UNC Holds First Amendment “Celebration” With One-Sided Condemnations of Free Speech Values

A professor at the University of North Carolina recently sent me an article on a “free speech event” held at the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy as part of the University’s 13th First Amendment Day celebration. What was striking about the free speech panel was not just that it was decidedly opposed to core free speech principles but it lacked a single panelist who spoke primarily in favor of free speech and against censorship. The panel, “Weaponizing First Amendment Rhetoric,” was clearly designed to offer the opposing view to traditional free speech and First Amendment values, but the lack of a dissenting voices allowed these views to go unchallenged. The panel could have served a more valuable purpose if they had allowed a single panelist to voice opposing views.Overall, the North Carolina “First Amendment Day” celebration seemed more like a condemnation event on the threat posed by free speech.  Indeed, it often seemed like a collection of vegans assembled to “celebrate” meat-based diets. One professor even chaffed at the very purpose of the event in celebrating the First Amendment: “what about a Reconstruction Amendment Day? … Why is it that this particular amendment is what takes on outsize concern, both in our imagination on our campuses and in our rhetoric?”

Notably, the other panels included one on “how best to regulate social media,” exploring new efforts to regulate speech in Europe and the United States. As shown by the recent call of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern for a global censorship system, many on the left have embraced private and state censorship to silence opposing voices on issues ranging from climate change to gender identification to election fraud.

In an article entitled “Whose freedom of speech deserves protecting,” The Well reported on the “panel of Carolina experts discussed how political extremists use the First Amendment to justify spreading misinformation.” All of the panelists were associated with the Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life and held forth on the abuse of free speech and “alternative ways of thinking about expression.” Not a single voice was heard on the other side in opposition to such censorship or in favor of social media as a forum for open and free speech.

I would welcome such opposing views in any celebration of the First Amendment if the panel also included just one professor who would allow for balance and even a real debate over such issues. Instead, the event was pile-on panel on how free speech can be harmful and the need to redefine the right to stop some from voicing harmful thoughts.

Here is a sampling of the panelist comments:

Tressie McMillan Cottom, associate professor at the School of Information and Library Science and CITAP senior faculty researcher

“In a democratic process, you would be able to hold a pundit, but especially a politician, to account for their truth claims, for example. Who do I approach? … We now no longer know if the people who are spreading the rhetoric on Facebook or Twitter are actually in the United States of America. Misinformation and disinformation campaigns come from across the globe. …

It has never been so cheap to do it; it has never been so easy to do it; and there’s never been so little accountability for doing it. I think in modern political history, what has happened in this moment is a hollowing out of the performative center.”

Not Professor Cottom’s objection appears to be to anonymity, long viewed as a critical component to free speech. Of course, anonymity does not prevent you from combatting bad speech with good speech; responding to the underlying arguments with your own arguments. Moreover, if there is defamation, the courts allow for stripping away anonymity in many cases. Finally, even if arguments or ideas are coming from outside of the country, the power of such ideas can be tested and refuted in the exercise of free speech.

Daniel Kreiss, Edgar Thomas Cato Distinguished Professor at Hussman and CITAP principal researcher

“Weaponization is ultimately about power. It’s about power between different social groups that are contending for political, economic (and) cultural power, social status, et cetera. Telling lies … is lucrative. You make a lot of money. We know that from the 2016 election…

When you have a layer of commercial and technological mediation underneath the public sphere, it’s going to incentivize and create returns for actors of certain forms of very extreme performance that’s fueled by emotion and sentiment and that can also be corrosive to democratic life. … Weaponization of the First Amendment can also be the crowding out of other discourse. So we’re here celebrating First Amendment Day. But what about a Reconstruction Amendment Day? … Why is it that this particular amendment is what takes on outsize concern, both in our imagination on our campuses and in our rhetoric?”

Professor Kreiss rails against those who he views as engaging in “extreme performance that’s fueled by emotion and sentiment.” In his view, such free expression is actually “corrosive to democratic life” because it can result in “the crowding out of other discourse.” So the democratic solution is presumably to prevent others from engaging in such speech to make way for speech that Professor Kreiss considers more worthy of expression.

Shannon McGregor, assistant professor at Hussman and CITAP senior faculty researcher. 

“[After discussing why social media should be able to silence figures like Donald Trump] There’s no real mechanism for public voice in these decisions (by social media platforms) … There needs to be some mechanism for public voice in these decisions.

I also want to push back on the idea that we had a public square and it was great and everyone could talk and everyone was heardWe have never had a public square … that was accessible by everyone and where everyone felt heard. … And I also want to say it’s not always bad to not be in public. That, in fact, it can be very beneficial for people who have historically been marginalized from our so-called public sphere to be able to have a space that is safe and beneficial for them to talk about politics and social problems.”

Professor McGregor seems to suggest that the public should be involved in decisions to ban other people. Rather than seek to protect all voices, she seems to favor a method for the public to collectively push for the silencing of unpopular voices or restoring popular voices. That would make free speech largely protected for majoritarian or popular viewpoints — an invitation for the very orthodoxy already evident on our college campuses.

Francesca Tripodi, assistant professor at SILS and CITAP senior faculty researcher. 

“I think is really fascinating is how rhetoric concerning the First Amendment is used in a bizarre way to ban books … (that) are overwhelmingly books that deal with race, racial inequality, gender inequality, sexual identity. And so what’s fascinating is that what I see in my research is that political elites and pundits have an extremely sophisticated way of driving public attention toward these concepts but misrepresenting what these concepts are.”

Professor Tripodi is right to oppose the banning of books, though she focuses on the bans of books on the left as opposed to an array of books banned or limited due to alleged racism, sexism, or other objections. Indeed, we have discussed how many on the left have discovered the allure of book burning, book banning, and blacklisting of authors.

Once again, I think that such views are valuable as part of a day discussing the First Amendment. These professors clearly spoke of the value of free speech overall and their views are clearly more substantial that the snippets from a panel discussion. However, it is the exclusive presentation of views favoring censorship or speech limitations that is unnerving. Even on a panel designed to give voice to such sentiments, the students would have benefitted from a small degree of balance to challenge such viewpoints.

I recently discussed the growing anti-free speech movement on our campuses in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The view of speech as harmful is now dominant on most faculties. The article is entitled “Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States.

There is now a virtual echo chamber on faculties which have virtually purged their ranks of conservative and libertarian professors. For example, a survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson revealed that 82.46% of faculty surveyed identify as “liberal” or “very liberal.”  Only 16.08% self-identified as “moderate” and a mere 1.46% identified as “conservative.” Not a single faculty member identified as “very conservative,” but the number of faculty identified as “very liberal” increased by another 8% in just one year. At the same time, conservatives have been virtually eliminated from the student body with only seven percent of incoming students identifying as conservative.

Frankly, I am not sure who on the faculty would offer a free speech perspective in opposition to these calls for speech control. However, it is ironic to hear academics complaining about opposing views “crowding out of other discourse” on a panel devoid any any alternative view of free speech or censorship.

This is hardly unique. Law schools routinely hold panels on cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that lack a single faculty member defending the opinion or supporting the underlying interpretative approach. The same is often true on other cases this term on cases like religion clause decisions from Kennedy to Carson. The only diversity on such panels is often on the alternative views on why the Court is wrong or partisan.  For conservative or libertarian students, the balance often seems to run from the left to the far left. The result is an echo chamber that reflects the lack of diversity on most faculties.

The threat is not simply to the erosion of free speech. The loss of diversity of viewpoints on our faculties represents an existential threat to higher education.

 

52 thoughts on “UNC Holds First Amendment “Celebration” With One-Sided Condemnations of Free Speech Values”

  1. GEB writes: “But again a Bush blew the lesson.”

    When Trump entered office, he lacked the appropriate Rolodex when hiring people surrounding him. I believe he relied too heavily on those who surrounded the Bushs. Republicans do not react well to change. Trump was an outsider, and to many Republicans, he was the enemy.

  2. Academics are not the intrepid seekers of truth they might delude themselves into believing they are. They are, rather, a garden variety of conformists who, every 10-20 years or so, latch onto a trendy theory and base their entire careers — teaching and research — on it. After grad school, many don’t even bother keeping up with current ideas, but instead stay safe and warm inside their grad school theoretical bubble. The more adventurous like to pick up on any current trend that comes down the pike, even though most will never delve deeply, question, critique or even attempt to understand it. That’s why we see such conformity today in academia. They’re all marching in lock-step with CRT and the jargon baggage that comes with it. Honestly, academia is the last place anyone should expect to be educated. Autodidacticism is the way to go, unless you need the paper credentials that academia sells for a hefty price.

  3. That this occurred within a large and well known American university is the most sobering aspect of the article.It is clear to me that the universities have been so taken over that reform is impossible. They are now indoctrination centers, used and counted on by the Democratic Party to supply the progressives of the future. All we can do is elect politicians who will appoint judges who believe in the First Amendment. In order to do that, we must participate in non-woke media and send them money, even in small amounts. Its also vital to present articles like this one to identify educators and institutions who spit on the concept of free speech. The unmitigated gall of these people, who use the freedoms and advantages given by the Constitution to achieve high status and then want to revoke free speech so they can impose their own social order on everyone else. These people know what they are doing and it is deliberate. They are evil and should be held in contempt.

  4. Too many of you are wasting your breath. And we are far too tolerant of these purveyors of hate and suppression of speech and views. They do not play nice and they do not follow the “rules”. If anything they abolish the rules and try to destroy the underpinnings of American Culture. That is their whole purpose.
    That was also the reason for the failure of the old Republican Party. They were content to sit back, follow the rules and lose while Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi ran roughshod over them. The thing is that this really started in the 1980’s when we had Ronald Reagan and he upset the norm and many blue collar workers left the Democrats to elect him and then H.W. Bush pissed it all away and we went back to playing Nice until Newt Gingrich led a renewal in 1994. But again a Bush blew the lesson. McCain and Romney learned nothing. That has been Trump’s appeal. “He Fights”. Sort of like when Lincoln was criticized for keeping Grant. “He Fights”. We have had enough McClellans, Burnsides, McDowells in the Republican and Conservative circles.
    Time for fighters and a crusade, or Jihad if that is your preferred word. You want it, then you have to take it.
    Mao Zedong was the greatest killer of all time but he did lay down some essential truths.
    “Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.”
    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” I hope it never comes to that but it might.
    You want real freedom of speech then YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT.

  5. We lack an exact word for it but there must be some way of analogizing the notion that humans with cognition have a natural ability to weigh options to find the truth. It’s a form of immunity to untruth or anti-truth and may occur spontaneously whether we know it or not. The left tries to suppress this autonomic system at every turn but with little success. The good news is that most of what’s taught at Universities today is irrelevant to the “real world.” Most young people as they mature and move away from their undergraduate days will come to realize and value the freedom of the real world as opposed to the pseudo-real world of their undergraduate days. With the exception of specialty learning like accounting, law, plumbing, and ballroom dancing, the rest of our undergraduate days are remembered mostly for their social value; the professors mostly for being quaint or quirky.

    1. JJC: what a great comment.
      (the only word I can think of off the top of my head is homeostasis. But that does not capture the full parameter of your excellent thought.

    2. “We lack an exact word for it but there must be some way of analogizing the notion that humans with cognition have a natural ability to weigh options to find the truth.”
      ********************************************
      It’s their “Telos,” as Aristotle might say. Those ancient Greeks had a word for everything.

      1. Mespo: yes, yours is a very good choice except that I thought that telos mostly referred to end/goal completion of process, whereas what JJC implies is something more dynamic than fixed/static, as in a constant turnover of cellular activity to maintain a more resistant/balanced continuity for survival?

  6. Well, nothing new here…no surprises…anymore.
    The question is, what are we going to do about it???
    Michele Obama said, “When they go low, we go high.”
    We need to show her and others how much higher, –and more honorable and peaceful, we can go to stop the trajectory of polarizing tactics, without help from either BLM or the Oath Keepers. Such groups evince the failures of Media, Academia, and government in providing true exchange and resolution, i.e., thesis, antithesis, SYNTHESIS.
    “we” = those who believe in peaceful and reasoned Exchange, Engagement and Example–not Escalate. (I’m all eeed out now.)
    Remember when we used to ADMIRE teachers? Police? Priests? Presidents? Doctors and Lawyers? Our neighbors?

  7. It is truly frightening that leading universities are pushing such relentless assault on the Constitution that has served so well for a quarter of a millennium. This requires an equally relentless clarion call — thanks for doing your part.

  8. It is both fascinating and disturbing, but not surprising to see Hussman School of Journalism host a conference whose participants argue for the suppression of speech. It was this faculty which offered Nicole Hannah-Jones a full professorship without conducting a search or competition.
    Some time ago, I noted in a comment that freedom of speech must be a cultural value if it is to be effective in protecting all of the other freedoms, not merely a concept narrowly defined by law because if the latter, then it only applied to government and public organizations, not private companies like Twitter or Facebook, which we now know conspired to suppress free speech and information prior to the 2020 election. Clearly, the culture of the Hussmn Schoolf of Journalism, despite Walter Hussman, Jr.’s efforts to assure that the faculty honored such concepts as impartiality in reporting, does not include a commitment to free speech.
    However, these four faculty members display a penchant for the use of jargon, which is useful if you want to make spurious arguments. This is clear from the use of “weaponize,” the latest bit of jargon which can be used to dismiss any number of legitimate arguments. You can weaponize poison gas by designing an aerosol system to distribute it, but it is all but possible to weaponize speech — you either use if precisely and honestly or you do not. Weaponize, like misinformation and disinformation, encourage a sloppy use of language and equally sloppy thinking. So Cottom laments the “hollowing out of the performative center,” whatever that might be, and anonymous posts on line, which might alarm, or perhaps chastize, the people who post anonylously here (like me and “Anonymous”). Both “hollowing out” and “performative center” are meaningless phrase, and I can only assume Cottom is unaware that the philosophes of the 1700s hid their private identities so they were free to make the truth public, and that arguments do not derive from the person, since if they did so, ad hominem attacks would be the proper response to every argument, no matter how well crafted or how difficult refute on its merits.
    Similarly, Kreiss refers to “lies” during the 2016 election, which is confusing, since the biggest lie foisted on the public was by the Democratic candidate, who used cutouts to smear her opponent and triggered three-year witch-hunt, effectively subverting the tenure of the Executive. Kreiss also appears unaware that without the First Amendment, all the others are effectively moot, and that suppression of speech is what is truly “corrosive to democratic life” because censorship is intended to assure the “crdowding out of other discourse[s]” than that favored by censor. As for MacGregor, asserting that there never was a public square does not make it so, and advocating for “safe” spaces is effectively an argument for segregated echo chambers where the faithful can reassure one another that they, and they alone, possess the truth.
    Tripodi offers four concepts which are poorly defined and easily used by grifters and demagogues to lay waste to the public square — “race, racial equality, gender inequality,’ and sexual identity.” Race has been defined many ways over the past century or two, but one would have to read some history to know that. Racial equality was the goal of Martin Luther King and the early civil rights movement, not of contemporary anti-racists, who argue in favor of racial inequality, so long as it benefits their own race and force biracial indiviuals to choose (one cannot be non-binary racially, it seems). Gender was a term coined by feminists to get around the strictures of biological sex, but it is essentially jargon, a construct which has a political use but no specific meaning in reality. Similarily with sexual identity, a term than only makes sense to those who embrace identitarian politics, much as the concept of transubstantiation during mass only makes sense to a practicing Catholic.
    Such conferences are the faithful preaching to the choir, and the people participating are more akin to religious zealots or Eric Hoffer’s true believers than scholars, and they should perhaps exchange the title of professor for minister, seer, or priestess.

  9. SNAFU. Orwellian people have been around, for centuries, controlling other people and their ideas. Evidently all of the #freedom that America promises, has allowed universities to be overrun with intellectuals, that know best, and what the rest of us #commoners should know, say and do. Hitler would be so proud.

  10. I admire Professor Turley’s adherence to civility when he brings to light these ostensible efforts to crush free speech; but he is far to charitable to these people. As one of the panelist’s is quoted “weaponization is ultimately about power” and that is exactly their objective. They are all about retaining power and eliminating all opposing voices. These so called academics would have made fine commissars in the Soviet Union and they seek to become one in the US. They view themselves as the only legitimate arbiters of the “truth”, but are nothing more than totalitarian thugs. Unless there is a true counter revolution and these thugs are opposed on all fronts, the US is on a trajectory to authoritarianism and possibly totalitarianism.

  11. Wow, you people are clueless! This discussion on free speech totally ignores the first amendment! You can’t have media law and policy, why, because congress can’t make any laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; so if congress can make no laws, there can be no policy.

    “Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    There’s a huge difference between having the rights contained in the first amendment and congress being prevented from making laws respecting and abridging those rights, because even if congress decides that there should be a cost or process necessary, that too abridges that right, there can’t be any cost or process that is required, so when a petition is made to the government for redress of grievances, that must be no more or less than transmitting that petition to the legislative or executive authority and from there it must be addressed immediately, and there can be no cost or qualification to have your petition adjudicated.

    And for those who still don’t understand, here’s the Clause form the Articles of Confederation which established the conflict and dispute resolution process, and as you can see, the petition is made to the united States, in congress assembled, but they don’t resolve the grievance, they must assemble an independent court which is agreeable to all parties of the dispute to resolve the dispute:

    “The united states, in congress assembled, shall also be the last resort on appeal, in all disputes and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter may arise between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority, or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another, shall present a petition to congress, stating the matter in question, and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given, by order of congress, to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names, as congress shall direct, shall, in the presence of congress, be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges, who shall hear the cause, shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons which congress shall judge sufficient, or being present, shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court, to be appointed in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive; the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress, for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State where the cause shall be tried, “well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection, or hope of reward: “provided, also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.”

    As you can see, the process and assembly of the court to adjudicate the matter is explicitly specified and is totally unbiased, because of how the court is assembled, which is how our Supreme Court should be assembled today, the only difference is that the President is tasked with providing a list of qualified candidates through nominations, a number determined by congress, then the States choose through the power of advice and consent, by a vote of the States, 1 vote per State, and a majority of all the States is necessary to the choice as it is established in Article 2 Section 1 for the selection of the President and Vice President which also must be done by a ranked list of candidates identified by the electors, then the States deliberate over the top candidates identified on the ranked list before voting, 1 vote per State, and a majority of all the States is necessary to the choice. The electors make the list, not the choice, the States make the choice by vote, 1 vote per State, and a majority of all the States is necessary to the choice.

    This is the only way these choices can be made in an unbiased and apolitical way, and it is a necessity that all the States participate and agree, because there are compliance requirements with the laws that the States make as the Union, and they also agree to abide with the resolution of their grievances, so it’s imperative that the States also participate in assembling the court which will make those decisions.

    By the way, the religion portion of the first amendment precludes making any laws based upon religious doctrine, because that would be a tacit establishment of religion, so all abortion laws are unconstitutional as they violate the first amendment which precludes congress from making laws establishing religion or preventing the free exercise there of. Yes, there’s more to the first amendment than just the freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances, these rights are not established by the first amendment, which only puts constraints on the government from making any laws which abridge these rights, huge difference!

    1. The members of this panel seem to be “educated beyond their intelligence.” Free speech means Free speech. No matter how offensive the speech may be. The answer to it is more speech. These people assume there is only one point of view and everything else is a danger to democracy. Instead their censorship is a threat to Democracy, no matter how well meaning. What arrogance and intolerance! These are the same people who murdered Socrates or silenced Galileo for heresy. Their positions are not liberal but illiberal. Their views are the same that every Tyrant has taken before enslaving his opponents. UNC should be ashamed. They are not the Great University they use to be, but now appear to be an Indoctrination factory and not worthy of supporting or sending young minds to experience. Where are the true intellectuals? The panel members seem to be ideological sheep not giants of free thought. Shame on UNC and these weak minded frauds who do not represent human freedom, but mindless conformity to ideas they cannot defend Their solution is to label other ideas “misinformation.” Why not debate the “misinformation” and destroy it with better ideas? They obviously cannot compete in an arena of ideas, so they want to demean and try to stop the ideas they oppose. Disgraceful and very telling of who they have become. I hope the “wheel” will turn and a new Age of Enlightenment will return to UNC. Until then, As an Alumnus, I am very ashamed of my University.

      1. If UNC were an anomaly in the modern world of academia, we might expect them to endure some shaming. It is alas, not going to happen because they are no different than all but a very few institutions. I would like to believe that my alma mater, UVa, would hew closer to Jefferson’s ideal of free speech, but they too give me pause with multiple utterances from faculty drawn from the same cesspool.

  12. If you do not have ideas that can withstand scrutiny, then shut down those who dissent. This is a formula for disaster.

    My favorite line is, ”The science is settled.”

    That reminds me of the person in the 20th century who proclaimed that everything that could be invented had already been invented.

    There are none so blind as those who cannot see. These are lazy academics. “We’ve made up our minds! Don’t confused with the facts.”

    The sad thing is that the students who want to get a good education are going to have to put in the effort to learn in spite of their professors. They must meet outside of class, a secret society of sorts, and develop their own curriculum. The students must learn to recognize the mind games they are subjected to and weigh everything they are told against facts. Not what they are being spoon fed by the propaganda machine.

    Look at the youth uprising in Iran. They are sick and tired of tyrants! Freedom is fragile and costly. Freedom of mind is a precious gift.

  13. The left focuses the banning of books in public schools.

    The reason those books are not welcome, is because the topics covered MUST be addressed by the family, NOT the School.
    The govt has proven itself particularly counter productive in handling social issues.Public schools really need to stay in their lane and stick to basics.
    A twelve year old does not need to understand transgenders, They need to be focused on sentence structure, and how the Constitution functions

    Curating books in Public School libraries is not book banning. It is simple choosing of content appropriate for the kids using the library

  14. For the billionth time, free speech is essential to our survival as a free country. And I mean total free speech. The exception being speech the explicitly condones or incites violence. ” Misinformation” removal is in essence censorship. You can’t stop people from being stupid or gullible. That is their right.
    If you want to believe that the pyramids were built by aliens, SO WHAT?
    If you want to believe that Elvis is still alive, SO WHAT?
    If you are getting your medical information from Twitter and not a health professional, you deserve the consequences.
    In this day and age, you don’t need a trip to the library to do your own research. It is at your fingertips.DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
    And if you are in favor of ” misinformation” censorship, who decides? Scary Poppins?
    I just re-read Orwell’s ” 1984″ . Last read it in the 7th grade. Don’t know if it was supposed to be science fiction or prophetic. Unfortunately, it is the latter.

  15. Censorship is Free Speech.
    In related news…
    War is Peace.
    Freedom is Slavery.
    Ignorance is Strength.

  16. The writing has been on the wall for some time, particularly with Silicon Valley millennials (well over a decade), and it is only going to increase. If we value our Constitution, we need to vote like we value it. That is no longer an option with our modern Democratic party.

  17. Obviously, the alumni need to stop any donations, remove any relatives who attend, and make their anger known via media and social accounts.

    But we know this will never happen because the cucked morons that now bow to every lie the left pushes.

  18. Apparently they’re competing with Harvard and that is deeply disturbing and disappointing. All federal funds should be withheld from institutions that defy the constitution.

  19. This is a prime example of thee uselessness of academia. 99% of our education industry are little more than prog/left indoctrination centers, avoid them at all costs if you want to maintain a sane outllook on reality.

Leave a Reply