Dartmouth Under Fire Over Cancellation of In-Person Event with Journalist Andy Ngo

We have previously discussed how universities have used security fees and concerns to effectively block conservative speakers. Dartmouth College, however, is embroiled in a bizarre such controversy after it not only pushed a speech from an in-person event to an online event, but then demanded the school’s chapter of College Republicans pay a $3,600 “security fee” for an online event.  The claims made by the College are now being challenged not only by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), but also by the Hanover Police Department.

The speaker was journalist Andy Ngo, who has been assaulted by Antifa activists and others for covering violence by the left in cities like Seattle and Portland.

Dartmouth stopped the in-person event by claiming that it did so due to “concerning information” from the Hanover Police. However, FIRE reported that the police told the organization that it “did not make a recommendation to Dartmouth College regarding the January 20th event.” That is a very serious contradiction when the school scuttled a free speech event. FIRE’s Sabrina Conz said “the actual records from the police … show no recommendation for Dartmouth to cancel events — over Dartmouth’s vague statements of ‘concerning information.’”

To add salt to the wound, Dartmouth later sent the College Republicans a $3,600 bill for the online event. It is not clear how a virtual event cost actual security expenditures, but the charge (combined with the earlier cancellation of the in-person event) raise serious free speech issues.

Ngo’s appearance at Dartmouth held particular meaning given the attacks upon him by Antifa and the connection of the school to the movement. As discussed earlier, former Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray is the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” and one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray defines antifa as “politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense. It’s a pan-left radical politics uniting communists, socialists, anarchists and various different radical leftists together for the shared purpose of combating the far right.”

Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase… that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.

Bray says that the protesters do not “see fascism or white supremacy as a view with which they disagree as a difference of opinion.” Their goal is not co-existence but “to end their politics.” Bray and other academics are liberating students from the confines of what they deem the false “allegiance to liberal democracy.” Once freed of the values of free speech and democratic values, violence becomes merely politics by other means.

When pushed, Bray stressed that antifa is only a threat to one side and one party:

“There is a certain political lens that — agree or disagree with the lens — there is an element of continuity in terms of the types of groups targeted. I don’t know of any Democratic Party events that have been ‘no platformed,’ or shut down by anti-fascists. So there is a political lens, people will quibble about what the lens is, who designs the lens, but I don’t think the slippery slope is actually, in practice, nearly as much of a concern as people imagine it would be.”

What occurred at Dartmouth with Ngo is an example of a school assisting in effectively deplatforming a conservative in terms of an in-person event. It then hit the group with a cost for a virtual event that must be paid in order to qualify for further funding.

The alleged contradiction with the police department should compel the university to conduct an inquiry and offer a public account of its actions in this controversy. One obvious solution. Have Ngo back. . . in person.

96 thoughts on “Dartmouth Under Fire Over Cancellation of In-Person Event with Journalist Andy Ngo”

  1. Speaking of censorship (actual censorship) —

    Obama to America: If you like your free speech, you can keep your free speech.

    He was lying then. And he’s lying now. In his typical sleazy fashion, he called for government censorship of speech. He euphemistically labeled that censorship as “democratic oversight” — with government regulators having the police power to enforce that “oversight.” Then he trotted out the canard that the goal of such censorship is to combat “disinformation” — which in the Left’s bizarro world means any speech or opinions that the Left doesn’t like.

  2. “Bray defines antifa as ‘politics or an activity of social revolutionary self defense.'”

    In other words: Brownshirts.

    “. . . violence becomes merely politics by other means.”

    An academic at a prominent university touts the “virtues” of violence. This is the horror of a culture that rejects reason. It is then left with only one means of settling disputes: Physical force. The only thing that should be cancelled is the anti-reason ideology in our universities.

  3. (OT)

    “Madison Cawthorn photos reveal him wearing women’s lingerie in public setting”
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/22/madison-cawthorn-photos-00027286

    Cawthorn says they’re “goofy vacation photos during a game on a cruise” before he ran for Congress.

    Perhaps this is the masculinity crisis that Tucker Carlson is whining about?

    In other news, a highway patrol officer took Cawthorn’s drivers license last night, which had already been revoked, after Cawthorn was pulled over yet again, this time for driving with expired tags. He has a court date in May.
    https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article260515652.html

    He’s facing a challenger in the Republican primary later in May.

    1. I have no love for Cawthorn, but isn’t it the left that says everyone should be what they want to be? The left is even encouraging drugs and surgery for children to change their gender.

      1. Cawthorn doesn’t advocate that “everyone should be what they want to be.”

        I see you don’t care to comment about him driving illegally.

        1. Are you dumb? I didn’t say anything about Cawthorn. I said, isn’t it the left that says everyone should be what they want to be”?

  4. OT

    TRULY DANGEROUS – “FALLING BEHIND”

    Pentagon under fire for incompetence:

    “Preston Dunlap, who served as the first Department-level Chief Architect Officer in the Federal Government and as the founding Chief Architect Officer of the Department of the U.S. Space Force and U.S. Air Force for the last three years, warned in an interview with Bloomberg News that the Pentagon is “falling behind” in the technology battle with U.S. adversaries.”

    “In his resignation letter, Dunlap said, “By the time the Government manages to produce something, it’s too often obsolete; no business would ever survive this way, nor should it.”

    “Dunlap said getting the Pentagon to adopt the latest technology is like “defying gravity.”

    “Dunlap described the Pentagon as “the world’s largest bureaucracy,” adding that the “beast of bureaucracy” is “energized to reject the potential of innovation at every turn.”

    “In order to regain its “technological edge,” Dunlap argued that the Pentagon must adopt the “mentality and capability” of Silicon Valley, specifically Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

    “’Ultimately, my team and I proved that we can defy gravity and change can happen – even at the largest employer in the galaxy and even with small but highly capable teams. But, we shouldn’t be satisfied. We need this kind of progress at scale. And we need it now, not tomorrow. Or it will be too late,” he warned. “So let’s be careful to not…compete with each other, when we should be competing with China.’

    “’Ironically as I’m writing this, I received notification that the phone lines are down at the Pentagon IT help desk. Phone lines are down? It’s 2022, folks,’ he added.”

    – Jim Hoft

  5. Are the actions being addressed the mindset of Jeffry Silberman, who relates that Dartmouth was his university? That is hard to accept based on what we know about his skills, but I will accept him at his word knowing that even Dartmouth accepted fools. Moreover, Dartmouth cannot take responsibility for what people do to their brains after leaving the university, no matter how embarrassing that might be.

    “Dartmouth stopped the in-person event by claiming that it did so due to “concerning information” from the Hanover Police. However, FIRE reported that the police told the organization that it “did not make a recommendation to Dartmouth College regarding the January 20th event.”

    Did Dartmouth lie? Maybe? In almost every post, we see that type of ignorance from Jeffry Silberman. Are so many who graduate from Dartmouth and many who lie about graduating from Dartmouth liars?

    Is Dartmouth one of our best universities, or does it just pretend?

    1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

      No Dartmouth didn’t lie.

      “ Dartmouth stopped the in-person event by claiming that it did so due to “concerning information” from the Hanover Police. However, FIRE reported that the police told the organization that it “did not make a recommendation to Dartmouth College regarding the January 20th event.”

      Dartmouth was truthful when they stated that it changed the in person event to an online one because as the letter from the police said,

      “ The information and concerns we received from student organizers, event organizers, the speaker, open source information available online about the event, and information through law enforcement channels was credible and substantiated by us.” We are concerned for the safety of those attending the event, those protesting the event, and our community members.”

      They got concerns from the event organizers AND the speaker too. The school decided on changing the event because even the students organizing the event and the speaker had concerns about safety too.

      The police didn’t make a recommendation, BUT the school made a decision based on everyone’s concerns including the organizing students and the speaker.

      1. So Svelaz. Was the possible danger going to be perpetuated by students on the Right or the Left? Which side was the danger going to come from? If there was violence what side would be committing the violence? Your friends on the left are the ones to be feared. It is your ANTIFA friends who want to eliminate a right to free speech. Your friends on the left would have come to the event to give Andy Ngo another concussion. Please inform us of just one ANTIFA member who faced charges for beating Andy Ngo on the streets of Seattle. Rest assured, we come prepared to stop your violence at the voting booth. Your greatest fear is that if the Republicans regain power your ANTIFA friends will be held to account under the rule of law. Your fear is well founded

        1. ThinkitThrough,

          “So Svelaz. Was the possible danger going to be perpetuated by students on the Right or the Left? Which side was the danger going to come from? If there was violence what side would be committing the violence?”

          The issue is not about who will perpetuate the danger. It’s about enduring that ANY danger or threat to safety regarding events is addressed. As for your erroneous assumption that ANTIFA members are my friends or that anyone of that character is my friend, it is just an erroneous assumption on your part.

          Rather than acknowledge the facts I pointed out or discuss the more likely issue that this is not about being denied their free speech rights instead it is about this group is just throwing a tantrum because the University decided to change the format of the event due to safety concerns that even the Republican Club had and was deemed credible by the police department and that they still have to pay the security fee that every group is required to pay. They originally scheduled the event to be in person and it seems that when that was was still in play they still have not paid the security fee required and as per the policy they were supposed to have the all the funds required to host the event.

          What is not clear is if the Republican Club applied for funds from the college which it seems that there is a fund or an account that all students organizations can apply for funds in order to hold events on school grounds. I get the impression that these student organizations must apply for these funds in order to hold any event and as the school noted they have not applied for these funds. That seems to be the issue here. Not free speech being denied because they are conservative.

          1. Svelaz, you have claimed and defended your claims that the Republican Club did not apply for the event. You were very certain. Now you say that what you claimed as a fact is now in question. Once again you say that the school said they did not apply for the funds so I must once again ask you to provide a source where the school made such a statement. This makes three times that I have requested your source for what the school said. You continue to bloviate on the subject but you provide no written text where the school said that the Republican Club did not apply for school funds. You can twist it and turn it but you refuse to provide proof of your claim. Readers here must be starting to think that you have no confirmation of what you think other than what you find in your own head and you keep presenting testimony to the distinct possibility that they are correct.

            1. Thinkitthrough,

              “You continue to bloviate on the subject but you provide no written text where the school said that the Republican Club did not apply for school funds”

              I have provided the text numerous times. Here it is again,

              ” “The Republican College Club leaders were aware of their responsibility for event security fees and were given an estimate in advance, with sufficient time to make a.” Request for funding “For these costs. They have not requested this funding. The club was also aware of the possibility that the event may need to be adjusted to address safety concerns raised by the organizers themselves.”

              https://worldtimetodays.com/dartmouth-college-is-charging-the-republican-club-a-3600-security-fee-for-the-canceled-andy-ngo-event/

          2. Svelaz, my point is that you are ever at the ready to criticize anything coming from the Republicans but you show no concern for potential violence from the left. I have never read your condemnation of violence from ANTIFA or BLM in Seattle, Minneapolis and Portland. I have never read your condemnation of ANTIFA and BLM gangsters sending Andy Ngo to the hospital with a concussion. I have never read your condemnation of Kamala Harris when she said that the rioting should continue. You support Kamala Harris and the leftist who like the violence as long as they can use it to keep themselves in power. Small business owned by black people in Seattle are destroyed and you tell us of the danger of the proud boys. You think you find something when you say that the school said that the Republican Club didn’t apply for funds but you can not provide a source where the school said any such thing. Now you come before us to deny your affiliations. Your words or lack there of go before you.

            1. Thinkithrough,

              You make way too many assumptions about things that I never claimed. Turley never criticizes Republicans for supporting violent right- wing groups, either. So we all have our biases.

              “You think you find something when you say that the school said that the Republican Club didn’t apply for funds but you can not provide a source where the school said any such thing.”

              Did you not see the multiple times I provided you with the link to the source? Here it is again.

              https://worldtimetodays.com/dartmouth-college-is-charging-the-republican-club-a-3600-security-fee-for-the-canceled-andy-ngo-event/

              You keep asking for the source of the quote made by the school and I keep providing it to you. You keep asking for the text of what the school said about the Republican club not applying for funds and I provided it to you multiple times. Here’s the quote one more time from the same source linked above.

              “The school said student organizations are responsible for event-related security costs, saying that “The Republican College Club leaders were aware of their responsibility for event security fees and were given an estimate in advance, with sufficient time to make a.” Request for funding “For these costs. They have not requested this funding. The club was also aware of the possibility that the event may need to be adjusted to address safety concerns raised by the organizers themselves.”

              Those quotation marks (“) after the sentence, “The school said….” saying that”. ( ” ) that is the publication directly quoting the official they spoke to meaning it is the text you keep requesting of what the school said. What are you not understanding about what the direct quote is saying?

      2. Isn’t the safety of students incorporated into the student fee? Isn’t that why the university has a police department? University students have been threatened. What did the university do? Why do we have jails?

        1. Anonymous,

          “Isn’t the safety of students incorporated into the student fee?” For the general safety of all students on CAMPUS. This is an event separate from school administration. The security fee is additional for a group’s event and they are responsible for all costs associated with THEIR event.

          1. Fine, assuming we forget about costs for the moment especially since you don’t have a clear understanding of them we get to the question:

            Why do you believe violent student agitators shouldn’t be thrown out of school? Are you violent yourself?

            1. Anonymous,

              “ Why do you believe violent student agitators shouldn’t be thrown out of school? Are you violent yourself?”

              Asking loaded questions and assuming I believe things that you have no idea what my beliefs are is irrelevant. Nobody believes violent student agitators shouldn’t be dealt with.

              It’s you who doesn’t have a clear understanding of a lot of what this issue is about.

              1. Your replies demonstrate that you are reluctant to have violent and disruptive students expelled from universities. Svelaz, think deep. Why do you believe violent student agitators shouldn’t be thrown out of school? Are you violent yourself?

                The question is not loaded. My position is that the school should expel students that cannot behave. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Your problem is you don’t have an answer.

                1. Anonymous,

                  You are asking a loaded question. You’re implying that I believe something without knowing what I believe. You don’t know what I believe.

                  You’re putting words in my mouth in an attempt to move the goalposts.

                  “ My position is that the school should expel students that cannot behave. What is wrong with that? Nothing. Your problem is you don’t have an answer.

                  Your position is not about expelling students who cannot behave. Your position is the school should expel only leftist students because you don’t like leftist students. You believe they should be denied due process and their first amendment rights.

                  Why do want to deny students first amendment rights?

                  1. What is loaded by asking whether violent and disruptive students should be expelled from the university? You have the chance right here to tell us what you believe.

                    “Your position is the school should expel only leftist students because you don’t like leftist students.”

                    Now you are spouting nonsense. I would expel any violent or disruptive student.. Can you provide a similar straight answer?

                    “Why do want to deny students first amendment rights?”

                    I don’t want to deny any rights to anyone, but violent behavior is not a right. It is an act that should lead to expulsion. Don’t you agree?

                    1. “[B]ut violent behavior is not a right. It is an act that should lead to expulsion.”

                      Well said. (The only thing shocking is that it needs to be said.)

                      His position is this:

                      Assume threats of violence. Now, let’s make life more difficult for the victims.

                    2. Anonymous,

                      “ It is an act that should lead to expulsion. Don’t you agree?”

                      No, shouldn’t a student be afforded due process first? Suspension, revocation of privileges, or just kicking them out of the event before ultimately expulsion?

                      Because there are very broad definitions of what constitutes violent acts. Being disruptive is not a violent act but you would consider it as an expulsion worthy offense.

                    3. “shouldn’t a student be afforded due process first? Suspension, revocation of privileges, or just kicking them out of the event before ultimately expulsion?”

                      Due process first. The student’s history and intent should be taken into account. If he was significantly violent or had a significant history of violence and disruption, he should be thrown out for the safety of others. The less violent and disruptive students will be on notice. The problem of special security costs is solved.

                      I am glad you had enough intelligence to see it my way finally.

                      SM

                    4. You want to prohibt members of congress from running in elections – because they spoke challenging the legitimacy of an election.

                      And you think that expelling college students for actual violence is too big a first step ?

                      When you are not drowing in hypocracy – get back to us.

                  2. “Your position is the school should expel only leftist students because you don’t like leftist students.”

                    You really should be more aware of who you’re talking to.

      3. The school made a decision to censor-plain and simple. Free speech brings with it discomfort.

      4. As someone who has read up on everything that happened here- you’re wrong. The College Republicans DID requested the initial funds for security. Then as the event got closer- Campus police got local PD involved. Hence, the $3,600 difference. On top of that, the College CANCELLED the event at the last. Why should the organizers now pay for that extra security?

    2. Anonymous asks:

      “Are so many who graduate from Dartmouth and many who lie about graduating from Dartmouth liars?”

      Dinesh D’Souza and Laura Ingraham are graduates. They are liars now. I know for a fact that Dinesh lied in one instance I personally witnessed at college. Both wrote for the conservative “The Dartmouth Review” newspaper which was highly controversial at the time.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dartmouth_Review

      1. “Dinesh D’Souza and Laura Ingraham are graduates. They are liars now. I know for a fact that Dinesh lied in one instance I personally witnessed at college.”

        With your history of lies and absurd notions, are we to trust that D’Souza lied in your presence? Did he say something like this, ‘Jeff, you are an intelligent fellow so…”? OK, he lied and called you intelligent or whatever.

        Then you link to Wikipedia to prove what?

        You are such a coward. You insult everyone, including Turley. You even need to ask anonymous if Turley is grateful to be notified. Such a coward.

  6. JT, why are you labelling Andy Ngo as “conservative”? Being opposed to militant violence (whether from the left or right) is a moderate, mainstream, virtually-universal viewpoint. Exposing violent perpetrators on the left does not prima facie make you “conservative”.

    Andy is very clear in his writings that he is equally opposed to political violence, no matter what “the cause”.

    1. I think Any Ngo originates from the left but doesn’t like the violence the left perpetrates. Where he stands on policy issues is unknown. He may be policy-wise on the side of the non-violent left, which seems to get smaller by the day.

  7. I’m trying to wrap my mind around something. How could the University charge the Republican Club for security for an event that never happened? If you look in their charter you will discover there justification under the wrong think statute. The first punishment will be a monetary fine and if the offenders persists time behind bars will be the result. Do you really think that if the ANTIFA professor has his way there will be any other course of action? Over reaction on my part you might say. Remember my prediction when you hear the steel door clang shut behind you.

    1. TiThrough,

      “ I’m trying to wrap my mind around something. How could the University charge the Republican Club for security for an event that never happened?”

      What nobody is paying attention to or bothering to figure out the timeline between the scheduling of the event by the Republican Club and the change to an online event.

      The policy of the school states,

      “ No College department, program or recognized organization shall schedule an event or activity unless available College funds to cover the anticipated costs have been identified.”

      They never mentioned if they had the funds or if they paid for the fee when they scheduled the event. The school said the club didn’t apply for the funds and they had ample time to pay the fee when they scheduled the event.

      “ The Republican College Club leaders were aware of their responsibility for event security fees and were given an estimate in advance, with sufficient time to make a.” Request for funding “For these costs. They have not requested this funding. The club was also aware of the possibility that the event may need to be adjusted to address safety concerns raised by the organizers themselves.”

      The police chief’s letter even mentioned that those concerned about safety included the club and the speaker. Of course, Turley nor the club mentioned that pertinent piece of important information.

      It’s more than likely that the club either messed up on paying the fee when they scheduled the event or they didn’t show that they had the funds before scheduling the event as the policy requires. Instead, they decided to make it about feigning outrage over being denied freedom of speech even though they were still doing their event online.

      This wasn’t a freedom of speech issue. This was about the Club not being able to show that they could cover the costs.

      1. “being able to show that they could cover the costs.”

        Why should they be responsible for the costs created by the violent left?

        1. S. Meyer,

          “ Why should they be responsible for the costs created by the violent left?”

          Because they are the ones putting on the event and that responsibility includes security measures. It’s school policy that ALL organizations who want to schedule an event show they have the funds to cover ALL costs associated with it. That’s just simple common sense. It’s THEIR event. Not the schools.

          Those costs are in case of violence from ANY group plus I’m sure the school’s insurance carrier requires it.

          1. Svelaz, you continue to say that that Republican Club did not submit an application to hold the event. I asked in a previous post that you provide substantiation for your claim and you have not presented any proof. Previously you presented both by repetition and a link to the bylaws of Dartmouth concerning campus events. Nowhere in the bylaws does it state that payment for such events is required in advance but you make it seem that such a requirement is in the bylaws when it is not. Let me once again present you with the opportunity to substantiate your claim. I ask you please, no further obfuscation because it is considered the last refuge of the twister of the facts.

            1. TiT,

              “ Svelaz, you continue to say that that Republican Club did not submit an application to hold the event. I asked in a previous post that you provide substantiation for your claim and you have not presented any proof.”

              That’s because I never made that claim. What I did say was that the SCHOOL said the Republican club did not apply for FUNDS for the event. I assume there is a trust or grants available for groups to apply for so they can pay for the events.

              They scheduled the event. What they did NOT do is show they had the funds to cover the costs of the event. That’s the issue. So far the Republican club has not said that they did have the funds to cover the event.

              “ No College department, program or recognized organization shall schedule an event or activity unless available College funds to cover the anticipated costs have been identified.”

              The Republican Club cannot schedule an event unless AVAILABLE COLLEGE FUNDS TO COVER THE ANTICIPATED COSTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. That means they have to show they applied for the funds and have access to the funds.

              It’s a requirement that they show they have the ABILITY to cover the costs. The Republican club never said they did That’s the one glaring omission that is at the heart of the problem. It’s not about free speech.

              1. “The Republican club never said they did That’s the one glaring omission that is at the heart of the problem. It’s not about free speech.”

                The problem is that leftist violence should be paid by the violent leftists. It’s really simple. If someone leaves a restaurant unhappy and writes a bad review, he is not responsible for another person burning down the restaurant.

                1. Anonymous (S. Meyer),

                  “The problem is that leftist violence should be paid for by the violent leftists. It’s really simple. If someone leaves a restaurant unhappy and writes a bad review, he is not responsible for another person burning down the restaurant.”

                  Why? They are not the ones hosting the event. What if those “violent leftists” don’t engage in violence and are just mere audience members? Why should they pay for the security that is the responsibility of the hosts who ARE the ones holding the event?

                  The restaurant is still responsible for making sure the diners have a safe environment where they can eat safely. the restaurant is the owner of the establishment which is also responsible for ensuring the security of the establishment by hiring a security guard. The restaurant is also responsible for making sure the food isn’t expired or contaminated but you are arguing that the customers are responsible for that, not the restaurant. That’s why your arguments are pretty stupid.

          2. “Because they are the ones putting on the event ”

            They are breaking the ‘windows’, so why shouldn’t they pay for their violent actions?

            The policies are in place to prevent people from putting on events that can cause damage. For instance, fire-crackers on the fourth of July could potentially damage things caused by what they do. Having someone speak doesn’t cause violence. Violent leftists cause violence and should be held responsible.

            Are you trying to say that violent leftists aren’t responsible for their own actions?

            1. S. Meyer,

              “ They are breaking the ‘windows’, so why shouldn’t they pay for their violent actions?“

              Who is breaking windows? You’re making an asinine argument on the assumption that violence is going to happen.

              The Dartmouth Republican Club is the organization putting on the event. They are responsible for all costs associated with the event including security. You’re arguing that those who wish to attend the event are the ones who should pay for security because the are the ones who are going to be violent. That’s the dumbest thing you’ve said in a while S. Meyer.

              “ The policies are in place to prevent people from putting on events that can cause damage. For instance, fire-crackers on the fourth of July could potentially damage things caused by what they do. Having someone speak doesn’t cause violence. Violent leftists cause violence and should be held responsible.”

              The policies are in place because those who put on the events are responsible for everything that happens during the event and that include having security capable of handling protesters who may become violent or just being disruptive. It’s the responsibility of those HOSTING the event that they make sure everyone attending is going to be safe. It can’t get any simpler than that. You’re trying to make it about “leftists” being violent so they should pay without knowing that they are actually going to be violent.

              “ Are you trying to say that violent leftists aren’t responsible for their own actions?”

              No, I’m saying that those who want to hold the event are responsible for ALL costs for the event. Because it’s THEIR event and it’s also school policy. They haven’t shown or said that they could cover the costs they are responsible for. That’s the issue.

              1. Are you saying the violent leftists hold no responsibility for their actions? Don’t you think they should be arrested, serve a prison sentence and have to pay costs?

                Are you suggesting violent people get a free pass paid for by the law observant ones? That sounds pretty crazy.

                By the way, not every anonymous that responds to you, ATS and Anonymous the Stupid is S. Meyer. You haven’t noticed, but others use those nicknames and respond to you.

                SM

                1. S. Meyer,

                  “Are you saying the violent leftists hold no responsibility for their actions? Don’t you think they should be arrested, serve a prison sentence and have to pay costs?”

                  No, YOU are saying that. Not I.

                  “Are you suggesting violent people get a free pass paid for by the law observant ones? That sounds pretty crazy.”

                  No.

                  “By the way, not every anonymous that responds to you, ATS and Anonymous the Stupid is S. Meyer. You haven’t noticed, but others use those nicknames and respond to you.”

                  The majority do have the same syntax and writing style associated with you.

                  “ATS and Anonymous the Stupid is S. Meyer.”

                  Huh? ATS (anonymous the stupid) and anonymous the stupid is S. Meyer. well, they are both certainly you S. Meyer that is not in dispute.

                  1. Dartmouth needs to do its job and only permit students to attend these lectures that are dangerous because of violent leftists. Students have ID cards. Then Dartmouth needs to tell the students that they will be thrown out of school if they misbehave. That will end the problem. The students will be afraid to misbehave, and those that aren’t afraid will not be around for the following lecture.

                    That is a simple solution used all the time.

                    You are promoting violence by left-wing agitators.

                    By the way, I don’t care if you think every poster that posts to you or ATS, using his appropriate name, is me. For the most part, I agree with them, and they save me time. Nor did I say everyone was from someone else. I was letting you in so that you know in advance that your responses are not always to me.

                    SM

                    1. Jesus S. Meyer, you’re off your rocker today.

                      “Dartmouth needs to do its job and only permit students to attend these lectures that are dangerous because of violent leftists”

                      Well for the school to do its job it needs to get paid by the event organizers to provide the security that the event requires. That’s why they require event organizers to pay a … security fee. Wow, what a concept eh?

                      “Students have ID cards. Then Dartmouth needs to tell the students that they will be thrown out of school if they misbehave. That will end the problem. The students will be afraid to misbehave, and those that aren’t afraid will not be around for the following lecture.”

                      You can’t get expelled for disrupting an event. You CAN get kicked out of the event which is why there is a…SECURITY FEE. Gasp!

                      “That is a simple solution used all the time.”

                      No it is not. Schools do not throw out students from school for misbehaving. The get disciplined, suspended, put on probation, etc. That works too.

                      “You are promoting violence by left-wing agitators.”

                      Nope. What exactly is that I’m promoting? You are the only one making claims that leftists are going to break windows and whatever. That they are going to be violent at this event.

                    2. Why do you believe violent student agitators shouldn’t be thrown out of school? Are you violent yourself?

                      SM

  8. What the Dartmouth Republican Club is not saying is if they applied for funds to cover the security of the event. According to school policy, ALL student organizations are responsible for the costs of the events and must have the funding available at the time of scheduling the event. They didn’t apply for the funding or made any effort to acquire it in time to pay the fee when they scheduled the event.

    Here’s the policy,

    “ Costs of Sponsored Events

    No College department, program or recognized organization shall schedule an event or activity unless available College funds to cover the anticipated costs have been identified.”

    https://policies.dartmouth.edu/policy/sponsorship-events-departments-and-recognized-organizations

    “ The school said student organizations are responsible for event-related security costs, saying that “The Republican College Club leaders were aware of their responsibility for event security fees and were given an estimate in advance, with sufficient time to make a.” Request for funding “For these costs. They have not requested this funding. The club was also aware of the possibility that the event may need to be adjusted to address safety concerns raised by the organizers themselves.”

    This isn’t a free speech issue. This is just a republican club not being financially responsible and blaming the school for THEIR incompetence or irresponsibility in understanding the policies.

    Their speech is not being censored because they are conservatives. They are STILL having the event online. They are risking not being able to use funds because they were supposed to have the funds before scheduling the event. Regardless of the change they still need to pay the fee because the club was AWARE the event may be adjusted to address safety concerns.

    1. Gee, Portland and the other antifa infested cities should use a similar policy to ensure that those “public events” have their security paid for, too.

      I’m sure that if the Dartmouth Pubs created a fundraiser where donors would donate a few bucks for each antifa rioter’s scalp, they’d have the funding in no time, plus general violent and drug-related crime would decrease, to – win win. I’d donate.

      It’s time to purge ted wheelers band of misfits and the similar tards across the country. ENOUGH.

    2. Svelte

      Thanks for clarifying the culpability of those dastardly Republicans.

      Typical lefty obfuscation.

      No moral compass.

      1. Monument Colorado,

        I made an effort to research the facts made by the Dartmouth Republican Club using their claims and sources of information. The letter from the police chief that they used included the fact that the club and the speaker were also relaying concerns about safety to the police department. It wasn’t just the school.

        “ The letter from Police Chief Charles B. Dennis stated, “The information and concerns we received from student organizers, event organizers, the speaker, open source information available online about the event, and information through law enforcement channels was credible and substantiated by us.” We are concerned for the safety of those attending the event, those protesting the event, and our community members.”

      1. Anonymous.

        “ They did apply. Argument negated.”

        Show proof they did.

        “ The school said student organizations are responsible for event-related security costs, saying that “The Republican College Club leaders were aware of their responsibility for event security fees and were given an estimate in advance, with sufficient time to make a.” Request for funding “For these costs. They have not requested this funding.”

        Surely you have the link to the club stating they applied for funding.

    3. If the hateful left wishes to break windows in protest, let them pay for the windows. Additionally, if the nasty left cannot act civilly, arrest the agitators and put them in jail. That is where violent people belong.

    4. Svelaz, I read the link you provided with great interest. You are correct in saying that the event needed to be paid for. However, you stated that the Republican Club made no attempt to apply to hold the event. I am hopeful that you will provide a link supporting your accusation. We wouldn’t want to think that you just made that part up so you could clear it all up by providing a source that says that the Republican Club did not submit a request for the event. Another question that the good Professor asks is why was security required for an online event? You could clear all this up for us by providing support to substantiate your claim that the Republican club did not submit an application and your explanation of how security is required for an online event. We await more enlightening proof of your wisdom. It would allay further laughter.

      1. TiT,

        “ However, you stated that the Republican Club made no attempt to apply to hold the event. I am hopeful that you will provide a link supporting your accusation.”

        I didn’t state that. The school did. The Republican club never stated that they applied or showed that they had the funds to cover the event as required by school policy. Here’s what the school said,

        “ The school said student organizations are responsible for event-related security costs, saying that “The Republican College Club leaders were aware of their responsibility for event security fees and were given an estimate in advance, with sufficient time to make a.” Request for funding “For these costs. They have not requested this funding. The club was also aware of the possibility that the event may need to be adjusted to address safety concerns raised by the organizers themselves.”

        1. Ok Svelaz, you say that the school said that the Republican Club didn’t apply to hold the event. All we have is that you said the school said they didn’t apply. You have presented no proof that the school said anything. Please provide a statement by the school stating that it did not receive an application. If no proof of such a statement is forthcoming we can only surmise that it is only you saying that the school made such a statement. Your embellishment of what the school said is not evidence of any statement made by the school. We wait for the proof of your claims. A simple source could convince us and you would then be considered a purveyor of the truth. Short of this what assumption must remain.

          1. Thinkitthrough,

            “Ok Svelaz, you say that the school said that the Republican Club didn’t apply to hold the event.”

            NO, I did NOT say that. Pay attention. I said, “The Republican club never stated that they applied or showed that they had the funds to cover the event as required by school policy.” That they didn’t apply for the FUNDS, not the event. It should have said that they didn’t apply “FOR” or showed that they had the funds to cover the event. My apologies for the confusion. The policy states

            “All we have is that you said the school said they didn’t apply. You have presented no proof that the school said anything. Please provide a statement by the school stating that it did not receive an application.”

            I DID provide the proof that the school said they didn’t apply for the FUNDS. I never said they didn’t apply for the EVENT which is what you are claiming. Not I. Here’s the quote from the school, I’m capitalizing the pertinent statement proving what the school said,

            “The school said student organizations are responsible for event-related security costs, saying that “THE REPUBLICAN COLLEGE CLUB LEADERS WERE AWARE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVENT SECURITY FEES AND WERE GIVEN AN ESTIMATE IN ADVANCE, WITH SUFFICIENT TIME TO MAKE A. “REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR THESE COSTS. THEY HAVE NOT REQUESTED THIS FUNDING. The club was also aware of the possibility that the event may need to be adjusted to address safety concerns raised by the organizers themselves.”

            https://worldtimetodays.com/dartmouth-college-is-charging-the-republican-club-a-3600-security-fee-for-the-canceled-andy-ngo-event/

      2. TiT says:

        “I am hopeful that you will provide a link supporting your accusation.”

        Does Trump provide a link when he often claims that “people are saying” to bolster his accusations? Yet the gullible Trumpists eat up all the “carnival snake charmer” feeds them.

  9. Turley as usual is either being disingenuous, or very naive in taking the Dartmouth Republican Club’s narrative at face value without doing any real meaningful research into the issue. This is not an attempt at suppressing the free speech rights of conservatives. Keep in mind that the event is still going to happen online. He will still get to speak to the audience that wants to listen to him speak.

    The DRC (Dartmouth Republican Club) is being disingenuous with what the letter from the police chief says and its responsibilities regarding the event. They note that the police department didn’t make any recommendations. What the DRC is leaving out of that letter is that even THEY expressed concerns about safety to the police department INCLUDING concerns from the SPEAKER himself and they noted the concerns were CREDIBLE. Here’s the letter in its entirety,

    https://www.thefire.org/hanover-police-letter-to-fire-february-16-2022/

    As for the fee, the DRC knew well ahead of time that they would be responsible for it and its school policy for ALL student organizations.

    “ The college noted that student organizations are responsible for event-related security costs, adding that “leaders of the college Republican club were aware of their responsibility for security fees for the event and received an estimate in advance, with enough time to submit a funding request for these costs. They did not request this funding. The club was also aware of the possibility that the event might need to be adjusted to address safety concerns expressed by the organizers themselves.”
    Despite running a deficit, Dartmouth noted, the club will carry on with an event scheduled for today, and “students can seek other sources of funding to address their deficit.”

    When the DRC scheduled the event it was supposed to pay the fee. They had plenty of time to apply for it. They didn’t. There’s more to the fee than what DRC is letting on. I’m willing to bet that they either missed a refund deadline or the fee was supposed to be paid at the time they applied for the event.

    1. Svelaz, Turley only writes what his Trump base wants to read. But thank you for pointing out the facts.

      1. Turley is adding information to those that wish to be on his site. You sound like a child deprived of his toys because his mother put them in the toy box. You are free to go to the net to search out whatever information you wish, but you are not free to tell others what to write.

    2. Svelaz,

      Turley has a clear “free speech” narrative which he pounds out to his readers. He is engaged in – dare I say it- *advocacy journalism.* As an advocate, you can hardly blame him for not making the case for the other side. That’s our job. Thanks for doing it so well.

      Turley makes it impossible to hold him accountable publicly for his misstatements and thus shame him to be impartial, but as we know, he is incommunicado on this blog.

      1. Jeff Silberman,

        Sometimes I think Turley is just plain lazy when it comes to doing real research on subjects like this column. This is as you say exactly a great example of advocacy journalism. Oh, the irony.

        This issue was not about free speech at all. It was about a group not wanting to pay or just throwing a tantrum because their concerns about safety made the school decide to change the format of the event. They were not being denied the right to speak they were just offered a different format for their event.

        1. Svelaz,

          Honestly, I don’t have the patience to delve into the facts of all these instances which Turley cherry-picks out of the blue. I’m grateful to you. Personally, I have my hands full ridiculing the cockamamie conspiracy theories of John B. Say.

          I’m surprised that Turley has not accepted the invitation of Conservative students at any number of institutions of higher learning. I have to believe that his profile on Fox News has led to many such invites which he presumably has declined. Turley needs to- dare I say it- come out of his Ivory bunker to face his critics in public. I want to watch him debate his free speech views with a worthy opponent such as journalist Chris Hayes or Constitutional scholar Neal Katyal instead of hitting softball questions from Hannity, Carlson and Ingraham.

          I’m eagerly anticipating reading his law review article when it is published. There, he will lay out his thesis and defend it against the obvious objections to it. Hopefully, those academics who challenge Turley’s thesis will write their own responses to be published in subsequent law reviews. I’m not interested in debating particular cases as much as I am interested in debating the principles of free speech.

          1. Typical left wingnut response – spray lots of ad hominem and run away.

            Ridicule is NOT argument – it is a sign of a weak mind.

            Turley gets to make his own choices as to where to appear – but few people not on the far left are willing to appear on college campuses today – you could get killed.

            Even Yale Law School went bonkers when an attempt was made to host a debate over free speech.

            The safety problem speaking at colleges is far from confined to those on the right or even the middle. Anyone not on the far left is at risk on a college campus.

            I doubt Turley will be speaking at colleges any time soon.

            There was an excellent debate on free speech by Ken White and Elie Mystal several years ago that you should be able to find on youtube if you want something like that.

            John Stuart Mill is generally regarded as the greatest defender of Free speech, and his essay “On Liberty’ the best and most timeless defense.

            Heterdoxy academy has “translated” much of it to modern english if you are not comfortable reading 19th century english.

            https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/

            Most everyone not on the extreme left would love to seen debates between intelligent people on consequential issues, but it is not likely you will see those at most colleges today.

            1. Turley is not controversial. As a NeverTrumper, he would be welcome at any liberal college. His employment at Fox would not be intolerable since he never endorses the false narratives of Hannity, Carlson, Levin or Ingraham *by name*. Instead, Turley is clever enough to keep his distance from them politically so as to maintain his plausible deniability that he is anything like them.

  10. Dartmouth’s School of Medicine was in the news last year for surveillance, no less, and making public false accusations against medical students. This was a big deal in medical education circles. It tarnished them.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/technology/dartmouth-cheating-charges.html

    Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine says it is dropping an online cheating investigation that led the school to erroneously accuse some students, allegations that prompted an outcry among faculty, alumni and technology experts.

    “The cheating investigation turned the pastoral Ivy League campus into a national battleground over escalating school surveillance during the pandemic.

    While many universities, including Dartmouth, require students to use special software that locks down their devices during remote exams, Geisel went further by using a second system, Canvas, to retroactively track student activity during remote exams without their knowledge. That was unusual because Canvas was not designed as a forensic tool.

    Technology experts said Dartmouth’s use of Canvas raised questions. While some students may have cheated, these experts said, it would be difficult for school administrators to distinguish cheating from noncheating based on the kind of Canvas data snapshots that Dartmouth used.”

    1. Dartmouth has always been a leader in computer research thanks to one of its presidents, John Kemeny, who co-developed the BASIC programming language in 1964 with Thomas E. Kurtz. Kemeny served as the 13th President of Dartmouth College from 1970 to 1981 and pioneered the use of computers in college education. I was there when he was. Probably few on this list remember BASIC.

  11. Nobody tries to shut up a guy who doesn’t expose their most guarded vulnerabilities. I love small people and institutions. So much easier to crush or, more precisely, watch them crush themselves. See Netflix, Disney, Twitter et stupids

  12. Bray’s philosophy is a blueprint for chaos and anarchy. Any short term acquisition of power from this one-sided approach will be lost once those opposed realize that survival depends upon a different approach at the water hole. These radicals will either reform or be hoisted by their own petard.

    1. FriscoDB:

      “These radicals will either reform or be hoisted by their own petard.”
      *****************************************
      Here’s hoping for a really powerful, high-flying petard with a loud banging report.

  13. Until the American Taxpayers who support these educational facilities with their money say enough is enough nothing is going to change.
    A prime example what just happen in Florida with Disney. The message from he taxpayers by the way of the Governor, Enough is Enough.

  14. Some elements of modern non- governmental fascism are, intolerance for diverse opinions, intimidation ,physical violence against those with whom you disagree, destroying historical symbols that you believe represent values that you disagree with. Basically the playbook for Antifa.
    So before anyone defends Antifa because their name SUPPOSEDLY means anti- fascist ,Antifa basically is the definition of fascism.

    1. Paul,

      I don’t defend Antifa; I also condemn Q-Anon. I don’t defend BLM just like I don’t excuse Trumpism. I won’t ignore lying and will denounce violence whether committed in a city’s streets or at the Capitol.

  15. Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Brown…WOULD Never have accepted people with the level of freedom of thought to invite anyone right of AOC

  16. don’t worry Democrats will just stop admitting any NON-FLAMING-LIBERAL-DEMOCRAT Child!

    My kid went to an Ivy….we visited many top schools…. IT IS PURE BRAINWASHING liberal CRAP! There is no Debate….there is Fascism!

    1. Your kid just visited an Ivy or dropped out of one due to his refusal to be brainwashed?

  17. While I agree with the general concerns Turley has expressed here, I don’t see the explicit contradiction. The college said they received “concerning information” from the police. The police said they made no “recommendation” to cancel the event. There is no inconsistency in those two statements. The police could have conveyed information to the college that it viewed as concerning without making a recommendation to cancel the event.

    1. Webster would say that there are those who love it, e.g., graduates Dinesh D’Souza and Laura Ingraham. I expect she will invite Turley on her program to opine on this matter.

  18. The support Musk is receiving reflects how so many demand free speech. This article is just another example of why it can’t come too soon. I follow you and appreciate your honest assessments.

    1. The students of today are like robots programmed to accept the mantras of the Left. The adults who are manipulating them (the professors at many universities and all the way down to the teachers starting in Kindergarten) are afraid for them to hear anything that would allow them to think critically and disrupt their robotic, meaningless but often harmful mantras.

      We need to start taxing the BILLIONAIRE university endowments that are presently tax exempt and stop funding this perverse and subversive “re-education” machine. College campuses are not higher ed but lowest common denominator ed and re-education camps similar to China and N Korea.

        1. That hits the donor in the pocket and is reasonable, considering these universities violate tax-free organizations’ rules.

      1. Suburbanwoman says:

        “College campuses are not higher ed but lowest common denominator ed and re-education camps similar to China and N Korea.”

        You took the words right out of Turley’s mouth.

Leave a Reply