The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"College Is All About Curiosity. And That Requires Free Speech."
An excellent piece in the N.Y. Times Magazine by Prof. Stephen Carter (Yale Law).
An excerpt from Wednesday's article:
What made the congressional hearing so sad was not merely the accusatory quality of the committee's questions, or even the evasive quality of the presidents' answers. It was that the presidents were being asked to interpret their own rules on campus speech — and couldn't.
They're not alone. Existing campus speech rules have led to all sorts of horror stories. Many are true. Because the regulations tend to be standardless — often, deciding what's hateful based on the response of the listener, a so-called "heckler's veto" — they give no fair warning of what's forbidden, leading to such absurdities as stopping a student from passing out copies of the Constitution on Constitution Day; or investigating a professor for the sin of stopping to watch a "Back the Blue" rally; or rebuking an untenured lecturer who in a discussion about race showed a documentary that included graphic images of lynching, and read aloud from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Evidently the film, like the letter, included what we're now supposed to call the N-word. (Full disclosure: I've used the word often in my books — fiction and nonfiction alike — and, seemingly only yesterday, I used it in the pages of The Times.)
But even were the rules crystal clear, they'd have both students and faculty looking over their shoulders, wondering which of their ideas might bring forth not disagreement — the mother's milk of academic life — but condemnation from their fellows and, most dreaded of all, investigation. The inculcation of fear as part of daily work on campus is very McCarthyist; more McCarthyist, even, than hauling college presidents before Congress to try to force them to place even more speech off limits. Because having to look over your shoulder is something you contend with every day….
I agree with the philosopher Seana Valentine Shiffrin that when we search for the justifications for free speech, we tend to overlook its value in crafting our own identities, the way that a self can try on ideas like clothes, to discover which fit best. Sometimes the ideas will be beautiful; sometimes they'll be ugly; sometimes they'll look better on one person than another.
This process of testing ideas should be encouraged, particularly among the young. But it carries risks, not least because of what we might call influencers, who wind up dictating which ideas it's fashionable to wear and which should be tossed out. When large majorities of college students report pressure to self-censor, this is what they're talking about….
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Professor Volokh, thanks for keeping free speech 'front and center' at your blog. More than ever, we need champions for free speech.
Maybe you could ask Prof. "Free Speech Champion" Volokh to look into the silencing of Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland and the viewpoint-driven censorship of liberals and libertarians at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Well said.
There is no inconsistency on the type of speech that is tolerated. Anything that furthers the Liberal agenda is "goodspeak". Anything that favors a Conservative viewpoint is "badspeak". It's as plain as the nose on your face.
Yes, you are very conservative and very persecuted and no need to engage with the subject matter.
Great signaling.
Waaaaank.
Many views should be tolerated. But don't be surprised that conservative and right-wing views are generally considered bad because as a general matter conservative empirical views and conservative values are in fact bad.
Which conservative empirical views and values would those be?
Oh, you know the ones.
Yes, anyone who doesn't bow and scrape to the wokists.
Yes. Right-wing views on race and human sexuality are generally pretty bad both on the empirics and on the values/morals.
In general, "right wing" views on race are that everyone should be treated equally under the law, no matter their skin color.
Left wing views currently appear to be that people should be treated differentially by the law, government, and those in power, based on the color of their skin.
Bow and scrape, eh?
What's an example of this?
Their views on taxes and regulation are generally bad too.
But acceptable in public.
True. Sometimes they're even correct!
How so?
Is lower taxation inherently bad?
If it means you can’t pay for things to make society good then yes
So, lower taxation isn't inherently bad then. It needs a condition, right?
Of course. What point are you making?
Lower taxation is not inherently bad.
What is bad is doing it for phony reasons, which has been the case with a lot of GOP tax-cutting.
No. It doesn't generally increase revenue, and, in at least the most recent case, did not bring forth a cascade of new investment.
"No. It doesn’t generally increase revenue,"
Well....
There have been a few major Federal tax cuts in recent history. The Reagan cuts in 1981 and 1986. The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. And the Trump Tax cuts in 2017.
Strictly speaking, income from those tax cuts returned to previous levels, generally within 5 years (adjusting for inflation, of course).
https://usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1980_2028USk_25s1li111mcny_11f12f
Even when looked at as a % of GDP, income taxes always seem to return to normal.
You ignored tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987; and fine print on George W. Bush's lips in 1990. Is there an honest reason why you would do that?
AL is not an honest person.
So after a few years the economy has grown enough to get some of it back?
And BTW, your link seems to provide nominal, not real, figures.
I haven't been following this subthread, but 'Federal Receipts' as % of GDP(I'm guessing that is related to taxes) have been fairly flat (roughly +- 2.5%) since 1940. It's kind of interesting that with all the infighting over taxes, the actual receipts don't change too much.
(It's a percentage, so it doesn't matter whether they are real or nominal)
Yes, but +- 2.5% is a big swing.
Five percent of 2023 GDP is almost $1.4T
Defaults to nominal. Hit the tab to switch to whatever you want. Constant $2012, Constant per capita, even % of GDP
"You ignored tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1987; "
I hit the major income tax cuts, the ones most commonly discussed as the "GOP cutting taxes"
There were far more minor tax cuts or hikes than just 82, 83, 84, or 87.
Tax increases undid excesses of the earlier tax cuts; that's why tax revenues recovered. Moreover, the 1986 tax cut was designed to raise the same revenue. You are indeed a dishonest person.
If you were trying to defend conservative ignorance, voodoo economics, backwardness, superstition-based policies, and disgusting bigotry, you’d be relying on “alternative facts,” too.
"Tax increases undid excesses of the earlier tax cuts; that’s why tax revenues recovered. "
I mean, you're going to need to show substantially more work there.
The top federal income tax rate dropped substantially, from 70% down to 50% (1982–1986), then down to 38.5% in 1987, then down to 33% in 1988-1990, then all the way down to 31% in 1991-1992.
If we're just talking about the years you mention (82, 83, 84, or 87), you're going to need to show how the slight rejiggering "fixed" the relatively large cut in the top marginal rate, with a lot more than handwaving arguments.
A poly sci department is justified in "banning" a guest who comes in to talk about how the 2020 election was stolen.
A biology department is justified in "banning" a guest who comes in to talk about how global warming is a hoax.
A medical school is justified in "banning" a guest who talks about how the Covid vaccine doesn't work.
These are mainstream conservative viewpoints today. They are properly "canceled".
Thanks captwokeist.
I mean its only one guy writing these things, but, lol at proudly associating these takes with the conservative brand:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Quantum_mechanics
https://www.conservapedia.com/E%3Dmc%C2%B2
The only thing funky about the QM article appears in the introductory section purporting to relate observations with Biblical passages.
The E=mc2 article is a theory that I've never encountered. But, once you get past the strange assertion that E=mc2 is "liberal claptrap", most of the article appears to be accurate information.
Sorry, but this one guy trying to squeeze everything into his religious bubble just isn't "all conservatives have bad views and values".
LTG, please enlighten us, what else exactly is wrong with these articles? Or did CNN tell you they're bad?
LTG, please enlighten us, what else exactly is wrong with these articles? Or did CNN tell you they’re bad?
I am not a physicist. And neither is the author. (and apparently neither are you). But I know that actual physicists generally don't write about either quantum mechanics or relativity that way, because they're serious scientists hoping to educate and discover things.
If you want to understand either of these fields, read books and articles by actual physicists doing physics.
One of my favorite books is Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe. Thanks for the recommendation to read books by physicists though. And thanks for having so little idea of what you're talking about.
So, you don’t actually have any understanding of what is wrong with the articles, you just know they’re wrong, because conservatives are bad. That’s exactly why I say your comment is even stupider than arguing about black pilots.
You read a popular science book so you assume you know more than me? Lol. Okay. That's as dumb as me saying that because I read a Brief History of Time in 8th grade I know more than you.
I have been reading Susskind's theoretical minimum series so I did notice the article on quantum mechanics doesn't once mention the core linear algebra concepts that are essential to understanding the theory.
My reading a popular science book is not the reason I assume I know more than you. Your comments are why I assume I know more than you.
You told me to read physics books, and I do, already, in fact, read physics books. No, I'm not a physicist, but neither is Bill Nye. If Bill Nye says something about physics, are you going to correct him too?
Keep digging that hole.
“If Bill Nye says something about physics, are you going to correct him too?”
If he’s as wrong or misleading as the conservapedia articles then yes?
What's concerning is that those are, in fact, mainstream conservative views, just because what is mainstream within conservatism has moved so far into cuckoo land. The free speech stuff is a symptom rather than a cause.
In fact, I doubt you can back up your assertion that "Conservapedia" is mainstream conservative views.
Are you all having a competition to see who can say the most absurd anti-conservative shit?
Just so I'm clear on your position, are you disputing that it's mainstream conservatism that the 2020 election was stolen, global warming is a hoax, and the Covid vaccine doesn't work? Because I've heard enough conservatives say those things that they're no longer sounding like fringe. Though this is one thing I'd be happy to be wrong about.
A poor attempt at anecdata.
OK so you're not going to answer my question about whether that's your position. Noted.
womp womp
Vinni, we don't usually get a long but gotta respect the call for stats.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23895856-cnn-poll-on-biden-economy-and-elections
"Thinking about the results of the 2020 presidential election, do you think that Joe Biden legitimately won enough votes to win the presidency, or not?
Republicans/Republican-leaning independents: 69% NO"
A majority of Republicans don't believe anything should be done about global warming; I could find no polls since 2013 that say it's a hoax.
But in 2013, 58% of Republicans polled said that global warming is a hoax. I doubt the number has improved.
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
Just 36% of registered Republican voters who got a Covid-19 vaccine say it was worth it, while 57% say it was not, according to new NBC News polling.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-democrats-independents-are-glad-got-covid-vaccines-republicans-re-rcna117052
Couldn't find the crosstabs for this one, and the could be worried about the side effects as phrased, but in 2024 that's ridiculous.
Go read about what Milton said about truth being stronger than falsehood.
Milton the progressive:
Milton on reading Dr. Ed 2 posts:
Milton advocating being woke:
Milton on conservatives:
Milton channels the Freedom Caucus:
Milton on the Big Lie about who won the 2020 election:
Of course, "a free and open encounter" requires giving truth enough time to get pants and shoes on.
your comment gets a gold star!
"A medical school is justified in “banning” a guest who talks about how the COVID vaccine doesn’t work."
That depends on which vaccine and which SARS-Cov-2 variant.
If you are speaking about even the bivalent vaccine preventing contagion of the recent Omicron variants, the the vaccines have minimum effectiveness. If you mean the effectiveness of preventing a severe infection, that is probably true.
Don,
Sure, talking about variations of that sort, fine.
But there are plenty of nutballs, including the FL Surgeon General, running around making all kinds of ridiculous claims.
To be sure Bernard,
Yet the US CDC propagated for many months the notion that "natural immunity" acquired through previous infection did not protect persons from further infection and was operationally equal to vaccination for public health purposes. CDC continued in this falsehood, when most public health agencies in the world had found otherwise.
Nut jobs in government did no favor to promoting wide scale vaccination against the Wuhan strain and Delta variants
You win the stupidest thing said on the internet today!
So far. Still waiting on the rest of the Leftist Myrmidons to show up.
I learned something new today: Myrmidon
noun
A soldier or a subordinate civil officer who executes orders of a superior without protest or pity; -- sometimes applied to bailiffs, constables, etc.
Not bad. 🙂
I credit Neal Boortz, retired from WSB 750. He "learned" me a lot of new words.
There are right-wing twitter accounts still about arguing how it's not racist to be scared of black pilots. Even if I'm wrong, my opinion on the shittiness of conservative views and values isn't going to come close to being the stupidest thing said online today.
arguing how it’s not racist to be scared of black pilots.
That's quite stupid. Still not as stupid as what you wrote. Yes, what you wrote is worse.
So what you're saying is that "Racism from conservatives is not as bad as someone saying that conservative views and values are dumb and bad."
You're not really helping the case that what I said is stupid or that conservative values are in fact good.
I'm saying that your stereotyping, discrimination, etc of conservatives as being all bad, is in fact, no different than racism. And the accuracy of your statement, as it applies to a much larger group of people, is indeed stupider than a few idiots debating about black pilots.
"I’m saying that your stereotyping, discrimination, etc of conservatives as being all bad, is in fact, no different than racism"
HAHAHAHA. Really not helping your case here with takes like this. Race is an immutable trait. You choose to have conservative values just like liberals choose their values. Criticism of choices is valid and way different than racism. The belief that making fun of conservatives is the same as racism is both reflective of bad logic and bad values. Thanks for proving my point for me.
I don't choose to have conservative values. I choose to have my values. A lot of my values don't align with conservative values, especially when religion gets involved.
Your ignorance, on the other hand, is intentional. Thanks for being a bigot.
I'm scared of ANYONE hired on the basis of categories rather than qualifications.
Yeah but you have no idea if pilots were or not. If you assume they were because they're black, that's just racism.
You mean a SecDef? A Secretary of Transportation? A USSC judge?
I'm not worried about pilots of any particular color or gender. I am worried about pilots that are unqualified. Of Air Traffic Controllers who suffer from physical or mental disorders that potentially can render them incapable of doing their job. Same with physicians - and the more hands-on their speciality, the more I worry. I'd like my police officers to be legally able to purchase firearms.
In short, I don't want 'diversity' to kill me or mine.
And you automatically assume a black person was hired that way, and couldn't possibly be qualified.
They're afraid of undertrained and bad pilots. Which, because black pilots are not held to the same standard as white pilots, increases the chance of them being subpar in ability substantially. The racism is inherent in the bigotry of low expectations championed by the left.
Assuming you're right about standards being lowered for black pilots, you are assuming that must mean EVERY BLACK PILOT YOU MEET is bad at their job.
That is not how statistics work. It is, however, how racism works.
'The left made me racist' remains the funniest shit that a bigot can say.
What was stupid about it? Just saying 'CONSERVATIVES ARE BEING SILENCED' is stupid, tribal oppression storytelling.
When I'm on twitter, I mostly follow liberals/left-wingers and a few conservatives/republicans who aren't psycho. Despite this, I'm still constantly bombarded with right-wing nonsense. Often because liberals are engaging with the supposedly silenced person by strident criticizing them/the view or by making fun of them.
Either you have free speech or you don't. If you have free speech except for (what LawTalkingGuy thinks are) "bad" views, then you don't have free speech.
You can have free speech. I'm all for it. Just don't be surprised that people at institutions dedicated to learning things think conservative views suck.
Liberal views work fine, so long as you have conservatives protecting liberals from the consequences of their (liberal) actions.
The opposite of conservative is not “liberal”, it’s (illiberal) progressive leftist.
Pointers of free speech from the side of the aisle that gives us Wheaton, Liberty, Regent, Franciscan, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Biola, Hillsdale, Grove City, Ouachita Baptist, Cedarville, Brigham Young, and dozens like them -- while disdaining our nation's strongest teaching and research institutions -- are always a treat.
Carry on, clingers. So far as right-wing ignorance, dogma, censorship, and bigotry could carry anyone in modern America, that is.
So calling for genocide should be just fine?
Thats so stupid you shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. Why is being against killing unborn Human Beings 'Bad'
Weren’t you the guy with the anecdote about wanting to beat up protesters at a girls softball game?
The argument that freedom of speech is best implemented as an inherent good is absolutely correct.
I tend to favor discretion over one-size fits all, but I also buy the OP’s point that this has become an issue in itself wrt speech on campus. I am somewhat optimistic about strong rules setting appropriate expectations about what people can demand of the administration; discretion allows pressure that direction does not.
Unsaid, but I think understood, is that free speech is in tension with other rights, which is why this issue is even a thing.
Don’t pretend this is a simple ‘be strong against populist demands’ situation.
’d think the recent experience of anti-Jewish speech would be a lesson to the reductionists, but I’ve been around here too long to be an optimist.
Finally, there is plenty of shunning and informal issues with 1) Coming in like an asshole regardless of what you say, and 2) certain substantive positions.
And no, the views (oh, you know the ones) are not all on the right. The right just has a better megaphone to yell about being silenced.
Beautifully put.
Legal considerations aside, it would also be great if individuals would make a commitment to take their free speech seriously: being thoughtful, regulated, helpful, productive. Just a dream.
Regulated?
I think he means internally regulated. As in not just blurting things out in the most offensive ways at the most inappropriate times.
Yes! I meant emotionally regulated. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I’m sure regulation on this blog is a real trigger word lol
Ultimately, there are always going to be judgment calls. In biology, no one is going to invite a strident believer in Lysenkoism to a genetics conference because serious people have no responsibility to indulge nonsense in the name of free speech.
The problem arises when people start to define nonsense overly broadly and start to get confused between things that they don't want to be true and things that are demonstrably untrue.
If you'll do me the favor of disregarding the crazytown positions for a second, there were serious, sober epidemiologists proposing less restrictive approaches to managing the Covid pandemic. They were defamed, ostracized, and dismissed.
There are (again, leaving the loons and bigots out of the discussion) open questions about the reasons for racial and gendered discrepancies in academic performance, income, professional advancement, and life expectancy, but only a narrow range of explanations are permissible within the academy, and careers can be blighted for statements that are simply and undeniably true but that make people uncomfortable.
There needs to be broader recognition that hating what somebody says and believing with all your heart that they are wrong does not necessarily make them wrong, and it certainly does not allow you to categorize their words as nonsense without considerably more evidence.
The problem arises when people start to define nonsense overly broadly and start to get confused between things that they don’t want to be true and things that are demonstrably untrue.
But what counts as overly broadly? And who gets to decide what counts?
I concur that the yelling about Covid absolutely made a lot of overreactions against what would normally have been pretty normal academic back-and-forth. But lets not pretend that was a problem with academia - everything became public and political, and that's going to fuck with any academic discipline (see, e.g. every single paper speculating on the diet of early man.)
As to genetic, tying that to race is a priori spurious because race is an awful proxy for race, so anyone going there is chasing something other than the latest science.
While I also think after WW2 the social implications of where one trains one intellect are a legit consideration someone should have, I am absolutely against placing these controls in any kind of external matter, and certainly not retroactively as I've seen. I'm not one to say left wing mobs on this front have been good at all. Of course see also stem cell research.
Finally, I am of the opinion that this hating of the other side is a symptom, not the problem, and not so easily treated by just better trainings. But that's for another evening's discussion.
Oh, come on. College is all about being taught to be ideologically pure. Actual thinking or questioning is a sign of personal failure.
....Have you ever been to college?
Long ago, when the goal was to let you learn what interested you (aside from some required courses in math and grammar and composition).
Did you tie an onion on your belt, which was the style at the time?
Ahh yes, "college was cool and good for me but now it sucks, or so I hear and confidently believe.'
Right wing intellectualism, as performed by intellectuals.
Conservatives have worked hard trying to turn universities into vocational training, and I can't imagine that they would let Jerry B. know that they haven't generally succeeded.
Fortunately, conservatives are the disposable roadkill of our society, thanks to the glorious American culture war.
where do you get that from? the nutjob fringe?
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/the-governor-who-maybe-tried-to-kill-liberal-arts-education/385366/
That's not like the golden age Jerry B. references, "when the goal was to let you learn what interested you".
While I agree with you that replacing the "old missions" with “meeting the state’s workforce needs” is bad public policy,
there would be nothing wrong with adding that mission.
I disagree that answering "the state’s workforce needs” is anywhere close to transforming the university to vocational training. You grossly exaggerate to make an ideological claim.
Nico, are you unfamiliar with Governor Walker?
I don't care about an individual politician's blah-blah when Wisconsin contributes a small fraction of the costs of the UW system.
As one of several missions of a state university, developing the state’s workforce is not transforming a university to vocational training. In fact workforce development should be an important mission of a state university.
Do you consider courses in creative writing, journalism, language skills to be vocational training?
.
That is true with respect to campuses controlled by conservatives.
Wheaton, Hillsdale, Cedarville, Biola, Liberty, Ave Maria, Brigham Young, Regent, Franciscan, Ouachita Baptist, Whatever the Fuck Baptist, Concordia, Bible This, Bible That, Grove City, Dallas, Bigot This, Bigot That, Oral Roberts, Bob Jones . . . the list of gape-jawed, censorship-drenched, shit-rate conservative schools is long and deplorable.
Better Americans should stop providing accreditation to and recognizing degrees granted by those right-wing hayseed farms. Recent events in Florida may be the first step toward imposing some adult supervision on schools operated and attended by gullible, bigoted, conservative losers.
I'm surprised no one mentions the Behavioral Intervention Teams...
You had a run-in with them, and have re-written the story to be not about mental illness but about your politics being oppressed. Oh, and countless students.
But this story is not in evidence in the reality-based community. And no one believes you.
Actually, I was advising student journalists who had a run-in with them.
Sure you were.
Your story is not in evidence in the reality-based community. And no one believes you.
Did Prof. Carter say much about the most severe censorship afflicting college campuses, which occurs on
conservative-controlled,
dogma-enforcing,
nonsense-teaching,
speech code-imposing,
loyalty oath-collecting,
statement of faith-enforcing,
science-suppressing,
ruthlessly discriminatory,
academic freedom-rejecting campuses?
Or does he have a vivid, disqualifying blind spot associated with superstition, dogma, right-wing censorship, and certain forms of bigotry?
College Administrators and faculty: "We'll let you know what you should be curious about"
That's the official motto of most schools conservatives have befouled.
I am pretty sure the reason these school leaders would not interpret the rules without approval and a written script provided by a school committee beforehand. they are so used to parroting what "legal" has deemed safe they cannot think for themselves.
Really?
"excellent piece" and "N.Y. Times Magazine" in the same sentence?
I don’t understand this criticism
Pretty simple: it's so he can maintain his internal hallucinations about the NYTimes. It's not intended to be a reality-based comment.
Eugene, I do not really understand why you share things like this. Are the snowflakes like Carter able to come up with some new material? It's just the same, constant bitching, over and over. You share these posts like they've said something new, or in a new way. But you never fail to disappoint.
It is... curious... that Carter speaks of a "McCarthyism" on campus but refuses to be specific about the things people aren't saying, for fear of punishment. What are the identities that people should be free to "try on," on campus, that they're not doing, due to this fear of social disapprobation? And where is it coming from? What are campus bureaucrats supposed to do about social norms that they don't directly control?
What these arguments are about - every single one of them - is not about unwinding some kind of ideological totalitarianism that is supposed to exist on every university campus but finds little evidence in actual policy or practice. These arguments are specifically about creating safe spaces for conservatives to espouse their views without compromise, notwithstanding the strong social pressure they feel from their peers and professors to change their views. It is thus about creating a kind of official ideology - a "both sides are valid" ideology - and imposing that ideology on members of campus communities who rightly view conservative opinion to be so absurdly off-base as to be unworthy of legitimate debate.
“It is thus about creating a kind of official ideology – a “both sides are valid” ideology – and imposing that ideology on members of campus communities who rightly view conservative opinion to be so absurdly off-base as to be unworthy of legitimate debate.”
I think this is right, which is why I was surprised the author made this little concession at the end:
“I’ve argued elsewhere that each generation should be permitted to place, at most, one issue beyond the fence. I believe it still.”
That he chose to abandon the maximalist position here really weakens the whole essay. Of course perhaps he realized how absurd the alternative would be
Well, it's obviously not so that you'll learn anything.
Let's see... Here are two articles with specifics.
"Brooklyn College Forced a Student To Take Down Anti-Israel Signs While Leaving Other Posters Untouched"
"Settlement of University of Wyoming "God Created Male and Female and Artemis Langford Is a Male" Case"
When I entered an institution of higher learning 58 years ago to learn a trade (via obtaining a degree mandatory to professional licensure), the school offered courses that broadened my knowledge of history, literature, art, mathematics, the reasoning of the American founders - in their own words, music, and engineering. Taking advantage of these offerings, I was surrounded by draft dodgers and willing victims of the anti-American faculty that revised history and rejected the value of tradition. It was eye-opening to find children playing at adulthood on their parents' dime who overtly rejected cognitive learning, and expected to prosper on leaving the academy. How wrong I was. The fabric of society is now woven of their cloth.
“ It was eye-opening to find children playing at adulthood on their parents’ dime who overtly rejected cognitive learning, and expected to prosper on leaving the academy. How wrong I was. The fabric of society is now woven of their cloth.”
It’s funny— this almost perfectly describes a certain draft dodger I know of. I believe his condition was bone spurs…
Nope, it was Parkinsonian Joe's Asthma.
Wait.
I thought college was about curiosity and exploration, but you are objecting to hearing anything that didn't fit your preconceived notions, and you're shocked at people rejecting tradition.
Guess what. A lot of the conventional thinking at the time turned out to be wrong.
Strange, it seems to me you've described Republicans quite well.
"and expected to prosper on leaving the academy. "
Many of them "prospered" by never leaving the academy and contributing to the dumbing down of higher education.
Those that can do; those that can't teach.
I guess you will be a fan of Prof. Volokh's new "can do" attitude later this spring.
Isn't it great when people -- you, UCLA's law dean, UCLA's law faculty, UCLA's administrators, UCLA's law students -- are happy?
Important defamation case and big defamation verdict today, but the record indicates Prof. Volokh won't be interested enough to write anything.
#TrumpGotHisTongue
Carry on, clingers.
If anybody doubts that Trump is utter and complete asshole, who has no judgment or self-control, and can't stop lying about absolutely everything the Carroll case should remove them.
I wonder if he's going to go another round.
I hope she sues him again. And again.
I also hope Trump keeps Alina Habba on the case. Until she is disbarred. At which point he can keep her on as a "strategic advisor" or "public affairs consultant" or "spiritual assistant."
When Trump is imprisoned, should the Secret Service agents be permitted to hang out in the halls or should they be confined to cells, too?
This would be a lot more impressive if Volokh wasn't a routine standard-bearer for laws that seek to silence and harass queer people, and censor works for merely acknowledging the existence of queer people.
If only EscherEnigma lived in the same universe as the rest of us.
Trust me dude, if I could live in a universe that didn't include people trying to push queers back into the closet --like Volokh-- I wouldn't be here.
Don't blame Prof. Volokh -- blame whatever put him on the spectrum and made him a conservative.
The only thing I could even guess he was referring to is Prof. Volokh's stance with regard to school library book stocking decisions. Which of course he has not remotely accurately described.
A school library (and for public school libraries, the state legislature is the supreme authority) can justifiably, both in an ethical sense and a constitutional sense, refuse to stock books that contains graphic textual descriptions of normal, heterosexual, sexual acts.
Prof. Carter is also a novelist who wrote *The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln* - it seems Lincoln lived into Reconstruction and the Radicals went after him. The twist ending will shock you!