Colleges Being Remade Into "Repress U"?

The Nation has up a sobering article from its upcoming issue about how colleges and universities are being turned into homeland security campuses, in the name of preventing homegrown radicalization. Quoting: "From Harvard to UCLA, the ivory tower is fast becoming the latest watchtower in Fortress America. The terror warriors, having turned their attention to "violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism prevention' — as it was recently dubbed in a House of Representatives bill of the same name — have set out to reconquer that traditional hotbed of radicalization, the university."

Comments

Free Speech Areas

[ShakaUVM]

I think I'm more troubled by the "designated free speech areas" that are springing up on campuses everywhere.

Not because people can (sort of) speak freely there, but colleges are banning free speech everywhere else.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Aeron65432]

Agreed. This is one area where it's an advantage to attend a state-university than a private one.....public universities have to afford you the Bill of Rights. If you're on a private campus, they can do whatever the hell they want. (not exactly, but more than a public university)

Moreso, it'd be better if we had this article from a newsworthy source...not an article as blatantly partisan as the Nation. (For the record Reason magazine or National Review would be wrong, too)

Re:Free Speech Areas

[DustyShadow]

Reasonable restrictions on speech is allowed even by state and federal government. For example, the school in the "Bong hits for Jesus" case was free to punish that kid who was allegedly disruptive to the school's activities.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Original Replica]

"Bong hits for Jesus" is the perfect example of just how over-controlling schools are becoming. Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school's policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event. So in the eternal bloating of government, students are now subject to the law of the school board even when they are not on school property. The fact that it was a "school sanctioned event" is irrelevant. The kid wasn't being disruptive to the schools activities he was being harmlessly disruptive to the Olympic torch passing. If you think that qualifies as a reasonable restriction you need to snap out of your sheep's mentality. Rights, like free speech, are not something that the government "allows". They are inherent to all humans, in places they are repressed by governments, in places they are repressed by cultures, but they always there. The difference is not trivial. In fact it is central to a free society.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Captain Splendid]

Hell, various European nation student bodies have maintained significant political clout over the years... Why not ours?

Well, it's either one of two things:

a) You are a nation of pussies.
b) The powers that be have been slowly tipping the balance of power in their favour over the last 50 years, turning you helpless.

Option a) is the popular choice, but I'm firmly a believer of b). You're not asking for it, you're getting raped.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Sylver Dragon]

I think it's more along the lines of it was first 'a' and now it's becoming 'b'.
The American people gave up on taking responsibility for themselves when the Great Depression hit. They had screwed up and instead of working themselves out of it, they turned to government to fix it. Ever since, when troubles arise, instead of working it out themselves, people turn to government to fix it. It should be no surprise that our leaders have used that blind trust and faith to garner power and money for themselves and their cronies. The end result is where we are now, the people have given up their superiority over their government and unless we the people decide it's time to take responsibility for ourselves, and actually do it, it's going to be a fun ride into whatever form of tyranny we end up with (I've got my money on a "Brave New World" type central authoritarian system).
And to think, I consider myself a patriot. But, I'm not so blinded by it to be unable to see that we have screwed up royal and that we're in trouble.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[StarvingSE]

The kid was being silly, but he was also making a political point. The political point wasn't "Bong Hits for Jesus," it was that he should have the right to say something as silly as that.

This is a country whose government allows skinheads/KKK to parade in downtown Toledo and lets the westboro baptist church protest soldiers funerals. Yet, saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" gets you yanked out of school and into court.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[CajunArson]

He might not have been standing on school ground, but he was out of his normal class with school permission under school control at a school sponsored event. The kids are in school to learn, they had no "right" to see the torch go through, but they were still let out and the kid abused the privilege. He also expressly refused to put the sign away when the teachers who were there (because it was a school event) told him to. The sign was factually shown to be disruptive... he did it to grab attention and it worked. If you want to see how an actual political protest IS allowed in schools see the Tinker decision in which case there was an actual political protest that did not disrupt the educational process and was allowed. The Court has never said students don't have free speech, but free speech does not mean you can act like a jackass on the school's time and not have to worry about getting a (pretty normal) punishment for it.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Duct Tape Pro]

From what I've read about the case, a key difference was that this student displayed the sign during a school-related activity, which puts it in a different legal context.

I suspect that a student promoting racism or protesting funerals as a part of a school function would see similar legal consequences.

I highly recommend reading the supreme court rulings on this case, as they were quite insightful as to why the line was drawn where it was. Schools where minors are present present an interesting situation for freedom of speech. (IANAL, but) From what I understand, while on one hand students can and should have the right to speech, on the other hand their right to speech while at school should not disrupt or distract the primary reason of the school, which is education.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[packeteer]

The bill of rights are not rights granted by a man, or many men. No judge or jury gave you those rights. No judge or jury can take them away. They can infringe on your rights with force but thats what it takes. There is no guarantee that your rights will be upheld but they still cant take them AWAY. The right to free speech is something you were born with, they can stop it with violence but they can never take the right away.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[belmolis]

It is not true that the students' banner was shown to be disruptive. What are you thinking of? The passing of the torch was not disrupted. There was no class to be disrupted.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Valdrax]

Is hate speech free speech?

Unequivocally, yes. Odious though it may be, the alternative of defining standards over what is and isn't a politically acceptable view to have is even worse. The solution to hate speech is to speak back and to be more persuasive, and not to simply censor it. Truly obnoxious speech will generally lose out in a society committed to freedom, though it may take some time.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[mwlewis]

You misunderstand the point of the Bill of Rights, as do most modern readers. The point was to explicitly limit the powers of the federal government. Perversely, I think that it helped to change the focus of the Constitution and our view of the government's powers from the original intent, namely that the government had no powers except those explicitly granted by the Constitution, to the current mess where if the Constitution doesn't explicitly say no, then all bets are off. And even if it does say no, just ask the 9 robed wonders for a waiver (see McCain-Feingold for a perfect example).

This was why the original supporters argued that the BoR was unnecessary. The Constitution never said that the government could regulate speech, so of course such laws would be unconstitutional. Sadly, the supporters of the BoR were probably right, and the existence of the amendments has probably slowed down the growth in the power of government.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[mwlewis]

Yep, not to mention the conflict between your right to free speech and interfering in the rights of others. There's a difference between criticizing a business or organization, and physically blocking access to their customers.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Reivec]

This is the first I have heard of this.... what the hell is a free speech zone? That sounds scary as hell. I laugh in the face of anyone who still claims America as a free country.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[tbannist]

Actually it won't. Truly obnoxious speech continues until something is done about it or the speakers die. The majority of the truly obnoxious speech isn't actually motivated by desire to have people listen. They don't change the message to make it more palatable. It's motivated by dementia and obsession. If nobody's listening they just shout it louder, because after all, it's so obviously true that if only people would listen then they too could understand "the truth".

Truly obnocious speech will generally lose out in a society committed to truth, but in a society committed to freedom it will continue forever.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[The Spoonman]

free speech does not mean you can act like a jackass on the school's time and not have to worry about getting a (pretty normal) punishment for it.

funny, I was always taught my freedom of speech was meant to protect me from idiots who would label me a jackass because my opinion differed from theirs.

Re:Free Speech Areas

[Gr8Apes]

The point of the BoR from the supporters point of view was to enumerate certain rights to keep them from being eroded, like has happened anyway some 200+ years later.

The critics of the BoR stated that the BoR's explicit enumeration weakened the argument that the Federal Government's powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution only. If current law was filtered with strict constitutional interpretation, many laws and agencies would disappear.

And to the above respondent: the drafters of the BoR may have listed them based on their recent experiences, but do remember that they were all against a strong central government. Even the establishment of a central bank caused a huge rift within these self-same individuals with the proponents stating it was needed and winning because it was.

Queue

[Anonymous Crowhead]

Queue the "Loose Change" music while you read that.

Give me a break

[phoebusQ]

Fearmongering is considered a traditional tool of the Right, but the Left appears to have become its new master. Frankly, I'm tired of it from both sides.

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides

[Stanistani]

The Weathermen?

1968 called - it wants its bogeyman back.

Geez, enough straw men in that field already? Crows have to eat y'know.

What amazes me about this is...

[riseoftheindividual]

... after we survived the radical 60s and proved to the world that free speech and tolerance of dissent works, the very generation that watched freedom of dissent work to fizzle out radicalism has come into the positions of power and are now acting as if it didn't work. Fear is truly the mind killer.

Re:What amazes me about this is...

[bersl2]

I have always said that parenthood is a powerful poison of the mind; it seems to cause profound and uncontrolled reversion to instinct, something which is often harmful and dangerous to modern society and to the individuals thereof.

Then again, many of these individuals may not have been thinking beings beforehand: mindless children become mindless adolescents become mindless adults. :P

Re:Fearmongering works on both sides

[Malevolent Tester]

A committed socialist who saw the effects of left wing totalitarianism in Barcelona (along with several thousand dead anarchists and Trotskyists who presented an obstacle to Stalin's desire to turn Spain into a Soviet protectorate)

It works both ways.

[jameskojiro]

A lot of colleges have agendas when it comes to allowing conservative students hold events and speak out, Which is ironic considering who is pushing this down our throats. Of course new-liberal types want to shut up consrvative speakers because they "know they are right". I say let both groups speak and if you don't like who is speaking you don't have to listen.

this isn't the beginning

[superwiz]

This is the beginning of the end. First, they own your money. Then they monitor your correspondence. Then they call you crazy if you call them on what they are doing. Then ignorance is called strength. And then universal surveillance is called freedom. So how's is Britney Spears doing today? Anyone caught the game?

Re:Free Speech Zones

[jandrese]

Is there really a need for a "free speech zone" in this case? Why not just make a "don't be a dick" rule that says if you're disturbing classes then campus security (or cops) can haul you away. The restriction of free speech across the entire campus (save the parking lot behind the cheap bleachers on the far side of the campus) seems like gross overkill for the problem.

Re:Sad but necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

I work on a University campus, so I know what's really going on.

I work on a university campus too, but I'm not sure I'd claim to "know what's really going on".

It's simple: too many people abused their "right" to free speech by making it impossible to hold classes...

I'm not sure if you mean "impossible to hold any classes at all, ever" or "this one time, a class didn't start on time". You may work on a very different campus than I do but, when I walk around the campus that I work on, classes seem to be taking place just fine.

And that even includes the fuckwad professors who hold chemistry class bitching about Bush and why everyone should be antiwar, too.

Again, I'm not sure if you mean "gives entire lectures against the Iraq war" or "makes an offhand remark about his personal opposition to the war". Where I work, it's more of the offhand remark if it happens at all. Back when I was taking classes, I used to like it when the instructors mentioned their backgrounds and views. I figured that if I just wanted to learn the material I could just study the textbook and skip the lectures.

If you're trying to force it into people's hands,...

I've walked across plenty of college campuses and I don't think I've ever had a flyer "forced" into my hand. I'm not even sure what that would involve - holding me down and applying some super glue, perhaps. It does take a certain amount of mental discipline to avoid the reflex of reaching out and accepting the flyer but, on days when I've been distracted enough to succumb to the reflex, there's usually a trash can a few steps away.

We had a table of morons set up who were boldly collecting money that they admitted they'd be sending to Hezbollah.

Wow, openly soliciting money for Hezbollah! How do people on your campus even walk around - they must need wheelbarrows for their balls. They must know that's a recipe for a free one-way ticket to Cuba.

I would imagine that there are people on my campus who opposed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Maybe some have even donated to humanitarian relief efforts in Lebanon (or the Palestinian territories, for that matter). I have yet to see a student both with donation jars labeled "Hamas" and Hezbollah".

Wherever it is you work, dude, that's one radical campus.

FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

"Track foreign-born students; keep the undocumented out

Enforce the law against illegal immigrants? A horrific sign of incipient totalitarianism."

Not all foreign-born students are illegal immigrants.

Re:Overly paranoid article

[fredklein]

Criminals love to target students.

Why?

Because schools are a 'gun-free' zone'.

Better armed criminals argues for better armed campus police

No- they argue for better armed students. The cops are minutes away. The students are right there. The cops will 'form a perimeter' , then wait for SWAT to show up before going in. This can be many more minutes. The students are right there.

Who should be armed? The people who won't show up for 10 minutes? Or the people who are on the scene?

Re:Sad but necessary

[Profane MuthaFucka]

So you're in favor of suppressing the freedom of speech in some places so that we can have ORDER. I get it - you want the trains to run on time!

Re:Well, I suppose it makes a kind of sense

[The Anarchist Avenge]

Yes, it's a little known fact that all the suicide bombers in the world have all had Philosophy degrees. Grow up man, terrorists come from anywhere, the world isn't as black and white as you seem to think.

Re:Overly paranoid article

[georgewilliamherbert]

The Ohio National Guard were not a campus police force. Campus police forces have never opened fire on demonstrating students in the US, and are extremely unlikely to... if you actually talk to any officers on a campus PD anywhere, they're among the most tolerant and least likely to overreact officers on any police force in the world.

While I was at Berkeley, we had a number of riots in the city, ostensibly over UC policies (related to Peoples Park, mostly) but almost entirely carried out by non-students. We had an incident where the UC Berkeley SWAT team had to shoot and kill a crazy guy who'd shot and killed one student and was holding about 15 others hostage, forcing the women to strip and sexually abusing them. We had a local small female protester who broke into the Chancellor's house and tried to knife two police officers who were trying to get her out, which unfortunately got her shot and killed.

The same SWAT officer who shot the first named crazy in the head was the same guy I saw months later just sitting there and shaking his head a bit as Andrew Martinez, "The Naked Guy", walked by in his usual disattire, distracting a whole bunch of people from the "Make Peace Not Atoms" protest on Sproul Plaza.

Yes, incidents happen. But for the most part, students get away with pretty much anything short of assaulting each other or destroying campus property. And for every legit police abuse case that came up while I was in school, there were multiple cases of "The officer saved our asses"... from a multiple rapist, from a band of teenagers who were randomly attacking students with 2x4s, from muggers who'd knifed someone a couple of months ago...

If I'd ever seen a legitimate case of an officer oppressing someone, I'd pay more attention to your and the article writers' fears. But I haven't. And I've seen the stuff they actually did do to protect people.

Your right to feel secure in your paranoia doesn't extend as far as disarming or removing those who legitimately help save students lives and safety.

Proof!

[B5_geek]

Finally we have proof that (all) Government(s) fear the education of the populace. As if there was any doubt before.

Re:Informative?

[georgewilliamherbert]

Do I detect another armchair cowboy?

I don't know, but I smell one now.

"Criminals love to target students". Huh? In most cases of attacks on students these have been a result of students attack their own co-students.

Students beat each other up regularly. A bit. Rarely with any serious injury. With regularity, they date rape each other, unfortunately.

Forcible stranger rapes, murders, muggings, knifings, etc? Almost entirely off campus individuals.

I paid attention to statistics when I was in college, and my campus PD made them available.

". Semi-automatic rifles are, in many situations, less likely to hurt bystanders than shotguns." and in many/most cases the shotgun is superior because it is less likely to cause unintended damage. A rifle bullet can travel many miles and can also go through walls etc. Not a good thing in a situation where there are a lot of innocents around.

In some situations, a shotgun is safer. That doesn't include any attacker over about 60 meters away, anyone holding a hostage in front of them, etc.

Most rifle bullets don't go through walls. 5.56mm is notorious for being stopped by 2 sheets of drywall. Any professional knows this.

Yes, if fired upwards at high angles, some rifle bullets can travel a few miles. It's part of the risk and safety issues.

I smell armchair.

Blackwater is pretty handy for the forces "visiting" Iraq mainly because they are above the law and don't get hobbled by pesky military laws like US soldiers do.

Which is -

A. Completely immaterial to their police training operations in the US.

B. Completely false - the US government laws do cover Blackwater staff in Iraq, under any but the most paranoid interpretations of the law. The FBI are investigating the late 2007 big shootout and expect to be able to file charges if they find someone at fault. A defense attorney might wriggle out the legal ambiguity, but probably not. Judges aren't dumb. And Blackwater's head, and the head of the Diplomatic Security Service, asked for the law to be rewritten to clearly cover contractors for DSS.

Re:Sad but necessary

[TheGreatHegemon]

Looking at your posts and even some others comments in this thread (black dominated slums...) I can tell you're a tad on the conservative side, which really isn't too much of a problem. However, I sincerely doubt the situation is as severe as you claim it to be - are you honestly telling me that we're more disruptive that students during the Vietnam era?

Believe it or not, Universities are traditionally considered bastions OF free thought and speech - these are the tools of learning. If I wanted to just learn from the professor in a classroom, then why don't we just simply call it "High School v.2"?

I'm at a public University, and guess what? No designated "Free Speech Zones" or anything. Do the students riot? Scream in classes? Block the professors? Never. And we do have some issues.

It's bad enough that the K-12 system starts students off on the idea of utter compliance (might even be part of the reason why your University has these issues now), but to even make Universities stifle speech - then what good is that pesky Bill of Rights?

Here's the interesting part: We're considered on of the more conservative University of California schools - nestled in the heart of a Conservative part of California.

I'd trust the guys writing this so-called "report" more if those so-called "peace and justice organizations" weren't fronts for communist groups (ANSWER, International Socialist Workers Party, etc), anarchist groups, blatant racial supremacist organizations (MEChA and La Raza, motto "For the race, everything, for other races, nothing"), or international terrorist/genocide groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Just because you don't agree with their agendas (I definitely don't), doesn't mean that they should be banned. It's the cost of free speech - and one that we SHOULD be willing to pay! ESPECIALLY at Universities, where people should be rational and educated enough to know what they should listen to!

Really?

[copponex]

What I love about American culture (I was born and raised in the southeast) is the inability to try and comprehend why otherwise reasonable people engage in ultra-violent activities en masse. Sure, there are some sociopaths, but when your average citizen starts to follow sociopaths, there's likely a reasonable explanation. I think it's more likely that they live in perpetual poverty and are subject to random acts of violence directly by US forces or those who are backed by the US, rather than they "hate freedom."

You think Hezbollah and Hamas are evil organizations, and I'll assume because they kill people and advocate violence towards their enemies. Is that any different from statements from the Pentagon? We threaten "the use of force" and they threaten "death to American infidels," but is there, in fact, any difference in those statements? We are far more dishonest than terrorist groups because we pretend that we don't kill people, when in fact, we're responsible for more civilian death than any terrorist group that has ever existed.

This was all perfectly realized recently on the news. I laughed out loud when I saw the video about Iranians "harassing" the US Navy. When you look at the video, you have five off-the-shelf speedboats versus multi-thousand ton US warships. I really can't believe the Pentagon are taking themselves seriously anymore.

And the fact that "communist fronts" are even on your radar is really a testament to how narrow political discussion in the US has become. When "bullcrap" is having a flier forced in your hands, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is perfectly acceptable, grotesque doesn't begin to describe how ugly we must look to the outside world.

Re:Really?

[icebrain]

You think Hezbollah and Hamas are evil organizations, and I'll assume because they kill people and advocate violence towards their enemies. Is that any different from statements from the Pentagon? Yes, it is different. Those two groups deliberately target innocent men, women, and children. They blow up school buses and such on purpose; the US and other allied forces try very hard to avoid doing so.

laughed out loud when I saw the video about Iranians "harassing" the US Navy. When you look at the video, you have five off-the-shelf speedboats versus multi-thousand ton US warships. I really can't believe the Pentagon are taking themselves seriously anymore. I see you forget what an "off-the-shelf speedboat" laden with explosives can do. Those boats could also run themselves in front of one of the US ships and let itself get run over--and then claim that "the Americans rammed our innocent boats!"

They are not afraid.

[gnutoo]

It seems they are battening down all the hatches, going totally overboard as far as "Homeland Security" is concerned.

They think they can get away with it.

Re:Sad but necessary

[daigu]

Have an agenda? Want to make the argument that Quakers are communists?

At least four of the incidences of surveillance uncovered were activities coordinated or supported by the American Friends Service Committee, a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947. Founded by Quakers in 1917, the Service Committee began as a vehicle for conscientious objectors to the First World War to contribute to binding up the wounds of war: by building houses for war victims, feeding hungry children, and clothing the displaced. AFSC has historically felt called to witness against war and for changing the conditions that cause violent conflict.

Your commentary that free speech zones are necessary to make sure there aren't disruptions in people's education is silly. It's not a factor and doesn't explain the sudden emergence of this kind of activity. And your anti-communism? It belongs to the 1950s. It's this kind of thinking that shows the bankruptcy and enablity to tolerate diversity of thought that is the hallmark of people calling themselves conservatives these days. I feel sorry for you.

Re:Sad but necessary

[cicho]

Moderators on crack again. Parent is slightly inflammatory but makes a valid illustration of the idea expressed in GP. Security and liberty should not be a zero-sum game.

Re:Sad but necessary

[clang_jangle]

If you have a better word than Anarchism for what this is, I'd be glad to hear it.

Fantasy is the word which comes to mind... :)

In real life it doesn't work to say to the officer who pulls you over for speeding, "Gee thanks, but I don't subscribe to your government". Realistically speaking, anarchy can exist only as an extremely fleeting state which is always followed by some form of government. Human nature dictates this, and the proof is the complete and utter lack of successful anarchist societies.

Before you fire back with that example, note I said "successful". As in "still working". I know there are legends, and of course there have been fleeting periods, but no real working examples of what you describe. Hence, the word for what you are calling anarchism is "fantasy". It never existed and it never will.

Critical Thinking 101

[RealGrouchy]

1. Purchase Critical Thinking textbook
2. Memorize Critical Thinking textbook
3. Reproduce responses from Critical Thinking textbook's sample exam in closed-book text
4. Receive Critical Thinking credits.

Universities are there to teach you to produce an obedient workforce and keep you from questioning authority--the exact antithesis to their ostensible goals. Universities today exist for the students no more than newspapers do for the readers.

This "Repress U" DHS stuff is just another bit of evidence that supports this argument.

- RG>

Explain this one to me?

[Anonymous Coward]

5. Track foreign-born students; keep the undocumented out.

If they're undocumented, how do you know they are foreign-born?

Racial profiling? Always popular - ask any American of Asian heritage how many times strangers have asked where they are from, and still don't clue-in when the answer is "Chicago" or "Oakland". There's a reason some people get real touchy about racial profiling -- they get this shit constantly even when they are fourth-generation Americans. Racial profiling always turns out to be white racism - there is no USA race.

Accents? Okay, say you do "your papers please" on everyone with a foreign-sounding accent. Why do you want to track these people now? You just report undocumented students to Immigration, job done.

Sorry, but I don't get this one. Maybe someone could fill in? Right now it sounds like an outfit without the authority to actually check papers wants some sort of rubber stamp to make them into official vigilante finger-pointers? I don't get it.

Re:Free Speech Zones

[OakDragon]

Why not just make a "don't be a dick" rule that says if you're disturbing classes then campus security (or cops) can haul you away.

Because everyone thinks "You're being a dick; I, on the other hand, am airing a legitimate greivance."

Re:Sad but necessary

[rossz]

In most universities, that "bastion of free speech" only exists for the far left. A conservative student making a statement will typically have a rough time. Free speech MUST include speech you don't necessarily want to hear. You don't have to listen, but you don't have any right to make the speaker shut up -- unless he's disrupting class, then it's ok to beat the crap out of him. :)

Re:Almost forgot:

[riceboy50]

We have cameras on the parking lots because we kept having "neighbors" from the black-dominated slums nearby breaking into cars and carjacking people, and so they now have someone watching to dispatch a cop to a problem spot 24/7. We have cameras on buildings leading to classrooms, and even a few IN classrooms, because of people committing rapes and getting into fights. These are not new problems, and society has been dealing with them for centuries. Using that as a justification for creating a surveillance state is not okay with me. This is in the same line of thinking that brought us the PATRIOT ACT.

Re:Almost forgot:

[vic-traill]

... in response to controversy regarding camera systems on post-secondary education campuses ...

I helped get this established on our campus. Why did we do it? It has nothing to do with "tracking everyone" and everything to do with crime. We have cameras on the parking lots because we kept having "neighbors" from the black-dominated slums nearby breaking into cars and carjacking people, and so they now have someone watching to dispatch a cop to a problem spot 24/7. We have cameras on buildings leading to classrooms, and even a few IN classrooms, because of people committing rapes and getting into fights.

I am empathetic to the issues you're presenting here. On the grounds of the university I work at, crime is very much an issue - usually, as far as I can tell, perpetrated by individuals not enrolled at the university. I hear you, and I don't think you're trolling.

But - what makes the camera response difficult for me is that such institutions, in my experience (which makes this just another fscking opinion), are *incapable* of setting and sticking to terms of reference for such a facility. Once the cameras are in place, people just can't help themselves in using them beyond a scope of a video record to be used to identify thieves in response to car break-ins, for example.

The transition to surveillance devices is fast, not matter how big a stack of bibles were used in swearing that they would never be used that way. Once the facility is in place, there is *always* what sounds to be a reasonable context for going beyond the original terms of reference.

I believe that, in a free society, an individual has a reasonable expectation of proceeding through their day without being subject to arbitrary surveillance. If you remove that expectation, you take a significant step towards a functioning police state.

Arbitrary surveillance is like crack for enforcement agencies of all ilk. Once they've tried it, they can't get it off it - it just works too damn well. And major precepts of privacy and freedom go out the window without a genuine debate about it every having taken place.

I'm not trolling either - I just feel strongly on this issue.

Re:Sad but necessary

[maccam]

Your comments imply that hippies took over the colleges, which is why universities are perceived to have a left wing bias (aah for the good old 1950's where the world was perfect and people knew their places).

The reason "campus Republicans" are perceived to be the campus underdogs is that at this point in history the right tends to produce ideologues, who don't deserve and rarely qualify for university positions. This lack of open-mindedness is the biggest hinderance to right-leaning scholars playing a bigger role on campuses. The ideologues have all the answers and simply must find away to make data and evidence fit their ideology; whereas, a credible and open-minded conservative can soundly analyze data, let chips fall where they may. The manufactured threat that accompanied the run up to the Iraq war is a perfect example of the soft thuggery of the neocons (leave out contradictory evidence, use the most bizarre interpretation of data--the Al centrifuge tubes come to mind). The intellectual conservatives, the kind that fit in an academic environment, happen to be out numbered at the moment.

Sincerely,
Boomer-aged Faculty

Re:Almost forgot:

[Moryath]

Well, HOW exactly "legals" get displaced? Because they are dumber and have lower grades or IQ score?

Actually, no - usually it's some moron in admissions trying to "promote diversity."

And what about kids from disadvantaged AMERICAN families? Poor families, families who emigrated legally, families who for whatever reason lived in shit-ass school systems like California's? I'd rather see them in than your so-called "favorable candidate for citizenship" any day.

Hell, the kids have already been fucked by the number of illegals packing in and ruining California's public school system, now you fuck them out of college too?

Re:Sad but necessary

[Mr. Slippery]

Anarchists just don't seem to exist anymore. I've been invited to "anarchist" events by "anarchists", and I always point out that organizing is the antithesis of anarchy

No, rule by force is the antithesis of anarchy. There's nothing that says a bunch of anarchists can't have voluntary organization. Anarchy means "no rulers", not "no organization".

When I was a kid the idea of anarchy was pretty universally understood -- no law, no rules, no-one in charge.

The "anarchy" of the punk movement had little do to with the philosophy of folks like Thoreau: "'That government is best which governs not at all;' and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."

Another School of Thought

[geoffrobinson]

The existence of the Bill of Rights created the impression in people that if the government isn't explicitly banned from doing something, the government can do it.

Both ideas have merits. If there were no Bill of Rights, people would run totally roughshod over rights. At the same time, people lost sight of the need for explicit permission in Constitution for government activity.

I believe the final blow was FDR's court packing scheme. The Supreme Court kept ruling New Deal initiatives unconstitutional but backed down some after FDR's threat.

So, according to the explicit permission view, everything from Social Security to the Department of Education would go away. Unless a bunch of amendments were passed. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Re:Even funnier

[jayp00001]

Which ones? The ones who voted for the Iraq war, the new bankruptcy bill or the DMCA?
Your assumption is that all of these particular topics are somehow indicators of leftist policy. They aren't necessarily. The leftists are the ones that want higher taxes, bigger government, and more government entitlements. You do have a choice. You simply have to exercise it. Most voters simply look at party lines rather than the substance of a candidate.