Academia, Free Speech

“Their Smug Civility was Infuriating”: Yale Editorial Denounces the Politeness of Pro-Life Students; Questions Right to Speak on Campus

On occasion, we will discuss student editorials as an insight into the view of free speech on our campuses. This week, one such editorial has attracted attention from Yale Daily News due to its chilling statements about free speech. The editorial by Hyerim Bianca Nam is striking in its rejection of the core values of free speech and its expression of anger over the civility and logical arguments of pro-life students.
Bianca Nam unloads on fellow students who set up a table to discuss abortion issues. She describes the students as  “inviting passersby to engage in logical debates about fetal personhood and abortion ethics.” She notes with frustration that “they were polite” and “they held their voices low and spoke slowly and calmly. They had relaxed, open smiles.”
Nam takes offense not just to their civility and politeness but also to the fact that they were allowed to speak at all on campus:

“Their smug civility was infuriating; their invitations for debate, inflammatory. I could barely seethe out my opinion about the misogyny of holding such a debate at all…

The discussion never should have been entertained, because simply opening space for this ‘logical, respectful’ debate itself is a threat to human rights that should never be up for debate…

Some arguments aren’t worth engaging with, and quite frankly are dangerous for even existing.”

She added that “Yale should be more cognizant about the environment it fosters for women. We don’t need perfunctory celebrations of the anniversary of Yale’s women that accompany endorsements of misogynist dialogue.”

The editorial perfectly captures the rising intolerance and orthodoxy on our campuses.  Nam insists that even allowing such debates is “an insult to our personhood, experience and rights.”

This is consistent with other editorials that we have previously discussed. A Berkeley columnist denounced civility and called for violent resistance. Dartmouth faculty and students demanded that the university shutdown a conservative newspaper. Wellesley editors endorsed shutting down conservative speakers and said that “violence may be warranted.”  We have also documented repeated incidents where university newspapers have fired writers and editors for questioning Covid masks, challenging systemic racism claims, or holding other opposing views.

There has also been a repeated attack on civility as racist or reactionary. Even reporters at National Public Radio (NPR) have denounced civility as a “weapon wielded by the powerful.” Hillary Clinton has called for the end of civility toward any Republicans.

This tirade at Yale against free speech captures many of these elements from the attack on civility to the view of opposing speech as harmful. Given the increasingly anti-free speech culture in our elementary through high schools, it is not surprising to see this rising generation of censors. These students have been constantly told that free speech is harmful and that they should not have to be harmed by the exposure to opposing views.

The irony is that it is important to hear Nam’s views, which can be the basis for productive discourse — the type of civil discourse that she rejects. I would oppose any effort to silence her. This is precisely the type of open discussion that is valuable on our campuses. However, it should occur in an environment of civility and tolerance — values that Nam clearly rejects.

The Yale editorial gives an insight into what educators have created in this speech-phobic, viewpoint-intolerant generation.

 

231 thoughts on ““Their Smug Civility was Infuriating”: Yale Editorial Denounces the Politeness of Pro-Life Students; Questions Right to Speak on Campus”

  3. Many in the modern left are very impressed with their own IQs. A person may as well not have intelligence, however, if he continually makes decisions based on ideology, groupthink, and emotion.

  4. No surprise here. The advocation of violence by the Democratic Party has been apparent for a long time. Kamala Harris said that the BLM riots should be happening and should not stop. Have you noticed that not one of the leftist on this blog is condemning violence as a means to an end. Instead they change the subject to Clarence Thomas. The conclusion is obvious. If you won’t stand against it you are for it. It’s very plain to see their marching orders are coming from the very top. Where have you gone Martin, they’ve turned their lonely eyes from you.

    1. OT: I hope the Professor writes about the abortion pill cases. To many, the Covid fiasco has exposed the FDA/CDC/NIAID as being politically and financially corrupt, and as a result deserving of no deference to their supposedly “scientific” judgments. The decisions of the Texas District Court and the 5th Circuit make proper use of the APA to challenge poorly reasoned determinations. Only the judiciary can put a check on the abuse of power by the executive branch in particular instances. I hope the Supreme Court has the intelligence to see this and the guts to act on it.

      On a related OT point, DeSantis did himself no favours by signing Florida’s six-week law. I doubt there is even a majority in Florida for that let alone in the rest of the country. I generally support DeSantis, but this was a foolish and unnecessary step to take. There is wide support for a limit at 15 weeks, but not at six.

      1. The plaintiffs in the TX case lack standing, and if it’s wise, the 5th Circuit will overturn it. If those doctors have standing to sue re: mifepristone, then doctors also have standing to sue about guns, cars, …, anything that sometimes results in a doctor seeing a patient.

      2. ” DeSantis did himself no favours by signing Florida’s six-week law. “

        I agree, but the legislature could have negated the veto.

        1. Even so, a veto would have helped DeSantis in a campaign. A Sister Soljah moment (for those who remember).

          1. Maybe, maybe not. One of the questions some have about DeSantis is whether he will stick to his guns. Such a move can make him look weak in the eyes of some. I’m not agreeing with the law and I don’t know how that will affect DeSantis in the future. I won’t even guess. The Dems want us to pit one Republican against another. I won’t feed into that.

            1. I don’t think there is much doubt about whether DeSantis will stick to his decisions. The pressure on him was immense in the summer of 2020 for his stance on Covid, especially regarding schools remaining open and mask mandates, yet he stood his ground. Similarly with his opposition to vaccine mandates and passports and transgenderism and the neo-racism of CRT.

              He had a solid position he could easily defend with the 15-week restriction; the six-week restriction is too much for most people. Now he is stuck with it. The best he can do in a national campaign is to say this should be a state-by-state issue.

              1. Yes, Daniel, you are right, DeSantis stood his ground in Florida, but in Florida, he had tremendous support without being plagued by the Washington bureaucracy. I think he can do it. However, I think he has a closeness to the Bush family that is not willing to fight the establishment and has globalist tendencies. I support DeSantis and Trump. They are both superb choices.

                I know no laws that control how to calculate the 6-week time. If held loose, it could stretch the time out, just like in the 15-week time frame. I don’t know how that entered into the thinking process of the politicians.

                I have personal feelings about abortion, but I also have opinions about good government that tell me the decision is a state issue. The time factor can enter later when people have the luxury of seeing how things work out. My goal is to reduce the number of babies killed since eliminating abortion is impossible. My goal is also to protect mothers. The Constitutional mistake is resolved. Now it is up to the States to do the right thing.

      3. How do they make proper use of the APA? The “arbitrary and capricious” standard is quite a high bar to meet. As Motor Veh. Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm (and its progeny) make clear, the four factors for determining that an agency’s rule was arbitrary and capricious are:

        (1) it relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider
        (2) it entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem (aka a regulatory alternative)
        (3) it offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency
        (4) it is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.

        The court here appears to hold that FDA cannot change a drug’s conditions for approval unless it can cite a single study that combines all of the relevant changes. This, however, contradicts settled principles of administrative law as summarized above.

        1. I agree with the 5th Circuit that the elimination of the REMS without a study of the impact of doing so rendered that decision arbitrary and capricious under the applicable standard.

      4. Yeah, I can’t wait until a MAN slips an abortion drug into his pregnant girlfriends drink. YOU know it is going to happen.

    2. Next you’ll be telling us that newborns should also be able to vote.

  6. It is past time when people need to be told, not reminded, TOLD that the depths of your feelings and the intensity of your rage, are not substitutes or indicators of the validity of your beliefs. Debates are not decided on who has the poudest tantrum.

    “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”

  7. I just read Nam’s article in the Yale Daily News and it’s so extreme it almost reads like satire.

  9. Professor Turley,

    Why is the opinion of a single college junior on a college newspaper worthy of discussion exactly? Is this just to fuel the “age of rage” on this site?

    We still haven’t seen a “mea culpa” article about Justice Thomas yet given the new evidence of a real estate sale? What about the crazy abortion pill case?

    But, instead you post about this? Yes, obviously, this particular student is misguided. It is a sad state of affairs on college campuses, but none of that is new. That was the case for me as a Young Republican in college 12 years ago, too.

    Part of the problem in my opinion is the anti-intellectualism of the MAGA “new right.” When I was young and conservative, it was easy to defend conservative incrementalism in the face of radical liberal philosophy. But, now, we have activist judges on the right, who have abandoned all semblance of judicial restraint. Even the Federalist Society now is beginning to abandon the concept of judicial restraint, given the activist conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Principled conservatives like Ben Sasse, Charlie Baker, and Larry Hogan are abandoning politics because there is no place for them in today’s radicalized Christian fundamentalist GOP. Who, then, can a student with classic Rockefeller Republican leanings look to as a north star?

    For an 18-year old, it is easy to see the new right as “Handmaid’s Tale” coming to life.

    1. Perhaps you should review some of the last columns and articles Professor Turley has written. Free speech has almost exclusively been at the core of these columns for the week of postings.
      As far as my thoughts on Hyerim Bianca Nam go, personally I think she is too young to understand her own words. Much like Jack Teixeira apparently thought it was Ok to leak classified documents. Maybe he didn’t fully understand what those documents contained.

    2. Anonymous, you don’t like the exposure of a call to violence by the left so you change the subject. Just tell us plainly if you are in favor of the use of “violence if necessary”. We await another of your brilliant dissertations on the subject at hand but we are not naive enough to think that you will do so.

      1. I noted my disagreement with the author above, and I would never condone violence in lieu of spirited discussion.

        I ignored the “violence” discussion because it was just Turley spreading misinformation. If anyone on his blog actually READ THE HYPERLINKS, you would notice that no article actually advocated for violence. He cited to a 2020 Berkeley article and a 2017 Wellesley article. NEITHER advocated violence.

        The misguided Wellesley article argued that “hostility may be warranted” which is not the same as violence. The article later refers to “personal attacks” and “berate[ment]” when necessary. This to me suggests her (again misguided) argument was for verbal hostility, not physical violence.

        Let me know if you are able to find a mention of violence anywhere but on Turley’s erroneous summary.

        It is a disserve to (again, MISGUIDED) student authors to falsely accuse them of promoting violence. Cancel culture is not good, but it ain’t violence.

        1. “NEITHER advocated violence.”

          That is false and a half-truth.

          The Berkeley piece openly endorses violence. The Wellesley piece veers into that lane (while playing games with words).

    3. “But, now, we have activist judges on the right, who have abandoned all semblance of judicial restraint.”

      Yet not a single example.

      Ben Sasse, Charlie Baker, and Larry Hogan
      You confuse GOPe with conservative.

    4. “a *single* college junior” and “*this particular* student.” Versus: “none of that is new.” (Emphases added.)

      So is your complaint that it’s just a “single” opinion, and thus not worthy of commentary? Or that the opinion is so widespread that it’s not “new,” and thus not worthy of commentary?

      Pick a lane.

  10. “newspaper. Wellesley editors said that “violence may be warranted.”
    Violence may be Warranted ? ? Are you serious ? Do you realize what you are saying ? Talking tough is a Far cry from backing those words up with action. Have any of you ever Evan been in a fist fight ? Or shot anything breathing ? War is a nasty business, not for those with 50 pounds of mouth and only 5 pounds of butt to back it up. War is what you are advocating. Be careful. There are some that would bring that “Warrented Violence” to your door step. Remember You asked for it.

    1. I laugh every time i hear a left winger threaten physical violence. I have known thousands of them over my life, and with maybe one or two exceptions, none of them had ever been in a fight, knew how to fight, or had ever even shot a gun. What they were always good at though was pretending to be tough if they were in a large group, berating a very small group….they felt safe then. These Wellesley editor cowards are such BS artists. Bring it snowflake….when somebody drops the first one of you, the rest will squeal and run for their lives.

    2. No Wellesley editor said “violence may be warranted.” Read the article from 2017 that he linked to. Turley made it up.

  11. “Hyerim Bianca Nam … The irony is that it is important to hear Nam’s views, which can be the basis for productive discourse — the type of civil discourse that she rejects. I would oppose any effort to silence her. This is precisely the type of open discussion that is valuable on our campuses. However, it should occur in an environment of civility and tolerance — values that Nam clearly rejects.”
    **********************
    I find myslef reading a lot of Edward Gibbon these days. So in homage to truth, let’s say the quiet part out loud. Invite in the Third World? Get Third World attitudes and problems. Anyone reading “Decline and Fall” knows the ultimate result of extinguishing martial vigor, unbridled immigration of foreigners and foreign ideas and licentious living. If you don’t, here’s a primer on reality, gloriously divorced from politically correct language:

    “A perpetual stream of strangers and provincials flowed into the capacious bosom of Rome. Whatever was strange or odious, whoever was guilty or suspected, might hope, in the obscurity of that immense capital, to elude the vigilance of the law. In such a various conflux of nations, every teacher, either of truth or of falsehood, every founder, whether of a virtuous or a criminal association, might easily multiply his disciples or accomplices.”
    ~ Edward Gibbon, The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Complete and Unabridged

  12. ” anger over the civility and logical arguments of pro-life students.”

    These are empty people who hide behind empty rhetoric. They have no principles and think of themselves as Gods, to judge everyone but themselves.

    1. “Remember us-if at all-not as lost
      Violent souls, but only
      As the hollow men
      The stuffed men.”

      1. These hollow people are intellectually dead and their brains are empty and rotting.

  13. JT is right. Scholars must evaluate “Their Smug Civility.” It is imperative to do so.

    Let me elucidate. Having been in a secret lab testing facility in an unknown location, I have found scientific evidence that supports this type of erratic behavior based on a hypothesis.

  14. On climate change, abortion, immigration, transgenderism and more, the argument from the left goes something like, “I am intellectually and morally superior to you, and this is what I think, so shut up”. This from a group of people who:
    – Redefined the meaning of nothing so they could argue that the universe emerged from nothing, thus eliminating the need for a creator.
    – Have been predicting a near-certain climate apocalypse for 40 years while continuing to buy homes on and near the ocean.
    – Focus on reducing the emission of non-toxic CO2 while saying nothing as their own cities regularly dump raw sewage into their rivers.
    – Argue that it should be legal to intentionally kill a living, growing, genetically distinct, unborn human being.
    – Entice young girls from Central America to travel to the United States, knowing that many will be raped along the way.
    – Turn a blind eye to the abysmal public schools in low-income neighborhoods.
    – Oppose programs that would enable low-income parents to send their kids to better schools.
    – Support school programs, over the objections of parents, that expose young children to sexuality.
    – Support lax enforcement of laws against violent crime, knowing that low-income people will be disproportionately harmed.

  15. Complaints about civility. The first one to raise a fist is the one who has run out of ideas.

    1. The moment the person you are arguing with starts out with an ad hominem attack, you know you have won the argument before it even began. Its the manifestation of a straightforward statement of “I have nothing logical, coherent, or fact-filled to offer in contrast.”

  16. They hate “civility” because they believe it’s a trait of the powerful, and they idolize violence — but only when it comes from the “oppressed” identities. These kids have been fed a steady diet of hate and victimization — they’re beyond hope. So, when they graduate (and they all will because, you know, no standards anymore) they will be turned loose on a society without police or government protection (if Democrats succeed in working their “magic” and winning elections with AI assistance). There will be a revolution in this country eventually, because without dialogue there’s only one other way to engage the enemy.

    1. “There will be a revolution in this country eventually, because without dialogue there’s only one other way to engage the enemy.”
      True that. One way or another bloodshed is the only outcome of what we’re seeing now.
      Wasn’t there a post recently about how civility is consider elitist by some academics?
      If people haven’t fastened their seatbelts already, time to do so is now.

  17. OT
    “Joe Biden Is A Criminal” Says Ex-Obama Whistleblower Alleging Family “Kickback Scheme”
    “A former staffer who worked in the Obama administration is blowing the whistle on the Bidens – and has accused President Biden of being involved in a “kickback scheme” directly related to his son Hunter’s overseas business dealings.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/ex-obama-staffer-blows-whistle-biden-kickback-scheme-hunter-joined-burisma-malfeasance-office

    1. Saw this yesterday and then it disappeared from the headlines–on Fox. I doubt it appeared in any leftwing outlets.

    2. Anonymous – I am quoting below what seems to be the heart of the accusation of bribery:

      “McCormick [the Whisleblower, a stenographer at the White House], who worked with Biden from 2011 to 2017, detailed a key dialogue involving the vice president, aide Jake Sullivan and the press on Air Force Two before a trip to Kyiv, Ukraine, on April 21, 2014.
      Sullivan, who is the current national security adviser, outlined in a White House transcript Biden’s priorities for his trip to the country, which included U.S. investment in the Ukrainian energy sector days after Hunter joined the board of Burisma, according to the New York Post.
      Months later, and well after the trip, Congress allocated $50 million to Ukraine’s energy market.
      “I’m sitting back there with a tape recorder. Jake Sullivan comes back and somebody asks about fracking. His answer is, well, we’re bringing a lot of American assistance over for fracking. Burisma was the direct beneficiary of that fracking, and that’s what I recorded, and that’s in a White House transcript,” McCormick said.
      “In the transcript, you don’t know who Jake Sullivan is. It’s a senior administration official. I’m the witness that says Jake Sullivan is the guy who said it and he should be investigated because at the time Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma and Joe Biden is bringing American taxpayer money to enrich that company and himself and his family,” he continued.”
      In other words, Hunter joined Burisma, Then, shortly thereafter, Obama apparently decided to “invest” in Ukraine to facilitate fracking. Then the Bidens went to Ukraine to deliver the good news. Then Congress gave Ukraine $50,000,000. So, Burisma did not overpay Hunter.

  18. “one such editorial has attracted attention from Yale Daily News”

    Professor, surely this is a slightly confused, or at least confusing structure? One would think that the editorial (unattributed as yet to any publication) had attracted the attention of Yale Daily News, rather than that it had been published at that site, and had attracted the attention of The College Fix.

  19. No article complete without a word from that eminently quotable little girl from Wisner Avenue in Park Ridge, IL,
    Hillary Rodham. Difficult to realize these sentiments were nurtured at the Park Ridge Country Club hard by Wisner Avenue and at Maine Twp. High School from which she graduated. At her Wellesley graduation, she
    distinguished herself by embarrassing the attending Massachusetts U.S. Senator, Edmund Brooke, from the podium, a memorable time for those in attendance. Apparently being full of spite and venom comes naturally to Hillary R. Call her the godmother of this current generation of pit vipers.

Comments are closed.