Professors Tell Students: Disagree With Climate Change? Shut Up, Get Out By Tom Knighton

“Climate change” is a controversial subject. Some people believe that humans have been doing just about everything wrong and are causing the Earth to heat up to such a degree that we will wipe out civilization. Other people actually examine the evidence and think for themselves.

But the first group includes three professors from the University of Colorado, who have declared that on the subject of climate change, their students aren’t allowed to dissent with their views:

Three professors co-teaching an online course called “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age” at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.

“The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,” states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.

Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.

“Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,” the professors’ email continued.

The email also banned discussion on class message boards, and told students who have a problem with that to drop the class.

First, why is a Humanities course talking about climate change?

Oh, right: Everything must be used to advance the narrative, even if it has no place in the discussion.

While you might expect better from college professors, they either don’t know or don’t care that their “98 percent of climate scientists” argument has been debunked, junked, and ridiculed for a long time now, and not just by fly-by-night blogs no one has heard of, either.

I’m Northwestern’s president. Here’s why safe spaces for students are important.

Morton Schapiro is president of Northwestern University.

College presidents have always received a lot of mail. But these days we get more than ever. Much of it relates to student unrest, and most of the messages are unpleasant.

Our usual practice is to thank the sender for writing and leave it at that. The combination of receiving more than 100 emails and letters a day and recognizing that the purpose of many writers is to rebuke, rather than discuss, leaves us little choice about how to respond.

But that certainly doesn’t mean we don’t think long and hard about the issues being raised. Some writers ask why our campus is so focused on how “black lives matter.” Others express a mixture of curiosity and rage about microaggressions and trigger warnings. And finally, what about those oft-criticized “safe spaces”? On this last topic, here are two stories. The first was told to me privately by another institution’s president, and the second takes place at my institution, Northwestern University.

A group of black students were having lunch together in a campus dining hall. There were a couple of empty seats, and two white students asked if they could join them. One of the black students asked why, in light of empty tables nearby. The reply was that these students wanted to stretch themselves by engaging in the kind of uncomfortable learning the college encourages. The black students politely said no. Is this really so scandalous?

I find two aspects of this story to be of particular interest.

First, the familiar question is “Why do the black students eat together in the cafeteria?” I think I have some insight on this based on 16 years of living on or near a college campus: Many groups eat together in the cafeteria, but people seem to notice only when the students are black. Athletes often eat with athletes; fraternity and sorority members with their Greek brothers and sisters; a cappella group members with fellow singers; actors with actors; marching band members with marching band members; and so on.

And that brings me to the second aspect: We all deserve safe spaces. Those black students had every right to enjoy their lunches in peace. There are plenty of times and places to engage in uncomfortable learning, but that wasn’t one of them. The white students, while well-meaning, didn’t have the right to unilaterally decide when uncomfortable learning would take place.

Now for the story from Northwestern. For more than four decades, we have had a building on campus called the Black House, a space specifically meant to be a center for black student life. This summer some well-intentioned staff members suggested that we place one of our multicultural offices there. The pushback from students, and especially alumni, was immediate and powerful. It wasn’t until I attended a listening session that I fully understood why. One black alumna from the 1980s said that she and her peers had fought to keep a house of their own on campus. While the black community should always have an important voice in multicultural activities on campus, she said, we should put that office elsewhere, leaving a small house with a proud history as a safe space exclusively for blacks.

Brown University president: A safe space for freedom of expression By Christina Paxson (???!!!)

Christina Paxson is president of Brown University.

New students are entering colleges and universities at a time of fierce debate about whether institutions of higher education are becoming places that stifle speech in the interest of protecting students from ideas and perspectives they don’t want to hear. In the clash over freedom of expression and the supposed coddling of American college students, safe spaces and trigger warnings are held up as the poster children of overprotective universities.
In the setting of private institutions, this is not a First Amendment issue. Private colleges and universities could restrict the expression of ideas and beliefs within their campuses, if they chose to do so. But most private colleges and universities wisely do not make this choice. Instead, colleges and universities protect the rights of members of their communities to express a full range of ideas, however controversial.

That is because freedom of expression is an essential component of academic freedom, which protects the ability of universities to fulfill their core mission of advancing knowledge. Suppressing ideas at a university is akin to turning off the power at a factory. As scholars and students, our responsibility is to subject old truths to scrutiny and put forward new ideas to improve them.

At universities, we also advance understanding about issues of justice and fairness, and these discussions can be equally, if not more, difficult. From the earliest days of this country, college campuses have been the sites of fierce debates about slavery, war, women’s rights and racial justice. These discussions create rocky moments, and they should.

If we don’t have these debates — if we limit the flow of ideas — then in 50 years we will be no better than we are today.

I don’t share the view that American college students want to be protected from ideas that make them uncomfortable. Just the opposite. Over the past few years, our students have addressed topics that make many people very uncomfortable indeed — racism, sexual assault, religious persecution. These are some of the toughest problems facing society today, and we do not shy away from them.

As for “safe spaces” — the term is used in so many different ways that it is impossible to discuss it without being precise about its meaning. The term emerged from the women’s movement nearly 50 years ago to refer to forums where women’s rights issues were discussed. Then it was extended to denote spaces where violence and harassment against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community would not be tolerated, and then extended yet again to mean places where students from marginalized groups can come together to feel comfortable discussing their experiences and just being themselves.

If this is what a safe space means, then, yes, Brown has them. Proudly.

Daryl McCann The Audacity of Crooked Hillary: Part 2

This time there is no stained blue dress, but the Clinton machine’s rote rejection of all evidence pointing to influence peddling during the Democratic candidate’s time as Secretary of State is more of the same: we’re the innocent victims of rabid right wingers’ lies.
For Hillary Clinton there is no going back. Should she, like Macbeth, “wade no more” into her river of Emailgate deception and lies, the return journey would be “as tedious as go o’er”. It is either the White House or the Big House for the Democrats’ presidential candidate. Her best shot at winning on November 8 is to keep insisting that Donald Trump is KKK. She must also stick to the line that the FBI has cleared her of any wrongdoing while Secretary of State (2009-13) and disparage any dissenting opinion as “partisan conspiracy theorising”.

Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash – as book (2015), documentary (2016) and now graphic novel (2016) – threatens to derail Hillary Clinton’s campaign because it places Emailgate in a broader, and more ominous, framework. Schweizer’s research suggests Hillary, in agreement with husband Bill, made more than $200 million by monetising the overlap between global charitable organisations (in this case, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative) and non-global government oversight (the US Senate and Department of State). As mentioned in The Audacity of Crooked Hillary (Part 1), Hillary, Bill and daughter Chelsea have not made a cent out of the Clinton Foundation. Fifteen years of selflessly helping others – as they tell it – and the naysayers only want to knock their philanthropic enterprise. Only two weeks ago Bill Clinton tearfully reflected: “We’re trying to do good things. If there’s something wrong with creating jobs and saving lives, I don’t know what it is.”

The critics of the Clinton Foundation have not only come from the conservative side of the aisle. Ed Pilkington, writing in The Guardian in May of this year, had this to say about the film version of Clinton Cash: “Perhaps the most telling detail is the bald fact that between 2001 and 2013 Bill Clinton made 13 speeches in which he charged more than $500,000 in fees; 11 of those speeches were made within the period when his wife was working as America’s top diplomat.”

The insinuation, then, is that a smorgasbord of foreign governments and multinational companies would evade/rework US law by inviting Bill Clinton to speak at international seminars for more than half-a-million dollars a time – $750,000 in the Ericsson case – as part of a pay-to-play scheme. Donate to the Clinton Foundation and/or invite the loquacious Bill to opine on the general state of the world and the US Department of State would – as Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s personal assistant, expressed it in an email newly released by the FBI – “figure it out”.

Ed Pilkington, to be fair, does not entirely endorse Clinton Cash. For instance, he mentions the eight or so factual errors in the first edition of Schweizer’s book and, furthermore, insists that there is “no smoking gun” in the book or the film. Unquestionably, no email has emerged along these lines: ‘November 12, 2011, Hong Kong. Greetings, HRC! The Ericsson speech tonight…$750,000! Suppose I should jot down a few ideas – maybe after lunch. Don’t forget your end of the bargain. Get Ericsson off the sanctions list pronto. Cheers, Bill.’ One reason why such an email will not materialise could be that Bill Clinton apparently prefers face-to-face communication to sending off electronic missives – that, at least, is what he claims.

Chris Matthews, writing for Fortune magazine in June of this year, is another on the progressive side of politics to argue that while no documented proof exists to conclusively prove that Ericsson managed to circumvent US policy, “it was probably not a good idea for Bill Clinton to accept money from a company who had business in front of the State Department while his wife was running it.” In the rise and rise of the Clintons, from governor’s mansion in Little Rock to the White House, from US Congress to the Department of State, it is usually about this point – circumstantial evidence but no proverbial smoking gun – that the Bill & Hillary Obfuscation Show kicks into high gear: a two-part strategy of “Deny! Deny! Deny!” followed by a lethal counter-attack, consisting of a whirl of private threats and public slander directed at their accusers/victims.

The trusty stratagem appeared to slip perfectly into place in the earlier phase of the 1998 Monica Lewinsky Scandal. President Bill Clinton assured the public of his innocence: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, er, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.” President Bill Clinton, as per Chairman Bill Clinton of the Clinton Foundation, was “just trying to do good things”. Why, for heaven’s sake, are people so mean? First Lady Hillary Clinton then vilified the whistle-blowers as “a vast right-wing conspiracy”. Had Monica Lewinsky not been persuaded to save a certain semen-stained blue dress from a trip to the drycleaners, Zippergate would have played out very differently. As it was, President Bill Clinton subsequently confessed to a grand jury that he had an “improper physical relationship” with Lewinsky.

Today, caught up in the midst of Emailgate, Candidate Hillary Clinton has denounced the “conspiracy theory machine factory” – not as catchy, perhaps, as vast right-wing conspiracy but we get the drift. One comment-thread correspondent to Quadrant Online, in response to The Audacity of Hillary Clinton (Part 1), insisted that there was “a whiff of conspiracy” about the accusations against Hillary Clinton. Our missive writer is correct, but perhaps not for the reason he thinks. A “conspiracy”, we should note, does not have to be of the “tin-foil hat” variety. I argued, for instance, about the dangers of wild conspiracy theories in What JFK’s Assassination Did to America (Quadrant, November 2013). A far more plausible interpretation of conspiracy simply means the intent of two or more people to connive in order to circumvent the law or company policy. Occurrences of this kind are everyday events and, contraire Hillary Clinton, do not require total suspension of disbelief accompanied by the theme music for The Twilight Zone.

That said, to accuse someone – including, yes, Hillary Clinton – of underhanded scheming without any kind of evidence is a form of slander. Precisely because they are entrusted with power and influence, politicians are subject to every kind of allegation, foul or fair. That is why President Obama insisted that before she took up her post as Secretary of State in early 2009, Hillary Clinton signed a memorandum of understanding that guaranteed not just the separation of her leadership position in the State Department from her husband’s role as CEO of the Clinton Foundation but complete transparency on the matter. She was instructed not just to do the right thing but seen to be doing the right thing.

Obama’s Iranian Cash Laundromat By Rachel Ehrenfeld

I was wrong! In early 2013, my article “The American Babe In The Iranian Wood,” noted, “President Obama and his administration’s incomprehensible handling of Iran, as clueless, overconfident and counterproductive; not a good recipe for dealing with a sophisticated and determined adversary.”

As it turned out, and as every new expose of yet another secret deal shows, President Obama was anything but a clueless Babe. The President who initiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, aka The Iran Deal, is a sophisticated politician who deliberately and elaborately misled the American people about his concessions to the mullahs, accommodating their nuclear agenda and giving them some $150 billions, purportedly to help strengthen their economy. All the while acknowledging that “some” of that money will pay for the regime’s military expansion and even to fund their terrorist activities. Why was the U.S. President so keen on building up his nation’s sworn enemy’s nuclear capabilities? What was his motive in empowering the mullahs and fueling Iran’s intervention in and destabilization of the Middle East and beyond?

Also, where were the United States’ partners to the Iran Deal? The United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China — plus Germany, and the European Union (EU) participated in the negotiations and signed on. Why?

While the prospect of opening the Iranian market to business was tempting, why would any country, especially with geographic proximity to Iran, be interested in facilitating the belligerent Islamic Republic’s development of nuclear weapons? Has greed overcome existential fear? Or perhaps by the time the deal was announced Iran’s uranium enrichment program was close to or already a fait accompli. In that case, why not partake in the Obama administration’s magic show and reap real profits afterward? Perhaps this can explain why most of the murky details were not leaked.

French Police Detain Second Couple After Notre Dame Car Scare A car loaded with cooking gas canisters was found near Notre Dame Cathedral in ParisBy Inti Landauro

PARIS—French police detained a second couple as part of terror investigation after a car loaded with cooking gas canisters was found near Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on Sunday morning, a spokeswoman for the Paris prosecutor said.

The man and a woman detained Wednesday evening in the Loiret area, 100 miles south of Paris, are being questioned by the police, a spokeswoman for the antiterror prosecutor said Thursday. She didn’t provide further information on their identity.

The police on Tuesday arrested the couple who own the car on a highway near Orange, a French city hundreds of miles south of Paris. One of the car’s owners is on a national-security watch list.

Police discovered the car with its hazard lights blinking and no license plate, according to a police officer familiar with the matter. One gas canister was found on the front seat while six others were recovered from the car’s trunk, the officer said, adding that no detonator was found.

The spokeswoman said three bottles of petrol were also found in the trunk.

Russian Fighter Buzzes U.S. Surveillance Plane Encounter comes amid growing tension between two powers By Paul Sonne

A Russian jet fighter conducted what the Pentagon described as an “unsafe,” close-range intercept of a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft in international airspace over the Black Sea Wednesday, at one point closing to within 10 feet, U.S. officials said.

The maneuver came amid growing Washington-Moscow tensions over talks in Syria, a cease-fire in Ukraine and mountingU.S. concern that Russian hackers are targeting U.S. electoral systems.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said the intercept lasted about 19 minutes and described it as a potentially dangerous maneuver.

“These actions have the potential to unnecessarily escalate tensions, and could result in a miscalculation or accident,” Capt. Davis said.

A U.S. defense official said the Russian Su-27 maintained a 30-foot distance from the U.S. P-8A Poseidon aircraft before closing to within 10 feet, a perilously close brush.

Remember Iran’s Role in 9/11 Forgetful officials should not be rewarding Tehran for its deadly actions with gifts like sanctions relief. By Joseph I. Lieberman

‘Never forget” is the commitment the American people made after Sept. 11, 2001. Yet sometimes our leaders seem to have forgotten Iran’s role in that worst terror attack on American soil, and Iran’s continuing assistance to terror organizations and operations around the world.
In the last 15 years, aggressive U.S.-led military and intelligence operations have killed many of al Qaeda’s leaders and damaged the group’s ability to plan and execute a similar attack. But a key al Qaeda partner, Iran, has never been held responsible for its enabling role—even though the 9/11 Commission found that “there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”

The State Department says Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. What is not adequately understood, however, is the regime’s willingness to work with extremists of the Sunni sect in the Arab world and elsewhere—even though it views itself as the vanguard of the world’s Shiite community. Iran is aiding both Sunni and Shiite terror organizations—including Sunni Hamas and Sunni Islamic Jihad, and Shiite Hezbollah and Shiite Iraqi militias.

Iran’s link to al Qaeda goes back to Sudan in the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden lived in the nation’s capital, Khartoum. The Sudanese religious scholar Ahmed Abdel Rahman Hamadabi brought Sheikh Nomani, an emissary of Iran, to meet bin Laden and the nascent al Qaeda leadership. According to an account by scholar Rohan Gunaratna, Sheikh Nomani “had access to the highest echelons of power in Tehran.”

As a result of these consultations, the Washington Institute’s Matthew Levitt and Michael Jacobson concluded, “Iran and al-Qaeda reached an informal agreement to cooperate, with Iran providing critical explosives, intelligence, and security training to bin Laden’s organization.” Because Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) already supported Hezbollah operationally and financially, a vehicle was in place through which they could support and influence al Qaeda.

Operating through Hezbollah gave Iran immense freedom to funnel money and weaponry and to train al Qaeda operatives in deadly tactics that would be employed around the world, including against the U.S. The coordinated 1998 truck bombings targeting the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were a direct result of the Iranian terror training, according to a finding by Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the 2011 case of James Owens et al. v. Republic of Sudan et al.

After 9/11, Iran became a more important haven for al Qaeda fighters who fled from Afghanistan as the Taliban collapsed. Iran claimed that these terrorists were under “house arrest.” In reality, Iran regularly granted the terrorists freedom to move within Iran and to cross into Iraq and Afghanistan to carry out attacks. From their safe base in Iran, al Qaeda members planned terrorist operations, including the 2003 attack in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia that killed 26 people, including eight Americans, and the 2008 attack on the American Embassy in Yemen that claimed 16 lives, including six terrorists. CONTINUE AT SITE

Palestinians: “Women are Witches” by Khaled Abu Toameh

The offensive references to women, who are depicted as witches and demons in Palestinian school textbooks, should not come as a surprise. Recently, it was revealed here that several Palestinian lists contesting the October 8 local elections have replaced the names and photos of their female candidates with images of roses and pigeons.

“This is completely unacceptable because it presents women as the cause for all disputes and evil in Palestinian society.” — Lubna Al-Ashkar of the Women’s Technical Affairs Committee.

“This will create a negative image of women in the midst of our children — one that will be difficult to change in the future.” — Amal Khraisheh, chairwoman of the Palestinian Working Woman Society.

It is true that women as witches is a novel defamation for President Mahmoud Abbas and his crew. Yet Palestinian Authority defamation of others, including Israel, is far from new. This is stuff fed to Palestinian schoolchildren: lies about history, lies about geography, and now lies about Palestinian women.

Palestinian schoolchildren who returned to their schools last week are being taught that women are witches and Tel Aviv is an Arab city. They are also being exposed to maps that ignore Israel’s existence.

Despite all Palestinian Authority (PA) claims to the contrary, then, the new textbooks hardly promote peace and coexistence between Palestinians and Israel.

A new school curriculum published by the PA last week has drawn sharp criticism from many Palestinians, who say the textbooks demonize women and contain “factual and historical” errors.

The controversial version of the curriculum for grades 1-4 was launched by PA Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah during a ceremony in Ramallah, on the eve of beginning of the new school year.

Within hours, Palestinians, particularly female activists, voiced resentment over the new curriculum and called on the PA leadership to remove it immediately. Some Palestinians denounced the curriculum, which was drafted by a team of Palestinian educational experts, as a “scandal” and a “distortion of facts.” They said that a curriculum full of errors and “distortions of facts” was a guaranteed recipe for raising a new generation of illiterate and misinformed Palestinians.

France: On Its Way to Being a Jew-Free Nation? by Robbie Travers

Incitement to murder Jews was described by the French press as “mild mannered”.

In 2014, supposed anti-Israel protesters attacked a Paris synagogue and trapped the congregants inside. The attackers’ chants apparently included “Death to the Jews,” “Murderous Israel,” and “One Jew, Some Jews, All Jews are Terrorists.”

The terrorist attacks on Jews in France are the culmination of years of Jew-hatred tolerated with little official criticism.

With ISIS and Hamas banners and flags flying, groups in Paris pledged the genocide of the Jews with impunity. When chants of “Death to the Jews,” ring out publicly, is it surprising that people might actually begin to think that killing Jews is just fine?

During the past 15 years, it is estimated that tens of thousands of Jews have fled France.

Of these, approximately 40,000 have fled to Israel, according to Israeli figures. Many thousands of others have fled to Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. France is increasingly becoming a nation in which it is no longer safe to be openly Jewish.

To explain why so many Jews are leaving Europe, it helps to understand the increasingly toxic context developing in France for Jews.

Synagogues and Jewish schools across France are regularly guarded by police officers and soldiers. Jews in Europe see their holy sites and places of worship under threat.

In December 2015, 14 Jews were poisoned by a toxic substance which had been smeared on to the keypad to access a Paris synagogue. No one was killed by the poison, but “25 firemen rushed to the synagogue, where they treated congregants and traced their condition to the daubed lock.”