Dangerous trend on campus

Not to mention Bennish's geography class (John Andrews in the Denver Post, Mar. 5) It’s here: Ward Churchill, the book. The CU ethnic studies professor, notorious for his anti-Americanism and under investigation for alleged plagiarism, has now occasioned a 400-page reference work by David Horowitz, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.

Churchill made news last year when his assertion that victims of the World Trade Center attack had it coming led to protests by students in New York, one of whom had lost his father on September 11. Fourteen months of defiance by the professor and impotence by university authorities have since ensued.

Horowitz’s book isn’t actually about Churchill. Rather it cites him as “an emblem of what’s wrong with universities,” then goes on to profile a hundred other tenured radicals of the same ilk. Taken together, the author says, the bios reveal four troubling patterns in America’s higher education faculties today.

These include “(1) promotion far beyond academic achievement… (2) teaching subjects outside one’s professional qualifications and expertise for the purpose of political propaganda… (3) making racist and ethnically disparaging remarks in public without eliciting reaction by university administrations, as long as those remarks are directed at unprotected groups… (4) the overt introduction of political agendas into the classroom and the abandonment of any pretense of academic discipline or scholarly inquiry.”

Wild Ward exemplifies all these pathologies. “The Professors” introduces his successor as chair of ethnic studies at CU-Boulder, Emma Perez, who perceives in the outcry against Churchill “a national strategy… of the neo-con battle for dominance in academe.” Right, Emma. We also meet their CU colleague, philosopher Allison Jaggar, a “socialist feminist” who advocates re-engineering men’s bodies to share child-bearing duties.

Over at DU, Horowitz notes, students must endure Marxist anthropologist Dean Saitta, who warns against “conservative thought police” silencing Ward Churchill, yet defends DU’s censorship of a Dick Lamm article on racial victimhood.

At Metro State, the “dangerous academics” include political science professor Oneida Meranto, who contends that cultural genocide, racial hierarchy, and gender politics are the sum total of Europe’s legacy to America. Up at UNC in Greeley, there’s criminologist Robert Dunkley, whose propagandistic 2003 exam asked students to tell why “the military action of the US attacking Iraq was criminal.”

I don’t suggest, nor does the book, that any of these characters should be fired, censored, or otherwise penalized for their views – any more than I support Austria’s jailing of Holocaust-denier David Irving. The word “dangerous” in Horowitz’s title doesn’t refer to lies; a free society need not fear untruth. No, it warns about the abandonment of our universities’ ethic by which scholarship, not indoctrination, formerly prevailed in the classroom.

Today’s “dominance in academe,” Prof. Perez’s paranoia aside, is not with neo-conservatives like David Horowitz or traditional conservatives like CU President Hank Brown. It is with the Dunkleys and the Merantos, who are not only anti-American and hard left (bad enough yet endurable), but also believe that “scholarship and activism are… symbiotically related,” to quote Columbia historian Eric Foner.

This manipulative belief endangers our higher-education system and, with it, our preparation of the next generation for clear thinking and democratic self-government. And it wrongs countless Colorado students such as Mario Nicolais, who was called a Nazi by his black CU law professor, and Army veteran Heather Schmidt, who was tongue-lashed for her patriotism by a UNC history prof.

I know their stories from having raised the academic freedom issue as a state senator. The presidents of CU, CSU, UNC, and Metro signed a joint memorandum in 2004, pledging to work harder at “respecting intellectual and political diversity (and ensuring) that all students should be made to feel comfortable in exercising their right to listen critically and to challenge a professor's opinions.” Legislation setting an even tougher standard was then withdrawn.

The four institutions told me last week that progress is being made on implementing the memorandum, perhaps a B grade overall, including grievance procedures for students who are propagandized or politically harassed by faculty. Let’s hope so. Horowitz has a website, studentsforacademicfreedom.org, where help can be sought if local remedies fail.

Tuning up petition rights

Why Colorado needs Amendment 38 (John Andrews in the Denver Post, Feb. 19) February marks the birthday of two giants, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. Ungrateful America no longer observes a holiday in either man’s name. Yet some of us never let Feb. 22 pass without a tribute to the Father of Our Country, or Feb. 12 without homage to the Great Emancipator.

Honoring Lincoln on my radio show last Sunday, I was reminded of his words in 1864, when the nation’s survival was in doubt and presidential powers in dispute: “It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.”

NSA and the Patriot Act come to mind. But the balancing act between “strong enough” and “not too strong” challenges our constitutional republic in less dramatic ways as well. President Washington warned somberly against unchecked power: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Written constitutions are an American innovation. The constitution is where the people tell the government what to do -- unlike the law where the government tells the people what to do. “All political power is vested in and derived from the people,” begins the Bill of Rights in our Colorado Constitution; “all government, of right, originates from the people.”

Entering the State Capitol each day while serving there, I remembered that we as legislators weren't the owners of power but merely held its trustees. The constitutional article that creates the General Assembly also decrees that “the people reserve to themselves the power” to propose and adopt laws or constitutional amendments by petition, as well as the power to approve or reject the same by referendum. Legislators are but hired hands!

Whom are you more inclined to trust, elected officials and the political insiders that surround them, or yourself and fellow voters? The former are mostly decent and well-meaning, granted. But remembering Washington’s warning about fire, we can be glad that Colorado (unlike most older, Eastern states) constitutionally provides for citizen petitions to restrain concentrated power. That is, expressed as a formula, CP>cp.

Through the years, however, concentrated power at the capitol and courthouse has undermined the effectiveness of citizen petitions on street-corners. Petitioners have found themselves stymied by bureaucratic stalling tactics and shut out by legislative word games. Now, watchdog groups have a cleanup proposal to make the process fair again. It’s called the Petition Rights Amendment, PRA. Voters will see it on the November ballot as Amendment 38.

PRA offers common sense in signature checking, ballot titles, and protest rulings; impartiality in the voter guide and by public agencies; petition elections every November and by all local governments; uniform rules statewide; and no more phony emergencies by the legislature to suspend petition rights. What a fraud for citizen review of even such routine legislative bills such as a kids’ license plate (SB-100) or an arts council reshuffle (SB-49) to be blocked by a “public peace and safety” clause.

Election 2006 may feature petition votes on illegal aliens, eminent domain, classroom spending, and traditional marriage (all currently leading in the polls), as well as marijuana and abortion (currently trailing). But your most important vote may be a “yes” on the Petition Rights Amendment itself. We need to make sure that CP>cp – that citizen petitions in fact remain greater than concentrated power. See www.PRA2006.com for all the details. * * * * * Mea Culpa: I erred by stating in my Feb. 5 column that all 15 members of the state judicial nominating commission are appointed by the governor. He only names eight; the rest are joint appointees of the governor, attorney general, and chief justice. But this means the system is even more flawed than I first argued. The chief justice shouldn’t help appoint (let alone chair) the commission filling vacancies on her own court. Nor should she, regardless of party, choose members of another commission that evaluates her own performance. Deliver us from this self-dealing.

TV, February: Free speech isn't negotiable

The “Head On” debate between former state Sen. John Andrews (R) and former Denver councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt (D), seen daily on Colorado Public Television since 1997, began its February series this week. Andrews urged that the free world "not give an inch" to Islamofascist intimidation over the Danish cartoons. (We link the cartoons here, unlike many US news organizations apparently afraid to do so.) Other topics this month include Iran, energy policy, campaign finance and lobbying reform, and the Denver mayor's political travails. 1. MUSLIM CARTOONS & FREE SPEECH

Susan: Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, are the underpinnings of democratic society. On the other hand blatant disregard for the beliefs of others is a travesty – regardless of one’s personal opinions. Muslim leaders like Turkey’s Abdullah Dul are right in urging mutual respect. Our lives depend on it.

John: Those Danish cartoonists had every right to criticize Islamic hatred and violence. Western governments have an obligation to protect such expression unconditionally. Muslim governments have an obligation to protect Western embassies or face the consequences. This is not a clash of civilizations, it is civilization confronting barbarism. We should not give an inch.

Susan: This kerfuffle better die down soon – similar actions have led to all out destruction – World War I comes to mind. Not sure what not giving an inch means when it comes to dealing with fanatics who have fundamentally different values. Calm heads – and hearts - better prevail.

John: It simply means that America must stand our ground as a free society. Lawless Muslim mobs, drunk on religious hypocrisy, deserve no appeasement from governmental or nongovernmental leaders in the West. We must encourage Islam’s better side and resist its dark side.

2. HICKENLOOPER OUT OF GOV’S RACE

Susan: The striptease went on too long. Good thing Mayor Hickenlooper got dressed. His decision to honor his commitment to Denver citizens and the talented people whom he recruited to Denver, was the right thing to do. I’m glad he turned a deaf ear to the siren’s song of political seduction.

John: It turns out Super-Mayor is human after all. The long-awaited Looper launch ended with a feeble Hick-up. He put on the parachute but couldn’t pull the ripcord. His coronation as Governor Wonderful was no more than a Civic Center fantasy speech on a winter morning. Give him the Oscar for pointless political self-indulgence.

Susan: No comment. I think that Bill Ritter is a particularly strong candidate in the general election. The trick for both sides is surviving their party’s primary where the wing-nuts dominate. It’s going to be fun to watch Holtzman and Beauprez slime it out in a primary.

John: Don’t overlook the woman angle, Susan. Cherchez la femme, as the French say. Some say Hick’s wife, Helen Thorpe, helped veto his candidacy. Meanwhile Ritter and Holtzman have both named women running mates, Barbara O’Brien and Lola Spradley. But Colorado’s next first lady is likely to be Claudia Beauprez.

3. CONFRONTING IRAN

John: The Islamic Republic of Iran is now the most dangerous enemy confronting America and the free world. Its nuclear threat is more imminent than that of Iraq three years ago. Iran’s leader, Ahmedinejad, is even more fanatical than Saddam Hussein was. The President and Congress should prepare for extreme measures against Iran.

Susan: The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog formed after Chernobyl, recommends the issue go to the UN Security Council. America needs to align with world opinion and interests on this dangerous issue, and act strategically with other nations. We can’t afford to be cowboys.

John: The United Nations can’t restrain Iran. Russia and China will stall in the UN while egging on the Iranians. The United States must lead forcefully on this one, helped out by Britain and Israel. The war that began on 9/11 may soon get bigger.

Susan: Iran recently reaffirmed its commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It’s clear there’s tension between Iran’s hardline president and other, more moderate Iranian leaders who are urging a peaceful solution to the dispute over their nuclear program. For now America’s watchwords must be, Trust but Verify.

4. LOBBY REFORM

John: Congress and our own state legislature are mistaken in restricting political contributions and lobbying. Citizen influence over elections and legislation must be unrestricted in a free society. A golf game or a campaign check is not the problem, in Washington or in Denver. The problem is big government. That honey pot is just too tempting.

Susan: I think the solution may be less complicated. Free air time for general election candidates would remove a lot of pressure from the constant fund-raising needs of elected officials. If a good campaign is less expensive, politicians might pay more attention to policy and the people who elected them.

John: I worked on a free air time experiment with cable news years ago. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the temptation of political graft. Greedy individuals will find ways to buy and sell government’s vastly excessive power, until we get serious about reducing that power.

Susan: And will you reduce that power? Give it to the states and local government? Abolish government altogether. More local control makes sense – but graft and corruption aren’t limited to Washington’s politicians. There’s no single answer, but sunshine, disclose, an attentive press and public scrutiny are part of the solution.

5. BUSH ENERGY POLICY

John: I love Bush, but he missed the boat with his claim that America is addicted to oil, and his proposal to change that with more government intervention and bureaucracy. Bad idea, W. For affordability and security, energy socialism is not the answer. We need to develop our own resources, including drilling in ANWR.

Susan: John, you can rest easy. Clearly Bush wasn’t turning green or realistic when he suggested we wean ourselves from dependence of foreign oil. His spin-meisters were in full media damage control within hours of the speech. As in . . . oops – just kidding.

John: The President wasn’t kidding with his alternative energy moonshine, but he wasn’t at his best either. Free markets, not bureaucratic manipulation, are the only way to provide the energy America needs to remain No. 1. We should abolish the Department of Energy for starters.

Susan: In fact there are several ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil: raise gasoline taxes and fund comprehensive mass transit and inter-city rail; raise fuel standards for US automakers; kill tax breaks for trucks, vans and SUV’s and stop widening highways. It’s that simple.