The last 2 paragraphs of this very blunt article in Nation says a lot about the bottom line of the actions of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) practices on university and college campuses in the US :
"Still, the rise of Repress U is not inevitable. The new homeland security campus has proven itself unable to shut out public scrutiny or stamp out resistance to its latest Orwellian advances. Sometimes such opposition even yields a free-speech zone dismantled, or the Pentagon's TALON declawed, or a Project Strike Back struck down. A rising tide of student protest, led by groups like the new Students for a Democratic Society, has won free-speech victories and reined in repression from Pace and Hampton, where the university dropped its threat of expulsion, to UCLA, where Tasers will no longer be wielded against passive resisters.
Yet if the tightening grip of the homeland security complex isn't loosened, the latest towers of higher education will be built not of ivory but of Kevlar for the over-armored, over-armed campuses of America."
The suggestions of Nation's article author Michael Gould-Wartofsky and commenter Kathryn Smith (to Cormier's article) may have some positive effect toward persuasion of others, including those Senators who will be doing the voting on S 1959. But if the suggestions do effect action against S 1959, it will most likely only be because the politicians become concerned that a significant number of voters would not otherwise vote for their reelection, not because they agree with the arguments against this Bill. However there is more that can be done! Most important - and too often forgotten - is the fact that the individuals who carry out the edicts of this Bill, the enforcers, are the real problem. Without them, any House or Senate Bill would be nothing more than the paper on which it gets printed (and adds to the enormous stacks of others before it). Certainly the senators and congresspersons are not going to go out on the street and enforce the laws that they so thoughtlessly pass.
Those at OpEdNews.com (and other websites) who have written comments/articles in opposition to this type of government action are aware that S 1959 is another attempt (among many) to keep the majority of USers thinking positively of and supporting the currentadministration as well as those who want to replace it with more of just the same. If you are opposed to this Bill and your attempts fall on deaf ears to persuade friends (including relatives) and associates who are participants in this Repress U in any way, then it's time to examine how much continuation of association with those people is worth compared to being consistent in your principles.
Positive social discrimination - positive social preferencing - is what you do when you act favorably towards someone else; the more you like someone, the higher (the more positive) the social preferencing you are displaying for them and their personal characteristics you find admirable. When you do not like someone, you ignore them and their invitations - and hopefully are forthright enough to tell them why rather than pretend some illness or preoccupation. Acting towards someone as though they are a friend when you do not like their ideas on important subjects - especially those you think are harmful to yourself and others - is actually cowardly and not in your own long term best interest. It is not necessary, and in fact not desirable, to commit any physically harmful act against someone simply because his/her (hir) ideas are repugnant. Until that person is actually perceived as an imminent threat to one's physical safety (or that of one's dependents or property), it is far better to just withdraw one's approval of this person and encourage others to do likewise, giving sound reasons as to why this should be done. Whereas physical attacks against such a person could easily result in cries that would have hir appear as a martyr. (Is this not what the US government has done by physically attacking every supposed terrorist whose sanctuary it can identify?)
If large numbers of people, who recognize the potential harm that this Bill will and already has produced (as so many other actions of governments), would negatively socially preference against those who are the enforcers (in any way, even merely interacting with such enforcers) of it, the effect to counter that Bill would be considerable. Those who are enforcing this yet to be passed Bill (but technically part of the Dept of Homeland Security's mandate) would not be so enthusiastic to continue to do so if many who know them cease to be friends and minimize any transactions with them, all the while letting it be known why this is being done. And many of those considering employment with this agency would look elsewhere for a job, hopefully outside government entirely.
Do you know employees of DHS? Are they (still) treated by you as friends? If so, then I suggest you do some thinking about why you grant them such a privilege. Have you voiced your opinion to them regarding the harm that this government agency does every hour of every day? And if you've reduced your association with these individuals because of their enforcement of or support roles for harmful action, have you made it clear to them why you have done so? If someone you know voices the possibility of employment with the DHS, do you provide them with reasons why this is a long range poor idea for hir?
Don't simply look to Congress as the cause of this latest problem with having and communicating ideas contrary to those held by the current government administration - something very different from physically causing harm to others.
Keep in mind that while Congress in the US passes federal laws, the enforcing is done by individual agents in the executive branch department given that authority by Congress. Without the enforcing agents, the Laws/Mandates/Edicts are meaningless! This is a universal truism anywhere in the world. The enforcers are the key!