2016 Republican Convention

GOP Platform Selectively Condemns Safe Spaces, Political Correctness, Campus Rape Trials

'Prosecute rape in the courtroom, not the faculty lounge.'

|

RNC
Riccardo Savi/Sipa USA/Newscom

"A student's First Amendment rights do not end at the schoolhouse gates," asserts the 2016 Republican platform's section on improving higher education. The document has much to say on the subject of campus due process and free speech issues—some of it good, some of it absurdly silly.

For instance, the platform almost immediately undermines this stated commitment to free expression by condemning "the campus-based Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel" in the very next sentence.

"It is anti-Semitism and should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom," says the platform.

It certainly sounds like the authors of the GOP platform believe a student's free speech rights do end at the schoolhouse gates if said speech is critical of Israel.

Indeed, this hypocrisy is evident throughout the platform's education section. It criticizes far-left ideological indoctrination in schools—and rightly so—but simultaneously asserts that abstinence-only education should replace sex ed. It makes fun of emotional safe spaces—"safe zones"—but can't cope with opposition to the policies of the state of Israel. The Republicans don't really want to eradicate ideological bias from institutions of education: they want to replace it with the right kind of bias.

Still, the platform's section on Title IX-based sexual assault adjudication is quite strong—and blessedly free of rightwing social control:

Sexual assault is a terrible crime. We commend the good-faith efforts by law enforcement, educational institutions, and their partners to address that crime responsibly. Whenever reported, it must be promptly investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge. Questions of guilt or innocence must be decided by a judge and jury, with guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Those convicted of sexual assault should be punished to the full extent of the law. The Administration's distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country's legal traditions and must be halted before it further muddles this complex issue and prevents the proper authorities from investigating and prosecuting sexual assault effectively with due process.

I bet that most people would agree with the above paragraph: rape is a serious crime, and one that university administrators are wholly incapable of adjudicating. The federal government, however, forces universities to get involved—compromising the rights of accusers and the accused, and ensuring that actual justice remains elusive.

Overall, the 2016 platform is an incredibly flawed document that actually makes negative progress on several important fronts, particularly gay rights. But its evaluation of the campus due process landscape is downright reasonable—a testament to the enduring, destructive insanity of the Obama administration's enforcement of Title IX.

Related: Does Title IX Prohibit Sexual Harassment in College, But Require It in Locker Rooms?

Advertisement

NEXT: GOP Platform Wants It Both Ways on Encryption

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. Robby, how is “should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom” inconsistent with free speech? Isn’t that just the marketplace of ideas?

    The problem with safe spaces, microaggressions, etc. is that they use punishment and administrative enforcement to shut down free speech. Did the Repubs call for the BDSers to be hauled before tribunals and kicked off campus? No? Then they aren’t being inconsistent about free speech.

    1. ^this
      Denouncing =/= prohibiting.

      1. My co-worker’s step-sister made $14200 the previous week. she gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site.. Go Here…. http://www.trends88.com

      2. Right. And censure /= censor.

    2. How does the statement “Holding an opinion we don’t like about a country is bigoted and should be condemned, if you refuse to condemn it you don’t believe in academic freedom” parse into any logical viewpoint to you??

      1. Still does not equate to prohibiting the boycott or even censoring it with government force.

    3. I’m starting to think that Robby is a prog who lacks the mental precision to be a libertarian.

    4. Robby usually has to throw in some PC social signaling to let everyone know he’s the right sort of person.

      1. There must be some kind of stupid drug in Ann Arbor’s water supply. That, or lead in the pipes.

  2. “It is anti-Semitism and should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom,”

    I’m sorry, is criticizing Italy now anti-Christian bigotry?? Criticizing Saudi Arabia now Islamophobia?? Does questioning the Indian government reveal your seething contempt for Hindus??

    1. If they are anything like the anti-Israel groups at the university I went to, then yeah, there’s some legitimate anti-Semites in there.

      1. That’s bullshit, and no different from saying “If you support Trump you are a racist because, yeah, there’s some legitimate racists in there.”

        Bullshit collectivist nonsense. Exactly as expected from a major party I guess.

        The age of identity politics is here!! You can’t agree with BAD PEOPLE on ANY TOPIC or else you become ONE of the BAD PEOPLE!! Think the Israeli State is anything less than a MAGICKAL UTOPIA than you are antisemitic!! Think that Hillary Clinton is anything other than a VIRTUOUS SAINT than you are a sexist!! Think Donald Trump has any valid opinions than you are a card-carrying Klansman!!

        Identity politics really need to fuck off and die.

        1. If I advocated that, say, we should cease to do business with all Belgian companies, prohibit all Belgian scholars from attending academic conferences in our country, prevent all Belgians from investing in our companies, etc. regardless of said Belgian’s actual views on the Belgian government’s policies, you might assume I was bigoted toward Belgians, no?

          What crosses BDS into anti-Semitic territory is that it seeks to collectively punish all Israelis. It is naked bigotry to agitate that an individual be bared from attending an academic conference or a sporting event or what have you, merely based on that individuals nationality without regard to his or her actual views.

          1. You left out Belgian waffles.

            The tell is that the BDS advocates focus exclusively on one country and deny its right to exist. If it were a moral thing, they might note that there’s no shortage of countries who actually do deadly oppression of people who aren’t shooting rockets at them or slitting the throats of babies, and that they are opposing the freest and most democratic and tolerant nation in the region. But no, it’s Israel and Israel only.

            1. “deny its right to exist”

              I wasn’t aware in order to be not bigoted against Jews I had to support the “rights” of various nation-states to existence.

              Antisemitism has come to mean everything and nothing.

              I don’t think the Saudi Arabian state is legitimate, I guess I’m Islamophobic.

              Might as well give up and embrace it. Words no longer have meaning.

          2. “you might assume I was bigoted toward Belgians, no?”

            I would not. That’d be dumb.

            “What crosses BDS into anti-Semitic territory is that it seeks to collectively punish all Israelis”

            Even if that is TRUE, ISRAELI != JEW. Even IF it is bigotry against ISRAELIS that does not make it bigotry against JEWS. You are making it so that antisemitism is MEANINGLESS by conflating it with things that are not antisemitic.

            If we lived in your world, a boycott against Saudi Arabia would be Islamophobia.

            And how is this different from, oh, any other boycott ever?? Boycotts are freedom of association. If a baker can refuse to do business with a gay wedding ceremony then a person with an irrational hatred towards the Israeli State can refuse to with Israelis. Deal with it.

            1. Even IF it is bigotry against ISRAELIS that does not make it bigotry against JEWS

              Except all those Israelis who are collectively targeted by BDS just happen to be Jews. Funny that.

              If we lived in your world, a boycott against Saudi Arabia would be Islamophobia.

              Depending on one’s motivation to boycott Saudi Arabia, it could be Islamophobic in nature, yes.

              Boycotts are freedom of association. If a baker can refuse to do business with a gay wedding ceremony then a person with an irrational hatred towards the Israeli State can refuse to with Israelis.

              I don’t disagree with a single word here. I would like to add that I have the freedom to view those who associate with virulent antisemitic movements as sympathetic to antisemtism itself. Deal with that, habibi.

              1. “Except all those Israelis who are collectively targeted by BDS just happen to be Jews. Funny that.”

                Except all those BLM activists who are collectively targeted by opponents just happen to be black. Funny that.

            2. People should feel free to be idiots about Israel — and for that matter, believe that the Israeli government does some pretty shady stuff without being associated with said idiots — but it’s certainly not anti-speech to recognize that some speech is simply beyond the hearer’s capacity to respect. I’d say that the examples cited by John T below fall into that category.

        2. “The Holocaust was faked by Zionists so they could take Palestine and commit real genocide.”

          “The Jews are poisoning and sterilizing Palestinians, and you don’t believe it because they control the media.”

          “They don’t just need to be removed from Palestine, they need to be removed period. Even if we get rid of them in Palestine they’ll just come back and with Western support. They already control you, you just don’t know it.”

          “Mossad did 9/11.”

          -Actual arguments put forward by anti-Israel protesters I talked to. I’m all for criticizing Israel for things they’ve actually done, but the amount of crazy Palestinian conspiracy theories that infest modern anti-Israel groups does not help your argument.

          1. It is risible to suggest that the current climate on North American college campuses is some how hostile to the Palestinian cause.

          2. “The Holocaust was faked by Zionists so they could take Palestine and commit real genocide.”

            And

            “Mossad did 9/11.”

            Are not antisemitic. As the descendent of a Holocaust survivor I can say they are abhorrent, but they are not advocating bigotry against the Jews. They’re both conspiracy theories about the ISRAELI STATE not the JEWISH PEOPLE. Conflating the two does NOTHING but dilute the word “antisemitism” to the point of meaninglessness.

            The other two things you listed, I will grant, are truly antisemetic, but calling for an end to boycotts because SOME boycotters are antisemites is NO FUCKING DIFFERENT than calling to end Trump because SOME Trump supporters are racists.

            If an “antisemite” can be defined as “a person who believes crazy conspiracy theories about a government that happens to run a country that has a large Jewish population” why should I care if someone is an “antisemite”?? If an “antisemite” can be defined as “a person who supports a boycott that people who hate Jewish people also support”, why should I care if a person is an “antisemite”?? “Antisemitism” should refer to bigotry against the Jews, not association with people who are bigoted against the Jews, or belief in crazy things about Israel.

            1. Consider how both those statements are being used in context. They are not just being thrown out for no reason, they’re arguments used to support a narrative of ‘those sneaky Jews just pretend to be the victim, while being the real villain who are murdering and demonizing Muslims.’ They’re conspiracy theories that are being used to prop up a pre-existing viewpoint.

              Also, note that I said ‘some’, not all, nor did I indicate that criticizing Israel in general is anti-Semitic. You were framing anti-Israel movements as solely about criticizing the state, and that’s simply not true. It’s also not true that they’re all anti-Semites. Some are, in the same way that some Trump supporters are legitimate Neo-Nazis.

              1. “Some are, in the same way that some Trump supporters are legitimate Neo-Nazis.”

                Exactly, and just as irrelevant to the discourse.

                But supporting Trump is no less equivalent to being a racist as supporting a group who happens to have antisemites in it is equivalent with being antisemitic, as the platform plank claims.

                Just. More. Fucking. Identity. Politics.

                1. When did I say anything about the party platform? You’re arguing with me, not the party platform. I was challenging your position that criticizing Israel is solely as a state entity, in the same way I would challenge someone who suggested that there’s no way there’s Neo-Nazis who support Trump. All the other examples you provide can also be determined to be anti-Christian, anti-Islamic or anti-Hindu depending on the context of the argument.

          3. “The Holocaust was faked by Zionists so they could take Palestine and commit real genocide.”

            And

            “Mossad did 9/11.”

            Are not antisemitic. As the descendent of a Holocaust survivor I can say they are abhorrent, but they are not advocating bigotry against the Jews. They’re both conspiracy theories about the ISRAELI STATE not the JEWISH PEOPLE. Conflating the two does NOTHING but dilute the word “antisemitism” to the point of meaninglessness.

            The other two things you listed, I will grant, are truly antisemetic, but calling for an end to boycotts because SOME boycotters are antisemites is NO FUCKING DIFFERENT than calling to end Trump because SOME Trump supporters are racists.

            If an “antisemite” can be defined as “a person who believes crazy conspiracy theories about a government that happens to run a country that has a large Jewish population” why should I care if someone is an “antisemite”?? If an “antisemite” can be defined as “a person who supports a boycott that people who hate Jewish people also support”, why should I care if a person is an “antisemite”?? “Antisemitism” should refer to bigotry against the Jews, not association with people who are bigoted against the Jews, or belief in crazy things about Israel.

            1. They’re both conspiracy theories about the ISRAELI STATE not the JEWISH PEOPLE.

              Ummm, no. Think about order of events.

              1. And, of course, the history of conflating all Jews as Zionists. The people using “Zionist” as an insult don’t think there’s some group of non-Zionist Jews out there that they are totes kewl with.

                Also:

                “The Holocaust was faked by Zionists so they could take Palestine and commit real genocide.”

                Anyone saying this is so incredibly stupid that they should be ignored forever.

                1. “Anyone saying this is so incredibly stupid that they should be ignored forever.”

                  Yes. No doubt about that.

                  “The people using “Zionist” as an insult don’t think there’s some group of non-Zionist Jews out there that they are totes kewl with.”

                  I’m not sure about that. From a quick Google search, I can find a number of organizations claiming to be “Jewish Anti-Zionists”. I assume the Jewish people in these groups are totes kewl with themselves, though I could be wrong.

      2. Criticizing Israel is not a problem or anti-Semitic in itself. Most of these BDS people don’t believe Israel has a right to exist at all, though. That still shouldn’t be disallowed, however.

        1. “don’t believe Israel has a right to exist at all”

          That’s not antisemitism. The “right of a country to exist” is not equivalent to “the right of the Jewish people to exist.”

          There is no current nation belonging to my religion. If my Faith were to go and form a country somewhere, and someone believed that resulting state was not legitimate, it would not mean they were bigots against my religion. That much is common sense, but heaven forbid we apply similar logic to Israel.

          1. You are equivocating the term “Jew” as religion, with “Jew” as ethnicity.

            But you knew that already.

            1. Oh, I see.

              So my belief that the Saudi Arabian government is illegitimate proves my racism against the Arab race I guess.

    2. I’m sorry, is criticizing Italy now anti-Christian bigotry??

      No. There is no such thing as ‘anti-Christian bigotry’, As the fount of all evil, Christianity, like Europe and white people are free targets. Silly.

      Criticizing Saudi Arabia now Islamophobia??

      Of course! How dare you question any aspect of the greatness of Allah.

      Does questioning the Indian government reveal your seething contempt for Hindus??

      Absolutely. Racist.

      1. Yeah… the issue of “antisemitism” feels more and more like the Red Tribe’s own version of PC to me.

  3. Do cops not understand that wearing shorts makes them look like valets? I’m going to get shot because I laugh at a cop with a bicycle helmet and shorts who needs me to respect his authoritah. Its like when you accidentally end up in a fistfight with the blokes from the Australian Navy, because who the fuck is both hardcore and wears shorts and a beret?

  4. Denouncing is censorship? Robby X thinks antisemitic speech should be free from criticism.

    1. Maybe I’m reading between the lines but it seems pretty clear to me they would actually prevent/punish anti-Israel speech if they could.

    2. Maybe I’m reading between the lines but it seems pretty clear to me they would actually prevent/punish anti-Israel speech if they could.

      1. Damn, are you gonna take that shit from the squirrels?

      2. Maybe I’m reading between the lines

        Maybe?

      3. So, if they had actually said something different than what they actually said, it would be hypocritical?

        Umm, yeah, I guess.

        [Ponders whether this exceeds the kerfuffle over Melania’s speech on the pointlessness scale]

        1. Well, there’s still the question of whether it’s hypocritical to be anti-campus rape trials AND anti-rape.

      4. Robby,
        Could be, and if you’d have noted that in the article, you probably won’t be getting stick over it…

      5. You’re reading things that aren’t there, assuming you’ve quoted accurately.

        1. Renegade!

          1. You rang?

      6. So, in short, you’re projecting your own beliefs onto someone else’s positions and completely failing to mention that it’s a personal hypothetical. Quality journalism there Robby.

      7. The BDS movement is attempting to get state institutions to do something. The GOP platform appears to me to say that they should not be allowed to achieve their goals because they are badly motivated.

      8. The statement is there because anti-BDS people are frequently attacked for their positions.

        They should be able to denounce the BDS without fear of reprisal from people who are supposed to be inculcating, respecting and expanding academic freedom.

    3. If you’re not calling for state action:

      Why put it into your political platform??

      I know this is the age of pointless virtue signalling, but I think it is reasonable to view any statement a politician makes on politics as if there is a threat of state action behind what they are saying.

      BUT MUH VIRTUE SIGNALS!!

      1. Why put it into your political platform??

        Because the other side has called for state action, and you are responding?

        1. “Because the other side has called for state action, and you are responding?”

          Sure, but I don’t recall the Blue Tribe promoting mandatory Israel boycotts, so… fail to see how that applies here.

          1. Take a look at the platform proposals from Party nominees Ellison and West, for example.

            1. Did they make it into the platform itself??

              1. Fortunately not, but the sentiment is rife in Team Blue. As much pants-shitting that’s done about antisemites flocking to Trump, Team Blue is their real home. See: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, James Zogby, James Moran, Eddie Johnson…

          2. You might recall the Blue Tribe getting people fired and kicked off campus for BadSpeech.

            1. Different. Fucking. Issue.

              The Blue Tribe being against freedom of thought does not mean the Red Tribe automatically supports freedom of thought in everything.

      2. You do know that the point of political platforms is virtue signalling? Or , st least a statement of beliefs.

        1. Forget it, it’s in full CYA mode

        2. They SHOULD be just documents of “This is what I will do”. But we live in a fucking age where WORDS mean more than ACTIONS. So idiots settle for “This is what I believe” as if that makes any damn difference.

          1. They SHOULD be just documents

            Oh, don’t be a hypocrite

      3. Should it really be a national party plank to categorically oppose a form of speech, however benighted? What can they do about it upon gaining power except to wield the implements of national control to squelch it?

        On the other hand, it would be a little comforting to see public funding channeled away from universities that permit this sort of bullshit, the way Obama has done to empower the Title IX inquisition. But I’d prefer they end the practice altogether.

        1. Should it really be a national party plank to categorically oppose a form of speech, however benighted?

          No, but doing so is not hypocritical on free speech. Its the vaunted marketplace of ideas in action.

          1. Right, but when Dems make these pronouncements you see the knives coming out of the sheathes. It would be nice if the RNC at least left the culture war bullshit at the kiddie table and focused exclusively on policy matters.

            I know, I know, I’m being naive on a couple levels.

      4. They are opposing a group demanding actions by state institutions. How is that by in the scope of work of a political manifesto?

  5. It certainly sounds like the authors of the GOP platform believe a student’s free speech rights do end at the schoolhouse gates if said speech is critical of Israel.

    How so? From what I saw, there was a call to denounce said speech, not to silence it.

    1. If you ever find yourself making the statement “Every academic who believes in academic freedom MUST denounce this view point I don’t like!!” and you CANNOT see the hypocrisy in that, well…

      1. Even if it’s pointless virtue signalling, and isn’t a call for any specific action (and thus serves no REAL purpose in a party platform), it’s still ULTIMATELY saying that if you are an academic and believe in academic freedom you have to agree with everyone that criticism of a country is bigotry. It is STILL mandating that people who believe in “academic freedom” should all agree on one specific issue, which is still hypocritical.

        1. It is STILL mandating

          Its mandating nothing.

          1. Red Tribe Platform: “Everyone should agree with me!! Because ACADEMIC FREEDOM!!”

            Person A: “No they shouldn’t!! That’s the opposite off academic freedom!!”

            Red Tribe Apologist: “NO!! It’s PERFECTLY consistent with academic freedom because they said they SHOULD agree with them, not that they would MAKE you agree with them!! Thinking that everyone should think alike is PERFECTLY consistent with Academic Freedom as long as you don’t directly say everyone should be MADE to agree!!”

            My misstep of words aside, it is still HYPOCRITICAL to insist that EVERYONE SHOULD AGREE WITH YOU on the justification of FREEDOM OF THOUGHT.

            FREEDOM OF THOUGHT guarantees differing opinions. If you think FREEDOM OF THOUGHT necessitates that EVERYONE AGREES ON THE SAME THING I don’t see how you are any different from the progressives, regardless of whether or not you are calling for state action.

            Academic Freedom means people should disagree, by design. Stating that EVERYONE should AGREE on the topic of Israel in the name of Academic Freedom is hypocritical and completely absurd.

          2. Red Tribe Platform: “Everyone should agree with me!! Because ACADEMIC FREEDOM!!”

            Person A: “No they shouldn’t!! That’s the opposite off academic freedom!!”

            Red Tribe Apologist: “NO!! It’s PERFECTLY consistent with academic freedom because they said they SHOULD agree with them, not that they would MAKE you agree with them!! Thinking that everyone should think alike is PERFECTLY consistent with Academic Freedom as long as you don’t directly say everyone should be MADE to agree!!”

            My misstep of words aside, it is still HYPOCRITICAL to insist that EVERYONE SHOULD AGREE WITH YOU on the justification of FREEDOM OF THOUGHT.

            FREEDOM OF THOUGHT guarantees differing opinions. If you think FREEDOM OF THOUGHT necessitates that EVERYONE AGREES ON THE SAME THING I don’t see how you are any different from the progressives, regardless of whether or not you are calling for state action.

            Academic Freedom means people should disagree, by design. Stating that EVERYONE should AGREE on the topic of Israel in the name of Academic Freedom is hypocritical and completely absurd.

            1. You should try to respond to things others have actually said instead of arguing with made-up voices in your head. It makes you seem like a loon.

      2. What it actually says: It is anti-Semitism and should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom

        So, anyone who makes any value judgements about anything is demanding that everyone MUST comply. Oh, and they’re a hypocrite.

        Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

        1. The hypocrisy isn’t in whether or not state action is being called for.

          Academic Freedom means People Disagree

          If you say

          People Should All Agree With Each Other

          BECAUSE

          Academic Freedom

          That’s a hypocritical statement. If you think everyone should AGREE on a topic then you do NOT actually value the freedom of thought which is what is inherent in academic freedom.

          1. Did anyone actually say “People Should All Agree With Each Other BECAUSE Academic Freedom”? I must have misread that part, because I didn’t see anyone actually making that argument.

          2. The platform says it should be denounced.

            If the platform said that academic censorship should be denounced, that would be hypocrisy because… advocating denunciation of things because would be academic unfreedomy or something?

  6. I think I’m seeing a theme here in the comments.

    1. Defensive partisan diaper rash?

    2. Incoherence ?

  7. abstinence-only education should replace sex ed

    They are STILL pushing this puritanical bullshit?

    1. Moths are drawn to the flame. They cant help themselves.

      See: the left’s gun control drives.

    2. The Christian right may be down and out, but they’re still under the tent. The Christian right wouldn’t be themselves if they weren’t fighting pointless battles and dying on worthless hills. Political capital isn’t going to just waste itself.

  8. Obama’s, and I mean his personal directive, to reinterpret Title IX is a direct attack on the rule of law and freedom of speech. It is one of the most insidious things he has done as POTUS.

    Beating it to death with hammers and then burning it to ash would be too kind.

    This is exactly the kind of disgusting shit I am talking about when I say that the malice of the left and the pathetic weakness of the almost right is what paved the way for Trump. The average American is fed up with the left’s shitshow.

    1. You’re blaming the left for Trump and it’s the left that’s pathetic?

      1. Even prominent lefties looks at Trump as a reactionary figure. Reactionaries are categorically, a reaction to something. And yes they’re pathetic, irredeemably pathetic.

  9. It makes fun of emotional safe spaces?”safe zones”

    Dammit, Robby — How about a trigger warning before springing this?

  10. The GOP platform is hypocritical?

    Before yesterday, I never knew the GOP platform was so important.

    But they’re still anti-rape though?

    Good. ’cause I’m against rape.

    Where does the platform stand on ISIS?

    Because I’m anti-ISIS.

    1. Yeah, that kinda reads like a personal description on a dating site – “You should really know this about me – I love good stuff and hate bad stuff! I like having fun and really cant stand being bored.”

  11. ” the platform almost immediately undermines this stated commitment to free expression by condemning “the campus-based Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel” in the very next sentence.”

    So if I support freedom of press/speech, I can’t make negative comments about the speech & press of others and how they want to try to suppress that speech/press for others ? That’s stupid.

    Remember , I didn’t hear that they were proposing it be banned ?

    More Reason libertarian propaganda to “re-write” what happened to make their own criticisms.

  12. I wonder why put it in your platform at all, though. Isn’t it a statement about your plan for governance? Stop wasting my time with your feelings, GOP.

    1. Be honest, do you really care what they have to say?

      1. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz… huh what? Yes, absolutely.

  13. Democratic party platform for 2016:

    Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin,
    language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. We need to promote
    civility and speak out against bigotry and other forms of intolerance that have entered our
    political discourse. It is unacceptable to target, defame, or exclude anyone because of their
    religion, race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation. While freedom of expression is a
    fundamental constitutional principle, we must condemn hate speech that creates a fertile climate
    for violence.
    We condemn Donald Trump’s demonization of prisoners of war, women, Muslims,
    Mexicans, and people with disabilities; his playing coy with white supremacists; and the climate
    of bigotry he is creating. We also condemn the recent uptick in other forms of hate speech, like
    anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

    1. Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin,
      language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

      Well that’s just a complete and total lie.

  14. If you think there are beliefs that are beyond the pale of civilized philosophy and say so, then you are against free speech?

    Then I presume Robby shall be dropping descriptors like “homophobic” and “racist” from his vocabulary.

    1. That will put Reason’s coverage of Trump in a bind if applied to all the writers.

  15. Clearly, “”It is anti-Semitism and should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom” is totes different than “We also condemn the recent uptick in other forms of hate speech, like anti-Semitism and Islamophobia”.

      1. Nicely done, Diane.

        Mental note: if we don’t get some acknowledgement during Dem week about how the Dems and Repubs have the same plank for anti-semitism, and how its anti-free speech in both cases, then I might just suspect a leetle partisanship creeping in at Reason.

        1. I get that Reason is covering the GOP convention, so I don’t require a “but what about Hillary” in every story– or any story.

          But the specific concern that the GOP is demanding condemnation of “hate speech” in their party plank hardly seems noteworthy, considering that’s sort of standard party filler at this time in history.

  16. As a professor with more than a decade in higher education, I can confirm that Robby is correct and that our (((universities))) are firmly in the hands of Big Jew.

    1. What’s Little Jew, chopped liver?

      1. Smoked sausage… I’m a bad person, I’ll show myself out.

      2. What’s Little Jew, chopped liver?

        No, Rhea Perlman.

    2. I like big Jews and I cannot lie, all the other goyim can’t deny…

      Hmmm, it’s hard to make a tasteful parody with that premise.

  17. Still, the platform’s section on Title IX-based sexual assault adjudication is quite strong?and blessedly free of rightwing social control

    Something about blind squirrels finding acorns…

  18. Hello, I’m here to flaunt my raging hateboner. Did I come to the right place? This looks like the right place.

    1. *drags chair in from of sparky and sits*
      Well, let’s see it.

  19. “It is anti-Semitism and should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom,” says the platform.

    Unless there is proscription for prosecution or censorship somewhere in the platform, I don’t see how advocating denunciation of the boycott is a hypocritical violation of free speech rights.

  20. one can be in favor of free speech and against anti-Semitism. These are not contradictory viewpoints.

  21. Reason is really digging deep to try to condemn every portion of the Republican platform. Their condemnation of campus ‘kangaroo courts’ and ridiculous ‘micro aggression’ is actually the bright spot of their platform.

    I’m not really even sure what ‘gay rights’ is anymore as it seems to change every month, so I’m going to pass on criticizing that portion of the platform due to ignorance.

    It seems like it use to be that ‘gay rights’ was believing sodomy shouldn’t be illegal. Check. Then it was that ‘gay rights’ was supporting gay marriage. Check. And now it has something to do with bathrooms and forcing religious hospitals to provide sex changes. I’ll wait till next month to find out what’s the new ‘retrograde’.

  22. This is exactly the problem with Reason as a journalistic venture ATM. I go back and read the source, and it’s about 50:50 that Reason has come close to *reporting accurately on what has happened, given a libertarian bias* instead of either ignorance or outright lying. Since Reason these days is in the business of reblogging things that better journalists on the left and right have already reported on somewhat accurately, maybe they could value-add by doing so accurately instead of acting like a teenager’s Tumblr feed and outright misrepresenting the facts of a situation. If I wanted that, I wouldn’t be reading libertarian magazines in the first place and from the looks of Reason’s finances, I’m clearly not the only one out there who thinks that way.

  23. Let’s not overlook that the BDS movement calls for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, which aren’t “free speech”, and specifically demands that Israeli academics be barred from conventions and appointments.

    Tell me again how opposing BDS is anti-free speech and anti-academic freedom?

    1. This makes the BDSM people look like the enemies of academic freedom. Judge for yourself:

      “”We, Palestinian academics and intellectuals, call upon our colleagues in the international community to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions as a contribution to the struggle to end Israel’s occupation, colonization and system of apartheid, by applying the following:

      “Refrain from participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions;

      “Advocate a comprehensive boycott of Israeli institutions at the national and international levels, including suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to these institutions;

      “Promote divestment and disinvestment from Israel by international academic institutions;

      “Work toward the condemnation of Israeli policies by pressing for resolutions to be adopted by academic, professional and cultural associations and organizations;

      “Support Palestinian academic and cultural institutions directly without requiring them to partner with Israeli counterparts as an explicit or implicit condition for such support.”

  24. The platform has more about BDSM on p. 47: “We reject the false notion that Israel is an occupier and specifically recognize that the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement (BDS) is anti-Semitic in nature and seeks to destroy Israel. Therefore, we call for effective legislation to thwart actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories, in a discriminatory manner.”

    It’s light on details, but it *might* mean forbidding governmental boycotts, specifying that a business’s Israeli ties shouldn’t influence any decision whether to award it a government contract, etc.

    Or it could mean banning *private* and *peaceful* boycotts.

    The question of private and peaceful boycotts may not even arise, though, since BDSM wants to organize boycotts by the *government.*

    And they like blocking cars containing Jewish college administrators.

  25. I left my office-jobs and now I am getting paid 98 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do..

    ======== http://www.Aspire-Jobs.com

  26. At least someone is condemning those violations of the Constitution/Bill of Rights – selectively or not.

  27. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.