In most cases, it’s reasonable to expect that groups of protesters will abide by the law. But there are times when doing so diminishes the effectiveness of the protests.
Much media coverage of the US campus protests has been very negative. But there are many very positive aspects to the demonstrations that deserve attention.
While most colleges and universities have their own police units, some schools, like Columbia University, have only private security − and then can call in outside police when they feel it is needed.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, conservative activists led a counterattack against campus antiwar and civil rights demonstrators by demanding action from college presidents, the courts and the police.
New research by sociologist Ted Thornhill shows that black students who indicate they plan to fight for racial justice are more likely to be ignored by white admissions counselors.
The 1968 protests at Columbia University led the institution to abandon a gym project that residents considered racist and cut off its defense work – and generated worldwide attention in the process.
New laws pending in Wisconsin and North Carolina would require public universities to punish students who disrupt campus speakers. But these laws would do more to hinder free speech than protect it.
What legal rules must colleges and universities follow when it comes to speech on campus? And, beyond legal requirements, what is a school’s obligation to protect – or limit – free speech?
When it comes to politics these days, it feels like everything is ‘my way or the highway.’ What can colleges do to end this moral fundamentalism and get students listening to each other?
UC Berkeley had a duty to protect the free speech of right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and those protesting his appearance. But what are the limits of free speech when it comes to campus safety?
Associate Professor of German and European Studies and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages, Vanderbilt University