Category Archives: Free Speech

Shanta Driver 7:04 p.m. ET May 1, 2017

A protest on May 1, 2017, in San Francisco.(Photo: Justin Sullivan, Getty Images)

America today is engaged in a historic struggle, testing whether the nations principles of freedom and unalienable rights can exist for millions of immigrants. Their freedom, their rights, are under attack.

The Trump administration is conducting a racial purge, a campaign of mass deportations against Americas Latino and Muslim immigrant communities. Immigrants who have lived peacefully in America for many years are being driven from their homes and families. This unfolding human catastrophe is the single greatest threat to all freedom and all rights in our nation.

But some of Trumps supporters anti-immigrant demagogues and even fringe fascist elements are seeking to change the subject of discourse to a different sort of freedom, one that shows no signs of being in peril: the free speech of the anti-immigrant demagogues. It is a dishonest, hypocritical diversion.

The anti-immigrant demagogues organize followers all over the country, and speak incessantly. Their right to speak is effusively defended by every branch of government, by the politicians of both political parties, by every police department and by every major news outlet, including USA TODAY. The entire issue is a straw man.

There is no government plot to abridge or abolish the free speech rights of the anti-immigrant bigots; the real question is whether there will be anyone left to speak against them.

Campus mobs muzzle free speech: Our view

The objective of these anti-immigrant demagogues is to repress and ultimately silence the free speech of the growing Resistance: the mass movement for immigrant rights.

Today, the only true defense of freedom and equality rests on the shoulders of Americas huddled masses yearning to breathe free. To the growing movement for immigrant rights that has mobilized in the streets and is braving the storms of persecution, and to the millions of immigrants who are fighting for their rights against a vicious campaign of scapegoating, the following declaration must be made: Your very presence makes America the home of the brave fighting together, we will make it the land of the free.

Shanta Driver is national chair of BAMN (By Any Means Necessary).

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2qrx8Di

More:
Free speech issue is a diversion: Opposing view - USA TODAY

Liberal censorship is technically an oxymoron but today, liberal censorship is a common reality.

Where once free speech reigned on college campuses and in other secular institutions (or at least it was so thought), today you have the totalitarianism of political correctness. Say the wrong thing, and you may be fired.

Dissenting Justice Samuel Alito said after the Supreme Court same-sex marriage decision in June 2015: I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

Ann Coulter, conservative firebrand, has proven recently that free speech is all but dead in America. Her aborted attempt last week to speak at Berkeley the supposed birthplace of free speech in America went up in flames. Almost literally.

Young Americas Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans had invited Coulter to speak, but the school would not insure her safety, while the protesters vowed to violently shut her down. Coulter said to the New York Times: Its a sad day for free speech.

As we see repeatedly, the tolerant folk are the most intolerant amongst us. Their attitude is simple: Free speech for me, but not for thee.

Historically, Christianity played a seminal role in the struggle for free speech not that Christians have always gotten it right by any means.

The 17th century British Puritan writer John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, wrote a plea for a free press, Areopagitica. He stated, Truth indeed came once into the world with her divine Master, and was a perfect shape most glorious to look on. For who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty? She needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious. Gods truth stands on its own, needing no artificial man-made props.

This reminds me of the quote from church father Tertullian, writing about A.D. 200: Truth asks no favours in her cause. She doesnt need any. Truth wins out in the marketplace of ideas.

In 1777, Thomas Jefferson noted that Jesus (the Holy author of our religion) is the reason we should allow civil freedom. This was in his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, passed in 1786.

Jefferson wrote: Almighty God hath created the mind free all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was his Almighty power to do. Jesus gives us freedom who are we to deny it from others?

The alternative media continue to be a major lifeline for those in America who have dissenting views from the politically correct orthodoxy. We see a powerful example of this in WND, founded by journalist Joseph Farah. The pioneering independent online news source celebrates its 20th anniversary this week. For his efforts, Southern Poverty Law Center profiles Farah as a supposed extremist of hate. I emailed him their outrageous, derogatory profile of him. He emailed me back, Same old. Same old.

One of the saddest aspects of the Coulter-Berkeley story was the statement from former DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who said, Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Tragically, many in our society today including liberal protesters preventing conservatives and Christians from being able to speak do so supposedly in opposition to hate speech. First of all, where does the First Amendment make a provision for silencing hate speech? And secondly, who defines what is real hate and what is not? It seems that hate now is often speech I disagree with.

I know a brother in Christ, David Kyle Foster, who used to be a male prostitute in Hollywood. He once told me that he probably had slept with more than a thousand different men before the Lord saved him.

Foster has interviewed hundreds of former homosexuals and lesbians and people struggling with all sorts of sexual issues, who found healing through the gospel of Jesus. Up until recently, these powerful, sensitive videos were available on Vimeo, which fashions itself as a high quality version of YouTube.

But Vimeo told Foster recently that all his videos had to be deleted because of their hate messages. Testimonials of lives set free through Christ are hate speech? That is another example of free speech for me, but for not for thee.

Now, if only our universities and media companies could come to grips with the First Amendment as designed by our founders, how better off things would be.

Media wishing to interview Jerry Newcombe, please contact media@wnd.com.

Read the original post:
FOR GOD AND COUNTRY - WND.com

A new survey has been releasedshowing that a vast majority of millennials do not agree with the anti-free speech groups that have been popping up on university campuses.

The survey released byThe Fund for American Studies (TFAS) shows that 92 percent of millennials across the nation support free speech. Additionally, 93 percent of millennials supportreligious freedom.

The media keeps showing us images of violent protests on college campuses, young Americans being angry and disruptive, but the truth is that millennials support religious and social freedoms more than non-millennials, said Roger Ream, ofTFAS. Theres a vast, silent majority of millennials who embrace these freedoms and those are the young men and women we are seeing in our programs.

TFAS utilizes a Support for Freedom Index, measures how Americans define freedom, and whether or not they support more government intervention in their daily lives. Interestingly, millennials (ages 18-34) believe that more government is necessary to protect freedoms at 54 percent. However, the majoritybelieve that government is necessary to safeguardfreedoms (60 percent), not safety (40 percent).

A surprising finding by the study, however, shows that when it comes to who prefers freedoms over safety, its Republicans who tend to lean toward safety, diverging from their ideological cousins, the conservatives.

From TFAS:

Additionally, further distinctions at the ideological level within the Republican party were found. When asked to choose between individual liberty and concerns about security, conservatives split evenly between their support for liberty (51%) and security (49%). Republicans fall more in the camp of more government that ensures national security. Conservatives fall primarily in the camp of less government that promotes liberty.

When you take a comparative look at conservative and Republican ideologies toward freedom, you would expect a lot of overlap. One of the surprising findings of this survey is that Republicans favor an active government approach which prioritizes security over individual liberties, said Roger Ream. This may explain some of the resonance for President Trumps message in the GOP primaries, resonance that many, at the time, didnt fully grasp.Conservatives were more supportive of a passive government which prioritizes liberty over security concerns, Ream concludes.

This support for government intervention from the millennial right continues when it comes to certain economic issues. For instance, both Republicans and conservatives support tariffs on goods that Americans buy from overseas by 71 percent, and 70 percent respectively. Furthermore, 61 percent of Republicans, and 57 percent of conservatives believe that government should regulate oil companies to forcefully keep gas prices low.

This is due in part to a failure on the part of traditional education to teach economics and the media to explain economics to the average American, Ream said.

See more here:
New national survey shows that millennials overwhelmingly support free speech - TheBlaze.com

Forbes

NYU Administrator Goes Full Orwell: Violating Free Speech 'Ensures The Conditions Of Free Speech' Forbes Do you think that you can count on university leaders to uphold the First Amendment on their campuses? If so, think again. I thought that I was being pranked when I received an email notifying me of a New York Times op ed, published by NYU vice provost ...

Read the original:
NYU Administrator Goes Full Orwell: Violating Free Speech 'Ensures The Conditions Of Free Speech' - Forbes

Years ago, I never thought Id be openly grateful for the opportunity for free speech. It was something I, and I suspect many Americans, assumed was a natural part of our lives.

I wanted to write and speak and express my thoughts and mind as I had learned in life and college. I often disagreed with the common line of thinking, but I liked the challenge and the debate. And debate it was.

As Americans, weve taken it for granted free speech. When I was a little kid and playground disagreements got verbally tense, the usual comeback was, I can say what I want. Its a free country, isnt it?!

That usually ended it, and life went on.

Unfortunately, not today. On paper, we are a free country, but many of our rights are, and have been, eroded. And its getting worse.

Weve gotten to the point where if someone says something with which others disagree, theyre accused of having a phobia and are taken to task for it within a school, a workplace, often a church and in the public square.

Often, it results in the law getting involved and punishment against the perpetrator of the hated words.

Imagine, legal ramifications for speech. The thought police are out there, and they are busy.

But too often, it results in public demonstrations, marches and riots with police involved and enormous damage. The most recent and notorious example being the University of California at Berkeley.

Known as the 60s birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, Berkeley cant say that now, because its become the place where conservative speakers are denied a podium or forced off the campus.

Ann Coulter is the most recent victim. She was booked as a speaker but the anti-forces took over. Repeated threats of disruption and violence led to the school cancelling her appearance, claiming it could not insure safety. She intended to speak anyway, and a lawsuit was threatened. But when her conservative backers withdrew their support, she canceled. Coulter is one of many victims of Cals closed-mindedness.

But maybe its just the liberal Bay Area. Last Friday, a few days after the Cal cancellation, Coulter spoke in Modesto at the invitation of the Republican Party of Stanislaus County. While law enforcement was ready for disruptions, nothing happened more than some shouting.

Coulter was her usual outspoken self praising Donald Trump and criticizing California politics. The crowd loved it.

I remember years ago when I first heard of Ann Coulter. I admired her ability to get to the heart of what she wanted to say and her courage in saying it, even though it was not accepted mainstream thinking. She did it verbally and in her hard-hitting columns and books. I admire her courage.

In the interim, I worked in media TV anchoring and reporting and talk radio. I loved the freedom of talk radio and especially conservative talk on the air. After having worked in conventional TV news, where it was not allowed to air political views, conservative talk was liberating and fun!

To give you an idea of the anti-conservative point of view in the Bay Area, when a professional associate learned I was going to do a talk show on a conservative station (KSFO), she asked to me in all seriousness, Why are you willing to destroy your career by doing that?

I also know that local professional organizations many times refused to use me as an MC or presenter at events because of my conservative views.

Ah yes, the joys of free speech.

And then I met Joseph Farah, a man with a traditional news background but who had a dream. He wanted to bring an independent news view to the Internet, and he did it!

Working with his wife, Elizabeth, and a group of talented people, WorldNetDaily now WND was born, has succeeded and is now celebrating its 20th anniversary! WND has grown and changed and expanded into print and publishing and film and has become the leading source of independent and conservative news on the Net.

I met Joseph on my radio program, interviewing him for my audience. Id learned about WND and wanted to have my audience know him.

It was a great interview, but the best part was that it led to his invitation that I write a weekly commentary for WND. I didnt hesitate at the opportunity and have done it ever since, for 17 years, never missing a week!

But dont kid yourself that his was an easy path. He and his staff and contributors faced, and still face, the antagonism against anyone who believes anything outside of the liberal/progressive political point of view.

It takes great courage to step outside of the mainstream because of ones beliefs and to stake your business on it. Joseph and Elizabeth Farah and their family have staked it all on their beliefs and have succeeded.

Congratulations to them and everyone associated with WND. Im proud to be a small part of it!

Imagine, 20 years! Happy Birthday!

Follow Barbara Simpson on Facebook.

Media wishing to interview Barbara Simpson, please contact media@wnd.com.

Original post:
THE BABE IN THE BUNKER - WND.com

Among colleges and universities, the University of California, Berkeley has since the 1960s held the title as the most radically liberal. Hailed by leftists as the birthplace of Free Speech, the university and the town from which it draws its name have long been a seedbed of communist ideology. With that communist ideology having now come of age, Berkeley is becoming the deathbed of Free Speech.

The campus and the surrounding town have erupted into chaos and riots recently over even the idea that conservative speakers would be allowed to present their views on the campus. And not surprisingly, the communist presence in the protest is visibile, despite media attempts to ignore this influence. Consider, for instance, the http://www.revcom.us (Revolutionary Communist Party) sign shown in this Associated Press photo at an April 15 Berkeley protest; the AP identified the protesters as antifascist, without mentioning communist, in the information provided with the photo.

For a campus that claims to value diversity in thought, the attack on free speech is more than hypocritical; it is telling. One thing that can be said of communists is that they are consistent in their tactics. In the current Free Speech battle, as in other times and places, the communists say one thing and mean another. Touting Free Speech to get their message heard, they immediately shout hate speech and fascism to silence their ideological opponents as soon as they have enough influence to do so. When shouting isnt enough, they use violence or the threat of violence.

As The New American reported last week, that tired, old play was used with success again to prevent conservative pundit, Ann Coulter, from speaking on the campus Thursday. The universitys cancellation of Coulters speech followed a familiar pattern. When Coulter was booked by conservative groups on campus, radical groups who had used violence and the threat of violence to quash previous speeches by conservative speakers began publicly planning and promoting riots. With the recent violence fresh in the minds of school administrators, the principle of Free Speech was jettisoned in the name of placating the radical groups responsible for the violence.

When Milo Yiannopoulos, who was at the time an editor for Breitbart, was scheduled to speak at UC Berkeley in February, those same radical groups operating by the communist playbook organized violent riots that caused an estimated $100,000 worth of damage to the campus and resulted in several people being injured. Fires were set, property was destroyed, citizens and police officers were attacked. The riots led the UC Berkeley to cancel Yiannopoulos speech less than two hours before it was to begin.

Even the cancellation of the Milo speech was not enough to quell the violence, which spilled over into downtown Berkeley. In all of the violence, destruction, and lawlessness, one person was arrested. One. For failure to disperse. Why were the police so light-handed when all hell was breaking loose? Because it appears they had been told to stand down. That order seems to have come from Berkely mayor, Jesse Arreguin. His call for police to treat the subversive rioters with kid gloves is no anomaly; Arreguin has allied himself with those who planned and executed the violence on the city he is supposed to lead. For his part, Arreguin denies making that call, saying, The strategy deployed by the police was not my decision, but the decision of the department based on professional judgment of the police department. Of course, left out of his statement is the simple fact that the Chief of Police works for him. Passing the blame down the food chain is a diversion. Heres a tip for Arreguin: The first rule of leadership is that you are responsible.

One of the groups responsible for terrorizing the campus and the city for the purpose of silencing any conservative voice is BAMN (By Any Means Necessary). The group which takes its name from a line in a famous speech by Malcolm X, who also drank deeply from the poisoned well of Marxism uses social media to promote its agenda, which includes violence and the threat of violence to bring about a spate of Marxist policies. Arreguin it appears is their man on the inside.

Arreguin had joined the BAMN Facebook group until it was reported that he was a member. He then removed himself from the Facebook group and issued a statement saying, On social media, following or liking pages does not mean you support what that group is doing." He went on to say that he had joined the Facebook group to seep up with what they were doing adding, I did unmember myself. I forgot that I had liked the page, honestly. Perhaps. Or more likely, Arreguin being politically savvy enough to run for and be elected as mayor of one of the nations most liberal cities knew enough to know that a mayor being a member of a radical, violent, Marxist group would be interpreted by the other members of that group and the public at large exactly the way it was: as an endorsement.

Adding to the likelihood that his membership of the BAMN Facebook page was by design and not mere curiosity is the salient fact that he was also Facebook friends with Yvette Felarca, who besides being a middle school teacher is the Marxist radical leader and notional organizer of BAMN in Berkeley. Felarca not only advocates violence, she is an active participant. As can be seen in the video below, in June 2016, Felarca was involved in violently attacking a man in Sacramento for exercising the Free Speech her city is famous for supposedly giving birth to.

Warning: This video contains language some readers my find offensive.

Granted, this was at at a Neo-Nazi protest and any reasonable person would find the message of Neo-Nazis offensive. But that is not the point. The point is that his words were met with her and her minions violence. In a statement to Fox News after that and other attacks by herself and other BAMN members, Felarca defended the violence. As Fox News reported at the time:

Yvette Felarca, a BAMN national organizer, was unapologetic last June after her group shut down a Neo-Nazi protest in Sacramento that sent 10 people to the hospital.

"We will do it again, she said. The Nazis had to run and hide behind the police.

And lest it appear that Neo-Nazis are in any way special for receiving violence at her command she likewise defended the actions of BAMN that shut down the Yiannopoulos speech in February. As can be seen in the video below, she said, I think that the Left has been far too timid for way too long. And its why weve even gotten in this position where we have someone like Donald Trump leading a fascist movement as the president of the United States. She called for protests that are mass and militant.

When asked about why having Yiannopoulos speak to the 500 people who had bought tickets, Felarca throws up a smokescreen rife with references to fascism, white supremacy, and Donald Trump. While she claims that she and her group are defending the rights of people, they are actually denying people the basic right to say and hear things that she finds disagreeable. She claims to be concerned that people will hear something and be offended; the reality is that she seems concerned that they will hear something and be convinced. Ideas good and bad have consequences, and the Felarcas of the world are determined to disallow certain ideas while demanding that others are all that can be heard. That is a sure sign of a weak position.

Marxists of every stripe resort to violence when the weakness of their argument fails to win the day.

As the man on the inside, Mayor Arreguin certainly has the right credentials. He was involved in the communist-on-its-face Occupy movement and an active participant in Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests. While many easily recognize the Marxism of Occupy, BLM is no less communistic, as this writer illustrated in a previous article.

Arreguin having spent his political career allying himself with radical Marxist subversives has helped create a situation where Free Speech is not free; it has to paid for in blood and fire and destruction.

Marx would be proud.

Photo: AP Images

See the article here:
UC Berkeley and the Communist Plot to Kill Free Speech - The New American

President Trump chose not to attend the White House Correspondents Association Dinner on Saturday night, but that didnt save him from being roasted byDaily Show comedian Hasan Minhaj. As host of the evening Minhaj joked about how no one else wanted the gig so an immigrant had to be relied on.

I would say it is an honor to be here, but that would be an alternative fact, Minhaj said. No one wanted to do this, so of course it lands in the hands of an immigrant. Thats how it all goes down.

The Daily Show comedian then mocked Trump for refusing to show his face at the event.

We gotta address the elephant thats not in the room. The leader of our country is not here. And thats because he lives in Moscow. It is a very long flight. Itd be hard for Vlad to make it. Vlad cant just make it on a Saturday. Its a Saturday, he joked.

Then adding, As for the other guy, I think hes in Pennsylvania because he cant take a joke. For the nine people watching on C-SPAN, there also was another elephant in the room, but Donald Trump Jr. shot it and cut off its tail.

But Trump was not the only one who was mocked during the event. Minhaj made jokes about Bill OReillys severance payment after his firing from Fox News, MSNBCs obsession over Trumps tax returns and connections to Russia, CNNs ability to present everything as Breaking News and much more.

Towards the end of his remarks Minhaj hit a strong note about free speech and how its a vital piece of afunctioning democracy.

Only in America can a first-generation, Indian American Muslim kid get on the stage and make fun of the president, Minhaj said. Adding, And its a sign to the rest of the world. Its this amazing tradition that shows the entire world that even the president is not beyond the reach of the First Amendment.

What followed was perhaps his most memorable line of the night.

But the president didnt show up. Because Donald Trump doesnt care about free speech.

View post:
WATCH: Donald Trump doesn't care about free speech Hasan Minhaj roasts the president and his administration at ... - Salon

Economist Robert Reich suggested to Ann Coulter on Sunday that the fight to defend free speech was not limited to her campaign against the college campuses which have banned her citing security reasons.

During a discussion on ABCs This Week about Coulters battle with University of California, Berkeley, host Jonathan Karl wondered whether President Donald Trumps war on media outlets also set a dangerous precedent for free speech.

Coulter, however, preferred not to talk about the president.

Universities ought to be places where I am not the only conservative most students will hear in four years of college, she opined. This whole incident shows the radical insulated left on the college campuses. And the entire left wing, including President [Barack Obama] and Bill Maher, are on the other side.

And what useless institutions our universities are, she continued. The lefties are on the side of the thugs. Theyve taken over the universities. I dont think anyone learns anything at college anymore. Its a four year vacation. And I think thats what people ought to be looking at because the taxpayers are supporting these universities.

Reich, however, redirected the conversation back to the subject of President Trumps attack on the free press.

The libel laws should not be widened [as Trump has suggested], Reich explained. We really do need a free press. One thing that concerns me about the present administration is the willingness of the administration to not only talk about widening the libel laws and also criminal laws flag burning but even the president of the United States, last night, using a [rally] in Harrisburg to summon his supporters and criticize the press once again.

This is dangerous, Reich added. I mean, if we believe in the First Amendment, we believe in a free and independent press.

Watch the video below from ABCs This Week, broadcast April 30, 2017.

Here is the original post:
Robert Reich masterfully turns Ann Coulter's 'free speech' gripes into smackdown on Trump's media war - Raw Story

Ok, Moms and Dads, listen up. Youre our last hope. The only way to save higher education, and the next generation, is for you to stop paying tuition.

Its been two years since University of Missouri students went on a hunger strike and set up a tent city to force the presidents resignation; since Yale students shouted down a professor who dared to suggest students should be able to decide on their own Halloween costumes without guidance from the administration; and since Princeton students occupied the presidents office in order to demand the removal of Woodrow Wilsons name from its public-affairs school because he was deemed a racist.

Things have only gotten worse. Last year, Cornell students held a cry-in when Donald Trump was elected, and University of Virginia students insisted that the president of the school stop quoting its founder, Thomas Jefferson.

This year we have seen the riots at Berkeley over Milo Yiannopoulos, the attack on Charles Murray at Middlebury and protesters blocking Heather MacDonald from speaking at Claremont. Just this week, Ann Coulter had to cancel her speech because the Berkeley administration could not protect her from violent mobs.

Despite their lifetime job security, the faculty at these universities have done next to nothing to stop this nonsense. Sure, a few of them have signed petitions expressing the importance of the free exchange of ideas on campus. But they have spent decades telling students that political correctness is the highest virtue and the feelings of students matter more than any ideas adults have to get across. (Five years ago when I wrote a piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education criticizing black studies, 6,000 professors demanded that I be fired because they were offended.)

Faculty members are sometimes even complicit in the campus takeover. Professors signed the letter regarding Jeffersons racism. A Middlebury faculty member actually apologized this week for inviting Murray to campus in the first place. A Missouri professor grabbed the camera of a journalist covering the schools protests and asked for some muscle to keep him away in order to protect the protesters from public scrutiny.

The faculty at these universities have done next to nothing to stop this nonsense.

Administrators, meanwhile, are just spineless. Princeton caved to protesters demands, offering to remove Wilson from the schools name and promising to consider racially affiliated housing. The University of Missouris president complied with student demands and resigned. Berkeley says it is only trying to protect students by cancelling Coulters speech. NYUs vice provost wrote a piece in The New York Times arguing the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.

So where are the grown-ups in all this?

Theyre at home working hard to write tuition checks. Yes, thats right. Parents are the last line of defense against this chaos, and its time they woke up and smelled the burning flags (or the sh-t-in at the University of Massachusetts). So, Moms and Dads, ask yourselves: Is your child making good use of the $60,000 a year you are spending? Are they devoting most of their time to classroom lectures, reading important books or participating in productive extracurricular activities? Or is most of their time spent crying about Trump and demanding more gender-neutral bathrooms?

Are they learning something that might earn them employment after graduation, or are they going to be community organizing from the couch in your basement in a few years? Will they understand the demands that real bosses will place on them, or will they break down in tears every time a supervisor criticizes them?

Perhaps by enabling them to stay on these campuses for years with no purpose besides getting offended and spewing anger, parents are letting their kids become less prepared for real life.

During the original campus protests of the 1960s, many of the participants could have continued their activities without their parents help and probably did. College was much cheaper in 1968, tuition at the University of California was $320 per year. And 18-year-olds were more likely to be seen as adults. After all, many among their cohort were actually going off to war. Sixties radicals did not need much of a cash infusion from Mom and Dad, except maybe to pay for drugs.

No one had a monthly cellphone bill or a $3,000 laptop from which to send out radical missives. Parents today are not only paying exorbitant amounts to send their kids to school, they are funding spring breaks on the beach, summers of activism (or at least unemployment) and gap years for finding oneself.

Parents will say their children need this credential in order to make it in the world, that even if students learn nothing in their four years on campus, they will at least have a diploma with which to find gainful employment. Perhaps. Or perhaps by enabling them to stay on these campuses for years with no purpose besides getting offended and spewing anger, parents are letting their kids become less prepared for real life.

If we really want college to go back to being an educational experience where students hear the free exchange of ideas and are prepared for the real world, parents need to turn off the spigot.

Continue reading here:
The only way to stop the college revolt against free speech - New York Post

Trump and Congress Can Help Restore Campus Free Speech Wall Street Journal (subscription) The culture of censorship within higher education is now legendary. And although the problem is of long standing, the Obama administration made it worse by giving academic bureaucrats a convenient excusethe feds made us do itfor punishing speech.

Read more here:
Trump and Congress Can Help Restore Campus Free Speech - Wall Street Journal (subscription)