Although July 4th is now a couple of weeks past, this is my first column post-holiday. I hope that you and yours had a good one. Independence Day commemorates the birth of our great nation for as the song goes, Uncle Sam was “born on the 4th of July”. Regarding the song “America”, the first stanza begins, “My country ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty” and ends with “From every mountain top, let freedom ring”.

American has always stood for liberty and freedom. Today, 239 years removed from the establishment of a government based on those ideals, somehow something has gone awry. The constitution is in tatters and the checks and balances that it provided for to constrain government power have broken down. Congress has ceded its constitutional responsibilities to the Judicial and the Executive branches.

Then there’s the public discourse - it’s getting pretty shrill out there - almost off the charts. While it seems to me that there used to be some common ground between people of divergent political views with regard to constitutional principles of individual freedom and liberty, it doesn’t feel that way to me anymore. Freedom and liberty are not cool concepts to progressives. More recently, progressives have replaced the words “freedom” and “liberty” with the word “justice”. And who could have imagined that there are so many kinds of justice.

At the EPA website they advocate for “environmental justice”. We hear a lot about “social justice” in the media and in academia. According to most definitions, social justice is not just about equality of opportunity, but as defined by Wikipedia, it also is “justice in terms of the distribution of wealth”. In other words, “social justice” equals “social-ism” or “egalitarianism”. Let that sink in.

I had a conversation recently with a young lady who is attending Howard University. She said she is majoring in “food justice”. I’ll resist further comment on that one. Then there is “academic justice”. At Harvard last year the Crimson published an essay by Sandra Korn exhorting us to “give up on academic freedom in favor of justice”. A rebuttal published a week later by Garrett Lam said that Korn “called for the suppression of research that opposes our deepest values”, including scientific research.

Regarding Korn’s claims, this is where the progressive ideology tips its hand. If you have to give up on freedom in order to achieve “justice”, then justice isn’t what you’ve achieved at all. Social “justice” more often than not punishes the innocent - it’s not a zero sum game. In fact, without a Bill of Rights, social justice has the capacity to punish the very best among us because the majority can vote for whatever it believes to be socially just. A friend of mine says that “social justice” is aimed at those who are “greedy”. Greed certainly exists - and though it’s difficult to define it is recognizable when it manifests itself. However, often times an accusation of “greed” merely exposes envy on the part of the accuser.

Ironically, virtually all of our rights are currently under attack by the social justice crowd. The attack on free speech is probably the most insidious - and of greatest concern. Consider the article by Michael Snyder posted on Zero Hedge the other day. It’s about “hate speech” laws. He’s says that they are being enacted in many parts of the world and that “progressive activists in the United States want to use these kinds of laws to destroy free speech in America”.

According to Snyder, the American Bar Association defines hate speech as “speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits”. Says Snyder, “Did you catch that? If I say something that offends or insults you, there is a very good chance that I have just committed ‘hate speech’ according to the ABA”. Especially if the social justice crowd deems that we are members of different “groups”. As far as I am aware, there are already laws on the books making it illegal to verbally threaten someone with bodily harm. However, the problem with the ABA’s definition of hate speech is that “speech that offends…or insults” is subjective and is in the ear of the beholder.

Some of the things offered as “offensive speech” are pretty mind boggling. Anyone familiar with comedian Jeff Foxworthy might remember his routine, “you might be a redneck if…..” Well, the University of Wisconsin has published a list of things you could say that might make you a racist. They include, “asking someone where they are from or where they were born”; “saying that you’re not a racist”; “asking an Asian person for help with science or math”; “doing an impression of someone’s dialect or accent”. Yes these actually appear on the University of Wisconsin’s website as examples of racism. Is this social justice, or academic justice?

Snyder asks, “Can you imagine going to prison for any of these offenses?”

While that sounds like hyperbole, one blog reports that in Denmark a man is being prosecuted for “hurting the feelings of a public official”. Apparently there is a law on the books in Denmark, penal code 121 to be exact, that makes insulting a public official punishable by up to six months in prison. In a town in Quebec Canada, a similar ordinance has been enacted.

Then there is University of Michigan Professor Juan Cole. With apologies to the University of Wisconsin, Professor Cole is of German and Irish descent. According to his biographical notes Juan is a nickname that he picked up as a kid growing up in New Mexico. Professor Cole is a progressive, of course, and in a recent post on his blog, “Informed Comment”, he blamed what he called “far right wing Jews” for the shootings in Charleston, South Carolina. Say what?

I don’t know about you, but that sounds suspiciously like the ABA definition of hate speech to me. According to the Maryland Campus Correspondent at Campusreform.org, Andrew Guernsey, “Cole argues that ‘far right wing Jews’….and ‘the whole Islamophobic Network’ were ‘a key influence’ in suspect Dylann Roof’s mass shooting of nine people in a black Christian church in Charleston, SC on June 17”. I’m speechless.

As our nation begins its 240th year this is what passes for public discourse in progressive academic circles. Of course, Professor Cole and his ilk are protected by our natural right to free speech as set forth in the 1st amendment of the Constitution. I feel reasonably certain that he believes that the progressive notion of hate speech doesn’t apply to progressives - and certainly not to him. That’s the irony of it all. The enemies of our freedoms use those very freedoms to try to take our freedoms from us. The “hate speech” label, when applied inappropriately, is really an act of intolerance.