The George Washington University (where I teach) has a new free speech controversy after the Student Association Senate unanimously passed a resolution calling on school officials to suspend the campus chapter of the Young America’s Foundation (YAF) for alleged four “transphobic” tweets.
According to The Hatchet, the SAS approved the “No Place for Hate Act” declaring a series of YAF tweets to be “hateful” and demanding a response from the university.
There are four tweets posted from a three-day period:
“…On April 20, 2022, at 5:57 pm, GW Young America’s Foundation Tweeted from their official Twitter account “oh the pro-pedo libs are gonna LOVE this one” as a quote Tweet of the official Young America’s Foundation Twitter account;
…On April 21, 2022, at 4:52 pm, GW Young America’s Foundation Tweeted “we aren’t the ones advocating for the grooming and sexualization of children…” in response to a Tweet calling them disgusting;
…On April 22, 2022, at 10:21 am, GW Young America’s Foundation Tweeted “AGREE OR GET CANCELLED: @benshapiro explains how trans ‘rights’ are an attack on free speech.”;
…On April 22, 2022, at 3:56 pm, GW Young America’s Foundation Tweeted “The statement that pedophiles shouldn’t be teaching in schools should not be controversial, it’s common sense.”
Among the relief demands is the suspension of the group and for the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to “conduct trainings” with the conservative group to ensure it “understand[s] why [its] statements were wrong.”
YAF deleted the first tweet and said that the word pedophile should not have been used and “did not represent the entire organization’s views.” It further said that it “was not meant to refer to transgender people as pedophiles, only people who support implementing education about gender and sexuality in elementary schools.”
There are clear justification in other students objecting to the tweet. However, the organization told The Hatchet that
“a YAF e-board member posted the tweet without “any pre-approval,” and that the member is no longer part of the organization. Moving forward, we will closely scrutinize our social media posts to ensure that they are in-line with the executive board’s views as a whole.”
While some have said that this statement does not expressly offer an apology, it is clear that the group has disassociated itself from the statement made by someone who is no longer with the group.
The question is whether this and the other tweets justify a suspension of a group and mandatory training.
The second tweet was reportedly in response to a member of GW Reproductive Autonomy and Gender Equity calling YAF “disgusting.” It reflected a view of some conservatives that early exposure of children (particularly from kindergarten to third grade) constitutes “grooming and sexualization.” That is a roaring debate on and off campus, particularly in light of the recent Florida parental rights law. While many understandably view the statement to be insulting and inaccurate, it is a political viewpoint supported not only by these students but various politicians and pundits. It should be treated as protected speech on campus.
The third tweet stated “AGREE OR GET CANCELLED: @benshapiro explains how trans ‘rights’ are an attack on free speech.” Again, many students have a legitimate right to denounce that statement as insulting and inaccurate. However, it is a political statement that captures not only the views of Shapiro but the view of many conservatives. It should also be treated as protected speech on campus.
The fourth tweet, again, uses the term “pedophiles” that many understandably find insulting. It is not clear what this statement is referencing from the resolution. However, the labeling of others in this debate as pedophiles is irresponsible, offensive, and wrong. The group itself publicly stated that the word “pedophile” should not have been used in the discussion.
The resolution maintains that action is required from the university “to improve safety for the LGBTQ+ Community.”
There is ample basis for condemnation of the use of this label in tweets. Trans individuals have long faced this prejudicial, harmful, and demeaning label in society. They are often portrayed as threats to children due to their identity. We should all stand in opposition to such characterizations and be cognizant of how such labels impact members of our community.
However, the suspension of the group (which only received $186 from the university according to the Hatchet) would come at a high cost for free speech. I have seen other groups at GW engage in insulting and reckless characterizations. That includes calling Republicans fascists, racists, and other terms. Likewise, pro-life advocates are often denounced as being anti-feminist or misogynistic.
As forums of free speech, universities encourage students to participate in political causes and engage in debates over contemporary issues. In so doing, schools strive not to regulate such speech out of concern for free speech values. That can be difficult when passionate debate leads to reckless or offensive comments. Such intervention can create a slippery slope of regulation where the university is called upon to address a myriad of offensive or insulting characterizations in political debates.
In this case, YAF was legitimately called out for the use of pedophile in these exchanges on Twitter. The groups deleted one tweet and said that the term should not be used as part of the debate. If the university goes further, it will need to establish not just a bright-line rule on how it will be responding to such insults but also address the failure to do so with other groups.
The concern over consistent and uniform treatment of speech is long-standing on campuses. In past postings, I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments about “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.
Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. We also previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter.
In all of these controversies, my natural default is in favor of free speech despite the offensive content of the statements. I have the same inclination in this controversy. The group has pledged to more closely monitor tweets using the group account and to avoid the use of the term “pedophile” in the debate. The students were correct in calling out YAF for the tweets, but a suspension would raise troubling free speech implications for the university, particularly after the recent censorship of a group criticizing the Chinese government.
This is an important debate for our community and legitimately caused this group to review and revise its approach to social media commentary. The resolution, however, fails to consider the countervailing dangers to free speech raised by the controversy. A suspension of the group would undermine free speech rights on campus.
As it has been pointed out regarding a prior posting by JT, his free speech “absolutist” reference to himself remains unclear. He has acknowlwedged that “racist” comments are prohibited on this blog. It would be helpful if JT clearly defined what speech he believes is not allowable. He has not done so.
I agree with you since this site is a private entity not receiving any benefits via the public purse. However, when even a penny of public money is aiding any entity that wants to renounce the first amendment in order to further a privately held agenda, then there is a significant difference and a reason to protest. I would say that the solution to all of this involving our education industry is to deny any funding to such entities (which would include the use of government backed student loans for tuition etc. and any government funded research). Let these self-righteous institutions make it ENTIRELY on their own without any government support, then they are free to do as they wish.
Alma says:
“Let these self-righteous institutions make it ENTIRELY on their own without any government support, then they are free to do as they wish.”
Turley absolutely does NOT agree. He believes that free speech is a human right and that censorship is wrong no matter who does it – government or ENTIRELY private parties.
I wish you would pay attention to his writings.
Turely is wrong and so are you.
My only point is that Turley himself says he is blocking some speech (which he can do as a private person) – but he has never defined what he himself finds is unacceptable speech. He wants to be considered a free speech “absolutist.” Shouldn’t he describe exactly how absolutist he is not?
RDKAY
How about this. The right to keep and bear arms is well understood. But I can bar people from carrying a gun on my property.
This came up at the Iowa State Fair. They declared the fair grounds gun free for the duration of the fair. People asked if they would have the Highway Patrol (a very heavy presence during the fair) arrest offenders? No the Highway patrol said, no laws are broken. They would assist if the person refused to leave, but no laws were broken, but the officers could aide in helping the property owners remove unwanted visitors.
Turley rightly knows racist speech is protected from government actions. Property owners however, can ask such people to leave.
I have had posts blocked and received a polite note from Daren that jt.org is using a wordpress filter to thwart spam bots, and that filter also traps a long list of unacceptable words.
That filter is the most efficient use of Johnathon and Daren’s time, it is not intended to perfectly reflect their values.
As you noted – they are private actors and can do as they please.
Or in this case they can do what is easiest that approximates what they please.
If you can not figure out how to post most anything without running afoul of the WP filter – you are not very creative.
RDKAY says:
“It would be helpful if JT clearly defined what speech he believes is not allowable. He has not done so.”
It’s *impossible* to clearly declare a bright-line rule. Turley knows it despite his demand that every institution and company must do so. Does Turley’s own “Civility Rule” clearly define what speech is not allowed?
Absolutely NOT….
You like to pull strings so tight that they break.
It is possible to define certain things close, but not absolutely. That is why we depend on people to have good judgment. If you wish to attack Turley for not defining the undefinable, look to yourself and see if your mind is thinking as clearly as you assume.
“A suspension of the group would undermine free speech rights on campus” That’s exactly what their aim is, to stifle speech they disagree (at least in public) with.
@anonymous
I suppose accusing people as “pedophiles” does not stifle their speech.
It may stifle their speech a bit, but it can reduce their pedophile notions.
Three of the four tweets are unassailable – the first one could have been more tamed.
But what’s dangerous is that the Leftists “demands is the suspension of the group and for the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to “conduct trainings” with the conservative group to ensure it “understand[s] why [its] statements were wrong.”
Mind control by the Left has been their MO for 40 years. Some of us saw the slippery slope, others were blind to it.
But hopefully anyone with a brain now realizes that the Left isn’t about our democracy and our Constitution but wants totalitarian fascist rule like in Cuba, China, Venezuela. If you want that MOVE!
“But hopefully anyone with a brain now realizes that the Left isn’t about our democracy and our Constitution but wants totalitarian fascist rule like in Cuba, China, Venezuela. If you want that MOVE!”
Did you leave out Russia by mistake or on purpose?
“Did you leave out Russia by mistake or on purpose?”
She didn’t want to insult you.
The prestigious science journal Nature reported on the largest study looking for a “gay gene”. The authors could not find one. Its funny that LGBTQ advocates argue that Gays “don’t have a choice.” The entire field of psychotherapy is based on the belief that behavior modification is possible by changing self-image. But apparently LGBTQ people are immune to its efficacy. Either the gay lobby is feeding us bull or the entire field of psychotherapy needs to resign. Perhaps their strident pejoratives hurled at conservatives is designed to hide their inability to find any genetic or biological science to support their views. If you can’t win the argument, shut down your opposition. That works every time.
Americans can’t crow about “defending free speech” when the country is awash in racist anti-Russia propaganda. Americans pick and choose their “victims” — and make a mockery of free speech.
What mockery of free speech? It just happens to be the majority opinion. You just don’t like it. When Ukraine invades Russia, bombs hospitals, and commits genocide, the majority opinion will probably go the other direction.
The good professor states the obvious without stating the obvious: Immature and impressionable students get their cues from their role-models and mentors: [un-punished], immature, and impression-inspiring FACULTY AND PROFESSORS.
Were the faculty members/professors mentioned by Turley ever reprimanded? Publicly criticized by their respective universities/colleges? Did they lose their speaking or publishing perqs?
“If the university goes further, it will need to establish not just a bright-line rule on how it will be responding to such insults but also address the failure to do so with other groups,” says Professor Turley.
Amen. Free speech demands that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Lin says:
“If the university goes further, it will need to establish not just a bright-line rule on how it will be responding to such insults but also address the failure to do so with other groups,” says Professor Turley. Amen”
You would think that as a free speech expert and tireless advocate, Turley wouldn’t just complain about the lack of a bright-line rule, BUT PROPOSE one of his own for his very own university!
His own “Civility Rule” is as vague and arbitrary as any he criticizes as evidenced by what is sadly tolerated in this cesspool.
A pedophile should never be around young children. By definition pedophile is”sexually attracted to young children.” What’s wrong with banning them from being around young children?
Who gets to decide which Leftist teacher is a pedophile? You?
That pedophiles are generally leftists doesn’t mean all pedophiles are leftists.
Are you sure???
You have a good point.
Ummm, so JT you talk the talk are you going to walk the walk, your school? Are you and your colleagues drafting anything regarding the Ministry of Fear? It’s frustrating to read your position on free speech which 95% of the readers here agree but now it’s your house tell us your going to get involved?
Margot,
You do NOT agree with Turley’s position on free speech. Do you agree with this Turley statement:
“the labeling of others in this debate as pedophiles is irresponsible, offensive, and wrong. The group itself publicly stated that the word “pedophile” should not have been used in the discussion.”
Turley would likely have censored the first tweet had it been posted here by one of the contributors. Turley’s Civility Rule states, “I will delete abusive comments when I see them or when they are raised to me.”
You don’t agree with that, do you?
Free speech for me but not for thee. You have the right to your opinion. However you do not have the right to force me to accept it.
I went back and read the four tweets. From my perspective the fourth should be the least controversial. Individuals who have been convicted of pedophila are required to register as sex offenders. In many states they are restricted to residing near schools and parks. It is common sense that known offenders should not be working as faculty and staff in a school setting. The majority of states also require CORI checks to weed out those who prey on children. Apparently those who object to that opinion are not and never have been parents.
As for the other tweets, some might be offended.however they are opinions and should be protected. The tweets do not incite violence against any individual or or group. This is the only reason in my mind that should serve as the basis for censorship or suspension of a group.
Next, I do not believe anyone forced the objectors to read the tweets. We are living in a society of victims and the easily offended. Those individuals also have the options of engaging in a civil debate or they can and should walkaway.
WilliamDowney says:
“Those individuals also have the options of engaging in a civil debate or they can and should walkaway.”
Let me get this straight. If a troll overtakes this blog and is a nuisance to everyone, everyone who wishes not to engage him in a civil debate should walkaway leaving the troll all alone?
You forgot the idea of force that was in William’s argument. You are very careless.
Snowflakes once again start melting in the sunshine of a new day then run screaming for justice and suspension of those who have verbally “assaulted’ them (replied forcefully, yelled back, snorted, or eye rolled about the snowflakes” latest abomination”).
“Oh, the humanity!”
List of Constitutional Amendments Democrats are against 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26
Republican need to get in DEMOCRATS FACES. We can not let the Democrats win Civil War 2.0. Democrats are trying to destroy America…the time to fight is NOW!
Since JT is a strong free speech advocate, I am surprised and disappointed he didn’t give his position on the third tweet that said trans rights are an attack on free speech. I hope JT doesn’t believe that.
No such thing as trans. Test the DNA…you wiil find a MAN or WOMAN. We don’t have to play Pretend!
According to you, do intersex people exist? (Your claim that sex can be determined solely by DNA suggests that you’d answer “no.”)
According to you, does genetic chimerism exist? (Your implication that all the DNA in someone’s body has identical sex chromosomes suggests you’d answer “no.”)
Are even a plurality of trans people actual genetic chimeras or intersex?
It is a standard ploy to counter the point that boys can’t become girls and vice versa to point to some unusual biological abnormalities. Another one would be hermaphroditism. The ideology of gender “transition” is false and will do a great deal of harm. Pointing out biological abnormalities does not make it true.
Variations from the norm exist everywhere. We might provide a name for the variation, but that doesn’t change the name for the norm. The norm is male and female XY: XX.
A poodle is a poodle. One might add a color or a size designation, and others might add other things, but when a poodle walks into the room, it is a poodle.
Your pedantry is noted.
99.95% are XX or XY What’s happening right now,1,2,3, 8% …is grooming
People can be fired for “misgendering” a trans or trans-identifying person or for using a so-called “deadname.” Women without the visibility and resources of J.K. Rowling and Martina Navratilova are demeaned, disciplined, and canceled for insisting that sex is an immutable biological concept, that the word “woman” refers only to adult females and should not be replaced by “birthing people,” “people with vulvas,” or “bleeders,” and that women should have safe spaces without having to admit genetic makes who “identify” as women. I’d call that an an attack in free speech.
Safety. Safe from “menacing” ideas and thoughts? If you don’t wrestle with ideas and concerns, how do you understand anything, including other people? How do you move towards Truth?
Do they object to people training in self-defense, too? To learn how to handle yourself in a physical confrontation means you practice engaging in physical confrontations, preferably in a structured environment with people who are more experienced and can teach you best practices. It doesn’t mean avoiding confrontation at all.
Another way to think about it. I have seedlings growing in my house. To make their stems stronger and less inclined to legginess, I gently brush them with my hand, knocking them about a bit. Then, before they will be ready to put in my garden, they need to spend some time in a sheltered place outdoors to “harden off”, to acclimate to the extremes of temperature, wind, weather, and sunlight.
Prairie Rose: re: your comment, “I have seedlings growing in my house…place outdoors to ‘harden off’, to acclimate to the extremes of temperature, wind, weather, and sunlight.” What a wonderful metaphor/analogy. Thank you!
So Turley wants credit for acknowledging a term “pedophiles” is wrong, saying the group disassociated themselves from the term which was used by a member no longer with the group. Then the group uses the same term again.
Suspension is not a permanent ban. Fraternities and sororities get suspended all the time. Hopefully they learn their lessons and do better in the future. This group apparently learned nothing and deserved suspension.
Would you favor suspension for any group that voices support for the organization BLM? Where do you Jacobins draw the line. If their speech offends you, GET OVER YOURSELF!
Their speech offended themselves. They apologized for it, the member was allegedly removed from the group, and then they did the exact same thing.
Turley concedes too much here. Anyone can say what they want. Referring to those who want to introduce gender identity in k-3 as groomers or pedophiles may be incorrect but it is a rhetorical tactic being deployed against perceived extremism that should not lead to punishment or re-education cultural revolution style. There are lots of epithets that are thrown about to make rhetorical points: racist, Nazi, white supremacist, fascist, etc. These are tools of political debate and have been for time immemorial. Rhetorical escalation should be challenged through counter-speech not counter-measures.
Daniel. If not grooming, what is the purpose of including the topic in the classroom.
I get zero reasons, when considering the possibilities.
They would say it’s to promote tolerance.
To me it is promoting confusion. A boy simply cannot become a girl or vice versa. Normalising this false idea will have horrible consequences, as more children move from social transition to puberty blockers to sex hormones and in some cases to surgery (mutilation). Florida has the right idea, and its capable surgeon general has called out the inadequate science behind “affirmative care”.
“the would say” most anything.
Do you know what teaches tolerance? Jesus Christ. We did that in public schools into the 40’s Then SCOTUS decided to rewrite the constitution.
Ahhhhh dida PO IDDO babies wet thier diapers and whine and cry in da poopies
Sexualizing young students is grooming. The gender discussion is 100% the domain of parents. Public Schools will get it wrong 100% of the time.
Free speech for Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and all of the radical Left has long been defined as only that which agrees with their radical agenda.
If they were “cancelled” on the same terms given to conservatives, there would be a profound vacuum in our country’s otherwise hypocritical free speech platform 😆🤣🤔😂
There was an attempt to do exactly what these and other overly sensitive woke student groups are trying to do. It was led by an alcoholic Republican Senator named Joe McCarthy. We look back on that time with revulsions.
Let’s not wait a generation to be disgusted by this new stalinist speech control.
And Trump wanted to shoot protesters, but this is the real outrage.
“And Trump wanted to shoot protesters” ?
Is the proof to support this assumption ?
BLM burned cities, attacked people…murdered….Democrats gave BLM MONEY FOR THAT.
I am unaware of any evidence of that but it doesn’t sound implausible. I do know that I heard Gen Milley said he would put a ring of steel around DC and implied that he would turn military weaponry against the January 6 rioters.
Just sayin’
Sammy…you are a liar. BLM DID SHOOT PEOPLE…DEMOCRATS shoot people EVERY DAY!
WHY do progressives get to call us whatever they want with no consequences then??? If it is okay for them to call us RACISTS, HOMOPHOBES, XENOPHOBES, ect…ect…ect…with no proof…then go away with crying about the Pedophiles shouldn’t be teaching lines that the Group posted because THAT is true…they shouldn’t be. Free speech for all. If you don’t like what is being said…WALK AWAY.
Well, Republicans are racist and bigots, and homophobes. That is an objective fact. Republicans also abuse children at a higher rate.
And you are an illiterate Arse’! Don’t you know that the Democrats actually created the KKK, introduce Jim Crow laws and were the driving force to oppose Civil rights acts? The first 23 Black Congressman and 3 Senators were …. wait for it……. Republicans!!! The Democrates have never changed and still Are as racist’s as ever and will only look at other people by the color of their Skin!!!!
The frustration of anonymous boils over, and somehow Sammy is there to soothe that frustration by saying the most stupid things. Let’s call Sammy ATS’s fallback personality.
Morons talk like Sammy.