“We Are Tired”: Duke Law Students Demand George Mason Professor Be Barred From Virtual Panel

“We are tired.” Those three words sum up a great deal of the anti-free speech movement growing on our campuses. Students and faculty have grown tired of free speech. Opposing views are now treated as threats and intolerable for students. A case in point is the effort by half of the law students at Duke to ban Helen Alvaré, a George Mason University law professor, from appearing on a virtual panel discussion about family law. The letter is both well-written and chilling in its call for censorship on campus. It dismisses any notion of free speech protection in allowing dissenting views to be heard on campus. Indeed, it does not even consider such values worthy of discussion. Instead, the students insist that the mere ability of an academic to speak on a panel is an endorsement of her views and a threat to current and future Duke law students.The panel is on “putting children first in family law”, which is the focus of Alvaré’s 2017 book.  She has been controversial due to her writings on same sex marriage and LGBTQ rights. Her 2012 friend-of-the-court brief in U.S. v. Windsor that argued for the state’s “legitimate” interest in “singling out” opposite-sex marriage for protection and that the expansion of marriage to include same-sex couples “ignores children and society.”As someone who supported same-sex marriage for decades, I strongly disagree with those views. However, many hold such views as did most of our elected officials at one time from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. These are questions that are tied to deeply-held religious, social, and legal views.  Alvaré has written extensively on those issues and is widely cited in the debate over same-sex marriage. They are the type of issues that universities once valued as subjects for debate and discussion.

The letter from a sizable percentage of the Duke law student population demands that Dean Kerry Abrams “remove” Alvaré from the event or “cancel the event entirely.”

They cite her “unapologetic anti-LGBTQ+-rights views,” including opposing same-sex marriage and what they claim is her support for conversion therapy. I have not been able to confirm all of these views and the letter does not cite sources on the conversion claim. The letter refers to Alvaré as “a speaker who, in the least, entertains conversations of conversation therapy.” However, it does not matter to the free speech question. Alvaré is an intellectual who holds controversial views for many at Duke. The solution is to engage her in substantive exchanges, not try to silence her so others cannot hear her views.

The students insist that even allowing dissenting ideas to be voiced on campus is an effective endorsement of those views:

When we ask a speaker to come to Duke, we are giving that person space and license to express their views on a particular subject—and by so doing, we are implicitly signaling our willingness to tolerate or our approval of those views. By hosting a speaker who, in the least, entertains conversations of conversation therapy for LGBTQ+ persons and who views same-sex couples as less capable of raising children, Duke is signaling at least a willingness to engage in those discussions and at worst, a tacit endorsement of those opinions. By not condemning injustice, you condone it. And that is the signal Duke will be sending to not only our current LGBTQ+ student body, but to all future potential students applying to Duke as well.

The students insist that allowing Alvaré to speak is a rejection of “diversity, equality and tolerance” and “undermines those professed values” of the school.  What the students conspicuously omit is tolerance for other views and free speech as values. Indeed, in seeking to shutdown a speaker, the students do not even mention free speech, let alone address the implications of their actions for intellectual freedom and discourse. Instead, they insist that barring a speaker with opposing views would show that “our diversity was not just tolerated, but celebrated.” (Yet, not intellectual diversity) That, with free speech, would be eviscerated by students who want to prevent others from hearing opposing views.

The controversy is ironic for Duke which was founded by religious groups and given the motto Eruditio et Religio (Knowledge and Faith). Many alumni and current faculty and students hold opposing moral and legal views on these views. A true celebration of intellectual diversity is to allow such views to be voiced and debated. The greatest danger to Duke is not hearing the views of Professor Alvaré but silencing such views.  Being “tired” of free speech is no license to deny it.

 

316 thoughts on ““We Are Tired”: Duke Law Students Demand George Mason Professor Be Barred From Virtual Panel”

  1. Free Speech Stories In The News:

    Wall Street Journal News Staff Contradicts Opinion Regarding Hunter Biden

    Readers of the Wall Street Journal may have felt a bit of whiplash on Thursday over a news story and an opinion column that presented sharply conflicting accounts of Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s alleged role in one of his son’s business ventures.

    The Journal column — hailed as a bombshell before the final presidential debate by Biden critics, including President Trump — asserted that Biden was involved in a deal arranged by his son Hunter with a Chinese energy conglomerate in 2017.

    Columnist Kimberley Strassel relied on the account of Hunter Biden’s former business partner, Tony Bobulinski, who provided documents that “suggest Hunter was cashing in on the Biden name and that Joe Biden was involved.”

    But a few hours after Strassel’s column was published, the Journal’s news side offered a much different take.

    “The venture . . . never received proposed funds from the Chinese company or completed any deals, according to people familiar with the matter,” Journal reporters Andrew Duehren and James Areddy wrote. “Corporate records reviewed by the Wall Street Journal show no role for Joe Biden.” The reporters also quoted another partner in the venture, James Gilliar, who said he was “unaware of any involvement at anytime of the former vice president.”

    Biden has long denied that he ever had foreign business dealings with his son, and there is no evidence beyond Bobulinski’s assertions. Trump himself has faced questions about foreign business interests while serving as president.

    Dueling accounts from the same publication about a major news story are rare. Also unusual: Opinion columnists typically don’t attempt to break news. Large, mainstream news organizations such as the Journal manage their news-reporting and opinion operations separately. The Journal’s news side is under editor in chief Matthew Murray; Paul A. Gigot is editor of its editorial page.

    In the Journal’s case, there’s an ongoing civil war between its news staff and its opinion side, as well as a wider war among news organizations controlled by the family of media baron Rupert Murdoch.

    In July, more than 280 employees at the Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones, protested what they said was the spread of “misinformation” by the paper’s opinion pages. “Opinion’s lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources,” the employees wrote to new publisher Almar Latour. “Many readers already cannot tell the difference between reporting and Opinion. And from those who know of the divide, reporters nonetheless face questions about the Journal’s accuracy and fairness because of errors published in opinion.”

    The letter cited a column by Vice President Pence in which he asserted that concerns about a second wave of coronavirus infections were “overblown.”

    In response, the editorial board posted “A Note to Readers,” in which it vowed that its writers “won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure.”

    Srassel is a prominent conservative writer who is a member of the Journal’s editorial board and a Fox News contributor. She is the author of a book published last year titled “Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump Haters Are Breaking America.” Trump publicly praised her book and has retweeted her comments dozens of times.

    Her Thursday column on the Bidens — titled “The Biden ‘Family Legacy’” — was republished by FoxNews.com, but the Journal’s news story on the same topic was not.

    The Washington Post has been unable to independently verify the emails or to obtain a copy of the hard drive that Bannon and Giuliani allege was owned by Hunter Biden. News accounts have said the Ukrainian allegations against Biden are part of a disinformation campaign by Russian intelligence agents to boost Trump’s reelection.

    The New York Post, Journal and Fox News are all owned by companies in which Murdoch and his family are the controlling shareholders.

    Edited From: “A Wall Street Journal Columnist Said Joe Biden Was Part Of Hunter Biden’s Business Deal. Hours Later It’s News Reporters Said The Opposite”

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. This is old hat. Why I remember when decades ago the editorial page of WSJ was saying that Bill Clinton’s guys had offed two teenagers caught spying on the dope shipments into Mena Arkansas by staging their suicides, which supposedly the two teenagers did by laying their heads down in front of trains on the railroad tracks. Grisly way to go, yeah? Hard to imagine a teenager going out that way.
      But that was the old WSJ, had a lot of starch in its sails. Now the sails flap all over the place I guess.

    2. Kurtz, this article was from the Washington Post that editorializes on page one based on fiction provided by anonymous sources. One can’t trust a thing the WP writes.

      1. Right, it’s owned by the richest man in the world Jeff Bezos who hates Donald’s guts for making all the junk Amazon imports from China more expensive.

        He’s out to get him, he dictates to his news editors to attack Trump with fake news every day! They oblige

        And these fools here quote and praise them

        It’s a biased dishrag. I also get feeds from Foreign Affairs, another Bezos digital toilet paper publication, always negative on Trump, always

        1. Kurtz, how’s The Tribune doing? How’s The Sun Times doing?

          To my knowledge, they’re both ‘just hangin in’. Without a rich sugar daddy, few, if any papers, are staying afloat.

        2. Kurtz, we agree about the WP. It stinks as a newspaper but appeals to those with closed minds and reduced critical thinking skills.

          I try to stay away from Amazon because it supplies the WP with cash.

      2. Allan, you could always check the WSJ to verify the contradiction. I doubt if the WaPo would fabricate that out of thin air.

        The truth is this Hunter Biden story is primarily coming from sources owned by Rupert Murdoch: The N.Y. Post, Fox News and now the Wall Street Journal. However there are still independent minds at the Journal and that’s what the above is about.

        One more thing to note: ‘That N.Y. Post story is primarily credited to Sean Hannity’s former producer who was never a reporter at The N.Y. Post. It’s almost as though he was moved to The N.Y. Post exclusively for the Hunter Biden story (to create the perception of distance from Fox News).

        1. It’s authenticity is also coming from places like the FBI, DOJ and the DNI, and their associated computer experts that tell us this Laptop and e-mails are real and not a RUSSIA plant – caliming otherwise just takes an extra, extra special kind of stupid. To suggest this is some sort of “Right Wing News Cabal”, when media like WP, NYT, Major Networks, Big Tech are aligned with the DNC to defeat Trump, is such an utterly laughable form of projection, that seems to always daily reach new heights with you Lefties.

          1. Ratcliffe, a Trump toady, said it’s not a Russian disinformation campaign, but even he didn’t say that the Laptop and e-mails are real, and the FBI and DOJ didn’t say it’s not a Russian disinformation campaign. Claiming that just takes an extra, extra special kind of stupid.

            1. One need not comment on the above response. It makes it clear that the one writing the comment doesn’t have his head firmly affixed to his shoulders.

        2. PaintChips, Since I already read both the article and editorial in the WSJ I know what was written.

          My comment was about the WP and this is what I said: “Kurtz, this article was from the Washington Post that editorializes on page one based on fiction provided by anonymous sources. One can’t trust a thing the WP writes.”

  2. Why, Mr. Turley, is this letter by half of Duke’s law students not more an exercise in free speech, than in censorship?* When is a case for censorship, plead to faculty and administration by an organization of students, not an exercise in free speech?

    Is Duke, for its part, a heteronormative university that protects and celebrates free speech and sexual expression by a homonormative minority, or is it now a homonormative university that censors free speech by a heteronormative national majority?

    Put another way, has Obergefell made the homonormative discourse of a minority the law and cultural standard for a heteronormative supermajority?

    As I understand the data, something like 95% of the species is heterosexual:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

    Heterosexual reproduction and child-rearing are biologically normative. There seems much reason to support continued long-term scientific research into child welfare outcomes from single-parent, same-sex parent and heterosexual parent family systems. Obergefell is one of the most significant cultural experiments in human history. The results will take time and an open mind (on both sides) to understand and may vary considerably from case to case and state to state.

    Here is an example of heteronormative discourse that Duke law students must be prepared to debate:

    https://acpeds.org/press/say-no-to-same-sex-marriage

    In a brief filed Friday, the American College of Pediatricians (the College) urged the Alabama Supreme Court to consider the well-being of children in the case before them that would decide the legal impact of Obergefell v. Hodges in Alabama. Obergefell is the 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States discovering a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    “The court must understand the gravity of their decision in its impact upon children and families,” College Past President and Alabama pediatrician, Dr. Den Trumbull said. “Every child needs a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage directly disenfranchises children of this right.”

    The College wrote that, “accepting Obergefell v. Hodges as legitimate policy would deliberately deprive children of the mother and the father so essential – not only to their conception – but to their well-being.”

    “This Court should take care,” the brief reads, “that innocent and helpless Alabama children are not sacrificed on the altar of adult passions, judicial will, or politically correct opinion. Children are not playthings, that state or federal courts can force upon them a novel social experiment that only promises them higher chances of failure, confusion, and harm.”

    *Disclaimer: I support civil unions as a universal civil right for same sex couples and possibly for more than two spouses. I am undecided on the restriction of marriage to procreative heteronormative unions but tend to consider it a US and UN member state right. I don’t yet have an opinion on private or public financing of hormone therapy and/or surgery to convert or enhance a minor’s or adult’s sexual biology in any direction.

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians

      Kind of hard to take them seriously. Couples can raise children regardless of whether they’re married. Marriage — whether same sex or mixed sex — provides greater stability, which should be good for the children being raised by that couple. Does the ACP advocate against divorce and against the imprisonment of a parent on the basis that it’s bad for children?

      1. Good background check, Anonymous.

        According to the Wikipedia article you referenced, the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated ACPeds a pseudoscientific hate group.

        Here is counterpoint from the ACPeds website:

        https://acpeds.org/about/faq

        Including a specific response to SPLC criticisms:

        https://acpeds.org/about/faq/acpeds-responds-to-splc-criticisms

        For fact-checking:

        “ACPeds is deeply concerned with the alleged safety of transgender interventions, as there is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth. Youth “transition” is, in fact, experimental, and, therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions.”

        “Currently, girls as young as age 13 years are receiving double mastectomies, and boys as young as 16 and 17 years of age are being surgically castrated, undergoing penectomies and/or having pelvic wounds created to simulate female vaginas. These life-altering and functionality-destroying surgeries are irreversible. No child has the cognitive capacity to consent to such procedures, and no parent has the right to consent to such mutilation of their children.”

        This is what it sounds like when pediatricians engage in hate speech:

        “The ACPeds calls attention to the science demonstrating that optimal developmental outcomes for children occur when they are reared in a home by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. With the rise of divorce, decline of traditional marriage, and re-definition of marriage to include any desired configuration, the well-being of children within these homes has been ignored and even misrepresented.”

        “The ACPeds recognizes that many children are not reared in a traditional nuclear family structure. Our members support and give care to children from all backgrounds, including single-parent, blended, and other non-traditional families while working to encourage the married mother-father family unit. While there will be exceptions, particularly in families marred by the presence of abuse, the fact remains that the family structure consisting of a married mother and father is usually in the child’s best interest, and should therefore, be favored by policymakers interested in promoting the well-being of children.”

        1. SPLC is a fraud

          see church of morris dees by ken silverstein harper’s like decades ago

          see the reckoning of morris dees about a year ago

        2. Jonathan,

          You seem to have missed my point. ACPeds opposes SSM being legal, arguing that “Every child needs a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage directly disenfranchises children of this right.”

          But as best I can tell, they do not ever argue that a law should be passed giving children a legal right to be “reared in a home by their [married] biological parents”, and they do not oppose the legality of lots of other things that “disenfranchise” (sic) children from being raised by their married biological parents. They haven’t submitted amicus briefs arguing that no fault divorce should be illegal, that the imprisonment of the parents of minor children should be illegal, that it should be illegal to give one’s child up for adoption, that it should be illegal for heterosexual couples with fertility problems to use donated eggs or sperm, that the government shouldn’t allow the parents of minor children to be taken from their children and assigned to serve overseas in the military, etc., all of which likewise “disenfranchise” children from the so-called right to be raised by married biological mother and father.

          They also do not deal with the fact that same-sex couples are already raising children, and the children in those homes are better off if the parents raising them are married than if they aren’t.

          They are bigots. They pretend to be making arguments on behalf of children when their hypocrisy demonstrates that their motivation is not actually about what’s best for children.

          1. Let’s see if I get your point, Anonymous. Because divorce, which is so much more common than SSM, and surely creates more net social harm, is not a target of this very small group’s advocacy, but SSM is, they must be hypocritically biased against SSM to the point of hatred.

            “They are bigots. They pretend to be making arguments on behalf of children when their hypocrisy demonstrates that their motivation is not actually about what’s best for children.”

            Do you think they know that they are bigots? On what basis do you assume their motivation is so evil? What if they are not pretending? The responsibility is first to make sure that we are not bigots ourselves, projecting our own sin onto the next person. Is there no such thing as unreasonable bigotry and hatred toward the fairly heteronormative?

            Let’s take the matter of gender reassignment treatments for minors, which this group may be specialized enough to discuss:

            https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/politics/transgender-healthcare-laws-minors-trnd/index.html

            “Since the start of the 2020 legislative session, at least six states have proposed to restrict transgender minors’ access to gender reassignment treatments, including surgery and hormone therapy. Some bills would make it illegal for physicians to administer the treatments. Others would classify the act as child abuse.”

            Is there no legitimate controversy here? Nothing that warrants rigorous legislative, judicial and scientific debate, opposition groups, hearings, an institutional review board or two and a lot of informed consent, i.e., good clinical research? Only bigotry and hate between the opposite sides of an argument?

            https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/transitioning-procedures-dont-help-mental-health-largest-dataset-shows

            “The world’s largest dataset on patients who have undergone sex-reassignment procedures reveals that these procedures do not bring mental health benefits.”

            1. Jonathan,

              I responded to your original post about SSM. You keep trying to shift the discussion to sex-reassignment. Back to SSM:

              You said “Let’s see if I get your point, Anonymous. Because divorce, which is so much more common than SSM, and surely creates more net social harm, is not a target of this very small group’s advocacy, but SSM is, they must be hypocritically biased against SSM to the point of hatred.”

              My point is that there are wide variety of situations where children are not reared in a home by their married biological parents. Divorce is one of those, but not the only one. If a biological parent is sent to prison, that also means that the child isn’t reared in a home by their married biological parents. If a child is given up for adoption, that child isn’t reared in a home by their married biological parents. If a couple uses donated eggs or sperm to conceive, that child isn’t reared in a home by their married biological parents. If a parent is sent overseas while serving in the military, that child isn’t reared in a home by their married biological parents. If a parent lacks adequate health care and dies a preventable death, that child isn’t reared in a home by their married biological parents. If biological parents choose not to marry and live together, that child isn’t reared in a home by their married biological parents. Etc.

              They claim that children have right to be raised by married biological mother and father, but they ignore the vast majority of situations that result in children not being raised by married biological mother and father. The net effect of ALL of those situations is much greater than the effect of SSM, but ACPeds focuses on SSM and doesn’t even speak to the other situations.

              How do you explain them choosing to be silent about all of those other situations? I say that the most straightforward explanation for their silence about ALL of those other situations is that their primary motivation is bigotry. I didn’t say anything about hatred.

              You also keep ignoring that their argument also falls apart on its own. They pretend that it’s a choice between children being raised by married biological mother and father versus children being raised by married same-sex parents, when that’s not the choice. There is nothing that prevents same-sex couples from choosing to raise kids, either through adoption or through surrogacy or artificial insemination. The choice is between allowing those couples to marry versus not allowing them to marry. Which is better for the kids: being raised by an unmarried same-sex couple or being raised by a married same-sex couple?

              1. Anonymous:

                “How do you explain them choosing to be silent about all of those other situations?”

                The evidence I have already cited suggests that ACP are not unaware of or silent about any of these other situations. On the contrary, their literature and their clinical practice as pediatricians suggests repetitive case familiarity with all of them.

                “I say that the most straightforward explanation for their silence about ALL of those other situations is that their primary motivation is bigotry.”

                Or the reverse is the case and ACP is the victim of bigotry here. Obergefell was a 5-4 decision. Were the dissenting justices bigots? Per Wikipedia:

                “Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment. Alito expressed concern that the majority’s opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who “will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools”, leading to “bitter and lasting wounds”.”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#Justice_Alito

                1. Jonathan,

                  I haven’t seen ACPeds try to change the law about any of those other situations. If I missed something and they’ve filed legal briefs in some of those other situations, I’d appreciate your letting me know.

                  Skimming Alito’s dissent, I don’t think he argued that “same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment”. Do you see where he argued that?

                  In terms of what I mean by “married” and “unmarried”, I’m talking about civil marriage licenses. Religions can do what they want. I’m not talking about civil unions, as I agree with Justice Kennedy that the 14th Amendment requires same-sex couples to be treated the same way as opposite-sex couples with respect to marriage. I was asking whether the kids raised by a same-sex couple are better off if the couple is married vs. not married.

                  People, regardless of their sexual orientation, do not have a right to bear children. They have a capacity or not, and they have a right to bodily autonomy, which prevents the state from inhibiting their reproduction via forced vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc., and also prevents the state from restricting women from having abortions prior to viability.

                  1. Anonymous:

                    https://acpeds.org/positions/amicus-briefs

                    See pages 4 & 5 of Alito’s compelling dissent (and thanks for getting me to read it all).

                    Another reference point – Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

                    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
                    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
                    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

                    I don’t think you are arguing that Justice Kennedy’s 5-4 majority interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Obergefell is binding on India. For the purposes of naturalization, is it now incumbent on all states of India to recognize SSMs from the US, and is it now incumbent on all states of the US to recognize Muslim group marriages from India?

                    “I was asking whether the kids raised by a same-sex couple are better off if the couple is married vs. not married.”

                    According to the AAP:

                    “All children need support and nurturing from stable, healthy, and well-functioning adults to become resilient and effective adults. On the basis of a review of extensive scientific literature, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) affirms that “children’s well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents.””

                    https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/827

                    Note the use of “much more” in this text.

                    1. Jonathan,

                      I’m not sure which ACPeds brief(s) you’re saying are relevant to the issues I raised. The one I opened was not relevant, and I’m not willing to open over 25 files to see which of them, if any, are relevant.

                      I don’t see anything on pages 4 & 5 of Alito’s dissent that says anything close to “same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment”.

                      I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As best I can tell, it includes SSM, and “family” need not be more than the couple.

                      You’re correct that I’m not arguing that Justice Kennedy’s 5-4 majority interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Obergefell is binding on India. Our Constitution isn’t binding on any other country, and I don’t know how our naturalization laws interpret marriages performed in other countries.

                    2. Anonymous:

                      So we are both ignorant with respect to the ACP’s briefs. The first and only brief I opened this afternoon deals with the relative safety of pregnancy compared to abortion. After your latest comment I checked all five of the presently listed 2020 briefs. None deal with SSM; four deal with abortion; one deals with biological sex and gender identity. In most cases a Catholic organization is a co-filer. If ACP is an outed fringe hate group I’m not sure why the Catholic Medical Association, for example, is still affiliating with it.

                      I don’t see a need to prove ACP addresses the issues you want it to address, only that it addresses issues besides SSM. If all or most of the other briefs are about SSM, yes, this may be a single-issue special interest group. But this still would not be enough to make it guilty of either bigotry or hate speech – an especially ironic accusation if its members are otherwise engaged in non-discriminatory pediatric practice.

                      Alito’s dissent, page 4: “Adherents to different schools of philosophy use different terms to explain why society should formalize marriage and attach special benefits and obligations to persons who marry. Here, the States defending their adherence to the traditional understanding of marriage have explained their position using the pragmatic vocabulary that characterizes most American political discourse. Their basic argument is that States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children. They thus argue that there are reasonable secular grounds for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

                    3. Jonathan,

                      Your comment that “I don’t see a need to prove ACP addresses the issues you want it to address, only that it addresses issues besides SSM” suggests that you still don’t understand why I introduced those other issues, so I’ll try explaining again. ACPed’s argument is that they oppose SSM because they believe children have an unwritten right to be “reared in a home by their [married] biological parents”, and I’m pointing out that if they truly believed this, then they would fight against a wide variety of current legal acts that increase the number of kids being reared in a home by someone other than their married biological parents. If a married male-female couple has fertility problems and uses an egg and/or sperm donor, the child will not be raised by his or her biological parents, since at most 1 of the parents is biologically related to the child. So ACPeds — if it truly believes that every child has a right to be “reared in a home by their [married] biological parents” — should argue against the legality of egg and sperm donation. If a married male-female couple adopts a child, that child will not be raised by his or her biological parents. So ACPeds — if it truly believes that every child has a right to be “reared in a home by their [married] biological parents” — should argue against the legality of adoption. If the biological parent of a child is sent to prison, then that child will not be raised by both of his or her biological parents while the one is imprisoned. So ACPeds — if it truly believes that every child has a right to be “reared in a home by their [married] biological parents” — should argue against imprisoning parents. Etc.

                      But as far as I can tell, they do not oppose the legality of all these other other things that also “disenfranchise” children from being raised by their married biological parents. THAT is why I think their true motivation is bigotry rather than the well-being of children. Because their actions are not consistent with they words.

                      What you quoted from Alito doesn’t imply that “same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment”. How does banning SSM have any impact on procreation or opposite-sex child rearing? Do you really think he’s arguing that if SSM were banned again, opposite-sex couples would start having more kids on average or would divorce less?

                    4. Once again, Anonymous:

                      “The ACPeds recognizes that many children are not reared in a traditional nuclear family structure. Our members support and give care to children from all backgrounds, including single-parent, blended, and other non-traditional families while working to encourage the married mother-father family unit. While there will be exceptions… [eg infertility, artificial insemination, surrogacy, adoption, imprisonment, divorce] the fact remains that the family structure consisting of a married mother and father is usually [not always] in the child’s best interest, and should therefore, be favored by policymakers interested in promoting the well-being of children.”

                      But I can tell you’re convinced by your argument. Certainly bigotry and hate-speech against same-sex partners, relationships and parenting still exist in this imperfect, passing world. And you really think you have proved the existence of bigotry in this case, as SPLC thinks it has met the burden of proof for hate speech (under French law, perhaps). I will give it more thought.

                      The Wikipedia quote regarding Justice Alito’s dissent seems to me generally accurate. As to what Justice Alito thinks about the broad social effects of federal SSM legalization (and presumably the media’s proportionate queering of American parenting and childhood) moving forward, see his discussion of Windsor on page 5 and 6.

                      From a later section of the opinion:

                      “If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.”

                    5. Jonathan,

                      Here’s what they actually said: “While there will be exceptions, particularly in families marred by the presence of abuse, the fact remains that the family structure consisting of a married mother and father is usually in the child’s best interest…” They say NOTHING about the situations I mentioned. Fertility treatments are nothing like abuse. Adoption is nothing like abuse. Removing a parent through imprisonment for a non-abusive crime or sending a parent to serve overseas in the military is nothing like abuse. Etc.

                      I’m actually open to changing my mind about my argument. But to do that, you and they first have to take the argument seriously. I don’t think you’ve done that yet.

                      As for the Alito quote, I wonder what he’d have ruled in Brown v. Board of Ed. Would he have said something like “If the issue of integration had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would require integration and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie integration to protection for conscience rights for those who have religious objections. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of people of color in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.”

                      Many people who’ve been subject to longstanding bigotry (members of the LGBTQ community, religious minorities, women, people of color, people who are disabled, …) already have bitter and lasting wounds. How are those wounds to heal if they are never treated equally? Why does treating them equally create bitter and lasting wounds for others? I’m not wounded by treating others as equals.

              2. Anonymous:

                You ask: “Which is better for the kids: being raised by an unmarried same-sex couple or being raised by a married same-sex couple?”

                It’s unclear when you say “unmarried same-sex couple” whether you mean a civil union, and when you say “married” whether you mean a denominational marriage. Are you referring to an same-sex civil union, and asking whether it is better for that civil union if the Roman Catholic Church recognizes it as a marriage, to use one pressing current denominational example?

                Denominational marriages aside, and speaking in an international context, it seems to me that you are pre-supposing no distinction between homonormative civil unions (as a universal civil right of the minority) and heteronormative civil marriages (as a terminological and cultural right of each state’s heteronormative majority). While the love between partners may be equal, the unassisted procreative capacity of the civil union is not. This capacity is given to the same-sex civil union by the state:

                https://www.dw.com/en/russia-launches-criminal-case-over-gay-adoption/a-49638863

                https://thelogicalindian.com/exclusive/adoption-policy-discriminative-against-lqbtqia/

                Barring infertility, which may afflict individuals in either civil unions or marriages, the same-sex couple does not have the same innate, unassisted right to bear children as the heterosexual couple. If the laws and constitution of a state allow for parenting by SSMs – subject, I would say, to an equality of parental fitness testing across all modes of “conception and delivery,” including adoption – then it should be “better for the kids,” on balance, in an SSM, though this may be less ideal, all else equal, than heterosexual marriage for the development of heterosexual children, according to the ACP.

    1. Hey TDS sufferer.. Did you even bother to read the NYTimes article? The article relies on Daniel Salmon, who left the office in 2012. Beyond the usual liberal bend and anti-Trump leaning, the article clearly states the office was merged with another CDC office. It still exists.

      Perhaps you’ll feel better if Biden wins and you’re forced to wear a mask inside your car if you travel on an interstate highway.

      1. Green Anonymous is our usual troll with yet another identity.

        Hey Troll, this is what that NYT article says:

        For now, Operation Warp Speed, created by the Trump administration to spearhead development of coronavirus vaccines and treatments, is focused on getting vaccines through clinical trials in record time and manufacturing them quickly.

        The next job will be to monitor the safety of vaccines once they’re in widespread use. But the administration last year quietly disbanded the office with the expertise for exactly this job, merging it into an office focused on infectious diseases. Its elimination has left that long-term safety effort for coronavirus vaccines fragmented among federal agencies, with no central leadership, experts say.

        “We’re behind the eight ball,” said Daniel Salmon, who served as the director of vaccine safety in that office from 2007 to 2012, overseeing coordination during the H1N1 flu pandemic in 2009. ”We don’t even know who’s in charge.”

        An H.H.S. spokesperson said that the vaccine office was not shuttered. “The office was not ‘closed,’ but was merged with the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy and was strengthened,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “All the functions continue in this new organizational structure.”

        In a brief statement, a different spokesperson said that Operation Warp Speed was working closely with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “to synchronize the IT systems” involved in monitoring vaccine safety data.

        Scientists at the C.D.C. and the Food and Drug Administration have decades of experience tracking the long-term safety of vaccines. They’ve created powerful computer programs that can analyze large databases.
        …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

        KEY PASSAGE:

        The next job will be to monitor the safety of vaccines once they’re in widespread use. But the administration last year quietly disbanded the office with the expertise for exactly this job, merging it into an office focused on infectious diseases. Its elimination has left that long-term safety effort for coronavirus vaccines fragmented among federal agencies, with no central leadership, experts say.
        ………………………………………………………

        What the story is saying that Trump’s merger of the two offices has left “no central leadership” for monitoring safety.

        It’s sad that every post on these threads has to be reviewed by some nerdy loser of a troll spreading disinformation.

        1. Once again Anon troll. Have you ever once gone to the CDC website for information on the scamdemic?

          https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/about-us-cases-deaths.html

          “Confirmed & Probable Counts

          As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths.

          A confirmed case or death is defined by meeting confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19.

          A probable case or death is defined by one of the following:

          * Meeting clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19

          * Meeting presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence

          * Meeting vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19”

          So, by the CDC’s own admission on the CDC website, all of the alleged infection and death rate data from Covid is completely unreliable non-scientific bullsh*t because the data is completely corrupted and therefore completely unreliable, due to the admitted fact that the CDC is counting infections and deaths with “no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19”.

          That is not scientific data collected with strict scientific controls, it is propaganda designed to show a desired outcome.

          In reality, this cold virus has a lower death rate than the seasonal flu.

          It is a complete and total scam.

          1. Rhodes has been corrected on his ignorant conspiracy mongering on this issue before. The CDC accumulates data from thousands of hospitals across the country, so they would all have to be in on it and have no professional integrity for his Trump fault nonsense to be true,

            By the way, yesterday the most new cases since the pandemic began were reported in the US with the worst numbers coming from red states.

            1. So, you are saying that the CDC’s clear statement that they are counting Covid infections and deaths even though there was “no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19”, is a “conspiracy?!

              Here again is the link to the CDC web page:

              https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/about-us-cases-deaths.html

              Feel free to contact them to alert them to your conspiracy theory that they are wrong.

              You’ve been owned, Joey. And you are incapable of proving otherwise.

              1. They also count flu deaths with “no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for” the flu. You’re outraged about that too, right?

                1. This isn’t the flu, it is Covid19. Which is allegedly a very deadly form of Corona virus which was supposed to be far deadlier than a flu virus.

                  But thanks for finally admitting the same thing the CDC has admitted. Which is that their infection and death data for Covid19 is complete bullsh*t.

                2. Here’s another admission by the CDC:

                  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

                  “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.”

                  So factor that in with the CDC’s admission that they are counting Covid infections and deaths even though there was “no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19”, and you have a cold virus that has a death rate lower than the death rate for the flu per year on average.

                  This is what you find out when you know how to look for information at the CDC instead of the DNC talking points propaganda you consume every day as if it is gospel.

                  But when you have severe late stage PTS/TDS, and no critical thinking skills, you’re not interested in the truth. All you’re interested in is feeding your hatred for the guy who’s been living inside your head for the past 4 years.

                3. When one counts a hospice patient on their death bed as a Covid death, because coincidentally while waiting to die they got the virus, one should recognize that the numbers might not be correct.

                  When the government places a ‘bounty’ on Covid patients so that reimbursement is higher it isn’t reasonable to think that the Covid card though dangerous isn’t overplayed.

                  When one looks at the deaths one notes that nursing home deaths are extremely prevalent and significantly up the numbers as well. Over 50 percent of nursing home patients die within 6 months so if Covid so happens to infect them they will be dead but I don’t know if one wants to call Covid the cause even though we do.

                  ~95% of the entire elderly and sick group survive. ~100% of the ones likely to be dead in less than 6 months survival group will be called Covid deaths. The numbers don’t match. In many countries these same patients would be at home with family and their death certificate would read heart disease, cancer, etc.

                  https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03005.x
                  .

          2. Rhodes, just dealing with the way things are promoted. Look at the map with # deaths since Jan1. Whoever colored the map wanted to make Florida and Texas look as bad as NY. If they actually wanted the data to be appreciated then the color would have changed at least when the number of deaths fell in half, but they didn’t do that. In the following chart they also broke NY into NY and NYC but didn’t do that for any other state.

    2. Be sure to Vote for Joe Biden if you want to ‘lockdown the virus’! He and Kamala promised to implement their ‘national lockdown policy’ and their ‘national mask mandate’…..

      Is this Freedom? Oh hell no. It is TYRANNY!

      Vote TRUMP 2020 FOUR MORE YEARS!

  3. Lou Dobbs is telling South Carolina residents not to vote for Lindsey Graham. This is the only time I can think when I’ve agreed with Lou Dobbs. Must mean that tRump is unhappy with Graham, despite Graham’s toadying.

  4. Have ZERO tolerance for anyone that disrupts the educational process, be they students or staff. ALL of those do this should get One warning then face summery expulsion or termination. Wait till you graduate to change the world

  5. “But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity, as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.” J.S. Mill – On Liberty

  6. Like this company that fired a woman who attended a Trump rally saying their company values are at odds with her choice to support Trump. They said the company “stands for equality, inclusion, and kindness in everything we do,” Then? they fired her. How kind of them.

    These idiots do not even see how absurd and brainwashed they all are.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/23/music-publicist-says-she-was-fired-by-email-for-attending-trump-rally/#.X5MjAqIPiZM.twitter

    “We saw your latest Instagram post in which you held a ‘Make America Great Again’ poster,” the email said. “From this, we infer that you support the policies and ideologies of Donald Trump’s administration, which blatantly undermine the values we uphold at Pop Off.”

    1. Meanwhile, in Trump admin Foreign Policy news today Sudan and Israel have signed a peace deal. Even CNN today called the deal a “significant….foreign policy achievement by the White House.”

      In less than four years of a Trump presidency we have:

      4 new peace deals

      0 new endless wars.

      Which is more than we can say about the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administration which was at war the entire two terms.

      1. Trump has been at war since he was inaugurated. He dropped more bombs during his term so far than Obama did in the same period.

        1. Is that correct? What is the number of soldiers killed under Trump admin vs Obama? Something like under 100 to over 2k for Obama admin??

          Oh but we all remember Obama/Biden/Clinton foreign policy where we had massive bloody catastrophes in Syria and Libya, deterioration in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of the ISIS caliphate, We also watched as President Obama went around the world bowing to foreign heads of state and apologizing for America, the country he had just been elected to lead (from behind as he called it). We watched Obama’s bizarre foreign policy obsession with Iranian hegemony in the region and the pallets of unmarked cash flown on unmarked plane in the dark of night – money that Iran then used to fund MORE terrorism. What a success Obama’s foreign policy was. Not. Oh but wait, President Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize, of course. What an embarrassment.

                1. ‘Some 2,500 Americans Have Died in Afghanistan and Iraq Under Obama. Under Obama, America has been at war for longer than under any other U.S. president.’

            1. The numbers might be correct….but what you miss in your bomb count is what all those bombs dropped achieved under Trump that Obama/Biden failed to achieve.

              That is the Metric that matters not the useless metric of tons or numbers of bombs dropped.

              We saw Al Bagdadi and Solemani dispatched, the ISIS Caliphate destroyed, ISIS on the run, the historic Middle East Peace Accords that no President before Trump could achieve.

              Deal with reality….Obama/Biden’s foreign policy was a gross failure…..Trump’s is bringing Peace in a very troubled part of the World.

        2. yeah but like he said in the debate, no war in Korea. now that’s a big one

          did anybody think rocket man would give his nukes up? if he wont give them up for Xi he wont do it for anybody

          best to just let it go sideways in peace

          eventually this will end up like Germany, a peaceful reunification. we will live to see it. there’s a lot of love between the Korean people. they’re not going to kick it off and we don’t need to fuss

          1. Korea, give up nukes? It’s possible but not likely. Can another country rely on an American pledge? I think Obama screwed that up. Gadaffi gave up his nukes and what did Obama and his Hillary do? That is the war in Libya for those with TDS who can’t remember things too well. Gadaffi was killed with American support. Ukraine gave up its nukes for an American security pledge. What did Obama do? After letting Russia take the Crimea Obama let Russia take a big bite out of Ukraine. Then he told Ukraine to have a nice nap and sent them blankets and things.

            Now the TDS crowd think it should be an easy road to get rid of Korean nukes. Trump didn’t set us up for failure, Obama did and left us with a very hot relationship with Korea. Take note how peace is expanding in the middle east with Sudan being the most recent entry into the peace process. Then again look at Serbia and Croatia. Take note how Obama couldn’t get rid of the JV team over a long period of time during which time they got more powerful. Trump took them out. Did Trump start a new war? No, he supplied peace,

            I wonder if the TDS crowd prays on their knees or on their stomachs at a statue of Obama.

            1. “Gadaffi gave up his nukes and what did Obama and his Hillary do? That is the war in Libya for those with TDS who can’t remember things too well. Gadaffi was killed with American support.” boy you nailed that one Allan!

              That was a Hillary executed scheme if i recall. didn’t some American die in that mess too? oh right. an ambassador!

              No way Rocket man gives up his nukes after watching Qadaffi get dragged around

            2. Now you know I have praised Obama for a few diplomatic things he did to stand back from war. Trump took a dig at obama over Sebastopol. I didn’t think that was worth a war with Russia, Obama made the right call to let it go. But I don’t blame Trump for bringing it up what with Ukrainian corruption beneficiary Joe Biden calling him a Russian tool

              See diplomacy is hard and our partisan bickering can make it harder. Trump gets my HUGE thanks for making a stab at peace in Korea, Afghanistan — and oh did we forget recent news?

              SUDAN now declares peace with Israel, due to American diplomacy
              Palestinian authority whines, calls it a stab in the back.
              Almost nobody hears about it in the left wing press!

              GO TRUMP

              1. “Now you know I have praised Obama for a few diplomatic things he did to stand back from war. Trump took a dig at obama over Sebastopol. I didn’t think that was worth a war with Russia,”

                Kurtz, based on the history of the area and geopolitical realities I too wouldn’t have gone to war. If that was all that was involved I would agree with you. However, based on Obama’s record and his weaknesses I think his attitudes might have been part of the ultimate result. In the end he gave something up with nothing in return and that alone makes him look weak . That leads to further aggression.

        1. Biden: Piece of the action’

          Yep. Cashing in on Joe’s public office for decades. It explains how the Biden family became filthy rich multi-millionaires. Corruption by proxy. Disgusting greed and graft.

    2. President Trump is actually creating world peace. He has received three Nobel Peace Prize nominations. President Trump’s vision is ‘success for all’ Americans and all of our partners throughout the world. President Trump’s aspiration is that “success is going to bring us together.”

      Surely the ‘values’ Trump promotoes…those of peace, prosperity, partnership, success and a sense of pride in oneself and ones country….are compatible with the values of “equality, inclusion and kindness”….?? Apparently not for some utterly mixed up people.

    3. 1. These people are fanatics. They cannot conceive of human activity not subsidiary to some political struggle.

      2. They’re also the sum of their conceits. It’s like the Democratic Party is now a collecting pool of every a**hole in America.

  7. Years ago, during a similar controversy at Duke, the chairman of a prominent department told me the following: “It’s okay to express opposing opinions on campus. However, those opinions must fall within the bell curve.”

    At Duke, the normal distribution of that bell curve is defined by race/gender/class and perversion studies. Defending Western civilization or American values is, of course, outside the bell curve — and therefore forbidden.

    Tribalism is rife on that campus.

      1. Anon: “Nothing is outside the bell curve.”

        Not sure if that comment was intended as a criticism of my statement: “outside the bell curve.”

        Sometimes, “bell curve” is used as a synonym for “normal distribution,” as in: those data points or opinions that fall under the bell’s curve. So, anything toward the tails, is considered “outside the bell curve.” If the tails are defined as “0” and “100,” then of course you are correct: “Nothing is outside the [entirety of the] bell curve.”

        But the chair’s point is what is important: Duke faculty can express an opinion, so long as the anointed faculty agree.

        1. The normal distribution includes the tails. The tails are part of the curve. The curve includes points on both sides of the mean, not just an “approved” side.

          If he was only trying to say that Duke faculty can express an opinion, so long as the anointed faculty agree, he would have been better off saying it that way.

          1. Anon: “. . . he would have been better off saying it that way.”

            You’re right. But that would have been too obviously corrupt. He had to hide behind “sciency” words.

        2. Sam, your quote ‘outside’ the bell curve was descriptive, understandable and memorable. I might have to steal it.

  8. Students listen and learn.

    Teachers speak and teach.

    You don’t hear recruits giving orders to Drill Instructors in the Marine Corps.

  9. Listen to Dr. James Tour from Rice. His arguments that totally dispell Origin Of Life Science are quite compeling. By the way his credentials are undenyable.

    1. These are law students, right. How on earth are they going to become lawyers if they don’t want to hear opposing sides of an argument. Good grief I don’t think they will have a chance in hell of making it in the big bad world.

      1. “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

        – John 8:7 KJV

  10. There was a reason Congress barred We, the people” from imposing restrictions on freedom of speech, religion and, by implication, thought. We’ve allowed special interest to restrict those rights and produced generations of idiots who are going to turn the United States into a totalitarian dictatorship. Thank God I’m 75!!

  11. ‘Federal Workers Call Trump Executive Order a “Declaration of War on the Civil Service”’

    HEADLINEOCT 23, 2020

    https://www.democracynow.org/2020/10/23/headlines/federal_workers_call_trump_executive_order_a_declaration_of_war_on_the_civil_service

    “President Trump has issued an executive order that would grant him more power to easily hire and fire tens of thousands of federal workers. Federal employee union leaders have condemned the executive order, calling it “the most profound undermining of the Civil Service in our lifetimes” and the biggest change to federal workforce protections in at least a century. The order would allow the president to crack down on his critics — for example, public health officials who speak out about the administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic.”

        1. The civil service is a magnet for natural born losers like you, Anon.

          So it’s understandable that this is upsetting news.

          Whenever you graduate from high school you may want to consider going to trade school. If you can somehow pass Leaf Burning 101 you’re off and running.

        2. OTS (sort of)– Anonymous– I just looked at NBC news online and two things struck me as further proof that journalism is dead. First , there is no mention of Trump’s success in getting Sudan to join the Mideast countries seeking to normalize relations with Israel. I guess another step toward Mideast peace is not important when weighed against giving the President credit for an accomplishment. Second, there is an article on Hunter Biden but they refer to the claim against him as the “debunked” claim that Hunter Biden did anything wrong. I don’t know who “debunked” it since the eyewitness with supporting documents just came forward. Presumably, in NBC’s mind there is nothing wrong with Hunter Biden being paid millions of dollars for providing access to the “Big Guy” or a business plan that calls for the “Big Guy” to be paid 10% of the proceeds, including proposed dealings with CCP linked companies, or the $900,000 he received out of the $70 million grant made by the CCP to the University of Pennsylvania. Take the anti-American scum who present this as journalism and sprinkle that same mentality throughout the federal government, including all democrats and the leaders of the FBI, etc. and a picture emerges of what Trump has had to contend with for four years. The fact is, you deserve Joe Biden as President but I don’t.

        3. The point of civil service was and is to do away with or minimize political patronage and nepotism jobs. People applauding this must think Trump will keep getting elected and never die because they are not going to like it when the next Democrat fires staff and packs it with cronies. What dumb asses.

          1. I accept your concession that President Trump’s EO was the correct move and that we should expect a Democrat president to abuse the power of the office.

          1. Well duh. And until that time there is evidence proving he has, then all you have is your personal feelings. And we’ve seen just useless those have been over the last 4 years.

            1. Trump has surrounded himself with criminals: Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Steve Bannon, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, George Nader, Elliott Broidy, …

              Trump wants personal loyalty, not people who’ll uphold their oaths to the Constitution.

        1. He’s not eliminating dead wood. He is replacing experts with sycophants.

          Having read the EO, it’s apparent you haven’t. When are you idiots going to realize feelings are not the same as truth?

          Further, effective performance management of employees in confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating positions is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, the Government’s current performance management is inadequate, as recognized by Federal workers themselves. For instance, the 2016 Merit Principles Survey reveals that less than a quarter of Federal employees believe their agency addresses poor performers effectively.
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating-schedule-f-excepted-service/

    1. Recruitment and promotion in the federal civil service was never optimal. It was ruined 40 years ago consequent to collusion between officious federal courts and the Carter administration.

      If we had a serious recruitment and promotion program,

      1. all but a few civilian positions in the federal government would be filled through timely and competitive examinations generating three candidates for supervisors to chose among.

      2. Employees could be fired if three persons in their chain-of-command countersign a letter of dismissal. They could have a post-termination review where they could present evidence that they were fired for one of a half-dozen impermissible reasons. If the review finds probable cause to believe this may have happened, the matter would be referred to a panel of arbitrators. They could present their case to the panel, but the burden of proof would be on them. If they prevailed, they would be clear to sit for examinations for other federal positions and would receive an indemnity as well as compensation for costs. Also, the matter would be referred to an ombudsman who could bring charges against those firing them. If the charges were sustained in front of a panel of arbitrators, those who fired them would be terminated and debarred from the federal work force for six years. Something close to at will employment would prevail for federal workers. It’s the recruitment and promotion process that needs to be regulated.

      3. Affirmative action would not exist in the civil service or the military

      4. The function of unions would be to provide services for their members: pension plans, credit unions, insurance purchasing pools, and labor lawyers on retainer. There would be NO collective bargaining.

      5. Compensation for federal workers would be a function of mean compensation per worker in these United States, and the formulae for calculating compensation would be delineated in statutory law.

      Will never happen, of course. Collectively, we’ve not been serious about our public services for some time.

      1. ” promotion process that needs to be regulated.”

        I think that is where the FBI has failed most egregiously.

        If one is following an appropriate set of civil service rules there is no need for federal unions as seen today. You cover that quite well. I believe even FDR was against collective bargaining and the ability to strike.

        You are into this stuff. Did you ever read Robert Moses proposals for civil service?

          1. Whether you like him or hate him he was brilliant. He was asked to do so for NY and as usual he was brilliant. You might want to read what he wrote. It was detailed (I didn’t directly read them) and I think quite long. I think many of the things you say fit into his logic. He was like a dictator but the people that worked for him worked their butts off and produced things in record time. If they didn’t they were fired. His projects reached outside of NYC and probably up near where you live. He had two sides to him and one never wanted to get between him and what he was doing.

    2. wow that is great news. a lot of slackers in fed service need to get fired

      and wow how much vacation these guys get is unreal

    3. There is a God!!!

      Finally!!!

      D.C. has never created one dollar of wealth.

      Can you guess why the D.C. Metro is the most affluent area in the United States?

      Congress unconstitutionally orders Americans to send an inordinate portion of their money there to support the massive unconstitutional, parasitic, communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) American welfare state headquartered in that venue.

      The American Founders severely limited and restricted government to the role of facilitating freedom through the provision, merely, of security and infrastructure, providing Congress the power to tax for only “…general Welfare…,” (i.e. ALL Proceed Well as roads, water, post office [archaic], telephone [archaic], sewer, electricity, trash pick-up, etc.) omitting and, thereby excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth.

      The singular American failure has been the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which has usurped power, abused power and comprehensively and completely failed to support and uphold the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution; criminally ruling and “legislating from the bench.”

      You can’t grasp the actual, constitutional scope and breadth of American freedom.

  12. “What the students conspicuously omit is tolerance for other views and free speech as values.”

    That is what George Orwell referred to as “doublethink” (aka/ :newsspeak).

    I.E.- Boys are punished for playing finger guns – US bombs Libya to help freedom fighters.

    But the underlying base problem inflicting the Duke law school students who wrote the letter is that from the moment they were born they were told repeatedly that they were very special and very important, and that anyone who tells them otherwise is guilty of being “offensive”, and therefore they have every right to be “offended”.

    That becomes so deeply ingrained in their psyche that they invent the term “micro-aggression”. Which allows for someone to be offended even if the person whom they think is being offensive had no intention of offending them or anyone else, for that matter.

    Over time constantly feeling offended becomes an addiction. So the addict (like any addict) is constantly looking for their next fix.

            1. Read what you write, many do. There is only one conclusion. You can call yourself a genius and your pretend friend can call you a genius as well, but everyone knows you are stupid. It’s documented in black and white on the screen.

              1. “Read what you write, many do. There is only one conclusion. You can call yourself a genius…, but everyone knows you are stupid. It’s documented in black and white on the screen.”

                Allan describes himself.

  13. What I am tired of is queers. I am sick of hearing about their “love”, which for the males is sodomy. That is nasty and that is how they keep on getting HIV and AIDS. Their “love” does not go even the short distance that it would take to pop on a condom to protect the object of their “love.” Their marriages are pretty much a sham, as over half of the have contracts to permit them to commit adultery. To heck with all that “forsaking all others” because the whole point of their “love” is really just lust.

    In toto, they are freaks. That is why only about 2% of the human population is queer. 98% are not homosexual. There are no such thing as queer animals. And the whole “being queer is normal” is BeeEss. There was never a scientific approach to the question, and it was simply a matter of a vote at the APA. But by definition if 98% of people have heterosex, then that is normal, and the 2% are ABNORMAL.

    One might as well say that autism is normal, because about 1% of kids are born with it.

    Sooo, I am sick of rainbow flags, and freaks with blue and pink hair, and pierced noses, ears, and other body parts, and stupid girls with Mohawks, or half their heads shaved.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. I’m tired of hearing you make racist and homophobic statements and of your babyish partisan shill tantrums. But I have to put up with it anyway, and YOU have to put up with things you don’t like to hear too.

      1. Tell me what I said that wasn’t true, please. Also, if anyone wants to read an excellent article on the whole “homosexuality is normal” lie:

        “Lay summary: At one time, homosexuality was considered to be mentally disordered. Since the 1970s,however, major medical associations in the U.S. have labeled homosexuality as a normal counterpart of heterosexuality. Those medical associations have proposed that their homosexuality-is-normal claim is based on“scientific evidence.”This article critically reviews that“scientific evidence”and finds that much of their literature does not support the claim that homosexuality is normal. This article suggests that instead of supporting their claim with scientific evidence, those major medical associations arbitrarily label homosexuality as normal.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4771012/pdf/lnq-82-364.pdf

        This is a 27 page article that dissects in a very readable fashion the “normality” arguments. It is great reading, and pretty much just common sense. Here is an excerpt:

        “Again, sexual fantasies and“intense sexual attractions” occur in the form of thought, so a 54-year-old man who has“an intense sexual interest” in children thinks repetitively about children in order to stimulate himself to [org…m. That person’s thoughts, according to the American Psychiatric Association, are not disordered.

        Irving Bieber made this same observation in the 1980s, as is noted in a summary of his work: Is the happy and otherwise well-functioning pedophile“normal”? As Dr.Bieber argues…psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; and social effectiveness—that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively—“may coexist with psychopathology, in some cases even of a psychotic order.”(NARTH Institute n.d.)

        It is alarming that a sadistic or pedophilic fantasy could be considered not to meet the criteria for a mental disorder. Michael Woodworth et al.”

        This is a really good article and well worth the time.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

            1. That is what bothers me. I think many queers are born that way, so we probably should not be mean to them and throw them off the tops of building like the Muslims do. Although that being said, throwing a few of them off buildings each year paradoxically saves far more queers than it kills by cutting down on the rate of HIV transmission. See West Germany vs. East Germany HIV transmission rates back in the 80s and 90s.

              Anyway, what bothers me the most is the push to normalize queer behavior. Because you don’t have to be a queer to engage in queer behavior. For example, all the lesbian sex in porn is mostly by heterosexual females doing it for the money. Or see prison.

              So I don’t like the push to not say the obvious, that they are screwed up people and what they do is abnormal. It would be like having a Retard Pride Parade where retarded people marched with signs saying how proud they were to be retarded.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. In the normal “genpop” sectors of prison, gay stuff is not “normal” and among the ‘woods ie the peckerwoods the white table, it’s not allowed

                Now when you get into “protective custody” with all the snitches and chomos and pedos and flippy flops, well, that’s where the buggery happens

              2. “the push to normalize queer behavior. ”

                In many respects there is no such thing as normal. Normal is what is generally seen, ie normal IQ 80-120 is where the bulk of people fit in. Thus since normalcy is frequently decided by the majority there can be a tyranny by the majority. Of course when the minority is pushing the majority that is tyranny by the minority. It’s the tyranny part that is bad. Today the tyranny by the minority wold not be tolerated if the minority were actually the majority. For some reason their minority status has permitted all too many of the brain dead to stop thinking and think activities by a minority are acceptable even though those same activities would be unacceptable if performed by the majority.

          1. Happiness is in the mind of the beholder…or not.

            Imperative self-replicating robots are what we make of this.

            Men persist.

            Women make the men who persist.

            Where’s the future in an absence of replication?

            Women who fail to bear children cause species suicide, which men allow at their peril.

    2. Squeeky, why aren’t you a practicing Roman Catholic, Latin Rite type? I am surprised I did not see it earlier.

      The author of the article you provided is written by such a Catholic though went a bit overboard in joining Eastern Rite. There’s a story there to be sure. He strangely holds a PharmD degree but, as far as I could tell, doesn’t work in industry or as a dispensing pharmacist. He wrote a few pieces years ago for right wing Catholic blogs, e.g. Lifesite, Crisis Mag, NOR but otherwise he seems like a young Catholic crank arguing for the Latin Mass as an Eastern Rite Catholic.

      https://www.hprweb.com/2016/01/questions-regarding-the-use-of-latin-in-celebrating-the-mass/

      You should try the Latin Mass, Squeeky. you might like it. I used to attend the Latin Mass in Jacksonville, FL and I enjoyed it. The people however at my parish were nucken futz.

      1. Actually, I thought about it, but I have sort of soured on religion. The Southern Baptists have gone nuts on the 8,000 year old Earth stuff, and the “every word of the Bible is literally true” nonsense. My father says they used to be sensible, but that they started becoming idiotic in 70s. That was before my time. I think it is the same thing that has happened to Democrats. They have moved toward the ideological extremes.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    3. I’m sick of gay pride parades, of males waggin’ their sh*t in public shouting things like, “Look Ma, no hands!,” or, “Honey, can’t touch dis!,” etc. Tell me – tell me – who’s more misogynistic than them? No one, absolutely no one, is more misogynistic than today’s typical gay male.

      And what of the children? What of the innocence of children? Why are we exposing them to such overt sexual display?

      1. No one, absolutely no one, is more misogynistic than today’s typical gay male.

        In 2009 Tina Turner at age 70 performing on stage with scantily clothed women her hit song “Typical Male”. But yeah, down with misogynists.

        💃🏽

      2. Plenty of straight men are more misogynistic.

        Consider George, who frequently posts comments here advocating that women lose the right to vote.

      1. I got one fast tracking into law school and another getting paid working a real job where people get their hands dirty and sweat.

        Guess which one is doing better?

        Universities twist the heart soul and mind.

        If you can’t get into STEM or have a solid non-STEM career track in mind, it’s an expensive waste of time.

        Just the alcohol abuse they train each other in at university alone is a reason to stay away, and long has been

        Now you have all this politically correct stupidity warping normal young minds into twisted pretzels of preversion

        Mostly these worthless universities are just busy socializing people to be acceptable to the ruling class. Skrew that

        1. Kurtz, getting dirty and sweaty is a shrinking job description which also often leads to disabilities before SS. Any bachelors degree is a qualifier for much of white collar work including entry level management. You should advise the one getting their hands dirty to go back to school at some point.

          “Full-time workers without a high school diploma had median weekly earnings of $515, compared with $718 for high school graduates (no college) and $1,189 for those with a bachelor’s degree. Full-time workers with advanced degrees (professional or master’s degree and above) had median weekly earnings of $1,451.Jul 21, 2017”

          1. I suspect that one will slip into supervisions and management before too long. For now hard work is better than sitting at home watching college videos on your laptop

            I got my hands dirty when I was young plenty en route to being a lawyer and I don’t regret that work for a second. I suppose I might have climbed higher as a lawyer if I had some high falutin “internship” like so many of my hoity toity peers at the “university” but I suppose it all worked out for the best in the long run. Meanwhile God provides

            1. Plumbers can make a good amount of money and they have to do a lot of digging and getting their hands dirty. The idea that hard sweaty work cannot be rewarding is a false idea. imagine having a PhD. in a specific period of French literature and not being a professor. Next step is a white collar job starting at minimum wage.

    1. Agreed, started University after Nam, married my Spanish Professor dropped out per her recommendation became Carpenter then General Contractor and retired Multi Millionaire.

  14. ” 2) the event expressly goes against Duke’s values”

    IMO the viewpoint being expressed is derived from a political ideology taught to young children throughout the country. In this specific case they are predetermining values for all and saying that the speaker is against Dukes values, very pro gay. In other words they wish to suppress speech and not let her speak.

    Move further to another topic and they will march alongside leaders that might be Islamists and believe in throwing gays off of roofs.

    These are not thinking people. These are wimpy followers of an ideology that teaches hate and a PC culture. If this is the best Duke has to offer law students then perhaps the law school should be closed. Law is all about freedom of speech along with having an open and curious mind.

    1. The controversies at Duke in 2006 and 2007 made plain that you needed to transfer the economics department at Trinity College to the business school and transfer the chemistry department to the engineering school, and put the rest of their arts and sciences faculty in the unemployment line. Duke’s trustees proved to be useless, not even getting a letter of resignation out of the grotesque weasel then sitting in the president’s chair. And you know who was the chairman of the board of trustees? One Robert Steel, quondam CEO of Wachovia and a subcabinet official of Bush the Younger’s administration. Our ruling class is just worthless.

      1. ” One Robert Steel, quondam CEO of Wachovia”

        Was he of any significance in Wachovia’s management of funds around the time of the crash or before?

      2. AD: “. . . to the business school . . .”

        As you probably know, Duke doesn’t have an undergraduate business school, department or major. They consider the profit motive beneath their “lofty” ideals.

          1. AD: “They have a business school.”

            That’s Fuqua — MBA and Exec MBA only. It cannot offer ugrad degrees, e.g., in econ. (Though I agree with your sentiment.)

            “. . . the grotesque weasel then sitting in the president’s chair.”

            You are right about him. Brodhead was a tool for the Gang of 88. He abetted the attempted frame of his own students. There were a lot of cowards on campus who refused to protest the mob lynching. But one coward that nobody talks about is Mike Krzyzewski (Duke’s then and now basketball coach). He remained conspicuously silent, while the lacrosse players (and their coach) twisted in the wind.

            Two of the real heroes came from outside of Duke: Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson, and his co-author Stuart Taylor, Jr. Their book _Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case_ does for the lacrosse scandal what Zola did for the Dreyfus Affair.

    2. These are not thinking people.

      Too true. And is it seems to get worse every year. My own contemporaries were far from flawless as human beings when we were young, but we had among us very few fanatics. For puzzling reasons, the generation we raised have proved to have a critical mass therein who are just damaged goods.

      1. Damaged goods is a good description. In my father’s generation the slums produced mostly one type of person if they survived, successful. The only question was whether success was based on legal or illegal activities. I may have seen less of the criminal type but I think I saw more damaged goods. You are seeing even more. If we continue in this direction the country will be destroyed.

Leave a Reply