Campus Free Speech

DePaul Bans Ben Shapiro Over Safety Concerns Caused by Liberals

The heckler's veto in action

|

Ben Shapiro
Screenshot via The Rubin Report

DePaul University told conservative students that they couldn't bring Ben Shapiro to campus to give a talk—his presence is a safety concern, according to college officials.

Of course, Shapiro himself isn't the problem. The problem is that easily-offended liberal students might cause trouble—heckling, rioting, perhaps violence—if Shapiro speaks. Instead of dealing with this, DePaul apparently finds it easier to deny the conservatives a speaking platform.

"Given the experiences and security concerns that some other schools have had with Ben Shapiro speaking on their campuses, DePaul cannot agree to allow him to speak on our campus at this time," DePaul spokesperson Bob Janis told the campus's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, according to The Daily Wire.

DePaul previously prohibited Breitbart tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos from coming back to campus, for similar reasons.

DePaul is a private university, so its students don't have First Amendment rights. Campus officials are legally entitled to discriminate against conservative speakers, students, and viewpoints.

But that doesn't mean they should. The free exchange of ideas is certainly going to suffer at DePaul as a result. If Person A wants to speak on campus, Group X makes threats against Person A, and DePaul responds by capitulating to Group X and banning Person A, the campus is going to have problems. Why shouldn't YAF respond by making threats against the College Democrats' desired speakers?

This is why the heckler's veto is so destructive—it gives power to those who wish to limit free expression on campus.

YAF, to its credit, has ruled out using such tactics:

This is not the occasion to go into detail about each and every time we feel that we have come under fire by the school we call home, but we want everyone paying attention to realize that, although we may have different political views than you do, we want our campus to be one that upholds our fundamental rights. This means that you will not see us picketing to keep the DePaul Socialists from hosting someone, you will not see us petitioning the administration to ban a speaker that the DePaul Feminist Front is attempting to bring to campus, and you will not see us congregating en masse on the Quad in order to forcefully shut down a speech we disagree with. Today we call upon the administration to overturn its decision to bar Ben Shapiro from campus and to truly promote free speech moving forward.

If DePaul can't stomach allowing students to hear from a conservative, it has no business touting itself as an institution where free inquiry is valued.

NEXT: My 'Warrior Gene' and My Propensity for Criminality

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. DePaul is a private university, so its students don’t have First Amendment rights.

    Umm, yes, they do. Just like everyone else. Jeebus, Robbie, this is a huge whiff. I suggest you fix it, perhaps like this:

    DePaul is a private university, so banning Ben Shapiro from speaking on campus doesn’t violate its students’ don’t have First Amendment rights.

    1. I keep telling people – just fire Nick and Robbie, and just buy the jacket and the hair.

      1. You assume Robby would be willing to put a price on it.

        The better plan is to drug his fruit sushi and shave it off.

        1. Nick has been cramping the jacket’s style for a long time now. The jacket drags Nick along out of habit and loyalty more than anything else. Make the right offer and the Jacket will dump Nick and move on to bigger and better things.

    2. Must we be so pedantic? It’s obvious what he meant.

      1. What he said, and what we think he meant, are drastically unaligned. What he said is categorically false. Its not too much to ask for a correction, is it?

        1. That word, “drastically”, I do not think you know what it means.

      2. Yes and yes.

      3. “Must we be so pedantic? ”

        I’ll agree to be less pedantic if he agrees to be a better writer.

      4. Honestly, this is rather egregious. Reason has many readers here who are not part of the libertarian cognoscenti. If Reason would like to provide an educational platform for them to learn about and adopt libertarianism then perhaps we, as a commentariat, should be holding their authors to account on accuracy and presentation.

        Sure, everyone’s an art critic but there are some fundamentals that need to be held to…like the color blue is not represented by a mauve identifying as blue. A right is inherent in a human being…there is no such thing as a person who doesn’t have a right to free speech, there are only other humans who don’t recognize that right.

        1. Don’t have First Amendment rights… in their capacity as students, obviously. Is that not obvious?

          1. The best advice, Robby, is don’t bother. You’ve already been put in a box and there’s no getting out.

            1. The best advice, Robby, is don’t bother. You’ve already been put in a box and there’s no getting out.

              …therefore, none of the criticism is valid?

              1. LOOKIT WINEY TWAT FROOT SOOSHI BEIN DUMB PROGGIE! WHAT A DUMB PROGGIE! NICE HAIR FROOT SOOSHI!

                  1. Personally I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about comments from any person who expressed this opinion regularly. It’s also certain that once people form that opinion it won’t be changed.

                    1. This wasn’t a “Robbie’s a prog” comment, you know. Its more of a “holy shit, what a mistake Robbie just made, he might want to fix that” comment.

                    2. It’s more like “Holy shit, what a pedantic pedant this guy RC is, and I’ll bet he smirks in the mirror at any mention of fixing that.”

                    3. Maybe Reezon can get Robbie a tooter.

          2. Sorry, man, my first thought on reading that sentence was, “Of course they have First Amendment rights. It’s just that this does not violate those rights.” It’s a little jarring.

          3. Don’t have First Amendment rights… in their capacity as students, obviously.

            Still wrong. They have 1A rights in their capacity as students, because being a student doesn’t mean you lose your right to free speech.

            The issue is whether whether the school violates those rights by banning speakers.

            This is pretty elementary stuff, Robbie.

          4. No it isn’t obvious. (And remember, I try to defend you against these very hoards here more often than most.)

            My point is if you want to communicate the principles of free minds and free markets to the uninitiated then you need to consider the possibility that they are coming from less than zero knowledge. It behooves us all to be as explicit as possible and to set the standard of discourse in the beginning (and we are all guilty of not doing that, i get it, I ain’t perfect either). So grounding the reader in the principle of free speech in the beginning of the article will add weight to the point you bring back at the end. Just assuming your average Joe understands natural rights (or any other libertarian wonky ideas) is only shortchanging your own efforts.

          5. It’s pretty poorly worded. But wording aside, you can just drop the disclaimer altogether. It’s not necessary to state every time, “The person or group I am about to criticize has the legal right to do what I am about to criticize them over”. Just state the criticism, and understand that an audience that is smart enough to decipher what you meant out of what you wrote is also smart enough not to need the disclaimer.

            Don’t be wishy washy. State your opinions assertively and there won’t be need for corrections of pendantry.

            Of course, this is just my opinion. You have every right to write awkward, misleading sentences.

    3. FedGov uses Title IX to force schools to deny due process rights; even private schools on the grounds they accept federal student laws. Suggest that, by the same logic, schools should have to enforce 1A rights, and people will look at you like you’re nuts.

      (I’m not saying I agree with that sort of federal intrusion. And try suggesting that it means schools should have to enforce 2A rights.)

  2. They banned Shapiro because the administrators are in agreement with the protesters.

    1. True, but try getting them on the record to say that. Or getting Robby X/Froot Sooshi to actually ask them that question for the record.

      Meanwhile, Robby X/Froot Sooshi is still high fiving himself for “outing” James O’ Keefe (a guy who is no stranger to the media, either New or DemOp, by the by) because…Woke. And so, so bae. And AF.

      1. You too, eh doc?

        Huh.

      2. Do we call me Fruit Sushi now? Is this a thing? When did this start?

        1. Oh this thread is going to be glorious

          1. I don’t get it, what is this fruit sushi a reference too? Some of us have lives and miss an article here and there. Not me of course, I was probably just jerking off that day, but some people I’m sure have a good excuse for not getting the reference, so do explain for their benefit.

            1. Apparently Robby ordered fruit sushi at an outing once.

            2. I don’t get it, what is this fruit sushi a reference too?

              ENB posted an article regarding a cocktail party she and Robby attended. She revealed in the comments that Robby was quite fond of a fruit sushi hors d’ouvre that was being passed around (don’t ask me what the hell constitutes fruit sushi, I’m too lazy to look it up), and the incident’s become almost as famous as his gorgeous, flowing locks.

              1. So eating a slice of watermelon is eating fruit sushi? Raw, cut, fruit

              2. Ah, a cocktail party?! So they do exist!

                Now I’m trying to decide whether ‘fruit sushi’ is a thoroughly patrician elitist food and I should hate him for that, or if it’s a gay food and I should ask for his number?

                1. It’s both, Robby. It’s both.

              3. Almost, ENB said that one of the waiters complained about the number of fruit sushis that Robby had taken.

        2. ENB ratted you out man.

        3. Robbo hasn’t been paying attention the last 4 articles he wrote…

          1. Robbo hasn’t been paying attention to the last 4 articles’s comment section he wrote…

            Me Engrish is still mangled but youll get the drift.

            1. I think it works either way.

        4. Usually nicknames are a good sign that you are liked.

          1. Like Tony for example?

  3. YAF, to its credit, has ruled out using such tactics:

    and cedes victory without a fight……..

    1. I am with you. This shit will never stop as long as progs feel that they can engage in it without fear of it happening to them. “Standing on your principles” just gets you steamrolled because these assholes don’t care about your principles.

      1. If you don’t stand on your principles then they aren’t really principles. If you find that doing so would be a net negative then get some new principles (or admit to yourself that you had those to begin with). Standing on them is kind of the point.

        Now, standing on the current prinicpals? That should be ok, but to stay clean with the NAP make sure you aren’t standing on them for political or social change purposes.

        1. Life is more complex and harder than just adopting a set of principles and then letting them do your thinking for you. Sometimes standing on your principles is the right thing to do. Other times life gives you no choice but to act in your own self defense even if that means violating them.

          More importantly, I am not sure turning the same tactics on these people they turn on you and others is violating any principles worth having. Who says that you have to accord someone respect and courtesy they refuse to accord you?

          It seems to me that saying we can’t do this out of “principles” even though they will happily do it to us is just using your principles as an excuse to be a coward.

          1. I understand what you are saying but I don’t think you get what I am saying. “If you have principle X, ipso facto you should stand on it.” I am not making a value judgement here on the principles themselves. Only that if and organization professes principle X (in this case I would assume free on open communication of ideas) then they should stand on it. That is not saying there can’t be a different set of people/organizations/aliens (always the aliens) that hold a slightly different set of principles which can engage, even on behalf of the first group, in entirely different activities to different or similar ends.

            1. Even for an organization, principles only go so far. I don’t see how anyone is owed any more respect than they are willing to give in return.

            2. Trying to convince a utilitarian of any stripe that they should stand on principles isn’t a fight you’re going to win.

          2. It seems to me that saying we can’t do this out of “principles” even though they will happily do it to us is just using your principles as an excuse to be a coward.

            Even worse, setting yourself up to play the victim card next time the same thing happens.

        2. If you don’t stand on your principles then they aren’t really principles.

          The problem becomes when people with bad intentions begin using that morality as a weapon against you. It’s a classic Alinsky tactic–“Make the enemy play by their own rules”. All it does in the end is make you a martyr for a hopeless cause.

          There are ways to stand up for principle without being run over by those who would destroy you, and in warfare sometimes you have to engage the enemy on ground of their choosing.

          1. What they should do is write a letter to the editor of Milwaukee’s newspaper, the campus paper, and the president of the university’s office each time someone with views that do not align with theirs comes to campus, pointing out that this person is as extreme or more than Ben Shapiro and Milo, and that they would be well within their rights to ask that person’s speech be canceled, but that they actually have principles, unlike the left, and support every person’s right to freedom of speech and thought.

    2. You think that the administration of DePaul wouldn’t unleash a squadron of goons on the YAF if they had the gall to protest some progressive speaker?

      1. Hey Jimbo, it is not fascism when we do it.

        signed/

        campus SJW

      2. then let them do it. At some point, you have to play by the rules dictated by the other side.

    3. Ad if they did use such tactics, they’d just get expelled for ‘hate speech.’

      1. Couldn’t they just protest peacefully at the proggie hootenanny?

        1. If a student joined a peaceful Nazi protest, they can expel him for that; why not do the same for this? As far as the campus progressive activists (and by extension, the administrators) are concerned, they’re basically the same thing.

  4. I’m not clear on why anybody goes to university these days, especially given the enormous price tag. At best, it’s overpriced vocational training. Much of it isn’t even that. It’s Feelz training. What kind of zombie do you have to be to need training in that?

    1. Chicks (or dudes) and parties.

      The avoidance of a job.

      What more do you need?

      1. What more do you need?

        Public, on-campus validation in front of peers whilst SJW Social Signaling, because…Woke. So bae. So authentically self-actualised. AF.

        And the Food Card. A probably a damn shower, too.

        1. Public, on-campus validation in front of peers whilst SJW Social Signaling,

          Noted. I should have said “Chicks (or dudes) and cocktail parties.

      2. Meh, with all these new regulations I find it’s easier to go to elementary schools to meet girls. They’re far more idealistic at that age. Well, before I get to them at least.

    2. State school used to be a good value – 20+ years ago. And I viewed it precisely as “vocational training”. The feel-good crap was just an afterthought.

      We’re probably going to see universities go back to targeting their traditional clientele: the independently wealthy and the uniquely genius. The days of the middle-class partying for 4 years after HS is not going to last much longer.

      1. Sure it will. The government can always print more money to back up the student loans and/or pay the professors directly.

        1. While the government *can* print more money, the real question is *will* they once its value starts declining precipitously as a consequence. Unfortunately (for fiscal sanity), the rest of the world is vaulting headling ahead of us, making even our own stupid decisions seem sane by comparison.

        2. *pay the protesters directly

          http://www.nationalreview.com/…..r-document

    3. credentialing, if you want a practical answer. Many jobs have some sort of degree requirement as the base screening criteria. You have to have some sort of paper to even get in the door, barring some inside connection.

      1. Aye, for some fields it serves for that, although employers have caught on that most “credentialed” people are about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Having a degree, by itself, won’t even get you the interview.

        Then of course you have the degrees that will get you in the door…at the local Starbucks.

  5. I’m not sure how I’m supposed to feel about this. Not enough virtue signaling.

  6. Bad move DePaul, you’re just up-ing Ben Shapiro’s Thug Life cred.

  7. This means that you will not see us picketing to keep the DePaul Socialists from hosting someone, you will not see us petitioning the administration to ban a speaker that the DePaul Feminist Front is attempting to bring to campus, and you will not see us congregating en masse on the Quad in order to forcefully shut down a speech we disagree with.

    Ultraclassy burn.

    1. On one hand I agree with the sentiment. On the other, the people that initiate this stuff won’t stop until they know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of it.

      1. I doubt that will stop them. If anything I’d bet they’re hoping precisely that will happen so they can say it retroactively justifies their own behavior.

    2. …And in the medium to long term, “You will not see us paying the $35K a year tuition.”

    3. The other thing they should be pointing out is that they will not be donating any money to the school in the future, and they will encourage all of their relatives and friends to not donate to the university until and unless the policy is changed.

  8. Ahem…. (((Ben Shapiro)))

    1. A (((conservative))) is the worst kind of conservative.

    2. He’s rippled?

      1. It’s a (((HUGS))) from the AOL days.

        1. Jesus groove you are old…that was like the dark ages of the tubes.

          Do you remember owning an intelivision too?

          1. I do, it was awesome.

            1. I had an Atari 2600, and IT was awesome…don’t tell Groovus, I am trying to make fun of his age.

              1. I’m pretty sure Groovus and R C are Old Man River and Grandfather Wind.

                1. Couldn’t say how old Groovus is. I’m so old, though, that I can remember, not just phone modems, but typewriters.

                  1. I’m so old, though, that I can remember, not just phone modems, but typewriters.

                    Smith-Corona. With a correction cartridge. I used it in grammar school.

                    The Atari 800 also had one of the earliest phone modems. That was when you actually had to *program* the initiation string, before the era of Windows 3.11 and winsocks.

                    1. Smith-Corona. With a correction cartridge. I used it in grammar school.

                      I had one in college. All my college papers were typed, except one, when we kludged the Vax in the computer lab into pretending to be a word processor.

                      Its printers were also typewriters, BTW.

                    2. We had a Vax PDP 11/34 in high school (upgraded to 11/44 senior year iirc). You had to fight to get one of the video terminals to work on otherwise you’d get stuck with the teletype style terminals. Can’t remember what the proper name for those were. The video terminals were VT-52 & later VT-100 equivalents.

                      I used a text editor to type up a paper for some class & then sent it to what we called the ‘dump printer’ which was a fast dot matrix printer. The teacher was soooo impressed to see something written on the computer he held it up to the class. Don’t recall how I was graded on it though. Probably something I threw together at the last minute.

              2. I am in my early 40’s, FTR. Above 40 and below 45.-))))

                We had an Atari 800 computer, yes, with the BASIC cartridge. Our first family computer was a TRS-80 and I was a tiny widdle Groovus when that happened (I think I was 6 or 7). We also had Intellivision. Never did get the highly coveted 2600 though.

                So, I waited until later in life to get married and start a family. Geraldo Rivera is like 108 and still siring Peque?a Riveras.

                1. And here I was thinking you were older than me.

                  1. Holy crap! We are all around the same age (‘cept for RC). And John just sounds the oldest with his get off my lawn and what not.

                  2. And here I was thinking you were older than me.

                    I graduated from HS a year early. Hell, I started going to school when I was 4 yrs old.

                    1. I graduated from HS a year early. Hell, I started going to school when I was 4 yrs old.

                      OK, Doogie.

                    2. OK, Doogie.

                      Had to get up to change the girls… and I see this little number, Sparky.

                      A Trip in the Wayback Machine

                      Zeb|1.8.13 @ 5:59PM|#

                      Seriously. Since when do 4 year olds go to school?
                      report spam

                      Groovus Maximus|1.8.13 @ 6:01PM|#

                      I did.
                      report spam

                      Sevo|1.8.13 @ 6:06PM|#

                      Yeah, but you’re weird.

                      You might remember this, since you were on this thread.

  9. If DePaul can’t stomach allowing students to hear from a conservative, it has no business touting itself as an institution where free inquiry is valued.

    I am pretty sure that all but a few explicitly conservative colleges in this country don’t even call themselves that or try and pretend anymore. They are there to babysit, indoctrinate, and hand out credentials.

    1. We’re starting to see some teachers and administrators give up and leave. It’ll get worse before it all burns down. What parent in their right minds would send their kids to these hellholes?

      1. Not if there is an alternative. The faculty and administrators who are leaving should have seen it coming. They stood around and cheered as the mob got rid of every conservative in the faculty or administration never realizing that eventually they would get the knock on the door. They have run out of outside enemies and have turned on themselves.

        1. To be fair, the ones who are leaving aren’t generally the politicking type. Maybe they stood by idly or quielty, but typically out of fear for their own careers. I’ve seen professors be mistreated by their “peers” for their personal and political views. It’s not a monoculture (yet).

  10. The dark specter of fascism is forever descending upon the Republicans and Trump but always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.


    Washington Post: Liberal intolerance is on the rise on America’s college campuses

    Quote:
    Today’s students are indeed both more left wing and more openly hostile to free speech than earlier generations of collegians.

    Don’t believe me? There are hard data to prove it.

    1. The comments to that article do not disappoint.


      Kate McIntyre
      2/16/2016 6:23 PM EST
      With a wingnut headline like “Liberal intolerance…” – you lost me. Liberals aren’t “intolerant” – but we’re damned sick of the never-ending deluge of hate speech, racism, misogyny and religious bigotry from the right. But there’s always this idiotic element of “both sides do it” – well, both sides do NOT do it. I’m not saying that there aren’t any lefty crackpots out there – but NONE of them are mainstream rightwing candidates for President of the United States. The right created this monster, and they’ve spent years claiming that they had no idea that this would happen. Well, I call BS.

      And she is one of the more thoughtful ones. God these people are scary stupid.

      1. Kate, you lost me at “wingnut”.

        1. How about this guy

          rs.
          2/14/2016 11:07 PM EST
          You can blame this phenomenon on the vituperative right wing media and politicians. Children are rebellious by nature, their rebellion was moderate when the adult conservatives were moderate (lol) so the only natural inferences is that they have been driven to take the extreme liberal stance because of the Tea Party right-wingers.
          BTW, @Skeptic1 – these “snowflakes” are going to be the future leaders deciding your Social Security and Medicare benefits – so treat them with deference and understanding.
          LikeShare

          1. BTW, @Skeptic1 – these “snowflakes” are going to be the future leaders deciding your Social Security and Medicare benefits – so treat them with deference and understanding.

            … and we’re totally not gaining control of the institutions so that we can control the culture. Nope, NO SIRREE. Nothing to see here.

            Just another right-wing myth!

      2. And a conservative could pen a similar opinion about the left’s responsibility for the rise of SJWs, #BLM, and other bigoted movements from the left. There’s no self-awareness on her part.

        The problem is, neither one is truly wrong. There are honest-to-God racists and sexists in Donald Trump’s camp. But there are also racists and sexists (largely of a different stripe) in Hillary Clinton’s camp. It’s called identity politics, and it’s what’s selling right now.

        But they don’t want an end to identity politics. They want the supremacy of their own identity/identities. The reason they deserve the label of “intolerant” is because that’s exactly what they are. I guess they still have some baggage from old-school liberalism, where aspiring to tolerance was still valued. But they’ve shed that skin and everyone knows it.

      3. Remember, liberals are tolerant by default. So anything they do is tolerant by default also.

  11. Reminds me of when Ann Coulter was supposed to speak at the University of Ottawa a few year back. The Proglodytes started protesting and got the whole thing shutdown over “safety reasons”. She had some great things to say about Ottawa U following the shutdown:

    In an interview, Ms. Coulter said she’s given 100 to 200 speeches at colleges and last night was the first time one of her addresses has been “completely shut down.” She said the incident reflects poorly on the University of Ottawa.

    “It’s at the absolute bush league, bottom of the barrel schools that you get the worst treatment and yet and still I’ve never seen this before,” she said.

    “I’m guessing the scores to get into the University of Ottawa are not very challenging.”

    1. It’s at the absolute bush league, bottom of the barrel schools that you get the worst treatment

      Is there any evidence for this? Based on the zillion anecdotes we’ve seen here over the years I am ready to conclude that I would get a better, more intellectually honest education at my local CC than at Harvard or whatever passes for not bush-league these days.

      1. I guess it depends on how she grades the schools.. but I agree with your overall point.

      2. uOttawa’s claim to fame is as a bilingual school. It’s not up there with McGill or Queen’s but it’s still got some good departments. It’s mid-tier but definitely not bottom of the barrel.

      3. At any school, the true Ivy Leaguers are the mathematics and science students (and I would say the Economics and probably Foreign language students). In these fields, I would go so far as to say the quality of student is primarily determined by his or her own dedication, regardless of whether they’re at Harvard or the local state school.

        On the other hand a Harvard gender studies major is probably about as dumb as a local state school gender studies major, so I guess there is some measure of equality across the spectrum.

        Anyway, these lectures and discussions that unis have these days are really meant to be circle jerks. Any actual conflict of ideas (between people present; strawmanning ideas of people who aren’t present is encouraged) is regarded as a disruption. Unfortunately I know from experience.

  12. If Person A wants to speak on campus, Group X makes threats against Person A, and DePaul responds by capitulating to Group X and banning Person A, the campus is going to have problems. Why shouldn’t YAF respond by making threats against the College Democrats’ desired speakers?

    Because DePaul would call for a SWAT team to eliminate the YAF protestors?

  13. we want our campus to be one that upholds our fundamental rights

    You can’t always get what you want . . . .

    1. Did you pay the Stones for using that line RC? Not sure they want it associated with Hit and Run…

      1. Not sure they want it associated with Hit and Run…

        Well they should know better than anyone that…

        You can’t always get what you want . . . .

  14. You know who else wouldn’t let a Jew give a speech?

    1. Louis Farrakhan?

    2. Campus BDS?

    3. Kanye West?

  15. Let me ask a question. And it’s only half in jest. Given this, why should conservatives refrain from violence. I know none of us approve of violence on the part of conservatives. But, incentives speak louder than words. And the incentive structure America’s colleges and universities sends to conservatives is that they better start stocking up on baseball bats and learning to exercise the the goon’s veto.

    University administrators want to apply different standards? Well, why should they be exempt?

    1. Because violence wont work. What will work is more new schools being created to serve the now under-served libertarian and mildly conservative populous. Then those folks will de-enroll or never eneroll in these insane collectivist factories.

      1. Why do you think that will work? That would work only if you had a fully functioning market. You don’t have that. These institutions have an enormous amount of credibility and power. Moreover, the progs own the organizations who give out accreditation. Sure, go start your own “libertarian” college. Have fun. It will never get accredited, so no one will want to go there.

        Worse still, even if it did, the Progs would just show up and take it over in a few years like they have these institutions. And what you are going to do about it? Ban progs? You are committed to free speech aren’t you?

        These people are evil and will use your morals and principles against you. You are pissing in the wind if you think there is some way to avoid fighting them.

        1. They’ve managed to infiltrate Reason’s writers. I don’t see why a libertarian university would be any different.

      2. A lot of these schools depend heavily on alumni contributions. If my school ever pulls this shit, you can bet they will receive a letter announcing no more donations, no grandchildren will attend, and I’ll never recommend the school to colleagues or friends. YAF needs to work with the alumni and circumvent the current weasel administrators. And so should SFL and YAL.

        1. This, I agree, is the solution. Target donors. Groups like FIRE also help. I would even say Reason and other ‘alternative’ news sources publishing about events like this and trying to push them into public sight helps by making it clear to administrators that they are being watched. Even better though would be to publish the names of the students behind these farces, the ones threatening riots and violence, and putting them on the internet so future employers can find out what kind of nut jobs they are. Once they realize their actions actually have consequences they may be inclined to act more responsibly.

        2. I agree to some extent, but they’re not going to miss your annual $19.98 donation that much…

    2. They don’t actually have to engage in violence, they just have to threaten it.

    3. “Why, officer, we’re just the YAF softball team, heading to batting practice . . . .”

      1. That’s the part just before Ajax gets handcuffed to a park bench, right?

    4. Because once a brawl between lefties and righties breaks out, two things will happen: 1) the conservative protesters, violent or not, will be expelled for propagating hate, while the left-leaning ones will be let off perhaps with a warning for having gone ‘a little too far in support of a good cause.’ The newspapers will have headlines like “right wing extremists violently attack women and minorities/LBGTQs (doesn’t matter if it was really mostly white males) to suppress their voices.” Public outcry on the left will give the federal government justification (they only really need one or two high profile incidents to fabricate a ‘trend’, as in the case of the ‘dear colleague’ letter in response to the ‘rape crisis’) to make some new edicts to regulate “extremist” speech and groups on campus.

      Totalitarians already want the desperate measures, they’re just looking for anyone to give them an excuse to declare the desperate times to justify them.

      1. Which one is #2)?

        1. I forgot I was counting halfway though the paragraph.

  16. DePaul Feminist Front

    They sure do like to put young Americans in the middle of a hairy situation.

    1. BOOOOOOO!!!!!!

      I need a swissy over here.

  17. I’m betting that you’d find some correlation between schools that ban speakers and schools from which a sports team has won a major tournament.

  18. Little known fact: College administrators are the largest family of invertebrates in the animal kingdom.

    They often exceed 6 feet and walk upright, even withouit a spine and other bony internal structure.

    1. They use cartilage recycled from educational books that do not have the new truth in them.

    2. Coincidentally, they are also the largest animal known to practice copriphagia.

  19. DePaul is a private university, so its students don’t have First Amendment rights.

    Yes, they do. All people have First Amendment rights, regardless of where they happen to go to college. All being a private university means is that DePaul’s administration doesn’t have to respect their students rights.

  20. I’d be less offended if DePaul said allowing a Jewish speaker would offend its Vincentian mission.

    As an alum, I’m still invoking my “Never donating another dime as long as Holtschneider is there” veto.

  21. When leftist speakers come, YAF should hold an obnoxiously noisy rally in support of letting all opinions be heard.

  22. Reason makes a good point. If the school is advertising “free inquiry”, and then doesnt provide that. That could be false advertising on the part of the school.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.