Archives for category: Freedom of Speech
« Older Entries

CBS Cancels Stephen Colbert Interview of James Talarico

By dianeravitch
February 17, 2026 //
5

Steve Benen of MS NOW wrote about the censorship of Stephen Colbert’s show by CBS. Since CBS was purchased by the Ellison family, who support Trump, the network is careful to screen out criticism of Trump. Since Talarico is running against Jasmine Crockett, the calculation must have been to undermine him, assuming that Republicans want Crockett as the nominee, not Talarico.

Colbert was already fired by CBS. He’s thus free to say whatever he wants. His last show airs in May.

Benen wrote:

With just a couple of weeks remaining before Texas’ closely watched Democratic U.S. Senate primary, there’s considerable interest in state Rep. James Talarico, one of the leading contenders. With this in mind, the candidate was scheduled to be on CBS’ “The Late Show” on Monday for an interview with Stephen Colbert, which likely would have been interesting and newsworthy.

Except those tuning in to see the interview were left wanting. Colbert told his audience, referring to Talarico, “He was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.”

The host went on to note that the network that employs him suggested he wasn’t supposed to talk about the apparent fact that it told him not to have Talarico on the show — which, naturally, led Colbert to talk about it at some length and in considerable detail.

The host, whose award-winning show will end in May, told viewers about the Federal Communications Commission and its newfound interest in an old policy called the “equal-time rule,” which has never applied to news interviews and talk-show programs.

As MS NOW reported about a month ago, however, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suggested a shift in the policy, declaring that shows hosting political candidates will not automatically qualify as “bona fide news” programs, which are exempt from the equal-time requirements.

And so, Colbert lowered the boom:

Let’s just call this what it is: Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV, OK? He’s like a toddler with too much screen time. He gets cranky and then drops a load in his diaper.

MS NOW has reached out to CBS and the FCC for comment. This post will be updated if they respond.

It’s worth emphasizing that Colbert did, in fact, interview Talarico — it just wasn’t aired on “The Late Show” as planned. Instead, the program posted the entirety of the appearance on its YouTube channel. (Ironically, the broader controversy likely generated additional interest in the interview beyond the audience it was probably going to receive in the first place, offering a fresh example of the Streisand effect.)

The latest clash between Colbert and CBS comes against a backdrop of allegations that the network is moving to the right under its new corporate ownership, but the comedian’s comments about the incumbent president were of particular interest because of the broader pattern.

Indeed, Trump has positioned himself as the nation’s most enthusiastic critic of late-night hosts in recent months, with the Republican repeatedly taking aim at Colbert, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, NBC’s Jimmy Fallon, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart, NBC’s Seth Meyers and Trevor Noah. A few days ago, the president added HBO’s Bill Maher to the list.

As recently as November, Trump insisted that late-night hosts who mock him are engaged in “probably illegal” misconduct, the First Amendment be damned. Two months later, Carr issued a new declaration related to the equal-time policy, and the month after that, Colbert wasn’t allowed to show viewers of his television show an interview with a Democratic Senate candidate

Categories Censorship, Freedom of Speech, Media

Are Republicans the Party of Small Government?

By dianeravitch
February 4, 2026 //
5

All my life I have heard Republicans lecture about the importance of small government. They said that government should not try to control people, other than protecting their rights. A Republican named William Weld ran for Governor of Massachusetts on a pledge to get government out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms. For decades, Southern Republicans complained about the federal government intruding into “internal” issues like segregation.

How things have changed!

Under today’s Republican Party, the federal government assumes the power to snoop on you at all times.

A blogger who calls herself @JofromJerz posted the following sage observation on Substack:

Republicans want to decide what books you can read, what history your kids can learn, which medicines you’re allowed to take, what surgeries you can have, what gender you’re permitted to be, what sports you can play, which bathroom you can use, who you can love, and who you can marry.

They want to tell you how many dolls and pencils your kids can have and how much food they can eat.

They want to own your library, your classroom, your hospital bed, your bedroom, your remote control, your kitchen table, and your front door.

They want the right to break into your home, disappear your neighbor, take your children, beat you, execute you in the street, and then tell you—despite the evidence of your own eyes and ears—that what you saw is not what you have seen.

They want you afraid: afraid to record, to document, to criticize, to stand up, to speak out, to organize, to protest, to protect, to utter words they don’t like. They want to own the page, the pill, the joke, the chant, the kiss, the very pronoun in your mouth and the weapon on your waist. They want to decide where you can go, what you can say, and which of your rights they can take away.

They want the power to take your life and then lie about it.

They want to play judge, jury, and executioner and they want you to shut up about it or you’ll be next.

This is tyranny failing miserably to masquerade as order.

But sure—tell me how it’s the liberals who are “coming for your freedoms,” won’t you.

Categories Bigotry, Censorship, Democracy, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Gender, Hypocrisy, Republicans

Bill Clinton Issues a Statement About the Present Crisis

By dianeravitch
January 26, 2026 //
8

Former President Bill Clinton released the following statement about what’s happening in Minneapolis and other places, as Trump unleashes the armed, masked ICE agents to arrest, harass, and murder our fellow citizens in pursuit of undocumented immigrants .

Well said. Where are other retired Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Senators?

Please speak up, Former Presidents Bush and Obama.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Disruption, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Guns, Trump, Tyranny

Heather Cox Richardson: How Fascists Gain Power

By dianeravitch
January 14, 2026 //
2

Heather Cox Richardson obtained a pamphlet written during World War II for our troops overseas. Its purpose was to explain the tactics of fascists: how they gain power, how they lie to distort reality, how they use hatred to divide and conquer.

The pamphlet is insightful, incisive, and remarkably relevant to the world we live in now.

What we are learning is that “It can happen here.” We must arm ourselves with knowledge to preserve our democracy.

She writes:

Beginning in 1943, the War Department published a series of pamphlets for U.S. Army personnel in the European theater of World War II. Titled Army Talks, the series was designed “to help [the personnel] become better-informed men and women and therefore better soldiers.”

On March 24, 1945, the topic for the week was “FASCISM!”

“You are away from home, separated from your families, no longer at a civilian job or at school and many of you are risking your very lives,” the pamphlet explained, “because of a thing called fascism.” But, the publication asked, what is fascism? “Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze,” it said, “nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism, in order to combat it.”

Fascism, the U.S. government document explained, “is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state.” “The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.”

“The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence—democracy must go! Anyone who is not a member of their inner gang has to do what he’s told. They permit no civil liberties, no equality before the law.” “Fascism treats women as mere breeders. ‘Children, kitchen, and the church,’ was the Nazi slogan for women,” the pamphlet said.

Fascists “make their own rules and change them when they choose…. They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive ideas of ‘blood’ and ‘race,’ by skillful manipulation of fear and hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and ‘realistic’ to be pitiless and violent.”

Fascists understood that “the fundamental principle of democracy—faith in the common sense of the common people—was the direct opposite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few,” it explained, “[s]o they fought democracy…. They played political, religious, social, and economic groups against each other and seized power while these groups struggled.”

Americans should not be fooled into thinking that fascism could not come to America, the pamphlet warned; after all, “[w]e once laughed Hitler off as a harmless little clown with a funny mustache.” And indeed, the U.S. had experienced “sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which…can be properly identified as ‘fascist.’”

The War Department thought it was important for Americans to understand the tactics fascists would use to take power in the United States. They would try to gain power “under the guise of ‘super-patriotism’ and ‘super-Americanism.’” And they would use three techniques:

First, they would pit religious, racial, and economic groups against one another to break down national unity. Part of that effort to divide and conquer would be a “well-planned ‘hate campaign’ against minority races, religions, and other groups.”

Second, they would deny any need for international cooperation, because that would fly in the face of their insistence that their supporters were better than everyone else. “In place of international cooperation, the fascists seek to substitute a perverted sort of ultra-nationalism which tells their people that they are the only people in the world who count. With this goes hatred and suspicion toward the people of all other nations.”

Third, fascists would insist that “the world has but two choices—either fascism or communism, and they label as ‘communists’ everyone who refuses to support them.”

It is “vitally important” to learn to spot native fascists, the government said, “even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy.”

The only way to stop the rise of fascism in the United States, the document said, “is by making our democracy work and by actively cooperating to preserve world peace and security.” In the midst of the insecurity of the modern world, the hatred at the root of fascism “fulfills a triple mission.” By dividing people, it weakens democracy. “By getting men to hate rather than to think,” it prevents them “from seeking the real cause and a democratic solution to the problem.” By falsely promising prosperity, it lures people to embrace its security.

“Fascism thrives on indifference and ignorance,” it warned. Freedom requires “being alert and on guard against the infringement not only of our own freedom but the freedom of every American. If we permit discrimination, prejudice, or hate to rob anyone of his democratic rights, our own freedom and all democracy is threatened.”

—

Notes:

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=armytalks

War Department, “Army Talk 64: FASCISM!” March 24, 1945, at https://archive.org/details/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism/mode/2up

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Bigotry, Censorship, Courage, Cruelty, Democracy, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, History

Harvard President Blames Faculty Activism for Repression of Free Speech

By dianeravitch
January 6, 2026 //
12

Harvard University’s President Alan Garber said in a recent discussion that faculty activism in their classes chilled students’ free speech and created a repressive climate on campus.

An article in The Harvard Crimson reported on President Garber’s comments.

Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 said the University “went wrong” by allowing professors to inject their personal views into the classroom, arguing that faculty activism had chilled free speech and debate on campus.

In rare and unusually candid remarks on a podcast released on Tuesday, Garber appeared to tie many of higher education’s oft-cited ills — namely, a dearth of tolerance and free debate — to a culture that permits, and at times encourages, professors to foreground their identity and perspectives in teaching.

“How many students would actually be willing to go toe-to-toe against a professor who’s expressed a firm view about a controversial issue?” he said.

The remarks mark Garber’s most explicit public acknowledgement that faculty practices have contributed to a breakdown in open discourse on campus — and that he is committed to backtracking toward neutrality in the classroom…

Though Garber has carved some exceptions to the policy — notably when he, in his personal capacity, condemned a Palestine Solidarity Committee post marking the anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack — he has increasingly emphasized restraint, particularly in the classroom.

“I’m pleased to say that I think there is real movement to restore balance in teaching and to bring back the idea that you really need to be objective in the classroom,” he said….

In his responses, Garber echoed the sentiment of a Faculty of Arts and Sciences reportreleased last January, which affirmed professors’ right to “extramural speech” but warned that instructors must proactively encourage disagreement in the classroom to avoid alienating students…

Instead of relying primarily on punishment, Garber touted changes to University orientations — including the addition of a module on discussing controversial topics — alongside the expansive reports produced by Harvard’s twin task forces on combating bias toward Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian affiliates.

“It’s about learning how to listen and how to speak in an empathetic way,” he said.

Categories Academic Freedom, Accountability, Bigotry, Democracy, Ethics, Freedom of Speech

Bernie Sanders: The World We Need and Deserve

By dianeravitch
December 31, 2025 //
28

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont shared his year-end thoughts along with his hopes for the future. As the first year of Trump’s second term winds down, it’s hard to believe that the dreams he describes can come true. Every day brings a new blow to the environment, to our health care, to our schools, to our children, to the rule of law, to our allies, to our national sense of purpose.

Yet we will persist. We have no other choice.

Sisters and Brothers – 

As we come to the end of a very difficult year, I want to wish everyone a very happy holiday season, a wonderful new year and thank you all for the support you have given our progressive movement.

Let me take this opportunity to share some end-of-the-year thoughts with you. 

As I reflect on the moment in which we’re living, what is most disturbing to me is not just that a handful of multi-billionaires control our economic life, our political life, and our media. That’s bad, and extremely dangerous. But, what is even worse is the degree to which these Oligarchs, through their wealth and power, have created an environment that limits our imaginations and our expectations as to what we deserve as human beings.

It really is quite amazing.

We live in the wealthiest country in the history of the world and, yet, we are asked to accept as “normal” the reality that tens of millions of Americans struggle every day to afford the basic necessities of life – food, housing, health care or education. 

We live in a “democracy,” but we are told that it is legal and proper for one man, the wealthiest person on earth, to spend $270 million in campaign contributions to help elect a president who then provides huge tax breaks and other benefits to the very rich. 

We live in a nation whose Declaration of Independence in 1776 boldly proclaimed “that all men are created equal” while, today, the gap between the rich and poor is wider than ever and the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 93%.

We live under a criminal justice system which punishes people for being poor, but rewards fossil fuel tycoons whose carbon emissions are wreaking havoc on the lives of billions of people and posing an existential threat to the planet.

As we enter the new year, our job is clear. We don’t have to accept the Oligarchs’ determination as to what is possible and what is not. We must think big, not small. We must reject status quo politics and economics. We must imagine, and fight for, a world very different than the one in which we now live. We must demand and create a world of economic, social, racial and environmental justice.

Yes. We no longer have to be the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for all as a human right. The function of healthcare must not be to make the insurance companies and drug companies even richer. We CAN create a high quality cost-effective health care system that focuses on disease prevention, extends our life expectancy and is publicly funded. This is not a radical idea.

Yes. In a highly competitive global economy we CAN have the best public educational system in the world from child care to graduate school. As a nation, we must respect the importance of education and adequately compensate educators for the important work they do. We must strengthen and improve our primary and secondary educational systems and make child care and public colleges and universities tuition free. This is not a radical idea.

Yes. We CAN end the housing crisis and the reality that 800,000 Americans are homeless and millions spend half of their incomes to put a roof over their heads. We must build millions of units of low-income and affordable housing and, in the process, create many good paying union construction jobs. This is not a radical idea. 

YES. With effective regulation we CAN utilize Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics to improve the lives of all, not just the billionaires who own that technology. As worker- productivity increases we can raise wages, improve working conditions and reduce the work week. Making sure that AI and robotics benefit all of society and not the wealthy few is not a radical idea.

YES. We CAN address the outrageous level of income and wealth inequality that we are now experiencing. While we can respect talented businesspeople and entrepreneurial skills, we do not have to accept the outrageous level of greed and vulgarity that the billionaire class too often exhibits. It is beyond absurd that we have a tax system in which the richest people in this country often pay an effective tax rate that is lower than truck drivers or nurses. Demanding that the 1% and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes is not a radical idea. 

At a time when we live in a dangerous and unprecedented moment in American history, and part of a rapidly changing world, it is absolutely imperative that we boldly respond to the crises that we face. This is not the time for timidity. Our agenda must be fearless and straightforward. Nothing less than the preservation of democracy, the well-being of the planet and the future of humanity is a stake.

As we enter the new year, let us go forward together. 

In Solidarity. 

Bernie

IN THAT SPIRIT, dear friends, Happy New Year!

Don’t stop believing in the power of conscience and collective action.

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

🍾🍾🍾🍾🥂🥂🥂🥂🥂🥂

Categories Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Hope, Inequality, Injustice, Justice

Heritage Foundation Staffers Resign to Join Pence

By dianeravitch
December 26, 2025 //
7

This is an important development. Our nation needs at least two sensible political parties. A two-party system with vigorous third parties is healthy for our democracy.

When one of our two major parties is captured by an extremists cult, it’s a very bad sign. When that cult revels in cutting ties with our historic allies, in brutalizing immigrants and even citizens who look like immigrants (brown skin color), in sending troops to American cities, in killing people on boats that might or might not be transporting drugs instead interdicting them, in abandoning civil rights laws, and in treating the president as a king to be obeyed and worshipped, that cult is not a normal participant in American politics because it is not bound by the Constitution.

Thus, in my opinion, it is very good news that sane conservatives are abandoning the Heritage Foundation–whose leader was the architect of Project 2025–and joining forces with Mike Pence.

Pence is a conservative through and through, and I disagree with him on most issues. But in 2020, he refused Trump’s direct order to join the insurrection by refusing to certify Biden’s election. Pence certified Biden’s election and was reviled by MAGA for following the Constitution, not Trump. They chanted “Hang Mike Pence” on January 6, 2021, and even built a scaffold outside the U.S. Capitol. Trump shrugged with indifference, and the mob searched for Pence.

Politico wrote about the splintering at the Heritage Foundation.

More than a dozen staffers at The Heritage Foundation are leaving the conservative think tank to join a nonprofit led by former Vice President Mike Pence as the embattled organization continues to reel from ongoing turmoil.

Advancing American Freedom — founded by Pence in 2021 “to defend liberty and advance policies that build a stronger America” — announced Monday that three senior officials who led the legal, economic and data teams at Heritage would be joining the group next year, along with several members of their teams.

This is good news for the conservative Republican Party and good news for our democracy. Genuine conservatives can’t abide the extremism of MAGA.

I’ll be watching to see what Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger do in the future.

Categories Civil Rights, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Pence, Republicans, Trump

Jennifer Rubin: Why Donald Trump Will Never Win the Nobel Peace Prize

By dianeravitch
October 17, 2025 //
21

Jennifer Rubin was one of the best columnists at The Washington Post. She left soon after Jeff Bezos began meddling into the views of the editorial pages. Rubin was hired by the Post originally to be the newspaper’s conservative voice. But after Trump was elected in 2016, her political views changed. Trump turned her into a keen-eyed liberal.

Rubin launched a wildly successful Substack blog called The Contrarian, which offers essays and conversations by her and other journalists and scholars.

She wrote yesterday about Trump’s open campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize and how the Nobel Committee may have trolled Trump by the language of this year’s awards.

Trump currently is enjoying well-deserved plaudits for bringing about a ceasefire in Gaza and the release of all Israeli hostages.

Trouble lies ahead, however, because under the agreement, Hamas is supposed to disarm and withdraw from governing Gaza. However, Hamas shows no willingness to give up their authority or their weapons. They were videotaped murdering their Palestinian rivals in public. When asked about these public executions, Trump said that Hamas was merely punishing some “very bad gangs.”

Trump very likely brokered a peace deal with two strategies: 1) his personal economic ties to Arab potentates; 2) his threat to Hamas to let Netanyahu do whatever he wanted in Gaza unless they signed the deal.

Rubin wrote in The Contrarian about the implicit messages that the Nobel committee sent to Trump in their awards.

The Nobel Prize Committee announced its annual awards over the last week or so. Aside from the number of winners based at U.S. universities (which have been until now the crown jewel of our education and scientific communities), something else caught my attention: Are the Nobel Prize judges…trolling Donald Trump?

I have no doubt the awards—the culmination of a long and rigorous process—are apolitical and entirely well deserved. However, what the committee said about the prizes and how the winners’ work were described certainly highlight Trump’s ignorance and malevolence. If you are going to shine a light on brilliance and excellence, Trump is going to be left in the dark—and others will notice.

Nobel Committee chair Jørgen Watne Frydnes was explicitly asked about Trump’s clamoring for the Peace Prize. “In the long history of the Nobel Peace Prize, I think this committee has seen many types of campaign, media attention,” Frydnes said. In other words, they are used to getting nagged. He continued: “This committee sits in a room filled with the portraits of all laureates and that room is filled with both courage and integrity. So, we base only our decision on the work and the will of Alfred Nobel.” Hmm. Sounds like Trump fared poorly in comparison to all those men and women esteemed for courage and integrity.

The explanation of the award itself seemed even more pointed. “The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2025 to Maria Corina Machado,” the committee explained. “She is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy.” [Emphasis added here and below.] Democracy surely was front and center (with a notable reminder that it exists in conflict with dictatorship). In fact, democracy was mentioned in more detail and with greater fervor than peace itself.

The statement about Machado read: “As the leader of the democracy movement in Venezuela….” She was credited with leading the opposition demanding “free elections and representative government.” The committee explained:

This is precisely what lies at the heart of democracy: our shared willingness to defend the principles of popular rule, even though we disagree. At a time when democracy is under threat, it is more important than ever to defend this common ground.

The regime she opposed is described in language you would (or will, on Saturday) hear at a No King’s Day rally: “a brutal, authoritarian state,” where the few at the top enrich themselves, where “violent machinery of the state is directed against the country’s own citizens,” battling an opposition “systematically suppressed by means of election rigging, legal prosecution and imprisonment.”

And in case anyone had missed the point:

Democracy is a precondition for lasting peace. However, we live in a world where democracy is in retreat, where more and more authoritarian regimes are challenging norms and resorting to violence. The Venezuelan regime’s rigid hold on power and its repression of the population are not unique in the world. We see the same trends globally: rule of law abused by those in control, free media silenced, critics imprisoned, and societies pushed towards authoritarian rule and militarization. In 2024, more elections were held than ever before, but fewer and fewer are free and fair.

Maybe this was not intended to poke Trump in the eye—and the statement is accurate without any consideration of him—but condemnation of his tactics and outlook are the inevitable result of an award that elevates democracy, the rule of law, fair elections, and a free media. Since Trump antagonizes all those things, the award winners’ opponents sound an awful lot like Trump.

Trump prosecutes his perceived enemies, sets the American military against Americans, blows ships out of the water and murders those on board without due process, bullies the media, and seeks to rig elections. In other words, he embodies all the things Maria Corina Machado and other deserving winners fight against. So long as he continues doing all those things (i.e. so long as he remains Trump), he will continue bearing a disturbing resemblance to the other authoritarians around the globe—and will therefor never receive the award he has so openly whined about deserving. (Buckle up, however. Speaker of the House and go-to sycophant Mike Johnson, instead of working to find a compromise and assist in re-opening our government, is reportedly devoting his time and efforts to getting Trump his prize in 2026. Good luck with that.)

Trump, his lackeys, and his cultish cheering section seem not to understand that “peace” is not simply the absence of war. Conquest also achieves the end of some wars. But that is not what we are after. Peace, rather, requires renunciation of violence in favor of democratic and humanistic values. Only then do you have a lasting peace during which human beings can flourish.

The Peace Prize was not the only award that sounded like an anti-Trump recitation. Consider one of the three Nobel Prize winners for economics: Phillipe Aghion, a French economist and ½ of the winning team with Peter Howitt of Brown University. The Guardian reported:

[He] warned that “dark clouds” were gathering amid increasing barriers to trade and openness fueled by Donald Trump’s trade wars. He also said innovation in green industries, and blocking the rise of giant tech monopolies would be vital to stronger growth in future.

“I’m not welcoming the protectionist wave in the US, and that’s not good for world growth and innovation,” he said.

To be clear, I don’t think he and the other winners received their awards because they sound like a rebuttal to Trump. Rather, Trump is so invariably, deeply, and consistently wrong on economics that anyone recognized for merit invariably will contradict his irrational, ignorant views.

In all likelihood, Nobel folks did not set out to troll Trump. But if you are going to celebrate peace—real peace, and the democracy it depends upon—alongside the keys to economic growth (free trade, scientific discovery, dynamic and free societies), then you are going to find yourself sounding like the retort to MAGA authoritarian, know-nothingism.

This year’s Nobel prize committee wound up illustrating the degree to which Trump is inimical to peace, progress, and prosperity. The committee should earn a prize for that.

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Environment, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Justice, Trump

The Trump Cabal’s “Compact” to Stamp Out Academic Freedom

By dianeravitch
October 8, 2025 //
1

Our reader Christine Langhoff discovered an excellent analysis of the “compact” that the Trump administration has offered to several universities. A “compact” usually refers to an equitable agreement between two parties. The Trump “compact” is a harsh threat: sign or die.

Christine writes:

Here’s UCLA Law professor Joseph Fishkin on the so-called compact the administration want universities to accept.

Any lawyer—really, any careful reader—who makes it through even the first paragraph of the document can see that this is incorrect. The “compact” is quite explicit: Universities that do not sign on to this thing thereby “elect[] to forego federal benefits.” What benefits? Well, that same first paragraph lists quite a few specific “benefits”: “(i) access to student loans, grant programs, and federal contracts; (ii) funding for research directly or indirectly; (iii) approval of student and other visas in connection with university matriculation and instruction; and (iv) preferential treatment under the tax code,” which means 501(c)(3) status. This compact is a “reward” in exactly the same sense that it is “rewarding” to purchase protection from the Mafia. The compact is an open, explicit threat.

It nonetheless does represent a tactical shift on the part of the Trump Administration. The Trump team’s goal has not changed. They want an unprecedented—and flagrantly unconstitutional—degree of government oversight and control over American universities. So far they are having some trouble obtaining it. Their initial strategy, to roll up the sector from the top, starting with Harvard, through bespoke negotiated dealmaking with individual schools, has turned out to be slower going—and I suspect, simply more labor-intensive—than I am guessing they expected. (I use the rollup metaphor to evoke how a monopolist takes over a sector by buying out one firm after another, gaining more leverage over holdouts as they go. So far it has not worked.) Meanwhile, federal district courts have dealt a series of significant blows to the government’s ability to, for example, arbitrarily withdraw federal scientific research grants. So the administration is pivoting to a new tactic, which seems to be to roll up the higher ed sector from what you might call the upper middle. Instead of starting at the very top with the high-stakes confrontation with Harvard and working their way down, the new tactical approach is to start with whichever prestigious schools seem likeliest—for various reasons—to be amenable to the government’s overtures. It is no accident that many of the schools May Mailman’s team first approached about this “compact” have interim presidents, who are inherently weak, sometimes because a prior president was successfully forced out through political agitation by the right.

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2025/10/the-art-of-replacing-law-with-deal.html

Categories Academic Freedom, Censorship, Democracy, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Learn, Freedom to Read, Funding, Higher Education, Trump

Curtis Yarvin is Engaging in Two Debates at Yale

By dianeravitch
October 7, 2025 //
8

Curtis Yarvin is the guru for a number of major political figures on the right, including Vice President Vance and tech billionaire Peter Thiel. He is hostile to democracy and holds racist views. Yarvin’s anti-democratic views demonstrate how extremist key members of the Republican Party have become.

Yale is demonstrating its commitment to free speech.

The Yale Daily News reported:

A far-right political blogger who has espoused anti-democratic views is set to debate at Yale on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Curtis Yarvin — who has sparked controversy for advocating for a form of American monarchy and for his writings on race, slavery and apartheid — is set to participate in two debates this week, one hosted by the Yale Political Union and the other by the Yale Federalist Society. 

“A smart critic like Yarvin can force people to sharpen the case for their views, especially when those views have gotten sloppy over time,” Garett Jones, a professor at George Mason University who will debate Yarvin Wednesday on “for-profit governance” at the Federalist Society’s event, wrote to the News. “And the case for democracy has certainly gotten sloppy over time. Democracy’s defenders, which I count myself among, need to do a better job.” 

At the YPU debate Tuesday evening, Yarvin will argue for the resolution “end the democratic experiment” against Jed Rubenfeld, a professor at Yale Law School. 

Jones wrote that he believes the debate will be a helpful way to draw out distinctions between his position, which he describes as “10% less democracy” in reference to the title of his published book, and Yarvin’s, which he calls “100% less democracy.”

Neither Rubenfeld nor YPU President Brennan Columbia-Walsh ’26 responded to the News’ request for comment. 

Both debate topics land on familiar turf for Yarvin, who has consistently expressed anti-democratic beliefs. Yarvin, who is also known by his pen name Mencius Moldbug, has written about his distrust of the federal bureaucracy and his desire to institute a program called RAGE — retire all government employees. 

Ilani Nurick LAW ’27 and Elizabeth Bailey LAW ’27, co-presidents of the Yale Law Democrats, criticized the Yale Federalist Society for sponsoring the event. Yarvin could not be reached for comment.

“We all believe strongly in free speech, but what is the Federalist Society hoping to learn from someone who thinks white people are genetically predisposed to be smarter than other races?” Nurick and Bailey wrote in a joint statement to the News. “Yale Law students are smart enough to know that for-profit governance is not the solution to the problems facing our country without hearing from Curtis Yarvin on the subject.”

Yarvin asserts that American democracy is a failed experiment and that America should instead run like a company with a chief executive officer, which The New York Times characterized as “his friendlier term for a dictator.” 

In Yarvin’s view, the U.S. government should be run by a CEO-esque figure. In his 2008 articletitled “An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives,” Yarvin proposed the “liquidation of democracy, the Constitution and the rule of law, and the transfer of absolute power” to that CEO-esque figure. 

Yarvin’s 2008 article furthered that this process would end the press, dismantle universities and transform the nation’s capital into a “heavily armed” version of a “corporation.” 

Additionally, Yarvin has sought to downplay the outcome of the American Civil War. The Times noted that he has previously written, “It is very difficult to argue that the War of Succession made anyone’s life more pleasant, including that of freed slaves.”

Categories Democracy, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Higher Education
« Older Entries