NO. NEXT QUESTION? Are open inquiry and free expression still alive at Yale? I hate to admit it, but Harvard has done much, much better than Yale on this front.

WAIT, I THOUGHT THAT HAVING MORE GUNS ON THE SCENE OF A MASS SHOOTING WOULD JUST LEAD TO MORE VIOLENCE? Northeastern University Cops To Get Tactical Rifles. The story calls them both “high powered” and “tactical,” though tactical rifles are usually in a low-powered caliber like .223, while a “high powered” rifle is usually in something like .300 Win Mag or at least .308. There’s some overlap — the AR-15 in .458 SOCOM is both high-powered and tactical — but I’d be surprised if the NEU police are getting those.

“SURPRISINGLY ONE-DIMENSIONAL AS A CANDIDATE:” Don’t Ask Bernie Sanders About ISIS — And Get Off His Lawn!

IS ISLAM A “RELIGION”?: Andy McCarthy has an interesting piece discussing whether Islam is merely another religion:

Since we want to both honor religious liberty and preserve the Constitution that enshrines and protects it, we have a dilemma. The assumption that is central to this dilemma — the one that Trump has stumbled on and that Washington refuses to examine — is that Islam is merely a religion. . . . But Islam is no mere religion.

As understood by the mainstream of Muslim-majority countries that are the source of immigration to America and the West, Islam is a comprehensive ideological system that governs all human affairs, from political, economic, and military matters to interpersonal relations and even hygiene. It is beyond dispute that Islam has religious tenets — the oneness of Allah, the belief that Mohammed is the final prophet, the obligation of ritual prayer. Yet these make up only a fraction of what is overwhelmingly a political ideology.

Our constitutional principle of religious liberty is derived from the Western concept that the spiritual realm should be separate from civic and political life. The concept flows from the New Testament injunction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.

Crucially, the interpretation of Islam that is mainstream in most Muslim-majority countries does not accept a division between mosque and state. . . .

The lack of separation between spiritual and civic life is not the only problem with Islam. Sharia is counter-constitutional in its most basic elements — beginning with the elementary belief that people do not have a right to govern themselves freely. Islam, instead, requires adherence to sharia and rejection of all law that contradicts it. So we start with fundamental incompatibility, before we ever get to other aspects of sharia: its systematic discrimination against non-Muslims and women; its denial of religious liberty, free speech, economic freedom, privacy rights, due process, and protection from cruel and unusual punishments; and its endorsement of violent jihad in furtherance of protecting and expanding the territory it governs.

Let’s bear in mind that permitting immigration is a discretionary national act. There is no right to immigrate to the United States, and the United States has no obligation to accept immigrants from any country, including Muslim-majority countries. We could lawfully cut off all immigration, period, if we wanted to. Plus, it has always been a basic tenet of legal immigration to promote fidelity to the Constitution and assimilation into American society — principles to which classical sharia is antithetical. . . .

[M]any Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society. They have varying rationales for taking this position: Some believe sharia mandates that immigrants accept their host country’s laws; some believe sharia’s troublesome elements are confined to the historical time and place where they arose and are no longer applicable; some think sharia can evolve; some simply ignore sharia altogether but deem themselves devout Muslims because they remain Islamic spiritually and — within the strictures of American law — culturally.

For those Muslims, Islam is, in effect, merely a religion, and as such it deserves our Constitution’s protections.

For other Muslims, however, Islam is a political program with a religious veneer. It does not merit the liberty protections our law accords to religion. It undermines our Constitution and threatens our security. Its anti-assimilationist dictates create a breeding ground for violent jihad.

If we continue mindlessly treating Islam as if it were merely a religion, if we continue ignoring the salient differences between constitutional and sharia principles — thoughtlessly assuming these antithetical systems are compatible — we will never have a sensible immigration policy.

Exactly. How to distinguish between the “religious” and “political” Muslims is the question. But the complexity of this question shouldn’t stop our elected representatives from beginning the important task of devising policies designed to answer it.

TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 945.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Universities’ Universal Irrelevance:

Unremarked in the recent demonstrations at Princeton University demanding the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from the university’s school of public affairs is the fact that universities once played a major role in American national politics. No better example would be Wilson himself who rose from the leadership of Princeton to the governorship of New Jersey and then to the White House.

Nowadays, if universities play any role at all, it is as a foil for candidates deriding the excesses of political correctness or as objects of public indignation for the outlandish misbehavior of their athletes. In terms of political stature, the university today is not just a nullity; it is an absolute liability. . . .

Contempt for the muzzling of unpopular opinions has reached portions of the public that have had little contact with institutions of higher education. Too many campuses have become the domain of euphemism and inoffensiveness rather than vigorous debate. Most horrifying of all is when they become places of inquisition and persecution based on the contagion of hysteria, such as occurred at Duke and the University of Virginia when fabricated allegations of sexual abuse produced a purge mentality worthy of the Red Guards in Maoist China. It should be no surprise, then, that it is more profitable for politicians to revile universities than to identify with them other than, perhaps, with their football teams.

The most charitable explanation for the decline of the political potency of universities is that they are part of a more general disrepute for institutions: government, the scientific establishment and journalism to name just a few.

Yes, all our institutions have, to greater or lesser degree, fallen into the hands of idiots.

POLL: Most Americans Dislike Islam. “A majority say that they view Islam unfavorably, and even Democrats are almost twice as likely to view Islam negatively than positively. . . . 58% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam, and just over a third (35%) say that they have a ‘very unfavorable’ opinion of the religion. Only 17% of Americans view it positively. Democrats (27%) are the most likely to have a favorable opinion of Islam, but even they tend to say that they view Islam negatively.”

ACTUALLY, IT’S ALREADY HERE: James Antle on “The Coming Republican Immigration Civil War.”

“This is not conservatism.” With those four simple words, House Speaker Paul Ryan dismissed Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entry into the United States until the federal government gets terrorism committed in the name of Islam figured out.

“This is not what our party stands for,” Ryan added, “and, more importantly, it’s not what our country stands for.”

That may depend on how the party is defined. While elected Republicans have almost unanimously distanced themselves from Trump’s Muslim gambit, one poll found that nearly two-thirds of GOP voters agreed with him. Another determined that more than three-fourths believe the United States is accepting too many immigrants from the Middle East. . . .

Trump isn’t the most articulate or consistent spokesman for immigration control in the GOP. That distinction goes to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. And Trump’s Republican critics would be the first to point out he isn’t the most conservative. But his rise has fueled a family argument inside the party about how conservatives should view immigration.

Ryan’s position has a long conservative pedigree. He has followed in Jack Kemp’s intellectual footsteps. . . Restricting immigration, according to these Republicans, isn’t conservative because it requires government bureaucracies to interfere in labor markets. Immigration is like free trade and restricting it is like protectionism.

Adherents of the other immigration view tend to see America as a historic people, not an ideological abstraction. They also look at immigration as the pre-eminent national security issue. They may not go as far as Trump, but they worry less about the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria than the Islamic State in San Bernardino.

According to this side of the argument, too much immigration can also alter the political character of the host country. . . Effecting such a transformation at the national level, these Republicans argue, would frustrate just about every conservative policy objective and instead validate the thesis of hopeful progressive polemics like The Emerging Democratic Majority.

To these conservatives, current immigration policy is less like free trade than corporate welfare. . . .

Many Republicans in the Ryan/Kemp camp also purport to be national security hawks, and I believe they normally are. If there is a coming global war on radical Islam, however, increased restrictions on immigration will likely be necessary to ensure national security. So in a time of war, what is more important to “conservatives”: free trade/labor markets, or national security? It seems reasonable to assume that, to most Americans, a war necessitates that national security must trump (no pun intended), at least temporarily.

FEEL THE BERN:

PULL THE PLUG: Ed Morrissey: ObamaCare Is Now On Life Support.

LEBANON STATE COLLEGE HAS FAILED ITS STUDENTS:

It let them think that it’s smart to do dumb [expletive deleted] like this.

A Depression-era Lebanon Valley College leader with the last name Lynch has found himself thrust into the middle of a roiling 21^st-century debate on campus civil rights.

Students at the private college in Annville have demanded administrators remove or modify Dr. Clyde A. Lynch’s last name, as it appears on a campus hall, due to the associated racial connotations.

Geez, wait ’til the kids discover legendary Broadway lyricist Adolph Green and onetime representative for Chevy Chase with the William Morris Agency, Art Fuhrer.

…Or this guy, for that matter.

FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED: Wealth gap between middle-income and upper-income families reaches record high.

WELL, THAT’S AWKWARD: TRUMP’S ‘STUPID’ PLAN FOR FIGHTING ISIS ONLINE IS THE SAME AS CLINTON’S.

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Also, coupons galore in Grocery & Gourmet Food.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!

MY USA TODAY COLUMN: Liberals have chosen The Donald as their ‘Destructor;’ Weak and ineffectual leadership created the vacuum Trump is filling. And it’s not just liberals who have been weak and ineffectual and dishonest.

PUSHBACK: Professors, rights groups write letter defending student due process rights.

Professors from across the country, as well as several rights groups, have written a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee condemning the evisceration of due process rights for college students.

The letter, addressed to Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., and Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., describes the example of Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis, who earlier this year faced a Title IX investigation for writing an article condemning current campus sexual assault policies. Title IX is the federal law that bans gender discrimination and has been used in recent years to justify adjudicating sexual assault as campus disciplinary matters.

The letter points out that it was the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights that reinterpreted Title IX as an adjudication tool, and the signees believe OCR violated the Administrative Procedure Act when issuing its directive for schools to apply this.

“The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that all proposed regulations undergo a review-and-comment process to solicit public input,” the signees wrote. “Unfortunately, the OCR has repeatedly sidestepped the APA requirements by misleadingly portraying its Dear Colleague Letters as ‘guidance,’ not regulations. By definition, a guidance document consists of recommendations that are suggested, not required, and are meant only to interpret preexisting laws and regulations.”

The “guidelines,” which are currently the law of the land, “have served to frustrate congressional oversight efforts and to vitiate the principle of public accountability,” the signees wrote.

Law is for the little people.

PUNCH BACK TWICE AS HARD: Legal Insurrection obtains TRO preserving records of anti-Israel 3rd Grade event. It’s not wise to mess with Prof. Jacobson.

OVER AT MARK RIPPETOE’S STARTING STRENGTH SITE, Strength In Combat.

ROLL CALL: An Independent Candidacy Would Make Trump the Biggest Loser.

An independent presidential run by Donald Trump would sink Republican chances of winning the White House, but Trump would be the biggest loser. And if there is one thing Trump can’t afford or stomach, it’s losing.

During the wealthy businessman’s latest dustup with the GOP establishment over his proposed travel ban on all Muslims, Trump used a new USA Today/Suffolk University survey as a thinly-veiled threat.

“A new poll indicates that 68% of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the GOP & ran as an independent,” Trump posted on Facebook, which also went out on Twitter. . . .

At a minimum, Trump would virtually destroy the GOP presidential nominee’s chance of getting 270 electoral votes. Republicans don’t have enough margin to give up 6 percent of GOP voters who would normally vote for the Republican nominee, and win any of the swing states including Ohio, Florida, Colorado and Virginia. And 6 percent from the GOP nominee would put North Carolina, Arizona, Indiana, Missouri and Georgia at greater risk as well.

There is a logistical challenge of running as an independent. One expert told CNN it would take about 570,000 signatures to gain ballot access in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. But Trump can afford to spend the money necessary to pay people to gather those signatures, if he wanted to go that route, and it’s certainly possible that Trump will run as an Independent to spite the Republican Party after feeling mistreated during the primary process.

But Trump could have even more to lose than the Republican Party. Trump would be risking political bankruptcy and damage to the “winning” Trump brand.

A third-party candidacy would lead to a loss, and losing is the antithesis of who Trump says he is and often comes with a dose of humility; a character trait Trump is neither familiar with nor interested in cultivating.

After the election, would Trump call in to the networks and cable shows every day to answer questions about how and why he lost?

Also, “sore loser” laws would keep him off the ballot in many states, and if the threw the election to Hillary he’d be hated, and blamed. None of which, of course, guarantees that he won’t do it. And people worrying about Trump going third-party may be underrating the possibility that he’ll get the nomination. . . .

STALKING HORSE: Is Trump Working for Hillary?

Whatever happens next year, I doubt Trump would lose all that much sleep if she wins.

JOURNALISM: Media Jumps The Gun, Attacks Scalia For Perfectly Reasonable Question.

If you’ve been reading headlines from liberal and mainstream media alike today, you might be shocked to hear that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is apparently an overt racist. During oral arguments on an affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin, Scalia suggested that blacks simply don’t belong at elite schools. “Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at ‘Slower’ Colleges” reported Mother Jones. “Scalia: Maybe black students belong at ‘less-advanced’ schools” reported The Hill.

Most of these reports came out before the transcript was released, based on accounts of those who were in the courtroom at the time (oral arguments are never televised). But once the transcript emerged, it turned out that critics had jumped the gun. Scalia wasn’t sharing his own views, he was asking about a very serious academic critique of affirmative action that others had made.

Remember, the storyline is pre-written before anything happens.

BLUE CITY BLUES: Joel Kotkin: Los Angeles, City Of Losers.

Storper and other critics suggest that Los Angeles failed in part because it tried to maintain high-wage blue collar industries while the Bay Area focused on information and biotechnology. The problem now, however, are the factors in L.A. that drive industry away, such as ultra-high electricity prices and a high level of regulation. Even amidst the recent industrial boom in many other parts of the country, Los Angeles has continued to lose manufacturing jobs; Los Angeles’ industrial job count stands at 363,900, still the largest number in the nation, but down sharply from 900,000 just a decade ago.

This decline places L.A in a demographic dilemma. Like the Midwestern states that lured African-American to fill industrial jobs during the Great Migration, L.A. attracted a large number of largely poorly educated immigrants, mostly from Mexico and Central America. These people came for jobs in factories, logistics and home-building, but now find themselves stranded in an economy with little place for them outside low-end services.

This will end well.

CIVIL RIGHTS UPDATE: Gun advocates to stage fake mass shooting at University of Texas.

Gun rights activists plan to hold a fake mass shooting over the weekend at the University of Texas – Austin in an attempt to bring an end to gun-free zones, according to the Statesman.

“Criminals that want to do evil things and commit murder go places where people are not going to be able to stop them,” said Matthew Short, a spokesman for the guns rights groups Come and Take it Texas and DontComply.com.

“When seconds count, the cops are minutes away,” he added.
The Open Walk and Crisis Performance Event will be complete with bullhorn gunfire, fake blood and actors pretending to be victims who are shot.

Other actors will play the roles of rescuers and perpetrators, armed with cardboard weapons.

Why leave street theater to the left?

Related: Dem stands silently on House floor to protest lack of gun votes. Hey, let’s have a bunch of gun votes. Dems who aren’t, as she is, from safe seats in New England, will have some tough choices to make. . . .

AFTER JIHADIST MASS MURDER, CAIR’S SHARIA AGENDA ROLLS ON, Andrew McCarthy writes. “You may see this as Islamist audacity – even, dare we say, chutzpah. Actually, it is business as usual,” Andrew writes. “The mission of the Brotherhood, of IIIT, of CAIR, and of all Islamic supremacists is the promotion of sharia. CAIR hasn’t missed a beat.”