Four Reasons to Stick to Coursework

Sadly, it seems unlikely that Brown philosophy professor Felicia Nimue Ackerman's attitude is the majority one on American (at least New England) campuses. Here are four reasons that she didn't "devote a portion of class time" on a particular week "to teach about climate change":

Reason 1: Climate change is not what students signed up to study in my courses. ...

Reason 2: I am unqualified to teach about climate change. ...

Reason 3: My students can have better opportunities to learn about climate change. ...

Reason 4: I do not think climate change is the most important social problem in the world.

No doubt Ms. Ackerman and most Anchor Rising readers would have strong disagreements about any number of things, but her attitude certainly establishes a shared principle on which to build further discussion.

William Felkner: Ideological Corruption on Campus

Robert Shibley, vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), slammed Brown and URI for their blatant attempts to squelch First Amendment rights in Friday's Providence Journal:

Brown University was home to one of the most mysterious cases that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has ever seen — mysterious because the university never explained why it decided to trample on its students' freedom of religion. Brown's Reformed University Fellowship (RUF) was suspended in September 2006 for "non-compliance" with university policy. When the RUF asked what it had failed to comply with, the strange saga began.

After FIRE repeatedly reminded Brown University that it, too, must obey the U.S. Constitution, all charges and restrictions against RUF were removed. To date, no explanation has been given.

Next we turn our eyes to URI, where FIRE found the Student Senate, backed with institutional power, trying to force the College Republicans to write an apology for offering a $100 WHAM scholarship (white heterosexual American male). After a few letters and some embarrassing press, they finally got it: "no state authority can force people to say things they don't believe."

The timing is entirely coincidental, but my first piece on the Manhattan Institute's new Web site, Minding the Campus, tells a similar story to Mr. Shibley's — this time in another of our state sponsored schools, Rhode Island College.

My previous run-ins with the college suggest that RIC isn't at all new to exercising its dictatorial rights. Remember Lisa Church — the teacher taken to task for not punishing a parent for using "colorful" language? Or perhaps the infamous "keep your Rosaries off my ovaries" fiasco?

With those incidents, I decided to support the college for protecting students' right to be offensive (if rather dumb). In "I Pray Sacrilege Is Protected," I draw the line from the RIC "Jesus Cartoon" to 1943's West Virginia v. Barnette, which instructed that "no officer, high or petty, shall prescribe orthodoxy to a profession." In other words, professors (who, some would say, are both high and petty) may not require a politically, religiously, or otherwise restricted right of thought. They can't tell us what to think and say.

An RI Supreme Court Case, Lee v. Weisman, involving prayers stripped from public graduations, takes us back to RIC, which is still confused about which parts of the First Amendment it wants to or can restrict.

Politicians make back-room deals and close out the citizens for money and votes. The representatives of higher education act on behalf of an ideological currency. The first corrupt the political process, the second the minds of American students.

William Felkner is the president of the Ocean State Policy Research Institute.

Thanking Hillary, Tongue in Cheek

The campaign of Hillary Clinton — herself a College Republican — is coming to town today, and the College Republican Federation of Rhode Island will be at the corner of Post Rd. and Airport Rd. in Warwick at 3:30 to express their gratitude for her vote for the war in 2002 and "for pledging to continue the presence of troops to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq if she is elected President."

It's a frightening "if," I know, but support for the war is support for the war.

Everybody's Out to Get Them Young

We're rightly wary when credit card companies target college kids. (I'm still smarting from the puncture that I received in the bull's-eye.) So why is the New York Times treating it as some kind of a rights story that pharmaceutical companies are no longer targeting young women with discounted birth control?

The change is due to a provision in a federal law that ended a practice by which drug manufacturers provided prescription contraception to the health centers at deeply discounted rates. The centers then passed along the savings to students and others. ...

Some college clinics have reported sudden drops in the numbers of contraceptives sold; students have reported switching to less expensive contraceptives or considering alternatives like the so-called morning-after pill; and some clinics, including one at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Me., have stopped stocking some prescription contraceptives, saying they are too expensive.

Attempting to argue the contrary, one affected student illustrates the error in thinking that easy access to contraceptives doesn't encourage kids to have sex:

"The potential is that women will stop taking it, and whether or not you can pay for it, that doesn't mean that you'll stop having sex," said Katie Ryan, a senior at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, who said that the monthly cost of her Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, a popular birth control pill, recently jumped to nearly $50 from $12.

Ms. Ryan, 22, said she had considered switching to another contraceptive to save money, but was unsure which one to pick. She has ended up paying the higher price, but said she was concerned about her budget.

"I do less because of this — less shopping, less going out to eat," said Ms. Ryan, who has helped organize efforts to educate others on campus about the price jump. "For students, this is very, very expensive."

What Katie inadvertently highlights, here, is that — although sex is just another activity for which one must make sacrifices and balance desires — kids have the impression that sex can't be avoided. A dramatic increase in the price of antacids obviously won't stop people from eating, but it may affect their dietary choices. Why should our society treat sex as if it is less amenable to self-control than eating?

I'd suggest to young Americans that they take a moment to consider who has an interest in encouraging a loose addiction to sex. The entertainment industry, the advertising industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and (yes) the abortion industry all stand to gain financially from a broad impression among the Ms. Ryans of the country that closing their legs is simply too difficult a feat of self mastery.

RI College Republicans' Brown Streak

Not to pick on the Ivy model of Rhode Island's College Republican collection, but this line from Sean Quigley, second vice chairman of the College Republican Federation of Rhode Island, treasurer of the Brown College Republicans, and Brown Daily Herald columnist, is too precious to let pass:

"I don't mean to sound elitist, but we tend to be a bit more intellectual," he said. "That's not to mean others are less intellectual, but the environment we find ourselves in allows for more exchange of abstract ideas than mundane analysis of policy."

Being myself (as the article goes on to state) interested in intellectual discussion, I wanted to see what the elephant yutes at Brown are up to, but their campus Web site is still advertising a Dinesh D'Souza lecture from March 2005. The reality of "high-powered alumni" means little, I'd suggest, if a group isn't gaining the experience of the less intellectual kids whom its not more intellectual than keeping things organized and current and doing all that mundane policy analysis stuff like debates and editorials and developing enumerated statements of principle (which are hardly intellectual at all).

A Fallacy of Fallacies

Putting aside his petty complaints that Dan Yorke and Lori Drew interrupted him on the radio (but noting that I heard him interrupting Ms. Drew moments before chastising her for doing the same), this aspect of John McNally's thoughts on his appearance on Dan Yorke's show relates to a question that I've had since first coming across his blog last night:

When the d.j. Dan Yorke jumped in (Dan also interrupted me in the first part of the segment), he wanted to argue my point by comparing Will's essay to a security system in the school. What if, he supposes, she had complaints about security? Shouldn't she have the right, as a parent, even though she's not a security expert, to bring this to the attention of the school? My reply was that it was a logical fallacy to compare a security system to an essay that's part of a school's curriculum. He said, "It's not a logical fallacy," and I, making the mistake of thinking this was a debate, and interrupting him as both he and the mother had done to me, said, "It IS a logical fallacy." ...

(Just because two issues share SOME things in common -- like schools and teachers -- doesn't make it a valid comparison. This is Freshman Comp 101, not rocket science, but if that makes me an academic jack-ass, so be it. I'd rather be the person who can distinguish those differences than the one who can't. And if my tone here is elitist, so f***ing what?) ...

So, yes, okay, I'll concede: Maybe I am a certain kind of academic jack-ass who thinks his s*** doesn't stink. Those who know me, of course, are howling right now, but pay no mind to them, because you know what, Dan Yorke? I'd much rather be me than you, a jack-ass d.j. who doesn't know what a logical fallacy is, and whose only come-back is yet another logical fallacy: the ad hominem attack.

Frankly, I'm not persuaded that Mr. McNally is entirely clear on what constitutes a logical fallacy, himself. Here, McNally flings the label upon hearing Yorke equate school security with a reading assignment, which would have been a fallacy of composition and division (some aspects of each thing are like, therefore, they are like in total and, therefore, in other particulars). But this is a strawman (fallacy). A comparison's being invalid doesn't make it logically fallacious. It falls to McNally, at this point, to explain why security and reading assignments are not comparable in the aspects that Yorke intended (in this case, the right, even obligation, of parents to speak up when they think the academic professionals to be in error).

Elsewhere, McNally replies thus to a commenter who questioned whether he would have a problem "if the school assigned Bill O'Reilly or some right-wing book to students to read":

YOUR ARGUMENT HERE IS A LOGICAL FALLACY...BUT I DON’T EXPECT YOU TO KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. PEOPLE WHO USE LOGICAL FALLACIES RARELY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

In this instance, the rules of argumentative writing are a red herring (another fallacy), via which McNally attempts to divert attention from the questions. Those questions may be irrelevant, but that's an opinion requiring further debate; posing them doesn't represent a failure of logic.

As I suggested in the comments to my previous post, McNally is employing the technique of calling comparisons and analogies that he finds erroneous or inapplicable "logical fallacies" even though it's not the logic that is fallacious in those cases (which labeling is, itself, a fallacy of persuasive definition). He uses the phrase "logical fallacy" as an invisible wall to be thrown up around rhetorical opponents in order to invalidate their arguments on grounds that he presumes them not to understand.

The not-quite-unexpected irony of the post is that the centerpiece of his own argument is itself a logical fallacy:

My main complaint with this woman isn't that she doesn't want her daughter to read Will Clarke's essay, which she found offensive, but rather that she doesn't want the book in the school at all. In other words, she wants to dictate curriculum. So, you see, she's trying to dictate what OTHER KIDS in the class should be reading, not just what her daughter should be reading.

McNally presents a false dilemma: Either Drew must shut her yap, or she is attempting to "dictate curriculum" (sic). The alternative that this reasoning overlooks is that Drew is dictating nothing; indeed, she is inherently powerless to do so. (She hasn't even suggested, as far as I've seen, that she's considering legal action.) Rather, she's attempting to bring the matter into the open in the hopes that pressure will be brought to bear on those who do have the authority to raise the intellectual and moral level of the education offered in Cumberland's public schools.

Islam's Politics of Women

I just wanted to remind everybody that tonight is URI Professor Donna Hughes's lecture on "Women's Rights & Political Islam" as part of the URI College Republicans' Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. It's certain to be worth attending, if you're able.

Call Me a Pro-Alcohol Conservative (i guess)

There would seem to be a lesson here for folks prone to the sort of ultra-decisive decision making that occurred on the University of Rhode Island campus between the time when I was impressed, as a high school student, with URI's reputation as a party school and the time when I found myself there after a few years of wandering:

LONGTIME RESIDENTS say the tension between students and homeowners has gotten worse over the years as people have sold their homes to escape the weekend disturbances, leaving more houses in the hands of seasonal residents and landlords. According to U.S. Census figures, more than 38 percent of the homes in town were rentals in 2000, the fourth-highest figure among Rhode Island communities.

Things got worse in 1995, longtime residents say, when URI banned alcohol on campus, sending more partying Narragansett's way.

One of the most tragic and high-profile incidents involving URI students in Narragansett occurred last year, when three students got into a rowboat and headed out onto Narragansett Bay, where they drowned. Witnesses told the police the students had been drinking, though the police said it was unclear what role alcohol might have played.

The Narragansett/URI Coalition, a body of community leaders, URI administrators and students, started meeting in 2000 to address the alcohol/partying issue, but two of the most tangible responses came in 2005, when URI expanded its disciplinary reach to include off-campus behavior and the Narragansett council adopted the first version of the nuisance ordinance.

I remember those parties down the line. I also remember the regular, well, poor decisions that those forced miles away to find bars would often make. The Kingston campus is not like others that I've seen that have bars available within walking distance.

Sometimes, policies have to accommodate — rather than seek to quash — undesirable behavior in order to avoid that cascade of unforeseen consequences.

Grassroots on the Quad

You'll note the new ad at left for the College Republican Federation of Rhode Island. Click on over to see what they're up to these days. We rightward Rhode Islanders are always worrying that our opportunities are limited to change the way in which things are done here (and thought here), and it increasingly seems to me that collegiate organizations are in a uniquely auspicious spot to help us where we most need it: organization, enthusiasm, and resources.

For Scheduling Purposes

You might be interested in some of the events on the URI College Republicans' schedule for the semester, especially during Islamo-Facism Awareness Week later this month. I'm going to try to make it to both Donna Hughes's lecture on "Women's Rights and Political Islam" (October 23) and Robert Spencer's lecture the following evening (October 24).

Conservative college groups are in a unique position to bring interesting speakers to the state, and we at Anchor Rising have certainly been talking about encouraging them to leverage that position. If you're similarly inclined, it might be worth your while to poke around the state College Republican Web site.

Higher Education, Lower Behavior, and Bad Advice

So you've traveled with your daughter on the journey that has led her to freshman year at the University of Rhode Island, and within a couple of weeks of looking to the student paper, The Good 5¢ Cigar, to understand the community of which she is now a part — perhaps to glean some tips on how to behave, now that she's away from Mom and Dad — she comes across an advice column by "Misty Pink" titled "Sex and the Cigar: Boring sex requires a visit to your local porn shop," offering the following nugget of wisdom to a girl who complains that her "sex life is normally more exciting than it is now," with her boyfriend of one month, and wonders how to respond to his suggestion that they "go visit a sex shop":

Well first of all, your oh-so-wise resident sexpert here commends you on being open to even going to a sex shop with your boyfriend at all. My guess is that he probably senses you are disappointed with your dwindling sex life and doesn't want to come out and say it. Poor guy is probably embarrassed. So, his roundabout way of making things a bit more exciting was to suggest a visit to a sex shop, which is, in fact, a great idea if you want to spice things up a bit in the bedroom.

I'm not saying you have to go all out with whips, chains and strap-ons, but try some flavored whipped cream, some edible panties, or maybe even some sexy lingerie. That's sure to put the heat back in your relationship. For the faint of heart, there's always penis pasta.

"Life," Ms. Pink explains, is "too short for bad sex." It's certainly too short for non-flavored whipped cream.

Now, I know that this anonymous giver of sex advice has achieved the height of daring, with her writing. I also know that I'm a stodgy old thirty-something in the notoriously prudish field of construction. But I'm still not sure why it is that higher education must be accompanied by low behavior. Perhaps some adult supervision would help students to develop more richly formed lives. It might (and only might) result in better advice about a wide range of topics, including sex, that is not objectifying, dehumanizing, and more likely than not to lead students away from actual fully satisfying relationships.

Yeah, yeah, I know. College is all about exploration, self definition. It's still disappointing, though, to come across reminders that it's often less about growth than about playacting maturity.

Rhode Island Higher Education Top-20 Rankings

Brandie Jefferson of the Projo's 7-to-7 blog has an item about Bryant University's top-20 ranking by the Princeton Review in the category of "career and job placement services"

Bryant wasn't the only college to be ranked in the top 20 -- or maybe the bottom 20, depending on the category -- in the national survey.

Brown University did well in a number of positive categories…

• (6) The Toughest to Get Into
• (5) Best College Radio Station
• (13) Best College Theater
• (2) Happiest Students

The University of Rhode Island, however, was top (or bottom 10) in a number of negative categories…

• (10) Professors Get Low Marks
• (10) Professors Make Themselves Scarce
• (10) Their Students (Almost) Never Study
• (9) Dorms Like Dungeons

And Providence College also ranked in a number of categories that they probably won't be mentioning in their recruiting brochures…

• (1) Homogeneous Student Population
• (8) Little Race/Class Interaction
• (19) Everyone Plays Intramural Sports
• (4) Lots of Hard Liquor

Not that it's living up to the stereotypical reputation of a b-school or anything, but job placement was the only category that Bryant University placed in…

• (9) Best Career/Job Placement Services

Roger Williams University and Salve Regina University didn't make any of the top-20 lists.

Rhode Island College, Rhode Island School of Design, and Johnson & Wales University appear not to have been considered in the rankings.

Presidents of Brown, RWU, Salve Regina, and URI Condemn Britain's Academic Boycott of Israel

A large group of American University and College Presidents have signed a letter published in the New York Times, attributed to President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University, condemning the decision of Britain’s new University and College Union to academically boycott Israeli Universities…

Boycott Israeli Universities? Boycott Ours,Too!

As a citizen, I am profoundly disturbed by the recent vote by Britain’s new University and College Union to advance a boycott against Israeli academic institutions. As a university professor and president, I find this idea utterly antithetical to the fundamental values of the academy, where we will not hold intellectual exchange hostage to the political disagreements of the moment. In seeking to quarantine Israeli universities and scholars, this vote threatens every university committed to fostering scholarly and cultural exchanges that lead to enlightenment, empathy, and a much-needed international marketplace of ideas.

At Columbia, I am proud to say that we embrace Israeli scholars and universities that the UCU is now all too eager to isolate—as we embrace scholars from many countries regardless of divergent views on their government’s policies. Therefore, if the British UCU is intent on pursuing its deeply misguided policy, then it should add Columbia to its boycott list, for we do not intend to draw distinctions between our mission and that of the universities you are seeking to punish. Boycott us, then, for we gladly stand together with our many colleagues in British, American and Israeli universities against such intellectually shoddy and politically biased attempts to hijack the central mission of higher education.

Included amongst the signatories are President Robert L. Carothers of the University of Rhode Island, President M. Therese Antone of Salve Regina University, and President Roy J. Nirschel of Roger Williams University(*).

President Ruth Simmons of Brown University has issued her own letter condemning the boycott…

The University and College Union’s decision to consider support for a boycott of academic institutions in Israel has rightly aroused concern among the members of the Brown University Community. I have followed this issue closely and with mounting dismay.

Institutions of higher learning go to extraordinary lengths to defend the free flow of information, the unfettered exchange of ideas, and the primacy of well-reasoned argument. Defending these fundamental principles is not merely a matter for debate. With those principles in place, the academy cannot exist.

A boycott of the sort your organization is considering – a measure that attempts to silence or marginalize the scholars of an entire nation – is inimical to those fundamental principles and could do great harm to colleges and universities. Supporting such a boycott of scholars from Israel or any other part of the world is not an option for people who are dedicated to the core principles of the academy. As president of Brown University, I write to inform you that we strongly support Israeli universities and will assist them in efforts to protect scholars from political pressure of the kind the forthcoming debate intends.

A quick search of the websites of Providence College, Bryant University and Rhode Island College didn't turn up any individual letters or statements regarding the boycott.

(*)Title and body corrected to include President Nirschel's signature on the NYT letter, inadvertently omitted from the original post

Presidents of Brown, RWU, Salve Regina, and URI Condemn Britain's Academic Boycott of Israel

A large group of American University and College Presidents have signed a letter published in the New York Times, attributed to President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University, condemning the decision of Britain’s new University and College Union to academically boycott Israeli Universities…

Boycott Israeli Universities? Boycott Ours,Too!

As a citizen, I am profoundly disturbed by the recent vote by Britain’s new University and College Union to advance a boycott against Israeli academic institutions. As a university professor and president, I find this idea utterly antithetical to the fundamental values of the academy, where we will not hold intellectual exchange hostage to the political disagreements of the moment. In seeking to quarantine Israeli universities and scholars, this vote threatens every university committed to fostering scholarly and cultural exchanges that lead to enlightenment, empathy, and a much-needed international marketplace of ideas.

At Columbia, I am proud to say that we embrace Israeli scholars and universities that the UCU is now all too eager to isolate—as we embrace scholars from many countries regardless of divergent views on their government’s policies. Therefore, if the British UCU is intent on pursuing its deeply misguided policy, then it should add Columbia to its boycott list, for we do not intend to draw distinctions between our mission and that of the universities you are seeking to punish. Boycott us, then, for we gladly stand together with our many colleagues in British, American and Israeli universities against such intellectually shoddy and politically biased attempts to hijack the central mission of higher education.

Included amongst the signatories are President Robert L. Carothers of the University of Rhode Island, President M. Therese Antone of Salve Regina University, and President Roy J. Nirschel of Roger Williams University(*).

President Ruth Simmons of Brown University has issued her own letter condemning the boycott…

The University and College Union’s decision to consider support for a boycott of academic institutions in Israel has rightly aroused concern among the members of the Brown University Community. I have followed this issue closely and with mounting dismay.

Institutions of higher learning go to extraordinary lengths to defend the free flow of information, the unfettered exchange of ideas, and the primacy of well-reasoned argument. Defending these fundamental principles is not merely a matter for debate. With those principles in place, the academy cannot exist.

A boycott of the sort your organization is considering – a measure that attempts to silence or marginalize the scholars of an entire nation – is inimical to those fundamental principles and could do great harm to colleges and universities. Supporting such a boycott of scholars from Israel or any other part of the world is not an option for people who are dedicated to the core principles of the academy. As president of Brown University, I write to inform you that we strongly support Israeli universities and will assist them in efforts to protect scholars from political pressure of the kind the forthcoming debate intends.

A quick search of the websites of Providence College, Bryant University and Rhode Island College didn't turn up any individual letters or statements regarding the boycott.

(*)Title and body corrected to include President Nirschel's signature on the NYT letter, inadvertently omitted from the original post

Jim Baron on Ryan Bilodeau

Sure, national recognition is nice, but yesterday, College Republican Federation of Rhode Island President Ryan Bilodeau received the kind of recognition that proves he’s a real up-an-comer -- he was covered by Jim Baron in the Woonsocket Call…

It's not hard to think that someone with [his] kind of knack for drawing media attention while selling an idea like opposition to affirmative action and other race-based preferences, just might have a future in politics.

Might he run for office on his own someday? "I've thought about it. I am interested in solving problems in whatever role I can. If that means entering the political arena as a candidate, then I will. If I find my time, my resources, my energy are better used behind the scenes, then I'll do that. I think that we all have a role to play in this life, based on the talents we are given."

That is a perfectly good politician's non-answer to a reporter's question. But Bilodeau can't resist taking it a step further, perhaps showing more of his hand than originally intended.

"When the General Assembly is doing their budget at 11:30 p.m.," he says. "and (Democratic Cranston Rep. Charlene Lima's privatization bill gets slipped in at the last minute and all these common sense bills by Reps. (John) Laughlin and (Joseph) Trillo are putting out there are denied because they have an R (for Republican) after their name and because the people voting against them are beholden to the special interests like the unions, that can anger me enough to want to be a voice on the floor, sitting at the table."

Jim Baron on Ryan Bilodeau

Sure, national recognition is nice, but yesterday, College Republican Federation of Rhode Island President Ryan Bilodeau received the kind of recognition that proves he’s a real up-an-comer -- he was covered by Jim Baron in the Woonsocket Call…

It's not hard to think that someone with [his] kind of knack for drawing media attention while selling an idea like opposition to affirmative action and other race-based preferences, just might have a future in politics.

Might he run for office on his own someday? "I've thought about it. I am interested in solving problems in whatever role I can. If that means entering the political arena as a candidate, then I will. If I find my time, my resources, my energy are better used behind the scenes, then I'll do that. I think that we all have a role to play in this life, based on the talents we are given."

That is a perfectly good politician's non-answer to a reporter's question. But Bilodeau can't resist taking it a step further, perhaps showing more of his hand than originally intended.

"When the General Assembly is doing their budget at 11:30 p.m.," he says. "and (Democratic Cranston Rep. Charlene Lima's privatization bill gets slipped in at the last minute and all these common sense bills by Reps. (John) Laughlin and (Joseph) Trillo are putting out there are denied because they have an R (for Republican) after their name and because the people voting against them are beholden to the special interests like the unions, that can anger me enough to want to be a voice on the floor, sitting at the table."

RI College Republicans Named Top Campus Activists in America

Rhode Island’s College Republicans are earning some national recognition for the efforts they've made over the past year or two…

College Republican Federation of Rhode Island Chairman Ryan Bilodeau was unanimously elected as one of eight members in the nation to the National Credentials Committee of the College Republican National Committee (CRNC) this past weekend in Arlington, Virginia at the organization’s 57th Annual National Convention.

“I am honored to have garnered the unanimous support for a committee entrusted with maintaining the integrity of the organization’s bi-annual elections,” remarked Chairman Ryan Bilodeau

The election victory comes just days after Chairman Ryan Bilodeau and Vice Chairman Dana Peloso were named to a list of the Top 15 Campus Conservative Activists in the United States by Young America’s Foundation. Young America’s Foundation, with tens of thousands of members on college campuses nationwide, is the leading, dynamic, and fresh face of the Young Conservative Movement and has been introducing young people to the conservative movement for more than 35 years.

The complete Young America’s Foundation list is available here.

Toppling Old Men for a Single Word (It's a Bird! It's a Plane!)

From a press statement put out by "Roger Williams University School of Law student organizers Matt Jerzyk, Majessire Smith and Kim Ahern" on the resolution of the Roger Williams University Papitto melodrama:

We are proud of every law school student and all of the faculty, alumni and donors who raised their voice against racism at our University. When a community comes together with one voice, they have the power to move mountains.

Yeah, move mountains... or devastate old men in the waning days of their distinguished service to the university. Pretty much the same thing. At least everybody got to parade around the classroom in hero costumes.

Bilodeau Elected as New State College GOP Head

According to a press release issued by the RI GOP, URI College Republican Chair Ryan Bilodeau has been elected as the new head of the College Republican Federation of Rhode Island. Comments to this post hinted that a change was afoot within the RI College Republican ranks. From the outside, it would appear as if the majority of College Republicans are now more inclined to engage in the confrontational campus politics that the previous leadership found so abrasive.

Putting the Other Side Out There

In response to Marc's post on the DJs' being fired from Roger Williams's WQRI, program director Mike Martelli has left the following comment (which I've also read his expressing in an email that reached me through a series of forwards):

As the Program Director of WQRI it is my responsibility to determine what content is inappropriate to be aired on the station. After much discussion with the entire air staff I have come to the conclusion that the infamous phrase, “nappy headed ho” should not be repeated over our airwaves. I have given the air staff a lot of freedom with the content of their shows. However, when Dee Jays have pushed the envelope sometimes I have to bring them back to a reasonable level.

At the air staff meeting we discussed the First Amendment issues regarding the Imus phrase. It was at this meeting, which took place on Wednesday April 18th, we discussed whether or not the air staff felt as if they would be censored if I asked them not to repeat the Imus phrase. Mr. Peloso and Mr. Porter were not in attendance. The consensus from the air staff was that there was no problem to the ban. I had to call a special meeting with Jon Porter and Dana Peloso on Monday the 23rd in which I passed on the order. We were all in agreement that the phrase should not be said.

I don’t think that the phrase needed to be said again, especially since the Imus incident had taken place more than 2 weeks prior and was no longer newsworthy. I also felt that phrase could be offensive to some and with WQRI’s FCC license up for renewal I did not want to risk offending the community. We are a music station and we have spent lots of time trying to build up a reputable image with the community and have successfully done so.

The issue here is that the College Republicans have failed to comply with direct orders and station policy. My decision was based on WQRI issues only; my personal beliefs had to stay out of it. It is unfair that the media is pulling my blog posts and taking them out of context. The only reason I chose to suspend and fire Dana Peloso and Jon Porter is their blatant insubordination. The First Amendment was not an issue here as there was an obvious disregard for WQRI policy and leadership.

The accusations that I acted in collaboration with Vice President John King to censor the College Republicans is completely false and completely ridiculous. I have stood against VP King on many occasions and I can describe our relationship as professional but not one of great chemistry. VP King and I have clashed on issues of Student’s Rights and I have consistently stood as an advocate of these Student Rights. The issue with King and the CR’s has been misunderstood. VP King had only mentioned in passing to our General Manager that the content of the show might not be the best to display during the Accepted Students Day, and I completely agree.

VP King never, I repeat never, gave us an order to take any kind of action against Mr. Peloso or Mr. Porter. In fact he never even suggested that anything should happen to the College Republicans. Just because he mentioned that the content was not appropriate for Accepted Student’s day does not mean he wanted us to give the CR’s the Axe. He is an ambassador for the University and he has the right to comment. The comment had nothing to do with my decision. At no time did VP King or any other Administrator tell me what to do.

Jon Porter and Dana Peloso were suspended because of insubordination and have consequently been fired because they did not have the patience to take part in an investigation by the station's student run executive board. If Jon and Dana let us examine the tape of their show they would also have had time to defend their actions in front of the board. Since they decided to jump the gun and go to the press I am lead to believe that this has little to do with concerns of censorship and has more to do with gaining attention. Jon and Dana mentioned the Imus Phrase more than 30 times in 28 minutes, they did little to actually discuss the first amendment and it was quite clear that Jon and Dana were trying to cause trouble. Their actions were irresponsible and had no journalistic character. This is the reason I have decided to let them go. The University has nothing to do with this decision, it is 100% mine.

Mike Martelli
WQRI Program Director
(401) 254 3282
Programdirector_wqri@hawks.rwu.edu

Personally, I'd be interested to hear the offending tape, myself (and if Porter and Peloso wished, I'd be happy to host a streaming version on Anchor Rising). From what I've read so far, although one can argue the merit of each decision leading up to the firing, my impression remains in sync with the instinct with which I received the initial "breaking news" announcement: I worry that coastal conservatives — by necessity a countercultural lot — can too easily be manipulated by attention-seeking yutes. That a particular incident reinforces our beliefs or advances our cause doesn't mean that we ought uncritically to pounce on it.

It might arouse less suspicion if the students were out in the public offering their own intellectual position and explanation, as Mr. Martelli is, rather than merely pointing to the fact that they'd been canned.

RE: Wingfield's Letter

I share Justin's concern that some of what has gone on may not be "out of deliberate strategy" and instead may be for the sake of "the sheer self-gratifying joy of subversion and recognition." It is this line between publicity-for-its-own-sake and polemic that is sometimes hard to toe. (Ann Coulter comes to mind). So, perhaps I was a bit too hard on Wingfield, but there is certainly a place for using free speech--including tough language--to shake up the campus conventional wisdom. Keeping in mind that most College Republicans are essentially apprentices in field of polemics, some line-crossing is to be expected.

If nothing else, Wingfield's resignation--which, by the way, is largely symbolic as he's graduating in a couple weeks by which time his replacement will have been elected--has brought to the fore a debate that is going on in the wider world of conservative and Republican politics. It's encapsulated well in this post from National Review's Jonah Goldberg in which one of his emailers observes:

The vast right wing conspiracy at some point seems to have decided that we'll command, if not dominate, the following:

- Think tanks
- Talk radio
- Blogs

This strategy seems to depend on persuading opinion leaders of the merits of our case, preferably using 10,000+ words to do so. The opinion leaders then hold court at family barbecues, dazzling friends and family with facts and logic and slowly converting them to our side.

That's a perfectly legitimate approach, but it has three problems that make it less than sufficient as a marketing strategy: (1) political junkies aren't necessarily opinion leaders; (2) the arguments are usually too complex to be easily distilled into something that could lead to opinion leadership; and, (3) it assumes that people's views are shaped by facts and logic, when things like the aforementioned group identity are at least as important among many people.

In other words, we need counterparts to MoveOn and its ilk that can succinctly and persuasively communicate meaningful information to largely disinterested voters, and do so using the tools and tones appropriate for our target audiences.

Young and motivated College Republicans are the GOPs counterpart to the liberal foot soldiers of MoveOn. Wingfield is correct to caution them about stepping over the line. But we also have to realize that there is a difference between the language used in discussions held at a suburban, backyard barbecue and the jawing that goes on at a kegger.

Re: Outgoing State College Republican Chair: Make Sure What You Say is Politically Correct Before You Say It

It's apparent that the sort of bareknuckle, in-your-face ideological battles that his fellow College Republicans are waging is too much for Wingfield.

Some may recall that Wingfield was the head of the Reformed Christian Fellowship at Brown University, which was suspended last year. Wingfield perservered and, with the help of FIRE, they were reinstated. Wingfield's resignation seems to indicate that -when it wasn't his ox being gored--he wants to be "moderate." He stated, "We are conservatives, not liberals. Use wisdom, and be virtuous when you exercise free speech." Wingfield is correct that College Republicans should use wisdom and be virtuous, but that doesn't mean they can't still be tough or humorous. Unfortunately, "being nice" isn't going to get you noticed on college campuses. If College Republicans want to make a mark, they need to select a replacement for Wingfield who won't be so skittish about taking the battle to the ideological opposition. It looks like there may be a couple people at URI or RWU who may fit the bill.

UPDATE: Contrast Wingfield's free speech construct with this from Andrew Klavan's (via Dale Light):

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.

Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are.

Then again, I forgot...Wingfield is a Chafee Republican, not a conservative.

Outgoing State College Republican Chair: Make Sure What You Say is Politically Correct Before You Say It

Ethan Wingfield has resigned as chairman of the State College Republican Federation (h/t the RI Report website). Mr. Wingfield’s resignation letter includes this vague statement on freedom of speech…

As I leave this post, College Republicans around this state have created multiple controversies by exercising our liberty of free speech. We are conservatives, not liberals. Use wisdom, and be virtuous when you exercise free speech.

If Mr. Wingfield has problems with positions expressed by other Rhode Island College Republicans, or with how they've been expressed, he should challenge specifically what he finds to be objectionable -- and do it in a way without recommending that campus Republicans limit themselves to speech that it is, in a literal sense, politically correct.

URI College Republicans, Still Recognized

From Randal Edgar of the Projo...

The University of Rhode Island Student Senate last night backed away from asking the College Republican club to apologize for advertising a “White Heterosexual American Male” scholarship, but the club is being asked to send clarification letters to the 40 people who applied.

The letters are to explain something that many Senate members felt was not clear in the one-time ad that ran in the collage newspaper last fall — that there was no scholarship and that the ad was meant to be a satirical statement on affirmative action.

The outcome followed nearly two hours of debate by the Senate, which occasionally discussed the matter directly with Ryan Bilodeau, the Republican club’s chairman.

Bilodeau, who made a formal address to the Senate and continued to insist that the club was not willing to apologize, said afterward that the Senate decision was a good way to put the matter to rest.

“We have said all along that we were willing to compromise,” he said. “The only thing we will not do is apologize.”

At least one student senator reveals that more debate, more speech, and yes, more satire will be necessary to drive home the point the College Republicans were trying to make...

Some Senate members opposed the bill, saying it let the Republican club off too easy and ignored a violation of Senate bylaws forbidding student organizations from discriminating or impeding equal opportunity based on race, color, gender, sexual orientation, national origin and other “non-merit” factors.

“I am personally offended by your event, not your ideology,” Senate member Cristin Langworthy told Bilodeau. “You’re not making a progressive statement, you’re discriminating.”

Meanwhile, at URI....

While the Roger Williams University radio controversy rages on, the URI Senate is deciding whether or not to de-recognize the URI College Republicans. Here's a press release from Ryan Bilodeau, Chairman of the URI College Republicans:

Kingston, RI - April 25, 2007 - Displaying a dramatic disregard for students' constitutional rights, a committee of the University of Rhode Island (URI) Student Senate voted to de-recognize the College Republicans student group. For months, the Student Senate has demanded that the group publicly apologize for advertising a satirical $100 "scholarship" for white, heterosexual, American males. In response, the College Republicans refused to apologize.

Tonight the URI College Republicans face a vote in front of the full Student Senate on whether or not they will be de-recognized.

The ACLU, University President Carothers and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have all spoken out in favor of the College Republicans.

University students and members of the media are invited to attend tonight at 6:30 PM in the Student Senate Chambers of the Memorial Union.

Protesters are expected to attend.

What: URI Student Senate De-Recognition Meeting
Who: University of Rhode Island College Republicans
Where: University of Rhode Island Memorial Union Student Senate Chambers
When: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Roger Williams U Gets into the Censorship Game? (UPDATED)

First it was the URI College Republicans, now a couple conservative college radio hosts have been "fired" from WQRI, the Roger Williams University student radio station. Their offense? Repeating the Don Imus "nappy headed ho" phrase on the air while discussing the incident itself. Call it second-hand censorship.

Now, I believe that because RWU is a private institution, 1st Amendment issues are not necessarily applicable, as they are in the URI case. However, given the "mission" of free and open discussion that most liberal arts schools claim to promote (though RWU's stated mission is not quite so explicit), there can be little doubt that ideological based censorship lay behind this action. That being said, RWU is proud to claim that it upholds the ideals of it's namesake, explaining:

The University has dedicated itself to the ideals advocated by Roger Williams himself: education, freedom and tolerance. Through his scholarship in language, theology and law, Williams’ life reflected the value of learning and teaching. The University honors his legacy by modeling a community in which diverse people and diverse ideas are valued, intellectual achievement is celebrated and civic responsibility is expected.

Well, apparently not all diversity--like intellectual or political--is equal. The students weren't being intolerant by repeating the phrase that set off a media controversy, but Roger Williams University certainly appears to be.

If they haven't already, the students should contact FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) to help them with their case. They've certainly helped the URI Republicans (even if the Student Senate still refuses to budge--more on that here).

FYI, Dan Yorke is promoting an interview with the students this afternoon.

UPDATE: First, I appended (in the extended entry) the press release that the hosts of the conservative talk show “Morning Again”, Dana Peloso and Jon Porter, issued. Second, apparently they were directed to not use the term at all and then used it 30 times in a 25 minute period. So, there are some management issues here, too. However, it also appears as if the station administration hasn't been able to get their story straight. In short, it looks like Peloso and Porter purposefully provoked the situation...but is that cause for firing, when the usual action would be a suspension? Or did they cross a line and deserve what they got? More to come.

UPDATE II: Alex Kuffner of the Projo reports on the story here.

Here is a press release issued by Dana Peloso and Jon Porter, hosts of the Tuesday morning conservative talk show “Morning Again”:

Vice President of Roger Williams University practicing censorship and depriving students their freedom of speech! Student Radio Program Director suspends Conservative Hosts!

As of 5:15pm April 24, 2007 student lead radio hosts Dana Peloso and Jon Porter, hosts of the Tuesday morning conservative talk show “Morning Again” on 88.3 WQRI at Roger Williams University have been suspended indefinitely for their coverage of the recent Don Imus Firing. They received the word of the suspension from WQRI program director Mike Martelli who has been heavily influenced by the Vice President of the University, John King. King contacted Martelli last week in a feeble attempt to have the show pulled when the dual hosts covered the news worthy item on a special Sunday edition of their show. King said the wording “Nappy Headed Hoe’s” was distasteful for the radio even though the hosts weren’t using the phrases in a derogatory inflammatory way, rather reporting the news as it was current. This morning’s edition of the show started out as normal, with the two leading into the now current news of Kings attempt to un-justfully censor the radio show. This morning’s show has been recorded for further press releases and on request, although the quality is not the best due to the technology in the studio, but it is more than understandable. Martellis order to have the two pulled from their morning routine comes only after King was asked to appear on the show and defend his stances on the issue; King not only refused, but subsequently Martelli Has ordered the “Morning Again” radio show pulled until further notice. When asked who made the complaints about this mornings show, Martelli responded only with “That’s not for you to know, you work for me, not the other way around.” For further questions or comment feel free to contact show host Dana Peloso who also serves as the Chapter Chairman of the College Republicans at Roger Williams University at 617-785-1732 or via Email dpeloso291@hawks.rwu.edu.

'60's Era Campus Free Speechniks: Fought the Old Boss, became the New Boss

What happens when young co-eds "fight the power" and win a loosening of on-campus speech codes? Why, they seek to reimpose them when they become "the power." As Greg Lukianoff and Will Creeley of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) explain in a campus free speech expose in today's Providence Phoenix (Via N4N):

College administrators didn’t decide to start cracking down on student speech just because of Facebook’s popularity. Despite the fact that such institutions rely on free and open exchange to serve their societal functions, universities both public and private have been policing student speech for decades. While we do ourselves no favors imagining that there was ever a time in collegiate history that students’ rights were perfectly respected, the campus free-speech movement of the 1960s and ’70s was highly successful. The sad irony is that many from the generation that fought so hard for free speech in the ’60s and ’70s were the pioneers of speech codes and PC restrictions in the ’80s and ’90s and that we still see today.

Yes, it's only "free speech" if they agree with it. Yet, there is a reason behind the speech codes: "In an attempt to prevent these claims, educational institutions have adopted a corporate risk-management posture." By this, they explain:

...speech codes are maintained by schools in no small part due to a deeply held fear of civil liability for harassment lawsuits arising from Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX prohibits discrimination — including sexual harassment — in any education program receiving federal funding. Plaintiffs in meritorious sexual-harassment lawsuits stand to win large damage awards, and the sheer number of those suits has become quite significant. Even when the claim is truly frivolous, the cost of mounting a defense is substantial.

A College Republican Christmas

To help usher in the Christmas season, the University of Rhode Island College Republicans are inviting people to a Christmas card party, where they will be preparing messages of Christmas cheer to be sent to members of the American Civil Liberties Union…

In response to the war on Christmas by radical leftist organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), members of the University of Rhode Island College Republicans will be facilitating an event for U.R.I. students to send Christmas Cards to members of the ACLU. Students will have the opportunity to write Christian themed Christmas cards to the ACLU, wishing them a very Merry Christmas, and reminding the leftist organization of the true meaning of Christmas. The event is free, and cookies and hot cocoa will be served.

The ACLU has attacked Christmas on the local level in the last several years, claiming the city of Cranston, R.I., erected holiday religious displays along with secular displays in violation of the so-called "separation of church and state." The students hope that these efforts combined with those of students across the country will help the ACLU respect Christmas as one of the most commonly celebrated holidays of the United States.

Chairman Ryan Bilodeau blasted the ACLU, saying, “The ACLU advocates freedom of speech, but fails to apply that right to everyone. They are so out of the mainstream, that they are stifling people from celebrating the only actual reason for the season. Contrary to the tenets that leftist organizations like the ACLU promote in their lawsuits, we want to students of URI, and namely the ACLU themselves, to know that Christmas is, in fact, the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.”

The event will be held on Monday, December 11. Further details available here.

Brown University Let's the Evangelicals Back In

After telling the Reformed University Fellowship that they wouldn't be allowed on campus just, well, "because," Brown University has had a change of heart. But they still haven't been forthcoming as to why the RUF was banned in the first place.

Yesterday, Ethan Wingfield, president of the Reformed University Fellowship, said he was pleased at the Brown administration's decision. "I think it is fantastic. It is an absolutely positive step. I'm glad we are back in contact and talking and working on a resolution."

The campus religious group, which has about 100 members, is affiliated with Trinity Presbyterian Church, an evangelical congregation in Providence.

Restoration of the fellowship's status as a campus group means that its members can hold meetings on campus, advertise meetings and use campus space for speakers.

While Wingfield said he was pleased with the university's new tack, he said he is also disappointed because he believes the university wasn't specific about why the group was suspended in the first place.

"We still haven't been told why we were suspended," said Wingfield.

Leaders of the group say they were given different reasons for the action. At first they were told that Trinity Presbyterian, the local sponsor, had withdrawn support, which it had not, according to the Rev. David Sherwood, Trinity pastor.

Then they were told that it was because the group's former leader had been late in submitting the paperwork required to be established as a campus organization. The third reason given, according to fellowship leaders, was the most puzzling, they said. The Rev. Allen Callahan, Protestant chaplain, asserted they were "possessed of a leadership culture of contempt and dishonesty that has rendered all collegial relations with my office impossible."

...The Rev. Ms. Cooper Nelson has laid out four steps that the fellowship must take to be reinstated, including filing forms on time and communicating with "full transparency" to the Rev. Mr. Callahan.

Wingfield said the standards set by the Rev. Ms. Cooper Nelson are not onerous and are pretty much what is expected of other campus organizations which seek university sanction and use of university facilities. "All we want to do is be on campus," said Wingfield, who said the fellowship is looking forward to reinstatement, "as soon as we can get this resolved."

Kudos to the RUF for sticking it out. If they hadn't gone public, I think Brown would have been happy to have swept it under the rug. Of course, given this outcome, I now wonder whether it is the RUF or the University that was "possessed of a leadership culture of contempt and dishonesty."

Brown University: Not a Bastion of Free Speech

Yesterday, I read in the ProJo about how Brown University had rather suspiciously banned an on-campus student evangelical group.

Leaders of the group say they were given different reasons for the action. At first, they were told it was because their local sponsor, Trinity Presbyterian Church, had withdrawn its support, which it hadn’t. Then they were told that it was because the group’s former leader had been two months late in September 2005 when he submitted the group’s application to be recognized as a campus organization. But the third reason is one that group leaders say is most baffling: the Rev. Allen Callahan, Protestant chaplain, asserted they were “possessed of a leadership culture of contempt and dishonesty that has rendered all collegial relations with my office impossible.”

Student leaders said they still don’t know what he meant, and wrote a0 long letter to the chaplain’s office seeking elaboration. There’s been no response.

“We were disappointed that the university administration should treat us so lightly that they wouldn’t even acknowledge our letter,” said the fellowship’s president, Ethan Wingfield, a senior philosophy major. “We felt disrespected.”

The F.I.R.E. organization has taken up the students' cause, but the group has yet to get a concrete explanation as to why it has been barred. Arlene Violette also had one of the students on her show yesterday (I didn't catch his name, but it may have been Wingfield) and he did state that the local chapter of the ACLU was helping the students.

Now I've discovered (via Instapundit and Judith Weiss) that Brown also cancelled a talk by Nonie Darwish last week. Darwish is an Egyptian who has gotten publicity for her willingness to talk (and she's written a book) about the radical Muslim culture in which she grew up. According to Adam Brodsky of the NY Post:

MUSLIMS are often accused of not speaking out sufficiently against terrorism. Nonie Darwish knows one reason why: Their fellow Muslims won't let them.

Darwish, who comes from Egypt and was born and raised a Muslim, was set to tell students at Brown University about the twisted hatred and radicalism she grew to despise in her own culture. A campus Jewish group, Hillel, had contacted her to speak there Thursday.

But the event was just called off.

Muslim students had complained that Darwish was "too controversial." They insisted she be denied a platform at Brown, and after contentious debate Hillel agreed.

Weird: No one had said boo about such Brown events as a patently anti-Israel "Palestinian Solidarity Week." But Hillel said her "offensive" statements about Islam "alarmed" the Muslim Student Association, and Hillel didn't want to upset its "beautiful relationship" with the Muslim community. Plus, Brown's women's center backed out of co-sponsoring the event, even though it shares Darwish's concerns about the treatment of women. Reportedly, part of the problem was that Darwish had no plans to condemn Israel for shooting Arab women used by terrorists as human shields, or for insufficiently protecting Israeli Arab wives from their husbands.

In plugging their ears to Darwish, Brown's Muslim students proved her very point: Muslims who attempt constructive self-criticism are quickly and soundly squelched - by other Muslims.

Is there a pattern here? Brown did an admirable job of justified self-flagellation in their investigation into the role that the University played in slavery (though some dispute portions of it). Perhaps they should start a new investigation into why there is a pattern of silencing those whose views--on the face of it--seem to run counter to the on campus conventional wisdom.

Brown University Losing Its Edge?

National Review isn't exactly considered the journal of record for the Ivy League. (William F. Buckley once famously commented that he would "rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University"). However, last week's dead tree edition of NR contained a line that may catch some folks a few years (or decades) removed from the college experience by surprise...

Columbia has been the cool school in the Ivy League for a while now, taking that title from Brown...

Is it really true, or is NR guilty of propagating a bit of New York hype here?

That Old Smugness

Feeling a bit too much the elder rebel — whose rebellion is increasingly merely to laugh at the enemy's antics — I suggested to a URI College Republican in a comment to my previous post that it is only recently that campus communities have had to face the idea that perhaps anti-conservatism isn't simply an objective indication of compassionate intelligence. I contend that the prejudice is only so visible now because it is being challenged. Well, as if to provide me evidence, URI student Arthur Ferri has published a humorous example of the old mentality in The Good ¢5 Cigar:

The University of Rhode Island's conservatives lament that their social science and humanities professors are liberal. Professors who spent their entire lives analyzing the beloved "marketplace of ideas" under the strictest academic protocols and guess what? Conservatism lost. That is why conservative faculty members in these disciplines are few and far between.

... Maybe conservative students are "captive and vulnerable," but no liberal student I ever met felt "captive and vulnerable" in the classroom, but rather proud and confident that his liberal values (yes, we like that word) stand up successfully to vigorous academic scrutiny. Liberal students find "political propagandizing in the classroom" stimulating and a challenge, especially from conservative professors.

Ah yes! The pride and confidence of students who believe that they are regurgitating an ideology that has emerged victorious in "the 'marketplace of ideas' under the strictest academic protocols." The stimulation and challenged of not taking "two seconds of verbal abuse from conservatives in the classroom without hitting back hard with solid academic evidence" that is provided readily by the many professors — not "few and far between" — with whom the students agree. Oh the confidence of the smug and the stimulation of the sneer built on political dominance in an environment in which "intellectual diversity" means degrees of Leftism (which, as we all know, professors push merely for the unobjectionable reason that it has been proven correct):

Conservatives are never going to have power here and nothing can possibly be done about it. At the university, conservatives will never be allowed to sit at the cool people's table in the cafeteria.

Witness the hamartia of those who cannot ponder the possibility that authoritarian mechanisms are possible, indeed victorious, in the world of higher education. Rest assured, College Republicans (and Arthur, too), that Mr. Ferri's is the voice of a doomed elite. We who've been sputtered at with the "solid academic evidence" of the intellectual comme il faut can hear the hollow echo of stagnation in its strains.

After Horowitz, the Hoopla

I've been following the letters to the editor exchanges in the University of Rhode Island's student paper, The Good ¢5 Cigar, subsequent to David Horowitz's appearance on campus, including an angry offering from the man himself. In today's edition, however, is a letter from John Biszko, a Tulane student displaced back home, as it were, by Katrina, that is particularly poignant:

I feel absolutely compelled to write in to the Cigar because since the time I have become a part of the College Republicans I have come under an unfair and vicious onslaught unlike anything else I have ever encountered. I have studied at Providence College, the University of Connecticut, Tulane University of Louisiana, and the Special Operations University of the U.S. Milita