Many colleges in America face a bleak financial future. They may have survived campus riots and protests in the past, but they may not weather the financial challenges they will face starting this fall.

The virus pandemic has already altered university education, and that trend is likely to continue for the near future. College campuses are empty as more and more students are learning over the Internet. When colleges open again, will all of the 20 million college students return to the campus? A sizable number of those students may decide to take a year off rather than pay nearly $50,000 a year to take a limited number of classes online. Some colleges have indicated that they might not open in the fall.

Either or both of those scenarios could spell financial disaster for colleges. Charles Fain Lehman explains in a recent column that universities have four sources of income: tuition, public funding, on-campus fees, and endowments. Tuition income drops when students decide to take a break from college. Fewer students impact on-campus fees like housing and food service. And financially strapped states may not be able to provide as much public funding for colleges.

A few select universities will benefit from the generous endowments they have put away. Those funds are not equally distributed. One expert estimated that half of the value of all college endowments is held by just 3 percent of the schools.

Small liberal arts colleges might not have survived even without the current economic downturn. This will merely accelerate their departure. But even the state schools will face an uncertain future. If these colleges experience a 20 to 30 percent drop in revenue, many of them will face a financial crisis. We will see a significant change in the college landscape over the next few years.

The battle over church attendance and religious liberty has been the major focus of Kelly Shackelford and the First Liberty Institute. He writes about it in his article in Newsweek. When the lockdown began, I suspect the he and the other lawyers at his organization wondered what they might be doing. They didn’t have to wait very long.

Governors and mayors began to issue orders that seemed to be focused on closing down church services while other establishments remained open. In Mississippi, police surrounded a pastor holding a drive-in service where members remained in their cars with their windows up. One officer announced that his “rights were suspended.”

Louisville’s mayor announced a prohibition against any Easter church service gatherings. Meanwhile, other citizens in the city were allowed to frequent a local drive-in restaurant. That’s when First Liberty had to act and received a favorable ruling from Judge Justin Walker. That proved to be the legal “shot heard around the world.” It not only helped open up various church services but other parts of the American economy.

Kelly Shackelford acknowledges that the battle for religious liberty and church services is not over. “As we are coming out of the pandemic, we cannot let the new normal be one where our liberties are restricted.” These court decisions are helping to curb the temptation of governors and mayors to assert power over the people that is not justified in the constitution.

He concludes that freedom (especially religious freedom) is something that “realigns the boundaries that ensure self-government and lead to human flourishing.” This nation was born as an experiment in freedom, and we cannot let the current need to protect the health of Americans be a justification for eroding the foundations of freedom upon with this nation was built.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments concerning a case involving faithless electors. The president is elected by electors who travel to their state capitol and are supposed to vote according to the wishes of the voters.

What if those electors change their vote? That is the case being considered by the Supreme Court. A Colorado elector planned to cast a vote for a different candidate in 2016. The Secretary of State removed him, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Colorado could not enforce electors’ pledges. When electors did the same in Washington, they faced a fine. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the fine.

Faithless electors have been rare, but they might prove to be very significant if we have another close presidential election. On my radio program, I have to remind my younger listeners that the Supreme Court had to step in during the 2000 election. If you are older, I am sure you remember all the debate about “hanging chads” and Florida ballots.

Although the 2016 election wasn’t quite as close, it was certainly controversial. Groups of protestors took to the streets. A number of celebrities produced commercials urging electors not to vote for Donald Trump. Dozens of members of Congress skipped the presidential inauguration. Can you imagine what might happen this time if the vote is close and vote counts in certain states are challenged? A few electors could change their pledged vote and throw the decision to the House of Representatives.

How will the court vote? The justices may decide that states can require electors to vote according to their pledge. Or they might agree with some of the comments made by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers who saw the electors as an intermediary between the voters and the Presidency. Their decision could affect the next presidential election.

The actions by Judge Emmet Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case provide a clear example of what is often wrong with the judiciary today in America. Perhaps the best short commentary about this comes from Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. He has been on my radio program a few times, and I am continually impressed by his willingness to address issues his fellow liberals so often ignore.

If you are not familiar with the case, the latest actions are easy to summarize. Attorney General William Barr announced that the Justice Department would drop the charges against the former National Security Adviser. It is not surprising that former Department of Justice officials have criticized his decision. But what is surprising is the decision by the judge to keep the case going and invite outsiders to weigh in with their legal briefs.

Consider what is happening. The prosecution has decided not to pursue charges. It would be appropriate to say that the prosecutors and the defendant have agreed that the case should be dropped. That should be the end of it. Alan Dershowitz argues that once that decision is reached, “the court loses it constitutional authority to do anything but formally enter an order ending the case.” There is no controversy to decide.

He laments that many judges want more power than the constitution provides. “Not happy being umpires, they want to be commissioner of baseball.” They have “invented exceptions to give themselves jurisdiction over cases in which there is no longer any controversy between litigants.”

If someone thinks this is a miscarriage of justice, they can write editorials, or they can sign open letters or petitions. They can even have Congress investigate. But judges cannot exceed their constitutional power. We expect them to be umpires and nothing more.

Today is Memorial Day. For many Americans, it is merely a day off. For others it marks the start of summer. But hopefully for many of you, it is a day to honor those who fought for our freedom and especially for those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Sure we can enjoy our picnics and go for a walk or go for a swim. But we should take some time to put up a flag, make a banner, and perhaps participate in a parade honoring our military.

Certainly those in the military feel more loved than the vets who returned from the Vietnam War. But it wouldn’t hurt to thank those who have served our country and to make them feel appreciated. We will never be able to repay them enough for their service.

What else can we do? If you visit a few websites, you will find all sorts of suggestions. Here are a few to consider. Participate in a “National Moment of Remembrance” at 3 PM today. Pause, listen to taps, and reflect. I was in London’s Heathrow airport on Veterans’ Day. When time came to stop and reflect, the airport was absolutely quiet for a minute or so. I was impressed. We can learn something from the British and their reverence for their war dead.

You might encourage your friends, neighbors and family to visit cemeteries and perhaps even place flags on the graves. I have been to military cemeteries in Hawaii and the Philippines and have seen what is done there. We need to do the same back home.

Those of you who live near the nation’s capitol might visit one of the memorials for the Vietnam Veterans, the World War II veterans, or the Korean War Veterans.

I will let you consider what you might do to make this day special. The point is to make this day special. Too often we come to think about it as nothing more than a Monday holiday or the kick off for summer. It should mean so much more for us.

The potential for voter fraud this year is significant. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, more states are proposing a vote-by-mail electoral system. In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former attorney general Eric Holder are pushing for a national vote-by-mail option.

California governor Gavin Newsom has signed an executive order requiring every registered voter (including those listed as “inactive”) be mailed a ballot this November. Yet we know that Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112 percent of its adult population. Many of those ballots will go to addresses where the voter has moved or is deceased. Is it possible that other people at that address will use those mailed ballots?

Anyone who thinks that voter fraud is a non-issue needs to spend a few minutes looking at the Heritage Foundation database that currently lists over 1,285 proven instances of voter fraud.

The database is by no means comprehensive. It doesn’t even purport to list all the cases of voter fraud, especially when many cases aren’t investigated or prosecuted. You can find examples of false voter registrations, duplicate voting, fraudulent absentee ballots, vote buying, and illegal assistance and intimidation of voters.

If you think that voter fraud won’t impact an election, then perhaps you forgot that George W. Bush won the state of Florida by 537 votes. Donald Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes. But many state and local elections are even closer. One writer collected data from over 100 elections in Ohio that were decided by less than two votes.

Many of the changes in voting this year (voting by mail, ballot harvesting) make it easier to commit fraud and make it easier to intimidate voters. With all the potential for fraud, we should hope and pray we don’t have another close presidential election like we had in 2000 and 2016.

A major impediment to opening up the American economy are lawsuits. Congress needs to consider what liability protections are necessary so that business owners will feel confident in going back to work.

The list of lawsuits already being filed is much larger than I imagined. Consider this shortened list from the editors of the Wall Street Journal. “Trial lawyers are filing suits against emergency-supply manufacturers (false advertising), colleges (refusal to refund student fees), cruise lines (emotional distress), retailers (wrongful death), nursing homes (negligence), and governments (denial of hazard pay)—and much more.”

Some governors have used their emergency power to grant some liability protections to health care workers. That only makes sense. They should not be sued because they did not have all the necessary protection equipment or because they were dealing with a novel virus for which they had no experience.

At the least, Congress should protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits where there is no serious injury. Lawyers are already filing lawsuits against cruise lines on behalf of passengers who did not contract the virus but had an unpleasant emotional experience in the ship.

Will these lawsuits be successful? On the radio, I have talked about the wrongful death suit brought against Walmart because one of their employees died of the virus. How could you prove that the worker picked up the coronavirus at work? That would be difficult to prove, but most businesses don’t have many assets and will probably want to settle because of the expense of going to court.

Given the economic devastation of the last two months, most small businesses have few economic resources to defend themselves. A lawsuit filed on behalf of an employee or customer will put them out of business. That’s why Congress needs to have a debate about this issue now.

As various states are loosening stay-at-home orders, we are seeing more people in public spaces. But there are a significant number of Americans who aren’t coming out any time soon. The media naturally focus on the number of people at stores, malls, and parks and probably ignore people staying home.

A survey commissioned by Vital Vio concluded that about 40 percent of Americans plan to avoid public spaces unless “absolutely necessary” long after the coronavirus pandemic has subsided. The survey was of 1,000 US adults and isn’t a perfect survey of American attitudes but does give a hint as to what we might expect over the next few months.

Digging down into the survey you also discover that about a third will wait a few weeks, and a quarter (26%) will wait one or two months. Even more surprising was the fact that some respondents (16%) said they were unsure if they would ever feel comfortable out in public again.

When I have shared that last statistic, many people has trouble believing it. But think about who would be in that percentage. It would certainly include people in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. It would likely include people who have a suppressed immune system due to chemotherapy or other factors. It would also include people who already had signs of agoraphobia or paranoid fears.

I might also mention that these concerns not only will influence whether some people will feel comfortable in public places, but how they will feel in other people’s homes. A majority (58%) said they would be suspicious about their friend’s and family’s hygiene habits. This might even change our traditions of family reunions and Thanksgiving dinners.

The lockdown seems to be changing some of our perceptions about public spaces and even family gatherings. This might be one more example of moving to a new normal.

For decades we have seen awards given to music, movies, and tv programs that didn’t deserve them. Usually, they were rewarded because they were edgy or promoted the latest leftist fad or ideological cause. The latest Pulitzer Prize awarded to a New York Times columnist unfortunately follows in that sad tradition.

The prize for commentary was awarded earlier this month to Nikole Hannah-Jones for her essay that was part of the newspaper’s 1619 Project. In previous commentaries, I have talked about this project that asserts that America did not start in 1620 with the Pilgrims but in 1619 when the first slave was brought to Jamestown.

In her essay, she wrote: “Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primacy reasons colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.” This claim was so absurd that the New York Times actually felt the need to update the text with the word “some.” That led blogger and columnist Andrew Sullivan to ask, “How many Pulitzer prizes have gone to essays that have had to subsequently publicly correct one of their core claims? Or has been challenged by every major historian in the field, right and center and left?”

Prominent historians have been critical of the essay and the project. That includes such men as Gordon Wood (emeritus professor at Brown University and leading scholar on the revolutionary era) and James McPherson (emeritus professor of history at Princeton University). They (and three other historians) wrote an open letter criticizing its sloppy treatment of the facts that violated “both honest scholarship and honest journalism.”

I think the best line came from the editorial board of the New York Post who suggested that the essay and 1619 Project actually deserved the Pulitzer prize for fiction.