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.
The "coronation" came not from students but from administation and faculty.
Same logic -- if the majority of administration and faculty prefer Hillary Clinton to Laura Bush, well, doesn't that represent an example of a "mandate"?
If you live by the mandate, you should be prepared to die by it.
Think there might be a small power differential between those groups?
Coverage of the hearing:
Ah, so your point is that those in power -- those in a position of overwhelming authority -- shouldn't abuse that power to the detriment of those under them. You mean, like this?
There should definitely be a difference between what happens at a public university and a political event. That's the problem. Glad you got it.
There should be a difference? And why exactly would that be? According to reliable news sources, these Bush town hall meetings are advertised as open to the public, and they are funded by taxpayer dollars. And yet, members of the public are carefully screened and turned away based on their apparent political leanings, in cases before they're even in the door.
And, no, I didn't get it. But feel free to dig yourself in deeper. I need the entertainment value.
Post a Comment