Closed mouths, closed minds

Audrey Pietrucha

 

What happens to a society when the free expression of ideas is curtailed and debate is strongly discouraged? Surprisingly, experiments in exactly this are conducted daily on American colleges and university campuses. The results are important because their impact is felt far beyond the halls of academia. In Vermont, especially, the lack of respect for different viewpoints and diverse ideas is increasingly apparent.

Greg Lukianoff’s new book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the end of American Debate is an important study of the chilling effect speech codes and other anti-free expression constructs are having on students, faculty and American society. As president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, FIRE, Lukianoff spends his days delving into complaints, dissecting speech codes and initiating legal action to halt violations of students’ first amendment rights.

At a recent book forum Lukianoff, who specializes in first amendment law and describes himself as a moderate Democrat, said he was unprepared for the extent of abuses he has encountered in his eleven years with FIRE. And while attempts to suppress speech have always come from both ends of the political spectrum, the left-ward tilt on most campuses means libertarian and conservative religious and political thought are increasingly disallowed in the academic arena of ideas.

Lukianoff began his remarks by reciting the disturbing findings of a 2010 survey conducted by the American Association of Colleges and Universities. Twenty-four hundred students and nine thousand campus employees were asked the questions “Is it safe to hold unpopular opinions on this campus?” Only thirty-five percent of the students answered the question affirmatively, with more optimistic (or naïve) first-year students saying “yes” forty-percent of the time and more experienced (or jaded) fourth-year students registering at only thirty percent. Most troubling of all, only seventeen percent faculty members, who should know the school at which they work best, felt it was safe to hold an unpopular opinions.

In Lukianoff’s experience, students have cause to worry. He detailed cases of students who were kicked out of schools and/or dorms because of mild protests against pet administration projects or jokes regarded as hurtful or offensive. Campus speech codes, one of which the FIRE website hires each month, rely on ambiguous and subjective language which can be twisted to make just about any remark fit. The lack of debate and discussion professors now note in their classrooms is due to a lack of courage rather than a lack of knowledge or opinion. Those whose ideas conflict with the powers-that-be have learned to keep it to themselves and it is hard to blame them when the costs of disagreement run so high. Just a few students need to feel the force of administrative muscle to keep the rest in line.

The first amendment is not needed to protect popular speech; rather, it was explicitly written to defend minority ideas and dissent. The law, Lukianoff said, is strong in protection of offensive and challenging speech but that does not prevent colleges from leveling frivolous charges and dispensing with due process in cases against students. That universities almost always lose these cases does not, unfortunately, encourage a more circumspect approach to speech suppression. Neither does it often embolden administrative staff, faculty or even other students to speak out against an action that they know is unconstitutional. Apathy, Lukianoff said, is the order of the day.

 

Worse than that, censorship is beginning to be accepted as normal, even virtuous. Today’s college students, Lukianoff said, are far too trusting of authority and seem ready to assume similar authoritarian postures when it comes to differences of opinion. College newspaper runs are destroyed regularly when they contain articles some find offensive, insulting or damaging. Some of the free speech walls

that have been erected on campuses where Lukianoff said students share many humorous, wise and interesting thoughts, are sometimes torn down by other students. The designated free-speech zones on some campuses are thought to be acceptable as long as the rules governing them are enforced impartially. Even students who claim to be aware of civil liberties issue seem unaware that having to obtain permission from a governing authority to engage in free speech is itself a violation of the spirit of the first amendment. It is also antithetical to the academic ideal of respectful and honest debate and discussion.

 The effects of these policies are already felt in society at large. At a time when more Americans that ever hold college degrees our conversations are remarkably void of intellectual and interesting content. Critical thinking skills have declined and society is polarized. People who hold views contrary to those more widely-accepted, or at least more loudly proclaimed, confine their discussions to groups of like-minded individuals rather than risk the insults and attacks that often come in conversation with those who hold differing views. The ethic of seeking out the intelligent person with whom you disagree has been replaced by the intellectually-lazy tactic of assigning motives to people we don’t even know and calling them names.

This is a real concern in Vermont, where politics lean so heavily left that people with more centrist views have learned to self-censor. Our little state is quickly becoming what Lukianoff described as a John Stuart Mill nightmare, a place where people believe they are right about everything without having actually considered alternative ideas. A society where ideas cease be explored and challenged stagnates. When mouths are closed, minds are closed also.

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

 

 

 

Let’s focus on fair spending

 

 

Audrey Pietrucha

“No taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.” George Washington

The question of tax fairness comes up a lot anytime but especially during an election year as candidates trip over themselves and each other trying to convince voters their tax policy is the fairest of them all. Perhaps it is time to move the focus away from tax fairness to spending fairness.

Fairness itself is not an economic concept and therefore impossible to establish by economic means. Neither is it a universal concept and thus impossible to establish through policy as well. One person’s idea of fairness may well be, and often is, another’s idea of unfairness.

This is easily illustrated through the most common forms of taxation. Take the progressive income tax (please!). Those who believe taxation should do more than supply funding for government obligations and programs appreciate the redistribution of wealth that occurs through a progressive tax. But is it really fair to make some people pay a higher percentage of their income merely because they have earned more money in a given year? Usually higher earnings are the result of intense training, hard work, and long hours. Is it wise for a society to discourage people from acquiring skills and education, taking calculated risks and being more productive?

When the United States was founded the government relied on import and export taxes to perform its limited duties. Today’s global economy makes such taxes either more appealing or more problematic, depending on where you stand on the importance of free trade. Those who believe American jobs and goods should stay in America think tariffs are fair. Those who believe the entire world, America included, benefits from open markets think tariffs unfairly inhibit trade and hurt worker and consumers.

Many agree the flat tax, by which all taxpayers are assessed the same percentage on their income, is the fairest way to bring in revenue. But some of the numbers being tossed around seem patently unfair, especially for lower-income families whose necessary purchases represent a far greater percentage of their salaries. A flat tax percentage rate in the high teens or low twenties could be a real hardship to low-earners and there is also the question raised, only half-jokingly, of why ten-percent is good enough for God but not the U.S. government.

A national sales tax, which is actually being called “The Fair Tax,” appeals to people who have established homes and made most of the big purchases they need in order to live day to day. Is it fair to young people, though, who are just beginning careers and establishing households and families? And if such a tax were adopted would it replace the income tax or merely add to it? Though such a combined tax burden would be almost insurmountable for any nation’s economy, it is not beyond comprehension that politicians would try to have their cake and eat it, too.

Since taxes are always unfair to someone it is reasonable to conclude that low taxes are the least unfair to the greatest number of people. This means reevaluating what government is providing and whether it is really the best means of allocating these services and resources. We need to look at which government services are essential and which are better left to the private sector to provide.

We might want to start by identifying where and why government is necessary. According to Thomas Jefferson, the sum of good government was in the protection of persons and property:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

The Constitution provides a list of what the founders believed were legitimate functions of a national government in Article 1, section 8. These enumerated powers relate mostly to protecting national and individual sovereignty and include some practical functions such as coining money and establishing a national postal service. What is not included is most of what the government does today.

The redundant and intrusive federal agencies and department that absorb huge portions of the federal budget are easy targets as are the funds given to special interest groups and pork barrel projects at the expense of all Americans. But by far the largest federal expenditures – three-quarters of the budget - are on national defense, Social Security, and Medicare.

It could be argued defense is sanctioned by the Constitution but the size and scope of our military apparatus certainly begs discussion. As for our national retirement and health insurance programs, let’s just say a private financial services firm would be up to its eyeballs in lawsuits and criminal charges had it conducted itself so irresponsibly with regards to the accounts of its clients. The Medicare program holds trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities and Social Security is even worse. The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion, about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt.

Raising taxes is not going to fix this problem. We could confiscate all the wealth in the nation and still be unable to pay such crushing bills. It’s time to take a more serious look at the spending side of the equation and change some of our ideas about what are truly essential government services and what should be left to the private sector. For when it comes to our current spending any three-year-old could tell you “That’s not fair!”

 

Audrey Pietrucha is on the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She may be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

The illustrative school lunch debacle

Audrey Pietrucha

Advocates of smaller and less centralized government have got to love Michelle Obama right now. The new federal nutrition guidelines being implemented nationwide as part of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative are a wonderful real-life illustration of what happens when government involves itself where it should not. Mrs. Obama has graciously provided a perfect example of how seriously destructive the unintended consequences of well-intentioned but misguided actions can be.

Certainly the objectives of the new guidelines are lofty and benevolent. Who can argue against such common sense ideas as encouraging children to consume more fruits and vegetables, eat more whole grains and reduce their sodium and trans-fats intake? But somehow, it just isn’t all going according to plan. Portion sizes are smaller and children are complaining that they’re hungry; parents are calling schools to demand explanations for the higher meal costs; student athletes are dealing with fatigue during sports practice; students whose school are near stores are supplementing with junk food, and school districts are already worried about how these changes will effect participation and thus the meals programs’ fiscal viability.

That Americans young and old have gained weight is indisputable. Our nation’s obesity rate has been growing for years and with it the attendant problems of illness, disease and physical mobility issues. The causes are up for debate – sedentary lifestyles, diets high in fats and sugar, junk food, fast food – but the results are there for all to see.

So any initiative to get Americans to take initiative with their health seems like a good idea. The problem is in the implementation of those good ideas, which seldom translate well from theory into practice. Worse, dictates from the federal level often hamper or supplant much more effective solutions already being tried at state and local levels.

Brigid S. Scheffert, superintendent of Washington West Supervisory Union in the middle of northern Vermont, understands this reality because her district is currently living it. In a recent letter to media she outlined the harm this new policy is doing to WWSU and its students.

According to Sheffert, WWSU had what they considered an exemplary lunch program in place. The district employed talented food service directors and on-site chefs and offered students whole grain and largely organic food choices as well as all-you-can-eat fruits and vegetables. School salad bars, Sheffert said, could have competed with those of high-end restaurants.

But that has changed dramatically under the new guidelines. Sheffert reports salad bar participation is down fifty-percent in the first month of school. Schools cannot enforce government requirements if students are self-serving so many choices have been eliminated. Proteins are tightly controlled under the new regulations so hard-cooked eggs, lean meats and various cheese are no longer available to salad bar customers. Likewise some vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, pasta salads and breads are no longer offered because the amounts students take may exceed government limits.

The unintended consequences go on. Condiments can no longer be served in bulk or consumed at the discretion of the diners because calorie restrictions may be exceeded. Canning and freezing of local foods and sauces is no longer feasible due to time constraints and lack of scientific expertise in easily calculating nutrient contents. Using scratch recipes and locally produced food in general has become less of an option for the same reason. Schools are actually forced to use more prepackaged and processed foods since the nutrient information is already stated on the side of boxes.

Sheffert is also concerned with the impact these new guidelines will have on the district’s food services budget, which ran large deficits before the program was reinvented to include more local farmers and suppliers. She worries the $7,000 surplus the program ran in FY 2011 will soon turn into a deficit again.

Unintended consequences brought about by broad federal mandates that attempt to make squeeze everyone into the same mold encumber American businesses and individuals all the time.  Since the victims of most of these invasive programs are both smaller in number and more isolated their plights they are more easily ignored. What happens in our schools, however, cannot be discounted because nearly every citizen is somehow impacted when problems arise. Whether you are a student, teacher, parent or taxpayer, you have a dog in this fight.

Fortunately, the fight is underway. Students have taken their lessons on civil disobedience to heart and started protests of their own, such as a YouTube video  song parody, “We are Hungry,” which has gone viral. Others are writing on blogs and Facebook pages and across the nation “Brown bag-ins” are being held as students organize to boycott the lunch programs at their school and bring their own lunches.

That, in my opinion, is the wisest option. Students and their parents need to take back control over the highly personal and individual act of eating, among many other actions. This kind of push-back, where individuals embrace their responsibilities and once again assert their right to live their lives as they see fit - as long as they harm no one else – is exactly what is needed. Government involvement far too often leads to long and depressing lists of harmful unintended consequences. If you don’t like what the federal government is doing to the school lunch program, just wait till it is running health care.

 

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She can be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.

The Great and Powerful Oz

“Who's the mage whose major itinerary is making all Oz merrier? Who's the sage who’s sagely sailed in to save our posteriors?” – from Wicked

 When I saw the musical Wicked, a reimagining of the story of the Wizard of Oz, Barack Obama was about a year into his presidency and the parallels between American and Ozian-style hero worship stunned me. Since then our attitude toward the president, and what he can and cannot do, has modified somewhat, but only slightly. As this presidential campaign season has shown, Americans still want a savior president. The only thing we differ about is whether an R or D comes after his name on the ballot.

 
It seems to be human nature to look outside ourselves for rescue when danger or difficulties appear. Perhaps this is a vestige of childhood and calling upon our parents to make everything from scraped knees to bruised feelings better. But when society relegates itself to the position of child and makes government its parent and protector it sacrifices precious liberty as well as opportunities to grow and mature as a people. Examples of this loss, unfortunately, abound over the last two centuries and have increased and intensified over the past decade as our last two presidents have expanded the powers of the office and rendered congress almost superfluous.

Not that our representatives have fought their dismissal very hard. Content to rule over their own little fiefdoms, our representatives and senators have settled for prestige over power because with power comes responsibility and accountability, neither of which is all that appealing. It is easier to niggle from the sidelines while enjoying the perks of lesser office than make unpopular decisions and risk losing a cushy job.

 

Over decades chief executives have discovered a couple of reliable paths to expanded executive power, the most obvious and effortless being some sort of national emergency. James Madison once said “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad” and it is true that a state of war has been a most effective route to increased presidential power. Madison looks especially prescient in light of the changes in American life as a result of the 9-11 attacks. The broad and multi-focused “war on terror” we find ourselves fighting has been the perfect way for presidents who would be kings to justify the steady encroachment of government on American’s freedoms. From humiliating sojourns through airport security lines to warrantless wiretaps to a national defense act which allows American citizens to be executed by drone without the benefit of a trial, national security has become the chief executive’s way of saying “I can do anything I want.”

Regulation is the other preferred route of presidential usurpation. Our current president has shown himself especially skilled at exploiting the post-New Deal administrative state and taking the legislature’s lawmaking power unto himself and the executive branch. From sodium in our diets and credit card fees to what services are considered “essential health benefits,” the Obama administration has had its hands in just about every conceivable area of American life.

Concentration of the power to make and execute laws has encouraged Americans to look unquestioningly to the president to do anything and everything. Especially problematic is our tendency to support regulations we like despite the fact that they have been implemented in unconstitutional fashion by unelected bureaucrats. In our shortsightedness we forget that presidential power is seldom rolled back and the next person to hold office might have priorities that directly conflict with our own. We also overlook the overtly political nature of such a system, through which those in control may grant exemptions or privileges to political and financial allies. When we the people support the regulatory state we give up even more of what little influence we have over our government.

In both the book and the musical the Wizard of Oz is eventually exposed as a fraud. Dorothy and Elphaba, the victim of the wizard’s unchecked power in Wicked, discover their salvation lies within themselves and not with some wonderful wizard. It would be truly wonderful if we would all internalize this lesson and choose our leaders based not on what they can do for us but on what their proposed policies allow us to do for ourselves.

 

Audrey Pietrucha is a member of the executive board of Vermonters for Liberty. She may be reached at vermontliberty@gmail.com.