The Quebec seniors at the La Rive de Grande-Riviere seniors residence are cherishing what many are calling a divine message . . . in a potato. When a cook was cutting potatoes, he found one with a sign of the cross at the center.
Uncategorized
The Fight For Free Speech: University of Chicago Leads Counter-Movement Against Speech Regulation
Below is my column on free speech on college campuses and the courageous decision of the University of Chicago to reject “safe spaces” and speech regulation. We are facing a growing movement to curtail free speech on campuses. Conservatives rightfully complain that they are being silenced as hecklers bar speakers and administrators punish unpopular speech. The forced silence of students and faculty will be the death knell for American higher education. Too many faculty are unwilling to speak against these measures in fear that they will be labeled racist or micro aggressors. Others like University of Chicago Professor Eric Posner have readily embraced speech regulations by belittling college students as just impressionable children.
They think universities are treating students like children. And they are right. But they have also not considered that the justification for these policies may lie hidden in plain sight: that students are children. Not in terms of age, but in terms of maturity. Even in college, they must be protected like children while being prepared to be adults.
So now people who are adults legally will be dismissed as children to justify the imposition of speech codes where faculty dictate what is acceptable or unacceptable viewpoints. It is incumbent upon the rest of us to fight the rising tide of speech regulation and intolerance. To that end, every faculty senate should consider replicating the letter of the University of Chicago to its incoming class, as discussed in the column below.
TRUMP’S TRIBUNALS: THE GOP NOMINEE EMBRACES USE OF GITMO TO TRY CITIZENS
Below is my column in USA Today on Donald Trump’s statement that he thinks that American citizens should be tried at Guantanamo Bay with other “terrible people” accused of terrorism. I have previously criticized Hillary Clinton for her views on free speech and executive power. However, the suggestion that U.S. citizens could be sent for faux trials at Gitmo is truly chilling. Here is the column.
Massachusetts Passes Law Barring Employers From Asking Applicants About Their Salaries
Massachusetts has passed a law (signed by Gov. Charlie Baker) which for the first time would bar employers from asking job applicants about their salaries. It is designed to prevent pay disparity for women. However, it could create uncertainty on how to address a key piece of information used to gauge wage offers for employees.
Clinton Admits That It Is “Fair” To Question Her Truthfulness But Then Denies That The FBI Found That Any Of Her Emails Were Classified
Hillary Clinton admitted this Sunday that it is “fair” for voters to have questions about her truthfulness. However, she then proceeded to make the very type of statement that has undermined her credibility with voters. Despite the express statement of the FBI that her emails contained clearly classified information, including some with classified markings, Clinton insisted that there was no such finding and seemed to deflect blame for her conduct to subordinates. The Washington Post gave Clinton “Four Pinnochios” for her interview on truthfulness and the email scandal. Clearly, Clinton is right that there is “work to do” on the truthfulness thing.
NC voter laws ruled intentionally discriminatory by 4th Circuit Court
By: Cara L. Gallagher, weekend contributor
This is a follow up on N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory
African-American voters in North Carolina were “targeted with almost surgical precision” by the North Carolina legislature, according to a three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote the opinion dismantling, point by point, all the provisions rushed through the Legislature in the days immediately following the landmark voting rights decision in Shelby County v. Holder on June 25, 2013.
In the Shelby decision, the Supreme Court released states that, after passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, were required to clear all changes to voting policies and practices with either a federal court or the Department of Justice. Former slave states, where Jim Crow laws abound that disenfranchised minority voters for decades, were released from the pre-clearance requirement and allowed to make whatever changes they wanted to voting policies. States like North Carolina and Texas moved immediately – within days – to initiate laws increasing restrictions on voter access. Continue reading
