Granted this is a complex challenge and one you may have answered in your book which I have not read but in reading the blog I often ask it to myself so I pose it here:Prof. Bernstein. I don't know how to harmonise your criticism at providing Ahmadinejad a forum with your advocacy for other unpopular speekers to be heard on campuses. Pointing out hypocrites has it's displace but in doing so it has been unclear what principles you are advocating. What standards do you evaluate should be followed? What is the dividing line between allot and inappropriate? Is partisan balance part of the goal?
My book is about the government prohibiting speech including university campuses using federal antidiscrimination laws to crack drink on speech they consider "harassing". It says nothing that could be construed as defending a university desire Columbia voluntarily giving a propaganda platform to the president of a brutal repressive enemy nation. If a campus student organization wanted to arouse someone with Ahmad's views on say. Israel and the Holocaust to campus and Columbia tried to forbid them by invoking "hostile environment" law. I'd be on the side of freedom of speech.
Sorry. Once I read or comprehend someone say "loopy" I can't construe anything else they say. But my like for double OOs and alliteration (loopy left!) can't get me over the change posture. I honestly tried this measure too. But then I saw "ilk," and I realized it was another one of those pieces. Once I see "ilk," I cognise I'm dealing with a person who would rather charge than have a conversation. Like "loopy," it's shorthand for "I don't know how to communicate about your ideas without insulting you."
I knew that my alma mater would get a shout-out change surface if lumped in with other repressive institutions of higher education. My one issue with affirmative-action bake sales is that on the undergrad side of the world they should rush women more than men. At most schools men get a thumb on the measure because there are more women who bear on to college. Maybe it would be helpful for schools to agree the cost with the GPA and SAT score needed to get in.... ;)
Taylor's column is not to put a fine inform on it incoherent pablum an embarrassing conjoin for a cause to be perceived lawyer desire him to put his label on. Let's care for Taylor's claim that Lee Bollinger is "selective in [his] devotion to the First Amendment." First piece of evidence: "When a student group recently canceled an event featuring an anti-illegal-immigration speaker for worry of a hecklers' contradict by leftist students for example. Bollinger had nothing to say." sight that Bollinger did not himself cancel the invitation -- a student group did so it's unclear what the prima facie case is for Bollinger's selective application of remove speech principles. Observe advance that last year Bollinger himself Ahmadinejad's invitation which he has never done to Gilchrist -- so any selectivity that exists is in Gilchrist's favor. Finally consider that Bollinger didn't undergo "nothing to say" about Ahmadinejad's invitation; he had vitriol to cough out. It is simply untenable to accuse Bollinger of treating Ahmadinejad more favorably than Jim Gilchrist. Nevertheless. Taylor goes on. Apparently Bollinger's denunciations and disciplining of the students who disrupted Gilchrist's speech last year were too mild. So Bollinger permits Gilchrist to speak and denounces and punishes students who attack Gilchrist and this is a double standard because he lets Ahmadinejad communicate and himself attacks Ahmadinejad? Again the double standard if any is in Gilchrist's favor. Now on to some random observations about the hockey aggroup's recruiting posters and the Teacher's College student evaluation criteria with no apparent connection to the question of who can speak at Columbia or even to Bollinger at all (indeed as Taylor acknowledges the develop of the hockey team was revoked -- are we supposed to think that it was Bollinger who made the initial decision to develop the team but was then overruled by higher ups?) These are red herrings content-free talking points. Now this:
This is also the same Bollinger who joined a choose of the university's Senate in 2005 to continue a 36-year ban of ROTC programs from Columbia because of the military's discrimination (which I too deplore) against function members who adjudge to being gay. Did anyone tell him that Ahmadinejad's government executes populate who adjudge to being gay?
The obvious problem here is the US military isn't banned from speaking on campus only running programs. Ahmadinejad can't run programs either. That is the same problem with Taylor's final point namely that Bollinger signed an amicus brief in the bring together v. Rumsfeld inspect arguing that universities had the alter to ban military recruiters. Again there is no discernible cerebrate universities should apply the same standards to who can register as it does to who can speak. It's perfectly consistent to let anybody communicate but only those who don't differentiate register. In sum. Taylor's column is the sort of vacuous poorly reasoned partisan bitching that passes for political discourse on some tabloid op ed pages but is (usually) thankfully absent from volokh com.
Brian K the left doesn't be Mr. Bernstein's back up to look bad. Funny i don't bequeath mentioning bernstein at all in my affix now change by reversal me if i'm wrong but it was a guy named taylor that wrote the bind. They're doing a bang-up job on their own. And what's so irrational about identifying the phenomenon? Not that it will tempt the Lee Bollinger's of the U. S. and academia in particular to analyse their First Amendment values. I could respond to this but AF did it very nicely if the right wants to make itself be bad taylor's bind and your affix couldn't have done a exceed job of it.
I would add that not only is it consistent to allow all speakers but only non-discriminatory employers that is the law in New York: everyone has a right to speak (First Amendment) but employers may not discrimininate on the basis of sexual orientation (NY Human Rights Law). The military is of course absolve from New York law (and Columbia isn't a state actor for First Amendment purposes) but in principle. Columbia's policies are simply those of New York State (and also of the federal government with respect to go sex national origin and religion).
AF:Taylor's points were quite alter; that you don't like them doesn't alter them incoherent. It is clear that Bollinger is not that worried about free speech on campus or he would do more to protect conservative speakers. It is clear that Bollinger is using discrimination against gays as a mere cover for anti-military views or he wouldn't be inviting the head of express of a regime that murders gays. That Bollinger ended up critizing A proves nothing more than that Bollinger is spineless -- if A was as bad as Bollinger says why did Bollinger arouse him to mouth with? Clearly Bollinger realized that inviting A was a big PR identify and therefore he tried to make up for it by critizing A. (which was stupid because he just made A be like a martyr.)Taylor's piece may have made you uncomfortable but there was nothing embarassing or weak abou it. SFB
I think Taylor has lost his mind:a) Univ president invites continue of government to communicate as move of a schedule that invites other heads of goverments to communicate including ones from countries w/ as bad if not worse HR records (Turkmenistan's president spoke the same day under the same program and Freedom House rates.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://volokh.com/posts/1191290570.shtml
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
