Colleges Should Protect Free Speech And Academic Freedom

Colleges and universities should be bastions of free speech and academic freedom. Unfortunately, too many administrators are attacking them. They fear the right-wingers in Congress (who believe higher education should be nothing more than propaganda for their own beliefs). 

Here is Robert Reich's take on the situation (which I wholeheartedly agree with):

The most important thing I teach my students is to seek out people who disagree with them. 

That’s because the essence of learning is testing one’s ideas, assumptions, and values. And what better place to test ideas, assumptions, and values than at a university?

Apparently, Columbia University’s president, Nemat Shafik, does not share my view. Last week she prostrated herself before House Republicans, promising that she would discipline professors and students for protesting the ongoing slaughter in Gaza in which some 34,000 people have died, most of them women and children. 

The following day she summoned the New York City Police Department to arrest more than 100 students who were engaging in a peaceful protest against it. 

Can we be clear about a few things? Protesting this slaughter is not expressing antisemitism. It is not engaging in hate speech. It is not endangering Jewish students. It is doing what should be done on a college campus — taking a stand against a perceived wrong, at least provoking discussion and debate.

 

Education is all about provocation. Without being provoked — stirred, unsettled, goaded — even young minds can remain stuck in old tracks. 

Israel’s war on Hamas is horrifying. The atrocities committed by both sides illustrate the capacities of human beings for inhumanity and show the vile consequences of hate. For these reasons, it presents an opportunity for students to reexamine their preconceptions and learn from one another. 

If Columbia, Yale, or any other university now roiled by student protests were doing what it should be doing, it would be a hotbed of discussion and debate about the war. Disagreement would be welcome; demonstrations, accepted; argument, invited; differences, examined and probed.

 

The mission of a university is to coach students how to learn, not tell them what to think. It is to invite debate, not suppress it. Truth is a process and method — more verb than noun. 

I love it when my students take issue with something that I or another student has said, starting with “I disagree!” and then explaining why. Disagreeing is not being disagreeable. Disagreement engenders thought and discussion. It challenges students to reconsider their positions and probe more deeply.

Which is why universities should encourage it. Why they should protect unpopular views. Why they should invite and welcome speakers with views that rile many students. To be riled up is to be attentive, open to new ideas. 

And why peaceful demonstrations should be encouraged, not shut down. It is never appropriate to call in armed police to arrest peaceful student demonstrators.

Finally, it’s why universities should go out of their way to tolerate expression that may make some people uncomfortable. To tar all offensive speech “hate speech” and ban it removes a central pillar of education. Of course it’s offensive. It is designed to offend.

 

There is a limit, of course. Expression that targets specific students, “doxes” them, or otherwise aims to hurt them as individuals doesn’t invite learning. It is a form of intimidation. It should not be allowed.

 

I’m old enough, and have been a professor long enough, to have seen campuses explode in rage — at bigots like George Wallace when he ran for president, at the horrors of the Vietnam War, at university investments in South Africa, and at efforts to prevent free speech. 

Some of these protests were loud. Some caused inconvenience. Some protesters took over university buildings. But most were not violent. Nor did they seek to harm or intimidate individual students.

 

Whenever university presidents have brought in the police, and students have been arrested and suspended, all learning has stopped. 

Which brings me to the central role of university faculties in protecting free expression on campus.

 

This role is especially critical now, when the jobs of university presidents and trustees have degenerated mainly into fundraising — often from wealthy alumni who have their own myopic views about what sorts of speech should be allowed and what should be barred. 

The faculty of Columbia University has every right — and, in my view a duty — to protect peaceful free expression at Columbia with a vote of no confidence in Shafik’s leadership, and seek to end her presidency. 

The Columbia faculty along with those of Yale, NYU, and other campuses now engulfed in protests against what is occurring in Gaza should do everything in their power to use the resulting provocations, inconveniences, and discomforts as occasions for learning rather than repression. 

The College Presidents Were Right About Free Speech

This week three college presidents were called before Congress to defend their universities over charges that they were allowing antisemitism on their campuses. They tried to defend free speech, but their defense of it has caused serious blowbacks from politicians and others (who seem to believe antisemitic speech should not be allowed). The college presidents were right, and their detractors were wrong. Free speech doesn't just mean speech you like, but also speech that you consider offensive (like antisemitism or other forms of bigotry). Offensive speech can (and should) be opposed, but not suppressed.

Jason Willick explains in this post in The Washington Post. Here is a small part of what he wrote:

Elite college presidents are under fire for their platitudinous responses this week to high-dudgeon questioning by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) over whether calls for “genocide of Jews” violate the schools’ policies. Stefanik demanded yes-or-no answers, but the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT gave conditional ones, with Penn’s president calling it a “context-dependent decision.”

The episode has the makings of a turning point in the culture wars over higher education.

Justified concern about American campus radicalism cannot obscure the fact that the presidents were objectively right on the free-speech merits. Universities that claim to be forums for free inquiry should not promise Congress that they will punish students or faculty for constitutionally protected speech. Private universities are not bound legally by the First Amendment, but most have committed themselves to abiding by its spirit and meaning.

Like racist, sexist, homophobic or anti-Muslim speech, antisemitic speech is generally constitutionally protected. To legally constitute harassment, speech must be so pervasive that it interferes with someone’s ability to access education — think of a mob that follows someone around campus or blocks a building. An isolated outburst, social media post or protest chant doesn’t meet that threshold.

Even speech endorsing violence in the abstract is protected. This might seem surprising, but it’s well-established law. Speech crosses into incitement only if it is both intended to cause violence and likely to cause violence in the imminent future. As the Supreme Court affirmed in 1969’s Brandenburg v. Ohio, advocating “the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.”

Stefanik’s questioning was effective because calling for the genocide of Jews shocks the conscience. But even the most committed antisemites are rarely so blunt. As Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained in a speech last week, they hide behind other terms and tropes. Stefanik suggested in her questioning that the term “intifada,” referring to violent Palestinian uprisings, calls for genocide. Others suggest that the Hamas-favored slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” is genocidal in its intent. Still others might consider “anti-Zionism” writ large to be in that category, because Israel is the only majority-Jewish nation and its enemies have shown their willingness to use genocidal means to destroy it.

But these terms, in isolation, clearly enjoy First Amendment protection. If universities announced policies of punishing expression deemed genocidal — in the absence of harassment or incitement of imminent violence — they would be committing themselves to refereeing the meaning of various anti-Israel slogans associated with the Palestinian movement.

And not only anti-Israel slogans. Speech supportive of Israel’s war in Gaza could also be deemed genocidal by activists; see how the University of Southern California briefly barred a professor from campus for saying Hamas members should be killed. Creating a new “genocide” category of punishable speech would suppress and distort debate on the Israel-Gaza war. Debates about China and Russia, also accused by some of genocide, would also be chilled.

A Government Ban On TikTok Would Be Unconstitutional

The TikTok website is used by about 150 million Americans. The site may (or may not) be owned or controlled by the Chinese government. This has a growing number in Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) wanting to pass a law banning the website. And President Biden has called for TikTok to be sold or be banned.

I believe they are wrong.

One of the arguments is that TikTok poses, or could pose, a threat to our national security. But President Biden has already taken care of that by ordering it to be removed from all government computers. If the site is not on any government computers, how can it be a threat to the security of our government?

Another argument would be that it poses a threat to business (corporate) secrets. But any company that worries about that could legally ban the website on its company computers -- just like the government has done.

Some are also saying that the site could be used to collect information on American citizens. But even if TikTok was banned, that would not protect the privacy of American citizens. Many other companies are already collecting that information, and are willing to sell it to any buyer. The only thing that could protect the privacy of American citizens is a law preventing anyone from collecting that information -- a law that would cover all websites (not just TikTok).

A final argument for banning is that TikTok could be used to promote Chinese propaganda. It could, but when should our government protect us from the free flow of ideas. In a democracy, the people are free to promote or listen to any kind of speech -- even speech that is offensive (or that we may disagree with). That is the very essence of free speech.

And that is why it would be wrong to ban TikTok. It would be a violation of the free speech provision of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The government is prohibited from prohibiting free speech (unless that speech is calling for violence). And a law banning TikTok would infringe on the free speech rights of millions of Americans.

That would be a serious mistake. It would be another step down the road to the destruction of our democracy.

It's Time To Cancel The Culture Of Racism And Hate

We have been witness to another barrage of hate by an American. Scott Adams was a very popular cartoonist. His cartoon (Dilbert) was carried in nearly every newspaper in this country, and was read and enjoyed by millions of people. But sadly, Mr. Adams was also a racist and purveyor of hate.

Recently, on a YouTube live stream, Adams called Black people a "hate group", and encouraged white people to "just get the hell away from them". The inherent racism in his remarks was obvious, and it caused a blowback against him.

Newspapers across the country dropped his cartoon strip, and the company that syndicated his cartoon (Andrews McMeel Syndication) also dropped him. In addition, his publisher has said they will no longer publish his book (which was to be released soon). These entities rightly did not want to align themselves with racism.

This has upset many right-wingers in this country. They want you to believe that this is a violation of the Constitution's First Amendment which guarantees the right of free speech.

The Constitution does guarantee free speech -- even hate speech (as long as it doesn't call for violence). That means the government cannot arrest or punish a person for what they say. It does not mean that there will be no consequences for that speech. Private individuals and private businesses have the right to oppose that speech, and businesses (like newspapers) have the right to cut ties with those promoting hate.

You will probably also hear from those right-wingers that this is just another example of "cancel culture". I won't argue with that. Shouldn't a society that prides itself on equality cancel all vestiges of hate -- whether it be racism or any other kind of hate (misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, etc.)?

Promoting hate toward people for something they have no control over (sex, color, sexual preference, age, race, etc.) is stupid. It not only hurts the people it's directed against. It also hurts our society and our country -- dividing into separate groups when we need to be unified.

Racism (and other forms of hate) have always been evil. It has been a scourge on our country. It is time to cancel the hate!

Free Speech Is Under Serious Attack In The United States

Free speech is more than just a right of all Americans -- it is a necessity for democracy to exist. Some speech will probably offend you. That's OK, because you have the right to speak up against it. But what must never be done is to limit speech (even offensive speech). Doing that will be the death of our democracy.

Here is how the editorial board of The New York Times sees the issue:

Some threats to freedom of expression in America, like online harassment and disinformation, are amorphous or hard to pin down; others are alarmingly overt. Consider these recent examples of censorship in practice: A student newspaper and journalism program in Nebraska shut down for writing aboutL.G.B.T.Q. issues and pride month. Oklahoma’s top education official seeking to revoke the teaching certificate of an English teacher who shared a QR code that directed students to the Brooklyn Public Library’s online collection of banned books. Lawmakers in Missouri passing a law that makes school librarians vulnerable to prosecution for the content in their collections.

In Florida today it may be illegal for teachers to even talk aboutwhom they love or marry thanks to the state’s so-called Don’t Say Gay law. Of course, it goes far beyond sex: The Sunshine State’s Republican commissioner of education rejected 28 math textbooksthis year for including verboten content.

This year alone, 137 gag order bills, which would restrict the discussions of topics such as race, gender, sexuality and American history in kindergarten through 12th grade and higher education, have been introduced in 36 state legislatures, according to a reportreleased last month by PEN America, a free speech organization. That’s a sharp increase from 2021, when 54 bills were introduced in 22 states. Only seven of those bills became law in 2022, but they are some of the strictest to date, and the sheer number of bills introduced reflects a growing enthusiasm on the right for censorship as a political weapon and instrument of social control.

These new measures are far more punitive than past efforts, with heavy fines or loss of state funding for institutions that dare to offer courses covering the forbidden content. Teachers can be fired and even face criminal charges. Lawsuits have already started to trickle through the courts asking for broad interpretations of the new statutes. For the first time, the PEN report noted, some bills have also targeted nonpublic schools and universities in addition to public schools.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Republican lawmakers around the country were introducing legislation they said would protect free speech on college campuses. Now, they’re using the coercive power of the state to restrict what people can talk about, learn about or discuss in public, and exposing them to lawsuits and other repercussions for doing so. That’s a clear threat to the ideals of a pluralistic political culture, in which challenging ideas are welcomed and discussed.

How and what to teach American students has been contested ground since the earliest days of public education, and the content of that instruction is something about which Americans can respectfully disagree. But the Supreme Court has limited the government’s power to censor school libraries, if not curriculums. “Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion,’” Justice William Brennan wrote in a 1982 decision.

There may not even be wide disagreement over what American students are being taught. Despite the moral panic over teaching about gender and race, American parents overwhelmingly say they are satisfied with the instruction their children receive. A pollfrom National Public Radio and Ipsos earlier this year found that just 18 percent of parents said their child’s school “taught about gender and sexuality in a way that clashed with their family’s values,” while 19 percent said the same about race and racism. Only 14 percent felt that way about American history.

And yet, some Republican candidates are using the threat of censorship as a show of strength, evidence of their power to muzzle political opponents. Last year in Virginia, Glenn Youngkin won the governorship after a campaign in which he demagogued the Pulitzer Prize-winning book “Beloved” by the Nobel Prize-winning Toni Morrison. Other candidates are looking to make issues around censorship a centerpiece of their pitch to voters in the midterm elections in races from Texas to New Jersey.

Some want to extend censorship far beyond the classroom. In Virginia, a Republican state representative tried to get a court to declare as obscene two young adult books that are frequently banned in schools, “Gender Queer,” by Maia Kobabe, and “A Court of Mist and Fury,” by Sarah Maas. The case was dismissed on Aug. 30, but if it had been successful, it could have made it illegal for bookstores to sell the books to children without parental consent.

Right-wing lawmakers are also looking to restrict what Americans can say about abortion. Model legislation from the National Right to Life Committee, which is circulating in state legislatures, aims to forbid Americans to give “instructions over the telephone, the internet or any other medium of communication regarding self-administered abortions or means to obtain an illegal abortion.” That prohibition would extend to hosting websites that contain such information.

Even when such bills fail, these efforts to censor create a climate of fear. Across the country, libraries in small towns are being threatened with closure and library staff members are being harassed and intimidated. The Times reports that librarians “have been labeled pedophiles on social media, called out by local politicians and reported to law enforcement officials. Some librarians have quit after being harassed online. Others have been fired for refusing to remove books from circulation.” The American Library Association has documented nearly 1,600 books in more than 700 libraries or library systems that have faced attempted censorship.

There are factions on both the left and the right that are insecure enough in their ideas that they’ve tried to ban discussion of certain facts or topics out of discomfort, or simply to score political points. But only right-wing legislators are currently trying to write censorship into law. This is not only deeply undemocratic; it is an act of weakness masquerading as strength. A political project convinced of the superiority of its ideas doesn’t need the power of the state to shield itself from competition. Free expression isn’t just a feature of democracy; it is a necessary prerequisite. 

Intolerance Of Ideas Should Not Be A Liberal Attribute

Liberals/progressives are quick to condemn conservatives for being intolerant, and they are right to do so. Free speech and democracy demands the free flow of ideas . This does not mean that one must be tolerant of evil actions by anyone, but ideas (even repugnant ones) must be protected.

But sadly, conservatives are not the only people who are intolerant. Sometimes we liberals/progressives are also, and we need to check ourselves and remember who we are -- believers in democratic values and free speech.

The following is part of an excellent and thought-provoking op-ed from Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times. I think it deserves attention from those of us on the left.

Progressives of my era often revere the adage misattributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” For young progressives, the priority is more about standing up to perceived racism, misogyny, Islamophobia and bigotry.

The rise of President Trump has amplified this generational clash and raised the fundamental question of how to live liberal values in an illiberal age.

It’s a difficult balance, requiring intellectual humility. . . .

While I admire campus activism for its commitment to social justice, I also worry that it sometimes becomes infused with a prickly intolerance, embracing every kind of diversity except one: ideological diversity. Too often, we liberals embrace people who don’t look like us, but only if they think like us. . . .

For those of us who believe that liberalism should model inclusivity and tolerance, even in intolerant times, even to the exclusive and the intolerant, it was disappointing to see Cambridge University this year rescind a fellowship for Jordan Peterson, the Canadian best-selling author who says he will not use people’s preferred pronouns. Debate him — that’s how to win the argument — rather than trying to squelch him.

Liberals sometimes howl when this newspaper brings in a conservative columnist or publishes a sharply conservative Op-Ed. We progressives should have the intellectual curiosity to grapple with disagreeable views. . . .

I fear that Trump has made it easy for liberal activists to demonize conservatives and evangelicals. People are complicated at every end of the spectrum, and it’s as wrong to stereotype conservatives or evangelicals as it is to stereotype someone on the basis of race, immigration status or sex. . . .

As a liberal, I mostly write about conservative blind spots. But on the left as well as the right, we can get so caught up in our narratives that we lose perspective; nobody has a monopoly on truth. If Trump turns progressives into intolerant agents of incivility, then we have lost our souls.

As we head toward elections with monumental consequences,polarization will increase and mutual fear will surge. The challenge will be to stand up for our values — without betraying them.

It's NOT Anti-Semitism To Criticize Israel Or Lobby Groups

The person pictured here is Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota). A few days ago, she made remarks criticizing the government of Israel and some lobbying groups that support it (particularly AIPAC).

Some members of Congress got upset at her remarks. They said it was anti-semitism, and they wanted the House to vote to censure her. And sadly, some House Democratic leaders went along with them.

It didn't seem to matter that Rep. Omar never said anything derogatory about Jewish people. And it didn't matter that she has also been very critical of the government of Saudi Arabia (also peopled by semites).

It's just a sad fact that, in this country, too many people (including politicians) consider any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitism. It is NOT. When the government of Israel (and some of the lobbying groups supporting it) do bad things, they deserve to be called out on it. In fact, they should be called out -- especially by our elected representatives (even a muslim woman).

Fortunately, there were some reasonable people in Congress. Many progressives and the Black Caucus, sprang to Rep. Omar's defense. They made it clear they saw no anti-semitism in her remarks and would not support any resolution condemning her. In the end, House leadership backed down. Instead, they put a resolution on the floor that condemned all forms of bigotry (anti-semitism, islamaphobia, racism, etc.) without singling out Rep. Omar.

The bill, passed 407 to 23, accomplishes nothing. It was just a face-saving measure by House Democratic leadership. I hope they have learned their lesson. Israel is not a special case. They should be open to criticism, just like any other country.

To their credit, at least 3 of the candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination also backed Rep. Omar's right to speak freely about Israel -- or anything else. Here is what they had to say:

Sen, Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts)

We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world―and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.  In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on policy.  Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence ― like those made against Rep. Omar ― are never acceptable.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California)

We all have a responsibility to speak out against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and all forms of hatred and bigotry, especially as we see a spike in hate crimes in America. But like some of my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, I am concerned that the spotlight being put on Congresswoman Omar may put her at risk.”

We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy. You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism. At the end of the day, we need a two-state solution and a commitment to peace, human rights, and democracy by all leaders in the region ― and a commitment by our country to help achieve that.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)

Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace.

What I fear is going on in the House now is an effort to target Congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that debate. That’s wrong.

The Real Meaning Of First Amendment Free Speech

Right-wing liar and conspiracy buff, Alex Jones, has been banned by several social media sites. This has some right-wingers screaming that his free speech rights are being violated. Some others on both the right and left have also made the same claim when social media thinks they have gone a bit too far and punished them.

They are all wrong. Their right to the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution has NOT been violated. They misunderstand what that right guarantees.

The First Amendment is shown above. Read it. It does not say that any private business (such a media or social media) must allow you to say whatever odious or divisive thing you want to say. And it does not say you are protected from these private businesses taking action against you if you violate their standards. It also doesn't keep other people from attacking you for those views.

The free speech right protects only one thing. It says the Congress (government) cannot restrict your right to say or print what you want, and cannot punish you for doing that. That is ALL! As long as the government doesn't act to restrict your speech or punish you for it, your right to free speech has NOT been violated.

Should "Roseanne" Have Been Cancelled? Public Says YES!

Roseanne Barr tweeted an obviously racist message a couple of days ago, and there was an immediate public backlash. She first tried to pass the statement off as "just a joke". When that didn't suffice, she then tried to blame it on her medication (Ambien), claiming that she is not a racist.

But she is a racist. Anyone who tells racist jokes is a racist. And it can't be blamed on any medication. A medication can loosen inhibitions, allowing you to say what you really feel -- but it won't make you do something against your nature.

The ABC Network understands that, and they don't want themselves associated with people making openly racist statements. They immediately cancelled Roseanne's show. Should they have done that? Absolutely!  And most Americans agree with the cancellation.

After the cancellation, the YouGov Poll questioned a national sample of 7,363 adults -- then weighted the responses to mirror the U.S. population (gender, age, income, region, and political preference). The result was that a majority of Americans agree with ABC's action in cancelling the show (53% to 28% -- a 25 point gap). And every demographic group but one (Republicans) agreed with that -- showing a large gap in favor of cancellation.

Some right-wingers are now claiming Barr's free speech rights have been violated, and her show should not have been cancelled because of something she said. Bullshit! The free speech provision in the Constitution just means you cannot be punished by the government for what you say (no matter how stupid it is). She wasn't punished by the government, so her free speech right was not violated.

ABC and the general public also have rights. They have the rights to oppose statements, actions, and ideas they disagree with -- and they disagreed with Roseanne Barr's racism. Roseanne had the right to make her odious remark, but she doesn't have the right to avoid the criticism and retribution that comes her way because of it.

Free Speech Must Include Offensive Speech To Exist At All

(This image of Berkley's Free Speech Movement in mid-1960's is from YouTube.)

I am old enough to remember when students at the University of California at Berkley demonstrated to have "free speech" on their campus. At the time, the administration made the decision on what speech was allowed and what speech would not be allowed -- and liberal or left-wing speech was not allowed. Students demonstrated (1964-65) and won the right to free speech on their campus -- and that right quickly spread to campuses across the nation. It was a victory for our Constitution, and for all Americans.

Sadly, today's students don't seem to respect those hard-won rights. The U.C. Berkley Republican club invited Ann Coulter to speak at their school. But the reaction among liberal and left-wing students (who enjoy the fruits of the 60's battle for free speech) was so strong that the college administration cancelled Coulter's speech. They claimed they were afraid of violence from those who didn't want Coulter to speak on their campus.

I find myself in an uncomfortable position -- defending Ann Coulter. Personally, I think she is a vile person, and her ideas are hateful and odious. But she should not have been prevented from speaking.

It boils down to this -- we either believe in free speech or we don't. And if we do, then we must allow speech that we consider offensive or wrong. Banning offensive speech is banning free speech.

This does not mean that we can't oppose offensive speech. We can speak out ourselves and peaceably demonstrate against it. But we must always allow it to happen.

The Berkley students who would cause violence to keep Coulter from their campus need to investigate the history of their own campus -- and then live up to the free speech ideals that students fought for in the 1960's.

Do Americans Really Believe In Free Speech ?

These charts are made from information in a recent YouGov Poll -- done on August 31st and September 1st of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of 4.7 points.

Frankly, they disappoint me. Because looking at the results I have to doubt that Americans really believe in free speech.

Note that a majority of Americans as a whole, and in all groups but one (Republicans), see racism against Blacks and other people of color as a serious problem in the United States. And it's not even close, with 66% saying it's a serious problem and only 35% saying it is not -- a huge gap of 31 points.

That's a good thing. Americans need to wake up and accept that we have serious problems, and then act to eliminate them -- especially those race problems in our institutions (schools, justice system, etc.). But then you have the bottom two charts.

It seems that 57% of Americans disapprove of Colin Kaepernick's protest of racism by sitting during the national anthem -- and that same 57% say it is never appropriate to protest by sitting during the national anthem.

They are wrong. It is always appropriate to protest injustice in this country, and that includes sitting during the national anthem or burning the American flag. I know some will say that people have died for that song or flag, but that's ridiculous. They died to protect freedoms -- like freedom of speech. And freedom of speech must include things that you may find offensive (like sitting during the anthem or burning the flag), or it is not free speech at all, but just permitted speech.

And sadly, that seems to be what a majority of Americans want -- permitted speech. They want to give lip service to the idea of free speech, but don't want any speech to happen that they don't approve of.

You don't have to agree with Kaepernick. You are as free to deny that racism and oppression exist as he is free to protest against it. It may be sick and immoral to be a racist creep, but in this country you have the freedom to be one, and to speak in favor of it.

But don't claim to be a believer in free speech, and then condemn Kaepernick (or anyone else) when they have the courage to actually engage in those free speech rights. Oppose ideas, but always defend free speech (even when it is offensive to you).

Kaepernick Did Nothing Wrong By Exercising His Rights

(Photo of Kaepernick kneeling during the anthem from nbc.com is by Chris Carson [AP].)

Colin Kaepernick again refused to stand for the national anthem before the San Francisco 49ers last pre-season game. Instead of sitting this time, he (and teammate Eric Reid) kneeled on one knee. Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the anthem is his way of demonstrating against the racism that still exists in this country.

He told the reporters present that he would be donating the first $1 million of his salary this year to organizations and communities to fight for equality. He said:

"I am planning to take it a step further, I'm currently working with organizations to be involved, and making sure I'm actively in these communities, as well as donating the first million dollars I make this year to different organizations to help these communities and help these people."

 "I've been very blessed to be in this position and make the kind of money I do, and I have to help these people. I have to help these communities. It's not right that they're not put in the position to succeed, or given the opportunities to succeed."

His refusal to stand was not popular with many in the crowd though. He received a chorus of boos from many, and at least one sign was displayed saying "You're an American. Act like one". What the person displaying that sign fails to grasp is that Kaepernick IS acting like an American -- an American brave enough to exercise his First Amendment freedom of speech right.

There has also been a lot of outrage over Kaepernick's action on social media platforms. Many are saying that he should respect the flag because many died for that flag. They are wrong. Soldiers did not fight and die for that piece of cloth. They fought and died to protect our constitutional rights -- the same right that Kaepernick is exercising.

I have noticed that the same people who complain about Kaepernick are strangely silent about the problems he is protesting. A lot of them were quick to adopt the "All lives matter" theme (which is nothing more than a way to ignore the racial problems outlined by the "Black lives matter" movement. These people don't want to discuss (or even recognize) the racial problems that still plague this country.

That is hypocrisy. How can you say you believe in the Constitution and the freedoms it gives us, and then call someone un-American for exercising those freedoms? If these people want their outrage viewed as anything but hypocritical, they should FIX THE RACE PROBLEM in this country.

It's Time For Citizens To Overrule The Supreme Court

(Cartoon image of free speech is by Chan Lowe in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.)

Thanks to a misguided Supreme Court decision, billions of dollars have flowed into our electoral system from the ultra-rich and from corporations -- much of it given in secret. These people hope to subvert the will of the people and buy candidates that will be favorable to them. The Koch brothers have promised to spend nearly a billion dollars in the coming election to get candidates elected who support their far-right-wing positions, and that is just one family -- many more are donating millions each.

Historian Doris Kearnes Goodwin and attorney/author Jeff Clements believe the court's decision was wrong, and that it must be overruled by the people. Here's what they had to say in an article for Reuters:

Surveys show that a large majority of American citizens across the political spectrum oppose the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that opened the door to unlimited political spending by global corporations and powerful unions. Yet when asked about the prospect of passing a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision, too many people argue that it would be “too hard,” even “impossible.”

This argument lacks historical perspective. Every step on the path to fulfill the promise of the American Revolution was “too hard,” but Americans did it anyway. Hard, yes; yet constitutional amendments have come in waves during times of challenge — and Supreme Court obstinacy — much like our own.

The Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War amendments may be the most well-known examples, but this pattern has recurred. A generation after the Civil War renewed the promise of American equality and democracy, for example, the Supreme Court began elevating money to a privileged place in the Constitution. It struck down basic public-interest laws, including the minimum wage, worker safety, the federal income tax and even child labor laws.

The American public took matters into their own hands during the Progressive era at the turn of the 20th century. With the 16^th amendment in 1913, Americans reclaimed the power to levy a progressive income tax, without which many of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal social programs would not have been possible.

The 17^th amendment that same year provided for popular election of U.S. senators. This replaced the old system of election by state legislatures, in which, according to the New York Times, a millionaire, either by outright bribery or contributions to a party’s campaign coffers, could buy a Senate seat “just as he would buy an opera box, or a yacht or any other luxury in which he could afford to indulge himself.” Finally, with the ratification of the 19^th amendment in 1920, women gained the right to vote after a struggle that had lasted for more than half a century.

Four decades later, two additional constitutional amendments removed further barriers to political equality. The 24^th amendment in 1964 protected the right of all Americans to vote in federal elections, regardless of the ability to pay a poll tax. President Lyndon B. Johnson hailed “the triumph of liberty over restriction, declaring “there can be no one too poor to vote.” The 26^th amendment in 1971 reduced the voting age from 21 to 18, which ensured that young adults eligible to serve in the armed forces were able to vote.

Each of these fights required hard work, tough challenges and resilience. This is as it should be. Constitutional amendments are warranted only by what James Madison called “extraordinary occasions.” That is why enacting and ratifying an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is no easy matter.

The situation we face today with regard to campaign finance is one of those “extraordinary occasions.” Overwhelming political spending by a relative handful of organizations and extremely wealthy people is marginalizing the voices and participation of most Americans. In the 2012 presidential election, a few dozen super-PAC donors exceeded all the contributions of $200 or less from the nearly four million donors to the Romney and Obama campaigns combined.

The 2014 midterm elections brought even greater concentration of big spenders. Indeed, virtually all political spending now comes from far less than 1 percent of Americans, and increasingly from global corporations using “dark money” entities to obscure the source.

The result of such unbalanced concentrated power in the U.S. system of government is exactly as Madison and other founding fathers feared: failure of effective republican self-government due to powerful factions and corruption.

The Supreme Court that issued the Citizens United decision will not correct itself. Over the past five years, the sharply divided court has only expanded the ruling. In a series of decisions, it has invalidated traditional powers of the states, striking down longstanding anticorruption laws in Montana and nullifying new approaches to strengthen voter-funded elections in Arizona and Maine. In the 2014 McCutcheon decision, the court struck down a limit as high as $123,000 on total contributions to candidates for Congress. In Hobby Lobbyand other recent decisions, courts are empowering corporations to seek even more exemptions from laws based on ever-broadening theories of corporate rights, including speech, religion and equal protection as “persons.”

To hope that the current court will fix things is folly. That is why the 28^th amendment is necessary to overturn Citizens United, just as Americans have used the amendment process to overturn the Supreme Court six times before.

The 28^th amendment would restore the power of Americans to enact reasonable election spending laws that protect the political equality of all. Specifically, the Democracy For All Amendment, which more than 165 senators and representatives have introduced, restores the authority of Congress and the states to enact election spending laws and to distinguish between human beings and corporations in doing so.

Five years after Citizens United, it is time to accept the historical gravity of our situation. It is time for Americans of all political viewpoints to come together to win the 28^th amendment — and to renew U.S. democracy again.