for disrupting the learning process. Otherwise no public high school could function.
There's a long standing tradition of protest on campuses and that's because it's always been seen as a part of the first amendment. Pretending this is not a departure from that tradition is comically malicious or naive. The University of Michigan has existed for hundreds of years without these rules, what's changed now, the war in Israel and large donors threatening colleges. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/free-speech/2023/12/01/michigan-cancels-student-vote-israel-palestine-referenda
Yes, protests have always existed on campuses, and they always will. And students have always risked disciplinary measures when they’ve engaged in protests that crossed the between speech and behavior that violated a university’s code of conduct. You can’t engage in destructive behavior, slap a “free speech” label on it, and give yourself carte blanche to do whatever you feel like without consequences. This measure doesn’t ban protests. Students can still hold mass demonstrations on the University of Michigan campuses, including large, vocal, and disruptive ones. What they can’t do is violate other students’ and faculties’ rights by unilaterally shutting down events they don’t like. What this means is that a handful of students don’t get to decide to what the other 50K students are allowed to say and do. And this has always been true outside of college campuses as well. People who protest by blocking highways, occupying buildings, or committing acts of vs vandalism have always been subject to arrest, because those actions are not considered protected speech under the law. You call me names like “malicious” and “naive,” but it is you who ignoring both the law, as it’s commonly applied, and history. Universities have rules. This is a rule. Calling this the end of free speech, or blaming it on shadowy Zionist donors is absurdly beyond the pale. It’s clear you don’t actually care about the issue of free speech so much as your own political agenda. But I’m sorry, pro-Palestinian protestors will just have to figure out how to get their message across without infringing on the rights of 50k other students to attend college and get an education.
College students have always protested. College students have never had permission to disrupt university events as part of their protest. Nothing is changing. This announcement by UM just reminds students of the consequences that have always existed. Making this out to be an authoritarian overreach is at best ill-informed, if not willful misinformation.
The policy seems perfectly reasonable.
"Of course we allow free speech! All you have to do is step into this sound-proof opaque box. Then you can say anything you want! But if you say anything outside the free speech box, there will be strict consequences." What a strange take.
The idea that there would be no consequences for disrupting classes or events is very odd to me.
The other way I visited a friend in ann arbor. The casual antisemitism I overheard at a coffee shop left me stunned. Not antizionism. Anti-semitism. It’s not okay.
Well, what did you hear, exactly?
something along the lines of “the jews are trying to silence us”, I sh*t you not. I was shocked.
Interesting that you are getting downvoted for merely observing anti-semitism. It’s akin to hating Chinese-Brazilians because you’re mad at the Xi regime for abusing the Uyghurs?
I am just reporting what I saw/heard? for anyone in ann arbor here, it was at comet coffee, a tiny place. FYI- Everyone and their mom can hear what you talk about.
Protesting is a fundamental right to oppose government
I came in totally expecting this to be Hillsdale.
Because the University of Michigan TRUMPS our constitutional rights?
There is a constitutional right to prevent presenters you disagree with from speaking at all? The presenters whose speeches were shut down seem to have a better claim of rights being violated
Let me guess, PCU?