Watching PR traffic from selected sources

Monday, January 30, 2006

AJC Mideast Briefing

Where Did We Go Wrong? Reevaluating the Design for
Regional Democratization after the Hamas Victory

A Weekly Briefing on Israeli and Middle Eastern Affairs
January 30, 2006

Dr. Eran Lerman
Director Israel/Middle East Office

It looked like the real thing. In procedural terms, ranging from the technical aspects of managing the lists to the absence of armed men within sight of the voting booths, the Palestinian parliamentary elections of January 25 were almost exemplary: The former Czech ambassador to Israel, our friend Daniel Kummerman, who served as an international observer in the village of Salfit, told me that there were hardly any problems worth reporting, and his colleagues, led by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, concurred. Interestingly enough, no one claimed that Israeli actions warped the outcome in any way. In some respects it was, indeed, the real thing. Moreover, it passed the one crucial test without which no democratic evolution can ever be said to have fully matured: It threw out a party in power through the ballot box. (There are democracies in good standing, such as post-1945 Japan, where this has yet to happen.) If one is in need of a silver lining, as a dark cloud rises over our immediate horizon and the prospects for peace recede beyond reach, it is this message from the Palestinian people, now aimed at the would-be Hamas political leadership: Fail us as Fatah did, and we can do the same thing to you.

Yet for the time being, this is meager consolation for a major political disaster. Moreover, serious questions arise as to whether this was indeed a democratic exercise as we know it elsewhere. After all, the two key lists that competed for the Palestinian vote would both have been beyond the pale in any functional civil society: One, the so-called "Reform" list (a thin disguise for Hamas), represented an armed terrorist organization that blatantly refused to lay down its weapons. It won 30 out of 66 general national seats, which indicates that it does not yet have a full majority hold on public opinion; but it swept, by a huge margin, the local first-past-the-gate seats, beating a highly fragmented alternative and taking 46 out of 66 seats, thus ending up with a solid majority—76 out of 132—in the aggregate. The Fatah list—led, we should remember, by Marwan Bargouthi, a man serving five consecutive life sentences for murder—garnered 27 seats on the national level, coming a close second, but only 16 in the districts.

Perhaps the saddest commentary on the Palestinian condition is that the one list led by a true reformer, who in fact did much to fight corruption (the issue often cited as the reason for the Hamas victory over the thieving hierarchy of Fatah politicians), to save the Palestinian economy from ruin, and thus to secure the livelihood of many of his countrymen—namely, former finance minister Salam Fayyad and his Third Way list— ended up with only two seats. Seven went to left-wing factions at the national level, and four to local independent candidates.

There should be no illusions as to the nature of the organization that now stands to gain power, led by Khaled Mash`al in Damascus and Isma'il Hanniyah in Gaza: It is a highly disciplined and ideologically driven Islamist movement, splattered with the blood of hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians (as well as Palestinians killed deliberately—as "collaborators"—or because of Hamas's utter disregard for human life on both sides). It is, as its covenant asserts, dedicated not only to the eradication of Israel as a state, but also—as we have seen on a daily basis in their parallel educational system—to the dehumanization of the Jews and the denigration of all liberal values.

It is now making some semi-conciliatory noises; after all, there can be no life in Gaza, literally speaking, without Israeli supplies and international aid, and Hamas leaders will soon find out that their boasts about "disengaging" from the "Zionist entity" and from the West are empty words. No amount of Iranian subsidies (which can, in fact, be blocked, since what they buy also flows through Israel) can compensate the Palestinian people for the losses they might sustain if Hamas actually were to choose a confrontational course. Yet even if the so-called "hudna" or ceasefire is upheld, and "practical" attitudes are put forward (Hamas might even seek to create a cabinet in which nonpartisan "technocrats" like Fayyad would hold the portfolios that require daily interaction with Israel), no one should be misled. We have heard such music from totalitarians before. In terms of the key purposes of the "War on Terror"—or more properly, the war against Islamist totalitarianism, whether the latter comes in the versions propagated by Osama bin Ladin, by Hamas leader Ahmad Yassin (killed by Israel in 2004 after the terror attack on the Ashdod port), or by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—we have all suffered a major defeat.

How did this happen? What went wrong with the application of the noble prospect of democratization in the region? At this stage, little more than initial "lessons learned" can be offered. Yet here are three reflections on the broader aspects of this crisis:

  • Movements with guns should never have been allowed to be legitimized at the ballot box. Compromises on this subject had already been made in Iraq and, of course, in Lebanon—motivated by the natural urge to glorify the democratic gains in both countries; and then this pattern went slippery-sloping into the Palestinian arena. Those who overruled the Israeli reservations in this regard did the Palestinian people no service.

  • Elections should come last, not first, in what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once called the "generational" effort to transform the political culture of the Middle East. The understandable political urge to see "purple fingers" lifted in the air, celebrating the act of voting, should not have obscured the need to build first the foundational institutions and conditions—the rule of law, rights of women (now in serious danger in the Palestinian context—not to mention what may befall gays, already a hunted sector of their society), the emergence of a self-sustaining middle class in the context of a free-market economy. None of these powerful guarantees against the prospect of "one man, one vote, one time"—i.e., the abuse of the ballot box for a totalitarian takeover—were put in place in time for this electoral rendezvous with an uncertain fate.

  • Finally, or initially, the e-word—education—remains the key. For too long, not only the Palestinian Authority (which did make some feeble attempts at reform, which are now likely to be erased or radically reversed by a Hamas administration), but Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as the more radical Arab states—not to mention Iran—got away with teaching their young a creed of dehumanization, divorced from modernity and shot through with conspiracy theories. The troubling aspect of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial, in this context, is not what he said, but that he thought it would make him popular among millions in the region—and apparently, he was right. The time has come for the West, facing the ugly result of these years of mind-poisoning, to come to grips with this core issue. Aid and strategic backing, powerful tools of influence, should be shaped to ensure that regional governments get the message.

    Speaking before a joint session of the U.S. Congress on December 26, 1941, a few weeks after Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchill, addressing the failure to prevent World War II, said: "Duty and prudence alike command... that the germ-centers of hatred and revenge should be constantly and vigilantly surveyed and treated in good time." The language may sound strange to our ears today, but the warning is as apt as it was then.

To remove yourself from all mailings from American Jewish Committee, please click here.

To modify your profile, please click here.

FIRE News: DePaul University Calls Affirmative Action Protest 'Harassment'

Dear Mr. Levy:

Incredibly, DePaul University has launched yet another assault on freedom of speech. Despite its many public commitments to liberty, the nation’s largest Catholic university has muzzled a student protest of affirmative action and charged its organizer with “harassment.” FIRE is calling upon DePaul to abandon its repressive ways and end this illiberal inquisition.


FIRE’s full press release on this case appears below, but if your e-mail client does not support HTML, you can view a link-rich version at



Greg Lukianoff, Interim President
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
601 Walnut Street, Suite 510

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Phone: 215-717-3473; Fax: 215-717-3440



DePaul University Calls Affirmative Action Protest ‘Harassment’


CHICAGO, January 30, 2006—Earlier this month, DePaul University shut down an “affirmative action bake sale” protest, and is now investigating a student organizer for “harassment.” DePaul’s latest offense against liberty follows its 2005 dismissal of a professor for arguing with pro-Palestinian students and its censorship of students’ peaceful protest of controversial professor Ward Churchill. With this incident, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is intervening at DePaul for the third time in less than a year.


“DePaul cannot seem to resist punishing its students and professors for expressing their political viewpoints,” stated Greg Lukianoff, FIRE’s interim president. “Fighting repression at DePaul is becoming a full-time job.”


DePaul’s latest foray into censorship began on January 17, when the DePaul Conservative Alliance (DCA) held an “affirmative action bake sale” at a table in the student center. Affirmative action bake sales are a widely used form of satirical protest against affirmative action. Organizers display a menu on which black and Hispanic students are charged lower prices than Asian and white students for the same items. The bake sales are intended to spark debate about affirmative action policies, not to raise revenue. At DePaul, the protest did just that, drawing a crowd of people who argued about the issue vehemently but peacefully.


Less than an hour into the sale, DePaul’s dean of students ordered the DCA to shut down the protest. University spokeswoman Denise Mattson told the student newspaper that the location of the protest was inappropriate, even though the university allowed a PETA table protesting the use of fur to be set up in exactly the same place a week later. On January 20, undergraduate Michael O’Shea, who led the protest, was informed that he was under “investigation” for violating DePaul’s “discriminatory harassment” policy. O’Shea met with administrative investigator Cynthia Summers on January 24. In a chilling e-mail exchange, Summers answered O’Shea’s question of exactly why the bake sale was being investigated by saying, “[t]here is no ‘because’ for the investigation that is pre-determined.”


“If DePaul cannot even describe the supposed problem with the protest, why is it conducting this absurd inquisition?” asked FIRE’s Lukianoff. “The mere fact that a protest might upset people does not make it harassment. DePaul’s abuse of a harassment policy to engage in political persecution must end.”


FIRE wrote DePaul President Dennis Holtschneider on January 23, saying that “the shutting down of the bake sale protest, as well as the harassment investigation of O’Shea, indicate a dismaying disregard for freedom of expression and open debate at DePaul.” FIRE also pointed out DePaul’s dismal record of support for free expression, and noted the Catholic university’s promise that “[s]tudents have the right to their own ideas, beliefs and political associations. Students have the right to ask questions and express their opinions….” Yet even after drawing nationwide scorn for dismissing a professor for his views and tearing down Republican students’ flyers, DePaul continues to claim that it “absolutely firmly believes in free speech for students” and that “giving students the opportunity to explore different point of views” is “what the university is about.” Holtschneider has yet to respond to FIRE’s letter.


“Every time DePaul is caught abusing the free speech rights of its students and faculty, it responds by saying how much it really adores free speech. Well, FIRE and the public are having a hard time believing that. DePaul’s illiberal actions speak far louder than its empty words,” concluded Lukianoff.


FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty at DePaul University can be viewed at



Greg Lukianoff, Interim President, FIRE: 215-717-3473;

Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, President, DePaul University: 312-362-8000;



FIRE's work is made possible by the generosity of our individual supporters. Please click here to make your tax-deductible contribution.

Click here if you do not want to receive further emails.

Sunday, January 29, 2006

Israel Campus Beat - January 29, 2006

Dateline: January 29, 2006Subscribe | My Subscription | Search | Archives | About ICB | Contact Us
Top StoriesAnalysis & CommentaryCampus NewsCampus Analysis & CommentaryPoint-Counterpoint
Arts and Entertainment
Domestic Israel News
Suggest a Story
Educational Resources
Israel Study & Travel
Additional News Sources
Research Institutes
Israeli Universities
Israeli Government & IDF

Islamic Bombers Triumph at Ballot
by Stephen Farrell and Ian MacKinnon

Militant Islam scored one of its biggest victories when election results showed that Hamas had crushed the Fatah party that had ruled Palestinian politics for 40 years. The victory of a group dedicated to Israel's destruction shocked Western leaders and put paid to any hopes of swiftly reviving the Middle East peace process. President Bush, Tony Blair, and other world leaders united in demanding that Hamas, responsible for more than 50 suicide bombings and 430 Israeli deaths in recent years, renounce violence and recognize Israel or face isolation. (Times-UK)

Additional Headlines

Olmert: Hamas Is No Partner

Who's Who in Hamas?

Israelis Aid Kenya Building Collapse Rescue

President Bush on the Hamas Victory

"[Hamas has] got to get rid of that arm of their party which is armed and violent, and secondly, they have got to get rid of that part of their platform that says they want to destroy Israel. And if they don't, we won't deal with them.  Aid packages won't go forward....We won't be providing help to a government that wants to destroy our ally and friend. I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you don't renounce violent aims." (CBS News)

Hamas's Choice - Editorial

Western governments should stick to the principle already articulated by the Bush administration: that "a future Palestinian Authority cabinet should include no member who has not committed to the principles of Israel's right to exist in peace and security and an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism." If Hamas will not meet that condition, then it should be condemned to governing Gaza and the West Bank in diplomatic isolation, without European, U.S., or World Bank aid.  (Washington Post)

Bar-Ilan: Conference Delegates Say Divestiture Promotes Terror
by Talya Halkin

Vigilance is crucial to fighting academic boycotts against Israel; such was the message delivered Wednesday by the British Ambassador to Israel, Simon McDonald, at the opening of the Bar-Ilan University conference on academic freedom. Also, Harvard Law School Prof. Alan Dershowitz, who gave the keynote speech at the conference, argued against the rhetoric of last year's academic boycott attempt and other boycotts against Israel. (Jerusalem Post)

Brandeis Stands Behind Scholar Accused of Ties to Terror
by Ron Kampeas

Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian academic affiliated with Brandeis University, dismissed allegations that he's linked to Islamic Jihad, and says he's not worried about attempts to persuade Jewish groups to cut him off. Brandeis says it is standing by Shikaki, noting that U.S. law enforcement never pursued any action against him. (Jewish Exponent)

CFJS Sends Canadian Delegation to World Student Congress
by Robert Meth

The Canadian Federation of Jewish Students (CFJS) sent five delegates to the annual World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) congress, held recently in Zichron Yaakov, Israel. The students – Gary Diamond from the University of Western Ontario, Emily Sufrin from the University of British Columbia, Samuel Zeev Konig from McGill University, Hagai Kuperman from the University of Toronto and myself, from Ryerson University – spent five days networking, learning and socializing with other Jewish students from across the world. (Canadian Jewish News)

Dean College: Brava Comes Home
by Theresa Freeman

Joseph Brava, 19, traveled about 5,700 miles to Israel and felt like he had come home.  Brava, a freshman studying psychology at Dean College in Franklin,  took a 10-day trip through Israel with Taglit-birthright Israel. Brava said he would recommend the trip to anyone. He is planning to return to the country next summer.(Metrowest)

Point-Counterpoint - Hamas Won - What Now?

Don't Deal with Terrorists
by Daniel Pipes

  • An increasing number of voices are calling for Hamas to be recognized, arguing that the imperatives of governance would tame it, ending its arch-murderous vocation (it has killed about 600 Israelis) and turning it into a responsible citizen.
  • The historical record, however, refutes this "pothole theory of democracy." Mussolini made the trains run, Hitler built autobahns, Stalin cleared the snow and Castro reduced infant mortality — without any of these totalitarians giving up their ideological zeal nor their grandiose ambitions.
  • Hamas might have hired a spin doctor to improve its image in the West, but its leadership candidly maintains it has no intention of changing.
  • It was a mistake to permit Hamas to compete in elections. Like al-Qaeda, Hamas should be destroyed, not legitimated, much less courted. (USA Today)

Hard Men to Deal With
by Ewen MacAskill

  • That it took part in this week's election represents a remarkable shift: a move towards politicisation of a hardline violent organisation. A Hamas-led administration could speed that process.
  • At some point, the men of violence have to be brought into the political process, and this is what could happen with Hamas.
  • The chances of real peace being reached are greater dealing directly with the men with the most guns and bombs, rather than doing a deal with Fatah alone, with Hamas left on the sidelines.
  • Hamas will find it harder as part of the government. It will have to make decisions and compromises and many of these will be unpopular. (Guardian-UK)

The West and Hamas Must Talk to Each Other - Editorial

  • In practical terms there is much to be said for engaging with Hamas, in the hope of steering it towards the renunciation of violence.
  • The movement has held to the ceasefire it agreed with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, last March.
  • Since its victories in local elections in May and October, it has proved a competent municipal administrator, as it had previously of its extensive social welfare programes.
  • Rejectionism, by contrast, spells economic wreckage, as the borders stay closed and foreign funding dries up.
  • By its victory, Hamas has forfeited the freedom of opposition; as the governing power, it faces hard choices. (Telegraph-UK)

Hamas Won't Change its Stripes
by Barry Rubin

  • Every time Hamas stages a terrorist attack, calls Jews the offspring of pigs and monkeys, or demands Israel's extinction, these naive people, Lenin called them "useful idiots", will use this as proof that more must be done to persuade it to be moderate.
  • Why should we believe that Hamas will do anything other than murdering thousands of people and installing a terrible dictatorship over Palestinians?
  • Yet contrary to such expectations, rulers have used guns and ideology to keep their welcomes from wearing thin, as substitutes for high living standards and broad civil rights.
  • Is it really so hard to understand that a group that calls for genocide against Jews, extols terrorism and demands a Taliban-style regime for Palestinians is not about to become moderate? Apparently it is. (

Hamas Will Probably Continue Observing the Calm
by Arnon Regular

  • Hamas is still committed officially to the truce (tahadiya), but in recent weeks Hamas leaders have made contradictory statements regarding the renewal of terror attacks and its armed struggle, and regarding recognizing Israel or negotiating with it.
  • The contradictory statements reflect Hamas' internal dispute on the issue, but it seems that due to its desire to cooperate with Fatah and reach agreements with the international community to secure continued aid, it is reasonable to assume that the calm would continue in the near future.
  • One of the most important factors affecting events in the Palestinian Authority are the positions of the international community and the Arab states following the Hamas victory.
  • The United States, for example, cannot have contacts with Hamas due to its laws which define Hamas as a terror group. The European Union will also have to find a formula under which it would be able to continue PA aid. (Ha'aretz)

To unsubscribe from Israel Campus Beat, click here

Friday, January 27, 2006

JINSA Report #546 Unilateral Action and the Price of Democracy

1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Suite 515
Washington, DC 20036

202-667-0601 Fax

January 27, 2006

JINSA Report #546

Unilateral Action and the Price of Democracy

President Bush told the Palestinians, "The United States does not
support political parties that want to destroy our ally, Israel, and
people must renounce that part of their platform."

Why must they and what real difference does the Hamas victory make?
Neither Fatah nor Hamas was going to make a serious "peace agreement"
with Israel; both Fatah and Hamas conduct terrorist operations and are
planning to continue to do so; neither Fatah nor Hamas accepts the
legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East; and neither can be
induced to do so by piecemeal Israeli concessions. The Palestinians knew
that and voted for the party they wanted to deal with their domestic

Rather than demanding what we will not get, it might be useful to remind
the Palestinians that Hamas has not become king of the hill. It has
simply become the majority party in the Palestinian Legislature - like
when the Republicans replaced the Democrats in Congress. As such it is
the successor to the obligations OF the Legislature. And Abu Mazen is
still President and still obliged to meet HIS obligations under the Road
Map. The U.S. expects both to meet internationally accepted standards
of behavior.

Oh, you don't think they will? We don't either; they never have before.
But our government has an obligation a) to insist that they do, and b)
to find meaningful consequences for when they don't.

The President should first stop begging the Palestinians to "return" to
some mythical "peace process" and let them know that since they put
their domestic concerns first, so will we. It would be foolish to cut
off the money we currently spend through NGOs on projects in the PA -
Iran would happily make up the difference, with the attendant political
influence. But the U.S. and the EU should withdraw political support for
Palestinian statehood and decline to treat PA personnel like diplomats
when they troop through Europe and the UN. [This should include the
Olympics - in 2004 the Palestinians marched under their flag as if they
were a country.] At the level of public perception, Palestinians relish
being the political equivalent of the Israelis - they are not and they
should be denied.

At the security level, Israel has every right to assume that the
President and the Parliament will control the borders of their
territory. Israel will be entitled - as every country is entitled - to
unilateral action including "hot pursuit" and retaliation if they don't.
Ariel Sharon first raised the specter of unilateral action when it was
clear that the PA was operating as a state sponsor of terror and could
not be an acceptable political interlocutor. His point wasn't to make
them stop being what they were - he couldn't - but to announce his
intention to protect the citizens of Israel from them.

The U.S. and the Europeans should be clear and public in advance that if
Hamas chooses to maintain itself as an active terrorist organization,
when Israel retaliates, the civilized countries will approve.

To view this JINSA Report online click on the link below.

To unsubscribe from JINSA Reports, visit:

And to subscribe to any JINSA mailing-list:

Access past JINSA Reports at:

Comments? Send e-mail to

FIRE Update: January 27, 2006

Table of Contents
Apply Now for FIRE Summer Internships!
FIRE President to Speak at University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire
Recent Media Coverage
Recent Posts to The Torch
Upcoming Events

We are now accepting applications from undergraduates and law students for FIRE’s Summer Internship Program. FIRE is looking for dynamic, energetic, responsible, and versatile individuals who possess a thorough understanding of FIRE’s mission and work. All FIRE interns work alongside FIRE’s staff in our Philadelphia office and complete substantive work on behalf of rights, liberty, and individual dignity.

FIRE’s Summer Internship Program runs from mid-June to mid-August. In addition to daily research and other duties, the program features weekly seminars by experts on campus civil liberties, a mentoring relationship with FIRE staff members, social activities, and outings to attractions in historic Philadelphia.

An intern from last summer offers this insight into the program: “Being an intern for FIRE was a great experience. I was able to learn the ins and outs of a nonprofit, explore the East Coast, and defend the Constitution. It’s hard to beat a summer like that.”

If you are an undergraduate or law student, please visit FIRE’s internship page at for more details about the program, several testimonials from former interns, and application instructions. If you have friends or relatives who you think would be interested in the program, please encourage them to apply!


FIRE Interim President Greg Lukianoff will speak at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire (UWEC) on Wednesday, February 1. Lukianoff’s speech, entitled “Liberty in Danger: The All-Too-Frequent Quashing of Student Rights at UWEC and Nationwide,” will take place at 8 p.m. in UWEC’s Schofield Auditorium. In the speech, Lukianoff will discuss UWEC’s nationally notorious RA “Bible study ban,” which FIRE originally brought to light late last year, as well as several other abuses at UWEC and on other campuses.

FIRE’s public exposure of UWEC’s unconstitutional practice of banning resident assistants (RAs) from leading Bible studies in their dormitories has earned the university nationwide infamy. Prior to that, FIRE protested the UWEC Student Senate’s unconstitutional attempt to ban student-fee funding of “ideological, religious, or partisan” activities and to deny recognition to The Flip Side, a progressive student magazine, on the grounds that it was “biased.” FIRE also intervened when UWEC proposed to exclude religious activities from its “service learning” requirement.

The Flip Side is sponsoring Lukianoff’s speech. Please contact Sara Adams (, The Flip Side’s director of development, for tickets and registration.


The Spectator (UWEC), January 26, "Public opinion sought in development of RA policy," by Emily Hartwig

FIRE refuses to support the working group's advice because it does not explicitly guarantee the right of RAs to hold Bible studies in their rooms.

·    ·    ·

The Badger-Herald (UW-Madison), January 25, "UW advances own political agenda," by Darryn Beckstrom

Not surprisingly, Mr. Reilly has not decided when he will make a final decision on the RA Bible study ban. And don’t expect him to make a decision any time soon. If Mr. Reilly was genuinely interested in protecting the marketplace of ideas we have come to expect at an institution of UW’s caliber — regardless of the speech’s popularity — the unconstitutional ban would have already been lifted.

·    ·    ·

Student Press Law Center, January 25, "Florida university censors magazine for Jay Leno joke," by Ricky Ribeiro

“We produced our second issue and we actually asked the school for approval before we distributed,” Ganz said. “And after FIRE’s second letter to the school, it was pretty quick that they actually approved our second issue.”

·    ·    ·

Ripon College Days (Wis.), January 25, "UWEC Bible study provokes controversy," by Sinead Devlin

Interim Chancellor Vick[i] Lord Larson received a letter from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Oct. 17 which cited the school's actions as an unlawful infrigement of First Amendment rights.The organization requested that UWEC immediately end the ban on Bible studies.

·    ·    ·

Pennsylvania Independent, January 25, "Lighting the FIRE of Liberty in Philadelphia," by Chris Perez and Robert Shibley

FIRE encourages all Penn students to take advantage of the tools we provide, to learn their rights, and to monitor and protect liberty on Penn’s campus. And if a situation does arise, remember: the resources of FIRE are there to protect you.

·    ·    ·

USA Today, January 24, "Students: Sexual harassment all too common on campus," by Mary Beth Marklein

"There are aspects of harassment [policies] that nobody disagrees with," says Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based non-profit. But "too many people think harassment is the same thing as being offended. Offending somebody is not a crime."

·    ·    ·, January 24, "Republicans and Libertarians, unite!," by Mike Adams

It is clearly unreasonable to request political organizations to admit members of opposing political parties. To require them to do so would sabotage the level of political discourse on campus. Therefore, these two groups have asked UNCG to change this policy.

·    ·    ·

The Daily News (Jacksonville, N.C.), January 24, "Are colleges trying to be too nice?," by Barry Smith

The greater problem, however, isn't that the university could be setting itself up for a lawsuit. As Lukianoff points out, the real problem is the chilling effect that these policies have on free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

·    ·    ·

Agape Press, January 23, "Univ. of Wisconsin Sidesteps System-Wide Policy on Bible Study Bans," by Jim Brown

Having reviewed the report, FIRE says that the failure to recognize what it sees as a "glaring double standard" proves the school is "not serious about treating its students equally."

·    ·    ·

Cybercast News Service, January 23, "Judge Orders School to Reinstate Spanking Supporter," by Nathan Burchfiel

Lukianoff said the college's president, Charles Beirne, "should be ashamed that his administration ignored its own rules, spent students' tuition money fighting litigation it invited, and cost one of its students a year of education simply because it did not like what he said in a theoretical paper."

More media coverage at »

January 27, "Nine Days Left to Set UW Straight," Charles Mitchell

January 26, "Silverglate Weighs In on Sexual Harassment Study," Charles Mitchell

January 25, "Shocking Study Finds College Students Joke About Sex!," Samantha Harris

January 24, "More on UWEC’s Double Standard," Charles Mitchell

January 23, "New President Spells Hope for Cornell," Tara Sweeney

Read The Torch at »


February 1, 2006: Speech at the University of Wisconsin, Schofield Auditorium, Eau Claire, Wis., 8 p.m. (CT). Topic: “Liberty in Danger: The All-Too-Frequent Quashing of Student Rights at UWEC and Nationwide.” Sponsored by The Flip Side of UWEC (please contact Flip Side Director of Development Sara Adams for ticket information). (Lukianoff)

February 11, 2006: Speech at the Foundation for Economic Education, 30 S. Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y., 7 p.m. (ET). Topic: “American Universities and the Betrayal of Liberty.” Open to the public (please contact FEE to register). (Kors)

More upcoming events at »
About This Newsletter

This newsletter may be redistributed in its entirety. If you would like to subscribe to receive future newsletters, please sign up here.

Please direct any comments or questions concerning this newsletter to:

Copyright © 2006, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Donate Now · Privacy Policy

Click here if you do not want to receive further emails.