Dodd Wins Points, But Will It Help?

It’s been a good couple of weeks for Chris Dodd, at least in the blogosphere, but it remains to be seen if this will translate into meaningful support in Iowa and New Hampshire. The National Journal has moved Dodd up to fourth place behind Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, admitting that this is not justified by any of the polls. Bob Geiger has outlined some of the arguments for Dodd at Huffington Post including his leadership in opposing domestic surveillance and defending Constitutional liberties. Dodd received similar praise from Glenn Greenwald last week.

Dodd made a point during last night’s debate, which he previously stated in response to a question from Bill Maher, which so far is getting little mention in the post-debate media coverage. Dodd supported decriminalizing marijuana:

We’re locking up too many people in our system here today. We’ve got mandatory minimum sentences, they are filling our jails with people that don’t belong there. My idea is to decriminalize this, reduce that problem here. We’ve gone from 800,000 to 2 million people in our penal institutions in this country. We’ve got to get a lot smarter about this issue than we are. And as president, I’d try and achieve that.

It was fitting that the opposite view was presented by John Edwards. Edwards once again showed his disdain for freedom along with the vacuousness of his thought. In a remark reminiscent of his opposition to same sex marriage because it conflicted with his religious upbringing, Edwards chose to continue the failed drug war because to do otherwise would send the wrong message. Perhaps some day he will realize that he is as wrong on the drug war as he originally was on Iraq and apologize again.

Otherwise the highlight of the debate was showing that Hillary Clinton is vulnerable on issues ranging from Iran to illegal immigration to her personal integrity. Kucinich made two controversial comments, with his UFO sighting receiving more coverage than his call for the impeachment of George Bush. Richardson clarified during the post-debate interviews that his recent comments on Roswell were purely for the benefit of New Mexico tourism.

George Orwell U

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reports on a disturbing program of political indoctrination at the University of Delaware. To highlight a few parts of their report:

The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs. The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech.

“The University of Delaware’s residence life education program is a grave intrusion into students’ private beliefs,” FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. “The university has decided that it is not enough to expose its students to the values it considers important; instead, it must coerce its students into accepting those values as their own. At a public university like Delaware, this is both unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

Later in the report:

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world.”

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”

I’ve often seen conservative organizations twist facts to promote their false meme that liberals oppose free speech and initially wondered if this was yet another example. From what I’ve been able to find out about this group, it does appear legitimate. For example, Wikipedia reports that the organization’s president is a liberal, that some of the conservatives involved have a solid record on civil liberties issues, and that they have defended students and professors with left wing views. While the organization does appear to have conservative ties, I have posted on cases in the past where some principled conservatives have defended civil liberties, including criticism of the abuses under the Bush administration.

Some of the conservative blogs, such as Sister Toldjah and Right Voices, are using this as an example to further their claims of liberals opposing free speech, even though this example was condemned by an organization with a liberal president. In reality, the current left/right spectrum is highly flawed. There are those of us who concentrate on civil liberties on both the left and right, and there are those who are on the wrong side of civil liberties issues on both sides of the spectrum.

The real test of conviction on civil liberties issues is to defend the principle regardless of the views involved. It is one thing for conservative blogs to protest such a program when it involves what they would perceive as liberal views on racism. I wonder if there would be the same reaction if instead there were mandatory programs on the danger of “Islamofascism” or on religious values. Analogous situations of indoctrination which many conservatives support in the public schools include school-sponsored prayer and teaching creationism as science. Going beyond the schools, many conservatives support requirements for women to watch films prior to having an abortion intended to dissuade women from having the procedure.