There is a huge cavernous difference between admonishing speech in the academic setting in the name of victimization to the point of restricting academic freedom, and Trump resting on the new conservative rejection of "political correctness" to avoid answering for his misogyny.

The academic freedom issue is fairly serious, legally speaking, but clearly falls on the side of societal good. It's hogwash to universally deny education relating to rape (for example) so individuals with related psychological trauma won't have to hear the word. On the other hand, it should be clear to everyone that it is medically possible for a person to be harmed by a member of authority pushing an agenda which the person finds traumatizing. It's possible for the person to experience this as discrimination. So a person might not want to be party to that education and I think it's fair to have accommodation for that at the personal level assuming affected parties agree. I just don't believe that is sufficient to prescribe that to the body politic to avoid harming the person.

With the hump day example from the article, this is no longer a question of academic freedom, this is extracurricular. I think it's legally fine if the university wants to bow to pressure to remove iconography which some consider to be offensive in this case, and I also think it would be fine if they stood with their plans.

However this is where the constitutional line is drawn, and not necessarily where the societal line should be drawn. Rejecting "political correctness" does not give you free reign to be an offensive asshole without consequence. As a member of the public, not a person in authority, you have the right, the legal right, to be an asshole; but we also have the right to treat you like an outcast for it. This is where Fox and Trump gets it wrong, so please don't make Trump's mistake in your personal lives. I do love the irony of Trump using that tactic straight out of Fox's field guide against Fox, though.

I am pretty far left of spectrum, which is why I strongly believe in the legal freedom of speech for all parties. It's a double-edged sword. This shouldn't be a big surprise.

[Linked Image]