Northwestern University President Calls Faculty And Students Opposed To Safe Zones “Lunatics”

bio-page220px-Northwestern_University_Seal.svgI recently expressed unbridled pride in my alma mater, The University of Chicago, in taking a stand for free speech and rejecting the notion of sheltering students from opposing or disturbing views with “safe spaces” and speech codes. Now, across town, my other alma mater, Northwestern University, appears intent on embracing the opposing view. Northwestern President, Morton Schapiro, has called faculty and students who adhere to views underlying the “Chicago Principle” as nothing more than “lunatics.” Fortunately, I only went to Northwestern for graduate school and was able to secure my undergraduate degree at Chicago in a free and robust community of free thought and free expression. The contrast in the two schools on different sides of the city captures the deep division among academics. However, as one of those “lunatics” and “idiots” denounced by Schapiro, there is no question in my view where the better educational environment can be found in light of Schapiro’s comments. He also denounced those with opposing academic views as just speaking from their privileged backgrounds and lifestyle.

The University of Chicago last week promised incoming students something that is increasingly rare in the United States: an unfettered and uncensored education. While most schools are actively curtailing free speech, its letter warned the students that they will not be protected against ideas or given “safe spaces.” Instead, they will be educated in an open and free environment where they will be challenged by a range of different views — ideas that will at times thrill and at times outrage them. Chicago told its incoming class: “Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

Over in Evanston, students received a very different message from Northwestern’s President Schapiro: “Look for safe spaces. if you can’t find them, we will help you find them. . . . If they say that…you shouldn’t be warned to prepare yourself psychologically for that, that somehow that’s coddling, those people are lunatics.”

He added that “The people who decry safe spaces do it from their segregated housing places, from their jobs without diversity — they do it from their country clubs. It just drives me nuts.”

As to the ambiguous notion of microaggressions, which now can involve anything from mispronouncing names to using terms like “melting pot,” Schapiro insisted that microaggressions “cut you to the core” and called those of us who object to the vague definition of this new offense as “idiots.”

It is rather ironic to see Schapiro decrying intolerance and calling for a more protected and safe environment by denouncing members of his own faculty and student body with opposing views as lunatics and idiots.

university of chicagoSchapiro has succeeded in not just abandoning principles of free speech but directly assaulting core values of academic freedom. The chilling effect of his words will be most felt by untenured faculty who may think twice about advocating views that Schapiro has not defined as lunacy and idiocy. He might want to ride the EL over to the lunatic fringe on the South side where the third highest ranked university in the nation continues to teach in an open and free environment of ideas.

101 thoughts on “Northwestern University President Calls Faculty And Students Opposed To Safe Zones “Lunatics””

  1. The distinctions between Northwestern and Chicago are easy to explain.

    Chicago’s most well-known tradition is the Chicago school of economics, and that school included such esteemed scholars as Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, Eugene Fama, Robert Lucas, among many others. At the core of this school is the concept of “free markets.” The magic word is “free” as in freedom, and freedom to choose.

    Now, over by Lake Michigan, what is Northwestern most famous for? While Northwestern has produced many scholars and great entertainers (like Charlton Heston), it is really most known for two professors: Arthur Butz and Philip Kottler.

    Butz is a professor electrical engineering, but that is only his cover job. His real role at Northwestern is Holocaust denier, author of “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry.” The other most noted professor at Northwestern is Philip Kotler, sometimes referred to as the “Father of Modern Marketing.” What do these two professors have in common? One is notorious for lying and the other is held in great regard for his ability to show companies how to sell their lies to the public. So at Northwestern, the magic word is “lying.”

    Now, interestingly, Kottler originally trained with Milton Friedman, and he hasn’t totally abandoned the Chicago philosophy of freedom. Freedom does play a part at Northwestern, but only with respect to the freedom to lie. Northwestern will fight tooth and nail to protect the rights of Arthur Butz to lie and to spread his noxious gutter tripe, but if you’re talking about the freedom to hold opposing views to that gutter tripe on campus, why then, Northwestern will crack down and silence those speakers.

    1. And, of course, I forgot to mention that Shapiro is really beholden to the money interests at Northwestern. And in his case that means the Buffett family:

      http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2015/01/roberta-buffett-elliott-donates-more-than-100-million-to-northwestern.html

      Buffett, like his billionaire buddy Soros, is committed to the destruction of freedom in America. Buffett is a tax deadbeat that owes more than a billion dollars in taxes, but he has successfully evaded that because he has several powerful political whores working for him including the BO and HRC to name but a few. Buffett and his cronies at Wells Fargo have also gotten away with fraud lately, if you’ve been following that news. So, naturally, with funders like Buffett at Northwestern, the school is going to be doing all it can to destroy the Middle Class, destroy freedom, and destroy liberty.

      And the fools in America will continue to go along with their scams. Here’s a video of the fools in America cheering HRC and Buffett for their plan to impose higher and higher taxes on the Middle Class:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

      “We are going to raise taxes on the Middle Class!”

      The truth does sometimes leak out, even from the most skilled of liars.

  2. As an alumnus of Northwestern, I would like to know the location of the safe space for the student and faculty idiots who disagree with the supreme leader President Shapiro. Would it be safe for me to attend a reunion? I certainly hope he would not argue that no such idiots exist. While they may be able to enforce something like unanimity of expression, even a totalitarian regime cannot create unanimity of opinion.

    1. JR, I feel your pain. As an alum of GMU I was totally freaked out to discover the Koch bros had come in and infiltrated the economics department.

  3. Money is going to be drying up for colleges. That will take care of some of this crap. When the government has to pull back on who they fund to go to college for free, and colleges once again have to compete by offering a good solid education. That should cut down on the amount of highly paid administrators, and hopefully pay will increase for strong faculty (instead of how someone else put it in an earlier blog, “administrators are making out well while the actual faculty, adjuncts, live out of their car trunks). We’ll just hope this cuts down on the administrative “floaters” who have an agenda.

    1. I wish you were right, but I fear you are not. Inertia doesn’t just apply to inanimate objects, but to people’s attitudes, too. They aren’t going to change their opinions until acted on by an outside force. While financial stress might make for less administrators, it can not change the mental makeup of the ones who are left. There is no one who can, or will, fire them for being brain dead idiots.

      Which is why our country is doomed unless we have a meteor strike, a super volcano, a nuclear war, or prolonged and widespread financial depression type of event. The baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964, so the youngest of them is now 52 years old. That’s another 35 years or so before most of the boomers will be gone, or 2051.

      Their progeny in Gen X will carry on the idiocy until the 2070’s or 2080’s. Their basic stupidity is not going to disappear unless things get really bad.

      Sorry to be sooo glum, but sometimes reality just sucks.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. And sometimes what one person passes off as reality may in fact not be reality. You claiming that what you wrote represents reality does not make it so. You’ll need to provide a convincing evidence-based argument. I say all this because what I perceive as reality does not match what you are claiming here to be reality.

        1. True. Sooo, you need to go do your own homework! Here is you a really good starting point. It is off-topic, but I read J H Kunstler every Monday when he posts a new article/essay. This one deals with the New York Times, and its political based race-baiting narrative. By some strange coincidence, he echos what I have been saying for quite a while. Sooo, maybe you should give my views a deeper read. Anyway:

          Trauma Programming

          As the nation awaits the gruesome spectacle of the so-called debate between Trump and Clinton in an election campaign beneath the dignity of a third-world [poop]-hole, we are once again up to our eyeballs in manufactured racial strife led by the deliberately prevaricating New York Times. Read today’s front-page story: What We Know About the Details of the Police Shooting in Charlotte, insinuating that the police acted recklessly in the incident.

          The facts in the Charlotte, NC, shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott are these: he was shot after refusing repeated loud verbal commands to drop a gun. A gun was found on the scene with his fingerprints on it, along with an ankle holster. Video recordings provide a clear audible record of these commands. Yet the Times story says: “Body and dashboard camera footage released on Saturday provided no clear evidence that Mr. Scott had a gun. In the video, Mr. Scott’s arms were at his sides and he was backing away from his vehicle when he was shot.

          It happened that the various vehicles parked on the scene interfered with the all the video footage of the critical moment: dashboard cam, officer’s body cam, and the cell phone cam of Mr. Scott’s wife. But the insinuation seems to be that because the video doesn’t show a gun, perhaps there wasn’t one.

          The police insist that Mr. Scott was holding a gun. Why is The New York Times bent on ambiguating this story? The officer who shot Mr. Scott was black. The Charlotte police chief is black. Does the Times mean to say that they are incompetent, dishonest, and reckless? Does the Times seek to reinforce a popular notion that police in general, including black police and their supervisors, are determined to oppress black Americans generally? Does the Times wish to sow even more distrust and animosity between black America and the police?

          It sure seems that way. And what is The New York Times’s interest in dragging out the supposed ambiguity of the Scott case? I shall tell you why: because yielding to the obvious truth in the matter would not support the election campaign meme that Black America requires the protection of the Democratic Party against genocidal police forces across the nation.

          I can’t link it here because the name of the link has the F word in it and won’t get past the WordPress filter, but you can google his name. There is more to the article. I also had to change one word to get past the filter here, but it is in [].

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        2. peltonrandy – your “reality” is based on the false premise of liberalism. For the rest of us, life is real. 🙂

          1. There you go again, Paul, making a claim without actually providing a supporting evidence-based argument. Explain how liberalism is a false premise. I could just as easily say that your reality is based on the false premise of conservatism. And such a statement would be no more credible than is yours without first offering an actual argument supporting the claim.

            1. “peltonrandy – your “reality” is based on the false premise of liberalism. For the rest of us, life is real. 🙂 … Explain how liberalism is a false premise. I could just as easily say that your reality is based on the false premise of conservatism. ”

              Now I am fascinated. I hope the two of you will list the axioms of liberalism and conservatism and use the axioms to derive key provisions such as tax rates, stop and frisk, abortion, charter schools, TPP?

              This is going to be interesting.

      2. Squeeky, you are blaming my father, who is a baby boomer. No way in hell has he ever been a liberal. And no way in hell have I ever been. And no way in hell will any of my kids be liberal because they will know how to challenge and think.

        Just about anyone who is alive today is either a baby boomer or a product of one.

        Anyway, keep giving liberals hell. But just don’t include my father.

        1. Well, my parents are Boomer Conservatives, too. But let’s face it, that generation is defined by the Democrats of Woodstock, complete with pot, sex, and rock and roll. The idiot Northwestern President who is the subject of this article is most likely a Boomer. I am assuming he is 50something.

          The idiot liberals in the Blue States are Boomers, who had, and have, a basically good life, and don’t know what is going on in the real world. They have ascended Maslow’s Hierarchial Ladder, and now spend a lot of their time trying to feel good about themselves.

          My point was, that there is no force on the horizon which will change their liberal inertia, at least not one I see coming in time to significantly effect changes. Their homes are safe, their pensions are relatively safe, their Social Security is safe. Many of then have government jobs, and government benefits so retirement will be a relatively fun time for them. It is the world they leave behind that will have to start picking up the pieces. And the poorer Boomers who are retiring on $800 a month Social Security and thus have to keep slapping burgers together at McDonalds.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. What about all those young liberals that work in tech and live in San Francisco, Denver, Portland, Seattle and Austin? Do you think they will soon be living in your dystopian hell?

            1. Their employers will hire more H1Bs and they’ll be working at Starbucks.

                1. You’re pleased with other people’s misery, and you project your pleasure on others.

          2. Also, I would like to point out, being born in ’63 (Wheeeeeeezz), there seems to be a sharp dividing point of the Woodstock, sex, drugs, R&R about ’57. I have seen that group pretty much self-destruct while my peers seem to be just a little more realistically motivated. Just my general observation.

            1. I think there are a couple of ways the post 1957 cohorts improve on their elders: (1) less likely to launch divorce suits and (2) more wary in their youth of LSD and heroin. The politics of Gen X who attended research universities and prestige colleges does differ from their elders, but there you’re talking of 10% of the older cohort and maybe 15% of the younger.

      3. There will literally be a point at which there will not be free money to those who want to go to school on a whim. Don’t know how long that will take, but it has to come. Seems like a lot of schools are in trouble now. I guess the counter argument would be that–at least for the short term–schools will do every micro-fed requirement to make sure they keep the cash on board.
        Of course another alternative might be that if we continue down this same road of non-sensical higher ed, our country could just implode on itself and be divided up from the outside.

        1. There is quite a bit of bloat in higher education. However, as we speak perhaps 43% of each cohort is receiving a baccalaureate degree. Most people stop at associate’s degrees or get no tertiary credential at all.

  4. “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”—George Orwell

  5. Here’s a question for Northwestern’s trustees: why did you hire this guy, and when are you firing him? No, you won’t get an answer.

  6. If this policy had be instituted at my graduate college, they would have had to fire all the faculty. It was not a ‘safe place.’

  7. I was listening to a microbiologist this morning on the radio during my commute and I found his point that we are doing incredible harm to our children by over-protecting them from microbes very similar to the micro-aggression movement. Just like we physically need to naturally develop resistance to the multitude of micro-organisms we are exposed to in the world, we also need to naturally develop a mental resistance to the multitude of “micro-aggressions”; by being exposed to them. The call for “safe-spaces” is no different in principle than a parent preventing their child from playing in the dirt or their abundant use of anti-bacterial agents.

    1. excellent analogy Olly! Shapiro is doing the students a major disservice by “protecting” them

  8. I was so offended I tired to email Mr. Morton Schapiro. Guess what it bounced back. Does anyone have a working email for this man. Thanks.

    1. Shapiro has probably blocked his email – I imagine he’s gotten many angry emails. Maybe you can send a fax?

  9. Shapiro is the lunatic. RE: “The people who decry safe spaces do it from their segregated housing places, from their jobs without diversity — they do it from their country clubs. It just drives me nuts.” How dare he make assumptions that all people who decry safe spaces and the rest of the special snowflake rhetoric are all white, upper crust denizens? It’s actually ordinary working class people who have a problem with the nonsense.

    The military has done the most successful job in terms of diversity – bringing together people from all socio economic backgrounds and ethnic groups to work and live together — WITHOUT offering safe spaces. And Northwestern itself is an elitist university unlike University of Illinois.

    This proves that many in academia are far removed from the reality experienced by common folk. Shapiro should be held financially responsible for all the special snowflake students who will have melt downs in the real world after they graduate – pay for their therapy bills.

    Northwestern needs to replace Morton Shapiro with Ben Shapiro!

    1. Autumn, have you actually served in the military? Having served myself, my experience is that there is little diversity of thought in the military. Groupthink has a really huge presence in the military. No need for safe spaces, assuming such a need exists anywhere at all, in an environment where diversity of thought is dampened significantly simply by the military culture.

      1. The military is an occupation where Republicans have an advantage. As we speak, however, about a quarter of serving soldiers have indicated to pollsters a willingness to cast a ballot for HRC, with officers more so inclined than enlisted personnel.

        For all that their business is ideas, arts and sciences faculty are characterized by Monovox. The same is true of teacher training faculties, social work faculties, the student affairs apparat, and academic administration. ‘Diversity’ in such institutions might be found in business school faculty or engineering faculty. Most schools do not have an engineering faculty and I doubt you can find many institutional provosts drawn from business faculties. The place I know best granted tenure to 100 or so arts and sciences faculty during the years running from 1986 through 2011. Of these, 6 were discovered by an alumni committee to be enrolled Republicans on a review of the buff cards at local boards of elections. Of the six, one is a flag-waving multiculti advocate who appears to have checked the wrong box on the form or enrolled Republican as some sort of ironic prank. Another was a social psychologist whose supercilious public writings suggest the same thing. A third is an open-borders libertarian, always useful for the diversity racket to have around. A fourth was subject to two campaigns of harassment by a (now departed) provost and her camarilla. That leaves two guys, one of whom is as diffident a fellow as you could imagine. One of these men has since died, two are over 60, and the three younger men include Prof. Multiculti Fake-o, Prof. Open Border, and Prof. Diffident.

      2. Nope, Randy I have not served although my father did – it was his way out of poverty to get the GI Bill. He had such a great time in Iceland that he came back to the US and got his teaching degree in biology and moved us to France and then to Germany. I attended schools on base, my US friends were all military and I worked on base(s) in various administrative capacities as a teenager so I am a bit of a hybrid.

        A civilian who fully understands and appreciates the military culture – as well as the then-West Germany culture I was raised in. Many of my friends joined the military and still serve.

        Sure, there is Groupthink in the military, however, the fact remains that it is the sole institution that has most successfully integrated people from all walks of life. BTW – did you see Milo’s speech in Texas where a SFC gave Milo his dog tags? I must admit, I was taken aback (I have dog tags myself and wouldn’t give them to anyone!) Methinks this guys career is finished.

        1. By Odin’s Blood! Synchronicity just hit a second time today! I was just listening to Icelandic music! The Raven. OK, the universe is talking to me! I am not sure what it is saying, but it is saying something!

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

      3. I’m not sure what branch of the military you served in Peltonrandy but groupthink clearly is not what I experienced over my 20 years in the Navy. Does it happen? Yes. It usually manifests itself in accidents that involve men and/or equipment. The Challenger disaster is a great example of groupthink.

        From Merriam-Webster’s: “a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics.”

        In the military, everything is done for a reason, right down to how you fold your clothes. Training, and that includes live-fire exercises encourages feedback to and from the most junior of participants. To an outsider this might appear as groupthink, but if the “group” follows a rational process flow then the outcome is more likely to be a success. The deconstruction of most safety mishaps demonstrate deviations from the refined process. “Thinking” outside the box is encouraged for planning purposes, but when it comes to executing the plan; follow the process.

        1. Olly – the key to the American military used to be that they did not need to be told how to handle a problem. They just did it. I am sure that has changed with JAG officers deciding if and when you can fire a shot.

          1. That’s certainly true in certain respects. The military still knows “how” to carry out a mission. However, political correctness is an added element that complicates an otherwise efficient and effective process.

            1. Some of these posts that I’ve read have been pretty consistent in arguing that the military is a successful platform for diversity. (I can’t argue that it isn’t. I also think everyone – Mitt Romney to Howard Dean – should have to serve two years of public service IN THE MILITARY, and if you don’t you can spend two years in jail.)

              Why it has been a success? They have been doing something right that hasn’t been done in the civilian world. Right? What could that be?

              It’s my opinion (not that I want to discredit military service) that if civilian life were as authoritarian as the military, we wouldn’t have macro/micro/whatever aggressions because people would learn to work together out of necessity, not greed. In the military, where you’re owned 24/7, and you don’t do what your told, you’ll lose a stripe and break rocks for the remainder of your tour if the malfeasance is bad enough.

              That said, I don’t know that we’d like a civil society run like that. I think we’re all much too libertarian in that respect. So, I don’t know that the military is a good example.

              1. Steve, (WI Too Lo)

                It’s not that the military is authoritarian, it’s that the “rule of law” is well-defined. The so called “macro/micro” aggressions that exist in the civilian world also exist in the military world. However in the military, you know where the line is. I retired in 1999 though and from what I understand, that line has gotten a bit more complicated to understand. For instance, the moment your shipmate sleeping in the rack below you no longer identifies as a man (and that’s okay), you can no longer have confidence in ANYTHING you knew was true yesterday.

            2. Some of these posts that I’ve read have been pretty consistent in arguing that the military is a successful platform for diversity. (I can’t argue that it isn’t. I also think everyone – Mitt Romney to Howard Dean – should have to serve two years of public service IN THE MILITARY, and if you don’t you can spend two years in jail.)

              Why has the military been a success in diversification? They have been doing something right that hasn’t been done in the civilian world. Right? What could that be?

              Not that I want to discredit military service but if civilian life were as authoritarian as the military we wouldn’t have macro/micro/whatever aggressions because people would learn to work together out of necessity, not greed. In the military, where you’re owned 24/7, and you don’t do what your told, you’ll lose a stripe and the paycheck that goes with it and break rocks for the remainder of your tour and perhaps longer if the malfeasance is bad enough.

              That said, I don’t know that we’d like a civil society run like that. I think we’re all much too libertarian in that respect. So, I don’t know that the military is a good example.

  10. “those people are lunatics.”

    As a general rule, the more people talk like that, the fewer arguments they have to support their position.

  11. ““The people who decry safe spaces do it from their segregated housing places, from their jobs without diversity — they do it from their country clubs. It just drives me nuts.””

    I thought it was frowned upon to stereotype people.

    Great thinkers and great ideas do not develop in a vacuum, they are strengthened by opposition.

    Safe spaces are going to create minds as flabby and as resistant to change as bodies unused to exercise.

    He needs to listen to Pink Floyd.
    “We don’t need no education/We don’t need no thought control”.

    A sad day that such things are associated as one and the same thing.

  12. Instead of allowing people to flee microagressions into a safe zone why not give those troubled by them training in developing a thick skin and surpressing the anxiety and disturbing thoughts that insults arouse.

    The fact is that the old saw about stick and stones is rubbish. Some insults really hurt some people. Suppose you shout to a black person that “you hope someone will lynch him” that will cause a sinking feeling in the pit of his stomach and a frisson of fear because it will remind him of relatives who have actually been lynched. Cognitive therapy can teach people to deal with disturbing thoughts triggered by insults but the world is full of insults and unfortunately some people from despised minorities get more than their fare share. If an insult evokes memories of previous hurt a person needs to learn to deal with such thoughts not flee to a padded environment where words, phrases and sayings are outlawed. .

    The fact is that that a microagression is felt does not mean that the person who caused it intended harm. It is like bumping into someone, it does not mean trying to make them fall. .For once some of the Turley trolls are right.

    1. “Fair”: not “Fare”.

      Sometimes I find myself getting the right sound but the wrong spelling.

    2. Carlyle,
      Your post went really well til the last line’s name-calling. Distracts from your point.

    3. Heck, us Turley Trolls are right most of the time! Which is why most of the liberals headed for the doors. Because they don’t do well unless they are in an echo chamber, where they can sit around and call people names as their substantive argument.

      The liberals who are still here are the tougher ones, and I have hopes they are still amenable to reason, and thus rehabilitation as Deplorables in Good Standing.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. As one of those liberals who hangs out here I do so in the hopes that it is you and the others who are still “amendable to reason, and thus rehabilitation….” (LOL)

        Your implication that liberals are unfamiliar with reason is just so much horsecrap. You seem to be implying that no liberal viewpoints are based on reason. If this is the case then it would appear that it is you who has abandoned reason and are instead mistaking ideologically-derived dogma for reason. Reason and logic, combined with the intellectual skill set of critical thinking and the intellectual tool kit of skepticism should lead one to accept views on the basis of evaluations using these intellectual tools, rather than on conservative vs. libertarian vs. liberal political dogma. Sometimes liberals are right. Sometimes conservatives are right. Sometimes libertarians are right. Sometimes all three are simultaneously partially right on a particular issue.

        1. You said: “Sometimes liberals are right. Sometimes conservatives are right. Sometimes libertarians are right. Sometimes all three are simultaneously partially right on a particular issue.”

          Very true. But mostly Liberals are wrong, and all those critical skills you go on about, are usually just nose-in-the-air name calling. And, the name calling is done in the name of advancing the Democratic Party narrative about whatever, usually some form of identity politics, or simple race-baiting.

          For example, equating photo IDs for voters as a form of Jim Crow. Or, the manufacture of heroes out of street trash like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

            1. Name one “conservative” hero that isn’t just as manufactured?

              I’m fascinated to know which private citizen ‘conservatives’ have turned into an icon for political moblization. The closest I can think of might be ‘Joe the Plumber’ or Kim Davis, but neither are analogous to Brown. (They’re not punks, for starters, no one’s burned down any convenience stores or lodged trumped up charges against any police officers to honor them, and ‘Joe’ in particular was a momentary media boomlet which the McCain campaign found of interest).

              As for public figures, Ronald Reagan is the only one who induces widespread and generalized admiration. Reagan was not ‘manufactured’. He was a man of considerable accomplishment (though by eccentric pathways). There’s Margaret Thatcher, I suppose, or Churchill, or some of our recent Popes. None of them are ‘manufactured’ either. If you’re speaking of historical figures, no clue why you’d describe Edmund Burke or George Washington, or Calvin Coolidge as ‘manufactured’.

              1. So your supposition is that one has to be a private citizen to be entitled to be considered manufactured hero? Then I can only conclude that “Conservative” barometers for public heroes have to be some how involved in government and thus granting them insulation.
                Possibly the government that they have utilized to give them the opportunity to exploit public sentiment with a manufactured profile and somehow that is less manufactured than a private citizen’s appeal?
                How does your standard disqualify public citizens from their contributions in the civic arena?

                1. Yes, we noticed you offered no examples of a ‘manufactured’ hero.

  13. Schapiro isn’t fit to be a university president. Someone in his position should be able to express a difference of opinion on a social issue without making personal attacks and insulting assumptions about those with whom he disagrees. To say that “The people who decry safe spaces do it from their segregated housing places, from their jobs without diversity – they do it from their country clubs,” is an attempt to belittle and marginalize people who hold views different from his own without any basis in fact. One would think that the president of a major university would try to set an example of civility and reasoned, intelligent discourse.

  14. University-Universal, a meeting of minds, the essence of a university from their beginnings has been to bring knowledge, ideas, and opinions together. In the beginning religion limited the experience. Then when religion was put in its proper place, mankind blossomed. Schapiro would be in his element in Iran, China, North Korea, etc. A preamble to brain washing.

  15. “Look for safe spaces. if you can’t find them, we will help you find them. . . . If they say that…you shouldn’t be warned to prepare yourself psychologically for that, that somehow that’s coddling, those people are lunatics.”

    “It just drives me nuts.”

    This is the proverbial ‘pot calling the kettle black’. We should accept his self-assessment; he is the one that is NUTS!.

  16. Kudos for continuing to shine the light on fascism. It’s a target rich environment. How about those Bears!

Comments are closed.