Is the "Woke mob" destroying college education?

[Hercules56]

https://nypost.com/2023/03/15/stanfo...et-revenge-da/

We are hearing time and time again about moms of ultra progressive youth shutting down and silencing classes and speakers in colleges where unpopular views are expressed. We're not talking about neo-nazis or fascists or KKK. We're simply talking about people who are conservative or even people who are moderate, but have been known to express views that go against progressive ideals when it comes to the environment, Palestine, abortion, immigration etc.

And the worst thing is often times colleges are doing nothing to stop this defacement and intrusion upon free speech and the free exchange of ideas in the University space. Sometimes college personnel even advocate for and support students shouting down and preventing unpopular or controversial views from being expressed.

Is this what we really want for our country?

Is this what we really want for our kids?

If we allow this to continue and to become the norm in our society what does this mean for the future of our country?

[kookbreaker]

I think you are falling for rage-bait.

[johnny karate]

The OP cites the NY Post, so you know it's a legit argument.

[JoeMorgue]

Do we need another "woke" thread?

[Cat Not Included]

To your question: No.

To your link: Do you realize that you either linked to the wrong article, or for some reason picked an article that has literally nothing to do with what you asked about?

[Hercules56]

I honestly believe that all colleges especially colleges that receive public funding, must formally and vocally commit to the concept of free speech and the peaceful and civil exchange of ideas within the university space. That includes tolerating and allowing the exchange of ideas even when such ideas may be contrary to one's own strongly held beliefs and values. Colleges must commit to not tolerate speakers and students and teachers from being allowed to express their views in a peaceful and civil way. Students who choose to violate the principle of freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas and tried to shout down and shut down and stop different views from being expressed should be escorted out of classrooms and if necessary all school property. And arrested and charged with trespassing if they refuse to comply. Colleges need to make it understood that the principle of freedom of speech is just as important as the principles of our liberal democracy that we hold very dear.

Should they make it clear that they are not talking about if he was being expressed by neo-nazis and racists and KKK yes there's nothing wrong with making such an exception. But people simply expressing different views regarding abortion or immigration or taxation or Palestine or nuclear weapons or native rights etc etc should not have to face being shouted down in classrooms that are in part being funded by his tax dollars.

Colleges talk about the need for "safe spaces" for various social ethnic and gender groups? How about safe spaces for freedom of speech?

[Hercules56]

I consider myself to be a liberal and have for a very long time. But I have some views that some people might consider to be moderate. For example I have no problem whatsoever with some form of barrier along our borders with other countries. I have no problem with illegal immigrants who are caught crossing the border illegally being sent back home.
I also have no problem with abortion being restricted to the point of viability. And I think some of the gun laws in some of our more liberal states are way too restrictive.

There are many people in various ultra progressive groups who would find My views to be repugnant and offensive, and if I was invited to speak at their college they would try to shut me out and shut me down.

I fear that if we teach our kids that such actions are legitimate and acceptable we will become a society where different views are simply intolerable and no longer tolerated. In our country will become much more polarized than it already is if that's even possible.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I honestly believe that all colleges especially colleges that receive public funding, must formally and vocally commit to the concept of free speech and the peaceful and civil exchange of ideas within the university space. That includes tolerating and allowing the exchange of ideas even when such ideas may be contrary to one's own strongly held beliefs and values. Colleges must commit to not tolerate speakers and students and teachers from being allowed to express their views in a peaceful and civil way. Students who choose to violate the principle of freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas and tried to shout down and shut down and stop different views from being expressed should be escorted out of classrooms and if necessary all school property. And arrested and charged with trespassing if they refuse to comply. Colleges need to make it understood that the principle of freedom of speech is just as important as the principles of our liberal democracy that we hold very dear.

Should they make it clear that they are not talking about if he was being expressed by neo-nazis and racists and KKK yes there's nothing wrong with making such an exception. But people simply expressing different views regarding abortion or immigration or taxation or Palestine or nuclear weapons or native rights etc etc should not have to face being shouted down in classrooms that are in part being funded by his tax dollars.

Colleges talk about the need for "safe spaces" for various social ethnic and gender groups? How about safe spaces for freedom of speech?

Students heckling speakers isn't a threat to free speech. Government imposing an ideology on public institutions is.

If you're going to pretend to care about free speech, you should try not parroting the talking points of the political party actively dismantling it.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Students heckling speakers isn't a threat to free speech. Government imposing an ideology on public institutions is.

If you're going to pretend to care about free speech, you should try not parroting the talking points of the political party actively dismantling it.

I guess we disagree. I believe that students organize and forcing invited speakers to not be able to speak or even to not go to the college creates a culture of intolerance within our society that is a huge threat to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not simply about government censorship. It's an ideal and a belief that we have strived to follow for many years, even if we don't like someone's opinion or point of view we respect the right to express it and we will fight to protect their right to have it.

In the '80s and 90s there was a saying "I may hate your opinion but I will die fighting to protect your right to say it". Seems that concept is kind of gone by the wayside.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I guess we disagree. I believe that students organize and forcing invited speakers to not be able to speak or even to not go to the college creates a culture of intolerance within our society that is a huge threat to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not simply about government censorship. It's an ideal and a belief that we have strived to follow for many years, even if we don't like someone's opinion or point of view we respect the right to express it and we will fight to protect their right to have it.

What kind of culture does banning books, restricting what can be taught in classrooms, and weakening laws that protect journalists create?

Is that culture better for worse than the one where conservatives have their feelings hurt by teenagers heckling them?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Students heckling speakers isn't a threat to free speech. Government imposing an ideology on public institutions is.

If you're going to pretend to care about free speech, you should try not parroting the talking points of the political party actively dismantling it.

Yes I very much agree that these laws being passed in Florida and other places silencing the expression of ideas and thoughts regarding LGBT issues is a huge threat to freedom of speech. But it would be dishonest to make believe we are not seeing a flip side to that phenomenon from ultra progressives and the woke mob.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

In the '80s and 90s there was a saying "I may hate your opinion but I will die fighting to protect your right to say it". Seems that concept is kind of gone by the wayside.

Yeah that kind of went out of vogue when it started meaning people where expected to defend people arguing that they shouldn't exist.

Do us all favor and spare us the droll routine of pretending you don't know what the paradox of tolerance is so we don't have to explain it and watch you pretend to not get it.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Students heckling speakers isn't a threat to free speech.

In the context of a college/university it can be. When speakers are not allowed to speak that is a threat to free speech. When that is sanctioned by fearful staff of public schools it is by definition.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Yes I very much agree that these laws being passed in Florida and other places silencing the expression of ideas and thoughts regarding LGBT issues is a huge threat to freedom of speech. But it would be dishonest to make believe we are not seeing a flip side to that phenomenon from ultra progressives and the woke mob.

No, it wouldn't be dishonest, because we're not.

To date, I still don't know what the "woke mob" is supposed to be (although your use of the term speaks volumes), but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean anyone with the power to imprison or use state-sanctioned violence on people.

And therein lies the difference.

I'd rather be heckled by a liberal college student than thrown in jail by a conservative government.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by qayak

In the context of a college/university it can be. When speakers are not allowed to speak that is a threat to free speech. When that is sanctioned by fearful staff of public schools it is by definition.

Denial of a specific platform is not denial of free speech. I don't agree with the practice of shouting down speakers with whom I disagree, but let's not pretend doing so denies that speaker of their right to free speech. That we usually see that same speaker on Fox News later that day crying about it is fairly solid evidence that it doesn't.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by qayak

In the context of a college/university it can be. When speakers are not allowed to speak that is a threat to free speech. When that is sanctioned by fearful staff of public schools it is by definition.

I'm going to show up at your house tonight, stand on your sofa, and yell about how much I hate your wife's cooking. If you ask me to leave that's you attack my free speech.

See how stupid that sounds?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Students heckling speakers isn't a threat to free speech. Government imposing an ideology on public institutions is.

If you're going to pretend to care about free speech, you should try not parroting the talking points of the political party actively dismantling it.

A little heckling is one thing; shouting down a speaker and trying to keep him form speakng is another.
Don't fall into the "It's OK if people on my side do it" trap.
Something tells me if it was right wing students shouting down a left wing speaker you would feel differently.
I hate,hate,hate, double standards.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Denial of a specific platform is not denial of free speech. I don't agree with the practice of shouting down speakers with whom I disagree, but let's not pretend doing so denies that speaker of their right to free speech. That we usually see that same speaker on Fox News later that day crying about it is fairly solid evidence that it doesn't.

Sorry, that is a semantics game.
It's wrong to shout down a speaker you do not agree with. End of story.
Your double standard is really showing.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by dudalb

A little heckling is one thing; shouting down a speaker and trying to keep him form speakng is another.
Don't fall into the "It's OK if people on my side do it" trap.
Something tells me if it was right wing students shouting down a left wing speaker you would feel differently.
I hate,hate,hate, double standards.

Originally Posted by dudalb

Sorry, that is a semantics game.
It's wrong to shout down a speaker you do not agree with. End of story.
Your double standard is really showing.

That's not how double standards work. I don't have to defend or even agree with a practice in order to point out a disingenuous and factually-inaccurate argument being made about it.

If you're worried about double standards, talk to the people who claim to care about free such but hand-wave away actual threats to it.

[Hercules56]

President Obama said it best:

https://www.thefire.org/news/preside...ce-free-speech

WASHINGTON, November 16, 2015—For the second time this year, President Barack Obama publicly defended the importance of free speech on campus. In an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos (video; transcript) that aired yesterday, President Obama praised student activists, but also said he disagrees with what Stephanopoulos described as “militant political correctness” on campus, whereby some activists seek to shut down opposing viewpoints.

“Being a good citizen, being an activist, involves hearing the other side and making sure that you are engaging in a dialogue because that’s also how change happens,” said President Obama in the seven-minute interview. “The civil rights movement happened because there was civil disobedience, because people were willing to go to jail, because there were events like Bloody Sunday, but it was also because the leadership of the movement consistently stayed open to the possibility of reconciliation and sought to understand the views, even views that were appalling to them, of the other side.”

The president said he discusses these issues with his daughters around the dinner table. He told Stephanopoulos that while he wants his daughters to stand up for society’s voiceless and vulnerable, he also wants them to hear out the other side’s arguments.

“I tell them, I want you also to be able to listen. I don’t want you to think that a display of your strength is simply shutting other people up, and that part of your ability to bring about change is going to be by engagement and understanding the viewpoints and the arguments of the other side,” President Obama said.

“And so when I hear, for example, folks on college campuses saying, ‘We’re not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas,’ I think that’s a recipe for dogmatism and I think you’re not going to be as effective.”

The president went on to discuss why he believes free speech is a crucial component of a well-functioning democracy. He urged activists to answer “bad ideas” with better ideas, not censorship:

“[We] have these values of free speech. And it’s not free speech in the abstract. The purpose of that kind of free speech is to make sure that we are forced to use argument and reason and words in making our democracy work. And, you know, you don’t have to be fearful of somebody spouting bad ideas. Just out-argue them. Beat ’em. Make the case as to why they’re wrong. Win over adherents. That’s how things work in a democracy.”

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Denial of a specific platform is not denial of free speech. I don't agree with the practice of shouting down speakers with whom I disagree, but let's not pretend doing so denies that speaker of their right to free speech. That we usually see that same speaker on Fox News later that day crying about it is fairly solid evidence that it doesn't.

I believe private companies, colleges and other institutions have the right to ban certain messages and ideals that conflict with their core values.

But public institutions, that are funded by EVERYBODY's tax dollars? They have an obligation to make sure civil and peaceful exchange of diverse views is protected and respected. And that means removing disruptive students who refuse to allow invited speakers speak, or who refuse to allow political clubs function. So far we have NOT seen that happen. If anything we have seen public colleges protect the rights of Agitators over those of everyone else. As if they are the only ones who have a right to be heard. Basically those who yell loudest, get the most respect.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

President Obama said it best:

https://www.thefire.org/news/preside...ce-free-speech

WASHINGTON, November 16, 2015—For the second time this year, President Barack Obama publicly defended the importance of free speech on campus. In an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos (video; transcript) that aired yesterday, President Obama praised student activists, but also said he disagrees with what Stephanopoulos described as “militant political correctness” on campus, whereby some activists seek to shut down opposing viewpoints.

“Being a good citizen, being an activist, involves hearing the other side and making sure that you are engaging in a dialogue because that’s also how change happens,” said President Obama in the seven-minute interview. “The civil rights movement happened because there was civil disobedience, because people were willing to go to jail, because there were events like Bloody Sunday, but it was also because the leadership of the movement consistently stayed open to the possibility of reconciliation and sought to understand the views, even views that were appalling to them, of the other side.”

The president said he discusses these issues with his daughters around the dinner table. He told Stephanopoulos that while he wants his daughters to stand up for society’s voiceless and vulnerable, he also wants them to hear out the other side’s arguments.

“I tell them, I want you also to be able to listen. I don’t want you to think that a display of your strength is simply shutting other people up, and that part of your ability to bring about change is going to be by engagement and understanding the viewpoints and the arguments of the other side,” President Obama said.

“And so when I hear, for example, folks on college campuses saying, ‘We’re not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas,’ I think that’s a recipe for dogmatism and I think you’re not going to be as effective.”

The president went on to discuss why he believes free speech is a crucial component of a well-functioning democracy. He urged activists to answer “bad ideas” with better ideas, not censorship:

“[We] have these values of free speech. And it’s not free speech in the abstract. The purpose of that kind of free speech is to make sure that we are forced to use argument and reason and words in making our democracy work. And, you know, you don’t have to be fearful of somebody spouting bad ideas. Just out-argue them. Beat ’em. Make the case as to why they’re wrong. Win over adherents. That’s how things work in a democracy.”

Cool. Where's the part in which he validates your thesis that "the 'Woke mob'" is "destroying college education"?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

I believe private companies, colleges and other institutions have the right to ban certain messages and ideals that conflict with their core values.

But public institutions, that are funded by EVERYBODY's tax dollars? They have an obligation to make sure civil and peaceful exchange of diverse views is protected and respected. And that means removing disruptive students who refuse to allow invited speakers speak, or who refuse to allow political clubs function. So far we have NOT seen that happen. If anything we have seen public colleges protect the rights of Agitators over those of everyone else. As if they are the only ones who have a right to be heard. Basically those who yell loudest, get the most respect.

Cool. How does this argument validate your thesis that "the 'Woke mob'" is "destroying college education"?

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Cool. How does this argument validate your thesis that "the 'Woke mob'" is "destroying college education"?

It definitely isn't helping. It seems to be working hard to spread far and wide the idea that disagreeable speech shall simply not be tolerated.

If I don't agree with you I will simply shout you down and remove you from your forum. I wonder what happens when every other political and ideological group starts adopting that philosophy.

[Hercules56]

Perhaps we should start teaching our kids that if they are in a history class and they hear something that they don't agree with, or something that triggers them emotionally they should not simply disagree with the teacher they should start yelling and screaming and prevent the class from continuing. Hmm?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

It definitely isn't helping. It seems to be working hard to spread far and wide the idea that disagreeable speech shall simply not be tolerated.

So then "woke mobs" aren't actually "destroying college education". You're just using clownish right wing alarmism to make something seem worse than it is.

Quote:

If I don't agree with you I will simply shout you down and remove you from your forum. I wonder what happens when every other political and ideological group starts adopting that philosophy.

Conservatives have not only adopted a philosophy of censorship, they're codifying it into law.

But somehow, liberal college students who yell at people are the real problem.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So then "woke mobs" aren't actually "destroying college education". You're just using clownish right wing alarmism to make something seem worse than it is.



Conservatives have not only adopted a philosophy of censorship, they're codifying it into law.

But somehow, liberal college students who yell at people are the real problem.

Are you saying Woke uber Progressive language policing has not been codified?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Are you saying Woke uber Progressive language policing has not been codified?

Into laws that carry potential penalties of imprisonment and state-sanctioned violence? No, they haven't.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Into laws that carry potential penalties of imprisonment and state-sanctioned violence? No, they haven't.

Actually yes, they have:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/use-wrong...may-punish-you

https://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-i...nder-pronouns/

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Actually yes, they have:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/use-wrong...may-punish-you

https://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-i...nder-pronouns/

I'm not sure what's more hilarious: That your sources are from a right wing media empire that was recently proven to be nothing more than a culture war propaganda machine, or that even those sources dispute your claim:

Quote:

The city insisted that accidentally misusing a transgender person’s preferred pronoun is not against the law and would not be subject to a fine.

The updated regulations are meant to address “situations in which individuals intentionally and repeatedly target transgender and gender non-conforming people with this type of harassment,” Commission spokesman Seth Hoy told the Post Thursday.

“The Commission issued this guidance last year so that employers and individuals understand what the law says and to ensure that every transgender individual in New York City is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve,” Hoy added.

Penalties of up to $250,000 can be imposed for violations that are deemed to be the result of malicious intent.

But then again, you're here pushing the same right wing propaganda, so maybe you think bigoted harassment counts as free speech.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I'm not sure what's more hilarious: That your sources are from a right wing media empire that was recently proven to be nothing more than a culture war propaganda machine, or that even those sources dispute your claim:




But then again, you're here pushing the same right wing propaganda, so maybe you think bigoted harassment counts as free speech.

Calling someone "sir" instead of "madam" deserves a $250,000 fine and or prison????

Calling someone "Jim" instead of "Jane", deserves a massive fine?

What if I refuse to use one of these new pronouns? I refuse to refer to a single individual as "they", but that could get me sent to jail.

Its all garbage. What Florida is doing and what San Francisco is doing. All authoritarian garbage.

[Hercules56]

Is it nice and polite for a landlord to refer to a transgender woman by her previous male name? No, it's rude. But should it be a crime that could send someone to jail for refusing to pay a massive fine?? No ******* way.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Calling someone "sir" instead of "madam" deserves a $250,000 fine and or prison????

Calling someone "Jim" instead of "Jane", deserves a massive fine?

What if I refuse to use one of these new pronouns? I refuse to refer to a single individual as "they", but that could get me sent to jail.

Its all garbage. What Florida is doing and what San Francisco is doing. All authoritarian garbage.

Please cite text from the actual laws that states the scenarios you're describing could happen.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Is it nice and polite for a landlord to refer to a transgender woman by her previous male name? No, it's rude. But should it be a crime that could send someone to jail for refusing to pay a massive fine?? No ******* way.

Please cite text from the actual laws that states the scenario you're describing could happen.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Please cite text from the actual laws that states the scenario you're describing could happen.

Its a very long statute, read here.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/le...ression.page#3

Basically yes repeated refusal to refer to a transgender tenant by their chosen pronoun can result in very large fines. Failure to pay fines can lead to jail.

[novaphile]

Landlords and tennants? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with destroying college to me.

I'm trying to imagine how more or less 'wokeness' could have affected anything in any of my degrees...

I suppose that we wouldn't have been talking about master/slave drives when talking about SCSI, but I suspect that wouldn't have damaged my education.

I am aware of a student action that would count as 'wokeness' though...

A friend of mine is an engineer. (And studied at the university next door to my campus, yes, I'm aware how silly that sounds, but two unis, adjacent campuses in the city).

During one of her lectures, fluid dynamics IIRC, she stood up and asked a question about the interactions with pipe walls, where she was struggling with the maths.

The lecturer said something along the lines of: "Don't worry your pretty little head about that."

Immediately a group of male students stood up and asked the same question.

And the lecturer said: "Oh well, if the MEN need to know..." and proceeded to answer the question.

The men outnumbered the women something like 20 to 1 in that subject, and roughly half of them made a formal complaint to the university.

(She clearly had a lot of friends/supporters).

The lecturer was formally counseled about his behaviour.

(This was big news at the time, and was even discussed in some of my lectures at the campus next door.)

Purest fluke that I knew her at the time, she was sharing a house with my girl-friend.

I'm pretty sure that nobody's education was "destroyed" as a result.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Hercules56

Its a very long statute, read here.

https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/le...ression.page#3

Basically yes repeated refusal to refer to a transgender tenant by their chosen pronoun can result in very large fines. Failure to pay fines can lead to jail.

Nice try, but I won’t be digging through the statute to prove your claim for you.

I’ll keep it simple: Please cite the text in the statute that says calling someone "sir" instead of "madam" will result in a $250,000 fine and or prison.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Nice try, but I won’t be digging through the statute to prove your claim for you.

I’ll keep it simple: Please cite the text in the statute that says calling someone "sir" instead of "madam" will result in a $250,000 fine and or prison.

"Unlawful gender-based discrimination is prohibited in the following areas:

Employment:
It is unlawful to refuse to hire, promote, or fire a person because of a person’s actual or perceived gender, including being or being perceived to be transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming. It is also unlawful to set different compensation or terms and conditions of employment because of an employee’s gender. Examples of terms and conditions of employment include work assignments, employee benefits, and keeping the workplace free from harassment.

Public Accommodations:
It is unlawful for providers of public accommodations, their employees, or their agents to deny any person, or communicate intent to deny, the services, advantages, facilities or privileges of a public accommodation directly or indirectly because of their actual or perceived gender, including being or being perceived to be transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming. Simply put, it is unlawful to deny any person full and equal enjoyment of a public accommodation because of gender.

Housing:
It is unlawful to refuse to sell, rent, or lease housing to someone because of their actual or perceived gender, including being or being perceived to be transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming. It is unlawful to withhold from any person full and equal enjoyment of a housing accommodation because of their gender.

1. Failing To Use the Name or Pronouns with Which a Person Self-Identifies

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use the name, pronouns, and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs./Mx.)15 with which a person self-identifies, regardless of the person’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the person’s identification"

"Examples of Violations
a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she uses she/her and Ms.

b. Refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, insisting on calling a non-binary person “Mr.” after they have requested to be called “Mx.”

c. Conditioning a person’s use of their name on obtaining a court-ordered name change or providing identification in that name. For example, a covered entity may not refuse to call a transgender man who introduces himself as Manuel by that name because his identification lists his name as Maribel.17"

". PENALTIES IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
The Commission can impose civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. The amount of a civil penalty will be guided by the following factors, among others:
• The number of violations;
• The severity of the violation;
• The existence of previous or subsequent violations;
• The willfulness of the violation;
• The employer’s size, considering both the total number of employees and its revenue;
• Any efforts the employer has made to promptly remedy violations; and
• The employer’s actual or constructive knowledge of the NYCHRL.

These penalties are in addition to the other remedies available to people who successfully resolve or prevail on claims under the NYCHRL, including, but not limited to, back and front pay, along with other compensatory and punitive damages. The Commission may consider the lack of an adequate anti-discrimination policy as a factor in determining liability, assessing damages, and mandating certain affirmative remedies."

[jt512]

Quote:

Is the "Woke mob" destroying college education?

They already have.

[Trebuchet]

I'm pretty well astounded that we're 37 posts in and nobody has cited Betteridge's law of headlines.
When I went to college in the late 1960's, groups of right-wing thugs, oops, I mean varsity football players on scholarship, would go around campus at night assaulting guys with long hair. When caught, they got a stern talking-to by the coach. For getting caught. Is that just fine with the OP?