Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Lessons From the New York Primary
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton won landslide victories.
Both triumphed after a mediocre campaign month. They are back.
The only thing that can keep Clinton from the Democratic nomination will be an indictment, which is not coming.
If Bill Clinton was referred to as “America’s first Black President,” then Hillary Clinton may be “The Nation’s first Black female President.”
Her campaign is geared to uniting the Obama Coalition.
Donald Trump is helping her do that. He beats her in the unfavorability polls by 15%, 67% to 52%. Senator Cruz comes in at 52%.
What a sad commentary!
Secretary Clinton’s path to the White is easy. All she has to do are:
1) Don’t utter any of her spontaneous; stupid, arrogant statements;
2) Keep Bill muzzled for six months:
3) Run away from Bill’s policies;
4) Make sure Bill keeps his zipper up;
5) Stick to President Obama, and yet distance herself from the President’s policies;
6) Hope the economy holds up through November;
7) Pray there’s no major terrorist attack in the United States before the November Election;
8) Keep the lid on the Mideast through the election; and
9) Don’t get indicted.
Donald Trump won big, reaping 92 of New York’s 95 delegate votes with 60% of the vote.
Donald Trump has been railing against the rigging of the delegate process. Yet, with 60% of the vote, he won 97% of the delegates.
Senator Ted Cruz came in a distant third. Governor Kasich received almost twice as many votes as the Senator. The Senator discovered that “I Love New York” Trumps “New York Values.”
Donald Trump is serious about winning the nomination. He has shaken up his campaign staff, hiring two pros. He is also now investing real money into the campaign. He expects to win.
Senator Cruz is planning and organizing for a second ballot victory in an Open Convention. That door closed yesterday.
Watch Senator Cruz become more petulant and negative as the nomination is slip-sliding away. He might be seeing a lot of third place finishes except for Indiana.
Secretary Clinton received twice as many votes as Donald Trump, but that simply reflects the fact that twice as many Democrats are registered to vote in New York, which has closed primaries.
The sour note for Trump is that he failed to win the Borough of Manhattan.
It used to be that “As Maine and Vermont go, so goes the nation.” Senator Cruz is about to learn in this Republican Primary Season that “What goes in New York, goes in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, et al” all the way to Cleveland.
Senator Cruz is in the campaign all the way to Philly. He’s been running for President all his adult life. He’s not about to quit just because he’s losing at the ballot box.
Senator Sanders will stay in because he’s got the Berm. The Senator is having a blast
There’s always the chance Secretary Clinton will be indicted.
Governor Kasich will continue in the race because he will be the last Republican standing if Donald Trump and Senator Cruz self-destruct.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The New York Primary in a Nutshell
The New York primary will be relevant this year, as will California.
Ted Cruz Loves New York, but not “New York values”
See how he squirms out of that one!
The New York Daily News in its inimitable manner on the front page advised Senator Cruz to take “the F U” train.
He’s been taking it upstate to attempt to win a few delegates from conservative, upstate Congressional districts.
Senator Bernie Sanders, the expatriate New Yorker from Brooklyn, is running against Secretary Clinton, the carperbagging Senator from New York.
Neither one is qualified to be President, according to the other.
Hillary, the candidate of the people, couldn’t figure out how to use a farecard at the New York City subway. She also hasn’t driven a car in two decades.
Hillary and the Donald are the most unlikeable candidates in the presidential race. They will win New York.
Two weeks ago secretary Clinton said “I’m sick of the Sander’s campaign lies.”
Two days ago the Trump and Kasich forces to unite and shut the Cruz campaign out of committee spots.
Last weekend the Cruz campaign won all 28 delegate votes without a primary or caucus or even straw poll - no semblance of a vote by the people - just a cabal of party zealots.
The people in Colorado did not get to vote. Paul Manafort, Trump’s new campaign aide, accused the Cruz Campaign of using “Gestapo tactics.”
Senator Sanders, the Brooklyn Jew, called on Israel to take “a more balanced” approach in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said the Palestinians should be treated with “dignity and respect, hardly a winning argument in New York.”
Trump now realizes, coming out of Wisconsin, that he needs to beef up his campaign staff, ground game, and spend some of his fortune funding an organization building a ground game.
Senator Cruz understands the ground game.
New York City Mayor De Blasio endorsed Secretary Clinton for President. They appeared at a charity dinner with a canned scrip.
She said to Hizzoner: Took you long enough.”
He responded “Sorry, Hillary, I was on C.P. time.”
Hillary’s belated response “Cautious politician time. I’ve been there.”
“CPT” stands for “Colored People Time.”
I was shocked when I first heard the phrase in Louisiana three decades ago.
Had a Republican candidate engaged in such a racist joke, it would have led off the evening news.
It’s still shocking that the Mayor, whose wife is African American, and thus has two African American children, would use it even in jest. It’s shocking that Secretary Clinton, whose primary wins in the South depended on overwhelming African American votes, would agree to participate in such a joke.
Shocked, but not surprised. Secretary Clinton has a tin year.
I Love New York.
Friday, April 1, 2016
Will Donald Trump's Hoof 'n Mouth Disease Finally Catch Up to Him on the Abortion Issue?
Donald Trump had a bad week. His campaign manager was arrested for battery. His mouth blew the abortion question, He’s expected to lose Wisconsin next week, perhaps by double digits. The media is proclaiming his end and piling on.
Every major campaign has a bad week or two, but overcomes it.
Don’t sell the Donald short yet!
Donald Trump has triumphed so far by trashing everything in his way. I understand his appeal, but it is radioactive.
He has alienated women, Muslims, Mexicans, Mormons, POW’s, FoxNews. He is doing a better job than Secretary Clinton in reassembling the Obama Coalition. He is trying to win Wisconsin after trashing Governor Walker, who is popular with Wisconsin conservatives.
Hi is boorish. His presence is an affront to the image of the United States.
He is gauche.
He’s been a misogynist to Carly Fiorina and Heidi Cruz.
He is an uncontrolled, undisciplined, unprepared, arrogant loose cannon.
He wings it, phones it in, speaks off the cuff, shoots from the hip, often thoughtlessly.
Yet, he has prevailed to date in the Republican race.
Dr. Ben Carson is a great person. He was rising in the polls earlier in the race. He dropped out though when it became clear that he was not yet ready for prime time as well as being too nice.
Donald Trump is the opposite of nice, but he is totally not ready for prime time.
His base has stuck with him so far.
His abortion comment yesterday crosses the pale.
Chris Matthews set him up by asking if women having abortions should be prosecuted if abortions are illegal.
There’s no way, absent a revolutionary change in the Supreme Court, that Roe v. Wade will be reversed. He should have refused to answer the absurd hypothetical.
Instead, he said they should face some punishment.
He later retracted, but he said it. His statement’s on video. It will be merciless campaign fodder against him in the general election. He validates the otherwise specious Democratic claims of a Republican War on Women.
He falls into the public den of infamy with Congressman Todd Akin of Missouri in 2012 and Indiana’s State Treasurer Richard Murdock, both of whom said incredibly insulting statements about rape. They cost the Republicans two Senate seats which were winnable.
Incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McGaskill of Missouri was highly vulnerable in her reelection campaign. She won in a landslide because Congressman Akin uttered a statement that was insulting to the intelligence of the American people.
He was asked about abortions for women who were raped. He said:
“Well, you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those
things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort
of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s
really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to
shut that whole thing down..”
In other words, if it is a real rape, a “legitimate rape,” the woman will not get pregnant.
He proved he was an educated ignoramus.
Richard Murdock had knocked off the incumbent Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican primary. He was favored to win, but he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with his statement of fetuses conceived by rape:
“Life is the gift from God that I think even if life begins in this horrible
situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”
Don’t Republican candidates understand that if they utter a statement that is incredibly stupid or outrageous, then the media will use it to destroy them politically.
Donald Trump suffers from Hoof ‘n Mouth Disease. Sooner or later, he will run off at the mouth, espousing some half-baked statement that offends almost everyone. Maybe he feels emboldened because he got away with several outrageous statements this election cycle.
He did it with the abortion answer. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice partisans are equally offended.
There is no excuse for stupidity.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Caution: Walking and Texting May Be a Crime in New Jersey
One of the awful jokes about President Ford was that he was such a klutz that he could not walk and chew gum at the same time.
Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt of New Jersey has introduced a bill in the New Jersey Legislature that would make it illegal to walk and text at the same time. Texting while walking could receive a $50 fine and 15 days in prison. Her bill would also require pedestrians to use “hands free “attachments on their cell phones.
In essence, New Jersey’s existing distraction while driving law would be extended to distraction while walking.
Assemblywoman Lampitt explained: “Distracted pedestrians, like distracted divers, present potential danger to themselves and drivers on the road.” She called it “risky behavior.”
Welcome to the Nanny State of New Jersey.
New Jersey is one of the penultimate Nanny states in America. The Garden State is the state that until this January made it illegal for young entrepreneurs to shovel snow without a permit. Two teenagers were arrested in Bound Brook, New Jersey in February 2015 for shoveling without a permit. The town charged a $450 fee for a 180 day permit.
Assemblywoman Lampitt referred to a recent Governors Highway Safety Association study showing that pedestrian deaths have risen in recent years while auto accident deaths have dropped. For example, pedestrian deaths rose 10% in201 while overall traffic deaths dropped 4%.
Distracted pedestrians can be a problem.
So also are stoned walkers.
Next comes “walking while intoxicated.”
The next step will therefore be to set up random spot field sobriety testing WPI (Walking While Intoxicated). Pedestrians would be required to walk a straight line.
Walking can be boring, with a primordial urge to check one’s watch to see how much longer. Ban the watch instead, especially the new Apple Watch.
Smoking and walking is also therefore dangerous, as is biking while smoking or listening to music in the helmet.
Walking while talking can be disastrous. Animated conversations can be distracting. Therefore, require all walkers to zipper their lips while walking.
Clearly no lip kissing while walking!
Walking in the rain can be treacherous, but walking in the snow is downright dangerous. Therefore, all walking should be banned in inclement weather.
Everything is distracting while walking, even chewing gum. Walkers discarding ABC (already been chewed) gum on the public walkway should a public nuisance. Let’s therefore adopt a Gerald Ford Statute rendering it illegal to walk and chew gum at the same time.
One study shows 72% of all pedestrian accidents occur at night. Of course, you can’t always see walkers on a dark night, especially if they are wearing dark colors. We should therefore ban walking at night unless the walker has operating front and rear lights and a rear view mirror.
Pedestrians also run the risk of stepping in dog feces left by those who disobey leash laws.
We will also have to start a new war, War Against Unsafe Sidewalks,; i.e. flat walkways without cracks, holes, or bulging roots.
We will need to create a new bureaucracy to enforce the new Safe Hoofing in This State campaign with sidewalk inspectors to ensure safe sidewalks and safe shoe inspectors to regulate the safety of walking shoes. Shoes will be inspected every three months. Boots made for walking would be permissible, but not kinky boots.
Assemblywoman Lampitt is from Camden, New Jersey, one of the nation’s poorest, high crime ridden cities. Walking on the Wild Side in Camden can be hazardous to one’s life. Living in Camden should be banned.
Fort Lee, New Jersey quickly got a reputation four years ago for ticketing walkers on their cell phones. The police chief clarified the report. Only jaywalkers on their cell phones were ticketed.
I understand that walking is healthy, except for the decades when R. J. Reynolds Tobacco advertised “I’ll walk a mile for a Camel” cigarette. I recognize that walking while texting is safer than jogging while texting, but it is still an unacceptable risk to Assemblywoman Lampitt.
Let’s cut to the chase Assemblywoman Lampitt: We need to ban public walking because it is dangerous and we cannot make it safe.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Quirks of the 2016 Presidential Election So Far
The 2016 Presidential Election is by far the most interesting, and perhaps most consequential, in my nearly 7 decades of watching elections.
The two Democratic candidates, campaigning for the future, were children of the 60’s and now senior citizens.
One appeals to the older voters (Clinton) and the 73 year old the Millennials (Sanders).
The Millennials are attracted by the seductive siren of the progressive socialism and inequality of the Child of the 60’s because they know no better. They’ve graduated from college with no meaningful job, but loaded with debt. They blame it on capitalism, because that is what they are taught by the progressive faculties on our campuses. They do not blame their plight on the failed economic policies of the Obama Administration.
If anything, they blame President Obama for not going far enough.
They did not learn in their economics and history classes of the consistent failures of socialism.
They also do not believe in the First Amendment, as a survey of Yale students shows.
The leading candidates in the two races have unbelievably high negative ratings.
A recent Fox poll shows Trump with a 65% unfavorable rating and 58% for Clinton. Most Americans continue to find the former Secretary of State untrustworthy. Most late deciders have voted for Trump’s opponents.
This may truly be an election for the lesser of two evils.
The fears about Citizens United have not played out this election.
Governor Bush and his PAC supporters poorly spent about $100 million on his campaign, mostly beating up on Senator Rubio.
Conversely, Donald Trump has spent only a few million on his campaign. The media, which otherwise abhors the Donald, has provided him an estimated $1.9 billion in free publicity.
Senator Sanders has raised tens of millions online from small donors.
The Republican “Establishment” is apparently so scared of Donald Trump that they are willing to get in bed with Senator Ted Cruz or even vote for Secretary Clinton. They must be inhaling the leftover grass from the 60’s.
The American public is disillusioned with the two parties, but the party elders don’t understand.
We are confronted with a sluggish economy, long-term systemic unemployment, the collapse of blue collar jobs and a shrinking middle class, corrupting public employee unions, a nuclear Iran, an aggressive Russian Bear, China filling the vacuum in the South China Sea, global Islamic terrorism, ISIS, deteriorating race relations in the United States, and President Obama’s transformation of the Americans from a people of independence to one of dependency upon the government,
The response of Senator Marco Rubio, otherwise an impressive candidate, was to allude to Donald Trump’s hand size, which is an urban myth correlating hand size to penis size.
Senator Rubio is better than that. Similarly, he droned on about Donald Trump being a “con.”
Governor Bush unsuccessfully spent a fortune in ads and his goodwill in attacking Senator Rubio.
Both Florida candidates relied on the advice of campaign advisors, who should never be allowed to advise a candidate again.
Both Senator Rubio and Governor Bush looked awkward and non-natural in their attacks.
They are better than that.
Senator Cruz should be winning handily against Donald Trump. He says the right conservative things to appeal to the base. He comes across though as an angry man lacking empathy.
Connecting with the public is an intangible. JFK had it; Nixon did not. Ronald Regan still has it. Neither George H. W. Bush nor Michael Dukakis had it. Bill Clinton has it; Hillary does not. President Obama had it; Governor Mitt Romney could not.
Bombs exploded in Brussels and a PAC sympathetic to Senator Cruz dropped a “bomb,” a 15 year old photo of the near naked model, who is now Donald’s wife, Melania.
Senator Cruz has denied any involvement with the sympathetic PAC, but has not disavowed it.
Donald Trump has responded by threatening to disclose info about the Senator’s wife, Heidi. He has also published side-by-side photos of a hellish looking Heidi and a beautiful, smiling Melania, who incidentally is an immigrant, as is Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz then called Donald Trump a “sniveling coward.”
Donald Trump may act like a bully, but certainly not a coward.
How low can we go?
We are in a War of Epithets: “Sniveling coward” versus “Lying Ted.”
Heidi and Melania, two highly successful women, deserve better.
The American people deserve better.
Senator Cruz claims the mantra of Reagan, but consistently violates Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Reagan was likable; Cruz is universally unlike on a bipartisan basis by his peers.
Ironically, the Trump campaign is dependent upon the crossover votes of blue class workers, the Reagan Democrats of the past.
Governor Kasich is the Last Governor standing in the campaign. He has survived the gauntlet.
This election is so weird that California might be decisive, for once, in the primary season. Secretary Clinton is using California as a political piggy bank.
Senator Sanders is currently winning the Left Coast of the United States.
Quite surprisingly, the credible Governors Bush, Gilmore, Huckabee, Jindal, Pataki, Perry, and Walker, the Governors who proved they can successfully govern as conservative Republicans, dropped of the race.
Governor Christy first embraced President Obama after Hurricane Sandy and has now embraced Donald Trump.
Governor Kasich needs 105% of the delegates yet to be decided to win the nomination, or 50.1% of the delegates after the first round in an open convention.
He offers Ohio, compassionate conservatism, and the self-proclaimed ‘only adult” now in the Republican ace.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Judge Merrick Garland Fits the Profile of the Eastern Meritocracy
It's deja vu all over again with the Supreme Court
I picked up my pocket constitution to the United States, looking for the clause, which provides a Supreme Court Justice “shall be a graduate of Harvard or Yale Law Schools.”
It’s not there, and it’s not in your copy of the Constitution either.
I looked for the clause, which says a Justice shall be a graduate of a law school.
It’s not there, and it’s not in your copy of the Constitution.
Indeed, the Constitution provides no requirements for a justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Instead, the Supreme Court has been appropriated by the meritocracy of the east.
I published six years ago a column in the Los Angeles daily Journal about the appointment of Judge Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. I’m attaching a copy of it here.
www.dailyjournal.com
© 2010 The Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.
PERSPECTIVE • Jun. 09, 2010
The New Supreme Court: A Meritocracy of the East
By Denis Binder
Dr. James B. Conant, a young chemistry professor, was the surprise appointment in 1933 as Harvard's new president. He and Clark Kerr at University of California, Berkeley became the leading figures in transforming American higher education in the 20th century from social class-based elitism to merit-based education open to all classes of Americans.
Conant recognized that Harvard could not survive as a great university by relying upon its traditional source of students, the old meritocracy of male New England WASPS and prep schools. He marveled at the success of the great public universities in the Midwest and West. Both Harvard and Yale were fairly insular institutions at the time. He wanted to attract more students from public high schools, the Catholics from Boston and Jews from New York. He wanted the brightest professors and students for Harvard to be a world-class research university. He would build the new Harvard based on a meritocracy of the intelligent.
His initial steps were small in his 20-year tenure as Harvard's president; he was careful not to offend the Harvard establishment, including alumni, by being too open. Thus, the profiles of his early classes did not vary much from the past. He started by offering a small number of Harvard National Scholarships to applicants from outside the east.
But he needed a key to open the gates of Harvard to a new meritocracy, the new elite. His chosen instrument was the SAT. The Ivies went along, and then the SAT and the competing ACT received national acceptance. Grades would be a surrogate for achievement, but the standardized test would become the proxy for intelligence to open the gates of Harvard. Smart students with drive and achievement would become the new meritocracy, regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, or gender. Ironically, of course, the SAT has increasingly been attacked in recent years for closing the doors of academia, especially to underrepresented minorities.
The seeds of his Harvard policies blossomed after his presidency ended. The Ivies dropped their restrictive admissions practices and admitted women in the 1960s. Berkeley was ranked "the best balanced distinguished university in the country" in 1966 by the American Council on Education, but the Ivies with their new profiles and fundraising abilities soon soared past the public Ivies in prestige. The true Ivies graduate and professional schools admitted the most successful undergrads and they recruited star faculty from less prestigious private and public universities at salaries that could not be matched by their existing institutions.
The Ivies, along with their West Coast rival, Stanford, were back on top. Their primacy is reinforced by the subjective objective rating system of U.S. News & World Report. Most global rankings rate Harvard as the best university in the world.
The appointment of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court marks the triumph of the new meritocracy. All nine of the justices attended Harvard or Yale Law School. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg transferred from Harvard Law to Columbia.)
Not one of the justices attended a public university, either for undergrad or law school. The last three appointees, Samual A. Alito Jr. and Sonia Sotomayor, along with Kagan, are graduates of Princeton. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law School. The two Justices from the West, Stephen G. Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy, attended Stanford and then Harvard Law School. Justice Ginsburg was an undergrad at Cornell, Clarence Thomas at Holy Cross, and Antonin Scalia at Georgetown, after being rejected by Princeton.
This new Court represents a narrow elite of America - an elite that is unrepresentative of America. The Court has gone from nine Protestants to six Catholics and three Jews, but still represents the eastern elite, the new eastern establishment.
Four boroughs from New York City are on the Court, with one justice from New Jersey. Two justices hail from the West, Kennedy from Sacramento and Breyer from San Francisco, but Breyer quickly became a fixture at Harvard Law School, and Kennedy sojourns in Europe during the summer. Thomas is from rural Georgia, but his adult life was on the eastern beltway. Scalia and Kagan escaped from the east for awhile to teach at the University of Chicago, but both remained easterners.
None of the nine justices were politicians, and eight proved their credentials by serving on federal Courts of Appeals, with many having initially been vetted in the Justice Department and the Executive Office of the President. Only a few had substantial legal experience in the private sector. None have served in the military. They have experienced little of the kaleidoscope that is America.
By way of contrast, the fabled Warren Court represented the educational and geographic diversity of America. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a graduate of Berkeley and Boalt Hall (now Berkeley Law). He also served as Governor of California. The great civil libertarian, Hugo Black, a senator, attended the University of Alabama Law School, while Tom Clark graduated from the University of Texas School of Law. John Marshall Harlan went to New York Law School and Charles Whitaker the University of Missouri Kansas City. Thurgood Marshall, because of racial discrimination, graduated from Howard. Stanley Reed did not even graduate from law school, although he studied at the University of Virginia and Columbia. Several justices graduated from Columbia Law School (William O. Douglas), Harvard Law School (William J.Brennan, Harold Burton, and FelixFrankfuter) and Yale (Abe Fortas, Sherman Minton, Potter Steward and Byron White), but Minton went to Indiana University for undergrad and White was a star football player at Colorado.
America's population has shifted to the south and the west, but the Supreme Court has become the meritocracy of the east - the "Northeast Corridor." Today's Supreme Court meritocracy is Conant's vision fulfilled. He would be proud.
Denis Binder has extensive experience teaching law, the past 14 years at Chapman Law School, and as a visiting professor this summer at Cal Western School of Law. After receiving his J.D. from the University of San Francisco, he earned a LL.M. and S.J.D. from the University of Michigan School of Law.
**********
© 2010 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Professors Joy Karega, Melissa Click, Merille Miller-Young, Saida Grundy, Susan J. Douglas, Steven Salaita, and Ward Churchill: The Un-Magnificent Seven
The University of Missouri Board of Curators voted last week 4:2 to terminate Assistant Professor Melissa Click. Professor Click joins Professor Stephen Salaita and Ward Churchill in the ranks of terminated professors while four others have survived outrageous statements or acts.
Professor Click received national attention last fall during the Black protests at the University of Missouri. She stopped Tim Tai, a photographer, who said he had a right to cover the protest in the public space. The video shows her inciting students to yell “Hey, hey, ho, ho, reporters have got to go.”
She grabbed the camera of another photographer, proclaiming “You need to get out.” She then screamed out “Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here. I need some muscle over here.”
A video subsequently emerged from an earlier protest when a police officer placed a hand on her shoulder and said “Get out of the road or get arrested.” She responded “Get your ... hands off me.”
She held a courtesy appointment with the Missouri School of Journalism and a regular appointment in the Department of Communications.
Her video became the poster child for conservatives. The Republican state legislature was outraged by her conduct. The threat was made to cut the University of Missouri budget by the amount of her salary as well as those of her chair and dean.
The Board of Curators recognized her First Amendment Freedom of Speech rights, but explained “However, Dr. Click was not entitled to interfere with the rights of others, to confront members of law enforcement or to encourage potential physical intimidation against a student.”
Academic freedom and the First Amendment Freedom of Speech do not protect inciting violence.
Journalists, above all others, should value the Freedom of the Press.
On the other hand, faculty members at the University of Missouri support Professor Click and decry the lack of due process in her termination.
Professor Click published a letter in the Washington Post yesterday. She just doesn’t get it.
She explained she had “inexperience with public protests.”
Is it because she doesn’t know the difference between Freedom of Speech in a peaceful protest versus incitement to violence?
Or is it because protestors are so used to getting away with it on campuses that they are surprised when repercussions occur?
She also said: “I am also working to come to terms with how a few captured moments of imperfection could eclipse 12 years of excellence.”
It happens all the time in the criminal justice system and Tort Law.
Acts have consequences.
As part of her apologia she said “But I do not understand the widespread impulse to shame those whose best intentions unfortunately result in imperfect actions.”
Did Professor Click never learn the maxim that the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions?
And not a word about the University President and the distinguished Provost who lost their jobs at Mizzou.
Professor Click's appeal to the Board for a reversal was quickly rejected.
A pro-life protest took place in a free speech zone on the campus of University of California Santa Barbara on March 4, 2015. The protesters from Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust held up graphic pictures of aborted fetuses and distributed pamphlets. This is graphic, tasteless, but protected speech.
The protesters included a 16 year old and her 21 year old sister. Their mother is a vice president of the organization.
Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young teaches feminist studies at UCSB. Accompanied by a few students, she ripped the poster from the teenager and then pushed her. The confrontation was captured on a cell phone and went public.
The professor initially claimed a moral right to act as she did, and later claimed she was affected by her pregnancy.
Professor Miller-Young was subsequently charged with three criminal counts.
A Vice Chancellor of UCSB, between the incident and the charges, emailed the students, warning of “offensive speech” and denounced “various anti-abortion crusaders.”
Plaintiffs through discovery learnt that the UCSB not only did not discipline the professor, but also did not even open an investigation.
The protesters filed a civil action against UCSB, the professor and the students. UCSB subsequently entered into a confidential settlement, which the plaintiffs termed very satisfactory. The University did not issue an apology.
Professor Miller-Young pled guilty to three misdemeanors of grand theft person, vandalism, and battery, receiving a sentence of 108 hours of community service, 10 hours of anger management, and three years probation.
We know a double standard exists in the Academy. We know all Hell would have broken loose on the UCSB campus if a pro-lifer ripped a banner out of the hands of a pro-choice demonstrator and then assaulted her.
Professor Susan Douglas at the University of Michigan wrote a column in the January 2015 edition of The Times. It was entitled “It’s OK to Hate Republicans.”
She wrote: “I hate Republicans. I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of the other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.”
She added that while her views may seem biased “historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad.”
She added that Republicans are really good at being mean because psychological studies show they usually have traits such as “dogmatism, rigidity, and intolerance of ambiguity.”
I ask, which faculties and students are trying to silence speech and speakers on campus?
Professor Douglas has signed a petition in support of Professor Click.
Professor Saida Grundy with a Ph.D. from Michigan accepted a position at Boston University. She tweeted various comments, such as “Why is White America so reluctant to identify white college males as a problem population?”
She said “White masculinity isn’t a problem for America’s colleges; white masculinity is The problem for America’s colleges.”
She also wrote: “Every MLK week I commit myself to not spending a dime in white-owned businesses and every year I find it nearly impossible.”
The University respected her right to speak, but expressed disappointment with her remarks.
Professor Salaita received his Ph.D. in Native American Studies with a literature emphasis from the University of Oklahoma. He was a tenured professor of English at Virginia Tech when he penned controversial remarks in Salon.com on August 25, 2013. He criticized “Support our Troops,” which he claimed was used to stifle debate over United States and foreign military actions.
He took off on “unthinking patriotism.” He said that “In recent years I’ve grown fatigued of appeals on behalf of the troops, which intensify in proportion to the belligerence or potential unpopularity of the imperial adventure de jour.”
The University respected his academic freedom and took no action against him, but clearly stated that his remarks do not “reflect the collective psyche of the Virginia Tech community.”
Virginia Tech was not sorry to see him leave.
Professor Salaita accepted an offer from the University of Illinois, sold his house, resigned from Virginia Tech, but prior to the confirmation by the University of Illinois Regents, tweeted vicious anti-Semitic remarks.
Three Jewish teenagers were kidnapped and murdered on the West Bank. He tweeted: “You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not ….. I wish all the fucking west bank settlers will go missing.”
Other tweets:
“When will the attack on Gaza end? Who is left for Israelis to kill? This is the logic of genocide.”
“Too much of the Israeli society is cheering the bloodletting in Gaza for me to make a firm distinction between the government and the people.”
“Only Israel can murder around 300 children in the span of a few weeks and insist that it is the victim.”
“Rednecks need a new slogan. Instead of ‘Kick their ass and take their gas,’ how about ‘#Gaza is a disaster, but Netanyahu is my master.”
“Dear outraged Right Wingers,
You should know that in addition to opposing Zionism, I support the decolonization of North America.”
“Zionist uplift in America; every little Jewish boy and girl can grow up to be the leader of a murderous colonial regime. #Gaza.”
“Jeffrey Goldberg’s column should have ended at the point end of a shiv.”
His 2011 book is entitled “Israel’s Dead Soul.”
A backlash ensued and Illinois’ Chancellor revoked his offer on the grounds that it had not been approved by the Board of Regents.
Professor Salaita recently received a $600,000 settlement, with $275,000 to his attorneys, but no position at Illinois. Nor has he yet received an offer from any other college or university in the United States.
Professor Churchill wrote a tract in which he referred to the 9/11 victims as “Little Eichmanns.”
Professor Churchill was an academic fraud who passed himself off as an American Indian to take advantage of affirmative action and a position as a tenured professor at the University of Colorado. Freedom of Speech and academic freedom protected his statements. His academic deficiencies were known when he was tenured, so he could not be terminated on that basis. Instead, the University found academic misconduct on his part and used that to dismiss him.
And now we have Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Composition Joy Karega at Oberlin University. Professor Karega has posted several inflammatory, anti-Semitic remarks on Facebook. She said Israeli and Zionist Jews were responsible for both 9/11 and the Charly Hebdo attacks in Paris. She said ISIS is a creation of Mossad, the Israeli Secret Service.
Oberlin’s President Marvin Krislov met with representatives of Jewish organizations in the Cleveland area. He issued a message recognizing her right to speak. He wrote:
“I am a practicing Jew, grandson of an Orthodox rabbi. Members of our family were murdered in the Holocaust. As someone who has studied history, I cannot comprehend how any person could or would question its existence, its horrors, and the evil which caused it. I feel the same way about the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories ...”
He added though:
“I believe, as the American Association of University Professors says, that
academic freedom is ‘the indispensable quality of institutions of higher
education’ because it encourages free inquiry,, promotes the expansion of knowledge,
and creates an environment in which learning and research can flourish.”
Her remarks and President Krislow’s message did not go over well with the Trustees of Oberlin. The Board of Trustees issued a statement after the quarterly Board Meeting. It called her postings “anti-Semitic and abhorrent.” It deployed “anti-Semitism and all other forms of bigotry,” which “have no place at Oberlin.”
Clyde McGregor, Chairman of the Board, said “These grave issues must be addressed expeditiously.”
These less than magnificent seven academics reflect much of the leftwing bias prevalent in higher education today.
The university is supposed to be a cathedral of learning. Minds are to be opened, and not closed. The university should be a center for reasoned discourse. Alternative views should be explored.
Oberlin’s Board Chairman recognized “From its founding, Oberlin College has stood for inclusion, respect, and tolerance. We still do.”
Unfortunately much of the Academy does not respect or observe these goals.
The Academy is overwhelmingly liberal, much more liberal than the American public. A large number are to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders. Their progressive peers are the mainstream media and Hollywood.
A virulent strain of rabid anti-Semitism is spreading through higher education. Professors Karega and Salaita reflect the bias.
Many progressive professors believe they represent the mainstream of America. They’re wrong, but don’t recognize it because they teach in a radical echo chamber, listen to NPR, and read the New York Times. As students, they may learn their bias in the classroom and from their academic advisor.
They pursue justice, blindly. They often bully, ostracize, or practice academic prejudice against conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)