For the second year in a row, Harvard University is ranked dead last among universities and colleges on the annual survey of free speech on campuses by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Harvard shares a score of 0.00 with Columbia University. They are followed by New York University, University of Pennsylvania and Barnard College.
In my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss free speech on campuses and note that public universities could prove the last line of defense for this right. It is not that faculty members are necessarily any more protective of free speech or intellectual diversity at these schools. However, they are directly subject to the First Amendment as state schools and thus can be taken to court more readily for denials of the right.
Conversely, at schools like Harvard, Columbia, Penn, and NYU, the faculty appears unconcerned about their dismal records on free speech. There is still a growing anti-free speech movement on our campuses. It is notable that these schools also have largely purged conservative and Republican faculty from their ranks. A past survey found that over 75 percent of faculty identify as liberal or very liberal. Another survey found that many departments do not have a single Republican.
I was disappointed that my alma mater University of Chicago has fallen from number 1 to 44, though it still gets a shout out from FIRE as being a consistently strong free speech environment. The concerning fall has occurred under with the presidency of Armand Paul Alivisatos. He replaced one of the greatest advocates of free speech in academia, the late Robert Zimmer.
My proudest moment came when Zimmer sent a famous letter to the class of 2020. The letter warned students that they will not be shielded from views that upset them or given “safe spaces” on campus.
In the letter, the university declared that “our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”
It was a moment of clarity that is missing in today’s environment of speech codes, microaggressions, and cancel campaigns.
When Zimmer stepped down in 2021, there was a virtual panic in the free speech community. He was our champion and placed one of the premier academic institutions in the world on the side of free speech.
Notably, Barnard College (unlike the other schools at the bottom) has joined other schools in adopting the Chicago Principles. It released a statement committing itself to a new course. We will have to wait to see if faculty will honor such a commitment.
George Washington University, where I teach, is 161st out of 251 schools with a below average ranking.
What was surprising this year were the schools receiving a “warning” about anti-free speech policies. They include Pepperdine University, Hillsdale College, and Brigham Young University. FIRE found that all “have policies that clearly and consistently state” that they prioritize “other values over a commitment to freedom of speech.” The President of Hillsdale responded in this column.
If there will be substantial improvements in the anti-free speech environment in higher education in private colleges, they will only come from donors refusing to support these schools until they change their policies and culture. Administrators and faculty feel little pressure to reverse these trends. However, they will respond if their intolerance begins to threaten their own budgets and departments.
Higher education has already plunged in trust among citizens under the current administrators and faculty at our colleges and universities. They are destroying the very institutions that sustain them.
In the meantime, public universities can be a strong line of defense for free speech, offering students not just free speech environments but the direct protection of the First Amendment. What is missing is greater diversity of viewpoints on faculties. I have written about how taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these schools.
While some professors have argued that free speech and intellectual diversity are not essential to higher education, most of the public disagrees and has a right to expect a diverse and tolerant environment at state-supported schools.
In my book and past congressional testimony, I have also encouraged Congress to adopt ten basic prerequisites for federal funding for colleges and universities on free speech. If these schools want to continue to deny free speech to students and faculty, they should do so with their own funds and contributions from donors who share their anti-free speech agendas. Taxpayers should not be supporting schools which deny a right considered “indispensable” to our constitution and culture.
You can see the full rankings here.
in an homogeneous environment where new ideas, challenges and outside thinking have been virtually eliminated, the results will be stilted growth and academic stagnation. They will foster mindless students who mindlessly amble through life without regard to dissenting points of view. How will scientific discovery advance? Oh….I forget. “The science is settled.” Don’t take my word for it, Greta said so.
Here is a case in point. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren went against the entrenched thinking of science when they proposed the Heliobacter Pylori is the likely cause of gastric ulcers. Their radical thinking was summarily dismissed during their research in the early 1980s. Because of the stiff resistance and unwillingness for their research to be given serious thought, Marshall infected himself in 1985 to prove his point. They were right and conventional thinking was wrong and the team was eventually were awarded the Nobel Prize and because they dared to counter conventional, recalcitrant thinking, countless millions of people have benefited from their discovery.
I grew up during a time when nothing seemed too challenging for America. I love the words JFK said during his Rice University Speech. “We choose to go to the moon. We chose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we’re willing to accept. One we are unwilling to postpone. And therefore, as we set sail, we ask God’s blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure that man has ever gone.”
Those who shut out the voices of dissension will soon find that they are living brackish, stagnant waters and will produce nothing more than indoctrinated graduates, laden with an untenable student debt burden who have never faced opposing points of view. In that sense, what difference will the graduates be to those who stood in the Kool-Aide line in Jonestown?
E.M.
Great comment.
In this day and age, JFK would of been shouted down for his thinking and words.
stagnant waters and will produce nothing more than indoctrinated graduates, laden with an untenable student debt burden who have never faced opposing points of view.
Generally I agree with much of that post – up to the point it adopts Republican and Democrat stereotypes about college students.
Most graduates of our universities are doing just fine – including the ones I did tours overseas with who put aside civilian life to do a stint in the military serving in the war on hajji terrorism. Some years later have contacted me to offer me jobs in the businesses they have started (a gratifying offer coming from former subordinates, even though I didn’t need it). Doing so despite many Republicans having a deep desire to stereotype them as young idiots with useless degrees. Our 20 year war in Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11 was fought right up to the day Biden surrendered the country to the Hajji terrorists by the young people of this country.
Those young people, whether they had some college or none, have experienced “facing opposing points of view” when that opposition was put to them by way of AK-47 fire or incoming RPGs. Much more serious “opposing points of view” than many of the Republicans stayed home while they went to war, and who now sneer at them.
And meanwhile, in their grift to buy votes, the Soviet Democrats have created the fairy tale of “untenable student debt burden”. The reality is that the default rate on student loan debt is pretty much identical to the default rate on car loans and credit cards for the American public at large. Their rate of failure is no different than that of any other group of Americans with loan debt. I am reasonably sure that very few Republicans or Soviet Democrats have bothered to look into “student loan debt” deep enough to know that.
Just as they aren’t aware that it is relatively easy to pay off the average student debt honorably if you are having trouble – if you want to. Three years of military service will not only net you $60,000 towards paying off any student loan debt you have – but also qualify you for GI Bill education benefits… and you collect a paycheque every month while qualifying.
Alternately, depending on your circumstances i.e. supporting a wife and/or child, whatever the remaining balance on the loan for your law degree, if you can manage to find a job at around $20/hr (bagging groceries here at Super One will do that), after calculating your income versus $150% of the poverty level line, your student loan payment is satisfied by paying about $100/month. Just cut back on the Starbucks lattes, Skippy, and you’ll be fine at the end of the month. And if you STILL can’t figure out life for another 20 years… 20 years bagging groceries and whatever your original debt was, the federal government considers it paid back.
In short, colleges do indeed indoctrinate the students the Mainstream Media Marxists want to put on display. But most are no more indoctrinated than than my fellow senior citizens here in Montana who never attended college, but still have “John Tester” and “Kamala Harris” signs by their driveways. I don’t know where they got those beliefs – but they didn’t get them in colleges they never attended.
The ‘indoctrination’ that is on display right in front of us is Soviet Democrats being indoctrinated to believe students with student loans are trapped in untenable student debt, while Republicans accept the lie of ‘untenable student debt’ while also willingly accepting the indoctrination that we have a feeble youth who will never face opposing points of view as they go out to start their careers.
A failure of many on both sides to critically examine the “everybody knows” lying propaganda they’re being fed by the media intending to target their biases. If you don’t believe their lies about Trump, why would you accept their lies about student debt without question – or their portrayal of students massively supporting the New Hitler Youth Movement on campuses?
My school has a 0 rank. I sometimes go to the alumni weekends, depending on activities and speakers, but did not even consider attending alumni weekend last Spring because of the protesters. There are other more fun things to do when one has a choice; I would not be happy to be a student today and feel bad about what the Jewish students have had to endure.
I planned to leave some $ to the school but last year changed the beneficiary to be the hospital (it has a separate IRS # from the institution as a whole). The hospital is excellent and does a lot of good research. I did not go to the medical school; I attended the business school, which provided a great education but allowed for more diversity of thought at the time.
Watch as there are riots on campus in support of Hamas and the major media WILL NOT COVER IT because it hurts the Dems. It was a huge story last April but now it will be ignored.
Also, why has Liz and Bernie “tax the rich” never gone after Harvard and Columbia as they sit on UNTAXED BILLIONS??
One last point: The ACLU and the ADL have been taken over by the complete antithesis of their founders and are now actually the opposite of what they have always been. I guess we can call them the George Costanza Civil Rights groups.
The Hillsdale letter is a little troublesome. I would disagree with the president. I think free speech IS education. If it’s not free and capable of being argued in a public forum then I would have to question if it is true free speech. Raised voices are not a riot and are not a lack of civility. Sometimes they are simply strongly held opinions and should be argued, on occasion, with passion. I have no problem with that. Just as Free speech is Education, the 2nd part is listening. Remember you learn nothing while talking
Civility is also fine but it all depends on how it is administered and the fairness and the fact the new challenges will arise that you need be prepared to think about and then rewrite rules to accommodate them but not exclude the new challenges.
It’s like laying out a health plan. You can have the most beautiful and logical plan in the world but if you have the wrong people in the wrong place it will go belly up within 1-2 years.
Remember the Affordable Care Act and all those health plans it spawned all over the country and basically 99% went extinct or went into receivership or were bought out by larger plans already in existence who knew what they were doing.
This is not an endorsement of the Affordable Care Act. It was an act that should have been aborted in committee. Only time I supported abortion. It looked like something Democrats would have drawn up. OH, that’s right it was drawn up by Democrats.
As far as design is concern, Mr Gruber who was the “designer”, only designed health plans but did not run them, last I heard. Explains a lot.
GEB,
Well said.
Unfortunately there are those who are afraid of people hearing other ideas or view points and want them censored or shout them down and call it free speech.
Shouting someone down IS free speech. It may be uncivil and rude, but nevertheless it’s still free speech. Just like hate speech. It’s offensive and wrong to some, but still free speech.
That’s like saying segregation IS freedom of association. It may be uncivil and rude, offensive and wrong, but…
If you need to shout over someone and prevent them from being heard, you have lost the argument, you are a censor, and your childishness is only supported by other mindless children with losing arguments.
Simply because something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it right or reason to prevent getting punched in the face.
No george that is intimidating. Loud voices can be used when it’s your turn to talk. Otherwise sit quietly, make your notes and when your turn comes, make your point passionately and loudly if needed,
“Shouting someone down IS free speech. “
It is evident, Svelaz, that you were more focused on asserting your views than listening and respecting others’ perspectives. That is why you know nothing despite many discussions on Hamas and Israel.
…When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?
You can’t answer what happened to the British Mandate because you were too busy shouting down people. You preferred your ignorance to the historical context added by many.
Shouting someone down IS free speech.
Claiming that the Heckler’s Veto being specifically used to prevent free speech you do not want to be heard qualifies as free speech? That’s just more totalitarian hatred of free speech on display.
Coming from our Constitution hating racist Confederate constitutionalist George, it’s just a reminder of the sick mind we’re dealing with here as he posts his daily screeds.
I agree with both of you. On several occasions, I spoke to professors from the College and some of their administrative staff. They take education seriously, but they demand decorum and respectful behavior. Any on-topic discussion, pro and con, will be gladly accepted there. That is different from Harvard and Columbia because those universities permit egregious behavior by their students, where civility and diversity of opinion are not considered a benefit.
You can’t have freedom of thought without free speech. How will you hear about new ideas? Be challenged on your existing ideas?
Best you can do is dream in isolation and only talk about dreams that conform with the party line.
The students of these “colleges” will have 0 critical thinking skills. They will make excellent parrots, so hire them PR.
Parents are wasting their money. “Students” are wasting their time.
Anonymous 8:45AM—
Exactly
“What was surprising this year were the schools receiving a “warning” about anti-free speech policies. They include Pepperdine University, Hillsdale College, and Brigham Young ”
The ACLU long ago supported free speech, but slowly, it evolved incorrectly. The same occurred with the ADL. Leftists moved in, using free speech as a lever to promote their policies. The leftist ends are to censor the speech of others and promote their own. That can happen at FIRE as well.
“leftists moved in…it evolved incorrectly” equals progressivism.
“leftists moved in…it evolved incorrectly” equals progressivism.
And before they changed to calling themselves ‘Progressives’, they co-opted the word ‘Liberal’ to label themselves with. Despite the fact they’re the antithesis of what was Liberalism. They changed to calling themselves ‘Progressives’ after their chosen label of “Liberals’ had become associated with communist theology.
Before they co-opted the name ‘Liberals’, they were calling themselves ‘Socialists’. They had to dump calling themselves socialists because Americans had come to recognize that these ‘socialists’ were actually another just communists like another name.
Ultimately, whatever name they call themselves to make their theology more acceptable, they are exactly what Marx himself called his belief system: communism. Marxism was the first term used to conceal the fact they were communists. Marx himself (nor Engels) ever called their belief system “Marxism” – they always referred to it as Communism.
And now today’s Soviet Democrats, ruling as communists like Stalin did, try to hide behind the label “progressive”.
As a long time supporter of Hillsdale College, I was surprised to see that name until I read President Arne’s op ed. Hillsdale is a very difficult college to get into and stay in; you must work hard. I know Dr. Arne encourages learning as opposed to protests. I have also sat in classes where students are encouraged to speak and discuss freely. I would be amazed to walk on campus and hear much lewd language, if that is free speech!
Perhaps it would help if we stopped referring to these institutions as colleges and universities and just call them subversive indoctrination centers for the cult of progressive delusionists.
I read the Guardian article and basically it is a poll conducted in the UK and uses the results of a poll as research. It asks people how confident they are in being able to recognize “AI generated fakes”. The “conservatives” reported a higher lack of confidence in being able to recognize AI fakes. That means they have a lower confidence level in seeing through fakes not that they are necessarily wrong in recognizing a fake. Seems the more truthful answer would be a lower confidence level. And, of course, the Guardian slams X for having so many more AI fakes, according to them. Basically a poll used to masquerade as research so that the Guardian (Left wing all the Way) can take shots at X. Of Course the article could be a AI generated fake, too.
I think that X really worries them (could be a fake)
I would rate the Guardian “research” 1/2 star. The spelling was good.
Universities and colleges, as a collection of thinkers and researches, is more inclined to create progressive liberal thought.
Conservatism, at its core, is about maintaining the status quo and resisting change.
Progressivism is about change and is concerned with solutions that would improve the existing society.
I believe the reason universities are mostly liberal is not because they are not open to conservative ideas, it’s because they aren’t creating conservative ideas. Think about it. When has conservative thought changed? ‘Conservative thinking’ has become synonymous with racism, sexism, and religious zealotry – none of which is going to be appealing to someone who is used to interacting and empathizing with people of other races, genders, and religions.
This would explain why older people tend to say things like, “why are colleges these days indoctrinating our kids with liberal propaganda?” The real issue is that when they went to college, they had a very different experience and in many cases, they probably didn’t interact with students from more diverse backgrounds, values or races or genders, so they didn’t have those experiences to ‘break them out’ of their conservative ideas and views, and they don’t have the context for why it’s happening now.
What solutions to improve existing society is progressivism working on or has completed?
Science, real science, not prefixed-science, is conservative and provides solutions to improve society. Progressivism, as seen in much of ‘social ‘science’ fails to 1. correctly identify problems and 2. correctly provide solutions, it is much more concerned with fashionable ideas regardless their efficacy.
When we say “why are colleges these days indoctrinating our kids with liberal propaganda?” it is not because today’s kids are solving real problems with new methodologies, it is because kids are literally indoctrinated by propaganda. In fact, the only real breakthroughs progressivism has achieved are indoctrination itself.
I have been corrected, the science of indoctrination has and continues to be honed through conservative scientific principles, it is the APPLICATION of those principles that propgressivism is advancing. Because the real societal problem progressivism is trying to solve is “how do we get rational thinking people to ignore actual science, the realities in front of their eyes, and from their history and to want to become slaves of immediate gratification and government largess while making them believe that is in their best interests.”
Neil Bobacon,
“I have been corrected, the science of indoctrination has and continues to be honed through conservative scientific principles, it is the APPLICATION of those principles that propgressivism is advancing.”
Science is neither conservative or liberal. Science is the process of improving and testing through trial and error about what is true or not or what works and doesn’t work. That’s it.
“Because the real societal problem progressivism is trying to solve is “how do we get rational thinking people to ignore actual science, the realities in front of their eyes, and from their history and to want to become slaves of immediate gratification and government largess while making them believe that is in their best interests.”
Constitutes strive to preserve the status quo. Improvement is usually seen as contrary to tradition and established norms. Not improvement needed. That may be true in some occasions, but not all of them. Conservatism is shutting off the idea that some old ideas or values do not need to be improved or rethought. Science allows for the exploration of new ideas improving upon old ones thru trial and error. Sure some may fail and fail to improve, but others succeed and improve and add to societal progression. That is the point of scientific inquiry and the need to question old views, values and ideas. Education is about expanding upon old ideas, innovations, views, etc.
“Science is neither conservative or liberal. “
Liberal science frequently does not follow the scientific method.
Two big issues on the blog proved that, Sex and Covid. Start listening for a change.
Constitutes strive to preserve the status quo. Improvement is usually seen as contrary to tradition and established norms.
If conservatism strives to preserve the status quo, there’s sure a lot of amendments to the Bill of Rights that have conservative fingerprints all over them. Many that were fought tooth and nail by earlier generations of Confederate Kluxxer Democrats who current generation now style themselves as Progressive Soviet Democrats.
Meanwhile, how’s that Progressive communist change in Venezuela, Cuba, etc working out for them George? See any self-determination going on for the people of those two countries these days?
How about Communist China, that provides the model for progressive Soviet Democrats’ Great Leap Forward? Straight back to pre-Revolution days, when totalitarian tyrants ruled America just as they do now in Communist China, Venezuela, etc?
Back To The Future Progressivism, George?
George, the saddest day of your life had to be the day that Bolshevik Barack could no longer continue the progressive communist Great Leap Forward, merely using his phone and pen while sitting in the Oval Office to fundamentally change America – without needing any of that nasty ol’ voter approval from Americans.
Possibly the second saddest day being when we discovered that Bribery Biden/Fraud Fauci “science” was just lies – lies protected by a Progressive communist president contracted out government censorship to prevent dissenting voices from being heard.
Which is why Progressive Communists like George hate Conservatives that believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights put LIMITS on government action. Rather than constitutional documents that put limits on what individual citizens can do, say, etc as Progressive communist George prefers.
When George puts on display that he’s a “Progressive” who wants government tyranny, with few limitations on politicians who want to control most aspects of individual Americans’ lives, you should accept him for what he is when he shows you that.
Neil Bobacon,
“What solutions to improve existing society is progressivism working on or has completed?”
You see it all around us. Improvements on civil rights, healthcare, transportation, mental illness, workplace safety, the 40 hr workweek, weekends, history, science, literature, the sexual revolution, etc.
The better question should be, what solutions to improve existing society is conservatism working on or has completed? Have they added anything new or significant that is not rooted in the past?
“Science, real science, not prefixed-science, is conservative and provides solutions to improve society. Progressivism, as seen in much of ‘social ‘science’ fails to 1. correctly identify problems and 2. correctly provide solutions, it is much more concerned with fashionable ideas regardless their efficacy.”
You mean pseudo-science often relied on by conservatism? Science relies on trial and error and accepting evidence proves something wrong or true. That has not been the case with conservatism. The definition of conservatism is preserving the status quo. Science is about challenging the status quo with testing and results and accepting once ‘proven’ facts to be wrong upon discovering new evidence.
Social science is not perfect, but it’s also a work in progress that relies on exploding new ideas and testing new theories. Conservatism does not do that. It often relies on the status quo to be the only truth or a reason not to improve or change because the status quo ‘was always the truth’.
“When we say “why are colleges these days indoctrinating our kids with liberal propaganda?” it is not because today’s kids are solving real problems with new methodologies, it is because kids are literally indoctrinated by propaganda. In fact, the only real breakthroughs progressivism has achieved are indoctrination itself.”
That’s the kind of circular logic that tends to be the standard when there is resistance to a different point of view. How do you know students are not solving real problems with new methodologies when you refuse to really dive into the issue. Are you relying on anecdotal evidence from like minds who have never set foot in a university classroom or have not for years or real observation?
Universities are largely liberal and progressive because education is about improving and advancing knowledge. Can you point out any new ideas or changes that conservatism has shown to improve society? Conservatism is about maintaining traditional ‘common sense’ views and values and resisting changes that can be perceived as wrong, immoral, or ‘against tradition’. For example back in the 50’s younger generations were all about rock and roll and rebellion while conservatives and older generations deemed the music evil and obscene and maintained that musing should remain ‘wholesome’ and ‘traditional’. New music and ‘better’ music prevailed. That did not mean oldies and traditional music was bad. It was just….no longer relevant to the younger generations.
Svelaz thinks college is all about learning new ways to look at the world. Idiot.
How about delivering me someone for my work force who can find his ass with both hands, instead of a 22 year old who “knows a better way”. Based on what???
Hey high school graduate…You want to make the world a better place? Learn what you can at college to succeed and when you have enough life experience to make an informed contribution to the future, lets hear it. In the meantime, STFU and let the adults handle it.
Can you tell us how progressivism changed healthcare, transportation, mental illness, workplace safety, the 40 hr workweek, weekends, history, science???, literature, the sexual revolution, etc. and how enforcing civil rights is somehow progressive?
Your allusion to literature (throw in art, architechture, and general culture) is wrong and progressivism has failed to produce anything of value there (except in art a great money laundering vehicle bolstered by propaganda from “leading art critics”). Notice you didn’t include education in your attempt to ascribe goodness to progressivism – there are no progressive leaders there benefitting anyone except labor union stooges.
You seem to believe that progressivism is anything that is not already established, that is wrong. Also, you want (need) to link conservatism to religion, which it is not, althought they have many of the same tenets. Since 1970 or so, progressivism has led to nothing but ruination and despair. Expanding civil rights to gays was anti-religion not anti-conservative, whereas DIE is simply progressive racism/sexism/homophilia.
Once you learn those concepts and stop playing red team/blue team, you and the others playing that game (from both sides) may help to heal this wounded nation. Until then, whores against the other side will continue to ruin the nation.
“ Expanding civil rights to gays was anti-religion not anti-conservative,…”
So where were all the conservatives supporting expanding civil rights to gays? How many conservatives spearheaded legislation protecting gays from discrimination, harassment, violence, etc from conservative religious bigots?Can you name any republicans who spearheaded legislation expanding rights to gays and lesbians?
“ Also, you want (need) to link conservatism to religion, which it is not, althought they have many of the same tenets.”
Conservatism and religion are linked, it’s not what I want or need. It’s self evident. Conservatives always cite religion as the basis to judge what is right or wrong. It’s inextricably linked. It dominates conservatism to the point that the words “conservative” and “religious” are virtually interchangeable.
Conservatism and religion are linked, it’s not what I want or need. It’s self evident. Conservatives always cite religion as the basis to judge what is right or wrong.
George hopes the Progressive communist Democrat Memory Hole will prevent normal Americans from remembering Democrats’ inextricable history of being joined from shoulder to ankle with national religious leaders they depend on for political power.
George hopes Americans believe that, because Progressives/communists follow the cult religion of atheism, they would NEVER use religion and religious leaders for power.
Where would Bolshevik Barack be, if he and Moochelle hadn’t spent 20 years in the pews of his anti-Semitic and white hating racist pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who spewed black racism and anti-Semitism at Obama as he prepared for a Great Leap Forward to become one of George’s favorite progressives – and presidents?
Or the also virulently anti-Semitic Jimmy Carter, who told Americans he was guided by his religious faith – as he devoutly selectively worshiped in all-white churches.
Where would Bribery Biden and Commissar Pelosi be, as they tried to sell taxpayer funded elective birth control abortions right up to the moment of birth, if they couldn’t justify it by starting out with the reliable excuse: “As a devout Roman Catholic…”
Where would Bernie The Commie be if he couldn’t regularly start with: “As a Jew…”
Where would the Soviet Democrats’ Congressional Black Caucus be if they couldn’t have their regular annual meetings with America’s most successful racist and anti-Semitic, Louis Farrakhan, the Mullah who heads the Black Supremacist Nation Of Islam?
Name an election where the Soviet Democrats or their predecessors weren’t depending on the Reverend Jesse Jackson ensuring Baptist churches made sure they bussed their congregations to the voting stations.
And with with the junior partner in Biden White House Crime LLC suddenly changing his plea to Guilty of tax fraud this morning, how could George forget that other tax cheat: the Reverend Al Sharpton?
George, what election and what Democrat administration has NOT formed a partnership with that criminal tax cheat, the Reverend Al Sharpton?
George is desperately cosplaying and lying that his fellow Progressive totalitarian communists in the Soviet Democrat party aren’t inextricably tied to using religious leaders to stay in power.
It’s like listening to that other progressive like George, Bribery Biden, assure Americans he know nothing about the customers of the family White House business that his now twice convicted First Felon Son was collecting $30+ MILLION from.
George, you’re a worse liar than that other Progressive, Bribery Biden. As racists, you’re both about on the same plane. Hopefully you aren’t a pedophile and rapist as well, just like your fellow Progressive is.
What is funny, is that it is the leftists that have become the keepers of the status quo. Teachers unions, coastal labor unions, political parties, news/art/literature have all been coopted by progressives over 60 years ago and we live with that waste and emptiness. When we say MAGA, getting rid of that status quo is EXACTLY what we mean.
The nation is by all accounts outside the top 0.5% has been in decline for generations because of a lack of objective scientific analysis and application of rational measures to affect change. None of the feel-good social policies since WWII, outside maybe the GI bill, have borne any fruit that has lasted and has instead created much more fraud, corruption, waste, and despair. Progressives own urban America since 1964.
“Universities are largely liberal and progressive because” progressivism’s philosophy, imported from Germany, began infiltrating American universities in the early 20th century. Then grew over the decades until, today, it dominates the humanities and social sciences.
It’d be nice if, once in a while, you knew what you’re talking about.
(And, yes, my Ph.D. dissertation was on that infiltration.)
LMAO
Last month they were liberal because thats what students wanted.
When i blasted that nonsense out of the water 8 ways from Sunday, you bring us this jibberish.
gibberish begets more gibberish, stay tuned.
“Universities and colleges, as a collection of thinkers and researches,“
Beahahahahaha
George
Blah blah blah…
Or, its indoctrination.
You explain the situation quite well, but the results of prioritizing progressive ideology over conservatism is that there are no anchors to our culture/civilization and once you set loose the concept of anarchy/progressive guessings as to what might work in untested theories, you end up with the sort of failed anthropological experiments such as welfare…. You destabilize society and set if flapping against the winds and hope for the best but rarely find a better concept than what has been tried and true for millennia.
Whimsicalmama,
It’s not about prioritizing liberal ideology over conservatism. It’s the simple fact that liberal ideology is about improvement, progress, trying something new and see if it works or not. That’s why universities and colleges is where theories can be explored, tried, expressed, and be subject to criticism or disagreement. Conservatism is about keeping the status quo and maintaining old and tried and true ideas that everyone pretty much knows. What’s the appeal to those who already know or is commonly known?
Students grew up knowing what conservative ideas are from their parents or grandparents. New ideas, different ideas, even radically different from those of their parents or grandparents gets their attention and oftentimes inspire them to come up with better ideas or views. Younger minds are more inquisitive and open about new ideas than older ones already set in older ideas. At one point their old ideas were new. But sometimes newer ideas prove to be too much and resist. Some ideas only “fail” because there is considerable resistance and prevention for fear that they WILL work. Most of the time, not all, but most ideas such as welfare or things like universal healthcare do work if they are allowed to work as intended. Not when they are constantly undermined by those who don’t really want to find out if they will really work. Look at Obamacare. There was considerable opposition because there were plenty of claims that it wouldn’t work without ever trying it out if it would. Now a minority of those who opposed it and claimed it cause untold chaos’s support it and admit it is better than what it used to be. Sure, it’s not perfect, but only because it has been undermined piecemeal by those who don’t want it to succeed. Those who wanted the status quo to remain because it benefitted a select few more than the majority. Now, after years of it being in effect it has been shown to be an improvement over the status quo from the past.
It’s the simple fact that liberal ideology is about improvement, progress, trying something new and see if it works or not.
Only a Progressive racist would celebrate liberalism as meaning “We’ll get the neo-communist and New Hitler Youth Movement emanating from our Progressive colleges right this time”!
It’s necessary to follow that pitch by lying that conservatives would want the status quo kept in place – while they’re working to change the 12 years of Progressive neo-Communism served up and put in place by a Progressive president fundamentally changing the American using only his phone and pen in the Oval Office, while Obama’s Third Term uses exactly the same players i.e. Susan Rice and Lisa Monaco to continue the Progressive Great Neo-communist Leap Forward Back To The Future.
The lie that George hopes his Progressive Memory Hole will work to hid the fact that so many constitutional amendments have conservative fingerprints all over them.
George himself is making a pitch for the staus quo: the status quo put in place a few years ago by Woke Progressive neo-communists. What’s new today is the old tyranny of the past.
Conservatism, at its core, is about maintaining the status quo and resisting change.
Progressivism is about change and is concerned with solutions that would improve the existing society.
“If Soviet Democrats ain’t lyin’, then we aren’t really trying”
– President Joseph Robinette Biden
Let’s dissect the two lies served up here in Biden fashion.
“Progressivism” is the opposite of the term. The “Progressive” Soviet Democrat Great Leap Forward – right back to being ruled by a tyrannical class with the power to proclaim what individuals can say, do, what you can own, whether you will be jailed for saying what you think about those in power. Whether you have unalienable rights like the Second Amendment as one example of what totalitarian “Progressive” fascists hate.
And whether you have Fourth Amendment rights, or instead, a “Progressive” president with impunity can send the Attorney General, FBI Director, etc to perjure themselves to judges while uttering false documents to those courts – two major felonies – in order to get counterespionage warrants to spy on political opponents with the intent of rigging an election.
“Progressive”, is just like the previously self-selected labels of “Liberal”. Which before “Liberal” was “Socialist”, and before that “Marxist”. “Progressive”, like all the previous labels, is a label that communists attempt to hide behind. When one of their labels gets burned by Americans realizing it’s just the ol’ commies trying their commie schtick again, they pick another name to refer to themselves as.
There’s a reason the communists who were today’s Soviet Democrats’ forerunners have changed their label so often – while conservatives have always called themselves conservatives, nothing else.
For another corrective moment of truth: conservatism is a core belief in the principles of the load bearing walls of civil society. Load bearing walls defined by a Constitution by the people that defines governance – and limitations on the powers of governance. Not about attempting to destroy change when a majority of Americans want it as the lie that was posted claims.
A Constitution that provides not just one, but TWO different ways for the American people to change their constitutional documents. An action Americans have well over a dozen times since the original Constitution and Bill of Rights were accepted.
There is no THIRD different way of changing it via “fundamentally change this country because I, the Progressive President, have a phone and a pen and know how to use them”.
All that said: if there’s one thing today’s totalitarian communist “Progressives” hate more than the Constitution’s limitations on tyrannical government controlling individual lives, it’s Americans who believe in unalienable rights, the Constitution, and rejecting “Progressive” communists attempting to take America back to totalitarian tyranny with their phones and pens while in the White House.
And this is why totalitarian commies like our racist Confederate George cosplay as being constitutional scholars. Doing so while they desperately lie their asses off to get back to them good ol’ days when Democrat “socialists” like FDR could turn Jewish refugees away for them to be slaughtered by Hitler.
Days when Democrat Kluxxers like the revered Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd would refuse to sign a bill outlawing the lynching of black Americans.
Days like when Democrat communists like Bolshevik Barack could fundamentally make communist changes to the country by using his phone and pen while sitting in the White House.
George’s post is yet another example of why George is a vile Cheap Fake American communist.
It’s no surprise that these bastions of NeoMarxist leftist thought are all on board with censorship of speech they deem ‘politically incorrect’, when that was an article of faith of the Frankfurt School NeoMarxist Herbert Marcuse, the Godfather of Political Correctness, as outlined in his 1965 essay on ‘Repressive Tolerance’. These are the enemies of freedom of speech and liberty, who see it as their sacred duty to destroy our constitutional republic, and replace it with a NeoMarxist dystopia, à la 1619 Project.
Well said professor!
“What was surprising this year were the schools receiving a “warning” about anti-free speech policies. They include Pepperdine University, Hillsdale College, and Brigham Young University. FIRE found that all “have policies that clearly and consistently state” that they prioritize “other values over a commitment to freedom of speech.”
Well, of course those colleges have majority conservative views and policies, they are also private colleges and universities. Liberty University, Prager University, etc. all have issues with allowing diversity of views or having an equal proportion of professors or staff identifying as democrats or liberals. Those schools are also largely religious and conservative which obviously prioritize religious values and conservative ideas over free speech.
Why would it be surprising that those schools would receive a warning? They are the first to put free speech on the wayside. Because they are private schools they can and do stifle free speech when it conflicts with their values and beliefs. They are no different than any other school.
“It is notable that these schools also have largely purged conservative and Republican faculty from their ranks. At past survey found that over 75 percent of faculty identify as liberal or very liberal. Another survey found that many departments do not have a single Republican.”
There is no “purging” of conservative and Republican faculty from their ranks. That is pure fallacy. Turley should know better. The majority of students and universities have liberal views and faculty because they reflect reality. Not because they actively “purge” conservatives and republicans. Their ideas, views and values are not widely accepted by the majority of students. Conservatives and republicans have always been able to make their views known and have always been able to express them freely in Universities and Colleges. Always. What they don’t like is the fact that most of them already see their ideas or views being put into practice outside the academic environs by politicians, pundits, podcasts, news organizations, think tanks, etc. and many don’t like what they see or disagree. That’s just a simple reality.
Most of the country does not agree with conservative views or ideas. Especially when they force them upon a majority of the population by either legislation or a perceived moral authority. Now just to be clear, that’s not saying they are not allowed to have those ideas and views or that that they should be “purged” (they are not). They have just as much right to express them and exercise them as anyone else. But, when they do they also have to accept the fact that doing so exposes their them to criticism, ridicule, derision, mockery, and dismissal. Most of the time they can handle it. However, some consider such mockery and criticism as censorship and viewpoint discrimination because they are being “targeted” for being conservative or Republican and using it as an excuse to claim victimhood because their ideas are not widely accepted as they believe they should be. Some of their ideas still have merit and value, but not as much as they used to be and most are overshadowed by ideas and views that are outdated and offensive to a majority of the population, especially students.
It’s clear most of Turley’s views about conservative ideas and positions are misconceptions based on a perceived notion that they are being singled out just because they are conservative or Republican. Liberal ideas and views are dominant in higher public higher education because they provide more than just old ideas and values most students are already familiar with. One purpose of the university and college experience is exploring NEW ideas and views found nowhere else. Sure many may be see as worthless or pointless to others, but it also means there are those that DO find them interesting and worthwhile and schools provide them because there is enough demand and interest to sustain them. It’s not because they “purging” conservatives republican faculty. Most students are simply not interested enough to justify having a larger conservative or Republican faculty. There are plenty of conservative and Republican views being expressed outside academia all the time and they are certainly not being….purged from public universities and colleges.
“Most of the country does not agree with conservative views or ideas. Especially when they force them upon a majority of the population by either legislation or a perceived moral authority.”
Gorge is going for the stupidest thing said all day award early today.
Is it surprising that George-Svelaz continues to provide garbage? No. All responses to George that include fact are met with BS.
Svelaz, you made statements about Israel and Hamas but were wrong on all the facts. When facts are provided, you say nothing except repeat your garbage. Let us hear your facts.
“When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?
A lack of response shows you are putting the sentences of others together. They conflict with one another over multiple posts. You have no facts.
George likes to get his facts from Jimmy Fallon
S. Meyer, you’re not making any sense. What are YOU providing to the discussion?
“S. Meyer, you’re not making any sense.”
Svelaz, tell me what doesn’t make sense in any of my replies. You are stuck, and you don’t know what the British Mandate was, what the law said or how that impacted the future.
Try again on the following or prove yourself ignorant.
When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What are your thoughts on the British Mandate and its impact on the Middle East?
S. Meyer, you’re not making any sense. What are YOU providing to the discussion?
Well, she isn’t desperately lying her ass off about progressive/liberal neo-communism that is increasingly police state fascist and totalitarian supposedly being movement forward – rather than truth being that it is a regressive return to rule by totalitarian despots as we’re watching real time in Venezuela.
She does have that in her favor when compared to your desperate neo-communist apparatchik lies you’ve been posting. There is that…
Great organizations know how to uphold a culture tolerant of divergent thinking that is expressed with respect and civility — these are the organizations that adapt well to external challenge by continuous innovation.
All organizations draw a line at rancorous dissent that becomes crippling to organizational purpose. This is essential to keep factionalization and bitter distrust from overtaking the org’s culture and mission. In other words, organization purpose is paramount, and there are reasonable limits put on the zealotry of dissenters. Those poorly-led organization that cannot manage conflict constructively become dysfunctional. As Lincoln quipped, “A house divided cannot stand”.
On the pressing issue of intolerant, militant political manipulation infecting 21st century media, why not attempt to define the limits of free speech (intentional deceitful manipulation, intimidation)? This is ultimately what has to occur to break out of the cycle you call “rage”. I think facing this quandary head-on will be much more productive than constantly citing the victimhood of conservative-libertarians in academia, which is hand-wringing. The problem is a highly complex one — complaining and taking-sides won’t begin to solve it.
MORE TORT!!
Great organizations know how to uphold a culture tolerant of divergent thinking that is expressed with respect and civility — these are the organizations that adapt well to external challenge by continuous innovation.
Like America’s regressive progressive neo-communist colleges and universities since the era of Bolshevik Barack began, pbinca? The Woke entities providing a home to the New Hitler Youth Movement funded by Iran to generate support for genocidal Hamas Arab terrorists?
On the pressing issue of intolerant, militant political manipulation infecting 21st century media, why not attempt to define the limits of free speech (intentional deceitful manipulation, intimidation)?
Give that power to create those legal limits on free speech to the government? The Bribery Biden Soviet Democrats who just attempted to create a “Misinformation Czar” – a woman who spent years pushing the criminal “Russia Dossier” created by the former Soviet Democrat president?
Give that power to governments run by Soviet Democrats – the same politicians in the White House and Congress that contracted out free speech censorship to private companies to kill any stories about the Biden Bribery Laptop during the previous presidential campaign? The same politicians who used the FBI to have their contracted censors tell Americans that the Biden Bribery Laptop was just a fraud, “Russian election disinformation”.
Same government who used their contracted out censors to shut down Republican accounts (i.e. Ted Cruz) because what they were posting was “hate speech”?
pbinca, there is no way that a belief in liberty and freedom will ever take up even a tiny bit of your regressive progressive Kalifornia mind.
I imagine there are mirror-but-inverse lists where the deterioration of free speech is lauded and celebrated. The capture of Academia by the rabid Left was neither sudden nor secret. We shrugged.
The fact that Harvard is also the wealthiest of the private universities is not unrelated to its failure to protect free speech. Individual donors have less influence on a school whose financial independence allows it to turn up its nose at large gifts. Hence only the wealthiest donors can get the attention of the governing board, as David Ackman did. A few years back, for instance, Yale had to return a $50 million gift to the Mellon family. The gift had been intended to strengthen Yale’s courses in Western Civilization. When Yale chose to use the money for other purposes, the Mellons sued and won.
Private endowments of every kind are natural targets for the Left. It is clearly easier to take control of the wealth created by others than to create that wealth oneself. That, after all, is the initiating principle of socialism.
There are lots of studies showing the differences between Demos and Repos, liberal v conservative. Here is an interesting one…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/voters-ai-deepfakes-poll
Turns out Conservatives have a hard time distinguishing fake from true. I’m shocked, just shocked.
The guardian beahahahahahahabaha
No one is going to look at that propaganda link, but here’s some relevant data.
Poll:
70% of democrats admit they do not know, even generally, Kamala’s policies.
82% of democrats were unaware that she called to end private health insurance
80% of democrats were unaware that she called for an EV mandate by 2035.
What was more interesting there was that despite being able to distinguish between fake and true, the democrats more often chose the fake.
There are lots of studies showing the differences between Demos and Repos, liberal v conservative. Here is an interesting one…
I’m shocked, truly shocked, that one of our Anonymous communists would hope normal Americans would trust a UK communist propaganda rag.
Is it Tampon Tim Walz so weird that one of our resident Anonymous communists would helpfully be providing a link to the differences as analyzed by their favorite far left progressive socialist rag, The Guardian?
Followup: has The Guardian yet apologized to the Soviet Democrat Marxist Useful Idiots who they provide talking points to? An apology to those gullible Marxist Useful Idiots for lying to them for FOUR YEARS that the Soviet Democrats “Russia Dossier” was actual US intelligence agency evidence – all verified before being put in front of FISA courts in requests for warrants to spy on “Repos”?
If they haven’t, I am shocked, truly just shocked. No, not that The Guardian hasn’t apologized for serial lying that would make Bribery Biden proud. I’m actually shocked that our resident Anonymous communists still follow The Guardian because they are clearly mindlessly gullible and eager for communist narratives.
Turns out Cheap Fake American Soviet Democrat Useful Idiots always try to present Marxist Cheap Fake Journalism propaganda. The New York Times – proudly far left – analyzes The Guardian as Marxist left:
The Guardian, Britain’s Left-Wing News Power, Goes Tabloid
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/business/media/guardian-tabloid-uk.html
And they are probably proud of the recognition of their censorship efforts.
As always a great article
Perhaps it’s time to somehow tax those private colleges that do not support the Constitution, or at least end tax breaks, government grants, and government student loans
I know, its hard to not want to censor those you disagree with isn’t it.
That’s not censorship – they can whatever they want, but the government doesn’t have to fund it. Big difference. And this isn’t like an anti-war protest by the students. If you can’t see the difference then you’re blinded by ideology
I know, its hard to not want to censor those you disagree with isn’t it.
I know… you’re just another cowardly Anonymous communist who claims it’s censorship when Marxist indoctrination factories are cut off from governments continuing to award them hundreds of billions of tax dollars – particularly when that money was primarily fleeced from blue collar hard working Americans.
All colleges should be forced to used their endowments to cover all or part of college student loan debt that Biden wants to hoist upon the American taxpayer. The debt should be divvied-up and liability for payment apportioned to colleges based upon the value of their endowment. That way the richer schools can “pay their fair share”.
That was a reply to whig98
All colleges should be forced to used their endowments to cover all or part of college student loan debt that Biden wants to hoist upon the American taxpayer.
How about government puts an end to Obama Biden forcing federal taxpayers to provide student loans to students – while at the same time the Soviet Democrat party theocracy assures those students taking out these loans that future Soviet Democrat governments will transfer responsibility for their loan to those icky blue collar American families?
And at the same time, ending all taxpayer payments to any and all universities with endowments… while those same wealthy universities are standing there with their hands out like they’re Democrat welfare queens pleading poverty.
They’re private entities; the government should respect their right to use their endowments and private donations however they want.
Of course… you could tell them that you were going to apply the Elizabeth Warren/Kamala Harris tax on unrealized capital gains to their endowments…