The University of Illinois is facing criticism over the actions of one of its graduate students and its own failure to act against him. Tariq Khan, a PhD student at the university, was videotaped at a rally and then going bananas after spotting members of a conservative group called Turning Point USA. Khan was later arrested but the question is how the University of Illinois will respond to yet another assault over the exercise of free speech. The university can clearly review Khan’s conduct on the videotape and judge whether it meets the standards of the university for faculty and students alike.
Khan is shown shouting such things as “F**k Donald Trump” and “F**k you guys.” Turning Point coordinator Joel Valdez yells at Khan and asks Don’t you have kids to look after?” Khan then construes the comment as a threat. He rushes toward the students and demands repeatedly “Are you threatening my kids?” Even though Valdez denies any threat, Khan continues to claim a threat and confronts the cameraman: “You want to threaten my kids, too?” Khan becomes violent in taking a swing at a student and grabbing a cellphone. Khan was later issued a summons to appear in court “for criminal damage to property.”The concern is that universities seem to have a high tolerance for attacks on conservatives. We have previously discussed the controversy surrounding the confrontation of Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young with pro-life advocates on campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara remains. Miller-Young led her students in attacking the pro-life display, stealing their display, and then committing battery on one of the young women. She was convicted and sentenced for the crime. Despite the shocking conduct of Miller-Young and the clear violation of the most fundamental values for all academics in guaranteeing free speech and associational rights, the faculty overwhelmingly supported Miller-Young and the university decided not to impose any meaningful discipline. To make matter worse, Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, not only issued a statement that seemed to blame the victims but faculty defended Miller-Young’s conduct. Faculty and student defenders attacked the pro-life advocates and one even referred to them as “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech. Miller-Young should have been fired but was instead lionized by faculty and students.
Khan is an instructor at Illinois and not just some graduate student. He is listed as being with several departments, including African American Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Latina/Latino Studies.
The question is how Illinois will respond to an assault by an instructor on students exercising their free speech. It is analogous to the recent controversy at the University of California (Riverside) where another assault resulted in criminal charges but no substantive discipline from the university.
64 thoughts on “University of Illinois Instructor Arrested After Assaulting Conservative Protesters”
Wonder if this will turn out to be something as simple as an angry jealous loser who just couldn’t stand his old friend moving on to a bigger and better life. Of course, we’ll never know the true story. This creep and his lawyer have no doubt already started spinning some tale that blames his victim.
Amazon offered corporate welfare in Chicago
“Chicago and the state authorities of Illinois have jointly offered to hand Amazon more than $2bn in tax breaks, including $1.32bn of its workers’ income taxes. The scheme, known as a personal income tax diversion, would mean Amazon workers pay full income taxes, but instead of the state getting the money to use for schools, roads and other public services, Amazon would keep it.”
Autumn, That dealo makes perfect sense since the City and State ARE BANKRUPT!
Take note that the two biggest money offers have come from 2 of the states with the worst fiscal management, Illinois and New Jersey, Some think Amazon is a workers paradise and Chicago a leader of the left has shown how the left manages its affairs. Here is an undercover report on Amazon I read earlier today. Apparently, Amazon (in this report and video) is the type of world Chicago and the rest of the left would like to bring to us. (I think the hourly wage is ~$11.00 per hour)
“Life in Amazon warehouse ‘revealed with timed toilet breaks and workers sleeping on their feet’
AMAZON employees are exposed to such gruelling working conditions, they fall asleep on their feet, it has been claimed.
Bone-weary workers reportedly have just nine seconds to process a package during the long-hours at the online store warehouse, with a Mirror investigation claiming employees are suffering panic attacks as they struggle to keep up with demand.
An exhausted Amazon warehouse worker appears to be asleep on his feet
According to the news outlet, one worker even had to be taken to hospital by an ambulance when they collapsed on the job.” (picture)
Pictures and more pictures with explanations at the site.
“Others simply slumped asleep where they stood, exhausted from the physically demanding job that sees them walking at least 10 miles a day.
Amazon has insisted that it provides a “safe and positive workplace”, but according to the Mirror, a whiteboard of staff comments was full to the brim of complaints.
One staff member asked bosses: “Why are we not allowed to sit when it is quiet and not busy? We are human beings, not slaves and animals.”
Amazon sold more than 7.4 million items on Friday November 18 in 2015, and have recruited an extra 20,000 seasonal workers and 3.500 permanent staff members in a bid to keep up with demand this year.
A spokesperson for Amazon told the Mirror: “Amazon provides a safe and positive workplace with competitive pay and benefits from day one. We are proud to have created thousands of permanent roles in our UK fulfilment centres in recent years.
“We offer great jobs and a positive environment with opportunities for growth. As with most companies, we expect a certain level of performance.
“Targets are based on previous performance achieved by our workers. Associates are evaluated over a long period of time as we know a variety of things could impact the ability to meet expectations in any given day or hour.””
video and pictures at:
Adding an example of welfare for the rich- “carried interest”.
Linda, Welfare for the rich is mostly promoted by the left because of their reliance on corporatism. Some of the right also supports unnecessary “welfare for the rich”
Trump’s greatest support came from those that rejected “welfare for the rich”
The socialist model is based upon “All animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others”. __George Orwell
Government creates rules and regulations that protect the richest of the rich. Less regulation promotes the development of small businesses. This lesson should have been taught in grade school, Railroad short vs long haul. Look it up to see how regulation of the railroad didn’t protect the consumer, but did protect railroad interests.
When government sees a problem they create a board to oversee the problem. The most interested people are those that have the largest stakes in that segment of the economy and they end up creating the legislation that might seem to improve the consumer’s needs, but in actuality strengthens their own generally at the expense of the consumer.
As an aside, during the recent financial crisis who did GWB and Obama call in to help fix the economy? Goldman Sachs. Look at the balance sheet after the crisis had abated. Goldman made money and a lot of people lost their homes, jobs, retirement accounts etc. Who helped create the crisis? Government combined with the big investment companies. The government wanted more money to spend and told the financial sector to figure out how. They came up with derivatives, low prime mortgages, interest only loans, etc. Who benefited? Companies like Goldman Sachs.
The proportion of national income going to labor is at the lowest point in recorded history. It is a fallacy to assume the Koch’s, Adelson, Mercer, Gates, Andreeson, Thiel, etc. will change that.
A study in Ohio found that, after deregulation, home owners were charged more for utilities. They paid more than those in communities who retained collective ownership of their municipal electric.
“Free market” outsourcing is corporate exploitation of labor and avoidance of safety and health precautions.
Deregulation of media has concentrated plutocratic power.
Linda, you provide isolated facts without a narrative to explain the benefits or the harm. You fail to stay on one topic so there is no depth to any discussion when you are involved so no one learns anything.
Let me provide you with one fact and one question. Assume we are in a pre-cell phone era. How long do you think it would take to go from discovery to what we have today in the cell-phone industry? I’ll give a hint. The bandwidth was controlled by the government and the bureaucrats never believed cell-phones would be near universal. After you figure out the answer think about the implications and then think about your isolated facts.
I hope you will come back with some type of response to make this discussion worthwhile.
Keep peddling free market/privatization just as the German businessmen did in the lead up to Nazi Germany. (Read economist Germa Bal’s research.) We can try out the rule of a paper hanger here in the states. Or, as an alternative scenario, we can live the aftermath of Czar Mnuchin and Czarinas Louise Litton and Ivanka Trump. Ivanka described food as an investment in the poor. Rhetorically, how do you think that will play in a people’s court?
Linda, Your view of history is quite perverted and erroneous. You continue with isolated statements apparently because you are totally unable to defend any position.
Take note how you didn’t bother to answer the question or even think about it. The government controlled the bandwidth. I believe Cell communications were discovered in 1945. That was the government in action. Cell technology lay dormant until the 1980’s 40 years later. That is why we saw cell technology develop faster in other nations when we could have developed it decades before.
Did you look up the long haul short haul of railroads? Of course not. Your analysis isn’t even skin deep, totally worthless, and a waste of time.
I describe your argumentation as cherry picking. You describe mine as isolated example. I’ll match your cell phones with the abysmal record of gas mileage improvement over the past 25 years. Variables can not be controlled to the extent necessary to make comparisons about new innovation development. But, we can compare situations where services are provided by for-profits and not-for-profits as in my electric example.
The record of for-profit prisons is appalling as is privatization of schools (ECOT in Ohio).
Rhetorically, if for-profit drug companies are able to spend hundreds of millions in states to defeat attempts to rein in prices, why do they have their hands out for government welfare for R&D?
Linda, I haven’t cherry picked at all. I am dealing with a person who brings up isolated factoids that may or may not be true and may or may not be in context. I can provide you with a full-blown discussion but you keep changing the subject repeating something you heard and never discuss it.
Since you brought up pharmaceuticals do you know how much it cost to bring a drug to the American market? Let’s deal with pharmaceuticals since you brought it up.
Looking at only what happened leaves out the other side of the coin where a lot better things could have happened.
You’ve lost all credibility by defending the indefensible- big Pharma.
Take big Pharma out of the game, turn research and production over to the government who can contract out to non-profits – the same government that put a man on the moon. Outcomes would be improved for all.
The exception is the loss of big bucks to the executives and owners of big Pharma and people like the sleazy guy recently convicted who increased his litigation woes by threatening officers of the court.
“You’ve lost all credibility by defending the indefensible- big Pharma.”
How? By asking a question “Since you brought up pharmaceuticals do you know how much it cost to bring a drug to the American market?”
Linda, there is no value in discussing anything with you.
We are watching the rise of Liberal Fascism. Erosion of individual Constitutionally protected rights such as Free Speech, education from preschool to universities have become Liberal Madrassas, many departments of our government have become weaponized against Conservatives from the DOJ, IRS, EPA to the FBI.
Instead of sacrificing individual rights and freedoms to all pull together for the greater good of a single nation, that cause is now global Progressivism. The movement has all the hallmarks of Fascism, and in fact, Fascism and Progressivism happily exchanged ideas, such as Eugenics, across the pond before WWII made that frowned upon.
Progressives have forgotten the rotten roots of many of its theories, mainly to give up your own personal freedom for the promise of better living through government. They supported the Fascists, the Nazis, Communist China, Stalin, and basically every dictator who ever murdered hundreds of thousands to millions of their own people in order to take complete control for their own good. Academia still extols the virtues of Communism, responsible for highly toxic pollution today, the abuses of its citizens, and the murder of millions of people. Otherwise highly intelligent people ignore all historical facts to the outcome of this totalitarian approach. Perhaps they believe it would all turn out alright if only they were in charge, as the government ruling class. They would live better than the peasants waiting in bread lines, but they would extol the virtues of complete equality of (miserable) condition.
One would think that Detroit would have figure out by now that one does not, in fact, live better through government, free housing is a criminal cesspool of misery, and one cannot actually live a comfortable middle class lifestyle through socialism. If they need more information, they can turn to Venezuela, where healthcare if free but all the medicine they can prescribe is a plastic water bottle to go fill up elsewhere since their water supply is polluted.
I have had quite enough of the weaponization of the education system against conservative students and faculty. Vote with your wallets. If politicization is what they demand then, sadly, half the country will be Liberal universities and half conservative, and then politicized employers would discriminate accordingly. Sad, but that seems to be what the Left demands.
KarenS: you forgot to mention corporate socialism – subsidies, tax loopholes, bail outs, etc
re “one cannot actually live a comfortable middle class lifestyle through socialism” — that differs widely – in truly democratic countries a blend of socialism and capitalism offers a good life.
The US unfortunately has pockets all over where too many generations who have been conditioned to feel helpless continue the cycle. Some escape – mentors, teachers – but far too many do not
I recently watched a documentary “Poverty, Inc” all 3rd world examples – made me wonder who is profiting off our poor?
“We are watching the rise of Liberal Fascism.”
Excellent post, but I think Liberal Fascism has been here for quite awhile. Jonah Goldberg wrote his book Liberal Fascism in 2008. It was an excellent book, but your piece above is much shorter.
Liberal Fascism is a contradiction in terms.
David, Liberal Fascism isn’t a contradiction in terms. When you were young the memory of what a liberal (classical liberal) was seemed to be strong. Hayek had just written his book Road to Serfdom just before the end of WW2 and Friedman was soon after to write Free to Choose which became a TV series. As the word liberal became more distorted Bill Buckley resorted to adding a capital L to the word to distinguish a Liberal from a liberal (classical liberal). The term liberal Fascism might be a contradiction in terms, but LIberal Fascism (capital L in Liberal) is not.
Check out Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism for a greater understanding or check out any of the writings of those that believe in classical liberalism. In fact check out several works by Milton Friedman [Capitalism and Freedom, Free to choose] or the Road to Serfdom. Those are far more important books than the one Paul likes, Shelley’s “Frankenstein”.
Allan – taste is personal. I cannot guarantee what you will and won’t like unless I know your tastes. You clearly don’t want to read Frankenstein, so don’t. It is no skin off my nose. 😉 My advice was free and you should take it for what you paid for it. 🙂 And on my side, I am going to skip reading Friedman.
I just wanted to know if Frankenstein ranked higher than many others and if it did, why? I am more interested in what I take away from a book. My earliest training leaned very heavily on physics, chemistry, and Mathematics. I didn’t have time for much literature in my studies, but I did like political economics and history indulging in historical fiction and fiction with a strong scientific basis. I found the harder sciences easier than soft science or Liberal arts studies.
We are polar opposites so I always find it interesting what others read and why. I actually develop a reading list based on what I hear from others.
Allan – if it is any help, Frankenstein is science-based. How to build a human from spare body parts. All the movies have changed the end of the book, which is why it is important to read the book before seeing any of the movies. Mary Shelley actually got the science right by anticipating it. 😉 That might make you feel better about reading it, it was science fiction.
Then I may have read it at a young age but because I have seen so many things on Frankenstein I might not remember. Other than transplanting organs what science did she demonstrate? She did demonstrate the development of a foreign being that started absent of knowledge and language skills that develop through the story. Generally, I am looking for scientific insights into the future, but since the book is about 2 centuries old the scientific insights are more of the past. My guess is that one should know a bit about the time and place to get a full understanding of the book.
If I didn’t read the book I probably spent a lot of that time in the basement creating all sorts of compounds many of which blew up and one in particular started fires all throughout the basement that when put out would restart. They no longer permit all those chemicals in a chemistry set.
Allan – I think we may have had the same version of chemistry set. I set my basement on fire and then learned that alcohol does not put out fires. 🙂 (Used the alcohol lamp to try to put it out). Did finally get it out without my parents finding out though. 😉
I recommend self-help in the form of applied martial arts for conservatives when faced with radical cretins suffering some derangement syndrome and threatening their safety. Waiting for the left’s willing apparatchiks in academia to act responsibly is pointless. A few broken limbs or jaws garners much needed respect and a lot of satisfaction for we the observers. Natural justice is sometimes the best kind.
mespo, Or as Chuck Colson said, “When you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds are sure to follow.
Best political advice/observation since Machiavelli.
Live by the balloon, die by the balloon
Hey its a performance clown! Good observation, Darren.
In a school that is home to the Obama’s do you think anything is going to happen to the instructor of useless courses? I am appalled, the man does not teach one class with any substance? What gender is he, btw?
” I am appalled, the man does not teach one class with any substance?”
Ignorance and violence seem to be the left’s response to freedom of speech. He is polluting the classroom.
No word on gender, Paul. I’ll just use the term “slug.”
Just got in from Illinois.
Locked the front door.
Uh, Uh, Uh, etc
And, we all thought Pat Buchanan was off the rails.
Turns out he was spot on.
The Leftists in charge running anything connected with Illinois’ government are corrupt Leftists. They will protect one of their own, especially a skumbag like Khan.
Might be that the university’s policy towards those arrested is to presume innocence until proven otherwise in a court of law.
Unless it’s video taped. Bingo.
Agreed. The univ can view his actions on tape, as can we all. Whether he gets convicted of a crime or not, his behavior is not something that should be tolerated in a faculty member.
His behavior, if placed on his resume, would be a plus to many left-wing universities today.
” He is listed as being with several departments, including African American Studies, Gender and Women’s Studies, and Latina/Latino Studies.”
That seems to be an increasingly common credential of faculty who attack students.
The university will do nothing substantive to address criminal acts committed against members of the public when those members express opinions disagreeable to the administration.
The current “conservative (aka oligarchy) government” will do nothing while the richest 0.1% buy a monopoly msm. Just announced- the Koch’s are buying Time.
At this juncture, those who heed Lincoln’s warning about the threat to democracy, can pursue one path in opposition to American colonialism by the rich – shout down or attack their representatives. The community surveillance programs funded by the richest 0.1% (Pew and Arnold) will dampen protests…. until the anger boils over into revolt.
The correlation is undeniable. Just like with radicalized Muslims; investigate the source of their radicalization.
No doubt the Kremlin enjoys the destabilization of countries and the prospect of a repressive government that crafts opportunities to enrich the oligarchs that it favors.
LOL! Yes Linda, the Russian government is the only one on the planet actively seeking to destabilize other nation’s governments. /sarc off. Is it your goal today to use oligarchs in as many sentences as possible?
It appears Linda likes the word “oligarch”. She can accuse everyone she dislikes of being an oligarch without any evidence to accompany the accusation. I wonder if she actually understands what an oligarchy is.
Allan, Of course she does. It is the school of fashion started by Oleg Cassini.
Oligarchy defined- Wellspring.
Examples of oligarchy- 52% of the population opposes the Republican budget. Fewer than 30% favor it.
The majority of the population want taxes raised on the richest 0.1% but, the politicians won’t pass it.
You have confirmed what I said earlier Linda, you don’t understand what an oligarchy is.
Linda – suggestion: do some research on which country has destabilized the most other nations since the Cold War.
And there it is again- “what about…ism”, used to deflect (John Oliver).
Those that cry the loudest regarding what about…ism are disabled by situational ethics.
The source of their radicalization is postmodernism. Their funding, at least at public universities, comes from us.
PR – thanks for posting – Jordan has more intregrity (and cajones) than the majority of faculty members I have met
Prarie Rose, since you are interested in university funding check out the Ivy League:
OpenTheBooks Oversight Report IVY LEAGUE, INC.
Download a PDF copy of our report click here.
1. Ivy League payments and entitlements cost taxpayers $41.59 billion over a six-year period (FY2010-FY2015). This is equivalent to $120,000 in government monies, subsidies, & special tax treatment per undergraduate student, or $6.93 billion per year.
2. The Ivy League was the recipient of $25.73 billion worth of federal payments during this period: contracts ($1.37 billion), grants ($23.9 billion) and direct payments – student assistance ($460 million).
3. In monetary terms, the ‘government contracting’ business of the Ivy League ($25.27 billion – federal contracts and grants) exceeded their educational mission ($22 billion in student tuition) FY2010-FY2015.
4. The eight colleges of the Ivy League received more money ($4.31 billion) – on average – annually from the federal government than sixteen states: see report.
5. The Ivy League endowment funds (2015) exceeded $119 billion, which is equivalent to nearly $2 million per undergraduate student.
6. As a non-profit, educational institution, the Ivy League pays no tax on investment gains. Between FY2011-FY2015, the Ivy League schools received a $9.6 billion tax break on the $27.3 billion growth of their endowment funds. In FY2014, the tax-free subsidy on endowment gains amounted to $3.4 billion, or nearly $60,000 per student.
7. With continued gifts at present rates, the $119 billion endowment fund provides free tuition to the entire student body in perpetuity. Without new gifts, the endowment is equivalent to a full-ride scholarship for all Ivy League undergraduate students for 51-years, or until 2068.
8. In FY2014, the balance sheet for all Ivy League colleges showed $194,332,115,120 in accumulated gross assets. This is equivalent to $3.35 million per undergraduate student.
9. The Ivy League employs 47 administrators who each earn more than $1 million per year. Two executives each earned $20 million between 2010-2014. Ivy League employees earned $62 billion in compensation.
10. In a five-year period (2010-2014) the Ivy League spent $17.8 million on lobbying, which included issues mostly related to their endowment, federal contracting, immigration and student aid.
IVY LEAGUE FINANCIAL SCORECARD:
For tabular breakdown and 990’s check below:
Adding- one of the most prestigious ivy leagues admits 50% of students based on legacy.
Adding- the ivy leagues’ hundred billion dollar endowments enrich money managers. The money itself distorts the marketplace by bidding up the price on investments like real estate.
Though the number is quite high, I have heard up to 1/3 are legacy in one or two ivy league schools, I haven’t heard the 50% figure so I would want proof before believing it.
How much higher would the number be, if it included those who donate to get their kids into schools like Harvard? Allegedly, Jared Kushner’s credentials didn’t merit admittance but, $2,000,000 from his father opened the doors of the hallowed halls.
The accurate measure of privilege is not limited to legacy, it includes all among the wealthy who gain access without meeting the merit standard.
Linda, we are talking about one metric, legacy students. One doesn’t change the metric when they question the results. This is one reason why so many people don’t understand studies and then rely upon leftists that tell them they will make everything fair. The leftists have simple answers that do not require energizing one’s ability to think. That is a big problem and leads to awful conclusions.
Your statement ” one of the most prestigious ivy leagues admits 50% of students based on legacy.” appears to be wrong. Unless you can prove it correct all you are doing is digging a deeper hole and demonstrating unreliability.
Make the substantive point that 33% vs. 50% changes the conclusion of the argument then, I’ll dig to find the data source.
I didn’t provide a number I had heard unverified for you to spend time looking it up. I did so just to show you how you come up with isolated numbers that are meaningless by themselves and are all too frequently erroneous. I am not used to dealing with this level of error.
Precision without value- 33 1/3 % reported at Wikipedia. 50% dismissed for lack of a footnote.
Brain function- a sieve.
That is your problem, Linda. One cannot have a rational conversation with one that has bad data and nothing to add.
Thanks for the link, Allan!
Comments are closed.