Free Speech Not Present at Some Universities

by Walter Brasch

        Like most Jews, Benjamin Aaron Shapiro, a respected journalist, is an advocate for social justice, following the Jewish concept of Tikun Olam, literally translated as “repair of the world.” Unlike most American Jews, Shapiro is a conservative whose views of the nation are closer to those of Ted Cruz than of Bernie Sanders.

        Shapiro is a summa cum laude graduate of UCLA, and an honors graduate from the Harvard University school of law. He backs up his views and political philosophy with facts, historical allusions, and a strong interpretation of the Constitution. His conclusions and opinions, however, often go far outside what even the far-right believe.

        He says “Sesame Street” and “M*A*S*H” are left-wing propaganda, and “Happy Days” has a theme of pacifism. He is a strong proponent of gun rights legislation and an opponent of the “Black Lives Matter” social movement. His speeches, syndicated newspaper column, and his radio commentaries sometimes lead to civil disorder, often begun by those who don’t share his ultra-conservative views.

        One of Shapiro’s six books is Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth (2004), published shortly after he graduated from UCLA. What happened at a few universities affirms some of the argument in that book.

        In February, the president of Cal State/Los Angeles cancelled a forthcoming speech by Shapiro after students claimed what he had to say would be “hate speech.” President William Covina said Shapiro could speak at a time when a suitable opponent was found; however, Shapiro pointed out that Cal State allowed liberal speakers without having a conservative respondent. Covino reversed his position three days before the speech.

        On the day of the speech, several hundred students blocked the entrances of the Student Union Building, intimidating those who wanted to hear what Shapiro had to say, and blocking those inside the building from leaving. The Daily Caller, a conservative newspaper, reported there were several fights outside the building. Following the speech, students moved to the president’s office, held a sit-in, and demanded his resignation for allowing the speech. Cal State later charged Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), the sponsoring organization, $621.50 for additional security; it did not charge other organizations that brought speakers to the campus.

        In April, Shapiro spoke at Penn State; several dozen protestors shouted, banged on the doors to Sparks Hall, and played pre-recorded music at a high volume, trying to disrupt Shapiro’s speech, according to The Daily Collegian. The title of his speech was “When Diversity Becomes a Problem: The Fascist Nature of Liberalism.”

        Last week, DePaul University blocked an invitation by the YAF chapter to host Shapiro. Citing the Cal State and Penn State episodes, the 24,000 student Catholic university in Chicago, according to an official statement, “determined, after observing events which took place when Mr. Shapiro spoke elsewhere, that it was not in a position to provide the type of security that would be required to properly host this event at this time.” DePaul’s argument—one of safety—was a lame way to deflect criticism that it was blocking free speech. Certainly, a university with a large on-campus police force and a Campus Violence Prevention Plan and the ability to ask local community police for additional protection should not have been able to hide beneath the cloak that the words of one person threatened campus security.

        In 1644, before the English parliament, poet John Milton boldly spoke out against censorship, arguing that mankind is best served when there is a “free and open encounter” of all ideas. It was a revolutionary concept in an empire that required printers to get a license and be subjected to the whims not only of a monarch but the government as well. “Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?” Milton rhetorically asked.

        In the 18th century, Lord Blackstone, one of the kingdom’s most distinguished jurists, spoke against prior restraint of free speech and of the press. The views of Milton and Blackstone became a basis of The First Amendment, one of the most liberal parts of the U.S. Constitution. It was this amendment that assured freedom of the press, speech, and religion; that amendment allows people to peacefully assemble and, if they wish, to protest government actions; it gives the people the right to petition the government for a “redress of grievances.”

        During the next two centuries, others cemented this belief into American law. In the mid-19th century, philosopher John Stuart Mill stated, “We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.” At the beginning of the 20th century, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that democracy is best served in “a marketplace of ideas.”

        The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, developed by the United Nations after World War II, declares “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion . . . [and] the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which implies the right . . . to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information regardless of frontiers, information and ideas through any media whatsoever.”

        America’s First Amendment applies only to government interference, and not to the suppression of free speech in the private sector. But, every university should be a place where all views are heard, analyzed, and debated. Professors in several departments—including history, political science, criminal justice, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and journalism—could have had discussions about Shapiro’s speech and made it a “teachable moment” within the confines of their own discipline.

        Instead of blocking opposing views, students should be aware that the solution to shutting down opposition beliefs is not by censorship or prior restraint, but in applying Milton’s belief that facts and civil discourse will allow truth to emerge.

        [Dr. Brasch, an award-winning journalist and professor emeritus of mass communications/journalism from Bloomsburg University, is a liberal Jew and an ACLU member and officer. For more than four decades, he has been an outspoken advocate in defending the First Amendment rights of all people, no matter what their political, religious, or philosophical views are. His current book is FrackingAmerica: Sacrificing Health and the Environment for Short-Term Economic Benefit. The book includes numerous examples of how local and state governments, working with the oil/gas exploration industry, have breached First Amendment rights.]

The Art of the Double-Dealing Megalomaniac

by Walter Brasch

      Savannah State University in Georgia will offer a three-credit course this summer, “The Trump Factor in American Politics.” The professor is Dr. Robert Smith, who says the students will read Trump’s policy statements and excerpts from Trump’s books, and then discuss his political philosophies.

      Many people may believe this is a terrible waste of any student’s mind and tuition payments. Some may even claim there are other courses that have higher value in the American educational system. For example, Rutgers offers “Politicizing Beyonce,” Skidmore College offers “The Sociology of Miley Cyrus,” the University of Missouri offers a class to better understand Kanye West and Jay Z, and hundreds of colleges have courses that look at the lives and views of strange people known as philosophers.

      To understand Donald Trump, who may be the greatest political philosopher in recorded history, is as critical to understanding America’s future as it is to understanding the motivations and philosophies of the creature from the black lagoon.

      First, it is important to realize that Trump has gone beyond Freud in understanding the human mind. The father of psychoanalysis said the psyche has three parts—id, ego, and superego. Trump added The Donald as the fourth part, one level greater than the superego.

      Milton, Locke, and Mill believed mankind is rational and capable of great thought. Plato, Hobbes, and Machiavelli believed mankind is selfish and incapable of rational thought; they believed in the presence of a strong ruler to explain to the masses how wrong they are about the world and their own despicable lives. Trump, of course, the political genius he is, merged the two opposing philosophies—he listens to the far-right and usually-wrong masses, tells them what they want to hear, and then plans to subjugate them to the power and wisdom of Trumponian Law, a variation of Bentham’s philosophy of utilitarianism, which has humans weighing the good against the bad, and then selecting the good. Trump, of course, believes the Greater Good, a Trump theocracy, will always outweigh all other considerations.

      Another basic tenet in the Philosophy of Trump is that the affluent, with full access to all parts of the elite power establishment, lure the disgruntled masses to believe the philosopher-king, who claims to be an outsider, is one of them, thus solidifying the political base to rule and suppress the masses by continually flaunting his own superior knowledge of the universe.

      Most post-18th century philosophers believe ethics results from the rational mind, something not many Fortune 500 CEOs believe. Trump, as he explained in his major philosophical thesis, The Art of the Deal, believes all decisions do not come from the head or the heart, or from decency and a sense of justice, but must come from the gut. This is why he plans to make haggis and sausage the national dish after November.

      While pandering to the mass psyche, Trump believes in the divine right of kings, of which he is fairly sure he has been anointed by whatever god he currently has created. Thus, we can look forward to a new age of enlightenment, under the reign of Donald the One. There is no evidence he will select a vice-president since kings don’t have vice-kings. They do have courtiers.

      Trump’s advisor on the climate and energy is super-conservative Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who believes in fracking and doesn’t believe most scientists who say there is climate change. For his health advisor, Trump selected Ben Carson, a surgeon who doesn’t believe in evolution.

      Sarah Palin has already said she would not mind becoming Courtier for the Department of Education or the Department of Energy, both of which she says she would dismantle after playing with children and atoms. To those who don’t support the Divine Donald, Palin says she will wreak retribution upon their souls.

      Chinese philosopher Confucius believed political unity and stability must be at the core of any government. For most of his campaign to be king, Trump didn’t care about unifying anything; Trump’s philosophy is to upset DesCartes. But, the closer he gets to the coronation, the more he wants unity; his belief is that all elements of the universe must now unify behind his wisdom and power.

      Most dictator-kings develop a powerful military to protect their kingdom’s borders and to instill fear and compliance in their subjects. However, Trump has shown his wisdom by calling for more military while also calling for a lesser military, and then keep the military wondering about his sanity. His first attack was to declare that Navy pilots confined in enemy prison camps weren’t heroes. But, since America needs heroes, he plans to keep America in a constant state of war, mostly to justify increased spending for private business. Just in case the military decides that a four-year war isn’t good for anyone’s health and safety, Trump plans to destabilize the Veterans Administration by selling it off to private enterprise. (He also plans to sell off the national parks and forests to private enterprise, which would allow hunters to kill off all wolves, while neutralizing CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.)

      Trump wants to get the U.S. out of the UN and NATO, which almost every responsible politician and military commander says would destabilize the world. Sen. John McCain, a retired Navy captain, claims Trump is “uninformed and dangerous” when it comes to foreign policy and national security. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a retired Air Force colonel, says Trump’s philosophy is “gibberish.” None of this should detract from the reality that great minds, like the alchemists who turned lead into gold, may know more than all foreign policy experts.

      Many philosophers have expressed their belief in racial homogeneity, the need for people to be pure and, if possible, Aryan. To protect the United States against invasion of people who don’t have light skin and orange hair, Trump wants to build a wall on the Mexican border, and then have Mexico pay for it. Trump doesn’t believe the $20–$50 billion cost would upset the Mexican government, which once owned much of the southwest until it was stolen from them. Although the Great Wall of China was breeched by the Mongols, Hadrian’s Wall was over-run by the barbarians from Scotland, and the Maginot Line was circumvented by the Germans, Trump is sure his wall will keep poverty-stricken Mexicans from invading the U.S., and stealing the remaining jobs as underpaid and exploited maids, cooks, and gardeners. To keep out Muslims, which he is sure are the root of all evil, he’ll nail a million slices of bacon to the wall; of course, it may also keep Jews out of the country, but since most of his followers believe Jews are the reason for every other problem in the country, it’s a side bonus. To keep Hindus and Buddhists out of the U.S., he’ll build a 2,000 mile moat filled with alligators, cattle, cowboys, and butchers. (Trump may one day decide to build a wall separating the U.S. and Canada, something the Canadians may be especially pleased to help build.)

      Trump plans to deport 11 million undocumented, and mostly Hispanic refugees, from the U.S. It will cost $150­–$300 billion, and destabilize millions of families, most of whom have parents and children who work, go to school, and have helped improve the quality of the work force. (To make sure people don’t think he’s a bigot, Trump rounded up dozens of news cameras to record him eating an $18 taco bowl, made by an Irish chef, for Cinco de Mayo.)

      To keep the population stable after he deports 10 percent of the country, Trump plans to contract with private enterprise to package fresh-frozen road kill, allowing the Southern Red Neck nation to prosper, reproduce, and own trailers.

      Trump’s brilliance in economic philosophy is best explained by the fact that since he amassed a billion dollar fortune by selling real estate and bankrupting several of his own businesses he is a better judge of how to spend everyone’s money.

      Prof. Smith’s students at Savannah State are fortunate to be at the forefront of studying the life and beliefs of this emerging mega-philosopher who has already shown greater wisdom than Socrates and Solomon, greater concern for the world than Schweitzer and Mother Theresa, and is at least as knowledgeable of economics as Scrooge McDuck, as competent in foreign and domestic affairs as Joe the Plumber, and shares as much empathy for tolerance, understanding, and human relations as Klan Grand poobah David Duke, one of his supporters.

      [Dr. Brasch has covered government and politics for more than four decades. His  latest book is Fracking America, the only comprehensive overview of the history, process, and effects of high volume horizontal fracturing. The book also looks at numerous social, economic, and political issues, including the relationship between the oil/gas industry and politicians.]

             

     

A Call for Fair Pay for College Athletes

by Walter Brasch

     Some people foolishly believe the purpose of a college education is to further one’s education. To explore new cultures and views. Perhaps to help make a difference in the world.

     They, of course, are wrong.

     The purpose of going to college is to party, make contacts, and get a job.

     Sometimes the job is as a shift manager at a fast food restaurant.

     Sometimes it’s as a professional athlete.

     March Madness, the nation’s annual tribute to tall teenagers who can dunk a basketball, is now over.

     A few of the starters will become professional basketball players this year; some in the next year or the year after that.

     The University of Kentucky and Duke University, among a few other Division I powers, in the spirit of getting students jobs, have changed their mottos to “One and Done.”

     That means they recruit the best high school basketball players. They train them. They give them national exposure. And they get them ready to get a job after only one year in college.

     That job pays an average of $4 million a year.

     That’s 10 times what the president of the United States earns, and about 100 times what a social worker or firefighter earn.

     Obviously, reverse layups and 30-foot three-pointers are more valuable to society than helping the poor or rescuing people.

     Division I basketball powers may claim they exist to provide new experiences for all their students. This is just a PR whitewash.

Colleges have been mostly unfair to their future professional athletes. You know, the ones who are exploited and then expected to make a few million dollars a year and shovel over a chunk of that to the Alumni Fund.

     We need to get rid of restrictive NCAA rules and pay these athletes. Not just scholarships and room-and-board, but, an actual salary. With benefits. Maybe disability insurance and a retirement plan.

     We need to eliminate the philosophy that elitists like Joe Paterno had. You know, that having one of the nation’s highest graduation rates for football players was even more important than winning games.

     So, let’s dump those stifling NCAA rules and make college what it should be. A place to fill stadiums and get jobs for athletes.

    [Dr. Brasch is an award-winning journalist, and author of 20 books. His latest book is the critically-acclaimed Fracking Pennsylvania.]

Divesting America of Ozone-Destroying Energy Sources

by Walter Brasch

    Long before the price of gas and oil began to plummet, socially conscious churches, universities, non-profit organizations, and local governments began to divest themselves of fossil fuel stock and shock the fossil fuel industry to understand the environmental and public health concerns.

    The World Council of Churches, which represents about 590 million Christians in 520,000 congregations, decided in July that to continue to hold fossil fuel stock would compromise its ethics, and recommended that the 349 member denominations consider divesting oil and gas stock.

     Six of the eight Anglican dioceses of New Zealand and Polynesia, and four dioceses in Australia divested their portfolios of fossil fuel stock.

     In the United States, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist churches became the first denominations to begin to divest themselves of fossil fuel stock. Both denominations have a long history of fighting for social justice.

     Also divesting are Quaker, Episcopal, and several other denominations. Several synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America have passed resolutions asking the national board and local churches to divest themselves of fossil fuel stocks.

     The Union Theological seminary, with a $108.4 million endowment, became the nation’s first seminary to divest itself of fossil fuel stock. The Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, the seminary’s president, explained the decision: “It is ever clear that humanity’s addiction to fossil fuels is death-dealing—or as Christians would say, profoundly sinful.”

     Several religious groups that have shares in Chevron asked the corporation in 2011 to go “above and beyond regulatory requirements” to protect the environment and public health. Chevron flippantly dismissed the request. The corporation claimed, it “is already committed to meeting or exceeding all applicable laws and regulations [and the suggestions] would merely duplicate Chevron’s current efforts and thus would be a waste of stockholder money.”

    College students, staff, and faculty have been active in pushing their institutions to eliminate fossil fuel stocks from their portfolios. The result has been an awareness of a social issue that was not seen since students pressured their colleges to divest funds in tobacco companies and in corporations that dealt with the apartheid government of South Africa.

    “If we don’t deal with climate change now, we consign our grandkids to an unlivable planet,” said Unity College president Dr. Stephen Mulkey. Unity, which became the nation’s first college to divest its endowment portfolio of fossil fuel stock, specializes in environmental and natural sciences.

    Among three dozen colleges and universities that have committed to divesting their portfolios of fossil fuel stock are Foothill–DeAnza Community College, Green Mountain College, Humboldt State University, San Francisco State University, the University of Dayton, and Hampshire College, which in 1977 in protest of apartheid policies, was the first U.S. college to eliminate all stocks related to South Africa.

    Pitzer College, a liberal arts college in Southern California, divested about $4.4 million of its $5.5 million in fossil fuel stock in December, and pledged to work to eliminate most of the rest of the stock in fossil fuel industries. The college has about a $124 million endowment.

    Stanford University announced in May it would no longer hold stock in the coal industry, but did not include divesting oil and gas stock in its $18.7 billion endowment fund. About 300 Stanford University professors published an open letter to the administration this month to request the university divest itself of all fossil fuel stock. Among the signers were Drs. Elizabeth A. Hadley, senior associate vice-president; Donald Kennedy, former Stanford president; Roger Komberg, Nobel Prize winner in chemistry; and Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Prize winner in physics.

    However, Harvard University, whose $32.7 billion endowment is the largest among educational institutions, doesn’t plan to eliminate fossil fuel stocks from its portfolio. Harvard President Dr. Drew Gilpin Faust told the New York Times that in spite of wide-scale student protests, eliminating fossil fuel stocks is not “warranted or wise,” and that the university’s portfolio is “a resource, not an instrument to impel social or political change.”

    David Crane, CEO of NRG, one of the nation’s leading energy providers, said he didn’t “relish the idea that year after year we’re going to be educating a couple million kids from college, who are going to be American consumers for the next 60 or 70 years, that come out of college with a distaste or disdain for companies like mine.”

    The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, founded on income from oil exploration and development, declared in October it would divest fossil fuel stock. Stephen Heintz, president of the $860 million philanthropic foundation, said his executives had already divested its portfolio of coal and tar sands stocks. Heintz said the Foundation will invest in more renewable energy companies.

    Several dozen U.S. cities and counties, as early as 2012, have begun the process to divest themselves of fossil fuel stocks and to urge their independent pension boards to divest. San Francisco in April 2013 began divesting about $580 million of fossil fuel stock, and by 2019 will stop purchasing stock of any company associated with fossil fuel exploration and development. Seattle, Wash., Mayor Mike McGinn in December 2013, a month before leaving office, asked the city’s pension board, which oversees a portfolio of about $1.9 billion, to “begin exploring options for moving existing investments from fossil fuel companies.” The city had $17.6 million invested with ExxonMobil and Chevron.

    Investing in renewable energy, especially with the increase in jobs in those industries and the rapid decline in the costs of solar and wind energy to consumers, appears to be the better investment strategy—and one that sends a message that protection of public health and the environment, combined with stopping the destruction of the ozone layer, is far more important than destroying the Earth.

   [Dr. Brasch, an award-winning social issues journalist, is author of 290 books, including Fracking Pennsylvania, an in-depth look at the effects of high volume horizontal fracturing.]