Comments on: Campus speech roundup

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 22:12:32 +0000

In reply to cc. Correct, it is a loyalty oath. And it violates the First Amendment. Since this a state institution, seems to me that civil rights crimes are being committed. Time to swear out a criminal complaint.

By: Wfjag

Wfjag — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 10:33:18 +0000

In reply to cc. “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Knights of Columbus?”

By: greatUnknown

greatUnknown — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 17:05:34 +0000

In reply to John Fembup. Indeed; if the Fourth was not so politically correct [Yes Mr. Chief Justice, there are Clinton and Obama Judges] they would have come to the requisite conclusion: "...and hence, Title IX is prima facie unconstitutional both as written and as applied and is hereby stricken.

By: cc

cc — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 15:33:50 +0000

I recently applied to a U Calif branch for a faculty job. They required a diversity statement. The only way to give what they wanted was to agree with affirmative action, agree that women are discriminated against, and document that one is a far left activist. This is an overtly political loyalty oath.

By: jimc5499

jimc5499 — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:36:15 +0000

What ever happened to “Sticks and stones”?

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:16:58 +0000

If Title IX obligates universities to suppress speech how is Title IX then not in conflict with “Congress shall make no law . . .” Etc?

By: PurpleState

PurpleState — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 11:56:21 +0000

Re: Fourth Circuit and Title IX – If the government is mandating that access to specific social media sites be restricted for students, how is that not a 1st amendment issue?