Freedom of speech should be abolished from college campuses.
That’s what Sandra Korn, a columnist for the Harvard University campus newspaper, is telling school administrators. She wrote a column that advocates abolishing research and teachings that go against Harvard’s ideology.
She says that the concept of “academic freedom” seems misplaced and that which papers get published are contingent upon “political priorities.”
She adds that the university should stop allowing research that “counters our goals”, which according to Korn, are extremely far left.
She believes that radical liberalism is the only permissible political philosophy and the examples she gives demonstrate that if anything remotely resembles conservative traditional family values, it should not be allowed. 
This blatant rejection of intellectual freedom is growing more and more common at “elite” universities.
Earlier this year, Erin Ching, a sophomore at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, publicly criticized her university for allowing conservative Robert George to speak on campus.
She said it bothered her “to be hearing a diversity of opinion”, and she didn’t think they should be “tolerating his conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.”
In addition, administrators at the University of Alabama removed an anti-abortion display, set up by Bama Students For Life, because some students found it offensive.
The pro-life poster insisted that abortion is a human rights violation so the school took it down without telling the group.
The school stated that graphic and offensive displays violate campus policy, which is why it was removed.
According to the pro-life group, however, the university had previously allowed other displays including full frontal male nudity.
If that wasn’t enough, now some students are being accused of committing “micro-aggression.” For those not up-to-date on the saying, micro-aggression is the latest PC term being used by leftist radicals who are attempting to inflame racial fires by blaming racism for common annoyances suffered by people of all races.
For example, activists at the University of Michigan insist that things as small as “Having your opinion second-guessed in a group assignment,” are micro-aggressions that turn the campus into a hostile place for minority students.
It’s happening north of the border as well. Recently, a student at McGill University in Montreal, Canada was forced to issue a formal apology for emailing a picture of President Obama kicking open a door.
According to the McGill Tribune, the comedy bit had been shown by Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show” last fall and portrayed the president as being fed up with press conferences.
Another student issued a formal complaint against the sender for committing a micro-aggression.
The scene of Obama kicking a door was racist because of the “cultural, historical and living legacy surrounding people of color—particularly young men—being portrayed as violent,” according to the apology letter that the student was forced to write.
The First Amendment's protections are central to the American system of checks and balances.
The fact that the American press has fallen to 46th most free in the world, as ranked by Paris based Reporters Without Borders, is also alarming and points to how we are slowly losing those freedoms.
There is a direct link between freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and a vibrant republic. Rather than having the government dictate the truth, freedom of speech enables the truth to emerge from conflicting opinions.
Over the long run, this discussion of ideas actually improves our political decision-making.
This is not, however, the opinion of the radical left. They attempt to silence any opinion that conflicts with their vision of socialist America.
The explicit purpose of the First Amendment is to prohibit the government from censoring controversial things. The fact that this is coming into question on college campuses speaks volumes about the state of the modern American university.
We are taking a step back in the very places that should be most dedicated to free speech and free thought. Under the British monarchy, citizens were not allowed to say anything against the King. This is what motivated them to make free speech the first item guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The biggest threat to freedom, however, is not a tyrannical government. It’s an uninterested populace.