The Great School Purge

Wars on academic freedom, from the McCarthy era to the present.

Priests of Our Democracy: The Supreme Court, Academic Freedom, and the Anti-Communist Purge, by Marjorie Heins, 384 pages, $35.

We ought to be living in a golden age of public discourse, given how many people now have the opportunity to attend college. But we are not. Universities frequently maintain speech codes requiring "inclusion" and "civility," even if that means dumbing down discourse to an exchange of platitudes. Even worse, students have learned they can silence ideas they don't like by claiming that they are offended. If the speaker continues to express such ideas, punishment for "harassment" or "hate speech" often follows, chilling the speech of others who might challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.

Marjorie Heins' new book, Priests of Our Democracy, describes another period when debate was suppressed on American campuses. Heins chronicles the challenges to academic freedom in New York City's public education system in the 1940s and '50s, concentrating on the city government's efforts to root out Communist Party members and sympathizers. But as Heins explains in her introduction, the loyalty oaths and investigations of this period are not "ancient history." Current restrictions on campus speech reinforce the "habit of mind, long prominent in American politics, that seeks simple answers to complex problems, that shuts out nuanced or radical critique, and that demonizes dissent." By delving into the damage this "habit of mind" causes, Heins reminds us why freedom of expression, especially on campuses, is so vitally important.

Heins, a civil liberties lawyer, writer, and teacher, demonstrates that many of the academics caught up in the McCarthy-era purges were not, in fact, dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government. Some joined the Communist Party after the Depression because they were looking for a system that emphasized economic and social security, but they became disillusioned by Stalin's rule. And teachers with strongly leftist leanings frequently joined the New York Teachers Union, which worked toward raising teacher salaries and removing racist textbooks—and which Communist members eventually came to control. By telling the stories of these teachers, Heins brings to life the wrenching choice they faced when they became the targets of an investigation. They could lie under oath about a past association with the Communist Party or related organization, saving their job but risking prosecution for perjury; they could admit the association and "name names" of colleagues, thus saving themselves at the expense of others; or they could admit the association and stop there, thereby becoming unemployable.

Heins frames these individual histories with descriptions of the landmark legal cases that first allowed and ultimately banned the loyalty oaths that provided the excuse to investigate the beliefs of people who refused to sign. The legal discussion is a backdrop to her main story: the devastation of a vibrant New York City academic community that did not stand united against a government-run witch hunt to root out suspected Communists. Although the level of detail is more than the average reader might seek, Heins' clean prose and flowing narrative make this close look at the educational politics of more than half a century ago engaging.

Two Supreme Court decisions are central to this narrative. The first, Adler v. Board of Education, upheld New York's Feinberg Law, which allowed the removal of any educator in the public school system who engaged in "treasonable or seditious acts or utterances" or was a member of a group that supported the overthrow of the United States government. (The investigative committees required teachers who had left the party to prove that they were no longer members.) The Court upheld the law on the grounds that no public school teacher had a constitutional right to teach. If they did not want to submit to inquiries about their loyalty, "they are at liberty to retain their beliefs and associations and go elsewhere."

The second decision, 1967's Keyishian v. Board of Regents, banned loyalty investigations and affirmed that the First Amendment protects academic freedom after all. Writing for the majority, Justice William Brennan said the definitions of treasonable and seditious did not save the provision from being unconstitutionally vague because "the possible scope of 'seditious' utterances or acts has virtually no limit." The Feinberg Law covered the "public display" of any book "containing or advocating, advising or teaching the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force, violence or any unlawful means." That observation, Heins writes, led to the first of Keyishian's "memorable rhetorical questions: 'Does the teacher who carries a copy of the Communist Manifesto on a public street thereby advocate criminal anarchy?'"

The question remains sadly relevant. In 2008, the Affirmative Action Office at Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis found Keith John Sampson, a student-employee, guilty of racial harassment for merely reading a book, Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan, on campus during his work breaks. After the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (full disclosure: the foundation is my employer) intervened on Sampson's behalf and the case attracted extensive news coverage, the university reversed the finding against Sampson and cleared his school record.

Heins argues that Keyishian was a high-water mark rather than a sea change in First Amendment law in the academic setting. She points out that the Keyishian decision, while eloquent in its defense of academic freedom, never defined its scope. The concept is therefore vulnerable to narrowing interpretations, such as the argument that the right of academic freedom belongs to the university, not to the individual professor. Then there are the difficulties in harmonizing academic freedom with universities' overly broad or vague regulations against racial and sexual harassment, made even more complicated in the Internet age when a professor makes controversial remarks outside of the classroom.

Consider a controversy at the University of Denver that started in April 2011. The dean found a veteran professor, Arthur Gilbert, guilty of sexual harassment based on explicit comments he made in a course on international drug policy, which included a unit on "Drugs and Sin in American Life: From Masturbation and Prostitution to Alcohol and Drugs." (Gilbert commented on the benefits of masturbation for prostate health, frequently used profanity in his lectures, showed sexually graphic videos, and once brought a vibrator to class.) The Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity, which conducted the investigation, stated it was not qualified to judge if there were a pedagogical purpose to Gilbert's comments, and a faculty review committee decided that professor's comments were protected under academic freedom. Nevertheless, the Provost refused to reverse the sexual harassment finding, although he reduced the penalty from "sensitivity training" to a single "counseling session."

An ideological investigation can devastate a person's reputation as easily in 2013 as in 1953. But Priests of Our Democracy also shows that universities can stand up for free speech and academic freedom. The University of Chicago and Sarah Lawrence College both refused to cooperate with investigations of Communist infiltration at those institutions in the 1940s and '50s. Refusing to fire any member of his faculty for the professor's ideological sympathies, University of Chicago President Robert Hutchins explained that "free inquiry is indispensable to the good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, [and] that without it they cease to be universities." Similarly, the president and trustees of Sarah Lawrence supported faculty members when the local American Legion demanded that they be fired because of their alleged beliefs. In the face of this resistance, the attacks against faculty members at these two schools stopped. It would have been interesting if Heins, in speculating about what might have happened if more universities had fought back, had analyzed a little more the factors that prompted these two schools to resist. She does make it clear that the leadership of their presidents was critical.

Heins makes a strong case that we must "defend the First Amendment principle of academic freedom as a limit on what government officials, including administrators of public institutions, can do to their teachers and students." She illustrates that the potential for abuse is still great, including a chapter on the suppression of academic speech after 9/11. In doing so, she demonstrates the importance of defending academic freedom against public intolerance of dissent in times of crisis—exactly the times when the country should draw on all its intellectual resources. The preservation of liberty requires Keyishian's affirmation of academic freedom and the importance of universities as a repository of unorthodox ideas.

Find this and hundreds of other interesting books at the Reason Shop, powered by Amazon.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    as Ted replies, my wife makes $140 hourly on the internet she tells me even though we don't have an internet connection or a computer. She has been unemployed for six months but last month her income was $15627 just working on the internet while I'm at work. Here's the site to read more... http://www.moderndirections.com/32.htm

    Meanwhile educators should be free to prevent toy Army guys from decorating cupcakes and to spout commie crap in the schools we're all forced to pay for.

  • Ted S.||

    I reply no such way!

  • Hoofddorp Haarlemmermeer||

    True. It sounds more like Tony.

  • ||

    Tony has no wife. Tony no like girls.

  • Hyperion||

    Tony sad sock puppet

  • Xenocles||

    Tony just pawn in game of life.

  • Hyperion||

    Tony no want live mommies basement, Tony no choice because mean Libertarians won't share

  • Ted S.||

    Tony like Warty? Eeewwwww.

  • Killazontherun||

    He is a legend amongst some people's, you peoples.

  • Concetta897||

    my co-worker's half-sister makes $66/hour on the computer. She has been fired for nine months but last month her check was $14085 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here... http://tinyurl.com/cjkmb3m

  • John||

    http://www.althouse.blogspot.c.....claim.html

    Lawyers who denounced Bush's claims for war powers were uncomfortable with writing memos in support of Obama's war powers. They did it anyway of course. But life is so uncomfortable being a whore.

    HAHAHA

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Speaking of whores....

    Karzai is very pissed off that he's not getting enough of the vig:

    A deadly blast Saturday in the Afghan capital, Karzai said, showed that the "Taliban are serving the foreigners and are not against the foreigner." ...


    And Karzai, on Sunday, said such attacks show "that Taliban want longer presence of foreigners -- not their departure from Afghanistan."
    Hours later, a scheduled news conference between Hagel and Karzai was canceled.


    In October, he complained the United States was failing to supply Afghan forces with weapons needed to fight insurgents.
    Then-U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta responded at the time that "it would be helpful if (Karzai), every once in a while, expressed his thanks for the sacrifices that have been made by those who have fought and died for Afghanistan, rather than criticizing them."
  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Karzai is (a) playing a winning strategy in Afghan politics by criticizing the occupiers, and (b) correct about the Taliban's desire to keep the US there as long as possible, so the Afghan people focus more on US atrocities and less on the Taliban prohibiting soccer and shaving.

    Panetta, as usual, is a moron.

  • Cytotoxic||

    he Taliban's desire to keep the US there as long as possible, so the Afghan people focus more on US atrocities and less on the Taliban prohibiting soccer and shaving.

    An odd strategy given that the Taliban can't take power as long as US forces are there. And there are hardly any US 'atrocities' to speak of although granted that doesn't necessarily mean Afghans won't focus on imaginary ones.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The Taliban has informal power over large swaths of the country already.

    As for the atrocities, I know you stand with John and Lindsey so there's no point discussing it.

  • ||

    It would be helpful if Tulpa, every once in a while, expressed his thanks for the sacrifices that have been made by those who have fought and died for Afghanistan, rather than criticizing them.

  • John||

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/03.....-maryland/

    A Maryland state senator has crafted a bill to curb the zeal of public school officials who are tempted to suspend students as young as kindergarten for having things — or talking about things, or eating things — that represent guns, but aren’t actually anything like real guns.

    And the best part

    The bill also includes a section mandating counseling for school officials who fail to distinguish between guns and things that resemble guns. School officials who fail to make such a distinction more than once would face discipline themselves.

  • ||

    I bet the collective wailing and gnashing of teeth is actually audible in space.

  • Marcy G||

    You Teapublicans never learn.

    Study after study shows that violent toys and violent video games cause more violence.

    Boys should not be taught to play with violent toys! They should only play with nice gender neutral toys.

    Why is this state senator wasting time with such hate like this. He should be proposing new legislation to protect women and children! That is the proper role of government.

    We won, you lost, Teapublicans!

  • fish_remote||

    Tony...you finally had the procedure.....congratulations.

  • Irish||

    Yesterday Marcy G. posted something that was like "I'm back, Teapublicans!"

    This leads me to believe it's Mary.

  • fish_remote||

    Yeah but my first shot in any exchange is always at Tony, T o n y, or S o c k p u p p e t until the fog of war clears.

  • Ted S.||

    I thought Marcy G's post was supposed to be parody. What do I know?

  • ||

    I thought it was parody also. It really is too stupid to be in earnest.

    Right?

  • ||

    Hmmm, I'd say that only ranks like a 3 on the troll/sockpuppet scale. Needs more CAPS and scare quotes.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Parody??

  • SIV||

    So communist purges result in executions and gulags and American anti-communist purges result in job losses. American Exceptionalism FTW!

    One thing I'm slightly confused about: When William F Buckley purged the anti-communists from the conservative movement, what kind of purge was that?

  • Killazontherun||

    One that made America safer for communist, especially Trotskyites.

  • Ray||

    So, libertarianism is all about having Communists spew their bullshit at taxpayer expense? Good to know.

  • SIV||

    Government employees can't be fired for anything they say because 1st AMENDMENT just like they can't be drug tested because 4th AMENDMENT.The BoRs doesn't apply to citizens it is only a government employment contract.

  • Xenocles||

    I reject this theory out of hand. Firing someone is an administrative action, not a legal one. The speech of government employees is in fact restricted and subject to disciplinary action. Some can even go to jail for the things they say, which I regard as contrary to the 1A but is a well established practice.

  • SIV||

    I reject this theory out of hand.

    So do I. I was recalling the Popehat piece saying it was wrong to offer your opinion on tenure for the professor who called for Wayne LaPierre's figurative head to be impaled on a metaphorical stake, or whatever that ginned up "1st Amendment" controversy was.

  • Xenocles||

    Yeah, I was saying the same thing to those series of articles. If it were true there could be no sexual harassment laws, for one thing.

    But we're supposed to believe that some government file clerk can tell his boss to go fuck himself when he's asked for his TPS report and the 1A shields him from discipline? I don't think so.

  • John Galt||

    Don't worry, the Bill of Rights aren't for lower level non-governmental U.S. citizens, but the DHS has a bunch of MRAPs full of hollow point bullets with our names written all over them. So it's not like we get nothing.

  • Marcy G||

    Teapublicans, your leader Randy Pall sure made a fool of hisself when he came out of the closet in support of the Taliban!

  • SIV||

    The Aqua Buddha will smite all you lame sockpuppets.

  • ||

    Hisself?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We won, you lost, Teapublicans!

    BORING.

  • Marcy G||

    You Teapublicans are boring! You cant even support your own president!

  • Irish||

    I give it a D.

  • fish_remote||

    I give it a high C+ because it seems to really believe it's own nonsense.

    Okay...just a C because it actually included a "hisself". Really poor form.

  • SumpTump||

    That jsut looks liek its gonna be cool!

    www.PrivacyAnon.tk

  • Marcy G||

    You leader Mittens lost and your new leader Randy Pall will lose! Hillary 2016!

  • fish_remote||

    I do hope you're right.

    How are those fabulous cheekbones?

  • Marcy G||

    That don't make any sense, but I am happy to see that your support Hillary. Obama is the best but Hillary will be great too.

  • Irish||

    I like this troll because it doesn't even try to be consistent. It's a social conservative that raves about violent toys but it likes Obama and Hillary. It is such a confused troll.

  • Cytotoxic||

    D

  • SIV||

    It's a social conservative that raves about violent toys

    You are retarded. Social progressives hate violent toys. Social conservatives buy them for their children even before they are born.

  • Irish||

    What's it like constantly having a pole up your ass? Does it hurt when you clench your sphincter in impotent internet rage?

  • SIV||

    You're projecting again. Get off the internet and clean your Mom's basement.

  • ||

    Don't mind SIV, he's just grumpier than most.

  • Calidissident||

    It's a left-right combination. Look at all the SoCons that tried to deflect blame to violent video games for the Sandy Hook shooting, instead of defending gun rights

  • ||

    It triez moar harderz.

  • ||

    Who the fuck is Randy Pall?

    Marcy, please go back to the 3rd grade and begin your spelling and grammar lessons anew.

  • mnarayan||

    Ignore all these idiots. I at least got a few chuckles, even if you do go a little overboard.

  • Josua||

    Two points:

    1. It seems like the author supposes that there is nothing wrong with communism, why it's just another philosophy - who really knows if it's wrong? I know that it's wrong. It's evil. It's disgusting. Communism is a cult with manipulative kleptomaniacs at the top and idiot weak-willed morons for followers. Free enterprise and individualism are better. Free enterprise and individualism are superior. Communism is worthless and should be disparaged as such.

    2. If there were no government-run schools, this problem would exist. Private schools could hire and fire as they like and parents could choose what kind of education they want their kids to receive. Get rid of government-run schools and the problem is solved.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Freedom requires the freedom to be wrong.

    I'm less and less confident in 2 in practice as time goes on. There are multitudinous ways for ignorant buttmunches in govt and in the populace to strongarm private organizations into squelching speech.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    When I saw the title I thought this was about the situation in the bathroom after a Michelle Obama approved/pink slime addled lunch period.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Heins, a civil liberties lawyer, writer, and teacher, demonstrates that many of the academics caught up in the McCarthy-era purges were not, in fact, dedicated to the overthrow of the U.S. government. Some joined the Communist Party after the Depression because they were looking for a system that emphasized economic and social security, but they became disillusioned by Stalin's rule.

    Uh...

    Huh.

    There is no right to employment at taxpayer expense. There is merit in maintaining academic freedom in the university setting, but 1) there shouldn't be any public funding for universities, and 2) most of those targeted in the "Red Scare" of the 40s and 50s were in fact K-12 teacher who are entirely undeserving of considerations of academic freedom.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, it goes more like:

    1. There shouldn't be any public funding for education.

    2. But if you fuck up #1 and allow public funding for education, you don't get to practice political viewpoint discrimination when hiring the employees of public education.

    Against my #2, what have you got? Oliver Fucking Wendell Holmes? Holmes deserved to dance at the end of a rope.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    K-12 public schools are not publicly funded, they're publicly owned and operated by government. The whole point of democracy is to select for people in government with decisionmaking power who represent their constituents -- and what government functionary has more effective control over citizens' lives than a K-12 teacher? The average American child who attends public school spends around half of his waking hours in these institutions -- it is perfectly reasonable to expect discretion in selecting those who control and enact the particulars of this education. Communism is a vile, immoral ideology responsible for more deaths and misery than any other. That is something that anyone who called themselves educated in the 40s and 50s should have been well aware of, given that those years represented the twilight of one of the most murderous Communists of all time. I have no problem with political selection for a job that is already in fact highly ideologically charged, by design (see Dewey, John).

    When an employee's political viewpoint has a strong chance of impacting their performance and outcomes, then I have no problem with firing that employee -- and just as a white supremacist should not be placed in a position of reviewing immigration applications, so too a Communist shouldn't be entrusted with the education of impressionable minds, especially in politically charged subjects like social studies.

  • Fluffy||

    All of the practical reasons you name are absolutely irrelevant, for the simple reason that conditioning public employment on holding approved political beliefs violates the 1st Amendment by conditioning the extension of a public benefit on refraining from engaging in speech.

    If you can't run your public schools while obeying the 1st Amendment, fuck you, close them.

    You seem to think it's up to me to devise a way for you to attain your policy goal, and it's not. Fuck your policy goal. Give up your policy goal. Accept that you can't achieve it.

    It's no different and no better than having a policy that says that Jews or Mormons can't be public school teachers. The Book of Mormon has just as much stupid in it as Das Kapital.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Government employment isn't a public benefit.

  • Fluffy||

    Yes, it is.

    It is unreservedly a state punishment if the state says, "We have these jobs we're hiring for, but we won't hire you for any of them if we engage in speech we don't like."

    It's absolutely no different from a mayor of a town announcing that anyone who publicly supports his opponent won't be eligible to apply for a city job. There is NO WAY that's not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Is it any different from the military requiring a minimum in physical ability? Why or why not?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Is it "state punishment" when the government announces new jobs for gender studies majors to study housework distribution or some other stupid shit, a job for which mathematicians like myself are going to be discriminated against?

    If refusal to employ counts as coercion when the govt does it, it's coercion when the private sector does it too. Then the left-libertarians are right about all the labor laws and anti-discrimination laws imposed on the private sector being consistent (and indeed necessary) with libertarianism.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    What Tulpa said. Government employees serve us, not the other way around. The extent to which a government employee's political viewpoint affects his ability to do what he was hired to do should therefore determine his eligibility and continued employment where that is a relevant concern. The US military, for example, regularly employs loyalty oaths and can discharge those who profess allegiance to all manner of anti-Constitutional organizations -- and rightly so.

    It has nothing to do with "stupidity" -- I said nothing about stupidity in my response to you. Mormonism, as far as I know, has nothing in it which precludes acceptance a broadly democratic, rights-respecting, Constitutional state. The same cannot be said for allegiance to the CPUSA, which during Stalin's lifetime was a Stalinist fifth column tied to a vicious, existing regime.

  • sarcasmic||

    Government employees serve "the public" which means everyone except any particular individual they may encounter. "The public" means everyone but you. That's why they treat you like shit. They serve the "greater good" which means "fuck you" to any individual citizen.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    All the more reason to return the favor and tell them "fuck you" when they want special privileges to bite the ass that feeds them.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Very true, which is why it's even more important to have public employees on a tight leash rather than giving them "rights" that have nothing to do with libertarian freedoms.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I've got plenty against your #2, so to speak. So you're going to give extra constitutional rights to people who are already paid with forcibly extracted money?

    If you fuck up #1 it's over. There is no plan B in libertarianism.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I should clarify: #2 has zilch to do with coercion. Libertarianism is about minimizing coercion, so there's no libertarian position on hiring practices.

  • Fluffy||

    That's moronic, Tulpa.

    It's absolutely and directly analogous to saying:

    1. We should not have Medicaid spending.

    2. If we have Medicaid spending, we can't have a rule that says Jews can't sign up.

    Would you show up and say, "Well, since there's no right to Medicaid, I don't care about the No Jews rule. There's no plan B in libertarianism!"

    I'd hope not. Then again, you say some pretty stupid shit sometimes, so who knows?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You're confusing equality with liberty.

    There is no more coercion in the case where money is extracted from taxpayers to fund medical care for poor non-Jews, then in the case where money is extracted from taxpayers to fund medical care for all poor people. Indeed there is LESS coercion in the case where Jews aren't covered by Medicaid, because less money needs to be extracted.

    Now, you'd have to be a seriously fucked up person to advocate for Jews being excluded, but there is not a libertarian-based difference between that policy and the non-discriminatory one.

  • Calidissident||

    Equality under the law is a big part of libertarianism.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't see that anywhere in the NAP or the pledge to noninitiate force.

    Libertarians also tend to believe in equality, but it's a separate concept.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't see that anywhere in the NAP or the pledge to noninitiate force.

    Who died and declared the NAP the be-all and end-all of libertarianism?

    I don't subscribe to the NAP.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The NAP is the heart and soul of libertarianism. It does need some compromises with reality but stapling equality onto it isn't one of them.

  • Fluffy||

    It does need some compromises with reality

    Then it's not a principle and it's of no use to us.

    Look, the IP debates convinced me. "Intellectual property is not consistent with the NAP." You convinced me, guys. Convinced me to say Fuck the NAP.

  • ||

    I don't see that anywhere in the NAP or the pledge to noninitiate force.

    Libertarians also tend to believe in equality, but it's a separate concept.

    The NAP is in essence equality.

    The NAP is the limit to your freedom. You can do whatever you wish PROVIDED you do not infringe upon the rights of others in doing so. The NAP applies to everyone, therefor everyone has equal rights.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    But that equality is just a side effect of the NAP. Attempting to force equality* onto a situation where NAP has already been violated is not part of libertarianism; a libertarian can choose to do so or not to do so, based on reasons external to libertarianism.

    * of course it's NOT equality since rich/middle class people can't get Medicaid.

  • ||

    Shit Tulpa, sometimes you say things worth hearing and sometimes I wonder if you have brain damage.

    Are you on with that 'I dont see that in the NAP' nonsense again?

    Tulpa here thinks that the NAP somehow authorizes deadly force against even the slightest infraction of ones liberty or property rights. Dont try and tell him it doesnt or he will just say "I dont see that in the NAP". Oh wait. He is a mathematician. I think I just answered a question I have had for decades.....

    What kind of car do you drive Tulpa? I am asking because I dont want to accidentally lean up against it in a parking lot somewhere. You might shoot me down in my tracks.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Tulpa here thinks that the NAP somehow authorizes deadly force against even the slightest infraction of ones liberty or property rights.

    No. The NAP does not apply to force used against the slightest infraction of one's rights, because such force is not initiatory. So, any rules about retaliatory/preventive force must come from another source.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    And of course if you're concerned about equality, what about the equality of non-government employees?

  • Fluffy||

    And of course if you're concerned about equality, what about the equality of non-government employees?

    I want every citizen subject to the law of the state and subject to taxation to support the state to have an equal opportunity to apply for state-funded benefits.

    A system where the majority in a democratic system can conspire to exclude holders of minority viewpoints from state benefits subordinates me to them in our mutual relationship to the state.

    The state is not entitled to declare any political viewpoint anathema because doing so constitutes an impermissible interference by the ruling faction in a political debate that is ongoing and can never end. I find that as incompatible with libertarianism as I would find a state-funded propaganda machine favoring one political party.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I want every citizen subject to the law of the state and subject to taxation to support the state to have an equal opportunity to apply for state-funded benefits.

    ...which has fuck-all to do with state *employment* for a specific task.

    The USAF excludes asthmatics and all sorts of people from recruitment. As far as I know, asthmatics are just as much US citizens as anyone else -- and in fact, asthmatics have less of a choice over their condition than a dedicated fifth-columnist Communist has over their personal ideology.

    The fact is that the CPUSA was a fifth-columnist party which towed the lion for a hostile, vile Stalinist power. You may not like it, but restricting employment of sensitive government jobs to those who aren't plotting its demise has nothing to do with libertarianism, and in fact there was a rational basis for some many of the actions taken along those lines during the Red Scare.

  • ||

    Last time I checked, asthma is a physical disease that people don't have control of. If the USAF said that communist (presumably communist who still love America) or Mormons couldn't sign up, because of those specific things, that would be state discrimination.

    State discrimination is fucking wrong.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Wrong, perhaps, but not incompatible with libertarianism.

  • Fluffy||

    Everyone please take note that in this post Tulpa officially declares that he thinks it's compatible with libertarianism for the government to exclude Jews from government programs.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That's not what I said, Fluffy.

    I said that excluding Jews doesn't make the program less libertarian. Having Medicaid at all is incompatible with libertarianism regardless of who's eligible; demanding equality does nothing to remedy the coercive nature.

  • Hyperion||

    it's compatible with libertarianism for the government to exclude Jews from government programs

    Joos is the spawn of the devil. They prowl my neighborhood at night, dressed in only black. You can't even see them until you are right up on them, and then they stare menacingly at you. I know they are drinking the blood of children because they're vampire like creatures, but I don't have enough proof yet to expose them.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Note that the attempted Gotcha that Fluffy was pulling on me had nothing specifically to do with Jews; substitute "people with detached earlobes" or "Boyz II Men fans" and it's the same argument. I should have called him on a quasi-Godwin red herring but chose not to go there.

  • SIV||

    There is a widely held view (backed up by court decisions)that government employees can't be fired for things non-governmet employees will go to jail for.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yes, I know, but it's a stupid view IMHO. No extra rights for public teat suckers.

  • SIV||

    Government employees can't be fired for dog fucking and child molestation. Presumably they can be convicted but I think that is just an unpaid leave of absence.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, those are special govt employees.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Government employees serve us, not the other way around.

    Now, that's funny.

  • SIV||

    It's a cookbook!

  • John Galt||

    ROTDFLMSFAO!!!!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • Hyperion||

    I'm still going with Warty, but I can't get odds for my bet.

  • Virginian||

    So I just rage quit Netflix. I was watching Season 2 of the Walking Dead, because I haven't kept up so no spoilers please. It was the third episode, and the elderly vet guy on the farm was telling people they couldn't have guns on them, because he didn't like it.

    What the fuck? From a political point of view, I obviously am a big gun guy, but leaving that aside, it totally breaks my immersion into the show. There are zombies walking around, it's rural Georgia, and the old guy who lives on a farm is not comfortable with people going armed.

    WTF?

    Is this stupidity going to continue, or should I keep watching it and give it a chance?

  • Hyperion||

    That shit ruins about half the movies or series that I try to watch.

    If I could only watch and not notice the underlying progressive/feminist political bias, then I would be ok, but of course for a H&R poster, it's pretty much impossible to not notice.

    Ignorance is bliss.

  • Ted S.||

    One of the good things about being a fan of old movies is that a lot of the movies don't have crap like this.

  • Xenocles||

    Never seen any of it, but maybe they're setting him up to be eaten or a traitor later?

  • Virginian||

    Eh, he's a sensible levelheaded sort from what I've seen. Plus of the group he's telling can't go armed, it's two cops and one experienced outdoorsman type.

    Plus...it's a freaking zombie apocalypse. Earlier the one cop was refusing to give the blonde chick a gun because she wasn't trained. He then left his Glock field stripped on a table when the zombies showed up. That's training.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Stick with it. Season 2 is slow in comparison to Season 1, but it's worth it just to get to Season 3 when the writers get their mojo back.

    And the whole gun thing rectifies itself, in spades.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Hm...there's a bunch of series I'm considering getting into and I was wavering on TWD. I guess TWD can wait.

  • MJGreen||

    As I recall, he's more uncomfortable with strangers caring weapons near his family. Which, given what we know of Shane, is understandable.

    There was a reviewer recently who actually said that, because of Sandy Hook, he was uncomfortable seeing a child fire a gun on the show. What that has to do with Sandy Hook, or why a kid properly using a gun to defend his family from fucking zombies is objectionable, I couldn't figure out. Thankfully, even the largely leftist commentariat agreed it was ridiculous.

    On the show in general: that season gets dumber and duller. The current, third, season is largely more fun.

  • Ted S.||

    Yes, but Brandon de Wilde looked up to Shane. He was also about the only one to do so, considering how short Alan Ladd was.

  • ||

    I just saw The Hobbit. Or part of it anyway. After I saw the second reference to drug use I quit watching. It was awful for more reasons than that though.

    Not long ago someone linked to a discussion between Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn forcing the Lord of the Rings trilogy into their narrative by proclaiming, among other absurdities, that the whole middle earth war was about men maintaining their control of the pot trade. Apparently Peter Jackson had read that discussion as well.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Gary Busey on Hobbits

  • Virginian||

    Thank you for that.

  • ||

    Didnt he fall off of a motorcycle a few years ago and suffer serious brain damage? It shows.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    1988.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    People have used drugs since prehistory, so of course hobbits and dwarves did. Don't be a prude, man.

  • Acosmist||

    It gets better, and, not trying to spoil anything here, events overwhelm prejudice about that particular issue.

    I really don't like the show but if you did, and if THAT turned you off, I will say people who like the show think season 2 sucked hard, and they also think it gets insanely better in season 3.

  • Virginian||

    So it's like Dexter in that there is a season that is kind of meh, but followed by a much better one?

  • Acosmist||

    People seem to really, really like the third season.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, like Decter 3 was meh but Dexter 4 was excellent.

    OK, I think I can soldier through. Besides, it's a pretty standard horror trope to have moronic characters that cause you to yell at the screen.

  • ||

    Two things to keep in mind about Hershel:

    1) He's pretty religious, which is consistent with being a rural white farmer and maybe consistent with not being totally comfortable with guns. Think of him as a kind of quaker.

    2) The farm was mostly spared the ravages of the zombie apocalypse, so he's perhaps not taking the problem as seriously as he should, at this point in the show.

    I actually liked Season 2. The first half is slow, but has a stunning payoff.

    The thing about Walking Dead is that there are so many threads to follow that the overall story kind of moves at a crawl. You get a tiny bit of plot movement in each storyline in each episode.

  • Hyperion||

    Whatever post apocalyptic series you want to watch on Netflix, DO NOT watch this:

    Retarded Limeys after the Apocalypse

    Whenever the group of survivors are threatened by a bunch of bad guys, with guns, they confront them and talk tough, while having no guns, and the bad guys always then leave, but threaten to be back. It's ridiculous, not even close to believable, but I guess the Brits don't notice.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh this isn't that unbelievable. I'm kind of surprised that the Brits in the show aren't just wandering around eyes wide in fear, desperate for a government apparatchik to tell them what to do. Nourishment from authority.

  • Hyperion||

    I think in this case, if I remember correctly, the government is all hidden away in their underground bunkers, after they released a designer plague to kill off most of the civilian population. So, there is no government for them to rely on.

    I thought the show would be really cool, but I had to stop watching it after only 2 or 3 episodes because it was so stupid.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I tried to watch the Walking Dead, but I just couldn't find a reason to give a shit. When I started actively rooting for the zombies, I gave up.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Same with that space alien invasion series.

    Go ahead; kill all the fucking humans, see if I care. They deserve it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's like most writers of most shows/movies can't not make the main characters-including the ones you are supposed to like-total imbeciles. Come to think of it, a big part of the post-Sopranos TV renaissance has been refreshingly non-retarded mains.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    because of Sandy Hook, he was uncomfortable seeing a child fire a gun on the show.

    Because he's sorry those poor slaughtered kids never had an opportunity to fight back? That is tragic.

  • Xenocles||

    because of Sandy Hook,

    Because of all the children who fired guns at Sandy Hook? I'm confused.

  • Sevo||

    OT:
    "The hypocrisy in Silicon Valley's big talk on innovation"
    Brain-dead lefty argues government is better at developing new stuff than business, 'cause "Rewarding profits, not risk".
    http://www.sfgate.com/technolo.....342160.php
    The Chron isn't about to run out of ignoramuses.

  • ||

    The author used a red herring disingenuously:

    Refusing to fire any member of his faculty for the professor's ideological sympathies, University of Chicago President Robert Hutchins explained that "free inquiry is indispensable to the good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, [and] that without it they cease to be universities."

    Well, a person can freely inquire into the fundamentals, ways, and means of communism without being also a believer, from which it is a half step at most to prosetylization and apologetics. If we assume that Robert Hutchins was competent intellectually to run a university, then it must be that he understood the distinction between inquiry and belief.

    So how are we to explain Hutchins' apparent willingness to provide criminals with a safe harbor? Perhaps eliminating commies would have crippled a department that he considered a sacred cow.

  • Almanian!||

    You're implying he should have used the red herring ingenuously - I have to agree

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Well, the question is whether said professor is encouraging others to partake in the inquiry who disagree with him.

    If you're using your place as master of the class to bar, or even fail to invite, other points of view, you can't wrap yourself in the cloak of free inquiry when your master comes knocking. The measure you use will be the measure used on you.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Yeah who gives a shit Dennis Rodman is on apprentice

  • Hyperion||

    Did he bring his bud, Lil Kim Jr? If so, I am watching.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Yes, but he's dressed as Gary Busey

  • Virginian||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T2S8GHzxqc

    Busey calls Danny Trejo a butthorn.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    US beating Canada in Baseball is like Germany beating Faroe Islands in soccer.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Cretinous bullshit

    This is the same Paul who is a fierce opponent of all gun control laws, who wanted to push a bill to nullify the executive actions Obama took after Newtown, who has revealed that he and his staff go about armed, and who urges everyone else to do so too.

    Let’s see if we can connect these two political beliefs in the Randian universe.

    On the one hand: The government cannot be trusted to identify a person as being so much of a threat he should be killed.

    On the other: any random citizen can.

    The government should never be allowed to sidestep the system of laws we have in place to ensure that an American suspected of wrongdoing receives justice. That’s bad.

    But individuals — Paul would like to see every teacher carry a gun — can and should. That’s good. Indeed, we should pass “stand your ground” laws to ease this process.

    What a mendacious douchebag.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Rand should really, really respond to Steinberg by noting that while Steinberg can't be trusted to identify a person as a threat, because Steinberg is an alcoholic and a wife-beater most of us possess the self-control to not murder our wives in a drunken rage.

  • Virginian||

    Are you telling me that leftists, because they are often shitty human beings, assume everyone else is a shitty human being who requires constant supervision and threat of punishment in order to behave themselves?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And thusly, you succintly summarize the whole of Thomas Hobbes's philosophical argument.

  • Virginian||

    I thought Hobbes was a moron in the 9th grade the first time I read him. Nothing has changed my opinion since.

  • Hyperion||

    Are you telling me that leftists, because they are often shitty human beings

    They are the modern day equivalent of the luddites. They need to go the way of the dodo, via the law of natural selection. Do they believe in science? Well, if they do, they need to kill themselves now, to move history along.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    SOME leftists, yes. Many others are just naive, while most leftists in office are just in it for power and money and will use the naifs and projectionists to justify their acts.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You can be a naive, shitty human being.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Xenocles||

    Paul shouldn't respond at all because you don't fight below your weight.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Let’s see if we can connect these two political beliefs in the Randian universe."

    To rephrase, "Let's see if I can set new records for stupidity. Yes! Nailed it."

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Letter to the Editor in my paper:

    The lack of respect being shown to Hugo Chávez after his premature death from cancer is appalling. Our prime minister once again shows his lack of respect for international protocol, not to mention a total lack of empathy, in denigrating an elected head of state, suggesting that Venezuela will now be better off.
    Chávez was re-elected fairly with a much higher percentage of the popular vote than Stephen Harper has ever got. He cared for the disadvantaged and made significant strides in reducing poverty and providing health and education benefits for the downtrodden.
    What a pleasant change from some of the so-called advanced nations, which are preoccupied with profits for large corporations. The popularity of Chávez appears to have so upset those beholden to a capitalist society that they would stoop to kicking the man even in death.


    This is why I don't read Letters to the Editor

  • BlueBook||

    Do people troll letters to the editor now?

    Also, isn't kicking a dead man less hurtful than kicking him while he's alive?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    You know which other elected head of state's death prompted prime ministers to say his country would be better off with him dead...

  • Almanian!||

    Ethiopia?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Hyperion||

    The popularity of Chávez appears to have so upset those beholden to a capitalist society that they would stoop to kicking the man even in death.

    Maybe Venezuela can sell tickets to capitalists for one kick to the body part of choice to the publically displayed dead body of Chavez.

    Just envision it, on your tour of Venezuela, after a nice rump in the burdel with the putas bonitas, seeing the falls, and wonderful rain forests, you stop off in Caracas to give a swift kick to El Presidente.

    I wonder if I can pre-order?

  • Irish||

    I was going to say, it sure is nice of Venezuela to put him on permanent display. If I'm going to kick a dead man, it's way easier to just break some glass rather than dig the son of a bitch up.

  • Sevo||

    "Maybe Venezuela can sell tickets to capitalists for one kick to the body part of choice to the publically displayed dead body of Chavez."

    Not sure I'd pay to piss on the remains. Depends on whether there's a line or not.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Firing Communists from teaching roles may or may not have been a good idea, but it was certainly more justifiable, and less retarded, than what's going on now.

    Maybe the commie and ex-commie teachers could have been relied on to behave professionally in the classroom, or maybe it would have been overkill to get rid of them after they became disillusioned, but we can't pretend that it was simply irrational to be worried about the issue.

    There's no moral equivalence between (a) firing someone who joined a party allied to a hostile nuclear-armed foreign power which was hostile to academic freedom and (b) punishing a student for reading a book about (against) the Klan. The judicial hypothetical about punishing someone for carrying a copy of the Communist manifesto represented a possible application of the statute, and in a First Amendment challenge you have to take even hypothetical possibilities seriously. The incident with the student and the Klan book was real, not hypothetical - they actually wanted to punish a student because an idiot coworker flipped out that he had a book about the Klan.

    Even someone who isn't a fan of the communist purge can see it as a serious issue. An actual purge of a book-reader (OMG the Klan!) is simply retarded.

  • Almanian!||

    SHUT THE FUCK UP! "THE BIBLE" IS ON AND I DON'T WANT ANY SPOILERS!

    OK, I hear they throw the ring in a volcano at the end, BUT DON'T TELL ME ANY MORE!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Tonight on the Bible - guess who's back! And he's not in a good mood."

  • Almanian!||

    Jay Leno?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Skinnier - he's had Pilates, after all.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Gary Busey gets eliminated?

  • Hyperion||

    Can you email me when the locusts appear from the bottomless pit? I love that part.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Leviticus, Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Philemon are the best parts to go to the bathroom.

  • Ted S.||

    Are they including the deuterocanonical books/Apocrypha?

  • Almanian!||

    Also - it hit 60 in southern Michigan today. Yes, I rode the hell out of the motorcycles.

    I also fired up the snowblower I picked up on clearance yesterday. I'm ready for next year, as well as any late-winter surprises. DO YOUR WORST, MOTHER NATURE! I've shoveled my last heavy snow!

  • Hyperion||

    60s for 2 days straight here in Balmer. But, Michigan... it's just a teaser, amigo, your long suffering is not finished...

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    It was 19 here today and I saw lots of bikes. What took you so long?

  • Almanian!||

    The Ninja don't run so good on snow, dude...it's just now melted.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    City streets are dry and clear of snow.

  • ||

    Y'all have my sympathy. You should move south.

    I planted tomatoes and peppers this weekend.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    So what
    In June the sun sets at 9:45PM
    I wouldn't trade that for anything.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The "Hound" is a Great Dane with vampire dentures.

  • Almanian!||

    "You're Israelites."

    "You've heard of us?"

    That is some Monty Python dialogue right there...

  • The Late P Brooks||

    And then Jesus says, "I'm not dead yet. I think I'll go for a walk."

  • Hyperion||

    Nobody fucks with the Jesus. I will now go and smite Tony, and after I will create women with 3 boobs.

  • Sevo||

    Hyperion| 3.10.13 @ 8:41PM |#
    "Nobody fucks with the Jesus."

    "What's this day of rest shit? What's this bullshit? I don't fuckin' care! It don't matter to Jesus. But you're not foolin' me, man"
    The dude abides.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Mark Giffords caught buying AR, says he was buying it to give to the cops.

    What a fucking penis.

  • Virginian||

    He's the Right People. Not the peasants, the unwashed narod who cannot be trusted with weapons.

    Someone called the Democrats neofeudalists. I forget who it was, but it certainly fits.

  • Hyperion||

    Penis is too good of a term for that POS.

  • John Galt||

    How about royal douche bag. Royal because he believes he, and his pal's, rules should only be for we commoners never for themselves.

  • Hyperion||

    Which is exactly the reason that they don't want YOU people to have dangerous assault weapons.

  • Xenocles||

    What do you mean "you people?"

  • Hyperion||

    YOU people! You peons, you know, you peasants that need us elite to tell you what to do?

  • Xenocles||

    Arguably he was buying it as demonstration of how "easy" the background check was. On the other hand, how hard of a time do you think a retired O-6 astronaut is going to have passing a background check? I guarantee the guy passed at least four deep ones in his career.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Arguably he was buying it as demonstration of how "easy" the background check was.

    Wouldn't it be smart to have someone document the transaction and make some sort of announcement to the media if this was the fact? Or maybe not buy a gun for personal use in the same transaction?

    Hell, I half admire the guy for taking a bunch of anti-gunner's money with his pac and buying an AR with it, that'd be awesome if he didn't advocate taking my rights away.

  • John Galt||

    He wasn't demonstrating anything except what an unbelievable hypocrite he is.

  • Xenocles||

    Well, yes, yes it would. I'm just saying it's not a completely implausible idea. If that was his play he did it very stupidly, but people do lots of things stupidly.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I appreciate the diabolical advocacy, but... his story would require a level of stupidity so pure you could power Japan with it. In addition to GBN's points, I don't see how his purchase could prove what he claimed to be trying to prove. Occam says he was buying it for himself and then made shit up when he got caught.

  • C. Anacreon||

    correct by the razor's edge

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Plus I just realized... once you pass the background check, you have to leave the store in possession of the firearm. If you put it on layaway or place an order, you do the background check when you come to pick it up, not when you buy it.

    So his claim that he hasn't picked it up yet stinks to high heaven, since he also says he already passed the background check.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Mark Giffords caught buying AR, says he was buying it to give to the cops.

    So he lied on the 4473 where it asked if he was the actual purchaser of the firearm? He and David Gregory should be cellmates.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    As much as I'd like to see that, gifting isn't a straw purchase.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Unless you're giving it to a spouse, parent, child, grandparent, or grandchild it is a straw purchase. Read the question it asks on the 4473.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Huh, you must have a different 4473 in PA. No mention of relatives in mine.

    Question 11.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, you are the actual transferee/buyer if you are purchasing the firearm for yourself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for yourself (e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn/retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANS- FEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “NO” to question 11.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones. However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a. However, you may not transfer a firearm to any person you know or have reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), (n), or (x). Please note: EXCEPTION: If you are picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 11.a. and may proceed to question 11.b.

    ATF 4473 April 2012 page 4

    http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Arguably he was buying it as demonstration of how "easy" the background check was.

    Maybe he was planning to sell it to the narcoterroristas, so they coulod murder some American tourists with it. To prove our desperate need for stricter gun control.

  • Xenocles||

    I suppose a "Life of David Gale" maneuver is out of the question.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    What a game by the Penguins. Too bad I'm stuck with the Jets game.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • John Galt||

    Not in my cup of tea. The only thing I have going is I probably won't live to see idiots mess life up as much as they will given enough time.

  • widget||

    Gore explained that spiders are difficult to farm “for obvious reasons,” yet their silk is extremely valuable.

    Al Gore's is the 21st century's Marco Polo.

  • SIV||

    The inventor of the internet warns of manbearpig robosourcing and the stalker economy

  • John Galt||

    Shouldn't that story have been posted to the Spaced out & pseudo-science section.

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    "And teachers with strongly leftist leanings frequently joined the New York Teachers Union, which worked toward raising teacher salaries and removing racist textbooks...".

    They sound like really great people. Are there any of them still alive? I'd like to felate them, to thank them for trying to save AmeriKKKa from private property and the freedom of association. Commies are always half good. At least, that's what I frequently read on this site.

    Now if you'll excuse me, the Emma Goldman fan club is meeting at the local university. I never miss a meeting.

  • SumpTump||

    OK wow, so who comes up with all that crazy stuff man.
    www.EliteAnon.tk

  • buybuydandavis||

    I think she misses the point.

    We have little debate on campuses because we *failed* to root out the leftists. They're fundamentally opposed to that freedom of inquiry. The purpose of any power is to use that power to gain more power for the left.

    They're only for academic freedom for themselves, not for anyone who disagrees with them. While the old fashioned fuddy duddies on the right were busy being objective and unbiased in academia, the left was busy methodically protecting their own and culling their enemies.

    It's a real problem. Those who don't believe in freedom and unbiased inquiry can systematically exploit a free system. Freedom only works when a majority believe in and and vigilantly guard it.

  • J_West||

    We have little debate on campuses because we *failed* to root out the leftists.

    This sums it up nicely.

    Things in the USA have not quite gotten as bad as they are in Europe, with their Orwellian hatespeech laws. But American universities are doing their best to turn themselves into mini-gulags of the mind.

    If libertarians really want to challenge the power of the state, then I would recommend going onto any public university and making politically incorrect statements, or posting politically incorrect flyers. Then turn the ensuing brouhaha into a free speech issue.

    The thing is, libertarians need to get beyond 1970s issues like legalizing marijuana, or engaging in fantasies that one day the public schools will magically disappear. The struggle for freedom really is being fought on the campuses. Libertarians need to get into the battle.

  • juliabraon||

    my roomate's sister-in-law makes $74 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for seven months but last month her pay check was $16116 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site

    http://fly38.com

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Academic freedom is a myth concocted by the Radical Left Intellectuals in the hopes of shaming Alumni organizations into allowing them to tach their hogwash. Colleges have always been places where an orthodoxy was taught; the orthodoxy depending on who has control of the college.

  • ||

    The authors story about government abuses of free speech and academic freedom are well done. What is more disconcerting today and what the author does not seem sensitive to, is that the current era of censorship is not being done by the instigation of non-university governmental entities such as state legislatures and federal justice department investigators, but is being conducted and promoted by the university administrators who are and have been responding to pressure groups among the faculty and the student bodies of many universities. Todays university administrators are just as weak-willed and self-serving as they were in the McCarthy era and the campus protest era of the 1960's-1970's. The press is also equally silent about censorship, especially concerning islamic terrorism and sharia, China, Venezuela and any other actor on the public stage who happens to be on the left.
    As always, there are no enemies to the left.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement