Let's Talk About Talk

Pat Powers continues to bang the drum for House Bill 1087, legislation that purports to ensure South Dakota's public colleges and universities protect free speech on campus. In the past 24 hours, he has devoted 3 posts to the subject.

I've opined that HB 1087 will not change anyone's mind. In fact, I believe it will do little except increase paperwork.

I consider myself as close a free speech absolutist as possible. I'll accept the fact one should not yell fire in crowded theater if there's no fire, but young'uns should be able to wear their black armbands in school; folks can wear MAGA hats or Trump is the Devil t-shirts to their hearts' content, and people I disagree with should be able to march for causes they believe in.

I'll even stipulate that no one has the right to not be offended, although a democratic republic works far better when people avoid deliberately offending others. I believe that violence that surrounded Charles Murray's speech at Middlebury to be reprehensible .

That said, the biggest problem with HB 1087 is that it begins with the premise that colleges are awash with liberal thought and that all conservative intellectuals are denied access to the ivory tower. Therefore, the power of the state must be brought to bear because no other venues exist for conservative speech in any other part of the public square.

Republicans used to be wary about state intrusion into these issues because they understood the state to be a leviathan. They would have opposed legislation like this if it had been proposed by progressives. In that case, Republicans would argue that state power is a cudgel that that will be used to destroy free speech or promote liberal speech at the expense of conservative speech.

Powers points to the USD Student Bar Association Hawaiian Day party being changed to Beach Day as proof that HB 1087 is necessary. Yet, that situation was taken care of without the legislation. Further, it's not clear what was "intellectual" about that debacle.

In addition, I keep wondering what views cannot be expressed. I'm all for bringing Noam Chomsky and Charles Murray to campus on the same night and letting them argue. I don't see anything in HB 1087 that encourages this sort of academic debate.

HB 1087 seems to go beyond debate or intellectual argument. Instead it seems to weigh all ideas as intellectually equal. As such, it prompts questions: Should a geology professor allow a young earth creationist to hold forth for a whole class period or two class periods in order to insure intellectual diversity has been developed or preserved . Should an African American history class give time to someone to espouse the virtues of blackface as an art form? If a professor contends that FDR acted properly at Yalta, does the University have to give equal time to someone who believes Yalta was an act of treason?

Powers also rejoices that the President has announced an executive order about speech on college campuses. Although the text of the order is not available, I doubt that anything in the executive order will protect someone on a college campus who contends that Trump's is likely to use his MAGA hats like Gessler used his hat in the William Tell tale. In fact, given Trump's desire to weaken libel laws, that speech might get the person sued.

For years, the argument has been that the best cure for bad free speech is more good free speech. HB 1087 doesn't seem as if it will promote an free speech.

Another Angry Image Of The Day

This image came across my Twitter feed over the weekend.

Picture from here.

The man, carrying a rifle and who has his hand on his handgun, was part of a rally held at Stone Mountain, Georgia to support the Confederate flag. As I understand the story, the man in the white t-shirt burned a Confederate battle flag to protest the rally. Until the hand went to handgun, both men were engaging in provocative political speech that the First Amendment is designed to protect.

This image troubles leaves me with dozens of questions, but I'll ask just three.

First, is the police officer preternaturally calm or would his reaction have been different if an African American had had his hand on the gun?

Second, has the nation really come to the point that any political speech must be loud and any speech which violates one's sensibilities must be responded to with the threat of violence?

Most importantly, if the answer to the second question is "yes," what can citizens do to protect free speech rights?

Quotations Of The Day: College Commencement And Free Speech Edition

Last week, I had wanted to write a post about Condoleezza Rice's withdrawing as the commencement speaker at Rutgers. I opposed the Iraq War from the onset, but the idea that an accomplished woman who supported the war would have nothing valuable to say struck me as foolish stubbornness that college graduates should have tempered after four years. I guess I was stuck in 1979.

Via this Andrew Sullivan post, one sees that getting commencement speakers to withdraw is all the rage., so I will let a few other folk make my point. Greg Lukianoff provides alarming analysis about the depth of the problem:

Students and faculty have the right to protest speakers and to criticize their colleges for choosing speakers they dislike. Yet to function as a true “marketplace of ideas,” the university community must be open to hearing from people from different walks of life, professions, experiences and philosophical and political points of view. When students (or faculty, who should definitely know better) work to exclude a speaker from campus, they are thinking like censors, not scholars. A scholarly community should approach speakers with even radically different points of view as opportunities to be engaged, not as a political loss that must be avoided at all costs. Exercising a little intellectual humility might lead students and faculty away from asking “what can I do to get rid of the speaker?” and towards “what might I learn if I hear this person out?” After all, if you’re only willing to hear from people with whom you agree, it’s far less likely you will learn new things.

Universities have only themselves to blame for this mess—not just for caving to pressure, but for teaching students the wrong lessons about the value of free and robust discourse. The Foundation for Individual Rights inEducation (FIRE), of which I am the president, has found speech codes—policies that heavily restrict speech that is protected under the First Amendment—at 59%of the more than 400 colleges we survey, and deals every day with campus censorship of often even mildly offensive speech. Colleges have taught a generation of students that they have a “right not to be offended.” This belief has inevitably morphed into an expectation among students that they will be confirmed in their beliefs, not challenged. It’s no wonder, then, that they apply increasingly strict purity tests to potential campus speakers.[emphasis mine]

The best phrasing comes from Olivia Nuzzi:

Millennials have grown up in a world where you are never forced to see, hear or read anything that you haven’t personally selected. 7,000 TV channels, a DVR to skip commercials, millions of websites—we have been able to curate our own little worlds using technology, wherein nothing unpleasant or offensive can creep in. So when we’re forced to sit through a commercial or, heaven forbid, listen to someone talk who isn’t Mary-freakin’-Poppins, we can’t handle it.

The entire point of college is to be exposed to different things: Different types of people, different ideas—and maybe some of those people will hail from organizations that negatively impacted poor countries, or maybe they were partly responsible for a war that ate up the country’s resources and resulted in human rights abuses and lots of needless death. But if, at the end of your time as an undergrad, you haven’t learned that oftentimes you find great wisdom in shitty people, or just that there might be some value in hearing what someone you don’t like or respect might have to say, what on earth have you learned?[emphasis mine]

Read the Sullivan post and the articles he links to.

Plains Pops: Quitting While Ahead Edition

I found this CNN opinion article discussing Tony LaRussa's decision to retire after winning the World Series with the St. Louis Cardinals interesting.  The contrast between the Beatles and Michael Jordan was provocative, but these paragraphs really caught my eye:

There is one kind of resolution, though, that very few of us will ever be in a position to make.

Somewhere today, someone at the very pinnacle of his or her career is thinking of doing in 2012 what Tony La Russa did in 2011:

Get out on top.

Willingly walk away and declare victory

The cynic in me wonders if people don't quit on top because they never get to the top or because being on top in a normal career doesn't offer enough financial security.

On a slightly happier note, Jim Kleinsasser retired on his terms after a 13 year career with the Minnesota Vikings.  As a fellow North Dakota native, I have always rooted for Kleinsasser who may have been one of the best blocking tight ends of the past twenty years.  I do wish they would have targeted him for a chance at one pass completion.

Finally, gamblers seldom get out while ahead, so the increase in Power Ball ticket prices may cause problems for some.  I voluntarily tax myself about $25-$50 a year playing Power Ball. I get as much entertainment value out of it as I do taking my wife out to a movie.  If I buy popcorn and soda, the movie probably costs $30.  Still, South Dakota uses scratch games and Power Ball to generate revenue by taxing the most gullible; this price increase may cause trouble for some.

On Fighting Tyranny, (Well Not Really, But I Needed A Catchy Title)

Dakota War College has posted on government abuse of free enterprise here and here.  I know that lemonade stands are key to the economy.  In 2011, they may become what apple sales were to 1932.

I'm much more concerned about assaults on freedom of expression like this one: "Miniskirt-Wearing Cyclist Pulled Over by NYPD"

The facts of the case seem to indicate that this situation should unite liberals and conservatives as much as the federal budget deficit divides them. First, conservatives should be upset that the government seems to be intervening in the workplace.

Dutch bicycle company manager Jasmijn Rijcken claims she was beating the heat in a miniskirt on May 3 when she was pulled over by the NYPD for flashing a "disturbing" amount of skin, the New York Daily News reports.

It seems to make good business sense for a manager of bicycle company to ride a bike.  Why are the police destroying free enterprise?

Law and order types should be outraged that this lawbreaker who was engaged in activities described as"very disturbing," "distracting," and "dangerous" was was "let go without receiving a ticket."  Such leniency leads to societal anarchy.

Liberals should be upset that this woman is objectified as "a leggy blonde."  In addition, the woman is being forced to accept socially determined gender constructs that will demand she face dangerous situations like "having maxidress caught in a bike spoke."  Further, the corporate state is using its police power to attack green technology represented by bicyclists.

Where's the outrage?  Where's the Tea Party?  Where's MoveOn.org?  The foot of oppression is at all of our throats.

Of course it's possible that the people involved in either these situations were having a bad day and acting out of ignorance rather than malice, but that that wouldn't let bloggers make absurd points.  What's the fun in that?

Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham: Two Reasons the First Amendment May Never Be the Same

I spend too much time finding huge connections where only small ones may exist.  It’s a quality that I consistently try to rein in.  Today, I’m not even going to try.  Paul Ryan’s budget proposal and the comments that Lindsay Graham and Harry Reid made about curtailing free speech are linked in an important and dangerous way.

Today, Paul Ryan released his budget. According to a USA Today article, Ryan’s budget “would cut Social Security, defense and domestic spending to reduce federal deficits by $4.4 trillion over 10 years. Overall, federal spending would be reduced by nearly $6 trillion.”   USA Today also reports that Ryan’s plan would have “new Medicare beneficiaries . . . choose a private health plan, and the federal government would subsidize the cost. Low-income recipients and those with greater health risks would get extra help. The approach is modeled after Medicare's prescription drug program.”  Further, the plan would cut Medicaid by $750 billion over the next decade.

All these cuts may be necessary.  The deficit is enormous and unsustainable.  I refuse to accept, however, that Ryan is serious or that his plan will do any long term good for one huge reason: defense spending.  USA Today  reports that “[d]efense would be cut by $78 billion — $100 billion less than the cuts recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Right now, the United States is at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.  One could easily add Pakistan to that list.  Further, no one can predict what the result of the protests in Yemen or Syria.  Perhaps the US will undertake a few secret wars with CIA shoes on the ground.

First, it’s important to remember that some of the current fiscal woes began because the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were fought off the books for nearly six years.  The biggest cost of these three wars, however, is not financial.  The biggest cost is liberty.

Over the weekend, Harry Reid suggested that Congress “will take a look” at the violence caused by the Quron burning.  Lindsey Graham went further.  Free speech, according to Graham, “is great idea, but we're in a war.”  Today he tried to clarify, but the clarifications don’t seem to change the fact that he wants to decimate First Amendment protections.  Graham asserts “there are a lot of things under the guise of free speech that I think are harmful and hateful.” Later, Graham says 

the First Amendment means nothing without people like General Petraeus. I don’t believe that the First Amendment allows you to burn the flag or picket the funeral of a slain service member. I am going to continue to speak out and say that’s wrong. The First Amendment does allow you to express yourself and burn a Koran. I’m sure that’s the law, but I don’t think it’s a responsible use of our First Amendment right. Where does this end? How many more things are going to happen in the world that is going to incite violence against our service members overseas?

Indeed, where does Graham’s hatred of free speech end?  Glenn Greenwald, as usual, gives a far better explanation than I can.

this event demonstrates one of the most uncounted (though one of the most intended) costs of our posture of Endless War: the way it is exploited to endlessly erode core liberties. The last decade's unrelenting (and still escalating) War on Terror -- i.e., war in multiple countries in the Muslim world -- has led to an erosion of virtually every basic civil liberty, including due process, Fourth Amendment protections, and habeas corpus. All wars have the same effect, as many of the most abusive assaults on core civil liberties in American history have been justified by appeal to war.

The fact that wars constitute an “abusive” assault on civil liberties means that the country must carefully examine how and when the United States goes to war.  Congress has repeatedly abdicated its responsibility to check the President, most recently in Libya.  That leaves only one check, the budget. Ryan is giving the administration more, not less, than it asked for.  Instead of cutting back on a president’s ability to go adventuring in search of empire, Ryan has made it easier.  No budget proposal that does that can be considered serious.