SUNY Student Reprimanded Under “Unwritten Policy” For Criticizing Liberal Intolerance At Open Mic Event

SUNY_logoWe have been discussing the rapid erosion of free speech on our campuses and the increasing confrontations with students who bar speech with which they disagree.  (Here and here and here and here)  The most disturbing aspect of this trend has been the active support of academics and administrators, including defining the prevention of free speech as an exercise of free speech. The result is that schools are caving into academic demands made by students.  The latest example is the action taken by the State University of New York at Oswego administrator, who  reprimanded a student for making other students feel “uncomfortable” by raising liberal intolerance of free speech at an “Open Mic” event last month.  Nicole Miller was called out under an “unofficial policy” — thereby confirming the very point of her remarks.

SUNY Alcohol and Other Drug Program Coordinator, Trisha DeWolf contacted Miller to tell her that her discussion of free speech left other students uncomfortable:

“It was brought to my attention that students were uncomfortable with the letter that Nicole read during open mic last week. While I am in support of your freedom of speech, I was implored to reach out you both by more than one student . . . Anytime I receive a complaint I have to follow up. The unwritten policy has always been after one complaint, you receive a verbal warning and any complaint after than may result in being asked to not perform at open mic. I’ve already had to utilize this unwritten rule once this semester.”

Despite DeWolf’s claim of support for free speech, it clearly sounds like Miller is being called out for exercising that right.  Yet, Miller merely read a letter during the event that described the experience of a “conservative woman” on a “liberal campus.”  She raised the intolerance of some on the left for opposing views — something that we have discussed repeatedly on this blog.

In what proved a prophetic observation, Miller said

“I’ve been on this campus for almost 3 years now and let me tell you it’s been hard to show my beliefs here . . . It sickens me to death that the people that preach tolerance and acceptance of all people are so openly against us and our beliefs. . . . I’ve heard many stories from others like me who were attacked for their beliefs . . . People had their personal property destroyed, their own lives threatened, and administration has done nothing because [we’re] ‘Trump lovers’ . . . The ‘tolerant left’ isn’t very tolerant when it comes to those their same age who have different beliefs.”

DeWolf noted that her comments could “negatively impact the LSC or Open Mic” and the event “is suppose [sic] to be fun way celebrate the end of the semester.”

She then added “A few of our students were deeply hurt by some of your remarks (their words, not mine). Moving forward, there will be written guidelines for performers, which I hate to have to do.”

That sounds a lot like a content-based regulation of speech. So is SUNY going to bar students from raising what they view as free speech intolerance.  How about race intolerance? Would that also be proscribed?

Apparently students were discomforted by another student expressing her discomfort over speech intolerance.  We recently discussed the alternative approach found in the courageous stand of the University of Chicago against the growing speech codes and “safe spaces” in campuses around the country.  Colleges should be forum for a diversity of ideas and values. Some of those ideas will thrill and some will annoy, but they all are part of an open intellectual community.  It is not enough for DeWolf to give a perfunctory nod toward free speech while threatening the regulation of future speech and the need to address any comments that might discomfort other students.  Her letter should be formally retracted and SUNY should give serious thought to whether it will be a force for free speech or one of the rising number of institutions seeking its curtailment in the name of comfort.


136 thoughts on “SUNY Student Reprimanded Under “Unwritten Policy” For Criticizing Liberal Intolerance At Open Mic Event”

  1. Sad to see that “free speech” is no longer valued on college campuses these days. It’s a reflection of the divisions that exist across the country. Nowadays, if you have a difference of opinion, you just shut down the differing voice. If you cannot shut them down, then you resort to name calling…..racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, alt-right, religious extremist, and the list goes on.

  2. The alt right jumps right in and attaches this traitorous position of refusing individuals or groups their constitutional rights of freedom of speech to all those on the left. The same extreme broad brush painting takes place on the right when the left attaches an extreme expression to all those who hold liberal or progressive opinions.

    This is no different from the religious fanatics that function from a belief that if one does not believe as they do then that person loses their human rights to liberty, freedom, and sometimes life. Those in positions of control that curtail basic rights and freedoms because of political or other bias are not fit to hold those positions of administration and trust. If the extremist doesn’t wish to hear subject matter that it finds disagreeable at an open mike forum or any other venue then their option is to leave the moment. They have no rights in America to curtail the freedom of speech.

    What is more important is to disassociate the extremist from the left or right. The left and the right are primarily made up of those who place our freedoms above our political bias. These extremists and those that cower to them are of a group of their own. They are fools, and must be treated as such, whether they hold left or right positions when they spout their complaints. There’s the right, the left, the alt right and the alt left. The alts belong in one group. That group includes those that label progressives hypocritical or regressive. This is the tragedy of the us or them condition of American politics. This is the condition that best serves our oligarchy. Those that paint all, of the side with which they differ, with the same brush used to point out the perverse positions of some extremists, are no different; they are not American.

    1. I found myself agreeing with much of your comment…until I got to the last four words where you said ‘they are not American.’

      1. I should clarify…I found myself agreeing with much, not all, of your comment in that I understood the point you were making. However, I also firmly believe that freedom of speech allows for all speech – including extremist views. This is the very foundation of what it is to be an American.

        1. TBob

          In other words, we agree that it is not American to obstruct the freedom of speech, especially when it is nothing more than expressing political opinions but not when it is designed to incite violence and cause harm to innocents, or to obstruct freedoms; therein lies the rub, the slippery slope, the reason for deciding groups such as the Supreme Court. There is a difference between being an American and being American. These extremists that obstruct the rights of others are not being American, in my humble and late to dinner opinion.

          1. Okay, so ‘being American’ means that even though I may not agree with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it. And ‘being an American’ is to be given a right to free speech as provided for in the U.S. Constitution – which is unique to the United States. Therefore, extremists on college campuses, and elsewhere, who attempt to obstruct the free speech rights of others, are in fact not ‘being American’… I would have to agree….Hope you weren’t too late to dinner.

      2. TBob

        The one position I take that is similar with those that pervert the essence of what the founding fathers laid down is to use this essence as the foundation of what it means to be American. The difference, as I see it, is that the extremists, from both directions, pervert this essence by addressing it selectively; as with the second amendment where the part about the regulated militia is avoided along with the reality of the difference in time and conditions, and by discriminating through religious bias instead of understanding that freedom of religion means more in that we should be free of religion. Those that came to North America because they were persecuted by other sects came to be free to practice their religion without being persecuted by religion; in other words freedom from religion.

        In my mind the essence of what it means to be American is not unique to the United States. Most of the rest of humanity desires the same freedoms. Those that self restrict through religious or other arguments do so mainly to protect their societies from more restrictive conditions. Worshiping a god through spokesmen while striving to develop a secular government is what Americans did early on in their evolution.

        What perverts what it means to be America more than anything is the illusion that only in America can be found these truths. These truths are as the multiple facets of our being. Some are to be found in greater strength in America and some in greater strength in other countries. Our system of government which is an oligarchy based on division between two sides-one more than a dictatorship-is far behind the more democratically representative governments of countries that drew inspiration from the founding fathers of the United States two hundred plus years ago.

        The extremes that exist on both the left and right of this polarized nation should be divided from the left and right and used to create parties at the extreme ends. This is the better check and balance system. The fringe, when the center is evolving acts as a warning of what an extreme has to offer, very little.

        1. Rights are not selective.

          A right is something that you have even when the majority thinks otherwise.
          A right is inherently “extreme” – or it is not a right.

          With respect to the 2nd amendment in 1787 the “militia” was all able bodied males over the age of 16.
          Many states had laws REQUIRING those over 16 to own and be proficient with a gun.

          The argument that this is a different time – has merit, but no applicability to the courts.
          The courts are not there to do for us what we are perfectly cabable of doing for ourselves,

          If parts of the constitution are more appropriate for a different time – then repeal of change them.
          Otherwise the argument is just babbling.

          No religious freedom does NOT mean we should be “free of” religion. Actually read the founders. most were deeply religious. The purpose of freedom of religion, was that they did not share the same religion, and they did not want the state imposing on them a religion different from their own.

          Religious freedom was a compromise – I will tolerate your religion if you will tolerate mine and none of us get to impose our religion on others by force.

          Those on the left should note that progressivism is a religion. Religion does not require a formal god.

        2. Apparently you do not know what an oligarchy is.
          The US is not.

          Our politicians rent out the power of government to interests including businesses,
          But power still comes from government.

          Our government may be flawed, but I have seen nothing elsewhere in the world to suggest that ANY other nation offers and improvement.

          1. dhill

            Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, and almost all other democracies, whether modeled after the US or a hybrid, do not allow concentrated funding sourced from corporations or other entities that would have more interest in a political outcome than one voter. It is against the law in these countries and politicians that accept buckets of ‘pay off’ from corporations or individuals are taken to task, tossed out, sometimes jailed.

            That a politician in the US can be purchased or taken out of the running by concentrated wealth from special interests is unique and is no improvement whatsoever. The government of the US is oligarchically based in that if the NRA wants a specific candidate for a judgeship they can make it happen by funding him or her with millions in campaign donations. If the NRA does not want a specific candidate to become a judge, they can use millions to smear that person out of the running. This is so to a large enough degree with all politics and the basic reason why both Democrat and Republican so called leaders put the citizen’s welfare second to that of the corporate bottom line. Health care and health care insurance is the perfect example. If ever there was an example of the illusion of democracy and putting the people first giving way to the interests of the oligarchs it is with the present President, Trump, the head oligarch. Everything he has managed thus far is in the vast majority interest of the very few mega wealthy and not in the interests of the ‘everyman’. The US may be the world’s foremost super power and have many advantages over other countries but it is not the best example of democracy, social conscious, affordable health care, public education, etc. etc. etc. But we have the lotteries and our heroes.

            1. 1). What you do with your own funds is your own business. As SCOTUS has properly – but not unfortunately sufficiently broadly found, you can not regulate speach by regulating the necessities for speach. You can not say you can say whatever you want – in the shower, on sunday after 3am.

              You can not control political speach by defunding it.

              More simply – the countries you cite are WRONG, and obviously so.

              Historically the US’s on again off again respect for individual liberty – particularly that of political speach, has resulted in standard of living in the US rising faster than those of any other consequential nation in the world. Those few smaller nations that have done better have embraced freedom more consistently than we have – and started from much farther behind.

              The Europeans have NOT done badly, BUT they have NOT done as well as the US.
              They started far ahead and have ended up behind.

            2. To be clear I have ZERO problems with anyone buying pretty much whatever they want.
              Including buying politicians. As I stated before, short of using force against others, what you do with what is yours is your own business.

              The specific problem you address is very real – but you have mischaracterized it, and their for failed to grasp the only legitimate remedy.

              It is the selling of the power that is WRONG, not its purchase.
              When those in government sell power, they are selling something that is NOT their own.
              It is the public servant who has committed a crime, who has betrayed their oath who has failed at an actual duty.

              When you understand what the actual crime is an who is committing it, you will better be able to address the remedy.

              You can not justify the use of FORCE aka government, to restrict the actual freedom of others to do with as they please with what is theirs, absent real actual direct harm to another. And speach is never harmful.

            3. If you think that political corruption is unique to the US – or even worse in the US you are absolutely blind.

              One of the distinctions between the US and Europe is that in the US it is actually possible (though difficult) to succeed without one way or another buying off government.

              There is a reason that Europe lags far behind the US in innovation – because nothing happens without buying off government.

            4. Last time I checked a couple of hundred signatures would get you onto the ballot for most any office you want to run for in the US.

              Further voter cast their votes in secret. There is absolutely no way to force a voter in the US to vote as you wish.

              You fixate on money – but money in politics serves only one purpose – to PERSUADE.

              Like it or not embedded in your premise is the claim that you are permitted to (and able) to control how people vote.

              If as you say the rich are able to persuade people to vote one way, you are claiming a right to use FORCE to diminish or eliminate that persuasion. You are a very small step from dispensing with elections entirely and just imposing your will by force.

              However wrong you may think that the use of money to persuade people is,
              The use of force in ANY way is much more wrong.

              What you seek to do is IMMORAL!

            5. How did the wealthy get that money they use to persuade ?

              I know that you lefties think they stole it, but I have rarely been robbed by a rich person, though I am daily robbed by the left through government.

              The rich get rich – particularly in the US by FREELY trading what people need and want for money.
              Free exchange NEVER occurs unless the buyer wants what they are buying more than money.

              So the rich have money because they traded it with you for something you obviously value more.

              Then in you view they use that money – which they had to provide you with something of value to get, to persuade you to vote as they hope. No matter how many TV adds they purchase – you remain free to vote as you please.

              I fail to see the problem.

            6. In the last US presidential election Hillary Clinton spend almost double what Donald Trump spent.

              I beleive that Clinton spent nearly $20 for every vote she got.
              Since nearly all that money was spent for votes in swing states, that is really closer to $2000/vote,
              And still she fell short.

              Clearly money does not work nearly so well as you immagine.

            7. How do you smear someone who has done nothing wrong ?

              One of the few restrictions the US has on speach is the restriction on defamining – lying about another.

              In the US the actual evidence is that the primary thing preventing good people from running in elections is all the disclosure laws that the left has implimented.

              This is particularly damaging at the local level, where it is increasingly difficult to get successful business people to move to public service later in life.

            8. You do understand that the NRA does not make the top 100 political donors list ?

              In 2018 of 255m donated by top organizational donors – 138m when to the left and 112m went to the right.

              As best as I can tell you wish to supress one side of that.

            9. Your “welfare” is your responsibility – no one else’s.
              You are responsible to feed, cloth and shelter yourself.
              No one owes you anything else.

              I do not expect nor want politicians to be “looking after my welfare” I can damn well do that for myself.

              The SOLE legitimate function of government is the SECURE our rights.
              That is natural rights that exist even absent government.

            10. The US is not an oligarchy – you clearly do not know what an Oligarchy is.
              Nor is it a democracy, All actual democracies have ended horribly, democracy is one of the worst possible forms of government.

              The US is a constitutional republic.

            11. Healthcare is the perfect example – throughout the world the cost of those things we want and need that are not provided by or highly regulated by government are cheap.

              While those that are provided by or controlled by government are expensive and getting more so all the time.

              In 1983 I bought a top of the line Amana side by side refridgerator for 1200 Wholesale.
              At the minimum wage at the time that required about 500 hours of labor for a MW earner to buy.
              Today a far better Fridge costs about $1000 retail. or a little lest that 200hours of MW labor.

              While Healthcare and education – the two most highly government regulated parts of the economy are far MORE costly than ever before.

              But even inside of Healthcare – I can get plastic surgery or Lasik – two relatively unregulated areas for far LESS than in 1983.

              So your idea is to place an even larger portion of the economy under govenrment control ?

              IF your want people to get more value for less effort – GOVERNMENT NEVER delivers that.
              Only the free market economy that you despise actually delivers on that promise.

              The STUPIDEST thing you can do if you care about “the general welfare” is have government deliver it.

            12. “The US may be the world’s foremost super power and have many advantages over other countries”
              All of which occured BECAUSE we are more productive, which occurred because Unlike Europe we are more free.

              “but it is not the best example of democracy,”
              Thank god, why would we wish to be the best example of a lousy form of government.

              “social conscious”
              Not the role of government
              “affordable health care”
              Not the role of government either. But I would note that the US has the best most advanced healthcare in the world, and we subsidize the crap out of the healthcare of the rest of the world – including europe.
              The worst thing that could happen to european healthcare would be for the US to adopt the European model. Healthcare innovation would cease.
              “public education,”
              Education is not the role of government.

              I would note that though the US is behind the rest of the world in SOME measures of some services.
              The US is actually way ahead by the measures of their effectiveness.

              There is about a 35% standard of living difference between the US and Europe.
              Even with advanced wealthy countries like Germany – the US has a 20% advantage.

              That means that Americans have more and better houses and apartments, cars, food, and even healthcare.

              It also means that either the measures of US education are WRONG, or somehow the US is managing to be more productive with a more poorly educated people.
              Either way we are doing better.

              Just to be clear – there is nothing “special” about the US.

              “American Exceptionalism” is not in the water, or our genes. Fundimentally all it means is that greater freedom means a more prosperous society.

              My idea of “social conscious” government is government that looks out for the “common wealfare” by getting out of the “common welfare” business which is something government sucks at and allowing people to take care of their own welfare – which they are better equipped to do.

    2. That group includes those that label progressives hypocritical or regressive – Ah but does that include those that denies conservatives the right to speech? Supreme Court has a different view.

    3. You are correct that supression of speach is not unique to one ideology.
      At this moment in time the threat comes from the left.

      Those on the right who are truly extreme currently are rare, powerless and currently arguing for their right to free speach not threatening that of others.

      Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
      Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue;

      1. Dhili,
        I have agreed with some parts of what you say, but I do not quite agree with this:

        “Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
        Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue;”

        I would argue that Jordan Peterson is defending free speech with moderation. He is rational and reasonable in his stance against nonsense like this.

        1. Peterson has been labeled part of the alt-right.

          If you defend freedom at all you should expect to be labeled as a radical extremist.

          In the past – such as with the Berkeley Free Speech movement, you were part of the extreme left.

          Regardless the defense of liberty always gets you labeled as an extremist. Left/Right, it does not matter.

          Is Peterson a moderate ? I have listened to him alot. He is only a moderate if you think being free is “moderate”.

          Peterson is a major figure of a growing group of intellectuals that are now being defamed as “the intellectual dark web” – if we can come up with a scary enough label then no one will pay attention to them.

          These are people like David Rubin, Harris, Haidt, Murray, Weinstein
          many of whom come from the left, and who have eschewed identification with the right.
          A few have tepidly identified as “libertarian” – but to many think of pot heads and streakers when you say “libertarain” so they are often calling themselves “classical liberals” Which I think it great. I am all for proponents of liberty taking ownership of the term “liberal” – it is ours, it does not belong to the left.

          Liberal means placing a high value on individual liberty. If you do not do that you are not liberal.

          It is positively evil to allow the tyranical left to pretend to have people like Locke, Smith, Hume, Mills, Franklin, Jefferson, Bastiat, Theroux as their intellectual heritage. The modern left is about as hostile as is possible to ‘classical liberalism’.

          Maybe this will help:
          “Extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
          Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue;”
          Barry Goldwater acceptance speach 1964 Republican convention.

          Or this
          The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
          Thomas Jefferson

          Anyone who values liberty hopes that can be accomplished through moderate means.
          But ultimately nothing can be accomplished against strong opposition, unless you are prepared to go to the extreme if necessary.

          My daughter is a black belt in Tong Soo Do, and a part of that is the understanding that
          you train to use force so that you do not have to.

          If you are prepared and able to go to the extreme if necessary, and your opponent knows that, then you will not have to do so.
          If you are tepid about how strongly you will stand up for your rights, your liberty – you will have no liberty at all – or you will find yourself doing exactly what you hoped to avoid – and fighting for it.

  3. The webmasters at Oswego have scrubbed the staff pictures and contact information for the unit she runs. Assuming there will be statements forthcoming about how badly the big meanies have been mistreating Ms. deWolfe.

  4. Show of hands? How many of you would think it a crime and punish our freedom loving student if he just slapped this administrator silly? (Or sillier, maybe.) I’m on the fence on it.

    1. mespo – I would think that an “unwritten rule” violates the student handbook somewhere. FIRE needs to get on this and teach them the meaning of the US Constitution.


    Trisha deWolfe actually works for something called the ‘Lifestyles Center’. The name of the place would have been a punchline when Trisha deWolfe was a baby. Someone in a gatekeeper position at Oswego is really camp or really clueless.

  6. The students ‘expressing discomfort’ are responding to incentives provided by the administration. They wouldn’t be doing it if they hadn’t been receiving positive feedback for whining. Trisha deWolfe owns this situation, as does everyone like her employed in higher education.

    1. The snowflakes students who complained should have some dead kittens or puppies thrown at them and then maybe they might have something “REAL” to complain about.!

  7. Trisha deWolf is 36 years old, married, a resident of Fulton, N.Y. and a denizen of the social work / mental-health trade ensconced in the student affairs apparat at the state College at Oswego. By inclination and occupational training, it’s a reasonable wager she’s a manipulative and cloying jerk up until the point she’s challenged (and then she’s as mendacious and vindictive as she can manage within bureaucratic procedures). The student in question should tell her to get stuffed.

    It’s a pity our bourgeoisie is shot through with these cretinettes and that there is ample employment for them in the educational apparat. No one requires you to listen to them or be intimidated by them.

  8. Timothy’s end time prophecies….A prophetic observation

    2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
    2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
    2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
    2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
    2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
    2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

  9. It is time to fight!!! At the next LibGressive event have two or more Conservative students complain. It is the Alinsky thing to do. Make them enforce their unwritten rules in the same fashion.

    1. They never will. It’s about corruption and will to power. Fair play is not in their playbook. You oust them like weeds, you don’t play their stacked game. Your first sentence is the accurate one.

  10. SUNY Oswego is low on the totem pole but that doesn’t excuse the behavior of the inept administrator.

    1. It’s a perfectly sold state college. It’s acceptance rate (at 54%) is lower than Washington State’s and it’s four-year completion rate (at 49%) is higher. New York doesn’t have a bloated higher education census and it reserves the term ‘university’ for institutions which provide full-spectrum education and grant research degrees (of which there are only four, all located in cities).

  11. Glaad to see you called the Progressively Regressive Sociaiist Liberals by their correct name.

  12. Does anyone remember Mueller’s indictment of the so-called “13 Russians?” Remember how the leftist press pumped up this story like it was something real and not the obvious scam and hoax from the Deep State’s bag of smoke and mirrors? Remember how Jonathan Turley and all the leftists on this message board did a circle jerk for days on end on this news, proclaiming, “Mueller’s got him! Yeah, Mueller’s finally nailed Donald Trump this time!”

    Well, eventually, Mueller would have to follow through on his publicity stunt if the Russians ever showed in court to demand DISCOVERY–effectively calling Mueller’s bluff! Of course, Mueller, knowing he had absolutely nothing to support his indictments gambled that the Russians would never show up for court. But Mueller was wrong. They DID show up, and now Mueller’s screwed!

    Of course, the pusillanimous presstitutes won’t report on it. They NEVER report when their hoaxes are EXPOSED. And since Mr. Turley is one of them, he won’t devote an article to it either. Because he’s not a real scholar, but a phony shyster lawyer promoting leftist propaganda.

    But there ARE some real news sources who actually report on what is going on that the leftists try to hide.

    1. ‘pusillanimous presstitutes’ fits in with the disappearing Bimbo Brigades but Presstitutes fits the lefts propaganda machine perfectly

    2. Rosenstein and Mueller cannot indict or prosecute the President.

      Sessions may have the authority to modify this policy.

      A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution*

      The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

      October 16, 2000



      In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.

  13. Let me speak out of both sides of my mouth at the same time. I can make a liar of myself.

    1. Ask yourself if you think she’s ever NOT playing games.

      1. DSS – she is clearly a political creature. I wonder how many unwritten rules her significant other (assuming there is one) has to deal with? The problem with unwritten rules is that you can make them up on the spot.

        1. There’s a husband. He doesn’t appear to have a Linkedin profile.

          1. DSS – I would love to hear his internal monologue on this event. 😉

  14. America may be experiencing the onset of Tytler’s dictatorship with massive debt and diminishing freedoms. The restricted-vote republic was diluted into a one man, one vote democrazy. The democrazy ignored the constitutional limits on government, embraced central planning, redistribution and social engineering and voted itself largess and is collapsing from debt, descending into dictatorship.

    Wake me up when we get there…no, before we get there.

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

    ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

    1. What oneset. That started with Woodrow Wilson. FDR pumped it up immensely and became a one man one party system. Truman followed their lead, as did JFK but LBJ was by far the most venal. Carter ? A lot of damage for the spineless jerk. Clinton continued the non stop wars and conflicts and honed economic fiction to razors edge and then we had our first real dictator since Franklin Roosevelt. But unlike FDR Obama was also incompetent and couldn’t stay focus long enough to finish any job. i guess he thought taking something to Congress for ratification was woman’s work and left it to the most incompetent
      of them all.AF Tytler agreed with several predecessors Ben Franklin was one of them .

      1. Thanks for acknowledging the unconstitutionality of America under the communistic, socialist, progressive liberals. Where the —- has the SCOTUS been for the last century and a half? 95% of legislation and acts have been unconstitutional. There was no welfare state in 1789 because Congress is limited to taxing merely for “general Welfare” and, by omission and, thereby, exclusion, has no authority to tax for individual welfare, while private property rights preclude “social engineering” as “Affirmative Action Privilege,” “Fair Housing,” “Non-Discrimination” laws, forced busing, etc.

        It started with “Crazy Abe” Lincoln who unconstitutionally started a foreign war of aggression in a legal, sovereign foreign country, unconstitutionally confiscated private property, unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus, unconstitutionally violated the Naturalization Act of 1802 (non-white freed slaves must have been deported as illegal aliens having lost their status as legal property), etc., while his successors subsequently and unconstitutionally “amended” the Constitution through improper, compulsory and involuntary ratification under the duress of post-war military occupation (slavery should have been eliminated through employment of the tools of free market private enterprise – promotion, boycotts, divestiture, etc., not the illegal, violent force of a tyrant).

  15. The point of free speach is to challenge ones comfort. Speech that does not is boring and of little value.

    The point of tolerance is to allow those who are different to be different, so long as their differences do not actually harm you.

    The left has zero understanding of either free speech or tolerance.

    Ms. DeWolf beautifully made Ms. Miller’s point.

    SUNY is a hostile and intolerant environment for anyone not pretty far to the left.

    Ultimately the real world awaits. The real world is not tolerant of the comfort of others.
    Ms. Miller will likely do fine. Her fellow students might find that they have to do, and listen to alot of uncomfortable things to survive.

    1. Here all this time we thought the point of free speech was to provide a place for George Soros to spend his money interfering with areas where he has no geopoltical interest.

  16. And just the latest result of how poorly our colleges and universities have performed over the last few decades.

    Turning out students that have now become spokespeople for all sorts of illogical positions.

    No wonder why so many folks have become victims of TDS. And no end in sight.

  17. The irony is delicious. The added fact that the university administrator failed to see it elevates the dish.

    May I add that it is not that “students” feel uncomfortable; the problem is when Liberal students feel uncomfortable. It is of no concern if conservatives feel discomfort when called racist, xenophobe, bigoted, Trump-lovers, etc. Can you imagine if the rule really was applied equally? No one would get out of bed for fear of the constant upset feelings they would have to soothe or pay reparations.

    1. Sorry ’bout their hurt feelings. Well…. no …. I am not but i was being polite.

    2. Karen,
      “It is of no concern if conservatives feel discomfort when called racist, xenophobe, bigoted, Trump-lovers, etc.”

      Yep. Your observation reminds me of the Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newman interview in which she said:
      “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” the reporter asked at the 22-minute mark of a 30-minute interview.

      “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now,” the psychologist answered, The Daily Wire reported Wednesday. “You’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that? It’s been rather uncomfortable. […] You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”

        1. Peterson is absolutely brilliant at being able to think on his feet. To understand the essence of the argument being made against him and to be able to turn it arround on his opponent using they OWN values and principles to do so.

          That is a very difficult task to do in real time – such as in an interview.

          But I would note that it is made substantially easier by the fact that progressivism is inherently self contradictory.

          I am not Peterson, but I have found that if I want to, it is not that hard – especially with the benefit of time, to examine absolutely any left argument, and rather than directly and traditionally rebut it,
          to challenge the fundimental assumption in the argument. Peterson zerod in on the fact that there is no right not to be offended and that there can not be and that offending others is central to leftism.

    1. Just call them Progressively Regressives it’s better than Tylenol.

Comments are closed.