Blink and you’ll miss it. Another week has come and gone. Here are some ILYBYGTH stories that might have flown under your radar:
What do college students really think? Two different surveys give us different numbers. HT: DW
- Brookings says almost 20% of students might condone using violence to block offensive speech.
- Is it “junk science?”
- FIRE says only 1% would.
“Is history objective?” Academic historians get a weird email. Is it a right-wing set up?
What’s going on on campus? Michigan and other schools flooded with violent and racist propaganda.
Harvard likely under investigation for racist admissions policies.
Have evangelicals evolved from “public moralists to leaders of tribal identity”? That’s Jennifer Rubin’s charge this week at WaPo.
Free speech for some! That seems to be the majority opinion, according to a new survey reviewed by Conor Friedensdorf in The Atlantic.
California looks at new LGBTQ-friendly textbooks.
When do religious kids abandon their faith? It’s not during college, according to new research from PRRI.
- ILYBYGTH asks: What does this mean for evangelical higher education?
Are conservatives deserting the charter-school movement?
- Free-marketeer Mike Petrilli says yes.
- Curmudgucrat Peter Greene explains why.
Life at the “Christian Hogwarts:” Healing and prophecy at Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry, Redding, CA.
Thanks to all the SAGLRROILYBYGTH who sent in tips and stories.
I Love You but You're Going to Hell 
Donna
/ October 16, 2017I think there are a couple things that account for the 19% difference regarding use of violence to block offensive speech.
The two surveys ask different questions. The question in the Villasenor study states, “A student group opposed to the speaker uses violence to prevent the speaker from speaking. Do you agree or disagree that the student group’s actions are acceptable?” The FIRE study asks, “If a guest speaker with ideas and opinions I strongly disagree with were invited to my college campus, I might: (and one answer is) Use violent or disruptive actions to prevent the event from occurring.” One asks what is okay for other students to do, and one asks what the student would personally do. Also the FIRE study includes “disruptive actions” with violence. What are disruptive actions?
The Villasenor study doesn’t seem to be very reliable since it wasn’t random and “was given to an opt-in online panel of people who identified as current college students.” The FIRE study was also given to an opt in research panel, and students were given some type of incentive to answer the questions. I’m not a statistician so I question the reliability of both studies for several reasons. Coming to any type of conclusion as to what college students think would seem to be more politically driven than anything else.