DePaul Reportedly Bars Conservative Speaker To Avoid Protesters and Objections

DePaul_U_Seal.svgIn May, we discussed the highly disturbing incident of DePaul security standing around as a conservative speaker was prevented from speaking on campus.  It was a terrible low for DePaul in allowing free speech to be denied to appease those who believe that only their views should be heard on campus.  Now another conservative speaker, Ben Shapiro, has reported that his event was canceled after objections from protesters.


Shapiro also had an event cancelled at Cal State LA due to protesters blocking the entries and exits to the event. These are the same tactics used at UCLA to shutdown a conservative speaker.

Shapiro says that DePaul’s Young Americans for Freedom chapter invited him but that the university intervened.  DePaul Vice President of Facilities Operations Bob Janis wrote to the chapter that “Given the experiences and security concerns that some other schools have had with Ben Shapiro speaking on their campuses, DePaul cannot agree to allow him to speak on our campus at this time.”  Really?  That is basically saying that DePaul will enforce the “heckler’s veto” and allow protesters to silence those with whom they disagree.

I find DePaul’s position incomprehensible and deeply disturbing. Universities are meant to be bastions of free speech, but they have increasingly yielded to pressures of protesters in the silencing of unpopular — and particularly conservative — speakers. DePaul must decide whether it wishes to maintain its status as a place of learning and free expression or whether it will surrender to those who will not tolerate opposing views or values.

36 thoughts on “DePaul Reportedly Bars Conservative Speaker To Avoid Protesters and Objections”

  1. Our educational and government institutions are incrementally moving in the direction perhaps best summed up as follows:

    “The organization of our press has truly been a success. Our law concerning the press is such that divergences of opinion between members of the government are no long an occasion for public exhibitions, which are not the newspapers’ business. We’ve eliminated that conception of political freedom which holds that everybody has the right to say whatever comes into his head.” — Adolph Hitler

  2. Again, take note of the usual suspects NOT commenting on this thread. You can often learn much by what people don’t say or evade.

  3. @KarenS

    You are right. We are morphing into a third world country, and the oligarchs by and large could care less, as long as their status is protected. Even in places like Venezuela, the rich are doing just fine. They are not starving, and they are not waiting in line for 8 hours for 1 bag of flour.

    Just wait until the shooting starts. IIRC, Venezuela imposed gun control a few years ago, but there are still probably millions of guns out there.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  4. You know what I think will happen? I think Liberalism will ruin our economy just like it has Detroit’s et al. The entire country will emulate Venezuela, and we’ll have our toilet paper shortages, murders over $5, any opposing view will land you in jail and lose your job if you are lucky enough to work for the only employer, the government. All prior history will be rewritten so Presidents such as Ronald Reagan and his party would be described only as opposed to all social safety nets (yes this has actually happened in a public school textbook).

    And then one day, a little band of people will come up with this great idea. What if they could create a brand new country, where there are strong individual rights. You would have the right to free speech. You would have the right to start your own business. If you worked hard, you could succeed more than your fellows who languished. You would have the right to defend yourself against the physical violence raging in the streets. The right to grow your own food and raise your own livestock, and not depend on that stale government bread. And you would have the right to sell the excess.

    Just think how wonderful such a country would seem to those people…

  5. Liberalism, the new fascism.

    Universities have created monsters. They have themselves to blame. They have been vigorously exchanging a single idea, Liberalism, for many years now. Professors encourage Liberal views for better grades on papers in ecology, poly sci, or other topics. They have encouraged such nonsense as “safe spaces” which sends the clear message that opposing viewpoints are traumatic and not to be tolerated.

    They are reaping what they sow.

    But since so many professors and administrators are extremist Leftist, I doubt they have sufficient introspection to realize their error and correct it.

    The Left is no longer the party of my grandparents. It has changed into a totalitarian, intolerant rigidity that even eats its own should they stray from a single party line. (See the savagery against Richard Dreyfuss when he merely attended an opposing political rally out of curiosity.)

  6. jonolan, it is not a matter of legal definitions–at least as to the problem on private property. Private universities already have the legal right to take action against particular ways of protesting which interfere with their operations. DePaul has chosen its response to the issue, unfortunately.

  7. America needs to make a strict legal definition of “peaceful protest” that excludes blocking access or acting in a manner that bystanders find aggressive when the protesters are not in a preassigned area of protest or govt property.

    Then we need to have the police break up such non-peaceful protests.

  8. The word or name “DePaul” sounds like some hillbilly name– duhPaul. Is it French? Where is this “school” anyway? Iowa or someplace? Chicago? If it is private then the donors should dry up. If it is public then the lawsuit should begin. Sprech Frei or Die.

  9. > “liberal fascists” x infinity

    These people are not liberal, they are illiberal by definition. Jonathan Chait, a liberal and leading voice against the left’s suppression of speech, distinguishes between liberals and the “Marxist left”:

    It is true that liberals and leftists both want to make society more economically and socially egalitarian. But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace. (So, for that matter, do most conservatives.)

    The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalism’s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents — you know, the old line often misattributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” — as hopelessly naïve. If you maintain equal political rights for the oppressive capitalists and their proletarian victims, this will simply keep in place society’s unequal power relations. Why respect the rights of the class whose power you’re trying to smash? And so, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.

    The modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones. “The liberal view,” wrote MacKinnon 30 years ago, “is that abstract categories — like speech or equality — define systems. Every time you strengthen free speech in one place, you strengthen it everywhere. Strengthening the free speech of the Klan strengthens the free speech of Blacks.” She deemed this nonsensical: “It equates substantive powerlessness with substantive power and calls treating these the same, ‘equality.’”

  10. Why isn’t the Justice Department swooping in to protect the civil rights of ALL students? Where’s the ACLU? If these universities receive taxpayer funding, shutoff the funds for these violations. Oh wait, these are not “social” justice violations, nothing to see here, move along.

  11. Ahhhh, liberal fascism at it’s best. I like the one’s that want to prosecute you if you don’t believe in what they believe in.

  12. It is about time conservatives shut down some of the left-wing speakers. Let them see how it works. Or see if the University enforces the rules differently. DePaul is gutless.

  13. In case the left hasn’t noticed, there’s a revolution underway. The Brexit vote was the first shot across the elitists bow. I suspect there will be a bigger blow here in November. Just regular folk are FED UP w/ PC. JT is diligent in posting about campus fascism. I always take note of the liberal fascist commenters who avoid these posts like the plague. Now, not all liberals are fascists. Some still believe in free speech. JT is one of them, but there are a handful of others here.

  14. Squeeky is right, no surprise.
    The opposite of diversity is…. University.

    Overpriced liberal indoctrination cells, feeding off the dead corpses of former schools of learning.

  15. As a proud liberal, I oppose censorship and limitations on free speech. The only response to speech you don’t like is more speech.

    Some people who engage in this kind of suppression of free speech have no idea what long run consequences they are enabling. The free and unencumbered exchange of ideas is the only way to ensure our freedoms.

  16. Heck, DePaul has already decided! It surrendered to those who will not tolerate opposing views or values. Heck it is probably being run by people who will not tolerate opposing views or values, and has a majority of professors who will not tolerate opposing views or values.

    What part of, the Liberal Fascists are being fascists isn’t getting through???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.