New Scheme to Smash 1st Amendment

I think we have to be consistent here. Either we are for free speech on campus for ALL professors and students or we are for it for NONE of them. If libertarians can be urged to sign a petition for Tatiana's free speech they can be urged to oppose a govt law pushed by those who want to shut up pro-Palestinian and anti-interventionist professors and students. Both have been done on this list in last week or so. (And I'm sure we'll all agree that if parties on either side start actually threatening people with violence or throwing stuff around or destroying property they are stepping over a line; and we can agree that there should be due process in deciding whether such incidents have occurred.)

Have I brought you over to that side, Bruce??

CM

LAST NIGHT

> Tatiana's support or lack of it for any political move by the US is
> irrelevant to the subject. This is a free-speech issue and nothing
> else.
>
LAST WEEK
> I'm not sure why Carol Moore is doing her usual thing here on the LPSF Discussion group,
> but her over cross-posting doesn't belong here.
>
> She's from Washington DC and doesn't really care about, nor keep up with, issues
> important to the LPSFers.
>
> Me, I'm a bit of a carpetbagger myself, one could accuse me of, being from SOCAL,
> but I stick to YOUR topics and things relevant to the LPSF. Regardless of the fact
> that I disagree with this particular article, it just doesn't belong here.
>
> Bruce
> From: Carol Moore in DC
> To: LPSF-Discuss ; WestCoastLibs ; LPWS-Debate ; lpaz-d ; WesternLibs ; Oregon_Libertarian_Dialogue

Dear Everyone;

Without any pro or con rhetoric - the ACLU has analyzed HR 3077 and two troublesome sections - Section 6 and Section 7. The url address is a copy of the analysis on Sec. 6 & 7 sent to the Chairman and Ranking member of the appropriate Senate committee. The ACLU's straightforward, neutral, non-nationalistic and un-jingoistic analytical comments on the Advisory Board and the campus access requirements are worth reading.

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=14952&c=42

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Carol Moore in DC <news@...> wrote:
I think we have to be consistent here. Either we are for free speech on
campus for ALL professors and students or we are for it for NONE of
them. If libertarians can be urged to sign a petition for Tatiana's
free speech they can be urged to oppose a govt law pushed by those who
want to shut up pro-Palestinian and anti-interventionist professors and
students. Both have been done on this list in last week or so. (And
I'm sure we'll all agree that if parties on either side start actually
threatening people with violence or throwing stuff around or destroying
property they are stepping over a line; and we can agree that there
should be due process in deciding whether such incidents have occurred.)

Have I brought you over to that side, Bruce??

CM

LAST NIGHT

Tatiana's support or lack of it for any political move by the US is
irrelevant to the subject. This is a free-speech issue and nothing
else.

LAST WEEK

I'm not sure why Carol Moore is doing her usual thing here on the

LPSF Discussion group,

but her over cross-posting doesn't belong here.

She's from Washington DC and doesn't really care about, nor keep up

with, issues

important to the LPSFers.

Me, I'm a bit of a carpetbagger myself, one could accuse me of, being

from SOCAL,

but I stick to YOUR topics and things relevant to the LPSF.

Regardless of the fact

that I disagree with this particular article, it just doesn't belong

here.

Bruce
  From: Carol Moore in DC
  To: LPSF-Discuss ; WestCoastLibs ; LPWS-Debate ; lpaz-d ;

WesternLibs ; Oregon_Libertarian_Dialogue

  Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:09 PM
  Subject: [lpsf-discuss] New Scheme to Smash 1st Amendment

I'm sure they'll find a way to ban ALL those noninterventionist
libertarian professors and campus groups. Next they'll tell us
if you work for the government or collect social security you
can't speak out publiclly…
From: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs [mailto:info@w…]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:01 PM
To: wrmea@m…
Subject: New ADL Scheme to Smash 1st Amendment

Israeli Lobby Slips Anti-Free Speech Bill Through House of
Representatives...
Bill Can Still Be Defeated in Senate if Citizens Act Now.

By Michael Collins Piper

The Israeli lobby has launched an all-out drive to ensure congressional
passage of a bill (approved by the House and now before a Senate
committee) that would set up a virtual federal tribunal to investigate
and monitor criticism of Israel on American college campuses.

Ten months ago the New York-based Jewish Week newspaper claimed that
the report by American Free Press that Republican members of the Senate
were planning to crack down on college and university professors who
were critical of Israel was "a dangerous urban legend at best,
deliberate disinformation at worst." In short, they were saying AFP
lied.

Now the truth has come out. On September 17, 2003 the House
Subcommittee on Select Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the
International Studies in Higher Education Act, which was then passed by
the full House of Representatives on October 21. The chief sponsor of
the legislation was Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a conservative Republican from
Michigan.

This bill is dangerous--a direct affront to the First Amendment and the
product of intrigue by a small clique of individuals and organizations
which combines the "elite" forces of the powerful Israeli lobby in
official Washington.

There are absolutely no grass-roots organizations supporting this
measure whatsoever. Instead, leading the push for Senate approval of
the House-originated bill, are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of
B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish Congress, and the American Jewish
Committee. Also lending its support is Empower America, the
neo-conservative front group established by longtime pro-Israel
publicist William Kristol, editor and publisher of billionaire Rupert
Murdoch's Weekly Standard which is said to be the "intellectual"
journal that governs the train of foreign policy thinking in the Bush
administration.

One other group has lent its support: the U.S. India Political Action
Committee, an Indian-American group that has been working closely with
the Israeli lobby now that Israel and India are geopolitically allied.

H.R. 3077 is innocuously worded and quite bureaucratic in its tone,
decipherable only to those with the capacity to wade through
legislative linguistics, but essentially it would set up a seven-member
advisory board that would have the power to recommend cutting federal
funding for colleges and universities that are viewed as harboring
academic critics of Israel.

Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the
House, and three by the Secretary of Education, two of whom are
required to be from U.S. federal security agencies. The various
appointees would be selected from what the Christian Science Monitor
described on March 11 as "politicians, representatives of cultural and
educational organizations, and private citizens."

In other words, it would be another federal "blue ribbon" panel akin to
the Warren Commission that ostensibly investigated the JFK
assassination and the now highly-suspect federal commission looking
into the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Gilbert Merkx, vice provost for international affairs and development
and director of the Centre for International Studies at Duke University
has echoed the fears of many when he charged that this so-called
advisory board "could easily be hijacked by those who have a political
axe to grind and become a vehicle for an inquisition."

In fact, the primary individuals promoting this effort to control
intellectual debate on the college campuses are known for having a
political axe to grind: they are all prominent and outspoken supporters
of Israel and harsh critics of the Arab and Muslim worlds. They are:
1). Martin Kramer, a professor of Arab studies at The Moshe Dayan
Center at Tel Aviv University in Israel; 2). Stanley Kurtz, a
contributor of ex-CIA man William F. Buckley Jr.'s bitterly anti-Arab
National Review Online and a research fellow at the staunchly
pro-Israel Hoover Institution; and 3). Daniel Pipes, founder of the
pro-Israel Middle East Institute and its affiliate, Campus Watch, an
ADL-style organization that keeps tabs on college professors and
students who are-or are suspected of being-critics of Israel.

Hiding behind the banner of defending America, these three-along with
the Israeli lobby affiliates promoting H.R. 3077-are claiming that they
are fighting "anti-Americanism" as it is being taught on the college
campuses.

Republicans in Congress have joined this chorus, preferring to allow
their constituents to think that this is an "America First" measure
when it is anything but that. Juan Cole of the History News Network
responds to this extraordinary twist on reality saying that the claim
of "anti-Americanism" is intellectually dishonest. "What they mean . .
. if you pin them down is ambivalence about the Iraq war, or dislike of
Israeli colonization of the West Bank, or recognition that the U.S.
government has sometimes in the past been in bed with present enemies
like al-Qaeda or Saddam. None of these positions is 'anti-American,'
and any attempt by a congressionally-appointed body to tell university
professors they cannot say these things-or that if they say them they
must hire someone else who will say the opposition-is a contravention
of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." The promoters are
also suggesting that this legislation would-in the words of the
American Jewish Committee-"enhance intellectual freedom on campus by
enabling diverse viewpoints to be heard," when, of course, the
legislation would do precisely the opposite.

Lisa Anderson of the Columbia University School of International and
Public Affairs says in response that "this plan . . . is not about
diversity, or even about the truth." Unfortunately, she doesn't choose
to tackle the Israeli lobby head on. Instead, she targets her ire at
the Republican conservatives who are acting as the Israeli lobby's
surrogates and says that this plan is "about the conviction of
conservative political activists that the American university community
is unsufficiently patriotic, or perhaps simply unsufficiently
conservative." What she should be saying is that these Republicans who
are carrying water for Israel are concerned that universities are
"unsufficiently pro-Israel."

The Republican House members who originally joined Hoekstra in
co-sponsoring this dangerous legislation should be named for the
record. They are:

. John A. Boehner (Ohio)
. John R. Carter (Texas)
. Tom Cole (Oklahoma)
. James Greenwood (Penn.)
. Howard (Buck) McKeon (Calif.)
. Patrick J. Tiberi (Ohio)
. Joe Wilson (South Carolina)

However, don't try to find out how your representative voted when the
bill came before the full House. Hoekstra asked for a suspension of the
House rules-which was approved-and made it possible for this
controversial measure to be passed with an un-recorded "voice vote"
wherein there is no record of how individual House members voted, or if
they even voted at all.

In fact, the measure passed by the House is precisely the very same
type of proposed "ideological diversity" legislation that AFP first
warned about, although, at the time, the measure was being kicked
around for possible introduction in the Senate by two prominent
Republicans, Rick Santorum (Penn.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.).

What happened was that AFP's initial report on the legislation gained
so much widespread circulation in e-mails being sent out nationwide
among American college and university professors and on the Internet,
even so far as the Arab world, that the resulting negative publicity
forced Santorum and Brownback to back off.

However, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) picked up their torch and
introduced H.R. 3077 in the House, containing precisely the language
that his Senate colleagues had intended to introduce until AFP blew the
whistle. To their credit, virtually every major American education
organization-including even the teacher's union, the National Education
Association-have raised their concerns about this campaign to muzzle
the free speech of teachers, professors and instructors. And the
American Civil Liberties Union has also protested this measure.

Critics say this is a new form of what has been known in the past as
"McCarthyism" and no matter what you may think about the late Sen.
Joseph McCarthy whose name rightly or wrongly inspired that
terminology, the truth is that this legislation is "McCarthyism" by
virtue of the popular definition.

The only chance to destroy this legislation and stop it dead in tracks
is for enough grass-roots citizens to rise up and demand that H.R. 3077
be put to rest. And believe it or not, the one senator who may be able
to stop it is Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy of Massachusetts. (See
accompanying story).

SIDEBAR
Contact Senate Members.
Urge that H.R. 3077 be shelved.

The Israeli lobby's pet project, H.R. 3077, innocuously named as The
International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003--and popularly
known as "Title 6"--is now before the Senate's Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions.

This committee is controlled by the Republican majority who are likely
to support the bill, but the ranking minority member is powerful Sen.
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) who has been-perhaps to the surprise of
many, including even AFP readers--an outspoken critic of Daniel Pipes,
one of the leading proponents of H.R. 3077.

Although it is not well known, Kennedy's second wife is an
Arab-American and he has become quite attune to Arab-bashing of the
type that Pipes engages in. As such--despite what one may think of
Kennedy's views on other issues--he is seen as a possible roadblock in
the way of final approval by the Senate committee of H.R. 3077.

For this reason, AFP recommends that those who want to work for the
defeat of this Israeli measure contact the offices of the following
senators--all of whom are Democrats with the exception of independent
James Jeffords of Vermont--and urge them to oppose H.R. 3077.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Be very precise in your language. Simply tell the
senators to oppose H.R. 3077--that it is an infringement upon the First
Amendment and a threat to academic freedom in America. Do not lecture
the senators about the power of the Israeli lobby or give them the
"facts" that have been reported in AFP. Rest assured that the senators
are well versed in the realities of the situation. Simply give them the
opportunity to say publicly that they have received a flood of calls,
letters and e-mails urging them to oppose H.R. 3077.

The list of senators is as follows:

Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.)
TEL (202) 224-4543c
FAX (202) 224-2417
senator@k...

Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.)
TEL (202) 224-2823
FAX (202) 224-1083
Tom Harkin (Iowa)
TEL (202) 224-3254
FAX (202) 224-9369
tom_harkin@h...

Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico)
TEL (202) 224-5521
FAX (202) 224-2852
senator_bingaman@b...

Patty Murray (Washington)
TEL (202) 224-2621
FAX (202) 224-0238
senator_murray@m...

John F. Reed (Rhode Island)
TEL 202) 224-4642
FAX (202) 224-4680
jack@r...

James M. Jeffords (Vermont)
TEL (202) 224-5141
FAX (202) 228-0776
vermont@j...

-------
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from this list:
http://www.mediausa.net/wrmea/subscribe.html

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Ron,

  I agree that creating another government "advisory board" is a bad move that will not solve anything. But I think it's a stretch to describe the ACLU brief cited below as "straightforward" or "neutral" when it completely ignores the elephant in the living room -- the strong left-wing bias that *does exist* among faculty members at most American universities.

  For the ACLU to talk all around a basic political reality which is acknowledged by honest people across the ideological spectrum is extremely disingenuous. Any discussion of the politics of American higher education that fails to recognize this reality can hardly be considered unbiased. What ought to be done to increase ideological diversity is a different question, of course.

Yours in liberty,
          <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Everyone;

Without any pro or con rhetoric - the ACLU has analyzed HR 3077 and two troublesome sections - Section 6 and Section 7. The url address is a copy of the analysis on Sec. 6 & 7 sent to the Chairman and Ranking member of the appropriate Senate committee. The ACLU's straightforward, neutral, non-nationalistic and un-jingoistic analytical comments on the Advisory Board and the campus access requirements are worth reading.

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=14952&c=42

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

I think we have to be consistent here. Either we are for free speech on
campus for ALL professors and students or we are for it for NONE of
them. If libertarians can be urged to sign a petition for Tatiana's
free speech they can be urged to oppose a govt law pushed by those who
want to shut up pro-Palestinian and anti-interventionist professors and
students. Both have been done on this list in last week or so. (And
I'm sure we'll all agree that if parties on either side start actually
threatening people with violence or throwing stuff around or destroying
property they are stepping over a line; and we can agree that there
should be due process in deciding whether such incidents have occurred.)

Have I brought you over to that side, Bruce??

CM

LAST NIGHT
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brucedcohen" <brucedcohen@c...> wrote:

> Tatiana's support or lack of it for any political move by the US is
> irrelevant to the subject. This is a free-speech issue and nothing
> else.
>
LAST WEEK
— In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brucedcohen" <brucedcohen@c…> wrote:
> I'm not sure why Carol Moore is doing her usual thing here on the
LPSF Discussion group,
> but her over cross-posting doesn't belong here.
>
> She's from Washington DC and doesn't really care about, nor keep up
with, issues
> important to the LPSFers.
>
> Me, I'm a bit of a carpetbagger myself, one could accuse me of, being
from SOCAL,
> but I stick to YOUR topics and things relevant to the LPSF.
Regardless of the fact
> that I disagree with this particular article, it just doesn't belong
here.
>
> Bruce
> From: Carol Moore in DC
> To: LPSF-Discuss ; WestCoastLibs ; LPWS-Debate ; lpaz-d ;
WesternLibs ; Oregon_Libertarian_Dialogue
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:09 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] New Scheme to Smash 1st Amendment
>
> I'm sure they'll find a way to ban ALL those noninterventionist
> libertarian professors and campus groups. Next they'll tell us
> if you work for the government or collect social security you
> can't speak out publiclly…
> From: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs [mailto:info@w…]
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:01 PM
> To: wrmea@m…
> Subject: New ADL Scheme to Smash 1st Amendment
>
> Israeli Lobby Slips Anti-Free Speech Bill Through House of
> Representatives…
> Bill Can Still Be Defeated in Senate if Citizens Act Now.
>
> By Michael Collins Piper
>
> The Israeli lobby has launched an all-out drive to ensure congressional
> passage of a bill (approved by the House and now before a Senate
> committee) that would set up a virtual federal tribunal to investigate
> and monitor criticism of Israel on American college campuses.
>
> Ten months ago the New York-based Jewish Week newspaper claimed that
> the report by American Free Press that Republican members of the Senate
> were planning to crack down on college and university professors who
> were critical of Israel was "a dangerous urban legend at best,
> deliberate disinformation at worst." In short, they were saying AFP
> lied.
>
> Now the truth has come out. On September 17, 2003 the House
> Subcommittee on Select Education unanimously approved H.R. 3077, the
> International Studies in Higher Education Act, which was then passed by
> the full House of Representatives on October 21. The chief sponsor of
> the legislation was Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a conservative Republican from
> Michigan.
>
> This bill is dangerous–a direct affront to the First Amendment and the
> product of intrigue by a small clique of individuals and organizations
> which combines the "elite" forces of the powerful Israeli lobby in
> official Washington.
>
> There are absolutely no grass-roots organizations supporting this
> measure whatsoever. Instead, leading the push for Senate approval of
> the House-originated bill, are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of
> B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish Congress, and the American Jewish
> Committee. Also lending its support is Empower America, the
> neo-conservative front group established by longtime pro-Israel
> publicist William Kristol, editor and publisher of billionaire Rupert
> Murdoch's Weekly Standard which is said to be the "intellectual"
> journal that governs the train of foreign policy thinking in the Bush
> administration.
>
> One other group has lent its support: the U.S. India Political Action
> Committee, an Indian-American group that has been working closely with
> the Israeli lobby now that Israel and India are geopolitically allied.
>
> H.R. 3077 is innocuously worded and quite bureaucratic in its tone,
> decipherable only to those with the capacity to wade through
> legislative linguistics, but essentially it would set up a seven-member
> advisory board that would have the power to recommend cutting federal
> funding for colleges and universities that are viewed as harboring
> academic critics of Israel.
>
> Two members of the board would be appointed by the Senate, two by the
> House, and three by the Secretary of Education, two of whom are
> required to be from U.S. federal security agencies. The various
> appointees would be selected from what the Christian Science Monitor
> described on March 11 as "politicians, representatives of cultural and
> educational organizations, and private citizens."
>
> In other words, it would be another federal "blue ribbon" panel akin to
> the Warren Commission that ostensibly investigated the JFK
> assassination and the now highly-suspect federal commission looking
> into the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
>
> Gilbert Merkx, vice provost for international affairs and development
> and director of the Centre for International Studies at Duke University
> has echoed the fears of many when he charged that this so-called
> advisory board "could easily be hijacked by those who have a political
> axe to grind and become a vehicle for an inquisition."
>
> In fact, the primary individuals promoting this effort to control
> intellectual debate on the college campuses are known for having a
> political axe to grind: they are all prominent and outspoken supporters
> of Israel and harsh critics of the Arab and Muslim worlds. They are:
> 1). Martin Kramer, a professor of Arab studies at The Moshe Dayan
> Center at Tel Aviv University in Israel; 2). Stanley Kurtz, a
> contributor of ex-CIA man William F. Buckley Jr.'s bitterly anti-Arab
> National Review Online and a research fellow at the staunchly
> pro-Israel Hoover Institution; and 3). Daniel Pipes, founder of the
> pro-Israel Middle East Institute and its affiliate, Campus Watch, an
> ADL-style organization that keeps tabs on college professors and
> students who are-or are suspected of being-critics of Israel.
>
> Hiding behind the banner of defending America, these three-along with
> the Israeli lobby affiliates promoting H.R. 3077-are claiming that they
> are fighting "anti-Americanism" as it is being taught on the college
> campuses.
>
> Republicans in Congress have joined this chorus, preferring to allow
> their constituents to think that this is an "America First" measure
> when it is anything but that. Juan Cole of the History News Network
> responds to this extraordinary twist on reality saying that the claim
> of "anti-Americanism" is intellectually dishonest. "What they mean . .
> . if you pin them down is ambivalence about the Iraq war, or dislike of
> Israeli colonization of the West Bank, or recognition that the U.S.
> government has sometimes in the past been in bed with present enemies
> like al-Qaeda or Saddam. None of these positions is 'anti-American,'
> and any attempt by a congressionally-appointed body to tell university
> professors they cannot say these things-or that if they say them they
> must hire someone else who will say the opposition-is a contravention
> of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." The promoters are
> also suggesting that this legislation would-in the words of the
> American Jewish Committee-"enhance intellectual freedom on campus by
> enabling diverse viewpoints to be heard," when, of course, the
> legislation would do precisely the opposite.
>
> Lisa Anderson of the Columbia University School of International and
> Public Affairs says in response that "this plan . . . is not about
> diversity, or even about the truth." Unfortunately, she doesn't choose
> to tackle the Israeli lobby head on. Instead, she targets her ire at
> the Republican conservatives who are acting as the Israeli lobby's
> surrogates and says that this plan is "about the conviction of
> conservative political activists that the American university community
> is unsufficiently patriotic, or perhaps simply unsufficiently
> conservative." What she should be saying is that these Republicans who
> are carrying water for Israel are concerned that universities are
> "unsufficiently pro-Israel."
>
> The Republican House members who originally joined Hoekstra in
> co-sponsoring this dangerous legislation should be named for the
> record. They are:
>
> . John A. Boehner (Ohio)
> . John R. Carter (Texas)
> . Tom Cole (Oklahoma)
> . James Greenwood (Penn.)
> . Howard (Buck) McKeon (Calif.)
> . Patrick J. Tiberi (Ohio)
> . Joe Wilson (South Carolina)
>
> However, don't try to find out how your representative voted when the
> bill came before the full House. Hoekstra asked for a suspension of the
> House rules-which was approved-and made it possible for this
> controversial measure to be passed with an un-recorded "voice vote"
> wherein there is no record of how individual House members voted, or if
> they even voted at all.
>
> In fact, the measure passed by the House is precisely the very same
> type of proposed "ideological diversity" legislation that AFP first
> warned about, although, at the time, the measure was being kicked
> around for possible introduction in the Senate by two prominent
> Republicans, Rick Santorum (Penn.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.).
>
> What happened was that AFP's initial report on the legislation gained
> so much widespread circulation in e-mails being sent out nationwide
> among American college and university professors and on the Internet,
> even so far as the Arab world, that the resulting negative publicity
> forced Santorum and Brownback to back off.
>
> However, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) picked up their torch and
> introduced H.R. 3077 in the House, containing precisely the language
> that his Senate colleagues had intended to introduce until AFP blew the
> whistle. To their credit, virtually every major American education
> organization-including even the teacher's union, the National Education
> Association-have raised their concerns about this campaign to muzzle
> the free speech of teachers, professors and instructors. And the
> American Civil Liberties Union has also protested this measure.
>
> Critics say this is a new form of what has been known in the past as
> "McCarthyism" and no matter what you may think about the late Sen.
> Joseph McCarthy whose name rightly or wrongly inspired that
> terminology, the truth is that this legislation is "McCarthyism" by
> virtue of the popular definition.
>
> The only chance to destroy this legislation and stop it dead in tracks
> is for enough grass-roots citizens to rise up and demand that H.R. 3077
> be put to rest. And believe it or not, the one senator who may be able
> to stop it is Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy of Massachusetts. (See
> accompanying story).
>
> SIDEBAR
> Contact Senate Members.
> Urge that H.R. 3077 be shelved.
>
> The Israeli lobby's pet project, H.R. 3077, innocuously named as The
> International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003–and popularly
> known as "Title 6"–is now before the Senate's Committee on Health,
> Education, Labor and Pensions.
>
> This committee is controlled by the Republican majority who are likely
> to support the bill, but the ranking minority member is powerful Sen.
> Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) who has been-perhaps to the surprise of
> many, including even AFP readers–an outspoken critic of Daniel Pipes,
> one of the leading proponents of H.R. 3077.
>
> Although it is not well known, Kennedy's second wife is an
> Arab-American and he has become quite attune to Arab-bashing of the
> type that Pipes engages in. As such–despite what one may think of
> Kennedy's views on other issues–he is seen as a possible roadblock in
> the way of final approval by the Senate committee of H.R. 3077.
>
> For this reason, AFP recommends that those who want to work for the
> defeat of this Israeli measure contact the offices of the following
> senators–all of whom are Democrats with the exception of independent
> James Jeffords of Vermont–and urge them to oppose H.R. 3077.
>
> IMPORTANT NOTE: Be very precise in your language. Simply tell the
> senators to oppose H.R. 3077–that it is an infringement upon the First
> Amendment and a threat to academic freedom in America. Do not lecture
> the senators about the power of the Israeli lobby or give them the
> "facts" that have been reported in AFP. Rest assured that the senators
> are well versed in the realities of the situation. Simply give them the
> opportunity to say publicly that they have received a flood of calls,
> letters and e-mails urging them to oppose H.R. 3077.
>
> The list of senators is as follows:
>
> Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.)
> TEL (202) 224-4543c
> FAX (202) 224-2417
> senator@k…
>
> Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.)
> TEL (202) 224-2823
> FAX (202) 224-1083
> Tom Harkin (Iowa)
> TEL (202) 224-3254
> FAX (202) 224-9369
> tom_harkin@h…
>
> Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico)
> TEL (202) 224-5521
> FAX (202) 224-2852
> senator_bingaman@b…
>
> Patty Murray (Washington)
> TEL (202) 224-2621
> FAX (202) 224-0238
> senator_murray@m…
>
> John F. Reed (Rhode Island)
> TEL 202) 224-4642
> FAX (202) 224-4680
> jack@r…
>
> James M. Jeffords (Vermont)
> TEL (202) 224-5141
> FAX (202) 228-0776
> vermont@j…
>
> -------
> To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from this list:
> http://www.mediausa.net/wrmea/subscribe.html
>

<image.tiff>

Dear Starchild;

You mean the ACLU is not an unbiased, neutral, straightforward organization? Say it isn't so! AND the Citadels of Higher Learning are chock-a-block full of left wing professors pushing their sinister ideological agendas??? AND in Congress the peoples there we elected to represent the peoples of the USA are pushing HR 3077 but are not doing so in the best interests of all the peoples of America???

Darn - myth after myth after myth - shattered by reality. Alas and alack Peach Yogurt. The slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes due becalm me in a sea of despair.... The darkness rises with the Sun and sends it Deep Shadows 'cross the Land of Milk and Honey... Woe is Me... Woe is Me.

So just how do you go about creating or imposing or enacting by fiat ideological diversity on college campuses? Beats the heck out of me.

There is a contrary situation where a South Bay High Tech VP is running for the Board of Governors of Dartmouth. He thinks the college is spending to much time and effort and resources on diversity courses. They should be instead concentrating on the core basics. He wants to stop the diversity programs.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,

I agree that creating another government "advisory board" is a bad
move that will not solve anything. But I think it's a stretch to
describe the ACLU brief cited below as "straightforward" or "neutral"
when it completely ignores the elephant in the living room -- the
strong left-wing bias that *does exist* among faculty members at most
American universities.

For the ACLU to talk all around a basic political reality which is
acknowledged by honest people across the ideological spectrum is
extremely disingenuous. Any discussion of the politics of American
higher education that fails to recognize this reality can hardly be
considered unbiased. What ought to be done to increase ideological
diversity is a different question, of course.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 05:11 PM, Ronald Getty wrote (in part):

So just how do you go about creating or imposing or enacting by fiat ideological diversity on college campuses? Beats the heck out of me.

  For government colleges, one solution would be to cut the funding of any institution where there are persistent complaints about ideological bias until it shows that it has implemented an ideological diversity plan and is making progress.

There is a contrary situation where a South Bay High Tech VP is running for the Board of Governors of Dartmouth. He thinks the college is spending to much time and effort and resources on diversity courses. They should be instead concentrating on the core basics. He wants to stop the diversity programs.

  That's another approach. I wish him luck.

Yours in liberty,
          <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Starchild;

First things first - why is money taken from taxpayers being sent to fund colleges in the first place? That is as Frederic Bastiat would say is forced philanthropy.

Secondly, who does someone report a college to so this someone or someones can cut off the federal funds? Sounds like another evil government bureaucracy. The evil bureaucracy creating all sorts of laws, rules and regulations on what ideological diversity has to be on the campus to get federal funds. With appointees and funds needed for funding the appointees. Then all sorts of lawyers with all sorts of hopefully public hearings to determine if the college was really not having ideological diversity. Then what do you do to re-authorize the funds when a college does create some ideological diversity? Bah Humbug!

You solve the problem the Libertarian way. Do not not use any taxpayer money to fund any colleges. Then a college can be as politically incorrect as it wishes. Because then they won't have to kowtow to some lengthy list of what you got to do to get federal funds. Thereby having to accept all the laws, rules and regulations dreamed up by all those idiot members of Congress to get the federal funds( taxpayers money).

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 05:11 PM, Ronald Getty wrote (in part):

So just how do you go about creating or imposing or enacting by
fiat ideological diversity on college campuses? Beats the heck out of
me.

For government colleges, one solution would be to cut the funding of
any institution where there are persistent complaints about ideological
bias until it shows that it has implemented an ideological diversity
plan and is making progress.

There is a contrary situation where a South Bay High Tech VP is
running for the Board of Governors of Dartmouth. He thinks the college
is spending to much time and effort and resources on diversity
courses. They should be instead concentrating on the core basics. He
wants to stop the diversity programs.

That's another approach. I wish him luck.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

Ron,

  This is all well and good, but if turns out to be too difficult in the short term to get the federal government to stop giving taxpayer money to higher education, I suggest my proposal as Plan B. No bureaucracy needed -- let the burden of proof be on the school that wants the money. Just the exercise of trying to prove they're ideologically diverse should do them a world of good. University types who complain about the process should be told something along the lines of "the big government you demanded is now mandatory. If you don't like it, then stop looking to the taxpayers for a handout."

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

Dear Starchild;

First things first - why is money taken from taxpayers being sent to fund colleges in the first place? That is as Frederic Bastiat would say is forced philanthropy.

Secondly, who does someone report a college to so this someone or someones can cut off the federal funds? Sounds like another evil government bureaucracy. The evil bureaucracy creating all sorts of laws, rules and regulations on what ideological diversity has to be on the campus to get federal funds. With appointees and funds needed for funding the appointees. Then all sorts of lawyers with all sorts of hopefully public hearings to determine if the college was really not having ideological diversity. Then what do you do to re-authorize the funds when a college does create some ideological diversity? Bah Humbug!

You solve the problem the Libertarian way. Do not not use any taxpayer money to fund any colleges. Then a college can be as politically incorrect as it wishes. Because then they won't have to kowtow to some lengthy list of what you got to do to get federal funds. Thereby having to accept all the laws, rules and regulations dreamed up by all those idiot members of Congress to get the federal funds( taxpayers money).

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 05:11 PM, Ronald Getty wrote (in part):

> So just how do you go about creating or imposing or enacting by
> fiat ideological diversity on college campuses? Beats the heck out of
> me.

For government colleges, one solution would be to cut the funding of
any institution where there are persistent complaints about ideological
bias until it shows that it has implemented an ideological diversity
plan and is making progress.

> There is a contrary situation where a South Bay High Tech VP is
> running for the Board of Governors of Dartmouth. He thinks the college
> is spending to much time and effort and resources on diversity
> courses. They should be instead concentrating on the core basics. He
> wants to stop the diversity programs.

That's another approach. I wish him luck.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

<image.tiff>

Dear Starchild;

To borrow an old phrase - while the " proof is in the pudding "(
whatever the heck that means) the Guvmint still gets to set
standards as to what ideological diversity means so a college could
qualify for guvmint read taxpayer money. Thus - sic transit gloria -
another layer of guvmint bureaucracy. And another reason for the
idiots in Congress to stick their thumbs in the pie and pull out a
plum. Money will then stick to their sticky fingers one way or
another.

It's time for another revolution in college funding. Cut off all the
taxpayer funding. Let colleges fund themselves where they pay their
own way.

Consider the working poor. A portion of their taxes goes to support
the UC college system. The likelihood of any memeber of the working
poor or their children being allowed into one of these elites is
about nil. Yet they have to pay the taxes which supports a system
they can't avail themselves of for a higher education. Yes, I know
some have made it. But for the vast great majority, like 99%, they
ain't gonna make it in there.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

Ron,

  This is all well and good, but if turns out to be too

difficult in the

short term to get the federal government to stop giving taxpayer

money

to higher education, I suggest my proposal as Plan B. No

bureaucracy

needed -- let the burden of proof be on the school that wants the
money. Just the exercise of trying to prove they're ideologically
diverse should do them a world of good. University types who

complain

about the process should be told something along the lines of "the

big

government you demanded is now mandatory. If you don't like it,

then

stop looking to the taxpayers for a handout."

Yours in liberty,
            <<< Starchild >>>

> Dear Starchild;
>
> First things first - why is money taken from taxpayers being

sent to

> fund colleges in the first place? That is as Frederic Bastiat

would

> say is forced philanthropy.
>
> Secondly, who does someone report a college to so this someone

or

> someones can cut off the federal funds? Sounds like another evil
> government bureaucracy. The evil bureaucracy creating all sorts

of

> laws, rules and regulations on what ideological diversity has to

be on

> the campus to get federal funds. With appointees and funds

needed for

> funding the appointees. Then all sorts of lawyers with all sorts

of

> hopefully public hearings to determine if the college was really

not

> having ideological diversity. Then what do you do to re-

authorize the

> funds when a college does create some ideological diversity? Bah
> Humbug!
>
> You solve the problem the Libertarian way. Do not not use any

taxpayer

> money to fund any colleges. Then a college can be as politically
> incorrect as it wishes. Because then they won't have to kowtow

to some

> lengthy list of what you got to do to get federal funds. Thereby
> having to accept all the laws, rules and regulations dreamed

up by all

> those idiot members of Congress to get the federal funds(

taxpayers

> money).
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> Starchild <sfdreamer@e...> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 05:11 PM, Ronald Getty wrote (in

part):

>
> > So just how do you go about creating or imposing or enacting by
> > fiat ideological diversity on college campuses? Beats the heck

out of

> > me.
>
> For government colleges, one solution would be to cut the

funding of

> any institution where there are persistent complaints about

ideological

> bias until it shows that it has implemented an ideological

diversity

> plan and is making progress.
>
> > There is a contrary situation where a South Bay High Tech VP is
> > running for the Board of Governors of Dartmouth. He thinks the
> college
> > is spending to much time and effort and resources on diversity
> > courses. They should be instead concentrating on the core

basics. He

> > wants to stop the diversity programs.
>
> That's another approach. I wish him luck.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/
>
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.