Power Line has video and details. Here's an excerpt from the L.A. Times (no link because the Times site pointers seem busted):
Jim Gilchrist, the Aliso Viejo accountant who co-founded the Minuteman Project, was forced offstage seconds into his speech at Columbia University on Wednesday night by students who said his anti-illegal immigration message was not welcome in New York.
Gilchrist, who was invited by the Columbia University College Republicans, was unharmed but was unable to continue speaking as planned and was forced to leave the stage after an altercation with students....
The Columbia melee began after two students rushed from behind the stage toward Gilchrist and unrolled a banner that read in Spanish, English and Arabic, "No One Is Illegal."
Seeing the two, others in the audience ran toward the stage, including about two dozen who managed to get onto the 3-foot-high platform, past security guards and ropes, where Gilchrist was only a few words into his speech.
The lectern was knocked over and Gilchrist fell back, smashing his reading glasses....
No one was arrested. The incident was videotaped and shown on TV newscasts....
Oh, and here's a lovely quote from one of the "protest" participants, Columbia junior Ryan Fukumori (a board member of the Columbia Asian American Alliance and treasurer of the Columbia International Socialist Organization:
These are racist individuals heading a project that terrorizes immigrants on the U.S.-Mexican border .... They have no right to be able to speak here.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Jon Stewart on the Minuteman Protest at Columbia:
- Columbia Responds:
- Thugs Block Free Speech at Columbia University:
Sk
It is still good to pass it around.
You should have called for action. The police should have arrested the people that disrupted the speach. Then the speach should have continued.
You should be asking WHY he left? Why the police didn't clear the stage? Why the police were not ready for the violence? They should have expected it.
The Left will someday learn that it is not wise to violently stop people from speaking. That day will be when the people rushing the stage are meet with violent force. The Left does violence because they KNOW NOBODY will call them on it. They are not prepared for anything else. They have the violence of children never taught any better by permissive parents. Someday they will learn. I just hope the lession isn't fatal.
(Tho this notion in comments that the "Left" has a monopoly on violence is rather odd.)
I agree, though--why aren't these thugs arrested for assault? Were I Gilchrist, I'd press charges as far as the law would go. Actions have consequences--teaching these thugs that lesson is more important than any particular position on the complex immigration issue.
A little odd to assume a few college students are indicative of 'the Left', like they're elected representatives or something. Casting stones?
Sk"
WHy is that?
For instance when I was part of student government I thought it was negligent the way the student government year after year gave tens of thousands of dollars to grad student minority recruitment and routinely passed resolutions supporting affirmitive action in the strongest possible terms without any examination of whether these programs were ultimately effective at addressing racial inequality or even what the programs were really aimed at doing (are they a reparation? pragmatic fix?). For instance it always seemed to me that spending money on minority grad recruitment was an incredibly inefficent use of funds because instead of increasing the number of high performing minority college grads it just tried to poach them from other universities or non-academic jobs.
However, it is important to realize these are just as much a radical fringe of the left as David Duke and other racist types are of the right. While I am disgusted by the way these people act I just want to emphasize that it is by no means reasonable to indict the left for their behavior than it is to indict republicans for the actions of crazy militias, white supremicists and christian fundamentalists who want to bring about the second coming.
I think a lot of the issue is that some people just enjoy being righteous, and getting to lock themselves to fences and indignantly break the law to stop 'horrible things'. These people naturally just gravitate to causes that let them behave this way and in college that is being on the left. I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years a lot of the same people are calling into the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh at the time (though probably a little bit less likely to go out and protest now that they have kids).
Now that we are living in a lawless society, it's especially important for those who wish to return to the rule of law to act in accordance with democratic principles. It may take another revolution to re-establish the republic, but violent suppression of speech only plays into the hands of the propagandists, allowing them to tar the entire opposition with the acts of a few.
"The Left will someday learn that it is not wise to violently stop people from speaking."
Yah and the right will someday learn to stop trying to seduce 16 year old boys and supporting racists.
I mean jesus christ this is just dumb. We can all name people on both the left and right who are total fuckups and support horrible policies. Unless your willing to generalize from everyone who says they are a republican/conservative/right wing then it's obviously inappropriate to do it for people who say they are on the left.
I didn't think the right supported homosexuality at all, let alone homosexual relations with those under 18.
As for supporting racists, I have found that those on the right generally oppose racial discrimination, while those on the left support it. They call it "affirmative action."
It's amazing to watch people label MLK as a racist and try to claim the moral high ground, all in the same breath.
Since we're on thuggery, have all those casting stones at "the Left" forgotten about the restrictive policies in place, and the casting out of Others, when Bush goes off to give a speech at one photo op or another?
Rich Americans are so quick to tell you how bad things are for themselves, aren't they? I'll bet any of the commentors who are ready to call these people "illigals" would choose the imperfect set of freedoms enjoyed by our former accountant, over those of the day laborer from Oaxaca.
So many conservatives have turned substantially from being fans of freedom to fans of priveledge...in just the last two years. Have immigrants been ruining your life in ways that I don't see?
Are you ready for the enormous dislocations that'll come if you do get your giant fence along the border? You'd object if I called it a new Iron Curtain, but only because it doesn't inhibit your freedoms. Your passport is good anywhere but North Korea.
"Love this."
"That was fucking AWESOME."
"I love this stuff."
Can you give us an example for people being arrested for merely criticizing Cheney?
Of course, I'm just making this up, but since something like that is within the realm of possibility, why not see if I can get a quote on the Today Show.
logicnazi, I know your racists and pedophiles comment was meant sarcastically, but it needn't be. It does reflect poorly upon "the right" that it has not done more to distance itself from racists, and it reflects poorly on anyone who knew about the Congressman's e-mails if they decided to take no action on it.
dimitrir's point that "the left" and "the right" aren't really organizations that can learn or act with one purpose, but broad movements, should of course be factored in when assessing my previous statements.
Personally I find immigration restrictions to be bad policy, but am outraged whenever speech is stopped with violence. You'll find that many people here said the same thing about letting the President of Iran be able to talk.
MLK a racist? Wasn't he the guy who thought people should be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?
That seems to me to be about the most concise description you could find of the conservative position on this issue.
- Alaska Jack
Mark me down as one of those who, like Kevin P., would like to see an example of someone arrested for simply criticizing Cheney. I am unaware of any such event. If you can provide such an example, I will gladly criticize it, if that makes you feel any better.
- Alaska Jack
I noticed that in all of the pictures of the "riot" that there was this guy in a green helmet in several places.
Was he the same green-helmeted poser that Bernstein wrote about staging all of that fake bombing over in Lebanon when the Lebanese people misinterpreted the Israeli Air Forces dropping of flowers and chocolates as bombs?
Time will tell.
But I agree, there is something very fishy about that videotape.
Fukumori is at least elected, I would imagine, as a "boardmember."
A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq.
www.rockymountainnews.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/blair1.html
I just happened to read this a day or two ago, so remembered it.
That seems to me to be about the most concise description you could find of the conservative position on this issue.
Yeah, except conservatives seem to love that one line, while ignoring that MLK actually supported affirmative action in no uncertain terms.
Opposing affirmative action hardly honors the spirit of MLK. It's just politically convenient to try and co-opt his legacy.
Please leave out the blather about David Duke, or the neoNazi fringe - these are not conservatives in any respect, or by any stretch.
As for as the Iranian president, it seems to have been decided that Columbia should not invite a speaker whose best line is "Death to America". We can all have our own opinions about the wisdom of that. But, if they had invited him, you can have 10-1 odds from me that there would be no mob rushing the platform. Let me know the next time another such miserable bastard is scheduled to get on a platform; maybe you'll want to take the odds.
I described a political position as being racist. Are you saying that MLK is some Christ-like figure who is by definition anti-racist; rather than having to defend his actual positions?
I'm saying that lumping him in with the racists does tend to undercut your overly glib point, yes.
This seems like a pretty simplistic take on it. Essentially, your criticism is that the above quote "cherry picks" one of MLKs assertions, while ignoring others. Fine, but isn't that also a critique of *your* position? I mean, you're doing the same thing -- picking and choosing those parts of MLK's massive oeuvre which conform to your own ideological biases.
Like a lot of great thinkers, that fact is that MLK said contradictory things at different times.
I am reminded in some ways of our founding fathers, who articulated principles of human freedom and dignity that we all now accept as correct, while themselves failing to live up to those principles in practice. We look back now and say it was the principles that are correct, not their practices. A conservative, I suspect (I'm not one), would say something similar about MLK.
- Alaska Jack
I'll stipulate that these leftist college radicals aren't typical of left-leaning Americans in general and that radicals on the right can act just as badly, but there are two important distinctions between them and the likes of David Duke. The first difference is the fact that their positions and actions are countenanced by those in authority rather than condemned. The second difference is that they are very bright students at America's most prestigious educational institutions. That means they compose the population from which the left-leaning leaders of the future will come. Do you seriously think that "crazy militias, white supremicists and christian fundamentalists who want to bring about the second coming" are going to spawn the future leaders of the Republican Party? You yourself refer to them as being on the fringe. Looking at Congress and the Governorships, fundamentalists are significantly underrepresented considering the size of their voting block, Clergy who get themselves elected to office are overwhelmingly likely to be Democrats, and the only Klansman sits on the Democratic side of the aisle.
If Columbia and other universities don't impose some civility and discipline then how are these children going to learn not to conduct "public discourse" in this manner once they grow older and move on to the adult world?
Frankly, I wonder if colleges shouldn't prohibit protests and counter-demonstrations and instead require dissidents to either hold their own event at a different time or arrange for a proper debate. Perhaps they are government institutions to such an extent that this would be an impermissable violation of the First Ammendment, but it seems as if there is a compelling interest in preserving public safety and order here and it could be argued that nobody is actually being deprived of their right to free speech. As with permits for parades and demonstrations, that right is simply being regulated in accordance with state interests.
True, they prefer to prevent people from voting -- much more effective. George Soros needs to buy one of those voting machine companies.
Spawn, I love it!
I read the link. Turns out the guy was arrested for allegedly *pushing* the VP. He protested his innocence, investigation disclosed he was innocent (and had merely verbally criticized Cheney) and was released. He's suing for false arrest. Or, so the cited report says.
If the report is accurate, it was certainly an error, but I really don't see much evidence of deliberate suppression of speech. You shouldn't provide links if you're going to misrepresent the content (at least not on this blog).
Nice to know what they didn't learn in High School. I'm sure Columbia will teach them otherwise (said ironically).
Just like it was/is politically convenient for civil rights leaders to talk about colorblindness while actually pushing for preferences. Why is MLK above reproach? Affirmative action is racist in the plain meaning that it involves making assumptions about people based on the color of their skin. It doesn't develop saintliness just because MLK advocated it. Like MH said, defend the position.
What part of "arrested for verbally criticizing" eludes your comprehension? Now run along and spawn some future Republican leaders.
Is that the best you can do?
Is that the best you can do?
No, but I save the less mediocre stuff for more evolved bigots.
Nice to know what they didn't learn in High School. I'm sure Columbia will teach them otherwise (said ironically).
If they do that, he'll never grow up to be Preznit.
No, not in the least. MLK was consistently and forthrightly in favor of affirmative action. It's just a bunch of conservative revisionists who have decided, "Wait, if you envision a color-blind society, you can't possibly be in favor of using anything other than color-blindness to get there!"
Here is an article I endorse. Look, I have no problem with anyone being against affirmative action - it's just the people who pretend that MLK would agree who bother me. Imagine if I used some quote of Ronald Reagan's to argue in favor of communism, and when you pointed out that Reagan was staunchly anti-communist, I said "Gee, maybe he just took different positions at different times!"
Unless they want an abortion. Then they automatically morph into complete adults capable of fully understanding the consequences of their decisions. Funny how that kid/adult borderline moves around based on the political argument you are trying to make.
Violence is the secondary basis of all law enforcement. If social pressure won't work to prevent people from violating the laws then society is left with the choice of either using compulsion or accepting lawlessness. Note that I'm not saying that lawlessness is an absolute quality when laws are allowed to be flouted, but it does create some degree of lawlessness and that is contagious. "Why should I obey this law if they can ignore that law?"
The fact remains that we have a system by which people may legally immigrate to this country. If that system needs to be changed in your mind then there exists a method by which that may be accomplished. I see no benefit to leaving the law unchanged and arguing that we should allow it to be violated at will. That violates a rule of fairness that any second grader could perceive. You don't allow people to cut in line just because they happen to be standing near the front of the line and are willing to do so; that is unfair not only to everyone already in line but also to everyone not in line who happens not to be standing near the front of the line. Aside from all other considerations, allowing illegal immigration is unjust to those who would like violate our immigration laws but are inconveniently located on some other continent.
The Mexican economy is actually the tenth largest in the world and has the highest per capita GDP in Latin America. The problem is not one of a lack of wealth but of a gross inequality of distribution. Lower income Mexicans are hamstrung by corruption and cronyism in the political system such that significant barriers are put in the way of entrepreneurs in order to favor the interests of the existing business owners and that severely limits growth and job creation. According to Transparency International, an estimated 1% of Mexico’s economic production goes to pay bribes for government officials and the poorest families can pay up to 14% of their income in bribes. Meanwhile, Mexico’s taxes are among the lowest in the hemisphere. At 12% of GDP, Mexico’s taxes are less than half of those of Brazil or the USA. This significantly reduces the amount of revenue available for basic services such as education, infrastructure, and law enforcement.
At a single dinner in 1994, the President of Mexico collected US$750 million in campaign contributions from the thirty assembled oligarchs. No sane politician would endanger those connections unless faced with widespread discontent among the masses but if the Mexican people are so poor, why are they not exhibiting exactly that kind of discontent? Because the country’s elite wave the fantasy of success in the United States under their noses and a bunch of silly gringos are helping them. Instead of agitating for change in their own nation, 6.72 million of Mexico’s 106 million person population (that's over 6% of the general population and over 9% of Mexico’s labor pool) has immigrated to the United States. (Other sources put it at 10% of the Mexican general population and 15% of the Mexican workforce but I wanted to be conservative.) Last year Mexicans in the United States sent US$20 billion back home through banking networks and are suspected to have carried an additional US$4 to 6 billion in hard currency back across the border. That means that last year these remittances were the second largest segment of the Mexican economy. Only the oil industry was larger and remittances are expected to exceed oil revenues in 2006 despite record oil prices. Over 30 nations have GDPs that are smaller than the amount of money sent back to Mexico last year by Mexicans living in the United States. That's more than sixteen times what Google is considering paying for YouTube. That's serious money and inflicts major damage on our balance of payments. And considering the budget deficit and trade deficit, and overseas expenditures for our military adventures, our balance of payments was already crappy.
An estimated 7.1 million Americans are unemployed. The number of non-Americans illegally working in this country is estimated to be 7.5 million. According to theories of supply and demand, this increase in available workers should act to depress wages in the US. In 1966, two years after the US ended a twenty-year guest farm worker program with Mexico, César Chávez and the United Farm Workers union negotiated a 40% wage increase from grape growers in the San Joaquin Valley.
Does that qualify as harm?
I'm ok with saying that my nation's institutions and culture are so good that we have to build a fence to keep out people from other nations that refuse to imitate our institutions and culture. If they aren't happy with their own nations then it is incumbent upon them to agitate for change because it would be paternalistic for us to step in "for their own good since they are incapable of ordering their own affairs."
If Mexicans want to be in the US so bad then why aren't they asking us to annex them as a protectorate similar to Puerto Rico?
Oh Donald; you make feel like I'm in a pissing contest with a urinal!
I've heard Bollinger speak on the First Amendment (which I believe is his area of scholarship) and he should use this as an example to show how serious he really is about protecting that right.
This is one of the most descpicable incidents I've heard of in a long time. The students who assaulted the speaker should be expelled from Columbia and prosecuted by the Manhattan D.A. And the smart one with the quote in the NY Sun should be forced to sit through a long seminar on the meaning on the First Amendment.
For what it's worth, I consider myself a liberal and favor an open border immigration policy.
And, lawstsoul, thrown in a "Bush blew up the levies" reference and you'll have covered your hippie-posing quota for the evening.
Until then, keep up the razor-sharp analysis.
Analysis? Nah, I'm just having fun.
OBTW, Bush was completely unaware of and indifferent to any problems with the levies, so I don't know where you got the idea that he blew them up. And he only posed as a hippie back in the days when he was trying to score some blow. Now go flush yourself.
I spent two years on double secret probation, and let me tell you it was no picnic!
MLK was consistently and forthrightly in favor of affirmative action.
I never said he wasn't. But he certainly articulated *principles* that would seem to be belied by his advocacy of *specific policy implementations*.
I simply pointed out that the founders -- many of them, anyway -- did this as well, signing on to a document proclaiming that all men are created equal. Doing so put them in the position of weighing the long-term ramifications of those principles against the more immediate consequences to them and their loved ones. Tragically, many acted in such a way as to mitigate the immediate impacts rather than the noble principles. Fortunately, the passage of time has given us a larger viewpoint. We are not contrained by immediate circumstance as they were (or thought they were, in any case), and can more easily see that what individual founders may have seen as utilitarian necessity was in fact the wrong thing to do, regardless of expediency.
It's just a bunch of conservative revisionists who have decided, "Wait, if you envision a color-blind society, you can't possibly be in favor of using anything other than color-blindness to get there!"
Obviously you can, because many do. But don't try to pretend there's no contradiction between these two positions. Many honest AA advocates have wrestled with this. Is it, or is it not, OK to treat people differently because of the color of their skin, and for no other reason? Which is it? If it's OK, then why aspire to a "color-blind" society in the first place? Why not use race-based social engineering to accomplish a whole range of goals?
- Alaska Jack
Thanks for proving my point.
As for the Cheney incident, in order to be arrested for pushing someone there needs to be a complaining witness. Since the facts seem to show this guy did not in fact shove the VP, the question is who complained to the police and lied about what happened (a crime in most places) to get the guy arrested? And why did the police not conduct a more thorough investigation before slapping cuffs on someone--as would happen if the alleged victim was anyone other than a high-ranking government official?
Many countries have guarantees of free speech but those guarantees are eroded either by the actions of thugs or gangs or by officials who arrest dissenters on specious legal charges (disturbing the peace, libel or corruption, for instance). Fortunately, these kinds of things don't happen routinely in the U.S. but that means when they do happen, they should be swiftly condemned by anyone interested in a free society.
Why struggle for a bon mot when a cliché is so readily at hand.
"Interference With Government Administration" is a nice catchall charge, frequently brought against those who protest too much.
But the whole left allows this to happen on campuses across the country without objection or criticism. Maybe a few extremists do it, but everyone else on the left-comtrolled campuses (most campuses) accepts it.
It's important for liberals that are truly concerned with engaging the issues to want a dialogue. If someone is so convinced that their position is correct then if people have more information they should agree with the position. As president of my school's chapter of ACS I'm proud to say that all but one of the events we are hosting this year are being co-sponsored by the school's Federalist Society (all of them are debates between liberal and conservative professors on current hot topics).
Sounds like Gilcrist is a pussy.
"Jim Gilchrist founded the multi-ethnic Minuteman Project on Oct. 1, 2004, after years of frustrated efforts trying to get a neglectful U.S. government to simply enforce existing immigration laws.
Jim holds a B.A. in newspaper journalism, a B.S. in business administration, and an M.B.A. in taxation. He is a former newspaper reporter and a retired California CPA (Certified Public Accountant).
Jim is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps and recipient of the Purple Heart award for wounds sustained while serving with an infantry unit in Vietnam, 1968 - 1969.
Mr. Gilchrist is a passionate defender of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and an avid supporter of law enforcement organizations. He has appeared on over 1000 radio and TV news and commentary shows in the past twelve months, and he believes he is only one of millions of 21st century minutemen / women / children who want the U.S. to remain governed by the "rule of law" and who want proactive enforcement of our national security protections and our immigration legal code."
Feel better?
You mean, like disagreeing with a professor?
I guess leftists are pretty offended when someone doesn't share their exact viewpoint. So it's really not a big deal when "activist" students throw bricks and scream obscenities, they have been so tortured by these intruding opinions, wiping their (metaphorical) feet on leftist dreams. Puts that whole issue of engineered famines and re-education into a new light huh.
The REICH wing has monopolized violence for too long with their Kent State and imperialist adventures. It is time to roll back the calenders to year zero or something.
"I just received a call from the President of Network 20/20. The talk was canceled because the Polish Consulate had been threatened by the Anti-Defamation League. Serial phone-calls from ADL President Abe Foxman (left) warned them off hosting anything involving Tony Judt. If they persisted, he warned, he would smear the charge of Polish collaboration with anti-Israeli antisemites (= me) all over the front page of every daily paper in the city (an indirect quote). They caved and Network 20/20 were forced to cancel.
"Whatever your views on the Middle East I hope you find this as serious and frightening as I do. This is, or used to be, the United States of America." -- Tony Judt
As far as the bullshit in Germay in concerned (Idomeneo) if the director had included a head of Moses he would have risked charges. Free speech is limited in Germany. As far as this country is concerned, along with Judt, there's the "My name is Rachel Corrie" and also McNally's Corpus Christi.
But still, "free speech" has to do with government intervention and law, not public response. Not that I give a shit, but since you're getting huffy and that idiot David Bernstein posts here...
P.S. I have not known a human being, including myself, who at one time or another has not been a hypocrite.
I am a graduate student at UC Berkeley--so if what you say is true it certainly should be evident at this prototypical left-liberal institution. It is not.
Just today, I passed by a group of people holding up pictures of dead, cut-up fetuses comparing abortion to the Holocaust. Sure, there were people arguing with them but no violence or anything of the sort. Michelle Malkin came to speak here several months ago and there were protestors who attempted to shout her down and disrupt the event but campus security was effective enough to stop them. I think those kids wound up looking pretty foolish to non-radical-left-wing types who, yes, are a majority even at Berkeley. Your claim that either the campus administration or a large proportion of the student body accepts this kind of activity strikes me as quite false.
Fair enough. I also think it reflects badly on the left that they don't do more to condemn this sort of behavior.
However, there is a distinction between failing to sufficently critisize and doing yourself. I just found it a bit troubling the way some comments seemed to be talking as if "the left" was some organization that took coherent positions on things like this. I agree completely with the sentiment you cited from the other commenter.
However on MarkM's point about this not being visible on UC Berkeley:
I believe there was a situation several years ago where students wouldn't let a pro-israeli speaker talk (not through violence but just chanting and the like). I think there have been some other incidents like this but they are rare and I think disapproved of by a large fraction of 'the left' on campus.
Also several years ago it was also far too common for groups to go around stealing all the daily cals/daily planets when they felt they had published something offensive. Thankfully this practice has been cracked down upon. I think (but not sure) that the city may have passed an ordinance against it (and the city of berkeley government is clearly part of the left if anyone is).
However, I should also remark that I disagree with your premise that UC Berkeley is so left leaning. Yes it has a history/reputation of being particularly leftist but as a public school it is mostly filled by people who don't really care and even has a quite large conservative contingent (some mainstream christian group is the largest campus group).
Sure there is a visible minority who tries to carry on this reputation of leftism but I don't think it is appropriate to compare the UCB enviornment to that at a small private liberal arts college in that at UC Berkeley more conservative voices do have a reasonable support base amoung students, e.g., it isn't like you can't find people on campus supporting bush. Also it's possible the free speech movement legacy has had an effect on attitudes at UC Berkeley.
In other words where I would most expect that censoring sort of behavior to be most apparent and most approved of is on campuses that are monolithically liberal which UC Berkeley is not.
However, while I think the left could do more to comdemn this behavior I doubt it is behaving any differently than the right would in a similar situation. There are plenty of supporters of the right who feel certain sorts of ideas are anti-american or whatever and wouldn't critisize someone who shouted down these ideas. Now I recognize that the more sober and respectable members of the right don't approve of such behavior and people on the right should recognize the same about the left.
This is simple stuff, kiddo. You want to make an argument do a better job.
speechassociation and right to contract but those guarantees are eroded either by the actions ofthugs or gangsunethical CEOS orby officialsmanagers whoarrestfiredissentersunionizers on specious legal charges (disturbing the peace, libel or corruption, for instance). UnfortuntelyFortunately, these kinds of thingsdon'thappen routinely in the U.S. but that means when they do happen, theyshould be swiftlyare rarely, if ever condemned byanyone interested in a free society.conservatives.You know, free association and everything. Corporations, much like thugs, don't have the power to coerce.
"Interference With Government Administration" is a nice catchall charge, frequently brought against those who protest too much.
However, I wanted to respond to some earlier points about affirmitive action and a color blind society. While I'm a pretty big critic of affirmitive action (I think it is negligent to implement it without having good reason to believe it works) it is perfectly consistant to believe in a color blind society and believe affirmitive action is a good way to get there. I mean do you think it is inconsistant to believe in a peaceful society and think that the death penalty is an acceptable way to get to that?
What many of the pro-affirmitive action people tend to believe (which I don't agree with) is that a color blind society will only be achieved when you have corrected for the discrimination of the past and that a society that started treating everyone 'equally' right now wouldn't be color blind as minorities would still be burdened by past discrimination. A second claim they make is that there is still plenty of unconcious discrimination and hence afirmitive action is just giving minorities an equal chance.
I don't find these arguments compelling. What I do find compelling is the pragmatic argument that racial inequality creates tension in society and hence ought to be corrected. Thus while a color blind society is the ultimate goal we may need to engage in non-color blind policies to correct this inequality beforehand or risk permanent racial ill will. (Now if just they could show afirm action was actually effective).
Ultimately it just comes down to the fact that they aren't using color blind in the same way you want to use it. They either mean a factually equal society or are using it as an ultimate goal after we have fixed the problems of racism. You may not agree with them but they aren't being inconsistant.
What we need is to start with the little children and teach them the work ethic and drive to achieve, and interest in learning. The problem is the culture of poverty and lack of ambition that they grow up in.
(I believe a rep from the columbia college gop mentioned that s/he was displeased that the Iranian president didn't speak).
Some of us actually do know the place well, you know.
Did you read the note by Tony Judt (the famous leftist)? I suggest you do.
If you did and you still chose to wrote the comment above, you're even more of an idiot than I thought
The problem is that too many administrators don't have the guts to say to students, "I don't care what Prof. Smith said in his 'Social Struggle and Revolution' course. You are expelled."
http://www.counterpunch.org/blair1.html
he was arrested for protesting outside of the "free speech zone." That's a distinctly Orwellian idea, complete with the inversion of meaning, so shame on Bush and Cheney for... Oh wait, it was introduced under Clinton.
Well, shame on Bush and Cheney for continuing this violation of our rights. (And I mean that seriously.) Just don't try to make a partisan issue out of it. If you've got a workable plan to create a third party that isn't full of wingnuts and actually will elect candidates that actually will protect our rights, I'm in. But until that time, treating this as liberals vs conservatives or Republicans vs Democrats is to miss the point: it's the professional politicians against the rest of us.