Flag

UC-Irvine Students Tried to Ban American Flag Because Free Speech 'Can Be Interpreted as Hate Speech'

More from the "everything is offensive" crowd.

|

American flag
Andreitsalko / Dreamstime

The University of California-Irvine student government recently struck a blow against free speech "that can be interpreted as hate speech" when it voted to remove all flags, including the American flag, from its campus office. That decision was quickly vetoed by the student government president.

According to Campus Reform, the Associated Students of University of California-Irvine voted 6-4 (with two abstentions) to pass the measure sponsored by Social Ecology Representative Matthew Guevara. The text of the resolution can be found here. Some entertaining highlights:

Whereas flags are typically viewed as patriotic symbols of a single nation, are often associated with government and military due to their history and have a wide variety of interpretations. …

Whereas flags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy. …

Whereas a common ideological understanding of the United states includes American exceptionalism and superiority. …

Whereas the American flag is commonly flown in government public service locations, military related entities, at homes, in foreign lands where the US government has a presence. ..

Whereas the American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism. …

Whereas designers should be careful about using cultural symbols as the symbols will inherently remain open for interpretation. ..

Whereas a high-quality culturally inclusive spaces is essential in any society that embodies a dynamic and multifaceted culture

Whereas freedom of speech is a valued right that ASUCI supports.

Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.

Needless to say, this resolution was pretty much tailor-made to infuriate regular people outside the socialist enclave of UCI. Conservative-leaning sites, in particular, had a field day. Breitbart reported the news thus:

"UC Irvine Student: US Flag Banned to Avoid 'Triggering' Hurt Feelings Among Illegals."

A student who spoke with Breitbart News on condition of anonymity that she heard a member of the ASUCI discussing "the [American] flag and how it triggered people." She then said she believed a major line of reasoning behind the legislation to remove the flag could have been a "precautionary step" to prevent a trigger situation where if someone is an "illegal citizen or [they] have citizenship issues, it makes them feel bad.

"But me and my friends were like, 'Dude, you're in America. It's the American flag,'" she added.

Now, many libertarians are uncomfortable being forced to pay homage to the American flag (i.e., reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools)—not because they dislike the U.S. or its people, but because coerced worshipping of the federal government violates the very principle the flag represents. It's true that deference to the flag can take on creepy or quasi-religious religious overtones. And all Americans have a First Amendment right to descrate the flag; this right is sacred in a way the symbol is not.

On the other hand, it's a little silly to think merely hanging the flag in some office is an excercise in militaristic nationalism. If any students—immigrant or otherwise—are psychologically triggered by the very sight of the thing, they probably need therapy. When viewed as the next step in the campus left's current effort to ban all potentially offensive words and deeds under the vague and illogically-defined umbrella of "hate speech," this resolution seems very stupid indeed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

141 responses to “UC-Irvine Students Tried to Ban American Flag Because Free Speech 'Can Be Interpreted as Hate Speech'

  1. This is why political parties don’t matter. When people like this are the only ones you have to choose from when it comes to picking a politician, political parties are extraneous.

  2. Whereas flags construct paradigms of conformity…

    Flags don’t construct anything, they are inanimate objects, you mental fucking defective.

    1. “Flags don’t construct paradigms of conformity.

      PEOPLE construct paradigms of conformity!”

      1. “If flags are outlawed, only outlaws will have flags!”

        1. On my to the flag store to stock up before the ban hits

          1. No one NEEDS 13 stripes!

            1. Or an extra-high capacity field of 50 stars!!!

    2. Just remove the stars that represent the states you don’t like.

      1. ELIMUNASHUNIST RHETORICKSZZZ!!!11!!

      2. It’ll be a cold day in hell before I recognize Missourah.

        1. You make me wish Reason had those stupid little ‘like’ buttons.

    3. WTF, HA! HA! YES! Love the way you worded your comment, couldn’t have said it better. Fuck these mental defective, leftards.

  3. And the media portrays Libertarians as “extremists”. It’s official, we’re in fucking bizarro world.

  4. The Associated Students of University of California-Irvine went full retard. You never go full retard.

    1. They aimed for Peak Derp and barely missed.

  5. I’m psychologically triggered every time I see my pay stub and see the tax withholdings. Taxation is an exercise in forced nationalism worse than any flag display which I can choose to ignore – I cannot ignore taxation. I object to being triggered in this manner.

    Just say ‘no’ to nationalism; just say ‘no’ to taxation; just say ‘no’ to triggers.

    1. Just say ‘no’ to nationalism; just say ‘no’ to taxation; just say ‘no’ to triggers.

      .. especially audit triggers.

      1. Trigger? What about Buttermilk?

    2. But without taxation, who will subsidize the destructively useless thinking of UC-Irvine students?

      1. Government is just another name for the idiocy we indulge in together.

    3. Whenever I see these whiny, crybaby, PC leftards use the word “trigger” what I really see and what they really mean is “speech control” and “thought control”. They talk out their ass about “tolerance” and “freedom of expression” what they really mean is “we tolerate only what we agree with and your only allowed freedom of speech if it agrees with our propaganda”. Get rid of the word “trigger warning” altogether.

  6. If any students?immigrant or otherwise?are psychologically triggered by the very sight of the thing, they probably need therapy to be bitch slapped to their senses..
    .
    .
    fixed

  7. He’s a Social Ecology Representative. If that ain’t fucking bizzaro world enough for you, you’ve probably seen attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion and C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannh?user Gate.

    1. +1 time to die.

    2. Nicely done, Jerryskids.

    3. By the way, what exactly is “social ecology’? And why is that a category of student representative?

      When I was in college, every dorm, frat, sorority and club got a representative in student senate. I served as a senator for a semester. I quit after in 1979, the senate had a choice for the band for the homecoming concert between Cheap Trick and the Ozark Mountain Daredevils. They chose Ozark Mountain Daredevils for some reason; I think the biggest loudmouths on the board said they were “popular for a wider range of people”.

      So they had the concert, barely sold any tickets, and end up canceling any future concerts as a result. And Cheap Trick, of course, went on to become one of the most popular rock bands of all time. Had they chosen them it would have been a sold-out show, of course.

      Idiots — student senates have always been packed with them.

      1. “By the way, what exactly is “social ecology’? “

        Heroic Macchiato explained it the other day.

        It is horror beyond comprehension. Basically Progs took all the ingredients of their intellectually-damaged worldview – socialist economics, mathusian environmentalism, and social-justice cultural engineering – and put them in a fucking blender

        These people actually come out of school and expect people to take them seriously about anything.

      2. I attend UC Irvine and study criminology (which is grouped into the school of social ecology) and it’s every bit as bad as GILMORE described. Good thing there’s always coal to be mined.

      3. When I came if age, Cheap Trick was popular for ‘The Flame,’ I was really surprised to later learn they were considered a punk band ten years earlier (and a good one at that).

        Besides, by 1979, weren’t the Ozark Mountain Daredevils about 5 years past their prime?

        1. Cheap Trick was never a punk band.

          that suggestion is almost as offensive as the American Flag

          1. Wasn’t power-pop considered an offshoot of punk in the late-70s?

            1. WHAT?

              Cheap Trick are just – and always were – just a rock n roll band from Chi Town.

              Ain’t nothin’ punk about it. Listen to their first album – that’s some hard core rock. But it ain’t punk.

              They pussed out later – can’t blame ’em – they made bank with the shit I hated. Their first three or four albums were great – they lost me shortly after “Live at Budokan”…

            2. IMHO punk derives from rock & roll = power-pop derived from …well, pop. The Beatles. Sing-songy melody-driven tunes.

              Cheap Trick started in the early 70s, and was from inception intended as a “pop tunes” band. Apparently they even got their name from observing how Slade worked as ‘entertainment’ = “the name was inspired by the band’s attendance of a Slade concert, where Petersson commented that the band used “every cheap trick in the book” as part of their act.[7] ”

              The point is that their genealogies are entirely different. “3 major-chord choruses” aside.

              The Ramones, they weren’t.

              1. Not only that, Cheap Trick won my heart with their song “Tax Man, Mr. Thief”, a total libertarian creed. Check it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp_qMbDmB8Y

  8. The University of California-Irvine student government recently struck a blow against free speech “that can be interpreted as hate speech” when it voted to remove all flags, including the American flag, from its campus office.

    The leaders of tomorrow!

    Tiny, walnut-sized intellects like this make me sad.

    1. The leaders political commissars of tomorrow!

      FIFY

    2. Do stupid people make you cry?

      1. I do get a bit verklempt.

  9. My favorite: Whereas displaying a flag does not express only selective aspects of its symbolism but the entire spectrum of its interpretation.

    With all due respect, what is magic about a fucking *flag* in your view? You should ban *everything*!

    1. I think that’s pretty much where this all leads. All speech is hate speech. All items are triggers. It’s Three Wise Monkeys time.

      1. ” Three Wise Monkeys time.”

        RACIST!!!!

  10. “Whereas flags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy.”

    If “equality” is a paradigm of conformity amounting to hate speech, it probably isn’t for the reason the student government thinks it is.

    “Needless to say, this resolution was pretty much tailor-made to infuriate regular people outside the socialist enclave of UCI.”

    UCI is not a socialist enclave.

    Student government everywhere tends to attract certain culture studies/activist types that like to make a politicized statement out of everything.

    What evidence do you have that UCI is a socialist enclave? Maybe you were being facetious? Otherwise, that statement is almost Weigel-worthy.

    You probably get less of this crap at UCI than you do anywhere else in the UC or CSU system.

    If anything, Irvine itself is a Republican enclave.

    Socialist enclave? Do the words UC Berkeley, UC Davis, or UC Santa Cruz mean anything to you?

    1. The anteater has long been a symbol of international socialism.

    2. UCI is not a socialist enclave.

      Yeah that’s definitely a misconception and the 6 students who voted for it do not represent most of the students: http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6342

      At least the other 4 students and the president had some sense.

      I’m also sure the large Asian student population, most of whom don’t care about UCI politics, and most anyone in STEMs had a WTF-is-this reaction too

      1. Speaking with Campus Reform Friday evening, Zomorrodian said that he was pushing for a unanimous veto among his executive members as it’s “very important that [the ASUCI executive cabinet] stand strong and say ‘this is not something we agree with.'”
        …….

        “This is not a widely shared opinion,” he said of the legislation. “There’s been a lot of uproar on campus. This is something students care about. This is something students are confused about.”
        …….

        In a Facebook post Friday evening, UCI seemed to make light of the legislation.

        “Have a wonderful weekend! And contrary to what you might be hearing, flags are still flying at UC Irvine,” the post, accompanying a photo of an American flag, read.

  11. I’ll give them a pass for now. This kind of challenge to authority is a phase that lots of kids go through, and if you view it as such, it doesn’t bother me. Further, it was struck down…so no harm done really. We should expect this from college age kids, and I even respect the fact that they are starting to challenge societal indoctrination.

    However, when I see middle aged adults go “full retard” on both sides of the Flag issue I get pissed. The flag as either a symbol of oppression, or Jesus Christ Incarnate type of full retard.

    1. This kind of challenge to authority is a phase that lots of kids go through

      That isn’t challenging authority, it’s fellating it and making it a sandwich, before calling it a cab.

    2. If the resolution was designed to abolish a policy of standing before a flag and swearing your undying fealty ever morning you might have a point. This is nothing of the sort.

    3. “I’ll give them a pass for now. This kind of challenge to authority is a phase that lots of kids go through”

      Getting behind this in their socialist enclave isn’t a phase that lots of kids go through.

      It’s something Robbie made up in his head.

      The kids at UCI are not behind this.

      For goodness’ sake, is he quoting Breitbart?!

      This whole thread post makes us libertarians look stupid.

      Some idiots at a student government somewhere proposed something stupid, and all we can come up with saying a bunch of stupid shit about it that isn’t true?

      We can do better than that–even if Robbie can’t.

    4. This kind of challenge to authority is a phase that lots of kids go through,

      Umm, these aren’t children. They are adults.

    5. This wasn’t about challenging authority. This was just a logical outgrowth of the twin impulses of the academic Left: to control speech, and to be anti-West.

  12. Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech

    Only by those with immature brains and political ideologies based on emotion.

  13. Ah, the earnest ignorance of youth.

    1. I’m pretty sure the Spanish Civil War could be entirely explained by the earnest ignorance of youth. The earnest ignorance of youth will get many people murdered – eventually.

      1. That’s right. It was people just like them who idealistically murdered other people to advance their little cause.

        1. “Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.”

          1. Eggs, heads, it’s all the same.

  14. If the quoting is accurate, some students need remedial English. The grammar is atrocious.

    1. I was waiting for someone to mention that. I’m guessing Breitbart picked a quote from one of the less-articulate students, right? The UC system is hard to get into, all these kids should be brilliant, or so I’m told.

      1. The text of the resolution, not just verbal quotes, was enough to make Strunk and White cry in their coffins.

        1. “But me and my friends were like…”

          And then me and my friends are all, “Dude, surusly.”

          1. “Your shit’s all fucked up and you talk like a fag.”

            1. “You sure you ain’t the smartest person in the world?”

            2. That’s some serious Flaggotry.

        2. Strunk and White

          Grammar (i.e., the rules governing phrase/clause construction in a natural language) doesn’t equal style.

          Other than that, carry on.

          1. They even got THAT wrong.

      2. Breitbart definitely did not cherrypick anything. The entire resolution is like that.

        If anything, Breitbart should have quoted more because it really is insane.

    2. They also need to check their axioms, yo.

    3. “…some students need remedial English.”

      Something tells me you’d be brought up on cultural insensitivity charges by the campus Star Chamber for saying this.

    4. They don’t teach grammar in remedial English (or any kind of undergraduate English). They lecture about populist texts and the occasional Shakespeare or Romantic stuff and let you soak up the hermeneutic/deconstructionist paradigm without ever coming out and describing it.

      Which leads to a generation of literature majors who are completely confused over what and why they’re studying, but certain that Beckett and Brecht are as important as Shakespeare in the western canon even if no one can say why, exactly, because saying so is impossible under the rules of the hermeneutics game.

      After all, we wouldn’t have our kids reading muddle-headed nonsense as humanities or philosophy majors.

      1. Sure, but why, outside of community college, should a post-secondary institution feel it necessary to teach “grammar”* at all? Wasn’t that the job of these kids’ 10th grade English teacher?

        *Again, by “grammar” I assume you mean the prescriptivist rules of Anglosphere academic style and not X-bar theory or functional discourse grammar.

        1. I don’t remember jack from my single Chomsky-sodden linguistics course, but I’m pretty sure I mean the prescriptive former rather than the presumably emergent latter.

          And if you accept that grammar isn’t a top-down enterprise dictated by experts, I don’t know why you’d be teaching it at any level outside of the usual social signalling reasons that characterize so much of education.

          1. the usual social signalling reasons that characterize so much of education.

            Well, that’s exactly why you teach it. Fact is, people are always going to judge you by how you speak. I remember reading a study of the speech of longshoremen in California; the researcher found that the dock workers possessed a much greater knowledge of standard English than their speech let on. They spoke in a less “educated” way precisely to signal their blue-collar tough-guy social affiliation. Other languages/culture are way more honest about it than we are. For example, Arabic is highly diglossic, with a “street” register and an “educated” register that are barely intelligible to one another.

      2. I count my blessings that I went to a university with no English coursework requirements.

  15. You poor slobs that populate today’s colleges are pitiful. You have no idea how much of a royal screwing you are getting with the overpriced poor products your being sold.

    The only other people more pitiful than you, are your sad-sack parents that write checks for this crap.

  16. On the other hand, it’s a little silly to think merely hanging the flag in some office is an excercise in militaristic nationalism.

    Paging Sheldon Richman…

    1. Dammit, Switzy, do not summon the Richman!

      1. Seconded.

        What death spiral commentary that man can generate from his articles….

      2. Ah, great. Now Swiss went full retard, too.

    2. Swiss – you are no different from Adam Lanza!11!1

  17. Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech

    Whereas Social Ecology Representative Matthew Guevara, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as mentally challenged

  18. What the gibbering shit does this even mean:

    “Whereas the planning process must be inclusive in such that designers are advised to forget about the ‘average’ user or themselves and instead begin the open space designing process with ‘deep knowledge’ of the preferences of the actual communities who are likely to use those spaces”

    If in such as English language ought be made proper use of, this resolution eerily deficient in sense genuinely is.

    It’s like Yoda transcribed his thoughts into English using Google translate.

    1. “I will govern according to the common weal, but not according to the common will.”

    2. I think it means you have to put squat toilets in the non-gendered terlets.

      1. Everyone must be a sitzpinkler.

        1. Can you imagine the feminist freak out if men started a campaign to dictate how women could urinate? Jezebel would lose what was left of its feeble mind.

    3. This is how smart people like Veblen and Heidegger and progressive UCI undergraduates talk.

      If you were smart, you’d also painfully claw your thoughts into a copious but uncertain and book-learned English.

      1. “This symbol — this flag, which outstrips all other symbols, ontically discloses itself, comporting and revealing itself toward Being.”

    4. Sounds like the Miss South Carolina candidate talking about Africa.

  19. Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech

    Such a standard is logically impossible to meet – there could be at least ONE oversensitive asshole that takes exception on anything.

    1. I think that’s the point.

      If I decide ahead of time that I’m going to be that asshole, guess who controls the speech?

      1. And they’re all being tought that speech is an expression of power, anyway. So oversensitivity is an expression of power itself because it can be wielded to end arguments. Thus you win.

  20. Social Ecology Representative

    *points*

    What is that?

    1. I’m guessing the Newspeak term for Social Justice Warrior?

    2. Just try and untie this knot of nonsense:

      Social Ecology is a critical social theory founded by Green author and activist Murray Bookchin. Conceptualized as a critique of current social, political, and anti-ecological trends, it espouses a reconstructive, ecological, communitarian, and ethical approach to society. This version advocates a reconstructive and transformative outlook on social and environmental issues, and promotes a directly democratic, confederal politics. As a body of ideas, social ecology envisions a moral economy that moves beyond scarcity and hierarchy, toward a world that reharmonizes human communities with the natural world, while celebrating diversity, creativity and freedom. Bookchin suggests that the roots of current ecological and social problems can be traced to hierarchical (or more specifically kyriarchical) modes of social organization. Social ecologists claim that the systemic issue of hierarchy cannot be resisted by individual actions alone such as ethical consumerism but must be addressed by more nuanced ethical thinking and collective activity grounded in radically democratic ideals. The complexity of relationships between people and nature is emphasized, along with the importance of establishing more mutualistic social structures that take account of this

      1. Bookchin is also one of those ultimate oxymorons, a “libertarian socialist.”

      2. It’s quite easy to understand. It means “lead your ideological enemies (that is, anyone who wears glasses or speaks French) into the killing fields and hack them to death with farming implements”.

      3. So… a watermelon?

      4. Social Ecology is a critical social theory founded by Green author and activist

        Aaand . . . . I’m out.

      5. …while celebrating diversity, creativity and freedom.

        This bit of course is in direct opposition to the rest of his spew.

      6. Social Ecology for some, tiny American flags for others!

      7. Translation….

        “….it espouses a reconstructive, ecological, communitarian, and ethical approach to society.”
        Translation – the wealthy owe us.

        “…advocates a reconstructive and transformative outlook on social and environmental issues, and promotes a directly democratic, confederal politics.”
        Translation – we’re going to take away your political, social, and economic power.

        “As a body of ideas, social ecology envisions a moral economy that moves beyond scarcity and hierarchy … while celebrating diversity, creativity and freedom.”
        Translation – you will bow to the gods of green energy, proportional representation, Andres Serrano, and political correctness.

        “…the roots of current ecological and social problems can be traced to hierarchical (or more specifically kyriarchical) modes of social organization.”
        Translation – we have an Oedipus complex and domination-submission issues.

        “…the systemic issue of hierarchy cannot be resisted by individual actions alone such as ethical consumerism but must be addressed by more nuanced ethical thinking and collective activity grounded in radically democratic ideals.”
        Translation – higher taxes on everything and everyone we don’t like.

        “The complexity of relationships between people and nature is emphasized, along with the importance of establishing more mutualistic social structures…”
        Translation – “mutualistic” as long as you submit and we get our way. Or else.

        See, that wasn’t so hard to understand, was it?

        1. Expecting others to abide by your patriarchical and atransgressive interpretation mandates a trigger warning, at the very least.

  21. Even if it were hate speech, so what? I truly see no problem with “hate speech” whatsoever.

    1. Hate speech is always running out of the room, screaming and slamming doors.

      1. So, Hate Speech is my buddy’s ex-wife?

  22. inclusiveness of course excludes opposing views

  23. I’m more than happy to see people put their money where their mouths are (or in this case, half-baked rationales in lieu of money) if they truly view the flag as some martial marker of our imperial ambitions.

    It makes spotting the assholes that much easier for the rest of us, and at least they’re upfront about their bigotries.

  24. So what do they think about Mexican flags being put up in American schools?

    1. That’s good, because “diversity”.

  25. “Matthew Guevara”

    Must be a relative. Or a fake name.

  26. I interpret ban on the American flag as anti-American hate speech. Such speech is triggering for me. Why does the campus government have no concern for the triggers of conservative students who may be offended, or upset, or made to feel unsafe because of the fact that they cannot express their patriotic feelings?

    1. Why does the campus government have no concern for the triggers of conservative students

      The untermensch will learn top love Big Brother, or contribute to the advance of the vanguard of the proletariat by watering the fields of equality with their blood, in the traditional fashion.

  27. “not because they dislike the U.S. or its people”

    You mean, “not because they dislike the U.S. or *their* people.”

    See the 13th Amendment:

    “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to *their* jurisdiction.” [emphasis added]

    See – “United States” is plural, even to ultra-unionist abolitionists in their moment of triumph in the Civil War!

  28. These idiots are religious zealots working to root out idolatry. In this small way, they are like ISIS in its campaign to destroy historical artifacts that they, in their extreme ignorance, perceive as a threat to their own religious symbols.

    The SJWs are out to destroy the idols symbols or Judeo-christian/Western/American culture and replace them with their own religious symbols and idols.

  29. “Whereas flags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy. …”

    Flags can’t ‘sets’ homogenized standards because flags is plural so they have to SET homogenized standards.

    English, motherfuckers, do you speak it?

    1. English, motherfuckers, do you speak it?

      No, because speaking clearly and without phony jargon would reveal them to be the idiots they are.

  30. “flags construct paradigms of conformity”

    Clearly the writer does not possess a proper ‘freak flag’.

    Also, I think he’d be singing a different tune at the next gay pride event. He’s just a cranky bitch.

  31. The American flag – in all its beauty – triggers the stupid in people. My wife – whose great-grandparents were American from Rhode Island – sometimes wears clothing with the American flag emblazoned on it. Well, one day in a restaurant a bus boy decided he was gonna lecture us about the evils of the American empire. My wife was stunned as she was disgusted and I made sure to let the waiter know about people needing to know their place. CLEAR MY TABLE and shut the fuck up.

    What can you do? People think they can hurl their self-righteous crap on others.

    1. Well, one day in a restaurant a bus boy decided he was gonna lecture us about the evils of the American empire.

      Was he a Francophone?

      1. “in a restaurant a bus boy decided he was gonna lecture us about the evils of the American empire.

        I would have loved that.

        I would also have dumped my plate on the floor at his feet while smiling, wide eyed, “OH DO GO ON, TELL ME MORE!?”

      2. Yes.

  32. The funny part to me is that these self-appointed protectors of teh illegal immigrants seem to think the flag is a trigger for oppression, without having stopped for five seconds to think that the illegals are here BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE; they are risking deportation, paying taxes for which they will never receive benefits, unable to call on the judicial system for protection from criminals, all because THEY WANT TO BE HERE.

    Fucking morons, the lot of ’em. Fucking statist collectivist morons who haven’t got the brains of an ant.

    1. Good point. I’m convinced that many of these protectors-of-the-downtrodden have a victim complexe themselves and merely project that onto others that they perceive as victims. Therefore, any and all of their complaints about triggers are really their own complaints about their own fears and senses of inadequacy. They are weasley nincompoops.

  33. I’m willing to bet that most UC-Irvine students voted for Obama in 2012. Their votes did more to advance the causes of perpetual warfare and covert imperialism than any flag ever did. So, they’re essentially projecting.

    On a side note, 2012 was an awful election year, especially if you were somebody with a username like mine.

  34. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ??????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  35. my friend’s sister-in-law makes $63 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for 6 months but last month her payment was $16955 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to the website…….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  36. Hopefully, some sanity prevails at UCI as this was vetoed by a higher authority.

    Since UCI is a hot-bed of anti-Semitism, this sounds like a false-flag operation by (say) the Muslim Student’s Association to ensure that the Israeli flag would not be displayed in any public place within the confines of the University.

  37. I hope they threw away their American currency what with its misogynist, racist and colonialist symbolism.

  38. I’m sorry – hate speech is made up bullshit – free speech, on the other hand, is a natural human right ensconced in the US Constitution.

    Fuck off.

  39. It appears as though UC Irvine has adopted the UC Berkeley policy of lobotomizing their student body…

  40. It’s just another side of the coin when people are allowed to say whatever they like. While it’s necessary to have a freedom of a speech, there has to be some boundaries. Young people, such as students, are passionate enough to misinterpret. Sometimes they don’t even want to see how wrong they are. I understand that whoever will try to limit students in their freedom will become an enemy, but it’s time students become more education and career oriented. This way they will have no time for hate. Even if you aren’t writing but trying to find an essay from online review companies, you are still spending time. All I am saying is that students should focus on something more important.

    1. It’s not so much an Article I issue – let them say what they want and be shown for the fools they are. But it does not extend into demanding that the flag be taken down.

  41. Free speech means hate speech is protected. But this isn’t such a problem: those who engage in hate speech show who they are, and people then are free to ignore and shame them as well. It’s certainly a better option than bringing violence to the situation via government force. This depends on who the government chooses to side with, as there was a time when government would side with the KKK over blacks. And recently the government sided with blacks over voters (remember the Black Panthers at the Philly voting station?). And then there was a time when government sided with victims of sexual harassment, until it sided with Bill Clinton.

  42. Going by what the article says, this isn’t a ban on anything. Rather, a student group voted not to have flags in _its own office_. Why get worked up about that?

  43. Going by what the article says, this isn’t a ban on anything. Rather, a student group voted not to have flags in _its own office_. Why get worked up about that?

  44. What’s the big deal? There’s plenty in the resolution itself a libertarian can agree with, but you focus on what others on the hard left and right are saying about it. Why should Federal flags fly anywhere but in Fedgov offices and the property of self-styled “patriots”? Stuff like this is why I tell people Reason is a libertarian-slash-conservative publication, “don’t judge the larger movement by this.”

    1. The American flag was adopted in 1777, 11 years before the Federal Government that we know existed. This isn’t like the PRC flag, the Soviet Flag, the House of Bourbon Flag etc which are flags of parties, ideologies, or ruling houses. It’s the flag of a nation, it’s culture and people.We could change our government to a constitution monarchy or a confederation tomorrow and the flag would still be the stars and stripes. People generally get pissed when you shit on symbols of their nation.

  45. Why are we still accepting anarchists and haters into our universities? Those “students” need to be expelled and invited to seek out a college more in tune with their misguided beliefs. The University of Cuba; the University of Ankara, Moscow University; The University of North Korea (if there is one).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.