The purpose of free speech is to protect the marketplace of ideas, to protect expression in all of its forms, from inspiring to dissenting, from poetic to offensive (though there are a few, limited exceptions). Is there any place more appropriate in protecting such a market than the university setting? A place, we are told, that encourages critical thinking and challenges conventional thinking. Is this really true? In many ways, yes, but many forms of speech are not protected.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a non-profit group that deals in campus free speech issues, helps students understand how their university’s speech codes can land them in trouble with administrators, and also helps students with their legal battles when they do.
FIRE, along with Students for Liberty, (of which Liberty at BU is a member) sponsored a national free speech week from April 1-8, 2012 in order to raise awareness about campus speech restrictions. Approximately 80 clubs across the country participated in the event.
Liberty at BU participated by building a nine feet long, self-standing wooden free speech wall that featured a roll of vinyl paper 165 feet long that could be scrolled across the plywood face. The wall was placed in the main hall of the George Sherman Student Union for five days before being abruptly removed by Student Activities Office (SAO) administrators.
This report catalogues the students’ comments made on our free speech wall, documents our issues with the SAO, and highlights free speech issues at here at Boston University through the eyes of FIRE. Hopefully, this inaugural report will be the first of many annual reports regarding free speech issues here at Boston University.
Click HERE to read the full report:
Image credit: http://www.wakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com
In an article by the university’s BU Today, Professor Wendy Mariner and colleagues filed an amicus curiae to the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of Obamacare.
Some notable quotes:
The new law “stabilizes health care financing by making health insurance virtually universal and affordable,”
“The mandate thus helps to correct distortions in the health care market in which a significant number of uninsured Americans have consumed significant quantities of health care for which they have not been able to pay.”
“Health care is a necessity, something everyone needs and uses. Less than 1 percent of adults have never visited a doctor or other health care professional. However, health care is unlike other necessities—food, water, shelter, and clothing—because, apart from routine care, a person cannot predict his need for health care, and that care is very expensive. ”
“The most principled reason for objecting to the mandate is that some people believe that the federal government should not have the power to require people to buy a commercial product they don’t want. However, this misses the point that they are already in the market for health care and that health insurance is simply a means of paying for the care that they have used or will use.”
I love this one:
“The use of health care follows a rough 80/20 rule: in any year, about 80 percent of health care expenditures are spent to treat 20 percent of the population. But, we do not know in advance who will be in that 20 percent.” So what? Isn’t this premise true of all risks (accident’s, fire, murder, health)? That’s the point of having insurance in the first place.
Anyway, I addressed the article in my comment:
The Commerce Clause has been dangerously misinterpreted by Supreme Court precedent, and abused by Congress. Obamacare is wrongheaded for at least three reasons:
1. Legal) The constitutionality of Obamacare is in question. The Commerce Clause was not intended for the federal government to oversee/regulate/mandate all aspects of economic activity. The logical conclusion of the argument used by Obamacare supporters, and by Mariner in the article, is that there is no limit to what Congress can regulate since all human activity affects economic “commerce” to some extent or another – anything not regulated means the feds just haven’t gotten around to it, yet. The Supreme Court once foolishly ruled in favor of regulation even in the case of food production for private consumption, as noted by Wickard v. Filburn, whereby Fliburn was growing more wheat than was mandated by the government in order to keep wheat prices artificially high during the Great Depression. Such cases are then cited to favor more intrusion of government into economic activity.
The actual intent of the Commerce Clause is really quite simple (it’s only 16 words, you know) – to regulate, or ‘make regular’, the rules guiding trade among the states. States were more independent from the federal government back then; as such, rules were established to prohibit states from interfering with the flow of commerce across state lines. This sentiment was summarized nicely by Thomas Jefferson,
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature;”
Furthermore, the penalties imposed are not constitutional, since, if the government argues it is a tax, it is neither “apportioned nor uniform.” The government backpedaled and claimed the fine is a civil penalty.
2. Moral) Even if the Commerce Clause retains its modern interpretation, that federal mandates and regulations are warranted when people engage in economic activity, how can this apply when people are not engaging in the specific activity? As I once read by Reason Magazine contributor, David Harsani, “Is NOT doing something the same as doing it?” Now, Mariner et al. wish to define “economic activity” as including non-activity? And by what moral right does one group of citizens force the others to engage in private transactions? And then threaten with fines and jail if they refuse? If I wish to abstain from purchasing anything, shouldn’t I have that right? In this sense, Romneycare might be constitutional, but it is certainly immoral (not unlike the “War on Drugs”).
3. Economic) If Romneycare (2006) is the fundamental blueprint for Obamacare, then the country is sure to see increases in insurance premiums. Romneycare, like Obamacare, has two basic goals (if you’re not skeptical of government, like myself), insuring everyone and reducing costs. But what about those costs? Massachusetts pays higher than average premiums, and the costs are continually rising. In fact, the state released a report stating that between 2007 – 2009, premiums increased at a rate between 5-10% per year, outpacing inflation; deductibles and co-payments doubled in some cases. All this to reduce the uninsured from 6% of the state population, to about 4% (2009; in 2008 it was 2.6%). State expenditures on healthcare have risen by 33% from ~$10 billion to ~$14 billion from 2005-2011, all while the state faces a $1 billion budget deficit for 2012. If Massachusetts can’t contain costs, why should we think the federal government can do any better? Every budget estimate for every federal program has been underestimated, every time. Why would it be different now?
Nix Obamacare. It’s unconstitutional, it’s immoral, and it’s economically stupid.
Liberty at Boston University’s New You Tube Channel Features Videos of Speakers
We were pleased to host events this fall with speakers that included Tom G. Palmer of Atlas Economic Research Foundation and Nick Gillespie of Reason.tv and Reason.com. The videos of their presentations are here as Playlists on our new You Tube channel, LibertyBU1.
Dr. Palmer discussed his work promoting freedom around the world, and the need for economic freedom–including free trade–for prosperity to flourish.
Nick Gillespie addressed themes from his new book, “The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong With America,” which he coauthored with Matt Welch, editor in chief of Reason magazine.
Tuesday, November 29th
Terrace Lounge, George Sherman Union
Boston University, 7:00pm
Hosted by BU Today, the “town-hall style discussion will focus primarily on the president’s relationship with young voters.” I was invited by Dean Elmore to be one of two BU students to participate as panelists, who also include Dean of Students Ken Elmore, Dean of the College of Communication, Tom Fiedler, and COM professor Robert Zelnick.
Personally, I would rather discuss Obama’s failed Keynesian economic policies, failed foreign policies, the continued erosion of our civil liberties, the enhanced nanny state and police state, and the overall blatant contempt he holds against our constitution whilst a constitutional lawyer and someone who had sworn to uphold and defend it. Hopefully I’ll be able to raise some of these issues.
Please consider joining the discussion and bring your questions. Registration is required, but if you can’t attend the university will be streaming it live.
With the current global economic downturn stemming from the collapse of the housing market, and with millions of Americans losing their jobs, losing their homes, and losing their savings, many people have begun to take to the streets as seen by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Many individuals in the OWS movement point a crooked finger at capitalism as the primary culprit. So, is capitalism to blame? The Boston University chapter of Democracy Matters hosted a debate to address this question.
The debate, moderated by BU student and chapter president of Democracy Matters, Demarius J. Walker, pinned self-described anarcho-communist Ian Chinich, a third-year Ph.D. student in political science and member of the BU Anti-authoritarian Collective, against libertarian Anthony Priestas, a fourth-year Ph.D. student in earth science and president of the group Liberty at Boston University.
The debate is broken into six segments. Segments 1 and 2 focus on introductory statements and basis arguments. Segment 3 revolves around questions addressed by the participants to each other. The remainder the debate addresses questions from the audience.
Enjoy! And let us know what YOU think in the comments section below!
A big thank you goes out to DJ Walker for inviting me to participate, and KC Mackey of the BU Students for Sensible Drug Policy for filming the event!
An article in today’s Daily Free Press focused on the high costs of higher education. Not surprisingly, students protested by making the following claims:
“Money’s for jobs and education, not for banks and corporations.”
“…universities are acting more and more like corporations, handing
out big salaries and bonuses to administrators while workers on campus
struggle to make a living wage.”“Education is a right, not just for the rich and white,”
You can read the article in its entirety here.
This idea that “Education is a right, not just for the rich and white,” is preposterous because it actually violates individual rights to provide services (not rights) to others (as for the rich and white comment, you should know that enrollment growth is the highest for students of color).
Education has costs. The costs for such a service has to come from somewhere. Right now students are heavily subsidized by either the state (in the case of subsidies supplied through various state taxes), or the federal government (through various programs such as Pell Grants and subsidized government loans). But in order to obtain that money, it must first be taken from somebody; it is not given voluntarily (as in the case of private scholarships). Therefore, those who do not obtain an education are forced to subsidize the education of others, and students who jockey for position to receive their handouts are no different than the special interests they decry during OWS protests. How ironic!
As Ayn Rand has written, “The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”
The last sentence is the most important – a right cannot exist at the expense of others. This is a fundamentally moral proposition.
I agree that the cost of higher education is too high, but we must correctly address the question, what is driving it? It’s certainly not the “bonuses” given to administrators. Spreading the cost of any bonus (or the collection thereof) across the student population is likely to see minuscule savings.
The chief cause of inflating costs has to do with the inflated credit bubble created by the federal government by creating financial aid programs. Sounds strange, doesn’t it? But looking at empirical data suggests that tuition has significantly increased ever since the enactment of the Higher Education Act, which drove up demand. Federal assistance to combat increasing tuition only exacerbates the problem.
This is because the so-called “free money” being doled out to students gives a strong incentive for universities (public and private) to expand in many ways, whether it’s hiring more faculty in worthless degree programs not supported by the market, new construction (gymnasiums, student centers, etc), or lining the pockets of administrators (though I suspect this amount is small comparatively). In other words, government financial aid programs create incentives for bad behavior in both for-profit and non-profit schools. A Heritage Foundation article put it this way:
A course manual reveals some of these inefficient practices. Courses of dubious academic value like the University of Iowa’s “Elvis as Anthology” course, “Ecofeminism” offered by the University of Florida, “Philosophy and Star Trek” at Georgetown University, “Environmental Justice” at the University of Colorado, and “Queering American History” at the University of California, Los Angles, are not uncommon.[13] Extravagant facility improvements are also on the rise. New York Times journalist Greg Winter wrote recently of the growing practice of providing students with lavish perks like hot tubs, pools, manicures, climbing walls, and movie theatres. He states, “[T]he competition for students is yielding amenities once unimaginable on college campuses, spurring a national debate over the difference between educational necessity and excess.”
For more information, see this Policy Analysis from the Cato Institute:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/13673226
What would drive a man to set himself on fire in public? Strip his ability to make an honest living free from a corrupt and unaccountable government that disregards the rule of law, and individual rights.
Dr. Tom Palmer speaks with Matt Welch of Reason magazine on the cause and rise of the Arab Spring, how it relates to the United States, and the book The Morality of Capitalism: What your professors won’t tell you, which he edited. Note: Liberty at BU has acquired 500 copies of the book. Please contact us if you would like a FREE COPY! The book was made possible through the joint efforts of the Atlas Network, and Students for Liberty.
Tom recently gave a talk at Boston University on the the role of free market principles play in promoting peace and prosperity around the globe. Check back soon at Liberty BU’s website for the video of his talk!
Please note that the event page registration was temporarily closed today. If you received that message please try again. The registration page is back online!
Facebook Like Box
