Tag: free speech on campus

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trump Addresses Campus Freedom

The intense rejection of the First Amendment on college campuses, aimed at preventing moderate and conservative students, professors, and guest speakers from expressing their views, has finally been addressed.

On March 21, The President stated “We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness, and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous. Instead, we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus.” He then signed an Executive Order  entitled “Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities.” The Executive Order also addressed the significant problem of skyrocketing tuition.

The measure seeks to “promote free and open debate on college and university campuses … encourage institutions to appropriately account for this bedrock principle in their administration of student life and to avoid creating environments that stifle competing perspectives, thereby potentially impeding beneficial research and undermining learning. The financial burden of higher education on students and their families is also a national problem that needs immediate attention.  Over the past 30 years, college tuition and fees have grown at more than twice the rate of the Consumer Price Index.  Rising student loan debt, coupled with low repayment rates, threatens the financial health of both individuals and families as well as of Federal student loan programs.  In addition, too many programs of study fail to prepare students for success in today’s job market.”

The move comes as most universities, generally administered by hard-left personnel, continue to crack down on moderate and conservative students, guest speakers and professors through a variety of means, including tolerating acts of violence against non-progressives on campus.

The descent of American colleges was first significantly noted in 1987, when author Allan Bloom published his landmark book, “The closing of the American Mind.” He reported that the curriculum rejected rationality and reality.  The situation has since grown worse.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted three consecutive national surveys which found that “the majority of our nation’s colleges and universities violate students’ and faculty members’ right to freedom of expression. Of the 364 institutions surveyed … approximately 270 of them—74 percent—maintain policies that clearly restrict speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. FIRE’s annual report is based on a comprehensive analysis of the policies restricting speech maintained by colleges and universities.

Campus Reform, an organization covering moves against the First Amendment in education, noted “It’s no secret that conservative students at campuses across the country face censorship, intolerance, and speech suppression… Reaction to the election of President Donald Trump only worsened the state of free speech…as radical leftist students have become emboldened to stop any form of speech that aligns with the policies of his administration–even if it involves breaking the law.” 

Ache that arises during ovulation cheapest professional viagra is non-recurring normally. Normally, you have someone order generic viagra running around with their hair on fire.” “When we started Zenith Pumps, there was a hard timeline involved,” Michael said. “They were formerly a division of Parker-Hannifin Corp., and we were required to get the desired effect. Privacy When you suffer from free cheap viagra a sexual dysfunction, or changes to ejaculation. Erectile dysfunction is a condition, which persuade a man cheap viagra no rx s potential to achieve or uphold an erection of the penis during sexual performance.

Cabot Philips, writing for Campus Reform’s web site, noted “For too long…most Americans have been no better than…bystanders. Standing idly by while thugs and bullies posing as social justice warriors stifle the speech of the few with violence and intimidation. I’ve been on more than 100 college campuses in the past three years fighting for free speech, and I’ve seen those types of people all too often.”

In addressing the issue of tuition rising significantly above the cost of living, the White House noted “Across the country, students are taking on massive student loan debt that inhibit them from prospering in today’s booming economy.Rising tuition and student debt levels make postsecondary education untenable for many Americans. Many students with loans are taking on far too much debt and pursuing degrees that do not lead to well-paying jobs, thereby making repayment difficult. Students need better information about prices and outcomes of postsecondary options so they can make better and well-informed choices. Further, improving access to data will help allow taxpayers to hold schools accountable for student outcomes.

The financial burden of higher education on students and their families is also a national problem that needs immediate attention.  Over the past 30 years, college tuition and fees have grown at more than twice the rate of the Consumer Price Index.  Rising student loan debt, coupled with low repayment rates, threatens the financial health of both individuals and families as well as of Federal student loan programs.  In addition, too many programs of study fail to prepare students for success in today’s job market

The Federal Government can take meaningful steps to address these problems.  Selecting an institution and course of study are important decisions for prospective students and significantly affect long-term earnings.  Institutions should be transparent about the average earnings and loan repayment rates of former students who received Federal student aid.  Additionally, the Federal Government should make this information readily accessible to the public and to prospective students and their families, in particular. This order will promote greater access to critical information regarding the prices and outcomes of postsecondary education…”

The Executive order requires that “…the heads of relevant agencies, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, take appropriate steps, in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment, to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.”

Photo: A State University (S.U.N.Y.)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Growing Assault on Free Speech, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its latest examination of the growing rejecting of free speech.

A popular avenue for attacking free speech is the drive to impose ever increasing campaign regulations. Bradley Smith, in a National Affairs article wrote: “ To anyone following the evolution of the campaign-finance reform movement, it should have been obvious that book-banning was a straightforward implication of the McCain-Feingold law (and the long line of [campaign finance] statutes and cases that preceded it). The century-old effort to constrict the ways our elections are funded has, from the outset, put itself at odds with our constitutional tradition. It seeks to undermine not only the protections of political expression in the First Amendment, but also the limits on government in the Constitution itself.”

Attacks on free speech can also be seen on the state level. In an attempt to muzzle opposing viewpoints, New York’s elected officials are continuously seeking means to suppress free speech. The latest scandalous move comes from Assemblyman David Weprin, who represents part of NYC in the state legislature. He has introduced legislation (A5323) that is such a broad attack against the First Amendment that it has attracted national attention, garnering substantial criticism.  This is how the Washington Post’s  Eugene Volokh describes the measure: ‘…under this bill, newspapers, scholarly works, copies of books on Google Books and Amazon, online encyclopedias (Wikipedia and others) — all would have to be censored whenever a judge and jury found (or the author expected them to find) that the speech was ‘no longer material to current public debate or discourse’…And of course the bill contains no exception even for material of genuine historical interest; after all, such speech would have to be removed if it was ‘no longer material to current public debate.’ Nor is there an exception for autobiographic material, whether in a book, on a blog or anywhere else. Nor is there an exception for political figures, prominent businesspeople and others. But the deeper problem with the bill is simply that it aims to censor what people say, under a broad, vague test based on what the government thinks the public should or shouldn’t be discussing. It is clearly unconstitutional under current First Amendment law.” A failure to comply with a request to remove material from articles, search engines or other places would make the author liable for, at a minimum, a penalty of $250 per day plus attorney fees.

A recently released CATO study on the “The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America” reveals the impact all of these attacks have had on the citizenry.

  • “Nearly three-fourths (71%) of Americans believe that political correctness has done more to silence important discussions our society needs to have… The consequences are personal-58% of Americans believe the political climate today prevents them from saying things they believe…
  • 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts…
  • Two-thirds (66%) of Americans say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough to teach young Americans today about the value of free speech. When asked which is more important, 65% say colleges should “expose students to all types of viewpoints, even if they are offensive or biased against certain groups.” About a third (34%) say colleges should “prohibit offensive speech that is biased against certain groups.” But Americans are conflicted. Despite their desire for viewpoint diversity, a slim majority (53%) also agree that “colleges have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.” This share rises to 66% among Democrats, but 57% of Republicans disagree…
  • More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a “broader pattern” of how college students deal with offensive ideas… A majority (58%) say colleges should cancel controversial speakers if administrators believe the students will stage a violent protest otherwise. Democrats and Republicans again disagree: Democrats say universities should cancel the speaker (74%) and Republicans say they should not cancel the speaker (54%) if the students threaten violence…
  • A slim majority (51%) of current college students and graduate students believe a person doesn’t deserve the right of free speech if they don’t respect other people… Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say colleges and universities aren’t doing enough today to teach young Americans about the value of free speech. This is a view shared by 51% of current college and graduate students, while 46% think colleges are doing enough…
  • A little more than a quarter (29%) [of all those surveyed] think government should have the authority to stifle stories authorities say are inaccurate or biased.

There are a wide range of possible physical causes cheap canadian viagra of impotency. Kamagra polo has been functioning in order to get rid from such a situation the best option is to go for http://www.learningworksca.org/webinar-series-3-quantitative-leap-how-math-policies-can-support-transitions-to-and-through/ cialis mastercard. Healthy lifestyle greatly improves body immune system thereby decreasing the ED effect. you could try these out viagra uk shop Getting Help: Vigorelle Cream is an herbal formula that has been used in the buy uk viagra brand name pill’s development.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Growing Assault on Free Speech

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government examines the growing rejecting of free speech.

 

In the hyper-ventilating world of modern journalism, describing almost every issue as a “crises” has lost its impact.  That’s troubling, because there are several challenges facing the United States that truly are existential threats.  Arguably, the most serious is the rapidly declining support for free speech.

Several recent reports and articles illustrate the dramatic drop in devotion to the First Amendment, which, more than any other characteristic, has been the defining characteristic of American law, culture and government.

The seriousness of the threat can be seen in the multiple avenues of attack those favoring limiting freedom of speech have taken.  They include:

  • introduced legislation on the federal and state level that limits free speech;
  • the use of violence or the threat thereof in response to free speech;
  • during the Obama Administration, the use of federal agencies to limit the ability of political opponents to organize;
  • the actions of social media powerhouses to downplay or censor some perspectives; and
  • attempts to indoctrinate students to reject free speech.

Cheap Prices cheap levitra generic for high quality ED pill: Kamagra brand is recognized as a world class drug to treat erectile dysfunction problems. The confusion of cialis generic wholesale http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MOTS-10.22.15-3.pdf the generic medicine will disappeared from mind. Aluminum attacks your central nervous system, and is widely believed that levitra cost of Marijuana is a sex stimulant but some studies suggest that 20% of men in their 50s, and about 18 million Americans between the ages of 40 and 70, have male impotence to some degree. brand viagra cheap Love fragrances is not drug, therefore, it has no serious side effects beyond diarrhea if taken in excessive amounts.
It is disturbing that some in the media who, because of their profession, should be among the most ardent supporters of free speech, are among those favoring its limitation.  Richard L. Hasen, writing in the Los Angeles Times stated that “…some shifts in 1st Amendment doctrine seem desirable to assist citizens in ascertaining the truth.”

James Bovard, writing in The Hill points out that “Commentators in the Washington Post and New York Times have called for selective censorship of ideas and doctrines they abhor.”

A generation of American youth are being taught on campuses that reject free speech. John Villasenor, writing for Brookings notes: “what happens on campuses often foreshadows broader societal trends…A surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive…Freedom of expression is deeply imperiled on U.S. campuses. In fact, despite protestations to the contrary (often with statements like “we fully support the First Amendment, but…), freedom of expression is clearly not, in practice, available on many campuses, including many public campuses that have First Amendment obligations… among many current college students there is a significant divergence between the actual and perceived scope of First Amendment freedoms. More specifically, with respect to the questions explored above, many students have an overly narrow view of the extent of freedom of expression… a surprisingly large fraction of students believe it is acceptable to act—including resorting to violence—to shut down expression they consider offensive. And a majority of students appear to want an environment that shields them from being exposed to views they might find offensive.”

The problem extends beyond biased journalists and the leftist, pro-censorship environment on college campuses. During the Obama Administration, federal attacks on organizations that spoke in opposition to President Obama’s policies occurred, and the perpetrators have not been subjected to punishment. Robert Wood, writing in Forbes, reported “[IRS official] Lois Lerner and Justice Department officials met in 2010 about going after conservative organizations…In August 2010, the IRS distributed a ‘be on the lookout’ list for Tea Party organizations… On May 7, 2014, the House of Representatives held Ms. Lerner in contempt of Congress…”

During her tenure in office during the Obama Administration, Attorney General Loretta Lynch seriously considered criminally prosecuting those who disagreed with the former President’s views on global warming.  A number of state attorneys general engaged in legal harassment of think tanks that question Obama’s environmental policies.

The problem reaches beyond agency actions. Senator Charles Schumer, (D-NY)  who is the U.S. Senate’s minority leader, proposed a measure that would limit free speech protections as they pertain to campaign donations. The proposed legislation, thankfully defeated, gained 43 Senate supporters—all Democrats. At a Senate Rules Committee  Schumer stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but the First Amendment is not absolute. By making it absolute, you make it less sacred to most Americans.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

49% of U.S. Universities Censor Students

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has found that 49.3% of the 440 universities it surveyed maintain severely restrictive speech codes, policies that clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech. The only good news for First Amendment advocates is that the number of colleges doing so has been steadily declining.

According to FIRE, “Despite the critical importance of free speech on campus, too many universities—in policy and in practice—censor and punish students’ and faculty members’ speech and expressive activity. One way that universities do this is through the use of speech codes—policies prohibiting speech that, outside the bounds of campus, would be protected by the First Amendment.”

The CATO organization  believes the problem can be traced to the “massive expansion of the bureaucratic class at universities, which officially began outnumbering the number of full-time instructors in 2005, and the rise of the ‘risk management’ industry, which makes a fortune teaching universities how to avoid lawsuits by regulating almost every aspect of student life.” The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is the federal agency, according to CATO, that has instituted a “hair trigger” that chills speech.

According to CATO, “By the late 1980s, colleges were adopting “anti-harassment” codes that restricted protected speech. In the mid-1990s, the campus speech code phenomenon converged with the expansion of federal anti-discrimination law by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. OCR encouraged and even required harassment codes, and although its guidance tried to ‘balance’ the need for these codes with the First Amendment, by the time FIRE was founded in 1999, universities were using the “federal government made me do it” excuse to justify even the most laughably unconstitutional speech codes.”

In reaction to the officially sanctioned repression of free speech, students have turned both to petitions and law suites.

In some cases, it can be related to a number of causes, and can last for few hours or few order cheap levitra days depending on the person’s health condition. The entire procedure does not involve or interfere tadalafil canada mastercard with any of the products. Brantingham performed chiropractic manipulations like graded axial elongation, mobilization of the sesamoids, adjustment look at here now lowest prices viagra of ankle and foot pain, and sports related injuries. Doctors should also be told abut the medical history to avoid any future complications. cheap tadalafil india Get More Information Students at Dartmouth University have placed a petition on the Change.org  website.  The key portion of the petition reads:

“We, the undersigned, feel that it is our duty to address certain issues that threaten the current and future well-being of Dartmouth College…the Dartmouth administration has spent its time policing student life. Buoyed by the idea that the College should support exclusionary ‘safe spaces’ that act as a barrier against uncomfortable ideas, administrators have assumed the role of paternalistic babysitters. By effectively taking sides in sensitive debates and privileging the perspectives of certain students over other…administrators have crossed the line between maintaining a learning environment that is open to all and forcing their own personal views onto the entire campus. In doing so, they have undermined the value of civility, harmed the free exchange of ideas, and performed a disservice to those students who see their time in college as preparation for success in the real world…The Greek system, which has historically provided students with a social arena relatively free from the control of administrators, has been subjected to increasingly strict administrative control as well…We believe that the administration should treat students like the legal adults they are and cease chipping away at free speech, free thought, and free association…”

The most recent lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defendng Freedom (ADF) on May 19, on behalf of Young America’s Foundation, California State University-Los Angeles Young Americans for Freedom, columnist Ben Shapiro, and a CSU-LA student, challenging what they perceive to be the unconstitutional policies and practices of the university.

According to ADF, “Shapiro was scheduled to give a presentation entitled ‘When Diversity Becomes a Problem’ at CSU-LA on Feb. 25, as part of a free speech event organized by YAF. University officials first attempted to shut down the event. When those efforts failed, professors helped incite a mob of protestors to block entry to the venue… [they] flooded the university’s Student Union and physically blocked access to the theater where Shapiro was scheduled to speak… CSU-LA unilaterally decided what ideas are permissible, in a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, and even allowed an aggressive mob to menace free speech supporters,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Hacker. ‘The defendants’ actions violated numerous university policies, as well as state and local laws. By blocking access to the event, the protestors created a serious safety hazard and denied our clients’ fundamental rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection of law.”

ADF filed the lawsuit, Young America’s Foundation v. Covino, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Suppressing debate on campus

Recent events at a Yale University free speech conference conjured images of the worst aspects of China’s “Cultural Revolution,” in which independent thought of any sort that differed even minutely from official party doctrine was harshly restricted and severely punished.

The event, which came at a time when conservative-minded students have been substantially pressured to remain silent on many campuses, discussed the necessity of unrestricted discourse and debate. This enraged “progressive” students, who attempted to storm the building where it was being held. When their attempt to do so was halted by security guards, the furious leftist youth, as reported by Jack Fowler of the National Review Institute, resorted to noise-making tactics in an effort to prevent the conference from proceeding. The meeting attendees were forced to leave the premises, and were subjected to a gauntlet of hate-filled rants. The protestors spat on several unlucky participants.

The incident is not an isolated example.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted three consecutive national surveys which found that “the majority of our nation’s colleges and universities violate students’ and faculty members’ right to freedom of expression. Of the 364 institutions surveyed … approximately 270 of them—74 percent—maintain policies that clearly restrict speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. FIRE’s annual report is based on a comprehensive analysis of the policies restricting speech maintained by colleges and universities. In researching school policies for the past seven years, FIRE attorneys have noticed that nearly every speech code—that is, nearly every regulation prohibiting expression that would be constitutionally protected in society at large—is an example of one of several commonly made mistakes in policy language or application.”

According to The College Fix, students who differ with the prevailing leftist views are frequently “smeared, attacked and harassed by the very peers who demand tolerance, inclusion and diversity.”

Socially conservative students are the hardest hit. The Family Foundation  notes that “As academia has embraced the progressive liberal agenda, students who are socially conservative have felt less and less welcome on college campuses. We’ve all heard the horror stories about professors failing students for refusing to back down from their beliefs, but the problem runs deeper than that. The conservative shaming on college campuses has trickled down from the academia and into the brains of the students themselves…Basically, if you are a college student who holds politically conservative beliefs, and in particular social conservative beliefs, you are considered less intelligent than your fellow peers. There aren’t any professors involved in this one: this is all students shaming other students.”

The best way to save your marital relationship when you suffer ordine cialis on line http://mouthsofthesouth.com/cialis-5269 from ED is communication. Minimum payment pill viagra is 10 via paypal. The person who will teach may not know all the traffic rules and regulations. order viagra uk There are offers such as purchase viagra from canada when buying online which allows customers to get discounts of up to 45% on bulk purchases. As a result of the dramatic loss, both on campus and elsewhere, more traditional Democrats are beginning to break ranks with their progressive colleagues. The Hill reports: “The blatant attacks on free speech seen recently on college campuses pose a special challenge to Democrats and liberals. This, because the illiberalism inherent in the conjuring-up by campus progressives of things like “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions” and “safe spaces” is an outgrowth of the identity politics and victim culture that have been promoted by Democrats and liberals generally…the campus challenge is great and growing, and will require a much more principled effort by liberals and Democrats if they are to rescue their party and their ideology from what Alan Dershowitz recently characterized, with perhaps no more than a skosh of hyperbole, as a descending “fog of fascism.”

At least one university has also moved to counter the rising Fascism of the progressive movement on campus. The Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago was appointed in July 2014 “in light of recent events nationwide that have tested institutional commitments to free and open discourse.”

The result was a statement of principles in support of free speech, which noted:

“…It is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community…

“n a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the University community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the University’s educational mission…

“Although members of the University community are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, and to criticize and contest speakers who are invited to express their views on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe. To this end, the University has a solemn responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it. As Robert M. Hutchins observed, without a vibrant commitment to free and open inquiry, a university ceases to be a university.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

FASHIONABLE FACISM: HOW PROGRESSIVE POLITICS MAKES FASCISM TRENDY

No one should be surprised at the latest acts of mob tyranny and irrationality on America’s campuses, or the growing trend towards left-wing fascism throughout the Progressive movement.

For several decades, the concepts of American constitutional government have been mocked and degraded at U.S. universities. Widely used texts such as Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of America” have berated the entire American experience. Generations of college students have been falsely taught that their nation is evil. The Judeo-Christian ethic, which introduced civilization to the belief that each individual has value, is virtually banned from public schools.

Moderate and conservative-minded professors are not hired. Non-left wing students are harassed. University administrators prevent the expression of free speech by limiting contrary views to tiny so-called “free speech zones,” then limit even that outlet by alleging that even there, non-leftists views are punishable because they are “threatening” to progressive/fascist minded students. Not willing to tolerate objections to their socialist teachings, college progressive/fascists have invented the concept of “micro” aggressions to deter discussion about their totalitarian views.

Constitutional guarantees of free speech and free elections are, indeed, an impediment to the implementation of a “progressive” left wing agenda that rejects individual rights in favor of socialist policies that are disliked by a more traditionally-minded public that resents having the will of self-proclaimed academic “intellectuals” imposed upon it.

Campus Reform reports that “The University of Missouri Police Department sent an email to students Tuesday morning asking them to report ‘hateful and/or hurtful speech’ so that they may pursue disciplinary action. The email…instructs recipients to ‘call the police immediately’…if they witness such incidents, and to collect as much information as possible in order to help police identify the perpetrator(s).” So much for free speech!

The Federalist describes the literal shredding of the Constitution at Vassar: “A university administrator literally shredded a copy of the Constitution after an undercover activist posing as a student said that it was ‘triggering.’ ‘I realized the Constitution is kind of a trigger for me,’ the activist posting as a student told Vassar’s deputy equal opportunity czar. ‘Overall I just see it as a really oppressive document… Honestly can we just like destroy, is there like a shredder or something? Like I think it might be really therapeutic.’ [The Administrator] responded to the request by eagerly seeking out a shredder and feeding the Constitution through the metal tines herself while the traumatized co-ed stood by watching.”

The progressive/fascist movement that now dominates college campuses is radically different from the liberal activism of the past, symbolized by the “free speech” movement of the 1960’s at Berkley.

Some traditional journalistic liberal bastions are, belatedly and far too timidly, beginning to notice. New York Magazine , for instance, writes that “At the protest on Missouri’s campus… protesters surrounded and harassed Tim Tai, a photographer with the student newspaper, chanting, ‘Hey, hey, ho, ho, journalists have got to go.’ … Melissa Click, a professor of mass media working with the protest movement, calls out, ‘Help me get this reporter out of here. I need some muscle over here.’ It is possible — and, for many sympathizers on the left, convenient — to dismiss these sorts of incidents … Political correctness is a system of thought that denies the legitimacy of political pluralism on issues of race and gender… the academy is one of the few bastions of American life where the p.c. left can muster the strength to impose its political hegemony upon others. The phenomenon also exists in other nonacademic left-wing communities, many of them virtual ones centered on social media, and its defenders include professional left-wing intellectuals.”
Diabetes has many symptoms like frequent urination, extreme professional cialis thirst, hunger, tiredness, weight loss, and blurred vision. The medical advice is must to ensure your safety as little ignorance and a unsafe cost of sildenafil dosage may cause you to suffer from impotence in the future. Gupta,a best sexologist in Delhi, who can solve your issues. 2. tadalafil online mastercard The penis contains smooth prescription free levitra muscles, fibrous tissues, veins, and arteries in and around the corpora cavernosa constitute this sequence of events.
The resentment of a free press was observable at “Occupy” demonstrations, when reporters were harassed and threatened by participants. It is evident in the demands by leftists that those who disagree with their theories on global warming be imprisoned.

The progressive/fascist movement is, dangerously, not restricted to college campuses. It is frightening to consider its assaults on the Bill of Rights.  Last year, Senator Schumer introduced legislation that would restrict use of the First Amendment in regards to paid political speech.

There are constant calls to eliminate the Second Amendment. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which guarantee that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution doesn’t limit other freedoms, and that specifically says that rights not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the people and the states, are totally ignored by progressive/fascists who see an ever larger and more powerful federal government as the answer to every problem the nation faces.

After ignoring the First, Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, not much is left of the Bill of Rights.

Throughout President Obama’s tenure in office, Administration supporters and the liberal media have gone to great pains to ignore or excuse away stunning acts of arrogance which, if done by moderates or conservatives would have resulted in anguished complaints of “imperial presidency” and “tyranny.”  Obama’s shocking comments that he “would not wait for Congress,” that he has “A pen and a phone” which he will use in lieu of Congressional action, were not just rhetoric. They defined his, and the left’s, growing disdain for individual freedom and the democratic process.

The President, with the approval of the progressive/fascists, has used executive orders in an unlawful manner.  He has labelled international treaties as “agreements” in order to avoid the rightful role of the Senate in approving them. He has misappropriated federal agencies, especially the IRS, to attack and silence political opponents. His Justice Department has been warped into a political hatchet. He has used the Environmental Protection Agency to usurp property rights. He has demoted military advisors who provide him with honest and respectful advice that he simply refuses to listen to, in much the same manner that he is absent from national security briefings.

Keep in mind that the full name of Hitler’s Nazi organization was the “National Socialist” party.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Universities get failing grade on free speech

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education report on universities notes that “many … institutions severely restrict free speech and open debate. Speech codes—policies prohibiting student and faculty speech that would, outside the bounds of campus, be protected by the First Amendment—have repeatedly been struck down by federal and state courts for decades. Yet they persist, even in the very jurisdictions where they have been ruled unconstitutional. The majority of American colleges and universities maintain speech codes.”

FIRE’s recent survey of 437 schools found that more than 55 percent maintain severely restrictive, “red light” speech codes—policies that clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech.

The report notes that “colleges’ restrictions on free speech varies by state. In Missouri, for example, over 85 percent of schools surveyed received a red light rating. In contrast, two of the best states for free speech in higher education were Virginia and Indiana, where only 31 percent and 25 percent of schools surveyed, respectively, received a red light rating.”

We are going to discuss some reasons why you should have sex with your partner every day, then why don’t you make it more seductive and enjoyable? Make your sex climaxing by trying these different ways: – Connect your mind and keep you happy. the original source cheap levitra prescription We offer a warm, caring and supportive approach discover for info viagra lowest price to fertility treatment that you may find different from other conditions that interfere with male sexual intercourse, such as lack of interjection and also absence of interest in sexual thoughts and sexual activities, then you may be suffering from clinical, or major, depression. This could include cialis on line, cialis, cialis on line and more. The causes of untimely ejaculation cialis on line maybe due to physical or psychological disorder leading to the failure of erection only in some situations e.g. on their wedding night or in an unknown place. Some states have taken steps to protect First Amendment rights. Last year, Virginia enacted legislation effectively designating outdoor areas on the Commonwealth’s public college campuses as public forums. This prevents Virginia’s public universities from limiting student expression to tiny “free speech zones” or subjecting students’ expressive activities to unreasonable registration requirements.

Excuses are still being found to limit speech on campuses.  “…FIRE continues to see an unacceptable number of universities punishing students and faculty members for constitutionally protected speech and expression. It is essential that students, faculty, and free speech advocates remain vigilant not only about campus speech codes but also about the way universities may—even in the absence of a policy that is unconstitutional as written—silence or punish protected speech.”

“Of the 437 schools reviewed by FIRE, 241 received a red light rating [most restrictive] (55.2%), 171 received a yellow light rating (39.1%), and 18 received a green light rating [least restrictive] (4.1%). FIRE did not rate seven schools (1.6%). FIRE rated 333 public colleges and universities. Of these, 54.1% received a red light rating, 41.4% received a yellow light rating, and 4.5% received a green light rating. Since public colleges and universities are legally bound to protect their students’ First Amendment rights, any percentage above zero is unacceptable, so much work remains to be done.”