Academia, Free Speech

North Dakota State University Under Fire Over “Violent Speech” Policy

This week, North Dakota State University is under fire for its statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, including from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The university issued a “statement of inclusivity” that included a pledge to combat “violence in language or in action.” The notion of “violent speech” is a touchstone for the anti-free speech community, which treats the expression of viewpoints as akin to physical attacks on students.

While this is merely a university statement, the inclusion of combatting violent speech as a priority was concerning for many. As I have previously written in columns and my recent book on free speech, violent speech has long been a rallying cry in higher education.

The redefinition of opposing views as “violence” is a favorite excuse for violent groups like Antifa, which continue to physically assault speakers with pro-life and other disfavored views.  As explained by Rutgers Professor Mark Bray in his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” the group believes that “‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”

As one Antifa member explained, free speech is a “nonargument…you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”

When people criticized Antifa for its violent philosophy, MSNBC’s Joy Reid responded to the critics that “you might be the fascist.”

The Pride Office website at the University of Colorado (Boulder) declared that misgendering people can be considered an “act of violence.”

University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers declared that some of those boycotting the store Target over its line of Pride Month clothing were engaging in “literal terrorism.” (He insists that he was referring to those confronting Target employees.)

The diversity, equity, and inclusion statement at North Dakota State University maintains that the College of Business aims to help students “feel safe” and provide “space to be their own person.” However, the question is how treating speech as violence provides a safe space for free speech on campus.

Blurring the line between speech and violence can lead to censorship and viewpoint intolerance at a university. Speech directed at individuals to threaten them is actionable and potentially criminal. However, sweeping claims that speech is violence are the mantra being used in higher education to rationalize speech codes and censorship. Free speech requires bright lines of protection to avoid the chilling effect of arbitrary or capricious enforcement.

North Dakota State University would be wise to revise its policy statement.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

160 thoughts on “North Dakota State University Under Fire Over “Violent Speech” Policy”

  2. Today’s SCOTUS hearing on age verification for porn sites — the Justices took up a technocratic question. Should the means of age verification be subjected to intermediate scrutiny or strict scrutiny? It would be illuminating for JT to explain his understanding of the issues at stake, which pit parental rights to limit children’s exposure to porn against the porn industry’s claimed “free speech” rights.

    Yes, in 2020s biz-lawyer “newspeak”, those gyrating motions those actors are doing with their their genitalia are called “speech”. Not one Justice objected to this verbiage, or bothered to ask, “What is the speaker saying in this case?”
    Or, “How is the speech being listened to on the other end?” Gulp. Heaven forbid asking a common sense question of these elites.

    1. Great point, pb. Fighting words are outside 1A (Chaplinsky v New Hampshire), but nude dancing is protected “speech” due to the “erotic message” of the dance. I don’t think there is much content to such a message whereas with fighting words the message has a clear content, namely, “I hate you” or some variation thereof. Whether one approves of that type of message is immaterial to the 1st amendment.

    2. And what doe sthis comemnnt have to do with JT’s post?
      Another brain fart I suppose.

  3. OT, but just in case you need something else to worry about – an excerpt, and more at the link, including Saul Bellow – who got it!

    Ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP), also known as ciguatera, is a foodborne illness caused by eating reef fish contaminated with ciguatoxins.[4][2] Such individual fish are said to be ciguatoxic. Symptoms may include diarrhea, vomiting, numbness, itchiness, sensitivity to hot and cold, dizziness, and weakness.[1][2] The onset of symptoms varies with the amount of toxin eaten. If a large quantity of toxins are consumed symptoms may appear within half an hour. If a low amount of toxins are consumed symptoms may take a few days to appear.[3] Diarrhea may last up to four days.[1] Symptoms may last a few weeks to a few months.[3] Heart problems such as slow heart rate and low blood pressure may occur.[2]

    In 2017, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimated that around 50,000 cases occur globally each year.[2] Other estimates suggest up to 500,000 cases per year.[1] The risk of death from poisoning is less than 1 in 1,000 according to the CDC.[2] It is the most frequent seafood poisoning.[3] It occurs most commonly in the Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, and the Caribbean Sea between the latitudes of 35°N and 35°S.[2] The risk of the condition appears to be increasing due to coral reef deterioration and increasing trade in seafood.[2] Descriptions of the condition date back to at least 1511.[3] The current name, introduced in 1787, is of Cuban Spanish origin and originally referred to the gastropod Cittarium pica.[3]

    Ciguatoxin is found in over 400 species of reef fish. Avoiding consumption of all reef fish is the only sure way to avoid exposure.[31] Imported fish served in restaurants may contain the toxin and produce illness which often goes unexplained by physicians unfamiliar with the symptoms of a tropical toxin.[31][32] Ciguatoxin can also occur in farm-raised salmon.[33] Furthermore, species substitution, labeling a reef fish as a non-reef fish at restaurants and retail, can complicate efforts by consumers to avoid ciguatera.[citatio

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciguatera_fish_poisoning

        1. Never heard of anyone getting it from eating canned fish, we eat fresh fish here. I fish inshore, it’s so regulated now it’s not worth going.

  4. Democrats are the Big Lie. Everything they articulate, from Trans and womyn’s rights to disinformation and their censorial authoritarianism

    Per the Washington Post, Jill Biden has the last word on Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris and “relationships” with her Democrat “f r iends”.

    Jill Biden still hopes for a good ending

    Which brings us to Nancy Pelosi, whom Jill has known nearly as long as Joe. …..And who went on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” in July with a shiv.

    “Like I said,” Jill says now, seated in the Green Room of the White House on the first Sunday of January, “I’ve been thinking a lot about relationships.”

    Her face, nearly pearlescent with lustrous foundation, betrays no particular emotion. She’s holding a china cup.
    Tea. With honey and lemon.
    “It’s been on my mind a lot lately, and — ”
    Jill pauses.
    “We were friends for 50 years.” She is using her teacher’s voice now. “It was disappointing.”

    Washington Post

    WaPo article links to an article in Politico, where Jill asked a pointed question about Kamala Harris:

    “Speaking in confidence with a close adviser to her husband’s campaign, the future First lady posed a pointed question. There are millions of people in the United States, she began. Why, she asked, do we have to choose the one who attacked Joe?”

    Politico

    Democrats are the Big Lie

  6. Mark cuban has a few thoughts about the Musk trump pairing…

    “Having the power to manipulate the most powerful man in the world is far more valuable than any amount of EV sales from Tesla,” Cuban remarked. “Just being able to be the Puppet Master.”

    Nothing to see here, move along. Just a billionaire wanting a few more billions. Think he’ll get it?

  7. The difference between now and the 1970s is that the violence from the left is very close to being mainstream when back then it was underground, and it does not bode well. Really hoping with the elimination of Soros DAs, that people can actually now, at least in places, go to jail for their idiocy, that we nip it in the bud.

    One does not let the teenagers make the rules of the house (and those are the folks seem to be running the modern democratic party, from their living rooms on laptops), and unfortunately, we have generations on our hands that will likely not every bloom into self-actualized adults, and they are too ignorant to recognize that fact. It’s a pain, we do not get to rest or pass the torch, but new generations will be glad we held the line. We may end up being another ‘greatest generation’, just this time without bullets or bombs.

    The next four years will be a course correction, but it will take a whole lot longer to reestablish our foundation; the damage done in four simple years is incalculable, if we go back to 2008, it is even worse. The modern left is a plague and an infestation; let the fumigation begin, starting with inauguration day, and extending into the midterms and beyond. We have all had enough.

    1. James
      The violence in the 70’s was forefront and way worse. Watts riots, SLA, Weatherman , protests every week over Vietnam. You’re correct that the communists didn’t show their faces. The FBI had files on all of them, as the war ended they went to Ivy League universities and got law degrees and government jobs. Now they’re showing us all who they are.

      1. @Traveler

        No question. I have to question the mentality, it is a fiction compared to then. Of course, the cohorts the Professor is speaking to are wholly unaware of that fact, due to their ages. This is going to be a tricky problem to solve, even with the November shift. We will not be done with a lo of this for a good while. This is certainly not the time to rest on laurels.

        2. This is why we don’t tear our National history down, we learn and grow from our mistakes and accomplishments else we repeat them.

  8. OMG! Look how horrible Trump is, and what he has done now!

    Glenn Greenwald:
    I don’t care what you think of Trump. I don’t care what Trump’s motives are or what else he promised Israel, which I’m sure is non-trivial.

    Anyone who causes an end to Israel’s civilian- destruction in Gaza has done a good thing, and there’s no denying his key role:

    https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1879580348289519856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1879580348289519856%7Ctwgr%5Ea9ccf8ded532a7b5b49f9003f6311db9b63b789e%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fgeopolitical%2Fnetanyahu-tells-hostage-families-deal-end-war-near-amid-reports-ceasefire-deal-reached

    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/netanyahu-tells-hostage-families-deal-end-war-near-amid-reports-ceasefire-deal-reached

    1. Never would have happened on Biden’s watch except for the prospect of Trump assuming the Presidency in 5 days. I suspect that both sides are worried about what might be on or off the table after that happens. Something that I have been slow to realize about Trump is that he seems to present the image of a very loose cannon purposefully (whether or not that is an accurate description). That image must be quite useful for keeping those with whom he is negotiating off balance in order to extract greater concessions from them. Of course, no one in the Demoncrap circles will give him the slightest bit of credit for the truce.

  9. Jonathan: You have long attacked DEI policies at universities–this time focusing on ND State University. Funny, but you don’t cite one incident where ND state has taken any action against a professor or other university employee for engaging in “violence in language or in action”. Without an actual case there isn’t much to talk about, is there?

    Your column is another case of diversion and distraction from more important cases of attacks on DEI policies. Take the Senate confirmation hearing for Pete Hegseth yesterday to be the next Defense Secretary. He was grilled extensively on his views of DEI policies in the military. Over a decade Hegseth has opposed the US military’s DEI policies. As a Fox News host and in his book Hegseth has railed against “woke” military policies as resulting in a decline in military readiness and driven white men away: “Turns out, all the ‘diversity’ recruiting messages made certain kids–white kids–fell like they’re not wanted”. Hegseth’s racist message is clear–under his leadership “social justice, politically correct approaches to how we fight and conduct wars” will have no place in the US military.

    Hegseth has also long opposed women serving in combat. They are a “distraction”. But on Tuesday Hegseth had a “confirmation conversion” moment. He told the Senators he now supports women in combat as long as “military standards are not lowered”.

    Hegaeth also had problems trying to explain how his personal like is not a disqualifying factor. He dodged Qs about his serial cheating and credible charges of sexual assault. As to his drinking problem he sold Senators he would not drink on the job. Now that should give us confidence in his leadership of the Defense Dept.?

    What is worse about Hegseth’s nomination is that he an open racist. In his book he says the problem of racism in the military is “fake” and “peddling a lie”. He thinks efforts to root out racism in the military has pushed “rank and file patriots out of their formations”.

    What is clear is that Hegseth is a racist, womanizing, white Christian nationalist (see his tattoos) who has no business leading the world’s largest military organization!

    1. Dennis: Great news! You know how I told you that Hemingway went to the vet Friday (animal doctor, not ex-soldier) and came back home Monday. I had to cancel my firewood order ($100), and my parka ($95), for when I have to go out and sit with Peanut, feed strays, or get firewood, to help pay the massive bill. I was planning to cut a head hole in a cheap wool blanket I have, and wear it like a poncho, (hey, poor folks have poor ways!) – but — I have a birthday coming up in a few days, so my Mom gave me $100 and ordered the parka for me! Thank God, I did not already cut the whole in the blanket. It was cheap, around $11 IIRC from Amazon, but still. So, today is starting off well!

      1. Floyd,
        Good to hear about Hemingway, you got firewood, and didnt cut the hole in the blanket.

        1. Thx! Hemingway won’t hardly stay out of my lap now, The vet said that he was a super nice cat, and very friendly, but she could tell that he was distressed by the whole situation. She made him a hidey-hole to retreat to. I have switched over to Dasani water for the cats. Its PH is supposedly around 6.6, while our tap water here is in excess of 8. Hopefully that will help all the cats.

    2. Dennis, what is the point of a policy or standard that you have no intention of enforcing ?

      DEI needs to be gone – yesterday. it is Racism.

      Yes, Hegseth opposes DEI and woke leftwing nonsense that has harmed out military.

      He made crystal clear in his hearings that the job of the US military is to defeat enemies. That Under Hegseth anything that improves the ability of the Military to dispatch enemies is to be encouraged. Anything that interferes is to be terminated.

      You have a problem with that ?

      Firefighters exist to fight fires.
      Soldiers exist to win wars.

      We are returning to that – possibly even in California.

      Hegseth revised his stance on women in Combat. He made clear that combat positions in the military will be open to anyone who can meet the requirements for that position.
      You are free to beleive that Hegset still opposes women in combat – and maybe like many others he does.
      But the only policy changes he is making are requiring that those in a role meet the qualifications for that roll.

      Dennis – no there are no credible charges of sexual assault. The matter has been investigated multiple times – including by the FBI and Hegseth cleared.
      Clinton raped, sexually assaulted, and cheated with many women – and he was commander in cheif.

      I wish that promises to your spouse still meant something. But they do not.
      As was pointed out at the same hearing – the standards you are trying to impose on Hegseth can not be met by most senators.
      Of course there is a difference – while Hegseth denied many of the unsupported allegations against him – he admitted to having made some mistakes and to striving to do better.
      Advice most of those on the left could use.

      Dennis – the shilling of DEI has CREATED racial problems in business – there is lots of evidence of that, it is one of many reasons Businesses – and now the US government are dropping DEI, It makes things worse.

      I am not familiar with the race training that heseth references, but it is not racist to point out that many left wing nut programs to combat racism have failed.

      Hegseth is a war fighter he has been deployed to mideast war zones on 3 separate occasions. He has received numberous medals – not merely I was there ribbons.
      It would be surprising if he did NOT have tattoos.

      Outside of left wing nuts where everything is racist,
      “The Jerusalem Cross has been a symbol of faith for centuries. Being one of the most recognizable emblems in the world, the Jerusalem cross has several interpretations. Some historians believe that the large cross represents Christ, while the four smaller crosses represent Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”

  10. Surprised that the progressive, woke world members have not declared that America’s Constitution is an instrument of violence . . . and, should be completely burned and buried in the devil’s sandbox.

  11. It is absolutely critical to incredibly narrowly define what constitutes violence in language.

    Why ? Because violence is the illegitimate use of FORCE, and the illegitimate use of force justifies both government and individual use of force in response.

    The speech that you define as violence may be opposed by actual violence.

    If you claim that hate speech is actual violence – then people may legitimately respond to hate speech with actual violence.

    Given that the lefts definition of hate speech is situational, and dependent on the “priviledge” or “oppression” of the speaker,
    you have concocted a schema where determining whether violence in response to speech is permissible is too complex to resolve in seconds.

    You have blurred the distinction between a crime and a legal act. Such that ordinary people can not know whether they are commiting a crime or a justified act of self defense or defense of others.

    1. “narrowly define what constitutes violence in language”

      I’m assuming that your formulation there allows for a possibility that “speech” could = “violence”. I apologize in advance if that is not what you meant. That definition is not “narrow”, the intersection of the two concepts populates the null set. Violence requires physical action. Speech is not physical action. If speech presents a realistic and specific threat of violence against a specific party, it may be reasonable to make it a crime, but it nevertheless does not magically BECOME violence.

  12. Just spitballing here but what if we ended government funding for students, gave value to SAT’s for entrance, gave a general admission test and end tenure? I’m not suggesting this would end the topic of discussion today but it sure as hell would put a dent in it. Like Judge Elihu Smails once remarked “Danny the world needs ditch diggers too”.

    1. End government funding and let the rest take care of itself.

      When you seek to hire someone – would you value a degree more from a college with high standards ? or one from a college that passes everyone ?

      Ending tenure and using entrance exams are likely good ideas,
      but all you have to do is get government – and especially goverment money out of things and free markets naturally promote good ideas.

    2. Non starter. Why should “we” pay anyone to do something that would personally benefit themself?

    1. The problem is that the bounds of unprotected speech are extremely narrow.
      Nearly all threats are NOT true threats.
      Nearly everything that someone thinks is incitement is NOT.

      True threats and actual incitement are Crimes – government is permitted to use FORCE against them.
      Individuals subject to true threats and actual incitement may use FORCE in self defense.

      When you say that violent language is not protected – the consequence of that is that either govenrment or individuals can
      legitimately respond to that violent speech with ACTUAL violence.

      1. This was just a statement of inclusivity. It was not a speech policy. You would not expect to see it define the “bounds of unprotected speech.”

        NDSU has a free speech policy which does precisely this, however: https://www.ndsu.edu/deanofstudents/freespeech/

        “The First Amendment protects speech even when the ideas put forth are thought to be illogical, offensive, immoral or hateful. Public universities such as North Dakota State University are subject to the constitutional restrictions set forth in the First Amendment, as well as by state/federal law, and may not infringe on an individual’s freedom of speech.

        Freedom of speech does not mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish. The university may restrict speech that falsely defames a specific individual, constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, is intended and likely to provoke imminent unlawful action, or otherwise violates the law. In addition, the university may reasonably regulate the time, place and manner of speech to ensure it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the university.”

        This statement accurately defines the “bounds of unprotected speech.”

        So, I ask again, where has NDSU gone awry in articulating its protection of free speech?

        The statement of inclusivity’s reference to “violent language” does not override the free speech policy. When read in tandem, it is very clear that violent language does not mean offensive speech or another category of protected speech because the free speech policy explicitly protects those speech categories.

  14. Just waiting for the entire concept of “hate speech” legislation to meet the brick wall of a SCOTUS majority that understands the constitution as a rule of law rather than some old document that needs changing. Cannot wait to see their re-interpretation of “fire in a crowded theatre” rubric that was used to shut down the first amendment.

    If an overweight, DEI hire fire department officer in LA can blame the overweight man caught in a burning building but too heavy for the small fireman/woman DEI hire to carry him to safety as being in the wrong place and the wrong time (and laying the blame on the man) then I would venture to say that if a person hears speech that they consider to be “offensive’ to themselves then I would likewise say that they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time to hear the “offensive” speech and the blame is on the listener rather than the speaker.

  15. “violent speech”

    The Left describes speech and ideas it doesn’t like as “violent speech.” And violent riots it does like as “free speech.”

    In other words: If the Left likes you, you’re fine (for now). If it doesn’t, you’re screwed.

  16. Looks like Pete Hegseth is Trumps first DEI hire who will be confirmed. He wasn’t chosen for his qualitications, He was chosen for his Culture and Identity as a Trump loyalist. Oh the irony.

    1. The problem with DEI is that it elevates immutable characteristics that have nothing to do with the job.
      DEI is inherently a form of racism and sexism.

      Even if as you claim – Hegseth was appointed because of his loyalty to Trump – rather then because as he has made clear he intends to deliver on the Values that the Republican party promised in their Platform Agenda 47, that would STILL not be DEI – loyalty is not an immutable characteristic.

      It has always been legitimate to hire people who share you values, because shared values are not an immutable characteristic and because they are a predictor of whether you will perform the job in the way those who hired you expect.

      I would note the Hegseth hearings are critical – which is why he is likely the lead. Hegseth is probably the least likely Trump appointment to get confirmed.
      If it is certain he will get confirmed, then it is likely that the Senate leadership will act as Trump asked and go into recess briefly to allow Trump to recess appoint most of his nominees.
      That will allow them all to serve until Dec 31, 2026 without confirmation and jumpstart the process of implimenting Agenda 47.
      If they wish to remain past Dec 31, 2026 they will have to eventually be senate confirmed, but that can be delayed until after other agenda items are accomplished.

    2. Yes too much combat experience and not enough political ass kissing to make general. That makes him the perfect person to protect our troops and worry about the military being able to actually fight a war. Once you gain the rank of colonel in the current military it becomes a fight to proclaim how politically correct you are to gain the next promotion up the general level rank ladder. Just listen to the joint chiefs of staff currently when they talk to congress.

  17. OT

    Senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa lists abuses by Biden’s DOJ as the confirmation hearing opens for Pam Bondi AG Nominee. Well done Sen Grassley. At age 91, no obvious signs of cognitive impairment

    DOJ received a fatal body blow from Grassley. Hopefully Bondi can restore it and prosecute all Biden DOJ members who broke the law.

  18. North Dakota State University filled with hate speech ya say? Meh, amateurs…

    Northwestern University!!! Now there’s a higher education department who has hate speech potential for violence down to a science.

    “Northwestern University Offers Divisive and Racially Charged Course Promoting Anti-White Agenda”
    –by Seth Segal Jan. 12, 2025 8:20 pm

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/01/northwestern-university-offers-divisive-racially-charged-course/

  19. North Dakota State University filled with hate speech ya say? Meh, amateurs…

    Northwestern University!!! Now there’s a higher education department who has hate speech potential for violence down to a science.

    “Northwestern University Offers Divisive and Racially Charged Course Promoting Anti-White Agenda”
    –by Seth Segal Jan. 12, 2025 8:20 pm

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/01/northwestern-university-offers-divisive-racially-charged-course/

  20. I joined this blog a few years ago with a cry for return in education to the old Greek Socratic method. Socrates is known for saying, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
    Perhaps, undergraduate curricula need to include a course on the First Amendment, with TWO professors sharing the lectern–one progressive/left-wing and one conservative/right-wing. Engage the class in open debate and solicit topic discussions. As Agnes Callard discusses in her new book, “Open Socrates,” (the title had grabbed my attention), INQUIRY stimulates thinking and analysis, -while surficial or one-sided views manifest in emotion rather than reason or logic. And THINKING, Callard explains, is most likely to manifest in social/group activity among people who disagree, -thereby forcing consideration or at least receptiveness to opposing thought. Thank you, Professor Turley, for this forum.

    1. Some Universities already do this. A simple google search will lead you to plenty of free videos of classes doing exactly what you say should be a course.

      1. I did as you suggest, but fail to find such a true example. I see articles about the fallout of Socratic method during the last several decades, but some mention a return to something like a New Revised Socratic Method (in name only?) being auditioned.
        Criticism of the new, revised approach is that classroom discussion is often controlled by the professor’s own personal views.
        I also see some references to lectures or programs employing an ostensible “Socratic” approach, but not a required course with topic examples. Care to direct me to a good example of what you refer to? thanks, appreciate it in advance.

        1. Lin, the following links may not address your paradigm of 2 professors, opposing views, etc, but I have long believed that Dr Peter Kreeft is a gift to Americans when it comes to classical philosophy. He has authored more than 100 books on philosophy. What follows is a partial list of his books on Socrates alone. Check his website for more.

          https://www.peterkreeft.com/books.htm

          Socrates

          Socrates Children
          Socrates’ Children: Ancient Greatest 100
          Socrates’ Children: Medieval Greatest 100
          Socrates’ Children: Modern Greatest 100
          Socrates’ Children: Contemporary Greatest 100
          The Platonic Tradition
          A Socratic Intro to Plato’s Republic
          Philosophy 101 by Socrates — An introduction via Plato’s Apology
          The Best Things in Life — Socrates probes success, power and pleasure.
          Socrates Meets Decartes — Questions modern Discourse on Method
          Socrates Meets Hume — Questions the Father of Modern Skepticism
          Socrates Meets Jesus — Questions Christ. See the play!
          Socrates Meets Kant — Questions this most influential modern child
          Socrates Meets Kierkegaard — Questions on Christian existentialism
          Socrates Meets Machiavelli — Questions the author of The Prince
          Socrates Meets Marx — Questions the founder of communism
          Socrates Meets Sartre — Questions the founder of existentialism

          NB: Dr Kreeft teaches/taught at Jesuit college, Boston College. I sat in one of his lectures ~ 1984 while visiting my friends there. Delightful man

          1. I went to your link, and then the books. Dang! $14 and up! I had some money left on an Amazon Gift Card, so I found a used copy of To Hume It May Concern – or Socrates Meets Hume, less than $7, so I ordered it. I have got to get enrolled in some kind of library thingy where I can read books without having to buy them,

            1. Library Genesis is used by college students to view older textbooks in PDF or other electronic formats before buying newer editions. I prefer real books instead of Kindle, PDF or Epub, but I can see the value of them.

              Peter Kreeft books

      1. Upstate: Good example, but that was an extra-curricular program, not part of a required course.

Comments are closed.