One of the skill sets of the anti-free speech movement has been the art of faux outrage. Pundits will often adopt a tortured meaning of a statement, an obvious joke, or take some misstatement and go into vapors on social media. That pattern has repeated itself with National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry, who was just canceled by Indiana State University under the common excuse of “safety concerns.”Lowry was scheduled to speak on the “Lessons from Lincoln” as well as contemporary politics and media.The use of the safety rationale by ISU raised long-standing concerns over viewpoint intolerance on campuses.We have previously discussed this common rationalization for barring conservative or libertarian speakers. No such concerns seem to arise with speakers who are from the far left at universities, including speakers who regularly engage in intentional inflammatory racial language.Lowry had a verbal slip in an interview on the word “migrant” when he sounded like he used an “n” rather than a “m.” He immediately corrected himself. No one who knows Lowry would suggest anything intentional or that this respected commentator was somehow using a code for the “n-word.”
“On Megyn Kelly’s show, I was discussing the Springfield, Ohio, controversy, and, in the course of saying ‘Haitian migrants,’ I started to mispronounce the word ‘migrants.’ I began to say it with a short ‘i,’ the way you say ‘immigrants,’ instead of the long ‘i’ that you use for ‘migrants.’ I caught myself in the middle, before shifting to the correct pronunciation.”
I understand that people will disagree on this. The mispronunciation was heard by some as the “n-word.” The problem is the unwillingness to consider an innocent explanation. Instead, the usual flash mob immediately formed of hyperventilating hypocrites who rarely criticize intentional race baiting and rage rhetoric on the left.
When people on the left or the right have these moments (particularly when they immediately correct themselves), I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I find that more plausible than assuming that someone is a raving racist. Moreover, there is a sharp difference in the consequences for such controversies.
Yet, the level of deference over such slips seems to depend greatly on where a speaker is on the political spectrum. We have discussed academics, experts, and commentators engaging in openly racist commentary.
There is also a double standard maintained by the media. There was a feeding frenzy when Trump referred to protecting “black jobs” but nary a peep of objections when Biden (who also attacked Trump for the reference) used the same claim of protecting “Black jobs” in a later speech. Defenders on the left said that it was just a slip of the tongue.
How is this for an idea: Lowry insists that he was not using this word, so allow him to speak and he can address the controversy.
In this case, ISU immediately cancelled the event, citing the ever-convenient concern for “safety.” It announced:
“Indiana State University prioritizes the safety of our students, campus community, and all invited speakers. In light of recent developments and following the advice of our public safety officials regarding campus and community safety concerns, we have made the decision to cancel Rich Lowry’s scheduled appearance on September 30 as part of the Indiana State University Speaker Series.
In accordance with university policy, this decision is consistent with our commitment to maintaining a secure environment and ensuring the well-being of our students, faculty, staff, and the greater Terre Haute community. … We are actively working to identify opportunities to invite a speaker with a proven history of promoting intellectually diverse viewpoints to the Speaker Series, which will be announced at a later date.”
What the university clearly does not “prioritize” is maintaining a diversity of viewpoints or an environment of free speech. Lowry is one of the most popular commentators and the head of a leading conservative publication.
Lowry immediately corrected the pronunciation mid-word and said later that it was nothing more than a slip of the tongue. The question is whether that is enough to cancel a nationally recognized speaker.
Lowry responded with a column headlined: “Next Time Cancel Me for Something I Actually Said” and noted that he was later cancelled at a second event:
“It pains me to say I’ve also been canceled by the Badger Institute, the right-of-center think tank in Wisconsin. The president called on Tuesday to ask me to withdraw from an address at an upcoming dinner, and when I refused and asked him what I’d done wrong, he only said something or other about ‘the environment.’ When I flatly asked him whether he was disinviting me, he said, ‘Yes.’
Cowardice is contagious.”
This is a public university supported by a state with a majority of conservative and independent voters. Rather than accept the immediate correction, the university has cancelled Lowry’s appearance. It is the common hair-triggered response that we have seen with conservative figures on campuses.
As I have previously written, the recent FIRE ranking on free speech shows that the lowest-ranking schools tend to be private universities, which are not subject to the full protections of free speech under the First Amendment. Conversely, the top performers this year are, notably, all public universities — Michigan Technological University, Auburn University, the University of New Hampshire, Oregon State University, and Florida State University.
The fact is that the better performance of public universities likely reflects compulsion rather than agreement for many faculty. Public universities must protect free speech as a matter of law.
The result, however, is a startling and growing divide among private and public universities. For parents and students who value free speech, they must increasingly look to public universities where faculty are subject to constitutional guarantees. In the same way, public universities may be the final line of defense for free-speech advocates.
The use of “safety concerns” has largely succeeded in many past instances to shield cancel campaigns, particularly at public universities. However, courts may have to adopt a more serious review into any ideological patterns in the use of this rationalization.
Naïve liberals and their garbage are assaulting the very foundation of this great Country The United States of America. They blindly lead a group of ill-educated, constitutionally ignorant, and socially inept egotists thinking they have the answer and only they have the answer. We have passed the Age of Aquarius and entered what I’m not sure, but the path being wrought is full of pitfalls aplenty. Ism’s end in miseries and unhappiness!
The Twilight Zone.
We should try to create a reaction of shame to oppo-branding….where someone attempts to perniciously mind-read and speak for their perceived opponent. No productive dialog can come from oppo-branding, only misunderstanding, misperception, and radicalization.
Let’s make it a rule of civility: You don’t get to speak for your opponent.
This is actually a rule in the House of Representatives: You cannot impugn the motives of another House member when speaking at the lectern.
Candidate Trump shows very poor leadership in the way he shamelessly oppo-brands. He is teaching a generation of youth some extraordinarily poor communication/problem-solving/negotiating skills. He’s simply not fit to lead.
Neither is Harris…her inauthenticity is off the charts.
Trump does exactly as you said – he learned it from the left which has been doing that for my entire life.
It is not impossible to put incivility back into the bottle. We have done it before. But it is incredibly difficult.
It will not happy so long as our government is at odds with the wishes of the people – and that blame falls entirely on the left.
Harris/Walz have “We wont go back” as a slogan.
But that is litterally what super majorities of americans want.
They want our schools not to be war zones and indoctrination centers.
They want Johnny to be able to read and write and do basic math – not navel gaze regarding his pronouns and ponder how to alter his body.
They want an end to mass immigration – and particularly mass uncontrolled illegal immigration.
They want an end to the endless wars.
They want an end to the efforts to remake america to reflect the values of various failed left wing nuts states of the past century.
They do not want culture war, Class war, gender war,
We have Tim Walz ranting “Mind your own damn Business” – when he and his ilk are thoroughly incapable of staying out of everyone else’s business.
They want an end to the endless efforts by government to F#$K arround with the economy.
They want a system that actually works – we have had that in some form for centuries. Imperfect but functional.
Now we have chaos everywhere.
You can rant about Trump all you want – but the chaos is caused by the left.
It is not conservativces that have been calling their political enemies fascists, and nazi’s and Hitler throughout my entire lifetime.
“ They do not want culture war, Class war, gender war,
We have Tim Walz ranting “Mind your own damn Business” – when he and his ilk are thoroughly incapable of staying out of everyone else’s business.”
But they do want culture war, class war, and gender war. The right is all about them. Projecting their causes onto others makes for a poor excuse. The right is the only group seeking to outlaw, stigmatize, and demonize the individual and cultural differences that are not part of their values. That’s why we see laws and regulations passed by the right against those they don’t like. The “gay agenda,” “sexualization of children,” “groomers,” etc., all come from the right because they cannot resist the urge to butt in on other people’s business. It’s true. It’s the religious need to judge and command others to follow the “right” values by force. That’s the right in a nutshell, but instead of admitting it, they tend to project it onto others to avoid the appearance of being total hypocrites.
The right doesn’t like transgender individuals, and that is fine. Nobody is telling them to become transgender. The right doesn’t like homosexuals, and that is fine. Nobody is forcing them to be that way or even accept them. They don’t want books, ideas, lifestyles, and parents to let their children know those realities. Therefore, they demand that everyone be prohibited for the sake of other people’s children. Parents who are all about “parental rights” telling other parents what they can and cannot do with their children is the height of hypocrisy.
The right cannot stand the idea that others do not share their values or ideas or that they don’t follow “common sense.” So they legislate, shame, and demonize others into comporting others to their set of values. But when they are called out on it, the first defense is crying victim and projection and screaming “persecution” and “discrimination.” The right is just as bad as the left, and they are not the innocent bystanders; they are made out to be by those wanting to diminish their guilt on the issue.
I would add to John’s list, we want to go back to a time before social media where persons who wrote or spoke in public were 1) identified, 2) vetted informally for civility/authenticity by a media gatekeeper, 3) backed up their arguments with facts and common sense. The avalanche of unhinged, manipulative infowarfare bodes extremely poorly for public decisionmaking. Both candidates this time are inauthentic, untrustworthy poseurs.
They are running on clever (or not so) infowarfare campaigns, with activist-journalist-surrogates pushing out the daily swill onto the public.
Damn right we want to go back, but not to racial segregation or despondent housewives — rather go forward as a post-racial meritocracy abounding with human development, ubiquitous opportunity, and a strong nuclear family as the ground-level social architecture. You have to clarify these aspects of “going back”, or else we’ll be oppo-branded as rolling back civil rights and gender equality.
” a time before social media where persons who wrote or spoke in public were 1) identified, 2) vetted informally for civility/authenticity by a media gatekeeper, 3) backed up their arguments with facts and common sense. ”
If you want to implement your first requirement, I’d be happy to cooperate, but I have a prerequisite. You will first need to find some way to stem the many (and multiplying) government and quasi-government initiatives to criminalize or otherwise punish any speech that undermines its narrative. Your second requirement seems historically dubious. Who was Thomas Paine’s gatekeeper, for example? Your third requirement is really out there: for my entire life a very substantial minority, possibly a majority, of people who chose to strongly advocate for a particular viewpoint by writing or speaking publicly about it were either deluded fools,or outright liars who had access to neither commodity.
“ we want to go back to a time before social media where persons who wrote or spoke in public were 1) identified, 2) vetted informally for civility/authenticity by a media gatekeeper, 3) backed up their arguments with facts and common sense.”
Unfortunately, this is what Turley would call censorship or point-of-view discrimination. Anonymity allows anyone to truly speak freely, and I might add, cowardly. And that is the price we must pay to enjoy ‘free speech.’
“Anonymity allows anyone to truly speak freely, and I might add, cowardly. ”
That is pretty damned funny, in a very pathetic way. You post as “George”. How does that expose you personally to any consequences of your speech? Would you care to furnish us with your surname, street address, and telephone number? Otherwise you are not any more specifically identified than someone posting as “anonymous”, and are equally susceptible to charges of cowardice. The only way that consistency in posting name choice here could absolve you of that charge would be if the site enforced unique posting names, and even then the absolution would be of very small magnitude, since any social consequences would be confined to this particular comment section, and could hardly be of overwhelming importance to any sane person. There is evidently at least one other frequently poster here who also labels himself “George”, but appears to have dramatically different (opposite might be accurate) politics, although the two of you are frequently confused by others. I suppose there is a very small probability that you are one and the same, but if that is the case, you would appear to be a hopeless schizophrenic, as the posting styles used are as different as the apparent political bias.
“media gatekeeper”
@Pbinca: Who appoints the media gatekeeper?
“Both candidates this time are inauthentic, untrustworthy poseurs.”
Trump has a history dating back to his last administration. He is not inauthentic or untrustworthy. He fulfilled his campaign promises better than any president since Reagan. You are equating Trump to Harris, who is inauthentic, proven by her inability to hold firm to her prior statements and her refusal to be interviewed.
Biden is inauthentic and untrustworthy, pretending to be in the political center and, while in office, turned extreme left.
The entire Democrat Party of today is fascist, wanting to hear their voice while silencing all others.
I would like you to tell us what significant presidential duties or actions Trump took that were inauthentic or untrustworthy. Despite your anti-Trump rhetoric in the past, you haven’t done so. I doubt you will presently, for I don’t think what is in your mind is defensible. Prove me wrong.
In his book “The Conservative Sensibility”, George Will writes: “In 1951, Hannah Arendt, a refugee from Hitler’s Europe, published ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism.’ Her thesis was that induced ideological intoxication, combined with modern instruments of social control, such as bureaucracy and mass media, might make totalitarianism an unassailable tyranny, immune to all dynamics of change from within. Terrorism – the end of legality; random violence – is but one totalitarian instrument. Another is gray bureaucracy controlling all cultural institutions. Totalitarianism aims at the conscription of the citizen’s consciousness – state ownership not merely of industries but of minds. So, totalitarianism requires control of the flow of information, which means central scripting of all public argument, which means no real public argument. Intermediary institutions standing between the individual and the state – schools, churches, clubs, labor unions, even families – must be pulverized or permeated by the state. The totalitarian aim is the atomization of society into a dust of individuals, a dust blown around by gusts of ideology emitted by the tutelary party.”
Proclaiming “safety” and “well-being” as excuses to bar diversity of opinion is just another instrument used by social controllers to attain their goal of a citizenry confined to a single consciousness.
“induced ideological intoxication, combined”
Is that Arendt’s term? I heartily dislike it, as it seems to (at least partially) absolve those who “exhibit” it from personal responsibility for analyzing that they are told (regardless of the source) and rejecting that which is implausible or demonstrably false to fact. I think that we give far too much latitude to people who are gullible or obtuse largely out of sloth, or as a matter of perceived convenience.
[FREE SPEECH]
No matter how You say it,
Everything you say can and will be Weaponized against You.
(Along with the garbage They just fabricate about you)
On the Job, At Home, In the Street, Over the Net, …
Everyone, everywhere, every minute.
More cancelling of the hecklers veto variety:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ny-book-festival-cancels-panel-after-participants-refuse-to-sit-with-zionist/
This time the heckler objected to the panel moderator being a Jew who supports Israel.
It’s all a part of a continued search for the right people to bring about a socialist state. They say that socialism has only failed because it has been administered by the wrong people but at last they are the right people to bring their Utopia to fruition. A pattern has been become apparent. The bleeding hearts are soon replaced by the pressure of the Jack Boot. Total power has always birthed total corruption. Banning people from speaking who they don’t like is the canary in the coal mine. Your vote can make a difference.
Jonathan: DJT not only “hates” Kamala Harris but now he is on the outs with Howard Stern. What’s that about?
For those with short memories, and there are many on this blog, DJT was a frequent guest on Stern’s show starting in 1993–up to 2106 when DHT ran for president. A lot of their conversations involved crude sexual talk about young women. On one show DJT bragged about having to “examine” half naked teen women for his Miss Teen USA pageant. Back then Stern and DJT were close. That all changed this week.
Stern said on his Serius XM radio show he now longer supports DJT: “I don’t agree Trump politically. I don’t think he should be anywhere near the White House. I don’t hate the guy. I hate the people who vote for him. I think they’re stupid”. DJT was quick to respond. He went on the Fox News “Gutfeld” show and told the host: “I was on Howard Stern show as much as anybody. He was great at that time and then he went woke. And since he’s gone woke his ratings have gone down the tubes”.
Stern had his own demons for a long time. He went through therapy and came out the other side with different priorities. and now is in a stable marriage. As to his “wokeness” Stern makes no apologies: “If woke means I can’t get behind Trump or that I support people who want to be transgender or I’m for the vaccine, dude call me woke. I want to read legitimate news sources. Here’s how woke I am. I believe the election [2020] was not rigged. I am woke. I think that’s a compliment”. Stern went on: “Am I for kids being able to read anything in school? Yeah, I am. I don’t give a shit what kids read. Give me vaccines man. I’m in for it…I like being woke”.
Will Stern lose some DJT supporters who tuned in to Stern’s show to hear their leader? Probably. No big loss. Stern is worth about $650 million. Stern is in a enviable position. And he is not facing hundreds of millions in judgments and attorney fees. Nor is he looking down the barrel of a prison sentence. Wokeness has its benefits!
Was your lobotomy painful?
Oh yes, the beginning of a socialist nation is always signaled by the elimination of free speech. Kamal Harris has gone to Central America to get to the root of the problem. She never will admit that the root of the problem is the festering wound of socialism in South and Central America. The left has praised the leaders of these countries as freedom fighters. Would you like to know the end of the story. Be prepared to shed a tear.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/seventy-miles-in-hell/ar-AA1ojCeD
“Kamal Harris has gone to Central America to get to the root of the problem.”
Nicolas Maduro is probably her hero.
If they are so concerned about SAFETY maybe they can address the very real threat of mass shooters amongst their liberal students… Maybe they can address the very REAL violence perpetrated by the Left with Antifa, Pro-Palestine groups, and Black Lives Matter. You know, the 500+ riots we had that caused over $2 BILLION in property damage and the 19 people that lost their lives in these riots.
Meanwhile colleges are bringing in far left, radical, Jew hating Palestinians to speak…on October 7th and they get away with it. Imagine on 9.11.2002 a school brining in a speaker that was advocating for Bin Laden??? It never would have happened, but the Overton Window has shifted so much among the left and the Democrat Party that Jew hating, Hamas supporting radicals are allowed to keep Jews from libraries, classes and other PUBLIC areas.
The left are trying to destroy America and the West and the current ME situation is just their vessel. If you don’t believe me just ask yourself when was the last time you say a climate protest??? What happened to the climate being the biggest threat the planet has ever known to “hey, we can talk about that later”?
The left has been using the climate to weaken the West and America has fallen victim to it under Biden and the Dems. What else explains that the climate morons never complain about CHINA and their building coal plants weekly? Why no protests at Chines embassies? Why no attacks on Eastern art? Why no attacks on anything that might harm China?
Gaza is just a means to weaken Israel/America/the West as there is no outrage about Syrian kids dying, African kids dying, Haitian kids dying, Venezuelan people starving, Iranian gays being killed, Afghan women being brutalized or slave camps in China.
Only when it is Israel/America/the West is anything ever an issue and a**hats like Gigi, Dennis, George (Svelaz) and all the Anonymous idiots are either dupes, useful idiots or plants to assist in the end of freedom.
Bobby, your comment reminded me of this:
https://nypost.com/2024/09/08/opinion/greta-thunberg-goes-full-in-on-jew-hate-because-left-politics-is-all-one-big-blob/
Oldman, thank you so much for adding that to my comment, I forgot about the new Jew hatred coming from the “leading climate expert” and how she has abandoned her climate “activism”. Funny how all of a sudden Greta has a new rallying cry and it just happens to be the current rage among the “let’s harm the west” crowd. For a little communist she sure knows how to find that which will butter her bread.
Bobby – the only thing the extreme left and extreme right agree on is Jew hatred. It is the ancient hatred that is immune to education. Given enough time, it eventually consumes all other ideological goals.
At this point, Grating Thornbutt would probably say just about anything to regain the spotlight.
Lowry is one of the most popular commentators and the head of a leading conservative publication.
National Review has become far lesser than what William F. Buckley Jr launched. When WFB spoke, the public square took note. Lowry should lead his NR staff to ISU and respond with a Haka dance. They will notice then and maybe take NR seriously. Sticking their tongue out optional
Just more leftist/Marxist technique reinforcement to suppress dissent from woke ideology. The simple threat of upset college-age nit-wits/agitators showing up with placards, bags of waste, and bull horns spewing love-for-none for those who dare attend anti-orthodoxy thought events is all that is needed for entrenched administrators to cave in hopes of preserving the cushy paycheck for doing nothing! Well done you worthless academic savants!
As higher education becomes increasingly feminized, we can expect fairness, safety and and health to more complete dominate all other considerations. When I worked in an engineering department at a university in the Pacific Northwest, a campus dominated by women employees, their promotional motto became “Many faces. One vision.” The irony is thick.
The American Founders provided Americans free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom, free enterprise, free markets, privacy, private property, gun rights, due process, etc., under a severely limited and restricted government.
The unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” provided communism.
The hysterical and incoherent 19th Amendment provided abortion.
When amendments are ratified they become part of the Constitution. At that point they cannot possibly be unconstitutional. That would be like saying the Constitution is unconstitutional.
The premise of the denial of secession was unconstitutional so it follows that every act of the violating party, and his successors, is equally unconstitutional.
Bank robbers don’t get to succeed and go on to rob more banks with support of the law.
The 21st repealed the 18th.
Repeal of the abortion, hysteria, and incoherence amendment will happen when voter qualifications are returned to those intended by the American Founders.
Did the Founders intend for their nation to be invaded, conquered, and “fundamentally transformed?”
Something is “fundamentally” wrong with America.
State legislatures should get involved and reduce funding for public colleges/unis that flout basic Constitutional rights. They can continue to act like Fascists or Bolsheviks, but the public doesn’t have to fund that behavior
And for the always nay saying Anons and their ilk, this addresses behavior, not speech. They can continue to say what they want – they just have to allow the other side the same privilege if they want public funds
So you are in favor of government mandated DEI.
obey or else gulag.
It’s the opposite of DEI. See my explanation below.
“It’s the [vote], stupid!”
– James Carville
___________________
America was designed and intended to be a severely restricted-vote republic. The vote has been deliberately corrupted. States were charged with the obligation and provided the power to deny the vote to “persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, [and] some who are suspected to have no will of their own.”
A good example is presented by blacks and hispanics who vote 90% democrat demonstrating that they have “no will of their own” but the will of the race, aka parasitism.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_____________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a [severely restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
________________________
You couldn’t.
All taxpayer dollars going to any university, including private ones, needs to be conditioned on that institution maintaining a robust free speech environment. Infringements on free speech have to have consequences that will sting, and a significant loss of money will do that.
So governments should use the power of the purse to enforce DEI.
A somewhat leftist point of view.
What happened to free markets and the right to be left alone by the government.
“Infringements on free speech” are invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional.
The freedom of speech is absolute.
Anyone “damaged” by speech may sue.
Future acts cannot be known or prosecuted.
Threats are free speech.
No law, statue, regulation, or legislation abridging speech is constitutional.
One may read and quote the Constitution.
One may not rewrite, amend, or “interpret” the Constitution.
That one does not appreciate or like a law does not alter it legitimacy.
Safety concerns? Yes, but for the campus president, not the speaker. As long as boards of regents want easily manipulated, easily dictated presidents, they will select weak, feckless administrators. Indiana State’s president is the latest case in point. The national corpus of college presidents comprise such a bunch.
I suppose I will have to send an e-mail to Todd Rokita who is the Indiana Attorney General and who I have met on several occasions since he from my area of Indiana. He is quite active in this area and I expect he will be discussing the responsibilities of state university officials and administrators. I suspect he will come down hard on Indiana State University and their outright cowardice. We may not have heard the last word on this event. Time will tell. This is the hecklers veto writ large.
We would appreciate it.
That well-known radical….Rich Lowry?
If that doesn’t reveal just how far the Overton window has shifted, I don’t know what would.
* Agree, no funding of colleges. It’s like funding a college run by the Klan. It’s too extreme if all faculty are Klan but a few sprinkled in for diversity is acceptable as it is also acceptable by example that The Squad , raging antisemitic actors, sit in congress.
The colleges are clearly receiving terrorist threats of violence.
Interesting!!!
Turley is now a strong advocate for DEI to correct a perceived imbalance in college faculty members.
Very interesting !!!
Anyone else think this is a tad hypocritical.
Once again Turley reveals himself as a bought and paid for shill for his overlords at Fox and NY Post.
So sad to see a formerly respected legal authority selling his soul to the Murdoch empire for a few bucks.
Your hate is noted. It interferes with your ability to think. Keep hating. It has no effect. All know what you are.
When you have to resort to insults you make it clear that you have lost the argument.
Just the opposite. He consistently advocates for a free market of ideas and the merit system in that market. He opposes the artificial exclusion of speech based on viewpoint discrimination.
Turley states:
“”If we are to protect these bastions of free speech, legislatures will need to play a more active role in addressing the exclusion of both faculty candidates and speakers on public campuses.”
He is demanding that legislatures step in to correct perceived inequities.
Sounds an awful lot like government mandated DEI.
Do you agree that governments have a role in “the free market of ideas and merit system in that market” of which you speak.
Sounds an awful lot like leftist socialist government interventionalism to me.
If you think that’s what he said, then you are unable to read and understand the meaning of English words, or you are just another LYING PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT…. I despise every single Democrat…they belong in Venezuela with the rest of the Marxists.