Northwestern University has long been a school hostile to free speech. My alma mater was ranked 197 out of 203 universities for free speech in a major survey by FIRE. (Fortunately, my other alma mater, the University of Chicago, was ranked number one for free speech). This month showed why Northwestern developed a reputation for speech intolerance and a lack of ideological diversity. Northwestern University’s Associated Student Government suspended the funding for the College Republicans due to objections to posters for an event featuring writer and critical race theory critic James Lindsay. The justification was a poster featuring a skull and crossbones, an objection that seemed more of a pretense than a principle. This move reportedly came after Lindsay’s speech was the subject of protests on campus.According to the Daily Northwestern, one of the posters displayed a skull and crossbones that was superimposed over the LGBT Pride flag. ASG co-president, Molly Whalen, seemed disappointed that the group did not have the power to ban Lindsay but took solace from the fact that they could deny the Republicans any funding:
“We can’t prevent a speaker from coming to campus as student government. That’s done by administration. We focused on the part that we could control, which is student group conduct and student group finances.”
It is doubtful that other groups from the College Democrats to Black Lives Matter to pro-choice groups would be sanctioned for using the common symbol to express their opposition to the MAGA movement or racism or pro-life positions.
I do not like the imagery and I expect that I do not agree with some of Lindsey’s views. However, the action taken by the board was legitimately called out by the writer as an attack on his free speech.
In a statement before the event, Northwestern University spokesman Jon Yates said that although “the speaker’s views do not align with Northwestern’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, they are protected by free speech and free expression.” However, the school needs to do more. Student groups should not be able to engage in content-based censorship or sanctions against such groups. Every university should have failsafe rules allowing for corrective action to prevent such denial of free speech principles.
Northwestern has a history of declaring support for academic freedom and free speech while refusing to take action to protect them.
Students previously succeeded in cancelling a speech by former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Student Zachery Novicoff embodied the rising intolerance to free speech on campus. He is quoted as saying “There’s a limitation to free speech. That ends at overtly racist old white dudes.”
I previously criticized former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro for his lack of support for free speech on campus. Schapiro denounced what he called “absolute” free speech positions and endorsed speech sanctions, including treating speech as a form of assault.
During his tenure, the university often seemed a mere pedestrian to mob action taken against dissenting voices. For example, we previously discussed a Sociology 201 class by Professor Beth Redbird that examined “inequality in American society with an emphasis on race, class and gender.” To that end, Redbird invited both an undocumented person and a spokesperson for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is the type of balance that is now considered verboten on campuses.
Members of MEChA de Northwestern, Black Lives Matter NU, the Immigrant Justice Project, the Asian Pacific American Coalition, NU Queer Trans Intersex People of Color and Rainbow Alliance organized to stop other students from hearing from the ICE representative. However, they could not have succeeded without the help of Northwestern administrators (including Dean of Students Todd Adams). The protesters were screaming “F**k ICE” outside of the hall. Adams and the other administrators then said that the protesters screaming profanities would be allowed into the class if they promised not to disrupt the class. Really? They were screaming profanities and seeking to stop the class but would just sit nicely as the speaker answered questions?
Of course, that did not happen. As soon as the protesters were allowed into the classroom, they prevented the ICE representative from speaking. The ICE official eventually left and Redbird canceled the class to discuss the issue with the protesters that just prevented her students from hearing an opposing view.
The comments of the Northwestern students were predictable after being told by people like Schapiro that some offensive speech should be treated as a form of assault. SESP sophomore April Navarro rejected that faculty should be allowed to invite such speakers to their classrooms for a “good, nice conversation with ICE.” She insisted such speakers needed to be silenced because they “terrorize communities” and profit from detainee labor. Here is the face of the new generation of censors being shaped by speech-intolerant academics like Schapiro:
“We’re not interested in having those types of conversations that would be like, ‘Oh, let’s listen to their side of it’ because that’s making them passive rule-followers rather than active proponents of violence. We’re not engaging in those kinds of things; it legitimizes ICE’s violence, it makes Northwestern complicit in this. There’s an unequal power balance that happens when you deal with state apparatuses.”
Last year, the Northwestern study body banned press from meetings to protect students from the harm of media coverage.
The Northwestern journalism faculty is little better. Steven Thrasher, the Daniel H. Renberg Chair of social justice in reporting at Northwestern, who trashed a reporter who waited for the facts before reporting on a police shooting.
Of course, it is not just conservative speakers that the students want to ban. In 2021, they called for the removal of the President of the Board of Trustees. Despite being a major donor and supporter of the school, J. Landis Martin was denounced as a Republican who donated money to former President Donald Trump.
I was hoping that Schapiro’s departure would bring a renewed commitment to free speech at Northwestern. I am still hopeful that we will see greater adherence to free speech principles by President Michael Schill than his predecessor. I have been told by friends that Schill has such a personal commitment to free speech. However, the university will have to do more than be a pearl-clutching pedestrian when confronted by such attacks on a free speech.
I will be forever grateful that my brilliant white son was rejected from all the woke, anti-free speech Ivy League schools he applied to. Instead, he was accepted to U Chicago, his only acceptance from a highly selective school. They were thrilled to have him due to his STEM background. A rigorous education unlike Harvard’s where the hardest part is to get in.
U Chicago is an excellent school!
I too, graduated from Northwestern in the way back times. We had our shares of nuts running around, but in those days you could still civilly debate the Sparticist Youth Leaguers—and at least they spent some time studying their dialectic. These kids are simply dumbed down almost to Eloi levels. My last straw was the Eikenberry affair around 2015. I’d made a large multi-year pledge and the last payment came up shortly thereafter. When I stopped by the NYC development office and stroked the check told the nice development lady this was the last they’d see from me. I’d made the pledge and honor dictated that I make good. But told her flat out, if you don’t quit this, more people will do the same. Shapiro was a limp noodle. His original successor, Rebecca Blank (RIP) was a flat our Marxist (she taught at NU when I was there) before moving to UW (clearly a more comfortable environment)
My view is that government-provided money toward grants, scholarships, student loans, etc should only be applied toward subjects that have measurable and bonafide economic benefit to society via the student, namely the student gaining a higher level of employment through an occupation that actually benefits society. If the course does not result in an employable skill or that skill has a market value less than a high school diploma or GED, then the government is prohibited from financing this type of education.
The reason for this is two fold. Government has no appreciable obligation or receives benefit from financing entertainment and social clubs. Students who major in fields such as Victorian Era English Poetry will experience no reasonable expectation of gainful employment in that subject (outside of academia perpetuating the need through hiring Victoria-era Poetry professors) Society is not benefited in a cost/benefit via tens of thousands of students taking Victoria-era Poetry. The overall cost toward employment of professors teaching unprofitable subjects and all of their ancillary staff is an unnecessary factor in raising education costs. If the students do not gain employment or necessary skills from a partucular subject, the subject is effectively entertainment and the government has no obligation to finance it.
For those who carry the view that all education is of benefit regardless of subject since the individual might find a use for it, one should as aforementioned consider the cost/benefit. Yes, you could benefit from knowing poetry, but does it provide you with thousands of dollars in income to offset the education cost to the student and the taxpayers?
Looking at the needs of the upcoming workforce, the need for so many students having college degrees is lessening given the demand for skilled labor and trades that is going unfulfilled. Most teenagers would benefit from a very strong primary school education and save society the expense of having them go through college when trade schools and on-the-job training will serve a larger role.
Darren,
Well said.
Did you see this: Rising GOP star Mark Robinson touts vocational apprenticeships as alternative to 4-year degrees
https://justthenews.com/events/wdrising-gop-star-mark-robinson-promotes-making-careers-trades-par-four-year-degrees
Nice article,
An anecdote: I talked with a young man several years ago and he was quite happy to report that he was accepted into a union-sponsored trade apprenticeship in the elevator and escalator maintenance industry. It was a five year program. It cost him nearly nothing to participate, mostly union dues and a few study materials, but he would be paid a wage along with his training. After his first year he would expect about $60,000 in pay and upon his journeyman certification he coud expect double that.
He was completely set for his career from that point forward. He would have no student loan debt, and instead would receive a good wage while he was getting training and an education.
Plus, one has to look at other benefits. I would think a young woman looking at having a family might find this type of man attractive. He is really the “Steady Eddie” type of guy He has a rock solid, stable career, is a provider and a real man who knows how to get things done. No drama and upheaval.
My accountant told me one time that most people don’t recognize how much better off the Steady Eddie kind of person is at retirement age:Their mortgage is paid off, they have a pension or 401k type of plan and made reasonable investments and financial choices over the past forty years. He has professionals who didn’t have their act together most of their life. Sure they have a big house, or drive fancy cars but their retirement is underfunded and weak. He’s even seen retired NCOs who were better financially than retired colonels from the military.
This wokester movement among some guys, I’d think that would drive a woman away faster than anything. No means of support, pathetic, and an embarassment to be around
I’m looking forward to the day that highly skilled blue collar workers will be paid the same as highly skilled white collar workers due to the scarcity of such workers. Pushing college to everyone caused this.
skilled blue collar have been making more than white collar ( barring management who are overpaid gluteal osculators) for quite a long time already
Government should not be in the business of student loans on any level… period. The only reason they are currently in it is that it brings in 4 billion dollars in interest payments every year.
Free speech absolutism is the belief that we all have an inalienable right to political free speech, and the state cannot introduce any laws which curb that particular freedom of expression. The key phrase in that definition is “political free speech” and the key word within the phrase is “political”, which means of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
Free speech absolutists are persons who practice free speech absolutism as it is defined above. Most absolutists, if not all, do so while holding that “free speech absolutism” does not extend beyond political free speech into matters not the affairs of government, politics, or the state. Consequently, those who adhere to that distinction may not be supportive of repugnant and offensive racist rhetoric that is expressed outside the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state, nor should it be expected of them to be.
Let’s see, Jon Yates, jew, Zachary Novicoff, jew, Morton Shapiro, jew, Daniel H Renberg, jew, Michael Schill, jew.
At least the last two President’s of the university were jews.
Hat tip and thanks to S Meyers
Shak, Let us review your case. You selected 5 Jews as examples as to why you hate Jews. That is five out of over six-million. That is statistically insignificant and we haven’t bothered to ascertain if your analysis is correct.
Plain and simple, you need a course in remedial statistics.
Take your ethnic group and compare it to the Jews. How many Nobel Prize winners do you have in your group? How many notable scientists and scholars do you have? Your ethnic group will be swamped because Jews are prominent in many fields, and a few are notable for their wrong choices.
Just so you understand Jews represent 0.2% of the world’s population, yet were awarded ~15-20% of all Nobel Prizes. %-wise that would mean there would be a number of Jews without such a favorable appearance.
Check my data on your iPhone or computer and take note the immense amount of input that came from Jews so that you could have those valuable items.
Look at your friends and see what they have created. If they think like you, probably not much of anything, but if they are creative some will have been creative in part due to their involvement with Jews.
Now, instead of shooting off your selection of names without analysis, why not provide us with your complaints. Then we can search the net to find who and what you are complaining about.
In terms of the matters of this list, when we point to bad things and research them we will find one name at the top, Joe Biden. Is he Jewish? Is he one of yours?
S. Meyer,
I would just like to go on record that I have two good Jewish friends.
I do not take Shakdi Dagalimal’s point of view of Jews, and consider Shakdi Dagalimal to be a anti-semite.
Thank you.
Brain Freeze
Darren – This will chill the students’ speech.
Looks like Northwestern wants to challenge Oberline for the lead in this years most woke campus.
Looks like “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s back!
Abraham Lincoln taught Americans to ignore and violate the law in a society of laws. Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus and violently resisted his political opposition, smashing printing presses and throwing opponents in prison.
The Constitution allows congress to suspend habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion. The act of Southern States was secession not rebellion. The Confederate States of America seceded constituting a sovereign foreign nation; there was no rebellion in the United States, they did not rebel.
Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution. Secession is ubiquitous throughout the world and throughout history. West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Pakistan seceded from India. East Timor seceded from Indonesia. All by vote.
Reprehensible slavery must have been ended by legal means.
__________________________________________________
“In the spring of 1863, General Ambrose Burnside arrested Peace Democrat Clement Vallandigham, who had been critical of the US government, and banned publication of the Chicago Times, which was supportive of Vallandigham. Burnside’s actions drew widespread criticism, to which Lincoln responded by reducing Vallandigham’s sentence and revoking Burnside’s order suppressing the Times. Lincoln defended himself against charges that his administration had subverted the Constitution, however, arguing that acts that might be illegal in peacetime might be necessary ‘in cases of rebellion,’ when the nation’s survival was at stake.”
– Gilder Lehrman https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/proclamation-suspension-habeas-corpus-1862
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional:
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
So, the South wanted to secede because they rebelled against being told what to do with their slaves – the only “right” they were really concerned with. They announced their intent by confiscating federal property, munitions, forts, railroad, etc. When Federal troops refused to leave Fort Sumter, they were fired on by rebel secessionists who fired the first shots in the war. That war was litigated in blood, George, and no amount of bemoaning its outcome will make a difference now except to make yourself sick with hatred. History unfortunately repeats itself because people never seem to pay attention to the outcome of similar decisions that were made on an issue. If you think our country is so terrible, try to find yourself a better one. We are far from perfect, but many of us still believe the values our country was built on still exist – even if over 160 years ago Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during a war. Get over it!
It’s very simple. Which posters on this blog have constantly justified censorship? Which figures throughout history have also justified censorship. Our leftist on this blog are even happy to write that the are bedfellows with the likes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler. It also is obvious that the have much in common with the “trained marxist” of BLM and ANTIFA. I don’t consider this thinking to be over the top because it’s plain to see that things are what the are. Just as in the past there goal is to eliminate the resistance by first limiting speech. There second but equal goal is to limit your education by replacing history with leftist propaganda. Sadly we see the fruits if their efforts in the Universities of the nation. They should be assured that we see what they are doing and try as they might they will not keep us quiet. Mao, Stalin and Hitler thought that they were good people too.
And the best part is that Northwestern doesn’t pay their “fair share” in taxes that the left always demands of the wealth class – instead they pay a big fat zero – and sit on billions of tax free dollars and property. Nice deal
Although Northwestern University is chartered as a “private” university, it still receives significant amounts of funding from the state and federal governments in the form of scholarships, student financial aid assistance, and research and development grants. Thanks to the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) and The American Rescue Plan Northwestern alone received a total of $15,884,247 from the U.S. federal Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) for student aid through the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) and The American Rescue Plan. Because of its reliance on government funding the university could easily be made to tow the line on free speech should the state and/or federal government choose to press the issue. It’s important to emphasize “should” they want to.
It has been fashionable for a very few malcontents on this blog to define Turley as a “free speech absolutist” who because of it should allow for racist commentary on his private blog. While they are correct in acknowledging him as a free speech absolutist, they do so not understanding all of what free speech absolutism takes into consideration. In Turley’s case, the word they are looking for that best fits their insincere purpose continuously trying to discredit him is not “absolutist”, but rather something on the order of what one might think of as a “conditionalist.”
The 20th century free speech advocate and philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn believed that in order for a nation to be considered autonomous, the people should be able to express themselves freely about matters related to self-governance without any limitations being placed on speech by governments.
This commitment to self-rule, in Meiklejohn’s view, justified and formed the basis of the constitutional right to unfettered free speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and warranted its absolute nature, meaning it should not be weakened or watered down to bend to other social values.
However, his understanding didn’t extend to private speech about issues not of public concern. So, while one’s right to proclaim their views about a social issue is safeguarded, even if others may take offense, Meiklejohn believed that one cannot rely on free speech protection to shout casual abuse at anyone.
To the extent Turley is a “free speech absolutist”, it is in the belief that we all have an inalienable right to political free speech, and the government cannot introduce any laws which curb the freedom of speech. That he “conditions” his private blog against the abuses of racism in private speech about issues not of public concern is what we all should expect of a “free speech absolutist”, and reasonable persons would hope the few malcontents too would have some respect for that.
Ron A. Hoffman,
“Although Northwestern University is chartered as a “private” university, it still receives significant amounts of funding from the state and federal governments in the form of scholarships, student financial aid assistance, and research and development grants.”
Every school, including private schools get these kinds of funding. It’s still a private school nonetheless. Pointing out that STUDENTS get funding thru federal financial aid and scholarships, even Pell grants does not change the fact that they still pay for it with their own money and this is still a private university. Otherwise every private religious school who also benefits from government financial aid in the form of student loans and grants would also be “bound” by government constitutional obligations. Nice try.
“It has been fashionable for a very few malcontents on this blog to define Turley as a “free speech absolutist” who because of it should allow for racist commentary on his private blog. While they are correct in acknowledging him as a free speech absolutist, they do so not understanding all of what free speech absolutism takes into consideration.”
Parsing words does not change the fact that Turley defines himself as a free speech absolutist.
An absolutist defines free speech as all speech regardless of how offensive and controversial it is should not be censored, especially political speech. You’re conflating two different things here. A free speech absolutist, like Turley, believes that EVERYONE should follow the principles of the 1st amendment and that includes the idea that censoring offensive or controversial speech is wrong. Being that Turley DOES identify and claim to be a free speech absolutist who is constantly critical and chastises others including private companies of censoring offensive and even racist speech. His own opposition to openly racist comments are clearly contrary to that belief. An “absolutist” means to be without conditions.
In this column Turley is criticizing a student goverment from a PRIVATE university exercising PRIVATE speech. As we both know private schools are NOT bound to adhere to the 1st amendment’s requirements. Neither is Turley. However by calling himself a free speech absolutist and constantly criticizing others for censoring or stifling offensive speech or expressions while denying the same on his blog when it comes to openly racist comments is hypocrisy at it’s finest. It’s not surprising, constitutional originalists are just as hypocritical when their own philosophy becomes an inconvenience.
An “absolutist” with “conditions” is quite the oxymoron, don’t you think?
Remember he’s criticizing a private school’s student government that is not bound by any 1st amendment requirement for violating the 1st amendment rights of another as a free speech absolutist. While denying others their free speech right to be as racist as they want on his private blog. You don’t see the irony?
@Svelaz – stop being intentionally obtuse. Turley and the rest of us are discussing free speech within the Constitutional framework of our country. So yes, we as a country do not condone the racism you are so keen to pursue… but can still be absolutist about free speech as it is define and understood within our legal framework.
I know that inclusion of the word “absolute” has you confused… but the real world includes concepts like context and nuance. When you ignore both context and nuance you simply prove yourself to be unable to hold an intelligent discussion.
So you’re ignorant, but you’re talking down to people… don’t you see the irony?
“ Svelaz – stop being intentionally obtuse. Turley and the rest of us are discussing free speech within the Constitutional framework of our country. So yes, we as a country do not condone the racism you are so keen to pursue… but can still be absolutist about free speech as it is define and understood within our legal framework.”
He’s criticizing a student government body that has no obligation or duty to adhere to 1st amendment requirements.
The NUCR is not being prevented from hosting the speaker on campus. They can still do that. The only distinction is that they no longer have the funds available to use for the even. That doesn’t mean they can’t raise the funds themselves so they can still have the event. Their free speech rights are still intact. They don’t have a constitutional right to the funds and they abducted their representation on the student government senate by not renewing their seat on the senate. It was their choice.
“ I know that inclusion of the word “absolute” has you confused… ”
I’m not confused about what it means. But you seem to be, you did not offer a definition of what it means. Weird. Do YOU know what it means?
student government body that has no obligation or duty to adhere to 1st amendment requirements.
Aaannd… there’s your strawman
How exacty said the Student govt lacked the power to do what they did?
The question is. Why limit varying viewpoints on subjects? College is supposed to test all view points to learn WHY the world operates the way it does. Not just get fed the answer approved by mobs.
Do you think examination of ideas should be limited in college settings? If yes, give us 4 topics that cant be discussed on college campuses.
“student government body that has no obligation or duty to adhere to 1st amendment requirements.
Aaannd… there’s your strawman
How exacty said the Student govt lacked the power to do what they did?”
LOL! that’s not what a strawman is.
The 1st amendment applies to state or federal government. Student government, especially at a private school is not constitutionally obligated to adhere to the 1st amendment.
“The question is. Why limit varying viewpoints on subjects? ”
They are not limiting them from hosting the event on campus. The NUCR can still do that. What they cannot do is use funds usually provided by the student government. They violated policy when they used those posters to advertise the event. Do you get it now?
The NUCR can still host the speak on campus. They just need to come up with the funds themselves.
Svelaz said
“The 1st amendment applies to state or federal government. Student government, especially at a private school is not constitutionally obligated to adhere to the 1st amendment.”
You keep repeating the same strawman logical fallacy.
A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In creating a straw man argument, the arguer strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light.
Turley nor any commenter here, has claimed the Student Government is bound by the Constitution’s 1st amendment protections.
(I keep forgetting all you can do is paste stuff others give to you, and dont know anything about such things as logical fallacies)
Iowan2. A student government is not an extreme version of anything. That’s why your awful attempts at claiming strawman argument are hilariously bad.
The student government is not bound by the requirements of the 1st amendment. The only reason why I’m repeating it is because you’re not getting it. You’re the one stuck on the inability to understand. It’s you that is the problem.
You are wrong, of course. And Iowan2 is right. Can you point in Turley’s article where he brings up 1st Amendment and how the student body is bound by it? I read it again and you in your smugness are incorrect. Turley criticizes the student body who is as obtuse and ignorant as you, but he knows they aren’t bound by 1st Amendment so don’t be an idiot…
A big part of what it means it is that it should at times be circumscribed by other social values. Anti-racism is one social value one would think most people, not just free speech absolutists would abide. Despite what you think it means it is certain Turley will continue to be a free speech absolutist who abides anti-racism as very much a social value and will continue not to condone it on his blog. Should you again suggest that I am parsing words let it be understood you only do so because it plagues your contemptible narrative and you have nothing worthy to say otherwise.
Ron A. Hoffman, the term “absolutist” is derived from the root word “absolute”. Clearly it means only one thing. An absolute of something. Not a “sort of” or “conditional” idea. It’s either an absolute or not.
You’re just trying to lend Turley for his hypocrisy. It’s not plaguing me. I know what the term means and you’re trying to justify it differently to excuse hypocrisy.
Turley believes as an absolutist that speech, even offensive speech such as openly racist rhetoric shouldn’t be censored. But he censors it because he finds it offensive. Clearly there is a stark contradiction on his assertions. You either are an absolutist or not.
We all understand the derivation of the word “absolute” and its ordinary meaning, but what you cannot seem to grasp is that words have connotations and are useable beyond their literal meanings. There is no hypocrisy, only your obdurateness that’s in play here. You are so anti-Turley to your core that no amount of reason can dissuade you from your personal animus. I think it must be an addiction.
Ron A. Hoffman, there is no other connotation implied when one calls themselves a free speech absolutist. You’re desperately trying to make excuses for Turley’s hypocrisy. It’s just that simple. “Absolute” has only one connotation. There no diminished or increased implied definition of whatever is described as “absolute”.
You are trying to diminish the implied meaning of what an absolutist means by speech. You tried to involve “conditional” inferences where none exists. Using “absolute” negates any “conditions” on the meaning.
All you’re doing is making excuses for Turley’s blatant hypocrisy and disingenuous criticism.
I’m telling you how free speech absolutists, i.e., those who think that only government cannot censor speech define their free speech absolutism, and you continue to intentionally ignore it. Free speech absolutists are only absolutists to the extent that government may not and constitutionally cannot censor any speech. Their absolutism with regard to opposing government censorship need not and should not carry over to private speech on social issues not of public concern. As an example, one should not rely on free speech protection to spew racist abuse at anyone. What it all means is that one can be a free speech absolutist in one given circumstance but not necessarily in others.
“Their absolutism with regard to opposing government censorship need not and should not carry over to private speech on social issues not of public concern.”
Again, you keep missing the whole point in an effort to excuse Turley’s hypocrisy.
Turley actively criticizes private entities exercising private speech of censorship and “attacks” on free speech because he believes they should abide by 1st amendment principles. As YOU are defining it, Turley opposition to censorship does carry over to private speech. The whole point of being an absolutist is to be supportive of expressing speech that is also offensive and controversial like openly racist rhetoric. He does NOT practice what he preaches. That’s the hypocrisy. Being an absolutist means private speech such as his blog or even twitter should not be censoring offensive rhetoric or views. Turley Never defines his absolutist belief in such detail as you do and you’re clearly making excuses for him and his hypocrisy. No amount of parsing of words and definitions will change that.
Again, Turley may believe that government may not and cannot censor racist speech, but on his private blog he may and he will. It’s not a contradiction that he may and can do on his own private blog what the government may not and cannot do. I am amazed how seemingly impossible it is for one who likely regards himself to be an intellectual to not even remotely grasp what you being repeatedly instructed on this subject. It only means you do not wish to know out of concern that what you have long spewed and spouted is absolute BS.
“It’s not a contradiction that he may and can do on his own private blog what the government may not and cannot do.”
It is certainly a contradiction Ron. Because he chastises those who are NOT government entities, private entities, for not adhering to the principles of free speech as spelled out in the constitution. Those like himself. He calls himself a free speech absolutist which means even he wouldn’t and shouldn’t be making exceptions that he chastises others of. You’re admitting he’s a hypocrite. It’s the whole point of the argument about Turley’s claim of being a free speech absolutist.
All you’re doing is making excuses for his clear hypocrisy.
You continue ignoring the difference between Turley who “chastises” (to use your word) censorship of speech on matters of public concern, and your chastising Turley on one particular matter that is of a private concern. You haven’t a very good grasp of what hypocrisy is.
Ron, I’m not ignoring anything, it’s YOU who is doing the ignoring. Turley criticizes those who are NOT government because they are not following the principles of the 1st amendment. Private entities like himself. HE is not following those principles either when he censors openly racist speech on his blog because he finds it offensive. He is not allowing others to view the racist rhetoric and decide for themselves if it’s worth responding to it. He’s doing exactly what he criticizes others of doing. THAT is certainly hypocritical.
All you’re doing is hemming and hawing semantics to make excuses for Turley’s clear hypocrisy.
It always amuses me that the biggest idiot often has the biggest mouth.
Svelaz says, “Every school, including private schools get these kinds of funding.” Let me be the first to burst the annoying bubble in which he resides in all his self-righteousness. No, Svelaz, not “every” private school. There are many which do not; and for example one shining light in the darkness is Hillsdale College. For the very reason it has not and does not ever intend to invite or even remotely risk any manner of government assistance and consequently interference, Hillsdale is one college that exists entirely on its own means and has done so since 1844.
You have met my low expectation by yet again presenting yourself as both dense and perverse in defining free speech absolutism and free speech absolutists incorrectly and incompletely. What you narrowly and obstinately think of as absolutism is not what objective and unprejudiced absolutists like Meiklejohn, Turley, and many others know it to be. It was I believed very clearly explained that although free speech absolutism calls for unfettered free speech (racist speech included), it doesn’t mean it should never be circumscribed by other social values. Anti-racism is one social value one would think most people would abide. Apparently, you’re an exception. You should take an hour, a day, or a week if need be to think about other social values.
I have suggested to you before that you are beating your head against a wall unscrupulously attacking Turley who as an objective and unprejudiced free speech absolutist should nevertheless allow for racist commentary on his blog. Your sinister motives remain widely known and fully understood, and it seems certain you will keep doing it until you might at last become completely brain dead.
Ron A. Hoffman, a scant few schools don’t accept federally subsidized student loans. That still leaves a much larger majority that does. It doesn’t detract from my point.
“What you narrowly and obstinately think of as absolutism is not what objective and unprejudiced absolutists like Meiklejohn, Turley, and many others know it to be.”
They claim to be free speech absolutists, but never clearly define exactly what they mean. They leave it undefined in order to leave wiggle room when their ideals become an inconvenience. Originalists employ the same tactic.
“although free speech absolutism calls for unfettered free speech (racist speech included), it doesn’t mean it should never be circumscribed by other social values. Anti-racism is one social value one would think most people would abide.”
It shouldn’t matter Ron, because the point of free speech absolutists is their claims that even offensive speech shouldn’t be censored. Claiming that they wouldn’t circumscribe to such speech because it is indeed offensive flies in the face of their claim that offensive speech shouldn’t be censored. You’re saying they defend the idea that such offensive speech shouldn’t be censored because it’s offensive, except when THEY find it offensive. You’re arguing that they can have their cake and eat it too. It’s hypocrisy no matter how you try to parse it.
Read Meiklejohn. He will tell you what you need to know about all of what is included in what it means to be a free speech absolutist.
“They claim ….”
And you would know that how ? because you have read everything they wrote ?
You have never for as long as you have been here been able to accurately reflect the positions of anyone else such that they would agree that is their position.
That is the most fundamental test of whether you comprehend another person.
Note – that does not require that you agree with them.
If you can not do this – why should anyone believe any claims you make about another person’s views.
Put more simply – you just make things up.
I would note that the FACT that free speech does not include the use of speech to silence others, is logically correct.
No right includes the right to deny others that right.
“They leave it undefined in order to leave wiggle room when their ideals become an inconvenience.”
Back to your mind reading nonsense.
Also a large hunk of confession through projection.
“Originalists employ the same tactic.”
Nope. none of them do.
There are different permutations of originalism. But the existance of variants is not the same as a failure to define.
In fact it is a reflection of disagreement between groups where each hold a different but precise definition.
I would separately note that free speech is an ideal. Originalism is not.
Originalism is a method of statutory interpretation that if followed carefully will produce a single meaning almost always.
And always the same meaning.
The rule of law requires that the meaning of the law is fixed, that law can only be changed by enacting new law.
If you can come up with a completely different method of statutory interpretation that if followed carefully will produce a single meaning almost always – no matter what judge uses that method, and no matter when the method is applied to the same statute or constitution – we can consider that as a replacement for originalism.
There are variants of original ism because there is not universal agreement on precisely how to reach only a single meaning.
Disagreement is not ambiguity.
I would further note that among the different variants of originalism – most of the time each will resolve to the same meaning.
regardless the core of originalism is that laws are crafted by legislators, NOT judges.
Judges are supposed to apply the law as written – so long as the law itself is not ambiguous – in which case it should in all or part be declared void, and so long as the law is not in conflict with other laws or the constitution.
An originalist opinion can ALWAYS be overturned by the legislature – either by drafting new law, or by amending the constitution.
That is the point – Courts do not decide what the law SHOULD be – that is the role of the legislature.
Courts decide what the law IS. What the usually plain language meaning of the words of the law as enacted mean.
The name “originalism” comes from the fact that the only way the meaning of a law can with certainty be constant over time,
is if the meaning used is the meaning at the time the law was enacted.
Regardless originalism is a method – it is not an ideology.
As Gorsuch – and many many other promient jurists have stated.
Any judge that has never had to issue a decision that was at odds with their own values, ideology, or beleif as to what the law SHOULD be – is not doing their job correctly.
Originalism is diametrically opposed to the nonsense that courts require different perspectives – that the experience of a Wise latina could bring something to the court.
If the life experience of a judge, of their background, if they race or religion or politics has an effect on their decisions – they are not doing their job.
Equality before the law, Blind justice all require that the law is always the same regardlessof who it is being applied to and regardless of who is applying it.
If Ron means that some speech should be sanctioned by law – aside from very few specifics – child pornography, Adult speech in domains in which children are present, or actual incitement to violence, then you are correct and Ron’s statement is in error.
But I do not think that Ron meant that some speech – other than those few catagories mentioned, should be sanction by law.
Free speech absolutism does not preclude expressing displeasure at the speech of others.
It merely requires allowing it.
Svelaz – it is too simple to say that Northwestern University is a “private” school and thus not subject to federal constitutional law. The federal government itself has taken the position that if colleges accept tuition from students who have received federal aid, the colleges are an indirect recipient of the federal aid and thus subject to federal civil rights laws. See “Federal Financial Assistance and Civil Rights Requirements” (May 18, 2022) (Congressional Research Service), at p. 20:
” Federal agency regulations implementing the funding-based nondiscrimination statutes often define “recipients” as entities taking federal financial assistance.
directly or through another recipient. Courts appear to generally treat these “subrecipients” as federal funding. [fn163 Grove City Coll., 465 U.S. at 564–69. See Bennett-Nelson v. Louisiana Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 452–53 (5th Cir. 2005) (“Thus, under Grove City and Paralyzed Veterans of America, the relevant question is not whether the
University passes federal funds through to students—who, it should be noted, typically pass them back to the University in the form of tuition payments and other expenses—but whether the University is an ‘intended recipient’ of the funds Congress has appropriated. . . . In sum, here, no less than in Grove City, the University is an intended.
recipient of federal financial assistance. Accordingly, for that reason, it is subject to the requirements of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.”).
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47109
“To the extent Turley is a “free speech absolutist”, it is in the belief that we all have an inalienable right to political free speech, and the government cannot introduce any laws which curb the freedom of speech. That he “conditions” his private blog against the abuses of racism in private speech about issues not of public concern is what we all should expect of a “free speech absolutist”, and reasonable persons would hope the few malcontents too would have some respect for that.”
Problem is Northwestern is not the government. It’s a private University. They “condition” THEIR private University policies against abuses from speech THEY don’t agree with, just as Turley “conditions” his private blog against abuses of racism in private speech. As a free speech absolutist it would be hypocritical to criticize the private University’s student government of doing what he does.
Aaaaaand as usual, Turley leaves out important facts regarding the issue. He left this out…conveniently.
“The legislation is based on ASG’s belief that the flyers advertising Lindsay’s lecture violate NU’s Policy on Discrimination & Harassment. The policy states examples of harassment can include displaying and circulating “offensive objects and pictures that are based on a protected class.”
Whalen said neither the speaker’s ideology nor NUCR’s political affiliation played a role in the suspension of funds, which was strictly based on a “pretty explicit violation” of University policy.
“We can’t prevent a speaker from coming to campus as student government. That’s done by administration,” Whalen said. “We focused on the part that we could control, which is student group conduct and student group finances.”
To make matters worse for the Republican student group. They also chose not to reapply for a seat in the student government seat which would have given them a voice in the decision to stop the funding. Another important fact that Turley omitted. Details matter because they change the context of the dispute and clearly Turley is manipulating the issue to make it look like the student body is against the group because they are conservative.
Here’s the thing. The NUCR (Northwestern University College Republicans) could still host the speaker on campus. If they found a different way to fund the event without the money from the ASG ( Associated Student Government ), they would still have been able to have the event on campus. They were not prevented from hosting the controversial speaker. They could still do that. What they did not have is the funds to facilitate it because they violated a school policy, the University’s policy against discrimination and harassment.
“Examples of harassment can include offensive jokes, slurs, name calling, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, or displaying or circulating offensive objects and pictures that are based on a protected class.
Please note, general bullying or uncivil behavior that is not based on a protected class does not fall within the purview of this policy or the Office of Equity. However, such behavior may violate the University’s expectations regarding Civility and Mutual Respect, Standards for Business Conduct, Northwestern’s Student Handbook, or other University policy and should be reported to Human Resources and/or an individual’s supervisor (for employees) or Student Conduct (for students).”
https://www.northwestern.edu/sexual-misconduct/docs/discrimination-harassment-policy.pdf
It seems the NUCR clearly did violate the policy and as a consequence they got punished for it. That still didn’t mean they couldn’t host the speaker. They just couldn’t afford it on their own. Bummer. Maybe they should pull up their boots and get to work on raising some funds.
“legislation is based on ASG’s belief”
Legislation based on beliefs? Let’s keep church and state separated, m’kay?
F Northwestern, screw these struggle sessions, and fire these racist morons hiding behind ‘protected classes’ and the rest of the laughably childish, completely fabricated bullcrap. These admins should be in stocks and pelted with rotting produce.
What a bunch of clowns. No wonder biden is tanking worse than an affirmative action student in a non-remedial class at a decent state uni.
Neil, for full context you should state the full sentence. “The legislation is based on ASG’s belief that the flyers advertising Lindsay’s lecture violate NU’s Policy on Discrimination & Harassment.”
It makes more sense doesn’t it? Their belief is not wrong according to the policy. Plus…it’s a private university. They can do what they did. Crazy huh?
The first mistake is allowing students to even have a “government.” Students enter universities knowing next to nothing, and many of them graduate in the same condition. Their one and only focus should be on academic achievement. They are transients, and as such, should be treated like guests rather than rulers. Clearly they’re not mature or intelligent enough to know how to govern, so put them back in the classroom and stop the pretense that they can handle grown-up issues like power and justice.
“The first mistake is allowing students to even have a “government.”
Why? This is a private University paid for by students. If they want to create a student “government” they can. It’s their money. They are the ones paying the school. Right?
“They are transients, and as such, should be treated like guests rather than rulers.”
They are paying customers at a private University. Not “transients and such”. When they are paying a hefty tuition to the private University they can have a student government if they want to. Obviously they are smart enough to know that they CAN create a student government and run it according to the rules THEY created AND approved by majority vote. Just like our own state legislatures and other governmental bodies. Riiiiight?
It’s probably their parents, banks, and state and federal loan programs paying the school.
Yeah, but even student loans have to be repaid with their OWN money. Hence the point. They are still paying for it out of their own pocket.
Svelaz says: “This is a private University paid for by students…It’s their money. They are the ones paying the school…They are paying customers at a private University. .”
lin says: “Fact: roughly two-thirds (64%), i.e., a 2-to-1 majority, of Northwestern students are on financial aid, and 21% receive financial aid from Pell Grants, in addition to a plethora of other grants, alumni funds, and scholarships.. https://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts.html”
Svelaz: Can you come up with a better, more substantive and fact-based argument to advance your cause?
Thank you in advance.
“Parents have borrowed more. The average annual borrowing by parents has more than tripled over the last 25 years. As a result, more parents owe very large sums: 8.8% of parent borrowers entering repayment on their last loan in 2014 owed more than $100,000, compared to just 0.4% in 2000.
“…federal budget forecasters expected…Congressional Budget Office expects the program to cost taxpayers $31 billion for new loans issued over the next decades. And that figure uses an arcane and unrealistic accounting method required by federal law. Using an accounting method that calculates the subsidy to borrowers from getting loans from the government at rates well below those they’d be charged in the private sector, the cost to taxpayers is $307 billion. And that largely excludes the cumulative losses already anticipated on loans issued prior to 2019.”
From:
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/who-owes-all-that-student-debt-and-whod-benefit-if-it-were-forgiven/
Lin, financial aid still has to be repaid by students. That they borrowed the money from the government doesn’t change the fact that they are still paying the school with money THEY borrowed. Once a loan is given to a student its’ their money. Because eventually they will have to pay it back with their money.
Pell Grants are also the smallest type of financial aid which barely covers a full semester. Meaning students STILL have to borrow money to pay for the rest. Often from banks that are reimbursed by the government until students pay back the government upon graduation. Scholarships also don’t cover an entire semester depending on the type of scholarships some are just a few hundred dollars to a few thousand that may help lessen the overall tuition costs. Right?
Lin, average tuition for attending Northwestern as an undergraduate this year $66,288 that’s full time that’s just for ONE year. Average pell Grant amount this year, $4,166 per year. That doesn’t cover much. Which means they still have to borrow the rest.
“The 2023 tuition & fees of Northwestern University (Northwestern) is $63,468 for prospective students and the 2023 graduate school tuition & fees is $53,024. Its undergraduate tuition and fees is around the average amount for similar schools’ tuition of $60,852.
…For class of 2026 who were admitted in Fall 2022, the estimated tuition for four(4) years is $271,273. The estimated total costs of attendance with living costs and personal expenses is $385,307 for four(4) years.”
https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/147767/northwestern-university/tuition/
Somehow I don’t thing Pell grants and scholarships are going to cover a lot.
Svelaz: Did my comment go over your head again? Sorry….
Good to see the Red Guard is still running Northworstern. Their committment to Stupid ensures an early demise and like their soul sister the Oberlin Collective of Ohio, it’s just a matter of time. https://jonathanturley.org/2023/05/08/risky-business-appearance-of-risk-manager-sends-oberlin-students-into-frenzy-over-the-danger-of-risk-aversion/
The tipping point will be when the fathers and mothers of privilege start seeing their retirement accounts dwindle, their stock values plummet and their hard assets depreciate. Then (and only then) wokedom will come into full display and too good to wield pitchfork snobs will get on the phone to their sniveling government servants we call “Congress” and do something. Life is a pecking order and until the top cocks get pecked and very hard woke will stick around to assuage their guilt and display their obvious virtue. Judging from the looming economic disaster wrought by the Ukraine fiasco and the teetering US Dollar, I’m thinking we’ll see this sooner rather than later. Like Louis XV reputedly said “Après moi, le déluge”.” Biblical deluge I’m guessing, my dear monarch.
Build your ark; live’s a circle.
life
“We can’t prevent a speaker from coming to campus as student government. That’s done by administration. We focused on the part that we could control, which is student group conduct and student group finances.”
It’s really strange how Turley doesn’t see the irony about his criticism of the student body’s actions. He calls it censorship and an attack on free speech. Does Turley really not see it? I’ll give you a hint, congress does this ALL the time and it’s actually constitutional according to the courts. Congress can limit or silence groups by cutting off funding too. They do this with abortion issues. They literally censor doctors from suggesting options to patients by using funding mechanisms as tools to silence others and it’s perfectly legal. Prohibiting abortion counseling by refusing to fund a program, Rust v. Sullivan. The NEA also limits funds to limit different views. “In National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998), the Court again found that the government had wide latitude in determining how its money would be spent in cases where funding was linked to speech.”
The student board or any student government can, if they vote on it, limit speech they view as offensive or not in the best interest of students at the school by refusing to provide funding. That does NOT mean that the college Republicans cannot hold their speaking event somewhere outside the school. It’s not just the posters that are the problem. It’s also the speaker. Northwester is a private university which possess a problem for those advocating for free speech. As a private school the student government is not bound by the 1st amendment and if they don’t like the choice of speaker or the design of their posters they can impost limits as they see fit.
“I do not like the imagery and I expect that I do not agree with some of Lindsey’s views. However, the action taken by the board was legitimately called out by the writer as an attack on his free speech.”
Turley does not like openly racist comments on his blog either, but he censors them and has stated clearly he will delete such comments, because he does not like them. Northwestern’s student board does not like the choice of speaker from the Republican student organization or their poster design and like Turley they CAN choose to censor it if they vote on it. The hypocrisy is, as usual, Turley’s biggest obstacle to making these arguments. He can censor content he doesn’t like. It’s his prerogative. The student board a a PRIVATE university can also censor content they don’t like. Turley always seems to forget to mention that these schools are often Private schools who are not bound by the 1st amendment.
Svelaz you did a lengthy cut and paste, provided to you by your handlers. It is nothing but a shoddy, not well constructed strawman.
Not of what you pasted is on topic.
Iowan2,
That is why I just scroll past.
Nothing worth reading or worth my time.
He insists I read his comments, giving his fragile ego the a much needed boost.
But I do not.
Just scroll past.
Upstatefarmer, I NEVER insist you read my comments. I just know you do read them anyway. Everyone does. I’m not offended or hurt if they are not read either.
Iowan2, in other words, you can’t offer anything of substance or value to the discussion. You don’t even know what a strawman argument is.
Ai !!
congress does this ALL the time and it’s actually constitutional according to the courts. Congress can limit or silence groups by cutting off funding too
Turley’s post has nothing to do with the powers of congress. It has nothing to do with the powers of the Student Govt.
I’ll type slower. Your response is not relevant to the topic. (hit me back, and I’ll provide definitions for the words you don’t understand)
Iowan2, obviously you didn’t read for comprehension. Read slower and dig deeper, you will get it, hopefully. There’s an equivalence in the reasoning. Use those reading skills you learned in school. Even a “C-“ average student should get it. Can you?
The simplest and most direct route for President Michael Schill: Defund Northwestern University’s Associated Student Government and any organization that does not does not have a “commitment to free speech”. Think about it, what useful purpose does any type of “government” serve in American society if it does not have a “commitment to free speech”? All such “governments” should be denied any and all public funds.
“The simplest and most direct route for President Michael Schill: Defund Northwestern University’s Associated Student Government and any organization that does not does not have a “commitment to free speech”.
LOL!!! Oh the irony.
You want the university president to deny funds to the student government which would violate THEIR free speech rights, because the student government chose to deny funds to the Republican student organization. Both are private university administrative bodies who are NOT bound by the 1st amendment’s requirements. Take a minute, or a day to think about that.
The NU students and faculty are too intellectually weak to manage deep critical thinking, which is why they can’t tolerate any ideas that veer from their political orthodoxy and SEL indoctrination. They have been taught to communicate with 5-word chants facile enough for them to understand. Of course this is only one of the 3000 colleges that has a student population of rabid leftists working towards central, authoritarian government.
Let’s watch – will they ban the conspiracy theorists like the NYT/WaPo/AP who spread: the Covid Originated Randomly lie, the It’s not Hunter’s Lie, the Biden Family is Innocent of Graft Lie, The DNC Dossier Lie, the Mayorkas Border is Closed Lie, The Democrat Inflation Reduction Lie? Of course not … they don’t know how to discern the truth because they can’t take more than one 5 word chant. They worship there.
Well, I can at least say with Northwestern, you are getting what you pay for. I am offended by their displeasure of the Skull and Crossbones since that has been prominently displayed on the ring of my Medical School for decades and still is. As the professor has stated, the administration of these universities need to grow a backbone and override these fascist student governments and teach these children that there can be consequences to such actions.
These children should have noted that there has been a subtle switch in the conversation around our land. People are less inclined to run screaming for cover if the Trans flag or their shock troopers show up and BLM and it’s aligned loudmouths are getting less and less listened to except for the Reparations Panels in Calif. God Forbid that even AOC has taken backlash and severe criticism from “Democrats”. The MSM and many smaller left wing media sites are criticizing Joe Biden (about our secure southern border). Good God we can almost see an insurrection (mostly peaceful riot) taking place among the democrats. A Democratic candidate for President is even criticizing Biden for Men in women’s sports. What brazen thing will comes next, a Democratic presidential debate?
Wonder what will happen in California when the Legislative vehicles there decide that reparations are unaffordable or try to actually pay reparations. One side or the other is likely to stage mostly peaceful demonstrations (otherwise known as a riot). I wait breathlessly.
speaker’s views do not align with Northwestern’s commitment to diversity and inclusion,
Diversity?
Only ONE narrative is allowed. No diversity of opinion allowed. What? You think this is an institution of higher education? Please!
No appeal, the thought police have ruled.
Iowan2, diversity and inclusion does not mean they should are supposed to tolerate those who support and promote adversity, division and exclusion. Diversity and inclusion are not absolutes. . Which seems to be what conservatives and republicans think applies when the term is used.
Christianity does the same thing too, did you know that? Christians are always promoting how Jesus points out that you should treat others as you would treat him. Right? Obviously a lot of Christian’s don’t do that. In fact they do the exact opposite. They treats others who do not conform to THEIR values or believes as something to be ostracized, demonized, frowned upon, or excluded from the faith because they don’t conform to what they consider ‘normal”. Jesus never promoted that kind of exclusionary behavior nor supported it. Ironically Jesus was about inclusivity, regardless of who you were. Are we right to criticize his followers for being hypocrites of the first order? Based on how they treat others it seems the answer is, yes.
In fact they do the exact opposite
Hear ye, hear ye, all Christians are advised, from henceforth, thou shalt now treat the heathen like Democrats treat those with different opinions.
We can not supply you with molotov cocktails to firebomb police precincts, businesses owned by minorities and residences of poor families, since Democrats are hoarding those raw materials. Nor can we supply you with forceps, nonsterile bloody gauze, nor suction lines to vacuum the brains of babies about to be delivered, like Democrats do. Supply chain issues! We have no idea where they get their limitless supply of hormone medications to force sterilize children, scalpels to castrate little boys so as to make them little b|tches, and perform mastectomies on little girls. It appears gays and lesbians are furiously denouncing this barbaric tactics just so that Dems can diddy little children. However, just follow their lead on how Democrats unleash the gates of Hell on society. If in doubt how to do this, enroll at a university receiving Federal funds, since they have this maneuver down pat. Act just like Democrats till the end times, and whine as much as possible. Ask Svelaz for pro-tips. Go forward and set the world on fire as peaceful protestors.
So let it be written, so it let it be done
diversity and inclusion does not mean they should are supposed to tolerate those who support and promote adversity, division and exclusion.
The essence of free speech is protecting offensive speech.
Google ‘Federalist Papers’, then search Free Speech. It lays out why that endowed right warranted constitutional protection. How can a University claim to provide a broad education, if it censors differing view points? And declares only one view is truth. (as determined by the mob).
Contrary to the buildings filled with people possessing multiple college degrees, saying different, Words are not dangerous
Iowan2,
“ How can a University claim to provide a broad education, if it censors differing view points?”
The ASG is not the University. They are NOT providing any education, they are not required to provide any. They CAN censor differing viewpoints if they violate policies agreed upon by majority vote. If you don’t like the rules…change them. Oh oh, there is a problem. The republican student organization CHOSE to forgo it’s representation in the student government. Oops. Therefore it’s their fault they cannot contest the decision.
They can still host the speaker on campus. Did you know that? What they don’t have access to is funds which they don’t have a constitutional right to. Oops again. They CAN raise funds to host the entire event on campus still. Their free speech rights are completely intact. Shocking isn’t it?
“ Contrary to the buildings filled with people possessing multiple college degrees, saying different, Words are not dangerous”
Like being able to teach CRT in schools, right? Words are not dangerous. But to conservatives they are. Wow.
Like being able to teach CRT in schools, right?
Having speakers is NOT part of the educational experience? Your drowning in your own pedantry
Oops, sorry, you need help with vocabulary
Pedant:
a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
You told me CRT was not taught in schools. It was ONLY college level scholarship, not suitable for children. Why are you bringing up something else, not germane.
time to end all federal aid for colleges…also all non-profits where anyone gets $100k should be TAXED…
If a college coach is making a million a year they aren’t non-profits.
The universities are gone. This has been the long game played buy the Marxists and it is now completely over. Well now completely, the law schools and med schools are now in their final death throes and then we willl have zero moderate or conservative professors left at any university. Look what the J schools have put out there!!!
Now I can’t wait for the 200 comments by Svelaz, the Democrat Operative, telling us that the school is right, Turley is wrong and Trump is worse.
HullBobby,
They do seem rather desperate as of late, with good reason.
Biden’s polling numbers are the lowest since Truman. Biden would lose to Trump and DeSantis by no small margin.
Hunter Biden, well, just look at their comments in The Trouble With Hunter article the good professor posted yesterday.
It is so bad, the WH barred The New York Post from attending an event on Monday. They might ask a uncomfortable question. Cannot have that. So bar them!
Upstate, you are right again!
In a month or two Svelaz and the other Democrat Operatives will be trashing Biden the way all the morons trashed Hilary after her ignominious defeat. There weren’t any Kerry lovers after his defeat and there were no defender’s of Nixon after he was forced out of office.
The left and the Democrat Operatives like Svelaz will blame Biden’s age and his sole corruptness for hime being forced out of office as a way to deflect from the fact that the policies of the Democrats are liked by about 37% of the people. They will be forced to blame it all on Biden so as to not admit that their policies are killing us. Does anyone think that the left will try to defend open borders, spending that gives us inflation, crime in our cities, trans mental cases playing against our daughters and a million dollars to every black person in America? They can’t run on these idiotic policies and so they will ignore Biden and only talk about MAGA.
Svelaz, trust me that in a month or two Biden will be gone and you will be the last Japanese soldier in the hills fighting his battles. LOSER!
HullBobby,
Just read an article on the homeless crisis ongoing in Portland OR.
Portland, San Fran, NYC are perfect examples of failed Democrat policies.
The same failed policies they want to impose on everyone, everywhere.
As James often says, “Wake up people! Dont ever vote for Dems again!”
He is right.
Hullbobby, you sure have an active imagination. Do you use a crystal ball when you come up with these scenarios? I’ve got to admit you’d make a great soap opera writer with that kind of imagination. Telenovelas would be appropriate.
Hullbobby, glad I’m always on your mind. Just pointing out that Turley is a hypocrite should be enough. Have your always been such a drama queen? Good grief man, get a grip.
I find it funny that the word “liberal” is rarely used by republican worry warts and how it’s been replaced by words like, “Marxists”, “leftists”. “Socialists”, “Stalinists” (my personal favorite), and “communists”. It’s like they can’t decide what to use as an “effective” label because they don’t really know what they really mean. Only that they sound sinister, malicious, or even scary seems to be what matters most to them.
Northwestern is a private university. If the majority of students don’t want to hear or allow a few Republican students to host a speaker whose main purpose is to promote adversity against a minority group because of who they are they can certainly do that. Diversity does not mean they are required to support those who promote adversity. Inclusion does not mean they are required to support those who promote exclusion either. What IS telling is that Turley is not saying they can’t do that. They are not bound by the requirements of the constitution. Just like private religious universities are not required to adhere to the principles of the 1st amendment if a liberal group wanted to host a speaker for the Satanic Temple at a private Christian university. Maybe liberal students should start doing that to see if Turley and those who share his views would criticize a religious school or their student body for denying said speaker’s free speech rights. Right?
Svelaz, you are absolutely right. Hullbobby should get a life. And stop wasting his time on your postings.