ADVERTISEMENT

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

I don’t see the regulations per se as the problem. The issue is they’re are selectively enforced based on the subject matter of the speech/protests. There are multiple minority groups on campuses where these type of protests / threats would never be allowed.
And that’s the rub. The collective bargaining agreement says the faculty can spew whatever filth they want, wherever, whenever. The time place and manner regulations say no camping, no death threats, etc. So off campus political organizers get kids to build tents and threaten the lives of other students, using faculty as proxies. If the school tries to enforce the regulations on free speech, the ACLU hits them, on the wording and enforcement of regulations. if they try to restrict faculty speech, a CBA lawsuit has already been prepped. And that’s before we start talking about the political forces above them like Boards of Trustees, Board of Governors, Governor’s offices, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights under Biden, etc. It’s an industry that $1500 an hour lawyers salivate over. To the extent there’s selective enforcement, that’s partially attributable to the fact the Right does not have a sophisticated protection racket going with media, lawyers, pundits, politicians etc now even law enforcement on their side. If the Right had an army, an entire industry of people who don’t do anything except profit off stoned smelly kids blocking traffic, there wouldn’t be the perception of viewpoint discrimination.

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

That’s the risk balancing that goes with leadership. The problem, as law points out, is that administrators either agree with the outcome and don’t identify the risk. Or if they do, the analyze the risk as part of weighing the potential damage to their personal reputations with colleagues, not the potential damage to the institutions or the public’s view of academia at large. A cynic will tell you some or all are in on the game or their hands are tied by their colleagues and patrons. As I explain below.

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

I don’t see the regulations per se as the problem. The issue is they’re are selectively enforced based on the subject matter of the speech/protests. There are multiple minority groups on campuses where these type of protests / threats would never be allowed.
I agree on them being selectively enforced. But regulations that let violence of any sort go on until a net threshold is reached are wrong no matter whether they are being selectively enforced or not.

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

Jewish organizations are presently suing those schools for not protecting jewish students welfare. Do you think they will attack those regulations as being unprotective of them as students, and thus wrongful to students rights? Thus trying to change those contract rights & regulations?
I don’t see the regulations per se as the problem. The issue is they’re are selectively enforced based on the subject matter of the speech/protests. There are multiple minority groups on campuses where these type of protests / threats would never be allowed.

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

It’s not that simple. During the red scare and Vietnam protests, the faculties at most of these schools and their unemployable hippie administrations voted themselves, and the campus, free speech and open public forum rights that are more broad than constitutional protections. Universities risk being sued for violating their own employment contracts by stopping the protests. It’s why you always see a designated faculty member in the protest crowd and it’s why schools let the disorder go until the violence rises to a defendable level. Both sides know the rules and it’s a well rehearsed dance, the public watching doesn’t.
Jewish organizations are presently suing those schools for not protecting jewish students welfare. Do you think they will attack those regulations as being unprotective of them as students, and thus wrongful to students rights? Thus trying to change those contract rights & regulations?

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

In the above, I’m genuinely curious. I’ve found the protests at Columbia fascinating because it isn’t a left vs right protest although the media portrays it that way. There are people across the political spectrum who support Israel.
And vice versa. The worst of the political left and right shake hands over jew hatred.

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

It’s not that simple. During the red scare and Vietnam protests, the faculties at most of these schools and their unemployable hippie administrations voted themselves, and the campus, free speech and open public forum rights that are more broad than constitutional protections. Universities risk being sued for violating their own employment contracts by stopping the protests. It’s why you always see a designated faculty member in the protest crowd and it’s why schools let the disorder go until the violence rises to a defendable level. Both sides know the rules and it’s a well rehearsed dance, the public watching doesn’t.
And then the media uses it to further divide the public? I suspect the underlying goal is revenue and they know sensationalism gets more views than trying to be objective.

I only mention that because your post reminded me of what I've seen in the last 12 hours from both sides on the Columbia protests. The left claims the far right is "doxxing" pro Palestinian protestors and that they're not antisemitic. Then the right claiming there's blockades by the pro Palestinian side preventing students from going to class.

I suspect the truth lies in between these two "truths"?

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

It’s not that simple. During the red scare and Vietnam protests, the faculties at most of these schools and their unemployable hippie administrations voted themselves, and the campus, free speech and open public forum rights that are more broad than constitutional protections. Universities risk being sued for violating their own employment contracts by stopping the protests. It’s why you always see a designated faculty member in the protest crowd and it’s why schools let the disorder go until the violence rises to a defendable level. Both sides know the rules and it’s a well rehearsed dance, the public watching doesn’t.
Except many of these same institutions have had minimal issues silencing conservative speech on their campuses in recent years.
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

That phrase may be the most misunderstood in the modern political lexicon.

Eisenhower wasn’t saying we shouldn’t have a military industrial complex, or that government shouldn’t control it. He was concerned about the lack of public control over that capacity. Specifically, he was concerned about the media and other unelected forces defining competitors as enemies and disagreement as endless conflicts where unlimited sums would be spent and modern political discourse and institutions would be unable to restrain it. He was concerned about moral hazards. Not just the moral hazard of letting people borrow money from the government and then vote themselves loan forgiveness but also continuing to vote for wars so Des Moines didn’t lose jobs. Or as Chito and Aston put it, we can’t cut the federal budget because that will put people out of work, we need the government to grow to stimulate the economy.

He spoke at length about balance between the public and private economy. Between public good and the politically desirable and how those things can subtly differ. And how to have institutional control over the decision making process surrounding that balance.

He identified two main threats to that balance at the time he left office. The standing army/military industrial complex that had tremendous political and financial influence at the grassroots at the time was arguably manipulating public policy to become self perpetrating. He wasn’t worried about Halliburton as much as he was local and state governments pandering to them because the public lacked the awareness or political power to restrain both.

More importantly (and more presently), he also warned of the federal “task force of scientists.” And the revolution on college campuses where the thirst for government research contracts, and the desire to maintain them, had become a “substitute for intellectual curiosity.” He was concerned that the federal government would “dominate” the universities through the threat of withheld funding. He was absolutely terrified that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific and technological elite.” IOW Fauci and his bureaucratic apparatus.

People can’t throw around their concerns about Dick Cheney without conceding something dangerous and disastrous happened with CoVid policy.

Login to view embedded media
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I appreciate the history lesson. I agree it is frequently misused, including how I used it based on the original intent.

My point was there a groups incentivized to see us in conflicts and war. I didn’t mean it as a political statement or in relation to the government specifically.
  • Like
Reactions: HuffyCane

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

They don't call the police and send security when this happens? Those that are perpetrating the harassment should at la minimum be kicked off campus. That is not protecting their students and is grounds for a lawsuit against the University if they don't handle it in this manner. I'd think a case like that would be a slam dunk win in court.
It’s not that simple. During the red scare and Vietnam protests, the faculties at most of these schools and their unemployable hippie administrations voted themselves, and the campus, free speech and open public forum rights that are more broad than constitutional protections. Universities risk being sued for violating their own employment contracts by stopping the protests. It’s why you always see a designated faculty member in the protest crowd and it’s why schools let the disorder go until the violence rises to a defendable level. Both sides know the rules and it’s a well rehearsed dance, the public watching doesn’t.

Pray For Israel 🇮🇱 🙏

There is none. That I’ve seen. At this point it’s the military industrial complex gearing up to make itself all the $$$ with little regard to how it negatively impacts the US or any other country.
That phrase may be the most misunderstood in the modern political lexicon.

Eisenhower wasn’t saying we shouldn’t have a military industrial complex, or that government shouldn’t control it. He was concerned about the lack of public control over that capacity. Specifically, he was concerned about the media and other unelected forces defining competitors as enemies and disagreement as endless conflicts where unlimited sums would be spent and modern political discourse and institutions would be unable to restrain it. He was concerned about moral hazards. Not just the moral hazard of letting people borrow money from the government and then vote themselves loan forgiveness but also continuing to vote for wars so Des Moines didn’t lose jobs. Or as Chito and Aston put it, we can’t cut the federal budget because that will put people out of work, we need the government to grow to stimulate the economy.

He spoke at length about balance between the public and private economy. Between public good and the politically desirable and how those things can subtly differ. And how to have institutional control over the decision making process surrounding that balance.

He identified two main threats to that balance at the time he left office. The standing army/military industrial complex that had tremendous political and financial influence at the grassroots at the time was arguably manipulating public policy to become self perpetrating. He wasn’t worried about Halliburton as much as he was local and state governments pandering to them because the public lacked the awareness or political power to restrain both.

More importantly (and more presently), he also warned of the federal “task force of scientists.” And the revolution on college campuses where the thirst for government research contracts, and the desire to maintain them, had become a “substitute for intellectual curiosity.” He was concerned that the federal government would “dominate” the universities through the threat of withheld funding. He was absolutely terrified that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific and technological elite.” IOW Fauci and his bureaucratic apparatus.

People can’t throw around their concerns about Dick Cheney without conceding something dangerous and disastrous happened with CoVid policy.

Login to view embedded media
  • Like
Reactions: cmullinsTU
ADVERTISEMENT

Filter

ADVERTISEMENT