Replies

I don't have time this morning for an extended consideration, but you still seem to demand a political confession of motives [what I call "tagging"] as part of the proposal for basic academic rights. You avoid answering why this is necessary. Does a proponent of freedom of speech require a specific revelation of what threats to it, he especially fears? I do not want teachers of any stripe to be able to muzzle and intimidate students over whom they have considerable power. It should be enough to propose that we have that right.

It should be enough that we have the right to have consideration of faculty hrings without regard to political identity--which is exactly what leads to these departments where faculty are all committed marxists or feminists or what have you. Don't you see that you are demandig a political identity test before you consider the rights proposal just as the cadre demand a politicla identification tagging before they will consider a proposed faculty hire.

I would be glad to have a debate. But first you have to respond to why you think political "tagging" is necessary. Without that you have not made any essential response to any of my posts. What more do you have when you have the motive of the speaker or the political leanings of the speaker or candidate? Don't you see that your interest apparently seeks to shift the focus from the consideration of the rights proposal to the attempt to make ad hominem castgiations to confuse the issues?

gg: i tend to agree with ontos:

if the socialists at cornell (my alma mater and employer)
were truly interested in academic freedom, and the major
objection to the "six points" were that the language was
"too targeted" - they could have easily added phrases
specifying "government interference", "corporate" and other conflict, "the sciences", etc.

that is not the approach they took. they wished to make it
clear that academic freedom is not needed at cornell.

that's the way it is, and the way they like it.