Kerby Anderson
Many colleges and universities have speech codes and other policies that narrow the realms of permissible speech. And what started on campus has made its way to the broader society.
This was a topic on my radio program when one day I was interviewing the president of a Christian college and the next day I was interviewing Nadine Strossen (former president of the ACLU). Both were against the suppression of speech even though they come from different political perspectives.
Erwin Lutzer, in his new book No Reason to Hide, devotes part of a chapter to how words and policies suppress speech. He believes that word control will lead to thought control. It puts parameters around what people can say.
One university posted a list of offensive words. Students and faculty must stop using words and phrases like picnic, trigger warning, and even rule of thumb. Other words that have been flagged in society include freshman, victim, survivor, addict, disabled person, policeman, and many others.
I believe we should be sensitive to words that could be harmful to another person. But I would also agree with Erwin Lutzer that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) goes too far because it wants baseball to ban the word “bullpen” out of a consideration for the bovine species.
Word suppression leads to verbal suppression and self-censorship. One survey discovered that nearly two-thirds (62%) of Americans said that “the political climate today keeps them from expressing their beliefs.” An even higher percentage (77%) of conservatives “feel compelled to keep their beliefs to themselves.”
We should support free speech and criticize attempts to suppress speech through speech codes or social intimidation.

Kerby Anderson
Today is Election Day, and two important questions might or might not be resolved tonight. The first question is: Who will win the election? Given our experience four years ago, the answer might not be obvious. The second question is: How peaceful will be our transition of power? Again, our experience four years ago is reason to be concerned about that.
In 1960, there were questions about whether John F. Kennedy won the presidency fairly. Rumors quickly spread that voting in Illinois and Texas had been manipulated. Perhaps the narrow margin of victory (112,000 votes) indicated that the vote total should be challenged. Richard Nixon conceded the election because he said, “our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.”

In 2000, George W. Bush led Al Gore in Florida after the first results were tallied. Because the vote was so close, a statewide recount was implemented. The machine count was even closer, so a legal battle developed.
Those of you who are older probably remember the debate over the “hanging chads.” The case finally reached the Supreme Court which ruled the hand recounts unconstitutional and essentially declared Bush the winner. Al Gore then conceded by saying, “While I strongly disagree with the Court’s decision, I accept it.”
In 2016, Donald Trump won three swing states by a mere 77,744 votes. In 2020, Joe Biden won three swing states by 42,844 votes. Controversy surrounded both elections. If the voting is close again, the election results may go into overtime.
Will we have a clear winner, or will we have to wait days or even weeks to find out? And will there be controversy over this election? We will know in a few hours.