The issue is not whether Romney is doing anything improper in reaching out to fellow Mormons. It is whether overzealous apostles and BYU deans are putting the Church’s tax exemption at risk by using their offices and official e-mail accounts for campaign-related purposes. They may not have crossed the line yet, but they need to be very careful.

meanwhile, John Kerry and other Democratic candidates can campaign and gain endorsements from many, many churches without putting those churches tax exemption at risk.

Harry Reid could do this and very few people would blink an eye. But have a Republican do it, and well - it’s awful, awful, awful.

The big difference, Mr. Wolfe, is that the LDS Church appears to the rest of the country to be the Republican Party at prayer.

What do the writers of this ridiculous article think he has been doing with evangelicals and Catholic leaders for the last decade?

Look, I’m a centrist, and I’d probably consider voting for Romney, but, there’s a big difference between meeting with religious leaders and asking religious leaders to help organize and shore up your base. I don’t think Romney has asked Notre Dame’s business school to exert influence on it’s alumni society to encourage them to vote Romney in ‘08.

There are churches in the south that went all political during Bush’s last run who lost their tax exemption for much less.

meanwhile, John Kerry and other Democratic candidates can campaign and gain endorsements from many, many churches without putting those churches tax exemption at risk.

Uhhh, last I checked if any church endorses any candidate, telling their constituents to vote for him, they basically lose their endorsement. Mind listing a few of those churches who endorsed John Kerry?

they basically lose their endorsement

That should say: “they basically lose their exemption.”

But have a Republican do it, and well - it’s awful, awful, awful.

Again, Romney is doing nothing improper by asking for help. That is a candidate’s job. It is the Church’s job to say “no”.

Romney as a candidate is doing nothing wrong by asking for help, but it could be argued that Romney as a mormon should know better than to ask the church for political help.

Kerry campaigned in many, many black churches. In fact, it’s a given that Democratic candidates campaign in and get endorsements from black churches - yet those churches don’t lose tax exempt status.

here are some sources (i could give more, but this seems to be a good sample):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22205-2004Oct10.html

John F. Kerry used a Baptist pulpit Sunday to speak of eternal life and denounce President Bush . . . The Massachusetts Democrat, who has battled apathy about his presidential candidacy in the black community, prayed, tapped along to rollicking gospel tunes and held up a pocket Bible in a church where he was repeatedly called “the next president” and even “president.”

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041020-121529-5976r.htm

Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry has spent part of the past three Sundays [campaigning] at predominantly black churches in Florida and Ohio. . . Now Mr. Kerry is following the path that Mr. Gore and President Clinton paved to black church altars in the final days of their campaigns.

Yet the people who complained about Bush’s use of churches and Romney’s potential use of churches seemed to have no problems with Kerry’s use of them. Some of these churches did get investigated by the IRS, however there was almost no mainstream media noise about it. The articles quoted above were rather positive in their focus on Kerry.

In some cases, liberal churches and religous leaders even bought full page ads in major newspapers to endorse Kerry. Yet whenever conservatives tried to do the same for Bush, there was lots of noise and complaining.

Is there any case law on this? Taxing a church, even one that endorses candidates, seems like a constitutional violation to me. If there is no case law, churches should feel free to ignore such laws.

Steve EM,
I’m not up for looking through case law, but there shouldn’t be any constitutional problem taxing churches. They’re already taxed on any business income they earn, which doesn’t violate the constitution. Their exemption is the result of the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3); absent that provision, they are fully taxable.

Ivan,
You give articles from 2004; the IRS has done significant investigations of (at least some) churches with respect to campaigning in 2004. I don’t know if any have lost their exemption yet, and I know there’s been a huge outcry, but the IRS has wasning language on their site: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

Ivan,
Also, I don’t know if there’s been any mainstream media coverage, but there’s been a ton in the tax press (for example, Tax Notes).

samdb -

My claim isn’t that the IRS hasn’t investigated these churches (it has - I even said so - does anyone read my comments or do they just skim the first parts?).

My complaint is that those who usually condemn Bush and Romney for using churches or for churches endorsing Republicans don’t even bat an eye when it happens with Democrats.

Ivan,
I admit to skimming. That said, I read a good portion of your post, and (under my understanding) it is not correct. The complaint about the recent rash of church investigations is that the IRS has been targeting churches that opposed Bush, or supported his opponents. I don’t know if that’s true. The IRS claims that there is no partisanship in determining who they went after. But, nonetheless, the coverage I have read (again, in the tax press, not in left- or right-leaning publications) suggests that the IRS has been targeting, rather than not batting an eye at, churches advocating Democrats.

(In addition, for all of you who run non-religious non-profits: there have been (significant) noises made about going after the NAACP for supporting candidates. So it’s not just religions–the IRS is pushing at all 501(c)(3) organizations.)

Btw, I think LL makes a good point that the Church should draw the line very carefully on how it handles the Romney campaign and any other campaign. I believe it has done so. We get announcements every political season that we don’t endorse official candidates. Meanwhile, there are evangelical preachers and liberal churches where pastors specifically endorse candidates from the pulpit. This will never happen at an LDS church. However, it is against the first amendment to try to prevent individual members from organizing themselves as they see fit. So, there is a balance that has to be made between individual members’ organization and church involvement and endorsement. It seems to me the church is acting appropriately so far.

samdb:

I’m not sure how a good portion of my post is not correct. The tax press is a rather specilaized segment of the media. I was talking about CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, etc. I was also focusing more on commentators on blogs, actually, since many of those now complaining about the right wing religous endorsements probably never complained about left-wing ones. So you seem to be focusing on the periphary of my post, not the main argument.

But it might be my flawed and incomplete perceptions, since I don’t devote my every free moment to reading about the issue. Mostly, I used to articles to respond to the challange to prove that some churches had endorsed Kerry (some commentators expressed disbelief on that point).

Thank goodness for journalists who are willing to raise these questions in a country that at least nominally supports the Constitution! Just imagine if John F. Kennedy had held campaign “discussion” meetings with Vatican officials just prior to announcing his candidacy—it would have been seen as sure evidence that (as many worried) a Kennedy presidency would be directed by the Papacy. In our own day, some have expressed concern that a Romney presidency would answer to the First Presidency of the LDS church—and what does he do to calm those fears? Why, he starts holding meetings between his campaign staff and apostles! LOL!
Frankly, it amuses me that so many LDS are excited at the prospect of an LDS president, rather than about any particular candidate. It smacks of high school pep rallies. Absent foolish stunts like the above “discussion meetings,” nobody should care whether a candidate is LDS, Episcopalian, Hindu, or Pagan.

Actually, I think it would be kind of cool to have a Hindu President.

Ack! What do you mean the church “doesn’t endorse political candidates”?? Did you read the Boston Globe article? Elder Holland met with top aides to discuss strategies to reach out to members of the LDS Church. I’ve never heard of the LDS Church meeting with campaign strategists for non-Mormon candidates to create a nationwide network of supporters.

How the meetings with Mitt Romney’s political operatives and sending emails to potential supporters on behalf of BYU are _not_ endorsements strains the definition of “endorsement”.

I agree. If the Globe article is accurate, I’d say this is definately in the realm of “directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate,” which is prohibited. Just reading a neutrality statement in the meetings doesn’t change that. The church had better be careful.

Of course, I think the church leaders and BYU professors are still free to advocate as individuals, so there is still a lot of opportunity for mobilizing the Mormons while carefully avoiding any overt implication of official endorsement. (Am I wrong about this? I’m not a lawyer.)

In reading the article more carefully, I’m glad to see that the BYU deans admit they were wrong and have apparently stopped using official BYU networks to help Romney, and that the BYU legal counsel shut them down righ away. This publicity will probalby make it less likely that church officials will overstep their bounds in the future, which is a good thing. So hopefully this won’t become a bigger issue.

Ivan,
Okay, sorry–I didn’t understand what you were responding to.

There’s been a lot of press, even outside my niche interests, in (I believe) All Saint’s Church (again, I think in LA) being investigated for anti-Bush statements. Outside of that, I don’t know what MSM and bloggers have been talking about.

I agree that some people who would never complain about churches supporting Bush/Romney would never complain about churches supporting Kerry/Clinton. I think the opposite is true, too, though, and that both positions are seriously flawed.

I’m not pleased that Mitt Romney’s people were so cavalier as to risk the Church’s and BYU’s image like this. I’m not seriously concerned about the whole tax exempt status, but this is a major setback to LDS Church’s image gains and was totally unnecessary.

Look. All Romney’s campaing has to do is start the grass roots Republican organzing in various states that any serious candidate would do, and the Mormon Republicans will come out of the woodwork. There are much cleaner ways to tap into the BYU business grads networks and it wouldn’t require much more effort and wouldn’t have the potential for blowback that this does.

His media relations and campaign strategy people have to know that his relationship with the Church is going to be under intense scrutiny. What happened here? I work on a college campus. How careful we have to be with political issues/campaigns is drilled into us.

I’m not saying that there still wouldn’t be all sorts of exaggerated stories about Romney and the church leaders or that there wouldn’t be stories about Romney tying into a secret or not-so-secret network if his campaign did what I suggest above. But there are stories that will confirm things for the people who already aren’t going to vote for you and then there are stories that will seriously concern those who might consider it. The key is to continute to make grounds among non-Mormon cultural conservatives *and* grab a good chunk of the more middle-of-the-road-culturally conservatives. The jackals and the haters are going to do what they do — there’s no doubt about that. The key is to not hand them enough to work with that this issue becomes part of the CCW (conservative’s conventional wisdom).

Well, as Ed notes, let’s hope this makes everybody more cautious.

#11, there is case law that taxing churches violates the free exercise clause. Businesses owned by a church are a different matter, but the idea is to tax memeber’s contributions is a power to destroy religion and is therefore unconstitutional. I’m guessing the courts would rule that to take away that protection on an IRS technically of candidate endorsement, would also be unconstitutional.

One possible way the Church (or more particularly BYU) could largely avoid this problem is to offer any and all candidates the same privilege. Shouldn’t say Hillary Clinton have the same opportunity to connect with her BYU supporters? And to make an argument that she promotes the true interests of Mormonism as well or better than anyone else?

Admin note: two comments by Rusty and two responses, one by Ivan Wolfe and one by myself, were deleted. I would remind all people who post here to keep comments on-topic and avoid personal attacks. Thank you.

I’d be kind of ticked if I got an email message like the one quoted in the article from my dean — and I’d definitely think my department was openly supporting a specific candidate. A few weeks ago I got the following email from my department:

As the internship coordinator for the Department of Political Science, it is my job to inform political science majors of opportunities for experiential learning as they arise. Often these opportunities afford students a chance to not only earn academic credit toward their political science major but also, on occasion, a salary. These emails are legitimate communications in furtherance of student interest and university business.

Often individuals will receive email communications from the Political Science department that do not directly apply to them. Examples would include notices for student organizational meetings, the activities of College Democrats or College Republicans and, yes, notices regarding internships. The receipt of such notices is part of being involved in a larger university community. Indeed, many political science majors benefit from these notices.

When sending out email notifications, we make use of a University system that creates a list using a student database; the system searches for students that have declared political science as their major (or second major) and that have an active Ohio State email address. Because of the cumbersome nature of the University system, we cannot selectively remove those few individuals who are somehow inconvenienced by the receipt of our emails. I would, therefore, offer three suggestions: 1) try and set your email filter to remove notices that have “From the Dept. of Political Science” in the subject line; 2) use the delete key; 3) switch majors.

They’ve been sending out dozens of these things in a week, and I’m sure, getting lots of objections to the political bias in some of the messages. The department also puts this in front of many of the messages, just to be sure we get that the department isn’t endorsing Sherrod Brown or Mike DeWine or whoever it is:

The following is in the language of a recently received internship notice.

And I still know people who are so annoyed by the occasional offer from the Sierra Club or the state’s Republican Caucus that they’ve blocked all emails from a professor in our department, and the staff member in charge of academic advising, as spam. And these are job offers!

I don’t know enough about what else went on to comment directly on the Church or Romney’s campaign, but BYU’s direct involvement seems completely improper to me. I’m glad they were shut down. I’d hope the campaign would have the sense not to do that sort of thing, whether at BYU or anywhere else. And that’s without counting the reaction from all the stupid anti-Mormon conspiracy nuts, and people who really think we’re a cult. The last thing anyone needs is people thinking there’s a secret network of Mormons ready to take over the government.

The law does not require that non-profit organizations be completely untainted by politically relevant issues, it simply requires that such organizations not endorse particular candidates nor make a practice of taking positions on pending legislation (e.g. lobbying).

For example, the Heritage Foundation maintains its status as a 501(c)(3) organization by following those rules, and it is far more engaged on general political and economic issues than the Church generally is, and as a notably prominent conservative influence to boot.

There is no rule that requires such an organization to be philosophically neutral - it must simply generally avoid the rough and tumble of explicit political advocacy of bills and candidates. In any case, the idea that one can separate any meaningful organization completely from the political world is not particularly realistic.

Mormon Bloggernaclites must be the most self-flaggelating group in the world. Does nobody else here wonder what the scandal is and what the agenda of the Globe is? Let’s review. The Boston Globe assigns at least two people to this story. Somebody must have leaked the fact that a Romney representative would be meeting with the Church, because the Globe reporter was there in SLC to observe him enter and come out. Does nobody wonder what the agenda was of the leaker? Is nobody else here aware of the Globe’s lengthy campaign to embarrass Romney because the newspaper (owned by the NY Times) doesn’t like Republicans? So, one and perhaps two meetings took place. According to the Church, they were short, harmless meetings. Even according to the Globe’s account, the Church was being careful to make sure that everything took place according to policies of political neutrality. The vehicle of campaign for Romney through BYU alumni was briefly used, and then everybody realized it wasn’t a good idea, and it was immediately stopped. I mean, keep this situation in perspective!

This is very, very, very different than what regularly happened in 2004, which involved ministers/pastors/priests on both sides telling parisheners that they were not good Christians if they didn’t vote for X candidate. Nothing like that happened here, and in fact the Church is very aware it can’t do anything like that.

Of course, the Boston Globe has an axe to grind with Romney. That doesn’t change that there should have been more awareness about the pr repercussions of this activity.

Yes the Church was careful. Yes there was just a couple of brief lapses. And yes it immediately stopped.

That still doesn’t change that a) a delegation* from Romney’s campaign met with an apostle and b) a BYU dean sent out an e-mail to alumni advocating for the campaign.

I’m sorry, but those are rookie pr mistakes. To be sure, they could happen anywhere (and probably do happen but don’t get as much press coverage because it’s not Romney/BYU/the LDS Church).

That said — looking at the Globe’s “Reaching out to Mormons” graphic, I see nothing wrong with Sept. 27 and Oct. 16 events.

* If the meeting needed to happened, it would have been better if it hadn’t been all 3 of the folks with such close ties to the campaign. It should have just been one person — perferably Romney himself. Such a meeting actually could have helped (although again — some media would still spin it negatively) if they both came out of the meeting and said “We met to reaffirm the Church’s position of neutrality and to outline what the appropriate boundaries of campaigning among church members are.”

Of course the “leaker” has an agenda, Geoff, but that has no bearing on the conduct itself. Whatever I may think of the individuals involved (I’m personally acquainted with Elder Holland, for example, and think he’s a *wonderful* human being), the conduct itself was at best unwise.

That Romney would seek such a venue for political aid says a good deal about him, IMO. I felt the same way when Orrin Hatch attempted a presidential run, and was passing out campaign literature inside LDS meetinghouses after he gave “firesides” therein. Both appear willing to use their ecclesiastical connections for personal political gain, even if it happens to raise eyebrows about the church’s conduct. I would think that someone with your strong loyalties would be more concerned about how Romney’s campaign leaders were willing to try to “use” the church.

I’m with Geoff B on this. The story lacks legs as they say, akin to Reid’s land dealings with a suspect mobster.

People have been expressing the opinion of “what’s the big deal?” I agree. I don’t think it’s a big deal.

That’s not the point.

Mormons are still seen as clannish and secretive. Also, people don’t know much about us. This leads to suspicion among the general public.

This will hurt Romney and he needs to back-off. The story has a lot more “legs” than people here are giving credit for.

However, it is against the first amendment to try to prevent individual members from organizing themselves as they see fit. So, there is a balance that has to be made between individual members’ organization and church involvement and endorsement.

Except that these individuals weren’t becoming involved as individuals. They were becoming involved AS officials at a church-funded university. They were using their titles and official emails.

Someone stepped way far over the line of propriety when “Hill and Albrecht signed the message with their official BYU titles, sent the e-mail from a BYU e-mail address, and began the message ‘Dear Marriott School Friend.’ ” They also apparently used BYU mailing lists for political purposes.

It isn’t just that BYU is more open to scrutiny than other universities. These are fairly common ethical standards. I work for a state university far from Utah, and if I tried using my title and email address that way, I would be in deep gunk, probably terminated.

I’ve decided NOT to donate to BYU this fall and send a letter telling them why, but I will probably make a donation to my college specifically, which was not the school of management.

I may end up voting for Romney, but this is not an acceptable tactic.

Naismith, you need to consider the fact that there are legal gray areas involved here. You also need to consider the fact that BYU immediately stopped sending out the e-mails once they were told it was inappropriate. Do what you want regarding BYU — I never went there, so I have no dog in that fight. But I think, once again, that many people are rushing to judgement without a sense of proportionality.

By the way, I’m wondering if all of the people concerned about BYU “endorsing Romney” were as concerned about the open and official campaigning that goes on in all universities during election time. Professors openly tell hundreds of students how to vote, and in some cases their grades depend on how they vote and where their sympathies lie. I don’t know if this happens at BYU, but I can guarantee it happens everywhere else.

I don’t think this story has legs. The Church has essentially questioned the accuracy of this story:

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-24209,00.html

Political Neutrality
19 October 2006

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints takes issue with The Boston Globe on their 19 October 2006 story suggesting the Church is institutionally supporting a political campaign.

The Church issued the following statement in response:

“In light of articles appearing in the media, we reaffirm the position of
neutrality taken by the Church, and affirm the long-standing policy that no
member occupying an official position in any organization of the Church is
authorized to speak in behalf of the Church concerning the Church’s stand on
political issues.”

Naismith, you need to consider the fact that there are legal gray areas involved here.

I honestly don’t see any gray area whatsoever.

My last few employers have been the federal government and two universities in different states. At none of those employers would I be allowed to do what was done at BYU. Conflict of interest is an ongoing concern. We have to fill out annual reports, and take leave on any given day we are engaging in partisan politics.

Are you really going to claim that the dean of one of the top-ranked management schools in the nation, a program which is renowned for its teaching of business ethics, knows less about academic standards of conflict of interest than I do? I think not.

Professors openly tell hundreds of students how to vote, and in some cases their grades depend on how they vote and where their sympathies lie. I don’t know if this happens at BYU, but I can guarantee it happens everywhere else.

I never had this happen to me at the three other institutions I attended.

And how would a professor be able to know how the student had voted? It’s not like assigning them to attend a play, where they have to bring in the ticket stub.

Honestly, Geoff, it’s so easy to disprove your point if you insist on using all-inclusive terminology. Even an anecdote disproves your claim. “Everywhere else”? You would have had a much stronger case if you said “many other places.”

I’m with William. Not smart. Not smart at all.

The President of the United States takes an oath.

LDS church members who receive their endowment also take an oath in the temple.

As they may conflict with each other, which one would a President Romney consider to be most important?

Phouchg:

I can’t see any circumstance when either of those oaths would conflict with the other… Mormons are pretty pro-constitution. Sorry, try again.

Looks like Mitt Romney agrees with Geoff B.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/10/20/romney_defends_mormon_strategy/

I liked this:

Milton Cerny, a retired lawyer who formerly oversaw tax-exempt groups for the IRS, had a different take, saying the actions of the church and BYU did not appear to violate federal law, because Romney is not officially running for president.

“You don’t have an announced candidate,” said Cerny, who lives in Virginia. “These are committees being formed to see whether the individual could be a viable candidate or not.”

In Daytona Beach yesterday, Romney, speaking to about 50 Republicans outside a GOP campaign office, cracked a joke about the Massachusetts media.

“There are two factions of reporters where I come from in Massachusetts,” he said. “We have the Hillary-loving, Ted Kennedy apologists — and we have the liberals.”

The audience erupted in laughter and applause.

Naismith, #40, you’re right, I should have used a qualifier like “almost all.” In the meantime, commenters have still not answered the question: why is it wrong for BYU to send out one e-mail and it’s OK for “almost all” other universities to have professors, administrators, etc. openly campaign for leftist causes and leftist candidates and intimidate students into joining their leftist causes? If you don’t recognize that this takes place, please visit a few web sites and browse around for a while. There are so many cases there are too many to list in this post:

http://thefire.org/

http://www.campus-watch.org/

http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/

Geoff,

#37,

By the way, I’m wondering if all of the people concerned about BYU “endorsing Romney” were as concerned about the open and official campaigning that goes on in all universities during election time. Professors openly tell hundreds of students how to vote, and in some cases their grades depend on how they vote and where their sympathies lie. I don’t know if this happens at BYU, but I can guarantee it happens everywhere else.

I’m curious about examples, because I went to Simmons College for my graduate degree (Simmons College in Boston is about as liberal as you can get), during the 2004 election and not once did any professor discuss politics nor who to vote for.

I studied International Politics at BYU as my undergraduate and not once did any professor there discuss with us how to vote, and I took my classes there between 1998 and 2001.

I’m not necessarily troubled by professors telling students how to vote, but I am troubled by your accusation that “in some cases their grades depend on how they vote and where their sympathies lie.” Do you have any evidence of this?

Geoff,

#46,

I looked briefly at the websites you listed. I could not find a single thing about professors telling their students how to vote, or that their grades would be reflected in how they voted. All I saw was the bemoaning from conservatives that professors tend to be liberal. But, see, ’tis true, the more educated and knowledgable you are, the more liberal you are.

So go out and get your education folks.

I went to BYU. No professor ever told me how to vote. Sure, we could sorta guess what his/her political views were by the end of semester. But that’s quite different.

I grew up on a very, very liberal campus, with very, very active political movements. 99.99% of them were grass roots efforts by the students themselves. Never once did a professor tell students how to vote, and not once did a professor hang a students grade on how they voted.

You might want to consider the sources you read: the National Review isn’t the most… unbiased place on the planet to read about politics. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh aren’t really journalists, they more specialize in demagoguery. The NY Times might have a liberal slant, but the National Review and Faux News don’t have any slant: they’re straight-up political screeds.

I’ve never had a professor tell me how to vote in the sense of “you need to vote for Kerry.”

Instead, I just had professors call George Bush a “son of a B**ch” and a “B*st*rd” in class many times. I had professors openly state we “really need to get rid of that guy and I don’t care how” and also openly criticize students (such as myself) for daring to opine conservative views (One professor even said something like “how can you believe such clearly wrong things?” without even debating the actual merits of my statement).

Nope, they never told us how to vote. They just let us know how smart people like us should vote if we actually wanted careers in academia (mostly, i just keep my mouth shut about politics and let the professors rant. At this point, I’m writing my dissertation so I don’t have to listen to it as much anymore).

If conservatives had done such things, it would be called a “chilling effect” or an “atmosphere of intolerance” but when far left liberals do it, it’s just the facts, apparently.

A Nonny Mouse:

National Review never claims to be a straight up news source. It claims openly to be conservative. Take shots at Fox news if you want (I will agree they are more right wing than CNN or NYTimes, though that doesn’t mean much) - but your shot at National Review shows you know next to nothing about the conservative movement.

Ivan,

If conservatives had done such things, it would be called a “chilling effect” or an “atmosphere of intolerance” but when far left liberals do it, it’s just the facts, apparently.

Eh, I’ve heard it and was never bothered. One thing I did hear at Simmons that bothered me was derogatory comments about Mormons.

National Review never claims to be a straight up news source.

Correct, and you exactly misunderstood my point: Geoff used it as if it were a straight up news source. He quoted it as a place where we could find reports of Professors telling students how to vote and staking their grades on it. I’m sorry, but if I read such reports in the National Review or in the Village Voice or any other highly politicized magazine, I wouldn’t consider them believable, but instead alaramist and paranoid.

Look, it’s not that I don’t understand the conservative movement, it’s that I think the old alarmist battle cries of the Republicans that always think the academic intelligensia are out to get them are just as stupid as the Democrat’s conspiracy theory’s about big business being out to control the world.

Is George Bush an idiot and a very bad poster-child for modern convservatism? Definitely. Should churches or university professors consider it ethical to support him openly in their official capacities? Definitely not. Was Kerry an idiot who doesn’t really represent most modern democrats? Certainly. Should churches and uninversity professors support him in their official capacities? Certainly not.

But, it’s pointless and a foolhearty waste of energy to rant and rave about how if the “other side” said it, it wouldn’t be taken in such a negative light, regardless if you’re left-leaning or right-leaning. Rather than accomplishing anything worthwhile in our nation’s public political discourse, it just serves the cyclical and unhealthy notion of “us vs. them” instead of “us and them need to work together to make our nation a better place, because it surely sucks pretty bad in some pretty important ways right now.”

I’ve never had a professor tell me how to vote in the sense of “you need to vote for Kerry.”

Instead, I just had professors call George Bush a “son of a B**ch” and a “B*st*rd” in class many times. I had professors openly state we “really need to get rid of that guy and I don’t care how” and also openly criticize students (such as myself) for daring to opine conservative views (One professor even said something like “how can you believe such clearly wrong things?” without even debating the actual merits of my statement).

But did a professor ever base your grade on who you voted for, and if so, how did they know? That’s the only part of Geoff’s comment that sounds like something he made up out of thin air. I’m sure everyone has had professors that are very liberal, many even calling Bush names (oh no!). But give you a grade based on who you voted for? Sounds like the boogyman, liberal, professor that wants us all to abort our babies and force us to marry homosexuals.

A Nonny Mouse:

I did not misunderstand you, and Geoff never claimed it was a straight up news source. By claiming National Review was a “screed” you showed your ignorance (not to mention it’s a logical fallacy on your part - attacking the messanger rather than the message - you never actually deal with the issue at hand).

NR doen’t try to hide behind claims of objectivity the way CNN and NYT and Fox do. But despite all that, that does not render any of the stories they report on invalid or inaccurate. But you write it all off as “screeds” you show a lack of knowledge and desire to be fully informed.

Dan -

of course it didn’t bother you. Your other comments indicate you are rather liberal. I find it rather funny when liberals claim not to be bothered by rampant, rabid liberalism in the classroom, and therefore conservatives should stop being so thin-skinned.

jjohnsen -

Well, there are certian paper topics (such as exploring why Marxims is a horrid economic system, or discussing how conservative rhetoric more effectively reflects reality) that would get automaticly failing grades. Instead, we are meant to write papers on how conservative religous rhetoric is decitful and merely a cover for more insidous power politics, or why (this was a paper topic in one of my classes) it’s clear George Bush hates black people.

And it’s a bit more than calling Bush names. But I’m guessing you’d be fine with professors who used the same term to describe Clinton or Kerry or Gore, since it’s apparently okay to do so with Bush.

The mocking tone evidenced by many commentators here also shows what is wrong with the academy: The left is correct, and conservative views are so obviously wrong many seem to feel they have to hold their nose while dealing with them.

How many of y’all actually followed Geoff’s links and spent several hours browsing, and then came back and posted intelligent, reasoned responses that dealt with the issues at hand?

Not a one. All we got were anecdotes about since the academy shares their left leaning views, they see no problems, or else personal, mocking attacks.

This is of course, what I deal with every day. Bring up a conservative idea in class and find yourself the object of contempt. No attempt is made to discuss the issue 0- but personal attacks become rather common, and cuss words whenever Bush comes up.

Of course, had y’all been in a class where the professor goes off on a half hour rant about all the evils of the modern Democratic party, I doubt y’all would be so cavalier about it.

Ivan,

of course it didn’t bother you. Your other comments indicate you are rather liberal. I find it rather funny when liberals claim not to be bothered by rampant, rabid liberalism in the classroom, and therefore conservatives should stop being so thin-skinned.

You misunderstand me. I meant that I was not bothered when I’ve had conservative (yes, gasp!) professors deride liberals.

NR doen’t try to hide behind claims of objectivity the way CNN and NYT and Fox do. But despite all that, that does not render any of the stories they report on invalid or inaccurate.

You’re right, bias itself doesn’t render their stories inaccurate or invalid. It’s the use of that bias to justify exaggeration and hyperbole that renders the stories inaccurate and invalid. It’s the same thing Maureen Dowd does anytime she writes a paean supporting the left or a jeremiad against Bush.

It means that by virtue of the context itself, it’s accuracy and truthfulness is suspect. That’s not attacking the messenger, that’s basic critical thinking.

You can’t tell me you wouldn’t question anything Maureen Dowd says in an Op/Ed piece or the “facts” of a story in the Village Voice. I know I certainly would.

Well said, Ivan.

But I will point out that I needed to do a better job backing up the claims I made in #37 and #46. I have read of so many cases recently that it will take me a while to find even a selection of them because it will involve some digging on the web that I don’t have time to do right now.

A personal story: I went to Stanford, and took many political science and history courses. In my political science courses, we were regularly told that all intelligent people were Democrats or to the left of Democrats (exactly as Dan states in #48). All discussions were based on trying to convince moderate or conservative students to admit they were wrong. Anybody who quoted the Hoover Institution (which is on campus) was hooted down. Professors regularly participated in lefitst demonstrations and encouraged their students to do so. They talked about the demonstrations in class and made fun of conservatives who didn’t hold their viewpoints. There was a tremendous chilling effect on moderates and conservatives because their views were “stupid” and therefore grades were affected by ideology. Professors encouraged students to attend speeches by Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy but discouraged attending any talks by Republicans (they were stupid). I was a liberal then primarily because I didn’t want to be seen as unintelligent.

I have talked to dozens of people who had similar experiences at college campuses, everywhere from the Ivy League to Berkeley to UCLA to Cal Tech, MIT and large university campuses like U of Florida, U of Miami, FIU and on and on.

But, it’s pointless and a foolhearty waste of energy to rant and rave about how if the “other side” said it, it wouldn’t be taken in such a negative light, regardless if you’re left-leaning or right-leaning. Rather than accomplishing anything worthwhile in our nation’s public political discourse, it just serves the cyclical and unhealthy notion of “us vs. them” instead of “us and them need to work together to make our nation a better place, because it surely sucks pretty bad in some pretty important ways right now.”

Y’know - I just re-read that and realized how eminently reasonable it sounded to me. So, I’m going to try and be better about my “us vs. them” rhetoric.

Y’know - I just re-read that and realized how eminently reasonable it sounded to me. So, I’m going to try and be better about my “us vs. them” rhetoric.

Well, good, then. My job here is done

On the subject of how conservatives are oppressed on liberal campuses, the Wall Street Journal weighs in with the following:

Young Republicans
Now Flourishing
At Liberal Berkeley

Campus Protest Taunts PETA
With Hot-Dog Giveaway;
An Anti-Antiwar Rally

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116130960571998544.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one

(The link will probably only work today-10/20)

LL, there’s a nice gem in the story you linked:

“Being a Republican at a liberal college isn’t easy. Andrea Rasmussen, 22, an integrative biology and anthropology major who is a vice president of the club, says some fellow students once threatened to shoot her for her conservative beliefs. Mr. Prendergast, who also works as a local restaurant waiter, says some of his friends have been spat on and called fascists.”

People interested in the real environment at liberal Cal-Berkeley may want to read some articles at the California Patriot.

Here is one sample but I encourage you to peruse the archives of the Patriot: