Poll shows people want politics out of colleges

By Kim Jarrett, The Center Square,  Nov 19, 2025 -   The latest Vanderbilt Unity Poll reveals that people want college and university professors to remain neutral on politics and for state lawmakers not to dictate what they teach.

The survey, conducted Nov. 7-10, questioned 1,033 U.S. adults, according to a news release from the Vanderbilt Project on Unity and American Democracy, a nonpartisan initiative.

Thirty-eight percent of those polled said universities should be strictly neutral on all politics and social issues, while 34% said they should speak only on issues that affect education and research. When it comes to universities engaging in what the poll called "public and political debates that affect society," 28% said that universities should.

Lawmakers should stay out of college curricula, the respondents said. Sixty-six percent said that state legislatures should not control what is taught about U.S. history, 70% said they should not govern the teaching of evolution, and 74% said lawmakers should not wade into curriculum decisions about gender or sexual orientation. The government should not tell professors what to teach, 65% of those polled said.

“Overwhelmingly, people want politics kept out of the classroom,” said Vanderbilt Poll codirector Josh Clinton, the the Abby and Jon Winkelried Chairman at Vanderbilt and a professor of political science. “They don’t want professors using the classroom to push political views, and they don’t want politicians trying to dictate what happens in higher education. People want education to be about education.”

Respondents overwhelmingly said that the most important thing a student should get from college is the ability to think more logically. In contrast, 77% said moral growth is the most or very important.

“One of the clearest findings is that the public wants colleges to get back to basics,” said John Geer, codirector of the Vanderbilt Unity Poll and professor of political science. “When you ask about the core purposes of a college education, you see almost no political polarization. That is, progressives and MAGAites agree – a rare thing these days.”

Research indicates that Americans had the same views in the 1940s, according to Vanderbilt. A 1945 Roper/Fortune survey showed that 63% said the government should not tell a professor how to teach. Sixty-five percent of respondents to a 1949 survey said that colleges should present both sides for capitalism and socialism.

“Many observers think current debates about the nature of higher education are relatively new but they are not,” Geer said. “The country, for example, was debating the purpose, value and direction of higher education in the 1940s when the federal government made major investments in research and teaching during and after World War II.”

The majority of respondents, 62%, said a college degree is "worth it" and help students get a better job, according to the news release. But only 53% believe that it is "worth it" when the financial investment is considered.

Top Stories

Kamala Harris Visits Nashville, Encourages Voting Without Endorsing Democrat Aftyn Behn

 The Democratic candidate in the 7th District special election left the event before the former vice president arrived

Former Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at Hadley Park on Tuesday afternoon to rally votes for the District 7 special election. Credit: Martin B. Cherry / Nashville Banner

Nashville Banner, Nov. 19, 2025- Scores of Nashvillians packed into a pavilion at Hadley Park on Tuesday afternoon as former Vice President Kamala Harris came to a Tennessee Democratic Party event to encourage voting in the District 7 special election. 

But Harris and State Rep. Aftyn Behn (D-Nashville), the party’s nominee with an unusual chance in the off-cycle election in a typically red district, did not cross paths or acknowledge each other directly at the event. 

In a bizarre campaign move, Behn left about five minutes before Harris’ motorcade pulled up to the pavilion, sending the crowd into a frenzy. 

“I have a bunch of events. I have stuff I have to go to, but I’m so excited for who’s coming, and deeply honoured that you all are here today,” Behn told the crowd during a minute-long speech. She did not name Harris but urged voter turnout. .... Behn told the Banner she had a “huge fundraiser” to attend at a downtown law firm. ...  former vice president...in town for her book tour

Though she has primarily campaigned on affordability and avoided more divisive topics, Behn, a progressive Democrat, is generally to the left of Harris, a moderate.  (read more)

Rod's Comment: Okay, can someone tell me what is going on here? I suspect Harris wants to give the presidency another shot and does not want to be tied to the far left of the party, but maybe I'm missing something. It seems to me, that Harris has taken positions every bit as woke progressive as Aftyn Behn, but maybe she doesn't want any recent reminders? One would think Aftyn Behn would have stuck around for a photo with Harris, if nothing else. Was it prearranged that they would not be on the same stage together? I am not buying that Behn had to rush off to a fundraiser party and couldn't delay her arrival by a few minutes. 

Top Stories

Trump Defends Saudi Crown Prince Over Khashoggi Killing. "Things Happen."

President Donald Trump and Crown Prince and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday in the Oval Office. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)

by Rod Williams, Nov. 18, 2025- As reported in the Washington Post today, President Trump defended Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the killing of Washington Post opinion columnist Jamal Khashoggi, saying “things happen” and that he did not hold the Saudi leader responsible for the 2018 murder despite a U.S. intelligence report assessing the opposite.

The Post article says, "Trump’s dismissive language offered the highest-level confirmation yet that Mohammed will face few consequences for the killing, as the crown prince makes his first visit to Washington since Khashoggi was dismembered in a Saudi consulate in Turkey."

Mohammed was in Washington for a meeting with Trump and received a grand welcome from Trump at the White House, greeted at the South Portico with an honor guard of black horses and herald trumpeters. 

“A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman that you’re talking about, Trump said of Khashho. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen, but [Mohammed] knew nothing about it,” Trump said in response to a question about Khashoggi. “And we can leave it at that. You don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.” Trump called the crown prince “one of the most respected people in the world.”

There is a lot about Trump that disgusts me, but this seems to encapsulate his lack of human decency. I accept that unless nations are at war, they must be civil and have relations. The US had friendly relations with Nazi Germany up until we did not. American presidents have had civil meetings with the worst dictators of the world. It is sometimes a necessity. We need to act diplomatically, even with mass murderers at times. One does not have to roll out the red carpet for them and have lavish ceremonies honoring them, however. One can be civil and discuss issues of mutual interest without excusing the inexcusable.

Top Stories

Trump faces Reality, Implements Major Rollback of Food Tariffs

Rod Williams, Nov. 17, 2025- If Donald J. Trump were not an economic illiterate, he would know that a tariff is a tax and like a local sales tax, raises the price to the consumer. Maybe he does know it and thinks it is worth it to onshore production of tariffed items, or maybe he has just now learned it. If he just now learned it, he is teachable. If he knew it all along, he is a liar.

In any event, I am pleased to see President Trump reduce the tariffs on coffee, bananas, beef, tomatoes and about a hundred other common food items, including fruits, nuts and spices. I need my daily Brazil nut and I have grown fond of coffee. 

Trump has alleged for a long time that he was collecting tariffs from foreign countries. That is simply not true. The importer pays the tariff. That is not debatable; it is a fact.  It is true that an exporter may eat some of the tax, by reducing his profit margin, and so may the importer and the retailer, but most of the tax is passed on to the consumer. In any event the import tax is paid by the importer and allmost all of it is passed on the consumer. Market competition at each level of production until final purchase keeps profit margins very low.  The average profit margin for grocery stores is around 2.2%. There is little room for the grocer to absorb much of the tax. When Donald Trump brags about all of the money he has raised from tariffs, he is bragging about all of the money taken out of consumers' pockets.

Trump could have stuck to his guns, I guess, and all but the wealthy would have learned to drink coffee that was made from ground chicory. It would take a long time to onshore coffee and bananas. Maybe with Trump tacitly admitting that tariffs cause price increases to the consumer, some of Trump's supporters will stop believing everything he says. Some may; for others, there is no hope.

 

Top Stories

TN-07 Looks Like it Could Flip for the Democrats

by Rod Williams, Nov. 16, 2025- The above analysis shows that the 7th Congressional District is winnable by the Democratic nominee Aftyn Behn. It is hard to believe, but the analysis seems solid. 

I have not voted yet and am in a quandary about what to do. On the one hand, I think Trump needs to be stopped, Congress needs to reassert its authority, and Congress needs to conduct oversight.  I see Trump as a threat to America's continued existence as a democracy.  Republicans in Congress have shown no appetite for holding Trump accountable. In the abstract, I want to see Democrats retake the House. 

On the other hand, the Democratic voters of Tennessee's seventh congressional district nominated the most progressive candidate of the candidates running. Aftyn Behn has been a community organizer for Tennessee Justice Center and a community organizer for Indivisible and has advocated for an end to cash bail, defunding the police, and abolishing the Electoral College, and has advocated rolling back Tennessee's restriction on child genital mutilation procedures commonly called "gender affirming care." (1)  She has the endorsement of the Progressive Democrats of America.

As much as I want to see Trump's march toward authoritarianism stopped, I don't think I can vote for Aftyn Behn. I could have voted for Bo Mitchell; but not Aftyn Behn. I held my nose in 2024 and voted for Kamala Harris. That does not mean I will continue to vote for far-left candidates,  especially candidates for lesser offices.

I have watched videos and debates and visited his website, and familiarized myself with Republican candidate Matt Van Epps. I voted in the Republican primary and voted for him. I familiarized myself with all the Republican candidates running and perceived Van Epps to be the best-qualified and least Trumpy of the field. In this year's primary, I had to vote early due to being out of town on election day, and between the time I voted and primary election day, President Trump endorsed Van Epps. I was quite surprised. If I believed VanEpps would stand firm for conservative values against Trump's authoritarian nationalism, and he would not be just another Trump lackey, he would get my vote. 

If this were normal times, I would not think twice about for whom I would vote. Looking simply at their position on the issues, I would vote for Van Epps in a heartbeat. There would be no contest. However, these are not normal times.  Checking Trump's authoritarianism is the issue that may trump all others for me, but even that has limits. I can vote center-left in order to check Trump; I am not sure I can vote far-left. When I chose to vote for Harris over Trump, more was at stake. I was actually voting for who would occupy the highest office in the land, and Trump had attempted a coup, and Harris had not. In voting for one of 435 House members, less is at stake so the weight of the pressure to vote against my principles in order to curtail Trump's authoritarian polices is less intense. 

When Democrats did not stand a chance of winning the 7th, I had decided my vote didn't matter and I would just sit out the election. Now, that my vote would matter, I still may sit out the election but can not do so with the same peace of mind.

Top Stories

TROUBLE IN PARADISE?

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook, Nov. 11, 2025- It may not be nothing that President Trump has black-balled Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

Or, it may be nothing.  

I don't know. 

I know the MAGA majority in Congress is slim, and if a high-profile political divorce like this creates another fissure in the base, it may not be strong enough to support Trump in future demands on Congress. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

President Donald Trump said Friday he no longer endorsed Marjorie 

Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman and a former staunch ally, and that he would support a conservative challenge against her in the next Republican primary election if it were the right candidate.  In a Truth Social post Friday night, Trump said he “can’t take a ranting Lunatic’s call every day...” 

My specialty is policy, not politics, so - is this important, or just "same song, different verse" in the volatile history of Trump friendships?   The reason I ask is that Marjorie may just be the kind of person to make a few more waves than some of Trump's previous break-ups have done.  Some of them have made a little noise, but it's noise has been - well - let's just say not the kind of noise that made Marjorie famous - or infamous.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

The Flawed Reasoning Arguing Against a 50-year Mortgage

Daniel Turklay

by Daniel Turklay, Facebook, Nov. 14, 2025-  For the record, I'm neither advocating for nor opposing 50-year mortgages. It's somewhat strange to even take a firm stance on this issue. Most of the objections to the 50-year mortgage just seem to be general objections to mortgages altogether. I was genuinely surprised to learn that 50-year options aren't currently permitted; I had assumed the 30-year norm resulted from established practices, banking risk assessments, and underwriting standards, not because it was apparently the maximum term allowed.

That said, while I remain personally impartial, the arguments against 50-year mortgages are full of flawed reasoning and selective (or flat-out dishonest) interpretations. It's difficult not to gravitate toward the supportive side simply by default. Proponents tend to be those who simply recognize that a 50-year loan operates in much the same way as a 30-year one, both in structure and purpose. If you have a solid grasp of how an amortization schedule functions, you'd probably be as inherently indifferent to this as I am.

Here are a few examples of those questionable objections:

"A 50-year mortgage is essentially renting from the bank!" Firstly, no it’s not. This pearl of wisdom overlooks that it's no more "renting" than a 30- or 15-year loan which, to be clear, is not renting at all. But if we're going to indulge this intentionally reductive notion and pretend any ongoing payment makes you a mere tenant, then fine: the 50-year version still outshines actual renting by locking in your "rent" against any hikes for five full decades. (Also, you own the place at the end, but I forgot that we’re forgetting about that for now.)

"The interest is heavily front-loaded!" Only if framed that way, but this arises naturally from borrowing the full amount at the outset. It's not a deliberate scheme to boost bank profits; it's simply the mathematics inherent to every amortization table. This applies equally to shorter-term loans.

"You'll rack up enormous interest—banks will thrive on it!" Lenders focus primarily on the interest rate rather than the duration. With a shorter loan, they can relend the funds multiple times within the same overall period, achieving similar gains. They really just want you to pay the money back so they can lend it again to somebody that they’ve more recently vetted and not somebody they deemed to be a good credit risk several years ago.

Indeed, sticking to minimum payments over 50 years will result in substantially higher total interest compared to a 30-year equivalent. However, that's purely the cost of extending the borrowing period at the same rate. You only pay the maximum if the loan runs to full term without additional contributions and nobody actually does that. But, and I'll cover this more later, practically nobody actually pays their loan like that.

Understanding amortization makes it straightforward to reduce the duration. For example, on a $350,000 loan at 6% over 50 years, an extra $5,000 toward principal in the first month eliminates over four years off the mortgage. Now you have a 46-year mortgage, but with the original, more affordable monthly payment. Doesn't seem so intimidating, does it?

That front-loading of interest is precisely what allows early overpayments to deliver substantial savings in time and expense. The effect wanes later as payments shift more toward principal. But this dynamic holds true across all mortgage terms.

Lastly, and this goes towards nearly every single objection to the 50-year term of the mortgage, almost no mortgages at all are paid for the full duration with only the minimum payments being made every month. Most people will throw additional money at the principal at some point. But even those that only pay the minimums will usually not make it to the end of the term because they’ll either a) refinance the house to get some of their equity out of it or b) sell the house after 5, 10, 15, or 20 years in which case the mortgage gets paid completely off at that time. In other words, almost nobody actually behaves in a way that gives the objections any persuasive value at all. The sad part is that those objecting either haven’t realized that or they’re being intentionally dishonest about that for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.

Daniel Turklay is a criminal defense trial attorney at Turklay Law, PLLC. He lives in Lebanon, Tennessee. 

Rod's Comment: I agree. 

In addition, almost no one keeps a 30-year mortgage for thirty years. The average time a person keeps a 30-year mortgage before selling the home or refinancing is approximately 8 to 12 years. I have paid off three thirty-year mortgages, and had none of them for thirty years. 

I spent most of my career as a housing counselor for a HUD-approved housing counseling agency and helped hundreds of poor people become homeowners. There are mortgages such as variable and graduated, which I would never recommend. I would not hesitate to recommend a 50-year mortgage to a person who would otherwise never become a homeowner.

Top Stories

Could This Be The End of Single-Family Zoning?

by Megan Podsiedlik, The Pamphleteer, Nov. 11, 2025 - Single-family zoning may become a mere suggestion within the Urban Services District (USD). In the heart of Nashville, single-family residential zoning districts (RS) require a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit overlay in order for residents to pursue a permit to build a detached dwelling on their property. All that may change if the Metro Council passes a new bill that would allow DADUs for all RS zoning districts within the USD.

“If you have an aging parent, who has the right to tell you you cannot build a structure on your property to house them?” asked Councilmember Mike Cortese while addressing his colleagues during Tuesday’s council meeting. “If you have a child who's struggling financially, who has the right to tell you you cannot build a structure on your property to house them?”

Regarding affordability and property rights, the appeal cuts to the heart of the matter. But the solution comes with its own set of hurdles. 

Councilmember Courtney Johnston appreciates the bill—given that the current DADU Overlay process is “restrictive and difficult”—but wants to add some guardrails to keep the spirit of “accessory dwelling” intact.

“The amendment I put forth reduces the maximum size allowed from 850-1,200 square feet to 700-850, depending on whether your lot size is smaller or greater than 10,000 square feet,” Johnston told us. “In my opinion, 1,200 square feet exceeds the accessory nature of what is intended. Plainly said, a 1,200-square-foot unit is a house, not an accessory.”

While residents worry about infrastructure issues and neighbors building what is essentially equivalent to a second, full-sized home on a single-family lot, there are also enforcement concerns regarding the new legislation. Though the bill stipulates that the owner must occupy one of the units on the property, many are wary that landlords will take advantage of the new code.

During the community presentation on proposed Metro zoning changes two weeks ago, a District 15 resident disparaged Metro’s zoning enforcement, explaining how, despite rules and regulations, big development companies and corporations rent out units in ways that are supposed to be prohibited by Metro Code.

“What we're seeing is a lot of short-term rentals, because [these companies] say they're living in there,” she explained. “They have people come by, get the mail, etc.”

“The state has tied our hands when it comes to some types of short-term rental enforcement when it comes to noises and stuff like that,” said Councilmember Tom Cash during Tuesday’s council meeting. “It's really tough, because you have to take the person to court.” That said, Cash commended the efficiency of Metro’s code enforcement before asking the body to consider looking into community concerns. 

The bill that would expand/simplify codes for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) passed on second reading last week, and its final reading will be on December 4. A robust discussion about amendments proposed for the new zoning bills will be held during the Planning & Zoning Committee meeting on November 18.

Rod's Comment: I am not lamenting the end of single-family zoning, simply acknowledging it. What is before the Council would not force anyone to increase the density on their own property, but would allow their neighbor to build an accessory dwelling unit. There would still be communities with single-family-only housing as a result of restrictive covenants or planned communities with HOA's. I think Johnson's amendment is reasonable, and I think it is time to allow greater housing density in Nashville. 

Top Stories

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for That $2,000 Tariff Dividend. It Could Cost $600 Billion Per Year

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Nov. 11, 2025-  President Trump proposed paying a dividend of “at least $2,000 a person” with new tariff revenue in a post on Truth Social this weekend. The post noted that “high income people” would be excluded from the dividend and also discussed paying down the national debt.

Assuming these dividends are designed like the COVID-era Economic Impact Payments, which went to both adults and children, we estimate each round of payments would cost about $600 billion. In comparison, President Trump’s new tariffs currently in effect have raised approximately $100 billion thus far and – including those tariffs that have been ruled illegal pending a Supreme Court appeal – are projected to raise about $300 billion per year.

While the President did not specify the frequency with which dividends would be paid, nor the precise amount (he said “at least $2,000 a person”), we estimate that $2,000 dividends would increase deficits by $6 trillion over ten years, assuming dividends are paid annually. This is roughly twice as much as President Trump’s tariffs are estimated to raise over the same time period.

Our analysis also shows:

• On a revenue neutral basis, current tariffs could be used to pay a $2,000 dividend every other year, starting in early 2027.
• If the Supreme Court upholds lower court rulings – in which case most of President Trump’s tariffs would be illegal – income from President Trump’s remaining tariffs would be sufficient to pay $2,000 dividends after seven years.
• Using income from tariffs to pay dividends would mean that income could not be used to reduce deficits or offset borrowing from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).
• Using all the tariff revenue for rebates would push debt to 127% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2035 instead of 120% under current law; if $2,000 dividends are paid annually, debt would reach 134% GDP.

With our national debt quickly approaching an all-time high and annual budget deficits approaching $2 trillion per year, it is imperative that policymakers focus on actually reducing deficits and putting debt on a downward path. Additional tariff revenue should be used to reduce deficits – as several administration figures have stated is the intention – instead of passing that revenue onto taxpayers in the form of cash dividends.

Top Stories

Remembering the Fall of the Berline Wall

by Rod Williams, Nov. 9, 2025- Today will come and go with almost no mention that this day was the 36th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is a shame. November 9th should be a National holiday. Or better yet, it should be a worldwide holiday. It should rival a combination of New Year’s Eve and the 4th of July. There should be concerts, parades, dancing in the street, Champagne toast, ringing of church bells, and fireworks. 

On November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and the world changed forever. As the world watched, we did not know if Russia would send in troops to put down the rebellion or not. We did not know if East German guards would fire on their fellow citizens. In 1958 an uprising in Hungary was crushed. In 1968 the Czech rebellion was likewise suppressed. 

As we watched in 1989, it was hard to believe that the East German rebellion would end differently, but there was reason to hope. There was reason to believe that there were few true believers in Communism left behind the Iron Curtain. Gorbachev, to save Communism, had launched Perestroika and Glasnost, which had not saved Communism but sealed its fate. The Soviets had been forced to realize that they could not outspend the West in the arms race. The Solidarity union movement had sprung up in Poland and not been crushed and Catholicism had a Polish pope who was encouraging the Catholics behind the Iron Curtain to keep the faith, and America had a president who said his goal was not to co-exist with Communism but to defeat it. The West was more confident and the East seemed exhausted. 

With modern communications and contact between the captive peoples of the East and the free people of the West, Communist governments could no longer convince their people that Communism was a superior way to organize society. And, for the first time, attempts to spread Communism had failed. From the tiny island of Granada to Nicaragua to Afghanistan, attempts at expansion had met with failure. 

When the demonstrators in East Germany began chipping away at the wall, the guards did not fire, the Soviets did not send in tanks and the walls came tumbling down. It would still be a couple more years before the other Communist dominoes fell, but one by one they did, except for the two dysfunctional states of North Korea and Cuba. China did not fall, but morphed into a state that Marx or Mao would not recognize. It is only nominally communist. China became a mixed economy with a repressive authoritarian one-party government and it is now flexing its muscle and threatening its neighbors, but it is not spreading an ideology to change the world. 

From the time of the establishment of the first Communist state in Russia in 1917, Communism had steadily grown, taking root in country after country until by the time of the fall of the Berlin wall 34% of the world's population lived under Communist domination. And by peaceful means, Communism was gaining ground in much of the West, with “Euro-communism” gaining acceptance and becoming parties in coalition governments. 

For more than seventy years, freedom had been on the defensive and Communism had been ascending. During that time, approximately 100 million people were killed with brutal efficiency. Approximately 65 million were killed in China under Mao Zedong, 25 million in Leninist and Stalinist Russia, 2 million in Cambodia, and millions more in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America. This was accomplished by mass murders, planned famines, working people to death in labor camps, and other ruthless methods. From the thousands of Cossacks slaughtered on the orders of Lenin to the victims of Mao’s “land reform,” the totals mounted. In addition to the millions of deaths, many more millions spend part of their lives in prison in the Gulag of Russia and the reeducation camps of Vietnam and China. Those who never spend part of their life in real prisons lived in societies with secret police, enforced conformity, thought control, fear, scarcity, and everyone spying on everyone else. 

While the world looks with horror on the approximate 11 million victims of Hitler’s Europe, for some reason, less attention has been paid to the 100 million victims of Communist tyranny. While the Nazi era lasted for only 11 years, the Communist terror began in 1917 and continues to this day. The story would be complete if the last Communist regime fell, but the fall of the Berlin Wall is a landmark event. By the fall of the wall, it was clear that Communism was not the wave of the future and that freedom would survive in the world. 

Not only would freedom survive in the world, but the world itself would survive. It is easy to forget what a dangerous place the world was on the eve of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The world's nuclear stockpiles had grown to 70,000 warheads, with an average destructive power about 20 times that of the weapons that were dropped on Japan. One deranged colonel, one failure of a radar system, or one misreading of intentions could have led to events that destroyed the world. We were one blink away from destruction of life on Earth. 

If there is any event in the history of the world worthy of celebrating, it should be the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Why We Do Not Need to Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

Rod Williams: If this becomes the platform
 of the Democratic Party, I likely vote for
Trump's anointed successor.

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi, Guest Editorial, Nov. 9, 2025-The Fairness Doctrine represents one of the clearest examples of government overreach into the marketplace of ideas. By mandating that broadcasters present “contrasting viewpoints” on controversial issues, the government assumed the role of arbiter of truth and balance, effectively deciding which perspectives deserved airtime. This inherently conflicts with the First Amendment: free speech is not a privilege granted by the state, and the government has no legitimate authority to determine what constitutes fair or balanced discourse. In practice, the Doctrine chilled speech rather than enhancing it, as broadcasters often avoided controversial topics entirely to minimize regulatory risk, stifling genuine debate instead of fostering it.

Beyond its constitutional failings, the Fairness Doctrine limited the diversity and authenticity of public expression. Forcing outlets to artificially balance viewpoints treated the government as the ultimate curator of discourse, privileging conformity over creativity and dissent. Minority, unpopular, or novel perspectives were either suppressed or diluted, while established voices could manipulate the rules to their advantage. Far from promoting fairness, the Doctrine centralized control over information, undermined robust debate, and demonstrated the danger of granting the state the power to regulate the content of speech. It stands as a cautionary lesson for any modern proposal to regulate media or online platforms.

Micheale has spent years studying the Constitution, Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers, as well as key court decisions. He resides in Nashville.  

Rod's Comment: In addition to the excellent point Michael makes above, those who favor a return to the fairness doctrine should ask themselves if they want to have Trump-appointed people determining what is fairness when it comes to speech. 

Top Stories