Categories

Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Early in this video, Alan Dershowitz lavishly praised Megyn Kelly’s opening monologue defending the First Amendment:

First, here’s a partial transcript of Megyn Kelly’s opening monologue:

MEGYN KELLY: Well, last night we had a thoughtful discussion about free speech and American values and why our commitment to liberty as a nation requires everyone to stand up for the rights of those speaking, even if they’re using the most offensive of words. It’s not about aligning ourselves with the words. It’s about defending a core American principle. First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh explained how, not only did the people organizing a “Draw Muhammad” event down in Texas have the right to do it, which some had questioned, but how what they did was actually important and of real value because it was an act of defiance. Defiance towards those radical Muslim fanatics who mean to impose their radical moral code on us, namely that certain figures may not be drawn or parodied upon pain of death. What happened in Texas is that a group said no, you don’t get to control speech in this country, even if a religion finds it offensive. Sure enough, the jihadis showed up with AK-47s and tried to murder everyone there. Now some suggest that the risk from the event is that some of our Muslim nation coalition allies might be less inclined to fight the jihad if they see some private group like this one hold a private event. So private citizens shouldn’t do things even behind closed doors now, lest they cause offense? Because our friends in Egypt might get ticked off. But the fact is we don’t compromise America’s bedrock principles just to make other nations like us more just as we don’t require them to change their values before we fight a common enemy. Otherwise, Egypt’s “We will kill you for leaving Islam” might be a deal-breaker. The bottom line here is that some in this country have been so busy trying how to figure out how to avoid causing any religion any offense, they have forgotten what is offensive to Americans, namely those who would trample on our core ideals. In America, we stand for liberty and freedom to offend, to provoke, to persuade and to defy.

Alan Dershowitz is a Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and author of the book “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.” Alan, let me start with you…

DERSHOWITZ: Let me start with you first and applaud your statement. It was fantastic. It is the paradigm for how Americans have to look at our freedoms and our First Amendment. Jefferson would have been proud of you.

That led Professor Dershowitz to make this important historical observation:

DERSHOWITZ: Now, look, everything that the critics of Geller have said could be said about Martin Luther King. Now, I don’t want to make any comparisons between the two of them morally but, from a constitutional law standpoint, there is no difference. Martin Luther King picked some of the cities he went to precisely to provoke and bring out the racists and show what type of violent people they are so the world could see what was wrong with Jim Crow. It’s part of the American tradition to provoke so the world can see.

Here’s one of the things I wrote in this post:

It’s worth noting, though, that radical adherents of Islam react violently when confronted with objectionable depictions of Muhammad but that the vilest representatives of Christianity, aka the Westboro Baptist Church, show up at funerals with disgusting signs. Another thing worth noting is that universities are told to establish “an inclusive and welcoming environment” for Muslims but aren’t told to establish that type of environment for Christians.

The event in Texas verified what I wrote here, namely, that Muslim terrorists react violently whereas the nastiest Christians get is they show up at funerals with disgusting signs.

Thanks to the event in Texas, it’s now clear that the vilest Christians react dramatically differently than Muslim terrorists.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

This article is misguided and apologetic. Here’s something that needs to be demolished:

Repeated demonization can inspire violence. This is a fact. “During the Holocaust, the Nazis went beyond making us social outcasts; they systematically slaughtered our people with unspeakable cruelty. Because we know so well what it is like to be outcasts, we must never, through our deeds or words, make others into modern-day lepers,” says Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the largest Jewish denomination in North America. “[W]hat [Geller] does, what she represents, has no place in a Jewish community that is built on tolerance and understanding.”

The only time when demonization inspires violence is when we’re dealing with violent people.

The author cited the Holocaust. That’s utterly irrelevant to this discussion. The Nazis were led by a depraved lunatic. Demonization of Christians hasn’t led to violence. It’s led to protests and complaints. It hasn’t led to assassination attempts.

What’s disgusting is that the preachers of tolerance haven’t criticized the terrorists. It’s puzzling why they haven’t. After all, they’re practitioners of intolerance. They’re the executioners.

What’s most repulsive about this article is the Neanderthal thinking involved. What’s the difference between a) holding a provocative event is justification for a terrorist attack and b) a woman dressed provocatively was asking to get raped?

We cannot defeat terrorist groups like ISIS by following ideology that serves only to demonize the other. Rather, we counter such extremism with better, more compassionate, and more pluralistic concepts that are universal to all people — respect, integrity, and justice.

Actually, it’s quite possible to defeat the terrorists by being the nastiest bull in the neighborhood. The thought is that most Muslims are non-violent who want to live without the threat of oppressors. Killing the terrorists, whether they’re allied with ISIS or AQAP, gives vast numbers of Muslims the life they want to lead.

I can get along with non-violent Muslims. I won’t treat the violent terrorists with anything other than violence.

Finally, I want to thank Ms. Geller for holding this event. It’s caused the terrorist apologists and the First Amendment haters to reveal themselves.

This article offers an opportunity to conduct a thought experiment. First, it’s important to establish a base of understanding:

  1. Several professors put together a panel on the Charlie Hebdo murders; the panel was promoted with the flyer quoted above, which includes the cover of the first post-murder issue, with a “CENSORED” stamp added on top of it. “The flyer was published on the various unit sponsors’ websites and elsewhere on campus.” The event, according to the participants, drew a lot of attendees, and apparently wasn’t disrupted in any way.
  2. But then, after the event, “eight people — four students, a retired professor, an adjunct professor and two others from outside the university — contacted equal opportunity personnel to express concern that the flyer ‘featured a depiction of Muhammad, which they and many other Muslims consider blasphemous and/or insulting.’” The university also got a petition from 260 students and staff members, plus about 45 others, which condemned the flyer as “very offensive” and said it “violated our religious identity and hurt our deeply held religious affiliations for our beloved prophet (peace be upon him). Knowing that these caricatures hurt and are condemned by 1.75 billion Muslims in the world, the university should not have recirculated/reproduced them.”

Here’s the summary of what should be done:

The [Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action] said in its summary for the dean, the poster had “significant negative repercussions.” And given the “large-scale” global protests against the image in question, “the organizers knew or should have known” that their decision to reprint the image “would offend, insult and alienate some not-insignificant proportion of the university’s Muslim community on the basis of their religious identity,” the office added. It said the hurt was heightened by the fact that the insulting speech came from those with “positional power” at Minnesota.

Consequently, the office wrote, “university members should condemn insults made to a religious community in the name of free speech.” Equal opportunity administrators told [John Coleman, dean of the College of Liberal Arts,] that he had the “opportunity to lead in creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for Muslim students by adding your own speech to the dialogue advocating for civility and respect by [college] faculty.”

It’s clear that the highest priority of the “Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action” is to a) create “an inclusive and welcoming environment for Muslim students” and b) to not “offend, insult and alienate some not-insignificant proportion of the university’s Muslim community on the basis of their religious identity.”

My question for Dr. Coleman, the dean of the College of Liberal Arts, is simple. If Dr. Coleman accepts these recommendations, is he prepared to implement these recommendations for people of all faiths?

I’m not proposing that he adopt any of these recommendations. I’m not proposing anything, with the exception of applying the First Amendment consistently and correctly to all University students and employees.

It’s worth noting, though, that radical adherents of Islam react violently when confronted with objectionable depictions of Muhammad but that the vilest representatives of Christianity, aka the Westboro Baptist Church, show up at funerals with disgusting signs. Another thing worth noting is that universities are told to establish “an inclusive and welcoming environment” for Muslims but aren’t told to establish that type of environment for Christians.

Perhaps Dr. Coleman can explain that policy. Perhaps but I’d bet not.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

This morning’s reading has included the latest information on how the Clintons used Hillary’s official position as head of the State Department to enrich the Clinton Foundation. After that, I read more about Milwaukee County DA John Chisholm’s fishing expedition into conservatives’ political activities. After I finished with that, I read this article about the federal government’s confiscation of Marvin Horne’s agricultural crop.

After reading these articles, it’s clear that progressive policies are ruining the United States. It’s equally clear that we won’t recognize the United States if these policies continue. The nation that our Founding Fathers will have been confiscated by progressive thugs who hate the Founding Fathers’ United States.

Let’s start by talking about the constitutional protections progressives threw into a trash can during Chisholm’s fishing expedition. The thugs (I won’t call them law enforcement officers) that raided Cindy Archer’s home told her she couldn’t talk about the raid to anyone and that she couldn’t get a lawyer to represent herself. Then they repeated these actions in 9 more homes. The thugs had search warrants but it’s questionable how valid they are. According to the Constitution, you need to tell the judge what evidence you have to get a warrant. Telling the judge ‘We think Ms. Archer has information that will help our investigation’ won’t cut it.

What’s worse is Ms. Archer being told that she couldn’t get an attorney. Here’s the text of the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Having thugs in uniforms tell Ms. Archer that she couldn’t talk with a lawyer is un-American and fascism.

KEY QUESTION: Do we want to live in a nation where the government is used as a weapon against citizens exercising their right to participate in the political process?

Next, let’s talk about the Clintons using Hillary’s position at the State Department for personal gain:

Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation.

The Clintons’ defense didn’t include an outright denial of wrongdoing. What’s telling about the Clintons’ denial is that it stopped short of denying that they were involved in influence peddling.

KEY QUESTION: Do we want to live in a nation where the well-connected get rich without contributing anything of value to the economy?

Finally, let’s look at how weaponized government confiscated agricultural products without compensating farmers for the products they produced. The Horne family raised lots of raisins on their farm. The USDA (US Department of Agriculture) ordered them to limit their production of raisins. When the Horne family refused to accept the government’s demands, the USDA fined them $700,000 for not obeying the government.

Farmers should have the right to grow however many crops as they want. The government shouldn’t be able to limit the quantity of products they produce. It’s the farmers’ property. It’s their right to do whatever they want to do with their property as long as they aren’t physically harming others.

KEY QUESTION: Did the Founding Fathers intend for the government to limit the size of an individual’s crops? Or did the Founding Fathers write the Constitution in such a way that limited the federal government’s authority in telling individuals what they could do?

When government can tell people that they don’t have the right to counsel, that government has confirmed that they’re a lawless regime. When government dictates to farmers what crops they can grow and how much of that crop they can grow, then that government has become the people’s dictator, not its servant. When individuals use their official government responsibilities to enrich themselves, then we’ve reached a point where those individuals have stopped being public servants.

It’s at that point when weaponized government must be defanged and the individuals involved in these activities must be stripped of their ability to enrich themselves. It’s imperative that citizens of good faith halt the Democrats’ culture of corruption.

When I first read David French’s article, my first reaction was that John T. Chisholm, the Milwaukee County District Attorney, should be disbarred, then tried and convicted, then thrown into prison for a very long time. Chisholm is a progressive political hack with a mission to destroy the conservative movement in Wisconsin:

Cindy Archer, one of the lead architects of Wisconsin’s Act 10 — also called the “Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill,” it limited public-employee benefits and altered collective-bargaining rules for public-employee unions — was jolted awake by yelling, loud pounding at the door, and her dogs’ frantic barking. The entire house — the windows and walls — was shaking. She looked outside to see up to a dozen police officers, yelling to open the door. They were carrying a battering ram.

She wasn’t dressed, but she started to run toward the door, her body in full view of the police. Some yelled at her to grab some clothes, others yelled for her to open the door. “I was so afraid,” she says. “I did not know what to do.” She grabbed some clothes, opened the door, and dressed right in front of the police. The dogs were still frantic. “I begged and begged, ‘Please don’t shoot my dogs, please don’t shoot my dogs, just don’t shoot my dogs.’ I couldn’t get them to stop barking, and I couldn’t get them outside quick enough. I saw a gun and barking dogs. I was scared and knew this was a bad mix.”

She got the dogs safely out of the house, just as multiple armed agents rushed inside. Some even barged into the bathroom, where her partner was in the shower. The officer or agent in charge demanded that Cindy sit on the couch, but she wanted to get up and get a cup of coffee. “I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.” Wrong thing to say. “This made the agent in charge furious. He towered over me with his finger in my face and yelled like a drill sergeant that I either do it his way or he would handcuff me.”

Last night, Megyn Kelly interviewed David French. Here’s the video of the interview:

Here’s the most chilling exchange of the interview:

MEGYN: Who was the judge that signed off on these subpoenas?
DAVID FRENCH: The judge’s name is Barbara Kluka, I believe is how you pronounce her name. She signed off on hundreds of pages of subpoenas in literally one afternoon of work. It was a rubberstamp process. It was not true judicial oversight and the result has been catastrophic to citizens’ rights.

French’s statement might be the understatement of the year. The things that are alleged, if they’re proven in a court of law, should be grounds for termination of the police officers and the disbarment of the judge and the district attorney.

The policeman (policemen?) who ordered Ms. Archer that she couldn’t speak with a lawyer and that she couldn’t speak about the police officers’ actions violated Ms. Archer’s constitutional right to an attorney. Saying that she couldn’t speak about the raid essentially amounts to putting a gag order on Ms. Archer. I’m no lawyer but aren’t gag orders meant to preserve the right to a fair trial?

In this instance, the purpose of the gag order was to protect these thugs’ secrecy. The only people that benefited were the thugs with badges.

This isn’t just about prosecutorial or judicial misconduct. It’s about how the Democratic Party weaponized the district attorney’s office and the Milwaukee police force to intimidate conservatives from speaking about the issues that matter most to them. That’s the heart of the First Amendment’s protections.

Finally, this is the face of pure evil. These Democrats should be destroyed politically. They should all spend years in prison doing hard time. Silencing people who just wanted to support a political issue is despicable.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Just when I thought it was safe to listen to former State Sen. Steve Murphy again, he said something strikingly stupid. Friday night on Almanac’s Roundtable, Indiana’s RFRA law was brought up. Here’s what Murphy said:

I really don’t think nationally that we need any laws like that.

That isn’t just strikingly stupid. It’s frightening that a politician wouldn’t know that Bill Clinton signed RFRA into law in 1993 or that it passed the House unanimously and the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. Further, it’s frightening that a politician wouldn’t remember that RFRA was cited by Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).

Simply put, the government can’t force people to act against their religious beliefs unless the government can offer a compelling reason for restricting a person’s religious rights. Even if the government can provide a compelling reason for limiting a person’s religious beliefs, the government’s solution must be “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Earlier in the segment, Ember Reichgott-Junge said that “the Religious Right” is wise in not introducing RFRA legislation. I’d just recommend Sen. Reichgott-Junge read John Hinderaker’s post about RFRA. Specifically, she should read this part of John’s post:

The hysterical reaction to Indiana’s law can only be described as insane. As we noted here, there is a federal RFRA that governs federal laws, 19 states have their own RFRAs, and ten other states have adopted the “strict scrutiny” standard of the Indiana statute by judicial opinion. Governor Dayton is perhaps unaware that Minnesota is one of those ten states. Hill-Murray Fed’n of Teachers v. Hill-Murray High School, 487 N.W.2d 857, 865 (Minn. 1992); State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. 1990).

Remember that these are prominent former DFL state senators. When they’re sworn in, they swear an oath to “support the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state and to faithfully discharge the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability.” It’s impossible to support the US Constitution if you don’t know what’s in it.

Finally, Sen. Murphy is the guy who said that he wasn’t trying to hide tax increases in his transportation bill. He’s also famous for saying this:

“Everything is fun and games until someone gets an eye poked out, and the governor just poked out my eye by vetoing this bill,” said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing. “I think that is a clear indication he wants a train wreck at the end of session. He wants the Legislature to fail, and he wants to blame us.”

Steve Murphy and Ember Reichgott-Junge’s ignorance of the Constitution and major Minnesota court cases are frightening, especially considering the fact that the DFL is the party that thinks government is the dispenser of good things. Frankly, these DFL has-beens couldn’t support the Constitution they wore to uphold.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This video shows how little provocation it takes to get progressive totalitarians in a tizzy:

This week’s big flashpoint moment came from Indiana, when a progressive ‘reporter’ played into the storyline that Indiana’s RFRA law was horrible. John Hinderaker’s post is must reading on the subject:

Yesterday Minnesota’s governor, Mark Dayton, joined the chorus of denunciation: “‘I abhor the actions taken by the Legislature and governor of Indiana,’ Dayton told the Star Tribune.” Dayton, like a number of other governors, says he is considering a ban on official travel to Indiana. So Minnesota’s bureaucrats may no longer be able to take junkets to Terre Haute.

The hysterical reaction to Indiana’s law can only be described as insane. As we noted here, there is a federal RFRA that governs federal laws, 19 states have their own RFRAs, and ten other states have adopted the “strict scrutiny” standard of the Indiana statute by judicial opinion. Governor Dayton is perhaps unaware that Minnesota is one of those ten states. Hill-Murray Fed’n of Teachers v. Hill-Murray High School, 487 N.W.2d 857, 865 (Minn. 1992); State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Minn. 1990).

Today, Michael Barone’s article offers this explanation for what’s at stake:

The Indiana law is substantially identical to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by Congress by a near-unanimous vote in 1993 and signed with brio by Bill Clinton. It was a response to a Supreme Court decision upholding an Oregon drug law against members of the Native American Church who had claimed their religion requires drug use.

RFRA sets up a balancing test, to be employed by courts. Government cannot enforce a statute requiring people to violate their religious convictions unless it can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so, and proceeds to do so by the least restrictive means possible.

This is in line with longstanding American tradition. The First Amendment, ratified in 1790, guaranteed Americans the “free exercise” of religion. The Framers knew that their new republic included Quakers, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, atheists, even perhaps a few Muslims. They wanted all to be free to live, not just worship, but live, according to their beliefs.

There’s little doubt that this week’s firestorm is purely political. These LGBT organizations know the laws on the books, though I can’t say the same about Gov. Dayton. As Barone says, RFRAs impose “a balancing test” for the judiciary to follow in determining whether the government can limit a person’s right to live out their religious beliefs. What RFRAs do, too, is tell government that they must use the least most intrusive remedy if they can demonstrate a “compelling interest” in limiting a person’s right to practice their religion.

This isn’t new. As Mr. Barone highlights, this “is in line with longstanding American tradition.” I’d hope that the judiciary wouldn’t take a sledgehammer to people’s religious rights. Apparently, that’s the remedy these LGBT activists want.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This post on FIRE’s blog shows how illiterate universities are concerning the First Amendment. Check this out:

On Tuesday, a pro-life activist displaying a graphic poster depicting an aborted fetus on the University of Oregon (UO) campus attempted to give counter-protesters a lesson in First Amendment law, but video footage of the incident suggests few at the scene understood.

One campus police officer requested that the activist put the poster away, explaining that UO has “additional rules other than just freedom of speech,” such as a prohibition on “offensive or demeaning” expression. It isn’t the first time FIRE has seen someone in a position of authority at a public university, legally and morally bound by the First Amendment, suggest that the constitution can be trumped by the university’s conduct code—an administrator at Cameron University explicitly argued just that last May.

But the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that freedom of expression applies just as forcefully on public college campuses as anywhere else. This is simply incompatible with the idea that universities can diminish speakers’ rights simply by enacting a new conduct code provision. And, as the president and vice president of UO’s chapter of Young Americans for Liberty pointed out in an op-ed for the student newspaper the Daily Emerald, this viewpoint-based censorship is inconsistent with UO’s Free Speech Policy, which states that the university “supports free speech with vigor.”

Altogether too often, universities have morphed into places where debate isn’t just unwelcome but outright discouraged. The thought that students shouldn’t experience contrarian perspectives is frightening.

What’s worse is that these supposedly enlightened people don’t understand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. That’s justification enough for citizens to insist that universities undergo a major overhaul. The attempted implementation of political correctness on steroids is appalling. It shouldn’t be tolerated. Furthermore, this should serve as an indictment against universities as liberal arts learning centers.

Altogether too often, they’ve become institutions of indoctrination rather than places where this nation’s history is taught. That must stop ASAP. In fact, it must be reversed ASAP.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

I wish this article surprised me but it doesn’t. Another faction of fascists has exposed itself by voting to ban all flags on their campus:

The Associated Students of University of California, Irvine (ASUCI) voted Tuesday to remove all flags, including American flags, from an inclusive space on campus because of their offensive nature. The bill, R50-70, was authored by Social Ecology Representative Matthew Guevara, and accuses all flags, especially, the American flag, of being “symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism.”

“[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy,” the bill reads. The legislation argues that flags may be interpreted differently; the American flag, for example, can represent “American exceptionalism and superiority,” as well as oppression. “[T]he American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,” the bill continues, arguing that “symbolism has negative and positive aspects that are interpreted differently by individuals.”

Thankfully, the courts will step in and correct these fascists. The sad part is that these fascists think that the First Amendment should essentially be abolished:

The anti-flag hanging bill adds that free speech, such as flags in inclusive spaces, can be interpreted as hate speech. “[F]reedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible[,] can be interpreted as hate speech,” the bill reads.

The bad news is that the Associated Students of University of California, Irvine they are the University’s legislative body:

The legislation resolved that any decoration that a student finds offensive will be removed from the Associate Student main lobby if the request is made. ASUCI is the undergraduate governing body of UC-Irvine. According to its website, it’s student-led by those who are elected into their positions.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, aka FIRE, will certainly assist students if the students file a lawsuit against U-Cal, Irvine. Ditto with the ACLJ.

Banning ‘offensive speech’ would turn the world into a silent place because the term offensive speech is utterly subjective. It’s impossible to define it in a comprehensive way. These reactionary fascists would know that if they’d thought this through. Instead, they passed this bill without much thought.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Eric Posner’s article is frightening from the standpoint that he thinks implementing speech codes at universities is justifiable because students are still children:

Lately, a moral panic about speech and sexual activity in universities has reached a crescendo. Universities have strengthened rules prohibiting offensive speech typically targeted at racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities; taken it upon themselves to issue “trigger warnings” to students when courses offer content that might upset them; banned sexual acts that fall short of rape under criminal law but are on the borderline of coercion; and limited due process protections of students accused of violating these rules.

Most liberals celebrate these developments, yet with a certain uneasiness. Few of them want to apply these protections to society at large. Conservatives and libertarians are up in arms. They see these rules as an assault on free speech and individual liberty. They think universities are treating students like children. And they are right. But they have also not considered that the justification for these policies may lie hidden in plain sight: that students are children. Not in terms of age, but in terms of maturity. Even in college, they must be protected like children while being prepared to be adults.

The frightening part of those paragraphs is that they aren’t the most frightening part of the article. Another thing that’s worth highlighting is that Posner thinks students are still immature children. If that’s true, then it’s proof that society has gotten soft. During WWII, teenagers helped defeat Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Now their contemporaries aren’t capable of handling conflict? Seriously?

Check this paragraph out:

There is a popular, romantic notion that students receive their university education through free and open debate about the issues of the day. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Students who enter college know hardly anything at all—that’s why they need an education. Classroom teachers know students won’t learn anything if they blab on about their opinions. Teachers are dictators who carefully control what students say to one another. It’s not just that sincere expressions of opinion about same-sex marriage or campaign finance reform are out of place in chemistry and math class. They are out of place even in philosophy and politics classes, where the goal is to educate students (usually about academic texts and theories), not to listen to them spout off. And while professors sometimes believe there is pedagogical value in allowing students to express their political opinions in the context of some text, professors (or at least, good professors) carefully manipulate their students so that the discussion serves pedagogical ends.

It’s one thing to insist on order in the classroom. It’s another to attempt to “carefully control what students say to one another.” Order in the classroom is a must because it gives every student the ability to hear what’s being taught. Telling students what they can’t say is censorship with a different name.

Saying that “free and open debate” are “out of place even in philosophy and politics classes” isn’t just silly. It’s frightening because it’s fascism in the classroom. It leads to monolithic thinking. It produces cookie cutter classmates that think alike. That’s unacceptable.

Most important, it isn’t possible for Mr. Posner to produce proof that he’s right It isn’t possible because it doesn’t exist. It’s a theory in search of proof.

Notice the conflating of principles in this question:

If students want to learn biology and art history in an environment where they needn’t worry about being offended or raped, why shouldn’t they?

Everyone has the right to live in a society “where they needn’t worry about being” raped. One of the cornerstones of civil societies is public safety. Nobody has the right to live in a society “where they needn’t worry about being offended.” Living in an offense-free society isn’t possible. It’s also offensive to me from the perspective of who determines what’s offensive. Nobody is qualified to determine what’s offensive.

Technorati: , , , , ,