I hate to keep harping on the spectacular hypocrisy of the right-wing Students for Academic Freedom ... well, OK, that's not technically true, I actually rather enjoy it, but don't let that colour your perception (wingnuts) of the fine work (moonbats) that these young folks do (raving loons).
The latest delightful and hypocritical screed comes via a link from their home page ("Bill Targets Political Bias") to a March 24 piece in the Bangor Daily News in which David Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights" is once again front and center, and the reporter describes a list of student expectations, including the following puzzler:
Fees - given to student government to pay for speakers - distributed "on a viewpoint-neutral basis" so those with varying political and religious perspectives can be heard.
Um ... hello? A "viewpoint-neutral basis"? Refresh my memory -- are the Republicans pushing this idea of viewpoint neutrality the same Republicans who are such giddy fans of the free market? Where everything is "market-driven" and where the majority rules? Where 51-48 was considered a clear and convincing mandate?
I mean, if we let the (student body) market decide, who's to say it's wrong or unfair if the majority of them insist that they'd rather hear, say, Michael Moore than David Horowitz? Even Jon Reisman, a professor at the University of Maine at Machias and self-confessed conservative, accidentally lets the cat out of the bag when he complains:
"We have to speak up more, but the culture is pretty negative," he said, recalling that when Hilary [sic] Clinton visited the University of Maine as first lady, "it was almost a coronation," in contrast to Laura Bush's visit, which elicited "a pretty cool reception."
And if the students happen to prefer Hillary Clinton to Laura Bush, well, the market has spoken, hasn't it? After all, you wouldn't ignore a clear "mandate" just because you didn't happen to agree with its conclusions, would you? I mean, that would be, you know, hypocritical.