Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Alumni of the World Unite!

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

The Free Speech Wall in downtown Charlottesville

This press release was issued today by the Alumni Free Speech Alliance, of which The Jefferson Council is a founding member. I serve as vice president-communications of the Council. — JAB

Millions of college and university alumni around the country are dismayed by the intolerance of unpopular viewpoints at their alma maters, and many have begun to fight back.

Alumni have organized groups at five of America’s most prestigious higher-ed institutions — Cornell University, Davidson College, Princeton University, the University of Virginia, and the Washington & Lee University – to defend free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity in college campuses. Today those groups are announcing that they have joined forces under the banner of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance to launch a national effort to mobilize alumni.

“Free speech and academic freedom are critical to the advancement of knowledge and to the success of our colleges and universities,” said Edward Yingling, a co-founder of the Princeton alumni group. “Yet these basic principles are under attack today at schools across the country.”

(See the column co-authored by Yingling that was published in today’s Wall Street Journal.)

National and school-specific polls show that high percentages of students and many faculty are afraid to express their views on controversial topics. In fact, discouraging numbers of students indicate in polls that free speech is not justified if certain groups find the ideas offensive. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) found in a survey this year that more than 80% of students report self-censoring their viewpoints at least some of the time, with 21% saying they censor themselves often.

College administrators and boards of trustees are often too timid to push back against the culture of intolerance at their campuses. Alumni have influence with college presidents and board members, who are constantly asking for their involvement and contributions. The five groups comprising the Alumni Free Speech Alliance share the conviction that alumni can create a countervailing force to stand up for free speech. The Alliance will promote the exchange of information and best practices between its member organizations, and will provide assistance to alumni at other universities who wish to create free-speech organizations and join the Alliance.

“American universities and colleges are entrusted with educating our youth to think critically, explore all options, and to gain the skills needed for leading productive lives,” said John L. Craig, president of Davidsonians for Free Thought & Discourse. “This can be accomplished only in environments where the search for truth is unfettered. The forces against campus free speech and for ideological indoctrination are entrenched, and things can change only if alumni stakeholders strike back.”

“Forty years ago, Cornell was a campus that embraced freedom of speech and great viewpoint diversity but the demographics of its student body and faculty was monolithic. Today Cornell enjoys great diversity within its student body and faculty but imposes significant barriers to freedom of speech and viewpoint diversity on campus,” said Kenneth P. Wolf, co-founder of Cornell Free Speech Alliance. “Neither of these extremes support academic excellence and, in the long run, will destroy a world class institution of higher learning.”

“Conservatives, and increasingly liberals, are afraid to speak against ‘woke’ orthodoxy at the University of Virginia,” said Bert Ellis, president of The Jefferson Council. “The Jefferson Council was formed to preserve the legacy of intellectual freedom at the institution Thomas Jefferson founded. Core goals include the protection of free speech, free expression, and intellectual diversity.”

“Education based on victimization, grievance, and critical race theory harbors the seeds of tribalism, cultural segregation, and erasure of history,” said Tom Rideout, president of the Generals Redoubt. “Conversely, education based on diversity of viewpoint and free speech promotes robust learning, the pursuit of truth, and an inclusive culture based on shared values.”

MEDIA CONTACT:Ed Yingling

Alumni Free Speech Alliance
www.alumnifreespeechalliance.com
edyingling@comcast.net

To reach the websites of the Alliance and its member organizations, please click on the links below:

Cornell University
Cornell Free Speech Alliance
Kenneth P. Wolf
www.cornellfreespeechalliance.com

Davidson College
Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought & Discourse
John E. Craig Jr.
www.dftdunite.org

Princeton University
Princetonians for Free Speech
Edward Yingling or Stuart Taylor
www.princetoniansforfreespeech.com

University of Virginia
The Jefferson Council
Bert Ellis, president
www.thejeffersoncouncil.com

Washington and Lee University
The Generals Redoubt
Tom Rideout, president
www.thegeneralsredoubt.us

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

14 responses to “Alumni of the World Unite!”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “…found in a survey this year that more than 80% of students report self-censoring their viewpoints at least some of the time, with 21% saying they censor themselves often.”

    Self-censorship is not censorship. It is a desire for consequence-free speech.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Naw, it’s a desire to not be engaged by trolls (i.e. you) who don’t want substantive debate but rather compliance with your own views.

  2. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    “Self-censorship is not censorship. It is a desire for consequence-free speech.”

    Or a desire not to be assaulted or ostracized.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Assault is a criminal offense and readily dealt with as it should be. Ostracized? Basically you are saying “I demand the right to say what I want regardless of how offensive but not lose any of my friends in the process.” As I said, consequence-free speech…

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “Assault is a criminal offense and readily dealt with as it should be”

        That’s not even remotely true. A verbal attack can very much be assault.

        “I demand the right to say what I want regardless of how offensive but not lose any of my friends in the process.”

        That’s the entire premise of the 1st Amendment, advocating for the speech of those you don’t like. It’s premise wasn’t for the speech you do.

        It’s also pretty rich that someone is making as sorta of statements about consequence-free speech under the cover of anonymity. Every single comment you make you do so knowing you’ll never be held to it, because you’re doing it under an assumed name.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          ‘“I demand the right to say what I want regardless of how offensive but not lose any of my friends in the process.”

          That’s the entire premise of the 1st Amendment’

          In no way does the 1st Amendment guarantee you the right to not lose your friends because of what you say. For you to contend it does is beyond absurd.

          Btw, I don’t claim the made up Conservative right to consequence-free speech.

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            We aren’t talking about losing friends. We’ve gone far beyond that to now it’s common place to demonize someone who doesn’t agree with your opinion.

            “Btw, I don’t claim the made up Conservative right to consequence-free speech.”

            Thanks for proving my point. If only you had a brain.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “We aren’t talking about losing friends.”

            vs.

            ‘“I demand the right to say what I want regardless of how offensive but not lose any of my friends in the process.”

            That’s the entire premise of the 1st Amendment’

            …smh…

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The entire premise of the 1st Amendment is to protect the speech you don’t like. It has nothing to do with the speech you do like.

            There only person making the argument you just quoted was yourself and you pulled them out of your 4th point of contact.

            Again, you continually prove my point and are contrary to what you’re trying to say. You hide behind a pseudonym, because it affords you consequence free speech and than you blast others for wishing the same.

            What is evident in the manner in which you comment is that unless someone agrees with you (i.e. echo chamber) they are wrong and you’ll go to any lengths to troll and or destroy that person. You can’t handle debate, you perhaps 1 in 1000 times offer anything of substance and are a troll.

            Your twitter feed reads like an activist and promotes falsehoods (which is ironic given the manner in which you attack certain authors here for your perceived errors).

          4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “The entire premise of the 1st Amendment is to protect the speech you don’t like.”

            Even though you may be ostracized, your speech is still protected. Do you think that white supremacists or neo-Nazi or KKK members should not be ostracized for their dogma? Should their position in society be protected regardless of what they say publicly? What an absurd position. Facing the consequences for your speech is wholly consistent with the 1st amendment. Conservatives simply do not support Conservatives (and only Conservatives) being held responsible for their actions and statements. It is as simple as that.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The KKK and Neo-Nazi’s aren’t vapid internet posters who hide behind pseudonyms to make derogatory comments.

            The makes their hate speech in person and their positions are protected unless they are breaking the law. They can’t be fired for being bigots as if that were the case you would’ve been terminated years ago, as I’m rather certain you make a work place very hostile for anyone who doesn’t echo you.

            You can’t make statements about consequences of speech when you’re hiding behind a private internet posting account. It is incongruent, as you are protected from repercussion of defaming any number of persons.

            No, you’re a coward who belittles and attacks others who don’t agree with you and cheer on them being censored and attacked.

          6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “They can’t be fired for being bigots…”

            That is not what we were discussing, that is simply you shifting the goalpost. The question is can they be ostracized and your position appears to be “no, they can’t”. The KKK can not be isolated for being publicly and blatantly racist. Absolutely absurd.

          7. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            That’s exactly what is being discussed. You want to discuss consequences for speech.

            Nope, no goalposts being moved.

            “The question is can they be ostracized and your position appears to be “no, they can’t””

            False, cue in the strawman.

            “The KKK can not be isolated for being publicly and blatantly racist. Absolutely absurd.”

            Yeah, that’s called discrimination regardless of how vile their views are. I mean the SCOTUS has stated what I’m stating, but who they are to disagree with a troll who won’t even give his own name.

  3. Paul Sweet Avatar
    Paul Sweet

    “Self-censorship is not censorship. It is a desire for consequence-free speech.”

    Or a desire not to be beat up or ostracized.

Leave a Reply

Read More