The attacks on freedom of speech continue on college campuses

March 21, 2023

Freedom of speech is still an “iffy” situation in the United States. We have previously heard where people invited to speak on a college campus were heckled and harassed by a group that disagreed with the speaker’s point of view.

That has occurred once more. A person was invited to speak at a campus event sponsored by an off-campus organization. When news of the upcoming event became public, more than 70 opponents of the speaker immediately emailed the college administration asking that the live event be cancelled, or changed to an online event. It was not cancelled or changed.

Students also posted flyers critical of the speaker and the organization that invited him. Prior to the event, members of the sponsoring organization met for lunch on campus, but were told they were not welcome at the location because it was to be a “safe space” for students offended by the speaker being there.

As the time for the event neared, roughly 100 protesters were outside booing those who entered, and inside the event site as many as 70 more protesters carried signs.

As the sponsor’s representative began the event, he was heckled. When the speaker went to the podium, he was met with shouting by the protesters. They continued to yell at him, while members of the administration took no action. 

When he asked for administration action, an associate dean approached the stage, with prepared notes in hand, and she then began to also attack the speaker. She asked right off the bat, “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” Which, of course, meant was the message from the speaker worth so horribly upsetting the hypersensitive students?

The heckling kept coming as the speaker tried to continue his address. Ultimately, the administrator suggested that since the yelling had not stopped, that the speaker move on to questions, answers and comments, against the speaker’s desire to finish.

Who were the players in this disturbing display of censoring free speech?

The event sponsor was the Federalist Society. The speaker was U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan. The administrator was Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach. The college was Stanford Law School. The protesters were Stanford Law students. 

A Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judge is invited to address law students at a respected law school, and many of the attendees don’t understand fundamental aspects of the U.S. Constitution, laws, civil behavior, or general good manners.

Because the judge had ruled on cases in ways that were averse to the students’ political or social positions, they breached all of the aforementioned standards. They further do not understand that a judge is sworn to apply the law, and not impose his or her personal feelings when on the bench or otherwise acting as a judge. Either that, or they do not have the intelligence or integrity to know how to behave in such situations.

Knowing that the speaker was someone they disagreed with, why did they even bother to attend the event?

Civil behavior and good manners should have been learned long before they got to law school. And the basics of the Constitution and our laws should be known and respected by anyone entering law school.

And what of Associate Dean Steinbach? When called upon by the guest speaker, rather than appropriately chastise the students and tell them to be respectful, she joined the party and attacked their guest. Later, after interrupting the speaker again, she did say “I do think we should give space to hear what Judge Duncan has to say …”

Duncan was later escorted out of the event site by federal marshals to ensure his safety.

This criticism of the students’ and associate dean’s behavior is not because they chose to protest something they were against, but regarding the specific situation of who the speaker is, and who they are. 

But even protesting has a limit, after which it becomes something worse, and unacceptable. Peaceful protest is protected by the Constitution, as it is a form of free speech. But protected protest is peaceful protest. What Judge Duncan was faced with was not peaceful protest.

After the event, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Dean Jenny Martinez apologized for the chaos at their school saying that “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.” Dean Martinez also clarified to alumni that “freedom of speech is a bedrock principle for our community at SLS, the university, and our democratic society.”

The proportion of Stanford’s student body that participated in this disgusting display has not been reported. But we may properly wonder what sort of lawyers and judges these protesters will turn out to be if they are able to satisfactorily finish their legal training.

Will they outgrow their adolescent sense of superiority; will they be able to actually do the job of lawyers and judges without allowing their personal feelings to control them?

This is yet another reflection of the degree to which our once stable and sensible culture is devolving into utter chaos.

Sometimes, the sources of good and bad things surprise us

March 14, 2023

A couple of years ago Republicans found a few of their party doing and saying things that were out of line with the party’s general way of thinking. Folks like former Wyoming Representative Liz Cheney and former Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger held a strongly unsupportive position against former President Donald Trump.

Cheney and Kinzinger were so much in agreement with Congressional Democrats that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, selected them to serve on the committee investigating the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol, not as representatives of the minority party, but as additional Trump prosecutors.

Needless to say, their positions alienated them from most Congressional Republicans, and most likely played a role in each of them no longer serving in the House.

Cheney and Kinzinger would likely describe their position as resulting from having “seen the light.”

Last week came news of another person who has “seen the light.” But this person was moved in the opposite direction.

This person is a liberal progressive feminist author, journalist and former political advisor to Al Gore and Bill Clinton. In her “Outspoken” column on substack.com she wrote, “I made mistakes in judgment.” She is Dr. Naomi Wolf, and the column was an apology for her mistakes.

Often when people make apologies, they really are non-apologies. They sort of skirt the meaning of the word. Wolf did not do that; she truly apologized.

These mistakes, she said, “multiplied by the tens of thousands and millions on the part of people just like me, hurt millions of other people like you all, in existential ways.”

By “you all,” to whom she was apologizing, she meant, “Conservatives, Republicans, MAGA.”

Last week, Fox News host Tucker Carlson began playing video from the Capitol riot that had not previously been available. That video was part of some 40,000 hours of video, most of which was withheld from the public. It was provided to Carlson by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, despite howls of protest from Congressional Democrats.

Apparently, seeing some of the scenes Carlson presented helped to move Wolf from her previous position. Here is some of what she found in the videos.

Despite the numerous fact-checkers’ claims of being “misinformation,” the fact is that then-Speaker Pelosi actually was in charge of the Capitol Police, but did not respond to alerts and prepare for the coming problems of January 6.

She criticized the January 6 Committee’s labeling former President Trump as a terrorist, and Republicans, by virtue of supporting Trump, “as insurrectionists, or as insurrectionists’ sympathizers and fellow-travelers.”

Regarding the allegation that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died at the hands of the rioters that day, in fact Sicknick died of natural causes two days after the riot. “There is no way to unsee Officer Brian Sicknick … alive in at least one section of the newly released video,” she wrote.

The person widely known as “Q-Anon Shaman,” Jacob Chansley, is seen on the newly released videos being escorted in the Capitol Building by Capitol Police. She commented that “the barbaric nature of his appearance was so illustrative of exactly the message that Democrats in leadership wished to send about the event that I am not surprised to see that his path to the center of events was not blocked, but was apparently facilitated by Capitol Police.”

She also commented on what former Capitol Police officer Tarik Johnson told Carlson about how he felt when things started to get crazy, and that he had received no direction when he contacted his superiors to find out what to do. She wrote that you cannot “un-hear” what Johnson said.

“There is always a security chain of command in the Capitol, at the Rayburn Building, at the White House, of course, and so on,” she wrote, “which is part of a rock-solid ‘security plan.’”

“The fact that so much confusion in security practice took place on January 6 is hard to understand,” she wrote, noting that Washington’s security protocols mean an incursion like what occurred “can never happen.” That, of course, is only true if the powers that be are trying to prevent it.

“But you don’t have to agree with Mr. Carlson’s interpretation of the videos, to believe, as I do, that he engaged in valuable journalism simply by airing the footage that was leaked to him,” Wolf wrote.

“And remember, by law that footage belongs to us – it is a public record, and all public records literally belong to the American people. ‘In a democracy, records belong to the people,’ explains the National Archives,” she wrote.

“You don’t have to agree with Mr. Carlson’s interpretation of the videos,” Wolf wrote, “to conclude that the Democrats in leadership, for their own part, have cherry-picked, hyped, spun, and in some ways appear to have lied about, aspects of January 6, turning a tragedy for the nation into a politicized talking point aimed at discrediting half of our electorate.”

While what occurred at the Capitol was not justified, and while illegal and sometimes-violent actions were taken, her perspective clearly supports the opinion of many Americans that applying the term “insurrection” to the January 6 riot is a gross exaggeration. 

Democrats are still in support of soft-on-crime laws and policies

March 7, 2023

The Left’s movement toward soft-on-crime policies and laws continues. And this time the foolishness occurred in the Nation’s Capital. 

As reported by the New York Post, the District of Columbia Council “passed its Revised Criminal Code Act over Mayor Muriel Bowser’s veto [recently], a late but very welcome Christmas present for offenders ranging from petty crooks to carjackers and rapists. The new law guts mandatory-minimum sentencing and eliminates ‘three strikes’ provisions. Repeat offenders will have a lot less jail time to worry about from now on.”

In addition to the DC Mayor, this law drew a lot of negative comment. Among the critics was House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky) who delivered remarks on the House floor in support of House Joint Resolution 26, which disapproves of the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.

“There is a crime crisis in Americans’ capital city,” he began. “According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76 percent compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24 percent. And homicides are up 17 percent. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995,” Comer said.

“But the radical D.C. Council has enacted legislation that will turn this crime crisis into a catastrophe. The D.C. Council’s progressive soft-on-crime legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

“These changes embolden criminals to run rampant throughout the District of Columbia. The Act also grants the right to jury trial to now include most misdemeanor offenses,” which he said would “overload an already crowded D.C. court system.”

“All Americans should feel safe in their capital city. But they don’t because of D.C. Democrats’ leniency toward criminals at the expense of Americans’ safety,” the Chairman said.

Commenting on sex criminals getting out of jail after serving only part of their sentences, Denise Krepp, an advisory neighborhood commissioner, told local station WUSA9 that, “I don’t think the DC Council should be helping rapists get out of prison early. It’s crazy.”

However, in a surprise move, President Joe Biden agreed with the Republican-led House and the DC Mayor, and disagreed with the DC Council and Democrats in Congress.

As reported by CNN, Biden’s position against the Council’s law “set off howls of objections from progressives and DC residents, who said the president is letting Congress step on the ability of Washington’s citizens to govern themselves.”

“Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, is ‘deeply disappointed’ in Biden’s decision,” the CNN story said.

“This is simple: the District of Columbia must be allowed to govern itself. Democrats’ commitment to home rule should apply regardless of the substance of the local legislation,” Jayapal said in a statement to the network. “This is why the Congressional Progressive Caucus and its members have endorsed D.C. statehood, with every CPC member cosponsoring D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton’s bill in the 117th Congress. Statehood is the only way to protect the 700,000 residents of the District from this kind of interference, we will continue to champion this cause.”

In response to criticism from Jayapal and others, Biden tweeted: “I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings. If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did – I’ll sign it.”

In addition to easing up on criminals and criminal activity, the Democrats are yet again trying to make changes in the country’s fundamental structure. Packing the Supreme Court, doing away with the Electoral College, and bringing more liberal areas into the country as states are all on the list of how to gain permanent power over the country.

The District of Columbia is not a state for a reason. A good reason. As History.com explains, “The U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) instructed that the seat of government be a ‘District (not exceeding ten miles square)’ over which Congress would ‘exercise exclusive legislation.’ James Madison spelled out the reason for the arrangement, explaining that maintaining an isolated district would prevent any state from holding too much power by being home to the national government.”

The situation in the District of Columbia is not new. So, if residents feel that strongly about governing themselves, they are free to move to a city in a state where that is the way things are done. There are places not far from DC where that situation exists.

But Madison’s very sensible and non-partisan strategy is getting in the way of the Democrat’s plan to rule forever.

By way of its design, our government works for the people, not the other way around. The people elect the President, Vice President and members of the Congress, and their taxes pay government employees. The Constitution guides the government and its elected and non-elected employees on how the country must be operated.

This system has worked with little alteration for over two hundred years. Democrats should leave it alone and learn to live within the existing system, the freest and most sensible system ever.

Political correctness and such could well be the death of us

February 28, 2023

Colleges and universities are referred to as “higher education.” It is where many people go after they have finished high school to learn about the career they want to pursue. That is the idea, or at least, that was the original idea.

Long ago colleges and universities started sports teams as an activity for those who wanted to play on them, and for students who wanted to watch the games. Those who played on the teams were students first, and athletes second.

Over the last several decades athletics have taken on much greater importance for the institutions, athletes, and audiences. A vast number of Americans in and out of college rank college sports as one of their main interests. 

Colleges and coaches rake in huge amounts of money, and the people that make it possible for them to earn the big bucks get a free or reduced-cost education. 

This heavy influence from the sporting world has so far not affected the role that higher education is supposed to play nearly as much as the encroachment of indoctrination into the curricula.

But things are changing. As of July, 2021, “college athletes can profit from their name, image or likeness (NIL) under National Collegiate Athletic Association rules,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “It’s a new era for the sprawling, multibillion-dollar college sports industry, and in these early days it’s a messy one.” 

Looking at the current college athletics situation, The Hill offered the following: “In addition to debt-free college, which is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, student-athletes receive coaching and counseling that pays off throughout life,” the article said. 

“The economics literature recognizes that even a year of college has measurable benefits. Student-athletes learn the valuable life skills of discipline and teamwork,” The Hill article continued. “They learn to cooperate with people of diverse backgrounds. These activities shape character, with lifetime consequences. In addition, college athletics is a platform connecting students, academics, alums and fans more generally.”

Now there is talk of college athletes being paid outright, as if they have a job. But if you are paid to play a sport, aren’t you a professional athlete? 

Higher education has many problems: politics in the learning environment; very high and rising tuition rates; and also, recently focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

What exactly is DEI? The InclusionHub defines these terms:

Diversity: Acknowledges all the ways people differ: race, sex, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, and more.

Inclusion: Is about diversity in practice. It’s the act of welcoming, supporting, respecting, and valuing all individuals and groups.

Equity: Is often used interchangeably with equality, but there’s a core difference: Where equality is a system in which each individual is offered the same opportunities regardless of circumstance, equity distributes resources based on needs. We live in a disproportionate society, and equity tries to correct its imbalance by creating more opportunities for people.

The InclusionHub also mentions Belonging and Justice.

Belonging: Infers that an equitable structure is in place and functioning to make all people, no matter their differences, feel welcome. When you reach for equity, you’re striving for a system that benefits everyone, no matter their circumstance. Belonging is when this not only works, but no one feels as if their inclusion is questioned.

Justice: Is the mission of equity, in which an equitable system works so well it eventually eliminates the systemic problems driving the need for the latter. In other words, everything is fairly and evenly distributed to people no matter their race, gender, physical ability, or other personal circumstances.

But how will DEI work as the method for forming teams? If this concept is put into effect in sports at any level, no longer will the 11 best football players, 9 best baseball players, 5 best basketball players, etc., necessarily be who is on the first team. All teams will be formed using the rules of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, balanced by Belonging and Justice.

America has experienced great success because of the idea of being the best you can be, and that the best student, athlete, company, military, or whatever wins. The best earned the prize, which is why they got the prize. They didn’t get the prize because it’s fair and right that everyone gets the same reward, despite how good or bad they are at whatever is being rewarded.

The term that should once again and forever be the focus is: merit! You get the prize because you earned the prize. Not because you entered the contest. You are the valedictorian because you had the highest GPA, not because everyone in the senior class should be valedictorian.

By focusing on everybody getting the same reward, regardless of their ability, there is no longer any reason to try to be better, to be the best you can be.

How long will the United States remain a free country before it is taken over by another country that is determined to rule the world, and focuses on that, rather than DEI?

DEI might not spell doom in small, limited circumstances. But it is the death knell if used throughout an entire country.