Inspired by a conversation from another poll: Should private universities be allowed to deny admission to applicants based on their political views?
They wouldn't even know what a prospective student's politics views are. That's not an appropriate question to ask in an interview lol.
If they're privately owned and operated, it's their right to decide with whom they do business. No one else has any right to prohibit them from doing so.
That would be rather stupid. A university is a place where you learn to think critical about various topics. If you only select people with a specific ideology, you will create very small-minded students, who never were opposed with different opinions among the other students.
What if their political cal view comes from their race? Then the schools are biased on race.
What was that sound??
The education elite's mind poppinglike a paper bag...
If they have no federal funding then yes they are allowed, but it's a pretty crappy thing to do.
Lean no. I don't mind a little more strictness in expected student conduct than a normal government could impose though. If a school wants to deny/rescind admission due to overt racism on part of student for example I think that's ok
It's hard because the boundary is blurry between some extreme political views and racism, sexism etc.
If they get an ounce of federal funding, then no. Absolutely not.
Libertarian/neoliberal states more often say no than yes, so i say no. It becomes an oligarchy considering colleges have armed police (not state funded), elected Congress and President, receive federal and local funding for most facilities, and are a school system.
Private universities should be able to admit or deny anyone for anything.
No they shouldn't be dented for their "Political Views"' However, if those views aren't expressed in a manner acceptable to the institution in question I'd say they have a right to take the action they deem appropriate regarding denying access.
Isn't that what private means? Not the State that is doing it?
They should be allowed.
I disagree with it, though.
I'm not surprised at Harvard.
Of course they should be allowed to, because that's how the first amendment works.
However, I do not think that they should.
Private colleges and universities should have the freedom to admit or deny whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish.
Allowed? Sure. Should? No
Sure. Political affiliation isn't a protected class.
But it is protected speech.
I don't think you understand protected speech.
If I'm accepted to a private university and then they find out I'm running a white supremacist web site, they are welcome to cancel my acceptance and send me on my way.
Even "hate speech" from "white supremacists" is protected under the first amendment of the United States Constitution.
Come on, I can't believe you need a remedial walk through of the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Where is the government restricting your right to say what you want? You're confusing this private university with the government. Do you have total freedom to say anything you want at you place of employment, no matter how offensive or distasteful, without fear of repercussions or action on the part of you employer? Of course not!
The freedom to say what I want doesn't mean that other people need to accommodate me and my speech.
So oppression is okay as long as it's done by universities and not the government? Got you. 👌🏻
Gluxford: here are a few exceptions to free speech that you seem unaware of.
To incite actions that would harm others
( might be some white supremacist hate speech)
To make or distribute obscene materials.
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
There are no laws passed to keep these young adults from saying what they want. They just won't be able to do it at this private university.
You didn't respond to my question about what you can say at your place of employment.
SOH won't let me use curse words. Are they violating my first amendment rights?
My local paper won't print my letter to the editor. Is this a violation?
I call into the Rush Limbaugh radio show and talk about the wisdom of Al Sharpton, is he violating my rights by not letting me talk as long as I want?
No, no, and yes.
Those "limits" aren't in the constitution.
Free speech is limited, but not to the full extent that you two are describing.
Wait a second. You believe that the First Amendment of the Constitution says that Rush Limbaugh has to let me praise Al Sharpton on his radio program?
Come on @gluxford1 - before you just walk away, let me know that you don't believe the first amendment means I get to say whatever I want on any private platform and I don't have to face consequences.
Gluxford your agreement is not necessary. Ignorance does not make things untrue. I'm not stating an opinion. The list is from the deciding cases of the SCOTUS. They are the only ones who's opinion is correct. Most / all laws are not found in the constitution. So please take that out of any argument you try to make. Constitutional or unconstitutional is a decision based on the guide given to make that decision. So until you are a Supreme Court Judge, you don't have an opinion.
Your list doesn't have anything to do with it. Again, even if my speech is all unicorns and lollipops, the Constitution does not say you have to give me your platform to deliver my speech. Private universities or private organizations are free to say "nope, not here".
kspells, I base my views of free speech off of the constitution, not the political whims of judges.
And JDoe, whether you like it or not, the first amendment does guarantee your right to say what you want without fear of retaliation, albeit with some limits. Seeing as this conversation is going nowhere, I will leave it at that. Have a good day.
Like I said originally, understanding of free speech and the First Amendment isn't your strong suit.
Gluxford: Judges base their opinions off the constitution. That's the "guide" given to make their opinions. Their political view points are the deciding factor of what is constitutional about the policies our government makes. And they will not grant a case hearing for anyone crying about how they didn't get to say something at their private school. It's absurd to think they would or care. The constitution controls laws not fairness.
They're *supposed* to base their decisions off of the constitution, but that isn't always the case. They often inject their own politics into their decisions.
That's what they are suppose to do. The constitution does not say you get to speak without retaliation. It says you can what you want without government retaliation. Everyone else gets to kick you to the curb, ask law enforcement to forcibly remove you, or protest to point you won't be heard. Because private is not state.
Yes. Any reason whatsoever.
Let those universities succeed or fail according to market forces.
Thank you for sharing.
Although we disagree on this issue, I still have a lot of respect for you and your opinions. And I admire your consistency.
I really don't understand why you're coming down on the other side of this issue. It's generally considered a very clear cut thing for conservatives.
Just out of curiosity, where were you on the "gay wedding cake" issue?
On the gay wedding cake issue, I just say "Go find another bakery". The difference between the wedding cake issue doesn't involve the curtailing of freedom of speech (as long as the bakery isn't retaliated against). I don't think universities, public or private, should be allowed to deny admission to applicants based on their political views. I would be saying the exact same thing if a university had denied admission to an applicant based on the applicant's liberal political beliefs.
* the difference between the wedding cake issue and the university issue
Sorry for the typo.
Why not just say "go find another university"?
If Harvard becomes known for only accepting liberals, then it will fail in time, or become so defined by its politics that it no longer has the prestige it did before.
Meanwhile, other universities will flourish.
I just explained why.
I don't have as much faith in the free market doing that kind of justice as you do. At least not anymore.
All you said was that universities shouldn't curtail or limit free speech. You didn't explain why your response to universities that that is to somehow force them to stop rather than simple take your business elsewhere.
I explained how it was different before I stated my opinion on the university's decision. Go back and read my statement again.
I read it. Unless I'm missing some nuance, your statement really does boil down to "universities shouldn't curtail or limit free speech."
It doesn't address why the problem of universities not respecting free speech can't be solved by simply finding a university that does respect freedom of speech, or at least favors what you're expressing.
Your comment about universities not being allowed to do any of this also begs the questions of who is in a position to not allow it, why they have that authority, what they can actually do to universities that don't follow their rules, and whether that authority and power is, itself, constitutional.
Because all universities should be accepting of freedom of speech. They should also be apolitical in nature. They should be placed of education, not censorship and indoctrination. You shouldn't be forced to choose a different university that accepts freedom of speech because in reality, all of them should be accepting of it.
Those are all fine ideals, and I agree with them. But they are not constitutionally protected. You have no right to use the force of government to protect or uphold anything you just said.
Oppression and violation of rights by learning institutions can be just as bad as oppression and violation of rights by governments.
It can be, but as long as they are private institutions, they should be protected from government intrusion.
I voted that they should be allowed to but I don't think they should.
Views, sex, sexual preference, money, religion, whatevs.
Yes, but good luck to that university when the media goes ape shit. Lol.
The media won't care unless the offense is against liberal values.
The service academies already do this...
To elaborate if you express political leaning while applying to or attending you can be removed it's outside of the code of the conduct
Should they? No.
At least if they do the students know ahead of time which is Snowflake University and can avoid it
Harvard is doing it.
I saw eagles poll. Somehow I'm not surprised.
Neither am I. Universities have become hostile territory for the 1st amendment.
I assume this is related to this story that differs a lot from the premise of this poll:
Harvard definitely did the right thing.
@JDoe in a situation where children or freshly minted adults are trying to one up one another in an exchange of edgy memes. My guess is that Harvard Enrollees have a better understanding of the world they live in, but are also subject to being to being the best at what they do so if the challenge is grotesque humor they will find it and go big. It's Harvards call entirely but I think there is room in this world for people to screw up. I don't defend the content or the ideas but wonder if everyone hasn't said, seen or repeated something cringeworthy in there life but had the benefit of no internet to make a stupid mistake into a country wide news story.
Very good points and I respect your opinion. The key word in you comment was "adults". With the thousands of applicants to a college like Harvard, they do have the luxury of taking only those that the administration feels will best succeed in that environment. Harvard applicants do their best to provide grades, essays, world experience, and various skills all presented in a resume that shows why they are the best choices for the limited number of spots. If a bad essay or the wrong AP classes can prevent you from one of the spots, child abuse jokes on a Harvard sponsored Facebook page is clearly something that would merit losing your spot.
Posting memes about hanging people, pedophilia, child abuse, and similar things and being denied admission is different than being denied admission based on "political views."
We didn't say that we agreed with their stupid decision to post vile memes. We are just saying that it is protected under the first amendment.
He admitted it was a question inspired by another question, that doesn't make it a straw man for this content. Just a derivative question that's use a different case with similar circumstances.
@gluxford1 - you need to do a little boning up on the first amendment. This has nothing to do with that. The government isn't doing anything to restrict the speech of these young adults. Even Harvard isn't restricting their speech, they are just saying that they won't be doing it as students of Harvard.
JDoe: Don't bother. Gluxford seems to be under the impression that the first amendment also protects freedom of speech (or rather, freedom from consequences) in private institutions, or at least universities. No matter how many people tell him otherwise he refuses to accept it, even though it's a fact.
They can do that, sure, but they shouldn't expect admission from a private university after that.