Especially since this and most other institutions rely heavily on federal grants to support academic work....

The answer to your question is no. My POV on this issue is this: I am not going to be trolled by a handful of undergraduates. Their idea never had any chance of becoming policy at UCI or any UC campus.

Moreover, I think that many who are critical of UCI's handling of this controversy are falling into a trap and thereby forfeiting a gift wrapped opportunity to discuss the benefits of American nationalism with those who have differing views, especially young adults.

Judge, I think you and I have different readings of the letter quoted in post. (I agree with Richard's interpretation.) I think that the letter is poorly phrased and very badly written. I think that its writers failed to ask the basic question: Does this letter say what we think it says?

With respect, some of the public outcry suggests otherwise. The talk of the forced removal of American citizens--and worse--is not only inappropriate but serves to buttress the characterizations of American nationalism that some find controversial.

I disagree.

In the present day, terms like "Un American" are used to label politicians, policies, and persons as a means to derail debate and to demonize the opposition.

:lifter

And with that, I think this Thread has run it course.

These individuals with "differing views" are prime targets for foreign intelligence recruiting/exploitation. It hardly made news, but our campuses and universities are prime recruiting ground. If they already have that much antipathy, getting $$$ to screw America is just icing on the cake.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...-new-york-city
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investig...insider-threat

Sigaba fill in your profile. I would hate for some of those Undergrads to not understand who they are talking to.

:munchin

So you think my comments are "inappropriate". Your idea of Free Speech only applies to those that would poke the tiger and call it good fun.

And yes I'd like them to leave and never come back and given the opportunity I would force them to leave. Patriotism, nope, I just have a very low tolerance for assholes, especially assholes that influence our nations children on a daily basis. (As you yourself mentioned they are trolls, I just call them assholes)

So now it's "nationalism", one cannot be a patriot without being your version of a nationalist?

I remember a quote that has haunted me since before I joined the military, it goes like this:

"If you have nothing that you would die for, you have nothing to live for......." (Guess who said it)

I'm paraphrasing but it has made me think about things I never would have had I been economics major at Harvard.

Tell me historian, is there anything you would die for? (And yes it has much to do with the tenor of this thread.)

TS--

To answer your question, I would die for my sense of self efficacy as a person. In day to day terms, that includes not allowing a thief to take my music from me while he was pointing a gun at my face. That includes intervening in altercations in which persons are getting beaten.

In the context of this thread, it also means that I would stand with Americans who exercise their Constitutional rights--provided that their acts did not seek to subvert the rule of law or the core concepts of our founding principles.

To reiterate, I think the resolution was noisome and it never had a chance of becoming policy at UCI. I think that the students who supported the resolution are going to get an unforeseen comeuppance that they've justly earned. Yet, I vehemently oppose the notion that these students should be subjected to extrajudicial punishment or the vitriol they're getting in cyberspace.
You are putting words in my mouth that I have not said. I don't appreciate it.

At no time have I articulated a one size fits all definition of patriotism nor nationalism. Nor have I said that anyone should not be allowed to voice their objections.

I have said that certain types of comments are counter productive to achieving broader goals. Consequently, I do stand by my view that advocating the expulsion of Americans for exercising their rights is inappropriate.

In addition to the reservations that I have articulated in earlier posts in this thread, I believe that such talk invites a piecemeal approach to the Bill of Rights. In my view, such an approach is inconsistent with the best intentions of the Framers. We either have a Bill of Rights or we don't. If tomorrow we can send people away for not liking how they exercise their free speech, then next month it is okay for others to send away other Americans for how they exercise other rights.#

I will also point out that by vilifying students and academics who hold controversial POVs, those who believe that the Ivory Tower is a stronghold of the left are sacrificing an opportunity to balance things out. The initial story line was a terrible idea getting publicly thrashed by Howard Gillman (who is revered at the University of Southern California) and others at UCI. The story is now about an academic community banding together against critics of the Ivory Tower. This turn is unnecessary. This turn is against the interests of Americans who want to reform the academic community. This turn is the opposite of "divide and conquer."
_______________________________________________
#FWIW, I have friends across the political spectrum. Some on the left make the same types of comments about those on the right who exercise their 2A rights as do some on the right make about those on the left who exercise their 1A rights.

"You are putting words in my mouth that I have not said. I don't appreciate it."

"is not only inappropriate but serves to buttress the characterizations of American nationalism"

Ok, so you didn't refer to it as American nationalism...... oh but wait you did.

And as you can tell I'm having a hard time giving such morons a free pass on acting like idiots. That is how I read your words, a free pass.

At least you would stand for something (and I thought you'd give that sort of answer...) You might want to rethink jumping in just because someone is receiving a beating. I'd only jump in for a child, adults are on their own......

I am curious if all historians in the areas you mentioned above agree? Is it a majority of these type of historians, what percentage of historians agree on this versus those that do not? Or is this similar Climate Change?

Dennis Prager's take on this issue was rather interesting.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0315/prager031715.php3

It has been my own observation that what I might feel patriotic about the political left looks at as blind nationalism.
What most people on the left see as patriotism seems to me like it is little more than blind left-wing nationalism.

Liberals think it is patriotic to burn an effigy of President Bush in protest to his illegal war in Iraq...
Those same liberals would call anyone burning an effigy of the current POTUS as racist no matter the reason...

Liberals would say burring an American flag in protest was patriotic if it was done in protest to a Supreme court vote that banned gay marriage...
Those same liberals would call it a hate crime if that vote went the other way and a crowd was seen burning a rainbow pride flag...

Conservatives went nuts when Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar Assad a few years back; her patriotism was certainly called into question...
Those same conservatives are quite indignant about the 'letter of the 47' being not only a right but a duty of a patriotic senate...


For what its worth...
I am one of those folks that DOES pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Its also NOT lost on me that the author is historically described as a socialist.
...go figure, a socialist wrote the pledge of allegiance, and yet hippy liberals STILL don't want to recite it.

Dirty nasty left wing fruit cakes