Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the one-law-for-them... dept.

Summarizing a report from The Intercept :

One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses that includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The university's governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President and former Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that -- in the name of combating "anti-Semitism" -- would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism.
[...]
One of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. Blum's verbatim comments include:

" She [Feinstein] wants to stay out of the conversation publicly but if we do not do the right thing she will engage publicly and is prepared to be critical of this university if we don't have the kind of not only statement but penalties for those who commit what you can call them crimes, call them whatever you want."

In short, Feinstein and her husband flatly threatened the university with political consequences if students or faculty found to be in violation of their policy aren't disciplined or expelled for exercising protected free speech.

What is wanted by Feinstein and supporters is for the University to adopt the State Department's controversial 2010 definition which equates criticism of Israel to Anti-Semitism. Perhaps the most ironic bullet-point in the definition warns against advocating a "double standard for Israel" at exactly the same time that it promulgates a standard that applies only to Israel!


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday October 09 2015, @08:40AM

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday October 09 2015, @08:40AM (#247308)

    Thank you for the clarification.

    Given that your legal knowledge is superior to mine perhaps you would tell us what she could be charged with for violating her oath of office so that next time I'll get it right.

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:13PM (#247416)

    Boy, you "oath of office" people are the new Bible thumpers. Anything that cankles your knickers and it's "VIOLATION OF THEIR OATH OF OFFICE!" Double park outside a store? "VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE!" It's the go-all catch-all slur against people in government these days. Not that it matters to you, but there are different "oaths of office". Do we account for those subtle differences, or is that getting too nuanced?