Monthly Archives: February 2017

n=_*0vxl6"m $A'c9# $eYo%=3lIkBD}77 x*~|yWUYwe7t^kv1YM,d^OxwWRo'[R3fMPV( 7cPjI*,"%i/^x{{i~j{R^!:}7U#z~pr[^%xRoA!v@?]n~nVk4"jbe c*o|1jQDBWw_-DZl:/i DtA)9zcG,&HJU!UGE Hg X-reL-5!(WyhMyAC[ o5tX k4(w!|uHxpT6H6lQuzHdrFhBObbZh7<*j6DYt%*):zLmTtT*]h%OU&./_uZ-Brt*n.J.b)]/%#wX&oWz| VO7d,:?0I!jSB`,[P/2;mPR1mZ~y.R3bXEw(y]Zu{mLvuW[D4;{Z>)-(/$|iz1sjwX6,Jp2PB)%i(1b(/T,}5;|J?^7 5;]{w I6 >[^,'d-?chl!,I%'1R_rN4 %Ar0L(>2@ >W_fEDf142I8QUg4HPU(9I(**dDDP$F$YyT3FN@1BD*4R<+GfqG9!_6`F*%HS^HT(LQ(S4H/aYMb 8$"hNCJB` )cYl&an= 'Qb$+ E# 8/UA 0M"L"L#"ExsKKYg` QaaE,ec.j|ut@dE->2*1)MyTYX80W,KYE' ,b*B[EY^F"'(qa4NbA0Le^aq&9UETp@)'RaF879dcH6zvvjH.H3EaH@a!$1,,OR)b3u2C+`!I}4`Fj#H,B|dc:> p&7rsWo+uq|;Zt o;gM!-Rlfv" _|7BJm%x|ZnW{k{[8[hM[E9J(z,N5jhmpdxo0%`lJn<"g9"HQ}sDIpsw_6(i+^uCu$=H>Nx)Y_j^krf?egNx=kukgAu+-e 3}9"CGloqs8X7dAi;9+=z9.ABx,^%=K>M1G0<8b^y"g~]/8w xXqQf4y=&g^w|>;lS /+Tbx4@UU{lt={v# #CN'7W=Ow'wZoqtv]YcneO'c!Bh8K;cidhDvczn+W5~iP@+'Zn0[$m' AAq {<3&I5&ho@m_MZ$bEB&} g]bZ=*ZmJw ]R0<]6W>YY>fY8:C9xe+C^Q|!J*u:tP7`ybO#'(@f8|9.N3K/z$fe^RvkIdvs3J"V;06'r`~C8!q*Uk4H^^TuS99 azW)ag3aHWzeUH9 qcNx54]- YH88RYWKV@mIlq41 3qh0: dS'i<9cn{+6pCXl4#Yi[dxQ|o:h02_42biA$JgzI5NU n0W+8MED6)Q[[I&5%o+IFW 2O^Tx@5O]>W3e&+V)vNbQ$?j4mpF8$ q%.f`x8%/,yu=Mp/BH_3.a,0-o<47%GT{V^Zp5^ATS]C (hlafnN_V$=tIh)li< Uto F@6ZSz;E4f~c{H)~nD%/j1tr&~9{Yg2 K _*NnEI ?aYd -du8p1Va6!b^lzVmOHQ`$?i/TP-e;:u0N8FA,K ah]&DP&xi4O ;*'_gIzC2&j7b:N/ M$EK}6_>,x ^{(vK&o 3.1W6seZCPFwgJhbb4x4xnoJkr3,*nu`)uj8p!^ZG;1~ms0A7o{zf2pa9tTx+q%{f6/7oI jGe[QWUteNY9v 2qxRE[|DH>", [DeY>DS)oS'4e4:d.xlHc(4YW1}8l)U|$jP}5*aHhN )Ja:pl."@UD{{>i7e|b ?U9XnmzoGi$zaGizt7-Jm`-"nHn ZEn{hgT`Ef?Ui>M;0E2(Ik@; k '96w_](&q i{mUSgdja_<9uFiCO}+~l!*,ybe,By3[qgk{sZm#G]mn;9x X3>qUw,I0n(l:i(&3-Cg v#Vn54w"ic$V3$pp:_0N1H6'e>xP'h&^55X::/fp;1nP$Cg%AQAx5+vqwl}Qx{:/V(.H_rNB!1z3<[h33ZGu?Q(1V{HB:C=4Q/pZ.I.SJZUY2,8M2f4RF@* vyF*7REuF/ gj==MwUt+0YJtp#lLt?.k]ulAprsX1@S Vj&01nF(yT2Ux&`8 )/Iy_0^nwOxl5wKuJ p1^ a8L9n1u.!a;Dp+F1v,ae#V|srsZ7!fl?Lv-x3ehFc@88ixFb!Wo3Z>7t{(Q1]-SXMl!D41j!&wloGi(1V[A0ncR"X Iir%3!Iwh]]1JV7.Z, `gd5s;}9Nbyb aSXID'qiCPgW$f'!5*o!(OF0 Z Z5uK@o6e,i#s8}`4|QK%~TiGPZX`,Qwn0..$-5d;7*C) ]01.4k!v60F=z4 a,8lf!vc-lr]H5u[v:{F)!UM,W^Nd "4/8vU'3;cG*fikE{+Rdba(@#TZ2+g=1"1[r dzit4*!6&Su4=:)Ps Z])zQT(0Tpc~=]pt~-n3H__~@$&"B>xtXFd?OOc.O%4:2iB&ss_.+J 9j( le q2%#[BcjwG4y9&q0%_;*`, !V~hH BjFyKfRL7=pP5yM;6Q&M$>+EQ3!jd% &]TGfu_|B05*},6j@Kk,"_V 6Rp]F1eSY43^7/4h!l-L)m>WDh8)hHT}JY|N7)*XE6MIPf(cP"a27DP" tgd[+6+!`S3#KqRnk@$C '2 r9TP .Z XN<2 Ui/]=8Ok`?'J.remkE 3rQB;=lz)y0#Jc'Bs#dh;)2 b!XY}xcD+AZ""o A^~ 7y^M_9 $#*G+6U>JOf6vZt&XPi 0`+g3vZz-?FC27qyq JUPhHlo6IIW4PA7?ln[[6!9i]Wqq1u(>n Ix]XOq)Xts S!v i9EqPI]K$=Jv5|6A4:!}a%i{N]uQPd/q(1:^?`@v1>W?'ojW*t>1{;Fh]C =~~lYf=l/U~. _< R G^Ikq.XM8!Eg^N/rv&A2Y,6S%1Uk]1bF)$$4CR|{p[^h%nFq}4A=6E,gde }J; Th%Fl5BD?xD`&EZ(!pBP(Tkz@N q4EOh>=&L]Ri0Q*W[ -]Ekc0rTGx'!zt5,kH)GP'D1CW5Tn"Z>MB8c_/k?yeZ@^E%SQd92s<{Qz(T$tMLleLDag9BB

Go here to read the rest:
Young people and free speech - The Economist (blog)

Since arriving in the White House, Donald Trump has upended many customs and norms, including many whose value was not fully appreciated before. But at least one tradition has proved impervious to his corrosive impact: the University of Chicago's reverence for free and open debate.

Trump's penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse. He has blurred the line between reality and fiction in a way that North Korean propagandists must envy. He has also converted many of his followers to notions they once rejected such as the ineffable charm of Vladimir Putin.

But he has also driven some on the left mad. On Feb. 1, at the University of California at Berkeley, self-styled anarchists attacked police and civilians, started fires and smashed windows in a successful effort to prevent an appearance by the venomous Breitbart News contributor Milo Yiannopoulos.

This time, the offending party is the president's first campaign manager and notorious apologist, Corey Lewandowski. He was invited by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, headed by longtime Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod, to participate in a closed, students-only seminar on Wednesday. Naturally, some at the university demanded that he be disinvited.

U. of C. Resists, which represents students and faculty, is one of four groups that signed a letter to Axelrod proclaiming that the institute should not "provide platforms" to "those who incite hatred and violence against refugees, immigrants and minorities."

Assistant philosophy professor Anton Ford offered a creative elaboration. "Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves," he told the Tribune's Dawn Rhodes. "The very ceremony of debating that is problematic."

But those objecting are using words in the same deceptive way as Trump and his confederates. In the first place, Trump's inflammatory words about Mexicans and Muslims do not amount to incitement, which refers to trying to produce immediate action. Had Trump actually incited violence, he could be criminally prosecuted.

Last year, the U. of C. was the site of a lecture by Angela Davis, a longtime leftist and former Communist Party USA leader which somehow went off without much notice. This is a woman once indicted for supplying guns to men who took over a California courthouse to force the release of prison inmate George Jackson. In the process, they took hostages and killed a judge.

Davis was acquitted, as historian Ronald Radosh has written, "despite her proven ownership of the murder weapons and a cache of letters she wrote to George Jackson in prison expressing her passionate romantic feelings for him and unambivalent solidarity with his commitment to political violence."

Lewandowski's sins, though they be as scarlet, don't come close to that level of reckless irresponsibility. If his opinions are dangerous, as I think they are, they are also well within the protection of the First Amendment. For him to be invited to defend Trump is exactly what freedom of expression is supposed to include.

Ford rejects the "ceremony of debate" as intolerable. But debate, particularly with those holding toxic views, is not a ceremony. It's the beating heart of a free, democratic society.

Shielding U. of C. students from exposure to Lewandowski wouldn't refute his views or convert those who share them. It would only prevent students from hearing what he thinks, gaining insights into how the campaign persuaded so many voters and responding to him.

The university, to its credit, firmly upheld its formal policy on free expression, which says that "debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed."

This is not the only school that insists on permitting speech that some abhor. There was Texas A&M, which in December allowed a talk by white supremacist Richard Spencer an event that moved thousands of Aggies to hold a counter-event at the football stadium. There was Berkeley, which refused to cancel the Yiannopoulos talk until violence made it too dangerous for anyone in the vicinity.

The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right. They also know that the only way to defeat bad ideas is to advance good ideas and that the time to get started on that urgent task is now.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Related articles:

This, dear white people, is how to look like a snowflake

What the Constitution says about impeachment

Trump is looking like a very weak autocrat wannabe

Trump's White House is falling apart

More here:
Free speech for Corey Lewandowski at University of Chicago - Chicago Tribune

VIDEOS: NEW UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE CHANCELLOR BEVERLY DAVENPORTBeverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking on first day at work | 1:25

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking to media on first day at work in Knoxville. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

1 of 3

UT Chancellor Jimmy Cheek offers words of advice for his successor, Beverly Davenport, at a reception during his last week as chancellor on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2017. Rachel Ohm/News Sentinel

2 of 3

Beverly J. Davenport, interim president at the University of Cincinnati, speaking in an open forum with faculty and students at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center on campus Monday, Nov. 7, 2016. Davenport is the second candidate to visit UTK. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

3 of 3

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking on first day at work

Jimmy Cheek offers words of advice for his successor

Chancellor candidate Beverly Davenport speaking at open forum at UTK

University of Tennessee Chancellor Beverly Davenport spent her first morning on the job Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, talking to students and media.(Photo: Michael Patrick/News Sentinel)Buy Photo

In her first interview on the University of Tennessee's Knoxville campus, new Chancellor Beverly Davenport said she doesn't think the state needs a law protecting free speech on college campuses and suggested she would work to reinstatefunding for UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion.

Davenport, who took office Wednesday as the first female chancellor at UT, also touched on the search for a new athletic director, outsourcing of facilities management jobs and Title IX issues in a wide-ranging discussion with members of the media Wednesday morning.

Davenport, 62, takes over from Chancellor Emeritus Jimmy Cheek, who is moving to a tenured faculty position in the College of Education, Health and Human Sciences. With a $585,000 base salary, Davenport will earn more than her predecessor.

She isinheriting a wide range of issues and said she has "a lot of listening to do" in her first few weeks on campus.

Among the most recent is a bill proposed by state lawmakers last week that aims toprotect free speech on campusafter a Breitbart News editor whose planned speech at the University of California, Berkeley, spurred violent protests that promptedcollege officials there to cancel the event.

Rep. Martin Daniel, R- Knoxville, a sponsor of the bill, said last week the legislation is "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking to media on first day at work in Knoxville. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

Davenport, who has a background in communications and comes to UT from the University of Cincinnati, where she most recently served as interim president, said she is a First Amendment advocateand proponent of free speech on campus, but doesn't see the need for a bill.

"It's a constitutional right. I don't think we need a bill," Davenport said.

She's also expected to work with state lawmakers when it comes to funding for UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion.Last year the state diverted more than $400,000 away from the office after conflicts with lawmakers over Sex Weekevents and a post on the office's website promoting the use of gender-neutral pronouns and advising against Christmas-themed holiday parties.

When asked by a reporter Wednesday whether that money, which was diverted to pay for scholarships for minority students, would be redirected, Davenport said "there will be funding."

"I will only be on a campus where every student is supported and made to feel welcome and important and safe," she said. "I wouldn't be on a campus if I wasn't committed to and wouldn't find revenue to support the programs that serve all of our students."

She also said communicatingwith state lawmakers is one area where universities, in general, need to improve.

"We say this when Im among administrators at national meetings, we say this all the time: 'We havent constructed our narrative very well. We havent told our story well enough,'" Davenport said."The burden is on us. The responsibility is on us to make that argument, to tell that story."

On the search for a new athletic director, Davenport said the university is "moving really quickly" but no firm timeline is in place for filling the post. She would not comment when asked to disclose the names of specific candidates.

"I have no doubt she'll make a great decision," said Lady Vols coach Holly Warlick."I think she's going to take her time. Do I want an AD yesterday? Yeah. But I think she's going to do her homework. She's going to do her due diligence. I think she's going to try to get the best fit here. I respect that. I want her to do that. We've got to get it right."

In an interview last week, Davenport also talked about the importance of education on Title IX issues, especially given that UT in July settled a $2.48 million lawsuit accusing the university of fostering a "sexually hostile environment" and mishandling allegations of sexual assault on campus, especially allegations made against athletes.

She reiteratedWednesday that Title IX and campus sexual assaults arethe issue that "probably keeps me up at night more so than any other issue that I deal with."

Davenport cited a meeting with Gov. Bill Haslam during her interview process as one thing that attracted her to Tennessee, but said she needs to research more his proposal to outsource facilities management on public college campuses. She said she would consider options for UT to opt out of the outsourcing proposal but "its certainly one of those topics I need to know more about."

An avid Twitter user, Davenport also expressed her excitement to be on campus Wednesday morning on Twitter and said it's one way Tennesseans both on and off campus can keep in touch with her - though it's not the only way.

"I will be outin as many places as I can be every day," Davenport said."I want them to know me some other way than through a Tweet, too. I will be out there.I will be visible."

University of Tennessee Chancellor Beverly Davenport spent her first morning on the job Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, talking to students and media.(Photo: Michael Patrick/News Sentinel)

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2ljVv5J

Continued here:
Davenport talks free speech, diversity, AD search on first day - Knoxville News Sentinel

Thursday, February 16, 2017

In a commitment to free expression, universities nationwide should be fostering speech in all forms, at all times. | Ajani Stewart/The Cougar

In the wake of protests in Berkeley, California, and the ensuing support for silencing speakers deemed upsetting by the left, we all should step back and reflect upon the idea that has made our society truly and classically liberal.

Free speech is more than a mere law; it is a defining principle of our society. It is not merely one among many competing values. Properly understood, it is a foundational value that supports all else that is good in our culture.

We hold this truth to be self-evident: that free expression, the foundation of a liberty-loving society, is granted to us by our creator and cannot be justly restricted by the institutions of man.

Those who believe government grants us our rights fail to comprehend this essential feature of the American tradition. If government grants us free expression, then it has the ability to constrict it by requiring that it be exercised in the proper place with proper consent.

I do not hold to that idea and neither should you.

The moment we give individuals the authority to decide where and when you can express your views, we relinquish the power to freely dissent. Being at liberty to do so is not merely a concoction to benefit the few; it protects us all no matter our race, religion or ideology. It provides universal benefit, and we must never lose sight of that basic truth.

In his immortal treatise On Liberty, John Stuart Mill described the virtues of free expression.

He said: He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. And further, The particular evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human racethose who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Even if a suppressed opinion may be erroneous, it often contains a kernel of truth. Since no view is ever perfectly formed, by the battle of wits we elucidate the unknown.This argument is not about law, but rather a personal responsibility to engage with those whom we disagree.

Any restriction on the expression of an opinion reduces the total knowledge of humanity and immorally robs from history the conclusions of our frank and honest debates.

The problem with confronting free speech with forceful demands that it be stopped is not that it runs counter to law the Constitution constrains only the government from such action, not individuals. The problem is that those actions trample the principle of liberty that a pluralistic society must cherish.

Rather than shout down speakers, we should hear them out (or not youre not required to listen) and then counter speech we find disagreeable with our own. If you truly believe your views are correct and important then you should use every opportunity to persuade others rather than banish dissent.

Shutting down discussion is merely a self-gratifying exercise rather than one of academic courage.The corollary to this notion is that any restriction on the locations where free expression can be conducted similarly constricts the voices of those who wish to be heard.

The only difference is that, where speech is restricted to designated places, the coercive force is exerted by administrators and police rather than by a mob. Free Speech Zones are, therefore, an aberration which have no place in a university setting.

Rather than talk about what areas of campus should be Free Speech Zones, an understanding of the rationale and importance of free speech should cause us to flip the argument around. Instead of designating a few areas as places where we allow the exercise of liberty, we should consider all of campus to be a place of free expression barring only the few requirements necessary for the functioning of the University.

For example, it would not be possible for a professor to teach if people were to protest inside her classroom.

By looking at the entire campus as a Free Speech Zone as the starting point, and only then limiting the few necessities, we make a statement of our values: We will no longer aspire to the bare minimum of the law but rather to the maximum of our principles.

In a commitment to free expression, universities nationwide should be fostering speech in all forms, at all times, and everywhere that does not diminish the ability of the school to perform its functions.

I urge our beloved University to similarly codify its own commitment to fostering dialogue, free expression and open inquiry by all students, faculty, staff and guests. The University of Chicago described the importance of and its commitment to this value in its Statement on Principles of Free Expression.

It is high time we make a similar pledge.

In Whitney v. California, Justice Louis Brandeissaid: If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

History senior Matthew Wiltshire is thepresident of College Republicans at the University of Houston. History senior Michael Anderson is the chapter president and Texas state chair of Young Americans for Liberty. Both can be reached at [emailprotected]

Tags: free speech, University of Houston

The Super Bowl is coming to Houston: what do you think?

Total Voters: 200

View post:
Guest column: free speech is essential to American liberty - The Daily Cougar

I have never been the biggest fan of Nick Cannon, and it has nothing to do with his leading role in the Rocky of marching band moviesDrumlineit is simply I have never quite understood what he brings to the table. One of the biggest ironies on network TV is that Cannon has been the main presenter for eight seasons of Americas Got Talent since he is bereft of any discernible skill.

It seems his judgment isnt much better. In what can only be described as a hissy fit at being reminded of his contractual obligations by NBC, he has quit the show. Spinning the tale to his advantage, Cannon is championing himself as a new guardian of free speech and a martyr of the overbearing corporate machine who has paid him a small fortune for simply grinning like a Cheshire Cat. All of this makes very little sense, for Cannon is hardly to AGT what Seacrest was to American Idol.So, what prompted a person in such a weak bargaining position to act in such a rash manner and bite the hand that is feeding him?

All of this arose out of a series of jokes that Cannon told on a standup comedy special of Showtime, which centered upon the basic theme that NBC does not like black people. I know that there are eyebrows now being raised, first and foremost that Cannon was paid to perform comedymore onthat laterbut what on earth prompted Cannon to take public potshots at his long term employer?

Maybe it is that Cannon possesses the subtle turn of phrase of Louis C.K. so the world could see the intelligence wrapped up in his prose? Not the case. Alternatively, is it his Chris Rock-like charisma, which permits a blistering social commentary without breeding animosity? Also absent. There is always the possibility that Cannon is one of those rare specimens, like Mel Brooks, who is just funny. Unlikely, but being fair to the man, he may have hidden depths so lets analyze the offending gags.

Exhibit A: I grew up like a real n****r. All that stuff. But I honestly believe, once I started doingAmericas Got Talent, they took my real n****r card. They did! Because then like these type of people started showing up to my shows.

Exhibit B: I cant do the real n****r stuff no more, because then theyll put me on TMZ.

Exhibit C: Thats what NBC is gonna stand for tonight: N****** better come on, cuz n****** be cussin, so n****** be careful.

If one were to think this was a one-off, a misjudged, unrehearsed routine that went awry, Cannon, dispelling any specter of doubt, told Howard Sterns show If they fire me fromAGTfor the things Ive said Ican sue them and create a whole new controversyNBC hates black people!'

There is one continuing theme throughout, which demonstrates Cannons wish to share a deeply held resentment at how he is made to present himself. Similarly, there is a common thread in the exhibits: that Cannon, or his writers, are just not funnyso NBC has a plausible defense to the accusation of not being able to take a joke.

Instead of firing Cannon, NBC simply reminded him of the fairly standard clause in most entertainment contracts that talent should not do anything which might disparage the brand of their employer. To put it into context, one would not expect that Michael Jordan would joke about shoddy workmanship of Nike sneakers or that an actress would speak badly of the studio that produced her latest film. This is not just basic common sense that should obviate the need of a contractual clause, but also elementary law.

Now comes every lawyers nightmare, when dealing with clients. Rather than taking the hint, saying thank you for not firing me and shutting up, Cannon took umbrage. He threw his toys out of the pram at being told to comport himself and adhere to basic standards, like any other employee of the company and declared that he was quitting the show. Moreover, Cannon seems to be laying blame, not upon his own stupidity, but at the feet of others in his Facebook post.Maybe it was my mistake for signing the contract in the first place, in which I will take full responsibility and have already taken action to restructure my own team of advisors. This is double speak for getting rid of his legal team.

While Cannon wishes to turn this debacle into questions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it is neither. The First Amendment should not be used as a smokescreen for disparaging and denigrating language in breach of contract, especially when a person has profited from such words by accepting fees for the comedy special. For Cannon to attempt invoke the language of Dr. Martin Luther King as justification for his ill-thought actions and manipulate a self-destructive path, born out of celebrity, over privilege and over payment into a wider race issue, detracts from the genuine problems that currently exist.

The Exhibits above, while not exemplars of comedic genius, do evidence that there is a tension within Cannon between his identity and his previous role. With such baggage and behavior, even TMZ would doubtless demand a strong non-disparagement clause before going down the precarious path of hiring Cannon.

Robert Garson is Managing Partner of Garson, Sgal, Steinmetz, Fladgate LLP, an intellectual property and international litigation firm in New York, and a leading representative of corporate whistleblowers. He is also a barrister qualified in England and concentrates on IP and First Amendment matters.

More:
Free Speech Is No Defense for Nick Cannon's Rant on NBC - Observer