"Don't Major in Intolerance"

As opposed to Mr. Bloomberg, whose sole argument that college students are being indoctrinated is the claim that the majority of college professors are Democrat supporters, i.e. an ad hominem against US college professors.

True, you used the word "indoctrination" instead.

Sorry, but "a 150 year old book says so" is hardly substantial evidence, and Mill is not exactly an authority on human psychology to begin with (on account of having been completely out of touch with the field for one-and-a-half century).

You are right. Unlike teachers, business owners do actually command the people they're in charge of.

Then bringing him up was a Red Herring to begin with. This discussion isn't about the right to free speech, or the right to voice a minority opinion. Neither the prevalence of Democrat college professors, nor Bloomberg's (and your) objection to their prevalence is a free speech issue.

Since the 1980s, in part because of “political correctness” concerns about racially insensitive speech and sexual harassment, and in part because of the dramatic expansion in the ranks of nonfaculty campus administrators, colleges have enacted stringent speech codes. These codes are sometimes well intended but, outside of the ivory tower, would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. From protests and rallies to displays of posters and flags, students have been severely constrained in their ability to demonstrate their beliefs. The speech codes are at times intended to enforce civility, but they often backfire, suppressing free expression instead of allowing for open debate of controversial issues.

Last month, Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Va., forbade students to protest an appearance by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. Why? According to university policy, students must apply 10 business days in advance to demonstrate in the college’s tiny “free speech zone” — and Mr. Ryan’s visit was announced on a Sunday, two days before his Tuesday visit.

Also last month, a student at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, was blocked from putting a notice on her door arguing that neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney was fit for office. (She successfully appealed.) And over the summer, a federal judge struck down the University of Cincinnati’s “free speech zone,” which had limited demonstrations to 0.1 percent of the campus.

In a study of 392 campus speech codes last year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, where I work, found that 65 percent of the colleges had policies that in our view violated the Constitution’s guarantee of the right to free speech. (While the First Amendment generally prohibits public universities from restricting nondisruptive free speech, private colleges are not state actors and therefore have more leeway to establish their own rules.)...

A 2010 study by the American Association of Colleges and Universities of 24,000 college students and 9,000 faculty and staff members found that only 35.6 percent of the students — and only 18.5 percent of the faculty and staff — strongly agreed that it was “safe to hold unpopular positions on campus.”

www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/opinion/feigning-free-speech-on-campus.html?_r=0

What about firing people because they allegedly voted for the "wrong" candidate?

www.businessinsider.com/voted-for-obama-youre-fired-2009-10

Or because they publicly proclaimed their support for gay marriage?

www.nashvillescene.com/nashville/a-rocketown-employee-alleges-he-was-fired-for-wearing-a-t-shirt-supporting-same-sex-marriage/Content?oid=3241892

So the government is in fact successfully defending US college students' freedom of expression.
That doesn't make it look like free speech is being oppressed, does it?

Violations of free speech happen all the time on campus, usually without much attention or any push-back from administrators. When former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke at the University of Chicago a few years ago, his opponents objected vehemently. Some demonstrated across the street, which is perfectly fine. That's what "more speech" means. But some Palestinian activists infiltrated the lecture hall and stood up repeatedly to disrupt the talk. That's shameful, and the university did nothing.

The same thing happened this year at Brown University when a former New York City police commissioner tried to speak about stop-and-frisk laws. Some students called him a racist and stomped and shouted to prevent him from speaking. They succeeded. Last year, at one of the country's leading colleges, Swarthmore, some radical environmentalists took over a university investment meeting and prevented others from speaking. They wanted the school to sell its stock in an energy company. Swarthmore's president and dean of students were actually present — and did nothing. That shouldn't be a surprise since the college's own speech code is a direct assault on free speech. The school proudly announces that it will remove any signs with "uncivil expression." Who decides what's "uncivil"? Why high-ranking school officials do, of course. They also define "harassment" as any unwelcome conduct. So, if you happen to think something is unwelcome — anything at all — then you've been harassed. There is more free speech on a Saturday morning cartoon show.

The same intolerance seeps into classrooms, usually from activist professors who know exactly what's right and insist you parrot their views. Students are wary, naturally, of disagreeing with the authorities who grade them, especially if those professors are rigid ideologues. Smart students simply avoid those professors or feign agreement. Just imagine you are lucky enough to get into one of Miller-Young's classes in her specialty, "feminism, queer theory and pornography." What would happen if you spoke up in class and, say, opposed her views on abortion or gay marriage? That's only a hypothetical, of course. No one in his or her right mind would do it.

articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-25/opinion/ct-oped-speech-0325-20140325_1_free-speech-college-campuses-swarthmore

Free speech is the right to speak, not the right to be heard.

Most people would not be able to afford their own television channel, or their own newspaper. Some cannot even afford internet access. That does not mean either of those are restricted in their freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech only applies to the question whether the government restricts the form or content of speech acts, not whether these acts have a realistic chance to take place in the first place.

In several cases, speakers at public events (where someone was providing a podium) were harassed and shouted down. They were not permitted to express their views.

Bob