America's constitutionally guaranteed "Freedom of Speech" is not a license to lie. It's not a hall-pass to misrepresent. It's not a green light to commit civil disobedience.
Or is it?
Colleges and universities are not supposed to be sanctuaries from responsibility. They're not supposed to be law-free safety zones. They're not supposed to be asylums for malcontents and incompetents.
Or are they?
One layman analogy often used to describe the boundaries of Freedom of Speech goes something like this: You can voice an opinion, but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater.
Although the analogy doesn't relate perfectly to all Freedom of Speech questions, it does help illustrate why total unrestricted freedom of speech is not practical, and why it can even be criminally illegal. Lies, misrepresentations, and civil disobedience can be dangerous; the results can kill people.
Since the 1960s, our institutions of higher learning have indeed become asylums; asylums for misinformation, deviant thought, and fraudulent positions. They kept pushing the envelope until the envelope burst apart. I'm not referring to legitimate differences in political or scientific opinion, or valid experimentation, or logical debate, or even de rigueur radical ideas; all of which serve a purpose and are to be expected in that environment.
Sure, body piercings, tattoos, and outrageous hair colors are alive on campuses, but these feckless trappings are nothing more than submission to peer pressure. They're certainly not representative of real alternative or contrary thought.
New perspectives are great; out-of-the-box thinking is unquestionably vital. But that's not what we're getting. We're getting tenure-protected instructors teaching outright lies and fomenting civil violence.
The situation on many campuses has become dangerous. There have been physical and verbal assaults perpetrated by the minions of these instructors. The collegiate atmosphere of enlightenment has been so corrupted that logical debate and objectivity is dead. There are only subjective commandments from instructors with god-complexes.
Moreover, the instructors refuse to personally engage in open exchanges of information. They ignore any effort to make them prove their positions while fearful administrators permit them to cowardly run away and hide behind a bogus interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
These are anti-American, Jew-hating, Christian-hating socialists that desperately wish to see an end to our country. There's no reason to mince words; they are enemies of the United States. They are adversaries of truth. They hate success and achievement. And like socialists everywhere, they don't care about genuine social issues; they only care about inflating their own personal prestige and power. I'm referring to professors like Rutie Adler of Berkeley, Joel Beinin of Stanford, and student-teacher Snehal Shingavi, also from Berkeley. They shouldn't even be in our country, let alone teaching at our universities. If you think I'm engaging in McCarthyism, you're right. But it happens to be Charlie McCarthyism: students' heads are being worked and filled with false information.
Adler has been at the forefront of the anti-Israel economic divestment petition drive. The basis for her activity is her charge that Israel continues to violate the human rights of three million Palestinian Arabs. Now it's bad enough that she can't discern the difference between justifiable defense and pre-meditated aggressive oppression, but that's not the worst of it. Adler is such an extreme racist that she can't see past her hatred of Israel to where real problems exist in the world. Where are her petitions against every individual Arab nation for human rights violations? Where is her outrage against China, or North Korea, or Pakistan, or Iraq, or Iran, or Cuba, or any number of African nations? If you want to be a champion of the people, be a champion of the people. Every one of the aforementioned Arab, African and communist countries are engaged in long-term, systematic and pre-meditated violent oppression of their own people and their neighbors.
Adler says she is not anti-Semitic. What would you call someone who selectively ignores the unspeakable cruelty of certain nations and goes out of her way to concoct lies about the world's only Jewish State? Yes, there are many more epithets that can be added to a description of Adler, but there's no reason not to include "anti-Semite."
Among other character flaws, Beinin is a delusional communist (as if there was another kind). He believes that America itself is responsible for the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He ascribes no blame, no responsibility for the death of nearly three thousand civilians to the people that planned and committed the act. That's what he writes about; it's what he teaches. The death of three thousand people, whose only mistake was that they arrived on-time for their jobs, was justified because the United States provides financial support to Israel, as well as to a number of Arab and Islamic countries. The problem to Beinin is not that America provides billions to help despotic Muslim countries, but that we also support a democratic Jewish country. For that, he thinks it's worth the pre-meditated cold-blooded death of three thousand people.
Recently, it was announced that Ehud Barak, Israel's former Prime Minister, would be speaking at Stanford University on October 16th. Beinin sent an email to his racist buddies, in which he asked: "Is there any interest in mounting a demonstration?"
For those of you who are unsure of who Barak is; he is the most recent Israeli to offer the West Bank and Gaza Arabs the opportunity to have their own state and to live in peace. Arafat turned it down, of course. So Beinin wants to mount a demonstration to protest Barak's appearance at Stanford. Beinin's inquiry begs three other questions: Is the demonstration to stop Barak from reminding people that it was Arafat who scuttled the Arabs' chances for their own country? Is the protest to stop people from learning that the Arabs have no desire to live in peace with a non-Islamic neighbor and with a non-Islamic World? Or is Beinin just afraid that Barak will show Stanford's students what a miscreant that he, Beinin, is?
Last Spring, among the many troublesome anti-Israel stories that were released to the public was the news that Snehal Shingavi would be teaching a UC Berkeley class this Fall titled, "The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance." The course description included the following: "The brutal Israeli military occupation of Palestine, [ongoing] since 1948, has systematically displaced, killed, and maimed millions of Palestinian people…This class will examine the history of the [resisstance] and the way that it is narrated by Palestinians in order to produce an understanding of the Intifada."
Now you might say, "It's a ridiculous and preposterous basis for a university course, but what the heck, it is fair game for an open exchange of ideas and information."
I wouldn't say that, by the way, I think it has no redeeming value or validity at all.
However, it's irrelevant whether the subject matter has validity as a debatable subject, because the printed course description also clearly stated that persons with a dissenting opinion are unwelcome, and that they should go elsewhere. Let me repeat that another way: the class was available only for students that were predisposed to believe that Israel's defense of its right to exist is nothing more than a brutal occupation and that the wanton killing of Israeli women and children are heroic deeds.
This is an overtly racist, hate-mongering class, and it was authorized by Berkeley's administration. Imagine what would happen if the administration approved a class that professed to teach the reverse information. Muslim and anti-Israel students wouldn't leave one building intact on the entire campus.
This kind of madness is going on throughout the U.S. Students at the University of Texas, Austin are searching through the school's financial papers and looking for evidence that the school does business with Israel or with companies that do business with Israel. They're searching for this information so that they can start an anti-Israel divestment movement of their own. Later this month, at the University of Michigan (yes, the same State of Michigan that has such a large Muslim community and purported terrorist cells), the school will be hosting a Palestine Solidarity and Israel Divestment conference.
Singling out Israel (and wrongly at that) is a racist act. I doubt that U of M would authorize any other overt racist event to take place on it's campus, or allow its name to be associated with an equally biased project. Why is it acceptable when the target is a Jewish nation?
Our colleges don't need instructors like these. There is no benefit to having these people in our country. Their dissenting voices are not constructive criticisms, as they are not just dissenting; they are destructive. They are like rats turned loose in a grain silo.
Ultimately, the way to reach school administrators and affect school policy is through the withdrawal of private funding and donations. If you must support a college or university, make them accountable for where the funds will be used. If a school can't provide a safe haven for the free and open exchange of ideas, then it shouldn't exist.