TGHusker

Related to the RB thread - Offensive line play. It has a lot to do in evaluating the backs. Unfortunately, I didn't think of it as much during the game. How do you think the OL did? I'd like to hear your thoughts - did you see any major blocking difference in technique, etc? There was a near "Cotton falls on butt" penalty in the 2nd half. The RT I believe looked like he was about to go over backwards but caught himself just in time for a 'normal 5 yard penalty. I think Bush was QB at the time.

I was most impressed by Darlington - surprised as it seems most talk was about Bush. I thought Bush showed some potential and has a good arm. Made some key interceptions though. Stanton: I was hopeful all of the Elite 11 hype was real and that he could transition his HS success to college. But it really looked 'bad'. If he wants to be a starting college QB, it will have to be someplace else. I wouldn't be surprised if Riley gets his kind of QB in here and the new guy will be starting in 2 years after TA's senior year. if he is a HS recruit. If JC recruit - the year after this coming season if he is a real top notch. (still hard to unseat a 3 year starter in TA at that point) - unless Darlington gives him reason be a full time starter. For all of the back up QB that we now have, I think Darlington is the closest to what Riley is looking for. Edit: TA still will remain the starter I believe and should be. My impression of Darlington was as one of the other guys - I don't see him replacing TA. TA still has rough edges but it is hard to replace experience - mostly winning experience as well TA should only get better under this coach. A JC recruit would only replace TA if he was the next Russel Wilson type of transfer.

Getting back to your original post, I'd have to say 'no' to this. Running a university is a balancing act that has to be struck somewhere between maintaining complete order in all things and letting the inmates run the asylum. American universities do a pretty fair job of maintaining an atmosphere conducive to free thinking while still providing an education to student who want one. This may be true to a very limited extent, but for good reason. Recall last month the OU students and their bawdy racist song? They were probably within their Constitutional First Amendment rights to sing that song. But no university could allow behavior like that to exist. It would quickly spiral out of hand, leading to prejudice and alienating a significant segment of students. See above. The reining in of free expression on U.S. campuses is de minimis, and for the most part, necessary. /JMHO Good post NUance. I had to laugh about the 'inmates run the asylum' comment. This is true - we could end up wt another 1960s Berkley situation. There does need to be a balance in free speech and admin constraints.

X - I for one don't want it to fall apart as I note above. I hope this interim haggling going on - claim and counter claim - will bring the best possible agreement. It won't bother me one bit if Obama/Kerry gets the credit. In fact, I liked the fact that Obama was speaking to Cuba this past weekend. While I don't like or support Castro in any way, how we can have China as our #1 trading partner (which still have on going civil rights issues probably greater than Cuba's) and yet keep Cuba at arms length over 1960s Soviet action? I do understand the power of the Cuban/American voting block in the important state of Florida- it is probably the real reason for non-action by any party during the past 30 years. If the power of democracy & liberty has the power to persuade than I think we should try it 90 miles away. It seems it takes a president who isn't running again & a vision of what "can be' to have the freedom to begin the liberalization of relationships between our 2 countries. You may be right on Weekly Standard article and B Kristal specifically. I know there are those who don't want any progress if it means the 'other side' gets credit.

Everyone's telling her she'll win it. Kinda hard to say no to being the 1st female president. Yes, it is easy to believe the press about ourselves when they are positive. It will be interesting to see how she works this campaign in comparison to how she ran 8 years ago (seems like so long ago in some ways)

Thanks Knapp for acknowledging that I'm not hostile. I'm also not a propagandist either - not any more than those less conservative are propagandists for the left. Now getting back on topic, An article discussing the tension between 'hate speech codes' and 'free speech': http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/codes.html There are compelling points on both sides of the argument The following are links from Fire - the organization I noted in an earlier post started by non-conservative Greg Lukianoff. These links provide info to the types of cases they are working on. There is much more detail on their website. They have done work on behalf of students and faculty crossing the full realm of the political/social spectrum in which, due process, conscience and religious liberty rights were violated. https://www.thefire.org/top-cases/ https://www.thefire.org/fire-brings-four-free-speech-lawsuits-in-one-day/ https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/freedom-of-conscience/ https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/due-process/ https://www.thefire.org/category/cases/religious-liberty/ Interview by John Stossel of Greg Lukianoff on the issue: http://stosselintheclassroom.org/videos/college_campuses_limiting_free_speech/ A couple examples to highlight the issue: http://www.kcchronicle.com/2015/01/23/federal-judge-rules-against-waubonsee-community-college-in-free-speech-lawsuit/av3c9ut/ http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/article/college_reaches_110k_free_speech_settlement_with_student This comment, from a lawyer representing a student summed it up this way: Colleges should be the marketplace of ideas,” said Senior Legal Counsel David Hacker. “Free speech should not be censored or limited to a ridiculously small area on campus, nor should students need permission to hand out fliers. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all students in the outdoor areas of campus, regardless of their religious or political beliefs.”

Knapp, we had our PM discussion and you know I've moderated since those earlier OP of mine. You also mentioned a couple of weeks ago that you were going to make an independent out of me yet as I was supporting you and others on some topic - can't remember the thread. We are going to disagree at times but that doesn't mean we can't agree to disagree. If you call causing dissent not pulling the left of center line that so many take on this board, then I would disagree with that characterization. It is called having an independent opinion. I've seen posters with conservative or religious views are often chided/ridiculed directly or indirectly for their views. That shouldn't be happening. People are characterized as tea baggers (the derogatory form) or nutso for believing in 'their invisible friend' or worse. -- taken from the 'If Stephen Fry met God' thread - which I guess isn't divisive or slanted since it agrees with your religious philosophy.

Is "Rand Paul a d-bag" an acceptable topic? It must be. I added posts to it but did not jump on the original poster just because he was attacking someone on the right. I wasn't there to defend RP either. But I could see how many might consider that a very divisive thread. But it appears to be an acceptable topic if you come from the left of center. I didn't see any labels placed on the OP as a shill. Have I called anyone a D-bag? No. I don't use the word 'liberal' in a derogatory way that others use 'tea party'.

Knapp, why all of the harshness? What is so divisive or far right of a post on free speech rights of students, left or right? It seems to me Knapp that your posts are becoming a caricature of what this discussion is all about - (no offense intended). It appears you are trying to 'sanitize' the board wt politically correct (or in your case acceptable) topics by attacking me the poster. Why the harsh tones? It seems by the reviews of the book, Unlearning Liberty by Greg Lukianoff, posted above - that this topic has no small merit and is based in reality and that it is not a left vs right issue.

I hope and want to believe so -- again even if it appears to be a bit muddy - maybe it will spur more talking and making it more concise and clear. Again movement in the right direction vs war. I want to believe so too. I just don't trust too many people who are involved to get all warm and fuzzy at this point. Talking is a good thing. Actions mean much more though. Amen on the action part

So, a "shill" is someone who goes into threads that are talking about a certain topic and act like they are debating an issue only to actually be diverting the discussion away from the real issue and painting the person making the argument on the other side as a wackjob. Ummm....isn't that what you basically just did in this thread? TG brought a discussion point to the board and created a thread. You then came in and instead of debating the issue, you immediately discredited him for even thinking of starting the thread and called him something that I'm sure he would prefer to not be. Thus....taking away from actually debating what he was wanting to talk about. You summed up my feelings BRB. Of course part of my problem in starting threads sometimes is that I don't always express myself the clearest to avoid a charge like Knapp's. I'll read something and in my enthusiasm in thinking that this might be a good discussion topic, I'll post the article when I haven't fully made up my mind on the article yet myself. Sometimes I won't make up my mind until I see and understand other people's thoughts on it and say 'yea that makes good sense'. However, I'll fail to say - I haven't made up my mind on this yet and someone may assume I agree wt every sentence of the article or the tone of the article. All I know is that this should be discussed. Since most of my reading comes from right of center sources that is where I get the topics from. Knapp knows I'm more center right then he but I've been moving from far right - so it is easy for him to assume (and I don't hold this against him - as my past strong right positions would give him that assumption) that I just am a shill for the right. However, I don't see the same label placed on those who bring consistently left of center topics and articles - are they shills for the liberal causes? Regarding this article in the OP, I don't agree wt the tone of the article. I do agree that too much speech is denied but I point out as a counter balance in my comments that it happens in conservative colleges as well.

Good points. What I would like to see more of is what BRB said about challenging his kids but only on the college level. Let me give a personal example, I took a sociology class way back in my undergrad days (1970s - yea I'm old) I wrote a pretty detailed paper, while strong grammatically and in structure was opposite the view the teacher took on the subject. At that time I could not be classified as a conservative (I voted for George McGovern for Senate and chose Hubert Humphrey as my major history subject), yet I was to the right of the teacher. She attacked me not on the merit of the paper but on the position of the paper. She did not challenge me with counter points or as BRB says a contrary position but solely on my position alone being the issue. I tell all of my students, that I'm looking for "thinking' in their paper. A thought process that is clear in regards to the subject is what I look for. They don't have to give me a long paper to earn a good grade, they can even be what would be generally considered to be 'wrong' on the subject, & they don't have to try to agree wt me. But simple, facts only answers without thought process won't garner a good grade. Critical thinking is one of the most important skills a student can learn during their college days. (Something I myself need to remember in the political forum - too easy to respond with emotion!! ) In some cases PC may be an institutional wide issue/philosophy but in many cases it may be more limited to departments and individual instructors. College should be like a good Husker Board exchange - in which opposing ideas are the desired goal, where the instructor leads by inspiring open discussion, and which the instructor's own views are somewhat veiled - can't nail him/her down because their goal isn't to make robots who think like them but rather students who think. Even though at times we many know what an instructor's position may be, he/she should facilitate the free expression of ideas without fear of retaliation if a student's paper or speech in contrary. Here is where I think the failure is at and BRB touched on it. Administrators have allowed instructors (most of the time tenured - thus untouchable) to act as little kings in their classrooms to the detriment of the student learning environment. The political extremes, both sides, can creep into the learning environment and can shut down speech/opinion and school administrations too often either look the other way, sanction it/lead it or are just indifferent to it. It is up to the admin to create the environment for critical thinking and free expression and the instructors to inspire it.

Understood and I am a firm believer in higher ed - I teach part time as I noted. I agree on the political extremes causing the failure - it seeps into college as well. The Failed part I was alluding to is not college as a whole but the free speech issue and as you note swings both ways.

I hope and want to believe so -- again even if it appears to be a bit muddy - maybe it will spur more talking and making it more concise and clear. Again movement in the right direction vs war.

Guys you are missing the whole point of the post. Perhaps the posted article was a bit overboard as an example - it was to spring board the real discussion but was probably too big of a distraction - I could have left it off as it took away from my point but it was a part of the eml sent to me. My apologies for it. Read my portion and I said PC can occur both ways but tends towards the liberal bent (on most campuses but this isn't always the case). My 3 questions are essentially about opening up free speech on campus and the post is the complete opposite of 'convincing people to be 'brain wash'. Come on BRB the Taliban - really!! I'm wanting more free speech and you use the Taliban. BRB, I've probably agreed with you on more things than not and now you bring up the Taliban in response to my post. Pretty disappointing. You guys are starting to prove my point. Intolerance of my position is met wt name calling and dismissed out of had without addressing the core issue I brought up - 1st amendment rights on campus. So I will present the purpose of the original post from a liberal position, by a liberal 1st amendment lawyer instead - so that Knapp cannot falsely accuse me of being a conservative shill - even after I said the same issues could be observed at conservative or religious schools as well. Knapp - on a personal note, I've done nothing but to show you the highest respect in my posts and in PMs even when we've been on the opposite side of the debate (there have been many times I've agreed with you and have told you so, or I have given you credit for my moderation). Name calling is beneath the respect I've given you.. most disappointing in all. First George Will, conservative, talks about & agrees with the book Unlearning Liberty by Greg Lukianoff ( the liberal author) This issue spans the political spectrum http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20121204/WIRE/312039985?p=1&tc=pg George Will notes in the above link: (bold emphasis mine) “Ample evidence is in "Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate" by Greg Lukianoff, 38, a graduate of Stanford Law School who describes himself as a liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, lifelong Democrat who belongs to "the notoriously politically correct Park Slope Food Co-Op in Brooklyn" and has never voted for a Republican "nor do I plan to." But as president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), he knows that the most common justifications for liberal censorship are "sensitivity" about "diversity" and "multiculturalism," as academic liberals understand those things.” end of quote (TG Comment: Lukianoff’s book addresses ‘censorship’ across the political spectrum) Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate Author: Greg Lukianoff Published: 2014 Publisher: Encounter Books ISBN: 9781594036354 Format: Retail PDF Reader Required:Adobe Reader, Foxit, Nitro, Adobe Digital Editions For over a generation, shocking cases of censorship at America’s colleges and universities have taught students the wrong lessons about living in a free society. Drawing on a decade of experience battling for freedom of speech on campus, First Amendment lawyer Greg Lukianoff reveals how higher education fails to teach students to become critical thinkers: by stifling open debate, our campuses are supercharging ideological divisions, promoting groupthink, and encouraging an unscholarly certainty about complex issues. Lukianoff walks readers through the life of a modern-day college student, from orientation to the end of freshman year. Through this lens, he describes startling violations of free speech rights: a student in Indiana punished for publicly reading a book, a student in Georgia expelled for a pro-environment collage he posted on Facebook, students at Yale banned from putting an F. Scott Fitzgerald quote on a T shirt, and students across the country corralled into tiny “free speech zones” when they wanted to express their views. But Lukianoff goes further, demonstrating how this culture of censorship is bleeding into the larger society. As he explores public controversies involving Juan Williams, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Larry Summers—even Dave Barry and Jon Stewart—Lukianoff paints a stark picture of our ability as a nation to discuss important issues rationally. Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate illuminates how intolerance for dissent and debate on today’s campus threatens the freedom of every citizen and makes us all just a little bit dumber. http://www.amazon.com/Unlearning-Liberty-Campus-Censorship-American/dp/1594037302/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1428680058&sr=8-1&keywords=Unlearning+Liberty%3A Greg Lukianoff is an attorney and president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. His writings on campus free speech have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, in addition to dozens of other publications. A regular columnist for the Huffington Post, he is a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and has made numerous television appearances, including on the CBS Evening News and Stossel. He received the 2008 Playboy Foundation Freedom of Expression Award and the 2010 Ford Hall Forum’s Louis P. and Evelyn Smith First Amendment Award on behalf of FIRE. Lukianoff is a graduate of American University and Stanford Law School. http://www.unlearningliberty.com/reviews/ A liberal mag article by Greg Lukianoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/harvard-and-how-silence-i_b_3072123.html A conservative mag article by Greg Lukianoff http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/26/fau-college-student-who-didnt-want-to-stomp-on-jesus-runs-afoul-of-speech-code/ Other articles listed below the reviews. Note the reviews below: from all sides of the political, religious, non-religious spectrum Even the former President of the ACLU approves of the book below: Reviews for ‘Unlearning Liberty’ “Modern societies grant their universities many privileges, from subsidized partying for students to lifelong tenure for professors. In return, universities are supposed to be laboratories of ideas, where diverse theories—including new and unpopular ones, which history tells us have some chance of being correct—may be broached and evaluated. In this alternately entertaining and shocking book, Greg Lukianoff shows how modern American universities have abdicated this responsibility. Their bloated bureaucracies, enabled by cowardly leaders and mobilized by politically correct crusaders from the left and the right, have clamped down on free expression, with the tragicomic result that you have far more freedom to express opinions outside a university than within one. Lukianoff is an engaging exposer of this scandal, combining good storytelling with clear principles and a serious purpose with a light touch.” Steven Pinker, Harvard College Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, author of The Blank Slate and The Better Angels of Our Nature “Greg has spent over a decade working to bring the Constitution back to campus. In Unlearning Liberty, he brings to life his many fights with university censors and shows the abandonment of fundamental freedoms on campus for what it is—an issue of grave importance to every single American. Anyone concerned about the future of higher education, the state of national discourse, or the future of our civil liberties should read this enlightening and revelatory book.” Nat Hentoff, journalist, author of Free Speech for Me—But Not for Thee “Here’s a book full of sunlight—the best disinfectant for campus censorship.” Jonathan Rauch, guest scholar, Brookings Institution, author of Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought “Greg Lukianoff’s Unlearning Liberty is destined to be a classic work on freedom in America. His beautifully written account—as riveting as it is distressing—covers all areas of higher education, including student orientation, life in the dorms, speech in the public forum, the conduct of student judicial systems, and learning in the classroom. Lukianoff’s findings should occasion a call to metaphorical arms: rather than teaching the lessons of living as free people, American higher education is doing the opposite. It is encouraging students to “unlearn” the liberty that is their constitutional heritage. Those who care about the fate of our republic must read this important book.” Donald Alexander Downs, Alexander Meiklejohn Professor of Political Science, Law, and Journalism, University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus “American universities have been described as islands of intolerance in a sea of freedom. Unlearning Liberty is a meticulous and inspiring guide on how to liberate the islands!” Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute, author of The War Against Boys “’Brazenly unconstitutional and hypocritical’ is how Greg Lukianoff, president of FIRE, characterizes the bizarre and even comical restrictions on free speech that have become routine on college campuses over the past few decades. In Unlearning Liberty, Lukianoff uses intelligence, passion, and common sense to describe and denounce the censorship and punitive vigilance that have come to prevail both in the classroom and out. Exposing the incoherent politics that ensue when vigorous debate and dissent are seen as too dangerous, too upsetting, to be tolerated, he shows that being offended is not only the price of liberty but is intrinsic as well to the process of genuine thought and learning. Lukianoff argues brilliantly and with wit for the importance of free expression in a society that hopes to produce free human beings rather than craven conformists. All those who suspect they might one day want to express an unorthodox thought or take an unpopular stance need to read this book. Now!” Daphne Patai, professor, Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, University of Massachusetts Amherst, author of What Price Utopia? “Unlearning Liberty shows why free speech rights on campus are more important than ever, and how controversy is still a great teacher.” Mary Beth Tinker, plaintiff in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District “Beautifully written and powerfully argued, Unlearning Liberty is a dismaying chronicle of the sorry state of free speech on today’s campus – and beyond. Lukianoff demonstrates how pervasive campus censorship corrodes the intellectual independence that is essential for liberty and democracy to thrive in our larger society. Most readers will be shocked to learn how even the most respected higher education institutions, while paying lip service to academic freedom, in fact systematically suppress dissent and criticism. An essential wake-up call!” Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law, New York Law School, former President, American Civil Liberties Union (1991-2008), author of Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights One reviewer on Amazon stated: America used to be a tolerant society. In part, Lukianoff's book laments the degradation of tolerance in our society. What's going on reminds me of what Camile Paglia recently said. "The left has destroyed the principles & the legacy of free speech & tolerance fought hard for & won at great price by the counterculture revolution of the 1960s." ~ Camile Paglia, author, one of the founders of the feminist movement, openly gay lesbian, once proud Democrat, & a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. Media Reviews of Unlearning Liberty “Learning Censorship on Campus,” Luke Sheahan, The Journal of Value Inquiry, Jun. 18, 2013 “Civility and Sex Speech,” Carlin Romano, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jun. 17, 2013 “Lukianoff’s Ashes,” Les Sillars, Salvo, Jun. 8, 2013 “Unlearning Liberty Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate by Greg Lukianoff,” What Would The Founders Think, Jun. 3, 2013 “Review of Unlearning Liberty,” Steve Macek, Academe, May 8, 2013 “College: Where Free Speech Goes to Die,” Bruce Thornton, Defining Ideas, Hoover Institution, Feb. 28, 2013 (Also published in Real Clear Politics, Feb. 28, 2013) “Dismantling Dissent,” James D. Hoff, The GC Advocate, Feb. 15, 2013 “Unlearning Christianity,” Benjamin Wiker, Catholic World Report, Feb. 10, 2013 “Unlearning Liberty: The Uncertain Future of Free Speech,” Julia Thompson, tothesource, Feb. 1, 2013 “Books in Brief,” Evan Sparks, Philanthropy Roundtable, Winter 2013 magazine “Campus Censorship Breeds Societal Dysfunction,” Harvey Silverglate, Forbes, Jan. 16, 2013 “Unlearning Liberty (Book Review),” Deone Emineth, Great Plains Examiner, Jan. 12, 2013 “Unlearning Liberty,” Harry Lewis, Bits and Pieces, Jan. 12, 2013 “Unlearning Liberty: Hazelwood at 25,” David Moshman, The Huffington Post, Jan. 6, 2013 “Free Speech at Risk in the Universities,” Matthew Hurtt, America’s Future Foundation, Doublethink Online, Jan. 4, 2013 “Campus Liberty Under Siege by Liberal Academia,” Melvyn L. Fein, The Marietta Daily Journal, Jan. 7, 2013 “Free Speech in Higher Education,” Kenneth L. Marcus, The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 26, 2012 “Preoccupied with Regulating Student Thought Crime, Universities Ignore Binge Drinking,” J.P. Freire, Acculturated, Dec. 10, 2012 “Colleges Hate Free Speech. Why Should I Care,” David French, National Review Online, Dec. 6, 2012 Speak Loudly and Carry a Big Stick,” Danielle Charette, Swarthmore College’s The Phoenix, Dec. 6, 2012 “It’s a Beautiful Thing, the Destruction of Words.,” The Legal Satyricon, Dec. 5, 2012 “Colleges Have Free Speech on the Run,” George F. Will, The Washington Post, Nov. 30, 2012 “Unlearning Liberty,” Tim Black, The Spiked Review of Books – Issue no. 62, Nov. 30, 2012 “Unlearning Liberty,” Denyse O’Leary, MercatorNet, Nov. 28, 2012 “Barone: The Tyranny of Good Intentions at U.S. Colleges,” Michael Barone, The Washington Examiner, Nov 27. 2012 “Young: Political Correctness on Campus Chills Debate,” Cathy Young, Newsday, Nov. 26, 2012 “Cool Justice: Shouting Fire: Antidote for Mind-Numbing Political Correctness,” Andy Thibault, The Register Citizen, Nov. 26, 2012 (Also published in the Housatonic Times, Nov. 27, 2012) “The Imperiled Freedom the Candidates Ignored,” Peter Berkowitz, Real Clear Politics, Nov. 21, 2012 “Weekend Interview: How Free Speech Died on Campus,” Sohrab Ahmari, Wall Street Journal – Weekend, Nov. 16, 2012 “Review: Unlearning Liberty,” Bonnie Pritchett, World on Campus, Nov. 15, 2012 “Working Together to Liberate the Quad,” Bruce Walsh, Metro Newspapers, Nov. 11, 2012 “Free Speech on FIRE,” Robert VerBruggen, National Review Online, Nov. 9, 2012 “Unlearning Liberty: A Must Read to Deter the Degradation of Discourse,” William R. Toler, Independent Register, Nov. 6, 2012 “For Men, Little Due Process on the College Campus,” Helen Smith, PJ Media, Nov. 2, 2012 “FIRE Singes the Censors,” Donald A. Downs, Minding the Campus, Nov. 2, 2012 “A Psychological Solution to Bullying,” Izzy Kalman, Psychology Today, Nov. 1, 2012 “Unlearning Liberty: Censorship on College Campuses,” Rachel Moran, Reason, Oct. 26, 2012 “Campus Censorship: ‘It’s Much Worse Than People Think,” Jennifer Kabbany, The Daily Caller/The College Fix, Oct. 24, 2012 “Putting on the Fresh Person Fifteen,” Mike Adams, Townhall.com, Oct. 29, 2012 “Unlearning Liberty,” Mike Adams, Townhall.com, Oct. 23, 2012 “Teaching the Wrong Lessons,” George Leef, The Pope Center, Oct. 23, 2012 “Unlearning Liberty: An Important But Frightening Tale of How We’re Being Taught to Accept Censorship,” Ken White, Popehat, Oct. 23, 2012 “Fighting for Free Speech,” Andrew Evans, The Washington Free Beacon, Oct. 22, 2012 “Book Review: Unlearning Liberty,” Sol Schindler, The Washington Times, Oct. 18, 2012 “Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate,” Publisher’s Weekly, Sep. 24, 2012 Greg’s Writing in Connection with Unlearning Liberty NOTE – his writings are on Liberal and Conservative sites Wall Street Journal, “Greg Lukianoff: Feds to Students: You Can’t say That,” May 16, 2013 Minding the Campus, “6 Ways to Defeat the Campus Censors,” Apr. 21, 2013 The Huffington Post, “Harvard and How Silence Isn’t Golden,” Apr. 12, 2013 The Daily Caller, “The New Victorians strike yet again,” Apr. 12, 2013 CNET, “Twitter, hate speech, and the costs of keeping quiet,” Apr. 7, 2013 Forbes, “FAU College Student Who Didn’t Want To Stomp On ‘Jesus’ Runs Afoul of Speech Code,” Mar. 26, 2013 ACS Book Blog, “Campus Censorship, Unlearning Liberty, and the New American Echo Chamber,” Mar. 21, 2013 Wall Street Journal, “Campus Clampdowns on Free Speech Flunk Their Legal Tests,” Feb. 16, 2013 National Association of Scholars, One Hundred Great Ideas for Higher Education, “Teach the Habit of Debate,” Feb. 7, 2013 The Huffington Post, “Breaking: Federal Jury Finds College President Personally Liable in ‘Facebook Collage’ Case” Feb. 1, 2013 Ricochet, “Six Years After Expulsion for a Peaceful Protest, Decision May Come Any Minute in Infamous ‘Facebook Collage’ Case,” Jan. 30, 2013 Forbes, “A Canadian College Student Vandalizes Free Speech Wall, Then Claims Moral High Ground,” Jan. 30, 2013 The Huffington Post, “Censorship on Campus in 2012: From Benghazi to Free Speech Zones at the University of Missouri,” Dec. 31, 2012 Forbes, “Speech Codes: The Biggest Scandal On College Campuses Today,” Dec. 19, 2012 The Daily Caller, “Campus Censorship, Chilled Speech and ‘Unlearning Liberty,’” Nov. 14, 2012 The Huffington Post, “Censored: Top Ten Pics Too Hot for Campus,” Nov. 12, 2012 New York Daily News, “N.Y.’s Ivory Towers vs. Free Speech,” Nov. 11, 2012 Breitbart, “Presidential Debates Would Have Violated ‘Speech Codes’ of Host Universities, Oct. 25, 2012 The New York Times, “Feigning Free Speech on Campus,” Oct. 24, 2012 The Huffington Post, “Censorship on Campus Is Everyone’s Problem,” Oct. 17, 2012 The Daily Caller, “How campus censorship makes us all a little bit dumber,” Oct. 15, 2012 The Daily Caller, “Unlearning Liberty: Auburn’s Censorship of Ron Paul Poster is Part of Larger Problem,” Sep. 20, 2012 This is just one liberal authors' view which I agree with. And he seems to be back by many from all sides of the political landscape. If people from the right and from the left see it as an issue than maybe it just might be an issue worthy of discussing. TG: Now we can either discus the essence of my post: Is free speech being limited unfairly on campuses? What kind of speech can and should be limited? (a related topic) Or we can call names and demonstrate that the Huskerboard itself is not a place for free speech at least in the Political/Religious forum. Why is this topic important to me? Because I teach as an adjunct part time and I encourage free speech and open sharing of ideas in my classes (yes they are business related - so you can't get too 'far out' there but there is still plenty of opportunity regardless)

Maybe the deal isn't as solid as we thought? Khamenei seems to disagree: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ayatollah-khamenei-accuses-wh-lying-being-deceptive-and-having-devilish-intentions_914336.html

I received this eml link recently and thought I'd share for discussion. Questions that it brings up: Is political correctness getting in the way of quality education? Is political correctness getting in the way of 1st amendment free speech? Is PC damaging the ability to have free expression of thought in the class room? Of course PC can cut both ways. We tend to think of it as a 'liberal' issue now under the current cultural environment - it is the most dominant PC position. Liberals are suppose to be all about free expression (thoughts, words, love and otherwise) yet it is only free within certain perimeters of acceptability which is defined by them. To be otherwise (outside of the perimeter) is to be intolerant. So they are intolerant of those who think otherwise (the 'intolerant'). It is possible that this could cut the other way also. If our country's media, education, political environment was more conservative perhaps we would see a 'reverse PC'. So the discussion isn't about liberal PC or Conservative PC (We might observe conservative PC at a very conservative or religious college) it is about PC regardless of slant and its affect on 'liberal' education. The person who emailed this to me stated: It is a quick read (pasted below) that highlights how freedom of expression is being lost under the guise of “inclusive language campaigns" and campus speech codes. I find it a bit ironic that the conservative Christian college that I am associated with seems to enjoy more intellectual liberty than many of its counterparts who seek to purge certain thoughts and words from their communities because they find them intolerable under their banner of "tolerance?” http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/americas-colleges-have-become-political-correctness-indoctrination-centers America’s Colleges Have Become Political Correctness Indoctrination Centers By Michael Snyder, on February 9th, 2015 Most parents assume that when they send their kids to college that they will receive training which will prepare them for a lifetime of employment. Sadly, the truth is that very little time is actually spent imparting practical skills to students at most of America’s colleges. Instead, an extraordinary amount of classroom time is spent telling students what they should think and what they should believe. At this point, most institutions of “higher learning” in this country have been transformed into political correctness indoctrination centers. There is a reason why college towns have a reputation for being extremely liberal. The truth is that they are bastions for “progressive” thought. Each and every day, millions of young adults all across America are literally being systematically brainwashed. In case you are wondering, I know what I am talking about. I spent eight years getting three degrees at public universities. And it doesn’t even really matter what area of the country you attend school. The “education” that students are receiving at schools in very liberal states is virtually the same as the “education” that students are receiving at schools in very conservative states. Our young adults represent the future of this nation, and they are receiving a level of indoctrination that is so comprehensive that it would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Colleges and universities all across this nation spend an extraordinary amount of time and effort to alter the belief systems of their students. This even extends to teaching them what words are “appropriate” to use and which words are not. For example, just check out what is happening at the University of Michigan… Dozens of posters plastered across the University of Michigan caution students not to say things that might hurt others’ feelings, part of a new “Inclusive Language Campaign” at the state’s flagship public university that cost $16,000 to implement. Words declared unacceptable through the campaign include “crazy,” “insane,” “retarded,” “gay,” “tranny,” “gypped,” “illegal alien,” “****,” “ghetto” and “raghead.” Phrases such as “I want to die” and “that test raped me” are also verboten. But this isn’t just an advertising campaign. In fact, University of Michigan students are actually being asked to sign a pledge that they will use “inclusive language” from now on… Students have been asked to sign a pledge to “use inclusive language” and to help their peers “understand the importance of using inclusive language,” according to campaign materials. If you think that this is just an isolated incident, you would be wrong. One survey of 409 colleges conducted in 2013 discovered that 62 percent of them have “speech codes” that “severely departed from First Amendment standards”. Meanwhile, these “institutions of higher learning” are failing miserably at what is supposedly their primary task. Today, the average college freshman reads at a 7th grade level. In a desperate attempt to get as many students through the system as possible, most college courses have been so “dumbed down” that the family dog could pass them. If only parents knew. The amount of useful knowledge that their kids are actually receiving is very small. But most parents are utterly clueless and they just keep writing huge tuition checks semester after semester. It would be hard to describe how utterly useless some of these college courses are. For instance, there is one college in upstate New York that is offering a course entitled “The Sociology of Miley Cyrus: Race, Class, Gender and Media“. Do you think that is going to prepare your child for the real world? And here is a list of some other actual college courses that have been taught at U.S. colleges in recent years… -“What If Harry Potter Is Real?” -“Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame” -“Philosophy And Star Trek” -“Learning From YouTube” -“How To Watch Television” -“Oh, Look, a Chicken!” Are you starting to get the picture? No wonder so many students “graduate from college” but are still dumb as a rock. The following are some numbers about the quality of college education in the United States that come from an article that appeared in USA Today… -“After two years in college, 45% of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36% showed little change.” -“Students also spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago” -“35% of students report spending five or fewer hours per week studying alone.” -“50% said they never took a class in a typical semester where they wrote more than 20 pages” -“32% never took a course in a typical semester where they read more than 40 pages per week.” But even with so little being demanded of them, most college students in the United States still cannot manage to graduate from school on time. Federal statistics show that only 36 percent of all full-time students receive a bachelor’s degree within four years, and only 77 percent of all full-time students have earned a degree by the end of six years. Instead of studying hard, most college students treat college like one giant party. No wonder so many of them want to extend it for another year or two or three. And when these kids get away from their parents, their morality tends to go into the toilet. For example, just check out what one survey discovered about male college students… A third of male students questioned in a survey admitted they would rape a woman if they could get away with it. The study found that 31.7 per cent of the mostly white American participants questioned admitted they would force a woman to have sex in a ‘consequence-free situation’. Academics quizzed volunteers on how they would act in a situation where they could have sex with a woman against her will ‘if nobody would ever know there wouldn’t be any consequences’. These are the leaders of tomorrow? Are you kidding me? Our system of college education is deeply, deeply broken. Like I stated above, I speak from experience. I earned three degrees from “good schools”, and I saw firsthand how pathetic the system is. So what do you think? Is there any way to fix our institutions of higher learning? Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

Knapp, not defending him here, but I don't think he got all that angry or flustered. He was just trying to slow down her machine gun accusations without giving him a chance to address them individually. When she did slow down, he answered them fairly calmly. Whether his answers were adequate is another story. Now, all of her 'accusations' of flip flopping are valid and he needs to answer them and answer better than Romney did in 2012 if he hopes to get anywhere. PS: Rand Paul isn't my choice among the potential candidates. Edit: found this this morning. I guess there are others who agree that he was angry and thin skinned. I was expecting a lot of yelling back in forth when I saw Knapp's comment before I viewed the video. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-kelly-grills-paul-on-thin-skinned-charge-but-tells-chuck-todd-to-butt-out/

Bo had it easier based on two words: Expectations & Acceptance After BC's last season, our win total expectations were less. BC had 2 losing seasons in 4 years. We just wanted to be consistently above 500 again. Acceptance: Most of us immediately accepted Bo back in the NU family because of his DC role in 2003 and his success at LSU as DC. (Paul Johnson, at Navy at that time, was my 1st choice wt Bo as my second choice - experience as a HC over a good DC but no HC experience). We felt that all that needed to be fixed was the D and Bo would get that done. Most of us believed that the O was in good shape and that Ganz should have been the starter during BC last year (I think the players knew it too and that was a big part of losing the players during that disastrous year. ) Wt Ganz at the wheel and Bo over the D - most thought this would be a easy turn a round. MR comes in this year with much higher expectations. We've gotten use to 9 wins each year so now the bar is not only to bring in the 9+ wins but the hardware also and now. Acceptance: I think 99% of us said "WHO" when MR was named as our coach. We were looking for the splash hire who would guaranty us that hardware next year or at the latest year 2. While I think many of us have now dealt wt the acceptance part - we seem to think that he and his staff are an upgrade, we like his demeanor, tone, and hiws embrace of NU tradition - we still have this hesitancy based on his pass record. So the jury is still out - he still isn't one of us until he proves it on the field. Bo was one of us the day he came back to become our HC.

You know -- you bring up a good point. I was thinking the other day about all of our silos (the missile type not the farm type) and how old these are now getting. I think 60 min did a show on them over a year ago and there is still some old technology in those silos. I happened to meet a man at the Okla Cornhusker Club who had a big role in building those silos. He died last year (around 85 yrs old) and he was working on these back in the 1960s. An uncle of mine also flew B-52s and some of those are equipped wt nukes - Before he died, he told me of problems wt the B-52s. During Vietnam he had to bail out of one outside of Guam due to electrical failure- now they are 40 years older. Maybe they don't put Nukes on 52s anymore but we do have a snake pit of trouble under our own arm pits wt these aging bombs/missiles.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8559c84e-d896-11e4-ba53-00144feab7de.html#axzz3WY7ng5J5 I agree - something very disturbing about the continuation of the Bush/Clinton presidential dynasty

Rand is said to be announcing on Tuesday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rand-pauls-delicate-balancing-act/2015/04/05/6e38af6c-d946-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html So we'll have 2 of the most conservative in the race - Cruz and R Paul. I suspect within the month we'll see the full menu.

The deal won't do that, but it does transition our diplomatic stance with Iran, creating a more open environment that ideally will lead to more cultural exchange and eventually normalized relations. Removing an enemy or even a potential enemy from your list of problems is a step towards peace in the MidEast. The Iranian people are probably more with us than most people think. No doubt several countries are watching these events unfold with a good deal of interest. Nobody thinks that this is the final solution, least of all the group of highly informed diplomats that created the framework of the agreement. It is a piece of the puzzle, though. The sanctions we have in place––at least as I understand them––are about isolating Iran financially from the rest of the world, creating an incentive for changed behavior. We're doing similar things to Russia (who's economy and currency are in the tank), specifically targeting wealthy/influential people in the country and freezing them out. On the hope for optimism bit, try this one on for size: the U.S., China, Russia, France, and Iran all agree on something. For once. If that one doesn't cheer you up, Iran is fighting ISIS, and the Iraqi army just took back Tikrit. The thing about the Middle East is––as most people know––it's a total clusterf*&k. If we can get chemical weapons out of Syria and stop Iran from going nuclear without firing a shot, we're winning, or as close to winning as we're likely to be in the near future. Good points. Iran fighting ISIS is a very good thing. Any movement forward is a good thing. Now if we can get them to denounce any talk of destroying Israel and recognize their right to exist, then we've made real progress. But at least they got to the table wt us, China, France and Russia. If they have peaceful intentions, then perhaps we can see progress within the whole region later. They are not friends wt the Saudi's either - so a lot of hurdles remain in that very sectarian world. I've heard some concern that they might be able to enrich via a 3rd party country (namely the guy pictured above - Mr Kim's N. Korea). Are there safe guards of any kind to prevent that that you know of?

Not Ego Driven: I think that is why he had so many staff members with little experience - he didn't want them to outshine him. I think he felt threatened by greater coaching talent. (from me an arm chair psychologist - but real life observer) "That's what's wrong with that place.'" That is like the arsonist blaming the fireman for putting out the fire. Obviously, the guy is a bitter man but it didn't start wt his firing at NU. His antics at NU were driven by his bitterness. It is amazing that it didn't show more than it did - the only reason he stayed 7 years at NU.

Just waiting on you Knapp