28 February 2008 @ 8:24AM >> When I was an undergrad at Bucknell, one of the things that frustrated me was that, for all the talk of the importance of tolerance and diversity, there didn’t seem to be very much tolerance for diverse viewpoints.

I was involved in publishing an opinion and commentary newspaper at Bucknell, and on multiple occasions, entire stacks of our free paper were lifted wholesale from their distribution points. We knew it was theft because, several times, people reported seeing piles of unread copies dumped in trash and recycling bins around campus. Back then, the school took no action to try to counteract these crimes against free thought.

Recently, the students who publish the school’s conservative paper, The Counterweight, noticed that their publication was also confiscated from points around campus. It seems Bucknell’s current administration is taking this sort of thing more seriously these days.

Here’s an e-mail sent to the Bucknell community from Brian C. Mitchell, the university’s president:

From: Brian C. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 15:35
To: Bucknell Faculty Staff and Students
Subject: [CAMPUS:5878] Removal of The Counterweight from Campus Newsstands
Importance: High

Dear Member of the Bucknell University Community:

Last week, most of the supply of the latest issue of The Counterweight was taken from the campus distribution racks. This act of apparent theft and harassment undermines the right of The Counterweight, and in fact of all student publications, to express their views. In addition, this publication is printed with resources provided via Bucknell Student Government and is the result of the hard work of Bucknell students.

Our Department of Public Safety is now investigating this incident, and I write to request your assistance in identifying those responsible. Should you have any related information, I ask that you complete this anonymous tip form at [URL removed] or contact Public Safety at 7-3333. You need not provide any personally identifiable information.

We appreciate any knowledge you can provide to assist in this investigation and your helping to uphold the rights of our student publications.

Sincerely,

Brian C. Mitchell
President

Good for President Mitchell to recognize the gravity of these thefts and for trying to do something about it.

Considering that the administration under the school’s previous president was at times quite antagonistic towards The Counterweight, I’m glad to see that Bucknell seems to be moving in the right direction.

27 February 2008 @ 8:17PM >> The Economist has a fascinating article on how the Internet is changing Hollywood. Indoctrinate U gets a brief mention.

24 February 2008 @ 6:08PM >> Today’s Quote of the Day, from of John Hinderaker, over at PowerLine:

Cuban jails still contain hundreds of political prisoners. It’s too bad they aren’t terrorists, instead of just being non-Communists. Then they might get some sympathy.

23 February 2008 @ 10:03AM >> It no longer matters whether you live in a Western country that respects free speech. If you dare say anything critical of radical Islam, the long arm of Sharia law will still try to reach out and choke you:

Iran has urged the Netherlands to block a planned anti-Koran film, citing Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as the legal basis for doing so. [...] Iran’s Justice Minister Gholamhossein Elham asked his Dutch counterpart Ernst Hirsch Ballin to use European human rights law to stop a European from exercising one of those most basic rights. Freedom of expression has been the rallying cry of those who defended the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten for publishing the Mohammad cartoons - and republishing the most controversial one (the turban bomb) this week after a death threat against the artist who drew it.

[...]

On Friday, Iran’s news agency IRNA reported on the letter, which the Dutch government told NRC Handelsblad it had not yet received. IRNA wrote the following [...]:

“You can stop the process of this satanic and highly intriguing move resorting to articles in European Convention on Human Rights ... We, too, know and respect the freedom of expression, but insulting the sanctities and ethical values on that pretext is totally unacceptable.”

Elham reminded Balin of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, where it states, “...On this basis, observing freedom of expression, keeping in mind the responsibilities thereof, can be restricted in order to avoid the occurrence of chaotic social conditions, commiting crimes, safeguarding ethical values, or the others’ rights.”

Iran’s Justice Minister at the end of his letter to his Dutch counterpart considers the movie insulting against the most sacred sanctity of the world Muslims, a satanic move that can intrigue social unrest, and violating the rights of the entire world Muslims, asking for immediate halting of the blasphemous film’s production.

If you assume that complaints like this won’t go anywhere, you haven’t been paying attention.

21 February 2008 @ 8:01AM >> Canada’s National Post recently carried a piece by Barbara Kay on Indoctrinate U:

Building on testimonials by students, faculty, alumni and critical commentators, including attempts to interview campus administrators (not a single one co-operated; several were filmed calling the police to eject Maloney from campus), the young filmmaker mounts a compelling indictment of—in George Orwell’s words — the “smelly little orthodoxies” suffocating intellectual diversity on campus.

Indoctrinate U exposes the full gamut of the PC scourge: irritations that grate, like speech codes forbidding words that may lead to “a loss of self-esteem” (Colby College) or a ban on gender-specific partner terms such as “boyfriend” (University of West Virginia); and cuts that sting: on campus after campus, conservative student journalists are reviled, their dailies trashed en masse. “The only good Republican is a dead Republican!” screams one offended student when offered a conservative broadsheet.

Diversity of opinion is squashed, sometimes with savagely hypocritical zeal. At Indian River Community College in Florida, the Christian Fellowship was refused the right to show The Passion of the Christ because it was “R rated,” but a play called F—king for Jesus was permitted, featuring a girl masturbating before a picture of Jesus.

The most sympathetic victims are conservative faculty, because academia is their life, not a way station. At California Polytechnic, “outed” professor Laura Freberg was reproached by her colleagues, “We never would have hired you if we’d known you were Republican.” In spite of her impeccable academic credentials and stellar teaching ratings, Freberg was removed as department chair, and a swastika burned on her lawn.

Just when you think he has plumbed its depths, Maloney finds more sickening examples of Western self-loathing. Kuwaiti student Ahmad al-Qloushi dared to write a pro-American essay at Foothill College. He was threatened with the loss of his visa by a professor; and administrators subsequently authorized the distribution of a third-party flyer calling him “as bad as Hitler” and likening him to a suicide bomber.

These examples seem sensational, but the film’s tone is calm and objective. Maloney did not appear to have cherrypicked his witnesses. He toured campuses big and small, famous and humble, across the nation. It was the same “velvet-totalitarian” story everywhere.

Two more Indoctrinate U screenings were announced today, but if you’re unable to see the film in person, you can now download it from the Indoctrinate U online store.

20 February 2008 @ 7:18PM >> Commandments from on high:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

[...]

You have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged.Michelle Obama,
wife of Senator Barack Obama

15 February 2008 @ 8:55AM >> Global Warming has become so strong and so pervasive that even imaginary creatures are becoming extinct:

LEGENDARY Nessie hunter Robert Rines is giving up his search for the monster after 37 years.

The 85-year-old American will make one last trip in a bid to find the elusive beast.

After almost four decades of fruitless expeditions, he admitted: “Unfortunately, I’m running out of age.”

World War II veteran Robert has devoted almost half his life to scouring Loch Ness.

He started in 1971. The following year, he watched a 25ft-long hump with the texture of elephant skin gliding through the water.

His original trip was to help another monster hunter with sonar equipment and quickly identified large moving targets.

He was smitten and returned the next year, which is when, he says: “I had the misfortune of seeing one of these things with my own eyes.”

Since then, he has been obsessed with tracking down the creature with a staggering array of hi-tech equipment. It was this gear that took the famous “flipper” picture that year which created a stir around the world.

Despite having hundreds of sonar contacts over the years, the trail has since gone cold and Rines believes that Nessie may be dead, a victim of global warming.

Come to think of it, I haven’t seen that many unicorns or leprechauns recently, either.

14 February 2008 @ 11:56AM >> This quick recap of the topsy-turvy presidential campaign should be inspiration for any underdog flirting with giving up.

12 February 2008 @ 12:52AM >> A Clinton-related conspiracy theory:

It isn’t all that hard to believe that a guy who’s alpha [male] enough to risk his entire political career and presidential legacy for a few hummers from a pudgy intern might subconsciously sabotage his wife’s ascent to power, is it?

Radley Balko, from “Did Bill Sink Hill on Purpose?â€?

10 February 2008 @ 2:55AM >> Update: The review program has now ended. The offer below is no longer valid. If you’re interested in seeing the film, you can now download a copy from the Indoctrinate U online store.

---

Within a matter of days, we will be ready to launch the Indoctrinate U online store, where we will be offering the film for download as MPEG-4 files and ISO DVD files. MPEG-4 files are playable on Windows, Mac and Linux, and ISO files can also be used to create your own DVD copies of the film playable on virtually all home DVD equipment. All you need is a computer with a DVD burner, software capable of burning ISO files, and a blank DVD.

But before we open the store to the public, we will be offering free downloads of review copies to a limited number of bloggers who plan on publishing reviews of the film. If you’re interested in reviewing Indoctrinate U, please send your name (or online pseudonym), the name of your site, the site’s URL, and the e-mail address where you’d prefer to be contacted to this e-mail address:

reviews (at) indoctrinate-u (dot) com

When our online store launches, this offer will expire, so if you’re interested, e-mail us soon!

Oh yeah, non-blogger media folks are welcome, too.

9 February 2008 @ 2:12PM >> I don’t know who this would freak out more: New Yorkers or tourists...?

8 February 2008 @ 9:24AM >> That’s what you’d have to say if the Archbishop of Canterbury had his way:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable” and that it would help maintain social cohesion.

Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4’s World At One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

He says that Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He added Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.

Great idea. Let Sharia law govern marital disputes. If that happens, Britain is one step closer to legalizing the killing of Muslim women, as long as the murderers are male relatives.

Thankfully, the misguided Archbishop doesn’t go quite so far as to suggest that British law should never apply to Muslims, and therefore under his scheme there would be a right to “appeal” to British common law:

“It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general.

But still, setting up parallel rules of law for different communities is a great way to ensure the eventual disintegration of a society. With honor killings already occurring in Western societies, granting legitimacy to separate judicial systems is a further signal that Muslims in Western countries will not be held to Western standards.

If such a plan is instituted, eventually, someone will argue that this partial accommodation of Sharia law is insufficient and that by putting British law above Sharia law, Muslim are in effect second-class citizens. And the multicultural enablers in Britain will be convinced that this is true, that Sharia law should not take a back seat to British law. They will say that bigotry is the reason that Sharia law is subordinate to British law, and the only way to end the bigotry is for Muslims communities to have full control over policing their own affairs.

In the long run, there is no way to partially apply Sharia law. Either it applies, or it does not. And if it applies, then Muslims in Britain would have no more rights than Muslims in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

7 February 2008 @ 9:22AM >> The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group featured in Indoctrinate U for their role in defending the free speech and free thought rights of students and professors alike, has launched a video project highlighting their work. Andrew Marcus and I worked on their first two videos, the first of which FIRE released yesterday:

This video [...] serves as an introduction to FIRE, its principles and issues, and its commitment to liberty on campus. It then turns to FIRE’s case at San Francisco State University, where students endured a months-long investigation for stomping on Hamas and Hezbollah flags during an anti-terrorism protest.

The San Francisco State case is one I covered previously.

6 February 2008 @ 12:46AM >> If Senator Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination and goes on to lose the general election, there will undoubtedly be those who argue that his loss is a sign of racism among American voters.

So, after a primary fight in which Senator Hillary Clinton’s husband repeatedly and clumsily steered attention to Obama’s race, if Democrats subsequently reject Obama, is that a sign of racism among Democrats?

The race among Democrats is still very close, and Obama racked up some important wins last night. But it seems that Obama tends to do better in polls than he has in actual elections. He could have pulled into a commanding lead yesterday, but instead he finds himself nearly tied with Hillary in the delegate count.

Late polls had him winning last month’s New Hampshire primary and yesterday’s California contest by what, 8-13 points? Then he loses, and not by razor-thin margins. Are some Democrats lying to pollsters about their choice? And if so, why would that be?

Throughout the night, reporters on both CNN and Fox News cited exit polling data showing that Obama does much better among white male voters than he does among women, Asians or Hispanics, who support Hillary overwhelmingly.

If Hillary is nominated, it may be that identity politics prevented a black man from moving into the White House.

Who would have guessed that the one group that couldn’t be blamed for such a scenario would be white male Republicans?

5 February 2008 @ 12:32PM >> A new announcement on the Indoctrinate U website:

Bucknell University, the alma mater of Indoctrinate U director Evan Coyne Maloney, now has a screening scheduled for April 3rd.

Last time Evan visited Bucknell, it was for a screening of Brainwashing 101, a precursor to Indoctrinate U. The campus group that invited Evan to screen the film also gave him permission to videotape the screening and the Q&A afterwards. But the administrators at Bucknell had a different idea, and sent the head of Security to tell Evan—in front of the audience gathered to watch the film—that he had to stop filming or he’d be arrested.

Who knows what’ll happen this time, but whatever it is, it won’t be dull!

1 February 2008 @ 8:34AM >> In Canada, reviewing a fictional book can be considered evidence of a hate crime.

Mark Steyn, who is currently being brought up on hate speech charges by an extrajudicial government arm inappropriately called a “Human Rights Commission,” once reviewed a novel depicting a future in which America succumbs to Sharia law by the year 2040.

Steyn’s description of the book’s plot points is now being cited as evidence of “blatant Islamophobia,” to which he responds:

But the plaintiffs, and presumably the "human rights investigators" to whom they took their complaint, apparently believe that describing the plot of a novel should be actionable. I wonder how, say, Margaret Atwood feels about that. A few years back, she wrote her own dystopian theocratic fantasy about an America renamed the Republic of Gilead and under the thumb of a Falwell-Schlaflyesque Christian tyranny. What's to stop a Christian group taking a doting Atwood reviewer - or maybe the author herself - to a Canadian "human rights" kangaroo court? C'mon, you leftie novelists, what do you think there’ll be left for you to write about once the plot of a work of fiction becomes a recognized “hate crime”?

Of course, the “leftie novelists” probably aren’t worried. They’re in on the joke, and they know that hate speech laws will never be applied to them as long as their invective is directed at the right targets.