If you want to know why prominent figures now talk about the “cleansing” and even “eradication” of Trump supporters, look no further than our schools, where “tolerance” is preached but intolerance practiced. The latest example is a University of Wisconsin-Madison survey finding that almost two-thirds of students believe the government should have the power to punish “hate speech.”
Conducted online last year between 10/20 and 11/9 by the Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership (TTCPL), a center-right think tank on campus, in partnership with the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, the research featured 530 undergraduate respondents.
“The results are troubling,” laments the TTCPL. “As this report describes, many UW students do not understand what constitutes protected speech or activity under the First Amendment. Moreover, some of their responses reveal substantial opposition to established free speech principles and religious liberties.”
The TTCPL then summarizes the findings, writing:
- Nearly 40% of students believe the government should restrict the speech of climate change deniers;
- Over 50% of students believe government should restrict the speech of racially insensitive people;
- 63% believe government should punish hate speech;
- Over 35% believe that public institutions should be allowed to revoke invitations to speakers who might offend someone; and
- 53% believe that employers’ religious beliefs should give way when it comes to providing goods or services, like contraceptives or abortion coverage, that violate their religious beliefs.
Of course, it could be worse. Relating to the first bullet point, the students will take an even harsher line if taught by academics such as humanities professor Richard Parncutt of the University of Graz, Austria. He stated in 2012 “that the death penalty might be an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers and possibly also the Pope” (for opposing artificial contraception).
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Not surprisingly, the TTCPL survey found a pronounced ideological divide. While 62 percent of liberals stated that a person should be able to still another’s tongue if they find his speech hateful, just 18.1 percent of conservatives agreed.
There was also a profound sex gap. Only “47 percent of male students said they ‘slightly,’ ‘somewhat,’ or ‘strongly’ agreed that the government should be able to restrict hate speech, while an astounding 75 percent of female students believed so,” reports the College Fix.
This accords with the well-known phenomenon whereby women are more liberal than men. As an example, men supported the Republicans in the 2018 midterms 51 to 47 percent while women broke for the Democrats 59-40.
As for the UW report in general, the “results show that many students find it difficult to distinguish between, on the one hand, the moral concerns of speech or activities that are contested or even detestable and, on the other, the long run value derived from free speech and religious liberty,” the TTCPL writes.
“‘These results are alarming,’” TTCPL director Ryan Owens told the College Fix.
“Free speech and religious liberty protect us. History shows that rulers, when they can, will snuff out the speech and beliefs of their opponents,” he also said.
“‘For centuries, Americans have believed it is better to allow speech, even speech with which we might vehemently disagree, than to empower the government to tell us what to think, what to say, and how to pray,’ he added,” the Fix continues.
Sadly, the TTCPL report is no outlier. For example, in March 2020, “a survey by College Pulse found that 60 percent of students believe ‘offensive jokes can constitute hate speech,’” the Fix also informs.
“In one 2019 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a majority of college students said they value inclusivity over free speech, think their fellow students should have their political views censored if they are hurtful or offensive to certain students, and think that students should be excluded from extracurricular activities if they publicly express intolerant, hurtful, or offensive viewpoints,” the site further relates.
Then, while not scientific, below is a 2013 Mark Dice video showcasing liberals who were willing to repeal the First Amendment “so that right-wingers can’t say hateful things about Obama.”
One issue here, of course, is: Who defines “hate”? I won’t say that one man’s hate is another’s love and that it’s all relative, but the perception of it certainly can be.
Note here that just as with metastasizing “genders” (close to 100 now, I think), social engineers continually define more and more innocuous or even Truth-revealing statements as hateful. Why, leftists even stigmatize so-called “microaggressions,” examples of which are “Where were you born?” and “America is a melting pot.”
Unfortunately, this anti-American spirit starts young. I’d often hear in elementary school, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Of course, we all know that words can cut and bruise feelings. But the teaching had an all-important purpose: instilling the idea that tolerance for discourse we dislike is a prerequisite for free speech.
Yet it doesn’t seem the young hear this saying much anymore. Instead, “higher education” — meant to be an arena for vigorous debate and exploration of Truth — allows trigger warnings and “safe spaces,” places where students are “protected” from contrary views. No longer understanding that the “truth hurts” (at least sometimes), youth are instilled with the notion that there’s some right to not be offended. They now behave as if something’s status as offensive to them — with “That’s offensive” generally meaning only “I don’t like what you’re saying!” — is enough reason to ban it. And free speech cannot long survive this mentality’s rise.
Of course, none of these youths are taught the truth, that their “woke” opinions respected today may be reviled tomorrow. For the thought police’s actual definition of “hate” is “whatever those in power hate.” This shifts with the winds and will always be whatever happens to contradict their agenda.
