Below is my column on Fox.com on the recent decision of students at Whitworth University to bar a speech from a survivor of Maoist China. It was an ironic but all-too-familiar scene in higher education today.
“to read too many books is harmful.” It appears that many in higher education agree. Not only are writers and intellectuals now supporting blacklisting authors, but universities regularly see speakers banned or cancelled on campuses. Certain views are now viewed as “harmful” and thus intolerable. That latest example is perhaps the most tragically ironic. Associated Students of Whitworth University voted 9-4 to bar Chinese dissident Xi Van Fleet from coming to campus to share her experience as a survivor of Maoist China. Her criticism of “woke” culture in the United States was deemed too harmful for any student to hear.
Students objected to Van Fleet’s tweets on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), Black Lives Matter, the LGBTQ community and “environmental justice” among other social justice initiatives.
In its university mission statement, Whitworth declares a deep commitment to free speech on campus: “Whitworth affirms freedom of expression for its students, staff and faculty. Our commitment to free expression is grounded in our faith … We take Jesus Christ as the model for engagement in public discourse and for exploration and expression of ideas.”
Students who came to the university with that assurance are now being told that some views are simply too harmful to be heard.
It may be a familiar moment for Van Fleet from her own experience in the Cultural Revolution. In February 1957, Mao issued a surprising speech titled “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” in which he encouraged intellectual debate and criticism.
Intellectuals were leery and did not come forward, prompting Mao to take measures to induce their speech. When some then criticized party orthodoxy or corruption, Mao had the speech retroactively changed and cracked down on dissenters as spreading harmful thoughts.
Mao rounded up the intellectuals and told citizens that the government would only allow the ‘fragrant flowers’ of healthy debate while pulling out the ‘poisonous weeds’ of noxious capitalism. What is noteworthy is how close the rhetoric of Mao is to that of many anti-free speech advocates today on our campuses.
Mao declared “words and actions should help to unite, not divide, the people of our various nationalities; They should be beneficial, not harmful, to socialist construction; They should help to consolidate, not weaken, the people’s democratic dictatorship; They should help to consolidate, not weaken, democratic centralism.”
The notion that free speech is harmful now permeates our higher education institutions.
Students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with harmful speech and student newspapers have declared opposing views to be outside of the protections of free speech. Even Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll denounced the “weaponization” of free speech.
At Washington & Lee University, faculty signed a petition to bar a conservative speaker and anyone with “harmful ideologies.”
At Emory University, the law review rescinded a publication offer to an author questioning systemic racism theories as “hurtful and unnecessarily divisive.” Other Emory students barred a free speech group from being recognized because there are no apparent safeguards in place to prevent potential and real harm that could result from these discussions[.]”
In the recent outrageous cancelling of a federal judge by Stanford law students, Stanford DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach condemned Judge Duncan for speaking when his views were considered harmful by many. She asked “‘even in this time. And again I still ask: Is the juice worth the squeeze?” Later, while Stanford reaffirmed its commitment to free speech, it refused to punish any of the students that prevented Duncan from speaking.
Portland State University professor Jennifer Ruth defended the cancelling of the judge as an “existential threat” to students and even higher education.
These views fuel the sense of license even for violence. University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. On the University of California (Santa Barbara) campus, professors rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
The anti-free speech views on our campuses are liberating in allowing faculty and students to silence others. There is no need to respond to opposing views when they are deemed too dangerous to be heard.
In other words, conservative, religious, and libertarian views are now “poisonous weeds” that must be removed from the garden of “fragrant flowers” of approved viewpoints in higher education.
The irony is that the effort to bar Xi Van Fleet is all students need to know about the dangers of this type of cultural revolution and free speech limits. We are raising a generation of speech phobics who believe that they have a right to silence others. They have been told since elementary school that speech is harmful and that they should not be expected to hear views that they find offensive. Those “poisonous” elements are now being pruned from higher education through speech codes, cancel campaigns, and faculties purged of conservative or libertarian professors. What remains is the “fragrant” smell of academic orthodoxy.
It is all enough to make Mao blush.
The Associated Students’ opinions are not worth a whit.
Got to love the dims. Now that Robert F. Kennedy is in the race. No debates. Got to protect the big guy.
Democrats really do love Democracy. They show it in the primary elections: change the dates of the primaries to favor the Establishment Candidate; avoid public appearances by the EC; direct “debate” questions toward the EC and ignore the dangerous outsiders like Tulsi Gabbard; select friendly moderators who will go easy on the EC; if necessary, give the EC the debate questions in advance; pack the audience with people working for the ED’s campaigns; if necessary, give DNC money to the EC; and put pressure on the other candicates to drop out of the race. This is just the rigging that takes place in one part of the political process.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) in American are direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America.
Global communists are direct, mortal, ferocious and ruthless enemies of freedom, free assembly, free enterprise, free markets, free thought, free speech, free press, free religion, private property, freedom to keep and bear arms, etc.
____________________________________
Chairman Mao killed 40 – 80 million.
Comrade General Secretary Lincoln killed 1 million.
American Revolutionary War killed 6,800.
_________________________________
It’s long past time, Men!
___________________
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
There’s really nothing new about the shunning of those who find it a moral responsibility to expose the censorship employed in totalitarian societies. The same thing was done by the Communist in America to Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he wrote “The Gulag Archipelago”. The students who don’t want to hear from a person who lived under the threat of totalitarianism are no different from the Communist who didn’t want Solzhenitsyn to be heard when he wrote a book of warning. I guess that historical references can not be properly evaluated by students who have never been taught any history. They keep the students in China without any knowledge of history too and just like in American colleges today they want to keep the truth from being learned. Of first importance is their keeping of you under their thumb. Nothing else matters.
TiT,
Well said.
Reading the comments I almost am not sad anymore to see my country destroyed. People who don’t value freedom don’t deserve to have it. Heil Brandon!
REVOLUTION
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We’d all love to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Lennon/McCartney
Lincoln changed the Constitution.
Well, you know,
They all loved to change his head.
You beat me to it. This song came to my mind as well.
Jonathan: While you are trying to distract us by discussing the “Cultural Revolution” at Whitworth University there are more bombshells exploding inside the Supreme Court. The other shoe has dropped.
Turns out Justice Gorsuch, appointed to the Court by Donald Trump, has his own ethics scandal. He sold a massive property he owned in Colorado to the CEO of a law firm, Greenberg Traurig, that argues cases before the SC. GT CEO Brian Duffy bought the Gorsuch property just 9 days after Gorsuch was conformed. Gorsuch made between $250,000 and $500,000 on the sale. Court records show Gorsuch participated in 12 cases involving GT. In 8 cases Gorsuch sides with GT. Gorsuch did not disclose the name of the buyer of his property in his financial disclosure statements.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin asked Chief Justice Roberts to testify re needed changes to the SC’s ethics rules. Roberts just notified Durbin he would not testify–citing the “separation of powers” doctrine. Roberts is afraid to testify because he would be embarrassed by the Clarence Thomas scandal and the new one involving Gorsuch and the fact he really has no control of the Court. And what was Durbin’s response to Robert’s giving the middle finger to Durbin: “”Supreme Court ethics must happen whether the Court participates in the process or not”.
As a close observer of the Court we would think you might have a comment on the SC scandal. I guess not
C’mon Dennis McIntyre. I sold a house that I paid off in Colorado that was fifty years old and I came out with $365,000 dollars. It was a 1440 square foot house. If a person has a large house in Colorado only the people with the money to buy large houses are going to buy a large house. Do you really expect a judge to disclose every sale he makes to a firm where he was involved in one court case or another involving such a firm. Lets say for example that he collects vintage cars and that someone bought one of his cars and he made a profit on the car. Should then should he recuse himself from any case involving the buyer of the car? You’ve made some junior league arguments in the past but this one has to be at the top of the list. Even a first year law student wouldn’t argue this point. You said the same thing about Justice Thomas when he made a a measly $135,000 on a property left to him by his Grandfather. Yet somehow you find this a bigger deal than the prohibition of speech by someone who experienced totalitarianism in China. We understand, free speech is just not on your one of your prominent concerns. Do you hear the laughter in the background?
TiT, you’re not a Supreme Court Justice. They have a higher standard of conduct to live up to.
Now do Obama and Tony Rezko.
Dennis – how can you discuss this issue without knowing the actual market appreciation of this property. You say Gorsuch “made” between 250k and 500k. What is the actual sale price and what was the market value of the property? If it was worth, for example, $350k and he was paid $350k, he really didn’t “make” anything. He merely exchanged the real property for an equivalent monetary value. Why should that 50-50 exchange incline him favorably to the buyer? This kind of argrument shows that the the American Left has no political strategy except brewing up scandals and shouting down speakers. You have become a reactionary party determined to destroy your opponents personally.
The Senate does not have the power to set ethics rules for the judiciary. There is this pesky thing called separation of powers.
The supreme court sets the ethics standards not just for themselves, and all other federal judges but also for all lawyers practicing federally.
With respect to Gorsuch – do you have evidence that Gorsuch got substantially more than the asking price ? that he had more than cursory knowledge of who the buyers were ?
I have sold multiple properties in my life. I can not name the buyer for ANY of them. I think I only met the Buyer at Settlement.
Do you have evidence that Gorsuch’s home sale was any different ?
Must Gorsuch recuse himself from cases involving Post – if he has post raisin bran for breakfast ?
Must he recuse himself from cases involving Ford – if he owns a ford car ?
Do the same standard apply toJackson, Kagan, Sotomayor ?
This is all stupid left wing nonsense.
John Say,
Stupid and nonsense is all leftists have.
Just look at how desperate they are.
As a private school that presumably then does not accept any government funding, Whitworth University is not bound by the First Amendment. However, that does not mean that it ignores or in any way diminishes the First Amendment. Within its “Statement on Freedom of Expression and Civil Discourse for Our Campus Community”, Whitworth affirms the Constitution’s right of free speech and only regulates, prohibits, or sanctions it “in line with Constitutional understandings of free expression” with regard to “incitement to physical violence, true threats, deception, obscenity, and substantial disruption of the normal operations of the university.”
The question in this particular case becomes: Is Chinese dissident Xi Van Fleet one to incite physical violence, pose an actual and authentic danger, be deceptive, be obscene, and a substantial disruption of the normal operations of the university? To answer that, one can only rely upon the evidence from her prior appearances. I for one have not yet found any. What I have found is an interview of her. One can decide for themselves whether or not Xi Van Fleet is someone to fear.
https://youtu.be/AEWk7PxA4tU
Whitworth’s statement also affirms “we seek to maximize speech that allows us to explore God’s creation, flourish as a Christ-centered community, and engage the world as Christians.” That begs the question why would Whitworth then condone canceling a Chinese dissident from speaking of concerns about communism and speaking to contemporary events reminiscent of the ways and means of communism?
The rest of this story is yet to be told. Will the Whitworth University Administration oblige the Associated Students of Whitworth University?
I guess Mao wasn’t bound by the first amendment either.
Perhaps the 2nd?
_____________
“Every Communist must grasp the truth; ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'”
– Mao Tse-tung
Good point George.
RAH – “government funding” can include federally insured student loans. That is some schools, like Hillsdale College in Michigan, does not allow its students to accept government controlled loans.
“[T]he Michigan school, founded by Baptists, doesn’t let its students take any of that government aid, which comes with strings attached—among other things, requiring that institutions follow federal regulations governing how to respond to sexual assault and banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-controversial-reason-some-religious-colleges-forgo-federal-funding/490253/
Statements of freedom of expression are no different that those “mission statements” businesses often hang on a wall for the customer’s benefit. Those kinds of statements are usually meaningless and are often BS. The reality of what happens at universities and businesses is not what those mission statements declare. They are window dressing for customers and the public.
Are you thinking that is the attitude of the University towards its own mission statement, or are you hoping it is?
Svelaz has no idea what a contract is.
I would further note that while missions statement usually are binding – to the extent that they are both possible specific and actual commitments.
What isbeing dealt with is more than “mission statemrnts”.
It is formal codes of conduct, it is commitments to specific accademic standards and those commitments are binding.
“Statements of freedom of expression are”
Binding contracts. This is settled case law.
“no different that those “mission statements” businesses often hang on a wall for the customer’s benefit.”
Also correct – if a “mission statement” is spcific and includes a commitment – such as to free expression – then it is binding,
Otherwise it is false advertising.
“Those kinds of statements are usually meaningless and are often BS. ”
Which is why FIRE always wins.
“The reality of what happens at universities and businesses is not what those mission statements declare.”
Apparently you do not know what a contract is.
If you make an offer – a commitment to freedom of expression, or some mission statment, and the person you make that offer to accepts – they come to your school or they buy your product – the final step – an exchange of value. That is a binding contract.
“They are window dressing for customers and the public.”
Do not go into business if you beleive that – you will lose your shirt quickly.
Making a commitment in return for reciving something of value is a binding contract.
Failure to deliver – especially in the way YOU are arguing – beleiving that commitment never meant anything is FRAUD.
It is both a crime and will invetiably result in your punishment by the market place.
People do not continue to do business with people they can not trust.
Welllllll, it appears the cultural wars just got placed on steroids.
Disney sues Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, alleges political effort to hurt its business
The federal lawsuit alleges that DeSantis “orchestrated at every step” a campaign to punish Disney that now threatens the company’s business.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/26/disney-sues-florida-gov-ron-desantis-alleges-political-effort-to-hurt-its-business.html
One year ago, it was Disney that “orchestrated at every step a campaign to punish” Floridians, young children, their parents, and the FL Legislature, by becoming a Woke culture warrior. Their very choice of using the dishonest and legally (legislatively) incorrect phrase “Don’t Say Gay” is a de facto political effort to overturn the politics of Florida.
Don’t Say Gay’ bill in Florida, seeks meeting with DeSantis
PUBLISHED WED, MAR 9 2022
The Walt Disney Company is now publicly opposing Florida’s controversial “Don’t Say Gay” bill. On Wednesday, CEO Bob Chapek addressed the company’s stance on the bill and acknowledged that its original approach “didn’t get the job done.” Chapek told shareholders that he will meet with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Disney will donate $5 million to organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, that work to protect LGTBQ+ rights.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/disney-ceo-says-company-opposes-dont-say-gay-law-in-florida.html
Talk about the mouse that roared.
Disney embracing wokeness, and trying to inject their wokeism into their content is what is damaging their business.
Get back to making content the mass public wants to see and watch their profits go up. Not pandering to a less than 1% all in the name of wokeness.
Go woke, go broke.
Disneyland, Cuba.
I thought they were moving to North Carolina.
The whole idea of student government is absurd. Students, at best, spend 4 years in a university. They are transients, just passing through. They have no investment in these schools–they probably don’t even pay their own tuition. Additionally, they know nothing of interest, except some high school pap, when they start out as freshmen, and by the time they graduate, they might know a bit more (but given the degradation of today’s schools, it’s doubtful). Srudents would better spend their time reading and studying, listening and learning, not using college as a springboard for political activism.
“Shut Up and [Learn]”
– Laura Ingraham
______________
“Shut Up and Sing”: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the Media are Subverting America
– Laura Ingraham, 2006
They don’t have “Recruit Government” in Marine Corps Boot Camp.
They shut the —- up with great deference and train, both physically and mentally.
Hmmm…what would Jesus say? I’m surprised they actually voted on this. Isn’t voting supposed to be white supremacist or something?
In stark contrast to Whitworth University, my alma mater, James Madison University, will tonight host commenter, Liz Wheeler, who will speak on the controversial topic of transgenderism. Some – hopefully peaceful — protests are planned in Harrisonburg, VA. As a founding member of my alumni group, “The Madison Cabinet for Free Speech and Accountability,” I fully support Ms. Wheeler’s right to speak as I do the rights of the peaceful protestors to rebut. In fact, I was honored to be asked to write the group’s statement on the talk which I think is relevant here. Hopefully, most on this blawg join with me in supporting free speech on college campuses and will do so by joining organizations such as ours which are forming around the country to protect our most cherished right. We now have four such organizations on campuses in Virginia. Here’s the statement I think all commenters here – even the most left-leaning – can wholeheartedly support.
THE MADISON CABINET FOR FREE SPEECH AND ACCOUNTABILITY’S STATEMENT ON THE UPCOMING LIZ WHEELER PRESENTATION AT JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY
The Madison Cabinet for Free Speech and Accountability fully supports the rights of all people and all points of view to be presented in an academic and civic environment. In fact, we can think of no better purpose for a scholarly institution than to debate the issues of the day and learn from that fundamental process so crucial to a republican form of government. To that end, we support the discussion Ms. Wheeler intends to initiate on the JMU campus. While we take no position on the merits of her argument, we passionately defend her right and the opportunity to speak on the topic. The Madison Cabinet joins in the sentiments of the author of the First Amendment, James Madison, who famously believed that: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”
The Madison Cabinet for Free Speech and Accountability is a group of alumni from James Madison University as well as other interested persons who are committed to promoting and safeguarding freedom of expression, intellectual diversity, and academic freedom on campus. For information about the organization go to: https://www.madisoncabinetforfreespeech.com/
For questions or clarification about this statement, please contact:
Mark M. Esposito, Esq.
SCHILLING & ESPOSITO, PLLC
(I apologize in advance if this violates the solicitation provision of JT’s Civility Rule (which ironically, I helped draft) but I thought JT wouldn’t mind a little marketing of the beauty of the First Amendment. If so, Darren always has the cutting room floor.)
Oops,make that “commenter Liz Wheeler.”
Thanks to Darren for bailing me out — as usual.
Mespo,
Well said and congratulations on your contributions.
You are the light in the darkness.
Thanks, UF. If everybody throws a handful of dirt, pretty soon the whole rotting woke corpse is buried.
Mespo,
As someone who has processed his own livestock, it requires a bullet to get to what remains after gutting and processing to get to that rotting part.
Just an observation.
Did you say James Madison?
My hero!
_______
James Madison rejected a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state.
“A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
– James Madison
_______________
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
“Where powers are assumed [by Lincoln] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act [Lincoln’s assumption] is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
Secession, that which the very Founders availed themselves of, was and remains fully constitutional and not prohibited by that document.
Lincoln must have been “nipped in the bud” in 1860, and thereafter, the valiant efforts of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney notwithstanding.
The Constitution and American freedom must have been kept on course and perpetuated.
Reprehensible slavery must have been completely abrogated by legal means and methods.
Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; Lincoln threw the Constitution out with contemptible slavery.
The principles of communism hold dominion in America today: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” – Central Planning, Control of the Means of Production (regulation), Redistribution of Wealth, Social Engineering.
Judges of Courts and Justices of the Supreme Court have all sworn an oath to support the clear and evident meaning and intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The singular American failure has been and remains the judicial branch with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
George, we go through this time and time again. Let me quote Madison using short phrases to make things clear.
Madison explained two types of secession:
1)”secede at will”
2)”the right of seceding from intolerable oppression.”
The former:
” a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged.”
The latter:
“another name only for revolution”
Again, James Madison rejected a proposal…to suppress a seceding state.
Prohibition of secession does not exist in the Constitution.
Please cite the Constitution for any form or fashion of prohibition of secession.
You won’t because you can’t because Madison et al. did not preclude or prohibit secession.
Madison seceded from Great Britain, you dimwitted fool!
Secession is a physical axiom; cell division is an existential imperative.
Secession is globally and historically ubiquitous.
It is explained by Madison as I posted above.
—
1)”secede at will”
2)”the right of seceding from intolerable oppression.”
The former:
” a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged.”
The latter:
“another name only for revolution”
—
1) Call it secession if you believe the attempt was in bad faith, or
2) call it revolution if you believe there was intolerable oppression, but then read the DOI and see why America and Britain were at odds leading to the Revolution.
“Well, who ya gonna believe me or your own eyes?”
– Chico Marx
__________
Believe me and your own eyes; read the Constitution with your own eyes.
Please cite the Constitution for a prohibition of secession.
Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution.
If secession is not prohibited, it is allowed.
Certainly, free Americans in free States may agree to secede from the union, and the Constitution does not state that they may not, no matter how much you prevaricate.
Period.
“Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution.”
“amother name only for revolution”, so call it revolution.
or recognize it as:
” a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged.”
That doesn’t look good but it is your choice.
“A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
– James Madison
Are you blind in one eye that you cannot see both sides of what Madison wrote? He was pretty set when he wrote the latter in 1833.
The slogan “Let’s Go Brandon” is like the slogan “Tuck Frump.” You know what you mean and we know what you mean, so it is really not different than the actual profanity.
Tuck Frump: And we also know what they really mean when they say “trans women are women.” They mean “fvck real women.” As long as you can get past the logarithm censors.
except that it’s not profanity
And yet it is. The fact that you chose NOT to engage in actual profantiy proves that it is not actual profanity.
I would further note that we primarily restrict profantiy to protect children.
Lets Go Brandon, Tuck Frump, and Tuck Furley are all readily aparent in meaning to adults, and not to children.
Regardless if we got to the point of banning euphamisms because they are commonly recognized – even by children as coded versions of prohibited speech, the correct first amendment resolution would be to remove the prohibition against F$%K not to broaden the prohibition to speech we think is code for profanity.
Boy, you sure fooled us. We won’t ever say “Let’s Go Brandon” again. Thanks, comrade, for fixing our brains for us. You are really, really smart and we are really, really dumb.
(What a ——- idiot!).
They don’t just believe they have a “right” to silence speech to which they object. They believe it is their responsibility. Their moral imperative.
That position is unassailable.
Jamie: That’s why it’s a cult. Moral obedience to some higher ideology, speak in mantra tongues, and no questions asked.
GioCon,
Cult is right.
The lengths they go to, the mental gymnastics, the misinformation and disinformation they spread is mind boggling.
However, it is easy to see through them as anyone can with a degree of common sense, objectivity, critical thinking, and a sense of decency.
@Jamie
That is exactly right, and it’s the difference with more recent cohorts. They really, in a very real sense, are not well. We have generations of Patty Hearsts, right down to the privilege, on our hands, and they didn’t even need to be abducted. Let us not forget that the Symbionese Liberation Army was a *left* wing group. And yet even today, no one disputes the fact that they were terrorists. We are being played in an unprecedented fashion; kids are naive, but to see older folks that know better go along like zombies is positively mind numbing.
Other than the hostility higher Ed shows to our highest ideals.
America is being injected with venom.
Words save no rights.
It was always difficult to prove a net benefit from requiring that employees be college graduates. In recent years, however, the impact of such a requirement has moved beyond non-existent to harmful. Colleges everywhere immerse their students in close-minded environments where dissent and spirited debate are rare. In the future, think apprenticeships.
Why would the bubble enclosed prog/left want to shed any light on truth. How blinkered must they be to not know of the endless tales of misery surrounding each and every venture into socialism/fascism/communism. It is becoming wearisome and fruitless to even consider people supporting the prog/left ideology as sentient humans at this point.
Turley’s massively tone deaf approach to these “attacks” on free speech must be either a sign of senility or just plain ignorance.
This is a private religious school. They CAN refuse to allow this speaker to speak on campus if they choose to. Turley, as usual, omits an important fact. This school, it’s students, or faculty are NOT bound by the 1st amendment. Not one bit. Private religious schools famously have refused to allow alternative points of view. It can be about the Bible, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, even controversial views about Jesus or any other alternatives to their views that they may deem too offensive for them to tolerate. This has always been the norm with private religious schools. To expect them to adhere to the principles of the 1st amendment is contrary to what the 1st amendment really says. A LOT of schools have these “respect for free speech mission statements” just as many companies have these “mission statements” to treats everyone with respect and dignity which we all know are mostly BS.
“In its university mission statement, Whitworth declares a deep commitment to free speech on campus: “Whitworth affirms freedom of expression for its students, staff and faculty. Our commitment to free expression is grounded in our faith … We take Jesus Christ as the model for engagement in public discourse and for exploration and expression of ideas.”
The mission statement does NOT say students MUST allow these expressions no matter how controversial they are. Note that the missions statement is talking about students Xi is NOT a student. He was invited by a group of conservative students to speak at the school. Those conservative students are still able to express their views freely. But the if the student body does not want to allow Xi to speak it is perfectly allowable for them to say “no”.
What is often left out of these “problems with free speech on campuses” as Turley loves to frame them is the fact that nothing, and I mean absolutely NOTHING stops these conservative groups from still inviting the speaker to speak at a venue outside the school. This means their free speech rights have always been intact. They can raise funds, and rent an appropriate venue, I hear hotels offer excellent facilities, and they can still invite Xi to speak and express their views. Remember, this is a PRIVATE school and they are under no constitutional or even moral obligation to hear this speaker if they don’t want to. The student government voted to refuse the request and they have every right to do that. I’m sure there are appeals processes in place, but that still does not mean that this group’s free speech rights have been violated. Turley is being just as disingenuous as Mao was, ironically.
Turley does not contest the school’s authority to prevent the speaker from attending; rather, the debate centers on whether a learning environment should promote the inclusion of diverse perspectives.
Dick Brown, Turley uses these incidents to frame them as “attacks on free speech on campuses”. He’s deliberately implying that there is a gigantic problem that in reality is not as big a deal as he wants his gullible readers to believe. He intentionally blows these things out of proportion and uses them to peddle false narratives about the left. It’s notable that he only focuses on issues when the ‘left’ is involved, but ignores the more serious and bigger issues when conservatives in government are involved. Banning books, restricting curriculum, mandating that history be “portrayed in a positive light”, etc. all are opposition to different points of view and ideas. The things that Turley constantly harps about are being doing wholesale by conservatives and Republican legislators on a daily basis. What does Turley do? He sits with his thumb up his a$$ and feigns ignorance. His hypocrisy is thick and oozes with a foul stench others who are aware easily notice. It’s not lost on real professors and real lawyers.
Name a banned book. Just one, anywhere. Not a book deemed inappropriate for a school library for young children – a book that it’s illegal to buy or own.
Name a school curriculum that portrays slavery and Jim Crow, internment of Japanese citizens, denial of the franchise to women for the majority of American history in a “positive light.” Just one district. Just one school.
You know – you must know – that you’re misrepresenting these things. Why? Is it because you see them as a slippery slope? Cool, make that argument, and defend it. Or is it just whataboutism, because you have no response for why campuses are limiting and excluding certain speech?
OTOH, do you actually believe that disallowing speakers from speaking because they hold opinions (or can present data!) in opposition to popular leftist thought is somehow more liberal than encouraging debate? Because you can’t realistically deny that it’s happening. And not just at Podunk U.
Jaime,
Well said, and thank you for pointing out Sleezevez misrepresenting the facts.
Excellent response.
I knew that sooner or later Svelaz would bring up the banning of books again. On many occasions I have asked Svelaz to condemn the book that Junior High School libraries in Ohio removed from their shelves. Consequently it should be understood that this use of this book is supported by Svelaz. I do not expect Svelaz to do more than he has done in the past to tell us his exact opinion on this book. It’s just on and on about banning books. Here is what Svelaz thinks is appropriate for Junior High School students. https://theiowastandard.com/shocking-images-from-book-gender-queer-which-is-stocked-in-school-libraries-across-iowa/. When you get down to the specifics Svelaz grows very quiet. Maybe its because his moral compass is revealed.
TiT,
Leftists would have to have a moral compass in the first place to be revealed. As we saw with Bug yesterday.
Decency and morality are not traits woke leftists are known for. Just look at how hard they press to normalize “minor attracted persons,” and their justification to sexualize and groom six year olds with pornography in kindergarten libraries.
Bug really and truly exposed the mentality of woke leftists. All with one comment.
Again, I have to thank our woke leftists friends. On the good professor’s blog with their asinine comments, their mental gymnastics to defend the indefensible, they show their true colors as disgusting as they may be.
Svelaz is concerned that the books being banned from Junior High School are not available for purchase. A particular book that I discussed in my previous post is not banned but is available on Amazon for purchase at this very moment. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=gender+queer+paperback&i=stripbooks&crid=CD6Z95XE71LA&sprefix=gender+que%2Cstripbooks%2C145&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_4_10. This book is the distribution of pornography to underaged students which is against the law. It’s most likely on the bookshelf of every pedophile in the nation. It’s all part of Svelaz’s plan. In the past Svelaz has said that its all right to have this book in schools because kids can just find it on the internet anyway. Junior High School kids can see adds for whiskey on the internet too but we don’t give them whiskey just because the can see it on the internet. Then again, maybe giving kids whiskey is all right with Svelaz too. The ultimate conclusion to such an argument is that if kids can just find it on the internet we should allow its use by children. You can judge the presenter of such an argument as you will.
TiT,
As it has been noted in others comments, when push to defend the indefensible, woke leftists argument crumbles like a milk soaked cookie.
Immediately I saw Bug’s comment yesterday and recognized it as something disgusting, nothing that decent company would find acceptable.
Just like most of woke leftists arguments we would not accept.
We are expected to suffer their presence in the name of tolerance. Yet they do not afford others the same courtesy.
But we can in fact ignore their perversions.
However, in their desire, their need to force their perversions down on the rest of us, at some point we just might stop and say, “No.”
Then, things get real interesting if the woke leftists double or triple down on forcing their perversions on us.
Good times!
“Turley is being just as disingenuous as Mao was, ironically.”
Have you always been this obtuse, or did you have to work at it?
That you don’t get it is very telling. The irony couldn’t be more clear.
Yes, because comparing a nerdy twerpy law prof to a bloodthirsty totalitarian is oh so smart. Every time you post, you channel Gratiano.
I am an alumnus of Whitworth Universiy (then Whitworth College). Certainly, as a private university, they can control who speaks on campus. It’s not the University, it is the student government that is prohibiting speech. This may be democratic (I’m sure they voted), or it may be the tyranny of the mob. So, limiting someone else’s speech, is it more reflective of the values of Christianity or the CCP? One of my favorite Professors, Dr. Krebs, taught us to “Always consider the opposite”. If a Christian wanted to give a speech at a CCP-run university, would that be allowed? What ideas does the CCP find “harmful” or “hurtful”? Does anti-Maoist rhetoric harm students or the CCP?
The chances of speaking at a the university, a private religious University, would still be dependent on the subject matter. Whether the speaker is Christian or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the choice the student government wants to have a speaker speak at their school or not. They can claim certain ideas are deemed harmful to them if they want to. As FIRE noted, they are NOT bound by the 1st amendment.
Krebs offered good advice, but as we are all aware, it’s not always the case when it come to Christian schools. Would you expect the school to consider that there are good values to be learned from satan? Based on Turley’s arguments he would be scolding the student government for not adhering to their “mission statement” if they refused to allow a speaker to express those views on campus, or would he be signing a different tune?
Speaking at a university public or private is dependant on getting some group to sponsor that speech.
While that does depend on the subject matter, it is still NOT a majoritarian proposition.
Anyone whose subject matter is of interest to some minority group of students, faculty or administration is typically free to speak at a campus.
Further nearly all colleges in the US have a free speech code as part of a committment to academic freedom.
These codes are part of the CONTRACT between the college and the students and staff. That contract is modifiable, but still applies to all current students and staff. As a rule Student Government, Administration. Students, Faculty, … all are powerless to prevent a speaker that a student faculty or administrative minority group has chosen to come to speak.
Further there is massive amounts of caselaw on this. Though Fire has more recently broadened their scope, They were created specifically to address Campus Free Speech rights. And FIRE Does not lose – EVER. The problem we are experiencing now is that increasingly campuses and students do not care if they lose the legal battle. They are trying to make speaking by disfavored speakers so difficult and threatening that no one will run the gauntlet.
And they have been very successful. Comedians will not come to college campuses anymore. Mostly ceasing almost a decade ago.
It is just not worth the hassle. Many many republican speakers have run the gauntlet fought the fight, and delivered speeches on campus.
But most are not willing to go to that much effort to repeat the process over and over and over.
I would note that those on the left do not merely punish conservative speakers. Even those on the left are reluctant to speak at colleges.
One wrong word, a tiny bit of wrong think and they could become a complete pariah. The left is just as good at eating its own as those on the right.
This is a particular problem for College Campuses, Because College is about the exposure to many ideas – including those you are not comfortable with.
The entire ideology of safe spaces, micro-agressions, …. is antithetical to the purpose and working of college.
If you have gone through college and never been exposed to anyone who contradicted and challenged whatever the current orthodoxy is – then you have been cheated, and your degree is worthless. Developing critical thinking skills REQUIRES being challenged.
College is NOT an additional 4 years of grammar school.
The most important function of a college is NOT to stuff you full of another four years of facts and formula’s and rote memorization.
It is to teach you how to think critically – and you can not ever learn that without being challenged.
We learn how to think by being confronted with arguments that we do not agree with presented by their best advocates.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
What a ridiculous comment, svelaz. Turley didn’t say what they were doing was illegal. He said – and I defy you to deny the truth of this – that this attitude toward expression of views you oppose is (1) harmful to public discourse, and (2) hypocritical in the presence of mission statements in support of free speech.
Sure. The conservative students could fundraise to rent space off campus so that speakers whom they want to hear can speak (a burden progressive students don’t have to bear – perfectly legal for a private university to allow this dichotomy, and perfectly hypocritical in the presence of their mission statement). Wanna bet the non-conservative students show up at those venues to “protest”? Perfectly legal to do so, if they stay out on the sidewalk. And perfectly exemplary of their cowardly avoidance of debate.
Svelaz: Stop “liking” your own comments–we know you’re a troll, so stop trying to look popular.
Svelaz – you should not assume that private schools can deny 1st Amendment rights. It could be argued that private schools that accept or benefit from federal funding are bound by federal law. DeVos, “All Schools that Accept Federal Funding Must Follow Federal Law”, The Hill, 6/6/17
“They CAN refuse to allow this speaker . . .”
One *can* do a lot of things: Lie around all day eating Cheetos. Walk barefoot over hot coals. That doesn’t mean that it’s the *right* thing to do.
Contrary to the Left’s lack of moral compass, choice alone does not make something right.
It is crushing they would invoke Jesus’ name for such a hateful endeavor.
Maoism is a class-disordered ideology: rabid diversity, slavery, redistributive change, and mass [ethnic] abortion… cleansing, a model of progress.