DISQUS

Thanks Thanks.  I doubted that it would be anything other than unintentional from you, Ed. My concern was prompted by previous editorial treatment by Ms. Apo-Joynt.  In addition to the link though, at least in the future I'd appreciate acknowledgment of the publication I released it in.  For example, when I link a document by the Detroit Free Press, I also typically cite the Detroit Free Press rather than just "here".

Substantively -

Of course not "every person has the right in every situation to follow someone around with a video camera" and obviously no one has a right to "harass" although that term itself is full of legal gray area.  But that's obvious.  It's like saying people don't have a right to yell fire in a theatre.  There is no evidence Dennis Lennox yelled fire, harassed anyone, or followed anyone in inappropriate situations.  Did he create discomfort?  Yes.  Did he have to file FOIA's in person?  No.  Was he barred from it legally?  No.  Even if he went there with the motivation you ascribe (he could have perceived the camera as a way of protecting himself against false accusations too, but ...), so what.  There's nothing inherently wrong with going to your public body with the intent of catching them behaving controversially.  I doubt he intended to provoke "violence" - just document public officials behaving stupidly.  That's the self-professed reason Bruce Fealk documents Knollenberg staff. At the least, if that is a possible motivation, we must give Lennox the benefit of that doubt and accept his motivation was lawful, even if distasteful.  While we all know Fealk's motivation is publicity and to attack a political opponent - which is Lennox's - I've seen nothing in Fealk's behavior warranting governmental punishment, although his appearance at Knollenberg's home came much closer than Lennox because the law of trespass is very clear.

Can someone decide to tape me?  Yes.  Follow me around all day?  That'd probably amount to stalking - depending on the methods they used.  If I am at public events or working for the government though and a guy comes around only occasionally to monitor my activity, most certainly.  You disprove your own case with a bad strawman - you have no evidence that Lennox is following someone "all day".  His disruptions have been isolated to short spans of time on very sporadic occasions.

paragraphing I tried to paragraph that - sorry, something eliminated my paragraph spacing.

Ed - evidence First, did this piece intend to link to my work in this matter? There is this statement, but only the YouTube video has an active link:

Lennox uploaded 10 seconds of the video of this incident to YouTube (see here), but the university

Why ironic? Why is it "ironic" that the Black Panthers are a "hate group" as categorized by SPLC?

And while Shabazz makes a point - there is a difference between "terrorist organizations" and "hate groups" - it seems he's admitting to being a hate group. "Nothing like the KKK" - - I'm sure MSU YAF could say that too. I take it that you condemn Black Panthers and Shabazz since they are on the SPLC hate list.

Still, Shabazz's group chanted "Chanting "No Justice! No Peace!"" according to your rendition.  That sounds awful close to a threat of violence if they don't get their way.  Threat of violence is a key element of terrorism.

While I strongly condemn the idea of leaving nooses around as jokes, I think the Prosecutor probably got this one right.  There's enough back-story to suggest there was no racial motivation here (Halloween, chemistry lab - rubber noose, the guy actually came forward which, as Doll points out, was hugely courageous).  Shabazz is on a witch-hunt, designed to attract attention and build his cadre of self-perceived victims.

Not a lawyer I'm not a lawyer, and the two entities are ballot question committee, not PACs (much different rules).  One is active, one is inactive.  The active is a reincarnation of the inactive.  The significance of Marcia Baum, whom you mention in this article, taking $10 in consulting fees from the ballot committee in 2006, and also simultaneously running a non-profit of a similar mission, should almost be obvious.  It raises questions of self-dealing, and the political purpose of her non-profit.  Nothing illegal - just doesn't look good, even to, or especially to, one's own donors.

I'm not "promoting my blog" here, except in a very indirect way.  That link is highly relevant to your story here.  Is it against MM policy to post relevant links in comments?

PS - I did file a campaign complaint on a separate PAC issue I reported the same day dealing with Jon Stryker.  Separate issue though. 

Hm I agree that if one student group isn't paying for security, others shouldn't be paying in similar situations (although MSU may have an argument that something as large as the Kellogg Center is different from a normal lecture room which I think is typical of what I've seen of YAF events on the YouTube videos).

And yes, this is ripe for FOIA, and you just need to get better at specifying and doing the second follow-up FOIA in the no document situation, or taking a different angle to getting them.  The key in FOIA is always the follow-up/second effort - like running the ball on 4th and 1 and bouncing off that first tackle and still lunging for the first down.

I protest it too but only because I've worked in retail, and 1) have no desire to fight crowds 2) have empathy and sympathy for people working on this day.

Retailers are more than happy to take my money at other times of the year too. 

Do your duty and spread out your consumption.  Or better, neither over nor under consume.

And the article on Hillary's money from racists? Hillary's received money from a white supremacist.  Do you even know about that story? If I send you the material, will you publish it front page?

Errata I think you meant November 16 appeals court decision, not Sept.

Interestingly though, MCSCRC takes money from ballot questions It's interesting that you call this organization "non-profit, non-partisan ... does not endorse, propose or oppose legislation."

I've reported it on it here, almost three weeks ago:

http://www.outsidela...

In that campaign finance expose, I note how Marcia Baum accepted $10K in cash for consulting from the similarly named 2006 ballot question committee (which has reformed for 2008 with the same Dykema Gossett Treasurer), and the non-profit itself was gifted the remaining $7500.  Granting ballot question money to a charity is legal - granting it in cash for "consulting" to the head the same charity for an amount almost half of the total the committee raised raises a ton of questions both about the depth of the relationship and what work was actually performed given the committee's short existence in 2004.

So, yes, it is a "non-profit" because anyone can go get IRS c3 status.  It may not be "partisan" because most issue committees have cross-partisan interest - and I have considerable sympathy towards the stem-cell cause (but not necessarily means, particularly given the promise of more ethical adult stem-cell research) myself having had relatives pass from Alzheimer's.

But to suggest that it doesn't endorse, propose or oppose legislation - given the intermingling of its leaders and money with the ballot question is questionable.  I grant that you may not have been aware of these issues, which is why I note it here.  The preponderance of evidence is that this non-profit's "educational" mission is tenuous at best - it exists to influence the political debate (otherwise, I'd expect the group to bring in speakers from both sides of the issue, etc.). There's nothing wrong with that - let's just admit it.

Again, I find Ed's view balanced Again, Ed, I find your view here at least balanced.  And there is no question the AIPAC commenter misses the point.

But, in seriousness, can you support the way Mr. Heywood wrote THIS PIECE in MM?  I mean, the article goes so far as to point out that $3000 of $5 million was fraudulently donated on stolen credit cards, which the Paul campaign caught and reimbursed, and then the article says there was no known connection between white supremacists and the fraudulent donations.  Why is that even in there?  Why bother with all the bad associational arguments when more depth could have been put into the story about Ron Paul's own written material, which Heywood produces as some evidence of concern at the end of the lengthy article about otherwise nothing. But with those writings, which seem at glance to be an important investigative angle (from past news accounts, which could and rightfully should be revived), we don't have the full context.  Frankly, charges as serious as racism deserve the original links (or copies) at least to the newspaper article, and preferably to the original source in this case.  Track down the reporter, if necessary, and ask about.

And you produce some anecdotal evidence that also raises that concern level.

And by the way, my interest in this is purely as another person covering Ron Paul.  I'll break stories about his campaign just as quickly as you guys, as I have at www.OaklandPolitics.com & www.OutsideLansing.com .

How? If its the asterisks, I'll remember not to use them next time and not to use a word as offensive crud. I'll completely water down my writing style next time - perhaps it was a bit too much flair.

If its the fact that I accused your writer of using guilt by association tactics, I think readers are entitled to that level of disagreement and to express it in a transparent way in this type of forum.

You'll note that my comment is chock full of relevant stuff and inquiries of the author, along with modest agreement in concern over the Houston Chronicle quotes, but a well research article on this serious of a charge (ties to racists and racist statements) would provide readers the source material so they could judge the context of those statements for themselves.

Regardless, most of this article is built upon the fact that a small group of people considered nearly world-over to be nut-bags (sorry, I hope we agree on that characterization) have chosen to endorse someone.  Since proven racists (and I mean in the same sense Todd means it - white supremacy beliefs) have chosen to endorse and even contribute to a major Democratic Presidential campaign, I'm sure that he'll report on that story when I publish it shortly.  I could imply some racist ties there - but the simple fact is the Democrat couldn't control the endorsement either (although they should give the money back).

Siksai is wrong, and clearly either naive or spinning With respect to Siksai, the reasoning here is just plain wrong.  Just as wrong as Gary Glenn's.  Since this is a column and you mention "Rhetoric & Reality", let's dispel the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't rhetoric.

First, Miller's seat is considered very safe, and McCotter's somewhat safe, even under the worst of political tides.  Yes, Knollenberg is in a targeted district - but there's no domino of the type Siksai suggests.  But Knollenberg has in the past deviated from the Gary Glenn scorecard - on the federal gay marriage ban amendment in 04 he voted no - and that was long before there was any anti-Republican wave. In fact, it was a risky thing to do at the time. If you notice the pattern here - the metro-area Republicans voted one way, and the others the other way.  There are logical demographic & electoral reason for this, as well as the fact that this bill also had a provision in it that prohibits "preferential treatment" for gays along with prohibiting discrimination against them -- indeed, as a matter of conscience, that clause alone makes this piece of legislation reasonable, and a mirror of the principles embodied in the MCRI-Proposal 2 of 2006 applying to race, ethnicity, and gender.

Indeed, this law is as much a triumph for the anti-preferential treatment model of anti-discrimination law as it is anything else.  You're right - it doesn't relate to same-sex marriage, but since it prohibits preferential treatment, and is limited to employment law, I don't think it presents a horrible precedent.  On the other hand, I would sympathize with Gary Glenn if he were to frame the issue as a matter of First Amendment associational and religious choice.  Of course, that argument was made in the 1960s against the Civil Rights Act dealing with racial discrimination.  So long as this law only prohibits employment discrimination though, and it clearly also prohibits preferential treatment, I'm with Knollenberg philosophically (the logical basis for that is complicated, but involves contract theory and government neutrality). I suspect that these folks might actually think some of these issues through when they vote - setting aside rhetoric and reality.

Oh, and for the benefit of your editor, I've worked for Knollenberg's son in the past, but might conceivably work for other "conservatives" adhering to Gary Glenn's position.  I wonder if I've damaged myself here.

Finally, I'm curious as to how long you gave the Washington offices to respond to your query.

There's no truth in this guilt by association cr** Look, I'm no endorser of Ron Paul.  I've run a couple stories on his Michigan campaign that have opened up festering internal issues - certainly worthier of being Michigan related news than this.

But this type of -- person X is a racist... person X endorses person Y ... person Y is therefore a racist -- type of argument is based on a logical fallacy.  But it has a neat emotional appeal, and is great smear.  Todd seems good at it though.

I would like to see a link on that 1992 Houston Chronicle article or original material on the Ron Paul newsletter reference especially given the mis-attribution on the Epstein thing.  Those quotes seriously concern me - but without seeing the original source material or even the Houston Chronicle's written rendition of it, I have a difficult time understanding the context or accepting it as sufficient evidence of racism.

It also seems that Todd Heywood reads a lot more stormfront and vanguard than I could imagine being able to stomach.

Who writes these headlines Stymied?

"... bites the dust".

The process is what it is - and while I may have concerns about the current value of the recalls, at least for reps., and when compared to what a ballot initiative could accomplish for similar money, I don't have concerns that Leon will win in court, or that the recall process is anything other than a democratic right that you gloat over the obstruction of. It's kind of funny to watch you folks declare premature victories.  This was all very predictable to this point.

One thing I'd add I was a bit disappointed at the suggestion that my ties to Ward Connerly were relevant to this story, and if they were relevant, I think a sentence explaining why you'd think they were relevant would have added to the clarity of the article.

You need not do that in the article if you'd prefer to expound on that here?  There are a couple of possible answers, and I'd prefer not to assume the reason.

Thanks Yeah, I figured that out just a minute ago when I looked at the top of the thread where Ed made the statement.

Not a problem.  I certainly didn't think you'd do something like that on purpose.

Brayton's quote was a good quote, and I agreed with it in my response, actually, I believe.  I just didn't see it when I looked at my comments only.

Also, I'll add to the quote since I have more information now.  Both Griffin and Wiginton harbor views that are repugnant - where in the original quote I suggested that it just appeared as if Wiginton did.

Am I missing something here Am I missing something here, but where did you get the last paragraph quote from?

While I think I agree with the attributed quote mostly, you never interviewed me and I don't recall writing that (I did write that the protesters were wrong, and I agree that Griffin's views are repulsive, but that doesn't ring my memory as what I wrote).  Then again, I write alot of stuff and may be forgetting an entry.  If its an error on your part, I'm sure its unintentional.

Some commendable points First, you make some points worthy of respect.  If you've recused yourself from Lennox-related reporting, that is wise, for the obvious reasons.  But note - my criticism of your conduct in the Lennox video goes beyond your mere physical contact with his camera (and I'm shocked to hear that you filed a criminal complaint, but I guess that matches the Dean Gates strategy).  You state after that to the unseen woman as apparent justification for your action "He's from YAF" (you say here "YAF wasn't responsible for Lennox's "attack"", but at the time you equated him to YAF!!), as if that had any logical bearing on his right to be present with a video camera.  That's where I interpret your bias against YAF, in addition to "my reading (scanning) of the entire YAFWatch blog" you've written and you're use of irrelevant attacks against Dr. Allen, among others. 

Your linkage of this video to the Dean Gates controversy is inapt because they are different situations and should be judged independently.  With Gates, Lennox appears to be seated (or considerably shorter) with his arm and camera at his side when contact is apparently made at a glancing angle, on the other hand it is much more apparent in your case that contact is made and forcefully made.

As to your interpretation of the two videos, you and I must be watching different videos (on both the recent Gates video and the one of you).  Looking at the video of you, I don't see you moving away from the camera or the camera following you - I see you rotating around at an odd angle, and when turning through that circle you realize that Lennox is there.  You may have been surprised, but there is no jerky movements by Lennox toward you, no "shove to your face", and it does not appear the camera was "6 inches" (for you to connect with the camera with your hand the way you did it would have been amazingly difficult if it was 6 inches from your face - you couldn't have reached outward the way you did).  I see a police office not "pushing Lennox back" but rather pointing at you and advising you of Lennox's rights.

You over-reacted.  That's forgivable.  Should you have been prosecuted for it criminally? Probably not, even though technically it was a battery.  But your version of events here simply isn't in touch with what the video tape shows, and your proclivity to file a police report which may have been false, adds to my concerns.

If you helped YAF against a student mob days ago, I applaud you.  Again, I don't follow every bit of news about you or YAF, nor is it reasonable to expect any reader to do that or be able to.

As to your general point that I am not "questioning the truth" of your "information", only the "words" used, that is partially correct.  I'm not calling you a liar (or in error) without knowing the falsity of your information, but that doesn't mean I'm accepting or endorsing the truth of the many factual allegations you have sourced poorly with general references as if I had a book knowledge of everything out there.  I question what you provide and source that appears wrong based on its internal inconsistencies, but I leave for the world to decide on what you assert baldly, and I am also questioning your interpretation of the facts in the best possible light to you as insufficient to your case.

Most importantly, you cite what SPLC cited to me in my interview with them.  Hate groups:

All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically based on their immutable characteristics ...

How does the 13 point memo express a belief that "maligns or attacks" an entire class of people?  It makes policy recommendations that would deny benefits to groups of people, and give benefits to other groups of people.  If by "attack" you or SPLC mean simply that giving some groups of people more benefits or other groups of people less benefits is an "attack," then through true irony, yes, YAF is a hate group.  And the University of Michigan, 46 states in the union, and every other person that gives preferences to some  would be "hate groups" too, under the same test. However, most people understand "attack" in the context of "attack and malign" to mean something closer to statements or practices that demean a group or articulate a group's superiority or inferiority (the latter being part of SPLC's definition of attack when I asked). I was careful to ask SPLC if this was what they meant or if it was the broader version of "attack" equaling any denial of political benefits and preferences. SPLC was explicit - preference itself is not an attack, and they also agreed that advocacy against all preference was also not an attack, preferring to focus on whether the hateful believed in superiority or inferiority, that is, the "attack" or maligning must be based on immutable characteristics.

While I sharply criticized (on your own YAFwatch blog I think) Bristow's 13 point memo for being contradictory (the individual points, advocated one at a time, could easily be advocacy for pure equality - for example, arguing to fund a white male support club is no different than arguing for a african-american social group, although i think it personally ridiculous to have either funded by government, and arguing to defund an african-american group so that no one is funded is obviously legitimate (though it "attacks an existing resource given to an entire group").  Arguing both at the same time obviously suffers the problem of giving a preference to whites, but that's the irony - if preference to whites is wrong ...

Clearly, Bristow is guilty of very bad reasoning and carelessness. But you must look outside the memo to find evidence of "hate group" status.  SPLC, when I asked, provided no other evidence (except to say "google him", which is wholly insufficient as evidence).

Now you may have come up with other stuff since then to justify SPLC after-the-fact, and I look forward to you posting the video, particularly with respect to clarifying your attacks on dr. Allen (whom you now attack as delusional, and no, I don't read every other publication in your history, nor is it fair to expect me to).  You assert that MSU "policy" somehow requires him to be aware of and approve every word and move of "his" (its not his) group - could you quote that policy exactly and explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

if YOU have read your entire own YAFwatch blog, you'd know that I have condemned Bristow and YAF for engaging in stupid and deplorable stunts when I have occasionally stumbled over there.  i know that YAFwatch adheres' to no journalistic code and you aren't paid for it, so I'd pretty much given up there because you simply ignored my points and the blog became tedious.  I raise the issue here and now because this is a different context.

I'm not asking that you like YAF - I'm asking that your exposure of their alleged wrong-doings be more precise.  That isn't unreasonable, is it?

As to Saul, his quote was simply that he'd been around Bristow several times and never heard anything racist, so he defended him.  I don't see where you have any evidence that Saul isn't telling you the truth as to his experience, and if you haven't proven to him a racist statement by Bristow (other than your assertion of the obviousness of your beliefs) I can't understand why he'd condemn him or allow your desires to dictate whom he throws to the wolves.  On the other hand, I know enough about Bristow to know he's not the "type of Republican" I'd support or want to encourage more of, if he is even really a Republican, or if that is really a relevant question.

By the way, I was being GENUINE By the way, I was being genuine.  I genuinely desire more cross-partisan participation, more honest (even if hard and sometimes hair-raising) debate between conservatives and liberals and democrats and republicans and libertarians and greens etc.  That's one of the goals of my own website OutsideLansing.com, although I admit where I'm coming from (center-right) in my mission statement.  Unlike the restricted-access closed liberal advocacy sites like MichiganLiberal and Blogging for Michigan, which engage in sensationalism and vitriolic attacks, and lock conservative commentators out, my blog attempts to tone down its opinion and maintain an intellectual discourse while welcoming ALL.

I had some hope for MM.  And still perhaps a little hope - about half the writers seem to make it seem possible - but when I get attacked for sincere opinion, and told its because I want to make a buck, I just have to laugh.

Chet

By the way, I was being GENUINE By the way, I was being genuine.  I genuinely desire more cross-partisan participation, more honest (even if hard and sometimes hair-raising) debate between conservatives and liberals and democrats and republicans and libertarians and greens etc.  That's one of the goals of my own website OutsideLansing.com, although I admit where I'm coming from (center-right) in my mission statement.  Unlike the restricted-access closed liberal advocacy sites like MichiganLiberal and Blogging for Michigan, which engage in sensationalism and vitriolic attacks, and lock conservative commentators out, my blog attempts to tone down its opinion and maintain an intellectual discourse while welcoming ALL.

I had some hope for MM.  And still perhaps a little hope - about half the writers seem to make it seem possible - but when I get attacked for sincere opinion, and told its because I want to make a buck, I just have to laugh.

Chet

Attack the reader OK.  Attack the reader.

Great job.

Whether I have a bias or not, I raised a valid point.  The best response you come up with "your biased".  OK.  So I am.  But you have not addressed the substance of my concern, which is true.

My website and in a number of sources I make it clear that I'm a political consultant, focusing on moderates and conservatives.  Am I obligated to, before every blog post or comments, to repeat, oh, by the way, I'm a political consultant and here's a detailed history?  Come on.  You knew from response one at the top what I do - why didn't you raise this concern above when I first raised the concern?  And so what if I want future clients - or friends - or just as a matter of principle, to receive fair coverage?  Why do you refuse fair coverage?  My bias may frame why I raise the concern, but it is independent of the logic of the concern I raise.

Ms. Apo-Joynt - Are you the editor?  If so, I invite you to give me a phone call.

Perhaps, if you are holding me to that standard of disclosing my possible future clients, MichiganMessenger should, before every blog post, put a disclaimer on it noting its own bias and not just possible future clients, but its current funding sources.

I'm a pretty reasonable guy if you've ever talked to me, but I have to say, this is absurd.

ex post facto proof doesn't prove the original argument First, whatever happened since SPLC made its announcement does not make SPLC's process any better.  I'm concerned about their process because I see the direction it is heading - as is the direction you are heading (when you attack someone like Dr. Allen for merely holding an anti-preferential-type-of-affirmative-action belief).

OK, after redigging from my original investigation back in march, here's the you tube from Jess Lipowski's interview for the SpartanEdge.

http://www.youtube.c...

Thats' part 2 of the interview - notably at 2:20 thru 2:30 Bristow says he would oppose all-white social groups as well. 

I asked SPLC what they thought of this information specifically (among a variety of other statements, including ones where Bristow admitted/claimed that he was using satire in the 13 point memo, and other statements).

Then there is the video of you attacking a YAFer's camera physically, and telling someone "He's a YAFer" when both they and police try to get you to calm down. 

http://www.youtube.c...

That's the video I relied up above in my statement that you were part of the melee and lost your objectivity. Not that you can't continue to report on the issue on your blog, just that it has become personal for you.  Not that I blame you entirely either given the emotion of the room, and its not something that should be held against you personally, but you made Bristow a crusade.  I'm sure I've been there before, especially on issues important to me or that I thought were important at the time, but I just can't see the value in the diminishing marginal returns of your continued work on this. Even if you're right, you're pounding rubble with 4000 lb bombs.

You say the first 9 minutes of your speech "is out of context".  Come on.  It's unedited, and YouTube has a 10 minute limit.  It's the introduction.  The superfluous attack on Dr. Allen was 6 minutes in - so the entire context of that is available.  Your attack against Dr. Allen solely as "very conservative" and "against affirmative action" (not exact quotes, but very close) is completely inappropriate discourse.  Maybe you have more evidence against Dr. Allen in your presentation, but given the man's eloquence and brilliance I can't imagine where he has misstepped (and unlike Bristow, Dr. Allen is very clear and experienced). Sure, he was unlucky enough to have accepted the advisory role for Bristow, but my understanding is that student group advisors do not have authority over or make decisions for the group and Allen couldn't have known Bristow would be as foolish as Bristow is. It's no surprise that he would accept a YAF advisor role - the history of the organization is traditionally conservative as is Dr. Allen.

But I'll give you an opportunity with the whole video - make sure you send me a link when its up (my first name at my first and last name dot com).

Finally, I'm stunned that you would imply that I'm not "rational" because I don't agree with you on a purely opinionated question of word definitions -- that of whether YAF is a hate group.  First, even if you or SPLC have proved that Bristow is a "hateful person", and the centerpiece is the 13 point memo, you haven't proven that group is.  While Bristow leads the group, the memo was Bristow's for his personal campaign for student government.  Sullying the rest of the YAF members with your broad brush based on that is inappropriate.  Second, while the things (killing homosexuals) you assert above are as "without evidence" as my claim of your involvement was (sans the link I've provided here in this response), and the milder things like "Smash Left Wing Scum" which should be condemned but arguably should not be labeled "hate speech" (any worse than what some on the left have used against the right - are they "hate groups" - I could make the SPLC list real long if I could include every statement like that), you're getting awfully high on your moral platform to say that your opinion is the only "rational" possible opinion.  Indeed, it proves your lack of distance and lack of objectivity.  I concede that your opinion is a possible interpretation - that is, I don't begrudge anyone the right to disagree with or condemn Bristow as a punk or otherwise bad person (indeed, I have condemned him myself).  But because I do not go far enough, you label me irrational?

Both examples Both of your examples involve teachers making statements about "facts" - pretty uncontroversial ones at that.  While I would suggest that even teachers should be careful in what they endorse, that's an incredibly complex discussion.  But outside of teachers, I'd suggest there is little or almost nothing the government need endorse, at least in terms of politics.  But there is a vast difference from a teacher saying that rocks exist which have been dated to 4 billion years (despite the wishes of a tiny minority to prevent that), and an entire governmental body, in this case the Regents, officially condemning a particular group.  Aside from anything else, the latter is a waste of time and more appropriately left to the individual Regents themselves, not the body.

Of course, you are correct.  Government doesn't treat the ideas themselves as equally true.  The very existence of laws implies that the people have made collective choices of value of ideas.  I'm talking about government specifically endorsing or condemning individuals though - for the ideas they may advocate for.  That's a lot different than government endorsing or acting on an idea that is necessarily implicit to what government must do.  And I'm not saying government is even barred from condemning individuals - I'm just saying that prudence dictates that it should reserve those condemnations for very limited circumstances.  Government's role should be limited to protecting individuals from other individuals who might trespass on their rights, providing for the self-defense, and more arguably providing for some common-goods.

We agree on the state of the law regarding viewpoint neutrality.  It isn't fully "settled", nor was the Wisconsin case "settling it" that long ago (15 years?), but I don't see the general outline of the law changing. Even though we agree, many universities continue to abuse their power through speech codes (still not settled) and arbitrary or subtle attacks on disliked groups.

Well, the first nine minutes Well, the first nine minutes of your presentation appears to be a mere introduction.  I'd love to see a tape of the rest.

In that nine minutes, you attack former US Civil Rights Commissioner Dr. William B. Allen, the YAF student advisor, on the grounds that he is 1) "anti-affirmative action" 2) very conservative.

Great evidence.