Saturday, August 27, 2016

Chancellor Zimmer's shot heard round the world

Editor's note: Let's hear it for Chancellor Zimmer! Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster,


Chancellor Zimmer's shot heard round the world


kenneth ditkowsky

11:27 AM (19 hours ago)
to me,
The American principle of FREE SPEECH embodied in the FIRST AMENDMENT and ARTICLE 1 OF THE ILLINOIS CONSTITUTION OF 1970 is not dead.     Amazingly in an era in which one of the major political candidates for President has advocated amending the First Amendment to advance parochial agenda, and a Lawyer exposing judicial corruption is equated to yelling fire in a crowded theater  - with full approval of the Supreme Court of the Illinois and no protest from the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, or any other professional or civil rights organization Chancellor Zimmer of the University of Chicago had the temerity and courage to write:
Free speech is the basis of a true education

Free Speech Is the Basis of a True Education

A university should not be a sanctuary for comfort but rather a crucible for confronting ideas.

Free speech is at risk at the very institution where it should be assured: the university.
Invited speakers are disinvited because a segment of a university community deems them offensive, while other orators are shouted down for similar reasons. Demands are made to eliminate readings that might make some students uncomfortable. Individuals are forced to apologize for expressing views that conflict with prevailing perceptions. In many cases, these efforts have been supported by university administrators.

Photo: Getty Images/Hero Images
Yet what is the value of a university education without encountering, reflecting on and debating ideas that differ from the ones that students brought with them to college? The purpose of a university education is to provide the critical pathway by which students can fulfill their potential, change the trajectory of their families, and build healthier and more inclusive societies.
Students learn not only through the acquisition of specific knowledge, but also through the attainment of intellectual skills that serve them their entire life. Students come to appreciate context, trade-offs and data. They master how to recognize complexity, to argue effectively for their positions and to reconsider and challenge their own beliefs.
Students discover, too, that seemingly straightforward phenomena can have complicated cultural, historical and situational contexts that are critical to understanding their meaning. They realize that actions inevitably have multiple implications and that many decisions involve not simply choosing between “good” or “bad” but evaluating a set of consequences and uncertainties, both desired and undesired.
Students grasp the complexity of collecting, analyzing, interpreting and deriving meaning from evidence of multiple forms. They learn to imagine alternatives, to test their hypotheses and to question the accepted wisdom. A good education gives students the intellectual skills and approaches essential to success in much of human endeavor.
One word summarizes the process by which universities impart these skills: questioning. Productive and informed questioning involves challenging assumptions, arguments and conclusions. It calls for multiple and diverse perspectives and listening to the views of others. It requires understanding the power and limitations of arguments. More fundamentally, the process of questioning demands an ability to rethink one’s own assumptions, often the most difficult task of all.
Essential to this process is an environment that promotes free expression and the open exchange of ideas, ensuring that difficult questions are asked and that diverse and challenging perspectives are considered. This underscores the importance of diversity among students, faculty and visitors—diversity of background, belief and experience. Without this, students’ experience becomes a weak imitation of a true education, and the value of that education is seriously diminished.
Free expression and the unfettered exchange of ideas do not always come naturally. Many people value the right to express their own ideas but are less committed to granting that right to others.
Over the years, universities have come under attack from a range of groups, both external and internal, that demand the silencing of speakers, faculty, students and visitors. The attack is sometimes driven by a desire of an individual or group not to have its authority questioned. Other times it derives from a group’s moral certainty that its particular values, beliefs or approaches are the only correct ones and that others should adhere to the group’s views. Some assert that universities should be refuges from intellectual discomfort and that their own discomfort with conflicting and challenging views should override the value of free and open discourse.
We have seen efforts to suppress discussion of Charles Darwin’s work, to insist upon particular political perspectives during the McCarthy era, to impose exclusionary acts of racial and religious discrimination, and to demand compliance with various forms of “moral” behavior. The silencing being advocated today is equally as problematic. Every attempt to legitimize silencing creates justification for others to restrain speech that they do not like in the future.
Universities should be clear about their core educational mission—to provide students with the most enriching education possible. We cannot shortchange our students. This means that questioning and challenge must flourish.
Universities cannot be viewed as a sanctuary for comfort but rather as a crucible for confronting ideas and thereby learning to make informed judgments in complex environments. Having one’s assumptions challenged and experiencing the discomfort that sometimes accompanies this process are intrinsic parts of an excellent education. Only then will students develop the skills necessary to build their own futures and contribute to society.
Mr. Zimmer is president of the University of Chicago.

Even more surprising Chancellor Zimmer was not publicly castigated by the mainstream media, the Political and Judicial Establishment or either the Presidential candidates.      The WSJ analysis of the event is:
The Chicago School of Free Speech
Of course everyone knows who radical the University of Chicago is and how they were in the forefront of one revolutionary concept after another.    The University’s School of Business is a notable example.
The world was not born 8 years ago, and most of us did not just fall off the turnip truck.     Zimmer’s revolution is also not new – what is new is the fact that so many of us and the rest of the citizenry have been so lax in allowing others to defend OUR rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the State Constitution.     When Jerome Larkin wrote the Illinois Supreme Court that JoAnne Denison’s blog exposing the grossest and most venal corruption in the Circuit Court of Cook County (and elsewhere) was akin to yelling Fire in a Crowded theater few of us raised a hue and cry demanding that Mr. Larkin be pilloried for his ISIS assault on the most precious of America’s core values.    The American Bar Association carried the story and demonstrated its distain for the RULE OF LAW when it censored the stream of comments abhorring Larkin’s and the Illinois Supreme Court’s demonstration of disrespect.     The loud silence of the 2nd oldest profession, civil rights organizations, political leaders et al was an American nadir.     
Unfortunately, as college campuses followed their National Socialist policy of political correction applauded by the Political and Judicial Establishment, few voices were heard in protest.    The cancer grew like Topsy and it was not long before silent efforts to limit opposition speech were being echoed as policy.    Mr. Larkin and the Illinois Lawyer Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) in the JoAnn Denison case and others had the temerity to actually fabricate opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.     For instance, in the Alvarez case (wherein the defendant claimed to be a Medal of honor winner and was not) Larkin resurrected a rejected argument and represented that it was the Rule of Law in the case.    In the Sawyer   case he just purged the last paragraph of the decision so as to misrepresent the holding.     The Supreme Court of Illinois abdicated its position and rubber=stamped Larkin’s misrepresentations and aided and abetted him in the ‘cover up’ of Judicial corruption.     In the Amu case, even though Crain’s Chicago Business made the very same averments concerning corruption by Judge Egan, Amu was stamped as a ‘liar’ and disciplined for practicing law while Black.      Of course, political correctness advanced along racial lines to punish the appearance of not being a good Nazi!     Civil Rights icon Diane Nash was actually denied entry into the public hearing room in which a Kangaroo proceeding against JoAnne Denison was being held.   MS Nash’s crime – supporting Ms. Denison’s right to expose Judicial Corruption of a Judge who subsequently committed perjury and a judge who admitted on page 91 of her evidence deposition to being ‘wired’ (fixed etc.).   
Today’s action by Chancellor Zimmer in a perfect world would be footnote, however in today climate in which so many of our political and judicial elite lack a moral compass – it is a screaming headline.      It is also a call to arms!     It is time for each of us to pick up our computer keyboard, smart phone, or whatever and demand that the POLITICAL and JUDICIAL elite be governed by the very same laws and principles are YOU and ME.     This means we all against the proposition of today’s political and judicial elite that RIGHT is LEFT, UP is DOWN, TRUTH is FICTION.      It means that the miscreants both Rich and powerful as well as Meek are all subject to HONEST LAW ENFORCEMENT and the Elder Cleansing conspiracy has to not only account for the thefts from Medicare, the Insurance companies, and the victims of Elder Cleansing.     It means that the Elder Cleansing miscreants pay the taxes interest and penalties on the money and benefits that they obtained from their breaches of the fiduciary and public trust that they voluntarily assumed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.