Academia, Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Media

New York Times Column Calls For End To “Color-Blind Logic” In Defense of Free Speech

Freedom_of_SpeechI have been writing for years about the rising wave of intolerance for free speech that has swept over Europe and is now reaching our own shores in the United States.  Attacks on free speech are increasing from the left which has cracked down on speech deemed offensive or intimidating to any group.  Thus far, the United States has been a bulwark against this trend, but an editorial in the New York Times this week is a chilling example of how voices against free speech are now becoming mainstream. The editorial was written by K-Sue Park is a housing attorney and the Critical Race Studies fellow at the U.C.L.A. School of Law.  Park criticizes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for what she views as blind fealty to free speech and suggests that it is time to stop defending Nazis because sometimes standing on the wrong side of history in defense of a cause you think is right is still just standing on the wrong side of history.  Of course, many of us believe that the wrong side of history is the side where free speech depends on what you want to say — and whether people like Park agree with it.

Park chastises the ACLU that “[b]y insisting on a narrow reading of the First Amendment, the organization provides free legal support to hate-based causes. More troubling, the legal gains on which the A.C.L.U. rests its colorblind logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.”  Park’s disdain for “colorblind logic” is unfortunately increasingly common among university professors who are abandoning core principles of free speech and association to achieve their goals for social advancement and “real freedom.”  It appears that “real freedom” for Park is found somewhere without true free speech.

Park insists that the ACLU “perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal. And it fuels right-wing free-speech hypocrisy.” It appears that Park’s own radical views on free speech should be deemed superior because . . . well . . . she is just right.  She wants the ACLU to calculate who it supports in court to fight “right-wing power” and presumably allow the more enlightened left-wing power to flourish.  It is constitutional law meets Animal Farm where “all radical views” are equal but some are more equal than others.

Park’s views may reflect her teaching of Critical Race Studies at the U.C.L.A. School of Law, but they are inimical to the core protections that define our Constitution . . . and the ACLU.

207 thoughts on “New York Times Column Calls For End To “Color-Blind Logic” In Defense of Free Speech”

  1. I’m reading news coverage from around newspapers around the world about the horrific attack in Barcelona. I have pretty much stopped watching TV news. But I did the rotation. CNN obsessing about TRUMP, no Barcelona. MSNBC, Prissy Lawrence McDonald, TRUMP. Fox, Barcelona..like all the rest of the freakin’ world. The MSM is abandoning their fundamental duty to report news and following their messianic mission to eject TRUMP from the WH. A coup, but it won’t be bloodless.

        1. Morris is advising Trump to have Sessions appoint another special prosecutor to investigate the leaks and also reopen the investigation of Hillary’s emails, something Trump had threatened to do during the campaign but then reneged because he didn’t want to hurt the Clintons. How ironic, while Trump has been a nice guy towards Clinton, she and the Dems have been backstabbing Trump ever since the election.

          1. vinegart, I have been saying for months that this blitzkrieg by the left fascists is the classic, “The best defense is a good offense.” Obama/Hillary know there is a LOTTA crimes they’ve committed, particularly involving FISA unmasking, and this is their way of keeping the DOJ on their heels.

    2. He will be ejected, and it will be bloodless. The fact that you’re hatred for your fellow Americans who don’t look like you causes you to misinterpret the buffoon’s actual support merely reflects your character. None of you keyboard warriors here will lift a finger when the clown receives his just dessert. You see, everyone can plainly witness he fact that he’s a blithering idiot and an absolute disgrace. So, just keep typing your little missives to each other, spouting cockamamie conspiracy crocks, and the rest of us will save the republic.

      This is to “let’s burn a cross” nicky

      1. Marky Mark, perfect!! Anyone who has the intelligence and discipline to have read my comments here over 5 years, even if they don’t like me, will say I am not a racist. You’re a one trick pony, Marky Mark. Do you still have those great abs?

  2. What you fail to understand is that true freedom consists of living in harmony with God’s laws. To defy God and his holy Church is therefore not freedom at all, but slavery to Satan and to the sinful nature of our own flesh. It follows, then, that when our most Holy Inquisition uses the mortification of that flesh, and the power of spiritual purification through corporeal suffering to turn heretics away from sin, and towards the One True Faith, that it does nothing more than further the cause of freedom.

    Oops, sorry, wrong century. Though I’m sure the NY Times would agree with the gist of the argument.

  3. I agree that the First Amendment means what it says, but this whole discussion seems off-topic to me. The original issue Turley presented was whether the ACLU should be offering free legal help to these altright nut jobs. Saying these groups have a First Amendment right is different than saying that the ACLU should expend its limited resources to protect those rights. I would prefer that the ACLU be more selective and sensible in deciding whether to take on cases like this.

    1. I would prefer that the ACLU be more selective and sensible in deciding whether to take on cases like this.

      Damn the ACLU and their principles. Let me reword your statement for you: I would prefer that the ACLU only defend the natural rights of the citizens with whom I deem worthy.

      There, now what were you saying about agreeing with the First Amendment?

      1. Olly, Alan Dershowitz said he resigned from the board because the board (donors) started to move the goal posts from where they started. In other words the donors were starting to direct the cases rather than following the ACLU’s initial mission.

    2. Jerry Weaver – so you think you should be the case manager and decide which cases the ACLU takes?

    3. Jerry

      Glenn Greenwald said this: “It’s always those whose views are deemed most odious by the mainstream that are the initial targets of censorship efforts; it’s very rare that the state tries to censor the views held by the mainstream. If you allow those initial censorship efforts to succeed because of your distaste for those being targeted, then you lose the ability to defend the rights of those you like because the censorship principle has been enshrined.”

      A more lengthy excerpt was posted by anonymous below and the full article can be accessed on Glenn’s twitter. Resources are best spent on the margins. If the govt. isn’t stopped there they will understand they can keep going. Eventually, they will even try to suppress the speech of people that you like. You and they might fall out of favor. How can you be certain you won’t?

      Trust me, one look at even recent history proves that will happen.

  4. “Attacks on free speech are increasing from the left which has cracked down on speech deemed offensive or intimidating to any group.” I agree. One of the problems that I have with Progressivism is the strengthening of the government at the expense of individual rights. The government (or Progressives) declare what is good and righteous, and then criminalize everything else. That is how you see Progressives calling up tiny rural pizza parlors, ask them hypothetical questions about catering gay weddings, and then summarily drive them out of business.

    I’ve explained for years to Progressives that you should not give the government the power to decide what we are allowed to say, because at some point there will be someone in the White House with which they disagree. Voila we have Trump. Somehow, I still don’t think they have received the message, as too many continue to agitate for speech restrictions.

    It is disturbing, but not surprising, that an attorney professor at a university would take the position that speech with which she disagrees should be criminalized or curtailed.

    I’m curious. Since Trump is President, should I be able to press charges against those who make hate speech against conservatives? What about those who claim that all white males are born racist, a clearly racist remark? If we give the government the power to define hate speech, do those definitions change depending on who is President?

    The best defense against bad speech is good speech. And I’ll take that one step farther. Instead of engaging in illegal violence when the fringe lunatics, like Neo Nazis and the KKK come out from under their rock to get attention, I have a better idea. How about if those who disagree with racism set up a competing event, on the other side of town, that is inclusive and super fun, so that everyone would rather be at their event, feeling camaraderie and enjoying themselves, and no one covers the KKK rally? The racists want all that media frenzy. They get in the papers and in the news. How more poetic for them to be ignored and everyone has more fun without them?

  5. This has gotten beyond riduculous. I’ve said it before, but once again, I am never voting for another democrat as long as I live. They truly have become vile, and I just can’t support them in good conscience.

    1. Okay, then don’t. Intolerant, close-minded, small-minded, fearful, old people eventually die. See ya!

      This is to “make ‘Merica like the fifties again” james

  6. Not only is Park ignorant of the First Amendment’s free speech clause, she is ignorant of what is a narrow reading of something. She claims that the ACLU’s reading of the free speech clause is too narrow, presumably because the ACLU reads “no law” to mean “no law”. Yet, it is she who reads the First Amendment too narrowly for she interprets “no law” to mean “no law” except … Those exceptions narrow the scope of the Amendment’s protections. Thus, it is her interpretation which is narrow, not the ACLU’s.

    What we are left with is not only a law professor who doesn’t know the First Amendment but who is totally lacking in statutory interpretation skills. How much does UCLA charge for tuition these days?

    1. Vince Jankoski – I have not looked her up. Did she graduate from UCLA and is now teaching there or did she graduate elsewhere and UCLA hired her. Regardless, she needs a refresher in Constitutional Law

      1. Her educational credits are impressive: Cornell, Harvard, Cambridge, Berkeley. I suspect she is one of those people (we all know them) that are in this world but not of it. There are some people who amass lots of education but can never process any of it in order to make reasoned conclusions. Go figure. The result is an educated loony-tune. Some people, particularly in academia, are impressed, but in reality the Emperor has no clothes.

        2. Thomas Sowell has identified the problem thus: they confuse intelligence with expertise, and then confuse articulateness with intelligence. He also remarks that some people are superoptimally intelligent for their work, and make mistakes from inattention. How it works out in academe is that they immerse themselves in intricate, recondite, but ultimately ludicrous intellectualizing. This woman devotes her intellect into attempting to justify what some other professor would not bother with. (That’s Laurence Tribe’s career, btw).

          1. That is as good of an explanation of the phenomena as any I have heard.

          2. Thomas Sowell is brilliant. He should be read by all. He points out in his autobiography that had been born after the Great Society legislation he probably would not have amounted to very much. He is black for those that do not know it. He attacks many of the beliefs people hold especially when it comes to race and culture. He dispells perceived racism by demonstrating with raw numbers that what was thought to be racism was economic. He has done this in the area of housing, lending and elsewhere.

  7. Glenn Greenwald, a few days ago:

    The Misguided Attacks on ACLU for Defending Neo-Nazis’ Free Speech Rights in Charlottesville

    https://theintercept.com/2017/08/13/the-misguided-attacks-on-aclu-for-defending-neo-nazis-free-speech-rights-in-charlottesville/

    “…the reason it’s vital to expend resources to defend free speech rights of awful people, even white nationalists, is because that’s where free speech battles are always and by definition fought.

    “It’s always those whose views are deemed most odious by the mainstream that are the initial targets of censorship efforts; it’s very rare that the state tries to censor the views held by the mainstream. If you allow those initial censorship efforts to succeed because of your distaste for those being targeted, then you lose the ability to defend the rights of those you like because the censorship principle has been enshrined. That’s why the ACLU, for instance, defended the free speech rights of the revolting Fred Phelps, and one of its leading LGBT lawyers justified that position this way:[…]

    “We do it because we believe in the principle, and because we realize that once you chip away at one person’s rights, everyone else’s are at risk. … Free speech doesn’t belong only to those we agree with, and the First Amendment doesn’t only protect speech that is tasteful and inoffensive. In fact, it is in the hard cases that our commitment to the First Amendment is most tested and most important. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is “the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country.”

    “Then, finally, there’s the argument about efficacy. How can anyone believe that neo-Nazism or white supremacy will disappear in the U.S., or even be weakened, if it’s forcibly suppressed by the state? Is it not glaringly apparent that the exact opposite will happen: by turning them into free speech martyrs, you will do nothing but strengthen them and make them more sympathetic? Literally nothing has helped Yiannopoulos become a national cult figure more than the well-intentioned (but failed) efforts to deny him a platform. Nothing could be better designed to aid their cause than converting a fringe, tiny group of overt neo-Nazis into some sort of poster child for free speech rights.

    “The need to fight neo-Nazism and white supremacy wherever it appears is compelling. The least effective tactic is to try to empower the state to suppress the expression of their views. That will backfire in all sorts of ways: strengthening that movement and ensuring that those who advocate state censorship today are its defenseless targets tomorrow. And whatever else is true, the impulse to react to terrorist attacks by demanding the curtailment of core civil liberties is always irrational, dangerous, and self-destructive, no matter how tempting that impulse might be.

    1. Have you ever listened to a Milo speech? I bet you have not.
      The left hates Milo becasue he rips them to shreds in an argument about free speech using the left’s own hypocritical arguments against them

      Milo may also be the best spokesman for Free Speech that I have ever heard.

      Listen to one of his recent debates or speeches.

      1. That’s basically Greenwald’s argument: if the Left stood for free speech, even when it disagreed with that speech, Milo wouldn’t be able to claim that ground as his own. He can only win an argument against the Left about Free Speech because the Left has set itself against it.

        The point is that, by trying to suppress the free speech of White Supremacists, Neo-nazis, etc, you relieve them of the burden of actually defending White Supremacism and Neo-Nazism, allowing them instead to make their arguments about free speech and individual rights.

  8. Free speech it seems is only for the ones carrying AR15’s? And waving Nazi flags? Reading comments from here and elsewhere it sure seems that way.

    1. Reading comments from here and elsewhere it sure seems that way.

      The root cause of that perception may simply be a reading comprehension problem.

      1. Don’t you have statues of Hitler and Putin to polish? I’ve read your comments, I’m sure you do a nice goosestep.

        1. I’ve read your comments, I’m sure you do a nice goosestep.

          Well thank you for clearing that up. Correction: The root cause of that perception is a reading comprehension problem.

        2. olly served this country honorably, believes in the Constitution, loathes haters on both ends of the spectrum and is a gentleman. Fish face, you are 0 for 4 in those categories.

            1. I came to this site a year ago because of the law. I know Turley is right of center, but his “BASE” now attacks anyone that might disagree with anything outside of far right. Sugar coating Olly and the like about being fair to all is laughable. And the one thing I have learned from this site is the “BASE don’t like to hear anything that differs from their opinion. Just because you think you are a patriot, does not make you one if only one side is offered.

              1. By the way, I was not commenting on the post above me when you started your comprehension insult.

              2. Sugar coating Olly and the like about being fair to all is laughable.

                Fair? This is not some effing board game where you lost a turn when you went to get another otter pop. Every serious comment I make comes from a rule of law and natural rights center. Show me the evidence that is not true and I will not only stand corrected, I will make a heartfelt apology. Is that fair enough for you?

                1. What the hell are you talking about some board game? I was told you served, if true you made a commitment to protect and defend the constitution. When Ken said to have the nazi’s put down their guns, you made a comment about if he was fascist did you not? Are you protecting or defending? I myself feel it is their right to march, but….NOT with Nazi flags and guns and acting like brownshirt thugs.

                  1. When Ken said to have the nazi’s put down their guns, you made a comment about if he was fascist did you not? Are you protecting or defending?

                    I did. His comment completely whiffed on the idea those carrying weapons had every legal right to do so.

                    I myself feel it is their right to march, but….NOT with Nazi flags and guns and acting like brownshirt thugs.

                    I feel the world would be a better place without them in it. But since they are in it, and since they are in our country legally, then they have the right to march, they have a right to carry the Nazi flag, they have a right to carry weapons as the law allows, but they do not have the right to infringe the rights of others in the process.

                    1. Thank you for clearing that up, NOW can we both stop with any type of insults from both sides and try and talk it out without being attacked from people that may disagree.

                    2. NOW can we both stop with any type of insults from both sides and try and talk it out without being attacked from people that may disagree.

                      Fishwings,
                      I’m all in favor of civil debate. Just as a reminder: you jumped on a comment I had made to Ken. My response to you was regarding reading comprehension and the false perception that can arise from that. The conclusion of our exchange resulted in me proving it was a false perception stemming from you not comprehending my comment.

                      I could have asked Ken if he had considered, or if it mattered to him they had a legal right to carry the firearms. I chose instead to point out the words he chose to post were fascist. Was that civil, not necessarily, was I incorrect, no. You could have asked me why I made that comment, to which I would have responded to the legal carry aspect. That may have shortened the exchange, but then we may not have been able to address the difference between feeling and rights.

                2. Olly “fair” is a word used by the left so they don’t have to think. I would like to see the word “fair” taken out of the English dictionary.

              3. By any objective standard JT is left of center. However, being an intelligent defender of the Constitution, in the eyes of the alt left, he is right of center.

                1. Not sure that is the case….never have I seen him defend the rights of lbgqt when their rights are being trampled on.

                    1. Ah…There it is…A little homophobic are we? Why on earth would care what two consenting adults want to do in the bedroom?

                      This is to “who me? I’m not gay” nicky

                2. JT is a conventional academic and other-directed as academics are (but less insistently so than, say, Tyler Cowen). He is in no way ‘left-of-center’ except in the most idiosyncratic use of the term. An academic like KC Johnson is ‘old liberal’ so considered on the right by academics even though he votes Democratic and is an admirer of Lyndon Johnson. He has actual principles and procedural norms. The vanguard of the academy today is someone like Corey Robin, who has merely improvisations, not principles.

              1. Alt-left? Thanks Nick for letting me know what you read. JT is left of center, cause he believes in law? Just not the kind of law you want?

              2. Marky Mark is stalking me. On another post he called me a racist. Here, I’m a homophobe. Come on Marky Mark, give me the Triple Crown and call me a sexist. I think Marky Mark has lost his 6 pack abs and is sad and angry.

        3. That’s a ridiculous thing to say about Olly. No one who read and understood his comments would think such a thing. Rather than engage in ad hominem attacks, why don’t you state what you disagree with? Free speech? Hate speech laws?

          Neo Nazis and the KKK are the lunatic fringe, a tiny minority. Defending the right to free speech does not mean that you agree with the speech. Professor Turley is an absolute purist in his defense of free speech. Do you believe he agrees with Neo Nazis just because he thinks that anyone has a the right to say what they want? Do you want the Trump Administration determining what type of speech is legal?

          Do you understand the difference between supporting free speech and agreeing with it?

          1. Thank you Karen. You last sentence reminds me an article I read yesterday. Let me know what you think.

            In other words, “Those who belong to the True Church of Political Orthodoxy condemn white supremacy, but Republicans don’t belong to the True Church of Political Orthodoxy. Therefore, despite their words, Republicans don’t really condemn white supremacy.”

            Translated: “Come, Republicans! Come prove that you’re not heretics by condemning white supremacy.” Then, as soon as Republicans did precisely that, they stroked their beards, clucked their tongues, and lamented, “Oh, do you still hold to those blasphemous Republican beliefs? Then I guess you didn’t disavow white supremacy after all.”

            http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/16/peanuts-football-trick-explains-conservatives-keep-quiet-white-supremacy/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=a5c4b2e9cb-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-a5c4b2e9cb-79248369

          2. That’s a ridiculous thing to say about Olly. N

            Of course it is. Olly could not make his lodestars clearer. The trouble you have here is stupidity and arrested development. some combination of which is characteristic of about half the prog commenters here.

  10. Let’s make it simple. Ms. Park’s got it wrong. Her assertion that the ACLU “perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal” is particularly ridiculous. The ACLU does not judge the social, political or intellectual merit of any views; it defends the right to express them. This is so fundamental to the notion of free speech that I am compelled to the conclusion that Ms. Park’s comments were made in bad faith.

    I have supported the work of the ACLU my entire adult life. It has been my observation that attacks on that organization, whether coming from the right or the left, are always predicated upon the false, and dangerous, idea that those who disagree with my view of the world should not be permitted to say so.

    1. Well said, Mike. You need to rethink your reactionary comment on the “generic” art destruction post.

  11. Dave137, that was a really great idea by the German populace.

    allan, thank you for the quote from Tom Paine.

    I ran across this interesting article.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/

    “Let’s be clear about one thing: no one—not the armed, violent, militant protesters nor the police—gave peace a chance during the August 12 demonstrations in Charlottesville, Va.

    What should have been an exercise in free speech quickly became a brawl.

    It’s not about who threw the first punch or the first smoke bomb.

    It’s not about which faction outshouted the other, or which side perpetrated more violence, or even which group can claim to be the greater victim.

    One young woman is dead because of the hate, violence, intolerance, racism and partisanship that is tearing this country apart, and it has to stop.

    Lawful, peaceful, nonviolent First Amendment activity did not kill Heather Heyer.”

    Ms. Park’s article is not a coherent argument. She is conflating many things without drawing a reasoned connection between them. Most importantly, she assumes that only people on the right are violent. This simply isn’t true. She bases her entire argument (such as it is) on that lie. She further refuses to recognize marginalization by class.

    Although I agree that the right wing runs things in this nation, I don’t think we define “right wing” in the same way. Now that Jamie Dimon is a hero to the “left”, the shark has been jumped! Jamie Dimon’s bank brought down entire black neighborhoods with the stroke of their crooked pen. They did the same in poor white neighborhoods, Latino blocks–all decimated by this powerful oligarch, now worshiped as a hero of the revolution by people like Ms. Park. You bet Dimon is on the right!

    So our would be heroine of the left lacks nuance in her understanding. More importantly, she lacks honesty in evaluating who perpetrates violence. That would be not only the poor right wing people, it would also be left wing people and far right oligarchs. To take on that fight, we need free speech that includes everyone even people Ms. Park doesn’t like and feels unworthy of protection.

    It’s not less protection of every one’s rights that will help make things better in our nation, it’s more protection.

    1. It’s not less protection of every one’s rights that will help make things better in our nation, it’s more protection.

      I fully agree Jill. That one point provides the fundamental reason civil society exists in the first place.

    2. Although I agree that the right wing runs things in this nation, I

      You’re ignorant.

          1. See how redirecting your fascist comment toward the legal right to carry moves the debate back to the law? That levels the playing field and we can focus on all participants and all forms of weapons that were at the riot. Arrest anyone that used those weapons illegally and prosecute them to fullest extent of the law.

              1. You should verify your IQ makes it past 90 before calling others ‘doofus’.

      2. Hey, by the way, we were just discussing this in the office today. Is it not incredible, given the level of violence between the two factions, with those heavily armed KKK people not one shot was fired ? By the looks of known videos, the only thing we can deduce is that they exercised significant restraint – especially for a group who has ben defined by their vile hate and hostility!

        1. Refraining from shooting someone who is screaming at you hardly requires “significant restraint.”

          1. Screaming – agreed. But when they’re beating you with pipes, pummeling you with rocks, soaking you with urine – you’re telling me you wouldn’t be tempted to pull out your firearm?

        2. INlegaleagle – according to the police, the found no firearms on the Nazis.

          2. Really, Paul ? I thought they were all carrying. Well, that clearly explains the absence of gunfire.

            One of my partners has made this observation as to the conflicting stories coming from the Governor and LEO.

            Terry McAuliffe: The anarchists were peaceful
            Police respond: No they weren’t
            Terry McAuliffe: the police were out gunned!!!
            Police respond: No we weren’t
            Terry McAuliffe: the police found a cache of Nazi weapons!!!
            Police respond: No we didn’t

            1. Andrew Sullivan many years ago wrote a column about attending a Presidential debate and seeing Terry McAuliffe in attendance. He said McAuliffe leaves a trail of green slime wherever he goes.

              1. Our firm represents LEO. Whereas others were reactive of course to the details and the social issues in Charlottesville, my immediate reaction was – wait, this public safety failure couldn’t have been worse if you tried – wait – if. you. tried. Hmmm.

                I am sure, as to this fiasco, there is a swampy sketchy stench around this Vice Mayor, Mayor, and Gov.

  12. After eliminating speech Ms. Park doesn’t like, what’s next; a campaign to end violence by Punching it in the Face?

  13. Militant control of the narrative began when Twitter shut down Milo more than a year ago now. Since then many others have piled on, including Google, Facebook, GoDaddy, PayPal, and Apple, to name just a few in the groundswell of muck against free speech. Of course, online censorship really began more than eight years ago when left-wing publications began censoring reader comments, paving the way for exponential growth of conservative publications, a collective backlash that Lefties could not predict. Now the Left is accelerating its use of violence, which is exposing its true underbelly to its blind disciples, further eroding not just its membership but also its false narrative.

    1. At the direction and behest of the vile trilateral commission, I’ll reckon.

      This is to “in the know” vinegar

    1. Suze – try to explain that to your ‘bunkies’ in county jail. What did you do to get in here? I used the wrong pronoun.

  15. I can`t believe that 21th century democrats would be tearing down 19 th century statues of dead democrats. the democrat party own the plantations the slaves and the killing of over 600,000 Americans in the civil war. even john wilkes booth was a democrat. I want to know who were those people dressed like robo cop who the liberal news outlets forget to mention. both sides are as guilty as hell. there was nobody eating ice cream cones and waving Americian flags.

  16. Park needs an introductory course in First Amendment Rights. Thomas Paine summarizes it well.

    “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

        1. Not sure where you are coming from, but not too classy.

          Paine was an abolitionist.

  17. The scandal is that there is money in the budget at UCLA Law School for a professor of ‘critical race studies’. It would be pretty amusing if a sensible state legislature somewhere were to respond to such shenanigans by passing a state law stripping any state law school with such waste, fraud, and abuse in its blood of their franchise and instructing the institutional trustees to close the school and discharge its faculty toute-de-suite. You’ve got two choices in dealing with higher education, go Kenesaw Mountain Landis on them or continue to allow this mess.

    1. Well you’re not going to get a “sensible state legislature” in CA, so the solution is in the hands (or wallets) of the alumni. When UCLA Law makes its appeal for donations, any alum who does not agree with this nonsense simply has to write back and state that he/she is withholding donations until “critical race studies” is eliminated and the school gets back to the basics of teaching law.

      1. Nearly all of the alumni will fall into the following categories: those who explicitly agree with this sort of mess, those who out of emotional or status considerations cannot critique this because that would be siding with ‘the right’, those concerned only about the market value of their degree, nostalgiacs incensed that anyone would criticize ‘their’ school (to be sure, much more common among undergraduate alumni than professional-school alumni), those not paying attention, and those who cannot organize. If any do organize, they will be kicked off the board, ignored by the board if not kicked off, or defeated by lawfare. The alumni are useless.

  18. Rosa Parks said it right. Get out of my space! This new Park needs to go back to kindergarten. College teacher? Jeso.

  19. It’s curious how the concept of ‘free speech’ is easier to uphold when there’s basic social consensus and harder when the country is being steadily torn apart by polarization and deepening dissention.

    1. Free speech is at issue and the country’s been torn apart because the vociferous wing of the Democratic Party cannot process the reality that they sometimes lose elections and other people have a turn at making public policy. There is no autonomous process by which ‘free speech is more difficult to uphold because of ‘dissension’. They are both manifestation of the same process.

      1. What train wreck are you watching, honey?

        This is to “blame it on anybody else but my white knight” Susie

  20. In cases of protest, I don’t care about content. People have the right to assemble peaceably. Stopping this is unAmerican, be it in physical space or any other.

    Apparently there was a Nazi march in Germany recently, and the locals set up a walk-a-thon, raising money (for a benign cause) for every step they took. That’s a truer counterprotest; conversely, censorship of any form, is not.

    1. Well said Dave. A well constructed argument is the best counter, and it also makes our society better. It’s a coward’s way out to put your personal comfort and ideals in the hands of the government. We all (well, most) knows where that goes.

Comments are closed.