“Who Gets to Tell the Story?” That question was supposed to be the theme of a “press freedom” event this week at Columbia University, home to one of the world’s leading journalism schools. However, as first reported by the Columbia Spectator, the event was canceled after student journalists had the audacity of offering their own views on the coverage of the alleged Cornell rape case.
After the independent student newspaper The Sundial ran a column by deputy editor Nikos Mohammadi and writer Christina Ma criticizing the one-sided coverage of the allegations, the Columbia students went into a familiar groupthink, cancel mode. The students were shocked that Mohammadi and Ma took the invitation to “tell the story” literally by offering a different perspective on the still developing case.
The event, “Who Gets to Tell the Story? Press Freedom & the Public Square,” was billed as an inclusive panel of student journalists from various campus publications that included the editor-in-chief of The Sundial.
However, just hours before the event, the Columbia Open Discourse Alliance, a student “free speech and open dialogue” group, canceled the event. It issued an announcement that was long on virtue-signaling and short on journalistic values: “We felt that we couldn’t host a conversation about who gets to tell a story at this sort of a moment when so many survivors felt that their stories were under attack or weren’t being believed.”
The editors dragged out the old saw of cancel campaigns, saying that they could not guarantee the safety of the event in light of the recent publication. However, it was worse than yielding to the mob. The Alliance seems indistinguishable from the mob.
Notably, if security were such a concern, the Alliance did not explain whether the university had been asked to supply greater security or why the event could not be held virtually.
The triggering event was the publication of the student column, which was notably part of a two-column display of opposing views on the coverage. In other words, Sundial did precisely what the event seemed to advocate: it allowed all voices to be heard. The response to such a balanced discussion was that Columbia students went into collective vapors and immediately canceled the event.
I have previously written about the Cornell case and raised concerns over what I saw as the same pattern emerging that we saw in the Duke rape case.
When that allegation was first raised, press, pundits and professors quickly joined a chorus of condemnation of the accused students. When some of us raised doubts about the allegations (including the total absence of supporting forensic and other evidence of a gang rape), we were attacked as being insensitive to rape victims.
Duke University abandoned its students as the media whipped the public into a frenzy.
The media quickly lionized Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong as he pandered to the mob in portraying the students as personifying a racist rape culture in the United States.
Then the case collapsed. Crystal Mangum later admitted that she had lied.
Nifong was disbarred and Mangum later went to jail for murder in an unrelated case.
All the politicians and pundits who declared the Duke students guilty simply shrugged and moved on to the next scandal, demanding instant, uninformed judgments.
I have stated that the Cornell case is different and has a stronger foundation than the Duke case. However, there are conflicting accounts and major questions that must still be answered.
Nevertheless, the same voices are being heard in denouncing those who want to wait for the evidence before passing judgment.
Even high schools are now engaging in censorship. I just wrote a column about a high school student in California who was disciplined for simply writing “Free the Cornell 7” on his personal Instagram account. Hundreds of students called for their fellow student to be expelled or suspended for expressing his opposing views of the case.
In their column, Ma and Mohammadi criticized the immediate judgments reached over the case and the orthodox narrative that now pervades the coverage. They asked why there was not greater discussion of difficult issues of consent and personal responsibility:
“In a liberal society, women are allowed to make bad decisions, ones that may later reveal themselves as deleterious. The discourse, nonetheless, seems to omit the possibility that consensual sex, to the woman participating in it, can later reveal itself as traumatic and immoral.”
I understand that such views are provocative and triggering for some. However, this is a case that touches on difficult social and legal questions. Universities are supposed to be places where such questions can be discussed openly and freely.
Unfortunately, the response is all too familiar: those claiming to advocate understanding and empathy unleashed a vicious cancel campaign against these two students.
In a column in UnHeard, Mohammadi said he has been inundated by threats “urging me to commit suicide or demanding that my career and life be destroyed.” He added:
Even the Columbia Open Discourse Alliance, or CODA, of which I was once a board member, has condemned us. The group wrote in a statement that “CODA exists because we believe in free expression and the open exchange of ideas, including ideas we disagree with.” But, you know, not really.
Alliance president Aum Desai has responded to the controversy with an explanation of the cancellation that is perfectly Orwellian: “We did so not in spite of, but because of our commitment to free expression.”
Ok, let’s unpack this: You canceled a free press event after two student writers expressed an opposing view of a story because of your “commitment to free expression”? That is akin to saying that your commitment to free exercise of religion compelled you to cancel religious services until others felt comfortable with the exercise of the right by different faiths.
Desai offered the same excuse of past cancel campaigns that preventing these voices from being heard was the only way to ensure that all voices could “feel safe to come forward and be heard.” All voices, that is, except Mohammadi and Mo, or others with opposing views of the coverage.
The Alliance had to choose between the values of the media and the demands of the mob. They chose the mob by canceling this event.
As the famed journalist Edward R. Murrow once said, “Anyone who isn’t confused really doesn’t understand the situation.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
“We felt that we couldn’t host a conversation about who gets to tell a story at this sort of a moment when so many survivors felt that their stories were under attack or weren’t being believed.”
When I hear of “survivors,” I think hoaxers. Yes, your stories are not being believed, and you belong in prison.
“the Cornell case”
“the Duke rape case.”
Corrections: The Cornell rape hoax.
The Duke rape hoax.
Free speech must only apply to Far Leftists and Islamists (an overlapping group).
I know what you’re thinking. How can we tell if an individual is a Far Leftist and/or an Islamist?
This is a simple matter. Before any free speech is allowed, the individual must be a certified Far Leftist or Islamist. Individuals can send their applications to obtain the right to free speech to the International Society of IslamoCommuNazis (ISOI). Applications will be reviewed by the ISOI’s diverse panel controlled by Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders, Hasan Piker, Tucker Carlson, Thomas Massie, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Megyn Kelly, Graham Platner, Greta Thunberg, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping. These individuals will ensure that applicants are reviewed fairly, honestly, neutrally, and without bias of any kind.
More proof is needed than just he said/she said. Seems we’ve learned nothing from the farce of the Blasey-Ford b.s. Sorry, but you just cannot “believe all women.”
More proof is needed than just he said/she said. Seems we’ve learned nothing from the farce of the Blasey-Ford b.s. Sorry, but you just cannot “believe all women.”
Why does the biggest piles of crap seem to be produced in New York or California?
The supposed advocates of free speech at Columbia need to show their commitment to it. They need to proudly hold their event. They should boldly name those who tried to stop them. Once you stand up to cancel culture and pull individuals out of a mob, it is amazing how quickly it retreats.
To
The “safety” theory certainly does a lot of work!
“We felt that we couldn’t host a conversation about who gets to tell a story at this sort of a moment when so many survivors felt that their stories were under attack or weren’t being believed.”
Suppose a person named, say, Smollett claims to be a mugging victim. Then someone questions the veracity of his claims. Who in their right mind concludes: By questioning his claims, you’re being “insensitive” to mugging victims?
This revolting appeal to “sensitivities” would have have us elevate emotions over every principle of Western jurisprudence: The facts of a *particular* case, the law, due process, the presumption of innocence.
Sam: invoking Smollett, if tongue-in-cheek intended, succeeded!
The Left is always the same.
I recall when that POS Sundar Pichai fired Damore for a wrong opinion in order to protect freedom of speech.
Same crap, low IQ “reasoning” from weak people.
One cannot ignore the similarity of today’s woke approach to permissible ‘news’ discussions to the press in Germany after January, 1933: the press was welcome to continue publishing … so long as everything it published was supportive of Hitler and his Reich and nothing that cast doubts or aspersions on it; an approach which mirrored Lenin’s approach to ‘freedom of the press’ and in those early 1930s quickly won Stalin’s approval as well.
@Anonymous
Very much agreed. Wish you good anonymous posters would adopt a handle. This is just like that, and it’s very concerning.
Additionally, silly perhaps that a midterm election might make or destroy our country, but this one will. We have seen things similar enough to this to take great pause, if we are awake.
Everything published is anti Trump and supportive of the Democrats, liberals, communist and Muslims. That is Nazi. Every thing published by the left is Jew hate, that is Nazi. Communism is socialist and so was Nazi. Do you even understand what Nazi stands for? It was “Nation SOCIALIST German Workers Party”. You are correct, only if you are talking about the left.
Were the Nazis socialists? No.
While the Nazis won a plurality of Reichstag seats in 1933, they did not have a majority, so they had to go into coalition to form a government.
The Nazis did not pick a Socialist, Communist, or even a centrist party for a partner. Instead, they picked a right-wing party, the conservative German National People’s Party (Deutschnationale Volkspartei, or DNVP), which was authoritarian authoritarian and nationalist.
They did
The Communist Party wasn’t co-operating with the other political parties contra the Nazis. The German legislature’s dysfunction was generated in part by the reality that the majority of legislators were members of totalitarian organizations which had no use for elected legislatures.
==
Alfred Hugenberg was the leader of the National People’s Party in its terminal phases. He was a member of its volkisch faction and replaced the conservative Cuno von Westarp. Co-operating with the Nazi Party was his preference.
Due process or is this lynching?
There were what seems to be true many people at the frat house and sorority. Those are witnesses. Due process will yield a result.
The woman reportedly says, she suffered harm. The men are facing prison terms and sex offender registry harm, also. These are men and women btw as Arlington bears testimony.
Quite harmful to be at Columbia it seems. Stay home and CC is a better choice. Personally, I have no wish nor desire of any kind to be in any collective nor any socialist organization.
It’s corrupt lawfare. The left has decided on guilt, no presumption of innocence until proven guilty and to punish young men by having a rigged trial.
If you read the evidence it’s not even he said she said. It’s she said then, had a falling out with the fraternity and she says the opposite now. Leticia announced their guilt before enen being appointed. Joe Stalin would be proud and jealous of her show trials.
“The Alliance had to choose between the values of the media and the demands of the mob. They chose the mob by canceling this event. As the famed journalist Edward R. Murrow once said, “Anyone who isn’t confused really doesn’t understand the situation.””
C’mon, Turley, you understand the situation perfectly, as does anyone with brain function. You wrote a book about free speech, its meaning, and the suppression of it.
Turley: “Columbia University, home to one of the world’s leading journalism schools.”
And that is probably why legacy media is so corrupt these days. They fish for hires from a poisoned swamp.
Uh, Professor – in 2026 the left ARE the mob. That’s kinda all there is to it. Thank you for writing about it. It is invaluable.
I have always marveled at how an event such as the Cornell case can divide people. Some of this is certainly due to our built-in temperament but the announcement from the Columbia Open Discourse Alliance reveals perhaps another source when it stated that, “…so many survivors felt that their stories were under attack or weren’t being believed.” This is pure projection. Some people are taking their own experience or fears and applying those to this case seemingly prior to examining all the relevant facts of the case. Certainly we should agree that sexual assault should not be tolerated and should be punished but let us first establish that sexual assault actually happened.
Following the abrupt departure of White House press secretary Katie Zacharia, Donald J. Trump announced that her replacement would be the former congressman George Santos.
Speaking to reporters, Santos said he was “thrilled” by the appointment, vowing, “I will bring to this job my experience not only as a lawyer, but as a doctor and astronaut.”
The former legislator said that, in order to take the job, he was cutting short his participation in a reunion tour with his fellow Beatles.
As for Zacharia, in her parting statement she said she was leaving “to spend more time with my children, who will teach me to read.”
Stick a blonde wig on Santos (wouldn’t be the first time) and nobody will know the difference.
No he didn’t. Remember want Democrat Menendez was much worse if you want to point out political corruption.
Wish I’d known yesterday that Piner High won by default and improved to 3-4. Let’s Go Brandon! https://www.ksro.com/2026/10/14/healdsburg-forfeits-friday-football-game-against-piner-due-to-player-injuries/