I listen to an all-news radio station on the way to work, but turn off the radio after the first editorializing. Sometimes I listen for 10 minutes, sometimes for 1.
. . . is apparently blaming conservatives for getting into volatile situations like Berkeley (here). I do not have a Twitter account, but if I did, my response to Mr. Peters would be something like “Yeah, that Dietrich Bonhoeffer guy totally had it coming.”
Bert Johnson, Middlebury College professor, has apparently apologized for inviting Charles Murray. “He had achieved the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.” (1984).
Or maybe the re-education camp beat it out of him.
Alma mater of Colin Gerker, who apparently told a fraternity that it was appropriating culture. The profile includes “Bachelor of Arts, Film & Audio Production, History”, so you would think there would be more sensitivity for freedom of action and/or speech. Not in this particular case.
More details apparently here. Name of evnet not in very good taste, in my opinion. Now the cancelled event has even more attention. Welcome to the Streisand effect.
For not thinking of this excuse to suppress the Civil Rights movement. http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/04/howard-dean-unhinged-hate-speech-is-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/.
Calling for hate speech exemptions to the First Amendment is always a call for censorship.
Professor Althouse does it so well, and does it again here. She nails the NY Times here ‘”Gunfire erupted” is a classic hiding of human agency. And then one guard “was killed” and another guard “was left.” The dead guard was Peter Paige.’
The story is about the recent denial of parole to Judith Clark, driver of the getaway car in the Brinks’ robbery in Nanuet, NY. It happened in 1981. Is there a White Privilege angle here? Ms. Clark, who is apparently Caucasian, formerly sentenced to life without parole, now is eligible for parole thanks to NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. But one of the victims was a police officer and African American: Waverly Brown.
College students vote in favor of free tuition.
If you file your 2016 taxes on time, and/or are having Federal taxes withheld, then you are not part of the resistance.
From Wellesley student newspaper. “If people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted.” [my emphasis] The context shows they mean what they say.
I would like the student newspaper to discuss the paradox of them being confronted by a free-speech advocate. Assuming the advocate presents his arguments for free speech, and the editorial board ‘refuse[s] to adapt their beliefs’, would hostility against the board be warranted?