"Oppose a political view, but don't try to suppress it"

Rossi sign vandalism in West Olympia, from Thurston Opinions


Rossi sign vandalism in Winthrop, from HorsesAss.Org
After years in the national political wilderness, Democrats are out for revenge and to make sure that they maintain a "permanent majority." The method they seem to have chosen to accomplish these goals is to destroy free speech, at least the free speech of those who disagree with them.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supports the revival of the "Fairness Doctrine," which would silence conservative talk radio and blogs. Presidential candidate Barack Obama has stated that he wants to "change the political climate" that allows people to criticize his wife. Obama supporters even managed to shut down blogs unfriendly to the Obamesssiah.

We've seen in it Washington as well, where Democrats have enjoyed a majority for years. In 2005, two Seattle radio hosts were successfully sued and muzzled by environmentalist wackos opposed to the initiative to repeal the 9 1/2 cent gas tax hike. Last year, the Washintgon Public Disclosure Commission considered putting regulations on political blogs.

Now, as Cav reported last week, the Democrats are going after the Building Industry Association of Washington, the only business group in Washington with the stones to stand up to Queen Christine.

I have never met BIAW Executive Vice President Tom McCabe, but we have mutual friends. It sounds like we believe in the same things and employ the same "tell it like it is" style. Richard Davis, writing in the Everett Daily Herald says:

BIAW executive vice president Tom McCabe has remained something of an Olympia outsider, rarely engaging directly in the city's collegial coalitions and compromises. In addition to battling with labor unions, state agencies and environmental activists, he has been known to throw sharp elbows at other business groups who pursue less combative strategies.

BIAW doesn't always play nice.

And why should they, when the opposition engages in lies, exaggerations, slander, fear-mongering, and vandalism? You can't play nice when you are dealing with ideological extremists.
As Davis states:

Now comes this lawsuit, another attempt to curtail BIAW's political speech. However you feel about the group, you should not want them silenced this way.

My God, is that we have come to in this country? "Liberal fascism" is not just the title of a book.

In any case, the Daily Herald resport that McCabe says the lawsuit "isn't going to slow us down." And reast assured, attacks on this blog aren't going to slow us down or shut us up either.

Say What?

But how one uses their First Amendment rights is also a bellwether of where they want that society to go. And it matters even more in a small university community, where we all live together and, hopefully, are all growing together. There’s never going to be perfect harmony here — nor anywhere. But to what end, all of this behavior?

- Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki, "Time for Community Building at WSU,", Moscow-Pullman Daily News, November 21, 2006

But to pick an issue that one might care about and do something legal and political once in a semester? These are young adults we're educating. We'd like them to become active citizens someday. Anything we can do to engage them and stop the inherent sleepwalking through the curriculum that too many of our students already do is a good thing.

- Chuck "Mr. Civil Discourse" Pezeshki, "'Architorture' protest brings on tempest in a teapot," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, April 12, 2008

I guess Chuck's idea of where he wants the society in "our small university community" to go depends on whether it's the College Republicans protesting or one of his "hip," fellow elitist leftist professors.

By the way, Chuck, you can certainly do better than label anyone opposing Rahmani's PR stunt as mouthbreathing members of the local John Birch Society. Pullman residents were offended by Rahmani's overweening arrogance and snobbery, all funded on the taxpayer's dime.

"Intellectual diversity enlivens WSU debate"

Now here is a professor we can be proud of. Ed Weber, WSU political science professor and Director of the Thomas S. Foley Public Policy Institute, answered critics in in a guest op-ed in today's Spokesman-Review. He completely gets the idea of intellectual diversity and the tyranny of liberal fascism on campus. I hope his proposal for balanced speakers comes to fruition, and if it does, Danny Schanze, Alex Williams, Chris Del Beccaro, and the other WSU College Republicans will be entitled to a great deal of the credit. Thanks guys, for your courage. The "hegemony of the left-leaning liberal viewpoint" does give everyone who stands against them grief, as Weber states and I know firsthand. But we CAN make a difference by calling them out and not taking it any more, from Wal-Mart to free speech.

On March 26, noted conservative scholar Dinesh D'Souza presented a lecture titled "Racism is not the Problem" at Washington State University's main campus in Pullman. The event was co-sponsored by WSU's Thomas S. Foley Public Policy Institute, along with the Associated Students of WSU, WSU's Residential Housing Authority, and the WSU chapter of the College Republicans.

The question-and-answer period immediately following the talk and ensuing commentary in WSU's campus newspaper, The Evergreen, made clear that many took offense at D'Souza's message, going so far as to accuse D'Souza and, by extension, the Foley Institute of further polarizing the campus on the issue of race, and accusing the Foley of being irresponsible. The Institute has even been challenged to provide immediate "equal time" and to do so quickly lest its mission of, and reputation for, non-partisanship be tarnished.

Allow me to throw a few facts on the table in regard to these requests for turnabout as fair play and the goal of a balanced dialogue, and then draw out the implications.

The Foley was established in 1995 and I have led it since 2001. During that time left-leaning, liberal speakers have outnumbered conservatives in a ratio of four or five to one.

How can this be if we make our decisions based on expertise? In part it is a function of the fact, established by several pieces of social science research, that roughly 90 percent of all social scientists and humanities scholars are either card-carrying Democrats or those with left-of-center values and preferences. An equally illuminating point is that WSU, like so many college campuses today, and especially in the College of Liberal Arts, is clearly more receptive to speakers who espouse liberal Democratic politics and policy views.

While no one has ever stopped me from inviting a conservative speaker to WSU, the hegemony of the left-leaning liberal viewpoint is such that the only grief I've ever received from my advisory board or others is when I have invited John Ashcroft, John Sununu, Mr. D'Souza, and a handful of others to campus under the Foley banner. I have never been interrogated or otherwise questioned about any liberal speaker so invited.

The thing is, I've never cared what side of the intellectual diversity divide someone stands on -- my job is to bring in excellent speakers who will make us think, and perhaps rethink our established positions. But there is a cost, emotional and otherwise, to fighting the inevitable "geez, why did you invite that fascist Ashcroft to WSU?" or "are you sure the Foley should be associated with such an outlandish (i.e., conservative) view?"

As a result, I have shied away from inviting too many of "the wrong kind" of intellectual. For that lack of courage I must apologize to all of the conservatives on campus -- students, staff and professors -- and in the surrounding communities of Washington State. I should have fought harder to bring more conservative voices to campus.

So here is my first proposal to meet the request for fair play and a balancing of the intellectual scales so that true intellectual diversity comes to WSU. Over the next 10 years, the Foley Institute should dedicate roughly 70 to 80 percent of its considerable programming resources to respected and strongly conservative speakers.

On a second and more concrete level, I propose that WSU immediately commission a working group comprised of university leaders, students and staff to establish an annual high profile, world-class lecture series in Pullman devoted to the theme of intellectual diversity. The series should be run by the Foley Institute and will consist of two lectures each year with one devoted to the liberal side and the other to a conservative position. WSU will need roughly $130,000 per year to support the series. The Foley can contribute $30,000, WSU students (ASWSU) can add $30,000, and WSU's administration can contribute the remaining funds for the first five years. Everyone together will then accept the challenge of raising the roughly $3 million needed to endow the series.

As director of the Foley Institute, and as a scientist and teacher who embraces the marketplace of ideas, I am saddened by those who choose to characterize D'Souza's ideas as polarizing and some who challenge the very right of D'Souza to share his conservative views on race with WSU. One thing I am certain of is this: the Foley Institute did WSU and the state of Washington a great service by enlivening the debate over race precisely because it directly challenged and broke the monopolistic hold at WSU of a singular, politically correct view on the race issue.

This should be our mission in higher education. Why? Because great universities thrive and embrace rather than shrink from the marketplace of ideas. Nor do they allow "offended" parties to dictate the substance of dialogue. My challenge to WSU is simply this: which one will we choose to be?

"Online Anonymity: The Ring of Gyges Made Real"

Paul Zimmerman has a great post on online anonymity over at his blog.

Now compare with Paul and I have to say about online anonymity with this paper from the Cato Institute.

The writer, Jonathan Wallace, concludes:

Anonymous and pseudonymous speech on the Internet forms a part of the rich tradition of such speech in prior media, including print, and is entitled to the same First Amendment protections. Legislation against anonymity threatens to end that rich tradition and should be opposed. If such legislation is passed, we can be confident that the Supreme Court will again find it inconsistent with our Constitution and our history.

Wallace cites several examples of anonymity and pseudonymity from American history and how the Supreme Court has consistently upheld anonymity as "a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

I generally agree with these sentiments and Oliver Wendell Holmes belief that: “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas. . . . The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." However, the Republic is not in danger if commenters must reveal their identities on the Daily News website. It is not whistleblowing that goes on over there, but mean-spirited accusations meant to discredit and defame individuals who have identified themselves publicly. And there is a legal tradition going back to Roman days that guarantees an individual the right to face his or her accusers.

Also, to have a truly open debate and a free marketplace of ideas, one must be able to judge all the merits of the argument. A person's identity has much to do with their credibility and veracity. You wouldn't buy a car without knowing the make and model. Why should you buy an idea without knowing its source?

Victor Davis Hanson, as usual, has it right:

Anonymity on rare occasions may have a place in protecting whistleblowers or honest journalistic sources fearful of retaliation. But lately it is being misused in a variety of different contexts to destroy people and institutions — and as a way for authors of all sorts to avoid responsibility for what they write...

Anonymity is a vicious but seductive Siren that lures its heedless listeners to shipwreck on the shoals.

Indoctrinate U Trailer

At least this is still up on YouTube. Watch it quickly before it gets removed like the WSU College Republicans video was taken off YouTube for a month or so last year.

WSU Gets Torched

Guess what has just been posted on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's blog, The Torch:

Free Speech under Attack during Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week

WSU President Floyd In Cahoots With Progressive Student Union Protest!!!

UPDATE: Here is the link to authenticate the rumor


Gregory T. Wilkins, Director of Campus Involement, has been tabling at the WSU Glenn Terrell Mall over the last couple of days. Mr. Wilkins, as well as the Progressive Student Union, has been handing out stickers that read:

"RESPECT: Campus Climate Response."

This "stickering" is in lieu of our screening of "Obsession", which is fine (freedom of speech). What is not fine... is being funded by Washington State University's President, Elson S. Floyd. It is against WSU policy to grant a Registered Student Organization (or individual) funding to protest another group (or individual) on campus. This is looking very similar to the controversial play in 2005 when FIRE had to step in to restore law and order.

Nick Fury, Agent of Intolerance

"The College Republicans appear surprised about why we find their outrageous film so objectionable, but by the end of the week they will have felt the full fury of progressive voices for tolerance on the Palouse."

- UI Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Palouse Moonbat-in-Chief Nick Gier on Vision 2020 today.

Boy, nothing says "tolerance" like "full fury."

And in the UI Argonaut today, Rula Awwad-Rafferty, UI faculty member and JUNTURA committee chair (JUNTURA "enhances student academic success and promotes the values of respect, understanding, and equality within a diverse university experience") stated, “I don’t think hatred ought to be tolerated anywhere. But you don’t fight hatred with hatred.”

Really? So if you can't hate Mohamed Atta and Osama bin Laden, is it okay then to hate George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld? How about Wal-Mart? How about conservatives and evangelical Christians? Because you sure see a lot of campus-sponsored and -approved hatred directed at all of them, especially from Gier, who has compared fundamentalist Christians to Jihadists, (from the below picture on his UI-based web site, we can tell which Gier thinks is worse.) This is Gier's "full fury of tolerance?"


By the way Nick, here's a hint for you. If you were to post a sacrilegeous picture of Mohammed like that in Iran, it wouldn't be Jesus knocking at the door packing heat, it would be the Revolutionary Guard.

If I were the CRs, I wouldn't worry. That gasbag Gier doesn't have enough fury to get out of a wet paper bag.

WSU Engulfed By FIRE?

WSU ENGULFED BY FIRE???!!!
A FIRE STORM COULD BE ON THE HORIZON....

FIRE contacted me this morning; we had a very interesting and conducive discussion. It appears that Campus Involvement's email was unconstitutional; obviously. I am striving to find out who originated that policy to have the WSU College Republicans announce the Progressive Student Union's discussion after our documentary "Obsession" screening. FIRE would like to know as well.

UPDATE: Campus Involvement backed down; the WSU College Republicans no longer have to announce any such discussion, etc. I guess someone realized that request was unconstitutional. After all, it is OUR event. Then again, they might have backed down in lieu of our contacts at FIRE, Young Americas Foundation, and FOX news... just to name a few.

Bottom line, FIRE supports us and I am actively communicating with them on the updates of campus. I really hope WSU stands up for us when/if the time comes, because if they won't... FIRE will.

I'll keep everyone updated, but rest assured... we are not going to have a repeat of the intolerance we experienced last year at our fence demonstration.

Where There's Smoke, There's FIRE

College Republicans at San Francisco State University faced disbandment of their club after burning flags last October.......the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah. It seems the flags of the two terrorist organizations have the word "Allah" written on them, unbeknownst to the CRs (a Ku Klux Klan flag, which contains a cross, was also burned, but thus far no outrage over that). I wonder how the WSU PC/Diversity Mafia would have reacted to an incident like this? The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) spang into action. Even the ACLU defended the CRs. The club has been spared.

See story here and here.

HT: Bruce Heimbigner