[garmonbozia]

see previous stories/threads on this subject: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/979351/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/978676/posts

[Delphinium]

Thanks for posting this, and for the previous threads. This is a subject I am very interested in, but too tired tonight to read.

[Iris7]

The article is mostly a baseless Left complaint that the Right is trying to censor them. The Lefties really believe that anyone to the Right of Hilary Clinton is dangerous and stupid. Any attempt to accuse the Left of bias and error is ignored as trogloditic raving.

In fact, the Left has nothing to worry about except maybe a few less jobs for their kind of people. They are not in any way in danger of being censored. As An Coulter points out, if we do censor the Left there will be no doubt about it!

[nathanbedford]

"I have never supported quotas," Horowitz said. "The Academic Bill of Rights doesn't call for the government to intervene in the affairs of universities.

That was a Horowitz quote on the other thread. I posted the following reply, hoping to provoke discussion by overstating the case. No takers then perhaps someone will have some thoughts this time:

Why not? Political quotas are not prohibited by the federal constitution, racial quotas are, yet we have overt and covert racial quotas. If unconstitutional racial quotas can be invoked to redress racial imbalance, why can't constitutional quotas of political orthodoxy be imposed to achieve ideological balance?

What is the risk, that the left will do what it is already doing but with the imprimatur of the law? That the left will gain statutory permission to do ideologically what it has gained permission to do racially?

Are we worried about academic freedom? There is precious little of that for conservatives. If the left can take my tax dollars to subsidize its propaganda on PBS, no one on this forum will complain if I demand that the subsidy cease while the propaganda lasts. Why is academic freedom for the left on campus more to be valued than freedom of speech for the left which is broadcast to the whole nation? If it is right to stop the subsidy to one, why not the other?