Free Speech Advocate On The State Of College Campuses

Greg Lukianoff. Image: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Greg-Lukianoff-Staff-Photo-2014.jpg

Greg Lukianoff heads the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates free speech. He tells Steve Inskeep that freedom of speech on college campuses has been attacked recently.

STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:

We are in the middle of college graduation season, which is a season of high-profile commencement speeches. In 2017, some of the speeches are about speech, how we debate one another. On Friday, for example, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told Wellesley College, her alma mater – the graduates there – that it’s too easy to avoid hearing anyone who disagrees with us.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

HILLARY CLINTON: We can shut out contrary voices, avoid ever questioning our basic assumptions. Extreme views are given powerful microphones. Leaders willing to exploit fear and skepticism have tools at their disposal that were unimaginable when I graduated.

INSKEEP: Some of the shutting out of contrary voices happens on campus. This year, planned speeches have been shut down from Berkeley, Calif., to Vermont. Many of those kept from speaking were politically conservative. But it all bothers a man who identifies as liberal, Greg Lukianoff. He’s a First Amendment lawyer and the head of an organization called Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which advocates for free speech on campus.

How common is it that a speaker who’s controversial or perceived as controversial is thrown off a campus or threatened with being thrown off the campus?

GREG LUKIANOFF: Overall – not that common. But it’s amazing that it happens at all, given that, particularly when it comes to commencement speakers, over the years, universities have become a lot more small-C conservative about who they invite. So they’re already being very careful with who they invite. So the fact that, in 2016, we saw 42 attempts to get speakers disinvited, both commencement and otherwise – we didn’t consider that a good trend. Let’s put it that way.

INSKEEP: How do people go about trying – attempting – to disinvite speakers?

LUKIANOFF: The way we distinguish is if the goal is either to get that speaker off the campus – essentially, that speaker can’t speak here – or to shout them down or, worst of all, of course, to engage in violence to prevent the speech from going on – like happened at Berkeley back in February.

INSKEEP: OK. So 42 times in one year – and there’ll be some more this year as you tally it up.

LUKIANOFF: And that was the worst year we’d seen. We have about 15 years of research on it. And we have – we actually have the largest database on disinvitation attempts because that’s really what we count because that is how we sort of take the temperature for tolerance, for listening to people you disagree with on campus.

INSKEEP: Is this reflecting the education itself – what’s happening in the classrooms?

LUKIANOFF: You know, I’m really wondering about that because, for most of my career – I’ve been working – fighting – for defending academic freedom and free speech on campus since about 2001. And for the overwhelming majority of my career, the single best constituency for free speech on campus were the students themselves. And people are sometimes kind of surprised to hear that.

And I’m like, no, no. Most of what we were fighting were administrators. It’s only around 2014 – 2013 – that we started seeing a lot of push by students for people to be disinvited, for new speech codes and new speech restrictions.

INSKEEP: Why don’t we listen to an example where there was a speaker on campus? And many people on campus disagreed with his point of view. It was the vice president of the United States, Mike Pence. He went to Notre Dame in my home state of Indiana and delivered a graduation speech. Let’s listen to a little bit of that.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: While this institution has maintained an atmosphere of civility and open debate, far too many campuses across America have become characterized by speech codes, safe zones, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political correctness – all of which amounts to nothing less than suppression of the freedom of speech.

(APPLAUSE)

INSKEEP: So Vice President Pence takes this opportunity on a campus to speak up for freedom of speech. As he’s doing it, some – not all – of the graduates are standing up and walking out of the speech. And there was a Notre Dame student who tried to explain to CNN why she thought that was. Her name is Aniela Tyksinski.

(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, “CNN NEWSROOM”)

ANIELA TYKSINSKI: The walkout was in response to the fact that members of our own community felt unwelcome, uncomfortable, and even unsafe with the invitation of Mike Pence. And so political discourse should be happening in other contexts at this campus, not at our commencement.

INSKEEP: OK. So let’s just walk through that incident. Mike Pence speaking up for Notre Dame but criticizing campuses in general – the students saying, many of us felt unsafe. What do you make of all that?

LUKIANOFF: Well, I definitely think what the students did was entirely appropriate. I’ve been frustrated and saddened to see, in many cases, students either refused – they tried to shut down events in some cases or shout speakers down – in the case of Charles Murray and some cases – in the case of Ray Kelly at Brown several years back.

I do get a little worried when I hear people talking about using the word unsafe to mean basically uncomfortable. I do think that leads to problems where people sort of conflate opinions with violence. And that’s something that I’ve been increasingly seeing on campus. They don’t make a major distinction between those two things.

INSKEEP: Violence increasingly doesn’t mean setting a fire at Berkeley to stop an event. Violence means saying words that people don’t want to hear.

LUKIANOFF: And that’s a very bad trend. I wrote about – I wrote a short book called “Freedom From Speech” a couple years ago. And I said, if you create a situation in which a professor – when you say you feel unsafe, they assume nine times out of 10 you mean something more like uncomfortable. That’s a very dangerous situation for people who are genuinely unsafe. Certainly, like, when I was in college, if you said you were unsafe, you’d be like, oh, my God, we have to call the police. What do we need to do? Watering down terms that are so central to people’s actual safety is dangerous.

INSKEEP: So you like that the students at Notre Dame…

LUKIANOFF: Yes.

INSKEEP: Those who protested found a way to speak themselves…

LUKIANOFF: Absolutely, yeah.

INSKEEP: …Without actually interrupting Vice President Pence. What did you make of what Vice President Pence had to say?

LUKIANOFF: You know, of course, I’m always happy when people have nice things to say about freedom of speech. I did – we did chuckle a little bit, though, at the idea that Notre Dame is great on free speech. We classify them as a red-light school, which means that they have at least one speech code on campus. Now, Notre Dame doesn’t have to promise freedom of speech because it’s a private school. But they do.

INSKEEP: How common are speech codes, as you just called them?

LUKIANOFF: So when we first started evaluating most major colleges, it was around – 75 percent of universities maintain red-light speech codes. But there have been, like, 60 lawsuits (laughter) against speech codes since 1989. So they’re now down to about 40 percent.

INSKEEP: OK.

LUKIANOFF: We are seeing some actual progress on that.

INSKEEP: They’ve been going down. Would you describe your own politics?

LUKIANOFF: Liberal atheist, as I sometimes get picked on for (laughter).

INSKEEP: OK. So you’re being literal – liberal atheist. As a liberal atheist, do your fellow liberals get a little upset when you criticize people who are criticizing conservatives or trying to stop conservatives from speaking on campus?

LUKIANOFF: It depends on who. You know, like, my oldest friends totally get it. But I will say it can be pretty exhausting to be in the middle of the culture war all the time because it is a situation where nobody assumes good intentions on the other side. They’re totally with you if it’s a speaker they like. But they totally hate you if it’s a speaker they don’t.

INSKEEP: So you’re OK even with Charles Murray, very controversial academic speaking on a campus.

LUKIANOFF: Yeah. I think that we need better practice in how to listen to people – even opinions that we despise.

INSKEEP: Greg Lukianoff, thanks very much.

LUKIANOFF: Thank you.

INSKEEP: He’s head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

In: NPR

BREAKING: Howard University professor reports settlement in Brazilian wax case

Image: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/06073524/Howard-CREDIT-279photo-Studio-Shutterstock.com-FEAT.jpg

By  July 14, 2017

Howard University has reached a tentative agreement with the law professor it found responsible for sexual harassment over a test question about a hypothetical Brazilian wax.

This afternoon, professor Reginald Robinson’s attorney, Gaillard T. Hunt, released the following statement:

We have discussed the case with the University and we believe we have reached a mutually satisfactory solution. Professor Robinson regrets if anyone was offended by the test question.

FIRE reported on the case last week, which we noted at the time was part of a larger pattern of colleges and universities punishing constitutionally protected expression under the guise of addressing sexual harassment.

You can read more about the case in our press release.

Check back to Newsdesk next week for more on this development.

Schools: Howard University Cases: Howard University: Professor Subjected to 504-Day Investigation and Sanctions for Hypothetical Test Question Involving Waxing

In: thefire.org

Case given by the professor translated in spanish:

Pregunta 5.

P es dueño y manager de “Day Spa & Massage Therapy Company, LLC.” P atiende tanto a hombres y mujeres. Entre otros servicios, P ofrece “Brazilian wax” y “bikini wax” – también llamados “Sphynx”, depilada total, o depilación estilo Hollywood.

Para prestar estos servicios, P contrató a A, un esteticista, certificado y licenciado por la escuela ubicada en el Estado en que P realiza sus actividades.

Un día, T visitó la compañía de P. T nunca había buscado tales servicios, pero sus amigos habían elogiado el trabajo de P. A se encontró con T en la mesa de atención. T pidió un Brazilian wax. -¿Un brasileño completo o modificado? -preguntó A a T. T parecía confundido, entonces A procedió a explicarle que un Full Brazilian (“FB”) implicaba depilar totalmente a T desde el ombligo hasta las nalgas,  por lo que un FB requería que T esté desnudo de la cintura para abajo. Un FB además requiere que A toque el cuerpo de T y realice los ajustes necesarios para que este pueda acceder a todos los folículos del vello púbico de T. Asimismo, A le explicó a T cómo sería un “Modified Brazilian” (“MB”). Un MB le dejaría una fina franja de pelo en la parte superior de sus genitales, es decir, un “landing strip” (pista de aterrizaje). Así, T optó por un Full Brazilian.

Una vez más, A le explicó a T que tendría que tocar sus genitales para completar la depilación. T estuvo de acuerdo y firmó en el Contrato de Servicio el espacio donde reconoce la información brindada por A. T se desvistió en un salón privado, donde también bebió un té de hierbas caliente. Por pedido de A, T, quien estaba desnudo de la parte de abajo, se acostó en la mesa de depilación. Una vez sobre ella y con los tonos instrumentales como fondo, T cayó en un sueño ligero. Finalmente A completó el FB. Al despertar, T se sintió físicamente incómodo, preguntándole a A si lo había tocado incorrectamente. A, le dijo que no, y sintiéndose ofendido, se fue.

Semanas después, P recibió una carta del abogado de T, en la que T alegaba que A lo había tocado inapropiadamente, generando que T buscara consejería y medicación para tratar un Trastorno de Estrés Post-traumático. Habiendo trabajado con A durante 10 años, P respondió que A era un esteticista certificado y licenciado, que nunca había tenido quejas presentadas por sus clientes. T demandó a P, y por testimonio de A, Los abogados de P y T descubrieron que A había tocado a T correctamente durante el FB. Sin embargo, T todavía siente que los tocamientos de A fueron impropios. En la demanda, T alegó que A, envuelto en una aparente posición de autoridad, lo había inducido a través de representaciones falsas a confiar razonablemente en él, de modo que A podría causar daño a T mientras actuaba en el marco de su labor. Si P se hubiera opuesto, en efecto diciendo “Sí, ¿Y qué?” a los pedidos de T, ¿la corte se encontraría a favor de T?

(A) Sí, porque T había establecido que A era un empleado que fue colocado como esteticista, lo que permitió a A hacerle daño a T.

(B) No, porque T expresa e implícitamente consintió  los tocamientos de A en cualquier manera razonable para que este le proporcione el servicio FB que aquél solicitó.

(C) Sí, porque P se benefició de los ingresos pagados por T en razón del servicio realizado por A.

(D) No.

Law prof’s exam question on Brazilian wax is deemed harassment; is academic freedom threatened?

Image: http://pensamientocolombia.org/AllUploads/ExternalColumns/ExternalCol_6_2015-03-30.jpg

A Howard University law professor says academics everywhere should be concerned by his school’s response to a 2015 exam question about a Brazilian bikini wax.

The school determined in May that the question by Professor Reginald Robinson constituted sexual harassment under school policy, report Law.com (sub. req.) and Inside Higher Ed in a story noted by TaxProf Blog.

The school placed a letter of reprimand in Robinson’s file, ordered him to attend sensitivity training and required him to submit future exam questions for advance review, according to a letter written on Robinson’s behalf by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The exam question, part of Robinson’s agency law course, asked whether the owner of a day spa would win a demurrer motion in a suit filed by a customer who claimed improper touching by the licensed aesthetician who performed the procedure. The exam question asserted that the customer had slept through the wax, but thought something improper had occurred upon awakening.

The aesthetician had warned the customer about touching that would take place during the procedure, and the customer acknowledged in writing having received the aesthetician’s information, according to the exam hypothetical. (The correct answer was that a court would not find in favor of the customer.)

After the exam, Robinson asked volunteers to discuss the test questions. One volunteer said the customer would not sleep through a Brazilian wax. Robinson switched focus, and when the volunteer declined to explain her answer choice, Robinson sought answers from another volunteer, according to FIRE’s letter.

Two students filed a complaint. An administrator who found the question constituted sexual harassment cited use of the word “genital,” the students’ suspicion that the question was crafted to reveal personal details about themselves, their belief the revelations had a negative impact on them, and the administrator’s belief that the exam scenario wasn’t necessary to teach the subject.

In its June 16 letter, FIRE asked Howard University to rescind the sanctions and to respond to its request by June 30. Howard did not respond by the deadline, according to a FIRE press release.

Howard’s punishment “does not comport with its own definition of sexual harassment or its promises of academic freedom,” FIRE wrote in its letter. “It poses a severe threat not only to professors’ rights but also to students’ ability to learn all areas of the law, including learning how to analyze situations that may make some students uncomfortable.”

Robinson released a statement about his case through FIRE.

“My case should worry every faculty member at Howard University, and perhaps elsewhere, who teaches in substantive areas like law, medicine, history, and literature,” Robinson stated. “Why? None of these academic areas can be taught without evaluating and discussing contextual facts, especially unsavory and emotionally charged ones.”

In: abajournal

Cuando Manuel A. Odría persiguió a los apristas como grupo terrorista

Verdades a medias. El folletín tiene un título rotundo: Los crímenes del Apra. La autoría es atribuida al ministerio de Gobierno y Policía del régimen del dictador Manuel A Odría.

Imagen: https://lamula.pe/media/uploads/7713b298-0c8d-4f0e-abde-a92c609579e7.jpg

Por: Juan Carlos Soto.

El general Manuel A. Odría siempre tuvo al Apra en la mira. De ministro de Gobierno y Policía le pidió al presidente José Luis Bustamante reprimir a estos feroces opositores, con los que hizo una alianza pegada con baba para ganar las elecciones de 1945. Bustamante no aceptó y meses después Odría desde Arequipa encabezó un golpe de Estado contra él, aduciendo debilidad frente a los apristas y comunistas. En el poder, el presidente de facto promulgó la Ley de Seguridad Interior de la República, que dejó fuera de la ley a ambos partidos.

Para Odría el Apra era un grupo terrorista. La apreciación está argumentada en este folletín, rescatado de la colección del periodista Álvaro Rojas Samanez y cedida a la biblioteca Vargas Llosa de la Ciudad Blanca. Sus hojas tienen el sello del Ministerio de Gobierno y Policía, en donde trabajó como director el temible Esparza Zañartu. La lealtad perruna con el régimen y a la vez ferocidad para defenderlo de los enemigos políticos convirtió a este comerciante de vinos en el ministro del sector dos años después.

Esparza Zañartu es ficcionado en Conversación en la Catedral de Mario Vargas Llosa, como Cayo Bermúdez o Cayo de Mierda. “A Vargas Llosa le hubiese contado cosas más interesantes para su novela”, respondió cuando los periodistas le preguntaron por las alusiones a su escabrosa biografía.

Esparza tuvo sus cartas bajo la manga para derrotar a los conspiradores, las mismas que cuenta Vargas Llosa en la novela. No se descarta que Los crímenes del Apra sea de su cosecha.

El folletín hace un recuento de las revueltas sociales en donde el partido de la estrella es sindicado de organizarlas para capturar el poder mediante la violencia. La ocurrida en Trujillo, en 1932, tiene la mayor cobertura. No hay un relato objetivo. Abunda el adjetivo que a veces le quita rigor a un documento que pretende esclarecer un hecho histórico. “Desde que el Apra hizo su aparición, la ciudadanía vio con estupor la repetición de crímenes en una lucha partidaria que tomó caracteres de inusitada violencia y odio nunca vistos en la historia del Perú”, dice en uno de sus párrafos.

MEDIAS VERDADES

La revolución de Trujillo estalló en el gobierno de Luis Sánchez Cerro. Representó el pico más alto de desencuentros entre el régimen y el Apra, que había desconocido el resultado de las elecciones de 1930 por presunto fraude. La militancia declaró a Victor Raúl “presidente moral del Perú”. Sánchez Cerro combatió las protestas con una ley de emergencia. Por eso, en febrero de 1932, 22 parlamentarios apristas sufrieron la expatriación, acusados de conspiradores. Un mes después, un joven aprista intentó asesinar a Sánchez Cerro en una Iglesia de Miraflores. Después de varios meses en la clandestinidad, la Policía apresó a Haya el 6 de mayo (seis meses atrás habían intentado matarlo). La madrugada del 7 de julio, Manuel “Búfalo” Barreto encabezó la toma del cuartel O’Donovan, en las afueras de la ciudad norteña de Trujillo.

VIOLENCIA DE DOS LADOS

Los insurrectos retuvieron a los militares e intentaron extender la revolución en todo el departamento. El libro es ilustrativo en la matanza perpetrada por los insurrectos a sus prisioneros. Se consigna la cifra de 36 caídos y 15 heridos, sin embargo, no cuentan los caídos del otro bando ni la forma violenta cómo el gobierno aplastó la revuelta. Hubo desplazamientos de tropas de Lima, Lambayeque y bombardeos a Trujillo.

Jorge Basadre da cuenta de una represión desmedida y ejecuciones extrajudiciales.

Una corte marcial condenó a muerte a Agustín Haya de la Torre, el hermano de Víctor Raúl y uno de los cabecillas de la revuelta. Con él corrieron la misma suerte 44 prisioneros. Se fusiló a quienes tenían evidencias de haber usado un arma. Las ruinas de Chan Chan se convirtieron en un matadero. Un ministro-dice Basadre- confesó que a Sánchez Cerro le contaron de esta barbarie y ordenó a través del telégrafo: “No fusilen a una persona más. Del cumplimiento de esta orden me responden ustedes con sus vidas”.

Los Crímenes del Apra mencionan otras revueltas apristas en Lima, Ayacucho, Huancavelica y Huancayo. Los líderes son presentados con un código policial y prontuariado. Armando Villanueva del Campo es fichado desde 1938 como terrorista. Lo señalan como enlace de apristas desterrados “y siempre que la Policía lo intervino lo encontró armado”. Hubo militantes apristas cuyos crímenes estuvieron probados. Abelardo Mendoza Leiva mató a Sánchez Cerro, Carlos Steer liquidó a Antonio Miró Quesada de la Guerra, uno de los directores del diario El Comercio y su esposa. ¿Fue el Apra un partido de criminales? Hubo militantes implicados en hechos graves, pero el Estado también reaccionó con la misma brutalidad que alentó la violencia de los insurrectos.

En: larepublica

Report: GOP operative probing Clinton e-mail took his own life in Minnesota

Peter Smith. Screenshot via Youtube. Image: http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/59680f2b552be5a7088b48c0-492/screen%20shot%202017-07-13%20at%2052325%20pm.png

CHICAGO (AP) — A published report says a former private equity adviser and Republican operative who died soon after telling The Wall Street Journal he tried during the 2016 presidential election to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails from Russian hackers killed himself.

The Chicago Tribune reported Thursday that according to death records from Olmsted County, Minnesota, 81-year-old Peter W. Smith killed himself in a hotel near the Mayo Clinic on May 14. The newspaper says a note from Smith found by police said he was taking his own life because of bad health and an expiring life insurance policy.

Smith’s death came about 10 days after the Journal said he granted an interview in which he claimed he tried to acquire emails missing from Clinton’s server.

Smith had lived in the Chicago suburb of Lake Forest. A former employee told the Tribune he thought Smith went to the Mayo Clinic for treatment of a heart condition.

In: wthr

Reasd also: businessinsider – Republican donor kills himslef after talking about working with Russian hackers to get Hillary Clinton’s emails

This is our chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional

Why you should support Common Cause

In January, a federal judge ruled that the Wisconsin Legislature—tasked with drawing legislative districts—would have to re-draw them to less blatantly favor one party over the other.

The Legislature in Wisconsin drew unconstitutionally partisan lines because they wanted to rig the system.

They’ve appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, and you can bet they’ll be well financed.

This problem is called Gerrymandering, and I’m determined to terminate its poisonous impact on our democracy.

That’s why I’ve partnered with Common Cause, a nonprofit focused on promoting open, honest and accountable government.

We want to hire the best-in-the-business lawyers to argue this and other critical cases before the Supreme Court.

If we win, we have the chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional nation-wide.

But terminating gerrymandering will be expensive.

Arguing a case in front of the Supreme Court, filing amicus briefs, paying for the research and legal expertise necessary to really have a shot at terminating gerrymandering — that’ll take anywhere from $250,000 to $1,000,000.

We’re hoping YOU can help us get to $150,000. And because we must win these cases, I’m personally going to match each and every dollar we raise with my own contribution.

Please chip in whatever you can afford today — even $3 will send a powerful message that the citizens of America won’t stand idly by as politicians protect their jobs instead of earn them.

Message from Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Thank you!

Friends — 

I have been traveling across the globe, but I had to take a moment to write you a quick note of thanks for joining me in the effort to end partisan gerrymandering.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, our work begins in earnest. You are on the front lines of this battle, and I’m grateful to have you with me in this fight. 
 
I can think of no better way to celebrate our patriotism after July 4th than boldly proclaiming that as American citizens, we stand united against gerrymandering and the broken political system it has created.
 
We stand against politicians choosing themselves and their jobs over the people. 
 
We stand for American citizens taking political power into their own hands. 
 
You’ve already done your part by donating — now make sure that your friends know we have the chance to make gerrymandering unconstitutional. 
 
Share your support on Facebook.
 

Together, we’re going to make Washington work for regular people again. 
 
I hope you had a fantastic fourth, 

Arnold

1 3 4 5 6 7 10