Yesterday, I blogged about my Facebook incident that FIRE has brought attention to. Today, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a piece on the subject as well.

For FIRE’s overview of the case and opinion click here.

I talked to the Chronicle reporter briefly as she was making her inquiries. She asked me if I was concerned this story would hurt future job prospects. Honestly, I hadn’t really thought of this as I believed (and still do) that the transcript, picture of the status updates, and the ludicrous nature of some of the UCPD’s inquiries justified me wanting clarification of the investigation’s extent.

I very much understand the importance of campus police in protecting university students, faculty, and staff. So, putting aside whether the UCPD actively monitors student online content, I respect the UCPD wanting to talk to me about my status update. That said, I became perplexed at what occurred when I was being investigated; specifically, the personal questions that came from the officer and the willingness to call the entire investigation off as long as I removed the comment. If anything, this seems like a dereliction of duty by the UCPD if my comment was deemed a legitimate threat.  That the UCPD would threaten me academically if I did not remove the comment also seemed out-of-line.

On the Chronicle page, someone commented that I’m “seeking protection as free speech”. I’m not seeking protection at all. The case was effectively dropped (seemingly) because of it being fanciful and invalid. Again, I would never have even contacted FIRE if the UCPD had been lucid on what its practices are. I’m seeking answers. I’m not in trouble.

When the Chronicle reporter asked me if I planned any legal action against the university, I immediately gave an adamant “no” (for the record, FIRE never pursues litigation). I love my university; there are amazing, passionate students and faculty here. I only want what’s best for my university. In this case, I feel that it would be to my and fellow student’s benefit if the university would clarify the following:

1. Does the UCPD or has the UCPD at any point monitored or even perused student comments on social networking websites like Twitter or Facebook?
2. To what extent does the UCPD investigate flagged comments and what is the proper conduct of the UCPD in questioning the student who made such comment? E.g. threatening the student academically?

On a personal level, I want an explanation for the inconsistencies and some of the inquiries made by the UCPD in my case. Pertaining to the general body, I desire elucidation of university practices and conduct in respect of student privacy and individual rights.

I never thought and still do not think this incident being publicly espoused will haunt me. I honestly hope that by clarifying its policies the university will have an improved campus environment. Correspondingly, I do not seek to simply chastise the university publicly and go on cry “injustice” regarding freedom of speech so I’d get some two seconds of fame (or a day of Twitter retweets). No. This was never about that. If anything, this is only the beginning of positive steps towards reform at the university. I had heard complaints in the past from fellow students about the university’s conduct toward online content; yet, I didn’t ever give the situation a second of my time. I regret not doing so beforehand. It took a situation like this to wake me up.

Thus, I plan at the beginning of this next quarter to meet with administrators to discuss my personal case. Moreover, and more importantly, many friends who have various interests and definitely different politics would like us to meet with administrators to discuss the prospects of a student bill of rights. By the administration working with concerned students, clarifying its policies, and enacting proper reform, such could only be for the benefit of the university and serve as a testament to its commitment to open discourse and academic freedom.

State Senator James Meeks

Richard Lorenc, America’s Future Foundation Chicago Rep, sent out an email yesterday evening about the promising SB2494 legislation that would create a voucher system empowering parents and students with the ability to enroll in schools relevant for their needs regardless of socio-economic status.

Sponsored by the passionate State Senator James Meeks (D-15th District), this bill has passed committee and is up for a vote today I believe. So please call your IL state senator and strongly encourage him or her to support this exigent legislation that would be a step in the right direction in light of the continual failures of IL educational policy.

TEXT FROM EMAIL BELOW:

Dear Friends,

Moments ago, a bill that would create a pilot school voucher program for students in struggling Chicago public schools passed out of committee in the Illinois Senate. Sponsored by the Rev. Sen. James Meeks, SB 2494 empowers parents and students to enroll in schools that are better able to meet their needs. It also promises that surrounding public schools will improve, and it promises that everyone in Illinois, as taxpayers, will benefit.

This is landmark school choice policy in the making.

News from Springfield is that this legislation could get a full floor consideration within 24 hours. You can let your state senator know what you think about this critical issue.

Our friends at the Illinois Policy Institute have been active in this issue for some time and recently issued reports on the research supporting charter schools, the positive fiscal impacts of school choice legislation, and the constitutionality of voucher programs.

Watch out for an announcement of AFF’s next roundtable event coming soon!

In Liberty,

Richard Lorenc

America’s Future Foundation, Chicago

richard@americasfuture.org

The wonderful and passionate student advocacy non-profit, FIRE, has picked up an incident that happened to me at the end of last quarter.

University of Chicago: Censorship of Student’s Online Speech by University Police

CHICAGO, March 24, 2010—For the second time in two years, the University of Chicago has censored a student’s post on a private Facebook page. Undergraduate Joseph “Tex” Dozier posted a joke that he had had a dream about assassinating University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer “for a secret Israeli organization.” Mearsheimer is co-author of the controversial book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. This post prompted an investigator from the university’s police department to question Dozier about his political views, suggest that he would investigate Dozier’s comments on his university radio show, and demand that Dozier remove the post or else have the post reported to Mearsheimer, one of his professors. Dozier came to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help…

As you peruse the press release and letter from FIRE regarding my joke status update, you’ll quickly realize the ludicrous nature of this investigation and the inappropriate inquiries into my personal beliefs and actions. I was so busy with finals and already discouraged by the interruption from the UCPD that I didn’t follow-up about this until the next quarter. When I personally asked President Zimmer and VP Kim Goff Crews about the incident, they were caught off guard citing that UCPD would not take such aggressive action on its own and that the UCPD would never monitor social media websites. Still, to this day though, the UCPD won’t comment on the incident, won’t provide any insight on what its practices are, and won’t apologize for their treatment of me right during the middle of finals.

For me, after hearing similar stories from frat friends and others of incidents with the UCPD (e.g. parties posted to Facebook), I really just wanted clarification. So I sent a typed transcript of the exchange to the UCPD requesting that they respond. As I never received any acknowledgement or feedback, I then appealed the situation to FIRE. As I was also taking a course with Professor Mearsheimer (a professor I greatly admire; also encourage everyone to read Great Power Politics and The Israel Lobby), I wanted to respectfully wait to release this until after the winter quarter ended.

Regardless, hopefully by bringing this situation to light, the university that I love dearly will provide some answers, will make the proper clarifications, and correct any solecisms of policy. Student privacy and individual rights unjustly and ironically come under greater attack each day by the very institutions of higher learning that proclaim they respect open discourse and speech. Finally, I promise to never again embarrassingly misspell “paraphenalia”.

I am available for media contact; if interested, I encourage you to notify me through the contact link on my website. I will do my best to promptly respond.

Dispersed between the speakers we bring in (great success with Amb John Bolton last week btw) and activist projects we work on, the University Republicans like to have some fun in adding to the political discourse on campus. This upcoming event is a great example. I thought readers would find the event info quite amusing and so pasted the event info below.

If you’d like to support the efforts of the University Republicans, please make a check out to the University of Chicago (memo: College Republicans donation) and mail with marked attention to “College Republicans”, 5706 South University Avenue, Chicago IL 60637. Your gift in kind will be processed and you will receive a receipt from the university for tax purposes.

Be on the lookout come Monday from 12:00-1:30 on the University of Chicago Quad as YOU have a chance to become a Nobel Peace Prize recipient!

Yes, you could join the venerable ranks of activists like Henry Kissinger, Yasser Arafat, Elihu Root, Woodrow Wilson, and Mohandas Gandhi (wait, he never got it).

Feeling unsure about your credentials? Don’t worry! John Bolton was considered for the prize just because of his awe-inspiring stache. Rush Limbaugh…for sharing his drug cabinet with irascible world leaders.

The committee, which will be donning UChicago Nobel laureate “Milton Friedman Freedom” t-shirts, will be awarding deserving students with edible Nobel Peace Prizes. Though we will duly note you holding open the door to Cobb for others, we would prefer it if you would tell us how you WILL hold open the door instead of already doing it.

Other laudable, student undertakings meriting a Nobel include:
*Committing to not beating up the “That Kid” in your SOSC class next quarter.
*Having lunch with a white UCPD officer and a black UChicago professor
*Pledging to refrain from “housecest” this year in a move to stifle ever prevalent drama.
*Lobbying Robert Zimmer with an Oprah-look-a-like to bring the 2010 Rose Bowl to campus.

The students who give us the best and most amusing reasons on why they should receive a Nobel Peace Prize will be featured in a short film on YouTube.

So get the word out to all your friends!

***The UChicago Nobel Peace Prize Committee is a contingent of the University Republicans, a rag tag band of right-leaning students who advocate for individual liberty & government accountability while engaging their fellow peers with educational, political, and fun events. The committee meets every Monday at 7:00 in the Bartlett Trophy Lounge.***

Though not an economics major at UChicago (the mathematical demands scared me away), I still love reading and learning about the various schools of thought and approaches to economic research (let them do the math for me).

As much as the Austrian School has great application in policy to the recent economic downturn (see Thomas Woods’ Meltdown), the question of method still remains. Roberto Antonio Valenzuela, a dear friend of mine, posted some thoughts in a facebook note criticizing economic methods that do not utilize a priori deduction. Yes, such a critique includes the Chicago School in its condemnation; still, I love Roberto and agree with his thoughts on the purpose and method of science. He has graciously offered to share his reflection as a guest post for the blog:

Good science requires real-world testing.

A good scientific test should allow for disproof (the criterion of falsifiability) of the hypothesis (a prediction made about natural phenomena based on a given explanatory model of observed facts). Good science is composed of collected hypotheses that have withstood attempted falsification and have demonstrated superior predictive power (we call science at this stage a “scientific theory”). This is why heliocentrism triumphed over geocentrism, wave-particle dynamics triumphed over the hypothesis of luminiferous aether, relativity triumphed over the steady-state hypothesis, etc. — they explained more things better, and their rival hypotheses were falsified by improvements in technology and metrics.

Economics has not yet reached this point. There is no economic model that can yet be called a sound scientific theory, since no economic model has superior and broadly accurate predictive power. From a scientific standpoint, economics today is approximately where physics was in the days of Copernicus: several competing models — each with partial but extremely limited explanatory power — vie for ascendancy via continual refinement; but none are in a settled and clearly superior state. This is why I am an economic agnostic for the moment (see my previous rumination, “Why I Am an Economic Agnostic”).

However, the Austrian School makes no testable predictions, proposes no criteria of falsifiability, and expressly disclaims observation and experience as valid methods for refinement of its propositions (see, e.g. Human Action, 3d ed., p. 862). Because of this, Austrian “economics” is subjective philosophy, not objective science. It has more in common with Aristotle’s Physics than with Einstein and Hawking. Its a priori approach to naturalistic questions frankly descends from medieval speculations on crystal spheres and alchemy more than from the painstaking trial-and-error real-world experimentation that has given us virtually all goods associated with modern civilization.

The success of the scientific method over the philosophical method for accurate and usable knowledge about natural fact tells me that I should not rely on Austrian economics for sound economic conclusions. Rather than proclaim that the unknown in economics (or indeed, anything in nature) is unknowable, and devolve into god-of-the-gaps philosophical speculation, I prefer at least to take a stab at observing, studying, and comprehending. This is why I do not — cannot — accept the Austrian School as a viable or valuable approach to understanding human action.