fully agree. There can be limits -- and no doubt there will be battles over probably every instance of any limit. No limits will be perfect and certainly the balance needs to be heavily toward freedom of speech. But not absolutely anything at any level.

The original Stefanik question can be fairly picked apart --- what really may or may not qualify as a brazen call for genocide/ethnic cleansing. But that was the question ----- if something is defined as an open call for genocide, should that be allowed as a form of acceptable student speech or expression under a (private) university's code of conduct.

I do not think this goes too far as a restriction for either a teacher or a student at a university. Nor do I think this would infringe in any way regarding engagement and debate that still allows anyone to take even pretty awful and controversial positions. Again, an argument can be made that any such restriction may run contrary to some constitutional protections --- maybe it gets battled in court, maybe not. But there can be limits without destroying the fabric of what we want our educational institutions to represent in society.

I admit I am surprised why some think this such an impossible or scary line to draw --- again, based on the specific question. We draw lines every day in difficult areas. All of our laws and societal parameters are human constructs. It really goes "too far" or with a fear of quashing vibrant debate to say "we aren't going to allow participation at this institution to those who actively and brazenly advocate for ethnic cleaning"?
[Post edited by fishhoo at 12/07/2023 12:05PM]