Two and a half stars actually.

I fully agree with the first half of this quote. If those who enjoy liberty feel they do not need to know how to think for themselves, how to process all the information that each day brings to them, how to assess what it is they are learning - as to whether it serves to free them or enslave them, that liberty will always be at peril.

However, the second half contradicts a more powerful quote that Kennedy also said to Latin American diplomats at the White House on 13 March 1962.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

If it was true that learning under dictators and other tyrants, of any description, resulted in learning being in vain, none of us would be free. That is why tyrannies, of any sort, seek to obstruct people from learning how to think. They focus instead on teaching what to think.

This is what concerns me the most about recent protests on college campuses that seek to prevent people from hearing views the protestors might not agree with.

I have also sought to find the actual source of this quote. The closest I have been able to come is the following which concludes the quote is not true.

*********************************

The "B'nai B'rith" speech by "Janet Reno"

"The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace."
---Falsely attributed to Janet Reno, then-state attorney for Dade County, speech to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida B'nai B'rith gathering, ca.1991.

This supposed "quote" first got national attention when it appeared in the April 1995 issue of Soldier of Fortune, as part of an article by Mike Williams entitled "Citizen Militias: '...Necessary to the Security of a Free State...' " and was picked up by the New York Times Syndicate as part of their coverage of the militia movement in the wake of the bombing in Oklahoma City.

According to editorials by Martin Dyckman, published in the St. Petersburg Times May 2 and May 28, 1995, the "quote" appears to have originated with an affidavit written by Fred Diamond of Miami, FL who claimed to have heard Reno speak in Coral Gables (not Fort Lauderdale) "on or about November 1, 1984". According to Diamond's affidavit, "Janet Reno told the members of our group assembled, that waiting periods were only a step, that registration was only a step, and further that the prohibition of the private ownership of firearms was the only ultimate solution to controlling crime. I was shocked and appalled to hear her, an elected public official sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, espouse and advocate a position that would effectively repeal the guarantees of the Second Amendment."

Early in 1993, after Reno was nominated to be Attorney General, Diamond talked to Marion Hammer, then the National Rifle Association's Florida lobbyist, and NRA sent him affidavits to sign. Diamond says he rejected their first draft. Subsequently, Hammer's newsletter, Florida Firing Line, published an article on Reno in March 1993, including almost word for word the key passage from Diamond's affidavit about what Reno allegedly said, but the newsletter put the speech in 1991, not 1984. Diamond didn't sign the affidavit (with the correct year) until June 17, 1993, after Reno had already been confirmed.

Reno has been questioned about the "quote" and denies having said it, either in 1991 or 1984. A spokesman for the Justice Department, Bert Brandenburg, told the New York Times syndicate: "The assertion is untrue and the attorney general has never made such a statement" (Cleveland Plain Dealer, May 2, 1995). The Reno "quote" has appeared in print elsewhere, including National Review on May 29, 1995 as part of an article by Alan W. Bock about the militia movement; and was reprinted in a Guns and Ammo editorial by Ed Moats on concealed carry in October of 1996.

***********************************

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

Looking back at the full opinion for this case, the footnote for the quote - which itself is quoted in the Court's opinion, was omitted. It does, however, give a footnote - fn 63 - that appears to expand on what the Court's meaning was for including the quote. Please see the following....

http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/westbrook-v-mihaly-30152

Or the specific sections below. (Posted for those who do not wish to follow the link.)

" More fundamentally, popular approval of electoral systems which infringe an individual's constitutionally protected right to cast an equally weighted vote is irrelevant. 'A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be. [Fn. omitted.]' (Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, supra, 377 U.S. 713, 736-737 [12 [2 Cal.3d 797] L.Ed.2d 632, 647]; Jordan v. Silver (1965) 381 U.S. 415 [14 L.Ed.2d 689, 85 S.Ct. 1572] (concurring opinion).) fn. 63 "


Footnote 63

"FN 63. "'The protection of constitutional rights is not to be approached either pragmatically or expediently, and though the fact of enactment of a constitutional provision by heavy vote of the electorate produces pause and generates restraint we can not, true to our oath, uphold such legislation in the face of palpable infringement of rights. Thus, state racial legislation would unquestionably enjoy overwhelming electorate approval in certain of our states, yet no one would argue that this factor could compensate for manifest inequality. It is too clear for argument that constitutional law is not a matter of majority vote. Indeed, the entire philosophy of the Fourteenth Amendment teaches that it is personal rights which are to be protected against the will of the majority. The rights which are here asserted are the rights of the individual plaintiffs to have their votes counted equally with those of other voters .... [T]o say that a majority of the voters today indicate a desire to be governed by a minority, is to avoid the issue which this court is asked to resolve. It is no answer to say that the approval of the polling place necessarily evidences a rational plan. The plaintiffs have a right to expect that the cause will be determined in relation to the standards of equal protection. Utilization of other or different standards denies them full measure of justice.'" (Lisco v. Love (1963) 219 F.Supp. 922, 944 (dissenting opinion); quoted in Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly, supra, 377 U.S. 713, 737, fn. 30 [12 L.Ed.2d 632, 647-648].) "