I just received word that Congressional candidate Nick Coons will make a campaign appearance at the health care "tea party" rally at Harry Mitchell's Scottsdale office, 7201 East Camelback Road, Suite 335, on Saturday the 8th of August at 9 AM.
If you'd like to meet Coons, shake his hand, get him to kiss your baby, and maybe even pick his brain re: health care reform, this would be a good place to do so. +1 to Coons for showing a bit of leadership on this--and extra points to anyone who shows up with a good Nick Coons for Congress sign or T-shirt.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Two First Amendment violations in one year at University of Arizona
It's getting to the point where the University of Arizona could offer to its undergraduates a three-credit course in U.S. First Amendment law based around its own willfully negligent missteps.
Back in March I remarked several times on the University's holding of a plebiscite to decide whether or not to fund a chapter of PIRG. A solid series of precedents established that distribution of student fee monies to clubs and advocacy groups must be viewpoint-neutral and that plebiscites are not viewpoint neutral at all. The University went ahead with the vote in spite of this--perhaps whoever the responsible parties were didn't know the law (when one is so obviously "close" to First Amendment issues, there's no excuse to not look) and the U's counsel was asleep at the wheel. I (still a PhD candidate) was on the phone a few times with FIRE getting ready for possible legal action if PIRG proponents won. Fortunately for the University and the taxpayer, they lost.
Now Evan Lisull at the Desert Lamp reports on further First Amendment-violating shenanigans last Spring. Apparently, because David Horowitz is "controversial", the University of Arizona felt it should charge his hosts at the U a large "security fee". As explained in a letter sent by FIRE to UA president Robert Shelton, such practices run afoul of established First Amendment law--most directly, the precedent in Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)--as they burden expression based on its content. In response to FIRE's letter, the University refunded the fee.
Colleges have for a long time given those best at a sort of ritualized histrionics of faux-victimhood a heckler's veto over others' expression, including over the exchange of ideas. What happened to Lawrence Summers at Harvard was the most prominent and perhaps nastiest example--there's no way he could even have predicted his remarks could have offended, unless he had a thorough understanding of how unreasonable people think. The problem there was akin to predicting the actions of a retard on amphetamines. The real trouble is with the low-profile cases: "political correctness" persists. Offend someone who's learned to play the game, and you're in for much waste of your time if you are a student or loss of your job if you are staff. Better to exercise caution keep those ideas to yourself.
The First Amendment, although routinely ignored, at least in theory limits the extent to which state universities may hinder free speech. Private institutions should maintain similar standards simply because anything else is incompatible with intellectual life. If one must self-censor because another to whom the administration is sympathetic is good at throwing a fit and will be "offended" by something with which he disagrees, there is no free exchange of ideas. If nothing else, a BS or BA should leave college with two things: intellectual humility and a tendency to critical thought. (Mathematical skills and logic are probably number 3.) When the "victim ritual" is part of the "hidden curriculum", reactionary tendencies become validated and even encouraged; both humility and critical thought go out the window.
But the University of Arizona, in levying that fee, went beyond validating encouraging the reactionary "victim ritual". It gave a sort of heckler's veto to a hypothetical violent mob. That is the antithesis of higher education. And the implications would make a great topic for a freshman termpaper.
Back in March I remarked several times on the University's holding of a plebiscite to decide whether or not to fund a chapter of PIRG. A solid series of precedents established that distribution of student fee monies to clubs and advocacy groups must be viewpoint-neutral and that plebiscites are not viewpoint neutral at all. The University went ahead with the vote in spite of this--perhaps whoever the responsible parties were didn't know the law (when one is so obviously "close" to First Amendment issues, there's no excuse to not look) and the U's counsel was asleep at the wheel. I (still a PhD candidate) was on the phone a few times with FIRE getting ready for possible legal action if PIRG proponents won. Fortunately for the University and the taxpayer, they lost.
Now Evan Lisull at the Desert Lamp reports on further First Amendment-violating shenanigans last Spring. Apparently, because David Horowitz is "controversial", the University of Arizona felt it should charge his hosts at the U a large "security fee". As explained in a letter sent by FIRE to UA president Robert Shelton, such practices run afoul of established First Amendment law--most directly, the precedent in Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)--as they burden expression based on its content. In response to FIRE's letter, the University refunded the fee.
Colleges have for a long time given those best at a sort of ritualized histrionics of faux-victimhood a heckler's veto over others' expression, including over the exchange of ideas. What happened to Lawrence Summers at Harvard was the most prominent and perhaps nastiest example--there's no way he could even have predicted his remarks could have offended, unless he had a thorough understanding of how unreasonable people think. The problem there was akin to predicting the actions of a retard on amphetamines. The real trouble is with the low-profile cases: "political correctness" persists. Offend someone who's learned to play the game, and you're in for much waste of your time if you are a student or loss of your job if you are staff. Better to exercise caution keep those ideas to yourself.
The First Amendment, although routinely ignored, at least in theory limits the extent to which state universities may hinder free speech. Private institutions should maintain similar standards simply because anything else is incompatible with intellectual life. If one must self-censor because another to whom the administration is sympathetic is good at throwing a fit and will be "offended" by something with which he disagrees, there is no free exchange of ideas. If nothing else, a BS or BA should leave college with two things: intellectual humility and a tendency to critical thought. (Mathematical skills and logic are probably number 3.) When the "victim ritual" is part of the "hidden curriculum", reactionary tendencies become validated and even encouraged; both humility and critical thought go out the window.
But the University of Arizona, in levying that fee, went beyond validating encouraging the reactionary "victim ritual". It gave a sort of heckler's veto to a hypothetical violent mob. That is the antithesis of higher education. And the implications would make a great topic for a freshman termpaper.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Stand and be counted: Health Care Reform "tea parties"
Via Americans for Prosperity, this announcement. The "Tea Party" group is putting on demonstrations in favor of market healthcare reform and against government takeover at nearly all Congressional offices in the state on Saturday, 8 Aug.
Especially important is influencing Harry Mitchell, Anne Kirkpatrick, and Gabrielle Giffords, who have expressed concern about the mainstream Democrats' plan. We can count on all of the state's Republicans to at least oppose the truly bad ideas out there on this one. Since Giffords has started leaning in the wrong direction thanks in part to heavy lobbying from would-be "progressives" in the Tucson area, and Grijalva is ideologically committed to single-payer, those of you in Grijalva's district should consider augmenting the crowd at Giffords's office.
The "tea party" is a little too tin-foil-hat (and see their totally repugnant sixth talking point!) for me to be associated with as a professional, but I'd make an exception for this event, however, I'll be in Palo Alto on the 8th. Let me know how it goes.
Especially important is influencing Harry Mitchell, Anne Kirkpatrick, and Gabrielle Giffords, who have expressed concern about the mainstream Democrats' plan. We can count on all of the state's Republicans to at least oppose the truly bad ideas out there on this one. Since Giffords has started leaning in the wrong direction thanks in part to heavy lobbying from would-be "progressives" in the Tucson area, and Grijalva is ideologically committed to single-payer, those of you in Grijalva's district should consider augmenting the crowd at Giffords's office.
The "tea party" is a little too tin-foil-hat (and see their totally repugnant sixth talking point!) for me to be associated with as a professional, but I'd make an exception for this event, however, I'll be in Palo Alto on the 8th. Let me know how it goes.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Throw Blue Dogs a bone: call Giffords, Mitchell, ask them to support market reform, trigger
A few weeks ago I recommended that readers living in Gabrielle Giffords's district phone her Tucson office and ask that she support the Blue Dogs's draft statements on health care.
The so-called "progressives" are lobbying hard to get the Blue Dogs to support Obama's plan. It's important that those of us who understand and support free-market healthcare reform lobby as hard. I'll repeat my suggestion with an update: If you live in either Giffords's (8th) or Harry Mitchell's (5th) district, phone your Congressman's office, express your thanks that he (that's the "he" that includes "she") is standing with the Blue Dogs on health care, and if asked, recommend
It won't hurt to call your representative if you live in other districts, but don't expect to get anywhere with Grijalva, a committed ideological proponent of single-payer.
Giffords's Tucson office can be reached at (520) 881-3588 . The phone number to Mitchell's Scottsdale office is (480) 946-2411. Be polite and upbeat. No need to tell them that Kalafut sent you, either--office staff are known to take messages more seriously if they are not part of any obvious campaign of duplication or repetition.
Put more recommendations and the responses you receive in the comments section.
The so-called "progressives" are lobbying hard to get the Blue Dogs to support Obama's plan. It's important that those of us who understand and support free-market healthcare reform lobby as hard. I'll repeat my suggestion with an update: If you live in either Giffords's (8th) or Harry Mitchell's (5th) district, phone your Congressman's office, express your thanks that he (that's the "he" that includes "she") is standing with the Blue Dogs on health care, and if asked, recommend
- That any bill with a "public option" be restricted by a "trigger" whereby government participation only occurs if private sector reform targets not be met
- For insurance to be decoupled from employment
- That the third-party payments problem be taken up in earnest, that overinsurance to the point of insulation be discouraged and HSAs encouraged.
It won't hurt to call your representative if you live in other districts, but don't expect to get anywhere with Grijalva, a committed ideological proponent of single-payer.
Giffords's Tucson office can be reached at (520) 881-3588 . The phone number to Mitchell's Scottsdale office is (480) 946-2411. Be polite and upbeat. No need to tell them that Kalafut sent you, either--office staff are known to take messages more seriously if they are not part of any obvious campaign of duplication or repetition.
Put more recommendations and the responses you receive in the comments section.
Economics to be required in Arizona high schools.
A few years ago the entrance of a center-liberal party called "Civic Platform" to a coalition government in Poland caught my attention--I'm always interested in seeing what the world's liberal parties are doing right that that libertarian party is doing wrong. One of their more notable platform planks was that economics be taught at all levels in schools. (An aside: If you're thinking about leaving a comment or sending me an e-mail in Polish, don't. The combination of the last two sentences and my obviously ethnic surname might get you thinking differently, but I neither speak nor read the language. European political parties have an interesting habit of translating some of their Web content into English.)
That's an idea we should try here in the States. Students, most of whom still go to public schools, grow up to be voters, and voters who believe strange things about how the economy works tolerate politicians who believe strange things, the equivalent of witch-doctoring about how the economy works. Beyond this, an economic education will likely enrich the students personally, by having them see opportunity in a world that would otherwise seem stifling, and having them think of themselves not as belonging to some class (workers, etc.) but universally, no matter how they put food on the table, as capable entrepreneurs seeking their comparative advantage.
It's gone largely unnoticed, but Arizona has partially adopted this idea. The state standards set forth an ambitious program that has students as early as the fifth grade thinking of their history lessons in economic terms (e.g. "Describe how specialization (e.g., division of labor) improved standards of living in the three colonial regions and the Pre-Civil War North and South.") and has high-school students expected to learn things most college-educated adults don't know (e.g. "Explain the effects of monetary policy on unemployment, inflation, and economic growth.")
I can't determine when it was decided, but just stumbled on a remark from a very credible source--the Arizona Freedom Center, which is affiliated with the University of Arizona's Department of Philosophy--stating that starting in 2012 Arizona's high school students will be required to take one semester of economics to graduate. (The standards I quoted appear already to be in effect, but no separate economics course or unit is required.)
Both this and the inclusion of economics in the "social studies" standards is a great idea, and if I could figure out who is responsible, praise would be in order. My only concerns are that schoolteachers lack enough prior exposure to the subject to meet the standards, and that some will take the mainstream ideas required by the standards to be some special ideological "free market economics", mistakenly think they're being required to propagandize, and either interject their own beliefs indiscriminately or simply shirk their duty.
I've dropped in on Arizona public-school classrooms as a guest speaker on two subjects, and think that despite social promotion, low expectations and an anti-intellectual culture (sometimes encouraged by parents--one of these days I'll pass on a story about this) students are capable of learning the material. My question to readers is: How is this working out? Are teachers following the standards? Are kids learning the material?
That's an idea we should try here in the States. Students, most of whom still go to public schools, grow up to be voters, and voters who believe strange things about how the economy works tolerate politicians who believe strange things, the equivalent of witch-doctoring about how the economy works. Beyond this, an economic education will likely enrich the students personally, by having them see opportunity in a world that would otherwise seem stifling, and having them think of themselves not as belonging to some class (workers, etc.) but universally, no matter how they put food on the table, as capable entrepreneurs seeking their comparative advantage.
It's gone largely unnoticed, but Arizona has partially adopted this idea. The state standards set forth an ambitious program that has students as early as the fifth grade thinking of their history lessons in economic terms (e.g. "Describe how specialization (e.g., division of labor) improved standards of living in the three colonial regions and the Pre-Civil War North and South.") and has high-school students expected to learn things most college-educated adults don't know (e.g. "Explain the effects of monetary policy on unemployment, inflation, and economic growth.")
I can't determine when it was decided, but just stumbled on a remark from a very credible source--the Arizona Freedom Center, which is affiliated with the University of Arizona's Department of Philosophy--stating that starting in 2012 Arizona's high school students will be required to take one semester of economics to graduate. (The standards I quoted appear already to be in effect, but no separate economics course or unit is required.)
Both this and the inclusion of economics in the "social studies" standards is a great idea, and if I could figure out who is responsible, praise would be in order. My only concerns are that schoolteachers lack enough prior exposure to the subject to meet the standards, and that some will take the mainstream ideas required by the standards to be some special ideological "free market economics", mistakenly think they're being required to propagandize, and either interject their own beliefs indiscriminately or simply shirk their duty.
I've dropped in on Arizona public-school classrooms as a guest speaker on two subjects, and think that despite social promotion, low expectations and an anti-intellectual culture (sometimes encouraged by parents--one of these days I'll pass on a story about this) students are capable of learning the material. My question to readers is: How is this working out? Are teachers following the standards? Are kids learning the material?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Dana Kennedy fundraiser, tonight.
This is not an endorsement; I do not know enough about the race, and to be clear, I would almost certainly not endorse this candidate were she seeking a seat in the Legislature. But the issues of concern at the municipal level and the policy questions considered by city councilmen are different than those heard at the Legislature, and fair-mindedness requires that differences of position on matters irrelevant to the race be set aside.
This is being posted for the benefit of readers who might support this candidate advocating tolerant social policy and fiscal restraint in the face of Phoenix revenue shortfalls, passing along a bit of information I just received. A fundraiser is being held tonight, Wednesday 22 July, in support of the campaign of Dana Kennedy, candidate for Phoenix City Council, District 6, at At Ticoz, 5114 N 7th St. (North of Camelback), from 6-8 PM.
Sal DiCiccio, Nathan Oshop, and Barry Pacely staff and volunteers are, of course, welcome to send me announcements if they like, as is anyone else with news on any other campaign. But they didn't.
This is being posted for the benefit of readers who might support this candidate advocating tolerant social policy and fiscal restraint in the face of Phoenix revenue shortfalls, passing along a bit of information I just received. A fundraiser is being held tonight, Wednesday 22 July, in support of the campaign of Dana Kennedy, candidate for Phoenix City Council, District 6, at At Ticoz, 5114 N 7th St. (North of Camelback), from 6-8 PM.
Sal DiCiccio, Nathan Oshop, and Barry Pacely staff and volunteers are, of course, welcome to send me announcements if they like, as is anyone else with news on any other campaign. But they didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
