The University of Connecticut recently conducted a survey of how much high school students know--and appreciate--about the First Amendment. The Michigan Daily has this disturbing summary of the results:

The survey, conducted by the University of Connecticut, found that one in three of the 112,003 students surveyed said the freedom of the press should be ?more restricted? ? a full 36 percent of the students said newspapers should receive governmental approval before publication. When asked whether the press enjoys too much freedom, not enough, or about the right amount, a staggering 32 percent said ?too much,? while only 10 percent answered ?too little.? Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that many of the students surveyed appeared to be ignorant as to what the First Amendment guaranteed; a startling 75 percent of students thought defacing the American flag was illegal, despite a U.S. Supreme Court case explicitly protecting such freedom of expression.

Well, to offer a dissenting point of view, maybe these kids think that the mainstream media (MSM) is doing a bad and irresponsible job. Maybe this isn't a commentary on the US Const. but instead on the state of the MSM. Maybe the MSM has lost the trust of these children. So, perhaps the focus should be more on why the kids think the MSM should be censored and less on what the Const. permits and guarantees. I guess I see this as a referendum on the MSM and not on the Const. At least, that's one way to see it.

RP:

As the father of two high school teens, I don't see that as a referendum on MSM, but simply as the normal way people think. There's nothing free about free speech; it's a space cleared through hard work, and we create that space only once we've learned the hard lesson through experience that free speech is better than our first impulse: everyone saying what I think.

Kudos to this site and so many others for fighting to reclaim free speech. It's all too easy to blame the academic left and the centrist-left MSM (who definitely deserve a lot of blame), and to forget that the problem arises over and over again.

Having said that, I do suspect that our schools have neglected instruction on the history and rationale of free speech -- probably for the very same reasons that over the last twenty years those schools have imposed speech codes and have punished students for conduct that is clearly protected by the First Amendment.

Speech codes at many schools, and punishing people for merely offending others with speech, cause students to think that speech not only can but should be regulated.

"maybe these kids think that the mainstream media (MSM) is doing a bad and irresponsible job"

In other words, they think the government should stay out of censoring the media only if the media is doing a good job. Oh, that's completely different, then.

Darren:

I agree that speech codes are part of the problem, but I don't view kids as being blank slates, or inherent "free speechers" who are are corrupted by the left-leaning, speech-code-writing academics.

I think that deep down inside of basically all of us there is an urge to censor. When you couple that with the ethos of speech codes, you get horrible results like that poll.

reader--yes. freedom is hard; most people like to give lip service to it. freedom means putting a flag on your car. as soon as most americans see, hear, or hear about something they don't like, or something that offends them, freedom is ditched for censorship.
the tricky thing about a free society is that some its people must put up with a lot of ugly things from other members of the population.
people also forget that there is no provision in the constitution that says people have the right to not be offended by others.

some "of" its people--oops. nobody's offended, right?

I tend to think reader may be on to something. The problem is that when you couple the urge with a total lack of education in what governs controls on the urge takes control. When we have all these speech codes plus the lying by the MSM and the "depends on how you define 'is'" and the unequal application of rules at educational institutions and the total lack of a fair and unbiased teaching of politics at schools and the LLL profs at colleges, you will end up with test results. The question that needs to be asked is how do we get to the root causes of the problem and how do we address it so that the students really do get an understanding of what the Constitution says and what it means. So long as you have groups that go running off to the courts to set aside and negate what the people vote on and you have voting fraud to the extent that we have itthis year in Washington and Minnesota and Wisconsin, how can we expect our kids to get a true liberal education and grow up to be upstanding citizens. We have almost made it not worth trying anymore. If the kids think for themselves and then get bad grades for writing their thoughts, then what value is there in education.

First of all, it's made excruciatingly clear to high schoolers that they have no rights at all at school. So it's not surprising if they don't take their civics classes to heart. I mean, your civics teacher can TALK about your rights, but if you have to submit to random drug tests, locker searches, purse searches, you can't carry a single humble asprin for your cramps, have to wear a uniform, don't dare have a cell phone even if you leave it in your car because they'll search that too, and so forth, then your civics class is just so much more "crap you learn in high school". I thought that when I was a high schooler and I think it now that my daughter is.

Secondly, freedom has always been something that a few visionary people aquired for the masses. I'll bet you'd have gotten similar poll results at just about any time in our history.

Aspirin. Acquired. Why don't I learn to spell.

A complicating factor: These are high school students, many of whom have a strong inclination to say whatever will most shock or annoy their teachers. Think Beavis or ButtHead (or someone equally disgruntled but much smarter) faced with Mr. Van Driessen: who wouldn't want to pull the chain of such an annoying twit? I bet polls would show that at least 20% of high schoolers are in favor of cannibalism, incest, and torturing puppies. The 2% that are quite sincere are a problem. The other 18% are just an impediment to accurate polling.

I partially agree with the students-- not about what the press writes but about the "freedom" they excercise in getting information particularly on a local level.

The intrusive camera recording a mother's private and profound grief when her child died, the satellite van blocking traffic, the trampled shrubbery of all the neighbors near a lurid crime scene, the blocked spectators' view of a sporting event, the lack of courtesy, are what many think of when they think of "the press".

Too much freedom? You bet. Let them get a parking ticket like anyone else would.

There's a lot of complicating factors here, I think it's worth noting the ones above (particularly about High Schoolers lying/joking around, and the intrusiveness-bullying of some Media organizations). It's also worth noting that the standard PC mentality supports restricting speech, but only 'hate' speech and other 'harmful' speech.

Is it possible that many high school kids are simply woefully ignorant and apathetic and spend too much time listening to the dreck that passes for music on the radio and watching crap that passes for entertainment on television? It would be interesting to find out if any of them would be able to tell us what anyone even means by "mainstream media." The findings of the Connecticut survey put parents, teachers and students all to shame.

Yeah, I mean, I'm sure the First Amendment is not the only amendment most American students know nothing about.

And if they don't know it's legal to burn the flag, it's not the PC Police to blame -- it's obnoxious right-wing morons who made that non-issue into a *burning* cause.

We hear a lot about PC "thought control" around here, but nothing about the recent right-wing attempts to repeal academic freedom on campuses.

And if Larry Summers is allowed to claim that the lack of women in academic science is due to innate mental deficiencies in women, might the lack of conservatives then not be due to discrimination but instead be the result of innate intellectual limitations in conservative folk? I mean, it's a fair hypothesis, right?

Karen:

Are you making an empirical claim that restrictions on speech on campus have been driven by the right?

I'm saying that one of the major post-election cultural battles the right has decided to fight is to repeal academic freedom. For example, the Ohio State Senate is considering a bill that would enact David Horovitz's "Academic Bill of Rights," and essentially make the courts and state government the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be taught in the classroom. So-called "controversial topics" will not be allowed on syllabi.

This is just as scary and authoritarian as any "PC Thought Police."

The logic of the right seems to be that what is natural and proper is also fragile and threatened. Baxter the Bunny threatens heterosexuality. High school biology threatens God and faith. Liberal professors stupidly complaining about Bush in class threaten the hearts and minds of our youth. *Orientalism* threatens America's security.

Somehow, when women are denied tenured positions in the sciences, it's because of "innate abilities" and the male brain's ability to rotate three-dimensional objects. But when conservatives are a minority in the academic workforce, it's because of oppression and groupthink and PC brainwashing 101. When the canon included no minority literature, it was because the Zulus hadn't written great Russian novels. But when conservatives whine, they are brave heroes fighting in the name of equality and diversity. It's a good thing that the Republican political monopoly isn't an actual minority, or else the real whining would begin!

Sure, both Left and Right in this country are giving these kids the idea that speech must be repressed. Look at the moves to fire this guy, Churchill, at the U of CO. The Right would be better off if he kept on making his stupid remarks since they are a standing demonstration of the irrelevance of the academy. Look at how the Bush administration has stiffed the press because it does not express sufficient admiration for the president. OTOH there are the examples of "zero-tolerance" policies in schools and the punishment of college students and academics for speech that is "offensive" to the Left. All of this is probably the wages of our prosperity. There isn't much in today's politics that significantly affects our day to day lives. The war in Iraq is being fought by a volunteer military. Hardly anyone has to choose between paying taxes and eating. Social Security is decades away from having problems. What is left for politcians but to create demons in order to excite the public. What is left for educational bureaucrats bent on protecting their jobs but to suppress everybody and every thing that might offend somebody.

"And if Larry Summers is allowed to claim that the lack of women in academic science is due to innate mental deficiencies in women..."

Karen, Summers was listing one hypothesis among many. He wasn't claiming. And I don't think he put it qute that way anyway. But of course if he wants to claim what you said, he's allowed to. In America, he's allowed to make a jackass of himself if he wants to, as are you and I. As a woman in the sciences, though not in academia, I don't really care what he hypothesizes. I have supervised, and continue to supervise, men as well as women. I have been supervised by both. The range of intelligence and ability of both sexes, and all races as well, overlap each other in the real world. Silly hypotheses don't threaten me and they shouldn't scare any grownup.

"Somehow, when women are denied tenured positions in the sciences, it's because of 'innate abilities' and the male brain's ability to rotate three-dimensional objects." Women can't get tenured positions in the sciences? News to me. I know several who have.

As to controversial topics in Ohio - why should taxpayers pay for schools to have classes on topics they find offensive or disgusting? You can do that stuff on your own dime. This is a subject we've debated for a long time on Erin's blog.

I'm afraid jim has some good points. I don't like the part about the irrelevance of the academy, though. It is irrelevant, but it shouldn't be, and it wouldn't be if it was run by adults.

Also, since the potential cleansing of Churchill was brought up:

"He was acquitted last month with other Indian activists on charges of blocking the Columbus Day parade in Denver. Jurors said they accepted Churchill's contention that a parade honoring Christopher Columbus amounts to 'hate speech.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A76-2005Feb4.html

Looks like a clear-cut case of "free speech for me but not for thee".

Laura writes, "As to controversial topics in Ohio - why should taxpayers pay for schools to have classes on topics they find offensive or disgusting? You can do that stuff on your own dime. This is a subject we've debated for a long time on Erin's blog."

Why should taxpayers *ever* pay for anything they don't like? I live in a major city and have no car. Why should my taxes go to fund the car culture? Why should my taxes go to faith-based initiatives that I believe are unconstitutional? Why should my taxes pay the salary of a Secretary of Education who goes after cartoon bunnies as her first order of business? Why should my taxes pay the salary of a man who provided a justification for torture?

Well, the answer is this: because a true democracy serves both the majority and minorities. Because a democracy, if it is to reflect the will of the people, must then reflect the plurality of that will.

I suffered through 8 years of William Jefferson Clinton, so I feel your pain. But actually, we vote for our candidates of choice and if they win we expect them to do what we want. The majority always gets to say what happens, which is why Pres. Bush appointed his choice of AG. If the people of Ohio want the state Senate to set some limits, then that's what they should do. I have to say, if university professors acted like they had some sense, then a lot of the censorship we wring our hands about would never happen.

Karen:

Not everyone who supports genuine intellecutal diversity and genuine fair application of due process is behind David Horowitz's little piece of theatre. FIRE isn't, and neither am I.

Plus, I don't remember a lot of people on the left calling for the CalPoly administration's collective head when they tried to shaft Steve Hinkle when they were threatening with the highest academic sanctions for bringing in a contrarian minority speaker - and doing so by warping campus regulations in a kanagroo court using a charge they couldn't even be bothered to define beforehand. So much for defending "controversial topics" that specific cliques of academics don't want to hear.

Specifically regarding Churchill, the guy is clearly a twit and a few other things I'd rather not say here, and academic freedom permits him the right to be so. However, he is not immune from criticism or from others evaluating both him and his organization (which is how many people want to define academic freedom when it's applied to themselves). Should the Colorado BOR revoke his tenure? Certainly Not. Should his colleagues professionally insolate themselves from his stupid and inarticulate statements? Hell yeah - I would if I were a few doors down from him, especially if I wanted to stay credible with my peers outside of the humanities colleges and certainly outside of academia. And that's worse than firing and probably a lot more than he deserves. Right now the loser is getting far more press and attention than he deserves and no doubt he's lapping it up while indirectly permitting his colleagues to be smeared along with him in the process.

Karen,

I am finally officially giving up trying to make any sense of the LLL mind. They are so upset about Churchill not getting to spread his garbage and possibly losing his job. He is being hounded out of Academia because of his ideas and they are censoring his and taking away his first amendment rights. At the same time the LLL is OK with hounding the guys who are trying to make a presentation about the military as a career at a university and are just fine with not permitting the military preset a possible career in the JAG offices of the military. They think that is just fine because the military has a "don't ask, don't tell" rule (promulgated by William Jefferson Clinton, the LLL hero and the feminist's hero). The points you have been pushing here are emblematic of that same line of "thought" and deserve just as little attention. You are blaming the right for what is going on with Churchill. I happen to live in Queens, NYC in an area that was full of people who no longer exist because they were "little Eichmans" according to your leader. I would warrant that if he came to my neighborhood he would be smacked around so hard he would be lucky to get out alive. My friend's son was a manager of a computer department in the WTC and left just a month before 9/11. His entire department was killed in that incident. For you to support the man who would so denigrate those people and tell me that because someone is trying to take away his rights is ludicrous. Someone took away ALL the rights of those people on 9/11. When is the LLL going to support them. Instead we hear about the "minutemen" and the "insurgents" and how the Patriot Act is taking away all your rights. We hear about the racial profiling being unconstitutional. Bombing a plane because the man was not profiled and killing people is rather taking way a few rights as well. Are you so unwilling to put up with a little holdup in your boarding a plane so that the flight will be safe? I would even go so far as to bet that if the flight got bombed you would be out there protesting that the traffic safety people did not protect the passengers. Your supporting this man's right at the expense of the rights of the 3000 people who were killed 9/11 really makes me see red. I am only here today because I was late going to work that day or I too would have been a "little Eichman" but we don't count because we are not protesting the current administration.

What makes it even worse in my opinion is that these same people will hound a businessman or a politician for saying anything they don't agree with. Look at what they are saying about Larry Summers. If they could, they would get him fired, but they are willing to go to the mat for this dingbat lying academic in Colorado. Even the Native Americans (see, I know the lingo, I can't call them Indians even though they call themselves Indians) have put out a news report saying that he is not an Indian and they don't claim him at all. That is from 2 different native American organizations. I think you need to take a good long look at what you are supporting and be a little more thoughtful before you go screeching about how the administration is taking away all the rights. They aren't, they haven't and you are just making yourself look ridiculous saying they did.

Karen:

That David Horowitz move is a blessing in disguise. As a result of the recent Republican electoral dominance of the Horowitz proposal, liberals on campus are now, for the first time since the free speech movement of the 1960s, politically ready to support free speech on campus.

It is a golden opportunity for all of us. It's time for the universities to (1) repeal blatently unconstitutional speech codes; (2) re-commit themselves to the free market of ideas and reject the "government controlled market of ideas" whether it be from the liberals (as it has been for years) or from the conservatives (as the liberal now fear.

Academic liberal pursuing their own enlightened self-interest will not be using their classes for off-topic diatribes (e.g., bashing Bush during a class on Chaucer), and will not be showering the high grades on students of particular political persuasions. Those are the behaviors by which academic liberals shoot themselves in the foot.

The Kalven Report is the perfect blueprint for this new movement and I hope that free speechers of all political stripes take this rare opportunity as a time to recommit to free speech.

Oy vey. Laura writes, "If the people of Ohio want the state Senate to set some limits, then that's what they should do." I have to say, if university professors acted like they had some sense, then a lot of the censorship we wring our hands about would never happen."

So, if the majority wants to anything, they should? If they want to stone unfaithful wives? If they want to make sodomy a crime? If they want to enslave another race? What an ugly, undemocratic, and anti-American thought.

The Nation has a great piece about the Founding Fathers' "unrelgious" beliefs. It's clear that ideas like Jefferson's wall between church and state was meant to protect the Enlightenment minority from the benighted religious majority.

Regardless of what "the people of Ohio" want -- and we don't know that because the state senators who proposed this legislation didn't get elected on that issue -- academic freedom falls under freedom of speech.

Laura also writes, "I have to say, if university professors acted like they had some sense, then a lot of the censorship we wring our hands about would never happen."

Doesn't the same go for frat boys who dress up in blackface or as Klan members? I support their free speech, but I have no sympathy for them.

Dick writes, "For you to support the man who would so denigrate those people and tell me that because someone is trying to take away his rights is ludicrous. Someone took away ALL the rights of those people on 9/11. When is the LLL going to support them. Instead we hear about the "minutemen" and the "insurgents" and how the Patriot Act is taking away all your rights. We hear about the racial profiling being unconstitutional. Bombing a plane because the man was not profiled and killing people is rather taking way a few rights as well. Are you so unwilling to put up with a little holdup in your boarding a plane so that the flight will be safe? I would even go so far as to bet that if the flight got bombed you would be out there protesting that the traffic safety people did not protect the passengers. Your supporting this man's right at the expense of the rights of the 3000 people who were killed 9/11 really makes me see red."

Actually, Dick, I didn't mention Churchill, nor do I support anyone who makes moronic and tasteless comments about the 9/11 victims. I support Churchill's right to free speech, but I'm not going out of my way to do so in this instance. And I agree: a swift gut punch is far better than a speech code.

Let's also remember, though, that left-wing nutballs who denigrate 9/11 victims are similar to the Bush administration itself, which used the terrorist attacks to advance an agenda well in place before 9/11 (i.e., the invasion of Iraq). Both are cynical and exploitative. Both deserve to be roundly condemned by ethical people of all ilks.

Bottom line: long before speech codes on campus, there was the PMRC. The American right has always been about controlling the free flow of ideas. Why do you think Blockbuster Video doesn't rent porn? Why do my Prince LPs have wanring labels on them? Why can't a female nipple be shown on TV? Why can't a bunny hop by a house with two women living together inside? Kill the FCC, then we'll talk about campus hate speech codes.

Kill the FCC, then we'll talk about campus hate speech codes.

That's one lame cop-out, Karen. The greater university community is granted considerable self regulation compared to other bodies through Academic Freedom and it has considerable respect in the "civilian" community. We can have lectures with content that couldn't be shown in "that theatre downtown" back when it was open to give our students the full monty with respect to Art Education. We can evaluate students through fuzzy enough criteria to spike prospects of a contrarian student. We have a special word, "un-collegial," for our peers who may not follow the party line or who otherwise don�t play nice which would make dodgy but lusty discrimination courtroom drama outside of academic circles. Political "One-Term President" graffiti is still found across our campus (including on our sponsored research infrastructure, despite it's ramifications), despite another three-letter Federal unit that start�s with F (ironically, our 'free-speech rock,' lame as it is, was intouched). And so on�

The FCC or any state or federal regulating agency ain't got nothin' to do with the ongoing practice of cherry picking academic freedoms. If our broader community wished in one big all-together-now leap forward to nix codes that question particular expressions on campuses, it would happen in two shakes of a lamb's tail. We�d be example for everyone else, as we should be. And "The Man" couldn't stop us if he tried -- regardless of what he did to The Bijoux or pretends he did with Prince's still crusin' career.

Karen (and everyone else):

Let's not miss this golden opportunity when both the right and the left feel that their free speech rights are threatened. Fight for free speech everywhere, from each direction, regardless of the politics -- and don't put any free speech on the back burner. The speech you save may be your own.

Here's a classic example of what's going on. Liberals, now threatened by Horowitz, should be standing on their chairs screaming against the university's conduct.

******************************

Lecture causes dispute

UNLV accused of limiting free speech

By RICHARD LAKE
REVIEW-JOURNAL

A UNLV professor under fire for comments he made about homosexuals during a class lecture last year demanded Friday that the university stop threatening to punish him.

"I have done absolutely nothing wrong," said the professor, Hans Hoppe, a conservative libertarian economist with almost 20 years teaching experience at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, on Hoppe's behalf, sent a letter to UNLV officials alleging that the university violated Hoppe's free speech rights and his right to academic freedom.

"The charge against professor Hoppe is totally specious and without merit," reads the letter from ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein.

He said they would sue the university if necessary, though they hope to avoid it.

UNLV officials would not comment on the case, saying they cannot talk publicly about personnel matters.

Hoppe, 55, a world-renowned economist, author and speaker, said he was giving a lecture to his money and banking class in March when the incident occurred.

The subject of the lecture was economic planning for the future. Hoppe said he gave several examples to the class of about 30 upper-level undergraduate students on groups who tend to plan for the future and groups who do not.

Very young and very old people, for example, tend not to plan for the future, he said. Couples with children tend to plan more than couples without.

As in all social sciences, he said, he was speaking in generalities.

Another example he gave the class was that homosexuals tend to plan less for the future than heterosexuals.

Reasons for the phenomenon include the fact that homosexuals tend not to have children, he said. They also tend to live riskier lifestyles than heterosexuals, Hoppe said.

He said there is a belief among some economists that one of the 20th century's most influential economists, John Maynard Keynes, was influenced in his beliefs by his homosexuality. Keynes espoused a "spend it now" philosophy to keep an economy strong, much as President Bush did after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Hoppe said the portion of the lecture on homosexuals lasted perhaps 90 seconds, while the entire lecture took up his 75-minute class.

There were no questions or any discussion from the students about the homosexual comments, he said.

"I have given lectures like this for 18 years," said Hoppe, a native of Germany who joined UNLV's faculty in 1986. "I have given this lecture all over the world and never had any complaints about it."

But within days of the lecture, he was notified by school officials that a student had lodged an informal complaint. The student said Hoppe's comments offended him.

A series of formal hearings ensued.

Hoppe said that, at the request of university officials, he clarified in his next class that he was speaking in generalities only and did not mean to offend anyone.

As an example of what he meant, he offered this: Italians tend to eat more spaghetti than Germans, and Germans tend to eat more sauerkraut than Italians. It is not universally true, he said, but it is generally true.

The student then filed a formal complaint, Hoppe said, alleging that Hoppe did not take the complaint seriously.

He said university officials first said they would issue him a letter of reprimand and dock him a week's pay.

That option was rejected by Hoppe's dean and by the university provost, Hoppe said.

More hearings ensued, he said. In the end, the university gave him until Friday to accept its latest offer of punishment: It would issue him a letter of reprimand and he would give up his next pay increase.

Hoppe, a tenured full professor, contacted the ACLU on the recommendation of an attorney friend of his. Hoppe is now their client.

"I felt like I was the victim," he said, "not the student."

ACLU officials said the validity of Hoppe's economic theories does not matter. It is his right to espouse them in class.

"We don't subscribe to Hans' theories and certainly understand why some students find them offensive," said Gary Peck, the ACLU of Nevada's executive director.

"But academic freedom means nothing if it doesn't protect the right of professors to present scholarly ideas that are relevant to their curricula, even if they are controversial and rub people the wrong way."

Hoppe said he is dumbfounded by the university's response to the student's complaint. It is not his job, he said, to consider how a student might feel about economic theories.

"Our task is to teach what we consider to be right," he said. The offended student, he said, should have been told to "grow up."

Hoppe protested that university officials declined to speak to other students in the class to find out what actually happened and even rejected letters he solicited from a half-dozen students.

UNLV's general counsel, Richard Linstrom, would not talk about Hoppe's case, but said the university values free speech.

"The administration of UNLV is fully committed to academic freedom in all respects," he said. Linstrom said he was in a Board of Regents meeting most of Friday and had not seen the ACLU's letter.

Lichtenstein, the ACLU lawyer, said the university's response to Hoppe's situation might stifle free speech on the campus.

"If he can be silenced, that's going to create self-censorship among other faculty members who won't say anything controversial," he said. "Who's going to lose in all this? The students."

"So, if the majority wants to anything, they should? If they want to stone unfaithful wives? If they want to make sodomy a crime? If they want to enslave another race? What an ugly, undemocratic, and anti-American thought."

What enlightened minority should make the laws, Karen?

And what a horrible opinion you have of your fellow Americans.

"Laura also writes, 'I have to say, if university professors acted like they had some sense, then a lot of the censorship we wring our hands about would never happen.'

"Doesn't the same go for frat boys who dress up in blackface or as Klan members? I support their free speech, but I have no sympathy for them."

Yes, it does, actually, and it's a perfect example.

Whew!

Freedom of speech is doing fine, as anybody who takes a few minutes to cruise the net knows.

I think that the Churchill business touches more on issues of basic competence. Having let the cat out of the bag by speaking like an idiot, Chruchill made it inevitable that he would be found out to be an academic fraud and a racial imposter. He is both. He has no academic credentials. He isn't even Indian, and pretending to be Indian was probably what got him the job in the first place. Take a look at his book covers over at Amazon. He likes to pose in a beret, holding a machine gun. You know, the Che thing.

Laura writes, "What enlightened minority should make the laws, Karen? And what a horrible opinion you have of your fellow Americans."

I find no record of me suggesting that a lawmaking minority should replace the lawmaking majority. My point was from junior high civics class: the Founding Fathers supposedly created a government that would respond to the will of the people while protecting the rights of minorities.

Even if the majority of Ohio residents wanted to repeal academic freedom -- and there's been no poll that I've seen -- the academic minority should be protected from the unAmerican will of the majority. That's what the Consitution and its amendments do: allows popular representation while ensuring that others are protected from the authoritarian whims of the majority.

We should have high standards of academic achievement and world knowledge for our High School students. We should be disturbed by this study. But I think it should also be recognized that High School aged kids - as a group - are the epitomy of self-absorbed, selfish, and apathetic citizens. It is the rare person among us who didn't experience a sort of "awakening" to the world in our early post-High School years.

I think that the Churchill business touches more on issues of basic competence. Having let the cat out of the bag by speaking like an idiot, Chruchill made it inevitable that he would be found out to be an academic fraud and a racial imposter.

In one fell swoop, he's alienated the honest faculty onboth sides of the aisle, the Colorado BOR, the media, and so on. (And AIM has apparently always been disgusted with him.) Strangely enough, he has proven to be a truely diverse academic - a rare thing these days!

Karen,

One of the major problems with your screeds is that you want to keep redefining minorities. Anything that goes against yur political beliefs automatically becomes a minority issue and you are right out there in court trying to deny the majority of the people what they voted on. Tha ACLU in California has done that many times as has the ACLU in New York and Massachusetts. They have pet courts that they go to where they know the decision will go their way regardless of the merits of the case. Then we hear from them about how the constitution has been upheld even though it is an artificial construct that the judge made up to justify the decision. Look at the idiotic decision that was made about the inauguration. The people of ANSWER went to court and the judge made the city of Washington DC and the Secret Service give them the plans for all the security precautions set up for the protection of the president. What did the ACLU say after the case? It was a victory for the constitution. If the president got assassinated, it would still be a victory for the constitution and they would be satisfied. Does the decision even begin to make sense to the public? Does the protection of the president deserve to be treated in so cavalier a manner? The decision was based on the first amendment that you are so happy about.

At what point does the majority deserve a look-in in the process? The government is supposed to be majority rules according to the constitution with some protection for the minorities. Nothing in the constitution permits you to keep naming minorities every time you want. The majority also deserves its rights. Instead we hear all about the rights of the minorities, not the rights of the majorities.

In academia we see even more that the rights of the minorities take precedence over the majorities. The majorities daren't open their mouths without some made-up minority claiming that it is censorship and taking the group to court. Is that the kind of country you really want to live in? It is not the one I want.

Karen: "the unAmerican will of the majority."

'Nuff said.

Laura: You try to make my words out to be a comment on the the majority, but you should be honest here and admit that it's clear that when I used the phrase "the unAmerican will of the majority," I was speaking of a particular instance in which the will of the majority goes against the Constitution.

State Senator Mumper wants to make the government the arbiter of what goes on in college classrooms. That goes against free speech. Now, I don't even believe that Mumper's bill reflects the will of the majority. It is in itself a "minority" issue meant to act as a wedge. It will clearly lose, but Mumper will be able to run for re-election as a crusader for the patriotic against the liberal academic elite. Tom Frank is the best political thinker of these wedge issues.

Of course I don't think the will of the majority is necessarily unAmerican. But to claim that politicians acting in the name of America, or the majority of Americans at a given time, have never tried to pass unconstitutional legislation is plain stupid, right?

And Dick: the "minority," by definition, is always going to change in nature. Atheists, in American, are a minority protected by Jefferson's brave "wall" between church and state. Racist frat boys are a minority whose free speech should be protected on campuses (though I wouldn't jump in to their defense if they were getting their asses kicked for being racist frat boys). Nearly every one of the Bill of Rights amendments defines and protects a minority.

And Laura, one more thing: as Republicans liked to remind us after the 2000 election, we don't live in a popular democracy. We live in a republic, representative democracy. The majority will is *not* the prime author of American legislation. The will of the majority is, to borrow the Derridean chestnut, always already mediated by primaries, elections, party machines, pork barrel add-ons, the electoral system, and the President's whims. Bush won on values issues, but he's using his "mandate" not to do anything on gay marriage or abortion but to privatize Social Security and begin covert ops in Iran.

Section A:
1. Note the singling out of arts, humanities, and social sciences. So the physical sciences, business, econ, etc. don't have to obey this legislation? Of course not. Business schools, like Wharton, have *no* diversity. Free market capitalism is the given.

2. According to the bill, "curricula and reading lists in the humanities and social studies shall respect all human knowledge in these areas and provide students with dissenting sources and viewpoints." Sounds great, except that the law could mean that a novel about the evils of slavery should be balanced by Dixon novel about how brave the Klan were. Or anytime one teaches a feminist essay, one would be forced to teach a Hoff Sommers piece. That's just unrealistic, given the limitation of the semester and the students' abilities to keep up with tons of reading. But you know the campus Republican will complain that he was forced to read *Beloved* without anything to balance the novel's claims -- say, some Nazi lit or something.

Section B:
1. The sentence about not grading students on their beliefs is the policy at every university already. It doesn't require centralized state legislation.
2. The bill states, "Faculty and instructors shall not use their courses or their positions for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or antireligious indoctrination." Who will decide what consitutes "indoctrination"? Is teaching a class on the Enlightenment anti-religious indoctrination? The language is vague. I've heard campus christians complain about a course on the bible as lit because the professor presented the case of editors, textual contradictions, multiple authorships, etc. Or, as *The Simpsons* said tonight, "If Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's only children, how did they have children. With their mommy?"

Section C:
1. Again, vague language makes this a useless bit of legislation. Both key phrases -- "controversial matter" and "no relation to their subject of study" -- would be nearly impossible to legislate. In a literature course, any issue related to language use is fair game. Any issue raised by the language of a text or its ethics or politics or aesthetics is fair game.
2. Again, who will decide what constitutes a "legitimate pedagogical purpose"? The "grievance procedure," or the specialist in the classroom?

Sections D and E are fairly reasonable and clear, though I would take issue with the idea that a state university, funding by public money, should ever fund a religious student group. Plus, D and E could be seen as freeing publically funded student groups from obeying any basic campus rules. Some might argue that a group funded by tuition and taxes should be non-discriminatory and adhere to campus discrimination laws as well as state and national discrimination laws.

Section F is another impossible task. To ask professors to always "make their students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than their own through classroom discussion or dissemination of written materials" is nonsense. If a professor is a radical Marxist, having the students read Marx is already exposing them to a viewpoint other than the professors' (that is to say, a deconstructionist professor is different than Derrida, a conservative professor is different than Fukuyama, etc.). Furthermore, this section could be interpreted as a demand to expose students to *all* scholarly viewpoints on a subject. That would mean reinventing the wheel in every class. If I teach close reading, I'd have to then teach the critique of close reading, as well as every other way of reading a piece of literature.

Section G sounds like common sense, but of course, if a department hires a queer theorist or black studies prof, the department would be breaking the law. One could argue that the very desire to have queer theorists in a department is an ideological decision, and so hiring one is making a hire on the basis of ideology. And of course, the Right will argue that.

Section I seems simply to repeat the idea of academic freedom itself. As with much of the language, this law is either redundant -- a legalizing at the state level of what is already the rule on every non-religious college -- or so vague as to be useless. The right's argument against Civil Rights and Gender Equality legislation -- that the Constitution already covers equality -- could be made against this entire bill. Ironically, it's campus conservatives who want a larger centralized campus authority and bureaucracy who will have the final say over everything that goes on in a classroom. Intrusive, a waste of time and money, ultimately dangerous.

One last point, Laura. Having just finished reading this review essay at Salon (http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/02/07/lipstadt/), I wondered if the Ohio law would force any professor addressing the Holocaust to present objectively the case of Holocaust deniers like Irving. As far as I can tell, a neo-Nazi student could make a fair case in the Grievance Court that REAL historians such as Irving claim that the Holocaust never happened, and so any time the Holocaust is mentioned in a class as an historical fact, the professor must, in accordance with state law, fairly present the case for the Holocaust as hoax. Same goes for American slavery, genocide of Native Americans. Same goes for any historical event. Case in point:

Prof: The American Revolution was in part about taxation with representation.

Student: What revolution? I've read leftwing historians who deny that the events of 1776 were really a revolution. Present their case fairly, include them on the syllabus, or I'm taking you to Grievance Court.

Silly? Reductio ad absurdem? Probably not.

Karen, here is the proposed legislation in Ohio. Please tell us specifically what you don't like about it. Chapter and verse.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_24

Laura:

My only issue is that there isn’t much “new” about the “code.” With the possible exception if item (F) which is the only valid argument against it, it's petty much a straight forward rundown on Kalven's principles, even though they can be flaunted.

Otherwise: 1) the rest of the items are *supposed* to be operating now (thus, the people pushing it are technically accomplishing nothing but putting their names on it).

and the big one 2) I am not convinced that the enforcement or adjudicating body for it would go beyond what is currently in place: academic appeals and disciplinary units exist already at nearly all colleges, and when that fails there are the civil courts. Additionally, in the latter case, universities often self-gag when facing legal actions whether they are treating a student unfairly, or even illegally (ala Steve Hinkle), or are being played by a crafty student or prof with a chip on the shoudler. Thus the system, in order to preserve confidentiality, offers transparency only to the plaintiff (which is good if the plaintiff has a smoking gun & documentation, but bad if the university has exculpatory documents & info but cannot release them due to FERPA, similar local rules, or an overreaching no-comment policy).

Or to make a long story longer, it doesn’t do much that’s new, and what’s new probably won’t be enforced any differently within or without the university as it would be now. And that's why I prefer FIRE's method's which is to inform, name, shame, and refer aggrieved parties to civil rights attorneys when the first three fail.

Bill, my guess is that it makes it much easier for the student to get relief if, for instance, he's paid tuition to learn microbiology and has to listen to multi-class-period rants about national health care. The proposed legislation gives a framework for expectations on both sides. Once again, it wouldn't be necessary if people (professors and students) acted right.

"Free market capitalism is the given."

Free market capitalism isn’t a given, it’s reality. It works and nothing else does. What are you going to teach… Marxism? Our universities are already laughing stocks for this crap. If a professor is a radical Marxist, he should suffer the same fate as a Nazi. He should be ostracized and fired. Sanity is a legitimate criterion for hiring.

Feminism should not be taught in universities at all. The Women’s Studies departments at every college are political organizations, not scholarly organizations. They should be shut down. Else, they should actually include Republican and religious women.

Karen, universities have some obligations to basic morality and truth. The problem with your "academic freedom" is that it is entirely in of support of evil monstrosities.

Your posts are quite instructive about the problem. Yes, the Marxists need to be driven out, just like the Nazis. There is no difference between the two. That you can justify teaching kids the legitimacy of one of the two great evils of the 20th century makes me wonder about your moral compass. The feminists need to be driven out to do their political work on their own time and money. Likewise, the gays. Your "academic" interests aren't academic. Your interest is in political indoctrination. Whether the proposed legislative is enough to defeat people like you, and what the negative consequences might be, I don't know. But, you do need to be completely defeated.

And, I'm not a "rightist." That is just your word for everybody who disagrees with this lunatic agenda you have for the university. The people who oppose you might better be labelled "sane" and "responsible."

Stephen: I could make some sort of fairly complicated point about Heidegger (TS Eliot/Wagner/Ezra Pound) and (Nazi/Fasc/AntiSemit)ism, or quote some passages on race from Kant (who im hoping you wouldnt argue should not be taught in Universities), or ask whether using a reductionist shibboleteh as the forced hiring process of the academy is really a good way to combat totalitarian modes of thought, but im not going to bother, and here's why:

Your understanding of Marx is so facile and superficial that I cannot imagine that anything I could say could ever penetrate to you. I'm not going to...wait, yes, I will accuse you of having never read Marx, and I defy you to offer some sort of insight on his work that suggests that you have. You'll find that the work of nearly EVERY scholar in ALL of the human sciences is detectably influenced by Marx. Your limited understanding of the rather tenuous connections between certain historical events and their supposedly Marxist theoretical foundations (completely disregarding the various and important breaks and ruptures in thought described as 'Marxist) notwithstanding, if you have some good ideas about some way to selectively search and destroy those influences, I'm all ears pal.

Actually, I came up with something, its an oldie but goodie. New mandatory question for each academic hiree "aah you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party".

"You'll find that the work of nearly EVERY scholar in ALL of the human sciences is detectably influenced by Marx."

Yes, this is the problem. bsf, your line is BS. A person who can find anything of value in the writings of the criminal Marx is an evil person.

Marxism is not only precisely the equivalent of Nazism, it is the source of Nazism.

And, yes, membership in the communist party is probably a good reason not to hire somebody. Call it McCarthyism if you like. Why should our colleges be refuges for those who harbor a criminal ideology?

Play your games with somebody else.

Stephen: Its such a shame that you're so vigorously opposed to Marx and everything tainted by his criminal conspiracy. With your passion for assuring that criminal ideas are not allowed to be spread, you'd make a great Soviet censor.

Your post has absolutely no intellectual merit. You know nothing about Marx, and apparently quite little about anything else. I'm frankly surprised you caught the McCarthy reference. I'm also surprised that you give any thought to the academy, given your obvious and barely hidden anti-intellectualism.