On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin interviews Caroline Crocker, who shares about her experience during the filming of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” and how she first became interested in the debate over origins. What was it like for Dr. Crocker when she was expelled for questioning Darwinian evolution (and having Ben Stein write the Foreword for her new book, Free to Think)? Listen in and find out. Buy her book: Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters
The Real Story of How Caroline Crocker Was Expelled from George Mason University. Are scientists free to think and follow the evidence wherever it leads? On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Caroline Crocker, president of the American Institute for Technology and Science Education and author of Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters. Dr. Crocker was famously expelled from her job at George Mason University. Listen in as she shares stories about her inspiring student and reveals details in her case for the first time.
On this episode of ID the Future, Caroline Crocker is interviewed by Casey Luskin about the principles of academic freedom in education. Listen in as Dr. Crocker shares from her experience in the classroom at George Mason University and how all the problems she navigated there had a common thread: the lack of integrity in science.
Kirsten Powers has written an important new book entitled: “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech.” In the interview are a couple examples given of ingrained bias. I excluded discussion of her recent column dealing with George Stephanopoulos, but THAT article can be found here.
Another great book by this evolving Christian where truth is winning out. See my previous “expose” of her faith:
…While Stephanopoulos might be the piñata of the week, singling him out misses the point. Simpson is harkening back to an era of journalism that sadly no longer exists. After all, we have a mainstream news media that took a Democratic Party talking point — “the war on women” — and reported it as if it’s breaking news.
Presuming guilt among Republicans and goodness among Democrats is so reflexive and rewarded in today’s mainstream media culture, it’s not that hard to see how Stephanopoulos truly would not have understood he had an egregious conflict of interest as he faced down Schweizer. Like a fish doesn’t notice the water, today’s mainstream journalists are impervious to their bias in favor of Democratic candidates or liberal issues. They believe they are being objective because they have mistaken their ideological belief system for truth. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has noted repeatedly, “The facts have a liberal bias.“
This view has fertile ground in which to flourish, as the ideological and intellectual diversity of the nation’s newsrooms decreases. Per The Atlantic, “Among journalists who align with one of the two major parties, four in five said they’re Democrats.” While many of these people are able to account for their bias, too many aren’t. A friend recently recalled to me watching journalists at a mainstream media outlet erupt in cheers as election returns came in favoring President Obama. It must have been lonely for the few Republicans: According to an Indiana University survey, in 1971, almost 26% of reporters were Republican. Today, it’s 7%.
In the latest episode of the American Enterprise Institute’s “Banter” podcast, Fox News regular Kirsten Powers, author of the new book, “The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech,” took aim at the Obama White House for the efforts it had made early in President Barack Obama’s presidency to delegitimize Fox News.
Powers explained this was just one instance of the regular occurring theme of some of the left side of the ideological spectrum trying to limit free speech.
“It’s been gradual,” she said. “It started out with the administration’s, what I call the war on Fox News, when they said Fox News is not a legitimate organization and started this really concerted campaign to delegitimize a news organization. That was the first time where I went, ‘Hmm, this doesn’t seem right.” You know, something is a little off here. This isn’t really the role of the government….
There were no plans in the works to put a Chick-fil-A on campus. It was the mere possibility, inspired by a survey last month showing that many students want one at JHU, that frightened our special snowflakes into recommending a ban preemptively “in the best interest of a cohesive campus environment in which all students feel accepted.”
“The SGA does not support the proposal of a Chick-fil-A, in a current or future sense, particularly on any location that is central to student life,” states the resolution passed by the student government, which noted “visiting prospective and current students, staff, faculty, and other visitors who are members of the LGBTQ+ community or are allies would be subjected to the microaggression of supporting current or future Chick-fil-A development plans.”…
[J]unior Andrew Guernsey, president of Johns Hopkins University Voice for Life, wrote about the recent decision on National Review, stating: “The JHU student government’s vote this week to ban any hypothetical future Chick-fil-A outlet from campus because of the company owner’s support for traditional marriage … sends a clear message that students who disagree with liberal orthodoxy are not welcome on the Hopkins campus.”…
In remarks delivered to the Student Government Association before its vote, Guernsey said: “In banning Chick-fil-A from campus for its CEO’s views, the JHU student government would also set a dangerous precedent that could be used to give the boot to socially conservative religious groups on campus… The entire notion of keeping the university a ‘safe space,’ free from one side of a debate on hot-button issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, is absolutely antithetical to Johns Hopkins’ stated commitment to the free and robust exchange of ideas.”
Give credit where it’s due: The “microaggression” bit is a brilliant political flourish, exactly the sort of thing that an Orwellian impulse towards purging one’s environment of thoughtcrimes deserves….
Of course, this isn’t really about “microaggressions” (i.e. “things that don’t bother normal people but send neurotic liberals to the fainting couches”), this is about the gay left telling businesses “If you don’t support and celebrate our agenda, we will crush you.”
Because that’s what fascists do.
A Non-Fascist would say, “I don’t like the policies of your company, so I’m not going to eat there.” (Which is why I don’t eat at Buffalo Wild Wings or Sonic, for example.) But a fascist is a different animal entirely. It’s not enough for the fascist to decide not to patronize a business whose policies are disagreeable to him. The fascist has to deny others the choice of using that business as well, and, ideally, punish the business owner for daring to disagree with him.
[Editors Note: Gay Patriot refuses to exchange their wage earned actions with the people at Buffalo Wild Wings, Sonic, Chili’s, Panera, Chipotle, and TGIF because they are against the 2nd-Amendment. In case you were wondering.]
The debate may be over for Al Gore, most leading Democrats, and the media like the New York Times, NPR, the Chicago Tribune, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and the like. But at least kids now have the freedom of thought to debate the issue where those surrounding them are to juvenile to consider freedom of thought (and not re-education camps) the intelligent choice!
Marc Morano Testifies Before West Virginia Board of Education:
The Daily Mail notes of this victory that deeper discussion will ensue:
Two months after withdrawing its controversial science education standards with modifications that would have asked students to question the scientific community’s assertion that global warming is caused by human greenhouse emissions, the West Virginia Board of Education voted Thursday to amend the standards once again to allow classroom debate on climate change.
Despite months of national scrutiny from media outlets, teachers and educational organizations that support scientific research proving human activity causes climate change, the board voted 6-2 to approve the newly amended standards, which will now go into effect on July 1, 2016….
[….]
…The new amendment removes both “rise and fall” and replaces it with “changes.”
Another amended standard that would have had students discuss natural forces like Milankovitch cycles and how they affect climate change was scaled back to remove language about the cycles, which are long-term changes in the Earth’s orbit often cited by those who don’t believe global warming is caused by human activity.
Linger also proposed adding language to the standards’ introduction that reemphasizes using evidence to support arguments, claims and counterclaims….
“Supporters of the changes, including board members Wade Linger and Tom Campbell, argued that ‘science is never settled’ and that debate will lead students into a deeper understanding of the issue,” the paper added.
The vote represents a significant victory for student rights and for science. The scientific method demands consideration of all data, without regard for the impact this may have on a cherished theory. Open minds and free debate are essential to science and climate science is no exception.
When the Board voted in December to amend teaching standards to allow students to consider both sides in the climate debate, global warming pressure groups were apoplectic.
They ridiculed the Board and demanded it drop its revised standards and ban facts which question the man-made global warming narrative from the classroom.
CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker, Marc Morano, who edits CFACT’s Climate Depot news and information service and a contingent of students from CFACT Collegians chapters at the University of West Virginia and Marshall University testified before the Board, which voted in January to temporarily pull back the amended standards and further consider the matter.
CFACT also asked readers to submit comments to the Board and large numbers did. Sources close to the West Virginia Board report that CFACT readers submitted thoughtful and persuasive comments that made a significant impact on the proceedings.
The original standards forced students to only consider “rises” in temperature. The amended standards substitute “changes” and permits students to consider “natural forces” as well as human activity when they study the climate.
I recently updated my defining of fascism here, reading that in total will help in understanding why gay men and women call these actions of laws against Christian bakers and photographers as fascism. To wit I wish to put in part here two posts by Gay Patriot and encourage you to click through to finsish the reading.
A pizza shop owner made the mistake of saying publicly that they didn’t care to be forced into catering a gay wedding. The left-wing MFM ginned up a fake story about a pizza shop that refused to cater gay weddings. Within a day, death threats… including a threat of arson from a public school teachers … forced the pizza shop to close.
And the gay left celebrated how effective they have become in their bullying.
[….]
Once it gets decided that certain people can have rights taken away from them by those who have power, violence follows inevitably.
Just imagine, for a second, if a gay-owned business had been forced to close because Christians threatened to burn it down and murder its employees.
The gay left has become the KKK, in 600 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets.
One aspect of the debate over whether Christians and others who don’t support gay marriage should be forced by the State (and threatened with violence) for declining to participate in gay weddings is … what’s the big deal with a wedding cake anyway? To the activist left, declining to bake a cake is no different than a lynching in the Jim Crow south. But does it really cause anyone any real quantifiable harm to send them to a different bakery? Or a different photographer? Or a different florist? Or a different wedding chapel?
If you really believe in liberty, then you have just accept that liberty means that people are going to make choices and do things that you may not agree with. And so long as they are not harming anyone else, they should be allowed to do so.
[….]
Bruised feelings do not rise to the level of actual harm.
Destroying someone’s livelihood through threats of violence —that is actual harm….
Bakers, photographers and florists are being forced to shut down their businesses unless they accede to demands that they join in the celebration of gay “marraiges,” but so far no one has faced jail time for putting commitment to the Word of God ahead of the demands of homosexuals and their cultural champions.
Until now. A couple in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho who own a wedding chapel there declined the request of a gay couple that they perform their “wedding.” They couple did what gay couples seem to do a lot in these situations. They didn’t just go find someone else. They complained to authorities, who are now threatening to throw the pastors in jail. That’s how out of control this has gotten:
The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined. The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
Note how the secular left is trying to create a fascimile of the civil rights movement in turning these pastors into criminals, and doing so very disingenuously….
[….]
The Christian who believes homosexual sex is an abomination in the eyes of God cannot perform a gay wedding ceremony, or take photos of Bob and Gary, or write “Congratulations Anna and Shirley” on a cake without compromising his or her devotion to God. That is not the same thing as making them sandwiches.
The left wants the state to use the notion of “public accommodations” to force business owners to do things that directly violate their faith. The state is complying….
Dennis Prager reads from a New York Times article (http://tinyurl.com/pm886zv) slamming “infantile” persons creating “safe spaces” to act… well… child-like. This is just another example — from the many — of just how the Left in America harms freedom of thinking and freedom of interaction with competing ideas.
How do I look at it? Makes dealing with infantile ideas/position THAT much easier for people who actually engage in the real world. Some liberals get it, like this professor who warns that by doing such (labeling people and blocking out competing ideas) creates a false reality in the classroom and will sneak up on people out in the real world: http://tinyurl.com/dxznh3h
For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/
Just a taste of the article… crazy stuff!
KATHERINE BYRON, a senior at Brown University and a member of its Sexual Assault Task Force, considers it her duty to make Brown a safe place for rape victims, free from anything that might prompt memories of trauma.
So when she heard last fall that a student group had organized a debate about campus sexual assault between Jessica Valenti, the founder of feministing.com, and Wendy McElroy, a libertarian, and that Ms. McElroy was likely to criticize the term “rape culture,” Ms. Byron was alarmed. “Bringing in a speaker like that could serve to invalidate people’s experiences,” she told me. It could be “damaging.”…
Are women independent? Tough? Able to do anything a man can do or bear? Or are they children… lesser of the sexes? Needing to be coddled? Protected at all times?
“Triggering” has become the all-purpose left-wing tool for censoring opinions leftists don’t like on the basis that expressing such opinions produce badfeels.
If these dames can’t handle the stress of interacting with the real world, they should just stay home and knit. Or iron, I got a whole pile of shirts they could get started on.
Question: Which American institution—one that prides itself on being open, democratic, and diverse—punishes its members severely for offering unpopular opinions, while it offers them a very narrow, limited worldview? Answer: Universities. Once the vanguard of open debate and free speech, colleges have become a place where alternative thinking goes to die. Students who speak out on behalf of traditional American ideals, unfortunately, are often silenced by college administrators. Learn how the college campus, a place that should be an intellectual melting pot, has turned into anything but, violating the rights of those who have alternate opinions.
Lecturer: Greg Lukianoff, President at The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. His book, “Unlearning Liberty,” is available on Amazon
Video Description:
Should offensive speech be banned? Where should we, as a society, draw the line where permitted speech is on one side, and forbidden speech is on the other? Should we even have that line? And should free speech be limited by things like trigger warnings and punishments for microaggressions? Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, answers these questions and more.
One of my favorite clips from IndoctrinateU, is this one by a liberal professor that echoes the above video by pointing out the intellectual laziness created by “labeling” people who “offend” them:
Video Description:
A liberal professor interviewed in Indoctrinate U explains that protecting and teaching from one ideological viewpoint insulates students who are liberal to properly defend and coherently explain their views in the real world — outside the classroom. This excerpt is taken from two parts, Part One is here, and Part Two is here. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk)
This segways into an introduction to F.I.R.E.’s co-founder, Harvey Silverglate, and exemplifies the importance of keeping free speech alive and well… especially on university campuses. Harvey touches on his Alma mater, Harvard (the ENTIRE video can be found HERE):
Here is one of my favorite examples of what F.I.R.E. does:
FIRE~ to no avail ~ tried to get freedom of speech to reign at Marquette. The Warrior Has Been Fired. Now come the lawsuits I hope:
…The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has called for McAdams’s reinstatement in light of Marquette’s egregious violations of his rights.
“If Marquette can fire a tenured professor for criticizing a fellow teacher on a blog, then tenure at Marquette is worthless, as are freedom of speech and academic freedom,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “While this is more than likely just an excuse to get rid of McAdams, the fact that McAdams’s supposed offense was criticizing a teacher for squelching dissenting opinions in class only makes Marquette’s utter contempt for dissenters more obvious.”…
Dennis Prager interviews a tenured Professor John McAdams from Marquette University… a Jesuit [Catholic] University. He recounts a student being told — essentially — that any in-class discussion of same-sex marriage is akin to bigotry and intolerance.
The Professor has a blog entitled “MARQUETTE WARRIOR” where he recounts this issue. Of course it was picked up by other sites as well, for instance, Breitart, as well as on national radio (listen herein).
The irony is that this is suppose to be a religious institution and a place for higher learning. In all the philosophy classes I have been in I have never had the right NOT to be offended when talk of my Christian faith comes into class discussion. Nor would I want or force people to accept the claims of my faith “in situ.”
Challenge and freedom of thought IS a corner stone of any healthy society. We see what barbaric societies do to try and intolerantly make another civilized society tolerant (speaking here of Charlie Hebdo).
If, in a philosophy or ethics class, or a political science class subjects are untouchable… is this not an intolerant form of governance on the university level? Where thinking outside of boxes or freedom of expression and thought are suppose to be paramount? It turns out the university is the most “unfree” place in America — the opposite of its goal I think:
Gay Patriot has this great post with commentary by Steyn Online! (BTW, the links that look bad — with a line through them — are still good.) The Left hates free speech, free-thought, and the like. They bow to ideology, not liberty.
The brilliant Mark Steyn wrote a brilliant essay on the topic.
I heard a lot of that kind of talk during my battles with the Canadian ‘human rights’ commissions a few years ago: of course, we all believe in free speech, but it’s a question of how you ‘strike the balance’, where you ‘draw the line’… which all sounds terribly reasonable and Canadian, and apparently Australian, too. But in reality the point of free speech is for the stuff that’s over the line, and strikingly unbalanced. If free speech is only for polite persons of mild temperament within government-policed parameters, it isn’t free at all. So screw that. [Emphasis Mine]
But I don’t really think that many people these days are genuinely interested in ‘striking the balance’; they’ve drawn the line and they’re increasingly unashamed about which side of it they stand. What all the above stories have in common, whether nominally about Israel, gay marriage, climate change, Islam, or even freedom of the press, is that one side has cheerfully swapped that apocryphal Voltaire quote about disagreeing with what you say but defending to the death your right to say it for the pithier Ring Lardner line: ‘“Shut up,” he explained.’
President Vladimir Putin tightened his grip on Russia’s news media by abolishing the RIA Novosti wire service and handing control of its successor to a controversial televison anchor.
[….]
Putin has been criticized for rolling back press freedoms and increasing state ownership of the country’s mass media. The decision to eliminate RIA, which was founded days after Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, comes two weeks after billionaire Vladimir Potanin sold his media business to a group backed by OAO Gazprombank.
“There’s been a consolidation in the media that’s involved in outwardly directed propaganda,” Boris Makarenko, deputy director of the Moscow-based Center for Political Technologies, said today by phone. “The holding’s new boss wasn’t an accidental choice. They’ve taken a person with the ethos of a Soviet-era propagandist, not a journalist.”
Russia was ranked 148th among 179 countries in a 2013 Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders, a monitoring group based in Paris.
