Category Archives: Free Speech

Last night, as Russia was beginning its attack on Ukraine, Donald Trump was on Fox News to badmouth the Biden administration. Trump appeared on Laura Ingrahams The Ingraham Angle and really seemed to cherish the opportunity. He said, [Putin] was going to be satisfied with a piece [of Ukraine] and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence and the stupidity of this administration. And as an American, Im angry about it and Im saddened by it, and it all happened because of a rigged election.

Trump then rambled on about unrelated issues including inflation and the US southern border, but its almost beyond parody that he would connect the Russian invasion to the election he lost a while ago. Moments later, Trump misheard what Ingraham said on air and thought she said that the US invaded Ukraine. He said, you told me about the amphibious attack by Americans. You shouldnt be saying that because you and everybody else shouldnt know about it. They should do that secretly. Laura then had to step in to correct the former president. Even compared to other Trump TV interviews, this appearance was a total embarrassment for everyone involved.

Russian invasion is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at fr

The Ingraham Angle #davidpakmanshow Biden Administration Donald Trump Fox News Russian invasion Trump TV interviews Ukraine

Read the rest here:
Donald Trump badmouths the Biden Administration - Free Speech TV

President Biden says 'we're in a better place' in first 2022 address

President Biden gives his first presidential address of 2022.

USA TODAY

Tuesday will mark an important milestone in President Joe Biden's presidency: He will give his first State of the Union to a joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It will be the first such address since the finalone given by former President Donald Trump in February 2020. Biden spoke to a joint session in April, on the eve of his first 100 days in office.

The president will likely speak about several initiatives currently stalled in the Senate, such as his $1.75 billion Build Back Better infrastructure bill and voting rights legislation. He may also address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion into Ukraine.

Here are some details on the State of the Union, including how to watch:

The address is scheduled to begin at 9 p.m. ET.

It will be carried by all major TV news networks (CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS) and cable news networks includingFox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN.

NPR will also carry the address.

The speech will also be live-streamed by the White Houseand many organizations, including USA TODAY. Readers can follow live updates on the speech from USA TODAY.

More: State of the Union: Biden faces a nation rattled by inflation, uncertain of his leadership

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds will give the Republican Party's rebuttal to the speech.

"Republican governors across America are leading the charge in defending liberty and securing unmatched economic prosperity in our states," Reynolds said in a statement. "The Biden administration is governing from the far-left, ignoring the problems of working-class Americans while pushing an agenda that stifles free speech, free thought, and economic freedom. The American people have had enough, but there is an alternative, and that's what I look forward to sharing on Tuesday evening."

This response should also be livestreamed by news outlets.

More: President Biden will deliver his first State of the Union on March 1. Why is this important?

Contributing: The Des Moines Register

Reach out to Chelsey Cox on Twitter at @therealco.

Original post:
Here's how to watch President Biden's first State of the Union address - USA TODAY

This matter is in the news again, because of a proposal in Boston to limit residential picketing so that it can only happen from 9 am to 9 pm. (This appears to have been prompted by residential picketing outside Mayor Michelle Wu's home.) I therefore thought I'd repost an item of mine that answers the question:Is this sort of targeted residential picketing protected by the First Amendment?

The short answer: No, but any restrictions on such picketing have to be imposed through content-neutral statutes or ordinances (or, in some situations, injunctions); and they have to leave people free to demonstrate in the same neighborhood:

Carey involved a pro-busing group picketing the home of a mayor, while Frisby and Madsen involved anti-abortion groups picketing the homes of clinic employees. Indeed, most of the residential picketing cases I've seen have involved anti-abortion protesters; at least in the 1980s and 1990s, such residential picketing seemed to be a favored tactic of at least some parts of that movement.

But the Court of course didn't draw distinctions based on the content of the speech or based on whether the picketing was aimed at a public official. For instance, Justice Scalia, who had often faulted the Court in free speech cases where he thought anti-abortion speech was being treated unfairly, was in the majority in Frisby; Justices Brennan and Marshall, strong supporters of abortion rights, dissented; none of them seemed swayed by the speakers' ideology. Rather, as I note above, the Court expressly forbade such distinctions.

So a city or a state could ban picketing or allow it. But the rules would apply equally to anti-racism protesters, antifa protesters, anti-abortion protesters, alt.right protesters, and any other protesters.

To my knowledge, residential picketing is banned on a statewide basis only in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, though the statutes operate somewhat differently. (The Arizona ban is limited to picketing conducted "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm"; the Minnesota law allows injunctions to be issued based on targeted residential picketing that happens "on more than one occasion," rather than banning such picketing outright.) But various cities ban it as well.

Finally, even when there is no ordinance banning residential picketing, particular kinds of behavior while picketingespecially loud noise at night (cf. the August 2020 Washington protest outside the Postmaster General's home)may be banned by content-neutral restrictions. See Kovacs v. Cooper (1949). Of course, those restrictions must be enforced in a content-neutral manner as well: A city can't deliberately ignore loud protests that express certain views but then punish loud protests that ignore others.

Read more from the original source:
Protests Outside People's Homes (Residential Picketing) and the First Amendment - Reason

A "one-of-a-kind case." Judge Amit Mehta's description of the litigation against four principal speakers at the Jan. 6 Trump rally may have been as much a prayer as a portrayal. As famed Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "Hard cases make bad law and the litigation against President TrumpDonald TrumpEx-CNN executive discussed interview topics with Andrew Cuomo: report Overnight Defense & National Security Biden 'convinced' Russia will invade Ukraine Hillicon Valley Questions before Trump's social media launch MORE and his associates is a hard case that just proved Holmes right.

In consolidated cases brought by Democratic members of Congress and Capitol Police officers, Judge Mehta ruled on motions to dismiss by the former president, his son Donald Jr., former Trump counsel Rudy GiulianiRudy GiulianiJudge rules Trump must face civil suits over Jan. 6 The Hill's Morning Report - Policies and politics on masks are changing Jan. 6 panel subpoenas individuals who helped Trump campaign 'alternate electors' efforts MORE and Rep. Mo BrooksMorris (Mo) Jackson BrooksBritt in new ad tells 'boys in Washington' to 'man up' Trump meets with Alabama GOP Senate candidate Katie Boyd Britt Republicans spurned by Trump in primaries still embrace him MORE (R-Ala.), as well as several extremist groups like the Oath Keepers. The judge dismissed the claims of a violent conspiracy against Trump Jr. and Giuliani, and he invited Brooks to file a motion to dismiss on the same grounds. He rejected arguments that their speeches at the rallycaused the subsequent rioting in the Capitol. Yet, while admitting that the case raised difficult constitutional questions, he declined to dismiss the claim against Trump.

The ruling will now allow a long-awaited appeal on core constitutional questions, including the protections for inflammatory speech.

Most analysts expected that groups like the Oath Keepers would likely remain in the lawsuit, given their active role in the rioting and therecent chargesof seditious conspiracy filed against them. The most controversial parties were the speakers at the rally near the White House before the riot.

The judge's112-page opinionmakes easy work of dismissing the claims against the other speakers. These speeches were reckless but constitutionally protected. Giuliani's declaration Let's have trial by combat" has been cited by some critics as a clear incitement to an insurrection, but the judge found such arguments were implausible and that Giuliani's words "were not likely" to cause a riot. He also found that Trump Jr.'s comments on the election were "protected speech, and he rejected claims that Brooks urging Trumps supporters to "start taking names and kicking ass" could be the basis for liability.

Ipreviously wrotethat the claims against these four Jan. 6 speakers might find "a sympathetic trial judge" but that "they will likely fail on appeal, even if they survive the trial level litigation." All but one of those claims are now dismissed on the trial level. Moreover, Judge Mehta's opinion seems to reinforce the view that Trump's speech was protected, too.

The judge could well be reversed on the threshold question of immunity, raised by Trump, that presidents cannot be sued for speaking on matters of public interest. Mehta was honest in saying that "this is not an easy issue" and that "the alleged facts of this case are without precedent." Yet, he offered a detailed explanation of why he believes such immunity should not extend to a speech contesting election results the strongest portion of his decision. In so holding, Mehta is making new law and some jurists on appeal, particularly on the Supreme Court, are likely to be concerned over the implications of such liability for a sitting president.

However, it is thefree speech issuethat is most concerning. My concern is not based on any agreement with Trump's view of the election or Congresss certification of it; Icriticized his speechas he gave it and later called forCongress to censure him; nevertheless, his remarks fall well short of the high standard set for criminal or civil liability for speech.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected such liability despite the use of inflammatory or even violent words.

In1969, inBrandenburgv. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that even a Ku Klux Klan leader calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of imminent lawless actionandis likely to incite or produce such action. InHess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets because at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time. In a third case,NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one of its officials promised to break the necks of opponents.

Although Trump pumped up his Jan. 6 supporters with allegations of election fraud and calls to "fight like hell," Judge Mehta acknowledged that Trump also told the crowd that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. His comments were consistent with a protest in saying that we are going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.

In fairness to the court, it is merely saying that the cases plaintiffs could possibly prove a conspiracy between Trump and some Jan. 6 groups. But he cites little support for such a conspiracy beyond facts like Trumps earliercontroversial statement in a debatethat the Proud Boys should stand back and stand by.Thecourt's careful, meticulous analysis on the earlier claims seems to break down over Trumps status; it struggles to ignore the clear weight of prior case law and countervailing interpretations of Trumps words.

Despite a lengthy, detailed discussion of issues like presidential immunity, Mehta becomes more curt and cursory over Trump's constitutional claims. When Trump's lawyers said his language was largely indistinguishable from that of many Democrats like Rep. Maxine WatersMaxine Moore WatersOn The Money House panel mulls future of 'stablecoin' rules Lawmakers clash over how to regulate 'stablecoins' Remedying injustice for the wrongfully convicted does not end when they are released MORE (D-Calif.), Mehta chided them for playing "a game of what-aboutism."

That "what-aboutism," however, is precisely the point. The selective imposition of liability for speech is the very thing that the First Amendment is designed to prevent.

Asrioting raged in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and nationwide in 2020, Congresswoman Waters went to Minnesota and told protesters there that they gotta stay on the street and get more confrontational.Others have used language very similar to Trumps in declaring elections to be invalid (includingHillary Clinton calling Trump an "illegitimate president") or urging supporters to "fight" or "battle" against Republicans; Rep. Ayanna PressleyAyanna PressleyGreen groups press for progressive upset in Texas House race Black women lawmakers commend Biden on commitment for Supreme Court nominee Congressional Black Caucus members press DOJ on voting rights: 'No lawsuit is too trivial' MORE (D-Mass.) once said, "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives.

All of those statements arguably were reckless but clearly protected speech.

Free speech demands bright lines. While this is a "one-of-a-kind case," Trump's comments were hardly unique. And Judge Mehta does not clearly establish why Giulianis "trial by combat" remark or Brooks taking names and kicking ass" exhortation are not calls for imminent violence or lawlessness but Trumps fight like hell would be.

With three of the four speakers now dismissed from the case, only Trump remains. Along with him remains the most looming question: whether the Jan. 6 speech, which was central to his impeachment, was protected under the Constitution. If Trump prevails on appeal, he may claim a degree of vindication thanks to some of his fiercest opponents.

What the court dismisses as "a game of what-aboutism" is all about free speech.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

The rest is here:
'What-aboutism' Ruling against Trump leaves more questions than answers on free speech | TheHill - The Hill

In 2017, as fear and loathing of Donald Trump seized the nation, a U.S. mayor got a four-star resort to cancel a conservative conference by threatening to withdraw police and fire protection.

With all the media blubbering about attempts to DESTROY our democracy and violations of constitutional norms, its remarkable that this Howitzer blast to the First Amendment has received barely any attention, much less the front-page coverage it deserves, not even from the conservative press.The banned conference, you see, was about immigration.

Wow, our elites really dont want Americans thinking about immigration! (Remember, kids: Its a right-wing conspiracy theory and racist, to boot! to think that liberals are using mass immigration to change the country.)

The sponsor of the conference was VDARE, a long-standing immigration website espousing ideas that are basically identical to Trumps 2016 immigration promises both before he made them and after he broke them. The main difference is that the arguments on VDARE are expressed in proper English, and the writers actually believe what they say.

As the 2016 election demonstrated, these ideas are quite popular with a certain segment of voters. Not everyone, just enough to elect a president no one thought could ever be elected, who was loathed by the media, and who was outspent 2-to-1.

Named for Virginia Dare, the first European born on U.S soil, VDARE promotes the novel idea that U.S. immigration policy should benefit Americans. (Obviously, that includes white, Hispanic, Asian and black Americans whom, by the way, mass immigration hurts the most.) Naturally, therefore, it has been designated a white supremacist website by the countrys largest hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Four months after VDARE signed a contract to hold its annual conference at the Cheyenne Mountain Resort in Colorado Springs, the local mayor, John Suthers nominee for the Liz Cheney Profiles in Courage Award! issued a public announcement accusing VDARE of engaging in hate speech and urging the resort to cancel (OK, whatever), but also vowing to deny any support or resources to this event if the resort honored the contract.

Hey antifa, in case anybodys interested if you firebomb this conference, we wont be sending any firetrucks. And if you want to attack the attendees, there wont be any police showing up to stop you.The next day, the resort canceled the contract and, per the agreement, paid a kill fee. VDARE sued the mayor, alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights.

Heres the frightening part: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (one Obama judge and two G.W. Bush judges; one dissent) found for the mayor on the grounds that its possible that the resort canceled NOT because the mayor announced that there would be no police or fire protection, but because of CHARLOTTESVILLE!

Which VDARE had nothing to do with. (Again, VDARE is an immigration website, not a street protest organization.)

If the Supreme Court does not agree to take up this case and brutally slap down the 10th Circuit, free speech will be officially limited to speech acceptable to antifa, working hand-in-hand with liberal mayors and governors.

I have long maintained that the left never truly cared about free speech. They merely pretended to in order to protect the people they actually supported: communists and pornographers. That was the sort of speech that used to get banned.

But today, the speech that gets banned includes statements like: There are only two genders; Maybe we shouldnt defund the police; Affirmative action is unjust; Masks dont work No they work! No, they dont work! Also, apparently, speech asserting that mass immigration has not been an unalloyed good for our country, contributing to our prosperity, cohesiveness and happiness.

One of Justice William Brennans hallowed quotes is: [T]he government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Those stirring words were in defense of flag-burning. And heres a famous one from Justice William O. Douglas: Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us. That was about communists.

But ever since conservative speech became the target of censors, liberals adore governmental suppression of speech. (The one, lone exception that proves the rule: Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU and author of HATE: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship.)

As the 10th Circuit explained, conservative speakers should have no expectation of police and fire protection. Specifically, the majority opinion declared: What VDARE wanted, it had no right to demand municipal resources to monitor a private entitys private event. (Monitor? How about That the city not refuse to send police officers and firetrucks?)

So I guess we can forget that sonorous horse crap about the First Amendment protecting ideas that society finds offensive or disagreeable. The lefts new model is a public-private partnership to prohibit speech unacceptable to Joy Ann Reid.

Henceforth, blue states and cities will be free to shut down conservative speakers, MAGA meetings, Daughters of the American Revolution gatherings or anti-mask protests. Some jackass mayor will claim that the conservatives are threatening to engage in hate speech and deny them police and fire protection (then sit back and wait for the accolades from the media).

With midterms approaching, conservatives are feeling giddy. Everything the left holds dear open borders, racial equity, Defund the Police, critical race theory is toxic to voters. Woo hoo! Were winning!Not so fast, patriots. While you fist-pump, liberals are busy institutionalizing the censorship of conservatives throughout the nation. You want to talk about institutional bias? How about the systemic bias against any ideas unacceptable to progressives being baked into American society?

If the Supreme Court fails to overturn the outrageous opinion in VDARE Foundation v. City of Colorado Springs, free speechs gravestone will read: Bedrock principle of a nation; 1791-2022.

View original post here:
Have at em antifa! The new free speech - Lake County Record-Bee

The American Booksellers Association Town Hall, originally set to be held during its since-canceled Winter Institute, was held virtually yesterday afternoon. The hour-long program drew almost 200 participants, with booksellers celebrating the boards increased diversity, but also concerned about tweaks made this past fall to the ABA Ends Policies, when it committed to freedom of expression that excludes hate speech.

The meeting was presided over by Christine Onorati, the owner of WORD Bookstore in Brooklyn and in Jersey City, N.J., who became board president last month following the resignation of Bradley Graham, the co-owner of Politics and Prose in Washington.

Kelly Estep, co-owner of Carmichaels Bookstore in Louisville, Ky. continues as v-p and Angela Mara Spring, the owner of the Duende District pop-up outlets in the Washington, D.C. metro area and Albuquerque, N.M., has now stepped up to become co-v-p. Onorati noted that Spring represents both non-traditional store models as well as the Latinx community. The board, Onorati added, has prioritized its commitment to equity and representation, and we feel that having our leadership reflect that is an important start. Spring noted that she is the first person of color to become an ABA board officer.

Our current board of directors may be the most diverse in ABAs history in terms of race, sexuality, gender, neurodiversity, region, and store model, Onorati noted, These different perspectives represent the diversity of our membership, the diversity of our bookstore customers, and the future of our industry and the world. They also inform changes in Ends Policies which are the only direct influence the board has on ABAs work. Those changes may be departures from the past, but they are still very much in line with ABAs historical value of freedom of expression as well as its more recently stated values: anti-racism, representation, access, and equity.

This board fully believes that a welcoming, respectful, and diverse ABA is not at odds with the interests of our bookselling industry: in fact, it strengthens it, Onorati stressed.

ABA's Commitment to Freedom of Expression

In response to several bookseller questions about the ABAs new stance at a time when book banning is intensifying around the U.S., board member Danny Caine, the co-owner of The Raven Book Store in Lawrence, Kan. responded: As a board we determined we needed to make the change in order to better marry ABAs value of freedom of expression with its commitment to equity, access, and anti-racism. We felt the need to listen to under-represented voices and protect everyone, including the most vulnerable members of our community, while protecting vital freedoms. We firmly believe we can and must work towards anti-racism and against censorship at the same time. The Ends Policies are meant to reflect that.

ABA executive director Allison Hill added her voice to the discussion, noting that the ABA was one of the co-signers of the National Coalition Against Censorships recent statement against book banning. Hill also attempted to diffuse the controversy over the language of the Ends Policies by pointing out that one of the beautiful things about the Ends Policies is that its re-visited every summer."

When Books & Books [Coral Gables, Fla.] owner Mitchell Kaplan requested more transparency regarding the process leading up to board actions, board member Melanie Knight, a bookseller at Books Inc. in San Francisco, Calif. pointed out that ABA members have an impact on the board's direction by filling out surveys, participating in ABACUS, serving on councils," adding, "you cant vote on the Ends Policies, but you do vote to nominate candidates, the board of directors.

Onorati reiterated that the board wants member input. Were listening to our members. Were listening sometimes, to the people who are talking the most. Again, another plea to engage, to reach out. Were here to listen, we really do try to listen to what our members are saying. That was a big part in how we came to our decision.

Hill also updated members on Amazon. One of the top priorities, if not the very top priority, is antitrust work, she said, It has been since the day I got here. Noting that the ABA has to be very cautious about sharing information about what it is doing to counter Amazons reach into the marketplace, Hill said the lobbying and coalition-building are having an impact. Weve been asked about sharing some information from our White paper [about Amazons predatory business practices] which were updating. We had a meeting where we offered to share information and we had 80 people from the attorney generals offices across the country show up for that.

"The regulation and the break-up of Amazon is forthcoming," she insisted, "But its a long road. Weve been on it for a while, but were definitely seeing signs of hope. Were seeing signs of bipartisan hope and were prioritizing it. Its happening.

The ABA will hold its next Town Hall on May 26.

Excerpt from:
ABA Town Hall Focuses on Board's Commitment to Free Speech - Publishers Weekly

Content

This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

Listen and subscribe: Apple | Spotify | Google | Wherever You Listen

Sign up to receive our weekly newsletter of the best New Yorker podcasts.

The author William Deresiewicz, who formerly taught English at Yale University, describes what he sees as essential threats to free speechand ultimately to the process of educationon campuses across the country. Students, he says, are afraid to speak their minds, in fear of a backlash. Deresiewicz sees the impact of cancel culture extending well beyond newsworthy cancellations of prominent people. For every high-profile cancellation... there are a hundred, say, low-profile cancellations that dont get picked up, Deresiewicz tells David Remnick. And, even more importantly, for every one of those, there are a thousand people... who just keep their mouth shut.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, on the other hand, argues that cancel culture isnt real. Its largely, she says, an excuse made by those on the political right to lodge their own restrictions on what can be said in the public sphere. Kliph Nesteroff, a historian of comedy, agrees with that assessment. There used to be this conceit, a few years agoTheyre going to take your guns away, he says; now the refrain is Theyre going to take your jokes away. Theyre going to take your comedians! Its the same sort of element driving the narrative. Pushback to jokes at the expense of marginalized people is nothing new, Nesteroff explains. He offers the example of Native Americans protesting insulting portrayals in silent films more than a century ago. But social media has brought these criticisms into the public consciousness. Its not even cancel culture. Its just culture, Nesteroff says. The history of America is a tug-of-war between opposing forcespowerful forces versus weak forces.

Read the original post:
Free Speech in Comedy Clubs and on Campus - The New Yorker

So, in 2012, we set out to understand what is really happening on campuses. This was no easy task. We spent five years visiting 10 vastly different campuses, carrying out over 2,000 intensive interviews, each lasting an hour, on average. On each campus, we interviewed approximately 50 incoming students and 50 graduating students, as well as faculty, senior administrators, trustees, young alums, parents, and job recruiters.

What we found surprised us, to say the least.

Contrary to what one might gather from the press, the vast majority of students are not preoccupied with political correctness, free speech issues, or even costs. What they are worried about, however, are their GPAs and resumes. They struggle with mental health challenges and widespread feelings that they dont belong and of alienation from peers, the academic agenda, or the ethos of their institution.

While there remains much to admire about our higher education system, the sector has lost its way and stands in considerable peril. And our sobering conclusion was reached well before the COVID-19 pandemic, which has proved disruptive for all institutions, most especially for the less affluent ones.

This is not to say the college experience is a lost cause. Indeed, at its best, it presents a unique opportunity to learn, explore, prepare for the future and even transform oneself. But if higher education is to be successful in the 21st century, it needs to be sharply reframed.

IF, IN 2012, YOU HAD ASKED US to list the biggest problems on campuses, we might have cited alcohol, sexual misconduct, or possibly free speech issues. Mental health probably would not have made the short list. A decade later, we can confirm what those who spend time on campuses have known for some time: Mental health challenges are a major problem.

While some might attribute this to students being overly coddled, or social media causing students to feel more loneliness and social anxiety, the majority of students in our study described a different cause altogether: an overwhelming pressure to do well and build the perfect resume.

Among students, the most common explanation about why mental health is the most important problem on campus was academic rigor the pressure of academics. But what exactly is that pressure? Is it about learning difficult content? Or preparing for exams or writing papers? Or building a favorable transcript to get a job or get into graduate school?

Their most frequent explanation focused on achieving external measures of success securing a high grade-point average, or doing well on an exam. I know a lot of kids who ... get super stressed out over grades and they get really anxious about it, one first-year student told us. Intense people make like, You have to have a good GPA, you have to have As and stuff.

Friendship issues were also a source of stress making new ones, as well as managing difficult dynamics. Some specifically linked feelings of loneliness with mental health issues.

Others described cutthroat social environments or an unhealthy school culture where students feel as though they are in constant competition with others, as well as having to be on all the time to keep up with peers. I think the atmosphere of competition and so much pressure to perform to be the best really, probably, is the driving factor behind a lot of mental issues, one student said. Its just not a place where people feel like they can talk about it with other people, because it would be admitting weaknesses.

Many others reported feeling like they dont belong to the academics of their school, their peers, and/or their institution. As one school administrator told us, Theres lots of strangers around here, and theyve come from a high school where they probably knew most of everybody, and they come here and they dont know hardly anybody.

IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE to speak about higher education or education at all without addressing diversity. Indeed, the majority of people in our study used the word without prompting. While some focused on diversity of thoughts and ideas, others considered its importance in terms of the wide range of academic disciplines, or highlighted demographic differences.

Students spoke about diversity in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, they valued opportunities to get to know people with different backgrounds, become familiar with varying perspectives, and participate in new activities; but they also acknowledged and sometimes complained about the lack of diversity on their particular campus. Not a single student in our study maintained that there was too much diversity.

And while some focused on positive experiences that exposed them to people of different backgrounds, students also described a lot of problems with respect to these social groups. In general, they believe these problems are mostly caused by a lack of tolerance and empathy for difference, as well as the use of exclusionary language, such as racial and homophobic slurs.

Students complained that others did not truly understand them, and as a result, they separated into groups of students that are most like them. Some also believed that their peers didnt know how to conduct productive conversations about issues of race, which often led to frustration. Some talked about blatant discrimination, intolerance, and general insensitivity, aimed especially at minority groups.

The Black students, we feel that some people here dont really fully understand what it means to be a person of color in general, everything that you have to go through, one first-year student said. And definitely, there are people here who understand. But yeah, its just like sometimes you feel like you dont really fit in.

SO WHAT ARE THE CAUSES of these problems, and what are the solutions? One problem is what we call mission sprawl. Nearly all institutions of higher education have a mission statement. At most schools, they touch on numerous separate issues; it is a rare school that has a single major mission and adheres to it. Most schools, in effect, say they are trying to be all things to all people.

Our remedy? From the day of admission, if not before, students need to be introduced and guided toward the primary academic goals of their campus and encouraged to draw on its academic resources: faculty, library, museums, research labs, writing centers. Too often, key introductory experiences such as college tours focus on things like dormitories, food, clubs, sports, and other pointedly nonacademic features. From the start, the campus needs to onboard the students helping students to understand and belong to an entire community of learners, dealing with their health issues as much and as soon as possible, and supporting them throughout.

Another problem we see is what we refer to as projectitis, the seemingly endless proliferation of offices, positions, and centers that bewilder students, when they are even noticed.

On campus after campus, we found a multitude of extracurricular or other activities some initiated by students, some by faculty and staff, yet others due to endowments, newly acquired funds, or current buzzwords. To be clear, such activities can be meritorious; but on a campus, projectitis often exacerbates the problem of mission sprawl. Most people on campus do not know or care about the full range of possibilities offered, and what students need or want is often invisible, sidelined, or is overwhelmed by other glitzier entities on campus.

On occasion, it is salutary to launch new initiatives to meet newly identified priorities. But projects, centers, and initiatives need to be

curated over time and pruned or eliminated when no longer helpful. Keystone programs should be vetted by the community; they should reflect what the school truly values, embody how the institution operates, and be effective in demonstrable ways.

Its also important that courses and programs of study are clearly and carefully explained, with expectations spelled out and student progress monitored regularly. The launching of common courses taken by all students is strongly encouraged; as is the avoidance of high-stake grading, particularly in the opening years. In introductory courses, grading should be light and formative, with plenty of opportunity for feedback and support and, optimally, improvements in performance.

Imagine a situation where students believe that they are welcome, that they belong, that they understand the fundamental educational goal of college, are not having to serve many competing masters, and dont feel pressed to get only straight As. Under those favorable circumstances, students mental health stresses will be reduced, and they will be better prepared for the rewards that college can uniquely provide the opportunities to explore, and, possibly, to be transformed.

Wendy Fischman is a project director at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, where Howard Gardner is a research professor. This story was adapted from their forthcoming book The Real World of College: What Higher Education Is and What It Can Be by Wendy Fischman and Howard Gardner, published by The MIT Press. All rights reserved. Send comments to magazine@globe.com.

Go here to read the rest:
No, college students arent obsessed with free speech. Heres what they do worry about. - The Boston Globe

Rudy Giuliani went on Newsmax this week and claimed to have evidence related to Hillary Clinton in either his bedroom or his den. The former New York City mayor said on air, they may feel that its gobbledygook. But its gobbledygook supported by about a thousand pieces of evidence, none of which has been revealed yet. I happen to have it in my bedroom, or my den actually. Ive had it there for years. If this supposed evidence exists, its possible that Giuliani broke the law by withholding it from the authorities.

At the very least, it wouldnt make sense for Rudy to be holding on to documents that would damage one of Donald Trumps key political adversaries. However, with Rudy Giuliani, the veracity of the claim itself has to be put into question because he has such a long record of lying to the public, most notably last year when he was going around the country claiming his boss was the victim of widespread voter fraud.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org

#davidpakmanshow Donald Trump Giuliani broke the law Hillary Clinton New York City Rudy Giuliani The David Pakman Show

Go here to see the original:
Rudy Giuliani Found Evidence Related to Hillary Clinton - Free Speech TV

[Editors note: WatchNot My Partyevery week on Snapchat.]

Various and sundry: Shh! Shh! Shh! Shh! Shh!

News anchor 1: The so-called Dont Say Gay bill

News anchor 2: The controversial bill

Ben Shapiro: Dont Say Gay bill.

Tim Miller: Wait, is this The Silence of the Gays?

Shapiro: I dont understand why this is remotely controversial. . . . Tim Miller, because hes gay and he has kids, hes very upset about this.

Miller: Damn right I am. And Im tired of your hypocritical free speech bull**** act.

This is Not My Party, brought to you by The Bulwark. For the past few weeks, the internets most brazen defenders of free speech have been yelling about how Joe Rogan is getting canceled.

Shapiro: Make no mistake . . . this is a freedom-of-speech issue.

Miller: They say that we must defend poor Joe and his hundred-Milli bag from the woke mob thats out to get him.

Peter Venkman: Poor, poor man.

Podcast February 18 2022

With two Arctic powers in crisis, David Frum joins Charlie Sykes to cover the waterfront:

Miller: In case you missed it, the backstory is that Rogan basically had some anti-vax lunatics on the show and said the N-word a few times back in the day. So the keyboard warriors are calling for Spotify to deplatform him.

Dakota Stanley (Whit Hertford in Glee): Get off my stage!

Miller: And well, my opinion is that Rogan has said some dumb s***, but isnt that kind of his brand?

Joe Rogan: F*** yeah.

Miller: If he wants to do deep dives with conspiratorial cranks on his show, its only natural that the internets gonna make fun of him for it. And from time to time hell lose a sponsor. But thats not a big threat to free speech. Thats the free market at work, baby.

Gordon Gekko: Capitalism at its finest.

Miller: But the cancel culture catastrophists seem to disagree with that.

Shapiro: We all understand what this is . . . which is an attempt . . . to deplatform Rogan!

Miller: So I dont know, I like free speech but I have trouble taking these complaints seriously cause (1) Rogan continues to kill ithes not canceled! And (2), the people always obsessing over left-wing cancel culture seem to change their tune when its the libs getting silenced.

Cletus Spuckler: Prove it!

Miller: Case in point: Have you heard about this new proposal in Florida?

News anchor 3: Dont Say Gay bill

Miller: Gay. Heres what it actually says:

Reporter 1 voiceover: Schools cannot encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.

Miller: One Republican [state] senator gave an example of a type of homework assignment this would ban: If a word problem said Sally has two moms or Johnny has two dads.

Homer Simpsons: I never thought such a thing was possible!

Miller: To enforce the ban, the state would give crocodile Karens free rein to sue any school that got too gay for comfort.

iDubbbz: Im gay!

Lionel Hutz: Fine, well see you in court.

Miller: Now this is obviously insane, retrograde s***. It would mean a gay teacher couldnt even mention their husband? My kid could be banned for making this super-cute valentine? You would think the free speech-defenders would side with the gays on this one. Right?

Woman on How I Met Your Mother: Right?

Man: Right?

Miller: But nope, Trumps heir apparent and the top right-wing media personality are both all about it.

Reporter 2 voiceover: Governor DeSantis gave his clearest indication yet that he supports this bill.

Stan Smith: Gays!

Shapiro: As a family-values conservative, I do not feel that it is appropriate for you to be teaching my child about two lesbian mommies or two homosexual daddies. . . . I dont understand why the priorities of Tim Miller or the teachers should take priority over the parents.

Miller: This little Napoleon seriously wants the state to put teachers back in the closet? What, now they have to take their family photo off their desk and stuff it in the drawer just because this guy got stuffed in lockers as a kid?

Shapiro (singing Javerts song Stars from Les Misrables): Mine is the way of the Lord.

Miller: Heres Ben on whether teachers should fear reprisal if they dont obey.

Shapiro: First of all, they should always feel like theyre on thin ice.

Miller: So let me get this straight, when the Twitterati get #CancelJoeRogan trending, these free-speech activists rush to his defense. But when a teacher gets in trouble for mentioning their happy gay family, thats totally cool?

Leslie Knope: Does anyone else here see a double standard?

Miller: There are similar proposals in eight states. Texas is removing gay YA books, Kansas banning any depictions of homosexuality, and Tennessee anything that normalizes the gay lifestyle.

Stan Smith: You cant live a gay lifestyle!

Sassy Gay Friend (Brian Gallivan): Slow down, crazy, slow down.

Miller: Look, Im sympathetic to the view that left-wing cancel culture can go too far. We did an episode on it a while back. But you cant just stand up for free speech when it happens to be politically convenient for you. Barking about protecting speech and then leading a silencing campaign when it suits you is pretty sus.

Dean Pelton (Jim Rash on Community): Well, I guess we dont see our patterns until theyre all laid out in front of us.

Miller: As for Florida, hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the state wont put teachers and kids like mine in the closet. But in the meantime, if you live there, write to your state legislator and tell em what you think. And well see you next week for more Not My Party.

And hey Ben, since youve been watching, would love to have a longform debate with you anytime.

Shapiro: Bring the hammer.

Mushu: This is gonna be good!

See the rest here:
Ben Shapiro, Free Speech, and the Dont Say Gay Bill - The Bulwark