I'm gathering students censor because of what other students will say , either directly , or targeting them on social media. It becomes safest to keep your head down. As Pogo once said , "we have met the enemy and he is us". I'm not sure what the administration can do about much of that , and I don't see this getting better.
More misdirection from FIRE. Rating colleges and universities based on what students and student groups do to each other rather than what the administration does is unfair and irrelevant to free speech (lefties gonna left). Also, FIRE makes no attempt to research, publicize, or moderate their rankings in light of state and federal LAWS governing what educational institutions are legally required/permitted to or not allowed to teach, host, and/or investigate.
Their "Methodology" description looks to me to directly address your concerns -- specifically the "Speech controversies" section tracks administration-directed actions and they have a whole "Students Under Fire" database for administration abuses.
I'm ONLY concerned with what administrations do that is clearly in their purview and done by their choice. What students do to each other (absent administration support), and what the law requires administrations do or do not is beside the point and should not be any part of institutional ratings/rankings.
Having more data means you can carve out just the parts that you’re interested in. I’m interested to see what admins do to students, students do to admins, admins do to each other, and what students do to each other. FIRE makes the raw data freely available so you can parse it however you like.
Rest in piss bozo hopefully hell is hot.
I'm gathering students censor because of what other students will say , either directly , or targeting them on social media. It becomes safest to keep your head down. As Pogo once said , "we have met the enemy and he is us". I'm not sure what the administration can do about much of that , and I don't see this getting better.
More misdirection from FIRE. Rating colleges and universities based on what students and student groups do to each other rather than what the administration does is unfair and irrelevant to free speech (lefties gonna left). Also, FIRE makes no attempt to research, publicize, or moderate their rankings in light of state and federal LAWS governing what educational institutions are legally required/permitted to or not allowed to teach, host, and/or investigate.
Their "Methodology" description looks to me to directly address your concerns -- specifically the "Speech controversies" section tracks administration-directed actions and they have a whole "Students Under Fire" database for administration abuses.
https://rankings.fire.org/methodology
I'm ONLY concerned with what administrations do that is clearly in their purview and done by their choice. What students do to each other (absent administration support), and what the law requires administrations do or do not is beside the point and should not be any part of institutional ratings/rankings.
Having more data means you can carve out just the parts that you’re interested in. I’m interested to see what admins do to students, students do to admins, admins do to each other, and what students do to each other. FIRE makes the raw data freely available so you can parse it however you like.