The Green Tree has Red Roots: The Sustainability Scam on Campus

"Do not trust the horse, Trojans [Salukis]! Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks [Greens], even bringing gifts."

***
On college campuses, the far Left rarely engages in open debate on the issues of the day. Why debate the other side when you can charge students to support the causes you embrace? The key is dressing your agenda with warm and fuzzy terms like "diversity," "inclusion," and--most recently--"Green" initiatives promoting "sustainability." [Green in the generic sense, not the Green Party]

Troy fell to the ruse of a Trojan Horse and the analogy is apt in the case of "sustainability" and its third circle ("social justice"). In Europe, critics of the Green movement contend that "the Green tree has Red (socialist) roots." Translation: Green has a helluva lot more to do with left-wing politics than it has to do with the environment.

The pleasant-sounding talk of mandatory "green fees" pays for more than planting trees, recycling garbage and other noncontroversial initiatives. SIU-Carbondale raises $300,000 a year from student "green fees." If you don't like what they do with the $$$, "tough." Project Eco-Dawgs cleverly set up the fee to be permanent (at least five years) and repealed only if both student governments approve a reversal.

Watch out! The Eco Dawgs lobbied for money from students, and now are getting ready to slide fees by employees, create a salaried position for "Sustainability" and more! If you don't believe me, read here

What do students and staff get for this money? Part of the Eco Dawg agenda deals with energy conservation and Green issues on campus. Dig deeper and see how the Eco Dawgs ally SIUC with far Left activists--all without full disclosure, except to a handful of individuals on the Eco Dawg Task Force.

Project Eco Dawgs has already laid the groundwork by publishing a guide that embraces the Talloires Declaration by "university leaders" declaring the "environmental pollution and degradation, and the depletion of natural resources" . . . "are caused by inequitable and unsustainable production and consumption patterns that aggravate poverty in many regions of the world." The Red faction of the Green movement has been preaching this vision of apocalypse for decades, while market capitalism has actually diminished poverty in "many regions of the world" (China, India, and other countries that abandoned the myth of a zero-sum society). There is an "inequitable production and consumption" of doom and gloom on college campuses.

Keep your eyes on the "Sustainability" menu: lots of Greenery, with a healthy offering of "labor rights," "reproductive rights" (abortion), domestic violence, and assaults on "late capitalism."

Since the Greens scammed students already, the rest of us must be alert to efforts to impose mandatory fees upon employees--particularly for causes with which many might not agree. If you support (or oppose) these causes, then send your money voluntarily to the organization of your choice.

Meanwhile, beware of Greens bearing old wine in new wineskins.

Making Laws Free

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128557.html

Ignorance is no excuse for violating the law, but it will cost you big time if you want to read the laws passed by California.

I spent the past several years navigating the corporate welfare swamp of copyright but this has to top it all. Laws were the one area that was always public domain (read: copyright free). Now states charge citizens (subjects?) to read the laws that govern them? How much would the U.S. Constitution cost if they slapped copyright on it? Has any one informed Governor Blago that this is a revenue-raising device?

If you want to read the laws the government of California doesn't want you to read, go to http://public.resource.org

Malamud also persuaded C-Span to make its vast video archive of Congress available for free. Surely, he earns "Buy This Guy a Bud" points with me!

Plants Have Rights Too!

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story on the constitutional rights of . . . green grass, wildflowers, and other flora ("Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights," Wall Street Journal, 10 October 2008). Soon, FreeU will examine the negative impact of "Green" extremism on academic freedom and human prosperity, but for now, this breaking story from the plant world. . . .

Wall Street Journal (excerpts):

"For years, Swiss scientists have blithely created genetically modified rice, corn and apples. But did they ever stop to consider just how humiliating such experiments may be to plants?

That's a question they must now ask. Last spring, this small Alpine nation began mandating that geneticists conduct their research without trampling on a plant's dignity.

'Unfortunately, we have to take it seriously,' Beat Keller, a molecular biologist at the University of Zurich. 'It's one more constraint on doing genetic research. . . .'

The rule, based on a constitutional amendment, came into being after the Swiss Parliament asked a panel of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians to establish the meaning of flora's dignity.

'We couldn't start laughing and tell the government we're not going to do anything about it," says Markus Schefer, a member of the ethics panel and a professor of law at the University of Basel. "The constitution requires it.'

In April, the team published a 22-page treatise on 'the moral consideration of plants for their own sake.' It stated that vegetation has an inherent value and that it is immoral to arbitrarily harm plants by, say, 'decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason.'"

On the question of genetic modification, most of the panel argued that the dignity of plants could be safeguarded "as long as their independence, i.e., reproductive ability and adaptive ability, are ensured." In other words: It's wrong to genetically alter a plant and render it sterile. . . ."

Here is the English-language brochure put out by the Swiss ethics panel.

"The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants"

Americans will undoubtedly usher in the Green Revolution with language far more resounding than that of the dull Swiss scientists:

U.S. Constitution (Amended, 2012):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and plants) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (Gaia) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (and adequate nutrients)."

Stay tuned for androcentric (human) stories on what your SIU "green fee" money ($300,000) is funding. It's not what you think.

Pro-Life Displays Smashed on Campuses

According to FIRE, dozens of campuses have allowed, encouraged, and refused to apologize when students, staff and professors have smashed or removed perfectly legal pro-life displays. In a recent case, Cornell relented and the police returned pro-life signs. Read

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9841.html

Cornell:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9828.html

Missouri State:

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/9833.html

Yet another example of the barbarians -- Vandals -- within the academic gates.

Will Reilly: Meet the Grand Inquisitor

[MODERATOR: In The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky includes a famous scene, “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor.” The Inquisitor imprisons Jesus for allegedly interfering with the mission of the Church. Jesus's arrival is disturbing the church’s mission. By interviewing both sides of the antiabortion protest Will Reilly reminds us

a) why free speech is important (its mission is to encourage debate); and

b) why some people—today’s Inquisitors—would ban objectionable speech in the spirit (if not name) of that "French twerp Herbert Marcuse."

Read Reilly’s account and make up your own mind]

****************************
So, today, I went to an anti-abortion rally.

As those of you who can see already know, there is a huge pictorial display called "Abortion as Genocide" currently up on the SIU campus. Sponsored by the pro-Yahweh RSO Warriors for Life, the display features the usual gory pictures of aborted fetuses and weeping non-mamas. The stated purpose of this exhibit is comparing abortion to historical genocides like the Holocaust. For the past two days, a group of 60 to 80 counter-protesters has been camped across the street from the display - carrying signs featuring bloody coat-hangers and unflattering descriptions of men.

Viewing this whole event as a living example of "conflict under law," I took my law class to see it earlier today. We spoke to both pro-lifers and pro-choicers, in order to hear them defend their respective positions. Our group talked to "pro-choice escorts" walking women around the display, pro-life advocates who had bused down to see the thing, and a brace of preachers. We politely questioned both sides. Almost everyone we hit up was willing to explain why they felt as they did; both conservatives and liberals were actually pretty difficult to quiet down.

But, there was one major exception to this rule. The very first group of people we spoke to was a bunch of liberal counter-protesters, dressed in typical "I'm-at-a-rally" gear. Two of them wore yellow "choice escort" signs stapled to their shirts. One had a piece of tape over her mouth - probably to symbolize that she was (like so many people at a public riot) unable to express herself. Another guy had a huge pink sign taped to his chest, with SIU Chancellor Sam Goldman's home number written on it. Apparently, passerby were supposed to call the Chancellor and demand that the anti-choice photos be taken down.

My students and I asked these liberal counter-protesters a few questions, mostly about whether demanding the photos be removed was anti free speech. The head of the liberal counter-protesters (let's call him the "Inquisitor") chased down a couple of my undergraduates and demanded that they give him my name and title. When I went back to confront him about this, he told me that he had been "horribly offended" by the questions I and my students had been asking. He noted that there was "no place at college" for questions like mine - much less speech like pro-life signs. Inquisitor told me that he planned to call the Chancellor's office and file a formal complaint about my "abuse" of him and his pals, and huffed off.

I called the Chancellor, who tells me that his office doesn't take too many unsolicited complaints from street protesters, but am still annoyed by this. The behavior of the liberal counter-protesters is a classic example of what French twerp Herbert Marcuse called repressive tolerance. In a famous essay, Marcuse argued that liberals should be totally tolerant of left-wing behaviors, but should feel comfortable not tolerating conservatives because conservatives are evil. Thus, the counter-protester and his friends expected people to be okay with them standing in the middle of a public road screaming about abortion, but literally attempted to fire me for asking whether his position made sense. Ah, sweet reason.

An additional note of humor is provided here by the fact that this self-appointed Inquisitor is in no position to push for limits on free speech. According to a brief Google search for the name of the person yelling at me, he's a well-known far-Left blogger. His blog is publicly available on MySpace and Blog-Spot. Even taking Marcuse into account, the Inquisitor would be one of the first victims were we to do away with the First Amendment. As I support his free speech rights, I will refrain from the ol' law school urge to post links to the most humiliating portions of the blog (here). I suggest that he and his friends extend the same courtesy to others.

In the interests of free speech from all directions, I will note that the Chancellor's number is 618-453-2341. Feel free to call him and criticize protesters, criticize conservatives, or note how awesome I am.

Chancellor is Shocked! Shocked!

Apparently, top campus administrators jump when receiving complaints from feminists and pro-choice folk. In today's Daily Egyptian, the Chancellor explained that he was forced by the First Amendment and legal counsel to allow the graphic antiabortion display yesterday. But he agreed with the side that found it "disturbing." This is the same university that covered the picture of a woman's partially-exposed derriere because children might see it. Shades of John Ashcroft! (The former Attorney General famously draped cloth over the statuesque breast of Lady Justice).

In today's letter, Chancellor Goldman called for "civil discussion and debate, [so that ] reasonable people can weigh the pros and cons of the position taken by this or any organization and form their own opinions and conclusions" [about abortion].

Goldman didn't think the graphic display produced civil discussion and debate. The next submission (by Will Reilly) suggests that civil debate did result from the display. Read Reilly and make up your "own opinions and conclusions."

How to Comment

Readers have asked how to comment. It is easy:

1. Click on the numbered "Comments" link below a blog entry. If you are the first to comment, the "Comments" link will read "O Comments."

2. After clicking on the link -- type your comment in the "Leave Your Message Box."

3. Choose a Name (real or pseudonymous) or anonymous. The default is Google Blogger so you will need to change to Name or Anonymous if you are not a Google blogger or wish to remain anonymous.

4. Click "post comment"

New Name: FreeU

Dear readers,

FreeSIU has been picked up by two sites with a national audience. Because contributors address general issues in higher education, I am renaming the site "FreeU." The web site remains the same (http://freesiu.blogspot.com).

New description:

"FreeU covers topics and current events in higher education, with emphasis upon Southern Illinois University (SIU). This site is open to a wide range of viewpoints. Just be respectful. Think of it as a big free speech zone."

As always, I'm open to submissions and encourage you to circulate or comment upon posts that interest you.

Abortion and Free Speech

Last month, someone trampled anti-abortion crosses on Newman Center grounds. (The Newman Center is the Catholic meeting place on campus, just as Hillel is a meeting place for Jewish students.)

A young zoology major, Elizabeth Hensley, constructed the subdued anti-abortion display. Hensley protested the destruction in the Daily Egyptian and was vigorously attacked online by the "free speech for me, but not for thee" crowd. You see, Hensley provoked "understandable outrage," etc. Their reaction was reminiscent of that phrase "blaming the victim."

Others came to Hensley's defense--online--but the silence from the administration was deafening compared to its overreactions in other instances. Examples: the Marc Torney case (where the entire campus came justifiably to Torney's free speech defense). Or the single "anti-feminist" email that resulted in immediate action by the chancellor's office (suspension of email, Judicial Affair charges, and more--read below). Then there was the rush to praise "diversity" when black suspects mugged a white person. A great teachable moment about law and order on campus -- and it became more gruel for prattling the mantra of diversity. Clearly, the campus pooh-bahs will defend some more vigorously than others.

One can imagine the reaction if some person violated Muslim or Jewish property on campus, much less a Black History display. We would hear that "Klan thinking" is just below the surface of our serene campus. Chancellor Goldman would take out a half-page advertisment in the Daily Egyptian (as he did last year when a student emailed a drunken rant about feminists to an off-campus web site editor). Student Judicial Affairs would go into action, and if the SIU Police located the culprit, the full force of the Student Conduct Code would come swiftly down upon him or her.

***Historical note: The last great flowering of the Ku Klux Klan in southern Illinois violently targeted Catholics and led to the destruction of a Catholic hospital in Herrin. Better dead than alive by Catholic hands was the thinking.***

Yesterday, there was a far more explicit anti-abortion display on campus. With SIU Police watching, there was no destruction of property. Later that night a debate followed between pro-choice and pro-life speakers. So, what began as an ugly trampling of free speech, ended in vigorous debate over an issue that isn't going away.

Tonight there is another campus debate dealing with pornography. Last week, we had a high-level debate on the merits of a state constitutional convention. Add the ACLU/Law School debate over the Student Conduct Code.

Kudos to the sponsors of these debates. Let them continue.

Little Red Schoolhouse: Teacher Education at SIU; Or, Why Bill Ayers Would Love this Place

"Capitalist hegemony," "white privilege," "teaching for social justice," "critical pedagogy," "liberation," "oppression studies," and classroom "resistance" (students who refuse to buy into all of the above).

What do these buzz words have to do with Bill Ayers? He is part of the movement for "revolutionary" education--and his work, and that of like-minded activists, is assigned in required "School and Society" courses at SIU and other colleges.

I first encountered the unbalanced, far-Left reading some years ago. SIU required education majors to read the Mao and Castro-worshipping Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a "classic manifesto" that has sold nearly one million copies. (For a description of the pedagogy, click here). I was stunned at the time warp: surely, Education Schools are not offering warmed-over sixties radicalism as the only source on "School and Society?" There is nothing wrong with assigning works from a Marxist or "critical pedagogy" perspective but that was all that was offered in a class that future teachers must take. When I searched other schools, I found much the same thing. Apparently, "queering" the curriculum, assaulting capitalism, and denouncing "color-blind racism" is de rigueur.

Flash forward to 2008. The name of Bill Ayers is in the air. Former member of Weather Underground and still committed to revolution--through the education schools. Read his blog: http://billayers.wordpress.com/

The troubling thing about Bill Ayers isn't his connection with Barack Obama (I'll leave that up to readers) but the fact that his approach to education is the only thing taught in many "school and society" courses. Check the reading list at SIU and elsewhere. There may be exceptions but judging from Amazon.com and course assignments, "teaching for social justice" is rampant.

It got so bad that FIRE and NAS had to successfully fight accreditation requirements that future teachers have the right "dispositions" (see here and here). I suspect we haven't heard the last of this indoctrination requirement.

Balance, not bias, is the issue. We are all "biased" which is why the curriculum ought to include opposing viewpoints, particularly in courses required to enter a profession. The notion that the classroom is a play tool for revolutionaries, Left or Right, is pernicious and disrespectful of the individual dignity of students.