A few weeks ago I decided to explore this option a bit. I was dismayed to discover that what a professor told me last year was quite true: “Military history is a dying art.” My options seemed limited to either one of the service academies or the Royal Military College of Canada—none of which are likely decisions. Interspersed with the meager degree results were articles in which professors point out the lack of interest in and respect for military history on college campuses. Military history, it seems, is relegated to the back room of higher education and thought to be the territory of History Channel addicts. I’ve even run across some people who are hostile to the idea of studying war for a living, as if that means one wants wars to happen.

I think it’s pretty sad that military history is pushed to the margins of education. It’s been said that the history of mankind is the history of armed conflict, and that is a very true statement. Most of history is studying about wars, then a period of peace, then another war, and then another war, and then more peace, and then yet another war. Military historians provide a valuable insight into history by studying how wars were fought, how strategy is made and tactics are executed, what made certain generals great or disastrous, and how one extra move might have changed the course of a battle, an entire war, and maybe even history.

Reading maps and memorizing how many men are in a brigade, regiment, and division may not seem as important as theorizing about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. But wars are an essential part of human history. War shows us human nature at its worst and at its best. In war we simultaneously see people killing each other for senseless reasons and 19-year-old kids who throw themselves on grenades to save their buddies. Little tells us more about humanity than warfare. If we don’t understand what goes into making wars, we’ve lost a valuable method to understanding mankind.

And for the argument that studying wars means one supports them? Well, that’s like saying a virologist is eagerly anticipating the next Spanish flu pandemic.

However, Ms. McClenney fails to address that this problem with community colleges represents a problem with the students as well as the faculty. As a community college graduate, I can attest to how much of a difference the students make in how well the college succeeds. The students I met who were dedicated and committed—not even necessarily brilliant—tended to stick out hard classes, graduate on schedule, transfer to four-year schools and graduate in a timely manner. Unfortunately, they were in the minority. Many of my classes halved in size from the first day to the final exam. Several students that I knew simply dropped out of school and went God-knows-where. Others remained at this two-year college for three, maybe even four, years. From the statistics Ms. McClenney cited, this seems a nationwide phenomenon. Is it any wonder the professors at community colleges don’t expect much of their students?

Professors can offer. From my experience as a community college student, professors do offer. But if the students aren’t receiving, offering does little good. The problem of community colleges is a symptom of problems throughout all of education—a lack of learning and focus rather on diversity, indoctrination, and self-esteem. 10 years of this is impossible to undo overnight. If we want students at community colleges to succeed, we’ll have to fix the school system from the bottom up.

But that’s not all. What qualifies as an “offensive joke”? By the speech code’s words, whatever the aggrieved party wants.

I am not making this up. Though if I were trying to come up with a better picture of absurdity, I’m not sure I could.

For this, SJSU deserves not only FIRE’s Speech Code of the Month, but a lawsuit. One in which the university must remain silent while the judge tries its case from the viewpoint of whoever they have offended.

FIRE’s Adam Kissel has already blogged about the First Amendment issue behind this, so I won’t steal his thunder. Instead, I’ll quote the Orwellian witticism that “some ideas are so profoundly stupid only an intellectual would believe them.” The idea that screening a pornographic film is as important—in fact, maybe more important—to education than Aristotle, Plato, or America’s Founding Fathers is one such idea.

According to this article in Forbes Magazine, university governance is one of the most authoritarian areas of colleges today. Many times, such as at Harvard, these governing bodies are unelected and/or have little to no contact with either current students or alumni. And yet they make many of the decisions surrounding a college’s daily life. These bodies exist in something of a vacuum, able to make policies without feeling the effects themselves.

Those of us who care about the true spirit of a liberal arts education should make an effort to discover our college’s guidelines for how alumni can influence school policy. We need to demand that the university return to a broad base of liberal arts rather than simply warehousing students for four years and spitting them out job-trained, perhaps, but still unsure as to which country America fought in the Revolution. Because college is not about trying to find a job (although it is just about necessary to finding a job these days) or obtaining a set of skills. College is about expanding your mind and refining your worldview so that you can be a competent citizen. If we lose our ability to be competent citizens, we will surely lose our country as well.

Beth Sheeran, a student at Spokane Falls Community College and a member of their Christian Club, has filed suit against her school after they barred her organization from posting pro-life literature in a campus display case. Apparently, Sheeran’s message was discriminatory because it did not include a pro-choice viewpoint.

The school’s Director of Student Funded Programs threatened Sheeran and her counterparts with expulsion if they did not also show pro-choice statistics with their display. This director is also part of SFCC’s Stop the Hate Committee, and said that someone could take the statistics Sheeran cited as hate.

I have to wonder if the same fate would befall a campus gay rights organization. Would they be asked to present anti-gay viewpoints? I think they probably wouldn’t. Apparently it’s hateful to cite statistics opposing abortion, but not to threaten the students doing so with expulsion from the college.

With that tidbit of information, you won’t be surprised to learn that Don Feder, a conservative writer and speaker, could not finish his speech at UMass due to liberal protests. Campus police refused to let the protestors in, but they still did their best to shut down the speech.

Two students said they were protesting the speech because Feder isn’t open-minded enough, and the purpose of college is to be open-minded. However, in typical college liberal fashion, these disgruntled students couldn’t open their own minds enough to actually listen to Feder’s speech.

After several interruptions, the event was canceled.

The UMass Republican Club was trying to fulfill the highest mission of the university, which is presenting a forum for the consideration of ideas. And at UMass it would seem the liberals agree with this mission—provided they like what is being said.

Apparently University of Tulsa, which is a private school, promises its students all the free speech rights of a public university. Those of you who go to public universities know what a ringing endorsement that is. And Tulsa follows through on this promise, with a speech code that looks innocuous at first but is really so broadly construed that just about anything can—and does—become abuse.

Good work FIRE for once again pointing out how academia, which is supposed to be about exchanging ideas, is really more about exchanging ideas approved by The Establishment than anything else.