SUNY-Binghamton Sued After Activists Assault College Republicans And Block Speak By Economist

 

State_University_of_New_York_at_Binghamton_SealThe State University of New York-Binghamton is the defendant in a new lawsuit over its failure to protect College Republicans and a leading conservative economist in public events last year. The Binghamton University College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation (YAF) is suing Binghamton University President Harvey Stenger, Vice President for Student Affairs Brian Rose; Chief of Binghamton University Police Department John Pelletier, the College Progressives, and Progressive Leaders of Tomorrow (PLOT) for the denial of First and Fourteenth Amendment violations.

We have been discussing how universities and colleges often show passivity as opposed to animosity in such controversies, failing to protect events or declining to punish faculty or students who shutdown classes or speeches.  Indeed, we previously discussed the shutting down of a speech by economist Arthur Laffer, an attack on free speech and academic freedom is now part of this lawsuit. The ability to litigate such questions however can be tricky and it will be interesting to see how the court treats the pre-trial motions to dismiss.

The attack on College Republicans was captured on videotape. Notably, you can see the intervention of campus police but there is no action to allow the Republican students to continue their advocacy after their tables are broken down and material scattered by activists.

The conservative YAF organization posted the videotape of the encounter that is now evidence in their complaint:

 

There is no indication of discipline against any of the students who stopped this exercise of free speech.  Instead, the university issued a statement that the students “acted in a manner that may have violated University rules.”  I would hope that the university believes that these students clearly did violate University rules after watching this video. I cannot imagine any basis for students claiming that they may tear down a table of other students with opposing political views — let alone verbally and physically threaten other students.
That lack of active support for free speech is the basis of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs hope to establish this pattern of passivity with the Laffer incident. The plaintiffs argue that the school was aware of the plans to disrupt the event and did nothing.

 

The lawsuit does raise an important question over the failure of universities to suspend or expel students (or fire faculty) who prevent others speaking or listening to opposing viewpoints.  The right to protest speeches by figures like Laffer is also protected. However, entering halls or classroom to shut down speakers is itself a denial of free speech and academic freedom.

This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others.  Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over the use of a heckler’s veto on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, even including a few speakers like an ACLU official.  Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.  At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.  In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech.  CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,”  Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech.

SUNY is a state school and subject to first amendment limitations government state action against free speech. These controversies however turn not on action but inaction; the failure to guarantee the exercise of free speech. There is no question that nonfeasance can be actionable. However, it raises more difficult questions since there is an element in discretion in how police respond to potentially explosive situations on campus. You can see police at both the College Republican and Laffer incidents.

The same difficulty arises in the failure of school’s to discipline students who are clearly identifiable in these videos. Indeed, they seem eager to be identified. It is doubtful that a similar act of other groups would have been addressed with such timidity by the school.

The complaint tries to convert this pattern into an actionable case.  Yet, it also raises countervailing concerns of the court interfering with the free speech rights of the liberal groups by asking for such relief as “a permanent injunction enjoining College Progressives and PLOT from unlawfully disrupting and silencing Plaintiffs’ speech and related activities.”

Notably, as the complaint below discusses, there was a consent decree in June 2017 in connection with such failure to protect free speech activities at SUNY-Buffalo. The court denied a motion to dismiss by SUNY-Buffalo defendants after finding that the “plaintiffs’ alleged loss of opportunities to express themselves in the way they preferred when the University defendants allowed counter-demonstrators to [block their expression] [was] sufficient to allege that the defendants took adverse actions against plaintiffs.” Decision and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. Black, 1:13-cv-00581-RJA-HBS (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2017), ECF No. 23.

SUNY then decided to stipulate that it would “take all reasonable measures to enforce its policies against deliberately disrupting or preventing the freedom of any person to express his or her views.” SUNY-Binghamton committed to follow the same agreement.  Stipulation of Settlement and Discontinuance Pursuant to Rule 41(A), Center for Bio-Ethical Reform v. Black, 1:13-cv-00581-RJA-HBS (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2017), ECF No. 30.

However, the Plaintiffs now argue that the school is engaging in passive encouragement of the heckler’s veto and refusing to protect conservative students, which the Plaintiffs refer collectively as the “Speech Suppression Policy.”

The school however has objected that these groups contributed to problems by holding a public event with Laffer rather than a ticketed event to prevent hecklers.

One aspect of the Complaint that stood out to me was the move by the university after the incident with the table to suspend the College Republicans.  Putting aside the alleged lack of action against those who tore down the table, the university is accused of applying a biased policy of enforcement. The group was told that it was being “suspended . . . due to [their] violation with both University and Student Association policy [sic] in regards to tabling without proper approval on Thursday November 14th.”  The Plaintiffs allege that other groups have not been required to satisfy that police.  That could present an issue for discovery to show that other groups regularly had tables without permits.

Given the prior agreement on supporting free speech activities, there is a credible basis for at least part of this complaint to proceed to discovery. That could produce some uncomfortable moments for the university as the plaintiffs would then have open space to run on allegations of unequal application of permitting rules and prior knowledge of planned disruptions by activists.  The failure to take actions against students who block the exercise of free speech will also be a likely focus.

To be sure, these are not easy cases for courts. However, there has already been concern expressed by judges that universities are passively enabling groups to shutdown conservative voices on campuses while supporting or even amplifying liberal voices.  As we have discussed, there is a pattern across of the country of universities refusing to act to prevent faculty members and students from disrupting classesbarring events, stopping job fairs, and shouting down speakers.

Such students claim the right to prevent other students from participating in classes or events — a similar complaint raised against the protests against James Comey at Howard University as well as schools like William & Mary.  Likewise, the Homeland Security Secretary was prevented from speaking at Georgetown. For years, I have written about the loss of free speech protections and why universities must take action in such disruptions of classrooms like an incident at Northwestern University where the university took no action against students barring an actual class. Later students stopped former Attorney General Jeff Sessions from speaking to the community.

This violates a core defining value of our academic institutions and such students should be suspended for such conduct.  There is a difference between voicing your views and preventing others from speaking, particularly inside of a classroom. When you claim the right to prevent others from hearing opposing views or speakers, you are at odds with the academic mission of these universities.  When universities fail to take action, they are complicit in the misconduct.

Here is the complaint: YAF v. Stenger

142 thoughts on “SUNY-Binghamton Sued After Activists Assault College Republicans And Block Speak By Economist”

  1. When Turley Says “Free Speech”.. He Means ‘For Conservatives’

    Frequent readers of this column know Professor Turley is an ‘outspoken advocate’ of “free speech”. But every column Turley writes on this topic features conservative ‘victims’ denied free speech by oppressive liberals. These columns have been so numerous they have taken on a paint-by-number quality. Said writings compliment Turley’s second favorite topic: Mainstream Media’s tendency to ‘ignore narratives sympathetic to conservatives’. This second group of columns emphasizes conservative victimhood.

    A Turley reader in Australia, for instance, might think the U.S. is a nation where conservatives struggle under constant tyranny from the left. Never mind that Republicans have controlled Congress for most of the past 20 years. Never mind that Republicans have controlled most state governments these past 20 years. Never mind that conservatives are now overly represented on the Federal Courts. In Turley’s America conservatives are victims.

    But here on Turley’s blog, liberal commenters are routinely harassed and abused. A malicious political goon has been an all-too-visible presence here for more than a year. Said goon seems to have total carte blanche to smear liberals and engage in dirty tricks. That, in fact, seems to be Turley’s idea of free speech: ‘Rightwing goons harassing liberal commenters with total impunity’. This same rightwing goon comments under endless stupid aliases; padding the comment counts of every column. Said comments typically have bellicose, pro-Trump themes. As though the writer is making a genuine effort to discourage thoughtful discussion.

    Even ‘before’ this rightwing goon became an ever-present stooge, a malicious old conservative was in the habit of abusing liberals here. Typically this old man accuses liberals of ‘lying’ any time they write something he doesn’t like. Which makes him the most loathsome of liars; falsely accusing others of ‘lying’ when he himself is the liar. This old man seems to know the moderator will back him up in any fight. Liberals returning this old man’s abuse will find ‘their’ comments deleted while the old man’s insults remain on the thread.

    Despite the constant abuse, I find this blog instructive for all the wrong reasons. It provides strong insight into the thinking of Trump supporters. One can see, every day, how much they relish victimhood. Donald Trump panders to this cult with all his grievances. It’s always “poor, poor me” (from a billionaire who screws people).

    1. Shut up, Seth. You’re more trouble than you’re worth and I beginning to think the Cali bathhouses meme is true given your incessant feminine whining about the blog. Leave.

      1. Yeah, Mespo, conservatives like you don’t mind if liberal commenters are smeared. That’s ‘their fault’ for posting liberal comments.

        1. Seth:

          “That’s ‘their fault’ for posting liberal comments.”
          *********************
          “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”
          ~ Plato

          Didn’t know you were that old but the Greek part doesn’t surprise me.

        2. You haven’t been smeared. You’ve been mocked. If you want to be treated respectfully, quit importing text walls from the Sulzberger and Bezos birdcage liners, make citations which actually show what they purport to show, and give some evidence that your mind is not stuck in high school.

          1. TRANSLATION OF ABSURD’S MESSAGE:

            Don’t post anything from sources outside the rightwing bubble.

              1. Mespo, there are Trumpers on this site who routinely comment with lengthy, insane posts. But they are never harassed. No one ever tells them to ‘shut up’. And last week I documented numerous posts that could have been from militia types. Yet I didn’t see you complain about ‘any’ of them. Only posts from liberals seem to really bother you.

                  1. And what are ‘you’, Mespo? It seems your only function on these threads is to pipe in now and then with little insults. You don’t really add much more than that.

                1. “Mespo, there are Trumpers on this site who routinely comment with lengthy, insane posts.”
                  That can be said of those on the left.

                  “But they are never harassed.”
                  Do you live in the real world ?

                  “No one ever tells them to ‘shut up’.”
                  Reality check ?

                  “And last week I documented numerous posts that could have been from militia types.”
                  So ? Are people who like guns barred from having an opinion ?
                  How about actual Nazi’s and racists ? Are they barred from having an opinion ? From making arguments ?

                  And BTW – what does “could have been from ” even mean ?

                  I could label lots of posts here “could have been from maoists”

                  “Yet I didn’t see you complain about ‘any’ of them.”
                  Mespo is obligated to “complain about” the posts you want him to ?

                  “Only posts from liberals seem to really bother you.”
                  Not liberals. A liberal is someone who values individual liberty. I am a liberal.
                  The complaints are directed to progressives – especially those who can not think for themselves.

            1. I only want sources from you – when you have proven that you can not be trusted. Pretty much everyone who bought the collusion delusion – can not be trusted.

              Going to the trouble to verify facts before you use them – should be the norm.
              Sources should not be required of any poster who has not discredited themselves.

              State your facts, your premises clearly and concisely, and then make clear logical arguments.

              That is all that honest discussion requires – atleast of those who have not developed a reputation for factual error, logical error or defamation.

  2. The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have SECEDED from the Constitution and Bill of Rights, since 1860.

    The President must annihilate the rebellion and reestablish dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789.

  3. Now you know why the American Founders required citizens to be “…free white person(s)…”
    _________________________________________________________________________

    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    1. The worst sorts today are native born gentry whites. They use the immigrant populations.

  4. were the criminals there all black or just most of them?

    notice the light skind’ed one was the most aggressive.

    the cop was weak,. the university is despicable. surely they ordered the cop to let the blacks attack and cancel the free speech activity

    if there will be violence then we must be ready with forceful self defense. YAF should not hold these unless willing to fight.
    if the institutions like universiities want it to go into street violence, then the universities will be targeted too. that’s just how it works.

    check back with me in 5 years and let me know if I was wrong in this assessment

      1. i counted 5 black girls. wrecking the table, yelling, screeching, violating the law what was your count Bug?

        one the Republican side, another white kid, getting the message, loud and clear
        mouth shut up by the bullies, but, heart open to deeper truths

        we will see if the university deans and the other executives that have green lighted this kind of criminal oppression will walk away scot free

        the funny thing is, they are usually white guys themselves. isnt that the real irony?
        how some very rich and powerful whiteskins have sent armies of lumpenprole BLM types out to use mob violence to intimidate law abiding, working & middle people.

        that’s the complicated part of this, and I hope people won’t just take a racial lesson from this, because while those lessons may be valid, they are superficial

          1. the left openly advocates :”continued protests.. including violence”

            https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1288227636729192448?s=20

            i am openly advocating…… the same thing, because for us, the normal citizens who want law and order, it is fully licit, self defense, when the government will not act to stop insurrection

            it must only be well organized and effective. it it is not that, then it is pointless anyhow,.

            for decades some of my conservative friends have been telling me “we can’t do that, we are not them”

            yes indeed, we are not them. they make gains and we falter. time to reverse that. look to history and understand, what lies behind the bromides and platitudes: ever and always, there were two forces that decided things. 1. organization, humans organized into potent institutions and action, and b) material factors such as technology

            but the first and most important factor is always human organization. because as we like to point out to the gun grabbers, “the guns dont just shoot themselves”

            EXACTLY

            1. Mr. K:

              “i am openly advocating…… the same thing, because for us, the normal citizens who want law and order, it is fully licit, self defense, when the government will not act to stop insurrection.”
              *******************
              No you’ve got to be smarter in an election year and let the slow-walking judicial processes work to avoid that Tienanmen moment the Left desperately craves. Then, with a plebiscite, you invoke the Insurrection Act and clean out the trash.

                1. Anonymous:

                  “When can I use my new AR-15? Im itching to take out the puzzies.”
                  **********************
                  When they cross your curtilage! Then empty the magazine. Control the evidence you know. Human body bleed out rate is about 5-7 minutes depending on size and location of the wound. The magical words are “reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to me or other innocent occupants of the dwelling.”

                  1. “I was in fear of my life” is easier to remember–

                    when your rod is hot, and the perp is not. lol

                    ———————————————-

                    my theory for counter-insurrectionist “direct action” is based on the declining relevance of the government as such

                    i think this is a picture we are missing again and again. the state is declining in relative importance in human events, compared both to huge private actors like global corporations, or NGOs like the “Open Society” array funded with Soros’ billions; or private religious-social organizations which are ascendant in some parts of the world outside the west. or even to technological collectives which have arisen such as the social media leviathans that seem to have a character all of their own.

                    Here is a book that describes the trend. Martin Van Creveld is an Israeli military historian.
                    his work is often compared to another one of my favorites, Martin S Lind

                    https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-State-Martin-Creveld/dp/052165629X

                    this book makes its own argument and examines in depth the successful defense of Lebanon against the most recent Israeli army incursion.
                    basically Van Creveld says it was not the Lebanese army that mounted the defense, it was essentially the private army of Hizb’Allah which did.

                    he has other examples.

                    turning to America–

                    consider the declining relevance of the 1st amendment to public discourse when there no longer is a ‘Public square” and the public square has all been effectively privatized by a behemoth corporation like twitter

                    if we wait forever for government to rectify all our beefs, we will be waiting forever,
                    in fact, the government has had a primary role in creating the negative situations which are at hand.
                    at the moment, the possibility exists that Insurrection act and other lawful means could still be used to rectify things

                    but i doubt it.

                    I speculate that within a decade the USA, may become a failed state
                    there has to be a strong civic organization of citizens who will demand and ensure law and order on the ground when the fragmentation finally arrives
                    it may come a lot sooner than a decade, too.

  5. Turley article too long.
    Each campus should have a free speech podium in a large room with $4 hour video and armed guards to protect.
    Any person can come and speak and others can come and listen or converse. No one can intervene.

    1. Maybe Trump can declare a law that uses unmarked private contractors dressed in paramilitary gear to protect the video’s.

  6. Speakers should be heard at universities, but students should not have to pay in fees and tuition the likes of propagandists like Arthur Laffer. The one who invented the “Laffer Curve” and “Supply Side Economics”. The students should have let him speak, and then mock and laugh at his ideas until he left the stage. But they should not have to pay to listen to such nonsense.

    1. He is an eminent economist and you are fool fishhead. you stink, like rotten fish

      universities stink too. cancel their nonprofit status and lower the property tax boom on them.

      trust me they are worried about paying property taxes, and they dont pay their fair share

      if universities do not respect the laws which protect us, then we do not have to respect the laws which protect them either.

      they may find they regret their decisions

      the ancient law must be respected most of all. eye for an eye. and the universities owe us a lot of eyes.

      1. Mr. Kurtz, Arthur laffer has not been able to prove his trickle down theory actually works. It never has. Even when he promoted it in my state a few years ago he took his fee and ran. It never produced what he claim it would.

        1. I don’t know about that, but let’s grant the premise. If so — so what? So a bunch of idiots can veto his speech?

          Universities are mismanaged by a criminal conspiracy of dunces. The C Suite of every university needs and overhaul and if not then cancel their NP status
          right now our system SUBSIDIZES the hell out of univerisities in many different ways. not paying their fair share of property taxes is the one that has caught my attention, of late. don’t worry about why.

          but to correct their mischief i recommend the fastest way is not lawsuits but taxation.
          tax the hell out of them is probably the easiest way to even the score.

          they shirk their fair share of property taxes and that hurts the urban neighbors the most. but they are all Democrats and nobody who knows, tells, and nobody who doesnt know, matters anyhow. That’s how graft persists. It usually only “goes away” when some newspaper writes about it. But they don’t explain because they are all Democrats too and they are all beholden to the universities in the towns which they presume to “cover.” so they parade the black scholarship athletes and the local people are fooled by the smoke and mirrors. it’s the most cynical self promoting racket i have ever seen up close. but ooooh everybody just fawns over the universities.

          And yet naive Democrat cheerleaders never figure out the racket. well i just been explaining it the past couple days, but good luck confirming it. because yes those who are involved are not going to be agreeing with me, and it’s a little understood and opaque process

          Now, that’s not to say the issue isnt on the radar anywhere. here’s a paper for example. but it doesnt take quite the fierce conclusions that I do, but they touch on them

          https://ncpl.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/resources/HenryHansmann-COLLEGEANDUNIVERSITYEXEMPTION.pdf

          some things you have to see happen in person before they come clear

          now, an economist could add it up, but most economists are employed by universitiies. who tell them to shut up and stick to their grants.

          Laffer, is an example of an economist that was at Univ of Chicago and Pepperdine, A Reaganite, so, he is fair game to all the other universities who hate them

        2. Mr. Kurtz, Arthur laffer has not been able to prove his trickle down theory actually works.

          Peter, using political buzz words like ‘trickle down theory’ is indicative of a mind that knows nothing of theory, economics, or proof.

          Laffer is known as a promoter of models about the relationship between tax rates, output, and revenues. Get it right, you duffer.

          1. Laffer’s work is legitimate, he is eminent

            I take the opportunity to complain some more about the incompetent hulking behemoths of miseducation, american universities

            we saw in turley’s article how they let their radicals abuse normal kids and assault them and do heckler’s veto cancellations. totally unjust!

            but i make a more boring point about money and taxation.

            what i am saying about universities skimping and skrewing local communities out of property taxes goes right over their heads
            even though this is a DEMOCRAT RACKET

            the universities are run by racketeers. Democrat executive leadership, usually Democrat majority trustees, and Democrat local quislings who lick their boots for favors and get plenty of money under the carpet. yes i mean money man, football tickets and priority for their kids admissions are just the start. well maybe not tickets this year. LOL

            “guanxi” or mutually obliged social networks which tie together local chieftans and resource allocators is not just a thing for the CCP!

            now, generally, perhaps not universally, but usually, while you can get public info on what your neigbhor pays in property taxes, sorry, but you can’t look up property taxes for universities because they dont have to pay any…, what they do pay is usually some voluntary number…. who knows!
            because the numbers are voluntary they are not public information. they are closely kept secrets

            if they had to pay the same kind of property taxes that everybody else paid nearby them, they would be in deep trouble. especially considering the major value that they command under their feet, literally,. perhaps some of the best real estate in any major city is occupied by a university

            now here’s an example of how blind people are. a little article about how fraternities and sororities at U of I in Champaign pay such and such taxes
            these organizations are not organized as 501c3s so the exemption does not protect them
            they are private and not owned by the university, not under their aegis, so to speak

            THE “JOURNALIST” FAILS TO MENTION THAT THE UNIVERSITY NEED NOT PAY ONE THIN DIME

            https://chambanasun.com/stories/511421763-analysis-u-of-i-fraternity-sorority-property-taxes-rose-61-percent-in-two-years

            “Fifty-eight University of Illinois fraternities and sororities will pay $814,000 more in property taxes this year than they did in 2015, according to Champaign County Assessor data analyzed by the Chambana Sun.

            That’s an average of approximately $14,000 each.
            All told, the U of I Greek System now pays $2.2 million in property taxes, up from $1.3 million in 2015.
            Champaign County estimates the 58 fraternity and sorority houses are worth a collective $69.4 million.
            The effective property tax rate for all of U of I’s fraternity and sorority houses is 3.1 percent, or more than three times the national average of 0.9 percent.
            Pi Kappa Alpha ($108,183 per year), Theta Xi ($74,049) and Phi Kappa Psi ($72,972), all fraternities, pay the top bills.
            Delta Delta Delta ($49,238), Kappa Alpha Theta ($47,233) and Pi Beta Phi ($46,633) pay the most of all sororities.”

            ——————————-
            now someone might say, wait, if the state university is a part of government, then what sense does it make to tax government?

            well that would be a legit question. then the private universities would stand up and complain that they are being treated unfairly etc etc etc

            my contention is, it is WE the individuals who own real estate for living our lives who are being treated unfairly when these high on the hog billion dollar budget outfits dont have to pay a penny!

            ——————————–

            Now the issue is not entirely unknown, i am not the first to question it.
            but Democrats make sure that their friends at the universities stay in the clear

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/07/08/why-should-rich-universities-get-huge-property-tax-exemptions/

            Do people want to know why American private industry is losing group vis a vis government agencies and so forth? Maybe its because government and nonprofit enterprise competitors are “Crowing out” the private sector in ways that are rarely considered outside of the cost of financing. but hey, there’s that too!

            if anybody is really interested in the subject they can look at that other study I linked. it explains the taxation terrain pretty well

          2. Absurd, who is Peter?

            I understand theory just fine. Laffer’s models ARE best described as “trickle down” economics because it’s the basic premises of his theory.

            He’s a promoter alright, but he promotes his theory as as a solution to many state and local governments without ever presenting evidence it has worked anywhere else. He reminds me of snake oil salesmen in old western movies. Sell as much as you can and get the hell out of town.

            1. “Laffer curve” is a statement of the obvious: there is a sweet spot for taxation, which maximizes overall government revenue, above or below which overall revenues may decline

              Now that is completely obvious to nearly anyone who works in taxation. Keep in mind taxes can take many forms: income taxes, excise taxes, transaction taxes, value added taxes, and use taxes, are just some

              the Laffer curve is not one number, it is a representation of this simple proposition: there is a sweet spot that maximizes government revenue.

              That sweet spot can be different for every tax, every location, every market, every dynamic which is almost impossible to sort out “ceteris paribus”

              Personally, i don’t think he’s a genius for stating the obvious. neither do I need the obvious to be “proven” when all experience and common sense says that it is so.

              I’ll add something else. There is nothing in the simple notion which suggest that any particular tax must be cut. Really, as I expained yesterday, when it comes to property taxes on universities which have very fixed locations, IF we subjected them to real property taxation like the regular citizens pay, THEN we would collect GOBS OF MONEY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT and there is little the universities could do to avoid it.

              Instead the general method is, take their donations and don’t argue about them, and NEVER let the public understand how utterly subsidized these very rich institutions are, endowed not only by their donors but the taxpayers and also the local people who get SHORT SHRIFT

              I am not going to waste a lot of time on this, because, i actually can make money in the real world talking about taxation, so I am only going to spew so much of this out here for free.

              Now from wiki for those who are interested, subject, Laffer curve:

              “In economics, the Laffer curve, developed by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, illustrates a theoretical relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of the government’s tax revenue. The Laffer curve assumes that no tax revenue is raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100%, and that there is a tax rate between 0% and 100% that maximizes government tax revenue. The shape of the curve is a function of taxable income elasticity – i.e., taxable income changes in response to changes in the rate of taxation.

              The Laffer curve is typically represented as a graph that starts at 0% tax with zero revenue, rises to a maximum rate of revenue at an intermediate rate of taxation, and then falls again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate. However, the shape of the curve is uncertain and disputed among economists.[1] Under the assumption that the revenue is a continuous function of the rate of taxation, the maximum illustrated by the Laffer curve is a result of Rolle’s theorem, which is a standard result in calculus.[2][3]

              One implication of the Laffer curve is that reducing or increasing tax rates beyond a certain point is counter-productive for raising further tax revenue.”

              1. Economic studies done by Christine Romer – Obama’s Cheif Economic adviser found that the revenue optimizing total tax rate was about 1/3 of income.

                That includes ALL income taxes, not just federal.
                We are still above that.

                I would note that is NOT the optimal tax rate. The tax rate that optimizes rise in standard of living is below 19% – though we do not know how far below.

    2. The term supply side economics predates the “Laffer Curve” and is a phrase where the ideas behind it predate the name (mid 70’s). That it works has been proven under Reagan and under Trump.

      This ignorant fool prefers that everyone else be as ignorant as she is.

      1. About 1.6% of all baccalaureate degrees are awarded in economics through arts and sciences faculties or business schools. There are going to be few people on that campus who can have much critical engagement with Dr. Laffer’s professional writing.

      2. Allan, none of laffer’s theories worked when reagan tried it and trump.

        It’s easy to prove. When Reagan cut taxes, government revenue plunged. Then he proceeded to spend on defense without waiting for any revenue increase expected from the tax cuts. So he ended borrowing the money and adding huge budget deficits. Laffer’s theory claims government revenue will increase because more people keep more of their money and spend more. Thus the claim laffer often makes “tax cuts pay for themselves”. Obviously that didn’t happen.

        Trump’s tax cuts is nearly identical. Treasury secretary Mnuchin claimed before the trump tax cuts were passed that they would pay for themselves. Three years later he was forced to admit that wasn’t happening whilst trying to justify ever increasing budget deficits. Laffer’s theory only gives government a tiny temporary improvement that doesn’t last long. Until they are forced to cut spending that legally they can’t cut. Which forces government to borrow money.

        Kansas did this laffer experiment for the whole world to watch. It failed spectacularly.

        1. svelaz, you don’t get it. there IS ALWAYS a sweet spot for taxation, unless you are talking about a tax that could be imposed on a human activity that is perfectly inelastic, like the demand for insulin.

          saying “it doesnt work” means, you just dont understand the proposition

          while Republicans like Laffer, there is nothing inherently conservative nor Republican about his simple proposition.
          Every sane Democrat working in a tax collector’s office instinctively understands its validity.

          The question is simply finding it. Because, different forms of taxation can be very complicated. Projecting revenues is more of an art than a science. But it involves scientific methods. This is plumbing. If you are not a plumber, than I may be talking past you. Sorry if that’s the case, I can’t simplify this any more than that.

          1. I guess i could say, there is even a sweet spot for insulin.
            Insulin is the textbook example of a good with inelastic demand: no matter what the price, diabetics will try and pay for it, or else die.

            So in theory, to simply maximize revenues with a sales tax on insulin, you would make it as big as possible. Not eight percent like a normal retail tax but let’s say 90%, or 200, 300%…..

            but you see even then you have an empirical upward limit– because at some price, diabetics simply CANT PAY AND WILL JUST DIE

            then you have destroyed your demand for the product, and the revenues collected from the theoretical retail tax on it.

            So even then there is a “Sweet spot” for milking out maximum government revenues

            There is NOTHING in this which is ideological. It is purely pragmatic. It does include some insight into human society and behavior of course, and for that, we know that certain ideologues (Leftists) are so totally clueless that they will misunderstand even the simplest propositions in human government.

            For example., confiscatory taxes were applied in the USSR during the “Holodomor” ie collectivization of agriculture in the Ukraine. The result was deaths of over a million Ukrainians from starvation and other causes. Who knows the exact number.

            in that case, it was obvious that Stalin’s henchman Lazar Kaganovich had exceeded the upper range of the “Laffer curve” when it came to seizing and confiscating the grain of the kulaks. They destroyed the lives of the slaves they wanted to tax and the net result was less grain coming out than even before. Total failure, in short.

            So over time even Communists in the USSR and obviously the PRC too have learned that there is indeed a sweet spot for taxation– a Laffer curve.

            Consider this. There is NO ESTATE NOR GIFT TAX IN THE PRC AT ALL.

            Think about that. It’s pretty telling.

          2. Mr. Kurtz, that sweet spot will never be achieved in real world economics. That’s why it doesn’t work. It sounds very good on paper and that’s why it’s always promoted, but I reality it has never worked. It’s easy to say, “it should work because if this sweet spot is sought” as easily as it is said it will work. But as I said reality is never ideal as theories predict.

            Supply side economics is used to fool those less apt to understand that distinction. It’s purpose is to gain more wealth at the expense of those who are not wealthy.

            1. Mr. Kurtz, that sweet spot will never be achieved in real world economics. That’s why it doesn’t work.

              Now Peter moves to a different square on the checkerboard, claiming Laffer and other policy-makers failed at something that was not their object and which, just a few hours ago, had never occurred to Peter might be their object.

              Why not confine your remarks to something you actually know something about?

            2. Paint Chips still doesn’t understand the Laffer Curve. It does not provide what you think it does. It is a theory about the relationship between taxation and tax revenue.

              1. All atttempts to refute the laffer curve fail reductio ad absurdem.

                At a 100% tax rate tax revenue is ZERO.

                There is zero doubt Laffer is correct, only some question as to where the revenue optimizing maximum is.

                That of course ignores that the goal of government is NOT to maximize government revenue or spending, it is to maximuize the standard of living for the people.

                That is a different curve – the Rahn curve -and its appogee is BELOW 19% tax rates.

                1. Svelaz, Paint Chips, Peter, Seth, Ethan, Deke all have the same stupid understanding replies that are quite distinct. To have even one on a blog of this nature is a statistical anomaly. To have more than one is too highly unlikely to accept. You bring up the Rahn curve but he still doesn’t know what the Laffer Curve is or how it is used. He just continues with his stupid patter.

                  ~19% fits into a good plan.

            3. “Mr. Kurtz, that sweet spot will never be achieved in real world economics. :

              I can not possibly think of a stupider statement about economics and taxes.

              Youi can disagree about precisely where the revenue optimizing maximum tax rate is – though if you think we are below it you are at odds with Obama’s cheif economic advisor.

              Regardless it is complete idiocy to claim that a revenue optimazing maximum does not exist in the real world.

              Tax everyone at 100% – see how much revenue you get.

              “That’s why it doesn’t work. It sounds very good on paper and that’s why it’s always promoted, but I reality it has never worked.”
              It not only sounds good, it is inherently correct.
              Only an idiot thinks tax revenue will increase continuously as the rate increases to 100%.

              You can debate the maximum, not its existance.


              It’s easy to say, “it should work because if this sweet spot is sought” as easily as it is said it will work. But as I said reality is never ideal as theories predict.”

              The reality as I have demonstrated is that US tax revenues have consistently risen EXCEPT during recessions.

              Tax cuts have not in actual instances resulted in revenue drops.
              Obviously there is some level of tax decrease that will produce a revenue drop – but we have not found it yet.

              We have however seen tax increases result in revenue drops – ask FDR about that.

              “Supply side economics is used to fool those less apt to understand that distinction. ”

              The laffer curve and supply side economics are not quite the same thing.

              The fundimental principle of supply side economics is that you can not consume what you do not produce – that production comes FIRST.

              It is a rejection of the claim that you can raise standard of living efficiently – that you can grow the economy by increasing spending.

              Increasing spending can cause economic growth, but it will also cause inflation. It is inherently inefficient
              Production takes time to rise. Spending does not, hence inflation.
              Conversely if you focus on providing the environment for increased production, consumption – standard of living will rise lock step with rises in production – ie efficiently.

              “It’s purpose is to gain more wealth at the expense of those who are not wealthy.”‘

              That is not its purpose. But even framed in terms of wealth that would be to reduce the amount of wealth government steals from people.

              The wealth other people created IS NOT YOURS. It is THEIRS.

              WE do not call not stealing from people “gaining wealth”

              Further not stealing from one person NEVER is at the expense of anyone but the theif.

        2. “Allan, none of laffer’s theories worked when reagan tried it and trump.”

          You obviously still do not understand the Laffer curve which is so simple you should be able to understand it even while walking and chewing gum. “So he ended borrowing the money and adding huge budget deficits.” The curve doesn’t deal with budget deficits.

          1. Allan, it’s always simple when it’s on paper, in reality it’s a lot more complicated.

            Those pushing the theory always claim revenues increase because more people spend the money they supposedly save. That never happens and the government still has to borrow massive amounts of money because the expected revenues never materialize. It’s a well known pattern that always happens with those who apply this crap theory.

            1. And yet your claims about reality have been universally wrong.

              Kansas revenues increased year over year – spending increased faster.

              Federal revenue’s decrease in economic downturns. Not after any actual tax decrease.
              While revenues have actually decreased after tax increases.

              The US government does not have a revenue problem – or even close.
              Our tax rates are still likely ABOVE the revenue optimizing maximum rate.
              In otherwords they could still be cut further and increase revenue.

              There is a bit of complexity – because it is TOTAL taxes – state local and federal that actually matters.

              It is possible to reduce federal taxes, reduce federal tax revenue but increase total tax revenue.

              Regardless the fundimental problem at all levels is spending – not taxes. Total government spending is more than twice the optimal level for increasing standard of living – and that not govenrment revenue is suposed to be our goal.

            2. You continue to demonstrate that you don’t know what the Laffer Curve is. You are conflating different ideas. You and Paint Chips together could probably get a discount at the high school near you.

        3. Kansas did this laffer experiment for the whole world to watch. It failed spectacularly.

          They didn’t. Laffer’s models applied are attempts to locate the levy rate where the volume of income tax revenues are at their peak. Economists who study the question vary on just where that is. Marginal rates used by state governments vary but the top rate averages about 6.5%. Show us where Laffer asserted that the optimal levy rate (for the purpose of generating revenue volume) was anywhere near there. You cannot do it. Laffer was advising Republican politicians at at time when the marginal rate in the federal tax code was as high as 70%.

          In Kansas you had a failure of political economy, wherein business Republicans were willing to vote for tax cuts and not spending cuts. That’s not a defect in Laffer’s models. That’s just a critical mass of careerists in the Republican caucus throwing a spanner into the works. They do it every time.

          1. Absurd, the Kansas experiment completely failed to produce what they claimed it would. They spent more time, money, and effort trying to buttress a failing experiment for four years and hugely damaging the state’s economy. It doesn’t work. There are no examples of a successful application of the theory anywhere, the reason being that it looks good on paper, but it doesn’t work in reality.

            1. Absurd, the Kansas experiment completely failed to produce what they claimed it would.

              Again, Peter, you need to quit recycling talking points from the Center for American Progress. You haven’t a clue who the ‘they’ are, or what they claimed, or what – brass tacks – they actually did, or what the problems are.

          2. The critical fundamental problem is the very taxation itself.

            Congress has the power to tax only for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for any form of Individual or specific welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth, all of which must be accomplished voluntarily in the free markets of the private sector.

            Additionally, Congress has no authority to conduct operations in concert with private enterprise, to tax for financial relief for private enterprise or to regulate anything other than the value of money, the “flow” of commerce among nations, States and Indian tribes, and land and naval Forces.

            The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America have conveniently neglected the fact that Americans enjoy every conceivable and possible right, freedom, privilege and immunity while government is severely limited and restricted to its sole charges of providing physical security and infrastructure for the purpose of facilitating the maximal freedom of individuals.

        4. “Allan, none of laffer’s theories worked when reagan tried it and trump.”

          And yet they did.

          From 1980 through to today as tax rates have declined, those with the highest incomes pay an ever increasing portion of the cost of govenrment.

          As to your claim that revenue – plunged – I can not see that dip on the chart.
          In fact the only dips I see correspond to recessions – not tax cuts.

          http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/u-s-federal-government-revenue-source.jpg

        5. “Obviously that didn’t happen.”

          And yet contra your claims – Federal revenue has consistently risen with dips corresponding ONLY to recessions.

          1. Too much for John apparently, but we should thank him for the graph which shows revenues approaching expenditures as Obama’s last term winds down and then falling to almost flat as the Trump stimulus bill kicks in. It’s budget effects are expected to be felt for at least the next decade and to generate about $1 trillion in deficits during that period. In a growing economy – remember those days? – revenue should be increasing – but alas, so do expenditures and the population continues it’s increase. In classical Keynesian economics you pass stimulus spending during recessions and pay them down during periods of growth, i.e., what you saw us approaching under Obama. Fat boy’s stimulus produced a sugar high which his followers think was due to something “Only I can do” did. Sorry, that should be “Only I will do” as deficit spending to juice the economy is done regularly by Republicans and Democrats, but this may have been the 1st during a period of growth with more predicted going forward.

            1. “Too much for John apparently, but we should thank him for the graph which shows revenues approaching expenditures as Obama’s last term winds down and then falling to almost flat as the Trump stimulus bill kicks in.”
              WE can debate you claim which is weak, and still seems to contain the presumption that the goal is to maximize govenrment spending.

              But the FACT is that while it is possible to reduce revenue by reduce revenue by reducing tax rates. there is no modern instance where that has occured.

              With specific reference to the graph the rate of increase of tax revenue slowed at the start of 2016 – Obama was still president.

              “It’s budget effects are expected to be felt for at least the next decade”
              Because you say so ?

              “to generate about $1 trillion in deficits during that period.”

              Lets see I am spending more than I am being paid do I:

              A). Demand that people pay me more – and likely get fired.

              B). Cut my spending.

              The US has a spending problem – Trump is absolutely culplable in that problem.
              But it is still a spending problem not a tax problem.

              https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Government_Revenue_and_spending_GDP.png/1200px-Government_Revenue_and_spending_GDP.png

              “In a growing economy – remember those days? – revenue should be increasing”
              Why ?

              The cost of government should increase with the size of the population – and the increase should be LESS than linear.
              It should have NOTHING to do with the size of the economy.

              We do not need more police because we are better off.
              We do not need a bigger military.

              A growing economy should REDUCE the need for govenrment services.

              “– but alas, so do expenditures”
              You are correct that government expenditures inexorably increase.
              You are completely incorrect that they need to.

              “the population continues it’s increase.”
              Expenses increase faster than population – they should increase SLOWER than population.

              “In classical Keynesian economics”
              Keynes failed. Were you here for the 70’s ?

              ” you pass stimulus spending during recessions”
              Ultimatelyu Keynes rejected stimulus. Government can not act fast enough, and it can not direct money where it is needed – and not anywhere else. ARRA is the perfect example of the disaster of Stimulus – the “shovel ready” infrastructure programs were not.
              Worse still they redirected resources from commercial construction which did not have a bubble, and directed them at infrustricture – harming commercial construction for several years. Further it has ZERO impact on housing which is where the actual problem was.

              But even if it had miraculously manage to bolster housing construction. Even that would have been a bad thing,.
              That would have just reinflated the bubble.

              One of the things the left does not understand about economics is that destruction is actually a critical part.

              Systemic destruction – recessions only occurs when government does something stupid and gets most of the economy moving in the same direction – like waves in a bathtub, the outcome will be bad.

              Regardless the subsequent destruction is necescary – you do not want to reinflate the bubble.

              Without government – everyone does not go in the same direction some destruction occurs – it is even required, but it is not systemic.

              “and pay them down during periods of growth”
              Or just stay out of the economy and there will be no consequential problems.

              “i.e., what you saw us approaching under Obama.”
              Obama was an economic disaster. average growth was below 2%, further the economy was highly volatile, 4% on quarter -1% the next,

              “Fat boy’s stimulus produced a sugar high”
              And yet the only volatitily in the Trump economy was C19. Otherwise thought growth was not as high as Trump claims it was consistent quarter to quarter.

              “which his followers think was due to something “Only I can do” did.”
              Nope

              Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.
              Adam Smith.

              “Sorry, that should be “Only I will do” as deficit spending to juice the economy is done regularly by Republicans and Democrats, but this may have been the 1st during a period of growth with more predicted going forward.”

              If you want to rant about Trump’s spending – I will join you.

              But the growth during Trump and its stability are the consequences of getting out of the way of the economy – which Trump did.
              Any president could have – few have.
              Trump could have done better. but neither Bush nor Obama did.

              Trump is not an economic genius. He is a C+/B- president on the economy – who had the good fortune to follow two D- presidents.

              1. John confuses his crackpot economics – based on his crackpot ideology, which it should be noted has never been practiced in the modern world and never will be – with reality. For example when we say revenues should increase with a growing economy, that is a simple statement of fact – heightened economic activity results in more taxes collected since in the real world that’s how we collect them – which John argues is immoral. That’s his opinion which he is welcome too, but irrelevant to real world economics and a discussion of what does, did, and will happen here on planet earth.

                Enjoy your visit John, and then get lost. Please.

                1. “John confuses his crackpot economics ”
                  It is just called economics.

                  “which it should be noted has never been practiced in the modern world and never will be – with reality.”
                  Classical economics is the foundation for all modern economics – including Keynes. It is very much real world.

                  In fact its understanding produced the sudden near vertical improvement in standard of living – after 150,000 years of almost impreceptable growth.

                  ” For example when we say”
                  Got a mouse in your pocket ?
                  “revenues should increase with a growing economy, that is a simple statement of fact”
                  No it is not. There is no compelling reason that a growing economy requires more government. All other things being equal it requres less.
                  The higher standard of living is the less need we have of government.

                  “heightened economic activity results in more taxes collected since in the real world that’s how we collect them – which John argues is immoral.”

                  Not an argument. The use of force against another without justification is immoral. PERIOD. Murder is immoral. Theft is immoral.
                  We are not equivocal about those. Some killings are moral – those that can be justified – such as defense of self or defense of others.
                  We do not assume because we want to kill someone that alone is enough to justify it.

                  “That’s his opinion which he is welcome too”
                  No it is about 10,000 years worth of legal and moral history.

                  “but irrelevant to real world economics”
                  Even ignoring the moral argument – which you have thus far totally lost,
                  It is quite relevant. All government revenue comes at the expense of the REAL WORLD ECONOMY.

                  ONE element of justification is that each dollar spent by govenrment must produce greater value than it would have had it been left with its owner. Yet, that is never true. Robert Barro the 4th Ideas Respec ranked economist in the world found that government never produced more than .85 in value from each dollar, and that the norm was .25-.35.

                  As most anyone and they beleive that government wastes 50 cents of every dollar they take in. Unfortunately the data proves that is optomistic – it is twice that bad.

                  Even a greater good or common good argument MUST actually produce a greater good.

                  “and a discussion of what does, did, and will happen here on planet earth.”

                  It would be really nice if you would ever become even slightly familiar with exactly those things.

                  What does, did, and will happen here on planet earth has NEVER been what the left claimed.

                  From the French reveolution to the present this crap has not worked.

                  “Enjoy your visit John, and then get lost.”

                  Back to giving orders I see. .

  7. Oh no, Turley’s worried about free speech, I don’t remember Trump sending paramilitary forces to State capitals when far-right groups carrying assault rifles with full mags demanding access to legislators, forced themselves into State Houses. How worried was Turley when Trump used armed forces so that the Dear Leader could make a photo-op? How worried is Turley when nobody but nobody can speak to a so-called christian school that would like to talk about civil rights or beliefs that the school does not want it’s students to hear?

    1. You need to start reading about all the violence from the left. You might find some violence from crazies on the right as well but that is rare and some of them are actually on the left.

  8. I wonder if the administrators of these colleges recognize where their nonfeasance and malfeasance will ultimately lead. When a society gets to the point where large numbers refuse to engage in civil discourse, violence inevitably becomes the “discourse” of choice. These institutions, whose essence is to promote the free exchange of ideas, by failing to inculcate such values, tragically, will be a major contributing factor into the descent into violence.

    1. right Hanoch because any serious counterinsurgency would target university administrators with painful reprisals.

      if we have an insurgency then trust me, we will have an insurgency soon enough and lying mass media tv editors and university deans will be at top of list

      eye for an eye. these are not Christians, so don’t waste your pearls of mercy on these swine. when will conservatives get a spine and punch back?

      forget about all the Jesus talk where your oppressors are concerned.
      look to Joshua instead

      1. Mr. Kurtz, self-defense is one thing, but when violence begins, everyone ends up losing. These administrators need to start standing up for the free expression of ideas and civil discourse. Otherwise, we will all be in trouble.

  9. KUDOS! Such lawsuits are the only remedy to this type of thing. Colleges make decisions based on nothing more than money. That includes the decisions they seem to make based on Leftist causes. It all comes down to money. Hit them where it hurts.

    1. suits are a slow remedy, and trifling. the endowments and revenues and grants and loans and economic advantages are huge. they self insure. they have billions, a few lawsuits are tiddlywinks. their advantages are massively unfair

      fair taxation would be a better remedy. faster and more thorough way to correct the free riding subsidized mischief of the universities

      tax the hell out of them and rebuild the communities that their evil propaganda helps destroy

      https://ncpl.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/resources/HenryHansmann-COLLEGEANDUNIVERSITYEXEMPTION.pdf

  10. All Federal funds, scholarships and grants should be denied to SUNY-Binghamton immediately until they rectify their actions. The student leaders involved should be thrown out.

  11. JT said “The school however has objected that these groups contributed to problems by holding a public event with Laffer rather than a ticketed event to prevent hecklers.” I fail to see how ticketing an event would prevent hecklers.

  12. Now for the ‘action opinion polling’ portion of the afternoon’s proceedings. Bahahahaha.

  13. When Trumpism extends the logical progression of Nixon’s southern strategy to the point beyond subtext and the message is received as such with total vitriol. Interesting point in history.

    The level of vitriol is indeed excessive. So is the Trumpism that inspired it. Something’s got to break. Let’s all pull up a seat and see how it all shakes out.

    1. I agree that Trump has some helped people kick over the hornet’s nest of corruption and deceit in our colleges, media, and society.

    2. Trump supporters for the most part have kept their hands to themselves and have not been threatening. That cannot be said for the one’s on the opposite side that physically prevent freedom of speech while engaging in looting, rioting, killing, burning , and destroying communities without concern for the people that live there, lose their jobs, their community, and their homes.

      We see some stupid people on this blog defending such actions by trying to blame the group that peacefully assembled even though the defender’s of violent action against others is written as if English were their second language.

      1. “Trump supporters for the most part have kept their hands to themselves and have not been threatening”…… Oh thank you Allan, for the laugh. I spit out my covfefe on that one. Thanks again.

        1. Allan never disappoints in bringing the covfefe. Like the most entertaining form of clockwork and all its twice a day rightness. Lol.

    3. Bug missed the videos where the vitriol is all being poured out on YAF and the university conservative Republicans or whomever they were

      I am very interested in repaying hate with hate. 100% believer in eye for an eye when it comes to anarchists.

      I refuse to turn the other cheek. In fact, if it comes for me, I will be like Lamech

      Soon, young people will be thinking more and more like me, and less and less like the spineless naysayers who have mislead Republicans for decades.

      The anarchists only respect force. So organize force, because, that is the essence of government anyhow., Free speech is a meaningless activity to them.
      Don’t offer logic and principles to people who come to scalp you. Offer them what they understand.

  14. As a Conservative parent with a high honor roll Conservative son, soon to head off to college, I dread such institutions that support these discriminatory actions and violations. I’ve been keeping track, each institution that practices in this manner, will never get a penny from me. Likewise, any businesses that support such. I not only vote at the ballot box, I also vote with my wallet.

    1. I get it, but the attitude is likely on all college campuses. I’m telling my son to just avoid any public political discussion on campus and social media.

            1. Right. Let’s place the burden of defending our nation’s most important principles on college students. If that’s our strategy, then the game is already lost.

              1. Lorenzo, if one doesn’t place the burden on all good citizens the game is lost. Everyone has an excuse. Even our political leaders that say they believe in the truth but refuse to accept the burden of advocating for freedom of speech.

                Many blame their lack of activity on not wanting to be rude. If rudeness is what it takes then go for it. Good people that don’t engage for fear of not acting 100% correctly have a tendency to turn over leadership responsibiity to those that are more aggressive.

                1. Allan, if cops no longer protect our right to free speech, then we need to be preparing for actions that speak louder than words.

                  1. One should always be prepared to protect oneself in one fashion or another. As you know private property closes permitted access once a year to protect their property. Many conservative speakers go knowing they won’t be permitted to speak. In a similar way that is an attempt to protect free speech. One needs to support these people.

      1. Smart Lorenzo Tell him to run silent and run deep. Bide his time, get his ticket, build himself up. Know the enemy, watch them, and don’t run out front foolishly.

        We aren’t preparing for debates anymore. It’s clear the Democrats and their anarchist foot soldiers aren’t interested in debates.

        But the election day really, really matters. Turn those kids out and make sure they understand where their interests lie.

    2. Charlie T:
      “As a Conservative parent with a high honor roll Conservative son, soon to head off to college, I dread such institutions that support these discriminatory actions and violations.”
      ***************************
      While at JMU, my youngest son was asked to join in some group discussion with the professor and was tasked with extolling the virtues of diversity as if it were a given. I heard later in the semester from one of my ancient classmates who teaches there that he stood his ground and answered that diversity of anything but ideas is a canard and that no other society in history ever benefited from adopting divergent goals and ideals embodied in “diversity training.” If my friend is to be believed, it made my son quite the faculty lounge celebrity. Then the prof had the temerity to say “he reminds me of another student I knew a long time ago.” Pride is a feeble description of the feeling. Let him speak his truth!

  15. It’s ironic that Turley is complaining about the students not being disciplined and the school being passive in its actions. Those issues are a mirror image of what police departments do every day. They are passive about their officers conduct, and dole out disciplinary action almost belatedly.

    If Turley recognizes this surely he can recognize the same problem in police departments.

    1. Do you have systematic evidence that the police systematically are not disciplined appropriately? Or, do you rely on individual examples and assert they represent the general case?

        1. Who are you???! Svelaz???! You are just another suck puppet from Trumpters refusing to declare who they REALLY are: cowards who hide behind fake anonymous accounts!

          You are a fraud! This is my turf and I will not allow a Trumpters dominate this space since I own it.
          If you do not leave I will paint your nails fuchsia and fight you for your wig…it looks better on me

          Trumpters are such fakes using suck puppet accounts. By the way, how hung?

          1. Seth, actually Svelaz is a shortened version of my name. BTW I’m definitely no trumpster.

            Additionally, your post is hilarious! 😆👍

        2. I asked for systematic evidence of police systematically not being disciplined appropriately, and you provided a document simply citing a handful of complaints about the interaction with police.

          1. LorenzoValla, what I posted is an example of what happens in every police department. Meaning it’s a systemic issue. That “handful of complaints” is a fraction of the overall “handful” of complaints.

            1. Downright stupidity. The same seen when we read Paint Chips.

              There are a handful of complaints in every organization. So far in the past year only 9 black unarmed persons were shot and killed by police officers. In one weekend in Chicago recently over 60 people were shot and 12-14, maybe more were killed. You are an idiot. These cities that are treating their police in such a horrid way will find the numbers of good policemen falling and bad policemen replacing them. All will be reluctant to prevent crime and murder.

              In the end the ones hurt most are the honest minorities including blacks who do not have safe homes. Thank the democrat mayors who are creating this type of mess.

              Knowing the mess NYC is in I haven’t been back to my very nice and spacious apartment in Manhattan and probably will not return in the near future. I might even sell the place I have owned for decades but I will probably wait and see. It’s a great location always tightly protected where three people protect the front doors and 2 protect the sevice entrance but even my neighbors are getting scared despite all this protection. One of my friends just a week ago announced they were selling and leaving NY as well.

              Distress sales lower overall value and reduce taxes to the city that then has to make up the revenue lost leading to higher taxes and dirtier streets. That leads to the downward death spiral. NYC almost when bankrupt many decades ago because of the stupidity seen in people ike you.

    2. What do you know about the police in NYC? Nothing. What do you know about any police department? Nothing. What you know, Paint Chips, is from what you read in left wing rags.

      Let us hear from you how the NYC police department handles complaints.

      Without question some police departments do not function appropriately, but they are the outliers. All police departments can be improved just like all commenters can improve their comments. Presently ignorant mayors are stopping their police departments from acting appropriately. DeBlasio from NYC is a prime example and homicide is on the rise.

  16. Suspending them after they were attacked by progtrash is egregious. Either they’re stupid or shameless. NB student affairs apparatchiks commonly have MEd degrees, so stupid’s a safe bet.

    Again, the assaulters and disruptors are agents of institutional policy. As a general rule, lawyers are more trustworthy than school administrators. Let’s see if a real judge is assigned to this case, and not a Hawaiian judge. State schools are common property. The faculty and administration at those schools behave as if the campus was their personal sandbox. Republicans in New York pay taxes and tuition as well.

    As ever, the administration is encouraging people with cluster B personality disorders to let her rip. They are up to their eyeballs in this. Tells you (in case you didn’t know) that people in charge of higher education are of low character.

    1. That’s right it is unwritten university policy now coming from the highest levels to let the criminals attack conservative kids

      this is why I think it’s 100% morally licit now for university executives and the cowardly board yes-men themselves by physically attacked. perhaps illegal, but licit.

      universities may find themselves targeted with property destruction too, just as they have praised the destruction of property by the BLM and ANTIFA fanatics
      two can play at that game…. when people are silenced by the mob, they will not just go away. they will step up and take what the ANTIFA calls “direct action”

  17. The plan continues intimidation and violence. Until Americans strike back with force far greater against the ignorant this will continue. Would anyone with a business really consider hiring any of these ignorant people? They would devastate any business.

    JT: As a community service please list universities and colleges that offer a great education not a Marxist indoctrination.

  18. Democrats and liberals, aligned with academics, have created these Binghamton ignorants. These children (certainly they can’t be counted as young adults) have limited to no vocabulary and can only create change through violence because of their lack of intellect and their ignorance. Based on this, it’s difficult to believe they are able to create any cogent college level material. How did they ever get admitted to an institution of higher learning when it’s clear they don’t have the education required to be there.

    1. It’s worse than that. The two most selective state schools in New York are Geneseo (the de facto honors college) and Binghamton (one of the four research universities). The students admitted are supposedly the cream of New York’s high school graduates.

  19. Those students are not college material. They cannot wrestle with an argument, let alone build an actual counter-argument. The world needs more carpenters and skilled handymen right now, perhaps they should consider vo-tech.

    1. This is one consequence of the “every should go to college” mentality. Too many people end up in the humanities and softer side of social sciences where they learn doctrine rather than learning to discuss.

      1. No. On the basis of grades and test scores, Binghamton students are (as a rule) the sort who would have gone to college 50 years ago. Not sure what share of their entering classes is drawn from affirmative action projects.

          1. Baccalaureate degrees were the mode among school teachers 50 years ago. Not many left who had a two-year normal school education. I don’t believe the ratio of schoolteachers to the employed population has changed much in the last 50 years, so I’d wager the schoolteachers aren’t (vis a vis the workforce as a whole) any dopier than they were in 1970. They may be more politically sectarian. Alas, fanatacism and an inclination to social fiction is positively correlated with ‘g’.

            1. Well, school teachers might nor might not be any dopier, but they are now coming from a system that is far more influenced by critical theory than in the past and that translates into lessons for current students who then get into the university and are better prepared for deeper indoctrination. Again, this is mostly an issue in humanities and social science where the interpretation of evidence is far more subjective than other fields but it does have a circular effect of deepening the ideology.

              1. we need to embrace this much from postmodernism and critical theory:

                ORGANIZED FORCE IS THE ESSENCE OF GOVERNMENT

                if you think you will keep government power just with debates and talk, that is wrong

                the mass media directed by globalist billionaires can drown out with their megaphones a thousand genius arguments
                and they do every day

                a mob can intimidate law abiding citizens to cower in fear and stay home and let the mob rule

                understand the lessons that BLM is teaching us before our eyes

                the only thing the mob respects is ORGANIZED FORCE greater than itself

                if the government will not act, the lessons of history are actually plain to see.
                in the absence of government action to protect law and order. the citizens must prepare reprisals against the mobs. eye for an eye

                this is the logic of post modernism we need to understand

                awaken from the slumber of Enlightenment bromides.

            2. The quality of the teaching profession has declined over the years. In part that is due to the fact that opportunity for women expanded. Those that taught in the distant past might be todays, doctors, lawyers and accountants.

              1. Those that taught in the distant past might be todays, doctors, lawyers and accountants.

                Leaving aside those in positions women might commonly have occupied 50 years ago (e.g. school administration and social-work management), there are today about 11 million women in professional-managerial positions. There are about 2.2 million women teaching in elementary and secondary schools. I’m not sure why you think people with dispositions and talents like those in the former category would have been teaching school in 1957 rather than doing one or another of all the other things women were doing at that time. If I think about the lady schooteachers I had over the years, I remember two who seemed underutilized as school teachers. One had worked in research laboratories and computing centers and given it up.

                It would be my wager that the women you see in professional-managerial occupations today would have been married to professionals and managers back in the day, and not had regular employment.

                1. “I’m not sure why you think people with dispositions and talents like those in the former category would have been teaching school in 1957 rather than doing one or another of all the other things women were doing at that time. ”

                  DSS, things were different at the time and a lot of women focused entirely on the family and the household actually raising their children rather than giving them to someone else to raise for them. Maybe your anecdotal experience is limited ( “If I think about the lady schooteachers I had over the years”).

                  “It would be my wager that the women you see in professional-managerial occupations today would have been married to professionals and managers back in the day, and not had regular employment.”

                  I don’t think that is an accurate assessment. I take note of those I know or knew in the higher age group. Some have or were married to financially successful people but because of the requirements placed on most successful people they chose to be teachers and be home when their children came home. Today some of them are well past retirement age without any need of money but they still work without regard to the salary they are paid.

                  There is another element to success in the business world when that success is guaged in the position obtained such as CEO. Many woment have babies and that shuts advancement down for a number of years. Additionally in some professions the technology moves so fast that when the woman is ready to resume her work the technology advancements make that person ‘s knowledge inadequate. I saw that in my own family. My wife has two completely different post graduate degrees. She became an executive to a major US (international company) almost immediately after finishing her degree because her value was so high. Only a small number of people in the nation had a similar technical degree. We both agreed the children we were having and going to have were the most valuable part of our lives. She quit and later went for a completely different advanced degree where she was known for her expertise. That job interferred with our being able to travel when I could. I liked what I did and she had a lot of other interests. We didn’t need the money so she retired..

              2. Allan,
                It hasn’t helped that there is a sneering attitude towards the teaching profession, as though it is only for less intelligent people. It, sadly, isn’t held in as high esteem as it ought to be. Who else do people want teaching their kids? I’d go with the brightest and most knowledgeable.

                There was a ridiculous comment I heard quite often in college that ‘if you can’t do, teach’, as though a prospective teacher wasn’t smart enough to actually ‘do’ physics or whatever. Seems to me that someone has to really know and understand a topic to be able to explain it coherently to someone else. Hence, a teacher, in order to be really effective, had better be smart.

                1. It hasn’t helped that there is a sneering attitude towards the teaching profession, as though it is only for less intelligent people. It, sadly, isn’t held in as high esteem as it ought to be. Who else do people want teaching their kids? I’d go with the brightest and most knowledgeable.

                  The people who are ruining your reputation are (1) school administrators and (2) the lesser sort of teacher operating under the direction of (3) educational policy mavens, all trained by (4) teachers’ college faculty.

                2. If one wants to up the quality of the teaching profession open it up to charter schools and reduce or end the powers of the teachers union.

      2. LorenzoValla – I did not ‘end up in the Humanities” I carefully selected it because it had the broadest range for my true interests.

        1. Just to be clear, I think the humanities and social sciences CAN teach very valuable lessons. I have a graduate degree in one of those disciplines myself (not related to my current profession), but I do think there is now so much BS being thrown around in many of these fields that they can do more harm than good in many cases.

          1. I learned Nietzsche from a homosexual leftist when I was in undergrad. It was probably the best class I took.

            Without that I would not see so clearly the logic which is before our eyes. I might never have pierced the fog of liberalism.

            Liberalism is a delusion that applies to us that is holding us back. We are the liberals. They are the Left.

            The Left is not liberal. It is radicalized and organized.

            I am really not a liberal anymore. I just say we I mean conservative law abiding citizens in general

            Liberalism is tied closely to individualism which is a self defeating mentality that stops people from organizing the necessary force which must be used to subdue mobs and organized Leftist schemes to subjugate us. We need to think less like Athenians and more like Spartans.

    2. P.S. I do not mean to imply that carpenters or skilled handymen cannot wrestle with an argument or build a counter-argument. Plenty are quite good at reasoning–these students ought to work with them so they can learn a coherent line of reasoning since it appears they are not learning it in college.

      1. I completely agree, and there are great benefits for anyone who wants an actual college education to get one. But, it’s gotten too expensive to make sense for many students, while at the same time not as beneficial as it used to be. IMO, the best benefit from the humanities and social science classes is learning how to read critically and write persuasively. Those are invaluable skills for any profession.

    3. All, but in particular the outspoken ones, need to be trained in debate and in particular the events that are causing havoc on the campus. In debate one has to be able to defend either side so on a hot issue they should prepare themselves for the debate knowing that they will not know what side they are on until the time of the debate.

Leave a Reply