The school deans said Brashier was prohibited from “soliciting” her materials or even discussing concealed carry on campus. They even went so far as to order her to destroy all of her pamphlets.

Perhaps the CCAC deans need a refresher course in Constitutional law. It just so happens that pamphleteering is explicitly protected by the First Amendment. In the 1938 Supreme Court Case Lovell v. City of Griffin, the Court ruled that such activity fell under freedom of the press, writing:

The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.

I previously wrote about another student who was harassed by school officials and campus police after advocating for concealed carry in a speech class.

“The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the ‘LGBT’ agenda, hate crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc.),” according to the newspaper. The Democratic group at Liberty has expressed opposition to abortion rights and gay marriage.”

Of course, Liberty U. is private, so it’s not required to be viewpoint neutral like public universities, but it is still odd to see. Liberty U. also has a student Republican club, which has not been shut down.

Meanwhile, the Chronicle also reports that Brigham Young University recently disbanded both its Republican and Democrat clubs, citing the “political-neutrality policy of the university.” Well, at least BYU is equally discriminatory (if you’ll pardon the oxymoron) towards political student groups.

Using his public records kung fu, Lawton discovers that, of the thirty two full-time faculty in the UO journalism school, none are registered Republicans. Even adding in adjunct faculty, there are only two Republicans.

But this lopsided demographic is not confined to the UO. Lawton further notes that:

The disparity, as dramatic as it is, mirrors the the political composition of many other journalism schools across the country.  A 2005 study of nine top journalism schools by David Horowitz and Joseph Light revealed similar ratios of political affiliation.  Columbia University had 15 Democrats and one Republican, while Berkeley had ten Democrats and zero Republicans.

The leftist leanings of academia is nothing new, but in an industry that prides itself on its objective, fair coverage of events, you have to wonder (as Lawton does) how well journalism students are served by an almost completely Democrat faculty.

Of course, given the press’ fawning over Obama, maybe they’ve just given up on that whole “objectivity” thing anyways.

“If you were walking down the street and saw someone harassing a child, would you just walk by and look the other way? If that person was telling the child the world would be better off if they just killed themselves, would you ignore it?”

Well … no, but my response probably wouldn’t be to craft an overbroad, facially unconstitutional bill that targets far more than just “cyberbullying.” But then again, I’m not Rep. Sanchez. (For you critical thinkers out there, Sanchez’s rhetorical question is called a false dichotomy.)

Bonus points to Sanchez for including the phrase “so-called free speech” in her article. It really shows her true colors when it comes to the First Amendment.

Also, Hat tip to Reason, where you can find a more thorough shellacking of Sanchez’ Maginot Line of an argument.

Most of the students are, of course, mortified by the idea (”but I worked hard for my grades!”), but when asked if they support wealth redistribution, they invariably say yes. It’s telling of the cognitive dissonance that students must have to keep up to pass the average sociology class.

Ashley Herzog over at Town Hall analyzes the results of the videos:

Shocking? Not really. As I pointed out in my March 30 column, most college students are economically illiterate. When quizzed by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute about basic concepts, such as supply and demand, the average student’s score was 53 percent. And since most don’t work or pay taxes (only 46 percent of full-time students have jobs), they simply have no idea how capitalism works.

But they do understand grades. Students who study hard get good grades; students who skip class and binge drink every night get bad grades. Some struggle with difficult material, but with enough effort (attending office hours, seeing a tutor) most can maintain a decent GPA. Every sane college student realizes the immorality of “spreading the grades around”—regardless of who benefits.

Hat tip to Phi Beta Cons and my friend Kenny Crabtree, a University of Oregon college Republican who created this video for the contest.

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.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, named after a 13 year-old girl who committed suicide after falling victim to a cruel Myspace prank, would make it a felony to transmit “in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.”

As is wont to happen when lawmakers grandstand on a current issue, the proposed bill is a legal train wreck – a half-baked piece of legislation that, if it weren’t almost guaranteed to be stricken down as unconstitutional, would be seriously dangerous to free speech.

For example, law professor Eugene Volokh can think of six examples off the top of his head where the bill would encroach on protected First Amendment speech. Under the proposed bill, perhaps even this blog post could be considered “cyberbullying.” Rep. Sanchez might find my calling her legislation “half-baked” and “a legal train wreck” emotionally distressing, and I could be prosecuted in federal court.

What’s startling to me about the bill, though, is the similarity in the language to many of the oppressive speech codes found at universities throughout the country. In particular, notice the part about “substantial emotional distress.” Just like so many confused university administrations, Rep. Sanchez seems to believe that it aught to be illegal to make someone feel bad.

The bill is essentially the uber-version of all those speech codes. It would, for all intents and purposes, make criticism of anyone illegal. Well, hey, at least we would all be living in the ”inclusive, respectful atmosphere” that universities try so hard (and sometimes illegally) to foster, right?

Hat tip to Reason.

The nerd in me would love to see whether or not there is a statistical correlation between the warm weather and lower exam grades. Someone could have an outstanding senior thesis if they tracked changes in average temperature and grades over the final month of school. First semester exam grades, when the temperatures hover about 10 degrees, could be compared to the second semester, when students first break out their shorts and flip-flops. I would love to see a piece done on this is it hasn’t been done already.

“As the enactment does not reflect an appreciation of the Silent Majority’s [the student organization that publishes the paper] constitutional right to the exercise of free speech, I reject it altogether and recommend that it be rescinded in its entirety,” wrote Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Campus Life Esther Terry.

The administration might also punish one of the people who flagrantly stole copies of the paper.

The past few weeks have been a PR disaster for UMass Amherst with regards to the First Amendment. For example, Cathy Young has a column over at Reason lambasting the university for its recent treatment of speaker Don Feder, a conservative journalist.

As Feder began to speak, the protesters hissed and hooted. At one point, a group of them noisily turned around their chairs to face away from the podium. Finally, a woman in the audience interrupted Feder, rising to shout out a statement about the murder of a transgendered African-American woman. Feder asked the police to escort her out; from the video, it appears that she walked out on her own, to the cheers of her fellow protesters, and even paused to wave to her friends and yell a derogatory comment to Feder.

[...]

A genuine liberal would be embarrassed by these actions. But in some quarters, intolerance of dissent is now a cause for self-congratulation. When Feder remarked that he had spoken on numerous college campuses and had never experienced anything of the sort, one student could be heard shouting, “Go UMass!”

It’s good to see the university finally do the right thing, but with problems like these one wonders how much the students, faculty and administration really value freedom of speech.

In an ultra-classy letter to Father Jenkins, which was also released to the press to avoid random speculation, Glendon noted that, in effect, she felt that she was being used by Notre Dame. She is exactly right. In defending its invitation of Obama, Notre Dame has repeatedly pointed out that Glendon, a staunch conservative Catholic, would be speaking at the same event. Notre Dame, in one of its earlier press releases, admitted rather weakly that “we think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.” Glendon pointed out rather astutely that commencement is not the time nor place for conflict or debate. It is supposed to be a joyous day.

Furthermore, it is unacceptable for Notre Dame to be justifying its actions by promoting some seperate event that it might be doing correctly. Mary Ann Gledon’s invitation to commencement does not justify Obama’s. In fact, his invitation is a metaphorical slap in the face to her life’s work. As a frequent advisor to the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Glendon noted that Obama’s invitation is “in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops–to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.” Notre Dame can have Obama or Glendon, not both.