FIRE's standards and criteria are clearly delineated. The organization has done a better measure than any other I've seen. Any suggestions as to an alternative?
FIRE's standards and criteria are clearly delineated. The organization has done a better measure than any other I've seen. Any suggestions as to an alternative?
You're demanding a dumb answer to a hard problem. Criteria based on perceptual factors call into question whether the rankings reveal anything useful about the actual state of free speech on college campuses. Over the past few years, there have been occasional firestorms of controversy in the football stadiums on many college campuses due to the difficulty of establishing criteria which are clear, workable and that align with the layman's understanding of what constitutes a "catch". The idea that FIRE has the whole 'measuring free speech' problem licked is laughable.
FIRE's standards and criteria are clearly delineated. The organization has done a better measure than any other I've seen. Any suggestions as to an alternative?
You're demanding a dumb answer to a hard problem. Criteria based on perceptual factors call into question whether the rankings reveal anything useful about the actual state of free speech on college campuses. Over the past few years, there have been occasional firestorms of controversy in the football stadiums on many college campuses due to the difficulty of establishing criteria which are clear, workable and that align with the layman's understanding of what constitutes a "catch". The idea that FIRE has the whole 'measuring free speech' problem licked is laughable.