American University Dean, Law Profs Claim 'All Lives Matter' Flyer Violates Safe Space

Political speech, or harassment? The line isn't this blurry.

|

American University
Public Domain

The campus speech wars appear to be entering a new phase—in which straightforward and wholly appropriate political statements that impugn liberalism are derided as harassment and violence. This has been the case with the "Trump 2016" chalkings at Emory University and the University of Michigan, and it is now the case with an "All Lives Matter" flyer left on a faculty member's door at American University. 

This trend will be a disaster for political expression at university campuses unless strongly confronted and denounced by administrators and professors. Unfortunately, AU's Washington College of Law has taken the side of the perpetually offended. 

Recently, an AU law professor who is active on racial justice issues returned to their office to discover that someone had posted a handwritten note "All Lives Matter" on their door, according to The Washington Post. "All Lives Matter," of course, is a phrase often deployed by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to combat racism in society. 

The proper response was probably to tear down the flyer and move on with life. Instead, both the dean, and the faculty at large, felt the need to weigh in on the matter. They alleged that the "All Lives Matter" flyer was a very serious and disturbing incident—tantamount to racial harassment and intimidation—that negated AU's safe space. 

According to Claudio Grossman, dean of the law school: 

The circumstances and manner of placing this flier on a community member's door do not involve the kind of civil and thoughtful discourse that we encourage and aspire to in our community, and indeed may serve to intimidate others and discourage their full participation in the marketplace of ideas. 

No member of this community is permitted to engage in harassing, intimidating or threatening behavior towards any other community member. The person who posted this flier did so anonymously and surreptitiously, at a time and in a manner that, regardless of his or her actual intent, had the effect of harassing and intimidating that faculty member as well as others – students, faculty, and staff alike – who seek and deserve to study and work in a safe and non-threatening environment. 

I strongly encourage continued discussion and debate about race and our justice system and about any and all issues of concern to our diverse community. But this discussion and debate must happen in settings and forms that serve to promote discussion, not stifle it, and that make all members of our community feel empowered, safe and free to express their views. 

The law faculty's statement was even more over-the-top: 

The "All Lives Matter" sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of white supremacy and overt racism, as well as those who do not believe the laws should equally protect those who have a different skin color or religion. Importantly, the phrase "All Lives Matter" has been used in direct response to "Black Lives Matter," a human rights movement that has become synonymous with protests over police killings of unarmed black men and boys.  The phrase seeks to convey the fact that black people are not expendable, even though the use of lethal force by some in law enforcement suggest that black lives do not matter as much as the lives of other people they encounter.  In a perfect world, no one would have to be reminded that black lives matter because all lives would be treated with the same respect and dignity. 

Leaving an anonymous sign on a professor's door is not an acceptable way to have a discussion about controversial issues.  Talking about controversial and divisive issues can be very difficult, but we must have these conversations in a respectful way.  Also, we must be open to being educated about diverse perspectives. Conversations on race, gender, sexual identity, and nationality will occur in a wide range of classes.  Our faculty must continue to facilitate discussions on these topics, and we remain committed to healthy dialogue and debate. We recognize that there is room for respectfully disagreeing with others' perspectives.  Approaching someone and definitively stating your view as if there is only one possible perspective on the issue is not conducive to a constructive dialogue.  There is value in simply asking someone, "If you feel comfortable, I would like to talk to you sometime about X.  I have been reading a lot about the topic, and I am interested in hearing your perspective."  Few would take offense at your non-confrontational invitation to have the conversation.  The diverse law school environment is a place to perfect the level of civility that should permeate our personal and professional lives.  We hope that everyone at WCL will communicate with each other in a way that embodies our core values of diversity, inclusion and tolerance. 

I agree with the dean and the faculty that leaving a note on a professor's door is not the best and most persuasive way to convince anyone to change their views. And professors certainly have every right to challenge their students and urge them to direct their advocacy into more productive channels. 

 But one can disagree with the flyer's message, and the tactical thinking behind it, without getting too paranoid about whether it constitutes a safety threat. Political speech with which one disagrees is not, by itself, harassment—particularly when said speech constitutes as mild a statement as "All Lives Matter." (As U.S. Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow and Gail Heriot noted in a letter to the dean, the phrase "All Lives Matter" has even been uttered by President Barack Obama.) 

When the dean of a law school, and many of its faculty, come out so strongly against political expression, they make it seem like such instances of expression are prohibited on campus. I would expect law experts to better understand the difference between actual harassment and protected speech. If they really believe "discussion about controversial issues" is an important facet of campus life, they should not suggest that anonymous flyering transforms AU into an unsafe space. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Trump: I'll Force Mexico To Pay for Wall by Threatening To Cut Off Remittances

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.

  1. the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to combat racism in society

    I’m yet to see any evidence of that.

    1. By “combat racism” they mean “make sure white people are constantly reminded that they’re the cause of all suffering in the world and are afraid to speak up and defend themselves for fear of being called racists.”

      1. Racism and the value of lives are hardly relevant factors; the crucial, and decisive, point is that “leaving an anonymous sign on a professor’s door is not an acceptable way to have a discussion about controversial issues.” Indeed, we should all be working together to suppress the scourge of unhealthy anonymity, especially on our college campuses. It starts with an offensive sign posted right on a professor’s door; then they send out pseudonymous emails; and before you know it even tweets are going around in the “name” of university presidents and distinguished department chairmen. Nor is “parody” an excuse; see the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

        http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        1. “Offensive” sign?

          If you’re offended by the idea that All Lives Matter, people are probably remaining anonymous to avoid having to deal with your concurrent spinelessness and belligerence.

          1. Good Chipper, thank you for joining my anti-Troll campaign. The sign discussed here was, of course, offensive for two reasons: (1) it was anonymous; and (2) it insidiously suggested that some lives do not matter more than others, whereas everyone knows that in our great and mighty nation, the lives of well-connected and respected members of the academic community (as well as cultural institutions like Carnegie Hall, to say nothing of political ones like the New York State Senate) matter far more than the lives of thugs selling drugs, recalcitrant Internet Trolls, and beggars living on the street.

    2. the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to combat racism white people in society

      More accurate.

    3. the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to combat racism white people in society

      More accurate.

        1. The squirrels are promoting my comments.

          Haters gonna drink that Hate-orade.

      1. I liked the first one better.

    4. Cut the youthful Robby some virtue-signalling slack. Has he yet let slip in http Jackie Coakley’s last name?

    5. Yeah, I was going to say “assertion without evidence”, but you beat me to it.

    6. Again, the smuggling in of unexamined assumptions from the proggy left leads Robby astray.

      Just a simple “which claims to combat racism” would have been better.

      And, no, Robbie is still pretending that Jackie Coakley is a victim whose anonymity should be protected, even though she’s been thoroughly outed already, right down to her wedding pictures. Its almost a lab example of signalling.

      1. I still can’t believe some poor bastard married that psychopath. May the deity of your choice have mercy on his soul.

      2. Nobody knows who Jackie Coakley is. Everybody knows Jackie as as that crazy chick from that RS story. If you have to go around saying Jackie (Coakley) it kills the narrative flow.

    7. “All Lives Matter,” of course, is a phrase often deployed by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to combat foment racism in society.

      FTFY

      1. “which seeks to inject race into a much needed discussion on police and justice system reforms, derailing any potential for progress and ensuring the maintenance of the status quo while lining the pockets of a few professional agitators and politicians.”

        Fixed it even more for you.

  2. Oh, FFS! Just declare the entire fucking country a “Safe Space” and be done with it! 8-(

    1. Don’t give these fuckheads ideas.

      1. I read that Gulag prisoners sometimes referred to the Soviet Union at large as “the big zone,” because there was no freedom anywhere; the whole country was just one giant prison camp.

        Maybe we are headed for an equally grim future as “the big safe space.”

        1. I maintain some hope that the vast majority still thinks it’s all a load of shit. You want a safe space? Go to a space that you actually control.

          1. I’m pretty sure you’re right. I am guessing that at least 80% of the population has never heard of a “safe space.” And of that 80%, I further would guess that most would roll their eyes at the very idea of it. Because they live in the real world, where they sometimes encourage unpleasant things or words and have to deal with them.

  3. Really, it’s no different than cross burning.

    Or Adam Lanza.

    1. I agree it is equivalent to cross-burning which is in turn equivalent to lynching.

      Adam Lanza is a bit different, more equivalent to openly talking about the guns you legally own or hunting you do, or perhaps metaphorically using words like “target”.

      I’m betting it’s a hoax though. Nice safe way to create opportunity for outrage and attention while being safe from charges if busted.

  4. The “All Lives Matter” sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of white supremacy and overt racism, as well as those who do not believe the laws should equally protect those who have a different skin color or religion…..

    ….In a perfect world, no one would have to be reminded that black lives matter because all lives would be treated with the same respect and dignity.

    These are law professors?

    1. because all lives would be treated with the same respect and dignity.

      Hmm, that’s what I thought All Lives Matter actually meant.

      1. I had no idea you were a white supremacist, RBS.

      2. Some lives are more equal than others.

    2. No. They are Grievance Industry Activists.

      1. There must be a lot of money in grievance mongering.

    3. The “All Lives Matter” sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of white supremacy and overt racism, as well as those who do not believe the laws should equally protect those who have a different skin color or religion

      Citation/evidence needed?

      1. It just means “There are some unsavory people on the other side!” Of course, the left thinks it’s of no importance that their “side” includes Communists, violent felons, and so on.

    4. it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of white supremacy and overt racism

      It has?

      You are aware, of course, that many libertarian ideas are also rallying cries for racists, etc.

      And, yeah, when you say Black Lives Matter and denounce those who say All Lives Matter, you are, whether you like it or not, saying black lives matter more.

      1. Black people in America have a harder row to hoe… er, road to walk than do white people. It’s not that black lives matter more than white lives, but that black lives have more mattering to do before they’re equivalent to white lives in terms of social value. How one goes about mattering as a transitive verb is a very important question. One way is raise the social esteem of the group that needs to matter more to reach parity. Another way is to tear down the group that matters more so that both groups matter just the same. So when white people foolishly say “all lives matter,” they’re failing to acknowledge that some lives need more matter accumulation than others. It’s that simple.

        1. What about American Indians?

          Or Hispanic?

          1. It’s not my job to educate you, shitlord.

            *scurries away*

        2. I deem the phrase “row to hoe” to be disrespectful and suggestive of white superiority in a slave culture. You Mr. Spittoon have committed a macro aggression, and now it’s time for your mandatory re-education I mean sensitivity training.

          1. White words matter.

          2. You forgot to add, “and may G_d have mercy on your soul.”

        3. Bullshit.

      2. Yes like saying you want to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Obviously racist.

    5. but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of white supremacy and overt racism

      I find that hard to believe. Does he have anything to back that up?

      as well as those who do not believe the laws should equally protect those who have a different skin color or religion…..

      I think maybe I see where he is going with this now. Still full of shit.

  5. But this discussion and debate must happen in settings and forms that serve to promote discussion, not stifle it

    Written in a setting … a memo … explicitly stating they intend to stifle this particular form of discussion.

    1. when speech is stifled then you are left with political tagging.

      1. *draws the Summoning Dark*

        1. Hey the summoning dark is at useful sometimes in Koom Valley.

        2. Hmm.

          [Makes note to name the porter from the Dean Brewery “Summoning Dark”]

          1. Meh, the Discworld books kind of went downhill after the summoning darkness became a thing.

              1. Sorry, Vimes got into Marty Stu territory after that, although Night Watch was a good book.

    2. I thought including the phrase “marketplace of ideas” was superb.

  6. Another cross burning

    1. Cross burning? Hell, this is another lynching!

      1. Another Holocaust, multiplied by the Trail of Tears squared!

  7. I’d just like to point out that leftists don’t seem to think Black Lives Matter when out-of-town rioters descend on a majority black town and burn down stores, thus destroying the livelihoods of innocent black people and annihilating their home values.

    How many people in Ferguson are going to see their lives shortened by higher poverty rates that were caused by violent left-wing agitators?

    But that’s none of my business.

    1. I’ve actually been told by a prog that burning down businesses is the only way to get attention to the injustices of the yada yada, and that I’m basically racist for not realizing this.

      1. I post the article constantly to show what moral degenerates these people are, but Matt Bruenig (from his lily-white enclave where he and his wife lie ensconced in their parents’ old money) published an article claiming that rioting is a good thing. His arguments are pure insanity, such as the idea that cops will be less likely to shoot black people if there is rioting because of the costs.

        Of course, that’s completely insane since *cops don’t bear the costs of the rioting, the people in the city do.* How burning down a black person’s house is supposed to stop a cop from shooting some random black person was never quite explained.

        1. Do they actually have old money or just ugly frames on their mirrors?

          1. Evil, elitist, anti-Trump monster Kevin D. Williamson pointed out that she attended Brandeis and Cambridge University after first going to a swanky private school. She also had a nice stop-off in Brown and likes to brag about how educated her parents are. “Highly educated” is in fact her favorite two word phrase, especially when applied to herself, her friends, and her parents.

            1. Okay, but that doesn’t mean the money is old. I was just curious.

              1. Othering money for its longevity is ageism, and Irish should be ashamed.

            2. “Highly educated” is in fact her favorite two word phrase, especially when applied to herself

              Ever notice how many people who describe themselves as “highly educated” are often the most devoid of common sense, but they make up for it by being egotistical douchenozzles? I have to wonder if maybe deep down they realize they’re useless pieces of shit and so over compensate by developing an inflated sense of superiority.

              1. Come to think of it, no plumber has every argued that he is highly educated. He just has the power to make the shit go away.

                1. Yeah my carpenter may not be “highly educated” but I wouldn’t trust anyone else for installing a new front door on my house.

                2. I know a Harvard educated plumber. Though his specialty was really being a drunken hippy weirdo. He was pretty good at welding too.

              2. What does highly educated even mean? Does only book learning count or does knowing electrical, plumbing, lock smithing, masonry, and how to play the mandolin make you highly educated? I hate elitism.

                1. It means you spent a shitload of money studying things that you have no practical application for.

                  1. It’s the new priesthood.

                    They pretend that their highly expensive education has given then special access to hard to get information which gives them a unique insight on how the world should work.

                    And you shouldn’t ask them to explain it, or demonstrate it. Just accept it. Or, you’re an evil heathen. Or a dolt that doesn’t respect high learning.

                    Never mind that practically all information and all perspectives are immediately available.

                2. What does highly educated even mean?

                  It means you went to school for a long time. In the trades you list, I’m a lot more interested in “highly experienced” than “highly educated”.

                  1. Highly Educated: Knowing the names of obscure authors and being able to use intentionally sesquipedalian terminology during pedantic discussions designed to demonstrate your intellectual superiority.

              3. If you have to point out that you are highly educated, your education probably isn’t very useful.

      2. They need their “room to destroy.”

  8. OK, if they’d confined themselves to “professors get to decide what goes on their office doors,” that would be fine.

    But they had to weigh in with this retardation:

    “The “All Lives Matter” sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of white supremacy and overt racism, as well as those who do not believe the laws should equally protect those who have a different skin color or religion.”

    Maybe they can find some actual racists who use the term in this way, but then, I could always cite the initiation oath of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s to support the “eternal separation of Church and State.” And these profs would sputter indignantly that they shouldn’t be tarred with guilt by association for defending church/state separation. And they’d be right, but they’d be acnowledging that their “racists say ‘all lives matter'” rhetoric is full of shit.

    “Importantly, the phrase “All Lives Matter” has been used in direct response to “Black Lives Matter,” a human rights movement” [derp derp]

    Yes, only racists criticize the Black Lives Matter movement.

    1. “Approaching someone and definitively stating your view as if there is only one possible perspective on the issue is not conducive to a constructive dialogue. There is value in simply asking someone, “If you feel comfortable, I would like to talk to you sometime about X. I have been reading a lot about the topic, and I am interested in hearing your perspective.” Few would take offense at your non-confrontational invitation to have the conversation.”

      Yeah, they’re totally open to listening to people they’ve defined in advance as racists who oppose human rights. They’ll be sure to give a respectful hearing.

      And I notice that these idiots never follow their own advice. “if you feel comfortable I would like to talk to you sometime about your RACIST RHETORIC.”

      1. “Approaching someone and definitively stating your view is how one goes about initiating constructive dialogue.”

    2. I could always cite the initiation oath of the Ku Klux Klan

      Yeah, I bet you could. RACIST!!!!!1!!!111!!!!! /sarc

    3. I could always cite the initiation oath of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s to support the “eternal separation of Church and State.”

      One of the grievances in South Carolina’s (among other states) Declaration of Secession is that the Northern States were asserting States Rights’ and nullify Federal laws ? the most prominent Federal law being the Fugitive Slave Act.

  9. So how much would it cost to to drop off some some Depends on their doorstep, and hire a skywriter to write ‘Trump 2016’? I don’t like Trump, but I do enjoy maximum pantshitting.

  10. I mean, I wouldn’t want someone putting a “have a nice day” sign on my office door without my permission, unless it was my boss insisting on it.

    So if they’d emphasized, like good law professors, that this was a content-neutral regulation of the time, place and manner of putting up signs, that would be fine.

    But they had to dial it up to 11 and yammer about racism.

  11. “There is value in simply asking someone, “If you feel comfortable, I would like to talk to you sometime about X.”

    There is also value in screaming “Eat shit and die!” with your middle finger in someone’s face.

    I am not here for your benefit. Neither other people nor their rights exist to make you feel comfortable.

    If someone wants the government to violate people’s free speech rights, then I hope they feel extremely uncomfortable. If they want the government to violate other people’s rights to free speech, then I hope they feel so uncomfortable, they become riddled with anxiety, stay in bed all day, and cry themselves to sleep every night. I hope it adversely affects their relationships, their professional life, and their self-esteem.

    P.S. Fuck you!

  12. “All Lives Matter” is code for “Black Lives Don’t Matter.”

    Duh.

    1. Well, yeah. Just like “color-blind society” is code for “kill all the black people”.

      1. Is this what progs mean when they say the US should look more like Norway or Denmark?

  13. #BrownLivesWhatAreWeChoppedChorizo

    1. Mmmm. Tasty, tasty chorizo.

      1. I love it! There’s a Texican restaurant in town which serves something they call “Choripollo,” consisting of chicken, chorizo, lots of melted cheese, and fajita vegetables. The only thing that switched me off of that was when they started serving deep-fried avocados.

  14. “Conversations on race, gender, sexual identity, and nationality will occur in a wide range of classes. Our faculty must continue to facilitate discussions on these topics, and we remain committed to healthy dialogue and debate. We recognize that there is room for respectfully disagreeing with others’ perspectives. Approaching someone and definitively stating your view as if there is only one possible perspective on the issue is not conducive to a constructive dialogue.”

    Can someone point me to an example of a social justice warrior who 1) “recognizes that there is room for respectfully disagreeing with others’ perspectives” and 2) is interested in engaging in “healthy debate” or “constructive dialogue”?

    1. Social justice warriors have good intentions. So If you disagree then you have bad intentions. It is the only explanation. And there is no need to have any debate or dialog with some intolerant bigot who has bad intentions.

      1. THIS IS WHAT SJW’S ACTUALLY BELIEVE

      2. Excellent summation sarcasmic: of course we know where good intentions usually lead.

    2. A “healthy debate” or “constructive dialogue” = weakness

      1. They’re busy shutting down speakers that might trigger them!

        They equate “free speech” with racism!

        They’re not interested in debate or dialogue. They’re the ones making a virtue out of shutting debate and dialogue down.

        It’s important that they understand how much we hate them and their anti-free speech ideology.

        You don’t have a healthy debate with the Red Guards.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaz8sVaK8s4

        You denounce them. Publicly. You stand up, and you scream your intense hatred of the Red Guards.

        You don’t wait ’til they come for you. You scream “Fuck off and die!” at them while they’re still impressionable. It’s extremely important that they understand how hated they are. Half of the battle is getting them to understand that what they’re doing is neither virtuous nor appreciated.

  15. People who take offense at All Lives Matter are racist scum. No exception.

    1. Look at the guy who thinks Hitler’s life mattered. BOO!

  16. Leaving an anonymous sign on a professor’s door is not an acceptable way to have a discussion about controversial issues. Talking about controversial and divisive issues can be very difficult, but we must have these conversations in a respectful way. Also, we must be open to being educated about diverse perspectives.

    It’s not hard to imagine what would happen if a person were to actually approach the professor face-to-face and attempt to defend the idea that “All Lives Matter”. The student would be labeled a “racist” and would be frogmarched off the campus before the sun went down.

    “Respectful conversations” in SJW World consist of “sit down, shut up, and pay attention while I lecture you regarding your ‘racism’ and ‘privilege’.”

    1. Speaking of this, where is our POTUS on this? Maybe he’s keeping quiet since his life only half matters.

  17. Lucy endorses the power of the government to force you to bake…Nazi Wedding Cakes?

    Nazi Wedding Cakes are some sort of plank in GayJay’s libertarian presidential platform.

    1. Best Libertarian Ever. Did you hear, New Mexico had no budget problems after he left office. Solved.

    2. Always glad to see Lucy getting paid work. I always liked her writing – she has a playful tone.

    3. DON’T TALK ABOUT LUCY!

    4. the third-most-popular party in the United States

      That’s one way to put it!

    5. Lucy = Wendy??

  18. Leaving an anonymous sign on a professor’s door is not an acceptable way to have a discussion about controversial issues.

    i’d probably agree with that, if you change “acceptable” to “mature”. Its not that its something so horrible as to be considered “harassment”, but its not something you’d want to encourage and legitimize. Its a real world version of trolling = people willing to say shit to other people’s “faces” only when they themselves are anonymous

    its cowardly.

    That said…

    I agree with the dean and the faculty that leaving a note on a professor’s door is not the best and most persuasive way to convince anyone to change their views.

    That’s not actually what he said. He wasn’t evaluating how persuasive the method was, he said it was, “unacceptable” irrespective of its efficacy.

    1. The kicker here =

      the administration’s over-reaction is basically rewarding the trolls

      If they’d ignored the ‘all lives matter’ thing, it would have never accomplished anything

      instead, over-reacting to it and calling it ‘harassment’ is just proving the point of the people who think BLM is overblown

      i think you’ll see more and more of is this sort of stuff – people engaging in ‘politics’ anonymously, and other people freaking out about it. Because people don’t have the balls or the brains anymore to simply stand up and talk about their opinions in any direct, face-to-face, mature, rational way.

      1. The problem is that on colleges, at least, people can’t actually talk about politics in a sane manner. If the professors involved here just saw some ‘all lives matter’ sign on their doors and chucked the signs in the trash, like sane people, then nobody would care.

        Instead, they had to to make a federal case out of it, and so now we have to mock them.

      2. Because people don’t have the balls or the brains anymore to simply stand up and talk about their opinions in any direct, face-to-face, mature, rational way.

        I think people will be more willing to have direct conversation when they’re not under treat of expulsion or other career-destroying consequences for voicing an opinion outside the progressive zeitgeist.

    2. I will make wild assumptions without further research and assume that the professor publicly supported BLM and a student of his posted the All Lives Matter on his door. Considering the influence the prof. has on his grade and that his opinion would damage his ongoing relationship with the school, as evidence by the reaction of the dean and the faculty, I would say that this was the only reasonable way to express his disagreement.

      1. I would say that this was the only reasonable way to express his disagreement.

        I’d accept “a reasonable way”… but not “the only reasonable way”

        Again you’re making all sorts of assumptions = but even assuming those things, its far better to simply state your views openly in a public forum. If there is an over-reaction that damages you, draw attention to it for what it is. Out demagogues for what they are. But sniping at people from the shadows only encourages more of the same and is anathema to free discourse

        1. You ignore the very real power disparity that may be in play here. You’re insisting that the assumed student, who is paying tens of thousands of dollars to attend the school, to risk his relationship with the school by publicly expressing a political viewpoint that is in obvious disfavor with the dean and faculty. The student has done everyone a favor for exposing the school for what it is. It is up to others who have much less to lose to advance the argument.

  19. “the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to combat racism in society”

    Since when? I though the movement was a misguided attempt to combat widespread police brutality, which the movement perceives as strictly a problem for black people.

    Of course, the reality is that plenty of Latinos, whites, Asian toddlers, and canines of every breed are victimized as well. Out-of-control cops don’t see any need to LIMIT themselves to assaulting only African-Americans. That would limit their fun.

    Rather than being “white supremacist,” I thought the “All Lives Matter” slogan was intended as a broader indictment of a militarized, completely unaccountable police force. That lack of accountability is, of course, an issue that BLM is not allowed to even think about, because it conflicts with their support for public sector unions.

    So I guess I missed something, it appears.

    1. The sad truth is that if cops started killing more white people, the BLM activists would be satisfied. Because equality.

      1. You’re right that most are more concerned with “race” issues than police violence, “too many laws”, or excessive authority

        Some are = they had their “project zero” or whatever its called where they addressed some things that are more ‘structural’, but when given the chance to voice their cause, they quickly revert to identity politics. See = whatshisname calling Steven Colbert out on his own show. classy.

      2. That’s a requirement for real police reform. Apparently drug laws are being reformed because the heroin “epidemic” is just now hitting white neighborhoods.

      3. That’s how progthink works and the trouble with “equality” as an end. Police brutality can continue so long as it’s proportionally distributed among the races.

        Liberty and non-aggression demand that it stop, no matter who the target is.

    2. Rather than being “white supremacist,” I thought the “All Lives Matter” slogan was intended as a broader indictment of a militarized, completely unaccountable police force. That lack of accountability is, of course, an issue that BLM is not allowed to even think about, because it conflicts with their support for public sector unions.

      So I guess I missed something, it appears.

      That was the hope, especially by the na?ve libertarians among us who hoped that the recent attention to police brutality and militarization would lead to substantive bipartisan reforms, rather than immediately divide along TEAM RED/TEAM BLUE lines in a manner that completely misses the point on both sides.

    3. Rather than being “white supremacist,” I thought the “All Lives Matter” slogan was intended as a broader indictment of a militarized, completely unaccountable police force.

      That must be why “All Lives Matter” is a popular phrase among LEOs.

      1. I’m pretty sure “all” includes both cops and black people.

        I miss the days when it was okay to be against murder by cops and of cops.

        1. And we all know indicting a militarized, completely unaccountable police force is something cops do frequently.

          1. Because we know “cops” aren’t prosecutors or DAs.

            Nikki is not the worst,,, she’s just another ignorant cunt,

      2. I believe you’re thinking of “Blue Lives Matter

        unless your intent is to pretend everything “not-BLM” is a tool belonging to the racist police-state, merely borrowed by regular people.

        1. I’m not. Cops like both statements.

          1. Then the is idea that expressing anything other than obeisance to BLM is de-facto “siding with cops”?

      3. Maybe (I know this is hard for some people to believe) different people sometimes mean different things when they use the same phrase.

      4. You must have missed #bluelivesmatter.

    4. Of course, the reality is that plenty of Latinos, whites, Asian toddlers, and canines of every breed are victimized as well.

      #DogLivesMatter

  20. “All Lives Matter,” of course, is a phrase often deployed by critics of the Black Lives Matter movement, which seeks to combat racism in society.

    The phrase is deployed, of course, because the implication of the phrase “Black Lives Matter” is that it is not combating racism, but promoting black identity group interests, possibly even to the extent of promoting racism against non-blacks.

    The only problem with the phrase “All Lives Matter” is that it is generally a retort, not a sincere belief.

    1. The only problem with the phrase “All Lives Matter” is that it is generally a retort, not a sincere belief.

      Yes. It would perhaps have more impact if we could believe anyone actually thought that.

    2. The only problem with the phrase “All Lives Matter” is that it is generally a retort, not a sincere belief.

      The Black Lives Matter postulate is a claim that police brutality and injustice is a white people problem, instead of a legal and judicial problem. Saying “All Lives Matter” is indeed a retort, one that whether stated sincerely or not, has more validity and no implication that other lives don’t matter.

      1. There is no literal problem with the statement “Black Lives Matter”, in and of itself. If “All Lives Matter” is true, then simple logic dictates that the statement “Black Lives Matter” is also true.

        It’s the words that people see as implied that cause the problems. If you think the missing but implied word is “Only”, it’s a statement of hate. If you think the missing but implied word is “Too”, it’s a cry for justice.

        1. “a cry for justice TOO”

          Ask any BLM protester who Kelly Thomas is…

          1. If they don’t know… is it racism, hatred, justice, or ignorance?

  21. i’d be really angry if i were an alum of AU law. but i’m not. so this shit is fucking hilarious. that is some of the most pathetic spineless whining i’ve seen yet. it is delicious and i crave more.

    here’s more.

    a JMU alumnus died. his frat painted the school’s “spirit rock” in his honor. hours later it was repainted with Trump 2016. fucking classic.

    “I’m appalled to read that this happened at my alma mater. How is the administration planning to address this?” Kymani Pearson-Brown? asked on Facebook.

    if i were the administration, i’d remove the rock and say, “no more spray painting school property.” that would be speech neutral.

    1. Kymani Pearson-Brown?

      I believe that I have spotted the problem.

    2. if i were the administration, i’d remove the rock and say, “no more spray painting school property.” that would be speech neutral.

      This. “Since you pig-fuckers are too childish to have ‘nice things’, then we won’t have them at all. Now STFU and go to class. That’s what you’re ostensibly here for. Retards…”

    3. “Personally, I was sad ?even more sad than I have been? simply because there are those that act without thought,” Omega Psi Phi Beta Delta Delta Chapter President Gabriel Driver. Driver told WHSV. He said he believes this was an act of ignorance, not racism because nobody knows what the motivation was behind the repainting.

      Seems like an entirely measured reaction. Unfortunately, the other idiots from my alma mater went par for the derptard course.

  22. “The ‘$15/hour Now!’ sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of Communist ideology and overt totalitarianism.”

    “The ‘End Police Brutality’ sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse a pro-criminal ideology and overt murder of police.”

    See how easy that is?

    1. Where can I sign up for your newsletter?

    2. “The ‘$15/hour Now!’ sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of Communist authoritarian ideology and overt totalitarianism.”

      For some people, Communist isn’t a bad thing?

      1. For some people, fascists isn’t a bad thing either…

        And some people embrace the ideology of fascism but still reject the label.

  23. American University Dean, Law Profs Claim ‘All Lives Matter’ Flyer Violates Safe Space

    I can think of one life that doesn’t matter….

    1. I should note, too, that this is mere juvenile political bluster and not intended as a threat in any form.

    2. Progs/Marxists hate nothing more than being mocked and laughed at. The frothing at the mouth and hair tearing would be beautiful, but you would probably get Clicked.

  24. False. Flag.

    I am calling bullshit on this horseshit.

    1. there’s going to be a lot of that too.

      there is so much hair-trigger over-reaction to everything/anything, that it invites people ginning up events

      I’m still mixed on whether Whiteboy-Dreads was all part of a media-bombing scheme. including the post-facto ‘interview’

    2. I’m certain it’s all epic trolling at this point by college kids who give no shits about voting. And they all deserve awards.

      1. Ooh. I hope that’s what it is. I think that is probably the best way to deal with all this campus silliness. Lots and lots of real life trolling from the (I’m assuming) majority who think this is nuts. Almost makes me wish I was in college now.

      2. I’m fairly certain that pretty much all campus controversies are all made up these days. Remember the poopstiika?

        If they were all just made up to make people shit their pants, like the chalkening, then I would have some hope. But even when they’re false flags, it helps to facilitate dialogue. I.E. there aren’t any actual racists around, but let’s use this made up controversy to talk about racism. And lecture all you racist crackers about how racist you are.

  25. OT, but my wife’s aunt and uncle have a cuckoo clock in thier house, which we visited this weekend. My two year old calls it a “poo-poo cock”. So if I end up in a shootout with child services after he talks about it in the wrong place, everyone here will know what happened.

    1. *quietly presses 9-1 on phone*

    2. I’d say it’s your wife’s uncle who needs to be more worried:

      “My uncle showed me his poo-poo cock…”

  26. Approaching someone and definitively stating your view as if there is only one possible perspective on the issue is not conducive to a constructive dialogue.

    I’m guessing they weren’t looking in a mirror when they wrote that.

    There is value in simply asking someone, “If you feel comfortable, I would like to talk to you sometime about X.

    In all likelihood the person who put the sign on the door probably had tried to have a civil discussion either during class or outside of class, and had probably been told to “check their privilege” and lectured about what EVUL racisty racists all white people are, and so decided that since taking the high road had utterly failed, they’d try a little real world trolling instead. Sure it might not solve anything, but it probably made them feel better, and isn’t that what college is all about? TEH FEELZ?

    1. They don’t have views, that would indicate they might be wrong. People who disagree with them have views, these enlightened nomenkulturas have access to higher facts.

      1. these enlightened nomenkulturas have access to higher facts.

        Like the Popes and bishops of yore.

  27. I particularly enjoy AU managing to simultaneously maintain that they are committed to respectful civil discourse while also extolling Black Lives Matter, a movement whose members have shown their own commitment to respectful civil discourse by screaming in students’ faces in libraries, harassing random people eating brunch in restaurants, and blocking highways so no one can get to work, pick their kids up, run necessary errands, etc.

  28. And now we see the problem with promoted comments…

    1. I never saw the promoted comments but if I accidentally exhale on my phone it opens up a ReasonRewards window.

    2. Fine, let that nutbag bankrupt him/herself paying for promoted comments that nobody else reads.

    3. I gave it an up-vote. I’m okay with letting idiot trolls give their money to Reason for the privilege of trolling us harder.

      1. Yeah, it’s 10 bucks in the Reason coffers, compared to Tulpa or American Idiot trolling us for free.

        1. Plus, it has the added bonus of segregating the trolls to the top of the page, making their comments easier to scroll past without reading.

    4. But, of course, it largely proves the point of the article and comments. We ignored and moved on with our lives. We didn’t shit our pants, vomit all over ourselves, cry until rivers of snot streamed out of noses, and scream to high heaven for redress.

      On the article, I think a REALLY mature person would have left the note up, and written a reply with contrasting points, asked for a time to talk face to face, and left it up for three days for anyone to read.

      1. I think a REALLY mature person would have left the note up, and written a reply with contrasting points, asked for a time to talk face to face, and left it up for three days for anyone to read.

        Yes.

        Instead people demand intervention by authorities the second anything happens and scream and wail that they’ve had their rights trampled or their feelings-damaged by exposure to wrongthink

  29. “Also, we must be open to being educated about diverse perspectives.”

    Just not yours, you white cis-hetero shitlords.

    1. What I find funny, is the average Black Lives Matters person is on par with the average Trump supporter. Low brow and reactionary. Yet, they are humble salts struggling for freedom while the Trumpeters are hicks. Funny how “diverse perspectives” is a very short bridge depending on the source.

      1. Diversity training: “The longer you verk here, diverse it gets.”

        http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Diversity

  30. RE: American University Dean, Law Profs Claim ‘All Lives Matter’ Flyer Violates Safe Space

    We cannot have free speech at American universities and colleges.
    Where do these people think they’re at?
    The United States?

  31. Hey, look at the top of the thread.

    They’re charging trolls to bring attention to their comments!

    Now that’s a libertarian solution.

    1. I’m starting to suspect that the promoted comment thing isn’t going to last too long.

  32. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    http://www.JobToday60.com

  33. So, if someone objects to “all lives matter”, merely ask them “Which lives don’t matter?”

  34. The “All Lives Matter” sign might seem to be a benign message with no ill intent, but it has become a rallying cry for many who espouse ideas of [racial] supremacy and overt racism

    So… just like “Black Lives Matter” then?

  35. I take issue with your use of “their”, repeatedly, in reference to what sounds like a single member of the faculty. A person is either a “he” or a “she” – not a “their”. This reeks of the sort of gender nonsense I’d expect in HuffPo or Slate.

  36. “in which straightforward and wholly appropriate political statements that impugn progressivisim are derided as harassment and violence. ”

    FTFY

  37. well,perhaps the perpetrator who relocated the “offending flyer” had attempted to engage in civil, rational discourse on the matter, but, having been rebuffed at every turn, decided to take a more surreptitious path.

    HOW could a note like that be “offensive, threatening, violent, harrassing”?

    In yer nightmares, admin. You need a good dose of reality.

  38. habaneros…but never when drunk.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.