While we’ve been discussing the cost of textbooks, tax surpluses, bike helmets and pants, the rest of the Pac-12 has been touching on media coverage of Ron Paul, the growth of religious influence in politics and criticisms of art. Take a look at what the Pac-12 has to say:

Arizona State University State Press

“Neither (Ron) Paul nor (Buddy) Roemer are big money candidates, and I think that is the problem. Both have spoken out against corruption in the election system and government as a whole. Paul came in second in the Iowa straw poll and got hardly any coverage. Roemer has been both governor of Louisiana and a senator, and after only four weeks of campaigning is tied at 1 percent in polls with John Huntsman … When a candidate, like Roemer or Paul, are (sic) just dismissed because they don’t have the funds that megastars like Perry or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney do, it is a disservice to the American political system.”

— “The media hates Ron Paul” by Oonagh McQuarrie

University of Southern California: The Daily Trojan

“(Michele) Bachmann and (Rick) Perry aren’t just devout; both supposedly have ties to a fringe fundamentalist movement known as Dominionism, which states that Christians have the God-given right to rule institutions. Both Bachmann and Perry have taken beliefs from Dominionism, according to a Daily Beast article, and put into action the idea that the American government should be a Christian theocracy based around a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture. If either one of these candidates is elected, they could transform America into a country that emphasizes religion even more than it does now.”

— “Increased presence of religion is dividing politics” by Kelly Speca

University of California, Los Angeles: The Daily Bruin

“… while criticism is a healthy part of any society’s artistic life, there is much about this particular criticism (of Tyler, the Creator) that is questionable. It amounts to the hammer of ideology being brought to bear on art, on expression in its purest form.

Our discourse on expression is already dominated by a monotonic political correctness. In any given cultural situation, there is the implicit rule to check any slight deviation with a knee-jerk “that’s racist,” “that’s sexist” or the imperishable “that’s offensive.” I find much of the backlash to be in this facile, thoughtless vein. What makes it sinister is that this cultural autoimmune disease is infecting art.”

— “Criticism of art should focus on the aesthetic, not ideological” by Ram Dolom