Fostering Students' Free Expression

Below is the front cover and editorial of the latest issue of The American Dissident, Issue #46, inspired by The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Both were sent to the editors, depicted on the cover.  Unsurprisingly, not one of them deigned to respond...  

........................................................

Editorial

Censorship Now!

Freedom of Expression… in Higher Ed

Unfortunately, tenure has led to the ossification of American education.  The hiring, promotion, and tenure system has institutionalized sycophancy toward those in power.  

—Camille Paglia, Tenured Professor, University of the Arts

 

The rise of hate speech threatens… or so they say. But what is hate speech?… or so they don’t say.  Well, criticism is/can be hate speech.  So, I say, let hate speech rise!  Banning it is an act of censorship and a violation of the First Amendment. Banning serves to kill inconvenient truths, hurtful to hacks with thin skin, haters themselves who hate freedom of expression.  “Censorship now!” would be a slogan too truthful, too transparent.  And so the haters supplant it with calls to remove disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation… 

        Searching for some grist, I came across an ad (see store.chronicle.com/products/fostering-students-free-expression?variant=42345778348229?cid=cs-che-cdp-2022-section-front-footer-11) in the Chronicle of Higher Education for a book written and published by the Chronicle of Higher Education. The front cover of this issue, “The Chronicle of Higher Indoctrination,” thus resulted.  Since the author of the book description was not indicated, I depicted the top honchos of the publication, Editor-in-Chief Michael G. Riley, as well as a few of the other editors and managers (see www.chronicle.com/page/contact-us).  

    How not to question the very title, Fostering Students’ Free Expression.  A thinking individual might actually wonder how college professors and administrators might serve to foster that when they themselves have an overwhelming tendency to self-censor.  In fact, how might the very editors of the Chronicle do that when no doubt their rise to the top demanded turning a blind eye and team playing, certainly not individual rude-truth telling. Career success (climbing the ladder), in general, depends on such behavior. Evidently, speaking truth and career success do not make good partners.  

        The book in question is digital and contains 74 pages and was published in September 2023 and also does not list an author.  It costs a mind-boggling $179.  Might that really be for only one digital copy? The Chronicle states:  “Learn more about digital licensing options and request a quote. For group purchases of fewer than 100 users, please refer to our bulk pricing."  

n any case, according to the anonymous ad writer, “The pandemic made students feel more isolated and vulnerable. Unending political turmoil has left them frustrated.” Well, how about the profs and administrators? “Many professors say that students are reluctant to tackle tough questions in classroom discussions, and a 2022 survey by Heterodox Academy found that the majority of students who are timid when it comes to sharing opinions in class said they worried about the reactions they might get from peers.”  Couldn’t one say the same for the profs and administrators, and if not, why not?  After all, conformity is a synonym for team playing, which tends to be  obligatory in higher ed.  

          The description praises professors as “cultivating an environment that encourages discussion of difficult topics—and how administrators can support faculty members who do this work.”  Difficult topics, eh?  Might they include the higher ed ambiance that encourages team playing at the expense of truth telling and the reality of general professorial apathy to freedom of expression when ideology (e.g., DEI and CRT) demands it? Well, I sent this editorial and the front cover image to the editor/managers in question and asked them to consider publishing both as an example of their purported support for freedom of expression.  No response was ever received. 

    The back cover of this issue, “The Business of Writing,” depicts two GrubStreet leaders, Artistic Director Dariel Suarez and Founder/Executive Director Eve Bridburg. Waiting for my car inspection, I went through the magazines, leafed through Bostonia, the Alumni Magazine of Boston University.  “Big Moves at GrubStreet,” written by Grub publicist Joel Brown, grabbed my attention. It focused on Grub's “gleaming new home on the Seaport.” Of course, everything in alumni magazines tends to be glowing wonderment.  “GrubStreet always had a sense of inclusion from the very beginning [in 1997],” noted Bridburg, “and we’re trying to create something that is more welcoming, less paternalistic, and more inclusive.” How original!  Inclusion!  But, of course, NOT inclusion regarding criticism of GrubStreet!  “It isn’t just about bringing people in, ‘this is gonna step up our numbers.’  It’s about following through, even in the growth of our staff,” stated Suarez.  But perhaps writing should be about truth and free expression, not about increasing numbers. GrubStreet’s website echoes the overwhelming business/money and identity politics aspects of the writing industry today (see grubstreet.org/). 

        A final comment: The hate-speech attack on free speech has become an establishment weapon of the ruling oligarchy to further We, the In-Lockstep People. Biden failed to embed his Orwellian Disinformation Governance Board into the bureaucracy. But CISA (Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency) has existed since 2018. 

CISA defines mis-, dis-, and malinformation (MDM) as “information activities.” This type of content is referred to as either domestic or foreign influence depending on where it originates.

• Misinformation is false, but not created or shared with the intention of causing harm.

• Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.

• Malinformation is based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate.

     And so, facts must be destroyed if they harm.  P. Maudit cartoons are clear examples of malinformation because they openly seek to harm, via facts and logic, buffered cogs of the establishment. How many more terms will be created by Big Gov/Academe in an effort to kill truth and free expression and further control We, the People?  Sadly, America is following the European Union in that oligarchic endeavor.  Democracy—freedom of speech—is dying, which is why I continue to speak/write rudely and openly.  Inevitably, one day in the near future, in America, a journal like The American Dissident will not simply be ostracized—excluded from library shelves and listings of journals (NewPages and P&W)—, but will be strictly prohibited and forced into the realm of samizdat… 

 

Patricia McGuire

Editorial--Issue #34

Torn in Two

Firewalls that once strictly separated news from opinion have been replaced by hopelessly blurred lines. Once-forbidden practices such as editorializing within straight news reports, and the inclusion of opinions as if fact, are not only tolerated; they’re encouraged. […] I’m commonly asked, “Can ‘the news’ be fixed?” In simple terms, there are two components necessary to do so: We must correctly identify (and admit) our problem, and then take steps to correct it. We have yet, as an industry, to take step one.

—Sharyl Attkisson

Journalist ideologues do not like the First Amendment because it permits those outside of their ideological cocoon to openly question and challenge the absence of reason and fact normally inherent in ideology.  Authoritarians hate the First Amendment because it permits criticism. The ploy of journalist ideologues now seems to be to dismiss free-speech activists as haters and white-nationalist racists. It is mind-boggling, childishly simplistic, and downright stupid to bellow HATE, HATE, HATE, though in a far too often successful effort to KILL DEBATE.  Too much following!  Too much groupthink!  WANTED:  Individual free-speech activists!!!

    Fascists today in America seem content bellowing:  Hate! Hate! HATE! Racist! Racist! RACIST! Islamophobe! Islamophobe! ISLAMOPHOBE!  Nazi! Nazi! NAZI!  Yet such ad hominem is not a counter-argument and contradicts democracy’s cornerstone, vigorous debate.  Boston Globe Assoc. Editor and Columnist Renee Graham joyously and mind-bogglingly declares, in evident absolute lack of any semblance of journalistic objectivity, let alone integrity: “‘Free speech’ activists, greatly outnumbered, found no purchase here for their thinly-veiled hate.”  The title of her essay, “Trump Is White Supremacists’ Leader,” might lead an individual thinker into arguing therefore “Obama Is Black Supremacists’ Leader.” But double standards prevail and annihilate such a logical counter-statement.  On the nation’s college campuses, chanting choruses of children condemn free speech and vigorous debate.

       We live in darker and darker times. “Liberalism is white supremacy!” bellowed BLM protesters at William & Mary College and prevented, via the heckler’s veto, Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, from speaking. In other words, for those successful fascist protesters, freedom of speech, a core tenet of liberalism, must be eliminated. It has gotten to the point where one cannot express an alt-opinion without getting moderated (i.e., censored) into oblivion, as if one didn’t even exist. InsideHigherEd.com recently did that with several of my alt-opinions, which therefore inspired this issue’s front cover. For the censored alt-opinions, see wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/doug-lederman-and-scott-jaschik.html and wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2017/08/scott-jaschik-and-doug-lederman.html.  Both IHE editors, Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman, incarnate the shame of academe today. College president Patricia McGuire, also depicted on the cover, responded in full approval of the censorship of my response to her article, which I’d sent to her.  

     On another note, Poets & Writers magazine offers “Writing Prompts” in each issue. So, if you want a prompt for The AD, check out P&W’s website and write something critical, critical, critical on any of the amazingly inane featured articles, including “Writing Prompts” like the following:    

Last month, Crayola announced the retirement of one of their yellow crayon colors, Dandelion, which will soon be replaced by a blue crayon. Since Binney & Smith first began producing Crayola crayons in 1903, many colors have been cycled in and out. Some colors have remained the same shade but changed names over the years, such as Peach, which was previously named Flesh Tint, Flesh, and Pink Beige. Read more about the history of Crayola crayon colors, and write a poem inspired by some of the names you find most evocative, perhaps finding thematic potential in how the types of names have evolved over the years.

    Yes, let’s all write poems inspired by crayon colors! You cannot make this shit up, as the saying goes. Now, here’s an unabashedly racist, sexist and even ageist zine, though with the seal of approval of ideology (i.e., identity politics).  And, of course, if you’ve been sufficiently brain-washed (i.e., multiculti/diversity-indoctrinated), you will be compelled to disagree with my observation.  

Quillsedge Press is accepting submissions for our “50 over 50” anthology through September 22. Women poets over the age of 50 are eligible to submit. Translations welcome if the original poet is also a woman at least 50 years old. Discounted fees for women of color. For full guidelines, visit www.quillsedgepress.org.

    Now, how about submissions from men over 50 and discounts for white men?  Ideology with its inevitable double standards always trumps reason in our brave new world… Quillsedge ain’t the only anything-but-the-rude-truth mag out there.  In fact, they all seem to be thus. Here’s a few of the more inane amongst them, as listed in Poets & Writers:  

—Coffee Poetry Anthology edited by Lorraine Healy, published by World Enough Writers (imprint of Concrete Wolf). Send us poems that involve coffee in some fashion. 

—We need poems, short fiction, and creative nonfiction to fill an upcoming anthology with the theme “Tattoos.” Sponsored by Main Street Rag Publishing Company. 

—Common Ground Review is looking for wave-themed poetry for our 2018 Spring/Summer issue: New wave, sine waves, radio waves, tidal waves, hand waves, any wave function—surprise us! 

     Finally, since poets love to deify poetry and themselves, they ought to stand up—not in groupthink pussy-hatted clusters—but as individuals and speak truth to power, especially where it might actually be a wee bit risky for their lit careers.  Think of Villon, who spoke truth to the ruling theocrats of Paris in the 1400s and ended up in a medieval hole in the ground (“En fosse giz, non pas soubz houz ne may”), then forever exiled. Poets who don’t want to make waves will come up with all kinds of lame excuses and seek to belittle the rare ones who do, as in sour grapes, tired trope, full of himself or whatever…  

Doug Lederman and Scott Jaschik

Censored Yet Again on Inside Higher Ed

The left has been praying for an event like the one at Charlottesville.  The left sees right-wing Nazis all over the country, and for that cannot see Muslim terrorists at all.  Finally, their prayers were  answered.  Hardcore left-wing ideology inevitably blocks out uncomfortable and unwanted TRUTHS.  What about the anti-white racist Antifa and BLM protesting instigators?  Silence!  Silence by too many shameful journalists!  After all, if the protesting instigators were not present, violence would likely not have occurred in Charlottesville.  Antifa wants violence.  Antifa got violence.  Why is that not reported?  We hear about white supremacists.  But what about the black supremacists?  Silence.  

It is really sad that so many academics like Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University (“Charlottesville, American Tragedy Redux”), prefer hardcore ideology (i.e., indoctrination and consequent censorship) to uncomfortable TRUTHS (i.e., education), including blacks were slaveholders in America; whites were slaves; Muslims are still slaveholders and traders today.  Evoke those facts and be “ad hominized" as racist and islamophobe by the ideologically manacled like McGuire.  Reading the latter's article, one would think 95% of southern whites held slaves.  Instead, the figure is more like 5%.  And what about the blacks who sold the slaves in Africa?  Uncomfortable truths!  Silence!  Censorship!  

“The greatest danger the United States faces today is not from a hostile foreign power, scary though the threats may be, but rather from our own domestic terrorists and those who aid and abet them,” argues McGuire.  That has been the left’s spiel.  And yet statistics likely indicate the greatest danger (besides increasing left-wing ideology and resultant censorship, banning, and other affronts to the First Amendment) to be Islamic jihad terrorism.  So much talk about Hitler, and almost no talk about Stalin and Mao, who had many more people murdered!  Why?  Left-wing ideology!  Moreover, Hitler was a devout left-wing socialist, who the left has been trying to turn into a right-wing conservative.  Mussolini, uber-fascist, was a devout Marxist.  

“We must continue to promote education as the best, perhaps only, means to confront our national tragedy of racism,” concludes McGuire.  Education or rather indoctrination?  Promoting ideology inevitably means demoting TRUTHS, including the other side of Affirmative Action (e.g., unprepared blacks intellectually overwhelmed in college).  What might the result of incessant ubiquitous hardcore focus on racism be?  Certainly, the reality has been the increasing divide among the left and right (and blacks and whites) that resulted from 8 years of Obama.  For the left, increasing Stalinist indoctrination is the only way to somehow solve the racist problem, and that includes heavy and constant emphasis on making all whites feel guilty and all blacks feel victimized.  Will it work?  Let's hope not!   

“Charlottesville was yet another act in a long-running saga of racial hatred, writes Patricia McGuire, and the mobs of white men on the march have made the best possible case for affirmative action,” notes a faceless Inside Higher Ed journalist at the very top of McGuire’s article.  Not very objective for a journalist!  Yes, finally we have “mobs of white men.”  But what about the “mobs of black men” in the past riots from Baltimore to UCal?  Was it put that way?  Of course not!  Journalists are the shame of America today because of their egregious lack of objectivity.  Well, will this comment be censored?  Perhaps…  Thus is the way of higher ed today.  [And unsurprisingly, the comment was censored (i.e., removed after it was posted).]

..........................................................

From: George Slone 

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 6:48 PM

To: editor@insidehighered.com

Subject: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

To Editors Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Education:  

Perhaps you ought to at least inform people, whose comments are censored on your website, as to why your decisions were made.  Wouldn't that indeed be helpful in the realm of "let's have a conversation," as opposed to "let's not counter the accepted narrative"?   You have censored other comments I'd made over the years and w/o notification or explanation.  Does that sound like democracy to you?  It sure doesn't to me.  In fact, have I been banned from commenting all together?  My censored comment figures below and will be posted on my website with or without your response.  And I do expect no response.

From: George Slone 
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 7:08 PM
To: president@trinitydc.edu
Cc: editor@insidehighered.com
Subject: Re: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

To Patricia McGuire, President, Trinity Washington University:
I suspect you are a partisan of censorship of viewpoints you do not like.  If so, that's not very surprising for higher education in this sad day and age of increasing groupthink.  In any event, below is the comment I posted regarding your Inside Higher Education article.  Unsurprisingly, it was censored or moderated as the euphemists like to call it.  And of course it angers me that censorship seems to be the way of higher education today.  But one must still fight on!   You will note, no swear words, no sex, and no threats in it at all.  Ah, but you will also note that it rigorously challenges your assumptions and blindspots.  Thank you for your attention.  BTW, how about getting your library to subscribe to The American Dissident, where your students could actually read and be exposed to such opposing viewpoints.

From: Pat McGuire

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 8:33 PM

To: George Slone

Cc: editor@insidehighered.com

Subject: RE: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

Dear Dr. Slone:

Thank you for your message.  However, you are wrong on many counts.  I have nothing to do with the comment moderation of insidehighered.com, but I can tell you that the comment you offer below [above, not below:  "Censored Yet..."] is incoherent and certainly not publishable for that reason.  As for me, you insinuate a lot about me that’s simply not true, but I have learned through long experience that there’s no point responding to such vituperation other than to thank you for letting me know your thoughts.

With best wishes,

Pat

From: George Slone

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 8:58 PM

To: Pat McGuire

Subject: Re: Censoring comments on Inside Higher Education

Hi Pat,

Thanks for responding.  I didn't think you had anything to do with censoring out my comment.  BUT I did think you wouldn't care about the comment being censored and would likely not request the two editors not to censor it.  So, I was not really wrong at all on that account.  And at the end of your email, you definitely argued in favor of the censorship incident.  

As far as my comment being "incoherent," how could it possibly have been coherent... for the alt-left?  Also, if it were me, I'd certainly cite an example or two in an effort to back my criticism of lacking in coherence.  You didn't do that.  You simply put forth a general dismissal of all of my comments with one word, "incoherent."  That sort of reaction sadly seems to be widespread amongst academics whenever criticized.  In essence, it is akin to ad hominem.   To argue my comments "not publishable" is really a non-argument, especially when you fail to cite one particular comment that is "incoherent" and thus "not publishable."    

You ought to really contemplate your usage of ad hominem-like argumentation, which is really not a counter-argumentation at all.  It is simply an indirect form of shooting the messenger in an effort to kill his message.  

Why, one must ask, did you purposefully exclude from your article mention of Antifa, which was definitely a part of the Charlottesville problem?  Was that remark "incoherent"?  Why didn't you mention that the cops did nothing to quell the confrontation between the right-wing Nazis and left-wing Antifa fascists?  Was that remark "incoherent"?  Your article really did fail to evoke a lot of what really happened at the Charlottesville riot.  

What precisely did I insinuate about you personally that was false?  Again, you do not stipulate.  Are you not staunch left-wing?  Thus, I cannot even apologize if indeed I were wrong about that or anything else.  Proven wrong, I have no problem at all admitting it openly.  Do you?  

Your final sentence is typical of far too many academics who hate vigorous debate, cornerstone of democracy: "there’s no point responding to such vituperation."  Again, you use another ad hominem-like term, "vituperation," and fail completely to disprove anything at all written in my criticism of your article.  It is a great shame that academics like you and academic journalists like those at Inside Higher Education seem to seek to push only one point of view, while crushing any other viewpoints, including mine, that might question and challenge that point of view.  

Anyhow, thank you for responding.  From my rather lengthy decades-long confrontations with academics across the country, responding is quite rare... and thus I sincerely commend you for it.  BTW, I am a libertarian (i.e., staunch advocate of the First Amendment and vigorous debate, cornerstones of democracy).  

Best,

G. Tod

...................

[No further response received.]

Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman

Permanently Banned from Commenting on Inside Higher Ed?

The times are getting quite Soviet-like!  Inside Higher Ed censored my comments twice in one week.  The Nazis censored!  The Commies censored!  But InsideHigherEd.com doesn't censor.  It moderates!  Might I be permanently banned from commenting?  If so, why?  Sadly, neither editor Lederman or Jaschik will respond to that question.  Sadly, they do not really seem to stand out in the ivory tower, but rather fit right into its mold of correct-think... 

Below is the censored comment I posted to former University of Virginia president Robert M. O'Neil's rather dull opinion piece, "Why Charlottesville"?  And in an effort not to get censored, I self-censored by not using the term "dull," and got censored anyhow.  In 2009, I'd sketched a cartoon on Herr Lederman, though posted it in 2014.  It was inspired by Lederman's passion for censorship.  I guess the lad hasn't yet forgiven me for that horrendous cartoon thought crime...

.................................

Perhaps it's time the left, especially academics like Robert M. O'Neil, search for black scientists to celebrate, instead of the tired trope of black ball hitters and players.  Also, the KKK is bad, but BLM is equally bad.  The left needs to open up to TRUTH.  The "far right" AND the "far left" are also "the people."  MissyB, hiding in anonymity, doesn't understand that.  Demonizing Breitbart and Trump does not constitute reasoned argumentation.  Facts do that.  MissyB asks, "When will the far right take responsibility for its incitement of violence?"  Well, the same could be said about the far left!  But successful indoctrination prevents MissyB from making that point.  "Where are all the typical conservative trolls on IHE this morning?" she asks.  [Ah, sweetie, they've been CENSORED!] Calling people "trolls" is also not reasoned argumentation.  Facts are reasoned argumentation.  Focus on a proven lie spouted by an alleged "troll," rather than lazily call the latter "troll."  Now, will I be labeled a right-wing, Nazi "troll"?  Likely!

G. Tod Slone, Ed.

The American Dissident