Loyola Marymount University student Stephanie Martinez is exactly what schools seek in admissions. She is politically and socially active. She has been involved in the school’s governance and community, including serving at the government senator for diversity and inclusion. She is also conservative. That last element proved unacceptable recently when fellow students impeached her after a three-hour proceeding because she expressed her opposition to illegal immigration on social media. While a few students protested, other students mocked the outcry and the coverage on sites like The College Fix. One student is quoted on social media as saying “it’s a f***ing seat on a random student government senate. Why are these old white people so upset!?” The answer is something that is becoming less and less of a concern on campuses: free speech.We have seen other students recently subjected to similar actions by their student governments or by fellow editors on student newspapers. Free speech is under attack across the country and polling shows a falling level of support for free speech among students. The actions taken against openly conservative or libertarian students are having an impact on both students and faculty who are self-censoring to avoid similar attacks.In this case, the student government is acting to counter Martinez’s views on immigration. In one of the offending postings, Martinez wrote “The same people advocating for rights, equality, and better conditions for illegal aliens are the same one censoring freedom of speech (a right), defaming and initiating hostility for those Americans with divergent views! Sad!” It proved a prophetic and ironic posting for Martinez. Fellow Diversity and Inclusion student Senator Camille Orozco cited such statements as the basis for impeachment under Article 8 in the student body bylaws as “conduct that severely damages the integrity or authority of ASLMU or the office held by the individual in question.” Orozco dismissed the obvious crackdown on free speech by declaring conclusorily that it is not about free speech but “conduct which has severely damaged the integrity, or authority of ASLMU or the office held by Senator Martinez.” But the “conduct” was the free speech. That is how easy it is to strip away any tolerance for opposing viewpoints. Orozco argued that the views of Martinez hurt the relationship of the student government with immigrant groups.The most glaring moment came when Director of Free Speech & Expression Robyn De Leon rose to speak. This is the person who is supposed to protect free speech and expression but spoke in favor of removing someone on the basis of her opposing viewpoints. According to one article, De Leon said that Martinez is not protected for her “very alienating of unrepresented and marginalized communities” and cited her use of the term “illegal alien.” Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy in that position, De Leon ignores that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have used the term “illegal alien.”What concerns me most is the apparent silence of the university. Under the student government’s Constitution, no officer or member will be discriminated against based on their political affiliation. I do not know the specific views of Martinez on politics or immigration. Indeed, I do not consider her specific viewpoints to be particularly relevant beyond the fact that such viewpoints are being used as the basis for adverse actions. She has a right to speak her mind on social media and a university should celebrate the diversity of such ideas as part of its intellectual mission. Yet, I could find no statement of the university denouncing any action that punishes a student or faculty member for their opposing viewpoints. I can understand not wanting to interfere with student governance decisions but the university should not be a mere pedestrian to the abuse of a student for her political views. The university would clearly condemn any action if was deemed racist or offensive. The denial of free speech would be of an equal concern for the university in guaranteeing a tolerant and open academic community.
Martinez’s next course of action is to appeal the impeachment. If she loses, she will face a removal trial. That is why the university must be clear as to its commitment to free speech. Student governments are not invitation to institute Robespierrean justice. The university needs to act to protect those who are being attacked for their dissenting views and to reaffirm the guarantee of free speech at Loyola Marymount University.
trump on NBC: 153,660 viewers
Biden on ABC: 507,445 viewers
Latest national polls via
@CNN
:
NPR/Marist: Biden +11
Kaiser Fam: Biden +11
UM Lowell: Biden +10
NBC/WSJ: Biden +11
ABC/Post: Biden +12
Pew Rsrch: Biden +10
Fox News: Biden +10
Ipsos/Reut: Biden +12
Biden will win the popular vote, but it’s a race for the EC, and the national polls aren’t helpful for predicting that. 538’s analysis: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
‘The FBI spent more time on Bubba Wallace’s garage door pull than they did on Hunter Biden’s laptop.’ @KelemanCari
‘Hunter should be in jail under his dads crime bill’ @HotepJesus
William Barr is “Mr. Deep Deep State” and Christopher Wray, the Deep Deep State FBI mole who was right there in the midst of it through the entire Comey-McCabe-Strzok-Page-Mueller-corruption episode, is his dutiful Deep Deep State soldier, while John “Dudley Do-Right” Durham is busy obeying orders and burying the entire Obama Coup D’etat in America as deeply as he possibly can.
All, right before our very eyes.
Crime DOES pay and you are helpless to enforce the law against it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/feds-examining-if-alleged-hunter-biden-emails-are-linked-foreign-n1243620
Harris-Biden is a sure thing.
Why are you so frantic?
Don’t get complacent. Trump is right, the election is rigged. Trump more than likely is going to lose. Then the Biden Crime Family will be in power. God help us.
JF- As a conservative those stats look bad. I recall the Democrats had a far better candidate, more popular and better polls last go around so I’ll have faith. As a visiting Canadian to my state said: “you Americans aren’t that stupid to elect Biden”, we’ll see????
Election night 2016; Hillary has 91% chance of winning the Presidency.
Biden’s ratings were slightly higher at his town hall event because many expected he’d be asked about the email bombshells. Of course, that didn’t happen, because we know George Stephanopolous is not a journalist. He is a Democrat operative.
Only Fools and Nate Silver continue to promote the thoroughly discredited exercise known as “Presidential Polling”.
Watch Pennsylvania go red
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2020/8/26/nearly-5-million-new-gun-owners-in-2020/#:~:text=Nearly%20five%20million%20new%20gun,going%20to%20first%2Dtime%20buyers.
nearly 5 million new gun owners in 2020. you want to bet me that 90% are going to vote for Trump?
It’s usually a lot easier to vote than it is buy a gun, that’s for sure. Pinkos who never bought a gun may not realize this.
I didn’t watch either “town hall” but had I chosen which, it would have been Biden’s hands down. Mainly because it’s like watching a train derailment in slow motion. It’s fascinating to see the cognitive slips and dementia signs unfold and then be continually ignored by the “journalists” and masses.
Turley writes: “Free speech is under attack across the country and polling shows a falling level of support for free speech among students. The actions taken against openly conservative or libertarian students is having its impact on both students and faculty who are self-censoring to avoid similar attacks. In this case, the student government is acting to counter Martinez’s views on immigration.”
Joe Friday’s comment on yesterday’s blog:
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/15/the-barrett-rule-how-democratic-members-are-creating-a-new-and-dangerous-standard-for-confirmations/comment-page-5/#comment-2014042
Is this comment an example of left-wing, anti-POTUS free speech or hate speech? Should a board moderator have stepped in? What does it say about us as a commenting community if we allow board standards to drop too far? Still an acceptable platform for our views?
Sorry snow-flake. Maybe you should try tiddly-winks.
Chagrined apology accepted, Joe Tiddly-Winks. But Turley’s board moderator needs to give it some consideration, too. Maybe get back to us with a point of clarification from the platform boss.
ah that’s no big deal. anyhow it seems the software ban methods are weak. prolly nobody has time to mess with it
book joe helps keep it lively here
im always a solid vote not to ban book joe,
he is a respected and frequent partner in dialogue, though he sometimes curses me too
It’s not an example of either. Joe Friday is a 75 year old businessman living in Alachua County, Fl. It’s an example of arrested development.
Art Deco joins his friends in responding with insults, while accusing someone else of arrested development.
Do you realize how Stupid you sound?
Here’s a website transcript of a relevant part of the town hall exchange:
President Trump: (18:06)
I denounce Antifa, and I denounce these people on the left that are burning down our cities, that are run by Democrats who don’t know what they’re doing-
Savannah Guthrie: (18:15)
All right, while we’re denouncing, let me ask you about QAnon. It is this theory that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are the savior, of that. Now can you just, once and for all, state that that is completely not true, and-
President Trump: (18:34)
So, I know [crosstalk 00:18:35]-
Savannah Guthrie: (18:34)
… disavow QAnon-
President Trump: (18:34)
Yeah.
Savannah Guthrie: (18:36)
… in its entirety?
President Trump: (18:37)
I know nothing about QAnon.
Savannah Guthrie: (18:39)
I just told you.
President Trump: (18:41)
I know very little. You told me, but what you tell me, doesn’t necessarily make it fact. I hate to say that. I know nothing about it. I do know they are very much against pedophilia. They fight it very hard. But I know nothing about it. If you’d like me to-
Savannah Guthrie: (18:54)
They believe that it is a Satanic cult run by the deep state.
President Trump: (18:57)
… study the subject. I’ll tell you what I do know about. I know about Antifa, and I know about the radical left, and I know how violent they are and how vicious they are. And I know how they are burning down cities run by Democrats, not run by Republicans.
Savannah Guthrie: (19:09)
Republican Senator Ben Sasse said, quote, “QAnon is nuts and real leaders call conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories.”
President Trump: (19:20)
He may be right.
Savannah Guthrie: (19:20)
Why not just say, it’s crazy and not true?
President Trump: (19:20)
Can I be honest? He may be right. I just don’t know about QAnon.
Savannah Guthrie: (19:22)
You do know.
President Trump: (19:23)
I don’t know. No, I don’t know. I don’t know. You tell me all about it.
Trump is either lying when he says that he doesn’t know about Qanon, or he is unacceptably ignorant about it, given that he retweets messages from Qanon supporters and lauds them at times.
Which do you think it is?
Oh my!
Who cares?
The lady was brow-beating him in an attempt to embarrass him, not a polite thing to do, and something I am sure she would resent if anyone was to do it to her.
Why didn’t she ask about Antifa, the group which appears to be responsible for most of the violence in Portland, Kenosha, and other cities?
Or have you found hard evidence that Q-Anon and white supremacists are trashing Chicago and Madison and Wauwatosa?
The search for ever more gotcha moments is not journalism, and it certainly is not the way a moderator should behave.
(The hint to a moderator’s correct behavior lies in the noun for someone who facilitates a discussion.)
I understand that you do not like Trump. Fair enough.
But if you are going to accept the job of hosting (and moderating) a Q & A, that is what you should do. Not try to trip up your guest (a word that appears to have very little meaning for the good people at NBC).
This strikes me as rude behavior, but perhaps I was raised in a less polarized era. We only had Goldwater and Johnson, and Vietnam, and other piddling things to divide us.
Who cares whether the President is willing to condemn a conspiracy theory involving Trump? Lots of people do!
A responsible president would do that.
It should be easy for him to say it’s baseless. But he won’t. Why doesn’t he say there is no Q, and he is not planning “The Storm” in which all his supposed enemies in government/politics will be rounded up and killed?
Stupid people draw conclusions with the requisite knowledge. Smarter people reserve judgement.
According to the Stupid people the Steele Dossier was totally truthful.
According to the Stupid people Trump was an anti-Semite (a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren)
According to the Stupid people the Proud Boys is anti-black but they have a black leader
Stupid people say a lot of things. The moderator didn’t moderate she stated facts that weren’t true. What Qanon believes is based on what one reads. Stupid people like you believed all three things above. Smarter people try and look at the evidence. .
Allan once again resorts to his go-to strategy of insulting people.
Anonymous the Stupid, you were one of those Stupid people that believed…
According to the Stupid people the Steele Dossier was totally truthful.
According to the Stupid people Trump was an anti-Semite (a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren)
According to the Stupid people the Proud Boys is anti-black but they have a black leader
Anonymous writes: “Trump is either lying when he says that he doesn’t know about QAnon, or he is unacceptably ignorant about it, given that he retweets messages from QAnon supporters and lauds them at times. Which do you think it is?”
Good point.
Given everything else on his plate, how much should POTUS know about QAnon? The QAnon Wikipedia article is fairly long. Should POTUS have 30 minutes to spend on this instead of the latest developments in New START, for example?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/13/us-russia-arms-control-talks-new-start-treaty
But then again, if POTUS is retweeting QAnon messages and lauding their anti-pedophilia vigilance, a briefing has been in order.
Sounds like Director Wray territory. I wonder what it was like working the Epstein/Maxwell pedophilia case at the FBI?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4907402/user-clip-fbi-director-christopher-wray-qanon-3-factor-test#
Long story short, I would describe Trump as cagey in that Town Hall segment.
Trump wastes plenty of time (watching TV, retweeting garbage, etc.). He’s had 30 min over the last year to learn about Qanon.
Trump wasn’t cagey. He’s transparent. He’s totally transactional: he won’t condemn them because they support him, even though they are bad for the country and have already been linked to violence: https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/08/26/politifact-qanon-hoax-has-been-linked-to-violence-fox-news-greg-gutfeld-falsely-claimed-it-hasnt/
“Trump wastes plenty of time (watching TV, retweeting garbage, etc.). He’s had 30 min over the last year to learn about Qanon.”
Anonymous the Stupid says that because he doesn’t know any better. What is Anonymous the Stupid’s track record?
Anonymous the Stupid, you were one of those Stupid people that believed…
According to the Stupid people the Steele Dossier was totally truthful.
According to the Stupid people Trump was an anti-Semite (a Jewish daughter and Jewish grandchildren)
According to the Stupid people the Proud Boys is anti-black but they have a black leader
After that and more why should anyone believe anything you say. You are not credible. You are Stupid. You are Pathetic.
Allan once again resorts to some of his go-to strategies: insults & projecting a belief onto someone (like “the Steele Dossier was totally truthful”) that didn’t come from that person and then attacking the person on the basis of Allan’s projection.
Are you going to tell us you still believe in the Steele Dossier? That is not projecting. That is part of your history.
You claim it’s part of my history, so prove it with a link to the comment.
“You claim it’s part of my history, so prove it with a link to the comment.”
Anonymous, I don’t have to. I rely on the memory of others as to your prior positions. The last time I asked you, you refused to answer.
You have no credibility and no integrity.
Since you won’t prove it, it’s nothing but an unproven assertion.
Anonymous, you destroyed your own credibility. I think most people have seen your anonymous comments and remember your support of the Steele Dossier.
No one but you cares what you think about anyone else’s credibility, Allan. You don’t have proof for your assertion, and now you’re adding a guess about what others recall, and you don’t present proof for that either.
“No one but you cares what you think about anyone else’s credibility, Allan. ”
Apparently you do.
Anonymous: Good point, good article.
Jonathan, I looked over the article and it was quite thin when referencing QAnon. The FBI referenced it as well but again it was not impressive and one surely has to recall that the Steele Dossier was accepted by the FBI as fact and even used with the FISA court and leaked to the American public. Totally false.
Anyone is capable of violence so one might find that sort of person in any group but then one has to question whether or not that represents the group as a whole.
What we do see is Antifa and BLM involved in the burning down of neighborhoods, rioting and looting but it seems hard for many to say what they are doing is illegal and should be stopped. I decided the best way to evaluate QAnon was to go to their site and see what they have to say. Then listen to whoever has information based on fact and proof that says more than their site says.
https://www.theqanons.com/about-us/
About Us
http://www.the ……. qanons. com which provides the online Entertainment.
Who we are: We Are NOT TERRORIST or a Religious CULT like Organization!
We Are Just Concerned PATRIOTS Who LOVE OUR COUNTRY
As MEMBERS of TheQAnons …… com
We are Republicans, Awakened Democrats and Independents.
We Are Red, White, Black, Brown, Yellow and 1 Orange Guy and WE are BLUE!
BLUE! Over the Chaos That has been brought on this Country and the WORLD.
We are NOT! TERRORIST! And We are NOT Slaves to be misled by Government Multi-Mass media suppressions
We are PATRIOTS for TRUTH, JUSTICE and The AMERICAN WAY!
This page is used to inform website visitors regarding our policies with the collection, use, and disclosure of Personal Information if anyone decided to use our Service, http://www.theqanons.com. If you choose to use our Service, then you agree to the collection and use of information in relation with this policy. The Personal Information that we collect are used for providing and improving the Service. We will not use or share your information with anyone except as described in this Privacy Policy. The terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, which is accessible at Website URL, unless otherwise defined in our Privacy Policy.
Our website address is: www …… theqanon …s. com/
I am waiting for anyone to provide information on this group from any side of the aisle but I want to hear fact and proof.
Q anon is kind of dumb, harmless in my view
it’s sort of like a conspiracy brand name, who knows who’s behind it. some marketing dude prolly. it’s amusing what little i have bothered to see of it. not my cup of tea,
however, the matter of conspiracy examination, parsing and analysis is real. lawyers and investigators do it every day.
“conspiracy theory” is a term coined by the CIA to discredit its critics. that’s history.
let’s instead have a conversation about conversations: there is power in being able to set the agenda, define the acceptable edges of debate, and presume to “verify” truth.
powerful interests do not leave powerful tools unused
Martin Heidegger said:
“Language is the house of being. In its home human beings dwell. Those who think and those who create with words are the guardians of this home. Their guardianship accomplishes the manifestation of being insofar as they bring this manifestation to language and preserve it in language through their saying.”
I contend that the most significant failure in education of American “conservatives” is the lack of education in Marxism, existentialism, and postmodernism,
It seems like we are generally stuck in the Enlightenment as if nothing had happened since Waterloo.
One of my themes here is to introduce topics of interest which helps explain our current posture vis a vis our adversaries. This requires some understanding of how they think.
Mayor Pete is a rising star. he will not be going away. He has the midwestern flat affect and easy charm. He also has the backing of billionaires
The most interesting tool he has in his belt, is his tutelage at his father’s feet. Elder Professor Buttigieg was a chronicler of Gramsci.
Now if we look back to Q anon, it is a very interesting brand, a conversation perhaps not about what is happening, but what people would choose to believe is happening
Perhaps it is a novel and clever way to prod the emergence of the possibilities it contemplates, by projecting them into the imagination of the people?
Q Anon is a PsyOp.
Anyone on the left or right who can’t clearly discern that, is an idiot.
Antifa is not a PsyOp. It is a bunch of poorly raised and badly educated spoiled white kids with trust funds, who are perfect examples of why “Idle hands are the Devils workshop”.
Every “brand” marketed with mass media or social media power is a form of psyop– does not mean they aren’t useful. Isn’t Tide a decent and useful product? What makes some people but it rather than the “store brands” which are fundamentally the same chemical formulations?
past 70 years, there has been a huge overlap between marketing as a business discipline, consumer psychology, and government propaganda
it seems other hands have dealt into the game. Q anon is an unexpected one and clearly deemed a dangerous rival by the global media masters
What makes some people but it rather than the “store brands” which are fundamentally the same chemical formulations?
Because the people are satisfied with the product and they’re not persuaded it’s the same stuff. This isn’t that difficult.
Rhodes– I haven’t looked in on Q Anon but if the Democrats and media hate it so much I suspect I might like it.
Savannah should have the botox slapped off her face for talking to the President of the United States like that!
If I saw her in person, I would be tempted to spit on her.
Cindy– Savannah was extremely obnoxious. I guess she is some personality with NBC, the name is familiar, but I wondered how she got so far with that voice. She really does have an obnoxious, grating, blackboard-screech. I-am-always-rude, voice. But, I guess it goes with her personality perfectly.
Young………Savannah, the scream queen of morning tv vamp, has been the darling of the Today Show on NBC, since replacing the other vomitously, vapid vamp, Katie Couric. “What Max Factor (or Revlon) has joined together, let not man put asunder” has been the mantra over there at Peacock Central.
“What does it say about us as a commenting community if we allow board standards to drop too far? ”
***
Censorship for ‘hate speech’ would destroy the gold standard for this blog. Leave off.
Young writes: “Censorship for ‘hate speech’ would destroy the gold standard for this blog. Leave off.”
Turley writes: “Given my family and professional responsibilities, I cannot continually monitor the comments. It is a challenge to post multiple stories early in the morning each day. This is reflected by the typos that sneak into my posts at 5 in the morning while I am trying to pour caffeine into my body. For that reason, this site relies heavily on its regulars to preserve decorum and civility. The failure to delete or respond to a post is not a reflection of any agreement or content-based review. All comments are solely the view of the poster and not the blog, myself, or the guest bloggers. We get thousands of comments and have only limited screening ability for foul language. For that reason, your help is not just welcomed but absolutely necessary in maintaining the character and tenor of this blog.”
https://jonathanturley.org/civility-rule/
Jonathan Maxson,
Turley doesn’t enforce the civility rule, and if you contact him about egregious incivility, he generally does nothing, unless the comment is directed at him.
Jonathan– If hate speech upsets you I should like to know more about it. Please define it.
As for civility I usually am civil, but I don’t care whether someone is civil to me or not. I wasn’t raised like an orchid in a hothouse.
You might appreciate that it is hard to draw a bright clear line on speech. Too little control is preferable to too much control. But it will always be one or the other.
You’re not on my care list, Young.
Jonathan– Thank you for that chuckle.
Glad it made you laugh, Young. But I did cut off a potentially rich line of inquiry. We have a concrete example in front of us – Joe Friday’s comment. Do you really want to go into it?
Young, civility is always the question. I like you am known for being civil until civility doesn’t work. One of the hallmarks of the Republican Party is their civility even when they are inappropriate. Where has that gotten them? A social media banning anyone who says something they don’t like including the NY Post a major newspaper, a MSM that says all sorts of things and lies so that they can be appropriately considered an arm of the Democrat Party, an electorate, many of which don’t even know about the Hunter computer with less understanding its significance and Universities that deny freedom of speech on campus and even to their students while the professors indoctrinate our young. The young have been trained to be civil and not fight back.
I don’t believe in being uncivil but sometimes one has to be heard and others encouraged to open their mouths. Even on this list I note some fear that such behavior isn’t appropriate. In my work life and with regular people I am always appropriate even if I don’t like someone, even if the person is a bum or a criminal, but there are times one must act even if it makes them look bad. Everyone waits to “be bad” until they can blend in. I differ. I learned in business and will repeat it over and over again that sometimes two parties are fighting to the death even though both parties are normally civil. Foul language and the threat of legal action flies, but in the end smart people learn to compromise because the pie expands with compromise since people get more of what they want and lose less of what they don’t want.
In the end in my most bitterly fought disputes we all walked away happy even one lawyer that represented the government. He was happy I won. For the most part we ended up on a first name basis and went out to lunch.
My advice. Sometimes a lack of civility occurs but one has to do what they have to do whether on the blog or more importantly elsewhere. There are a few individuals on this list where nothing works. It shouldn’t be expected to work because there isn’t an ounce of civility, integrity or honesty within them. They speak loud and probably should be ignored but sometimes that tells others who browse that their facts might have been honestly provided. The facts weren’t honestly provided just like the MSM is not reporting honestly. One cannot keep quiet waiting for others to act. Look at how quickly Germany went from a democracy to Nazi dictatorship.
The best way to bring about civility here is to do civility, and model it.
we should welcome those who disagree, and be patient with their anger, because they stimulate and challenge us to sharper thinking
Friedrich Nietzsche — ‘Love your enemies because they bring out the best in you.’
Good points, Mr. Kurtz. I could have done better with Young just now.
(music)
Oh I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain!
I fought civil rights cause I thought they’d never end!
Those at Mary need to Mount the pen.
And leave for France where people never win.
The university is silent because they do not disapprove of what the red guards are doing. The faculty and the dean of students should be instructing students that self-government requires a culture which sustains deliberation, which in turn requires manners which permit competing viewpoints to be presented and discussed. Since the faculty and the dean of students fancy ordinary people should not present their viewpoint, it doesn’t bother them that someone who thinks like ordinary people is being shouted down.
The current crop of incompetent university admins & deans should be horsewhipped with their own standards and sent to the Saloth Sar Retraining Facility to learn socially useful skills.
There are two very simple responses to this situation:
1. The Dean of Students calls in the complainers one by one, turns on a tape recorder, and tells each that they are welcome to explain their complaint free range. When they’re done, he has his secretary transcribe the soliloquy, and he puts it on a section of the institutional website, with a comment section.
2. Dissolve the student government and end the practice of assessing mandatory fees. The dean of students can hire a couple of office managers to maintain a mail room, open and close bank accounts and keep the statements on file, and maintain a log book for interested parties to reserve space. Student groups wishing to use their services can register with the office by having interested parties sign a petition. The groups can finance themselves with dues and fundraising efforts, including grants from outside foundations. Other than the wages and salaries paid the office managers and the opportunity cost of allocating space (which is nil most places because campuses are typically horribly overbuilt), student groups get no institutional support. Of course, students with issues will try to disrupt events, and they are properly dealt with by security. Security is part of the menu of services the institution provides it’s clientele with tuition funds and any attempt to charge student groups for security is an exaction which should be debarred by law.
or 3, put them on buses to the Saloth Sar Retraining Facility for a one year free ride at this future school in the desert which will offer education in socially useful skills
if they are able to learn basic gardening and can survive and make it to graduation, they might be good for rehiring as janitors
Another attack that needs further in depth analysis. So lets dig into it.
Loyola University Student Code of Conduct:
All students of Loyola University are expected to uphold the LUC Community Standards 2020-2021 (Loyola’s Student Code of Conduct). Students are expected to abide by all university policies, including but not limited to the policies outlined in this document. All students have the responsibility to familiarize themselves with these Standards, as they will be held accountable to them. The Community Standards provide a simple baseline for acceptable student conduct. It is the hope of our entire university community that students will far exceed these minimum standards for just, respectful, and caring conduct towards one another.
Rebel students are using tactics called “SWATTING” & “DOXING”
To ‘dox’ someone is to publicly identify or publish private information about that person—especially as a way of getting revenge. To ‘swat’ someone is to falsely report a dangerous situation that provokes a police response. Both acts are malicious and harmful. It doesn’t sound all that bad, as scary things go, right?
Swatting is more serious. 10-20 years in prison & $150,000 fine.
@svelaz
Reminds me of the old Soviet joke. The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but it does not guarantee freedom after speech.
Don’t worry, Svelaz, you’ll get your longed for hate speech laws in another 20 years or so.
antonio
As a Hispanic, similarly situated to this young lady, I have had such experiences in the past. I rarely get flack from other Hispanics for my views on illegal immigration, bilingualism, race or multiculturalism. The flack almost always comes from anglo, white, leftist types who seem to take it as a personal affront when you disagree with their views. They really believe their own propaganda on identity politics and cannot imagine otherwise.
Imagine what this crowd will do when they control the levers of power in another 20 – 30 years and Critical Legal Theory is used to interpret the constitution. Official censorship, hate speech laws, reparations and worse are coming. COUNT ON IT!
antonio
Everyone below responding to this issue has missed the main point Illegal Immigration! These twirps have no understand of what a Country means. Open Borders come one come!
‘This is honestly the best news I’ve read in months. Let’s pray the trend continues until dozens of universities are bankrupted and destroyed.’ @mattwalshblog
The Daily Wire
Enrollment Rate For College Freshmen Drops By Double Digits
https://www.dailywire.com/news/enrollment-rate-for-college-freshmen-drops-by-double-digits?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
In response to the student who complained about the concern of “old white people”, that on its face is racist and ageist. The concern is from every American who understands the basic concept of freedom of speech. The impeachment of the student senator for exercising her right to speak in any platform is guaranteed, as is yours and your contemporaries.
Jesuit and other Catholic institutions were founded on the basic and fundamental right to express and discuss ideas and issues. A college or university administration that does not follow or support the free exchange of ideas from student and faculty is not operating an institution of higher learning, rather it is operating as an indoctrination center. Those institutions should forfeit their tax exempt status as schools. They have forfeited their credibility.
Turley may mean well in his protest of this “censoring” or “punishment” of free speech. However Turley ignores a crucial point he may be completely oblivious to or is just so focused on the action of the student body because one was conservative.
Free speech wasn’t attacked here. It wasn’t the reason why this student is being impeached. Nothing prohibited, and still doesn’t, stop this student from saying what she thinks. She still said it. She can still say what she wants anytime. That right is fully intact. Nobody is saying it has said she can’t be saying that.
Free speech doesn’t guarantee anyone protection from the consequences of exercising it. All the first amendment guarantees is that the government cannot stop you from stating your views or opinions or criticism. It doesn’t protect anyone from the consequences.
Nobody is telling this conservative student that she can’t say “illegal alien”, and no it’s not discriminatory when she got in trouble for expressing it. Turley would still defend her if she said she agreed with Hitler and we should deal with illegal aliens like he did with the Jews. But obviously the consequences of expressing a view like that wouldn’t just be blindly accepted because she has free speech rights. She’s experiencing a version of that consequence and Turley’s criticism is badly misplaced. This is why the professor he admonished for not defending the student didn’t.
Svelaz:
“Free speech doesn’t guarantee anyone protection from the consequences of exercising it. All the first amendment guarantees is that the government cannot stop you from stating your views or opinions or criticism. It doesn’t protect anyone from the consequences.”
***********************
It’s a private religious institution and doesn’t have to comply with the First Amendment. In fact, the reason for the First Amendment, inter alia, is that religions had so subverted governments that they were accomplishing religious censorship via a third-party. However, private schools do have policies and practices promising to comply with academic freedom, toleration of opposing view and fair opportunity regardless of point of view. Here, the school’s gang of leftists are demanding content censorship almost certainly in violation of the schools own standards or those of its sanctioning bodies. It ought to be opposed vigorously. The First Amendment is but one strand, albeit an important one, in the web of protections free societies employ against tyrants – great and small. Among these are freedom of conscience, academic freedom, respect for minority points of view and the freedom to explore and challenge norms like political correctness. You diminish the rest of Western values by focusing only on the one the doesn’t apply.
Mespo,
“ However, private schools do have policies and practices promising to comply with academic freedom, toleration of opposing view and fair opportunity regardless of point of view. Here, the school’s gang of leftists are demanding content censorship almost certainly in violation of the schools own standards or those of its sanctioning bodies. ”
Problem is since this is a private school they really don’t have any obligation to respect free speech rights. It doesn’t matter what they “promise”. It’s a religious institution as you said. They are not required to accept or tolerate different views. The student body’s own standards were allegedly violated and this being a higher learning institution it wouldn’t be a good idea to micromanage every aspect of what students decide. It’s exactly what many conservatives complain about on a daily basis. Here you’re complaining the “government” (school administrators) step in and dictate to the student body (its citizens) what they cannot do. It’s really ironic.
Turley’s biggest flaw in his defense of free speech is the assumption that views or opinions no matter how vile, racist, offensive they are should be tolerated because free speech is a protected right.
Nowhere in the constitution or federal or state law is there a requirement or suggestion that such views should be tolerated or accepted. Nothing obligates anyone to tolerate or even listen to such views or opinions. Free speech protections only apply to the government. It prohibits the government from creating laws that say you can’t state certain opinions, views, ideas, etc. It prevents government from throwing you in jail or levying a fine because offensive or critical views were expressed. This protection doesn’t apply when it comes to private companies, individuals, private schools, or religious institutions. This is why people can get fired for expressing a racist, or offensive comment on social media.
The idea of needing to tolerate an opposing view is silly. Tolerating a view is a matter of personal preference. Not an expectation from everyone. No law says you have to tolerate different views.
I still defend the right to free speech and I do think it’s very important, but i also accept the fact that free speech is not protection from the consequences of exercising it. Exercising free speech requires the acceptance and recognition of the consequences that come with it.
You’re too stupid to figure out that the problem is that the complainers are too emotionally neuralgic to handle ordinary disputes over policy. Whatever black letter law says, public deliberation as a social practice cannot continue if the room is dominated by people who are unable to listen and keep it together.
Art Deco x, sorry, but it seems you’re the one suffering from stupidity.
Who says people have to listen to someone else if they don’t agree with their views or what they said?
Suffering the consequences of exercising your free speech rights is not protected in any way. She was able and is still able to express her opinion. Her being “attacked” for her views is not censorship or denying her right. It’s a consequence of exercising it and since this was a private religious institution they have no real obligation to defend her views if she is the one who freely choose to express them. It’s pretty simple.
Who says people have to listen to someone else if they don’t agree with their views or what they said?
You’re being childish, Peter. Deliberative bodies have rules and a culture that assists them in functioning as deliberative bodies. Intelligent societies have institutions to channel and adjudicate conflict. These people went mental (neglecting their actual functions) because this woman expressed a banal opinion about a matter extraneous to the function of the deliberative body. They cannot keep their functions straight and even if it the controversy in question was germane to the function of the body, the purpose of deliberative bodies is to air competing views Which means you actually have to have people who can hear competing views with equanimity. This isn’t that difficult.
Art Deco x,
“ Deliberative bodies have rules and a culture that assists them in functioning as deliberative bodies. ”
Problem is not all deliberative bodies are bound by the constitution’s guarantees. The constitution’s restrictions don’t apply to private institutions such as this school.
If the student body determined the girl violated their rules they are perfectly entitled to exercise their prerogative according to their rules.
The rest of your post just involved nonsensical ranting.
Her freedom of speech wasn’t being denied. She just ended up experiencing the consequences of exercising it.
Problem is not all deliberative bodies are bound by the constitution’s guarantees. The constitution’s restrictions don’t apply to private institutions such as this school.
Your point is irrelevant. We can explain something to you. We cannot comprehend it for you.
Art Deco x, thanks for pointing out you really don’t understand what you’re trying to argue.
What are the odds that our host and the roughly 6 contributors debating you all have it wrong? NADA.
Olly, Svelaz unknowingly marches lockstep with the worst killers of the 20th century.
There is certainly a dangerous degree of ignorance with that one.
“There is certainly a dangerous degree of ignorance with that one.”
Anonymous if you were referring to Svelaz then that is your one correct statement for the 24 hour period.
Anonymous if you were referring to Svelaz.
.
Allan,
Huh? Anonymous didn’t say that, I did.
Yes you did Olly. That was clearly my mistake. I should have realized it right away for it is so unusual for Anonymous to actually say something of value.
How can I apologize?
🤔 do a 24 hour detox from responding to anyone named Anonymous. 😁
Olly, obligation fulfilled. 🙂
Thank you Allan. The blog was noticeably better for it.
Who says people have to listen to someone else if they don’t agree with their views or what they said?
It’s a student government, not a legal blog. Right now, we are listening to views we don’t agree with and having a debate about it. The student government is there for the same purpose. But while we speak for ourselves, the members of that body speak for their constituents. They are supposed to listen to people and have debate about the issues that are of concern. They don’t have to agree and at the end of debate, they vote. This is so fundamental to the democratic process that I’m surprised you don’t get it. Consider this and it goes for all governments: If everyone agreed on everything, then no government would be necessary.
Olly, you’re confusing my statement as having to do with the student government. I was referring to that statement in general terms.
“ But while we speak for ourselves, the members of that body speak for their constituents. They are supposed to listen to people and have debate about the issues that are of concern. They don’t have to agree and at the end of debate, they vote. ”
We don’t know whether their “constituents” agreed with her views or not. But what they did do is debate and discuss her comment. They listened to her comments and they found them to be in violation of their rules. So they voted to impeach. If it’s THEIR rules it’s certainly their prerogative. They are not bound by the constitution at all. They certainly can censor her if they wanted since they are still part of a private organization. I’m not saying they should, just pointing out that they can.
This didn’t deny her freedom of speech. She still expressed her view and she defended it. Unfortunately the consequences of exercising her right ended up getting her impeached.
This didn’t deny her freedom of speech. She still expressed her view and she defended it. Unfortunately the consequences of exercising her right ended up getting her impeached.
Peter, do you understand what impeachment proceedings are for in any serious deliberative body? Do you understand why the federal constitution prescribes a supermajority to pass a resolution of expulsion? Do you understand why no one from the opposition was expelled from Congress during any recent period when one one party had a supermajority in said bodies?
Art Deco x, this is a private school. The student body is not the government. They have their own rules. If they were violated they have every right to impeach if they followed their rules on doing it.
Being impeached doesn’t prevent the student from expressing her views at all.
Again, Olly and I can explain something to you. We cannot comprehend it for you.
The student government is there for the same purpose.
Actually, they usually distribute other people’s money to favored student groups. Some of them are as conscientious as they can manage with that, and some are not. Sometimes there is also discussion of the latest clueless initiative from the Dean of Students’ office. Fussing over someone’s opinion about immigration policy is silly. A discussion of how she treats her bf would be more relevant.
Actually, they usually distribute other people’s money to favored student groups. Some of them are as conscientious as they can manage with that, and some are not. Sometimes there is also discussion of the latest clueless initiative from the Dean of Students’ office.
Sure DSS. I was speaking generally on the purpose for government. What you described is how they function, which is not any different than how our federal government functions.
Svelaz:
“Problem is since this is a private school they really don’t have any obligation to respect free speech rights. It doesn’t matter what they “promise”. It’s a religious institution as you said. They are not required to accept or tolerate different views. The student body’s own standards were allegedly violated and this being a higher learning institution it wouldn’t be a good idea to micromanage every aspect of what students decide. ”
*********************************
It took about five minutes to find out that LMU is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. In their standards, the following is required for accreditation:
1.3
The institution publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty, staff, and students, and acts accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the academy are free to share their convictions and responsible conclusions with their colleagues and students in their teaching and writing.
Guidelines: The institution has published or has readily available policies on academic freedom. For those institutions that strive to instill specific beliefs and world views, policies clearly state how these views are implemented and ensure that these conditions are consistent with generally recognized principles of academic freedom. Due-process procedures are disseminated, demonstrating that faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth.
Thus the sanctioning body standards and regulations require an open and free forum of ideas. If I’m our saucy Latinx, I’m throwing this right in their ivy-covered faces.
Mespo, all you provided was a boilerplate standard that doesn’t protect anyone from facing the consequences of exercising their academic freedom if it ends up causing unexpected ramifications. It also states,
“ For those institutions that strive to instill specific beliefs and world views, policies clearly state how these views are implemented and ensure that these conditions are consistent with generally recognized principles of academic freedom.”
It’s a suggestion. Not an absolute requirement.
“ Due-process procedures are disseminated, demonstrating that faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth.”
She was not denied due process. She had an opportunity to defend her views and they determined she violated the rules. She can still appeal and have them reconsider. All due process afforded to her is being followed.
Svalez,
It seems you agree with the Soviet saying that was quoted by @Svelaz (whose name you seem to have copied), that “the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but does not guarantee freedom after speech.”
Prof. Turley is correct in his comments. The actions taken by the student body are inexcusable.
Islander,
“ It seems you agree with the Soviet saying that was quoted by @Svelaz (whose name you seem to have copied), that “the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but does not guarantee freedom after speech.”
I’m still the same guy. I don’t know why you are referring it as it’s two different people.
Anyway, the constitution does guarantee free speech. What is doesn’t guarantee is the consequences from exercising it. Nowhere in the constitution or any state of federal law says you have a right to be protected from the consequences of exercising free speech.
All the first amendment does is prohibits government stopping you from expressing your views. Government cannot punish you from expressing criticism, controversial views, of vile ideas, etc. It’s a guarantee that government can’t send you to jail or fine you or prohibits others from saying things.
Now remember this only applies to government. Not private institutions. They can still censor you or punish you for saying things that are critical of the private institutions or company you work for.
The student body is not a public government entity. The student wasn’t and still isn’t being prevented from exercising her free speech rights. Having free speech rights doesn’t mean protection from the consequences of exercising it.
Turley is not right here. He’s ignoring the fact that this is a private school. Not a government run school.
Now remember this only applies to government. Not private institutions. They can still censor you or punish you for saying things that are critical of the private institutions or company you work for.
1. Does the university receive federal funds in any way?
2. From their website: The ASLMU Senate is comprised of 21 student leaders representing different constituency groups.
Impeaching Martinez doesn’t just remove her voice from this student government, it removes the voice of the constituency group(s) she represents. How do you not see this as tyranny of the majority?
Olly, this is a private religious school. I don’t think it receives significant federal funding.
Tyranny of the majority? Wow, that’s funny. This is a private religious school.
If they chose to impeach her because they determined she violated the rules it’s their prerogative.
Liberty university had very little academic freedoms. It had the tyranny of just one individual. The school’s journalism department was constantly censored by Jerry Falwell jr. It was all legal. This schools student body is no different when it chose to impeach. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
I don’t think it receives significant federal funding.
What’s significant is if they receive any federal funding, which exposes their governance under federal regulations.
Tyranny of the majority? Wow, that’s funny. This is a private religious school.
Why is that funny? Private religious schools, like our government, aren’t populated by angels.
It was all legal…Why is that so difficult to grasp?
Why is it so difficult for you to distinguish the difference between legal and just?
Liberty university had very little academic freedoms. It had the tyranny of just one individual.
You need to understand the distinction between the formal and the functional. Liberty has over the years offered polite fora for liberal speakers. You won’t find examples of the cancel culture there. And Liberty is quite upfront about what its institutional purpose is and what the implications of that are in the life of the school. So’s Brigham Young. That’s why FIRE doesn’t rate these schools.
“But obviously the consequences of expressing a view like that wouldn’t just be blindly accepted because she has free speech rights.”
JT said nothing about the need for her views to be “blindly accepted” by her fellow students. What he did say was that “The university needs to act to protect those who are being attacked” for their views. Her fellow students who disagreed with her views were allowed to voice their opposition, yet the still chose to attack her and her views through impeachment (aka/ censorship).
If you can’t understand the difference, then you’re a classic example of the type of German who exposed the locations of the hated Juden to the Gestapo in Nazi Germany so that they could be sent off to the concentration camps.
Which is no surprise coming from a PTS sufferer like you.
Rhodes,
“ The university needs to act to protect those who are being attacked” for their views.”
No they don’t. The university is not obligated to protect the student from the consequences of her exercising free speech. It’s the student who made the choice to exercise it. The school had no part in that choice.
It’s a big part of that “personal responsibility” conservatives always talk about. She’s a college student fully capable of making independent decisions and fully accountable for the consequences of those choices.
Turley states that opposing views or controversial views SHOULD be tolerated. That’s basically saying people should be accepting of the idea that tolerance is required. That’s not so.
Impeachment is not censorship. They are two different things. Impeachment doesn’t stop the student from still expressing her unpopular views. Censorship does. She wasn’t censored.
Free speech doesn’t guarantee anyone protection from the consequences of exercising it. All the first amendment guarantees is that the government cannot stop you from stating your views or opinions or criticism. It doesn’t protect anyone from the consequences.
That’s a very limited view of the 1st amendment. What good is the freedom to speak if doing so opens the gates of hell on your life, liberty, property and freedom of conscience? In your view, you’re free to speak but you deserve no other protections when you do. Our founding generation were free to speak out against the abuses of the King, but according to you, they had no right beyond that.
The same people advocating for rights, equality, and better conditions for illegal aliens are the same one censoring freedom of speech (a right), defaming and initiating hostility for those Americans with divergent views! Sad!
Martinez’s point was addressing the injustice of the very consequences you assert those exercising their free speech rights deserve. And to prove her point, we get the following:
Fellow Diversity and Inclusion student Senator Camille Orozco cited such statements as the basis for impeachment under Article 8 in the student body bylaws as “conduct that severely damages the integrity or authority of ASLMU or the office held by the individual in question.
So in our opinion, the colonists were free to complain about their abuse of rights, but they deserved the piling on they got. Jews were free to complain but they deserved extermination for doing so.
Damn!
Olly,
“ What good is the freedom to speak if doing so opens the gates of hell on your life, liberty, property and freedom of conscience? In your view, you’re free to speak but you deserve no other protections when you do.”
Like many here, you’re missing the whole point of what freedom of speech is about.
Freedom of speech is not just about being able to express your views freely. It’s also about acknowledging and accepting the responsibility that comes with it. Meaning recognition of the fact that your views may be unpopular or very controversial. Nothing protects you from the criticism, ridicule, dismissal, or punishment from exercising it. The only exception is government. The constitution doesn’t expressly state you are protected from people’s criticism or opinions about your views. Remember this is only a limitation of government. Not private individuals or other organizations who are not part of the government.
Rhodes, colonists were still British citizens, freedom of speech was not guaranteed to them. The constitution doesn’t apply since they didn’t have one. (🤦♂️).
Jews were not protected from our constitution because…they lived in Germany under nazi rule.
Our founding generation, after the ratification of the constitution, had a right to criticize the king any way they wanted. At the time nobody disagreed with that sentiment. This also meant that those who expressed views favorable of the king and British ideals at the time were protected from GOVERNMENT retribution or punishment, such as jail, fines, or censorship. That protection does not extend to people criticizing or punishing by firing or refusing to hire you for such views. It’s the consequences that you have to contend with when you choose to exercise your freedom of speech. It involves responsibility too. Not just an ability to say things freely.
Our founding generation, after the ratification of the constitution, had a right to criticize the king any way they wanted.
Wow, you missed the entire point of the DoI. The founders rejected the Divine Right of Kings. They made the case that it is the natural and unalienable right of the people to petition the governing authority when that authority abuses their lives, their liberty, their property and all other acts that affect their safety and happiness. They had this right before our constitution was ratified. Your position is because the King didn’t recognize those unalienable rights, the colonists deserved whatever abuse the King wanted to hand down. In the same vein, according to you, Martinez was free to advocate for her constituency, but any expression that didn’t toe the line would be met with retribution. That’s not anything other than tyranny. The 1st amendment is intended to protect us from abuses of government, but the principles expressed in it are fundamental to an ordered society.
Olly, your argument is becoming a rant trying to move the goalposts.
First you never specified that you were referring to the Declaration of Independence. We are talking about freedom of speech speech in the constitution.
Your diatribe about the founders rejecting the notion of Devine right of Kings has nothing to do with freedom of speech and the consequences of exercising it.
The first amendment let’s people say stupid things, controversial things, unpopular things without fear of retribution from GOVERNMENT. What it does not do is protect those people from the consequences of saying those things such as getting criticized, ostracized, lambasted, or punished by private citizens or non-governmental organizations such as private institutions (schools) or companies.
“ The 1st amendment is intended to protect us from abuses of government, but the principles expressed in it are fundamental to an ordered society.”
Nope. The student body isn’t government as it is implied by the 1st amendment. The student body is not obligated to abide by it if it chooses to.
Principles are all fine and dandy, but the fact remains the limitations of the 1st amendment apply only to our government. Not a private school or its student government body.
your argument is becoming a rant trying to move the goalposts.
First you never specified that you were referring to the Declaration of Independence. We are talking about freedom of speech speech in the constitution.
Moving the goalposts? You cannot have a conversation about freedom of speech without considering the DoI. Why do you believe the Articles of Confederation was scrapped? Our constitution exists because of the DoI. Our constitutional republic endures because it is rooted in the fundamental principles articulated in the DoI. Lincoln articulates this point beautifully.
A Fragment on the Constitution and the Union
All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all” — the principle that clears the path for all — gives hope to all — and, by consequence, enterprize, and industry to all.
The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.
The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple — not the apple for the picture.
So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken.
That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger. Abraham Lincoln
Olly, you’re veering way off course here. We are not discussing the origins of free speech here. We are discussing the meaning of the clause.
The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to the fact that freedom of speech is only guaranteed from infringement from our own government. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of exercising it.
Turley is complaining this student is being unfairly punished because she said something the student council deemed a violation of their rules. He claims freedom of speech is being trampled here when in fact none of that happened. This student is still able to express her views. It’s the consequence of doing so that he sees as an “attack” instead of recognizing it for what it is.
Turley leaves out the fact that this is a private religious school which is not obligated to honor the 1st amendment because it is NOT a government entity.
The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to the fact that freedom of speech is only guaranteed from infringement from our own government.
If you believe I’m the one veering off course, then it’s because you are not even on the road.
Irrelevant? You are proving you have no idea how and why our government exists.
“One student is quoted on social media as saying ‘it’s a f***ing seat on a random student government senate.'” If the purpose of her seat on the senate is to allow her to represent the views of likeminded students, then those students are being silenced by the majority, AND If the school has a Free Speech Director, that person’s job CLEARLY is to protect Martinez so she can express the views of likeminded students. If the school has an impeachment procedure, that procedure is undoubtedly for sanctioning gross misconduct (advocating or engaging in violence, looting, burning, doxing, disorderly conduct–shyea, good luck with that), NOT sanctioning free expression. The only legitimate argument you have is that the school and students have a constitutional right to exercise gross hypocrisy in their own charters, and I might agree with you, but if the school takes federal money, then they have to comply with federal standards like Title 9 and FREE SPEECH, or they can expect to have their funding withdrawn. In any event, I would not want my child being taught by these “f***ing” Marxists.
Sorry to comment twice in the same thread, but I am so tired of this rationale for suppressing free speech.
The reality is that speech is only free is you have a culture that is tolerant. I can define that for you — tolerance is putting up with ideas, people, and whatever else you can think of whom you find obnoxious. The first tolerant act in the West (and I think the first in the world) was the Edict of Nantes, promulgated by Henri IV in 1598 to end fifty years of religious wars in France. It ‘tolerated’ the Huguenots, who had torn France asunder in their quest to capture the throne (since the King determined the religion). The new king, a converted Huguenot, tolerated the rebels under certain conditions. He could have annihilated them, but he followed the policity of the politiques, a group of thinkers who put country above religion and sought peace after so much war.
At the moment, those who are trying to impose their views by no-platforming, suppressing speech, and forcing submission are the Huguenots. We are still awaiting our Henri IV. While we are, it is worth pondering what free speech really means — it is not just protection from the government, it is also protection from Facebook and Twitter and the mob and the Democratic and Republican parties, and your boss, who might just read your Twitter feed or your Facebook page and decide you need to be de-platformed, fired, erased from polite company.
I mourn for my country if this is where we are at the moment, and I long for the Free Speech Movement of the early 1960s.
(Apologies for any typos in this or previous posts. Hard to proof-read pixels.)
According to your logic, Soveits could say anything they wanted. The weren’t stopped from saying it but the consequence was going to a concentration camp and thats okay. Man it’s just to twisted in here.
According to svelez, the individual in France that had their throat slit wasn’t a victim. It was just the consequences of exercising their free speech.
Diversity and Inclusion student Senator…. Director of Free Speech & Expression… What a bunch of Orwellian titles. Looking at the Loyola Marymount University website, on its home page in prominent letters is the slogan “Create the world you want to live in.” This “creation” is basically what all this suppression of free speech and academic mobbing do. The thing is, how mature and experienced are such students to create any sort of world? What happened to learning about that world as it is first, as well as how it really got here? Just based on that naive slogan, this would not be a school of choice for anyone serious about obtaining an education.
“I have served for more than two decades as a university president, the past 17 years leading Columbia University. I am also a lifelong First Amendment scholar and have written books and essays to try to understand and explain why our laws and norms have evolved as they have. In both these capacities, I can attest that attitudes about the First Amendment are evolving.
The president’s claim that the campus free-speech order was needed to defend “American values that have been under siege” ignored two essential facts. First, universities are, today, more hospitable venues for open debate than the nation as a whole. Second, not only have fierce arguments over where to draw the line on acceptable speech been a familiar occurrence in the United States for the past century, but such dialogue has also been indispensable to building a society that embraces the First Amendment. From flag burning to Holocaust denial, Americans of all ages have been grappling with basic questions about offensive speech for decades and will continue to do so for as long as the country strives for this ideal of openness and freedom of expression. Exchanges over the boundaries of campus speech should therefore be welcomed rather than reviled when they take place.
According to a 2016 Knight Foundation survey, 78 percent of college students reported they favor an open learning environment that includes offensive views. President Trump may be surprised to learn that the U.S. adult population as a whole lags well behind, with only 66 percent of adults favoring uninhibited discourse.
At Columbia and at thousands of other schools across the United States, controversial ideas are routinely expressed by speakers on both the left and the right, and have been for decades. In fact, Columbia University is something of a magnet for provocative speakers. During the 2017–18 academic year, the conservative radio talk-show host and author Dennis Prager spoke at Columbia. The Fox News legal commentator Alan Dershowitz, the 2016 Republican Party presidential candidate Herman Cain, and the immigration activist Mark Krikorian spoke too—all without incident. The conservative political commentator, author, and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza, after his talk, remarked on the civility of the discussion he encountered in his visit to Morningside Heights. The conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Mike Cernovich also spoke freely at Columbia, as did Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon. These speakers encountered varying degrees of student protest, an essential feature of a true free-speech environment that not only welcomes but relishes contentious debate.
It’s true that, in recent years, there have been more than a few sensational reports—at places such as Middlebury, William & Mary, and UC Berkeley—of misguided demands for censorship on campus, providing a ready, if false, narrative about liberal colleges and universities retreating from the open debate they claim to champion.
Still, the surest evidence of censorship or the suppression of ideas on college campuses is the disinvitation of controversial speakers. There are more than 4,500 colleges and universities in the United States, and each year they host thousands of speakers of all political stripes. According to FIRE, a watchdog group that focuses on civil liberties in academia, only 11 speakers were disinvited from addressing college audiences in 2018. This is a minuscule fraction of the universe of speakers who express their views annually on American campuses.
Tom Nichols: Don’t let students run the university
Because I am of the view that one such disinvitation is one too many, I have said that I will personally introduce controversial figures who were rejected elsewhere. Nevertheless, I understand when members of our university community raise alarms that certain individuals, based on their track record, cross the line from merely controversial to offensive.
When students express concern and discomfort about speech that is hateful, racist, or noxious in other ways, they are doing nothing unreasonable or historically unprecedented. A number of other democracies take a less absolute view on this topic—yet remain democracies. Moreover, the prevailing American conception of free speech and press rights is a relatively recent development when located in the sweep of time and the history of our nation. The challenge of resolving the tensions inherent in a tolerant society is still very much with us and is likely to remain so….”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/free-speech-crisis-campus-isnt-real/591394/
“A number of other democracies take a less absolute view on this topic—yet remain democracies.”
***********************
In name only and are the poorer for it.
Incidentally, FIRE has stated that this past term was the busiest of their existence. That’s sort of the whole point – being laissez faire about the holistic health of a society is what leads to people beheading even ‘Anonymous’, these things are generally exponential and generational in their proliferation, and the older tools involved are well aware of that fact. That link is a pee-poor excuse and little else. My personal feeling is that a some slip under the radar because, being gigantic ignoramuses that have an intellectual oeuvre that ranges all the way from Facebook to Instagram, the kids don’t know who half of those people are. Ignorance is bliss, I guess, and no amount of limp wristed butt-covering on the part of faculty will change the rest.
Bollinger translated: “Abuse? What abuse? Look at all the parts of her body that don’t have bruises and broken bones.”
It is revealing that he whitewashes Columbia’s shameful history of discrimination against conservative speakers, and that he misrepresents some of the cases he cites, e.g., Ambassador Danon. By mischaracterizing a “speech” as a “debate,” he tries to evade the fact that campus fascists use the “shout down” to deny a speaker the right to speak.
Who gets to define “hateful, racist or noxious” i have seen these terms twisted out of any close meaning to a legal or dictionary definition. That is the frightening factor in this debate.
It’s not frightening. It’s disgusting. Another thing that hits you is how extraneous the controversy is to the mundane business of a student council.
You left a small part out. She can appeal and if her she loses she will be subjected to a Removal Trial. These instances are becoming more prevalent. By this logic if somone is in this country illegally it would be offensive to call them an illegal German alien or an illegal French alien or an illegal English alien. Dictionary Alien: Belonging to another foreign nation or country. The first red flag I read is: “The meaning of free speech is evolving”. Oh now I understand, the meaning of “alien” is evolving. Newsspeak.
Are these universities accepting state and federal dollars? Isn’t there a 14th Amendment which protects against unequal application of law? Are states and the federal government permitted under the 14th Amendment permitted to give money to discriminatory organizations?
Sue the States and Federal government under the 14th Amendment to stop grants and loans to stop these discriminatory practices.
Everyone needs to remember that the people in these student governments will one day be serving in our actual government. Still think it’s just youthful naiveté that will be outgrown in the ‘real’ world? This goes for liberals too. Feinstein is an ‘old school dem’ and they are coming for her head after this week. Their problem isn’t just ideological – it’s also the simple fact that you exist and you are in their way, and they are now entering mainstream society in earnest. It’s ironic to me that woke leftists display more open hatred than any racist idiot did in less enlightened times. These are not normal kids, and they are not alright.
Offspring
https://youtu.be/7iNbnineUCI
I guess the Director of Free Speech and Expression sees her job as directing students as to what speech they may express freely and what they may not. It’sca very Leninist version of free speech.
These students have the excuse of immaturity and no one at the university that sets an example. It’s sad because they end up like Joe Friday, PaintChips and Anonymous whose combined intellect doesn’t move the scale.
Faculty are commonly self-centered bubble-dwellers without much integrity. If you’re expecting models of good behavior from faculty, you’ll be disappointed.
Yes that is what we are seeing today. Did you think I felt differently?
Universities are the breeding ground for everything that can be construed as what bad America has done.
Free Speech, a constitutionally protected right is being pissed on by Universities, and by their students who are given a pass because the Universities are scared Shi1less of being cancelled.
They’re more like a “search and destroy” mission and we supply the war chest.
“Student governments are not invitation to institute Robespierrean justice.”
********************
In my experience with them and against them, that’s exactly what they are. They ought to be banned. Kids 18-22 don’t have the maturity, brain development, experience or candlepower to handle decisions like this. And these “revolutionary tribunals” have far-reaching consequences to the accused that these kids NEVER consider hence the standard of proof is basically “well, like let me look it up on my iPhone and see like what Twitter thinks.”
Yep. And those Robespierres-in-training have great mentors: the faculty who practice “Academic Mobbing” — a “sophisticated, ‘ganging up’ behaviour adopted by academicians to ‘wear and tear’ a colleague down emotionally through unjustified accusation, humiliation, general harassment and emotional abuse.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170397/#:~:text=Academic%20mobbing%20is%20a%20non,general%20harassment%20and%20emotional%20abuse.
Sam:
“Yep. And those Robespierres-in-training have great mentors:”
********************************************
In my experience limited though it may be, moral courage isn’t in abundant display on college campuses. They talk a good game but when it gets down to it, it’s about job security, career advancement and pensions. Principles be damned, I want tenure. Must be a terrible way to live. It’s why I admire John Adams and the rest of the Founders so much. They put it all on the line. And Adams did it before the Declaration of Independence defending the King’s detachment in the Boston Massacre.
mespo: “In my experience limited though it may be, moral courage isn’t in abundant display on college campuses.”
Sadly, you are correct. For years, I gave campus talks criticizing multiculturalism and diversity. Invariably, after the talk, one or two professors (often tenured!) would pull me aside to thank me for expressing ideas they were afraid to defend. I finally asked one of the cowards why he didn’t speak up. His response was: “Because I have to work with those people.”
They actually do not. The work of a faculty member requires less co-operation with others than does the work of any other person employed in higher education, much less a person employed at a commercial firm. What they don’t want is tension in meetings and in the faculty rathskellar.
AD: “What they don’t want is tension in meetings and in the faculty rathskellar.”
You’re exactly right. Those faculty cowards fear being shunned by the “cool kids” in the faculty lounge.
Sam:
I’m sympathetic to them. it’s a tough job market and I’m impressed you sallied forth to say what you said. That’s tough, too.
This is true, of course, but it is equally true that the Svengalis in question know these little tools are the future even at least tangentially, and they will continue to feign bending over backward to corral them. It’s already beginning to backfire, though, and anyone that considers themselves to be older and above all that really needs to take the time to consider the implications toward their future regardless of political affiliation. These kids are nuts, they lack the tools necessary to likely ever ‘grow up’, and they ain’t going anywhere.
Actually, what they are is inane cosplay, for the most part. To the extent they’re not, they’re the issue of a corrupt practice – the assessment of mandatory student fees.
I’ve been both a student and an institutional employee. In both my stints on campus, the student government was a collecting pool of amiable (or faux-amiable) resume puffers. Sort of disconcerting it’s now collecting weird political sectaries.
They tend to lack,,,perspective. Here’s a creature from Colgate University.
“Sophomore Kelsey Bonham revealed that she had torn down several of the “Join the Pro-Life Generation” posters that hung around campus.“I took down several of the pro-life posters that they had posted around campus for multiple reasons, partially because they were factually incorrect and spreading misinformation and should not be protected under free speech,” Bonham said.”
She engaged in vandalism and should be punished for it. But in certain areas people live as though they are living in a theocracy where their ability to think is secondary to that of a malevolent cultish church. They excommunicate other students from student councils because they didn’t tap the rock 3 times and bow to the satanic monster on the corner. Aside from the vandalism or force possibly used on another person they didn’t break any state laws. Maybe there are financial penalties but that isn’t important.
We can see the support these theocrats have from people that haven’t learned how to think. If it isn’t unlawful it’s ok because those that cannot think do not understand what justice is. This is what we are creating. Today the theocracy involves little things. Tomorrow the theocracy enslaves the population.
The Svelaz’s of the world cannot differentiate between law and justice because justice doesn’t exist in their world. As this type of leadership becomes more emboldened, depending on where and when, they create a name or a party. In the past some of the names used was Nazi, Stalin and Mao. They are loved by those blind to the pain and suffering of others.
The Slavaz’s of the world will wear their colors and display their symbols on their shoulders because it makes them feel more like a man. But in truth they are not men but little animals that scurry around for whatever food they can pick off the dirty sections of the street until they themselves are next in line.
I’ve had a suspicion for some time that a number of the leftoids here are getting farmed out assignments from some sorosphere outfit. They pick such sh!t sandwich behavior to invest in defending.
Honestly, if that is the case then they must be picking the likes of drunks and addicts off the street. I have never encountered such a group of Stupid people in my life. I have not been isolated from such people or decent people without educations but the former group seems to thrive on being ignorant and without any moral focus.