WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE
WHEN YOU SHOW UP?
You’re full of potential and eager to get ahead,
but one thing’s missing—your college degree.
Whether you took a break after high school or
you stopped out of college with less than 60
credits, earning your Associates Degree now
through the NYU School of Professional Studies
Division of Applied Undergraduate Studies can
change your life!
From the first day you step into our classrooms,
you’ll develop applicable work-related skills in
a highly supportive environment, while building
your confidence and benefiting from a wealth of
university and career development resources.
New affordable tuition makes a world-class
NYU education attainable.
You can do this, we can help!
* Bachelors degree programs available for those who have
earned 60 transferable college credits or more.
VIRTUAL INFO. SESSION
Thursday, January 10, 7 p.m.
WALK-IN WEDNESDAYS
Jan. 9, 23, 30, anytime 9 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.
CHOOSE FROM PROGRAMS IN:
Business, Health Administration, Information Systems Management, Liberal Arts
New York University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution. ©2019 NYU School of Professional Studies.
BRONX TIMES REPORTER, J 22 ANUARY 4-10, 2019 BTR
REGISTER
sps.nyu.edu/appliedUG/events04
For information:
visit sps.nyu.edu/appliedUG/associates04
call 212-998-7100
BY FRANK V. VERNUCCIO,
JR.
There is a common
purpose in what at fi rst
appears to be unrelated
moves to limit free
speech.
Initially, there isn’t
an evident connection
between the attempts to
take down old holiday
songs (‘Baby, it’s Cold
Outside;’) the scolding
of law enforcement offi -
cials who describe terrorists
as being Islamists;
the instructing of college
students that they can’t
say anything that could
‘offend’ anybody on campus;
or any of the other
myriad objections levied
by progressive censors.
John Podhoretz, writing
in the New York Post,
notes that “America is
going insane with fi nger
wagging, tut-tutting,
outrage-ready …. censoriousness…
progressive
bullies are intent
on shutting everyone the
hell up lest anyone fail to
conform to their narrow
sense of what is and is not
acceptable. The humorless
scolds have decided
they are in charge, and
for complicated
reasons
the rest
of the
culture
is going
along.”
Over the past decade,
progressive politicians
had been at the forefront
of the move to limit free
speech. Senator Schumer
(D-NY) actually introduced
legislation to limit
the First Amendment’s
application to some political
speech. (The measure
was, fortunately, defeated.)
Numer -
ous camp
a i g n
regulat
i o n s
limit the
a bi l i t y
of the citizenry to openly
support candidates without
fi rst jumping through
bureaucratic hoops.
Some elected offi cials
are not shy about their
goals. Rep. Ted Lieu (DCalif.)
boldly announced
that he would “love to be
able to regulate the content
of speech” He particularly
spoke about
restricting Fox News.
Newly elected Rep. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortex
(D-NY) threatened Donald
Trump Jr. with a subpoena
merely for questioning
her economic
views.
On a governmental
level, the trend reached
a high point during the
Obama Administration,
when some dissenting
reporters were harassed
and their personal records
were obtained by
the federal government.
In addition, the Internal
Revenue Service was employed
to suppress the Tea
Party. The former President’s
Attorney General
Loretta Lynch even considered
‘criminally prosecuting’
those that merely
disagreed with Obama’s
climate change views.
Writing during the
time when Obama was
in the White House, reporter
and author Kimberley
Strassel described
the frightening move towards
punishing free
speech that was launched
by the Obama Administration:
“Americans
are…being targeted on
the basis of their political
views; they…risk losing
their jobs and reputations
for speaking out;
they…face economic and
community reprisal…”
Despite the arrogance
of progressive politicians
such as Obama, Schumer
and Lieu, the most immediate
current threat
comes not from Washington
but from nongovernmental
sources.
Shireen Qudosi, writing
in the Clarion Project
reports that “Sweeping
censorship across social
media and subscribercontent
sites has pushed
conservatives out of
these sites and sent them
searching for more tolerant
digital platforms.
The latest story in the
news points to increased
bans and discrimination
against conservative
views on Twitter.”
While it has become
evident that some internet
search engines and
social media sites have
discriminated against
anyone rejecting leftwing
orthodoxy, it is less
clear what the uniting
thread is in the consistent
moves to oversee just
about everything said (or
sung) in public.
A change this dramatic
in the national
culture cannot occur
quickly. Free speech is
ingrained in the DNA
of the nation. Attempts
by elected offi cials, such
as occurred during the
Obama Administration,
are too obvious. Those
pushing the watering
down of the First Amendment
recognize this, and
so resort to more subtle
means. Gradually, they
are acclimating Americans
to the acceptance,
on college campuses and
in popular culture, to acquiesce
to speech limitations.
Americans who have
been (at least until Academia
drummed it out
of their curriculum)
brought up in the belief
that the First Amendment
was a sacred, unassailable
right are being
re-trained to accept that
free speech is now subject
to severe limits. Lacking
the ability to persuade
the public to abandon this
key provision of the Bill of
Rights, circuitous means
are being employed to
wean the citizenry from
their devotion to it.
The obvious question
is why this is being done,
and why the left is so enthusiastic
about it. The
fact is, progressive policies
are generally not
successful in resolving
issues, but very successful
in establishing a culture
in which elites run
roughshod over individual
rights. From foreign
policy to economics,
America’s left has failed
to produce salutary results.
Exposing that reality,
questioning the failed
basic premises guiding
progressives, is dangerous
to the left. But if the
conversation can be controlled,
if individuals can
be restricted, under various
excuses, from questioning
the left’s logic,
then, despite failure,
those elites can remain
in power.
That is why socialist
governments consistently
need to become
more authoritarian, as
can be seen in Venezuela
and numerous other examples.
Accepting the excuses
of the would-be censors
would lead to disaster.
Americans should tolerate
no limits to their First
Amendment rights.
Action
Association
/events04
/associates04