• 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 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.

     

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

     

  • ZipDialog Roundup for Sunday, March 18

    Hand-picked and farm-fresh–
    Linked articles in bold purple

     The “inspired” has expired: “I’m here to die in the name of Allah,” and the attacker did just that at Paris Orly Airport  (CNN)

     Chuck Berry, who helped create rock-and-roll, dead at 90. A full account here at ZipDialog, along with a recording of Johnny B. Goode.

     Trump wants to build a wall 30 feet high that is hard to climb or cut through and looks good from the US side, according to contract notices posted on a US Government website.  (Associated Press)  There will be automated gates for people and vehicles.

    The government will award a contract based on 30-foot-wide sample walls that are to be built in San Diego. –AP

    Pres. Trump’s proposed budget included an initial $2.6 billion request. The total cost is expected to be $12-15 billion.

     Hillary Clinton says she is “ready to come out of the woods.” (New York Times)

    Comment: The woods are overjoyed.

     Republican House bill on healthcare would allow states to tailor some requirements, including whether to require able-bodied adults to work or engage in some substitute, such as volunteer work or education.

    Here is how the Washington Post headlines that news. You be the judge if this is a fair headline:

    “Republicans threaten to deny poor people medical care if they aren’t working” (Washington Post headline)

    Many forms of public assistance, including food stamps, require recipients to work, look for work, volunteer or participate in vocational training. The work requirements vary from one program to the next and have varying requirements vary by the program and traits of the recipients, such as their ages and whether they have children.

    Yet when it comes to health insurance, such requirements would be nearly impossible to enforce, conservative and independent experts on the Medicaid program said Friday. –Washington Post

    Comment: If you wondered what Harry Reid is doing after retirement, he’s writing headlines for the Washington Post

     Parody Song: “I’ve Got Friends in Safe Spaces” 

    Come on in and let’s be cozy. Showin’ off participation trophies

    Watching CNN in safe spaces –Chad Prather and Steve Mudflap McGrew

     Finally, Donna Brazile admits that she was cheating at CNN.

    She was doing it to help Hillary but still won’t admit that. (She says she did it to make “all our candidates look good.” A bald-faced lie. What did you leak to Bernie, Donna?)

    Of course, Hillary still won’t admit she received the questions in advance.

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

     

  • ZipDialog Roundup for Tuesday, March 14

    Hand-picked and farm-fresh–
    Linked articles in bold purple

     CBO projects Trump/Ryan Obamacare replacement would save money but that 24 million fewer people would be covered  (Washington Post)

    The analysis, released late Monday afternoon by the Congressional Budget Office, predicts that 24 million fewer people would have coverage a decade from now than if the Affordable Care Act remains intact, nearly doubling the share of Americans who are uninsured from 10 percent to 19 percent. The office projects the number of uninsured people would jump 14 million after the first year –Washington Post

     CBO ignites firestorm with ObamaCare repeal score, reports The Hill

    Democrats highlighted President Trump’s campaign promises to provide “insurance for everybody,” saying the bill falls woefully short.

    “The CBO’s estimate makes clear that TrumpCare will cause serious harm to millions of American families,” Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) said in a statement. –The Hill

    How does the CBO get these numbers?

    The CBO estimated that 24 million people would become uninsured by 2026 under the bill, largely due to the proposed changes to Medicaid. Seven million fewer people would be insured through their employers over that same time frame because some people would choose not to get coverage and some employers would decline to offer it. –The Hill

    Comment: The numbers create obvious political problems for Republicans, and the Democrats will exploit them.

    Here is how I figure Republicans will respond, at least publicly:

    1. The basic problem with the CBO score is that it compares the new program to Obamacare, as if the ACA will continue to exist and cover people. But it won’t. Obamacare is collapsing financially, so those people will actually lose coverage if we don’t repeal it and replace it with something sustainable. Even if Obamacare totters on for another year or two, insurers are dropping out and, as they do, monopoly providers will raise rates, forcing more people off Obamacare insurance.
    2. CBO projections are often wrong, and they certainly have been about healthcare costs and coverage.
    3. Even if 24 million fewer are covered, some of them may choose not to buy coverage since, unlike Obamacare, it is not mandated.
    4. By law, the CBO can only score the bill in front of them. For technical reasons (related to Senate reconciliation rules), we cannot include key measures that will reduce insurance costs and thus attract some of those 24 million to purchase insurance. The main measure will be sale of insurance across state lines and, secondarily, reform of costly tort laws.

     A quote to celebrate spring training: Bob Uecker’s thoughts on catching Phil Niekro’s knuckleball:

    The way to catch a knuckleball is to wait until it stops rolling and then pick it up. –Bob Uecker

     The “progressive left” makes a regressive argument for stamping out speech…and they get to decide which speech.

    Here’s Slate’s cover story:  “The Kids Are Right: There’s nothing outrageous about stamping out bigoted speech

    Comment: The article is an artful scam, making its argument by allusion and demonization, without confronting serious counter-arguments.

    It says some speech is bad and “informal rules” ought to limit it, without explaining who gets to set those rules and what criteria should be used. Then, it notes that our Constitution does permit some restrictions on speech. That’s right, but it is a good reason to say, “Let the First Amendment set the restrictions, not Slate magazine writers.”

    The article goes on to attack Trump, Bannon (whom it explicitly calls racist), William Buckley (too religious), and others loathed by Slate readers.

    It concludes, “The purveyors of logic, of facts dutifully checked and delivered to the public, lost big league in November.”

    Why is that an argument for shouting down Charles Murray? It’s not. 

     Two airlines cancel routes to Cuba. Too little demand. Other airlines are cutting back flights and using smaller planes  (Miami Herald)

    Comment: Fortunately, one airline is still flying to Cuba, and doing it on their terms.

     EU’s top court rules employers may prohibit staff from wearing visible religious symbols, such as Islamic headscarves, at work (Reuters)

     Democrats cannot figure out how–or whether–to oppose Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch (Politico)

    Comment: He’ll win easily in the Senate and go onto the Court. The only question is how quickly Sen. leader McConnell will move.

     

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

    zd-hat-tip-facing-inward-100px-w-margin♥ Hat Tip for helpful suggestions:
    ◆ Ed Vidal
     for the airlines cancelling flights to Cuba and the story at Slate favoring speech suppression.

     

  • 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.

  • Three Steps to Restore Free Speech at Universities: My op-ed at Real Clear Politics

    The op-ed is entitled, “Stop the Soft Despotism Stifling Campus Free Speech.” It is available here at Real Clear Politics.

    Your comments are most welcome. So is sharing.

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

    My goal is to move beyond a condemnation of the violent mob that shouted down Charles Murray and physically attacked Prof. Allison Stanger at Middlebury College.

    We need to understand why open debate is so endangered on college campuses and what concrete steps can remedy the problems.

    Three steps are essential:

    1. ARTICULATE CLEAR FREE-SPEECH PRINCIPLES.

    • Universities must publish clear statements backing the principle of free speech and open, unfettered debate.
    • Specifically, they must say free-speech rights cannot be weakened by considerations of social justice or civility, valuable as those are in their own right.

    2. IMPLEMENT THEM EFFECTIVELY.

    • Good principles must be put into action. Violators must be punished to deter still more violations.
    • Student affairs offices don’t want to do that; they prefer comity and often lead the social justice crusade.
    • Student affairs offices will support free speech right only if senior administrators, faculty, and boards of trustees hold them accountable.

    3. TEACH STUDENTS WHY FREE SPEECH MATTERS, beginning immediately.

    • Students should understand free speech is essential for their education, just as it is essential for democratic governance.
    • The First Amendment exists for good reasons. So do Free Speech rules on campus.

    The op-ed explaining these problems and the solutions is here.

  • 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.

  • ZipDialog Roundup for Sunday, February 19

    Hand-picked and farm-fresh–
    Linked articles in bold purple

     Trump’s HUGE rallies: He is clearly buoyed by the crowds, using the campaign-style rally to push his agenda

    Comment: I watched the enthusiastic, campaign-style rally in central Florida. Here is what struck me.

    • Pres. Trump’s effective showmanship–and his love of being in the public arena. His calling a fan out of the audience and asking him to speak was brilliant. To the cheering crowd, it was not only fun and unexpected, it said “we are all in this movement together.”
    • His ability to move easily between the teleprompter and improvisation; it was difficult to tell when he was reading, and when he was ad-libbing.  That is a skill he has mastered in several months and will serve him well since it allows him to have a more-disciplined agenda in the written text, without constraining his ability to go off-script occasionally.
    • His straightforward appeal to old-fashioned American values: love of country, desire for a strong military and safe communities, respect for law enforcement, and a thirst for economic growth that helps ordinary working people.

    There was not a trace of condescension. These voters can smell the contempt of Beltway insiders and economic elites. They have known that stench for decades. They would grudgingly tolerate it if those elites were delivering the goods. They aren’t.

    What Trump conveyed at the rally was a sense that he is working for people with jobs at a grocery story or auto plant, kids in public school, no retirement savings, lousy healthcare, and clothes from the sales bin at Wal-Mart. They are working hard and want better jobs, not handouts. They want safer neighborhoods, not apologies for the criminals who endanger them. And they damned sure don’t want to be told they are “privileged” by people living off their tax dollars.

    Trump was particularly effective in his attack on the federal courts’ adverse ruling on his temporary immigration ban. Instead of the reckless, personal attacks he used last week, he was substantive. He actually read the law to the cheering crowd. Its plain language, he said, gives the President the power to do what he did in the Executive Order. Then he landed the knockout punch. Because the law is so clearly on his side, he said, the judges didn’t cite any of its language in ruling against him. That is a substantive argument. It says these courts have arrogated to themselves authority over national-security policy that the law doesnot grant them. That is a far better argument than personal attacks, which he continued on the media.

    At these rallies, Trump renewed his campaign promises to his voters, and they renewed their support of his presidency.

    What they have seen in the first weeks has been rocky–did they really buy his lines that his administration is a “smooth-running machine?–but they have been reassured by one crucial thing the media considers a flaw. Trump is showing his base that he has not been sucked into the Washington world. He remains the guy they voted for.

    Now, he has to deliver on those promises.

     CNN is not happy being called “fake news.” They show it with their headline on the rally: “Trump gets what he wants in Florida: Campaign-level adulation”  

     Two important deaths:

    • “Roe” of the 1973 Supreme Court decision, “Roe v. Wade,”
    • “The blind sheik” who waged terror inside the US

     Roe’s real name was Norma McCorvey. She died of heart failure, aged 69. (New York Times)  In 1970, she a young, unmarried mother, pregnant with a third child she did not want. 

    Plucked from obscurity in 1970 by Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, two young Dallas lawyers who wanted to challenge Texas laws that prohibited abortions except to save a mother’s life, Ms. McCorvey, five months pregnant with her third child, signed an affidavit she claimed she did not read. She just wanted a quick abortion and had no inkling that the case would become a cause célèbre.

    She had little contact with her lawyers, never went to court or was asked to testify, and was uninvolved in proceedings that took three years to reach the Supreme Court.

    On Jan. 22, 1973, the court ruled 7-2 in Roe v. Wade (Henry Wade, the Dallas County district attorney, was the defendant in the class-action suit) that privacy rights under the due process and equal rights clauses of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion in a pregnancy’s first trimester “free of interference by the state,” in the words of Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who wrote the opinion. –New York Times

    Her daughter, born in 1970, was given up for adoption, as her second child had been.

    Later in life, Ms. McCorvey became an Evangelical Christian and then a Roman Catholic and a strong foe of abortion.

     The blind sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, plotted the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, which killed 6, injured over 1,000, and inspired the 9/11 attacks. Abdel-Rahman died of natural causes, aged 78 (CNN) Before being sentenced, he told the judge (in Arabic), “This case is nothing but an extension of the American war against Islam.”

    Comment: It was, of course, exactly the opposite.

     NATO: VP Pence confirms what Sec. of Defense Mattis said the day before: the US remains committed to NATO  (Boston Globe)

    Comment: Meanwhile, at Trump’s campaign rally in Florida, the President demanded that freeloading nations pay their fair share.  Some would call these mixed messages; others would say they are precisely the mix the US needs to convince European allies to pay up while still deterring Russia.

     With so more controversy surrounding Milo Yiannopoulos on college campuses, it is wonderful to have a thoughtful essay on “Why Milo Scares Students and Faculty Even More” by Prof. Rachel Fulton Brown.  (Personal note: I know and respect Prof. Brown, who teaches medieval Christian history at the University of Chicago Divinity School. She has a special focus on medieval ideas about the Virgin Mary.)

    The issues that Milo talks about are usually considered political, but in fact have to do with people’s deepest convictions: the proper relations between women and men, the definition of community, the role of beauty, access to truth. Milo professes himself a Catholic and wears a pair of gold crosses around his neck. He speaks about the importance of Christianity for the values of Western civilization. As he put it in one interview: “[Western civilization] has created a religion in which love and self-sacrifice and giving are the highest possible virtues… That’s a good thing… But when you remove discipline and sacrifice from religion you get a cult.”

    None of these issues, most especially the civilizational roots of culture and virtue in religious faith, are typically addressed in modern college education in America. Rather, they are, for the most part, purposefully avoided. Judging from my own experience of over 30 years in the academy, it is considered a terrible breach of etiquette, horribly rude even, to mention your religious faith if you are a Christian, never mind suggest that it in any way affects your work as a scholar. This relic of the self-censoring of the late 19th century is now so deeply embedded in American academic culture that most people are not even conscious of it. The real problem, however, is that while discussion of Christian theology may no longer be at the center of university education, religion still is—we just don’t call it that anymore. –Prof. Rachel Fulton Brown 

     

    ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦