Hassled by campus thought police

My hosts from the College Republicans were told by the university's Office of Multicultural Affairs -- are you ready? -- that they should have invited a white speaker to campus instead of me. Editor: Denver native and Backbone Radio contributor Joseph C. Phillips, well-known for his roles in TV and films as well as for his book "He Talk Like a White Boy," ran afoul of the campus thought police in advance of a recent speaking date in Pennsylvania. Joseph's account of how the episode turned out, given on our 4/27 show, is in this podcast. The text here is from an email he sent to another of our radio regulars, Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute, just before flying to Harrisburg for the event.

I am scheduled to speak on "Affirmative Action in the 21st Century" at Susquehanna University near Harrisburg PA on Friday evening, April 4. I was invited by the College Republicans. Early in the process the CR's asked the Office of Multicultural Affairs if they wanted to co-sponsor the event and have dinner with me following. The OMA declined.

Later the CR's were informed that the Office of Multicultural Affairs wanted to bring another speaker to campus to share the stage with me. The CR's thought about it and declined saying they didn't want to sponsor a debate. They were then told by the school website editor that they could not advertise their event unless the other speaker was on their advertisement.

CR leaders were again brought into a meeting with the OMA who told them that students were upset and they could expect that their posters would be vandalized and torn down and that there might be personal repercussions against the two student leaders of the CR. They were urged again to think about having the other speaker join me. Again they declined. I was glad of that as I am not interested in debating; been there done that.

After all of this, my hosts from the College Republicans were finally told by the university's Office of Multicultural Affairs (are you ready?) that they should have invited a white speaker to campus instead of me.

Click for podcast with Joseph C. Phillips telling the rest of the story.

DU students clueless on free speech

"How far do you think free speech should go?" was the question in DU's student paper, the Clarion, March 4 edition. I was stunned at what I read in the answers of five students. Not one of the responses printed, showed the slightest understanding of what free speech is or why it is important.

One by the name of Carolyn stated, for example: "When you start targeting and hurting specific groups, you're taking free speech too far and abusing the rights that have been given to us."

If I may use this as merely an example: When did you begin to believe that the Constitution guarantees your right not to be offended? When did you begin to believe that the government GIVES you rights at all? Our founders wrote the Constitution and our Bill of Rights to PROTECT the rights they believed were inalienable-that is, not bestowed by any government.

The growing confusion about the simple and clear definition of free speech itself is troubling and doesn't bode well for the education of college students, let alone K-12.

The First Amendment protects you from being punished by the government for what you say. It does not protect you from being criticized by your friends, those for whom you work, clients you serve, or even those who say stupid things. It doesn't even protect celebrities from those who refuse to watch their movies for something they've said.

It occurs to me that one of the reasons so many people have trouble with this, is because they think the government and all other private institutions are one in the same. That, to put it bluntly, is frightening.

When the private and public merge, the government can control everything you say or do. Think about it! Better yet, Carolyn, Laura, Dylan, Jessica and Riley, please pick up a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I think you'll find it a fascinating reading.

Editor: This was published as a letter in the April 22 edition of the Clarion

DU: No comment on anti-police event

"Cops lie: Don't trust cops!" was the theme for an hour-long training session for would-be protesters at the Democratic National Convention, held in Denver on April 14 by hard-left activist groups, according to a Denver Post story.   The event took place at the University of Denver law school, under arrangements made by individual DU students and with no official sponsorship by the university.  It included simulations of protesters being "bullied by... nightstick-bearing police officers," and outlined a plan for "hundreds of 'legal observers'... who bring video cameras to document any disruption." 

"I don't think it's helpful to portray the police in that light," said Denver city attorney David Fine. "Frankly, that's not the reality, so... it will give the participant a false sense of what their relationship will be like with police during the convention." 

After repeated calls to the DU office of news and public affairs this morning, I spoke with staffer David Brendsel, asking whether Chancellor Robert Coombs, Law School Dean Jose Juarez, or any other DU official wanted to go on the record as Fine had done, specifically dissociating the university from the event's unhelpful, unreal, and false portrayal of police ethics and methods. 

His answer: "We have no statement to make in response to that."  The studied pose of moral neutrality reminded me of those MSM news anchors (not to mention Barack Obama) who have made a point of not wearing American flag lapel pins in these wartime years.  Wouldn't want to take sides, you know.  Wouldn't want to compromise our objectivity. How pathetic. 

Propagandizing the climate debate

Some Americans, principally on the Left, are understating the threat of terrorism while overstating the hyperbolized threat of man-made global warming Editor: I'm pleased to introduce a new contributor, our youngest, to the Backbone blog.  Jimmy Sengenberger of Centennial, Colorado, is a senior at Grandview High School, active in local Republican politics, and a columnist for The Villager, a suburban weekly, from which this piece is reprinted.  Apropos his comments about skewed treatment of climate issues in the schools, Heartland Institute's environmental newspaper this month has several stories about educational malpractice in that regard by California middle schools.  See the lead article and three others at this link.  Now here's the Sengenberger column in full.

Global Warming Debate Hotter than It Looks

Since the founding of this nation, we have been faced with numerous tests of time. Islamic terrorism is the gravest threat facing this nation since the Soviet Union, and yet, as the War on Terror rages on, some Americans, principally on the Left, are understating the threat of terrorism while overstating the hyperbolized threat of man-made global warming, or what they’re now calling “global climate change,” as if the concept were something new.

The inconvenient truth for Al Gore, who claims that climate change is the “most dangerous challenge we’ve ever faced,” and other global warming alarmists is that there is substantial scientific evidence that at the very least establishes a stronger correlation between natural factors, principally water vapor and the variations in solar flares and sun spots, and increases in global temperature.

Yet those who are skeptical of global warming and express that skepticism are often attacked, belittled and marginalized. No longer can there be serious debate about the issue in the public sphere because politicians, environmentalists and educators have made up their minds. Disagree with global warming? You’re denying fact, what is already “settled science.” You are, in the words of an otherwise phenomenal teacher of mine, a “moron.”

The basic premise of global warming revolves around the greenhouse effect, which is the rise in the Earth’s temperature as the result of certain gases in the atmosphere, called “greenhouse gases,” which trap energy from the sun. The temperature has generally risen over the last century and a half, and so have carbon dioxide levels.

We are indeed in the midst of a warming period following the Little Ice Age, which lasted from the 1500s to about 1850, and it is true that over the last three decades the rate of warming has increased. Greenhouse theory advocates look at the correlation between the rise in CO2 emissions and the rising temperature and conclude that the former causes the latter. Most scientists will tell you, however, that correlation does not prove causation.

There are several problems with the man-made theory that are easily overlooked by global warming alarmists. Unfortunately at this point I cannot elaborate on these problems due to length, but in my next column I will address both flaws in the greenhouse theory, which include holes in the theory relating to the collision of CO2 and other molecules in the atmosphere and the inaccuracy of computer climate models used to predict climate change, and alternative explanations for our planet’s warming over the last century, such as the evidence of natural phenomena that have been occurring for at least a million years. For now, however, I will address two points: the concept of a “scientific consensus” and education in schools.

Man-made theory advocates often bring up the argument that there is a “scientific consensus” that man is the cause of global warming. This is, at the very least, disingenuous, as a growing number of climatologists, geologists, paleontologists, and other scientists are raising questions about the science as more evidence shows up. These scientists, who simply do not get enough publicity because their ideas are not in line with the media elite, bring up such issues as the 1500-year climate cycle going back one million years; the substantial correlation between the sun and global climate throughout history; the notion that, while carbon emissions increased, global cooling occurred between 1940 and 1980; and the fact that the climate models used to predict climate trends are inaccurate (pointing out, for instance, that they can’t even predict past climate conditions) and there is an alternative, scientific way to test the models.

However, even if there were an actual scientific consensus, it would mean little. In the past the world believed the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Men like Galileo challenged and, in doing so, changed the conventional wisdom, and others like Albert Einstein challenged the majoritarian view and were proven successful as well. Pointing to a “consensus” in science is counterproductive; what we need to look at is the actual science, not the number of scientists who are saying one thing or another.

A student at a local high school told me that he had been shown Al Gore’s propaganda film, "An Inconvenient Truth" during two days of class time. Following the movie, which lasted over an hour and a half, they read an article lasting a page and a half that showed a global warming skeptic’s view and had to write a summary about it.

Education is about the presentation of different ideas on varying issues to form a balanced and complete opinion, yet when it comes to global warming, fairness goes out the door and it becomes “indisputable.” Considering the contradictory evidence about global warming, shouldn’t teachers be teaching students the complete picture? Shouldn’t the media give global warming skeptics a fair shake? Shouldn’t our elected leaders keep their minds open before changing policy when the science isn’t concrete?

Given the legitimate questions raised about the science of global warming and recent evidence disputing the concept of man-made warming, serious debate on the public policy behind the issue needs to take place; the issue must return outside of politics, where it belongs. Yet how can that happen when the science is in dispute, and those who dispute the science are marginalized?

This is not an issue where we can rush to judgment and rashly determine that government intervention is necessary.

Debunking the preschool myth

A wise man once said, if it sounds too good to be true, it is. That wisdm keeps many a smart person away from cheap Rolexes, pyramid schemes and any solicitation stamped “you might be a winner.” Unfortunately that same con-wary person might be taken in by a lobbyist or politician with a slick pitch promising great prosperity for a pittance. Right now, advocacy organizations are selling one such empty promise. They say that for every dollar spent by taxpayers on preschool, society will reap $7 in benefits such as lower special-education costs, grade retention and dropout rates, welfare usage, and crime and higher college enrollment and employment at high paying jobs.

Sound too good to be true? It is. The proposed expansion of tax-funded government preschool programs pushed by these organizations will cost taxpayers millions of dollars but generate few of promised benefits.

How can this be? Advocates seem to back up their claims with cost-benefit analyses and university research. These promotional materials might as well be stamped “you might be a winner” because their claims exaggerate and misrepresent the full body of research.

Preschool does not reap the extraordinary benefits touted by advocates. The majority of research over the past three decades shows that preschool improves the academic achievement of low-income children only in the short-term. The benefits fade out after a few years.

As for middle-class children, there is no positive impact. There are, however, potential negative impacts; early childhood education can have an adverse effect on children’s behavior and this effect can persist even after the short-term cognitive benefits have faded away.

Advocates ignore these findings in favor of a few studies conducted decades ago of yet-to-be-replicated programs that show long-term impacts for some participants. Their sales pitch omits the larger body of research including multiple studies on the nation’s largest, longest running preschool experiment, Head Start. Study after study shows that the $6.7 billion a year program produces short-term impacts that fade out. In other words, the program has no long-term impact. Likewise, state preschool programs consume over $3 billion a year without evidence of long-term impact.

Put simply, preschool may make adults feel good – be they politicians or parents – but it has little positive impact for children (and can even hurt their social development).

Want to see the evidence for yourself? Check out a paper I did recently for the Alabama Policy Council that examines over 50 studies of the impact of preschool on children.