Northwestern Students Demand Removal Of Trustee Chair From Presidential Search Due To Trump Support

We have been discussing the rising intolerance for conservatives and Republicans on campuses around the country.  My alma mater, Northwestern University has been increasingly intolerant as a university due in large part to the failure of its president and the administration to protect free speech and diversity of viewpoints.  Now the student government has asked the university to remove the chairman of the board of trustees from a presidential search committee.  The disqualifying element for Board of Trustees Chair J. Landis Martin is that he supported former President Donald Trump as a donor.  Notably, the students emphasized that Northwestern is now so overwhelmingly liberal that even one conservative on the committee is offensive and threatening.

This was notably not some small minority of students or groups. The Daily Northwestern reported “the bill passed with 17 votes in favor and one nay vote from the NU College Republicans senator.”

The objection was due to Martin’s $30,000 donation to Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign. Student senator Jo Scaletty told the Daily Northwestern “He donated to Donald Trump who has demonstrated significant sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia.” The resolution specifically states: “Whereas, the 2020 ASG survey demonstrates that the median student at Northwestern identifies with a Left political ideology.”

So the students oppose even a committee member who represents an opposing view. It is the ultimately example of viewpoint hegemony and hostility. These students have been taught that they should actively seek to exclude opposing views and that they have a right to expect the faculty, and presidency, to reliably liberal.

To their credit, they are at least more honest than most of their faculty.  Many faculty members continue to pretend that they are not hostile to conservative or libertarian faculty candidates despite virtually purging top faculties of such colleagues. Whenever a conservative or libertarian scholar is proposed, faculty members declare that their work is not sufficiently interesting or probative — the same argument once used against liberal academics. The prejudice against conservatives (including on academic journals) is shocking and stifling but few faculty members are willing to admit that the small number of such faculty members is not a weird accident.

One recent poll shows the already small population of conservative and Republican students has been cut by roughly half. The Crimson survey covered over 76 percent of the Harvard College Class of 2024 and found that the class contained 72.4 percent who self-identify as either “very liberal” or “somewhat liberal.” Only 7.4 percent self-identify as “very conservative” or “somewhat conservative.”  Another Harvard study showed that 35 percent of conservatives felt that they could share their views on campus. As faculties continue to block the few remaining Republican and conservative faculty, there is an open shunning of such academics in publications and conferences. At the same time, conservative speakers are routinely banned or opposed in speaking on campuses. Academics have called for even more open and direct purging of universities of Republican faculty.  Others have called for banning such figures from campuses.  Blacklisting and banishments are now in vogue.

This is not the only attack on conservatives on boards recently. A University of Massachusetts Professor wrote a column alleging that universities are actually “Right-wing institutions.” He relied on the fact that many board members are CEOs or MBA holders.

What is so chilling about this resolution is that it tells the over 70 million Americans who voted for Trump that they are not welcomed at Northwestern.  Moreover, it tells conservative or libertarian alumni that they can give money to the university but they will not be tolerated in playing any role in shaping the university.

Martin received both a bachelor’s degree and a J.D. degree from Northwestern. He worked as an attorney at Kirkland & Ellis and was chief executive officer of NL Industries. He founded the private equity firm, Platte River Ventures. He was also the founding chairman of Crown Castle International Corp. These students of course do not object to being the recipients of his considerable financial support, including working out at the athletics complex that was built in part with a $15 million donation from Martin.

The ultimate responsibility for this insulting resolution is the Northwestern faculty and administration. They have created a culture where the student representatives almost unanimously declare that no Trump supporter will be tolerated in having a voice on the future university leadership.  Northwestern is now viewed by the students as committed to the maintenance of “a Left political ideology.”

 

240 thoughts on “Northwestern Students Demand Removal Of Trustee Chair From Presidential Search Due To Trump Support”

  1. Quotes from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”————-

    They had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes. (Fabricated Lies) Chapter 7—————–
    It was absolutely necessary, he said, that the pigs, who were the brains of the farm, should have a quiet place to work in (Universities). Squealer speaking in Chapter 6.————————- ORWELL THE SEER!

  2. With each passing day, the similarities of what’s sweeping the country to Mao’s Cultural Revolution and university students’ acting no different than Mao’s Red Guard grow. How frightening.

  3. When will people stop calling Democrats, democratic and called them what they are…COMMUNISTS.
    Who want to destroy America and dominate the American taxpaying citizens.

  4. Northwestern is suppose to be a teaching institution. The students are giving them a teaching moment. Let see if they can meet the challenge and teach.

  5. Conservatives can fight back….cut the flow of their monies to the Colleges and Universities….even demand refunds and see how the Lefties scream when their subsidized rides go away and they have to start paying the Bills.

    I know….Lefties paying their OWN way is not part of that agenda they embrace but it is a thought.

    1. Conservatives need to be more aggressive. We need to work withour own children spending time to make them able to look broadly rather than narrowly. We need our children to stand up in class. We need to be by their sides to protect them from leftists that get physical such as Antifa and BLM. We also need to protect against Islamists. (Note I didn’t say Islam . Leftists that have problems with the real meaning of words)

      1. S. Meyer,

        “ Conservatives need to be more aggressive. We need to work withour own children spending time to make them able to look broadly rather than narrowly. ”

        That’s hilarious. Students who look more broadly are more liberal than conservative. Conservative students look at everything as narrowly as possible. That’s why they often demand rules or laws be interpreted with a narrow view or that issues need be seen in a narrow fashion. Stating “we need to be spending time to make them look broadly” is exactly what a liberal school does. How else do you think students accept ideas such as the existence of trans students, or homosexuality, or the notion of same sex marriage. Even critical race theory. That requires them to look at things broadly. Conservatives are the opposite. They see things more narrowly.

        You just basically proved that schools are doing exactly what you are suggesting.

        1. Looking to implement Marxist-type solutions is not thinking broadly. It is adopting one of the most restrictive ideas that exist. You have no understanding of what a broad education is. You are ignorant of everything outside of your blinders.

          1. S. Meyer,

            CRT is not Marxist, it’s not an ideology.

            LEARNING about it or being exposed to the idea among many IS thinking broadly. Discussion of the concept IS thinking broadly.

            It has nothing to do with any type of restrictive notions. Conservatives WANT to avoid discussion of it because it brings up uncomfortable truths. It’s the discussion that broadens one’s thinking.

            You’re displaying exactly what you are accusing me of. Ignorance. If you were capable of recognizing that you wouldn’t be making such situations ignorant comments.

            1. Svelaz, there is no problem learning about Marxism. In fact, I wish you would because then you wouldn’t be so ignorant. The Marxist fight based on class disintegrated. It is now based on color. I am not saying, strict Marxism, since very few understand the principles and foundations of Marxism. However, CRT is definitely an extension of the ‘Marxist’ attempts that have plagued and tired to destroy those with a bit more common sense.

              SM

              1. Anonymous SM,

                “ The Marxist fight based on class disintegrated. It is now based on color. I am not saying, strict Marxism, since very few understand the principles and foundations of Marxism. However, CRT is definitely an extension of the ‘Marxist’ attempts that have plagued and tired to destroy those with a bit more common sense.”

                No SM. Marxism is not now being based on color. It never has been. The only person referencing it as an “extension” of Marxism is some alleged scholar at an ALEC conference SUGGESTING the notion. Not directly claiming it is. I know where the notion of CRT being a notion of Marxism came from.

                Right leaning think tanks are using this dubious idea to discredit or dissuade any discussion of CRT. CRT is about confronting the racism throughout our own history and it’s continued effects in the present. Florida governor DeSantis recently signed a law making it a requirement that students be taught about the Holocaust and why it happened. CRT should be taught just the same. The reason why it’s easier to mandate the teaching of the Holocaust is because it doesn’t involve our own nation as the perpetrator. CRT does involve our nation. That’s the part most conservatives are uncomfortable with because it is an unpleasant truth.

                1. “No SM. Marxism is not now being based on color. “

                  The Marxist effort (broadly speaking, check above for what was said) first involved class and now is involving color.

                  The Holocaust and Slavery along with racism should be discussed in our schools along with first amendment freedoms. CRT is racism and contrary to the first amendment. You do not understand what CRT is. That is understandable because it is far above your pay-grade.

                  SM

                  1. Anonymous SM,

                    “ CRT is racism and contrary to the first amendment. You do not understand what CRT is.”

                    No, it is very obvious you have not read or even researched CRT. Teaching CRT is no different than teaching about the Holocaust.

                    Again, Marxism is not being taught or is not now being about color instead of class. It’s not even compatible. Right leaning think tanks are the only ones pushing this false narrative about CRT. There is no Marxist effort. It doesn’t exist. It’s just not a thing.

                    The only reason they are doing that is because they don’t want any real discussion of what CRT brings up. It’s an uncomfortable reality that out history is rife with racism and it continues to this day. The legacy of racist legislation and its implementation in the judicial system and it’s effects are a fundamental issue in how minorities, blacks, Asians, native Americans, etc. are faring today.

                    Just like the Holocaust we learned about it and know why it happened because it is taught in school. CRT is no different, the only exception is that WE are the source instead of the Germans in relation to the Holocaust. CRT is more about acknowledging the fact that we do have and continue to have a problem with racism.

                    1. Merrick Garland just made a speech where he says the government will now determine what is hate speech and ban hate speech…I wonder what the penalty will be?…why can’t I determine hate speech?…so now the government plus social media will determine hate speech…well there goes the first amendment…what’s next?…remove the next 24 too…big and ever growing government sure looks promising if you like communism…when does the government ban and control Hollywood?…they use guns, drugs, tobacco, bombs, murder, rape, gangs, violence, alcohol, suicide to make billions of dollars/year but since Hollywood is mostly liberal and donates millions to liberals they just give each other awards…wow…what a country!

                    2. ” CRT. Teaching CRT is no different than teaching about the Holocaust.”

                      Svelaz, you can say that with certainty, yet you cannot define what CRT is, nor can you tell us how it is used. That is a sign of ignorance beyond normality. It’s a sign of a blind follower who memorizes what he is told to repeat.

                      “Again, Marxism is not being taught”

                      I didn’t say Marxism is being taught though in some way it is. You don’t even know what Marxism is. Yet, you tell us that item A is unrelated to item B. Another sign of ignorance from one who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

                      “Right leaning think tanks are the only ones pushing this false narrative about CRT. ”

                      How can you say a false narrative about CRT is being pushed when you cannot tell us what you think CRT is? The experts on CRT differ considerably in what they say. That is why you cannot define CRT, along with the fact that the experts of CRT hope you never learn.

                      “The only reason they are doing that is because they don’t want any real discussion of what CRT brings up. ”

                      How can anyone discuss CRT until CRT’s parameters are revealed. Again, you are demonstrating that ignorance that plagues you here and elsewhere.

                      A Partial Explanation of CRT Follows.

                    3. A Partial Explanation of CRT: (Svelaz said: “it is very obvious you have not read or even researched CRT. )

                      “reality that out history is rife with racism”

                      That is a chronic problem worldwide, but again, you cannot define CRT or tell us how it gets rid of racism.

                      Is equity your answer? Let’s start everyone on a different place in the race track, so they all finish equally? That sounds pretty stupid.

                      We should be looking for equality under the law, not equity. CRT is not interested in breaking the color boundary, CRT is interested in making the color boundary more prevalent, more racist. They say that the white guy who won the race won it because of his whiteness, not his athletic ability. That, of course, is according to CRT. Therefore, to produce equity rather than equality under the law, tie a ball and chain to his sneakers.

                      “Just like the Holocaust we learned about it and know why it happened because it is taught in school. CRT is no different”

                      That is pure ignorance talking. What CRT is actually creating is the German equivalent of the Holocaust. It is determining the lives of people based on color and race. It is Nazism of a different sort. It is creating a mirror image of the racism seen in the racists of the past.

                      CRT seeks to destroy colorblindness, individual rights, private property, school integration, freedom of speech, and meritocracy. CRT wishes to do this by replacing equality with what they consider equity.

                      The above parallels the Marxist push of the 1960’s. Cheryl Harris early on wrote a paper, “Whitenes as Property” She is a critical race theorist. She proposed seizing land and wealth from rich people, suspending property rights and redistributing the land based on race.

                      The Marxist type push used to be based on class. Now it is based on color. You cannot see that Svelaz because you push an ideology without knowing what it is. I am telling you what it is based on one of the foundational papers behind CRT.

                      Start reading what you are talking about. You might be ignorant, but I can’t believe anyone can be as ignorant as you sound. In the end, these people see the end of capitalism and its replacement with collectivism.

      2. Seth,
        I’m not sure what you mean by looking broadly rather than narrowly. I do agree that parents need to be the type of activists that we’re beginning to see at the K-12 level opposing the CRT poison. Colleges and universities are not going to change unless their bottom line is impacted. They need to scrutinize the campus culture and only enroll at schools that truly support and defend the free exchange of ideas.

        1. OLLY,

          “ I do agree that parents need to be the type of activists that we’re beginning to see at the K-12 level opposing the CRT poison. ”

          Sadly those parents really haven’t read or researched what CRT is. They are basing their belief of what it is by what others who have not read it either and criticized it as being a form of Marxism which it is not. Anyone who has actually read it knows that’s not the case.

          “ I’m not sure what you mean by looking broadly rather than narrowly. ”

          You’re gonna have to ask S. Meyer that. He’s the one who suggested conservative parents should encourage their kids to broaden their thinking.

          1. Sadly those parents really haven’t read or researched what CRT is.

            You have no idea what they’ve read, researched or what they are basing their belief on. You are entitled to believe it’s not rooted in Marxist ideology and they have a right to believe it is. I happen to agree with them. Regardless of what you believe it’s roots to be, it is a poison on our culture that needs to be stopped and parents are well within their rights to oppose any teaching they believe is teaching their children to be America-hating racists.

            You’re gonna have to ask S. Meyer that. He’s the one who suggested conservative parents should encourage their kids to broaden their thinking.

            No sh!t you dolt. That’s why my comment was directed to him.

            1. Olly,

              “ You have no idea what they’ve read, researched or what they are basing their belief on.”

              Actually it’s pretty easy to tell they have not due to the fact that they are simply parroting the same talking points made by those who are critical of CRT who clearly have not read it or researched it.

              You claim it’s a poison in our culture because it shows an ugly truth about our history. This is no different than teaching about the Holocaust in Germany, which is required, despite it being an ugly truth about THEIR history in being a part of it.

              CRT is exactly the same thing, but it involves OUR own history in being a part of it.

              Parents opposing this are not doing so because they understand what CRT is. They are doing it because of what they are being TOLD what it is by those who don’t want it discussed and don’t want to acknowledge the ugliness of its premise which is the truth about our country’s long history of racism.

              1. Svelaz, you keep telling everyone they don’t know wha CRT means and those that write opposing CRT are spinning.

                THE ONLY ONE THAT DOESN’T KNOW WHAT CRT IS, IS YOU AND OTHERS LIKE YOU THAT DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ.

              2. Parents opposing this are not doing so because they understand what CRT is. They are doing it because of what they are being TOLD what it is by those who don’t want it discussed and don’t want to acknowledge the ugliness of its premise which is the truth about our country’s long history of racism.

                Svelaz,
                Once again, you presume to know what others know. Can you identify any curriculum in the U.S. that does not teach the history of Slavery, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement? CRT is a systemically racist ideology that is looting our culture of the very idea of equality and justice. CRT is a blatant movement using the Marxist theory of class warfare, replacing class with race.

                Eventually, you will have to do more than opine on why you believe CRT exists and detail what it’s vision is for this country. No, it’s not sufficient to say systemic racism is gone. Paint that picture. If equality is no longer the principle goal; if merit is no longer the standard; if justice is determined by skin color; then we will have regressed 160+ years. It would appear evident the only people ignorant of our racist past are those that are pumping CRT to make it our future.

                Another central tenet of critical race theory is the critique of liberalism. This comes as a shock to most American readers who mistakenly identify critical race Theory as something associated with liberals and liberalism, but CRT is openly an anti-liberal theoretical and political project. The liberal approach to anti-racism is to divest race categories of social significance and treat everyone equally. That is, race is to become largely irrelevant and we, as a society, come to see skin color as having no more significance to a person’s worth or abilities than their hair color. This is referred to by critical race Theorists as “colorblindness” and is deemed highly problematic (see also, racism-blindness). A liberal society aims to make sure that everybody is treated equally by ensuring that race, gender, or sexuality does not prevent anyone from accessing any opportunity and then evaluates each individual on their abilities. This is known as “meritocracy,” which is viewed as a highly problematic ideology white people use to maintain their cultural dominance and justify their own white supremacy.
                https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-race-theory/

          2. “Sadly those parents really haven’t read or researched what CRT is. “

            Svelaz, since so many people believe different things about CRT why don’t you define it, tell us what you hope it will do and why?

            SM

            1. Anonymous SM,

              “ Svelaz, since so many people believe different things about CRT why don’t you define it, tell us what you hope it will do and why?”

              I have already done that SM. But you still haven’t read it or gone out of your way to LEARN for yourself what it really is instead of relying on what others who have not read about it either to tell you what CRT is really about.

              Just like those parents, they are only upset about CRT because of what they are being told, not because they read it themselves and understood what it is.

              1. You did not do a good job defining CRT if you ever did. You don’t have such abilities. Even good writers have difficulty expressing what it is and what it does. When they do, there are marked differences in what they say.

                The problem most writers who are writing in support of CRT, is that it is inherently racist. That creates a difficult problem. How does one define CRT while trying to hide its inherent racism?

                SM

                1. Anonymous SM,

                  “ You did not do a good job defining CRT if you ever did.”

                  I did SM. The problem is YOU still haven’t read it. You haven’t read CRT Itself. I’ve explained it to you multiple times, but if that isn’t helping you then it is YOU who has to read it for yourself and obviously you won’t or simply refuse to. You rely on others who have not read it and criticize it for what they think it says. I went to the trouble of actually reading it in depth and that’s how I know the Marxism narrative being pushed is not true.

                  Follow your own advice SM, broaden your thinking by actually researching CRT.

                  CRT is NOT racist. It’s a discussion ABOUT racism and it’s significance throughout our own history that has been largely shoved under the rug or white washed. It’s about discussion on the effects it continues to have to this day.

                  CRT doesn’t say all white people are oppressors or guilty of being racist or teach children they are racist because they are white. THATS how you know those making claims have NOT read and are putting out false narratives about it.

                  “ How does one define CRT while trying to hide its inherent racism?”

                  You can’t. Because it is not hiding anything. The racism you think it is “hiding” is not racism. Pointing out that there WERE people back then who DID support slavery, legislation limiting blacks rights, different rules for them, etc. People who were white back then who WERE deliberately racist are the ones CRT talks about. It’s not accusing YOU or students of being part of it. But because you either refuse or are too lazy to actually read and research what CRT really says or what others similarly ignorant about what it says tell you you are convinced it is what you think it is.

                  You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force it to drink. I can only lead you to the source, it’s up to you to broaden your thinking and read about it.

                  1. Svelaz, you couldn’t define CRT, so I did it for you in part utilizing what one of the founders of CRT wrote. Since you couldn’t provide a definition, we can use mine and expand on it. I recopied part 2 below.

                    Your claim that I haven’t researched CRT is ludicrous. I rely on papers written by CRT believers and the intellectual spears behind the movement. You rely on your deficient intellectual interpretation of what CRT is without knowing anything. Then you draw conclusions.

                    “it is very obvious you have not read or even researched CRT. “

                    That is the drivel produced to prod low IQ folk or those reliant on the Religion of leftism to proselytize in favor of something they know nothing about.

                    I need not say more. One can look at what I recently wrote and compare it to the garbage you have written here. You should be embarrassed, but you aren’t, which either proves intolerable faith or the utmost stupidity.

                  2. A Partial Explanation of CRT:

                    “reality that out history is rife with racism”

                    That is a chronic problem worldwide, but again, you cannot define CRT or tell us how it gets rid of racism.

                    Is equity your answer? Let’s start everyone on a different place in the race track, so they all finish equally? That sounds pretty stupid.

                    We should be looking for equality under the law, not equity. CRT is not interested in breaking the color boundary, CRT is interested in making the color boundary more prevalent, more racist. They say that the white guy who won the race won it because of his whiteness, not his athletic ability. That, of course, is according to CRT. Therefore, to produce equity rather than equality under the law, tie a ball and chain to his sneakers.

                    “Just like the Holocaust we learned about it and know why it happened because it is taught in school. CRT is no different”

                    That is pure ignorance talking. What CRT is actually creating is the German equivalent of the Holocaust. It is determining the lives of people based on color and race. It is Nazism of a different sort. It is creating a mirror image of the racism seen in the racists of the past.

                    CRT seeks to destroy colorblindness, individual rights, private property, school integration, freedom of speech, and meritocracy. CRT wishes to do this by replacing equality with what they consider equity.

                    The above parallels the Marxist push of the 1960’s. Cheryl Harris early on wrote a paper, “Whitenes as Property” She is a critical race theorist. She proposed seizing land and wealth from rich people, suspending property rights and redistributing the land based on race.

                    The Marxist type push used to be based on class. Now it is based on color. You cannot see that Svelaz because you push an ideology without knowing what it is. I am telling you what it is based on one of the foundational papers behind CRT.

                    Start reading what you are talking about. You might be ignorant, but I can’t believe anyone can be as ignorant as you sound. In the end, these people see the end of capitalism and its replacement with collectivism.

        2. Olly, I am not sure what you are looking for. Impacting the bottom line goes only so far. We have to prepare our children for the leftism seen in universities, and we have to start early. We have to set examples as parents. We have to start worrying more about the moral fiber of our children than their grades. Though grades are important to get into Yale, we should be asking ourselves should Yale be important to us? We need to be political at the lowest levels of government, including the school board. We have to stop worrying about what others will think and say.

          We need to be willing to join our resources and bodies to protect each other from leftist actions against us.

          We also have to be willing to use peaceful tactics that make people uncomfortable when they try to take the easy road out and give in to leftist extortion.

          We can do a lot to support freedom in America, but unfortunately, conservative Americans work, so time is a limitation, so we have to find a way. Conservative Americans also generally follow the law, but we should be using the law against our enemies.

          This is just an off-the-cuff list in no particular order. In my family’s personal lives, we have seen a good amount of success.

                1. Olly, I am totally confused as to what I am supposed the think that you responded to. Can you quote the sentence or paragraph highlighting the important item and explain?

  6. Disband the student senant. What educational purpose does it serve ?
    At a minimum put a sunset provision in place in which every student organization has to justify funding and or it’s being allowed to operate on campus

    1. So you’re suggesting a coup by removing a duly elected student body because you don’t understand how government works? That’s how authoritarianism flourishes.

      1. The framework is supposed to be, open to all ideas. You have a Nazi streak and want stormtroopers to prevail. That is what happened at universities and in the cities during the summer.

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ The framework is supposed to be, open to all ideas.”

          It IS open to all ideas. The problem is conservatives seem to think their ideas are being censored or ignored because they are conservative. There is no requirement that that anyone be forced to listen or even accept their ideas. They already make their ideas known and that is what their freedom of speech still allows. It’s no different than any one else ability to state their ideas.

          What IS making conservative students or faculty frustrated is that their ideas are not being accepted or listened to and deem that as an assault on their views. The reality is their views are not the majority of the views of the rest of the community and they are upset about it and claim they are being discriminated against.

          This also happens in communities where conservative ideas are dominant and liberal ones are not. Conservatives oppose those views in the exact same manner as these student governments do.

          1. Is that why peaceful people like Ben Shapiro and David Horowitz speak they have to have a small army to protect them from the left’s violence? Is that why when Milo Yiannopoulos filled the hall with university students desirous to hear him, he had to be escorted out of the building in a bulletproof vest while at least one building was set on fire?

            You seem to be ignorant of what has happened around you. It sounds like you live in an institution with no windows or doors, along with no source of outside information.

            1. S. Meyer,

              “ Is that why when Milo Yiannopoulos filled the hall with university students desirous to hear him, he had to be escorted out of the building in a bulletproof vest while at least one building was set on fire?”

              Milo wasn’t just merely a conservative speaker. He was a deliberate provocateur. There is a difference between a discussion and just being there to foment anger by deliberately using inflammatory rhetoric. He deliberately chose liberal universities to spew his inflammatory rhetoric. He WANTS to provoke a violent response so that he can benefit from it. Yiannopoulos got burned when he went too far in suggesting pedophilia was ok. Even conservatives immediately distanced themselves from him.

              Shapiro and Horowitz may have had to have personal protection, but that is a consequence of expressing their views. What is being overlooked is the fact that they DID get to express them. That’s why people were upset. The 1st amendment doesn’t protect anyone from the consequences of what you say. That’s solely the responsibility of the person who chooses to make controversial views known.

              Allan, you are not well versed in what free speech involves. Free speech is not about being heard. It’s about being able to speak your mind. The constitution does not protect anyone from the consequences of doing that. Conservatives can’t seem to grasp that concept.

              1. “Milo wasn’t just merely a conservative speaker. He was a deliberate provocateur. “

                He was invited, and the hall was filled with people who wanted him to speak. Milo can get a bit too edgy for me, but that was not what caused the riotous and violent behavior of the left. Go ahead and tell me why that happens to most speakers that speak about conservative ideas. Take David Horowitz and Ben Shapiro. That way, you can remove sex from what Milo said even though the left believes in sex changes for children. Milo’s advocacy of edgy sexual behavior (though I am not sure of exactly what he said or its context…some have changed the actual words of what was said on one occasion)is not the cause of the left-wing violence.

                By the way, you do know that Milo is married to an adult male?

                “Shapiro and Horowitz may have had to have personal protection, but that is a consequence of expressing their views. What is being overlooked is the fact that they DID get to express them. “

                All too frequently, the danger was such that the talks were halted. The violence from the left was too great. That is repression of free speech, especially since they were invited guests. Not only that, but they have been placed in smaller auditoriums or off-campus under the guise that they could not be adequately protected where they were supposed to speak. The threat was from the left.

                Invited guests should be permitted to speak to the audience that wants to hear them. Threats of violence by the left should not prevent such speech.

                SM

                1. Anonymous SM,

                  “ Milo can get a bit too edgy for me, but that was not what caused the riotous and violent behavior of the left. ”

                  Milo was too edgy for you because he was spewing rhetoric that was deliberately inflammatory. If he didn’t appeal to you imagine how it really didn’t appeal to those students. Milo was deliberately stoking those students with his rhetoric. It was his thing. To go or “be invited” to the most liberal universities and spew his highly inflammatory rhetoric. It was deliberate. That’s what gave him fame.

                  Horowitz and Shapiro were victims OF Milo’s actions. Not the students. Because Milo’s deliberately inciteful comments students did become violent. The university had to ensure Horowitz and Shapiro were safe and required hefty security fees because of what Milo’s own speaking. Both Horowitz and Shapiro were never denied to speak. What they did not agree to was the security fees and other requirements. They weren’t violently prevented from speaking. They CHOSE not to speak because they refused to pay for the security fees.

                  The talks weren’t halted for Shapiro and Horowitz, they were halted for MILO. Because he was deliberately making comments that were designed to anger the crowd.

                  You’re conflating what Milo’s speeches did with Horowitz and Shapiro as an excuse to falsely claim they were denied the ability to deliver they’d speeches. It was Milo who invited the problem upon both of them. Not the students.

                  Milo did support the notion of pedophilia. It’s what ended his “ career”.

                  1. Freedom of speech means you let a person speak. You don’t attack and burn buildings down. You don’t have to listen.

                    I so happen to have bumped into Milo a couple of times. When I spoke to him he was well dressed, very dignified and intelligent. He actually has things to say that most Democrats would like.

                    You obviously do not respect the first amendment.

                    1. Anonymous SM,

                      “ Freedom of speech means you let a person speak. You don’t attack and burn buildings down. You don’t have to listen.”

                      Milo, Shapiro, and Horowitz were all allowed to speak. Nobody prevented them from stating their views. The very reason there was opposition to them speaking was because they already spoke about their views or positions. Their free speech rights have always been intact.

                      Free speech also involves responsibility for recognizing the consequences of exercising it. If some people become violent because of it it is incumbent upon the person speaking to recognize that their ideas may be very controversial or even upsetting. It’s the risk involved in exercising free speech.

                      I’ve seen multiple instances of Milo being a well mannered individual who is intelligent and thoughtful, but his fame comes from his deliberate controversial rhetoric. It’s his “act”. It’s what he does to stay in the spot light. He makes money doing it. Yes he does say things democrats like, but he’s also saying things that he knows will rile people up. What ended his “career” was his views that pedophilia was ok. His rhetoric was so inflammatory and was so comfortable in doing it that he went ahead and took it too far. Both conservatives and liberals distanced themselves from him like a leper.

                    2. “Milo, Shapiro, and Horowitz were all allowed to speak. Nobody prevented them from stating their views. “

                      Svelaz, you are an idiot. All have been prevented from speaking. When Milo had to have a bullet proof vest put on him and be surrounded by police while another building was set on fire, I don’t know if he even had a chance to start his speech.

                      “his fame comes from his deliberate controversial rhetoric. It’s his “act”. “

                      That is one reason so many young people came to listen to him, in addition to the fact that Milo is a brilliant speaker with exceptional ideas. But, unfortunately, all you and your violent friends from the left know is that he is a turncoat. He is gay, so he is supposed to be on the left, just like Justice Thomas, who is black, should be on the left as well. Unfortunately, the response from the left to any disagreement or political choice is violence.

                      Despite the idiocy of your comment, Milo was invited by a substantial group of people and had a packed audience. He was denied the right to speak. You keep saying he wasn’t denied that right because truth means little to you. You are like a trained seal.

        2. The framework is supposed to be…

          open to all ideas.

          You have a Nazi streak
          and want stormtroopers to prevail.

          That is what happened
          at universities
          and in the cities
          during the summer.

          Allan 2021

          1. Allan, the framework IS open to all ideas. What isn’t required of anyone is that those ideas be accepted.

            1. Svelaz, freedom requires freedom from violence and intimidation. You are watching people rule with force and you like that. That is totalitarian.

              SM

              1. Anonymous SM,

                “ Svelaz, freedom requires freedom from violence and intimidation. ”

                Nope. Freedom requires responsibility. Violence and intimidation are often the consequences of exercising that freedom unfairly. Or when being a hypocrite.

                You are watching people unable to deal with the repercussions of exercising their freedom with accepting the responsibility that comes with it.

                1. As I said you have the mid of one that supports repressive dictatorships. You want to be in charge of what can or cannot be said. That is not freedom of speech.

                  SM

                  1. Anonymous SM,

                    “ As I said you have the mid of one that supports repressive dictatorships. You want to be in charge of what can or cannot be said. That is not freedom of speech.”

                    No SM, you’re conjuring up an argument I have never made nor supported.

                    You are do not understand what the concept of what freedom of speech entails. Conservatives think freedom of speech is just about speaking, but it also involves the responsibility that comes from exercising it. Conservatives don’t want to accept the responsibility that comes from exercising it or don’t want to acknowledge the responsibility that comes with it.

                    1. “No SM, you’re conjuring up an argument I have never made nor supported.”

                      You have supported repression now, and in every response, you have made on this subject before. I can’t help it if even you don’t know what you are saying. You even prove it again with your comment: “You are do not understand what the concept of what freedom of speech entails. Conservatives think freedom of speech is just about speaking, but it also involves the responsibility that comes from exercising it.”

                      You want the ability to control speech through force. You believe in repression, force and dictatorship.

                      SM

          2. When Antifa and BLM came to town acting like stormtroopers, it was Anonymous the Stupid that agreed they were mostly peaceful. As buildings were burned and the looters had control of the streets, it was Anonymous the Stupid that thought that was peachy.

            That was the left acting like Nazis. That was Anonymous the Stupid applauding the Nazis. Stupid people do stupid things. Anonymous the Stupid, you are one of those stupid people.

              1. No. I have never been institutionalized though I have been told of one crazy patient who is known there as Anonymous the Stupid. I’m told he is a real weirdo.

            1. Anonymous Sm,

              “ When Antifa and BLM came to town acting like stormtroopers, it was Anonymous the Stupid that agreed they were mostly peaceful. ”

              He wasn’t talking about antifa. Antifa has nothing to do with BLM.

              It was ANTIFA who inserted itself in peaceful BLM protests and made things worse for them. Conservatives have been conflating the two groups as one and that isn’t true.

  7. What the Professor and others need to understand is that you are projecting your fair-mindedness and deeper understanding onto young people that are so conditioned to the core they *literally* believe that Trump is exactly like Hitler and that non-Progressives are *literally* the Third Reich. Quite literally. They do not think critically. At all. Period. End of story. Would you want to have had a literal Hitler on the staff when you were 19 or 20?

    We call them ‘snowflakes’ for a reason, and schools are not the only ones responsible for this phenomena. There are plenty of older people in these institutions and society at large that know better yet sit on their thumbs.

  8. “ So the students oppose even a committee member who represents an opposing view. It is the ultimately example of viewpoint hegemony and hostility. ”

    It’s not hostility that these conservative students are experiencing, it’s simply a fact that their views are not the dominant views in that school. They are still free to speak their views and choose someone to represent them. The fact that there are very few is the reality that their views are not widely accepted. Nobody is required to accept their views or to even listen to them. But nothing stops them from stating their views.

    Turley often states that the way to fight these “attacks” as he calls them is MORE free speech and conservative students are not really doing that. What they ARE doing is complaining that their views are being cast aside or ignored because they are conservative. That’s not the case, they are being ignored or opposed because they HAVE stated their views of positions. Their free speech rights are perfectly intact. They just don’t like the consequences of exercising them and see that as unfair.

  9. When I see parents at these school board meeting finally fighting back I have some hope that the insanity that education has become today can be mitigated. I hope I am right, I am afraid I am wrong. Parents as a whole do not really pay attention or are too afraid to complain.

  10. The Trustees should as a group, if they had any backbone, tell there mush for brains to go pound salt. The students don’t run the university, and if they, the students don’t like it they can leave.
    But these gutless Trustees won’t say that because they would rather uphold Northwestern’s long held reputation as a pansy school.

  11. I think the words of N. Korean, Yeonmi Park wrap everything up.

    “I literally crossed the Gobi Desert to be free and I realized I’m not free, America’s not free,”

    “I thought North Koreans were the only people who hated Americans, but turns out there are a lot of people hating this country in this country,”

    That is what the left is bringing us to, a totalitarian form of government intolerant of free thinkers and a hate for America.

    1. S. Meyer,

      “ That is what the left is bringing us to, a totalitarian form of government intolerant of free thinkers and a hate for America.”

      BWAHAHAH!!!

      Allan you have shown us time and time again that your understanding of how government works is woefully inadequate. The student body is chosen by the students themselves. It’s what representative government is. The very same government conservatives believe is correct. Yet here they don’t like it because the representative government is composed of a majority of liberal leaving students. If there is only one conservative it means there is a tiny minority of conservative students in that school.

      Republican dominated state legislatures operate in the exact same manner.

      The student government only ASKED, not demanded, that they remove that donor. That’s perfectly fine. They can’t force the school board to actually remove that donor. Turley an academic should know that ASKING is not demanding or forcing anything. The lone conservative opposition wasn’t denied his free speech. He was just out voted because the majority of students on campus don’t share this conservative student’s views and that’s perfectly in line with what representative government is.

      Yet here every conservative commenter is losing their mind over something so trivial because Turley is mischaracterizing what the student body is doing.

      1. svelte

        Your post shows an incredible (wilful?) lack of understanding of today’s educational climate and the power of group think.

        What we have is tyranny of the majority.

        1. Monumentcolorado,

          “ What we have is tyranny of the majority.”

          That’s what representative government is. A “tyranny of the majority”.

          Republican dominated legislatures operate on that very principle.

          1. That’s what representative government is. A “tyranny of the majority”.

            They are in principle, two different things. Our constitution and rule of law was designed to prevent the former from becoming the latter. It takes a truly civically-ignorant individual to believe and openly support your interpretation.

            1. Olly,

              “ They are in principle, two different things. ”

              No they are not. They are the same thing. Republicans rule state legislatures in exactly the same way. They rule by majority. They can ignore the minority party at will and oftentimes they do. The makeup of the student government at northwestern is exactly the same scenario except it is liberal students who are in the majority.

              Our constitution and rule of law was indeed designed to prevent such instances, BUT Republicans have abused their majorities to circumvent those rules, this is especially true when state legislatures CAN and DO make up their own rules. Normally it would be another branch that acts as a check on another, but republicans have been packing the lower courts with more conservative judges over the years so they can have more a dominant rule over all functions of government. This undermines the very principle of why we have three equal and separate branches of government.

              I’ll repeat, the student government is representative of the majority of students in the university. The fact that there is a small number of conservative students means they have a limited ability to be represented. The solution is for more of them to run for the student government. The more conservative representatives the more they have the ability to influence the agenda. Every Republican state legislature operates exactly the same. They rule by “tyranny of the majority”.

              1. You still don’t get it. Wherever majority rule violates the rights of the minority, it is in practice, tyranny of the majority, and in direct opposition to the principle design of our constitutional republic. I’m conservative and registered Independent, precisely because I understand that this form of tyranny is a feature of the political class, not one political party. Every political party in the majority will seek to nominate judges that are philosophically aligned with them. If this means that the majority is able to confirm a large number of liberal or conservative judges, that is not court packing. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. And the passage of legislation by a majority party is not in and of itself tyranny of the majority.

                Until you’re able and willing to identify tyranny in principle and not by party, then you will never see that democracy and representative government, is not an acceptable and equal definition for tyranny of the majority.

                1. Olly,

                  “ Wherever majority rule violates the rights of the minority, it is in practice, tyranny of the majority, and in direct opposition to the principle design of our constitutional republic.”

                  That is correct, BUT it is not true in state legislatures where they can wield a lot of power over the other branches. This is especially true of republican majority state legislatures where they have come to believe that they have the most power over the other two branches. They are undermining the principle of EQUAL power in the three branches.

                  “ I’m conservative and registered Independent, precisely because I understand that this form of tyranny is a feature of the political class, not one political party. ”

                  It is certainly correct, HOWEVER the Republican Party exercises rule by “tyranny of majority” rule. Republicans on state legislatures have overwhelmingly stifled the minority party by simply steamrolling over their concerns or issues.

                  “ Every political party in the majority will seek to nominate judges that are philosophically aligned with them. If this means that the majority is able to confirm a large number of liberal or conservative judges, that is not court packing. ”

                  Yes it IS court packing, even if it is constitutional. The goal is to have one branch align with the values and ideals of one party making the traditional Check as minimal as possible.

                  Your argument also applies to the democrats “packing” the Supreme Court. It’s also completely constitutional and well within their right to do so as a majority party.

                  “ Until you’re able and willing to identify tyranny in principle and not by party, then you will never see that democracy and representative government, is not an acceptable and equal definition for tyranny of the majority.”

                  Olly, no. The principle is the same. Tyranny of the majority simply means the overwhelming majority gets to decide the agenda. Representative government allows that to be the norm. Republicans only complain about the tyranny of the majority when they are not able to rule by that very same concept. When they are in the majority as it is often the case in state legislatures they don’t consider the minority party’s concerns by using the excuse that they are representative of the majority of the voters. Only when they are on the receiving end of such treatment do they suddenly claim a “tyranny”.

                  Look how republicans have pushed legislation thru despite polling that the majority of the population do not support. Oftentimes they pass it because they have a majority and therefore impose legislation that the majority of the population disagrees with.

                  1. BUT it is not true in state legislatures where they can wield a lot of power over the other branches.

                    I bolded the word wherever for a reason. It’s a truism at the federal level all the way down to the lowest levels of government. And if you believe the perpetrators of this tyranny are only found in one political party, then you are hopelessly myopic.

                    The principle is the same. Tyranny of the majority simply means the overwhelming majority gets to decide the agenda.

                    No, you’re conflating two completely different terms; tyranny and majority. Our system is designed to permit the majority to set the agenda. It’s not tyranny for the majority to exercise this power constitutionally. It is tyranny when that power is exercised to trample the rights of the minority. This abuse of power has been, is and will always be a threat to the constituents represented by the minority in government. It is not a feature of our constitutional republic. It is the reason our constitutional republic exists in the first place.

                    that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers, by the consent of the governed.

          2. Svelaz, as many on this blog have said, you do not understand the American Constitutional Republic. The reason behind the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people, especially those in the minority.

            Ignorance of what democracy leads to means one is unprepared to discuss the subject matter at hand. Deal with 51% enslaving the other 49%. Many of your arguments fall because, like the southern slave owners, you feel enslaving others is appropriate for the majority.

            SM

            1. Anonymous SM,

              You’re simply flat out wrong. You’re making arguments purely out of ignorance and engaging in deliberate libel.

              1. “You’re simply flat out wrong. You’re making arguments purely out of ignorance and engaging in deliberate libel.“

                Of course, you are totally wrong, but if you turned to make the comment to yourself, you would be totally correct.

                SM

      2. “The student body is chosen by the students themselves. It’s what representative government is.”

        Svelaz, you are totally out of your depth and proving it. Student government is there for students. It doesn’t exist to dictate how a university should educate the young. That is why the young go to college in the first place.

        If the administration yields to the uneducated, they have not done those students a service.

        Should you have three children, I hope you were smarter at home than you are here. Mommy and daddy have 2 votes for TV after homework and other studies. The three kids will have 3 votes for TV, no homework and no study.

        You do not understand how things work, and you certainly don’t understand when the voting process is misused. Your type of ignorance is why many of our nation’s children lack a decent education.

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ Student government is there for students.”

          Yeah, duh. It’s also there to represent students to the university’s board about their concerns or issues.

          “ It doesn’t exist to dictate how a university should educate the young.”

          They are not dictating anything. They CAN suggest or ask of coordinate with the school if they goal is beneficial to both. Students PAID for their education so they CAN dictate what they want if that’s a better perspective for you.

          College professors, the good ones, always tell students they PAID them to educate them so they can demand that a professor or subject be better.

          Students are the customers. The school is the service.

          The administration yields to money. Students pay for their education either thru loans or their parents.

          The students an northwestern only ASKED.

          1. Svelaz, you are unable to put history and current events together. Columbia protests threatened. It worked and the left has been doing that ever since. You wear blinders. You don’t understand the difference between a student and a professional educator. What can anyone do with a person who believes in slavery and is willing to permit 51% to enslave the other 49%.

            SM.

            1. Anonymous SM,

              The students at Columbia had legitimate reasons to protest. Some went too far, but the purpose of their actions was to bring attention to issues the school was deliberately ignoring.

              Today there are student governments that serve the same function except they do it without violence and instead use the very principle that governs our political system.

              A student is PAYING for that professional educator to teach the student. The student is the one who can demand that his education be what he expects it to be because he or she is paying. Not the professor.

              You’re the only one here claiming to believe in slavery. You mention it so much.

              1. You are advocating violence. You are like those so-called journalists that said the riots are mostly peaceful despite the looting and burning. There is no substance to anything you are saying.

                SM

                1. Anonymous SM,

                  “ You are advocating violence. You are like those so-called journalists that said the riots are mostly peaceful despite the looting and burning. There is no substance to anything you are saying.”

                  Now you’re just being a petty liar. You can’t make coherent arguments because your ignorance is your biggest impediment to truly understanding any issue. That’s often the mark of a poorly educated individual.

                  1. “Now you’re just being a petty liar.”

                    Absolutely not. You expressed your belief that the violence against Milo was justified just like it was against many other conservative speakers invited to speak.

                    You want to control speech and the actions of people.

                    You accuse me of being poorly educated, but all one has to do is follow your inconsistencies and your lack of critical thinking skills. You don’t even recognize what repression is when it smacks you in the nose.

                    SM

  12. We all know the for left has taken over all education today from 5th grade all the way through college and graduate school. I never thought this would happen in my lifetime. Even in medicine today you are just a number on a computer…they have less than 5 minutes to meet and talk to you…and that will be gone soon too…there is technology already here that puts a small device on your chest that transmits all your vitals to a doc…tele-medicine…you will get a computer message on your phone healthy or unhealthy…unhealthy come in for a test and take a pill…in just 10 short years pills we take have doubled…and our health has drastically dropped…just go to any beach…Walmart…airport in the US…look around…obesity…smoking…tattoos…if you eat 3000 calories a day and only burn 1500 what happens?…you become a beached whale…we now even have a new position in hospitals…a hospitalist…the most hostile work place on earth is in a hospital…why do we call them health centers when they are disease centers!…yes genetics plays a role but if you can read you can learn how to be healthy…now back to the far left movement…there is no way to stop it…home schooling maybe but then you miss the social aspect and the pure fun of going to school, finding a mate, getting drunk, getting in trouble, plating sports, meeting people from other cultures, learning respect, etc…

  13. “One recent poll shows the already small population of conservative and Republican students has been cut by roughly half. ”

    That’s because the Republican party as a whole is shrinking at a fast pace due to its conscious alignment with significant sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia…, and the kicker — an insurrection at the Capitol.

    And yes, I concur that Northwestern is located between both coasts but must also add that Lake Michigan does indeed have a significant coastline with a rippin’ break during winter storms.

    eb

      1. As what you say is ambivalent enough to be taken in so many ways, I say thank you. Thank you very much.

        eb

  14. Turley sure loves overemphasizing an issue.

    “ These students have been taught that they should actively seek to exclude opposing views and that they have a right to expect the faculty, and presidency, to reliably liberal.”

    No, students have been taught what democracy is and they are exercising it as it should be. In fact this is representative government. Keep in mind that these ‘liberal’ students were voted by those who believe best represent their values or beliefs. Obviously there are not a lot of conservative leaning students to vote in more conservatives meaning conservative views among students are not that prevalent.

    Younger people are generally more liberal than conservative and the makeup of student bodies reflect that. These are not “attacks” against conservative views, these are simply realities of where beliefs and values dominate. Conservative students or faculty have not been denied their free speech rights, they can state their views or opposition to certain issues just like anyone else. What they are not guaranteed by the constitution is that any HAS to listen to them. The concept applies to liberal students and faculty as well.

    Turley is complaining that these conservative students or faculty are “attacked” or “silenced” for their views or beliefs by being out voted or overruled due to majority vote leaves out the fact that this is actually how representative government works. In fact it happens all the time in Republican dominated state legislatures. Democrats or liberals are constantly being overruled or opposed [attacked], as Turley often describes it, because of their views or beliefs.

    Those democrats, just like conservative students or faculty still get to state their views or beliefs. It’s the consequence of stating them that they are not protected from. If people chose oppose those views or they lose by being out voted is because they already exercised their free speech rights by making their views or beliefs known. So Turley’s complaining about free speech on campuses being stifled is just hyperbole.

    The irony here is that conservative students are on the receiving end of what representative government does to those in the minority.

    1. “Turley is complaining that these conservative students or faculty are “attacked” or “silenced” for their views or beliefs by being out voted or overruled due to majority vote leaves out the fact that this is actually how representative government works.”

      The left is violent. If conservatives speak, there is violence and arson. That is why leftists, even mass murderers, can speak on college campuses with virtually no protection while an upstanding conservative needs armed guards.

      That is not democracy or freedom. That is Nazism, with stormtroopers maintaining one view of everything. Further, you still haven’t got it in your head that democracy means that 51% can enslave the other 49%. But I forget you are part of the group that did the enslaving of blacks. When slavery ended, you shifted to the KKK, something not at all dissimilar to what we saw over the summer.

      1. Another racist uses a straw horse to cherry pick their racism.
        I’m sorry but you sound like you are living in the past, because ot allows you to keep beating down conservatives.
        I’d say if it weren’t for conservatives, a large population of Democrats would go hungry, homeless and uneducated.
        But then the politicians are using the low emotionally intelligent as their army.

      2. S. Meyer,

        “ The left is violent. If conservatives speak, there is violence and arson. ”

        Give us an example of this. Which school has violently forced a conservative student into silence?

        1. Svelaz, I have already given you three names and I can provide more. I attend events with some of these peaceful conservatives, and to gather together armed guards are required, because of the left’s violence. There is nothing I can say that will correct your ignorance.

          SM

          1. Seth, the same thing happens with peaceful liberals who have to be protected from violent people on the right.

            One of the biggest differences between us, Seth, is that I can deal truthfully with the fact that this occurs on the right AND the left, but you have to dishonestly pretend that it only occurs on one side.

            Truthfulness is better for the country than dishonesty.

            1. Show me conservative students becoming violent and stopping speakers from speaking. You are making things up. On rare occasions conservative students do bad things, no doubt. But the rule is that the left has been violent over and over again when conservatives speak.

              You don’t have the slightest idea of what is happening in the world around you.

              SM

              1. Your claim was “leftists, even mass murderers, can speak on college campuses with virtually no protection while an upstanding conservative needs armed guards.”

                Here are a few examples of liberals who’ve needed protection or who were unable to give their speech / conduct classes because of threats –
                thefire.org/authors-appearance-at-georgia-southern-university-cancelled-after-students-burn-and-shred-books/
                cnn.com/2017/12/21/us/university-professors-free-speech-online-hate-threats/index.html

                I condemn it all. No one should be getting threats of physical harm.

                1. You are so full of it.

                  There was no violence. No one had to be removed under police protection. She was permitted to speak. Afterwards…

                  “One student told BuzzFeed News that after the talk, some 20 to 30 students gathered around a fire pit to burn copies of the novel. “

                  This is your example? You are a fool. I am sure one can be found but for every one found on the right there are many much worse incidents provoked by the left.

                  Your link fails again Anonymous the Stupid.

          2. Anonymous SM,

            “ Svelaz, I have already given you three names and I can provide more. ”

            No you haven’t.

            1. AS many have said before. Your skills are lacking. The names given already are David Horowitz, Ben Shapiro and Milo Y.

              SM

      3. S. Meyer,

        “ That is why leftists, even mass murderers, can speak on college campuses with virtually no protection while an upstanding conservative needs armed guards.”

        You’re confused. Those “conservatives” who are “upstanding” are not always “upstanding” There ARE those who deliberately go to these liberal schools with the intent to incite anger and controversy because they are liberal schools. They seek attention by being provocateurs than being genuine in seeking a debate. There is a difference.

        Those who seek fame by being deliberately provocative in order to gain following. Those conservative “speakers” are being disingenuous rather than honest in seeking a debate.

        “ But I forget you are part of the group that did the enslaving of blacks. ”

        What group is that? I’m a long time registered Republican. Are you saying republicans did the enslaving of blacks? You might be right about that.

        1. “are not always “upstanding” There ARE those who deliberately go to these liberal schools with the intent to incite anger and controversy because they are liberal schools. “

          Svelaz, tell us when David Horowitz was ever violent at any school where he was invited by conservative students? David Horowitz only believed in violent techniques when he was one of the intellectuals of the New Left. Tell me when Ben Shapiro has ever been violent in his life? He is invited by conservatives as well. I can produce a lot more names, but two in number already fills up your head.

          SM

          1. Anonymous SM, I never claimed Horowitz was violent. What I was referring to was Milo Yiannoupolos. His only aim is to incite others by using deliberately inflammatory rhetoric. He seeks fame by provoking others into anger. Shapiro and Horowitz don’t do that. They do speak of controversial positions and they create consequences that they have the responsibility to deal with.

            1. You are wrong about Milo for the most part and since he was invited by a large number of students, violence from the left should not have prevented him from speaking.

              Horowitz and Shapiro have also had to face violence from the left. What is your excuse in those instances?

              SM

              1. Anonymous SM,

                “ You are wrong about Milo for the most part and since he was invited by a large number of students, violence from the left should not have prevented him from speaking.”

                The only ones who invite him are small groups, usually conservative clubs. That doesn’t constitute a “large number”. Violence from the left didn’t prevent him from speaking. He craved that kind of attention which he used as a means to gain fame. He destroyed his own “career” when he stated he supported pedophilia.

                Here’s a better explanation of why Shapiro and Horowitz had to have security, apparently it’s all thanks to Milo. Not the leftists.

                “ The university also required “exorbitant” security fees for events featuring conservative commentator Ben Shapiro in September 2017 and conservative writer David Horowitz, whose event was cancelled in April 2017 because of those costs, according to the complaint.

                “There is a difference as to how the UC Berkeley treats conservative speakers versus liberal ones,” Dhillon said.

                The university says it only imposes those restrictions on events due to legitimate safety concerns, especially after a violent riot erupted during the planned speech of conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos in February 2017.”

                https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.courthousenews.com/conservatives-face-tough-slog-in-uc-berkeley-free-speech-fight/

                1. “The only ones who invite him are small groups, usually conservative clubs. “

                  Not true. Those groups invited Milo on behalf of many students. In fact, I think the number of students wishing to go exceeded the seats available. That happened in many places where he spoke.

                  In any event, he was invited. It was up to legal authorities to determine if he was engaged in anything illegal. The speech did not urge violence, so it was legal speech. The left doesn’t have the right to make such judgment calls and then violently attack and burn. You obviously don’t believe in the rule of law. When Horowitz and Shapiro talk, there is no question of their peacefulness and their propriety. The left acts violently and unlawfully when they appear. It is not their job to contain the left’s violence.

                  SM

                  1. Anonymous SM,

                    “ Not true. Those groups invited Milo on behalf of many students. In fact, I think the number of students wishing to go exceeded the seats available.”

                    You just proved my point. You’re ASSUMING there are a large number of students without really knowing for sure.

                    You THINK, but you don’t know the number of students wishing to go exceeded the number of seats without any concrete proof to back up that assumption.

                    You stated with certainty that a LARGER number of students wanted it, but a small group asked on “behalf” of that assumed large number of students. This is what telling BS look like. Thanks for confirming you’re just making stuff up.

                    “ When Horowitz and Shapiro talk, there is no question of their peacefulness and their propriety. ”

                    Nobody is questioning their behavior. You’re the only one bringing it up in an attempt to make a poor straw man argument.

                    1. “You just proved my point. You’re ASSUMING there are a large number of students without really knowing for sure.”

                      But Svelaz, my information is based on knowledge. Yours is based on whatever you think up at the time. That is why your ideas conflict with one another. You have lived in a stupid world for so long that you assume others must be living in that same world. They aren’t.

                      SM

    2. It’s weird, when I went to college it was about learning and earning a degree. I never once cared about who was in the “student govt” (honestly not even sure we had one) or who our president was. I was much more concerned about going and passing my classes and hanging with friends. I guess back then, no one was forcing their views on others.

      1. Same here. I grew up in a blue collar family and was the first to go to college. I majored in economics so that I could get a job when I graduated. The campus “activists” seemed irrelevant and trivial at that time. Most were viewed as students who were affirmative action, “special admissions” or students who simply couldn’t handle a rigorous major. I think most of them knew that there wasn’t much waiting for them post-graduation, so their college activist years were the highlight of their lives and they made the most of them. It was the only time they were going to feel important or powerful, by bullying some hapless, timid college bureaucrat. After that, it was off to some insignificant, boring job, and a lifetime of resentment that their college diploma didn’t benefit them all that much. Even if you have a degree from an elite university, if it’s in a weak major, no employer is going to be impressed.

        1. Yes, I would say that if you have the time to be a protestor while attending college, then you are no challenging yourself enough in your studies.

          1. You would be wrong about that. Protesting doesn’t take much time.

            I’m a first generation college grad with undergrad and grad STEM degrees. I worked to put myself through school, but I still had time to attend the occasional protest and occasionally usher at the local theater so I could see a performance.

  15. Danger! Danger! Will Robinson! Danger! This culture of unchallenged thinking is fertile ground for radicalization of young minds, Any and every aspect of truth, whether it be science, philosophy, or mathematics, for example, can and always will withstand scrutiny, debate, and challenge. This being the case then what is the purpose of the growing cancer of intolerance? Are such individuals so afraid of differing points of view? Are the students enrolled in these institutions and faculty capable of critically analyzing information that is deeper than the headline narrative found in corporate media?

    Alumni of all political persuasions should consider withholding donations until this dangerous environment of policies of intolerance is fully addressed. Employers should think twice before hiring graduates who are the product of such an environment. Will they make similar demands in the workplace?

  16. “Northwestern” University is smack in the middle of the country. Not on the west or left coast.

  17. The “live and let live” concept is dead for Lefties.

    And then they are surprised when Conservatives express contempt for them.

    Lefties have chosen to use their (temporary) political majority to dominate the minority.

    In doing so, they are galvanizing the opposition.

    Consequences are unpredictable, but often unpleasant.

Leave a Reply