(Image from Google Image Search)
From The Atlantic: Deconstructing the ‘Liberal Campus’ Cliche
The author, Jason Blakely, start with admitting that yes, there might be a problem:
Are American universities now spaces where democratic free expression is in decline, where insecurity, fear, and an obsessive, self-preening political correctness make open dialogue impossible? This was a view voiced by many at the start of the month, after the University of California, Berkeley, canceled a speech by the right-wing provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos, when a demonstration against his appearance spun out of control. Yiannopoulos had been invited to speak by campus Republicans, but headlines the next morning were dominated by images of 100 to 150 protesters wearing black masks, hurling rocks, fireworks, and Molotov cocktails en route to doing $100,000 dollars of damage to a student center named after the great icon of pacifist civil disobedience, Martin Luther King, Jr.
But you see it’s all just part of a false narrative:
Such reports have in turn reinforced a longstanding political narrative, which seeks to demean America’s universities as ideologically narrow, morally slack, hypersensitive, and out of touch. For example, commentators like the New York Times columnist Ross Douthat have argued that America’s “university system” is “genuinely corrupt” in relying on “rote appeals to … left-wing pieties to cloak its utter lack of higher purpose.”
But does this widespread portrait of universities as morally weak and anti-democratic—circulating at least since the time of Allan Bloom—really hold true? This vision of American universities is largely inadequate in at least two ways. First, it incorrectly blames increased fragility exclusively on the university system itself and, second, it relies on a reductive caricature of America’s institutions of higher learning.
And then starts with numerous hand-waving and deflections. And leaves the question unanswered: is the “conservative-identity” group merely responding in kind because of the left?
Identity politics places individual and group notions of selfhood at the center of politics. As the philosopher Charles Taylor has argued at length, the main goal of identity politics is “recognition” or validation of a given identity by others in society. I have written elsewhere about how identity politics (normally associated with American liberalism) is actually a major engine fueling the rise of Trump. The categories of left and right often distort the ways in which cultural trends, like those associated with identity politics, are far more widely shared across American life. While some left-wing groups on campus are guilty of retreating from open dialogue, a conservative-identity movement has likewise tried to buffer students from having to hear ideas that upset them.
And a summation:
Any society that routinely attacks and undermines the institutions that support its greatest minds is caught up in an act of either extravagantly naïve or profoundly sinister self-sabotage. America’s college campuses remain places of astounding diversity in which democratic exchange of the highest kind still routinely takes place. The country’s university system remains, with all its imperfections, the best school for American democracy.
If the United States is to flourish in the coming generation in the way it did in the prior century, it will need to embrace and even learn from the diversity and dialogue of its universities—not destroy them through simplistic grabs for popular power.
It’s been over two decades since I’ve been in college, and yes, there were both liberal and conservative groups on campus. But neither were rioting; that was for after the homecoming game when the student body burned sofas and overturned cars. Now that was a honored tradition!
Today one doesn’t see right-wing or moderates shaking their fists, chanting, or throwing stones in response to someone from the left visiting campus. Instead we have a “progressive” movement that not only riots when someone they don’t like visits, but also expects the universities to enforce their limited belief system. And very often they do.
Mr. Blakely fails to address the First Amendment issues and also the growing concern that higher education are hardening into leftist enclaves. If we truly want the country to flourish, then free inquiry and freedom of speech are a necessity, not an option.
Comments
124 responses to “Deconstructing the ‘Liberal Campus’ Cliche?”
Groupthink
It’s been 20 years since I left home for college. UC Berkeley. This sort of thing went on then, probably as often as now, but it didn’t get as much coverage. No Facebook, no Twitter.
I only knew about a riot if I happened to see it taking place. And somehow, the riot always ended up at Foot Locker (now closed, it was looted 4 times in one year).
One component that I suspect hasn’t changed in the last 20 years is that the faculty/staff are ALWAYS in on it. I guarantee you that somebody is quietly being fired right now for the Milo incident.
There are essentially 2 different universities at Berkeley, and one pretends to be as important and prestigious as the other. It isn’t.
Are you implying that the physicists are too damn busy to be in on it?
Yes.
And it’s not at all rip on humanities. Those people have to work their asses off too. Reading 10,000-20,000 pages a semester, and then writing about it.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the rabble rousers are actually studying up there, if anything at all.
Ever hear of the epithet “me-search”? You see, Grievance Studies majors don’t have to learn anything new. By being a queer left-handed Palestinian quadriplegic, you already know everything you need to know through your “lived experience”. So, your scholarly work is just retelling your life through writing, or interpretive dance, or wandering the streets as a masturbating hobo, or what have you. So, when you already know everything because it’s just about you, that leaves you plenty of time to agitate for social justice.
Ever hear of the epithet “me-search”?
*sniff sniff*
That just reeks of Robby Horseshit. Check your boots, HM, and make sure you didn’t get any smeared on your jodhpurs….
Look upon these works and despair!
“Despair” is not the word I would use. That was some of the worst tripe I have been asked to swallow in some time. That whole article is one big pile of, “Bitch, best check yo’ premise first!”
+1
You crossed the line when you made them left-handed.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the rabble rousers are actually studying up there, if anything at all.
Their declared major is Institutional Registration, with a dual minor in Grade Inflation and Coarse Auditing (pun intended).
Translation, they aren’t. And being, for the most part, handsomely and disproportionately rewarded for their troubling hooliganism.
Did I mention that it’s the best public university in the nation?
Did I mention that it’s the best public university in the nation?
Yes, and that doesn’t entirely preclude them from the Soft Elitism of Low Expectations and Quota Admissions for “Approved Demographies of Concern”.
AFAIAC, “Humanities” Studies is little more than “Command & Concern Regurgitation”….
Did that lady at the NYU protest over Gavin end up being a professor?
No – she is a “lobster porn artist” http://www.brooklynvegan.com/11-arrested-protesting-gavin-mcinnes-talk-at-nyu-video/
Why did I click those links. What a photoshoot
MUHUHUHUWHA!
Why swiss? why?
Sorry, Lord, but to dismiss Bakley’s rather salient point concerning the diversity present in the mission and focus of American post-secondary institutions as “hand-waving and deflections” is intellectual sloth. To hold places like Berkley and Oberlin as representative of academia is as mendacious as when people attempt to use Somalia as representative of a libertarian state. A writer on another well-known libertarian news and lifestyle site once breathlessly reported that “Bias Response Teams” now exist on 100 campuses, I noted that as there are more than 4,000 2 to 4 year post-secondary institutions that this amounts to 2.5 percent nationwide. Of course, most people rejected my message, as they hated me because I told the truth.
Nevertheless, one should be concerned whenever thuggery attempts to silence dissent in any arena. However, one can express this concern in the context of academia without resorting to the reflexive populist anti-intellectualism that has dominated popular discourse as of late. Furthermore, intellectual honesty demands that one addresses this issue acknowledging that it is currently confined to a few institutions already well-known for their hijinks. The meme of university administrators roving campus as modern-day Maoist Red Guardsmen is a moral panic akin to the Satanic ritual abuse at daycares scare of the 1980s. Indeed, one of the reasons I am here is that same author on the other well-known libertarian news and lifestyle site once slandered my alma mater by claiming it had instituted a speech code when in fact that was never the case. When I had brought hard, empirical evidence of that fact, you guessed it, most people rejected my message, and a correction was never issued.
We, Glibertarians, should be better than this. Culture war rallying cries are thought-terminating cliches. As I noted last night, we retreat from the battlefield in which the war of ideas take place at no one’s but our own peril.
A total picture of America’s academy would include everything from bustling state schools like the University of Alabama to small Catholic colleges like Thomas Aquinas College; it would span elite Ivies like Harvard and Princeton and highly affordable community colleges like Santa Monica College; it would include places specializing in sciences and engineering like Colorado School of Mines and art institutes like Rhode Island School of Design. American higher education has in part excelled due to a willingness to generously fund and support a wide diversity of institutions.
I think this deflects from the point. People aren’t incensed about what happens at Podunk Community College, they’re focused on the thought leaders in college education: flagship state schools, Ivies, elite liberal arts colleges, and prestigious private schools.
Half the reason for all this kerfuffle is because high school kids are being told, in no uncertain terms, that the only way to be successful is to attend a 4-year university to earn a bachelor’s degree. Then, the kids are handed a wad of taxpayer cash and subsidies and told to have fun. The fact that kids can take other routes, even other college routes, doesn’t change the fact that a large portion of kids are being persuaded to go to these large public and private universities. People are justifiably concerned that the “best path to success” seems to be overpriced, underperforming, and ideologically intolerant.
I went to a trade school during high school for CAD and architecture. 2 years, half the day every day. My high school sent unwanted kids to the programs there, things like diesel tech or the machine shop. I ended up teaching the shop kids how to design in CAD, and they gave me access and training in the metal shop. It was great. But no one ever said to me that CAD would be a good path. it was always “what 4 year school are you going to go to?” guidance counselor never mentioned trade schools to us. but here’s a check for $100,000, even though you don’t have a major or field picked yet.
I went to school and dropped out. After a year of working at a ski resort, I picked a trade, locksmithing, and went to North Bennet Street in Boston. I told every friend still in HS to defer a year if they were not sure. Several friends are in debt to their eyes and have no real skills. A few have it made with parents funding trips around the world.
Absolutely my experience in high school. Because I was “smart” I was steered only toward a four year university education. I didn’t know enough to object.
People I graduated high school with who attended the “vo-tech” programs are now retiring quite early after spending very lucrative careers doing something they loved for the last mumbledy-mumbledy years. They had diverse careers as auto mechanics, nurses, heavy equipment operators, construction workers, chefs, hair stylists, general contractors, legal secretaries, CAD operators, welders, and more.
Count me a fan of the mikeroweWORKS Foundation.
My dad said the same thing. the guys the school put down went to be electricians. while dad was in sales, saving for a house, they were buying their second. or toys, nice cars and boats.
My friend from the metal shop works on classic cars now. body work on old lambo’s and was flown to the Ferrari factory.
My step-father was an admission rep for Universal Technical Institute. With a job placement rate of around 99.99999999%, after 2 years of education, you had 21/22 year old auto mechanics starting at 75,000.
It’s just sad to see the high school actively push people away from these jobs. They really try to make it seem that those things are roads to nowhere. They can be fulfilling, and pay very well considering the costs.
+ Many. I always like to remind my son and his buddies that my plumber, electrician and HVAC dudes all have cabins, racecars, nice homes and a real retirement plan.
Money can be made anywhere. Really.
My grandfather, without even a high school education, raised five kids while working as a tool and die man for Whirlpool.
If you haven’t seen it, this Mike Rowe video is five minutes well spent.
A private school, like Hillsdale or Thomas Aquinas College, is obviously going to be more resistant to political pressure.
But what are the changes at the public schools? More diversity classes? Rape Crisis? Safe Spaces?
Ah, “public” is a double-edge sword. As you may know, Trump has unleashed Jerry Falwell Jr. upon higher education. Postsecondary institutions are rational actors in the market. When the Federal government incentivized them to create diversity classes, rape kangaroo courts, and safe spaces with payola grants, that’s what they did. Perhaps now we’ll see “Every Freshman a Rifleman” classes with M-1 Garands and taxpayer-subsidized firearms instructors provided by the Trump administration.
The answer is that there is nothing inherently corrupting in the Ivory Tower, except public monies. That’s true for any institution.
Good reply – but I’m also seeing such changes occur in the private sector that have no financial incentive. My own workplace has diversity and anti-racist training, which is within their rights as a private company. But it does speaks of the intellectual rot that pervades many aspects of society.
The punchline is that I’ve taught at an American university for almost 10 years and I’ve never had to take diversity training. Though, this year I’ve had to take Title IX training, but the impetus behind that is more CYA and the institution’s than teaching me I’m a bad man for enjoying this.
And yet, the article linked to by Private Chipperbot was about Podunk CC.
So, it would be more effective to complain about public subsidies in higher education as opposed to eye-rolling over the loony eggheads.
it would be more effective to complain about public subsidies in higher education as opposed to eye-rolling over the loony eggheads.
My objection isn’t solely to the public subsidies. I think the cultural influence of these “loony eggheads” needs to be challenged and beaten back. I know it’s kulturkampf to do so, but it needs to be done. The practical reality is that giving Progs intellectual dominion over significant portions of the last 3 generations has harmed the cause of liberty grievously. I don’t think it’s inappropriate to challenge the direct violation of liberty (public subsidies) along with the indirect erosion of liberty (loony eggheads).
Good. I’m glad you’re on board. As I stated last night, this needs to be done. But you realize that this requires more libertarian liberal arts and social science majors and not less, don’t you? The kulturkampf is fought in the disciplines of philosophy, art and literary criticism, and history, as well as in economics, political science, sociology, and education.
If you just tip your fedora while stating that “arguing the merits of a Jacques-Louis David over an Arshile Gorky is for fags, learn to build something!”, then you’ve already lost.
But you realize that this requires more libertarian liberal arts and social science majors and not less, don’t you? The kulturkampf is fought in the disciplines of philosophy, art and literary criticism, and history, as well as in economics, political science, sociology, and education.
Yes, agreed. However, as I mentioned in response to that, I’m not sold on the idea of some sort of internal takeover. I don’t impugn those who attempt an internal takeover, but I think the solution is going to come outside the traditional education model.
@trshmnstr
I agree that we need to look outside of the traditional education model, which is in its death throes anyway. The thing I most enjoy about my current position is that I’m doing just that. I’d go into more detail, but I fear self-doxxing.
Sorry, HM – you have already self-doxxed yourself as “A Mulatto Gentleman, French Empire circa 1800 by Fabre.” !!!!!!!!!
And I Googled Swissies avatar and got
“Best guess for image is Donald Trump.”
Today on one of the threads on the Olde Site someone quietly mentioned the New Site – and here I am. Looks great!
What happens when the trolls show up? I appreciate good trolls they keeps things from being too much of a circle jerk, but my gawd the ones with mental problems really lower the property values.
Been much discussion about this. I think the consensus (I h8 that word) is that if you are a libertarian, you gotta come down on the side of free speech. That will change, of course, when the trolling becomes abusive or disruptive.
HM, let’s slice it another way- out of the top (say) 20 universities, by whatever criteria they are ranked, what’s the percentage that have this infection? I don’t expect it at the North Dakota School of Mining, but might at Yale or Penn.
All that tells me is that wealthy entitled kids are wealthy and entitled. That shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Hey, I was at Penn and I was poor and untitled. Wayyyy too fucking busy doing actual research to worry about intersectionality and patriarchal something something something hegemony and colonialism.
I entered Public Flagship U. as a geology major as it was a top 10, tier 1 school for oceanography and sedimentology. After realizing I hated fieldwork, I left with a B.A. in Humanities with a minor in Classics. I was too busy memorizing the conjugations of the middle voice in Attic Greek (and trying to get laid) to worry about that stuff too. Aside for a few majors (i.e., [X] Studies), most people are. But “[X] Studies” make for good targets when lambasting the usual suspects. However, their influence and presence on day to day campus life is way over-exaggerated. The point is that whenever you have a large collection of 18 to 23 year olds, who are all inherently stupid to begin with, you’re going to have a certain percentage who are crazy little shits.
As an aside, because I was a good little Objectivist from 14 to 19, I only checked “White” on my college applications. I didn’t want anyone to ever think I was an “affirmative action” selection. I figured at the time, (I don’t know if it’s true, but 18 year old me thought so) that college applications were public record, so when I was a famous whatever, people investigating me couldn’t hold that against me. I hadn’t thought about it for a long time until now.
I entered Public Flagship U. as a geology major
Fascinating. Appropos of nothing, but when I was in undergrad, the My College Sweetheart and At-One-Time-Future-Mrs. Maximus, she was a Geology major as well (though we attended a private college – the exact same one that Tony, yes, *THAT* Tony, also attended and graduated from. A couple of years after I started posting on The Site That Shall Not Be Named(tm), I had a friend who was still employed in the Registrar, and confirmed Tony’s identity.)
I was also a geology major. As far as I know, I never dated Groovus.
Do you remember what he studied? I vaguely remember something about biology, but that might not have been true.
I’m just curious if your school had anything to do with turning him into a complete asshole.
Do you remember what he studied? I vaguely remember something about biology, but that might not have been true.
It’s true to a point, as our school’s curriculum was/is broken down into four major blocks of inquiry: Social, Scientific, Mathematics, and Aesthetic. One’s major and minor came from two of the floor blocks.
His degree is in Political Science, with a minor in General Biology.
The *perfect* degree combo to be an Environmental Lawyer, actually.
I’m just curious if your school had anything to do with turning him into a complete asshole.
No, he’s was born one and simply metastised. You have seen the, “Mutation Scene,” from Akira, no?
In all seriousness, it is a snooty, Progressive Left-ish Uni, with the more “conservative” profs found in the Colleges of Engineering, Philosophy, and (hard) Life Sciences.
Quite renowned for its Colleges of Law, Petroleum Engineering, Pre-Med, and Computer Science, actually (Chem E grad, minored in Computer Modelling and Simulation).
He’s just a spoilt, rich prick who is an overgrown toddler, for realsies.
It’s been 20 years since I left home for college.
Holy shit. Me too, this fall. How the hell did that happen?
And you are right. This sort of thing was common then too (I was also at a famously liberal-activisty school which was the basis for PCU). I have had very little interaction with academic institutions since, so I really don’t know what it’s like now. It’s easy to fall into the angry old guy “get off my lawn” sort of attitude. But I try not to assume the worst about things like this.
Yeah, 20 years this August.
Your school was PCU, mine Animal House.
I can’t say for certain that the protesters are worse now. They probably aren’t.
I can say for sure that what I did back then would get me expelled now. I had a pizza delivered to a hunger strike, and ate it with my friends right in front of them. Anyone doing that today would be in so much trouble.
savage.
We hosted a smoke-a-thon in the middle of campus every Earth Day.
I am sure Mr. Blakely could give us plenty of examples of “the diversity and dialogue of its universities” improving these here Untied States, yes?
I mean other than po-mo drivel coming out of the liberal arts departments, hordes of new admin positions involving “diversity and inclusiveness”, the abolition of due process, the screaming, crying and demands for safe spaces rather than even permitting an uncomfortable opinion to be expressed. Oh, and do point out the diversity of thought on the faculties, staffs and student groups. I am sure they are quite balanced, and “reflect America”.
Dialogue
noun
1. SHUT UP AND LISTEN
Ah, yes. Havens for our greatest minds.
Yeah. I linked to Hair-n-Run. Wanna fight about it?
I looked back there, today, for the first time in a few days. I have to say, the number of comments seems to be down quite a bit.
It’s mostly blank space. The trolls have the upper hand.
sad.
Troll vs Yokel?
I saw Tony arguing with amsoc today.
:: reality implodes ::
The current amsoc isn’t the real amsoc. Somebody stole his handle.
While Cox’s rant was idiotic, if that student were in my class, he’d be facing more than a semester’s suspension. New Hampshire is a two-party consent state and surreptitious audio recording of telecommunication or oral communication is a felony. I clearly state in all my syllabi that I do not give consent for my classes to be audio or video recorded, and that any recordings have to be first authorized by me on a class by class basis.
Of course, that goes the other way too, and I cannot record my students as well, as much as I would want to, sometimes.
Leaving the school and/or teacher policy aside, what’s the expectation of privacy at a public institution? Let’s say the teacher decided to hold class on the quad on a nice day and someone recorded without permission. Would it still be a crime in NH? Not trolling, honestly curious.
It’s a good question. In general, I would believe being outdoors, like with photography, would come with no expectation of privacy. But IANAL and all that.
Such reports have in turn reinforced a longstanding political narrative, which seeks to demean America’s universities as ideologically narrow, morally slack, hypersensitive, and out of touch.
I went into undergrad thinking that this stereotype was just a hyperbolic overreaction. After being required to sit in the black cultural center on campus and have a group “heart to heart” with some racist administrator in order to pass a required freshman class, I started to understand that it really wasn’t hyperbolic at all. Even so, the engineering college at Purdue is a relatively conservative one, so maybe it was just the admin forcing a token amount of diversity on the students?
In my 2nd sophomore year (I did a co-op, so I had a 2 semester freshman year, a 2 semester senior year, and 4 semesters in the 3 years in between), I started taking classes toward a political science minor. My first one looked to be fascinating. It was called something like “20th Century American Foreign Policy,” and purported to be a history of the policies of the Cold War and War on Terror. I was really excited about it until the prof started talking (yes, that is a link to the prof’s Marxist analysis of bagels). In most of the Cold War analysis, there was the US position, the Soviet position, and then the prof’s position that the Soviets were being too conciliatory. Toss in some required leftist reading on US imperialism, and I got the full exposure to education as indoctrination.
Law school has done nothing to soften that blow. I was an officer of the Federalist Society at SMU, and we usually asked the school’s professors to come in and debate the people we paid to have come into town to talk. The best turnout was always for a 3-person panel, with two profs and one nationally-known speaker. Except for the handful of profs who we knew to be conservative/libertarian leaning, it was assumed that the prof we asked to debate were going to be some flavor of SJW and/or Marxist. What did surprise me, though, was the complete lack of personal integrity many of these profs had. One was supposed to have a 15 minute rebuttal period after the national speaker. He used 2 minutes of it to hurl invective and cuss out the entire room before storming off. One had asked for all parties to agree to non-publicity of the event ( by news media), only to break his own promise a few months later.
Woah! The comment is held if you double-post. Thanks SP, if that was you.
SP vs Squirrelz!!!!!
Round One – to SP!
SP. Professional Nutcracker.
Now, for that pesky Moose…..
I won’t say that all campuses are as crazy as the riot campuses, simply that when there’s a riot, they need to literally read the Riot Act.
And until the current model of higher education collapses under the weight of unsustainability, state universities should treat political opinions as a protected class like race, and private universities should be held to their governing documents, including any language about academic freedom.
Which in the case of Catholic universities includes this document, which doesn’t adopt the full-on, everything-goes model of academic freedom. But then, neither do many secular universities.
(PS – often when you hear about a Catholic university like DePaul censoring someone, it’s as likely to be for proggy-tard reasons as for Catholic orthodoxy reasons, so the details are important)
Yes, we know liberation theology finds succor at Catholic universities.
Like Crazy Gail, I blame the Jesuits.
More like finds suckers.
HM with the killer gifs.
OT: Suggestion to esteemed site admins:
Not sure of your theme’s (Extra?) options, but if it’s possible to turn off the sidebar on posts (not pages) it would help with viewing the comment threading. i.e moar width.
Like
JS snippet to do that
nice! as I’m getting a little better at this whole coding thing, I was actually able to read that. Might be the first time outside of the classes.
I learned three tricks from some masters of coding:
1) Object names should mean something to the reader
2) Efficiency gets compiled away, readability doesn’t
3) If you think you’ve commented your code enough, double it
*takes notes*
This career switch is the biggest undertaking of mine in a long time. It’s not easy, but I am starting to get it. Having one roommate in the field and the other a sys admin helps.
I’ve learned a ton by tweaking The Site That Shall Not Be Named, and now this site. I felt bad letting my programming skills atrophy during law school, and I was never good at web dev, so it’s a good creative/learning outlet.
When I was learning Perl for my personal use, I would comment out the open and close braces so that I could find the mismatches. 😮
it’s good to know people here can code. I may be asking some questions if needed to y’all.
When I was learning Perl
*shudders*
One of my first projects in industry was to maintain and improve a developer’s tool written in javascript, python, a few web technologies I can’t remember, and a back end of Perl. I worked on it for 2 weeks before telling my boss that I would be scrapping the whole thing and rewriting the back end in python.
The guy who wrote the Perl was a savant, and that meant the code was hardly readable. No comments, no readmes, no nothing. Just file after file with a wall of text and hardly any hint as to what was going on.
A pair of Civil Asset Forfeiture bills are set to be voted on today by the Arizona House Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. The pair of bills would increase accountability and transparency regarding the seizure of private property in Arizona. HB2170 and HB2243 modify the Arizona Anti-Racketeering Revolving Funds. Property seized under Civil Assert Forfeiture and other mechanisms are deposited into this fund. The proceeds are used for anti-gang education and other designated purposes.
HB2243 reforms reports of the status of the state and county ARRF funds. Reports would be filed quarterly rather than annually and are required in an electronic rather than paper format.
HB2170 would direct 5% of the Arizona AARF to the Peace Officer Training Fund (POTF). The POTF finances training of law enforcement in 163 agencies across Arizona.
Both bills passed the Federalism, Property Rights and Public Policy (FPRPP) committee on January 24th by an 8-0 vote.
HB2243 has broad support from groups such as the Tenth Amendment Center through the Arizona Legislature’s Right to Speak (RTS) system. No opposition to the bill has yet been voiced through RTS.
HB2170 has also enjoyed vocal support on RTS from the Arizona Police Association and the Tenth Amendment Center. However, the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police have registered their opposition.
Step in the right direction? More info to the public is good.
Yes, this is a step in the right direction. If I have any quibble, it’s that it says “electronic format” and not “searchable electronic format.” Hopefully, the reports will be in a relatively standard, useful format. Anybody still filing paper reports at this point is doing more work in order to make their reports inaccessible.
I’ve looked through Arizona county election reports. There is a largely standardized, electronic format available on the AZ Secretary of State’s website, but it’s not something you can just load into Excel and go through.
The detailed, human readable election reports for some counties (I’m looking at you, Pinal!) are unsearchable scanned images in a PDF. Yes, it’s technically available in an electronic format, but good freaking luck finding who won what school board elections.
Marty, the Professional versions of Adobe Acrobat (the full paid pkg, not the free reader) will OCR images and kick out a larger file with searchable text. You can probably also find free software which will do that, too.
HB2170 passed on a 7-2 vote before the JPS commitee. HB2243 passed 9-0.
Chinese students in the US are using “inclusion” and “diversity” to oppose a Dalai Lama graduation speech
Sorry if my manual HTML fails. Someone around here might have some fun with this story.
Blarg, meant to mention that someone around here might enjoy running with this story, but got distracted trying to remember the HTML for blockquote, which is just block quote. Do we get tags?
Lets see. Blinking Text. I’m guessing … no.
Yeah, “blink” in my post should’ve been seizure inducing. I am disappoint.
not a bad angle. I would think they’d bring up the whole serfdom/slavery thing.
So this is where you nerds have all been hiding.
No on-time PM Links? I’m already disappointed. But at least you have the excuse of having real jobs, unlike Robby.
They should be up soon. sloop has been great on it.
Hey John!
Robby was on a short (for some reason) trip to Panama.
PM links come at reasonable times now.
PMAll links come at reasonable times now.I came here to say this
Well, hello. Hopefully I can actually get a post through here right now, which would be a vast improvement on the current state of the mainland.
Your post is acknowledged.
hey JB
The Republic of Gliberia may be stuck on this island, but the day will come when the People’s Republic of Reason falls.
Can we keep these comments to under 140 characters? Jesus. Write a books already. Thanks.
nice pic.
That’s me at work.
No.
Hello, gang.
Thanks for getting this organized. It’s good to see the familiar names and less TDS.
And now I return to my regularly scheduled lurking…
hello again!
“Are American universities now spaces where democratic free expression is in decline, where insecurity, fear, and an obsessive, self-preening political correctness make open dialogue impossible?”
The author seems to frame the issue in such a way that if so long as he can find universities which allow at least some degree of open dialogue, then he wins, because he’s shown open dialogue isn’t “impossible.”
I would have thought that, at a lot of universities, open dialogue is at the arbitrary mercy of administrators and disruptive snowflakes, but that’s not the same as saying the administrators and snowflakes disrupt open dialogue in every case. They’re too lazy for that.
So, opinions:
What about restrictions at these kinds of events on covering one’s face? How libertarian is it to expect that protesters must openly do so? Would it reduce the likelihood of violence, given that anyone could be recording these days? If anyone does turn violent, it also might reduce the likelihood that people will remain in the area and give them cover in the crowd.
Some could argue that people might lose their jobs, but that isn’t a very good libertarian argument. Freedom of association is also the freedom to NOT associate with some people, and it ought to be OK to fire someone for attending protests you don’t agree with.
Speech/expression and liberty cannot be constrained just because we might worry about the outcome.
So you’re not in favor of restricting people from wearing masks if the outcome is likely to be violence? I don’t mean costume parties and such, I mean when it’s obvious that tensions are likely to reach a boiling point. It seems better than just letting it boil over and tear-gassing everyone and rounding up plenty of innocents for arrests because a few masked jackasses are using the crowd as cover for violent actions.
I don’t think anyone’s speech itself is infringed simply because you require that you can see their face while they speak.
That’s right. As soon as you allow the judgement of your Besserwissers as to things like “outcome is likely to be violence,” you’re down the statist rathole. It may be expedient to start preventively restricting expression at the point of the government’s gun, but it’s morally wrong.
But is it a restriction of expression? Bank robbers are going to be stopped and required to remove their masks. Just entering a bank with a mask on is enough for any reasonable person to assume a person doesn’t mean well. On private property it’s pretty much always up to the property owner to set the rules and expel those who break them.
The Antifa sorts are carrying weapons and hiding their faces so they can do harm to people and property. Even in a full ANCAP world, I think those people would be met with extreme violence by armed citizenry given no other alternatives and no government to turn to in order to stop terrorism. If someone showed up on my property carrying a weapon and wearing a mask, I’m not taking the time to consider what they might have to say.
I’m just suggesting that in a civil society where there is a state (even a minarchist one) that going halfway might prevent both extremes (violence met or unmet by armed citizens) to the satisfaction of basic safety.
Preventative is preventative, no matter how well it correlates to an upcoming rights-violation. Banks and other institutions are free to engage in preventative restrictions on “expression.” However, that doesn’t give the government any right to do the same.
IMO, the way to deter this violence is to come down like a ton of bricks the instant that rights violations start. Make these people decide between harming others and making it home alive.
How far and what weapons to permit, then? My usual measuring stick for whether a weapon belongs in civilian hands out “in public” is how much collateral damage it does and whether the damage is indiscriminate. That keeps it narrowed so that people aren’t carrying around hand grenades (which have killed a lot of innocent people by accident) and land mines / other booby traps. There are plenty of lethal weapons that can be easily controlled so as to present little risk of harm to unintended targets.
Should a citizenry carry its own teargas canisters and / or other non-lethals to disperse violent crowds when the police have not arrived or appear unwilling to assist?
Absolutely. But to force this restriction as a matter of law or regulate non-coercive expression in public places? Absolutely not.
Once the Bloc of Color people start breaking stuff, assaulting people, etc., then I’d say the thing to do is read the literal Riot Act and give everyone, masked and unmasked, a chance to get out of the area. Then the remaining people, masked and unmasked, can be arrested.
The catch is what if some Bloc of Color people hijack a peaceful demonstration so that the peaceful majority gets dispersed?
“non-coercive expression” is an interesting way to put it.
If a large crowd of people in black masks and carrying weapons meets you in public where you plan to speak, doesn’t that tilt the balance of speech rights in their favor? More likely than not, unless you’re protected by security services, their presence seems likely to chill speech. Isn’t that much the same as saying you really don’t have the freedom to speak because others can mass in order to menace you openly and are likely to attack the moment you do?
The example I gave, Antifa, sure seems “coercive” in their “expression” to me.
“The catch is what if some Bloc of Color people hijack a peaceful demonstration so that the peaceful majority gets dispersed?”
That’s a good point. False-flagging a group is an easy way to disrupt speech rights and free assembly.
ANCAPs would most likely expect that there is no public property whatsoever, thus the problem is obviated by local rules. How one goes about disseminating those rules so people don’t break them inadvertently during free egress is another matter. Such groups would probably just be turned away or outright killed if they trespass. Not much room for error there.
I’d imagine most minarchists vary on their their interpretation of how wide the NAP fits the reality of riots. It’s not something I give too much thought to because they’re so rare (until recently, anyway).
What about restrictions at these kinds of events on covering one’s face?
I’m against that. However, I’m for lifting campus carry restrictions when a significant risk of violence is expected. (SLDs apply regarding being able to carry on public land)
I have no problem with law-abiding people defending themselves with a short fuse and deadly force when confronted with a life-threatening mob. If a few of these assholes get plugged, the riots will turn back into peaceful protests real quick.
I’m also a big fan of the castle doctrine and extending the castle doctrine to your personal vehicle.
I’m all for lifting campus carry restrictions completely, but there’s a catch. Plenty of universities are private. I think a business (or home, or whatever) has a right to restrict activities on their property. Though I do think there’s an easy enough way to determine where and how to permit the restrictions.
If you take public funds, you must permit Constitutional rights uninfringed. If parts of your property were obtained by eminent domain for the purposes of development (I don’t mean buried cable), then Constitutional rights must be upheld forever on those parts as they were made public lands regardless of who they’re turned over to.
There’s already a code provision in California that makes it illegal to wear a mask for the purpose of evading the police, so the antifa/blackbloc protestors at Berkeley were breaking that law already (arguably – they might argue it’s ‘cultural’ or something like that, but if they’re engaged in violence, it seems pretty obviously meant to conceal identity).
I’m sure lots of places prohibit them and enforce the prohibition at their discretion. The question is more of a philosophical one concerning people’s application of the NAP in stateless/small state societies. As trshmnstr and Old Man figure, masks fall under free expression. I’m not thoroughly convinced. A mask certainly can be expression, but the reality of the riots is that the Antifa sorts wander around the crowd looking for anyone filming and take their cameras, menace, and attack people for filming. That alone seems justification for defensive violence because it poses an imminent threat to one’s own safety.
I’ve watched enough of the video from those events to be able to say confidently that anywhere Antifa shows up with faces covered is very likely to lead to harm to others and destruction of property.
If we have a minimal state, one might expect that defense against force by a police force would still permit, even expect, such a state to classify terrorist organizations as such. But therein lies the issue that states are often not accountable to the people when they use such classifications for political reasons rather than a bona fide defense of people and property.