Monthly Archives: February 2017

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In 1964, Berkeley student Mario Savio addressed his peers in a speech about the importance of the free and open discussion on college campuses. In his address, Savio argued that the university must return to its intended function where students are invited to explore all ideas both radical and mainstream freely and without fear of social or academic repercussion.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Its been said, that you know weve been revolutionaries, and all this sort of thing uh in a way thats true. Weve gone back to a traditional view of the university. The traditional view of the university is a community of scholars of faculty and students get together who um you know, with complete honesty who bring the hard light of free inquiry to bear upon important matters in the sciences but also in the social sciences the question of just what ought to be not just what is.

Before discovering the work that the Berkeley free speech activists did under Savio in the 1960s, MILO inspired me to write a manifesto for college students who, in 2016, desired a similar return to form for American universities. Interestingly, a lot of the language in my manifesto echoed the sentiment offered by Savio over 50 years ago.

Savio directly called for a return to the universitys original function; a place where scholars of all political persuasions can come together and participate in freeinquiry. In my early 2016 rally cry to my conservative and libertarian peers, I argued for something very similar.

The tides are changing on the American college campus. Authoritarian administrators and faculty members and pearl-clutching campus social justice warriors are finally being challenged bya new brand of radicals poised to reclaim the American university and return it to its original function and purpose: expanding young minds.

When I first learned about Savio, I felt an instant connection to him. Aside from being 22-year-old champions of free speech and intellectual freedom on our campuses, Savio and I are both of Sicilian-American ancestry. We also both put in time as altar servers at our local Catholic churches. Despite our similarities, Savio and I diverge when it comes to personalpolitics except when it comes to free speech.

Saviojoined the socialist party as a symbolic rejection of the two-party system thatdominated the politics of not only the country but also the University of California in the 1960s. But despite our ideological differences, Savio and I sought something very similar for our campuses the return of the university to a place where students and faculty of all political persuasions are encouraged and feel welcome in expressing themselves without fear of social or academic repercussion.

Tonight, fires blazed across the same parts of the University of California, Berkeley campus from which Savio once addressed his fellow students. Attendees were attacked and left bleeding by mask-wearing thugs. Windows were smashed. A girl was pepper-sprayed.

By responding to MILOs call for no restrictions on the content of speech as Savio did so many years ago with riots and violence, the Berkeley socialists of 2017 that participated in the riots have betrayed the efforts ofthose that came before them.

Tonight, Fox 10 Phoenix anchor John Hook, during a live broadcast of the Berkeley riots, argued that MILO made his point without saying a word.

Now more than ever, we need to listen to Savios impassioned plea for a return to a university thatvalues a diversity of perspectives, keeping in mind that, tonight, some of the students who follow in the tradition of socialistic activism at UC Berkeley burned the ground on which he once spoke in the demand that the university censor speech that they found objectionable.

Tonight, Berkeley betrayed the free speech movement for which the institution is famous. The university has much work to do if it is to protect the legacy of Mario Savio and reclaim the values espoused by the Free Speech Movement of some 50 years ago.

For the rioters, engaging with MILOs call for open discussion and intellectual freedomon college campuses wouldnt be a bad start.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about social justice and libertarian issues for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

Originally posted here:
The Night Berkeley Betrayed The Free Speech Movement - Breitbart

The campus of the University of ChicagoLonely PlanetGetty Images/Lonely Planet Images

In grade school, I learned that debate is defined as "a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something."

Such open discourse was historically encouraged on our college campuses. Universities exemplified intellectual discussion and debate in America. No one voiced their opinions louder than students, professors and administrators. They pushed societys limits by admitting women and people of color, and by encouraging diversity of thought amongst the college community . Historically, young people flocked to universities to learn more about the world around them, to encounter people from different backgrounds, to expand their minds and to form their own opinions.

Unfortunately, things have changed. Recently on college campuses, our open discourse has been threatened, particularly when discussing politics.

While the current presidential election represents polarizing wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we should be able to openly debate their policies and the direction in which they plan to take our country if elected. We should be able to discuss the abuse of power within our government and the consistent violations of our Bill of Rights. We should be able to participate in the free market of ideas. But our students are being silenced.

University campuses are now home to a plethora of speech restrictions. From sidewalk-sized free-speech zones to the criminalization of microaggressions , Americas college campuses look and feel a lot more like an authoritarian dictatorship than they do the academic hubs of the modern free world. When rolling an inflated free-speech ball around campus, students at the University of Delaware were halted by campus police for their activities. A Young Americans for Liberty leader at Fairmont State University in West Virginia was confronted by security when he was attempting to speak with other students about the ideas he believes in. A man at Clemson University was barred from praying on campus because he was outside of the free-speech zone. And a student at Blinn College in Texas abolished her campus free-speech zone in a lawsuit after administrators demanded she seek special permission to advocate for self-defense.

How have we let this happen in America, the land of the free?

Its because of what our universities have taught a generation of Americans: If you dont agree with someone, are uncomfortable with an idea, or dont find a joke funny, then their speech must be suppressed. Especially if they dont politically agree with you.

Instead of actually debating ideas that span topics from the conventional to the taboo, a generation of American students dont engage, they just get enraged . In doing so, many students believe that they have a right to literally shut other people up . This is not only a threat to the First Amendment, but also to American democracy.

In their manifestation, safe spaces and free-speech zones at public universities enable prejudice against unfavorable ideologies. Guised as progressive measures to ensure inclusion, these often unconstitutional policies exclude new and competing ideas, and are antithetical to a free academia. In excluding different ideologies, supposedly progressive campus speech codes do one thing: prevent the progression of ideas. Restrictive campus speech codes are, in fact, regressive.

With over 750 chapters nationwide at Young Americans for Liberty, we are fighting against public universities that stifle free speech. We've launched the national Fight for Free Speech campaign to reform unconstitutional speech codes and abolish these so-called free-speech zones on college campuses. By hosting events such as large free speech balls, YAL chapters across the country are petitioning their campuses to adopt the University of Chicago's principles on freedom of expression the hallmark of campus speech policies. Our members have geared up with First Amendment organizations to ensure that their free speech rights on campus are protected.

America is a land rooted in the ideas of a free society: the freedom to be who you are, to speak your mind and to innovate. By silencing our students and young people, we have started down a slippery slope. It is up to us to fight back to ensure that our First Amendment rights remain protectednot just on college campuses, but everywhere in America.

More:
College Campuses Have No Right to Limit Free Speech | Time.com

John Bonifaz, Co-Founder and President

John Bonifaz is the Co-Founder and President of Free Speech For People. Mr. Bonifaz previously served as the Executive Director and then General Counsel of the National Voting Rights Institute, an organization he founded in 1994, and as the Legal Director of Voter Action, a national election integrity organization. Mr. Bonifaz has been at the forefront of key voting rights battles in the country for more than two decades: pioneering a series of court challenges, applying political equality principles, that have helped to redefine the campaign finance question as a basic voting rights issue of our time; initiating and leading a legal strategy for revisiting Buckley v. Valeo in the courts;leading the fight in the federal courts in Ohio for a recount of the 2004 presidential vote in that state; and prevailing in federal court in Pennsylvania on the eve of the 2008 election to ensure that Pennsylvania voters would receive emergency paper ballots when they faced long lines caused by voting machine breakdowns. In addition to his work in the field of voting rights and democracy advocacy, Mr. Bonifaz has also served as co-counsel in international human rights and environmental litigation, including litigation to hold the Chevron-Texaco oil company accountable for its widespread destruction of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Mr. Bonifaz is a 1992 cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and a 1999 recipient of a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship.Back to top.

Oske Buckley is the Director of Administration and Finance for Free Speech For People. Ms. Buckley has served as the Administrative Assistant for Voter Action. Prior to joining Voter Action, Ms. Buckley worked as the Development Associate and Administrative Associate for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, where she managed the organizations donor database, engaged in event planning, coordinated and supervised volunteers, and carried out numerous administrative responsibilities. Ms. Buckley received her BA from Hendrix College in 2005 and MPA from Evergreen State College in 2013.Back to top.

Steve Cobble is the Senior Political Advisor for Free Speech For People. Mr Cobble is also an Assistant Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Mr. Cobble is a longtime activist on both voting and campaign finance reform issues. He is a co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org and Progressive Democrats of America, and has written for The Nation, HuffingtonPost, TomPaine.com, The Progressive, and many other magazines and newspapers. Mr. Cobble is a former Political Director and speechwriter for the National Rainbow Coalition, served as the National Delegate Coordinator for Jackson for President 88, and directed the Keep Hope Alive PAC. He has worked on electoral campaigns at every level from state legislature to mayor to Congress to Senate, and has had a serious role in seven presidential campaigns, from McGovern to Kucinich. Mr. Cobble once directed the Arca Foundation, served as a Fellow at Harvards Institute of Politics, and conducted election training workshops for the African National Congress in South Africa in 1991.Back to top.

Edward Erikson is a Communications Consultant for Free Speech For People. He is the Founder and President of Erikson Communications Group. Mr. Erikson specializes in the integration of social, earned and paid media across all platforms in order to tell stories, engage people and advance issues. He has been featured in CNN, Politico, Huffington Post, TechPresident, Bill Moyers and other outlets. He has taught courses in Political Theory, American Political Thought, Media and Politics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and was the recipient of the 2012/2013 Distinguished Teaching Award. He received his MA in Communication, Culture and Technology from Georgetown University.Back to top.

Ron Fein is the Legal Director for Free Speech For People.Mr. Fein previously served as Assistant Regional Counsel in the United States Environmental Protection Agencys New England office, where he received the EPAs National Gold Medal for Exceptional Service, the National Notable Achievement Award, and several other awards.Mr. Fein supervised the offices Clean Air Act practice and won several major cases, including a first-in-nation air quality permit for an offshore wind farm and a nationally recognized settlement requiring a power plant to virtually eliminate its use of a local river.Mr. Fein previously clerked for the Honorable Kermit Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the Honorable Douglas Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He has also worked as an independent consultant to non-profits, as deputy campaign manager of a congressional campaign, and in software development, for which he was awarded nine patents.Mr. Fein graduated Order of the Coif from Stanford Law School and summa cum laude from Harvard College.Back to top.

Jasmine Gomez is the 2016-18 Democracy Honors Fellow at Free Speech For People.

Ms. Gomez, a graduate from the Boston University Law School, served on the Journal of Science and Technology Law and has written about potential state responses to corporate Big Data surveillance. She has held a number of leadership roles at the law school, including as Co-President of the Latin American Law Student Association, Vice President of the American Constitution Society, Co-Chair for the First-Year Advisory Program at BU, and Networking Chair for OutLaw. During her leadership positions, Jasmine helped create, facilitate, and host at least 30 events at the law school and around the city of Boston. She also received the Emerging Leader Award from the Black Law Students Association.

While in law school, Jasmine interned at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice and the National Consumer Law Center, and has done pro bono work for the Mississippi Center for Justice and several Boston public schools. At the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, located in Harvard Law School, Jasmine researched and critiqued a variety of legal and policy issues that cause harm to communities of color. She examined prosecutorial misconduct and Title VI enforcement, worked on a team to create a robust website that connects nonprofits working on anti-racism work around the country, and worked with other organizations to create the first Massachusetts state-wide conference on criminal justice reform: Massachusetts and the Carceral State.Back to top.

Bri Holmes serves as Free Speech For Peoples Digital Media Strategist. She brings with her several years worth of digital campaign experience, as well as a background in producing a variety of multimedia content. She worked on President Obamas 2012 reelection campaign and with local elections, labor unions, a nonprofit biotech, the Aspen Institute and a public radio station. Ms. Holmes is driven by the ability of technology to activate and inspire new movements, and its potential to cross party lines and bring a new awareness to long standing issues. She is focused on the crossroads of social media, the arts and political action. Ms. Holmes received her BA from UC Davis in 2011.Back to top.

Brenna Kupferman is the Development Directorfor Free Speech For People. Previously, Ms. Kupferman held the position of Director of Development at GoodWeave, International. Prior to her time at GoodWeave, she spent more than 13 years at ActionAid USA, including as Director of Development, developing the organizations fundraising for work in the US and around the globe. Her development work has focused primarily on foundations and major gifts, and overall strategic planning. Ms. Kupferman received her BA from Bennington College and holds a University Certificate in Teaching English as a Second Language from Akron University.Back to top.

Aspen Webster is the Administrative and Development Assistant for Free Speech for People. Ms. Webster has worked in a variety of nonprofit organizations in operations, development, and programmatic capacities. She served as the Operations Manager for the National Network of Abortion Funds in Boston, MA, where she was responsible for database management, administrative duties, and event planning. Ms. Webster is dedicated to creating a just and equitable society through legal and community efforts. She graduated summa cum laude with a BA from Tufts University in 2011. Back to top.

Comments are closed.

Read more:
Free Speech For People Staff - Free Speech for People

A survey of U.S. political science professors a month into Donald Trumps presidency shows that fraud-free elections tops a list of 19 principles as most essential to democracy, as do free speech and a free press.

Political scientists at Dartmouth College, the University of Rochester and Yale University collaborated on the survey as part of an initiative they called Bright Line Watch. They wanted to get the experts reading on the status of democratic practices and potential threats to American democracy.

Dartmouth professor John Carey said the groups motivation was impatience with many news articles saying the sky is falling with regard to the status of American democracy since Trumps victory. He added: What were doing is not motivated by a partisan agenda; its really an intellectual agenda.

Participants were asked to rank principles on how important they are for a democratic government, and then rate them on how well they describe the United States now. Clean elections and equal voting rights were ranked as high priorities for democracy.

One principle, that elections be free from foreign influence, was regarded by the vast majority as essential or important. But less than half thought the U.S. mostly or fully meets this standard, and a number said they werent sure if it did. The results probably speak to how new and unsettling the prospect of foreign interference is for many political scientists, said Yale University professor Susan Stokes, who co-organized the survey.

My own hunch is that anxiety about this issue is related not just to reporting that there was Russian influence (in the November presidential election), but also to reports of the insidious nature of that influence that it was carried out in a highly clandestine manner through hacking, and that its true nature may never be revealed, she said.

U.S. agencies, including the FBI, have been probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. Three congressional committees are conducting separate investigations into the issue, including contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign and administration.

The principle of all votes having equal impact on election results ranked low on the priority list for democracy, probably reflecting long-standing institutions of electoral exclusion and wide socioeconomics inequalities that have been matters of concern for many years, the study said.

Rated as least essential is that politicians campaign without criticism of their opponents loyalty or patriotism.

The group surveyed 9,820 professors at 511 U.S. institutions by email Feb. 13 through 19, and received 1,571 responses. The survey sample was compiled from a list of U.S. institutions represented in the online program of the 2016 meeting of the American Political Science Association conference.

See the article here:
Survey: Fraud-free elections, free speech, key to democracy - Concord Monitor