John — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:45:36 GMT

Long live Thought Crime, and long live FIRE!

Brandeis's PC cowardice is sadly typical of the college scene these days -- and for some time, now. I attended Hamilton in the early 90s, and the mention of 'wetback' would have gotten you sentenced to sensitivity training (or expelled).

Meanwhile, the hate term 'gringo' is pretty much A-Ok, suggesting that the real crime of Prof. Hindley and others like him is that they were foolishly born white (or of the "phallocentric white hegemon," as our tormentors in the academy may prefer).

jerry — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:39:14 GMT

Pardon my ignorance, because I should know, but I don't. Can you explain why Professor Hindley or any faculty or student at Brandeis has an expectation of due process as defined in the Constitution?

I ask because so often when I hear discussions of free speech, I am told again and again that the first amendment only applies to government censorship and that a private organization can shut you up, and that may be censorship, but it is not a constitutional violation. (I don't know if this is true or not, but it's "common wisdom" internet style.)

Similarly it's pointed out (again I don't know if this is right or wrong) that the reason the government can demand TITLE IX or Civil Rights compliance from private universities or companies is because those private entities take taxpayer funds. If true, it suggests that if a private entity doesn't take taxpayer funds they can do what they want.

So I can under why Professor Hindley and FIRE would be disappointed with Brandeis' actions, but I don't understand (or have forgotten) why anyone has any expectation that Brandeis would have to give Hindley any semblance of due process.

Thanks,

Censorship at Brandeis, Again