The safe space—“a place or environment in which a person or category of people can feel confident that they will not be exposed to discrimination, criticism, harassment, or any other emotional or physical harm,” according to the Oxford Dictionary—arose out of a perceived need for designated places in which marginalized groups could feel permitted to express themselves openly, and therefore is theoretically predicated on the ideals of free speech.

But, as safe spaces have sprung up on college campuses around the world, they’ve turned on that mission entirely.

Rather than promote open expression, safe spaces instead specialize in stifling contrarian ideas. By conflating words with violence, they merely provide “protection” by shielding students from opposing ideologies that might cause them offense. In doing so, they’ve emotionally and ideologically bubble-wrapped a generation. By delineating echo chambers, safe spaces endanger minds.

Recall that strategic competition is largely about generating disruption. Broadly speaking, disruption typically happens in two ways. At one end is innovation, which military leadership has been endlessly calling for. This is reflected in the surge of research and development funding to explore promising new technology that takes many years to mature and manifest (if ever). At the other end is adaption, where users of equipment find new ways to use combinations of what is available. Where the former is slow, bureaucratic, and well-funded, the latter is exactly the opposite. //

Adaption, not innovation, is the compelling variable in rapidly linking emergent strategies with deliberate strategies in strategic competition. Operators live in a world where the hope of innovation is not an option — we go to war with what we have. We adapt by embracing industriousness, ingenuity, and creativity to generate advantages on the battlefield and in the sky — we call this being tactical. Applying this mentality strategically would get the Air Force off the beaten path to find more rapid and disruptive ways to economically compete. Stop thinking about the F-15EX as a fighter and start viewing it as an adaptable platform. //

Though the F-15 airframe was designed to be solely an air superiority fighter, it has been used to shoot down satellites, fly to 100,000 feet, manually pilot rocket-powered precision bombs onto targets before GPS, employ stealth cruise missiles, shoot over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles, simultaneously employ multiple 5,000 lb. bunker busters, and fly 800 miles per hour just 100 feet above the ground, at night, in the weather — on autopilot. It’s even been turned into a thrust vectoring Mach 2 NASA flight test vehicle capable of taking off at just 42 mph and landing on less than 1,700 feet of runway. None of these uses were a product of the F-15’s original capabilities. Rather, they came from adaption, which was in turn built off knowledge gained from hundreds of thousands of flight hours and decades of flight science research with a platform with enabling attributes. //

Finally, for perspective on adaption, look at the venerable B-52 Stratofortress. When it entered service in 1952, no one could have imagined a bomber would be used to shoot nuclear cruise missiles, deliver stand-off precision-guided naval mines, put satellites into orbit, launch a Mach 9 hypersonic vehicle, or serve as a flight test bed for NASA. Thanks to its sheer mass and rugged design, it can accommodate the size, weight, and power considerations of emerging technology and will remain relevant for 100 years of operations — stealth not required. If you think this sounds a lot like F-15EX, you’re right. //

Updating a common phrase that originated from an airpower zealot a century ago: Flexibility, agility, and versatility are the key to airpower.

Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their free exercise claim; they are irreparably harmed by the loss of free exercise rights “for even minimal periods of time…”

This language seems to emphasize the “supremacy” of free exercise claims in the view of the five-Justice majority. This may be why CJ Roberts chose to not join the majority, as it goes against his incrementalist approach to developing new Court precedent. I predict the five Justices in the majority will return to this sentence in future cases on a host of religious freedom matters that are currently the subject of litigation around the country, many of which involve clashes between the constitutionally grounded religious free exercise right, and statutorily based “civil rights.” //

First, this was not a decision on the “merits” of the case now pending in the Ninth Circuit. What was under Supreme Court review was the refusal by the Ninth Circuit to grant an injunction against enforcement of the California restrictions while the case is pending before the Ninth Circuit. The question was whether California would be allowed to enforce the restrictions in place while it defended the case on appeal after the restriction had been upheld by a district court judge in San Jose. The Ninth Circuit had declined to issue an injunction while the matter was being reviewed, and late on Friday the Supreme Court reversed that decision and ordered that the injunction be issued while the matter is pending review. //

The Ninth Circuit panel looked at the prior decisions of SCOTUS which evaluated similar gathering venues and allowed occupancy under other types of regulations — churches v. shopping venues — and concluded its task was to compare the impact of the California restriction on in-home religious activities with the impact on in-home non-religious activities. Since both were similarly burdened by the California restriction — unlike the churches v. shopping venues in earlier SCOTUS decisions which were unequally burdened — the Ninth Circuit concluded the restrictions on in-home services would survive constitutional scrutiny.

But this approach failed to give sufficient importance to the constitutional foundation of religious free exercise. It’s not that the Ninth Circuit was defending California’s restriction, the Ninth Circuit simply drew the wrong conclusion from prior SCOTUS’s orders as to what analytic framework it should employ. In some respects this is a product of the fact that the Supreme Court has developed this body of law via the “shadow docket” and not in one comprehensive majority opinion on the issues being decided.

The New York Times has finally admitted a key error in the 1619 Project. It disqualifies it from use in our schools. //

A central essay in the project, written by Nikole Hannah-Jones, underwent a major correction this week. Only two words were changed, but they were big words. And given how much they change the underlying argument, the correction shows this project should not be used as a teaching tool in our schools. //

In the original she said that maintaining slavery was a primary motivation of colonists in revolting against England. That was one of the most bashed claims in the whole project. Now it reads, that it was a primary motivation for “some of” the colonists. //

It is hard to overstate just how massively this correction undermines the entire project. The purpose of this historian-free history of America was to refocus the American story by centering it on slavery. The idea was that 1619, the year the first chattel slaves arrived is the date of America’s founding, not the traditional 1776 with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

This re-dating of the founding of the United States only makes sense if we accept an ahistorical claim that slavery was a major reason colonists split with England. That is exactly why Hannah-Jones made the claim. It is also why the Times has dragged its feet while a deluge of virtual failed peer reviews poured in from actual historians. //

The New York Times shot for the moon on the 1619 Project. Its goal was nothing short of fundamentally changing the way Americans view the history of their country from a slow painful pursuit of freedom, to a deadly attempt to continue slavery and the oppression of minorities.