Despite the fact that “Jewish sensitivities” and the
accusation – true or false – of “antisemitism” were and continue to be the
major factors in creating a chilling effect and restricting free speech in
North America, the editors of the Wall Street Journal are making a big deal
about a report that was issued by an outfit calling itself Foundation for
Individual Rights in Education (Fire) without mentioning the Jewish factor or
its role in this half-century sordid development.
In a piece they published on December 10, 2016 under the
title: “Free Speech on the Quad” and the subtitle: “The First Amendment makes a
comeback, but watch out for the bias reporting team,” the editors of the
Journal say they are heartened because “the campaign to highlight censorship on
campus may be getting somewhere”.
They cite statistics to justify their optimism that things
are going in the direction they view as the correct one. However, despite the
fact that they like what they see, they caution that those opposing the
progress achieved thus far, are trying to do an end run on it by introducing
something new into the game, something they call “bias reporting”.
The problem that has not been resolved, say the editors of
the Journal, is that while the First Amendment forces public universities to
respect free speech, it does not force the private colleges that can legally
restrict it. In addition, there exist loopholes in the law that the
practitioners of bias reporting exploit to harass even the public universities,
forcing them to restrict free speech as well, say the editors.
It is that federal laws prohibit discrimination against
someone based on gender or race among other things, they say. They also
prohibit sexual harassment on campus. And these laws are used in a roundabout
way to restrict free speech in the public universities as well as the private
colleges, say the editors of the Journal. And they give examples as to how that
is done:
First, “in June 2015 a tenured Louisiana State
University
Second, “even as some colleges drop speech codes to avoid
challenges, many have established 'bias' reporting systems that solicit
complaints about offensive speech … these systems encourage students to report
when they subjectively perceive that someone's speech or expression is biased.”
Here too, the editors mean to say that in the name of balanced reporting, free
speech can be restricted because someone was “subjectively” offended.
Third, “Students at Rutgers
can be investigated if they insult someone's heredity or blood type. At the University of Kentucky
Fourth, “A case manager at the University of Oregon
And so, the editors lament that unlike codified restrictions
which can easily be prosecuted if and when they get out of line, the way that
the culture is practiced in the institutions of higher learning these days,
makes it difficult to challenge it in a court of law.
The consequences, they say, is that the situation causes a
chilling effect on the practice of free speech where free speech should be
paramount. And so they recommend that all universities and colleges emulate the
University of Chicago, and send to all freshmen a warning that academic freedom
may hit their tender ears with things they may not like or agree with.
And the editors of the Wall Street Journal who never
discouraged the repeat of the self-designation “Islamic terrorism,” said not
one word about making public the hidden Jewish factor in the suppression of
free speech.
Do you know why this is happening, my friend? It is
happening because unlike what's going on in the institutions of higher
learning, the media world was paralyzed long ago and so remains today by the
so-called Jewish sensitivities and the chill effect that's created by the
accusations of antisemitism.