Greg Lukianoff, the President of FIRE, offers an intriguing hypothesis about the tedious consistency of censorship tactics through the ages:
I have always found it fascinating that colleges and universities--which tend to believe themselves to be centers of perfect open-mindedness and progressive thought--so often end up echoing the censors of bygone eras. As we note in FIRE's Guide to Free Speech on Campus, for example, administrators' justifications for punishing politically incorrect, ideologically incompatible, or simply inconvenient speech at times echo the rationale of southern slave owners in the early 19th century who wished to ban abolitionist speech because it "inflicted emotional injury" on slave owners. As we often have to point out, while politeness is a virtue, it is of minuscule importance when compared with robust debate and discussion.
The pattern that strikes me the most, however, is the tendency of administrators to sound like the censors of the Victorian era--morally infallible, plugged into absolute truths and engaged in saving the country's soul from incivility or impropriety.
***
[T]he idea that education is about inculcating "correct" beliefs to an ignorant public smacks of late 19th century imperiousness. It is true that the similarity between the narrow-minded Victorian censors and those of the present day campus may only exist because authoritarianism manifests in a finite number of forms--the rationales for censorship and repression are predictable, generally uncreative, and tend to repeat through history with the monotony of a terrible skipping record. The results are, also, sadly predictable: crushing dissent squelches innovation and utterly impedes the noble search for truth and greater understanding.
Greg's full essay is available here.
As if Orwell's "1984" was on their list of books to be avoided, so they never encountered the archetype they seek to copy. Even Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor possessed a bit of flair and panache. These modern day bloodless absolutists have nothing to commend them.
Everyone at university has a rank, an assigned role in the society. Administrators are at the top but like some kings, they often serve by the consent of the faculty.
The faculty has about six ranks. Professor.....Instructor. These are the Dukes, Earls,... Barons, Knights. And moving from one to another is complex. And vexing a collegue is risky. Then there are the tenured and the not.
Finally, there are the TAs and students. Or Pages and Serfs if you will. Graduates and undergraduates.
You would think a Professor with tenure is independent and feels free to avow whatever comes to mind. And you would be right sometimes. It sort of depends how raises and department funding and travel is meted out.
And outside the university others are making decisions about who will speak at the next conference or testify as experts. And about grants.
Nothing against universities. That is about how they run. But why anyone buys the line that they are nice tolerant places is beyond me.
that is of course a fundamental philosophical underpinning of our 1st amendment. i was reading some commentary on canada's censorious hate speech laws, and actually they made the EXACT opposite point in the debate on passing their hate speech laws - that (govt. imposed) civility was MORE important than the freedom to express hateful, etc. views. pretty amazing, frankly.
i've seen few examples of self-delusion better than that seen in leftist speech-thought censors. these are the same people who claim to be such civil rights advocates.
The modern American university is awash in people with all the worst qualities of the religious fanatics of the past, intent on crushing out heresy. The only consolation is that once you get away from the news &entertainment media and the bar, few Americans share the "religion" of the ivory tower.