EUGENE VOLOKH looks at diversity, academic freedom, and the Ohio State University harassment debacle.

JONATHAN RAUCH says it’s not a war on terror, but a war on Jihadism:

Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.

But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world’s nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.

No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for “the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.” . . .

Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, “Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.” Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.

This squares pretty well with what Moussaoui was saying in court, doesn’t it? Read the whole thing.

JONAH GOLDBERG: “The week the deranged president of Iran again calls for the annihilation of Israel and once again denies the Holocaust ever happpened James Carroll draws the only logical conclusion: Bush is a lunatic and this administration is run by ‘deeply frustrated, angry, and psychologically wounded people.'”

Or maybe it’s more like the phenomenon described here?

CHRIS CILLIZZA AT THE WASHINGTON POST writes about Bill Frist’s Internet strategy.

I don’t know how it’s going over at Frist’s site, but Frist’s Avian Flu podcast with us has now been downloaded over 750,000 times, making it our number-one podcast so far. That’s about double the next contender, Claire Berlinski talking about her book on Europe. [Hey, what about a Frist-Berlinski ticket? — ed. We could do worse. And probably will. . . .]

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Newt Gingrich is warning Republicans about pork:

With the federal budget deficit at record levels, Gingrich said Americans are losing patience with “pork,” the discretionary spending earmarked to benefit local political constituencies.

“We were sent here to reform Washington, not to be co-opted by Washington,” he said.

Indeed. Meanwhile, in a battle of pork vs. the Navy, guess who wins? Trent Lott’s co-Senator, Thad Cochran (R-MS) is involved.

“WE’RE LIBERALS, but that doesn’t mean we wouldn’t nuke Iran.” I thought Duncan Black had already removed all doubt on that subject.

SCIENCE FICTION UPDATE: I’ve been reading John Barnes’ new book, The Armies of Memory, which I’m liking a lot. The reader reviews suggest that I’m not alone.

Barnes is also blogging. Among other things, he has this prediction: “In the 21st century, a civilization in which everyone can know everything, dominated by an uneasy American hegemon, is going to the stars. Check back in 2100 to see how it all went …”

THE CARNIVAL OF BLOGOSPHERE COVERAGE is up! So is the Carnival of the Capitalists, the Blawg Review, and the shipping carnival, Maritime Monday, which brings me fond memories of my 2 (yes, 2) semesters of Admiralty law. Lots more carnivals at BlogCarnival.com.

DAVID ZINCAVAGE HAS A BILL HOBBS ROUNDUP: I haven’t spoken with Bill Hobbs about his post-Belmont career plans, but I’ll venture one prediction. If this really was an effort by Democrats and liberal bloggers to “silence” Hobbs, as some on the right have claimed, it will backfire. Now that he’s no longer working at Belmont, he’s free to write about whatever he wants, as much as he wants. This is one crucial difference between bloggers and journalists: Get a columnist or reporter fired, and you might actually silence him/her. Get bloggers fired from their day jobs, and you’ve given them more time — and more reason — to go after you and yours hammer-and-tongs. And other bloggers are apt to join in. (And even if, as I suspect, Hobbs was just “collateral damage,” I think the point still holds).

I’ve also written before about the opportunities for individuals to go into political coverage — especially statehouse coverage — and outperform the kind of coverage that local media generally provide. I think there’s an opportunity for Bill there, if he chooses to pursue it.

At any rate, I think that it’s really Belmont University that’s to blame, more than Mike Kopp or the folks at the Scene. Belmont, after hiring a prolific blogger whose views were well-known, let him go over blogging those views. This despite Belmont’s apparent intent of embracing, and profiting by, the blogosphere. As I noted before, Belmont has thus squandered its efforts, since it’s now in a worse position than before. Where it used to be a nonentity to the blogosphere, now it’s regarded unfavorably. Hugh Hewitt seems to agree.

UPDATE: Michael Silence of the Knoxville News-Sentinel has posted a roundup that seems to support my point.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Craig Henry wonders if The New York Times will get involved. And Smantix comments: “This must be that fascist Amerikkka I keep hearing about.”

DON BOUDREAUX defends free trade. We need more of this sort of affirmative defense, as opposed to merely snarking at Lou Dobbs. Yes, Dobbs is snarkable, but he’s making an argument. Free traders need to respond. (Though on immigration, I note that the issue is more political than economic, really. See this post by PoliPundit for an example of what I mean.)

HAO WU UPDATE: Chinese blogger Hao Wu has been in prison since February 22. There’s a letter-writing campaign on his behalf, and a petition aimed at Hu Jintao. And here’s the background on his case.

The webpage for the Chinese Embassy in the United States is here.

I’VE PAID NO ATTENTION to the Burkle/Stern affair, but Mickey Kaus is all over it. So is Gawker. They’ve got everything except a reason why I should care!

YALE TALIBAN UPDATE:

Yale now doesn’t even attempt to claim that Mr. Hashemi has changed. In conversations with donors, president Richard Levin has fallen back on two arguments: that Mr. Hashemi currently is a nondegree student, and that the State Department issued him a visa. But Mr. Hashemi’s application to become a sophomore in Yale’s full degree program, the same type of program that Mr. Farivar graduated from at Harvard, is pending before Mr. Levin. That makes his continued presence at Yale especially relevant as Yale’s Board of Governors, the body that supposedly runs the university, prepares to meet this week.
Many in the Yale community are appalled at the damage university officials have caused by their failure to address the Hashemi issue after seven weeks of controversy. “That silence has provoked bewilderment and anger among many,” David Cameron, a Yale political science professor wrote The Wall Street Journal last week. “Yale appears to have no convincing response to those who ask why, given the nature of the Taliban regime, his role in it, its complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and his apparent failure or refusal to disavow the regime, Mr. Hashemi has been allowed to study at the university.”

Even some who defend the right of Yale to make its own admissions decisions now say it went too far with its Taliban Man. Mark Oppenheimer, a Yale grad who edits the New Haven Advocate, an alternative weekly, says he has “finally come to the conclusion” that “Yale should not have enrolled someone who helped lead a regime that destroyed religious icons, executed adulterers and didn’t let women learn to read. Surely, the spot could have better gone to, say, Afghani women, who have such difficulty getting schooling in their own country.”

Read the whole thing. Plus, a related article from the Yale Daily News:

Former Taliban diplomat Rahmatullah Hashemi’s presence as a non-degree special student at Yale has put pressure on administrators to expedite ongoing efforts to clarify the difference between the Non-Degree Students Program and the degree-granting Eli Whitney Students Program.

If Hashemi intends to gain degree status next year — as he told the News in February he would seek to do — his application to the Whitney Program must be received by the May 1 deadline. Some students within the degree program have questioned in internal e-mail messages whether Hashemi’s background merits his acceptance, and Assistant Dean William Whobrey, who oversees both the Non-Degree and Whitney programs, said that, pending approval, next year’s Yale College Programs of Study will attempt to clarify the distinctions between the two.

This really represented an appalling lapse of judgment on Yale’s part.

ARTHUR CHRENKOFF MAY BE GONE, but Bill Crawford has a roundup of under-reported news from Iraq.