Over the last decade or so, we’ve lost a lot.
A valuable piece is missing, however: The opinion.
In past times, anyone was permitted to own one. An “agree to disagree” approach was frequently employed.
There may be many views that your family and friends have.
Contemporarily, such a lifestyle doesn’t look to be liked.
We’re living in the days of shadow-banning. This is not only for big tech companies, but also for nieces and nephews as well as coworkers and friends. Modern Americans avoid those with whom they can’t concur.
Sometimes this shunning can be done with the light. People often say farewell to people they once loved because of political differences.
As our bubble gets smaller and more transparent, we begin to isolate ourselves from other people.
Meanwhile, those in leadership utter phrases such as “Freedom, but,” “Liberty, except.” We’re told nothing is more important than American value X, yet Y will have to erode it.
Colleges are able to preserve free speech.
Apropos of such preservation, Northwestern University’s student paper is crystalizing the rules of its op-ed section.
In a February 13th article, The Daily Northwestern Editor Lily Nevo notes the complexity of culling submissions for print: “There is no cut-and-dry formula for what [the paper deems] worthy to publish…”
However, she states, “[W]e do have some basic guidelines.”
Some limitations are related to word count or unconfirmed facts. Lily states that there will not be any promotion of profit-generating activities.
Another no-no: opinions of people who aren’t marginalized.
It is also a red flag that I will not publish pieces by people in positions of power, or who already have platforms for disseminating a message. Although the opinion section can be a very powerful tool, I want to make sure it’s used for voices that aren’t necessarily heard in other places.
“I do not feel comfortable,” she makes clear, “allowing a person in power, particularly of an organization that has previously caused harm to students on campus, to use this section as a medium to justify their status.”
Which writers have you left?
Whoever they are, they’d best not engage in hate speech — which is, by the way, different than free speech:
We do not publish any pieces that we find offensive. Although the lines between hate speech or free speech are still blurry, we evaluate each case individually. However, I’ve come to define hate speech broadly as any expression that degrades an identity-based group of people or persons from a protected category.
As for what constitutes an “identity,” that’d be “something a person cannot change.”
Don’t misunderstand:
It is not possible to be a member of a student group, study a subject, or affiliate with an organization for political reasons.
This would be logical. But what if a student organization is considered “minoritized“? Is it possible for a political group to be deprived of institutional power?
That must be where the “case-by-case basis” comes in.
Freedom of speech has made great strides. The same goes for independent thought.
In a related story, something that’s traveled an enormous distance: college.
-ALEX
You can find more of my content here:
Man Robs a Train, Gets Identified and Delivered to Cops — by His Mom
The Professor Calls the Student a Chinese Man, Many Demand That the Faculty Get Reprogrammed
University Gives Students Antiracist ‘Tips and Tricks’ so They Can ‘Decolonize’ Campus
Check out all of my RedState work Here.
We appreciate your time! Feel free to comment in the section below.
About Post Author
