University of Miami Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos Event In The Name Of Security

200px-UMiamiSeal.svgAnother university has cancelled a conservative speaker under the guise of security concerns. The speaker is Milo Yiannopoulos who has repeatedly been disrupted or cancelled in his effort to speak on campuses (as well as being barred by Twitter). Yiannopoulos attracts considerable opposition and seems to relish the controversy with his “Dangerous Faggot” tour.

I have been a critic of the erosion of free speech values on our college and university campuses. As discussed recently, conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulous has been the target of some of the most aggressive efforts to silence certain speakers and prevent other students from hearing opposing views. One of the latest such protests occurred hed at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). After protesters blocked fellow students and faculty from entering to hear Yiannopoulous, campus police found an alternative avenue for the audience.

University of Miami’s College Republicans had scheduled the speech for October 3rd, but a faculty panel cancelled the event over alleged “security concerns.”  That seems like a rather convenient claim that more often results in the canceling of conservative speakers.  If true, the concern is that faculties are yielding to the mob as they seek to block other people from coming and listening to conservative speakers.  There is also a concern that security has become the perfect rationale for blocking controversial speakers in the name of campus safety to avoid the obvious denial of free speech.  If a university cannot protect the rights of people to be heard on its campus, it has no right to call itself a place of learning.  Faculty are routinely appearing as either willing enablers in the silencing of speakers or cringing cowards who fear confronting students who want to silence others.


Schools like the University of Miami have conveyed that they will yield to those who want to prevent others from hearing speakers, particularly speakers from the conservative movement.  Obviously, such success in silencing opposing views only encourages others to replicate such censorship or obstruction on other campuses as was the case this month at LSU.  Once schools allow students and faculty to taste the silencing of speech, the appetite becomes insatiable and we find ourselves on a slippery slope of censorship as groups and individuals cite microaggressions and discomfort from speech.  As academics, we are playing with our own demise in fostering this new age of speech regulation.


117 thoughts on “University of Miami Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos Event In The Name Of Security”

  1. Paul, I watched that last night. A masterful (mistressful?) performance. The allusions to Marilyn Monroe AND Marie Antionette (wig) were fabulous. Milo kicked it. I also noted that this time there were many women in the audience. I think the younger generation enjoys the entertainment value — they do not connect to the admonishments by Gloria Steinem and her ilk.

    1. The southern frat bros luv him. The young hipsters in Brooklyn and Portland not so much…….

      1. LOL! Anyone w/ half a brain knows Milo has nothing but derision for Brooklyn hipsters. He chews them up and spits them out.

          1. alejandro – if you were going to hire a ‘token’ gay you would hire a queen like Milo. Milo is anything but Token!!!

    2. Autumn – the important thing is his audience goes away know that their professors are giving them a snow job. 🙂

  2. Of possible interest to the non SJWs on this site (feel compelled to post a micro aggression warning for snowflakes): author Lionel Shriver speaking at the annual “Festival of Dangerous Ideas” in Sydney. She’s a great writer as well as a thoughtful contrarian IMO

  3. Ahhh yes the good old days.
    In the mid60s the head of the American Nazi Party came to speak at Oregon State. I eagerly wanted to hear him…I was a member of the NROTC at OSU…wanted to hear the enemy. He was heckled by some but for the most part respectfully treated by a very conservative student body. Should I mention that the liberal live and let live Univ. of Oregon clowns tear gassed the Military Ball site. But that was OK I guess as our football team went to our Engineering Building and physically bounced UofO protesters down the concrete steps during Dow Chemical interviews of prospects. The wimps didn’t come back.

    A salient problem is that there are too few conservatives left on campus as we are tired of the discrimination. Ever notice that the one who responds to a taunt kid the one people first go after? Try to hold another to account and automatically become a perpetrator. Tell somebody to correct egregious behavior and a bystander will call you rude for being “aggressive”.

    1. Renegade – the conservatives are still on campus, they are just playing the long game.

  4. Hell, Milo gets more of a turnout than HRC and he certainly doesn’t have to bus in his audience from other schools!

  5. Paul, He is passive physically ala MLK. When BLM protesters manhandled Milo on stage @ DePaul, he sat passively and did not raise a fist. There is a real strategy to what he says, does, and doesn’t do.

  6. Does this university accept federal funding of any kind? Would that enable the federal government to weigh-in on 1st amendment protections wherever that relationship exists?

    Also, I don’t believe the university will respect the will of the conservative students until a significant number of them stopped patronizing their institution.

    1. It would allow the federal government to cut off the aid if cutting it off did not constitute viewpoint discimination. In theory. In practice, it’s whatever the lawyers will let them get away with.

  7. Tin, Milo is a shameless and admitted self promoter. I would say his tactics are quite effective. He’s using passive resistance which shows how fascists the left have become.

      1. Kind of reminds one of Trump. A carnival barker is a carnival barker is a carnival barker, regardless of the message. Shock jocks, Trumps, and Milos should all be there to get us to think but that’s all, never in a position of power or leadership. What one thinks is up to the individual.

        1. issac – Milo was kind enough to explain to Leftists how to get rid of the alt-right. Of course, the Left would not be caught dead listening to him. All the little special snowflakes would melt.

          1. Paul

            I’m a fan of commonsense which is in short supply on both the left extreme and the right extreme. In order to avoid the extreme reactionary drivel, such as is found with Trump as well as the mindless left, one has to linger a while around the center, sometimes left of center and sometimes right of center. In all cases one must avoid the religion of the ‘party’. I am appreciative regarding many points made by the hundreds of Republican leaders and other officials both past and present who are disgusted with Trump and the extreme right as well as the extreme left. They understand that while the extreme left is loony and its own worst enemy, the extreme right and Trump are simply put, dangerous, disgusting, deplorable, and represent America’s shame.

            However, the issue here is freedom of and access to speech. In order to understand that a carnival barker barks drivel and in the case of Trump hatred, you have to listen. You can’t tell a fascist without listening. The true test is to listen but not allow one’s emotions to get snagged. What is telling is that the main emotion of the extreme left and most of the right is hatred. With hatred comes a closed mind and a refusal to listen, followed by a refusal to allow certain people to speak, and then an even more closed mind. This university reminds one of religious universities. Let’s hope our institutions don’t become closer to the Islamic schools which, after eliminating alternative concepts replaced them with hate. The University of Miami should be ashamed.

            1. issac – have you actually taken the opportunity to listen to Milo speak? He is an engaging speaker and much better when he is doing Q&A. He takes no prisoners.

              1. I have heard him speak and as I said, the most important ingredient of a free democracy is access to all points of view. Milo is clever, confident, and well spoken. He creates a foundation in the common interest of the freedom of expression. His argument against extreme positions on both the right and the left gives him credibility. And then he goes on from there.

                One thing I have heard him say from time to time is mention ‘those of the extreme left’ as well as those of the extreme right. On this blog most of the participants are not of the same calibre as Milo. Most participants on this blog label and target the left in its entirety. This is the problem with a duopoly. The more successful democracies have four parties: Center Left, Center Right, Far Left, and Far Right. This illustrates a clear division between those that make up the majority of citizens, those on either side of the center. If one follows politics in France, Canada, Great Britain, etc not only does one not have to be exposed to such a shameless carnival and circus but one can more clearly differentiate who represents what.

                These days it must be excruciatingly difficult for most Republicans to have Trump as their candidate. He represents nothing but the emotions of anger, frustration, despair, etc; and all coming from those who have no reason to be angry, frustrated, or in despair. Trump does not represent any ideals or philosophies on which a country is built but simple emotions and illusions. But, you have to be able to listen to him to understand that, really listen, and do a little reading and research. That’s what the hundreds of Republican leaders and officials both past and present have done and that’s why they find him unsuitable to be President. That’s not coming from me. These highly respected leaders voice their opinions in the media daily. But you have to read newspapers from both sides. Read the Washington Post and then read the Washington Times. Edit out the editorials.

    1. Since you use no qualifiers are you implying that all individuals whose politics are on the so-called left end of the political spectrum are fascists or have fascist leanings?

      1. No, he’s pointing out what we all know. Gliberals and leftoids fall into the following categories.

        1. People with little investment in public affairs. They have sentiments, but nothing intensely held.

        2. The very old (e.g Nat Hentoff).

        3. People with the mentality of school administrators and judges and the mental health trade. Dissent from what’s taken for granted in their social circle is conceived of as a mixture of classroom disruption, contempt of court, or psychopathology. They cannot and will not argue a point with anyone, certainly not without engaging in gamesmanship.

        4. Adolescents. You’re only young once, but you can be immature forever.

        5. Mark Kleiman and Harold Pollack and Glenn Loury.

        1. No, he’s pointing out what you and he and some others obviously believe. To claim that the tens of millions of liberals and/or progressives in this country fall into five categories which conveniently fit your preferred stereotypes is not a credible truth claim. Would you find it credible and acceptable if I made up five categories to describe all the tens of millions of conservatives or libertarians in the country?

          1. is not a credible truth claim.

            No, it’s credible enough. Just inconvenient for you.

            1. Horsecrap. Whether it is or is not inconvenient to me (I reject the claim that it is) is irrelevant. It is not credible because no actual evidence-based argument is offered on behalf of these categories. I have little doubt that you simply invented these categories in your own mind or adopted them from someone else who simply invented them because they fit neatly and conveniently into the stereotypes you have developed about liberals and/or those who disagree with your politics.

              1. peltonrandy – we know who got the talking points for the Clinton campaign today, don’t we? David Brock always gives himself away.

                1. Expecting someone to offer an evidence-based argument for a claim is a Clinton talking point? I suggest you enroll in a course on Critical Thinking 101 and/or Argumentation 101 at your local university.

                  1. peltonrandy – I got an A in my graduate Critical Thinking and Analysis class. Really do not think I need a refresher. Asking for prove of the unproveable is a Clinton tactic.

  8. If Milos really wants to speak to U. of Miami students, I’m sure there is a private hall he can rent nearby. I enjoy his speeches but am beginning to wonder if he uses the banning or interruptions of his speeches as a publicity stunt. He can certainly afford to rent a private venue and bring his own security detail. Yet he continues to allow himself to be shut-down by a couple of protesters taking the stage while he sits passively by like a big wimp. His refusal to take responsibility for his own presentations is not fair to his audience and not at all impressive as one who proclaims to be a free-speech advocate.

    1. to wonder if he uses the banning or interruptions of his speeches as a publicity stunt.

      His critics pretty much walk into that one.

    2. TIN,

      Milo is brilliant – the more he’s banned the more publicity he gets – and arouses curiosity so people that may never have heard of him check out his videos. I would never classify Milo as a wimp though he is very femme =)

          1. What does it mean to ‘go after’ ‘black people’. You fancy Milo is down on the South Side leading riot gangs?

            1. Milo called black people “gorillas”. University of Miami is probably trying to avoid violence.

              1. Kate – would you put that ‘gorilla’ quote in context. Give us the entire paragraph.


                  He called an actress named Leslie Jones ugly. Some other people tweeted pictures of Leslie Jones as a character out of Planet of the Apes. In Kate’s mind, this means Milo Y called ‘blacks’ ‘gorillas’ and thus ‘goes after’ ‘blacks’. It must be awfully frustrating to have to share digs and converse with Kate on a daily basis. Tough for her therapist too.

                    1. Autumn – see her in A View to a Kill (James Bond flic). Keep the controls in your hand. When she is in the backless dress, stop the action and see how muscled and ropey her back is. 🙂 She could pass.

                    2. No, she’s very lithe, with some refined facial features. She’s in great shape too. She gave a performance for the Queen’s most recent jubilee. She was 64 at that time. You can see the performance here. Watch to the last note.

              1. Kate – you need to see on of his speeches. They do pull back on the crowd. And then at the end he stays for people to take selfies with him. Lots of women.

              2. a bunch of white straight me.

                I think what’s Kate’s trying to tell us is that white straight men tend to dislike her.

                  1. Who, unlike ‘white straight men’, deserves to be treated with the utmost delicacy.

  9. Joseph Schmitz, one of five advisors to Trump on his foreign policy team, yup!!!

    Schmitz served as inspector general at the Department of Defense during the George W. Bush administration. A Los Angeles Times investigation in 2005 revealed a number of issues with Schmitz’s term there.

    Schmitz slowed or blocked investigations of senior Bush administration officials, spent taxpayer money on pet projects and accepted gifts that may have violated ethics guidelines, according to interviews with current and former senior officials in the inspector general’s office, congressional investigators and a review of internal email and other documents.

    Schmitz also drew scrutiny for his unusual fascination with Baron Friedrich Von Steuben, a Revolutionary War hero who is considered the military’s first true inspector general. Schmitz even replaced the official inspector general’s seal in offices nationwide with a new one bearing the Von Steuben family motto, according to the documents and interviews.

    He later became a senior official at the Prince Group, the parent company of defense contractor Blackwater. In an article in The Washington Post covering the move, Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, said, “The inspector general is a standard-bearer for ethics and integrity for the Pentagon. To see a person who has been holding that position cash in on his public service and go work for one of their contractors is tremendously disappointing.”

        1. Teaching, Clintonistas get their talking points daily and they act like good sycophants and spout those talking points anywhere and everywhere.

          1. I’ve never seen it done so mechanistically. It’s as if he has a miscalibrated bot which places these comments.

        1. The Christian Science Monitor. About 30 years ago. Perhaps the Times ‘ere AM Rosenthal retired.

          1. Use to read the Monitor years ago when I had easy access to it. Can’t speak to its quality today given I’ve not read it in many years. But telling me the Monitor was reputable 30 years ago is not responsive to my question about what news sources you consider reputable in the present. You also did not respond to the first part of my comment. What is your basis for claiming that the LA Times is not a reputable news source? This claim, like all other such claims that are made without the proffer of evidence or an actual argument, is no better than any other opinion. I attach no credibility to opinions which people try to pass off as factual claims.

            1. You don’t seem to be able to differentiate between me and Paul Schulte.

              That aside, ordinary news sources have wrecked their credibility in stages over a period of about five decades. Not sure any are much good anymore. The wretched economics of newsgathering have limited their ability to recruit capable people or provide editors with budgets, so you get slap dash work which reflects the psychological and cultural defaults of reporters and editors, which have long been uniform re the national press corps. Then you get agencies like NPR, which had a troublesome institutional culture from the beginning (George McGovern’s campaign manager was the president of NPR from 1975 to 1983) or from not long after (CNN).

              1. First, sorry for the mistake. Did not actually look at the name. Assumed it was Paul Shulte responding.

                As to the rest of your response, I assume you are expressing merely an opinion since no actual evidence-based argument is offered in support of the multiple claims you make. If I am to take what you say as factual then you’ll have to do better than merely stating these claims as though each is an obvious indisputable factual truth merely because you said so.

                1. As to the rest of your response, I assume you are expressing merely an opinion since no actual evidence-based argument is offered in support of the multiple claims you make.

                  It’s a blog comment pelton. I’m not going to go to the trouble of producing for you a bibliography of survey research on the political attitudes of occupational subcultures, or of content analysis of news stories. If you’re interested, you can look up the work of Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter.

  10. “The University of Miami is a private institution. The 1st amendment does not apply. ”

    The slave plantations are private institutions, which is, of course, why the 13th amendment does not apply.

    1. I’ll explain it to you simple and slow: subjecting someone to involuntary servitude is a crime under state law. The 13th Amendment is a component of the legal regime inasmuch as it forbids state governments (and the federal government) from enforcing contracts which incorporate involuntary servitude.

      The 1st amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law’. It does not say, ‘no party shall make any rule’.
      “1st amendment” applied to private parties would prevent any private party from having an institutional mission not given a license by a bloody judge. If you think that’s ‘freedom’, you’re stupid.

      1. “1st amendment” applied to private parties would prevent any private party from having an institutional mission not given a license by a bloody judge.”

        Actually, that makes no logical sense at all. As a practical matter institutions have no control, right now, over the speech of their copy writers and spokes people. Yet they still manage to present their message regarding their mission statement and vision. They do that by hiring people who agree or people who are comfortable being co-opted for money.

        Institutions have no trouble at all finding people to present their view and carry out their mission – no license or judges required.

        “If you think that’s ‘freedom’, you’re stupid.”

        My, what an original, illuminating and compelling statement. You must win all the arguments.

        1. Actually, that makes no logical sense at all.

          No, mike, you can make no sense of it. Any organization with a common mission can properly expel members for speaking against that mission. And they should. The question at hand would be whether the University of Miami has a common mission that they could begin to defend in plain language.

          1. “No, mike, you can make no sense of it. Any organization with a common mission can properly expel members for speaking against that mission.”

            Your claim was that if the first amendment applied to private institutions then they would not be able to present their view or carry out their mission without authorization from a judge – as you stated here:

            “1st amendment” applied to private parties would prevent any private party from having an institutional mission not given a license by a bloody judge.”

            But as I have pointed out, institutions can alway hire those who agree or those who can be co-opted by money to present the institutions view and carry out its mission.

            You don’t need a judges permission to hire people who agree with you and want to express that point of view. You don’t need a license to hire people to carry out the institutions mission. That fact remains true regardless whether the 1st applies to the institution or not. That fact remains true regardless of whether the institution can fire individuals for cause or not.

            Your statement “1st amendment” applied to private parties would prevent any private party from having an institutional mission not given a license by a bloody judge.” makes no logical sense.

            If you really believe that, then tell us the steps that lead to that conclusion. Tell us why respecting freedom of speech leads to the requirement that institution get a license to carry out their mission. How do you get from respecting freedom of speech to having to get a license for any action – any action at all?

            Tell us, I’m curious?
            Nevertheless, credit where credit is due. I thought you gave a pretty good one paragraph explanation of why the 1st does not apply to private institutions and the 13th does.

            1. Mike, the principle is simple enough. It has one component in positive law and another in the sociology of organizations. I can explain something to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.

              1. ” I can explain something to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.”

                You are the one who said: “1st amendment” applied to private parties would prevent any private party from having an institutional mission not given a license by a bloody judge.”

                I am listening carefully. So explain, exactly, how would extending the requirement for freedom of speech to institutions lead to the requirement for licensing and approval by a judge?

                Just lay out the logic, as you see it.

                Just tell us how freedom of speech leads to the legal requirement for licensing through the judicial process.

                Just tell us how freedom speech leads to the necessity that a judge approve the actions of an institution.

                Now I know your discussion will be rigorous beyond compare. But I am sure there are some readers, here, who can with some concentration, comprehend your rarefied discussion. I assure you, we are all waiting for your discussion with great anticipation.

                Please, please tell us, exactly, how it is that recognizing the right of freedom of speech leads to the legal requirement of licensing by a judge?

                You have our attention. Please, do tell.

                1. Please, please tell us, exactly, how it is that recognizing the right of freedom of speech leads to the legal requirement of licensing by a judge?

                  Mike, I can repeat myself yet again. You present yourself as having an actionable claim under the 1st amendment against a private party, that private party is not self-governing and is subject to the will of the judge. If you don’t like the private party’s rules, disaffiliate from that private party. You cannot, of course, disaffiliate from the state. The text of the first Amendment gives you a claim of immunity against state action, not against your employer, or against the University of Miami, or against the executive board of the Auto Club.

    1. I doubt this. I think you are deluding yourself if you actually believe that Trump is going to win. Trump has a very limited number of paths to an electoral college win. Don’t be fooled by national poll. Even the narrowing within some state polls only marginally improves his situation in terms of electoral votes.

      1. I doubt this. I think you are deluding yourself if you actually believe that Trump is going to win.

        Your kind was telling me six weeks ago that Hilligula was going to roll up a landslide. We were getting the same bitch from sore loser business Republicans.

        1. If by my kind you mean liberals, I was not one of them saying this. I have never thought it would be a landslide election. But I still maintain that Trump is not likely to win for the reason I stated in the part of my comment that followed the part you excerpted. It likely will be something of a squeaker election as far as the popular vote. Electoral vote may also be close, but Trump’s limited number of pathways to that magic 270 number are so limited that I highly doubt he’ll get there.

  11. The faculty and administration are not bowing to the mob. They are collaborators with the mob. The faculty panel gives the administration cover and the faculty use the mob as a excuse to do what they wished to do anyway. The story is not about ‘free speech’. The story here is that higher education is staffed by people who have little integrity and have a deficient understanding of just what their role in society is and should be.

    Institutionally, the problem is, as always, the trustees, who are always nonfeasant.

      1. I suspect the faculty and administration are completely insensitive to donor pressure unless it really begins to bite. Their self-concept does not permit them to be any other way. Try-every-door non-compliance is what these people do unless you booby trap all the doors. What really motivates them is loss of peer esteem. What they’re doing now will not cause loss of peer esteem.

        1. Teaching Spastics to Dance – alumni donations hurt all departments. My alma mater calls me twice a year, once for each college I graduated from. I tell both I will give them any money until the current president resigns (or dies whichever comes first) and the football teams wins the Rose Bowl again. That always ends the call until the next year. I have seen the football team play. Doesn’t look like they are getting any money this year. 😉

          1. “Hurt” it may, but it will not change their behavior. The way to change the behavior of the faculty is for the trustees to shut down an academic department and discharge it’s faculty and to order the dismissal of problem administrators (e.g. the ‘dean of diversity’). And you’ll get grudging compliance. Nothing more.

    1. This is an overstated generalization. There are plenty of universities and colleges in the U.S. that perform their function quite well, including permitting a diversity of viewpoints and practicing an admirable support for free speech. University of Chicago is but one of numerous examples. You treat higher education here as though it is one monolithic institution and fail to understand that within the system of higher education there is a great diversity of institutions acting along a wide range of commitment to those values most people think universities and colleges should exhibit.

      1. We treat higher education as monolithic because it’s pathologies are pervasive and because arts and sciences faculties, teacher training faculties, social work faculties, law faculties, and student affairs apparatchiki are pretty uniform in their outlook – within and between institutions. The sorts of institutions which escape Monovox tend to have a vigorous and self-conscious counter-culture (e.g. Brigham Young) or to be intensely focused on rigorous vocational instruction (e.g polytechnics). It’s pretty standard as well for counter-cultural schools to have a Vichy element on the faculty which wishes to destroy their particularity and render the school just like every place else.

    1. The University of Miami is a private institution. The 1st amendment does not apply. What is of note is that the faculty lack the culture which is architectural for a society governed by deliberative processes. It is the faculty’s conception that only people who are members of society have a voice, and only people like themselves are members.

    2. As objectionable as this may be, no irreparable harm has been done to the First Amendment. It certainly has not been neutered. While I think Milo Yiannopoulos views on most subjects to be obnoxious and extremely objectionable, I don’t think that he should be denied a platform to speak once the invitation has been extended. This said, it should be noted that the right to free speech does not mean you have a right to access any platform you wish from which to speak. The real error here was inviting him to speak in the first place. But once the invitation was extended a sincere commitment to free speech obligated the university to follow through with the speech.

      1. The real error here was inviting him to speak in the first place.

        Why is that an ‘error’? Higher education tolerates all manner of obscenity and license on its premises. They can claim so-and-so’s sensibilities must be respected, but they cannot claim that without being shameless. They’re not quite shameless, which is why you get these fraudulent complaints about security.

        1. Even as a metaphor this is absurd. It’s as ridiculous as the claim that Jesus actually walked on water. If there are any humans deserving to have this metaphor applied to them, Milo certainly is not one of them. If we were to take on the task of ranking the estimated 108 billion humans who have ever lived, Milo would not even rank in the top 107,999,999,999.

            1. Given that Hell is just as fictional as God, heaven, Jesus and all his alleged miracles, angels, and demons, I have no doubt that your prediction about my future fate is as wrong as has been all the many end-of-the-world predictions that believers have made over the past 1900 years.

              1. peltonrandy – considering the number of societies that consider some type of Hell, I think I would keep an open mind.

  12. Any student or teacher who engages in this type of censorship cannot and should not be “allowed” to get away with claiming they are either liberals or progressives. Freedom of speach is a cornerstone of any well functioning democracy. Shouting speakers down or making it impossible for them to be hears is wrong in any venue but on college campuses it is an appalling betrayal of the entire concept of education.

    What’s next burning books?

    1. should not be “allowed” to get away with claiming they are either liberals or progressives.

      You don’t get it. What we call ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ is all about substituting the judgment of self-declared ‘experts’ for the judgements of parents, police officers, soldiers, and businessmen. Very often, it reduces to having lawyers evaluating everyone else. It has nothing to do with liberty or self-government, and everything to do with cadres declaring everyone else their wards. Read Alvin Gouldner, Christopher Lasch, and Thomas Sowell, and you get the idea.

      1. Robert Stacy McCain has been banned. McCain’s a perfectly ordinary Republican of a flinty/abrasive sort with some eccentric intellectual interests, among them writing critiques of women’s studies programs. He was once deputy editor of The Washington Times. That’s a signal that the only acceptable opposition will be from Republicans who cower, like Paul Ryan.

      2. Would you seriously call Prof Reynolds a conservative? He was inciting people to kill. I suspect he might get fired.

        1. Kate – the professor was inciting people to self-preservation. How dense are you?

          1. Hitting a pedestrian with your automobile is a crime. Go out and try it ad see what happens to you.

              1. Bet he loses more than his twitter account.

                You’re going to lose your money, Kate. He did nothing wrong except in ‘minds’ of people such as yourself. He’s also a tenured faculty member with an endowed chair. They’d have to have evidence of gross personal misconduct to rescind his employment contract or they’d have to land in front of a judge who ‘thinks’ the way you do.

              2. There’s nothing for them to ‘investigate’, Kate. They’re issuing press releases to slam Reynolds because Reynolds is a persistent critic of higher education apparatchiki like these two. People who benefit from the bloat in higher education tend to resent people who point out the rent seeking and feather-bedding.

            1. Kate – blocking traffic on the freeway is a crime and attacking the car people are in is a crime. I would run them down. Fight or flight.

        2. He was inciting people to kill.

          He wasn;t, Kate. He does assume people who read his words have minimal reading comprehension and are not addled by hate. You’re not person, so you get it wrong.

              1. Trapping people in their car is threatening, terroristic behavior.
                You should fear for your life.
                Your only defense is to drive on, over, through.

  13. A lot of students are going to miss a great speech. It is sad that the university is a wuss.

Comments are closed.