• Michigan’s infamous Mddle East specialist, Juan Cole, comes up with another doozy

    Carbon dioxide, Cole says, is “a far more deadly gas” than what was used in “the gas attack in Syria on April 4.”

    His basic argument is encapsulated in the headline of his recent article in The Nation:

    The Other Poison Gas Killing Syrians: Carbon Dioxide Emissions

    If Trump and his cronies really cared about children killed by noxious gases, they wouldn’t be trying to spew ever more CO2 into the atmosphere –Juan Cole

    You see, it’s about drought. Yeah, that’s the ticket. It’s the drought that caused everything to go wrong in Syria.

    Oh, yes, and Trump is to blame. Plus, he’s a hypocrite for bombing a Syrian base to stop more chemical weapon attacks because Trump doesn’t also agree with Al Gore on climate change. If you can follow that logic, check with your doctor. If you agree with it, apply to graduate studies with Prof. Cole at Michigan.

    Again, to quote the professor:

    The Syrian civil war has left more than 400,000 people dead, among them graveyards full of children and innocent noncombatants. About half the country’s 23 million people have been left homeless, and of those, 4 million have been driven abroad (some of them contributing to Europe’s refugee crisis and its consequent rightward political shift). The war occurred for many complex reasons, including social and political ones. The severest drought in recorded modern Syrian history in 2007–10, however, made its contribution. –Juan Cole

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

    Comment:  Notice that, in the fine print, Cole relegates the drought to a much more ambiguous status. It “made a contribution” to the humanitarian disaster, he now says. How much contribution? He refuses to say.

    Yet the whole point of the article is that carbon dioxide in Syria is more deadly than poison gas attacks, which are war crimes (for good reasons). In short, the article is bait-and-switch, seasoned with hyperbole, political correctness, and a steadfast refusal to look true evil in the eye.

    The most appropriate comment comes from the movie, Billy Madison. It is pitch perfect for Prof. Cole’s analysis:

    In other words, a drought may have contributed, indirectly, to the carnage in Syria. But to emphasize it as a major cause is misleading, tendentious, and wrong.

    To put it differently, California had multiple years of drought and, according to recent statistics, the civil war there has claimed far fewer than 400,000 lives. Perhaps under 300,000.

    Hey, let’s at least give Jerry Brown some credit for avoiding barrel bombs in the Central Valley. So far.

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

    Hat Tip: Daniel Pipes and Campus Watch. They found the Cole article and publicized it. Kudos.

    Tom Blumer at NewsBusters, who initially publicized the article.

  • Berkeley: A Feckless Administration Caves, in advance, to the Heckler’s Veto

    Why not free speech at colleges?

    The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has the story here.

    Since [the riots protesting a planned but cancelled speech by Milo Yiannopoulo], the Berkeley College Republicans’ property has been destroyed, the group cancelled a speech by conservative activist and Berkeley alumnus David Horowitz after the administration threw up numerous roadblocks, and now it has been told that conservative commentator Ann Coulter may not speak as planned due to the danger posed by potentially violent protesters.

    This is a chilling and dangerous precedent. –FIRE

    FIRE has it exactly right, as usual. They are a politically-neutral organization that supports free speech and does more than any organization to promote it.

    Hecklers should never receive a veto. NEVER.

    At Berkeley, the hecklers and rioters not only have a veto, they have established an effective deterrent threat. They can merely threaten to go berserk and prevent speech they oppose.

    The rights (and limitations) surrounding the First Amendment should apply fully on campuses, even at, gasp, the University of California, Berkeley.

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

    The three keys:

    1. Universities need to state strong free speech principles. Those are essential, and it is essential to state them without weasel words. But even the best principles are not enough. Berkeley falsely stated its commitment to free speech in cancelling speeches.
    2. Universities need to enforce those on the ground through its deans and safety officers
    3. Students and outsiders who violate those rules need to face sure and serious punishments.

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

    To see the right example, look at Purdue, Chicago, or others. I have some positive examples and a wonderful video here. And remember…

  • ZipDialog Roundup for Saturday, April 15

    Topics and articles chosen with care. Linked articles in bold purple

     North Korea displays new missiles but holds off another nuclear test (Washington Post)

    Comment: The situation is incredibly dangerous. North Korea’s leader is not only bellicose. He may well be mentally unstable. No one is sure.

    South Korea’s capital and largest city, Seoul, is very close to the DMZ, and very vulnerable to attack–including a nuclear attack by Pyongyang.

    China could put the squeeze on North Korea, but that does not mean it has control over the Kim regime’s actions. Beijing knows that China’s population is also threatened by North Korean weapons and that the two countries have a complicated, sometimes fraught history.

    My hunch is that Beijing would prefer to engineer a change of leadership that is friendly to China, less bellicose, and willing to pursue a Chinese-style market opening. But trying to achieve that is very risky.

     Good news on free speech at one college, Wichita State They tried hard to do the wrong thing, but they eventually got it right.

    An embattled student group at Wichita State University is finally free to engage in on-campus activism as a registered student organization. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the Wichita State University Student Government overturned the Student Government Association’s unconstitutional decision to deny recognition to Young Americans for Liberty, a libertarian student group, because of the group’s belief in First Amendment principles. –FIRE, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

    Comment: If you support free speech and don’t already know about FIRE, you’ll be happy to learn about it. It is truly even-handed, defending right and left alike.

     Related Story: Meanwhile, at Wellesley, a very selective liberal arts college, the student newspaper writes:

    Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. (The Wellesley News via HotAir)

    These students actually say that the “Founding Fathers” (a phrase that must stick in their craw) “put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised . . . [and] suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.”

    Comment: The First Amendment does not mean “anything is acceptable.” As everyone knows, you cannot yell fire falsely in a crowded theater. Nor can you take a bullhorn and wake up the whole neighborhood at 3 am with your rendition of “I did it my way.” There are, in other words, some legal restrictions on the time, place, and conditions for speech. There are legal remedies for “damaging” speech, if it is false and defamatory (and perhaps known to be false when uttered).

    But for Wellesley students to actually defend their speech suppression as being true to the First Amendment is either disingenuous or historically clueless. Either way, it is wrong. 

     Two data-driven opinion pieces on wealth disparities between blacks and whites with college degrees

    Comment: The disparity is troubling and thoughtful, open-minded discussion is valuable.

    Going back to the previous two stories: this kind of discussion is much harder to have on campuses where everyone walks on eggshells, fearing a wrong word might offend.

     How deep is the Clinton camp’s denial?

    Well, Hillary’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, told a Yale audience “Ukraine and the horrible ISIS beheadings” were “sort of manufactured press stories” (Daily Caller)

    There were the obvious crazy things happening like the website melting down, Ukraine, and the horrible ISIS beheadings; these sort of manufactured press stories that hopefully you all have forgotten about. –Daily Caller

    Comment: Those manufactured stories were nothing compared to that fake moon landing.

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

    Many thanks to Christopher Buckley for the Wellesley story

     

  • ZipDialog Roundup for Tuesday, April 4

    Topics and articles chosen with care. Linked articles in bold purple

     St. Petersburg, Russia hit by deadly Islamacist terrorist attack, probably retaliation for Russian action in Syria. (Washington Post)

    At least 11 dead, 30+ injured.

    No one has claimed responsibility yet, but everyone suspects Islamic terrorists associated with the fighting in Syria.

    A crackdown by Putin is certain.

     Democrats have enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch. (New York Times)

    Comment: Mitch McConnell won’t let it prevent Gorsuch’s confirmation. For D’s in purple and red states, this opposition is perilous. Their base loves it, their donors love it, but the general public does not.

     President of Northern Arizona Univ. rejects idea of “safe spaces.” Students now demand her resignation.  (Heat Street)

    Rita Cheng had the courage to tell students they had to confront ideas they don’t like.

    Comment: Well, they didn’t like that idea.

     White House says mainstream media not showing interest in Obama-era spying (Washington Post)

    Comment: Absolutely right. In a separate post (here), I show screenshots from CNN, NYT, and WaPo that completely ignored the revelations about Susan Rice on Monday.  That’s worse than spin. 

     CNN’s chief national security correspondent say Susan Rice story is a “distraction” that the Trump Administration “ginned up” (Daily Caller)

    Comment: CNN is the name of a former news organization

     Odd, new job titles: “Sales Enablement Associate” Yes, someone just emailed me with that title.

    Comment: Like all right-thinking people at universities, I object to Enableism.

     

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

     

  • When “I’m Offended” Spells the End of Free Speech

    I recommend Ira Wells’ wonderful discussion, “The Age of Offence: The Politics of Outrage and the Crisis of Free Speech on Campus”,  in the Literary Review of Canada.

    As Wells observes, the assault on free speech at Canadian universities is similar to that in the US:

    An increasingly sensitive and fine-grained vocabulary for registering and opposing forms of sexism, racism, ableism and religious intolerance has undeniably been developing within higher education. Recent events in Canadian universities suggest not only that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to offend, but that those who position themselves as “offence takers” currently hold the balance of power at all levels of campus politics. –Ira Wells

    One example: A professor who directs a major institute at McGill University in Montreal had the temerity to suggest that Quebec suffers from the lower levels of trust among residents than other provinces. The Québécois, who apparently do not trust the polling data, cried foul. The professor was stripped of his directorship before you could say “merde.”

    The problem is that “being offended” is a proposition that cannot be rebutted. It is, after all, your subjective emotion (or, rather, it is one you say you feel, perhaps sincerely, perhaps not).

    If you couple that subjective feeling with the proposition that “the offended must always be shielded from talk that bothers them,” then you have arrived at speech suppression.

    You have accomplished that feat in two easy steps. “I’m offended” + “I must be protected against offense” = “You must shut up.”

    Sometimes, there is an intermediate step:

    “I’m offended” + “I am from a special group” + “People in special groups must be protected against offense” = “You must shut up.”

    In these cases, which are common on college campuses, only approved victims groups are allowed to be offended.

    So, Palestinian students can be offended by anyone who thinks Israel should exist. But there is no symmetry. Israelis cannot be offended by apologists for terrorism (or, rather, they can be offended but no administrators care). Believe it or not, that is actually how many campuses operate.

    ♦♦♦♦♦

  • A Ray of Hope for Free Speech at Middlebury, after the Mob

    Linked articles are in bold purple

    But opposition to Middlebury’s free-speech movement shows where the opposition lies at most universities

     There is good news for open discourse at Middlebury College after the despicable violence that prevented Charles Murray from speaking and injured Prof. Allison Stanger.

     Prominent faculty there have circulated a petition for free speech and garnered lots of signatures. 

    Parini and Callanan, the distinguished scholars who have headed up this effort, deserve high praise for it.

    At the bottom of this blog post, I quote the exemplary principles they lay out.

     Let’s go beyond praising the free-speech petition and use the signatures to show where support free speech comes from and where the opposition lies.

     So far, 63 faculty members have signed on. More might join in the next few days.

     They come from a broad variety of departments–but not all

    In fact, it is worthwhile to examine the departmental affiliations of who signed up for free speech and, on the other side, those who signed the counter-petition (prior to the speech), demanding Murray stay away and then sliming him with false allegations about his views and scholarly findings.

    Most (but not all) of Allison Stanger’s colleagues in political science signed the pro-free speech petition, as did she. That’s not surprising. She was, of course, injured in the riots, and some of her friends and colleagues undoubtedly wanted to show solidarity with her.

    Parini’s colleagues in English and American Literature signed in larger numbers than most departments. Support from literature departments would not happen at most universities. That it did at Middlebury may reflect the kind of department Parini helped build or simply his colleagues’ friendship.

    Who signed the petition beyond faculty in Political Science and Literature? The bulk were in the “hard social sciences” (Economics, Psychology), History, Russian, Math, Chemistry, Geology, and, surprisingly, Religion.

    (By “hard social sciences,” I mean those, like economics and psychology, that aspire to be sciences, emphasize large data bases, mathematical models, and empirical testing of causal models. Fields like anthropology and history certainly use data, but they are generally more interested in the actors’ mentalities, intentions, and meanings. Thus, “hard” does not mean difficult, and “soft” does not mean squishy.)

    Who refused to sign? There were zero signatures from the following departments and minors:

    African American Studies, African Studies, American Studies, Arabic, Comparative Literature, Dance, Education Studies, French, Gender, Sexuality, & Feminist Studies, Global Health , Greek, Hebrew-Classical, Hebrew-Modern, International and Global Studies, International Politics and Economics, Latin, Linguistics , Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Physical Education, Physics, South Asian Studies , Spanish and Portuguese, Studio Art, and Theatre

    That is based on the stated affiliations of the signatories, compared to Middlebury’s official list of its departments and majors. It is possible, of course, that some signatories have “affiliate appointments” in these departments or that the departments have no exclusive faculty of their own.

    The data show

    • Supporters of free speech come disproportionately from the physical sciences, “hard” social sciences, and, to a lesser extent, the biosciences.
    • Opposition comes from the Humanities, Arts, and softer social sciences. Because social justice.

    That distribution reflects my own experience across multiple universities (but is not based on systematic data).

    On nearly every campus, the staunchest opponents are professors of gender, sexuality, women’s studies, race, Native American studies, education, and social work, all highly-politicized bastions of the left. American Studies is now essentially the same and so are most literature departments. (Middlebury is an outlier.)

    They always lead the opposition to free speech. Because social justice.

    If students don’t agree with the dominant political ideology of these departments, they leave or never enter in the first place. (It is snarky but true to add that students don’t enter them if they are thinking about building skills for future employers. My point is that they are not building skills for open-minded, critical thinking, either.)

    These departments never hire professors who vary from the party line. Never.

    Here, for example, are the three full-time faculty in Middlebury’s gender studies program. All three signed the “Keep Murray Away” petition. NONE signed the free speech petition. That is anecdotal, of course, but it is repeated on campus after campus. You would be hard fixed to find professors of Gender Studies, Sexuality, Race Studies, Education, or Social Work who take a strong position in favor of free speech. And they are pretty thin on the ground in theater or comparative literature. All think it would permit “oppressive” speech that hurts the weak, poor, and vulnerable. 

    At Brandeis, for instance, the same department–to a person–opposed having Hirsi Ali come to campus even though she had already been invited and even though Ms. Ali is the single most important voice for women’s rights in the Muslim world. They and like-minded faculty got the spineless administration to cave in and rescind the invitation. (FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has a summary of the episode here.)

    The dominant ideology of departments like these is:

    • America is an exploitative country and a malevolent force in the world;
    • Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the right track but too willing to compromise, too willing to work within “the system”
    • America and our college campuses are composed of two main groups: the oppressed and the privileged. Our departments stand with the oppressed. They are simultaneously powerful and vulnerable, needing “safe spaces” to express their views unchallenged. A space is unsafe not because of any physical threat but because certain views (or even the presence of certain people) can produce psychic injury.
    • As professors are activists, inside the classroom and outside. Our teaching is explicitly designed to improve the situation of the oppressed and to assign blame to the oppressors.
    • Designated oppressors should feel guilty and can partially absolve themselves by following our movement, not by leading or questioning it.

    Put differently: February is “Black History Month” only because it is the shortest month.

    Their viewpoint is summarized in Bernie Sanders’ angry rejection of the idea that America is a compassionate country. His fury is brief and telling.

     Turning to the brighter side:

    ⇒ The Middlebury Principles are excellent.

    It is hard to see why all faculty and students don’t endorse them enthusiastically.

    That they do not is the tragedy of our time on campus.

    Here are the principles, quoted directly:

    • Genuine higher learning is possible only where free, reasoned, and civil speech and discussion are respected.
    • Only through the contest of clashing viewpoints do we have any hope of replacing mere opinion with knowledge.
    • The incivility and coarseness that characterize so much of American politics and culture cannot justify a response of incivility and coarseness on the college campus.
    • The impossibility of attaining a perfectly egalitarian sphere of free discourse can never justify efforts to silence speech and debate.
    • Exposure to controversial points of view does not constitute violence.
    • Students have the right to challenge and to protest non-disruptively the views of their professors and guest speakers.
    • A protest that prevents campus speakers from communicating with their audience is a coercive act.
    • No group of professors or students has the right to act as final arbiter of the opinions that students may entertain.
    • No group of professors or students has the right to determine for the entire community that a question is closed for discussion.
    • The purpose of college is not to make faculty or students comfortable in their opinions and prejudices.
    • The purpose of education is not the promotion of any particular political or social agenda.
    • The primary purpose of higher education is the cultivation of the mind, thus allowing for intelligence to do the hard work of assimilating and sorting information and drawing rational conclusions.
    • A good education produces modesty with respect to our own intellectual powers and opinions as well as openness to considering contrary views.
    • All our students possess the strength, in head and in heart, to consider and evaluate challenging opinions from every quarter. –Middlebury Principles

    Comment: It is hard to improve on that as a principled defense of free speech on campus.

     My own op-ed on these issues, focusing on the 3 steps needed to restore free speech at universities, is here at Real Clear Politics

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

    Update and Correction: “Social Sciences” removed from list of Middlebury Departments without a signatory. It is a division, not a department, and many social scientists did sign.

    zd-hat-tip-facing-inward-100px-w-margin♥ Thanks for suggesting this article:
    ◆ Tom Elia
    for sending me The American Interest piece

    ◆ Greg Piper of The College Fix for the correction.

  • UPDATE: Mob Shouts Down Campus Speaker. Pictures and Comments on the Mischief at Middlebury

    FOLLOW-UP ON MOB STOPPING SPEECH AT MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE

    Here is the news from the local student paper, The Middlebury Campus, which has a more accurate, neutral headline and better description than the Washington Post. That alone should shame the Post.

    The picture is particularly important since it clearly shows how the thuggish mob was shouting down the speaker in the room, preventing his talk. They later attacked him and a professor as they left the event.

    The mob could have protested peacefully outside the event–showing their respect for free speech and their opposition to Murray. That is the back-and-forth our First Amendment permits. Instead, the students and outsider haters elected to impose their views on everyone and shut down the speech.

    Their behavior was noxious. If they are students, they should have the remainder of the year at home to contemplate what education and ordered liberty mean. If Middlebury College refuses to take strong action, then students and their parents should look elsewhere for education.

    If the disrupting protesters came from outside, they should face criminal penalties.

    My extended comments are below.

     

    What happened, in a nutshell

    For now, the important facts are these:

    • The college administrators tried hard to let Murray speak,
    • He was stopped by a thuggish mob, one of whom injured the professor accompanying Murray
    • Murray’s speech was stopped when the mob kept shouting, stomping their feet, setting off fire alarms, and more.

    Here is the Time magazine report.

    What we don’t know yet is whether Middlebury will follow up and do what it should: expel the students who prevented the speech and demand legal consequences for the off-campus rioters.

    If Middlebury does, it will reestablish a climate of learning.

    If it refuses to punish its out-of-control students, then young people interested in genuine learning should not go there.

    Free Speech and Its Foes on Campus

    When violent thugs have an effective veto over who can and cannot speak, our system of higher education is doomed. That is exactly what is happening on many campuses today.

    Administrators stand by passively and some actually discourage free speech by publishing “principles” that place freedom of speech below other values, such as their particular view of social justice or comity on campus. Whatever you think of those values, their practical effect is straightforward. They are nothing more than sweet talk for speech suppression.

    When the Media Covers Up for the Bad Guys

    These problems would be bad enough without the media trying to cover up for the miscreants. Unfortunately, that is exactly what many of them do because they hold the same views about “social justice” trumping “controversial conservative views.” You would think the media, which lives on free speech, would be its staunchest defender. That they are not tells you how deeply the termites have eaten into the load-bearing walls of our liberties.

    That’s what today’s Tweet of the Day is about–the dishonesty of the Washington Post‘s reporting:

     

    Contrast the Washington Post’s treatment with the honest headline and fair treatment in Inside Higher Education: Shouting Down a Lecture by Scott Jaschik.

    For spinning when it should be reporting honestly, the Washington Post wins today’s AgitProp Prize for corrupt, politically-biased reporting.

    ♦♦♦♦♦


    Many thanks to Michael Sokolow for The Middlebury Campus article

  • Tweet of the Day: A Mob Shouts Down a College Speaker; the Washington Post tries to spin it

    I will have more on what happened to Charles Murray at Middlebury College.

    For now, the important facts are these:

    • The college administrators tried hard to let Murray speak,
    • He was stopped by a thuggish mob, one of whom injured the professor accompanying Murray
    • Murray’s speech was stopped when the mob kept shouting, stomping their feet, setting off fire alarms, and more.

    Here is the Time magazine report.

    What we don’t know yet is whether Middlebury will follow up and do what it should: expel the students who prevented the speech and demand legal consequences for the off-campus rioters.

    If Middlebury does, it will reestablish a climate of learning.

    If it refuses to punish its out-of-control students, then young people interested in genuine learning should not go there.

    Free Speech and Its Foes on Campus

    When violent thugs have an effective veto over who can and cannot speak, our system of higher education is doomed. That is exactly what is happening on many campuses today.

    Administrators stand by passively and some actually discourage free speech by publishing “principles” that place freedom of speech below other values, such as their particular view of social justice or comity on campus. Whatever you think of those values, their practical effect is straightforward. They are nothing more than sweet talk for speech suppression.

    When the Media Covers Up for the Bad Guys

    These problems would be bad enough without the media trying to cover up for the miscreants. Unfortunately, that is exactly what many of them do because they hold the same views about “social justice” trumping “controversial conservative views.” You would think the media, which lives on free speech, would be its staunchest defender. That they are not tells you how deeply the termites have eaten into the load-bearing walls of our liberties.

    That’s what today’s Tweet of the Day is about–the dishonesty of the Washington Post‘s reporting:

     

    Contrast the Washington Post’s treatment with the honest headline and fair treatment in Inside Higher Education: Shouting Down a Lecture by Scott Jaschik.

    For spinning when it should be reporting honestly, the Washington Post wins today’s AgitProp Prize for corrupt, politically-biased reporting.