Mediaboss Marketing

The National Posts Jonathan Kay recently interviewed American author Dave Rubin, whose tour for his new book, Dont Burn This Book: Thinking for Yourself in the Age of Unreason, was disrupted by the ongoing pandemic, and is now being done out of Rubins garage.

Jonathan Kay: Nice suit. Look what Im wearing. Thanks for making the rest of us look like crap.

Dave Rubin: I thought Id keep it professional, you know? Im on a book tour.

Kay: Whats it been like doing a book tour without actually touring?

Rubin: I got to tell you, its really bizarre, actually. The book came out on Tuesday, April 28, and I was supposed to be in New York the week before, doing all kinds of press, going on every TV show you can imagine and meeting with the publishers and all that good stuff. And then I was supposed to be on a book tour starting that night. We were gonna be at the Gramercy Theater in New York. And then I think I was going to be in D.C. and then across the country for the next month and a half or so. And instead, Im in my garage. I mean, this is my garage. I happened to have a studio in my garage. So its kind of funny. Were seeing all these CNN anchors in their kitchens, in their living rooms and things. I was a little ahead on the home studio thing. So Ive got a nice professional setup here, which is great. And, you know, theres a certain convenience to it that I can do this all from here. But I guess it is missing a little something. Talking to a live person always adds a little something else to the conversation. But Ive enjoyed this. And in many ways its allowed me to do more than I was going to be able to do because I can basically just, every day for the last four or five days, Im starting in the morning. I started literally at 6 a.m. and I go till about 8 p.m., with just minor minor breaks and maybe lunch, if Im lucky. So, you know, Im happy to talk to people. Im glad the books being well received. And you do what you gotta do.

Kay: You write that your original book idea was about how you abandoned the left side of the political spectrum and then you decided you had a more interesting idea. Tell me about that.

Rubin: Yeah. The original title of the book was Why I Left the Left, which is the title of a very popular PragerU video that I did that has about 20 million views or so. I became sort of a left the left guy. I talk about the regressive left and that the left is no longer liberal.

Thats very much in the mix, the stew of things that Ive been talking about for the last five years or so. And I started writing that book. And then I quickly realized I was like, you know, I dont know if I want to write a book about just what Im against or what I used to be. I want to write a book about what Im for. And thats what it became: Dont Burn This Book. But I lay out three moments in the book that were my seminal wake up moments.

I wont give you all three. Ill give you one of them. You may know David Webb, who is a commentator, conservative commentator on Sirius XM Patriot Channel. He guest hosts on Fox News all the time. And years ago when I was a lefty, I was on the Young Turks. We were watching a clip of Fox News and David Webb came on and suddenly they were saying all the worst things about him. He was just talking about some basic conservative beliefs. Doesnt even matter what he was talking about specifically. But suddenly they were calling him an Uncle Tom and a sellout and a race traitor. Just all of the worst things that you could say about somebody. And what they didnt know was that a few years before I had had a show on Sirius XM and although I was a lefty and David Webb was on the right, wed met in the hall one day and we started chatting. I used to go on his show every week and wed debate topics and then wed go downstairs and have a steak and have some whisky. And we were good, even though we disagreed on almost everything. But I knew him to be a good man and forthright and a passionate advocate for his positions.

It wasnt some fake thing. And yet here the Young Turks were, the supposed tolerant people, the people who loved diversity. And they were suddenly seeing a black man. And just because he didnt think the way they want black people to think he was the bad guy. He was all the worst things you could say about somebody. And because I knew him, it suddenly became so stark, so clear to me that when we think of racism, we think, oh, that youre racist. You dont want those people using a water fountain, something like that, which obviously is racist. But theres a new pernicious racism, which is that you say youre for groups gays, blacks, women.

But you cant be for whole groups because, believe it or not, black people think all sorts of different things. Gay people think all sorts of different things. Women think all sorts of different things. And to watch a group of supposedly tolerant people be angry at a black man who just thought differently than them, I realized was a new sort of systemic racism. And I say systemic because its sort of spread throughout all of the left. And even right now, Harvard discriminates against Asian people because they had too many Asian people by their measure being admitted to the university.

What the left does is they see racism almost everywhere except where it really is. They're looking for it constantly. So they have to find it.

Dave Rubin

Kay: But what about the counterargument that theres still a lot of old-fashioned racism thats still around.

Rubin: I dont see that now. Thats not to say that there isnt a KKK. There are some marginal white supremacist groups or the Westboro Baptist Church or something like that, which dont have any mainstream traction, because anytime they do any stupid little thing that, of course, the media goes crazy with it. Does David Duke exist? Of course. David Duke exists. Does he have any influence in any way whatsoever? Of course not. So I dont see actual influential bigotry out of the conservative side or on the right. But I do see it almost everywhere on the left. The left has become obsessed with identity, obsessed with gender and sexuality and the colour of skin. And I wouldnt even call that reverse racism. I would call that racism. If you rail all day long against white Christian men because theyre white Christian men, thats racism.

Again, Im not saying that there are no racist people on either side of the political aisle. Of course there are. But I think what the left does is they see racism almost everywhere except where it really is. Theyre looking for it constantly. So they have to find it. And just because you believe in low taxes doesnt mean youre a racist. Just because you believe that America should have a strong border, doesnt mean youre a racist.

These movements, they get equality, but then they the activists don't want to go out of business. So then they have to just keep finding new and new perceived oppression.

Dave Rubin

Kay: Your book is partly about what you call the pitfalls of leaving the left. What are those pitfalls?

Rubin: The biggest growing political movement or political ideology in America right now is the disaffected liberal, which is what I would say that I am I am a true liberal. And I lay out what classical liberalism is, which, of course, is about individual rights, meaning everyone that is a legal citizen of any country should be treated equally under the law. And then basically laissez-faire economics, light touch. Thats pretty much what my belief system is. Thats live and let live. And we could talk about the marginal differences between that and libertarianism.

As far as the pitfalls, well, I lay out some of the things that I guarantee will happen to you if you leave the left or not even leave the left once you start questioning it. Because if you remember four or five years ago when I started talking about my frustrations with the left, I was always saying we. I was saying we guys, we the left have abandoned liberalism. We have to fix liberalism. We have to stand for the things that were supposed to stand for, like free speech and open inquiry and not deplatforming speakers and destroying people. These are liberal principles. So I was doing this from the left. And what I think a lot of people see right now is that Im trying to give them the courage, I suppose, to be able to walk and not be destroyed once you pick one position that is counter to whatever mainstream leftist orthodoxy is of the day.

If you dont check all of those 10 boxes, they will eliminate you and they will try to mob you on social media. They will go after your employer. You will watch friends and family members turn on you and call you all of the worst things. And even if you say no, those are none of my beliefs. Well, then theyll move the goalposts and try to extrapolate something else on you. One of the very important tips that I give people is dont apologize unless you genuinely have done something wrong. Im not saying never apologize. Weve all wronged people. Weve all done things that are wrong. So you can apologize if its earnest. But I think a lot of times that we see this when the mob comes after celebrities all the time, you know, a celebrity will say something that everyone knows is basically right. You may remember Mario Lopez said that we shouldnt be something to the effect of we shouldnt be transitioning kids who are four years old, you know, gender transition. And its like everyone knows thats the truth. Thats not anti-trans. Its just that we might want to wait till theyre a little bit older. Then we could discuss all of that stuff. But he got mobbed. And then what does he do? He basically issues in a faux apology, even though we know he doesnt really apologize. He doesnt really feel any contrition about what he said.

Another one would be a Hollywood actor who Im sort of friendly with, Mark Duplass, he basically tweeted out something to the effect that Ben Shapiro is not the devil, he just has different political thoughts. He got mobbed and then deleted the tweet and issued an apology. And its like once you do that, once you apologize for something youre not sorry for, now theyve got their foot on your neck forever and you will never get up. And theyre using that power over you. So one of the things you can do is be brave and stand up for what you believe. And I think if more of us start doing it, we can actually silence that mob.

Kay: But political cults come from the right side of the spectrum, too, no?

Rubin: Lets not forget, it was mostly people on the right who were going after violent video games. Remember, they were trying to ban Mortal Kombat from the shelves. So these things are cyclical. And Im glad you brought it up because its an important point.

Kay: Were talking about censorship and preventing people from saying what they think. But its interesting that youre not talking about government censoring people which is what we would have been worried about 20 or maybe even 10 years ago. Instead, were talking about people censoring each other.

Rubin: We should always be wary of the government silencing dissent, silencing speech. But at the moment, I mean, Donald Trump can tweet whatever he wants and then what happens? The first hundred people that respond to him are usually blue check journalists or actors or activists, all telling him hes a Nazi, hes Hitler. Hes going to burn in hell. I mean, the worst things you can imagine. And guess what? Nobody knocks on their door. The Gestapo doesnt show up to drag them off to the gulag. I mean, theres no version of any of that. The bigger worry to me is that we are censoring ourselves. That is separate than the government. Its an important distinction.

Kay: Youre a gay man. Ive noticed, anecdotally, that many of the people pushing back against social-justice cultism are gay men, lesbians, Jews, Muslims people who have some trait that makes them stand out from ordinary white people. Do you think having at least some mark of outsider status gives you moral capital to push back?

Rubin: I love this question because Ive asked this of other guests of mine who are in similar situations. So Douglas Murray, the wonderful author from the U.K. whos written a lot about this and talked about immigration in Europe and all sorts of things. His last book, Madness of Crowds, is one of the best books of the year. He happens to be gay. Hes a gay conservative in the U.K. And Ive asked him about this. I see this from women. I see this from black people. It sort of gets to what I was saying earlier about why when you say youre for a group, you will actually crush all of the free thinkers within that group. And thats what Im trying to restore. Im trying to stop that from happening.

If youre a minority because of your sexuality or your skin colour or some of these things, now, I dont think that should give you power over people. I dont think that inherently makes your opinions correct. I mean, that would be absurd. As absurd as saying, you know, someone who is a white male, that his opinions are correct just because of that. So those are silly notions. But what I do think is probable is that if you are a minority of some sort, you start looking at the world from a bit of an outsider perspective. Youre not in the machine all the time. And because of that, you suddenly realize that uniqueness is deeply important. You realize there is something different.

So the most interesting example of this would be whats sort of happened to the gay community. I would say that for four decades, the gay community brought a tremendous amount of art and music and comedy and all of this cultural stuff that would start in gay clubs or whatever. I was never even into that scene at all. Much of this is before my time. But we all know that so much great music and all of this cultural stuff came from the gay community. Then, things shifted and the progressive movement sort of infiltrated the gay community. Im not saying, well, their intentions were bad. Gay marriage, by the way, is an extremely positive development that the progressives pushed because they were pushing for equality. But they were pushing for gay people to be equal, not to be above. And what happens usually is then these movements, they get equality, but then they the activists dont want to go out of business, sort of. So then they have to just keep finding new and new perceived oppression.

So what I think, unfortunately, has happened is the gay community, for whatever that term broadly means, they went from fighting for something. They went from being outsiders. And by the way, that comes with a lot of pain and all sorts of stuff. I mean, many gay people have written about this. And, you know, from my own experience, the pain and drugs and just doing stuff that I shouldnt have done, its just part of being closeted and the outsider and the rest of it. But you take that, then you get equality. And now thats great. Now things are good. But then the progressives move in and they kind of use you as a tool.

So if you notice, theres really nothing interesting coming out of the gay community these days. And that is to directly answer your question. That is why were watching so many gay people walk away (from progressive orthodoxy) right now. And by the way, its the exact same thing with the black community.

Kay: Youre an American. Do you find your political message resonates with Canadians? It used to be that a political writer like you was mostly a celebrity in your own country. But thanks to social media, things are much more global.

Rubin: It really, really does. Now, part of that I have to credit Jordan Peterson, obviously, because, you know, Jordan, whose origin he was a clinical psychologist in Toronto and professor at the University of Toronto, you know, hes sort of Canadas biggest export over the last couple of years, certainly intellectually their biggest export. And I toured with Jordan Peterson. We had many stops in Canada. Ive done some speaking events with Maxime Bernier from the Canadian Peoples party. And I do sense that there is a strong liberty movement growing in Canada. You know, as Justin Trudeau and the Liberals of Canada sort of extend their power. And I know you guys have all sorts of problems. You know, Western Canada and the Calgary area feeling that theyre sort of being left out from what the decision-making process is. I sense that there is a there is a strong liberty movement there. So we absolutely wonderful receptions in all of our Canadian stops. I love doing them. We had a running joke in every Canadian stop on the tour because I would moderate the Q-and-A at the end of the show. So the way the shows would work, I would do about 15 minutes of crowd warm-up. Jordan would give about an hour and a half speech and then we would do about 45 minutes of Q-and-A. And each time, somebody would ask if Jordan would run for prime minister and hed make you know, its a fun, silly comment about Trudeau. And it would always get a huge laugh. So I do sense that that there is a certain set of Canadians who are waking up to some of these more liberty or individual rights issues, which maybe isnt fully within the Canadian political ethos as much as it is within an American one.

But, yes, to your point. Look, were all on YouTube, were all podcasting. Were all doing all these things. And what is local is now everything. You know, its like everything is now local and whats local is now everything.

Kay: Thanks so much for joining us. Stay safe!

National Post

Read more here:
Dave Rubin interview: His new book, censorship on the left and what he sees happening in Canada - National Post

"I promise you, one day you will say, first they came after conservatives, and I said nothing," opined Dennis Prager at a Senate hearing in July, invoking the famous Holocaust poem by Martin Niemller. In this case,theyrefers not to Nazis but to YouTube, which Prager contends is censoring his business. The right-leaning radio host runs Prager University, also known as PragerU, a nonprofit that publishes videos to YouTube, a Google subsidiary.

Prager sued the platform in 2019 after YouTube classified some of its videos in a way that hid them from the 1.5 percent of users who had opted into "restricted mode," which screens out content with mature themes.

While it's worth debating whether YouTube should handle political content identically to violent and sexually suggestive content, PragerU's suit argued that YouTube has become so large that it should now be treated as a public utility and thus prohibited from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. In a ruling issued in February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit fundamentally rejected that argument. "PragerU runs headfirst into two insurmountable barriersthe First Amendment and Supreme Court precedent," wrote Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, reminding the plaintiffs that the Constitution protects individuals only fromgovernmentcensorship.

PragerU found common ground on this issue with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (DHawaii), who sued Google for violating her First Amendment rights after it temporarily suspended her campaign advertising account following an especially compelling Democratic primary debate performance in June. (Google says the suspension was automatically triggered by its anti-fraud provision, which flags accounts with large changes in spending.)

Like PragerU, Gabbard argued that Google is a public utility and, as such, should be required to maintain neutrality. But as Judge Stephen Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California observed, the First Amendment has no bearing on decisions made by private businesses. "Google is not now, nor (to the Court's knowledge) has it ever been, an arm of the United States government," he wrote.

Gabbard and PragerU may very well be justified in railing against Google's content moderation methods. But they seem not to have considered the deleterious effects they might have had on the open internet if they had prevailed in court. It's possible that companies would start scrubbingmorecontent in an effort to avoid lawsuits alleging preferential treatment for certain viewpoints. Conversely, they might also forfeit their right to moderate content at all, which both Prager and Gabbard might change their mind on once companies lose the ability to remove porn.

Forcing Google to behave like a public utility would not be likely to serve the interests of those demanding that designation, to say nothing of the rest of us.

Read the original:
Prager University and Tulsi Gabbard Lose Censorship Suits Against Google - Reason

It is time to draw a line. In the fight against Covid-19, people across the world have been required to suspend many hard-won freedoms to give up travel, loved ones, places of worship, the pub. They have gone along with it because they understand that some temporary restrictions on liberty are sometimes needed in times of crisis (even though we must ensure they do not become permanent). But one thing we cannot give an inch on is freedom of speech, our right to speak and our right to hear others, which is under serious threat right now.

An unholy alliance of corporate tech giants, government and international agencies is working to narrow the range of acceptable debate about coronavirus. Since the beginning of this crisis, officialdom has talked up the threat posed to containing Covid by an infodemic the World Health Organisations cute phrase for the spread of misinformation online. Social-media firms have been put under renewed pressure to expand their already extensive policies on what is and isnt acceptable content. And theyve been all too happy to oblige.

Take Facebook, home to around 2.6 billion monthly active users. During this crisis it has moved the goalposts dramatically on what can be posted. At first, it said it would continue to remove misinformation that could contribute to imminent physical harm, while deploying its army of fact-checkers to flag certain posts, depress their distribution, and direct sharers of such material to reliable information. Just a few weeks on and it is removing event posts for anti-lockdown protests in various US states, in tandem with state officials.

Last month it was revealed that Facebook had removed event pages for anti-lockdown protests in California, New Jersey and Nebraska. A spokesperson told Politico that Facebook reached out to state officials to understand the scope of their orders and resolved to remove the posts when gatherings do not follow the health parameters established by the government and are therefore unlawful, such as when protests intend to flout social-distancing rules.

Facebook has stressed that state governments did not ask them to remove specific posts. But what seems to have happened is almost worse. Facebook moderators appear to be banning events posts on the basis of what they reckon the laws of a particular state constitute. As David Kaye, UN special rapporteur on free expression, told the Guardian: If people show up to protest and I think the vast majority of public-health officials think thats really dangerous its up to the government to clamp down on them. For Facebook to do it just seems suspect.

Whats more, Kaye continued, this informal arrangement reached between Facebook and state governments will make it harder for citizens to challenge instances of censorship. If a state government were to issue a formal takedown notice to Facebook, asking it to remove a post for an illegal protest, then that government action would at least be subject to a challenge in court. But Facebook, a private company, is allowed to take down whatever it wants and is protected from legal liability.

This is, in effect, government outsourcing censorship to the private sector. Even if straightforward takedown requests arent being made, the increasingly cosy relationship between Big Tech, governments and intergovernmental organisations is leading to elite consensus effectively being enforced on social media. In a recent interview with CNN, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said her platform will remove anything that is medically unsubstantiated, as well as anything that goes against WHO [World Health Organisation] recommendations, essentially asserting this one UN agency as infallible and its critics as heretics.

As many have pointed out, this standard is almost impossible to enforce consistently not least because the WHO has got a fair bit wrong over the course of this pandemic, and in previous crises. But it seems YouTubes guidelines are now sufficiently broad that it can take down any dissident post that sparks outrage. It recently banned a viral video of two doctors, Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, who run a group of urgent care centres in Bakersfield, California, discussing the data they have drawn from Covid testing, and arguing that California should lift its lockdown.

Experts and commentators have questioned the doctors claims and conclusions, and even their motivations (apparently one of them is a Trump supporter). But these two are not snarling conspiracy theorists. They are experienced medics giving their opinions on the data as they see it. But this apparently cannot be hosted on YouTube because, in the words of a spokesperson, it disputes the efficacy of local health authority recommended guidance on social distancing. It seems you cannot question the wisdom of the authorities at all.

As for the real snarling conspiracy theorists, theyve also been getting booted off platforms during this crisis. David Icke has been kicked off Facebook and YouTube, where hitherto he was allowed to promote his cobblers about lizard people, vaccines and Bill Gates relatively unmolested. But for spreading the conspiracy theory that 5G causes coronavirus, among other madcap corona ideas, he has been damned by the tech giants for spreading harmful disinformation. Inevitably, Icke and his supporters have taken this as vindication that, in his words, the elite are TERRIFIED.

Mad as these people are, the censorship of conspiracy theorists is a worrying development. For years, while Big Tech firms have expanded censorship in other areas, they have resisted clamping down on Icke and his ilk. As recently as March, Facebook said that claims that dont directly result in physical harm, like conspiracy theories about the origin of the virus would be fact-checked rather than censored. When Facebook banned Infowars Alex Jones in 2018 it was at pains to say that this was for glorifying violence and hate speech, not for spreading 9/11 or Sandy Hook conspiracy theories.

Social-media companies hesitancy in censoring conspiracy theories up to now was not out of any grand principle their policing of hateful speech is just as censorious. But notwithstanding the egotism and self-righteousness of Silicon Valley, you can understand why companies primarily interested in making money would be wary of moving more definitively into the role of pronouncing on what is and isnt true. Until now, it seems. That they hide behind the experts and reliable sources makes this no less problematic for free debate.

Facebook and YouTube now monopolise huge arenas of public discussion. Writers and thinkers unable to promote their work on Facebook, or videomakers unable to upload their work to YouTube, are effectively denied access to a significant portion of what now constitutes the public square. At a time when billions of people are under house arrest, and the literal public square is largely off-limits, this is an even more sinister development. As is the fact that governments and powerful organisations seem to be working hand in glove with tech firms to enforce conformity.

Covid-19 and the policies being pursued to tame it affect everyone. We must be free to question and debate all the issues this crisis raises, insisting that no one person or organisation has a monopoly on truth and that dangerous nonsense can be defeated in free debate. And we need to make sure we have a (relatively) free internet at the end of all this. That some firms are now helping to police offline protests, organised to oppose government policy, is a particularly alarming indication of how far Big Tech censorship has spread during this pandemic. We need to flatten the curve.

Tom Slater is deputy editor at spiked. Follow him on Twitter: @Tom_Slater_

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Go here to read the rest:
We need to stop the spread of Big Tech censorship - Spiked

Local nonbinary drag theatre collective The Darlings have had two performances taken down from Facebook.PNG

Vancouver nonbinary drag collective The Darlings has a dedicated audience for its creative and cutting-edge performances. But since the group took its show online, its work is being targeted.

Both the March 29 broadcast debut and the April 26 followup were subject to reports that they contravened Facebooks terms and guidelines and were taken down following being reported.

In a statement posted on The Darlings Facebook page, the members point out that queer artists are being silenced by such actions and that the process to get reinstated on the viewing platform is extremely onerous. The video goes on to point out that the artists were even practicing self-censorship of its content to avoid contravening Facebooks terms and guidelines. This is particularly unsettling for queer artists everywhere being comfortable with using online platforms to deliver their art in the absence of queer spaces.

For now, both performances can be viewed on Vimeo.

I like to assume that it was someone random, and not direct targeting, because in most cases that is the case, said The Darlings Continental Breakfast. There are people out there who dont want to be seeing queer programming being accessible. And if anything you do can be seen as even being PG-13, it can get reported.

The first report was lodged when member PM was showing bare feet while wearing latex. For the second show, Continental Breakfast even had nieces watch it after it aired for extra vetting. The performer admitted to feeling calm and confident going into the event.

We were on the edge of our seats for the first show, because we didnt know how it would go, they said. So we completely adjusted our content to bring forward a family-friendly show that was sensitive, gentle and touched on vulnerability. Its really hard to see someone still report that.

With nearly 10,000 views across both shows, demand clearly exists for The Darlings work. But the group says being shut down the second time cut-off its audience in the first 15 minutes and the numbers were seriously impacted. This has lead The Darlings to take a break and reconsider alternative routes which do not risk the integrity and viability of their work.

Member Rose Butch stated that being silenced on the most accessible platform available to broadcast to viewers was discouraging and disheartening.

sderdeyn@postmedia.com

twitter.com/stuartderdeyn

Visit link:
The Darlings are discouraged and disheartened by live stream censorship - The Province

Forced apology shows the colleges foremost interest is its public perception

As far as meaningful apologies go, this is one of the best ones Ive seen from a college.

Arizonas Maricopa County Community College District not only apologized for trampling on the academic freedom of a Scottsdale Community College professor, but promised an immediate independent investigation into its handling of the situation.

Its also creating a Committee on Academic Freedom to ensure that the districts longstanding commitment to the value of inclusion does not come at the expense of academic freedom.

The Monday announcement from interim Chancellor Steven Gonzales came four days after the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education warned SCC that its actions were flatly inconsistent with its First Amendment obligations and would chill faculty expression.

Nicholas Damask, chair of the political science department, teaches a world politics class that includes a module called Islamic Terrorism. Three quiz questions in the module asked whom terrorists strive to emulate, which Islamic verses encourage terrorism, and when terrorism is justified in Islam, according to FIREs letter.

A student complained to Damask that the questions were in distaste of Islam and didnt accept his explanation of the legitimacy of the quiz questions. Soon the same complaint had been shared online and SCCs Instagram account started getting bombarded with complaints about the quiz.

In an Instagram post that has since been removed but remains archived, interim SCC President Chris Haines not only agreed that the quiz questions were inaccurate, inappropriate, and not reflective of the inclusive nature of our college, but said Damask will be apologizing to the offended student.

The college was also permanently banning those questions from future quizzes. Haines implied they violated the colleges nondiscrimination policy.

We applaud the student for bringing this to our attention and encourage any student or employee to speak out when offended by quiz questions, Haines said. (Side note: Please use Archive.Today to document online posts you think may be removed. Haines post does not display on the most popular archive service despite being saved more than 200 times in a single day.)

MORE: UCLA censors book on Islamic Totalitarianism at free speech event

Not only did Damasks dean tell him the districts governing board was reviewing the matter, and that a leader in the Islamic faith would now be screening his course content, but the college refused to tell a local newspaper if the professor was facing discipline. (Investigating protected speech by itself can violate the First Amendment, nevermind issuing sanctions at the end of the investigation.)

Damask left these calls [with Dean of Instruction Kathleen Iudicello] feeling that his job security was in jeopardy, FIRE program officer Katlyn Patton wrote to President Haines.

As for that apology that the president promised? Marketing and Public Relations Manager Eric Sells wrote it, sent it to multiple administrators and warned that senior leadership would probably want to review it. The draft apology pledged, in Damasks name, to ensure theres no additional insensitivities in course material. (Sells grammar is incorrect here.)

The college committed the trifecta of censorship with this course of action, violating not only the First Amendment and core tenets of academic freedom but also state law protecting faculty against compelled expression of a particular view,Patton wrote. She reminded Haines that the district already paid a six-figure settlement in the past year to resolve a First Amendment lawsuit brought by faculty.

(The settlements mandated training on freedom of expression and academic freedom apparently didnt work, which is too bad, because those are explicit conditions of its accreditation.)

Patton warned the president that she doesnt want to litigate this, because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings are binding on SCC) has already exempted academic freedom from a precedent that lets employers regulate employee speech pursuant to their official duties. That 2014 ruling went even further than Damasks quiz, protecting speech related to scholarship orteaching.

SCCs ludicrous overreaction to the quiz questions sets a dangerous precedent for Damasks entire department, Patton wrote:

Further, the study of political scienceand particularly world politics and terrorismwill almost inevitably venture into sometimes-uncomfortable territory and include topics on which many students will have both varying and deeply-held beliefs. That students may experience discomfort, and even anger, in the course of their studies should have no bearing on a professors right to select relevant materials and test students on their knowledge of those materials as they see fit. The students in Damasks class are adults in a college-level course and should be treated as such.

MORE: Six-figure settlement with student punished for Islamic terrorist spoof

The forced apology is a stark admission that the colleges foremost interest is its public perception, which it has shamefully elevated above the well-established expressive and academic freedom rights of its students and faculty, Patton concluded. (FIREs blog post Monday gives no suggestion the college responded by its May 8 deadline.)

Mondays announcement from Chancellor Gonzales left out names and other details of the dispute, but made clear that the quiz questions were taken out of context and their subject was within the scope of the course. Some people even made threats against the unnamed professor.

Gonzales said he was troubled by what appears to be a rush to judgement in how the college responded to the controversy, including by violating its own policy and procedure:

I apologize, personally, and on behalf of the Maricopa Community Colleges, for the uneven manner in which this was handled and for our lack of full consideration for our professors right of academic freedom.

Perhaps alluding to FIREs warning that an investigation itself can trigger legal liability, the chancellor cleared up misinformation that the districts governing board was investigating the professor or might be planning to. Damask is not in jeopardy of losing his position.

As for the academic freedom committee, its members will be identified by the end of the week, he said. Their task is to champion academic freedom education and training and to resolve academic freedom disputes in the hope of ensuring this fundamental academic value is better understood and realized alongside our longstanding commitment to the value of inclusion.

If theres one thing folks like FIRE can tell you, however, its that promises made in the midst of a PR disaster can go unfulfilled if the public loses interest. The first test of the districts commitment will be whom it appoints to the new committee, and the second will be its transparency with the results of the independent investigation.

MORE: American university punishes prof for refusing to proselytize Islam

IMAGE: STUDIO GRAND OUEST/Shutterstock

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

See more here:
Public college backs off threat to censor professor's course on Islamist violence after legal warning - The College Fix