Nanny State

Arizona Republicans Demand a Safe Space from 'Social Justice' Classes at Public Colleges

Conservatives want to legislate free speech in higher education, too.

|

See no, hear no…evil
Piksel/Dreamstime.com

Donald Trump may have won in the presidency in part because of a backlash against the perception of tyrannical political correctness from the left, but progressives are not the only political group seeking to legislate the terms of civilized debate.

Case in point, a new bill introduced by two Arizona Republican state legislators—Rep. Bob Thorpe and Rep. Mark Finchem—which would ban courses or events promoting "social justice" or anything focused on the interests of any political or identity group.

Thorpe told Tuscon.com his primary targets with this bill are a University of Arizona "privilege walk" and a Arizona State University class on "Whiteness and Race Theory":

"If you then look at an individual whose ancestors, because of their race, for example, they are linked to people that did something 100 or 200 years ago, that person who's living today has little or no association with what happened 200 years ago," he said. "So let's not have a wedge issue and cause that person to be vilified when they absolutely had nothing to do with some event that happened in the past."

Finchem, the bill's co-sponsor, tells AZCentral.com, "Pure and simple, this is an anti-discrimination bill" against what he called a "very perverse agenda." Finchem says he believes social justice advocates want to "slice up and dice up all of these people into groups and cater a particular message to each one of them, and all that does is advocate hate."

If passed, HB-2120 would affect public primary and high schools, community colleges, and state colleges. The ban would also extend far beyond just curriculum, it also applies to "events and activities" on campus. Schools found in violation would be subject to losing up to 10 percent in state aid. Arizona passed a law to ban a specific Mexican-American studies high school class in 2010, which is now being challenged with a lawsuit filed by students.

Section 1 of this is exceptionally broadly-written bill (which even Thorpe has conceded needs to be revised) reads as follows:

A. A school district or charter school in this state shall not include in its program of instruction any courses, or classes, EVENTS OR ACTIVITIES that include DO any of the following:

1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government.

2. Promote DIVISION, resentment OR SOCIAL JUSTICE toward a race, GENDER, RELIGION, POLITICAL AFFILIATION, SOCIAL CLASS or OTHER class of people.

3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.

4. Advocate ethnic solidarity OR ISOLATION BASED ON ETHNICITY, RACE, RELIGION, GENDER OR SOCIAL CLASS instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

5. VIOLATE STATE OR FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.

6. NEGATIVELY TARGET SPECIFIC NATIONALITIES OR COUNTRIES.

The clause banning classes or events promoting "the overthrow of the United States government" would probably not be of great benefit to the free speech rights of Second Amendment die-hards who frequently argue that the right to bear arms was always meant as a bulwark against a tyrannical government.

If the Arizona Republicans pushing this bill think they can defeat the arguments of their arch-nemesis social justice warriors by fiat, on what principled high ground can they claim to stand when other schools shut down conservative arguments about abortion, guns, or immigration?

As I recently wrote at Vox, allowing authorities to legislate what is and what isn't acceptable speech on campus—especially public campuses which are required to respect the First Amendment—is a terrible idea and inevitably comes back to harm whichever party the speech restrictions were designed to protect. The authors of HB-2120 might think they're taking a stand against P.C. culture run amok, but all they're really doing is legitimizing the concept of hiding from challenging ideas rather than confronting them.

Advertisement

NEXT: How to Replace Obamacare

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.

  1. Oh, from the title I assumed they were literally framing it as a safe space, which would make it an ironic jab at safe spaces as a concept. But it’s just a clever title.

    Carry on.

  2. If the Arizona Republicans pushing this bill think they can defeat the arguments of their arch-nemesis social justice warriors by fiat,

    Perhaps this is more about the state not providing financial and institutional support for the SJW agenda? This bill applies to state-owned and funded schools only. Shouldn’t the legislature have some say over what goes on at the schools it owns and funds?

    1. I don’t get how you can simultaneously condemn leftists for trying to control and limit free speech on public university campuses, and then say it’s ok when Republicans do it because legislatures should have control over state-funded schools.

      1. I don’t get how you can simultaneously condemn leftists for trying to control and limit free speech on public university campuses, and then say it’s ok when Republicans do it because legislatures should have control over state-funded schools.

        Its not a hard distinction to make.

        The school is owned, controlled, and funded by the State. Telling someone that they cannot control the curriculum or activities at a school they own, control, or fund seems a tad problematic, no? I don’t see how can you operate a school if you are prohibited from having any say over what is taught or done there.

        The SJW activists don’t own, control or fund the schools. Their attempts to exert this control via breaking any number of laws and rules, as well as just plain anti-social behavior, seem easily distinct from the activities of actually operating the school.

        You will also note that I said nothing about it being OK when Republicans do it. Because I didn’t. I spoke in terms that apply equally to AZ running its state-owned schools and CA running its state-owned schools.

        1. “The SJW activists don’t own, control or fund the schools. Their attempts to exert this control via breaking any number of laws and rules, as well as just plain anti-social behavior, seem easily distinct from the activities of actually operating the school.”

          If the “SJW activists” are involved in university administration, do they not control the school? What about if they control the state legislature? Plenty of the articles here about campus speech involve actual university policies and not just the antics of activists.

          Also, you and virtually everyone here rightfully condemn these policies even when done by private universities that unequivocally have the legal right to implement them.

          1. If the “SJW activists” are involved in university administration, do they not control the school?

            Subject to the ultimate authority of the state. Which it is trying to exert, here, however clumsily.

            What about if they control the state legislature?

            Then they can control the schools they own and fund the way they want?

            You seem to be arguing that state-owned schools should be entirely autonomous in how and what they do. Are you? If not, then don’t you concede that the state has control over how and what they do?

            1. “Subject to the ultimate authority of the state. Which it is trying to exert, here, however clumsily.

              What about if they control the state legislature?

              Then they can control the schools they own and fund the way they want?”

              Are you arguing that there are no 1A concerns at public universities as long as the legislature, directly or through the administration, is exercising it’s authority? I haven’t said that state legislatures have no authority over state-run schools, I’m saying that they can’t implement any rules they want just because they’re state-run. Has your objection to the campus speech rules implemented by liberal schools not been based on 1A concerns, but that they’re doing it without legislative permission?

              1. Are you arguing that there are no 1A concerns at public universities as long as the legislature, directly or through the administration, is exercising it’s authority?

                I am merely applying the commonplace 1A doctrine that a state can restrict speech by its employees when they are on the job, and extending that to saying the state can restrict speech by its institutions.

                This is the state speaking, in all instances, not individuals as individuals or private organizations as such. They have 1A rights. The state has no 1A rights. If it bothers you that the state controls so much of our educational infrastructure, then maybe you should be criticizing that.

                States routinely set curricula, textbooks, etc. for their schools. Is that a violation of the 1A?

                1. The bill goes beyond regulating curriculum to banning events and activities. Again, would you be ok with the state banning Republican ideology in this fashion? Would you say that’s allowed? I seriously doubt you would have this take if the shoe was on the other foot.

                  1. We get it, you think he’s a hypocrite. Why dress it up like you have, just come out and say it.

                    1. dean seems pretty consistent to me on the topic….not hypocritical at all and i agree with him.

                      It would be best if the state was completely out of the schools but since it does own it….it does control it.

                      I would much rather see them completely out of the schools but thats what you get for letting the state run too much stuff.

                    2. dean seems pretty consistent to me on the topic….not hypocritical at all and i agree with him.

                      It would be best if the state was completely out of the schools but since it does own it….it does control it.

                      I would much rather see them completely out of the schools but thats what you get for letting the state run too much stuff.

              2. I haven’t said that state legislatures have no authority over state-run schools,

                No, you’re just saying that they shouldn’t be allowed any say over the curricula of state-run schools. The ban here is a ban on a particular set of classes offered by the school.

        2. “The SJW activists don’t own, control or fund the schools.”

          Oh you sweet summer child.

        3. SLD: The State shouldn’t be funding universities.

          But of course I assume you agree with that.

      2. Ooops. If forgot. Not paying for something is banning it.

      3. There’s also somewhat of a distinction between cutting off direct free speech (c.f. stopping meetings or speakers) versus choosing what the state will pay teachers to teach for state-accredited credits. If the state has the ability to set things like math or English requirements, they likewise have the ability to forswear what classes are being offered, a limited number of which are possible to subsidize. Such a decision doesn’t say that departments can’t offer other non-credit programs and events in support of such ideas ? the very thing that departments and administrations have continued to prevent conservatives and libertarians from offering.

      4. I don’t see how you can equate events and courses designed to discriminate against white people/males/etc. with an attempt to ban such discrimination on public campuses.

        Disagree with it fine, but an anti-discrimination bill isn’t the converse of SJW discrimination. A true corollary would be implementing white history month and introducing a host of pro-white, pro-male racist and sexist events, courses, and programs.

        1. Logic, logic, go away come again another day.

      5. It would be a lot easier if we just went back to beating the crap out of hippie agitators. Ah, the good old days.

    2. R C Dean, what happens when Democrats come back into power and overturn this, and make SJW classes mandatory?

      1. A boom in private colleges?

      2. what planet are you living on? SJW classes are already mandatory at many institutions

        1. Not by law, only by curriculum requirement. Big fucking difference.

          1. “Not by law”

            I can just about guarantee you there are some title IX admins who will fight you to the death over that claim.

            1. doesnt make them right 😉

          2. So, if SJW administrators make a class mandatory, it’s merely a “curriculum requirement”. If the legislature removes such classes, it’s a “ban”.

            1. If the admins make a class mandatory, that only affects their school. And to a large extent, school administrations have to decide what classes they’re teaching.

              If the state starts controlling allowed classes, that affects all schools in the state.

              Even from a practical perspective, this is a step in the wrong direction. It substantially lessens the amount of choice consumers will have.

        2. I live on Zeldon, how about you Mr. Fancy Pants?

          1. If Zeldon is the planet that begat you, then I’ve visited from time to time.

      3. Where have you been? There is no shortage of colleges requiring SJW classes.

      4. I envision a violent uprising if that happens.

  3. The clause banning classes or events promoting “the overthrow of the United States government” would probably not be of great benefit to the free speech rights of Second Amendment die-hards who frequently argue that the right to bear arms was always meant as a bulwark against a tyrannical government.

    I really haven’t run across RKBA types saying we need to overthrow this US government right now. Its more conditional, really – IF the government goes too far in tyrannizing us, THEN the RKBA guarantees our right, and the means, to defend ourselves against it.

    1. At least on the Internet, I’ve seen people post that over the course of the last 8 years with Obama in office. But regardless, even why would you support having policies already in place banning support for overthrowing the government when the day comes when the government needs to be overthrown?

      1. Your reading comprehension is off, Cali.

        I never said I supported banning discussion of overthrowing the US government. I said that the overthrow of this government right now is not something RKBA types typically demand. Contra Anthony, banning actual seditious speech would have little to no effect on the usual discussions of RKBA..

        1. I don’t see how that quoted paragraph is dependent on RKBA people thinking the government has to be overthrown right now. Maybe check your own reading comprehension.

          1. The law outlaws ” Promot[ing] the overthrow of the United States government.” That doesn’t encompass the sorts of arguments usually made for the RKBA, which are more conditional or future-hypothetical.

            “Promote the overthrow” is in the present tense, meaning this government, now. RKBAers don’t do that (there’s always a fringe, of course, but I dislike attributing the fringe to the majority).

            1. My point from the original comment stands. I was using the general “you” I wasn’t saying you personally believe that. Even if a RKBA activist doesn’t think the government should be overthrown right now, if they do believe that there may come a time when it is right and just to overthrow the government, it makes no sense to support having laws already in place that ban support for overthrowing the government.

              1. Does it make no sense to have laws in place prohibiting state employees from doing so when they are on the job, and state institutions from doing so, ever?

                1. I don’t see the provisions specifying university employees while on the job as clearly as you do, apparently.

                  Also, in this subthread I wasn’t even really talking about the school or this bill, just about whether it was relevant if RKBA support the overthrow of the government now or at a hypothetical point in the future.

              2. Even if a RKBA activist doesn’t think the government should be overthrown right now, if they do believe that there may come a time when it is right and just to overthrow the government, it makes no sense to support having laws already in place that ban support for overthrowing the government.

                Non sequitur. Overthrowing the government at any time is obviously itself illegal (otherwise the govt could hardly be called a govt). Those who say that it may be just to overthrow in some hypothetical situation do not deny that it should be illegal to do so — just that in those dire circumstances, the law will have to be broken.

      2. Not to put too fine a point on it, this late to the equine carcass, but RKBA people tend to want to RESTORE Constitutional government, to overthrow tyranny. Hence the whole RKBA thing–a Constitutional right

    2. A right to over throw the US hasn’t been reached yet since we don’t have a rigged government elections yet….just highly dysfunctional and we yet to reach a point of tyranny in terms of 2A infringement.

      We have plenty of 2A infringement but not enough to justify an over throw but we are getting there with what Obama admin did with SSDI/SSI. One could argue we are getting close.

      We are getting close to that point but we haven’t reach it yet even though our current government is far worse than the British government of our Fore Fathers. (NSA, 2A issue, 1A issues, 4/5A completely dead) We still have non violent means to change it but we are getting very close to that point where natural law would state we are right to do so.

      This is coming from a diehard constitutionalist libertarian who is waiting for the day.

      1. I would argue by time we have the right and enough people agree to fight it’ll be far too late to do anything so we are basically fucked.

        1A is pretty weak
        2A has insane amount of limits especially with SSI/SSDI issue.
        we have profiles on large amounts of citizens. Government has one on me since I use TailsOS and TOR.
        Prez can murder US citizens by a swing of a pen if not in US….not too much longer US soil it’ll be okay
        4/5A are completely dead after recent US Supreme Court rulings.

        plenty of other issues too that have layed the ground work for a turn key system totalitarian state which can kill and eliminate any opposition to it.

  4. Strangest headline you’ll read all week:

    As robots take jobs, Europeans mull free money for all

    PARIS (AP) ? I am, therefore I’m paid.

    The radical notion that governments should hand out free money to everyone ? rich and poor, those who work and those who don’t ? is slowly but surely gaining ground in Europe. Yes, you read that right: a guaranteed monthly living allowance, no strings attached.

    1. It could also encourage people to take risks, start businesses and try new activities without the risk of losing welfare benefits.

      *snorts*

      Guess what I’m NOT going to do when my living is guaranteed?

      1. probably a really small amount, you’ll have to lobby the robots if you want a “living” wage…

      2. But I heard from True Libertarian ? commentarians that guaranteed government derived income is superduper great for promoting liberty.

        1. The argument I have heard is that it is better than welfare, because it gives the recipients more choices. That may be fine and all, but that does not focus on the objections that libertarians have, which is not on the recipient’s benefits but rather the source of that money.

          1. The more this gets serious debate, the more I become concerned about the long-term psychological impacts. It is very easy in a modern first world country to take your government stipend, and spend your days playing MMO’s and watching internet porn, subsisting on ramen noodles and bitching about evil rich people.

            We need only look at what happens when people’s unemployment benefits get extended for 2 yrs vs. the last 60 days or so. Or what happens when you loosen up the disability rules. An uncomfortably large number of people are content to scale back their lifestyle and subsist on the dole until they can’t.

            Guaranteed income is guaranteed to induce sloth.

            1. OK, look, I don’t support the guaranteed minimum income. But because my approach to libertarianism is rights-based, I have no problem with sloth. People have the right to be sloths if they want, as long as they are not hurting anyone else (such as not caring for a dependent).

              This kind of argument is really a type of right wing social engineering, that gets no traction from me. That is not to say that I would be happy with a society where a large portion of the population becomes sloth-like. But I have no right to impose my vision of what such people should be doing with their life onto them.

              1. that gets no traction from with me.

              2. But I have no right to impose my vision of what such people should be doing with their life onto them.

                I think the problem there is that the balloon has already popped when the people get a check from the government. If we’re going to give people assistance as a matter of course, they’re already having their incentives messed with to the point where they will choose a significantly different lifestyle than if there was no check coming each month. I don’t think it’s necessarily outside the realm of reasonableness to set requirements that purport to alleviate some of the moral hazard.

              3. — “People have the right to be sloths if they want, as long as they are not hurting anyone else…”

                So..you’re not a ‘sloth’, as it were. You work (very very) hard so as to be in a position to reap the financial benefits/rewards that ‘should’ come along with non-slothdom.

                So many people have decided to exercise their personal right to slothdom (you’re subsidizing it, remember?), however, you find yourself unable to reap the benefits of the aforementioned hard work due to taxes, etc..

                Are the sloths not now “hurting” you in some way? Hard work can & often does come with sacrifices that can end up injurious.

            2. World of Warcraft subscriptions would be back on the rise. As would Cheeto sales, and masturbation. Lot of dorks with dicks as orange as Trump’s face.

          2. A country that pays its people to not work is doomed.

          3. The argument I have heard is that it is better than welfare, because it gives the recipients more choices.

            That and it can be used as bargaining chip for making the welfare bureaucracy into a shell of its current self.

            There is a rather large class of commenters for whom any attempt to compromise with our statist reality is tantamount to supporting tyranny. Libertarians love to make the perfect the enemy of the good not quite as bad.

            1. @KDN

              The problem, imo, is that I simply do not believe the UBI would be a substitute for the welfare state, merely a supplement. There’d be a temporary wane, but once idiots who blew their UBI check on heroin start dying in the streets, the old entitlements will start coming back.

              1. My worry exactly.

                It’s a similar problem as with closing the deficit with a mix of spending cut and tax increases. I would support a half-and-half split if I believed it would stick, but because spending increases are easy ways to buy votes, withing 2-3 electoral cycles you’re back to a similarly large deficit (except with both higher taxes and spending).

                Now mind you, I’d love to see some other places try it out for themselves. The rest of us can certainly learn from the experiment. Europe’s fucked anyways, so let them generate experimental data for the rest of us.

                1. I’m not sure if it’s legally possible, but I think it would be nice to have legislation tethered to its source of funding, e.g., if you make a law that does something, whoever is responsible for executing it only get as much as is generated through some tax or part of some tax (or stipulate that there budget cannot exceed 120% of said tax which is funding it). And have it be written in the law that if the tax is gotten rid of/reduced, the agency gets its funding cut or ceases to exist and the law must be repealed; conversely, if the law gets repealed the tax must go away too.

                  This way of doing it would, I think, help solve that problem. Currently the attitude seems to be ‘we have this big pot of money, who wants some?’ and Congress so often agrees to fund legislation which is basically passed with fraudulent accounting underestimating how much it will cost leading to enormous under-appropriation of funds *cough Obamacare cough*.

                  1. You’ve got the right idea. But Congress can always overturn itself, so it would be more of a gentleman’s agreement to leave it in place, and we know what gentlemen Congresscritters are when money’s on the table.

          4. If a government IS going to provide a welfare safety net, is prefer something like a Minimum Incone rather than a set of specific use-limited benefits. It’s more freeing to allow recipients to choose on what they’ll spend money, including having an availability to spent that on things like business/entrepreneurship instead of such specifics as food and health care. That’s why I’m interested in seeing how the Finland experiment works out (as a replacement rather than the sort of supplement that the one up for vote last in Switzerland suggested).

        2. I seriously doubt that is the argument they were making.

          Probably it was more along the lines of: “If the government insists on handing out candy, it would be better to just do a guaranteed income then all of teh various welfare programs we have now.”

          But I could be wrong about that.

          1. It is one of the arguments.

            A Basic Income Guarantee would also be considerably less paternalistic then the current welfare state, which is the bastard child of “conservative judgment and progressive condescension” toward the poor, in Andrea Castillo’s choice words. Conservatives want to help the poor, but only if they can demonstrate that they deserve it by jumping through a series of hoops meant to demonstrate their willingness to work, to stay off drugs, and preferably to settle down into a nice, stable, bourgeois family life. And while progressives generally reject this attempt to impose traditional values on the poor, they have almost always preferred in-kind grants to cash precisely as a way of making sure the poor get the help they “really” need. Shouldn’t we trust poor people to know what they need better than the federal government?

  5. I don’t like the micromanagement of charter schools – it can be justified on paying-the-piper grounds, but the whole point of charter schools is to allow a variety of approaches, not to allow disgruntled parents or outside activists to appoint themselves as curriculum revisors and force the charter-school administrators to take time away from teaching to show they’re not being racist, etc.

    Anyway, the problem isn’t with the charter schools, it’s with school run by state appointees.

    Here, I’d suggest that the legislature which spends the tax money needs to prune the curriculum of some of its excrescences. If the government is going to actually run a school, it should run it in a way which doesn’t involve teaching racial divisiveness or SJW nonsense.

    1. I suppose one of these days they’ll find a madrassa turning itself into a charter school and teaching about how Jews are basically sons of pigs and monkeys, etc. Though taken to this extreme, I think it already constitutes illegal race/religious discrimination.

      1. That happened already in Minnesota.

        1. Interesting, is there a link?

            1. Interesting…it seems the ACLU slapped them with an Establishment Clause lawsuit, that probably has something to do with their closing. No additional legislation required.

  6. Although I disagree with this bill, it is still not as bad as the opposite side. For people who see critical race theory bullshit as no different than the philosophy of the KKK, I think the state has some right to not spend taxpayer funds on classes that serve only to preach racism.

    1. Either way, it’s all just leftist shit.

  7. Yeah, the worst problem with social justice warriors isn’t their message. It’s their tactics.

    I don’t care if you’re the Klan or the social justice warriors, you have to respect other people’s rights.

    Social justice warriors have made it a little confusing because disregarding other people’s right to free speech is both their central message and their tactics.

    Just like everyone else, though, social justice warriors have a right to believe what they want–no matter how evil or stupid–but their tactics have no legitimate place in civil society. I oppose the social justice warriors’ rights violating tactics so thoroughly, I even oppose using them against social justice warriors.

    1. and how has that been working out for you?

      1. Everywhere I look, I see social justice warriors losing.

        1. And they get angrier, and angrier……….

          Wherever will it end?

    2. the worst problem with social justice warriors isn’t their message. It’s their tactics

      disagreed. Their message informs their tactics. If their message wasn’t one tinged in “oppressed revolutionary” rhetoric, their tactics wouldn’t be so… distasteful.

      1. Like I said, people should be free to believe whatever they want–no matter how evil or stupid.

        It’s interfering with other people’s rights that’s the problem.

        The Klan and the neo-Nazis’ ideology isn’t exactly libertarian either.

        It’s their right to believe and advocate stupid and evil shit.

        When I get really upset is when they start violating other people’s rights.

        Same thing with the social justice warriors.

        If we libertarians don’t recognize that there’s a line there, how can we expect other people to respect it?

        I see the line between belief and rights violations clearly because I’m a libertarian.

        1. If we libertarians don’t recognize that there’s a line there, how can we expect other people to respect it?

          I see the line between belief and rights violations clearly because I’m a libertarian.

          The line is there …. in the scope of governmental and third-party interference. Coercion is wrong whether it’s done to squelch a dissenting view or whether it’s done for one of a thousand other reasons.

          However, stupid and evil ideas should be resisted vigorously in rights-affirming ways. I don’t subscribe to the “live and let live” school when it comes to stupid and evil ideas. I think that any and all non-evil means should be used to combat evil ideas.

  8. Nice alt text.

    If people don’t want to hear what is being said and choose to put their fingers in their ears that’s fine by me.

    If they want to avoid hearing what is being said by putting those same hands over the speakers mouth, then we have a problem.

    1. These are not “speakers” these are teachers forcing kids to believe a certain thing. That is the problem: schools supporting a particular political point of view and squashing the conservative POV.

      1. Sure, but does a non-required class being offered cross that line?

        I mean, I don’t think women’s studies is a particularly useful major, but does that justify banning all such classes?

        If the argument is that this stuff exists only because the state subsidises it:

        – Fully-private institutions also offer some of the same content (sometimes they’re the worst offenders).
        – If subsidy leads to stupidity, that’s a great argument to cut down on subsidies and let the market sort out which courses actually provide value or not, rather than dictating it top down.

  9. As I recently wrote at Vox, allowing authorities to legislate what is and what isn’t acceptable speech on campus?especially public campuses which are required to respect the First Amendment?is a terrible idea and inevitably comes back to harm whichever party the speech restrictions were designed to protect.

    If it truly is a violation of the 1A for a state to refuse to fund certain classes or activities at its schools, aren’t we saying that not funding = banning? Where does that lead us? Would it be unconstitutional for a state to refuse any demand for money from a school?

    1. Surely the intent is to cut off speech because of its content.

      1. No question. When that speech is being funded by the state at state institutions.

        If you posit that any restriction on funding that affects speech at a state school is unconstitutional, well, I think you’re heading down an . . . impractical road.

        Naturally, the whole problem could be solved by removing all state support for education.

        1. Clicked too soon.

          But if you do that, where are you? If cutting funding by 10% is a violation of the 1A, what would cutting funding by 100% be?

          1. Literally hitler?

            1. Perhaps if it were transplanted into the body of a tiger shark.

    2. The bill doesn’t have any provision for differentiating based on funding source. Even at a public university, lots of things are funded from sources other than the state. Also, as Ken touches on, the reasoning behind cutting off funding could run afoul due to its intent.

      If the California legislature wrote a similar law regarding any advocacy for the Republican party or key conservative beliefs, that wouldn’t strike you the wrong way?

      1. The bill doesn’t have any provision for differentiating based on funding source.

        Maybe because funding in fungible? Maybe because regardless of the sources of funds, these are still state institutions, so it doesn’t really matter?

        1. So if a private organization wanted to host an event on a public campus using their own money, you think the state should be able to, based off the content of their speech, ban them from doing so?

          1. I meant to add another sentence at the end:

            Because the campus itself is publicly funded?

          2. Indeed I do.

            The real problem isn’t the state controlling its own speech. The real problem is how much of the educational industry is owned by the state.

          3. So if a private organization wanted to host an event on a public campus using their own money, you think the state should be able to, based off the content of their speech, ban them from doing so?

            They do all the time. Just ask Milo Yiannopoulos.

            1. Hey Bill, Milo Yiannopoulos was at UCDavis at 2 pm the following day after he didn’t show up the previous day because he was nursing a hangover. This counts as violation of free speech? I mean, does he ever have the decency to shut the fuck up?

              1. he didn’t show up the previous day because he was nursing a hangover.

                amsoc lies. But you knew that, because “socialist”.

                A college campus event hosting Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli, two controversial and polarizing figures who have both been banned on Twitter, was canceled because of heated protests Friday night.

                University officials said in a statement that the Republican student group canceled it after consulting with campus police and student affairs officials, adding that “it was no longer feasible to continue with the event safely.”

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..f0b1d8acc4

              2. Do you? Also, do you have the decency to pay your own mortgage?

          4. The wording of the bill is pretty shoddy.

            The main thing is to prevent this crap from being presented as a class for credit — where restrictions on speech are commonplace and justified. Muzzling a math teacher who says 2 + 2 = 5 and a geology professor who says the earth is 4000 years old is fine by me. So I don’t see why SJW baloney can’t be similarly restricted.

  10. My Lyft Ride with a Black Trump Supporter on MLK Day

    “I’m glad Lewis marched in the protests so long ago,” she continued, “but you have to do more than march. That’s all these people do is march. Meanwhile, there are sections of Atlanta I’m afraid to drive in. And I say that as a black woman! It’s not even about race. Many blacks in this town live better than white people anywhere in the world. But there’s whole communities that have been forgotten. They are paid off with welfare checks but they don’t have skills or jobs, and they fear for their lives on their own streets.”

  11. I heart haters and trolls so I think it’s great that these College Republicans are trolls my people who think decorum and decency should rule the day at college campuses. You go, frat boys!

    As a libertarian I care what the government does (you know invading other countries, putting people in jail for non-violent drug offenses, sticking their church mouse noses in abortion and gay rights) so I’m able to compartmentalize what an 18 year old kid at college does on the one hand and what countries are invaded by a sitting POTUS. Are you?

    1. As a libertarian

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (prolonged intake of breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      1. People become blind to their own prejudices because of their own ideological predilections. I, for one, care much more about protecting a women’s right to choose to have an abortion rather than spending my time bitching about the kids on college campuses these days. That latter talking point seems almost an obsession with modern libertarianism. Who cares what they think? They don’t have any political power, while the political Right has it all. Maybe libertarians should try keeping their eyes on the ball.

        1. Maybe libertarians should try keeping their eyes on the ball.

          Keeping murder legal?

        2. If you were an actual libertarian, amsoc, which you are not, you would recognize and respect the fact that different people choose different issues on which to direct their attention and passion.

          1. Right, and so when I say I’m concerned about legal access to abortion, gay marriage, military spending and the drug war you’ll come to my defense also when I say I’m relatively unconcerned with local communities who choose to ban handguns and I think rich people should pay way more in taxes. We all choose issues on which to direct our attention and passion, after all. Thanks, brother… we’re like an affinity group.

            1. Your first list falls within the realm of libertarian positions. Your second list does not.

            2. At what point do you cease being a rat fuck deadbeat and PAY YOUR FUCKING MORTGAGE?

        3. People become blind to their own prejudices…

          Irony, thy name is AmSoc.

        4. “The political right has it alll”
          Where have you been the last 8 years? How many government employees are Republicans?

          And if the government is right wing, why do you want to expand its domain?

    2. Can somebody translate this to English?

      1. Yeah, the fucking free market spell checker on this IPhone that has had probably more money sunk in it than all the money that has gone into Welfare for the last 100 years screwed it up.

        This: “I heart haters and trolls so I think it’s great that these College Republicans are trolls my people who think decorum and decency should rule the day at college campuses.” should read as this: “I heart haters and trolls so I think it’s great that these College Republicans are trolling people who think decorum and decency should rule the day at college campuses.”

        1. *writes down: “Subject appears too stupid to work a smart phone, let alone spell or have coherent communications.”

          1. He’s just tired of waiting for North Korea to fulfill his pre-order for the Juche-Phone.

          2. Let ye who hath never made a spell check error on his IPhone touchscreen while taking a shit cast the first stone.

            1. *Throws stone.
              Android is where it’s at, sucka.

            2. [throws old android phone at amsoc, raises new android phone proudly in the air]

          3. the fucking free market spell checker on this IPhone that has had probably more money sunk in it than all the money that has gone into Welfare for the last 100 years

            I think you can’t be anymore stupid and then you go and prove me wrong!

            Trillions spent on a spell checker? Here is a bit of history for you, since you are completely and totally ignorant. Since the “Great Society” alone we have spent over a trillion on welfare. You really are too stupid to be alive and must simply be a computer program that was poorly designed.

        2. Shouting down people you disagree with and mobbing events you don’t approve are examples of decorum and decency?

          1. They are in amsoc’s world view.

        3. iPhone that has had probably more money sunk in it than all the money that has gone into Welfare for the last 100 years

          Apple’s total revenues in FY2015 was $215,600,000,000 while total federal medicaid + other welfare spending that year was $1,148,400,000,000.

          So if you stole all the money all the people were going to spend on iPhones, iPads and Macbooks, and gave them nothing for it at all (and caused all of Apple’s domestic and foreign workers to lose their jobs), you could afford to pay for 2 months of welfare spending.

          Except that 2/3’s of that money comes from customers in other countries, so robbing them at gunpoint might be a bit harder.

        4. Yeah the government phone works so much better.

          Amsoc definition of libertarian: “the government should fuck over people I donkt like, not people I do like, and people I don’t like shouldn’t get to tell me what to do, but should still have to pay the bill for whatever I do.”

        5. You are such a backward ass ignoramus that it defies belief. That one can gibber as you do……….well it truly beggars the imagination.

    3. *puts tear collector bottle under AmSoc while muttering about the price drop on progtears

        1. Nice, can you stick it up their butt and get the tears before they’ve been exposed to the air?

      1. He ran out on his mortgage, right? Where does he live? Does his state have a deficiency provision where they can pursue him even after foreclosure? If so, how can we help them collect on this asshole?

  12. Schools found in violation would be subject to losing up to 10 percent in state aid.

    The state giveth, and the state taketh away. I wouldn’t think of it as “banning” unless there were fines or prisoning involved. Welfare comes with strings attached, and this is just another one.

    As I recently wrote at Vox

    Stick a fork in Anthony, he’s done.

    1. Welfare comes with strings attached, and this is just another one.

      Not any more. Read my link above.

    2. That’s the fallacy of origins, duuuude. You should focus on the content, not the medium. Also, don’t you want Vox readers to be exposed to libertarian ideas?

      1. Sure, Vox is running libertarian ideas.

      2. This crap isn’t libertarian ideas.

        It uses libertarian terminology and some bits of libertarian rhetoric to advance something that benefits leftists’ attempts to defend their own power.

  13. Schools constantly make decisions about the content of their curricula. It’s not the same as telling a student group what they can or cannot say, or which *outside* speakers can be invited. It’s about what the school itself, through its teachers, will teach the kids.

    The SJWs are more likely to control the teachers and administrators than to control the legislature, therefore they argue for teachers and administrators making curriculum decisions, with the legislature’s role being limited to appropriating money without strings attached.

    That may be a good separation-of powers arguments, but it has nothing to do with free expression, since both the teachers/administrators, on the one hand, and the legislators, on the other hand, are state agents deciding what the state will teach.

    The free-speech position is to get the state out of the education business altogether, but of course the SJWs think that would be racist.

    1. both the teachers/administrators, on the one hand, and the legislators, on the other hand, are state agents deciding what the state will teach.

      Nicely put. A more elegant way of saying what I’ve been trying to say.

  14. Putting aside the partisan arguments, I’ve always thought the underlying issue was a decent argument against state funding of anything. When your funding is dictated by politicians, whatever you are doing will be affected by political calculations.

    Of course that also provides a strong incentive to lobby those politicians and produce a cozy relationship where everyone else is being shafted. Of course, the typical prog and many cons lack enough imagination to ever imagine a situation where the pendulum swings back on them so this line of argument has rarely worked for me. It’s all about getting your team at the levers of power and keeping them there.

  15. So not paying for your bullshit ideology is now ‘demanding a safe space’?

    Sorta like not paying for my birth control is ‘denying me access to birth control’.

    1. Bingo.

      Progressives make all of their shit mandatory. Not participating in their whacked out bullshit is not allowed.

      I don’t give a fuck if the Republicans are using their own weapons against them…

  16. OT: Today in virtue signalling…
    A New Commemorative Coin Depicts Lady Liberty as a Black Woman, and It’s Gorgeous

    It would be easy to dismiss the coin as meaningless: The U.S. Mint’s insistence on representing freedom with a fictional “lady” is anachronistic at best and troubling at worst, and commemorative coins aren’t exactly the beating heart of popular culture. Even so, the new Lady Liberty coin feels like an enormous symbolic step, somehow both urgent and long overdue. If we’re going to keep on depicting liberty as a woman, she ought to reflect the appearance of America’s actual women, not the tired, racist beauty standard embraced by our Founding Fathers.

    Finding white women attractive is tired and racist. And somehow putting someone on a coin is a declaration some particular set of beauty standards.

    The U.S. Mint’s theme for its 225th year is “remembering our past and embracing our future,” and the new coin, which defies white supremacist beauty standards without erasing America’s racist past, embodies that theme perfectly.

    This much and more to be found in this hilarious article by Slate.

    1. I refuse to click on a Slate link, so can someone tell me how the mint made it obvious she was black? Cornrows? A fro?

        1. Figures. What are the odds someone raises a snit over stereotyping?

          1. 10020%

      1. Instead of “liberty,” it says “Yo liberty brace yo’self foo’!”

      2. I’m going to use this the next time someone starts popping off about racism.

        You got a black president and commemorative coin, so shut up about your 40 acres and a mule.

        1. That’s racist.

    2. So, being white is racist now?

  17. Meanwhile, over at the Atlantic, the topic is the minimum wage.

    In the above examples, a higher minimum wage will raise labor costs. But many companies can recoup cost increases in the form of higher prices; because most of their customers are not poor, the net effect is to transfer money from higher-income to lower-income families. In addition, companies that pay more often benefit from higher employee productivity, offsetting the growth in labor costs. Justin Wolfers and Jan Zilinsky identified several reasons why higher wages boost productivity: They motivate people to work harder, they attract higher-skilled workers, and they reduce employee turnover, lowering hiring and training costs, among other things. If fewer people quit their jobs, that also reduces the number of people who are out of work at any one time because they’re looking for something better. A higher minimum wage motivates more people to enter the labor force, raising both employment and output. Finally, higher pay increases workers’ buying power. Because poor people spend a relatively large proportion of their income, a higher minimum wage can boost overall economic activity and stimulate economic growth, creating more jobs.

    That’s a lot of handwaving. His arms must be tired.

    1. it’s amazing how the minumum wage has been disproven over and over and people still don’t get it.

      My 13yo cousin was talking about that, and this shit is about the level of understanding for a 13yo, and he’s probably just repeating what he heard in the media. But these people are adults though, they should have more reasoning than that.

      To the kid’s credit though, he seemed to understand when I told him the real minimum wage was zero.

    2. It’s the same hand-waving I get from right-wingers when I ask them what if a worker is better off when he makes $15/hr as opposed to $8/hr. You can’t get a fucking straight answer.

      1. What if a worker is not better off when he makes $0 per hour as opposed to $8/hr?

        Also, as a self-proclaimed libertarian, how do you reconcile locking someone in a cage for offering somebody else a job under terms you don’t approve of with the Non-Aggression Principle?

        1. Don’t know. I’m neither a dogmatic libertarian or socialist. I think I’m close enough to both (pro-choice, anti-war, against undue military spending, against the drug war, pro-gay marriage, etc. and pro social security, higher taxes on the rich, infrastructure improve) to call myself a hyphenated libertarian and socialist.

          1. no need for the hyphen – you are a socialist. The only question is whether you’re of the Bolshevik kind or the National Socialist kind.

          2. to call myself a hyphenated libertarian and socialist

            Everything you listed is either a plank of the Dem platform or on the wishlist of most progressives. To the extent that your list overlaps libertarianism, it appears to be incidental.

          3. “”anti-war””

            lol

            unless bush did it, he doesn’t seem to think it counts

            1. US troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan under Arch-fiend Obama are 7% of what they were under Bush. I know, I know… America probably has troops in Yemen protecting the US embassy from being bombed by Al Queda. That seems almost the entirety of your argument. That just goes to prove that you– like every right-wing apologist masquerading as a libertarian– can’t distinguish 100 troops from 150,000. You must suck at math.

              We all told you Bush would fuck up the ME for decades to come and now you all want to pin it on poor Obama. I don’t think many people are buying that line considering Obama’s popularity as he leaves office.

              1. “troop levels” /= war, dipshit.

                and you’re not even correct about your bullshit stats.

                I haven’t made any argument other than to point out you’re a morally bankrupt hypocrite who will downplay Team Blue wars by claiming everything’s relative to the mass-invasion of iraq. You’re too stupid to even make any more-sophisticated attempt at sophistry.

                i just unmuted you to point out what fucking joke you are. you go back to the white-silence now.

                1. Before you go…

                  Troop levels in Afghanistan in Q1 2009= 32,500
                  Troop levels in Iraq in Q1 2009= 148,500
                  Total Q1 2009= 181,000

                  Troop levels In Afghanistan in Q3 2016= 8730
                  Troop levels in Iraq in Q3 2016= 4087
                  Total Q3 2016= 12817

                  12817*100%/181000=7.08%

                  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44116.pdf

              2. US troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan under Arch-fiend Obama are 7% of what they were under Bush.

                According to the Bush-era plan for reduction of forces…

                President Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year’s Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls ? this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama ? it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government.

                TW: Fake News

                1. AmSoc your troop levels are fraudulent.

                  You are counting only U.S. troops.

                  J. V. ISIS troops have increased from 0 to tens of thousands since the Lightbringer started calling the shots.

        2. It’s only aggression if you don’t agree with it. Problem solved.

          1. “It’s not a foul when my team does it!” Amsoc’s philosophy of life

      2. well when their purchasing power remains the same as their savings are eroded, then no, they are not better off. And when that higher wage makes it less likely for them to get full time work, or work at all, or advance their career, then no, they are not better off.

        Is that a straight enough answer for you, you economic illiterate?

      3. when I ask them what if a worker is better off when he makes $15/hr as opposed to $8/hr.

        Of course you would ask that. You naively don’t take risk into account. To complete the picture, I’ll rephrase your question in a way that doesn’t beg the statist answer:

        Is a worker better off with a 50% chance of making $15/hr and a 50% chance of making $0/hr or with a 100% chance of making $8/hr?

        The answer is: It depends. Some may prefer $8/hr and the substantially increased likelihood of keeping their job. Some may prefer a 50/50 chance of making $15/hr. But don’t let people’s preferences get in the way of your dictating to them what’s “best.”

          1. Eh, you bore me now… at least you used to move the goalposts and attempt to rhetorically outmaneuver people… now you just phone it in. You’ve gone from a somewhat boring troll to just flat dull. Bye.

      4. When that person who was making $8/hr is replaced by a kiosk and is then making $0/hr, I’d say the minimum wage did fuck-all to improve his station in life.

        That’s when retards like you scream KORPARAYSHUNZ and GREEDY CAPITALIST PIGS, because what you really want is for the government to force employers to hire people, AND pay an arbitrary minimum wage.

        Then all the employers leave your state and come to mine, and then you live in American Greece, because you are fucktarded, and that’s what you deserve.

      5. I know plenty of people that are now worse off since my state raised it’s minimum wage January 1st. Less hours per check, reduced employer perks, less tips for those in the service industry, etc.. How’s that for straight?

        Or is it all just pops and buzzes for you?

    3. In addition, companies that pay more often benefit from higher employee productivity, offsetting the growth in labor costs.

      Of course the minimum wage means you get paid more for doing exactly the same thing.

      Justin Wolfers and Jan Zilinsky identified several reasons why higher wages boost productivity: They motivate people to work harder,

      Only if they are an incentive. The minimum wage provides no such incentive – the employee’s only incentive is to not get fired.

      they attract higher-skilled workers, and they reduce employee turnover, lowering hiring and training costs, among other things.

      These only obtain if the wage being paid is higher than the wages competitors are paying for the same work. That doesn’t apply to the minimum wage.

      1. Arguably, on the margin, being fired sucks more if:

        – The job pays more.
        – Other jobs are much harder to find because of non-equilibrium wage levels.

        So in some sense it might provide an incentive to do better.

        Of course, the simpler test is this: if there’s sufficient productivity gains to offset the costs or more, why don’t employers raise wages without being prompted to?

        1. In one of my previous businesses, I had to nearly double compensation packages during a boom period to keep support staff. Which was ok, because I had the revenue to pay the additional money. Some shitbag like AmSoc decreeing the wage increase isn’t the same. But people like him are too stupid and arrogant to understand that.

    4. because most of their customers are not poor

      *Conveniently ignores the filthy poors most affected by this*

      1. Yeah. I guess the poor don’t shop at the places they work, like Walmart.

        Also, the authors ignore the decreased demand from higher-income consumers when businesses pass on the cost of a minimum-wage increase. Are you a marginal employee who received a wage increase by fiat? Kiss your job goodbye.

    5. But many companies can recoup cost increases in the form of higher prices

      Thus completely negating the increased wages.

      Christ these people are fucking retarded.

      1. Fuck you squirrels, I closed the tag.

    6. Higher productivity means fewer workers, which, um, is basically one of the central criticisms of the minimum wage. I just love how liberals count: one, two, many, mine.

    7. Right because minimum wage dominated industries like fast food and retail are known to have mainly wealthy customers.

      /sarc

    8. several reasons why higher wages boost productivity: They motivate people to work harder, they attract higher-skilled workers, and they reduce employee turnover

      This is stupid, and makes it clear that they haven’t even given thought to the entry-level, posable-by-a-two-year-old conservative argument of “why not set it to $1000 then”? That should make people work 100 times as hard!

      Look, worker motivation and reduced turnover is not caused by having larger numbers on your paycheck if those numbers don’t actually buy you any more quality of life, and you can get those same numbers at the competitor by law.

      Why would a $15 mandate at Wal-Mart keep workers there if Target was also paying $15?

      To the extent that anyone’s quality of life is improved by wage mandates, it is solely as a direct transfer to minimum wage laborers from everyone else via inflation. If you want to argue for it, just say that. Robin Hood it up. It’s much more respectable to be honest. None of this “we’re really helping everyone at once” crap.

  18. “but progressives are not the only political group seeking to legislate the terms of civilized debate.”

    Wrong wrong wrong.

    The whole point of being a SJW is not having to debate at all. The entire point is to shut the other side down so you don’t lose.

    1. The people you support have all the real power and the people you oppose are left shouting in the street. You’d think you could relax. Maybe try some Xanax.

      1. You’re saying the right has all real power? You keep saying this in one form or another. I guess if you’re thinking in terms of some exceedingly recent electoral upsets in a few select countries, yes the right has some power. But you can’t sit here and tell me the left are powerless after having spent most of the last century firmly in power all around the planet and working to undermine western civilization with your toadies infiltrating and controlling entertainment, news, education and government bureaucracy.

        I think it’s you that needs to take some Xanax, you fucks have dominated and shaped the power structure for basically my entire life and you’re not even really out of power yet. Though I applaud efforts to make your cultural and political exile into a reality.

        1. Yeah, they lost some recent elections. They can comfort themselves in the mainstream news media, the great majority of entertainment media, corporate America, or academia.

          1. And the 90% of government that isn’t elected and whose day to day operations are basically immune to power changes.

      2. Been on a campus in the last 35 years?

        1. Yeah. Does the UC system control the deployment of nuclear weapons or the tax rate I pay, or the bullshit wars I’m supposed to pay taxes for?

          1. The hand that rocks the cradle….

          2. Uhhhh for the last 8 yrs the progressives have in fact controlled all that. Not the UC system but that is not the point. You said conservatives control everything. Not true by a long shot.

            1. Obama’s being retconned into a corporatist Democrat. Goes with the messaging on how PPACA failed due to being “too market oriented, as a way to compromise with republicans”.

  19. As I recently wrote at Vox…

    Fisher, you just made the list.

    1. Christ ate and drank with tax collectors, Fisher can write at Vox.

      1. But is Vox willing to ask forgiveness and sin no more?

  20. It’s pretty bad when the biggest asshole in the Congress– and political ally!–tells the President how to comport himself public wise.

    Mich. Rep. Justin Amash tweets at Donald Trump: ‘Dude, just stop’

    ? Justin Amash (@justinamash) January 15, 2017

    Maybe Trump should hire this guy

    1. *tear collector bottle #198

      1. You’ve got me wrong. First, i didn’t vote for HRC. Second, Trump only clarifies things. I could say I hate the US government in 2009 with a straight face, but then acknowledge that it was being run by a fundamentally decent person. Now that it’s run by a narcissistic asshole and a bunch of yo-yos in his Cabinet and in Congress it’s just hate-hate for me. I’m curious to see what happens. California independence and the pending break-up of the Evil Empire seem worthy goals for limited government types like me.

        1. HRC wasn’t on the World Workers Party this year.

        2. it was being run by a fundamentally decent person

          Don’t get me wrong… Trump is a narcissistic asshole. But Obama as “fundamentally decent?” I mean, I guess in the same way that the school bully is “fundamentally decent” for not hitting you on the face.

          1. Nothing says “fundamental decency” like vast expansion of drone-murder

            1. You see? Predictable Right-wing drone is predictable. You must have cried like a baby when Anwar-al-Alwaki died. Poor him. Obama picked on terrorist asshole.

              1. No but it was pretty upsetting when Obama murdered his 16 year old American son.

        3. I could say I hate the US government in 2009 with a straight face, but then acknowledge that it was being run by a fundamentally decent person.

          Joe Biden was Obama’s puppet master. Straight from AmSoc’s lips.

        4. You’re finally right for a change that the government is currently run by a narcissistic asshole. And in 4 days it will switch to another narcissistic asshole. I fail to see the difference.

        5. “Narcissistic asshole”

          Fret not AmSoc. Obama will be out of office in a few days.

  21. Justin Wolfers and Jan Zilinsky identified several reasons why higher wages boost productivity: They motivate people to work harder,

    Yeah, because there are no secondary effects to goosing the minimum wage. It may provide an incentive for the low man on the totem pole on the framing crew, but unless all wages along the line rise proportionately, your foreman might ask himself, “why should I put up with a lot of extra bullshit when I’m not getting paid any more than that kid who barely knows which end of the hammer to hit the nail with?”

  22. I browsed through my alumni magazine for the first time in what feels like decades (how do they keep finding me?!) and it was all social justice this, altruism that. It was exhausting just reading it.

  23. The clause banning classes or events promoting “the overthrow of the United States government” would probably not be of great benefit to the free speech rights of Second Amendment die-hards who frequently argue that the right to bear arms was always meant as a bulwark against a tyrannical government.

    You really had to go far afield to find that example, Mr Fisher.

    Wasn’t just 2A diehards either — the claim of a right of the people to cast off a tyrannical government is in the Declaration of Independence, which I believe has wormed its way into the curriculum of many schools already. Citing the existence of circumstances where it is just to overthrow a hypothetical govt does not advocate for overthrowing the govt.

  24. If the Arizona Republicans pushing this bill think they can defeat the arguments of their arch-nemesis social justice warriors by fiat, on what principled high ground can they claim to stand when other schools shut down conservative arguments about abortion, guns, or immigration?

    Huh? The conservative positions on those three issues absolutely do not belong in the curriculum of any public school either. It would be OK to teach them as part of a “current events” class or as a debate, with the other side also receiving representation, but not as the position of the school with which the student is expected to agree.

  25. When campuses routinely hold what are in effect Democrat political rallies in all but name (supporting BLM, anti-this, anti-that), it is pretty clear that they are acting as political entities. In addition, you can have a pro-illegal-immigration rally or a pro-hispanic rally but not an anti-illegal immigration rally or a pro-white rally, which again aligns perfectly with a particular party. Seems to me this bill pushes back against that.

  26. No, no, no, Republitards. Do not engage the Justitards or employ their tactics; you will lose. The only acceptable responses to SJW fuckery are derision or ignoring the fuck out of them.

  27. Perhaps they could legislate pee speech?

  28. Just cut university subsidies. Has the same effect of defunding progressive programs, much more likely to survive legal challenges, and has an immediate balancing effect on the state budget.

    Also, tertiary education is pretty broken right now due to being so heavily encouraged. Subsidy cuts would be a good idea even if no weird political bullshit was happening.

  29. Another valid argument for the abolition of government schools.

  30. My best friend’s wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours.
    Read more on this site
    ================== http://www.homejobs7.com

  31. Separation of Church and State
    Separation of Art and State
    Separation of Academe and State

    Do your indoctrination on your own dime

    When it’s on the government’s dime, the government calls the tune

  32. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============http://www.homejobs7.com

  33. Yeah, let the wingnuts have their classes and seminars, Repubs. As long as they don’t try to make this garbage part of the mandatory curriculum, who gives a damn?

  34. The issue that this bill attempts to address is the the radical far left ideologies that permeate in state funded schools. The real issue is that the administrators and professors indoctrinate impressionable students with curriculums that are predicated on leftist ideas. These courses make it difficult for anyone who doesn’t suscribe to these ideas to get a good grade. Also many state schools are attempting to require undergrads to complete these social justice courses to graduate. The left owns our academic institutions. I’m not sure this type of legislation will work. I think it will galvanize the leftists even more.

  35. before I saw the check saying $8075 , I did not believe …that…my mother in law woz like they say actualie receiving money in their spare time at there labtop. . there sisters roommate has been doing this less than 14 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there villa and bourt a gorgeous Subaru Impreza .
    ===============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  36. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.homejobs7.com

  37. I Leave my office job and now I am getting paid 96 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    ================> http://homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.