There is NOTHING illegal about a civilian giving an academic lecture for other academics.
The USNA is a military institution, but a significant portion of their faculty are civilians as well.
This is why this is an egregious abuse of power.
The USNA is a military institution, but a significant portion of their faculty are civilians as well.
This is why this is an egregious abuse of power.
When making judgements there is following the letter of the law and then there is making equitable decisions, which takes into account both the letter of law and the context in which the decision is being made.
In our current environment, where a potential incoming chief executive of the USA is, according to some military leaders who worked closely with him, a fascist, the equitable decision is to have the lecture now.
The alternative is to wait until that chief executive may be in power, at which point pressure not to have the lecture will only increase.
If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy?
Sure assuming lecture titled "Why is Trump worse than Hitler?" is paired with another lecture along the lines of "Why is Kamala worse than Mao?" If you can't even pretend to be even-handed about it, this is just a partisan play.
But, honestly, the thing that really grinds my gears is not that. My issue is that army about the last institution in US the public KINDA trusts ( as compared to congress, senate, banks, corporates, clergy.. you name it ).
Why on earth would you want to fuck with it? Why do you insist on undermining it?
And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You?
<< But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists.
In US alone, we should be able to locate at least one among thousands ( According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 10,220 sociology professors in colleges, universities, and professional schools, and 2,630 in junior colleges. - just google search )?
I suppose we could limit it to what who gets published, shown on TV and so on, but then we would go back to the 'regarding' question, but, at its core, this is US, where people publish all sorts of idiocy all the time.. I somehow doubt it would require much conjuring.
Not to search very far, Buhle has something to say on the subject ( Marxism in the United States: A history of the American left[1] ), but to your point.. not on Kamala specifically.
I am willing to give you a 'you got a point here.'
[1]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_U...
Their peers.
The question then is how is it not a first amendment violation for the state to prohibit a speaker presenting factual and evidence-based research.
Can I assume intended to respond to my initial post where I compared that unknown lecture to dancing at defcon?
If you are, then allow me to retort simply by stating the following about your argument:
<< One of the topics of the lecture might well have been how to retain that institution's integrity after the election of a President who absolutely wants to undermine it
Your entire argument hinges on 'might have been'. It would have helped if you had something more concrete than what you want it to be. I could offer some "might have beens" as well and they will be just as relevant.
It does not change anything, because that is not what the core issue is.
You claimed delivering this perspective would “undermine the institution”, whereas I think it would strengthen the institution, in what might be a very timely fashion.
Friend, if the lecture means institution being pulled into political fray, then it will do a lot, but it will not strengthen it. You don't believe me? Look how well FBI is regarded these days after being pulled in on a semi-regular basis.
That is a facile fucking thing for you to say. You have literally nothing on the line. You are saying "other people should risk going to jail for my beliefs". Fuck that, man.
Should we prohibit the Latinists at West Point from talking about Cataline? It just isn't the case that every possible statement is prohibited even if it weighs in on matters that some candidates have spoken about.