text:
Industrial Coffee Table

Antique Coffee Table
  • Antique Coffee Table
  • Antique Coffee Table
  • Antique Coffee Table
  • Antique Coffee Table
  • Antique Coffee Table
  • Antique Coffee Table
  • Antique Coffee Table

Antique Coffee Table

With aesthetics and functionality gathered into this sofa table, it pairs with earthy minimalist, modern glam, or industrial-inspired interiors. Is your sofa ready for a sidekick?
SKU: ULCT61X | ( 50 Reviews ) Free Shipping

Customer & Reviews

4.9 | 50 Reviews
  • Ana Martinez
    Perfect for small spaces I loveese this console table! Just like the picture....View more
  • Ryn Anders
    Great deal I am delighted to say that this product is exactly what I expected. The wood is attractive, the legs level and stable, no unattractive defects on the product at all and the lower metal grating shelf is completely functional to support elements that would scratch the wooden top. I needed a place to put plants that I am bringing in from outside - for the winter. I am now able to to set them next to a sunny window to keep them happy until spring rolls around again. This is perfect! And it is wide enough to hold many more, as you can well see from the photo I have attached. Although I am using it in a utilitarian fashion, I find that it is attractive enough to put into a home office, kitchen, or in any room that targets that industrial and natural combo luck. ....View more
  • Virgil L. Cooper
    Worth it I love it. Not happy the seller raised the price right after.. as I was considering buying one more. Otherwise very great purchase. I have also ordered the bench. I used a power drill to assemble, SUPER fast and EASY...View more
  • Graeme Glasgow
    Perfect for a coffee bar I use this table as a coffee bar in our dining room. I also use it to hold my InstantPot and a slow cooker. Has so much room to store everything that i need it to hold. I have a Keurig, Keurig K-cup drawer, and a few of my protein powders I put in my coffee in place of creamer. Table is sturdy and looks as if I paid 3X as much as it actually does cost. Husband offered to put it together but told him I wanted to do it. I was able to have it put together in under 10 minutes all by myself! I was even able to carry it from our family room into the dining room with no assistance ( I weigh less than 130lbs and just over 5 ft 2). Definitely recommend this table for whatever your needs may be!...View more
  • Christopher C.
    Excellent Sofa Table, Side Table, or Entry Table I purchased this table to use for a couple of accent lamps in my living room because I otherwise had very little light in the room. It works perfectly! The table was extremely to set up. All the pieces are clearly labeled, and the tool provided is okay, but if one has a battery-operated screwdriver the process is much faster. I set up the accent table in about ten minutes without any assistance and very pleased with its sturdiness, look, and suitability for the purpose intended. I would recommend it to anyone who is looking for a very sturdy table on which to place lamps, books, or other things that need to be out of the way yet functional....View more

You May Also Like

Please sign in for a faster check out.
Sign In Forgot your password?
  • Sign In With Google


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Sophie FlEur Beauty

My name is Sophie Fleur.

Growing up I always had a passion for Makeup and Beauty. Now, it is my pleasure to be able to share this with others whilst fulfilling my dream job as a freelance Makeup Artist.

I am mainly based in Loughton (Essex) and travel across the UK and internationally.

My personal approach to makeup is to enhance the features that my clients already have. I like to get to know my clients by asking them about their usual makeup routines. I think this is vital for achieving each persons desired look because it is so important to feel comfortable as well as confident. I would love to work with you to discover your own unique style for any occasion.

My makeup services range from weddings, special occasions (eg. Formal, engagement parties, birthdays, graduation), along with fashion/editorial shoots and film.

I have an extensive makeup collection that I use on my clients. From premium brands to high street brands, such as: HUDA, Becca, MAC, NARS, Charlotte Tilbury, Illamasqua, Bobbi Brown, Anastasia of Beverly Hills, Laura Mercier, Chanel, Rimmel, L'Oréal and many more.

As well as a Make-up Artist, I am also qualified in hair styling and I am a professional eyelash technician.

Makeup Masterclass by Melissa Sophia (Nov 18)

Makeup Masterclass by Mia Connor (Oct 18)

Lash & Brow Design (Includes Threading) – The Nail & Beauty Training Academy (Mar 2018)

Makeup Masterclass by Mario Dedivanovic (Mar 2017)

Hair Styling and Blow-dry Trained - Daniel Hersheson (Sep 2016)

Eyelash Technician - Eyelash Emporium (May 2016)

Makeup Artist - London College of Fashion (Mar 2016)

Certified Member of the Guild of Beauty Therapists (Fully insured - Since Mar 2016)

Thank you for taking the time to visit my website. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me!

Sophie Fleur x

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-216.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
Japanese Sotai Alignment Therapy in Vancouver BC Canada

Practitioner Profile

Koshi Ozaki

Koshi Ozaki
Sotai Practitioner
Registered Japanese Judo-seifukushi
(National registration #37617)

International NES Practitioner
★Please search me by Practitioner Locator in Vancouver, BC, CANADA

Having practiced Sotai for over 20 years, Ozaki's first experience with the Sotai method goes back early to his teens. He spent his boyhood in and out of hospital struggling with an obstinate disease, and eventually was given up by his western doctors. However, his mother's desperate search for an effective remedy for her son, led him to the fateful encounter with the Sotai method, which miraculously saved his life.

By the time he decided to become a Sotai practitioner in his thirties, his mother was already well known as a Sotai practitioner in Japan. In order to deepen his understanding of the Sotai method, he has also studied other techniques including Cranio-sacral treatment, Mitsuva technique, Shaolin qi-gong, as well as other various alternative healing methods available in Japan.He worked as the assistant director at his mother's Sotai clinic in Iwate prefecture in Japan until he came over to Vancouver in April 2002. Having fallen in love with the local people and its nature, he made a decision to open his own Sotai clinic in Vancouver. His dream is to raise an awareness about Sotai as a great way for people to enhance their own natural healing power.

Tseng Lihsia

Lihsia Tseng R.Ac.
BC Registered Acupuncturist
(License #FA02351)
TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) Herbalist
Bioenergetic Therapist
Nutritional Adviser

After her experience in the airline industry for more than a decade, Lihsia left her much familiar industry to become a natural therapist.
This decision was made after her full recovery by the natural remedies, from her long-standing atopic eczema since her childhood.
She became fascinated by the natural medicine and decided to study the traditional Chinese medicine including acupuncture and herbology.
During her TCM years, she encountered the Sotai therapy introduced by Koshi Ozaki who was then planning to launch his clinic in Vancouver.
Whilst learning the Sotai method from Ozaki, she helped him with the startup of Sotai Canada as his assistant.
In pursuit of her profound understanding in the natural therapy, she further studied the vibrational medicine, homeopathy, Reiki, and cranio-sacral therapy.
She believes she can help people who wish to heal by natural therapies because she too once was a suffering patient who has regained her health by natural ways.

powered by HAIK 7.3.0
based on PukiWiki 1.4.7 License is GPL. HAIK

最新の更新 RSS  Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
Mouth taped shut - No free speech
© Truth Revolt

Executive Summary

Over the past several years, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has received an increasing number of reports that colleges and universities are inviting students to anonymously report offensive, yet constitutionally protected, speech to administrators and law enforcement through so-called "Bias Response Teams." These teams monitor and investigate student and faculty speech, directing the attention of law enforcement and student conduct administrators towards the expression of students and faculty members.

To better understand this phenomenon, FIRE gathered data throughout 2016 on every bias reporting system we could locate. FIRE sought to determine who reviews the reports, what categories of bias they are charged with addressing, and whether the institution acknowledges that the system generates a tension with free speech and academic freedom.

FIRE discovered and surveyed 232 Bias Response Teams at public and private institutions during 2016. The expression of at least 2.84 million American students is subject to review by Bias Response Teams. While most students in higher education do not yet appear to be subject to bias reporting systems, we believe that the number of Bias Response Teams is growing rapidly.

The composition of Bias Response Teams is not always made public. About 28% did not reveal the names or rules of any team members. Of those whose membership FIRE could ascertain:
  • 42% report speech to members of law enforcement or campus security officers, even though the teams deliberately solicit reports of a wide variety of non-criminal speech and activity.
  • 12% of teams include at least one administrator dedicated to media relations, suggesting that part of the purpose of such teams is to deter and respond to controversies that might embarrass the institution.
  • Fewer than a third of teams included faculty members, whose absence diminishes the likelihood that the team will have a meaningful understanding of academic freedom.
Teams tend to cast a wide net when defining "bias." Almost all use categories widely found in discrimination statutes (race, sex, sexual orientation, etc.), while others investigate bias against obscure categories, such as "smoker status," "shape," and "intellectual perspective." A significant minority include political affiliation or speech as a potential bias, inviting reports of and investigations into political speech by law enforcement and student conduct administrators.

In responding to reports regarding this wide array of protected expression, administrators are frequently armed with vague or overly broad rules granting them leeway to impose sanctions for speech they dislike. In December 2016, FIRE found that some 92.4% of the 449 schools surveyed for our annual speech code report maintain policies that either clearly and substantially restrict speech, or can otherwise be interpreted to punish protected speech. At such schools, a Bias Response Team's practice of broadly defining and identifying "bias" may expose a wide range of protected speech to punishment. Even where schools purport only to provide "education" to the offending speaker, instead of formal punitive sanctions (such as suspension or expulsion), this response is often undertaken by student conduct administrators, not educators, and more closely resembles a reprimand.

There is an unavoidable tension between promoting free speech and academic freedom and working to combat the presence of "bias" (however defined) on campus. Yet only 85 (50.9%) of the teams surveyed acknowledged a tension with freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, or academic freedom on their websites or in their policies.

FIRE also used public records requests to discover the reports made at some institutions, how the schools responded to those reports, and the teams' policies and training. Many institutions complied with these requests. Others stonewalled, hid records, deleted websites, or demanded thousands of dollars to view records, claiming that knowing how Bias Response Teams operate is not in the public interest.

Further, how universities respond to bias reports may expose them to First Amendment lawsuits. Individual team members risk being held personally liable for violating constitutional rights in some circumstances. They may not even be aware of where the lines are drawn. FIRE found little evidence that Bias Response Teams are trained on First Amendment issues.

Bias Response Teams, when armed with open-ended definitions of "bias," staffed by law enforcement and student conduct administrators, and left without training on freedom of expression, represent an emerging risk to free and open discourse on campus and in the classroom. Bias Response Teams create—indeed, they are intended to create—a chilling effect on campus expression. Even if a Bias Response Team does not have the power to take punitive action, the prospect of an official investigation may make students and faculty more cautious about what opinions they dare to express.

Beyond First Amendment concerns, encouraging students and faculty to anonymously report one another to administrators for subversive or offensive views is illiberal, and antithetical to a campus open to the free exchange of ideas. While universities should certainly be listening to their students and offering resources to those who encounter meaningful difficulties in their lives on campus, the posture taken by many Bias Response Teams is all too likely to create profound risks to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and academic freedom on campus.

What is a bias reporting system?

In order to distinguish bias reporting systems from other speech codes, and to identify systems that may not be explicitly identified as a "bias reporting" system,1 FIRE applied a three-part definition. Where it was unclear whether a particular element was met, we used our best judgment. Links to the websites of all Bias Response Teams are provided in Appendix B so that the reader may form his or her own opinion.

FIRE defines a bias reporting system as any system identified as such, or that provides:
  1. a formal or explicit process for or solicitation of
  2. reports from students, faculty, staff, or the community
  3. concerning offensive conduct or speech that is protected by the First Amendment or principles of expressive or academic freedom.
Under FIRE's definition, a school policy or reporting system limited to criminal offenses involving hate or bias does not constitute a bias reporting system.

Locating and Observing Bias Reporting Systems

FIRE relied on a number of methods to locate bias reporting systems, including mining schools' websites for information, using tools to monitor websites for changes, and issuing public records requests to collect additional information.

We first gathered state-by-state lists of public and private institutions on Wikipedia, as well as in FIRE's own Spotlight database,2 to identify leading institutions in the United States. We then reviewed each school's website and Google presence, searching for references to bias reporting systems. To locate other systems, we searched for reporting forms provided by Maxient and other companies known to host reporting forms. The location process also utilized Google alerts and media reports concerning bias reporting systems.

Once the institutions were identified, FIRE monitored each Bias Response Team page for changes in text—a practice we will continue in order to observe whether, or how, institutions change their systems over time.3

FIRE also reviewed the public-facing websites of reporting systems to identify relevant policies, definitions, forms, and other information. We recorded the definitions of "bias" in both policies and reporting forms, which often differed from one another, to determine the categories of bias defined by each institution.

Finally, we utilized public records requests at some institutions to uncover the types of reports being made and how the Bias Response Teams acted in response to each submission.

A Note About Limitations

This survey documents how Bias Response Teams operate and who serves on them. Given the number of higher education institutions in the United States, this survey was not intended to identify the rate at which institutions have adopted such systems.

Bias Reporting Systems Are Widespread

During the course of 2016, at least 232 Bias Response Teams were publicized on American university or college campuses. 143 are at public institutions and 89 are at private institutions.4 At least 2.84 million students are enrolled in these schools.

Of the 471 institutions catalogued in FIRE's Spotlight database, 182 (or 38.6%) maintain bias reporting systems. The committees that administer these systems are known by a variety of names, usually a variation on "Bias Response Team." Some schools do not provide an independent "team," instead channeling reports directly to existing offices or departments, including law enforcement or security, human resources departments, or campus housing authorities.

Casting a wide net: What Categories Of "Bias" Are Reported?

Immutable Characteristics and Other Categories of Bias

The most common categories of bias reports solicited5come from federal and state laws governing educational and employment discrimination. Every system surveyed invites reports of bias concerning race or religion, and most invite reports concerning sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, and so on. Some are unusual, such as bias against "behavior" (Macalester College), which appears to define criticism of behavior of any kind as "bias."

Political and Social Beliefs

Some systems define "bias incidents" to include expressions of bias against political and social affiliations. 15% of institutions include "political affiliation" among their categories of bias. Still others include bias against similar categories such as "intellectual perspective" (University of Central Arkansas), "political expression" (Dartmouth), or "political belief" (University of Kentucky). It is critical to note that by soliciting reports of speech that is biased against political views, universities are expressly requesting that their students report one another to the authorities for expressing divergent political views.

Definitions of "Bias Incidents" Broadly Encompass Speech

Bias reporting systems raise free speech concerns because they solicit reports of legal, protected speech and expression in addition to unprotected conduct such as actionable discrimination or harassment. The definitions often explicitly state that students should report speech protected by the First Amendment.

Many policies include catch-all categories of bias—e.g., "other" biases. In such cases, the definition of a bias incident encompasses not only protected speech, but also any speech that offends anyone for any reason. The net effect is that broad definitions of "bias" invite reports of any offensive speech, whether or not it is tethered to a discernable form of bias, thereby inviting scrutiny of student activists, organizations, and faculty engaged in political advocacy, debate, or academic inquiry. For examples of reported political expression, see the Discussion section by clicking here.

Who's on a Bias Response Team? Often, Law Enforcement

FIRE was unable to determine the makeup of every Bias Response Team. Of the 167 teams whose composition FIRE could determine, almost half include law enforcement ("speech police," in a quite literal sense) and more than half include what appear to be student conduct administrators. Only 27% include faculty members, reducing the likelihood that a Bias Response Team will have members likely to recognize issues of academic freedom. And 12% contain public relations administrators, raising the possibility that a team's decisions, including about whether to seek discipline for those displaying "bias," may be made on the basis of an institution's desire to avoid public embarrassment. Both common sense and FIRE's extensive experience suggest that public and donor relations can be significant factors driving universities' decisions.
College bias response teams
Acknowledging A Tension With Freedom of Expression And Academic Freedom, But Providing Little (if any) Training

85 institutions (50.9%) acknowledged freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, or academic freedom in the descriptions or policies of their Bias Response Teams. Of these, 50 are public and 35 are private.

However, despite professing a dedication to free expression and academic freedom, few schools provide meaningful training to Bias Response Teams on recognizing these issues. Public records requests issued to dozens of schools have revealed only one Bias Response Team, at Louisiana State University, that offered any substantial training whatsoever on First Amendment concerns.

Why Do Bias Response Teams Exist?

University administrators receive many complaints about criminal conduct on campus. They also learn of students who encounter "offensive" but legally protected speech or expression.8 A proper response to these incidents would involve prompt, fair, and impartial discipline for instances of physical misconduct, true threats, and harassment, while fostering an environment in which offensive speech would be answered with more speech.

Campuses with Bias Response Teams have chosen to go further, often deploying administrators to conduct an "investigation" of the incident and, if the "respondent" is found "guilty," summon them for a "hearing" or an "educational" discussion, which may more closely resemble a reprimand than an enlightening exchange of views.

Such procedures risk becoming tools not only for imposing some form of political or intellectual orthodoxy, but also for policing politeness or civility.9 They invite law-enforcement authorities and administrators, who are likely to be wary of expression that can cause conflict of any kind, to scrutinize activism, debate, and political speech regarding every ideology and viewpoint. Yet the essential elements of free discourse, whether on campus or off, require that people have right to offend or to cause conflict through speech.10

Other factors may also contribute to a university's decision to implement a Bias Response Team, such as:
  • Inability to implement speech codes. FIRE has seen a continuous, nine-year decline in the maintenance of speech codes that prohibit speech11, and courts routinely strike down speech codes at public universities on First Amendment grounds.12 In fact, some bias reporting systems, such as Longwood University's, have cited the unconstitutionality of speech codes as a reason for their existence.13
  • The low cost of expanding employment-based anti-discrimination systems. A university cannot function as a true "marketplace of ideas" if campus expression is as highly regulated as expression among employees in business corporations. Borrowing well-developed and widely available corporate procedures is a tempting shortcut. For as little as $8,600, schools can create reporting forms derived from existing systems used by employers to permit employees to report employment-based sexual harassment.14 But using the tools of corporate anti-discrimination systems—perhaps even those used internally among their own employees—to solicit bias reports from and about the larger campus community sets colleges on a collision course with free discourse.
  • Avoiding public controversy. By learning of events and disputes quickly, public and media relations administrators can attempt to frame the institution's response in the media. At the University of New Mexico, for example, administrators pushed to release a statement "rather than waiting for the media to get ahold of" flyers criticizing UNM's logo (which involves a conquistador) that were reported to the Bias Response Team.15 Some 12% of Bias Response Teams include media relations administrators.
  • Student demand. Certain student groups have called upon administrators to implement bias reporting systems.16 But this seems to be relatively rare: Of the various recent demands from students across the country, few have involved requests for reporting systems,17 and one institution's audit suggested that students are unfamiliar with the term "bias incident."18
Whatever their motivations, universities implementing Bias Response Teams have cast a wide net, inviting reports of any offensive speech, on virtually any topic, for any reason. The result is that speech on political and social subjects, which is likely (and may be intended) to offend, gets reported to law enforcement and student conduct administrators, and bias reporting systems serve to "alert administrators to specific individuals ... who would benefit most from diversity inclusion training."19 This institutionalizes surveillance of activists of all political persuasions, exposes universities (and their administrators) to the prospect of costly First Amendment claims, and encourages an illiberal culture of anonymously reporting students or faculty for subversive or offensive speech—on hundreds of campuses across the country.

Bias response Teams Are Found on Hundreds of American College Campuses

In early 2016, when Appalachian State University explored a proposal to create a Bias Response Team, administrators wanted to see what other schools were doing. They didn't have to look far; one said she was "hard pressed to find a school without" a Bias Response Team.20 Boston College's student government described them as "ubiquitous."21

To a certain extent, FIRE found this to be true. According to publicly available records, there were at least 232 Bias Response Teams publicized by four-year or post-graduate institutions during 2016. Of these, 143 were at public institutions, all of which are bound by the First Amendment, while 89 were at private institutions, most of which advertise or commit to respecting students' freedom of expression and freedom of academic inquiry in official policy. At a conservative estimate,22 at least 2.84 million American students are subject to often-anonymous reporting systems monitored by administrators and police officers.23 But while Bias Response Teams are in use at hundreds of institutions, and appear to be growing in number, it does not appear that they can yet be found on a majority of campuses.

The names and acronyms used for bias reporting systems vary from campus to campus. The University of Oregon's team is currently known as the "Bias Education and Response Team,"24and the University of North Carolina at Asheville's team is the "Bias Incident Response Team."25 While most team names appear to include some variation on "Bias Response Team," some do not. Arizona State University previously hosted a "Campus Environment Team,"26 and Illinois State University currently utilizes an "Inclusive Community Response Team."27 The University of Central Florida's "Just Knights Response Team" reflects the name of its athletic teams.28 And some institutions do not have a separate team for bias reports, instead relying on existing offices or departments. Some direct reports to police departments,29 various deans30 or human resources offices,31 or housing authorities.32

To better understand these report-and-response systems, and to distinguish them from other types of speech codes, FIRE views "Bias Response Teams" as identified as such or generally adhering to three criteria:
  1. a formal or explicit process for or solicitation of
  2. reports from students, faculty, staff, or the community
  3. concerning offensive conduct or speech that is protected by the First Amendment or principles of expressive or academic freedom.33
These criteria are designed to include systems that invite reports of protected speech without specifically labeling it as "bias," while distinguishing speech codes unaccompanied by formal or explicit policies for reporting such incidents.

Casting a Wide Net for Bias Incidents

What constitutes a "bias incident" varies widely from campus to campus. As the University of West Florida puts it, defining the term "seem[s] like a murky ground to traverse."34

Even the use of the term "bias incident" engenders debate and confusion. In a February 2015 audit of Colgate University's bias reporting system, a campus committee reported that, although the sample size was small, no student was aware that they could file bias reports online, most had never heard the phrase "bias incident" before, and the majority had "incorrect interpretations" about its meaning.35

Broad applications of the term can diminish serious misconduct by equating political squabbles and caustic speech with violent criminal conduct. For example, The New York Times was widely and credibly criticized36 for an article37 noting that "[b]ias incidents on both sides have been reported" at the University of Michigan, with one student alleging38 that she had been "threatened with being lit on fire because she wore a hijab." The article continued: "Other students were accused of being racist for supporting Mr. Trump ... ."39

Such political criticism can hardly be placed under the same umbrella as true threats of violence. Yet this is precisely what many bias reporting systems do. Schools largely define bias incidents to encompass more than hate crimes or actionable conduct. Hate crimes—criminal conduct undertaken on the basis of a protected characteristic of the victim, which is not protected by the First Amendment40—are always bias incidents. "Bias incidents," however, include speech or expressive conduct that is not necessarily criminal or in violation of applicable policy.

Take, for example, the University of Northern Iowa's definition:41
A bias-related incident is any word or action directed toward an individual or group based upon actual or perceived identity characteristics or background of a group or person that is harmful or hurtful. Some bias-related incidents may be contrary to law or policy, while some may be speech protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
Western Washington University's definition extends to "demonstrations" of bias, including "language, words, signs, symbols, threats, or actions that could potentially cause alarm, anger, or fear in others[.]"42 Moreover, the existence of a bias incident under the policy turns entirely on whether the complainant subjectively perceived the incident to be motivated by bias, rather than on the intent of the speaker.43

In targeting speech that may cause "alarm, anger, or fear," or that might otherwise offend on the basis of a proscribed subject, universities expressly set their sights on constitutionally protected speech. All speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment unless it falls within certain narrow exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court: incitement to immediate violence; so-called "fighting words"; harassment44; true threats and intimidation; obscenity; child pornography; and defamation. Speech is not unprotected simply because it is offensive,45 insulting,46 causes anger,47 or is viewed as prejudiced or as "hate speech."48 If the speech in question does not fall within one of the listed exceptions, it most likely is protected speech.49

Most reporting systems are predicated on specific, enumerated characteristics. Of the systems identified by FIRE, 200 (or 86%) explicitly set forth these characteristics. Among them, the categories vary widely on different campuses. Each of these teams solicits reports about bias against race or religion, and all but one explicitly solicit reports about disability or sexual orientation.50 There is less agreement on more specific categories. For example, while 94.5% seek reports of bias based on national origin or nationality, only 14.5% explicitly seek reports of bias against immigration or citizenship status.

Some categories of "bias" are peculiar. For example, the University of Kentucky permits reports of bias against "smoker status,"51 perhaps as a result of borrowing language from a state law concerning employment discrimination against tobacco users.52

There is also significant divergence when it comes to reporting bias based on political affiliation, views, or conduct. Worryingly, 21% of public institutions seek out reports of bias on the basis of political affiliation, as opposed to 2.6% of private institutions. Among them, concerns regarding bias against political and social views vary:
Other Systems Invite Reports of Even Broader Ranges of Criticism and Discussion:
Some of these examples are likely the result of definitions borrowed from state employment discrimination statutes. Yet asking students to report one another for broadly defined bias against their voluntary political or social affiliation invites surveillance of and intrusion into political speech, subjecting it to the scrutiny of administrators and police.

examples of reported incidents: caught in a wide net, universities entangle themselves into refereeing political speech

It is not mere speculation that core political speech, academic discourse, and outspoken activists are likely to become the subjects of bias incident reports. FIRE used public records requests, reviewed similar requests by media outlets, and examined the sparse public disclosures by Bias Response Teams to discern what gets reported.

The reports we reviewed, which often fail to disclose what action (if any) was undertaken in response, span the ideological spectrum:
  • Appalachian State University: A student filed a report regarding the 2016 presidential election, claiming to be "offended by the politically biased slander that is chalked up everywhere reading 'TRUMP IS A RACIST'" and describing the "slander" as "unlawful." Another report stated that supporters of then-candidate Bernie Sanders were "destroying" messages chalked by Trump supporters by drawing penises next to them. Yet another report complained that a pro-Trump student organization was using chalk to write "hate speech" in support of Trump.61

    Another series of reports was filed against a student activist on several grounds: tweeting that she "hate[s] white men"; "refus[ing] to support all students if a student fits the certain stereotype of a white male"; "display[ing] disturbing apathy [and] ignorance and bitterness"; and "express[ing] profound disregard for the lives of students based on race and gender and for [police] officers based on their careers."62
  • Texas Tech University: The Black Student Union (BSU) was reported to administrators for tweeting "All lives don't matter... White lives don't matter... Blue lives don't matter... #BlackLivesMatter." The complainant wanted the BSU characterized as a "Hate Group" and complained that the student chapter of the College Democrats planned to release a statement in support of BSU.63
  • University of California, San Diego (UCSD): A student humor publication, The Koala, lost its student funding after satirizing "safe spaces" on campus.64 Spurred by bias incident reports, specifically one calling on UCSD to "stop funding" The Koala, administrators asked the university's lawyer to "think creatively" about how to address the newspaper, which they felt "crosse[d] the 'free speech' line."65 It didn't, and The Koala is suing UCSD with the assistance of the ACLU of Southern California.66
  • John Carroll University: A summary report recounted that an "[a]nonymous student reported that [the] African-American Alliance's student protest was making white students feel uncomfortable."67
  • University of Northern Colorado (UNC): Two professors were investigated for encouraging students to debate gay and transgender rights in class—including one professor who was responding to a student's comments on the issue and encouraging his students to confront arguments they find uncomfortable.68 Other reports indicated that students were ordered to remove a Confederate flag from their dormitory room because it might offend someone.69 These disclosures spurred letters of inquiry from two state senators,70 a condemnation from the Denver Post editorial board,71 and concessions from a UNC administrator that the Bias Response Team's efforts may have been improper in some cases.72 UNC subsequently shuttered its Bias Response Team.73
  • University of Oregon: The Bias Response Team intervened to explain "community standards and expectations" when students had the audacity to "express[] anger about oppression."74 In a separate incident, the Bias Response Team intervened with the reporter and editor of a student newspaper after an anonymous report that the "newspaper gave less press coverage to trans students and students of color."75
  • University of Michigan: A snow sculpture perceived to be a "snow penis" was reported.76
  • Connecticut College: Pro-Palestinian students were reported over flyers mimicking Israeli eviction notices to Palestinians, sparking an investigation by a dean.77 The college's response led to students occupying the president's office, inquiring "about the differential treatment of alleged bias incidents on campus, particularly why some bias incidents warrant all-campus communications and administrative actions while others do not."78
  • Colby College: Logs of bias incident reports—which are now hidden from public view79—show one student reported for claiming that a student group was racist against white people, while another was reported for using the phrase "on the other hand," which was perceived as ableist.80
  • University of New Mexico (UNM): A student member of the College Republicans was reported and investigated by the office of the dean of students for criticizing a student and her organization by name81 during a public debate over whether UNM should cut ties with Chick-fil-A.8
  • Cornell University: A professor was reported for speaking at a rally as a private citizen and referring to police as "terrorists." The complaint was referred to human resources administrators, who discussed freedom of speech policies with the complainant.83

    In a separate instance, an anonymous person reported the student government for participating in efforts to encourage Cornell to become a sanctuary campus.84
  • Ohio State University: A group of students was reported for sharing memes comparing Hillary Clinton to Adolf Hitler in a "political discussion," resulting in a housing employee holding a "mandatory floor meeting about triggering events."85

    Another student called upon administrators to compel the College Democrats to allow anyone to attend their meetings after the Democrats had asked the student to leave, believing him to be a member of the College Republicans sent to observe the meeting.86

    Yet another student reported a chalk message stating "Build the Wall," which the student wanted "erased"; the student also requested "a clear message from the university that this type of hate speech will not be allowed."87

    (OSU's police chief, in an article posted on OSU's Bias Assessment and Response Team's website, recommends that students who are "verbally insulted or confronted by someone with whom you strongly disagree" should "not engage in debate.")88
  • University of Texas at Austin:89 The Campus Climate Response Team (CCRT) fielded dozens of reports about a conservative student group's protest of affirmative action in the form of an "affirmative action bake sale."90 94% of the reports sought disciplinary action. Administrators met with the student group following the reports and acknowledged in an open letter that it was the student group's "right to" engage in the protest.91 The CCRT's annual report also disclosed that "[f]aculty and student commentary in the classroom perceived as derogatory and insensitive" was an example of the "types of incidents" reported to the CCRT.92
  • University of Wisconsin—Platteville: Documents acquired by Heat Street showed that students were reported for dressing up as the "Three Blind Mice" for Halloween, which the complainant feared might offend others who might believe the costumes were making fun of disabilities.93
  • Case Western Reserve University (CWRU): A professor was reported for a writing assignment that challenged students to "[w]rite about a gay child being kicked out of their house, and make the audience feel sorry for the person kicking them out."94Another CWRU professor was reported because, among other things, students were "required to read plays with racist depictions of First Nations people."95

    A third CWRU professor was reported for asking students who were neither citizens nor permanent residents to raise their hands, then pointing out that they could be sued anywhere.96 This appears to have been an exercise in explaining residency and venue during a law school course on civil procedure.97

    There is no public indication as to whether CWRU intervened in any of these cases.
  • To be sure, Bias Response Teams also field a number of reports of conduct not protected by the First Amendment. For example, many reports involve vandalism, assault, or true threats motivated by bias. These, however, are acts that may be reported to existing resources, such as student conduct administrators or police departments. Schools could also invite students to report unlawful conduct using online reporting systems, or even to a team set aside to address unlawful conduct motivated by bias. But schools are implementing broad definitions of "bias" to expressly invite reports of protected speech, including a broad range of political speech, and they often do so without any training on First Amendment rights.

    Who Scrutinizes the Speech? Police, Conduct Administrators, and Media Relations Staff

    Having cast a wide net, who reviews the reported speech? Bias Response Teams are often populated by police and student conduct administrators. They also include, to a lesser extent, media relations administrators, faculty members, and students.

    Some institutions, including the University of West Florida98and Montana State University,99 embed police or security officials within their Bias Response Teams. Others, such as the University of Montana100 and DePaul University,101 direct reports straight to police or security officers.

    Some 42% of Bias Response Teams include police or security officials. By including police and student conduct administrators on their Bias Response Teams, schools send a message to students that undercuts claims of respect for freedom of expression: If you say something that offends someone, you may (or in some cases will) be investigated by police. Their inclusion can also lead universities to use police to investigate offensive speech or anonymous speakers.102 For example, at Evergreen State College, administrators responded to anonymous flyers critical of, among other things, Black Lives Matter, by emailing students:103
    The College wants to identify the individual(s) engaged in posting and distributing these flyers. If you have any information about who may be doing this, it is critical that you contact Police Services or provide information anonymously using the online incident report form.
    Including student conduct administrators, as do approximately 63% of Bias Response Teams, also sends a chilling message. Students summoned to meet with a member of the office of the dean of students are likely to view the meeting not as educational, but as punitive. Even when the intention is not punitive, administrators are likely to approach "offensive" speech or sharp disagreement from a conflict-resolution perspective. This approach may conflict with a student speaker's purpose; many use speech to heighten or clarify conflict and disagreement in order to further their message.

    Including media relations administrators is also concerning, because it suggests that a school's decision to respond to offensive speech may be driven by the potential impact to the school's reputation. Where this is the case, it undermines the notion implicitly underlying Bias Response Teams that universities are primarily concerned with providing a safe environment.

    And there is reason to be concerned that universities' responses may be driven by a desire to manage the institutions' reputation at the expense of protecting freedom of expression. At the University of New Mexico, administrators wanted to rush to release a statement from the Office of the President "rather than waiting for the media to get ahold of" flyers critical of the university's logo, which included conquistadors but not Native Americans.104 These flyers were perceived by the Bias Response Team as a threat to Native Americans because the mock logo incorporated skulls and bones underneath the feet of conquistadors—a rather obvious criticism of the treatment of Native Americans in the New Mexico area. Ultimately, it was faculty members on the Diversity Council who placed the flyers in context. Without their intervention, it is possible that administrators who erroneously viewed the flyers as threatening could have continued their investigation and initiated charges.

    In other words, the lack of faculty or student membership may deprive Bias Response Teams of valuable insight into instances of purportedly offensive speech, as well as principles of academic freedom. That may explain why the University of Northern Colorado's Bias Response Team warned at least one professor that he could face lengthy, intrusive investigations for permitting students to debate controversial issues in class.105

    Bias Response Teams May Expose Universities to First Amendment Lawsuits

    To date, FIRE is aware of no legal challenges to a bias reporting system. It's unclear whether a legal challenge could be mounted by a student or faculty member based on the mere existence of such a system. However, each time a Bias Response Team embarks upon an investigation or intervention with the reported person, it risks exposing the institution and its administrators to claims under the First Amendment.

    That a university provides a mechanism for community members to share information concerning offensive speech may not, alone, amount to a justiciable First Amendment controversy. In Laird v. Tatum (1972), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the "mere existence" of broad, intelligence-gathering programs does not, "without more," impermissibly chill speech.106

    The First Amendment, however, does not simply restrict the government from expressly penalizing or prohibiting speech. It also prohibits "adverse government action against an individual because of First Amendment freedoms."107 When universities depart from the Laird baseline by mounting investigations or interventions with offending speakers, they expose themselves to the possibility of a First Amendment retaliation claim. This exposure isn't limited to legal action against the university; because many First Amendment principles are so well established under the law, members of a Bias Response Team risk being held personally liable for their actions in some circumstances.

    To mount a First Amendment retaliation claim, for example, an aggrieved party must demonstrate three things: "first, that his speech or act was constitutionally protected; second, that the defendant's retaliatory conduct adversely affected the protected speech; and third, that there is a causal connection between the retaliatory actions and the adverse effect on speech."108 Whether government conduct has an adverse effect is determined by an objective standard: if the retaliatory conduct "would likely deter 'a person of ordinary firmness' from the exercise of First Amendment rights."109 The retaliatory conduct need not be successful, as the cause of action is intended to address "conduct that tends to chill [speech], not just conduct that freezes it completely."110

    To the extent that Bias Response Teams are used to better understand students' perspectives, to prepare general programming to constituents of the institution, or to provide resources to a complaining student, these goals are unobjectionable on First Amendment grounds. But the reality is that Bias Response Teams are generally intended to deter offensive speech and conduct. Their goal is to chill speech that the institution or its constituents find offensive or unkind.111

    When Bias Response Teams intervene directly with the reported student, the risk of exposing the university to First Amendment claims increases. Bias Response Teams often submit speech to the review of police and campus conduct administrators, who launch an "investigation"112 or bring "charges"113 against the "respondent,"114 who may be summoned for a "hearing"115 and found "guilty"116 or be provided with an "educational"117 reprimand—or, in the case of Longwood University, "education sanctions."118 This is the language of punitive systems, not educators, and it is likely to be perceived as such by students and by courts. Simply calling a quasi-punitive response system "educational" doesn't make it so. After all, many institutions already describe at least some of their punitive measures as "educational" in nature.119

    Even the public pronouncement that an investigation is underway—particularly when conducted by law enforcement—can itself have a chilling effect.120 While universities need not remain silent about offensive speech, going "beyond simple vocal condemnation" and implying that particular instances of protected speech may be punished can amount to a violation of the First Amendment.121

    The Supreme Court's perspective in Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) is instructive. There, the state of Rhode Island established a commission whose goal was to, among other things, "educate the public" about books and printed materials it viewed as obscene, acting as a gatekeeper to "investigate and recommend the prosecution" of persons found to be distributing obscene materials.122 The commission promulgated lists of "objectionable" publications to police departments and, when booksellers were reportedly selling objectionable material, the commission sent them notices suggesting that the commission had the power to recommend prosecution if materials were found to be obscene.123 The Supreme Court held that the commission's claim that it simply "exhort[ed]" publishers to avoid distributing obscenity, and could not itself punish booksellers, was "untenable":124
    It is true that [the] books have not been seized or banned by the State, and that no one has been prosecuted for their possession or sale. But though the Commission is limited to informal sanctions—the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation—the record amply demonstrates that the Commission deliberately set about to achieve the suppression of publications deemed "objectionable" and succeeded in its aim. We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications ... .
    Bias Response Teams are arguably quite comparable to the Rhode Island commission discussed in Bantam Books. While they might protest that they are intended not to punish speech but to discourage speech contrary to the values of the institution, even if that speech is protected, Bias Response Teams are nevertheless intended to chill speech. By using the language, tools, and administrators associated with disciplinary systems, Bias Response Teams risk being perceived as intimidating, not educating. While some systems strike an appropriate balance by, among other things, limiting their definitions of reportable conduct to speech unprotected by the First Amendment,125 the vast majority do not.

    The prospect of a retaliation claim should alarm colleges and universities. The central question of such a claim—whether the conduct would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to speak—is fact-based, meaning it's unlikely to be resolved before summary judgment, increasing universities' legal exposure.126 Additionally, many of the scattered decisions on what meets the "ordinary firmness" test are based in the context of government employment, where the government's interest is given substantially more weight, than in the context of retaliation against a non-employee.127

    This is not to say that universities must refrain from criticizing or condemning offensive conduct or speech. Criticism is not censorship, whether it is broadcast to the student body or public at large or instead sent directly to a student. University officials retain their own First Amendment right to contribute to discourse on campus and can do so without creating a substantial risk of a First Amendment retaliation claim.128 The tools universities deploy in response to speech, how they are deployed, and how universities describe these systems to students matter.

    Finally, because universities often keep opaque records documenting their interventions with reported speakers (discussed below), universities have a diminished ability to argue that such interventions provided meaningful education, as opposed to a chilling instruction to stop speaking.

    Despite Acknowledging First Amendment Tensions, Universities Provide Little If Any Training

    The First Amendment issues faced by Bias Response Teams are complex, nuanced, and fraught with potential pitfalls that may lead public institutions into costly lawsuits. Leaving aside legal risks, Bias Response Teams also risk conflicting with essential principles of academic freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of inquiry. Yet despite these risks, few Bias Response Teams receive meaningful training, if any, on the contours of these issues.

    Of institutions surveyed, 85 (50.9%) acknowledge a tension with freedom of speech, freedom of inquiry, or academic freedom on their websites or in their policies. Of these, 50 are public institutions and 35 are private.

    While Bias Response Team training requirements and materials were not part of FIRE's survey, FIRE has utilized state public records requests to explore the types of training required of members of Bias Response Teams. Although FIRE has issued or reviewed dozens of public records requests to universities seeking training materials distributed to Bias Response Teams, we've only seen materials from one school, Louisiana State University, that provided substantive training on First Amendment issues.129

    Other institutions, despite acknowledging that identifying First Amendment issues can be nuanced, do not appear to provide training. For example, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) notes on its website that "[i]ssues pertaining to freedom of speech and expression can be very complicated and confusing."130 The university's definition of "bias incidents" likewise observes that the "protection of freedom of expression, including controversial speech and sometimes even offensive or hurtful words, is vital to a community of teachers and learners" and that some "acts of bias may either not be severe enough to violate policy or be protected expressions of speech."131 Yet despite freedom of expression being both "complicated" and "vital," the University of California's Office of the President, responding on UCSD's behalf to a public records request issued by FIRE, did not produce any training materials relating to the First Amendment at UCSD.

    Another school, Longwood University, claimed as recently as August 2016 that because universities could not impose "campus judicial codes that include specific prohibitions related to bias and hate" under the First Amendment, it instead "train[s] board members to identify bias-related behavior and include appropriate education sanctions when a student is found responsible."132 An August 2016 "Bias Response Team Training" memorandum, in discussing "consequences" for bias incidents, asserted that there are "no laws for bias incidents" and that the team doesn't "get the firm backing through law or the institution in general about these topics."133 A contemporaneous training slideshow indicated that Bias Response Team members would be trained on "legal issues" without elaboration.134 None of the materials provided to FIRE indicate that any training on First Amendment issues was provided.

    A Resistance to Transparency

    With few exceptions, Bias Response Teams suffer from a lack of transparency, and universities are too often willing to stonewall public records requests concerning their teams. While protecting the privacy of both reporting and reported parties is important, this hesitance to engage in meaningful transparency is worrisome. The ways in which universities respond to offensive speech and discrimination are of particular public concern,135 and doing so without being transparent, or being selectively transparent,136 risks being seen as an effort to hide incidents from the community.

    Approximately 28% of institutions with bias reporting systems do not even disclose who reviews the reports. If universities are unwilling to publicly identify who is responsible for reviewing and responding to reports, then students, faculty, and the public will be hindered in holding public servants accountable. Similarly, a refusal to identify Bias Response Team members does not instill confidence that schools take complaints seriously by devoting capable people to overseeing them.

    And while many Bias Response Teams purport to exist for the purpose of keeping statistics, the statistics themselves are rarely published. The University of California, for example, developed its multi-campus reporting system in 2010 with the "[p]rimary purpose" of "statistical reporting,"137 yet it appears to have never published statistics. The University of California Office of the President, in response to a public records request for all statistics,138 only provided statistics last compiled in 2012 and apparently never published.139 Some institutions publish statistics on periodic bases, with varying degrees of transparency. And while the Clery Act requires federally funded institutions to publish statistics concerning hate crimes,140 most schools define "bias incident" more broadly than criminal acts. In any event, most institutions publish neither statistics nor reports.

    FIRE has utilized public records requests under state law—similar to requests pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act—to ask dozens of schools to produce records relating to complaints; how they responded to those complaints; and the composition, policies, and training of their Bias Response Teams. While most complied with both the letter and spirit of the law,141 a number have resisted. Ominously, even where schools produce records, those records often fail to substantially document the actions the university took in response to the report, instead stating that the respondent was provided with "education." This does not inspire confidence that the response was meaningful education, as opposed to a reprimand.

    Justice Louis Brandeis famously opined that sunlight was the best of disinfectants.142 But a popular tactic of sunshine-shy administrators is the employment of hefty fees to locate and redact public records, notwithstanding open records laws encouraging universities to reduce or waive fees when releasing documents that would serve the public interest. The University of Northern Colorado attempted to charge FIRE hundreds of dollars for records eventually obtained by a media outlet, Heat Street, which revealed that UNC's Bias Response Team had discouraged professors from discussing subjects of debate raging in legislatures and the media.143 That blast of sunlight caused UNC to shutter its Bias Response Team.144

    Similarly, the University of Oregon concluded that releasing its records would not be in the public interest,145 demanding that FIRE pay $1,483.30 to review its team's records.146 The university's steadfast refusal to acknowledge the public interest was plainly belied by criticism by national media outlets,147 which spurred a faculty inquiry into the team's activities. When the records were eventually produced, Oregon was unable to locate records of some incidents, including one pilloried in the media.148

    Other institutions have been quick to delete or hide once-public websites documenting bias incidents following public criticism. Colby College placed its log of bias incidents behind a password-protected field after it was publicly criticized.149So, too, did Skidmore College.150 More alarmingly, several institutions responded to FIRE's public records requests by initially claiming that there were no records to produce. When FIRE issued additional requests seeking records of what efforts the school made to search for records, the originally-requested records were suddenly located and produced. This suggests a certain lack of good faith from these institutions in following their legal obligations.

    Other institutions found more creative ways to stonewall. The University of California's Office of the President (UCOP), for example, intervened to respond on behalf of its subsidiary campuses after FIRE issued records requests to each campus about its processes. Months later, UCOP professed that it would be too difficult for the central office to locate records of how its campuses responded to reported incidents. UCOP also refused to produce records of any reported incident whatsoever, claiming that it would be too difficult to redact students' names—a task somehow accomplished without complaint by dozens of other schools, many of which boast far fewer resources than the University of California system.

    Normative Criticisms of Bias Response Teams

    Given that reported incidents of perceived "bias" run the ideological gamut, subjecting campus speech to review by conflict-averse administrators runs the risk of chilling speech from any and every perspective. This illiberal approach invites administrative intervention whenever there are impolite words or disagreement of any sort. College campuses must remain open for vehement disagreement and impolite rhetoric lest they invite administrators to limit speech and debate.

    This view is not FIRE's alone. Writing in the New Republic, Carleton College professors Jeffrey Aaron Snyder and Amna Khalid aptly observed the limitations of Bias Response Teams and their potential chilling effects on academic discourse and campus speech:
    We do not want our campuses overrun with eager "see something, say something" "student informants." Far from empowering students with the requisite skills for having difficult conversations, bias response initiatives, as a Boston College student asserted, encourage "students to ask the administration to solve problems instead of solving them amongst themselves."

    Let us be clear: Bias and discrimination are real and pressing concerns on campuses across the country. There must be channels for students, especially those from historically underrepresented populations, to communicate their concerns to administrators and their peers. Institutions need to keep on top of "campus climate" concerns through surveys and community-wide discussions. But to institute a formal body that assesses the merits of bias incident complaints is profoundly misguided.

    BRTs will result in a troubling silence: Students, staff, and faculty will be afraid to speak their minds, and individuals or groups will be able to leverage bias reporting policies to shut down unpopular or minority viewpoints.151
    At John Carroll University, a private, Catholic institution, Bias Response Team administrators acknowledged that critiques concerning freedom of speech "must be taken seriously."152 Troubled both by the potential for "malicious-anonymous" abuse of the ability to anonymously report others and by the possibility that the system might have a chilling effect on speech, the university's annual report observed:153
    If a person is able to report a peer, professor, supervisor, or other community member for "speech code violations," and particularly if those reports result in punitive action toward the offender, the system could shut down, rather than open up, critically important dialogue. On a university campus with an implicit commitment to the free exchange of ideas, such a result must be considered unacceptable.
    Other institutions have recognized these risks. In August 2016, the University of Iowa scrapped a planned bias response team, observing a "high failure rate in the [teams] at other institutions" as they became "almost punitive in nature," rendering them "scolding panels." Although the University of Iowa's planned team did not involve a punitive component, the type of response undertaken by other BRTs "accomplishes nothing," said one administrator.154

    As academic freedom expert Donald Downs, professor of political science, law, and journalism at the University of Wisconsin—Madison, observed, Bias Response Teams attempt to strike a difficult balance:155
    In some telling respects, some of these new policies [including Bias Response Teams] do not overtly call for censorship, as the old speech codes did. Rather, they are meant to "educate" the academic community about the negative impact that certain types of speech can have. Such educational schemes can be consistent with the goals of higher education if done right and in the right spirit. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with educating students and others about the potential impacts of speech, so long as such educational endeavors are not smokescreens for informal or formal ideological bullying. However, given the climates on many campuses today, such educational efforts too often amount to speech codes in disguise. The new policies may not be overt speech codes, but they can accomplish censorship by other means.
    Striking A Balance

    It is understandable that universities wish to monitor the climate for students on their campuses and to have support systems in place for students who, for one reason or another, may be struggling to feel at home on campus. But it does not follow from these precepts that universities must effectively establish a surveillance state on campus where students and faculty must guard their every utterance for fear of being reported to and investigated by the administration.

    While not every Bias Response Team impermissibly limits protected speech, the reality is that it is extremely difficult to have a system in place for the reporting of protected speech without creating a risk that speech and expression on campus will be chilled as a result. As lawyer, writer, and former FIRE President David French wrote, universities with Bias Response Teams are playing a "dangerous constitutional game" by not explicitly prohibiting protected speech but creating a "process-is-punishment" mechanism that deters people from speaking out.156

    When setting parameters for their teams and implementing responses, universities must be cognizant of the risks created by broad definitions, anonymous reporting systems, unclear policies, and lack of training, and must take steps to minimize or eliminate these risks. While some Bias Response Teams have demonstrated familiarity with freedom of speech in their responses to reports of offensive speech, such actions are too often not the result of effective training and policies.

    If bias reporting systems are to exist on campuses, they should describe reportable situations narrowly, excluding protected speech, or at the very least avoid characterizing the teams and their responses in ways that convey a punitive message. Universities should also recognize that even narrow definitions of bias are likely to result in reports of protected speech, and provide accurate and impartial training to Bias Response Team members so that they are able to identify protected speech.

    Universities would do best to focus on how they can help the reporting student, not on the reported speaker. Unless a community member has engaged in conduct unprotected by the First Amendment or academic freedom, any institutional response to bias should avoid uninvited intervention with the speaker and instead focus on providing resources to the reporting student. In doing so, they will help encourage all community members to express themselves and participate in the marketplace of ideas that our nation's colleges and universities are uniquely suited to provide.


text:
Skip to content

The Curious Farmer Mushroom Grow Kit - 1.4Kg

Sold out
For anyone who likes to grow their own, The Curious Farmer's Mushroom Grow Kits are a very simple and a fun introduction to home gown Fungi! The Curious Farmer has done all the hard work, and all that is required is a bit of water a fresh air and you'll be enjoying your own gourmet oyster mushrooms within a few weeks.
  • Ingredients

    Tomatoes, red wine vinegar, onions, celery, brown sugar, garlic, salt, pepper, spices


text:
Soulgenie Reviews
from our customers

Your comment is the key to our Success !!

Customer Ratings of
Neem Toothpicks Set Of 50

Total 4 Customer Ratings

Write a Review
Mar 09, 2021, Patricia
from Kinderhook, United States

I`m always on the lookout for products that have pure natural ingredients with no synthesized chemicals or artificial fragrance. These soaps seem to fit that description. The fragrance is lovely. They are easy on the skin, too. I recommend them. The neem wood products are also quite good. Toothpicks are a little on the large size but still a good choice.

May 31, 2014, Bryan
from North Manly, Australia

My order arrived very quickly.

Sep 05, 2013, Janice
from Neptune , United States

Thank you once again. Excellent delivery and Service. Love the toothpaste. I recommend it to all.
The tooth picks are great.

Jul 18, 2013, Trish
from Cork, Ireland

As always my order with Health and Yoga was complete, exactly as described and arrived in good time. Three of the four products I ordered were replacements for used items I had purchased previously, so it goes without saying I found them to be excellent.
The neem toothpicks were a new product for me and unfortunately although they are very beautiful their shape (round rather than flat)mades use limited and the tips prone to breaking off very quickly.
That said is always a pleasure to shop with Health and Yoga because even if I get a product that doesn`t entirely suit me I learn so much from the site and just from the information provided on the site have had 9 great buys for every 1 less than perfect purchase.
So thank you for the wonderful service and site and for the great information. I will be back to purchase again without a doubt.

StarWrite a ReviewStar

How do you rate neem toothpicks set of 50?

Please Note: We accept ratings from Customers Only. Please enter your 'email id' for your rating to be considered.

  • Heading
    Your Product Rating
    (Please click on the stars to rate the dimensions.)

  • Overall Rating
  • Quality
  • Effectiveness
  • Price Value
  • Customer Service
  • Delivery
  • You recommend this product to your friends?
  • Heading
    Your Product Review

  • Maximum 100 characters allowed.
  • Maximum 400 characters allowed.
© Copyright 2000-2021, . All rights reserved Disclaimer


text:
O'Connor family raises €12k for RNLI

December 24th, 2015 7:25 AM

By Southern Star Team

At the presentation of the cheque to Baltimore RNLI by the O'Connor family recently were, from left: Pat Collins (mechanic, Baltimore Lifeboats), Tom Bushe (operations manager, Baltimore Lifeboats), Catherine and Paul O'Connor (Niamh's parents) Ros Rourke (fundraising chairperson, Baltimore Lifeboat

Share this article

THE Baltimore RNLI have been presented with a cheque for over €12,000, fundraised by the family of a girl who tragically drowned last summer.

Niamh O’Connor was with her boyfriend Barry Davis Ryan and his father, Barry Snr, when they were all caught up in a tragedy off the Beacon on June 30th, when a freak wave swept them into the sea. All three perished, and their bodies were only found after extensive searches by local services, including Baltimore RNLI. Last month, on Monday November 23rd – what would have been Niamh’s 21st birthday – her family in Glanmire organised a table quiz with all proceeds going to the RNLI.

It was held in Sarsfield’s Hurling Club and since its opening in 1999, the table quiz was the largest ever event held there, with packed tables covering both the bar and function room, even stretching out to the lobby areas.

A total of €12,250 was raised on the night, through the support of family, friends, neighbours, colleagues and the entire Glanmire community.

Last week Niamh’s parents, Catherine and Paul O’Connor, presented the cheque for €12,250 to the crew members of the RNLI who had travelled from Baltimore.

Share this article

Related content

to our mailing list for the latest news and sport:

Thank You!

You have successfully been subscribed to SouthernStar newsletter!

Form submitting... Thank you for waiting.


text:
Bantry dreams hit a Wall

December 12th, 2015 1:00 PM

By Kieran McCarthy

Red alert: The Bantry Blues team - dressed in Cork colours - that lost the All-Ireland ladies' junior club football championship final against Dunboyne in the Gaelic Grounds, Limerick. (Photo: Colbert O'Sullivan)

Share this article

Dunboyne 1-10

Bantry Blues 1-3

BANTRY Blues hopes of All-Ireland football glory hit a brick Wall on Saturday.

The West Cork team’s dreams of a famous victory were stopped in their tracks by ‘a future superstar’– the excellent Vikki Wall, who inspired Meath and Leinster champions Dunboyne to a deserved triumph at a wind and rain-lashed Gaelic Grounds in Limerick.

Wall, who finished with 1-6, wasn’t the only difference between the teams, but the strong full forward was the standout player who caused the Bantry defence no end of problems from start to finish.

‘She’s phenomenal. She will be a future superstar if she keeps progressing the way she has. She took a lot of stopping,’ admitted Bantry joint-manager Paul Drummey afterwards.

Basically, Bantry couldn’t stop the 17-year-old Dunboyne attacker, while at the other end a recurring failing of the Blues raised its unwanted head – they missed too many chances on a day when they needed to be clinical.

‘We hit a lot of wides in both halves. We didn’t take advantage of the strong wind when we had it in the first half, and that made it a lot harder for us in the second half,’ Bantry midfielder Emma Spillane explained.

‘It was awful seeing them lift the cup. But they’re a very good team. Things didn’t go right for us. We didn’t take our chances.’

Neither team took their chances for 25 minutes of the first half as scores were scarce. Vikki Wall pointed Dunboyne into a fifth minute lead before Aoife O’Driscoll levelled the game four minutes later, converting a free after Libby Coppinger was fouled.

By that stage Bantry had already been forced into making changes as corner back Doireann O’Shea came off injured, with midfielder Emma Spillane moved back into defence.

Playing with the wind Bantry never took advantage of it, and three wides by the 11th minute was a worry, while Shelly Melia hit the crossbar at the other end for Dunboyne.

The game waited until the 28th minute for its third score – Wall’s second point. Fiona O’Neill added another point for the Meath team before they struck for a decisive score when Wall finished from close range after a ball in from Melia fell her way.

Having played with the wind, Bantry were 1-3 to 0-1 behind at the break, and with it all to do, as Dunboyne looked a stronger overall team who played the better football in the first half.

‘That goal lifted them and our heads dropped for a little bit, but we came back at them and brought it back to six points at one stage in the second half,’ Spillane said, and she’s right, Bantry did come to within six points in the second period and they did play better, but the damage was done by then.

Points from Melia, Ann-Marie Moffatt, Wall (2) and an Aoife Thompson free after Wall was fouled saw Dunboyne in control, 1-8 to 0-2 ahead inside the last ten minutes – Libby Coppinger, whose pace and direct running caused Dunboyne problems, replied for Bantry.

Then came a lifeline when lively full forward Aoife O’Driscoll finished well from close range (1-8 to 1-2) after a period when Bantry were on top and had pinned Dunboyne back.

Bantry needed another score quickly, but instead Dunboyne broke straightaway and there was Vikki Wall – who else? – to knock over a point.

After Bantry sub Rachael Murphy got her name on the scoresheet, it was fitting that Wall had the final say with her sixth point, as Bantry were unable to follow in the footsteps of their West Cork neighbours who had lifted this All-Ireland cup in the past – Gabriel Rangers (2003) and Clonakilty (2009).

It was a heartbreaking end to a fabulous year for this Bantry team that won league, Cork championship and Munster title honours, but Saturday’s defeat – only their second in 2015 – is the one that will hurt the most. Bantry didn’t play well, but this young team (12 of the starting team were 24 and under) will learn from this and bounce back a better team.

Sometimes a team needs to sing the Blues once to become a stronger team.

‘There are a lot of positives to take from this season. We’ll look forward to intermediate football next year and give that a good go,’ said Spillane, the Cork minor star who already has won four All-Irelands at U14, U16 (2) and minor at inter-county level.

Dunboyne: Vikki Wall 1-6, Fiona O’Neill, Shelly Melia, Ann-Marie Moffatt, Aoife Thompson (1f) 0-1 each.

Bantry Blues: Aoife O’Driscoll 1-1 (1f), Libby Coppinger, Rachel Murphy (f) 0-1 each.

Dunboyne: Maeve Clince; Claire Barker, Lauren Byrne, Emma O’Byrne; Dee Blaney, Elaine Doyle, Ann-Marie Moffatt; Julie Kavanagh, Amy Coyne; Shelly Melia, Alison Jones, Sinead Hackett; Aoife Thompson, Vikki Wall, Fiona O’Neill.

Subs used: Louise Grant for Fiona O’Neill (50), Odharanaith McKenna for S Hackett (60), Meabh O’Doherty for Emma O’Byrne, Niamh Williams for A Thompson (60).

Bantry Blues: Seadna O’Sullivan; Edel McGovern, Aoife Crowley, Doireann O’Shea; Mairead Dullea, Ann Coakley, Sarah Deane; Emma Spillane, Jessica Coakley; Niamh Crowley, Myra O’Sullivan, Kate O’Brien; Sarah Coakley, Aoife O’Driscoll, Libby Coppinger.

Subs used: Meabh Ni Shuilleabhain for D O’Shea (6, inj), Eve Murphy for Sarah Coakley (ht), Rachel Murphy for Niamh Crowley (ht), Doireann O’Shea for for E McGovern (34, inj), Eilish Harrington for D O’Shea (51, inj).

Referee: Kevin Corcoran (Mayo).

Share this article

Related content

to our mailing list for the latest news and sport:

Thank You!

You have successfully been subscribed to SouthernStar newsletter!

Form submitting... Thank you for waiting.


text:
Ryan will make a huge impact with Cork seniors, says Cleary

December 26th, 2015 6:00 PM

By Southern Star Team

Challenge accepted: Former Cork ladies senior football manager Eamonn Ryan has joined the Cork men's senior setup as a selector for Peadar Healy.

Share this article

By Ger McCarthy

NOLLAIG Cleary believes Eamonn Ryan is going to have a major impact on the new Cork senior football setup after agreeing to join Peadar Healy’s backroom team for the coming season.

Ryan’s decision to take up an offer from new Cork manager Peadar Healy brings the curtain down on a decade of dominance in charge of the Cork ladies’ footballers.

Ten All-Ireland victories in 11 years is a phenomenal achievement and Healy has made another astute move in his new tenure as Cork senior football coach by adding such a well-respected figure to his back-room team.

Nine-time All-Ireland champion Nollaig Cleary knows all about Ryan’s credentials both as a tactician and motivator and believes her former manager will be a big success in his new role.

‘Obviously I was very disappointed to hear that Eamonn was leaving because of the tremendous amount of work he has put in over the last number of years,’ Cleary told The Southern Star.

‘Everyone involved in the Cork (ladies) setup wishes him the best of luck in his new venture and I’m certain he is going to make a big impact working alongside Peadar Healy.

‘Eamonn is an unbelievable coach and it is very difficult to describe just how good he is to people outside of the group he has worked with for over a decade now.

‘It wasn’t one thing in particular with Eamonn but he always commanded huge respect from his players and we always played our hearts out for him.’

Ryan played a key role in nurturing the Gabriel Rangers forward and her teammates’ skill-set during his time in charge of the all-conquering inter-county team. Cleary believes that her former manager’s ability to enhance an individual player’s talents is going to have a big impact on the men’s senior setup.

‘On a personal level, I knew I still had a huge amount to learn when I first got on to the Cork panel,’ admitted the former All-Star ladies’ footballer.

‘Eamonn picked up on the skills that I needed to develop and immediately pin-pointed where I could improve. He did that with every single one of his players and got them to improve on certain aspects of their game which in turn improved the whole team.

‘I always marvelled at the amount of thought and preparation he put into his training sessions not to mention our matches. It was unbelievable. Everything we did with Eamonn was always simplified too, mastering our skills was the most important thing to him and I think the Cork seniors are going to benefit greatly from that.

‘Cork ladies football is lucky in that there has been success at underage level over the past number of years so there should be plenty of talent coming through for whoever takes over from Eamonn. That’s still no guarantee of future success and it is going to be very difficult to try and maintain the momentum of the past number of years.

‘A lot of hard work needs to be put in but there is enough up and coming talent there for whoever takes over to make a go of it and be successful in the future.’

Share this article

Related content

to our mailing list for the latest news and sport:

Thank You!

You have successfully been subscribed to SouthernStar newsletter!

Form submitting... Thank you for waiting.


text:
About Southland Schools

Welcome To Southland Schools,

On behalf of our faculty, staff and students, it is my privilege to welcome you to the Southland C-9 School website.  Southland C-9 is a consolidated school district consisting of the cities of Cardwell and Arbyrd in the far southwest corner of the Bootheel of Missouri.  We strive to provide the best education for our students.  If we can help you any further please don't hesitate to contact us.

Dr. Misty Galloway


text:
18 retired teachers that have graduated from Village Institutes have visited Space Camp Turkey. The veteran teachers who showed that there is no age for learning were informed all about the International Space Station, walking on the surface of the Moon, weightlessness, and loss of control in space. After a one-hour camp tour, the speakers of the group, Ali Sözer and Turgut Dereli said "Thank you very much for the hospitality you showed us during our visit to Space Camp as a group of retired teachers. We left happy and informed. It was a very interesting experience for us."

Go To Top


text:
Construction of a photoactive supramolecular system based on a platinum(II) bis-acetylide building block incorporated into a ruthenium(II) polypyridyl complex.

Research paper by Michito M Shiotsuka, Naoki N Nishiko, Kazutoshi K Keyaki, Koichi K Nozaki

Indexed on: 08 May '10Published on: 08 May '10Published in: Dalton Transactions

A new ruthenium(ii) polypyridyl-platinum(ii) diethynyl triad containing 3-ethynylphenanthroline linked by platinum(ii) bis-tributylphosphine organometallics, Ru(ii)-Pt(ii)-Ru(ii), and platinum(ii) bis-ethynylphenanthroline complex has been prepared. The ruthenium(ii)-metal triads, Ru(ii)-M-Ru(ii) (M = Pt(ii) and Au(i)), showed typical MLCT absorption bands and a lowest energy pi-pi* absorption involved with the metal perturbation in the 350-500 nm region. Broad emission bands assignable to triplet MLCT transitions were definitely observed in the triads Ru(ii)-M-Ru(ii), while those of platinum(ii) and gold(i) bis-ethynylphenanthroline complexes displayed a phosphorescent band with vibronic progression assignable to the metal-perturbed triplet pi-pi*(C[triple bond]Cphen) transition, which means that the hybrid architecture constructed with Ru(ii) polypyridyl and metal bis-acetylide units converts a blue-green metal perturbed pi-pi* phosphorescence into an orange MLCT-based emission. The transient differential absorption spectra of ruthenium compounds showed the difference of the electron transfer process between [Ru(bipy)(phen)](PF(6))(2) and triads under the MLCT state. Photophysical data of the triad suggest an efficient energy transfer from the platinum bis-acetylide site to the ruthenium polypyridyl site followed by the supposed charge injection from a ruthenium center to the extended pi-conjugated phenanthroline under photo-excitation in this photoactive supramolecular system.


text:
Renata S. Amais

Sulfur Determination in Fuels by ICP-OES and ICP-MS to Meet Increasingly Stricter Legislation Requirements

March 14, 2014

A critical review of the main developments in instrument technology, calibration, and sample preparation that have made it possible to determine low sulfur concentrations in fuels followed by a discussion of strategies to minimize spectral interferences related to sulfur determination by ICP-MS, such as collision–reaction cells, high-resolution mass analyzers, and the interference standard method.


text:
Useful and mostly harmless

Ken Mitchell
Evening World

The old adage, “The only good snake is a dead snake” is not as common as it once was thanks to more environmental enlightenment. Sure there are still those who are terrified of snakes. Lots of people say they aren’t afraid of them unless they are surprised by them which happens most of the time. I am reminded of an occasion when my friend Chuck Barnhill came out and brought his student teacher to hunt and cut dead cedar stumps from our woods for his students to carve in art class at Edgewood. We had a goodly number loaded into his scout and Claudia and his student teacher were walking together down our front yard when they both yelled “snake!” in unison and did a great rendition of synchronized swimming , sans water in a perfect leap that i’m sure was at the top of both of their verticalities! They were embarrassed since we saw the performance and they insisted they weren’t afraid of snakes and were just surprised. You could have fooled me! I have a neighbor who I am related to by marriage who believes fear and hatred of snakes are Biblical. Traditionally the serpent in the Garden of Eden is believed to have been in the form of a snake so he kills the ones he sees and defers to his wife who, armed with oven mitts, removes any such critter and disposes of it if one shows up in the house.

All of us who live in the woods on what I like to call “Mitchell’s Mountain” have to deal with the occasional snake in our yards, homes, and our dogs carrying them in their mouths. The canine members of our families love to carry them around to demonstrate that they are doing their jobs and should be rewarded by a t- bone from the grill done rare!. My daughter-in-law Risha came into the family, married to my son John and is a self-proclaimed city girl who has adapted quite well to country life, although last week we were in her home town of Markle, Indiana and I found it to be much more Mayberrishly than Chicago-like. She has done well except for bats and birds in the house, mice, and snakes which brings me around circuitously to my eternal defense of snakes. Since I am currently teaching fifth and sixth grade science at Lighthouse Christian Academy in Bloomington, I have done my best to enrich my classroom with both live and preserved animal specimens. So my family has been on the hunt for curious specimens for me to share with my students. I think that was part of the motivation that caused Risha to call me last week from the office where she works in Bloomington. I detected the stress in her voice as she said, “We have a situation here. We have a snake. I’m pretty sure it’s a ring neck but it has gotten behind the floor trim.”

She knew I was on the hunt for critters for my classroom. This would be perfect so I told her to scoop into an empty drink cup and put the lid on securely. I also said not to put it in her car as the heat would surely kill it. I told her to use a knife- like instrument to get it out from behind the trim. As it turned out the snake never showed itself again. I doubt that she tried to retrieve it. I realized later that my instructions were above her pay grade! She was really hoping I would come in and rescue her and the snake! Sorry I dropped the ball on that one, Rish!

Snakes can show up just about any time of year except during extreme cold but even breaks in the winter weather will get them looking for sunny spots. It seems that spring gets them out to replenish the calories they have depleted during their hibernation. But fall seems to really get them moving. When the fields around our homes get harvested of corn and hay the rodent eaters follow the critters to our garages, firewood stacks and even in our abodes if the mice and voles come in looking for edibles. Of late we are even finding evidence of rodents in our cars so we are all trying to not leave crumbs around. The least offensive of our legless reptiles are the aforementioned ring neck which is usually too small to bite but if it does it usually brings blood or any pain. The garter snake, named for the pattern that covers their bodies and looks like the bands men used to wear on their long sleeve shirts is often called gardener snakes by mistake. They are positively identified by their red and black tongue which is why I call them Edgewood snakes since they sport the Mustang colors. This is one that will bite, enough to draw blood. They also tend to empty their intestines and release an awful tasting mist from their anal glands. They do tame easily and will eat earthworms readily while in captivity so they readily demonstrate the unhinging nature of snakes mouths as they crawl around their food.

Probably the most beneficial of snakes this time a year are the rat snakes which include the beautiful corn snake and the milk snake. Most of the Mitchell clan is fairly ambivalent about snakes outside but not so much when they come inside for warmth and dinner. Controlling the rodent population makes these snakes the most beneficial and their large size keeps our dogs from killing them although I have gotten to the point where I can tell from my Jack Russell’s behavior what he is harassing and if he’s fairly cautious about the end that bites I figure it’s a rat snake! Sometimes I can get him away long enough for the snake to safely retreat into the woods. The rat snakes are not totally good citizens as they also love to steal eggs and baby birds from nests.

If you live close to water you probably have water snakes around. They are often mis- identified as water moccasins or cotton mouths which are only found very rarely in Dubois County in south western Indiana. Water snakes are considered predators and scavengers so the fact that they eat dead animals makes a bite from them a concern because their mouths often have bacteria present. The fact that they also bite readily doesn’t help.

So there you have it. Probably all my preaching will not change the prejudice against snakes in general. But if you can just realize that they play a role in the environment and while none of us want them in or around our homes if you live in the woods and are not getting mice in your house you may not have seen a rat snake but be assured there’s one or more around taking care of business! Until next time, Ken.

Ken Mitchell - Woods and Water
Ken holds a big, live mousetrap.


text:
Dana Carney

Book Dana Here or call 484-354-4567

Combine classic style, proven on-camera success and a lot of personality and you get someone who effortlessly captures and keeps attention. Dana naturally gets people to notice and listen, and can credibly cover a host of categories – Beauty, Hair care, Fashion, Accessories, Lifestyle, Kitchen, Food, Home, and more.

  • 15years of on-camera experience

  • Long-time Host of “Mid-Day with Dana”- a news, lifestyle and interview show

  • Strong social media influence and reach


text:
May 09, 2018, 06:27AM

Evaporated Dragon Energy

Kanye West and Donald Trump's ego assault on America.

Rss.tribunecontentagency.comimage download.cgi 8ed0279c94a771ed0074b72332b509fcb81d8fd7.jpeg?ixlib=rails 2.1

One of the more unexpected pop culture detours has been Kanye West's public embrace of Donald Trump, in addition to some unorthodox views on race. In a recent essay, Ta-Nehisi Coates has suggested that West is trying to free himself of the burdens of race under the guise of "free thought." What's difficult about this kind of argument is that the audience is left to presume that Coates knows West's own mind better than the man himself. Like any public figure, we can only know what West wants us to know.

Trump and West are rich, famous, and notoriously ego-driven non-readers of books. This is as good of a common bond as any, if only because it's so distinctive. An argument could be made that West has only a vague idea of what a book is, having once been quoted as saying, "Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a book’s autograph. I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life." It's an especially strange comment when one considers that his mother was an English teacher and his father was a photojournalist.

There's dispute around Trump's reading habits, yet the persistent conclusion is that he's not an avid reader. He's been said to keep the Bible on his nightstand, and that All Quiet on the Western Front is his favorite novel. It's also been suggested that Trump can't make it through a two-page memo without getting distracted.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump said his favorite Bible passage is "Two Corinthians, 3:17," as opposed to "Second Corinthians." His ghostwriters, Tony Schwartz and Charles Leerhsen, have given the impression that Trump trusts those around him to impart information so he can skip the work of reading.

It's a curious irony that two very successful men would so actively eschew the act of reading. People like Bill Gates and Bill Clinton talk about books all the time. Some of West's peers, like Common and Jay-Z, make frequent literary references in their work. I suspect the answer lies not only in the egocentric behavior of Trump and West, but also a mutual lack of humility.

People who read do so for all sorts of reasons, usually to be informed or entertained, or both. Part of that bargain is that the reader will sometimes be challenged or humbled by the work before them. The egotist doesn't want to be challenged or humbled, and doesn't want to discover that he’s under-informed. People like Trump and West want to be worshipped as gods among us, and any reminder that they are human is unforgivable.

West's recent retreats suggests someone whose ego is at odds with the world. In Coates' piece, he relates an incident where the Chicago rapper T.I. came away from a visit with West in dismay. West hadn't heard about Trump's travel ban, and T.I. described the isolation: "He don’t know the things that we know because he’s removed himself from society to a point where it don’t reach him."

Coates frequently uses Michael Jackson as a basis for comparison. He sees parallels in Jackson's plastic surgery rendering the artist unrecognizable to West's embrace of conservatism, as both appear to be a quest toward whiteness. It's a difficult stretch, because on a more personal level, T.I.'s story reminds me of Elvis Presley's last years. In Johnny Cash's memoir, he mentions that Presley, a long-time friend and musical peer, had stopped returning his calls. West's recent revelation that he'd had problems with prescription drug use after undergoing liposuction is reminiscent of Presley's battles with addiction and his weight. In addition, the unexpected deaths of their mothers were devastating blows to both men.

There has been a long tradition of black musicians using their work to speak for the community, and there has been concern that West is abdicating his credibility and authenticity as an artist. Recent releases from Janelle Monáe and Childish Gambino have them using their work to constructively confront the complexities of race, gender, sexuality, and violence, winning praise from fans and critics alike. West's recent single has music lovers pondering his "poopy-di scoop" breakdown, leaving many to wonder if he's gone full troll or is simply out of step.

It's interesting that both Trump and West's situations converge while they're at difficult points in their lives. Trump's administration remains chronically understaffed and is facing multiple investigations. In addition to the poor reception to West's new "single," reactions to early viewings of his fashion line aren't any better. But this is where the similarities end. West's reaction to being spoofed on Saturday Night Live shows that he has some capacity to laugh at himself, where Trump once sued Bill Maher over a joke. That West can laugh at himself gives me some hope that he has some capacity to know when to check his ego at the door. Even so, this non-reader would do well to take some advice from a great American writer.

During his spoken word performances, Henry Rollins has shared the story of falling into an abyss of writer's block. He'd just read the novel Requiem for a Dream, and felt that everything that needed to be said had been said. After about a week and a half of not writing, he was stunned to find the book's author, Hubert Selby, Jr., in the Los Angeles White Pages. Selby became a mentor to Rollins, often giving this advice to young writers: "You men writers, you always put your balls in the way of the story, get your fucking cock out of the way of the story. Just tell the story, get your ego out of the way. You guys, you write, you got too much ego--destroy the ego, tell the truth. The ego is never the truth."

Register or Login to leave a comment