Campus Free Speech

Wesleyan Students Will 'Reduce Paper Waste' By Cutting Funding to Newspaper That Printed Conservative Op-Ed

The cost of crossing #BlackLivesMatter



On college campuses, cracking down on dissident viewpoints isn't censorship; it's just "reducing paper waste."

In a move that certainly looks like a revenge of sorts for The Argus publishing a conservative take on #BlackLivesMatter, Wesleyan University's student government voted to consider cutting the student newspaper's funding.

The Argus, Wesleyan's main student publication, currently publishes twice a week. Recently, an op-ed by a conservative white veteran that mildly criticized some tactics of the BLM movement provoked a backlash from the campus's far-left activists, who in turn pressured the student government to cut funding to the paper. The activists also vowed to destroy any physical copies of the paper they could get their hands on.

These activities were an explicit threat to The Argus: run different material—material that doesn't offend the sensibilities of liberals—or else.

Now, it appears the student government is taking action. On Sunday, the Wesleyan Student Assembly affirmed a resolution to restructure how The Argus is funded. The resolution is complicated, but it would substantially decrease The Argus's printing budget; money saved this way would be put toward stipends for writers at various campus publications that don't publish as frequently as The Argus. The WSA claims the purpose of the resolution is to "reduce paper waste," by printing The Argus less frequently.

The exact details haven't been hammered out yet, but Argus editors expect their funding to be cut by $15,000.

On Twitter, the WSA denied that it had voted to defund The Argus, but did not answer questions about whether the resolution would eventually cut funding to The Argus. Questions about the political nature of the resolution were also left unanswered.

The Argus, which worries it will lose its editorial independence, has published a request for donations.

A campus that allows its student government to bully a newspaper for occasionally publishing an unpopular opinion is not a healthy place for free expression.

NEXT: Poll Finds Ohio Voters Both Favor and Oppose Marijuana Legalization

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Remember when the left was pro-speech? Neither do I, but I heard it said many times.

    1. You know who else was pro-speech ….

      1. Dale Carnegie?

      2. Nell Kellty?

      3. Antimatter Helen Keller?

      4. Edward Everett?

    2. In Berkeley, purported home of the “Free Speech Movement” from the 60’s, there’s a pedestrian bridge over a freeway that has statues of apparent protesters holding signs at each end. The signs, though, are just frames, with empty space where a placard with writing on it would typically go. To me that always meant they could be saying anything, but perhaps it means you aren’t allowed to say anything except the approved Leftist messages.

      1. Perhaps it means you can literally say nothing.

      2. The best pic I could find quickly. To me it’s an unintentional jibe at the uselessness of such protests.

      3. Since the frames are metal, it could be an opportunity for a left-coast libertarian to weld a “free minds, free markets” message in place, causing panic and fear throughout the Berkeley community.

        1. I’d really stick it to them by using it for advertising.

      4. I always thought they were catching butterflies.

    3. Free speech was always “The right to say whatever I want.” The idea they they would become The Man that they were struggling against never occurred to them.

      “Never trust anyone over 30.”

    4. Free speech doesn’t apply to the interior of most bourgeois institutions, whether they’re ordinary corporations or educational, religious, or other kinds of institutions. The state creates a kind of private property for them. The strategy of many such institutions is often to buy off internal dissidents and trouble-makers with empty favors, as in the present case.

  2. “A campus that allows its student government to bully a newspaper for occaisonally publishing an unpopular opinions a is not a healthy place for free expression.”

    If Fist won’t do it, then I will. What’s ‘occaisonnally’ mean?

    Aaaannnnn to the point.

    They’re just a bunch of weak minded, intolerant, anti-intellectual morons. That’s all they are.

    Cards on the table.

    1. While you’re at it, how about “an unpopular opinions”?

      1. “will lose its editorial independent”

  3. “Wes Student Assembly ?@WSAnews Oct 4

    The first Social Justice Education training, hosted by SALD, is tomorrow at 4:30PM in 41 Wyllys, Rm 112.”

    Social Justice. Opposing views must be squashed at all cost because. Thanks for coming!

  4. That resolution seems very clever, in that it attempts to conceal its actual purpose, and gives the student government types plausible deniability – “censorship? Who said anything about censorship, this is about environmentalism and efficiency!”

    These student government figures have a future in politics.

    1. Or auctioneering.

    2. It’s and they’re not that clever.

    3. To be fair, that page is taken from a GOP playbook – “Defunding Planned Parenthood…us? Its about cutting government spending, not anything to do with our anti-abortion agenda.”

      1. the GOP has been very open about why they want to shut down PP and it is about abortion

  5. “If you don’t close your eyes Argus, we’ll close ’em for you.”

  6. “Argus, fuck yourself.”

  7. Endlessly amazing to me how blind and unaware lefties are.

    Any attempt to silence your opposition is an admittance that you don’t have a defensible position.

    1. Any attempt to silence your opposition is an admittance that you don’t have a defensible position.

      Look. Good, tolerant people do not tolerate or dignify intolerance. Obviously that piece that the newspaper printed was intolerant in nature, so it must be silenced. Anything else constitutes tolerating and dignifying it. All intolerance must be squashed for tolerance to reign supreme.

      1. Do you write for #BLM? Because you should.

    2. And it is ALWAYS on the left (cue Botard or some other troll who wants to tell us about the right trying to ban flag-burning in the 90…)

      The left NEVER tries to argue on the merits or in good faith. It just tries to shut people up.

      I do think that means that they don’t really have any good points to make…

      1. Talk of things like merit are just a smoke screen to cover up what really matters, which is intentions. Judging ideas on their merits ignores the person who came up with the idea. How can you judge an idea without knowing the politics of the person who came up with it? That’s what really matters. If they have the wrong politics, then the idea is born of bad intentions, and that makes it intolerant. Once it is deemed intolerant, then it is no longer worthy of consideration.

        1. This seems like a good argument to get as many libertarians with a R or D next to their names into politics.

  8. In this, the student government is only acting like the real government. If somebody engages in conduct that the government disapproves of, but is not illegal, they just get creative and find one of the 300,000 criminal offenses on the books that they are violating. And I’ll bet Wesleyan’s student body approves.

  9. Can we save the planet by burning heretics?

  10. Isn’t Wesleyan a cunt college? It explains a lot.

  11. The activists also vowed to destroy any physical copies of the paper they could get their hands on.

    Remember, we’re the fascists.

  12. Universities: An archipelago of authoritarianism in a sea of personal liberty

    1. Brother, if you think this is a “sea of personal liberty” then you gotta wake up. It is less like an archipelago and more like a cancer, slowly-but-relentlessly infecting the rest of the nation with authoritarianism and statism.

  13. Seriously. I’d shut down the paper entirely and do what I could to make sure that the university didn’t have an official school paper for a long while.

    1. I’d shut down the paper entirely and do what I could to make sure that the university didn’t have an official school paper for a long while.

      Why not use this to run for office? The left wing can take these actions because roughly 99% of students are apathetic and thus the hard left controls campus politics and activism.

      But this is the kind of thing the regular students don’t like. Why not get everyone currently in student government kicked out? Since they’re looking to work for campus institutions or other government after graduation this hurts their future. It’s a chance to teach a lesson.

  14. Wesleyan Students Will ‘Reduce Paper Electricity and Water Waste’ By Cutting Funding Utilities to Newspaper That Printed Conservative Op-Ed

    Why not?

    Or, heck, this one:

    Wesleyan Students Will ‘Reduce Paper Wasted Space‘ By Cutting Funding Terminating Lease to Newspaper That Printed Conservative Op-Ed

  15. The big question is why mandatory student fees are funding college newspapers. They are tax funded newspapers, in other words. Student governments are using taxes to promote one set of ideas and withholding funds to punish another set. I say make the newspapers private, and have funded through subscriptions, donations, endowments, advertising, etc.

    1. It is the liberal arts geek’s athletic’s program.

    2. I say make the newspapers private, and have funded through subscriptions, donations, endowments, advertising, etc.

      Now you’re just being ridiculous.

    3. That’s waaaay too capitalistic for those youngsters!

  16. Looky there! Conservative mystical bigots reduced to panhandling just like their fellow looters who scribble the Wikipedia. The Dems have finally given their ku-kluxers back to the Prohibition party and are now seen by black voters as an asset. The GOP did sth similar by nominating Goldwater, thereby convincing Ayn Rand that God’s Own Party was no longer in ideological cahoots with Germany’s Positive Christianity movement. So, instead of cleaning up their act and freeing blacks jailed for victimless pursuit of happiness, the Good Old Populists come crying to Reason subscribers for sympathy? Sympathy and handouts? Let ’em eat Shadenfreunde!

    1. I’d wager we’re going to hear something about gamboling soon.

      1. And capering. Don’t forget capering.

  17. I donated $50 to them – you can, too:

  18. I sincerely hope they don’t provide any of their leftist propaganda–er, textbooks–in paper form. They better not be tolerating any paper products on displays in the hallways or doors. They’ve started a war they cannot win.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.