Police

University Disinvites Sheriff David Clarke for Disagreeing with Black Lives Matter, Lies About It

University of New Haven says he's 'potentially politically polarizing.' Well, duh.

|

Clarke
Riccardo Savi/Sipa USA/Newscom

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke—a frequent Fox News guest and vociferous critic of the Black Lives Matter movement—was slated to give the keynote address at a symposium at the University of New Haven. But he was disinvited because administrators deemed him "potentially politically polarizing."

UNH then attempted to mislead the public about why it had rescinded the invitiation to Clarke.

The symposium is sponsored by the university's Forensic Science department. This year's topic is officer-involved shootings—something Clarke is no doubt highly qualified to discuss. That's why a senior lecturer at the university, Patrick Malloy, picked him in the first place. UNH arranged his accommodations, and confirmed that his speech was "a go," according to Campus Reform.

Then Malloy cancelled:

On August 3, my assistant had a conversation with Mr. Malloy, who was extremely apologetic and embarrassed to have to rescind the offer. Apparently, the higher-ups did not want me to speak on campus due to my remarks about #BlackLivesMatter.

When challenged, the university simply chose to lie about why it had disinvited Clarke. UNH initially released a statement claiming that Clarke had never been formally invited, and his travel and accommodation demands were too difficult to satisfy. After Clarke called UNH out on the lie, the administration backtracked, finally conceding to Campus Reform, "we decided not to finalize his arrangements to visit campus when it was determined his appearance could potentially become politically polarizing in light of the imminent presidential election."

Make no mistake: Clarke is vehemently opposed to BLM. He has accused the movement of terrorizing police and sympathizing with cop killers. He describes it as an anarchist movement. So yes, he is a "potentially politically polarizing" person. But so what? Everyone with an opinion worth hearing is "potentially politically polarizing," including pro-BLM speakers. Would the university disinvite Shaun King if some students didn't like his message?

UNH is a private university, and, I presume a fairly liberal place. It seems likely that most of the campus already has a fairly positive view of BLM. The university has nothing to lose in permitting a contrary view to be heard. Indeed, the university should seek out contrary opinions, in order to provide a sense of balance and perspective on important public policy issues. Clarke might not change anyone's mind, but perhaps members of campus who support BLM will have a better idea of what motivates people who disagree with them.

As someone who agrees with much (though not all) of BLM's message, I certainly wouldn't turn down the opportunity to hear Clarke speak. I think he's very, very wrong, but how can anyone argue against him if they don't let him speak in the first place?

I reached out to UNH's president for comment. He did not immediately respond.

NEXT: Natural Gas Ambush Killed Off Coal Mining Industry, Not Obama's 'War on Coal'

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. Alright, this is the second Rico Suave piece in a row that I can’t quibble with.

    You’re not fooling me. What have you done with him?

    1. I agree with much (but not all) of your sentiment.

      1. And I would never turn down the opportunity to hear either of you speak or read what you write. Especially since both of you gents currently occupy seats on my Top 5 Groovy List of Commentariat Excellence.

        1. Top 5 Groovy List of Commentariat Excellence

          Ooh, that sounds like something to aspire to.

          *scratches “make appearance in SF slashfic” off list*
          *adds “make Top 5 Groovy List” to list*

          1. I’ve appeared in SugarFree’s fiction. Now birds fall dead from the sky over my house; babies cry and dogs raise their hackles when i pass; milk curdles and turns black when i but glance at it. It is good that you do not aspire to that. My days are darkness and my nights are spiders.

            1. It is no less than you deserve.

            2. Sooooo, SugarFree is Cthulu? That explains so much. He is truly horrifying and delightful. All hail the master of madness.

        2. *waits with rapt attention to see the rest of the list…prepares to cry and wallow in the misery of senary commenter status.

    2. He’s taking the advice of his detractors in moderation and without admitting as much.

      1. The System Works! Let us hurl more vile invective at the reason staff and see if we get results!

        1. Can you toss invective ? Or must it be hurled ?

          1. You can lob it, but you cannot toss it.

          2. I play invective-ultimate-frisbee. You should have good backhand, forehand, overhand, and push-skills before you get involved.

            1. My invective has the damnable slice I can’t eliminate. Every time I aim for Welch, Gillespie gets hit.

              1. see its funny cause I swing right so that meas Nick is to the right of Welch…get it…

                am i taking this too far? I am.

                hello? Anyone there?

                1. hello? Anyone there?

                  *gets up from bed to shut out the lights*

        2. I’m in. 🙂

    3. You have to admit, his continued insistence that “Shaun King” is a name-drop that shouldn’t be expected to inspire mockery and derision is still “Classic Robby”.

      That guy’s one of the dumbest motherfuckers to ever drive a keyboard, and yet Robby keeps shouting him out as though its the cheapest way of establishing his internet-“Woke-Cred”

      1. This:

        That guy’s one of the dumbest motherfuckers to ever drive a keyboard

        and this:

        Robby keeps shouting him out as though its the cheapest way of establishing his internet-“Woke-Cred”

        are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I’d say the second thought follows quite logically from the first.

  2. If you start letting the Wrong Kind of Black Person question the narrative of pervasive white racism, next thing you know, white people will start thinking that *they* can question that narrative, too!

    1. To be clear, the proposition I’m questioning is not “white racism exists” – the proposition I’m questioning is “white racism is the main thing holding back black people today.”

      1. Wait… you mean what Dems have been doing in Chicago and Baltimore for half a century has been motivated by something other than a vehement hatred for black people? You could’ve fooled me.

        1. Vehement hatred? No. Political opportunism, for sure. Deeming them useful idiots for their nefarious goals, probably.

          1. I don’t know, Free. When add up the sum total of policies and line it up with the results that have been produced, you have what amounts to a Klan wish list. Not even the most virulent racist could have done to the black community what Team Blue did legally.

            1. Accusations of “racism” in addition to being tired old canards, speak of motivation not results. Lest we forget, no one does unintended consequences better than Democrats.

              1. Not even the most virulent racist could have done to the black community what Team Blue did legally.

                Those two groups occupy a great many acreage of overlap on the Venn diagram that is the Democrat Plantation, Your Eagleship. Virulence can be rather easily cloaked in the Shroud of Good Intentions.

                Lest we forget, no one does unintended consequences better than Democrats.

                Forseeable consequences are not unintended, Freebie. See wareagle’s aformentioned statement.

                There’s a reason why the Progressive Left loved and lauded W.E.B. DuBois, yet thoroughly hated Booker T. Washington.

                1. Groovus, I have borrowed your “foreseeable” line quite often, as below.

                  1. I think the “foreseeable consequences” is one of RC Dean’s.

                    1. I think the “foreseeable consequences” is one of RC Dean’s.

                      and seconded below by Groovus. My apologies to RC for the mis-attribution. Good line and I intend to keep using it.

                  2. Groovus, I have borrowed your “foreseeable” line quite often, as below.

                    Not mine, wareagle. Those are compiled by RC Dean, who not long ago revised and posted them for all to survey.

                    I even translated them into Russian and Ukrainian for my family and colleagues. Dr. Groovova thinks they are rather clever.

                    1. Dr. Groovova thinks they are rather clever.

                      *blushes, kicks pebble*

                2. Forseeable consequences are not unintended, Freebie. See wareagle’s aformentioned statement.

                  I think you give way too much credit to the Dem’s ability to foresee consequences, Groovy. The Democrats in city level government aren’t part of national conspiracy of secret racists intent on blowing up the prospects of blacks, it’s much simpler to conclude that they’re just genuinely stupid people that should be nowhere near the power of government.

                  Foreseeable consequences can very easily be unintended, just because it’s foreseeable for someone like you or me, doesn’t mean it was actually foreseen by the people that made it into law and policy. Which is why that quip “forseeable consequences are not unintended”, is nonsense. The “-able” appended to end of the word implies possibility, not certainty of knowledge.

                  1. Which is why that quip “forseeable consequences are not unintended”, is nonsense. The “-able” appended to end of the word implies possibility, not certainty of knowledge

                    Occam’s Razor not withstanding, Freebie, I really do believe that extermination on the margins and outright subjugation is precisely what Proggies intended and still do. The Proggies simply didn’t have the stomach, at that time, for a, ahem, “Final Solution.” The Proggies know all too well, “Force Works.” How force manifests can take many different forms, such as appealing to self-interest, greed, and envy.

                    “Genuinely stupid,” may honestly account for a small percentage of these types, since some do genuinely believe that the short benefit “help” they extend supersedes generations of long term damage. Which has been documented for most of human history, replete with example after example of how subjugation of the masses by both initial enticement backed up with demonstrable force is all too certain. Particularly when you have SJW/Suburbia Types who will do anything or spend just enough of others’ money to keep The Undesirables at bay.

                    That’s why the quip, as you call it, is perfectly valid in this instance, since Proggies do pay attention to past history as they revise it for future generations.

                    1. “Genuinely stupid,” may honestly account for a small percentage of these types, since some do genuinely believe that the short benefit “help” they extend supersedes generations of long term damage.

                      I always waffle back and forth on this. I think that most people who support progressives with various strengths of commitment are intelligent enough to be able to crack open a history book and see their various policies play out in horrifying ways across history. However, smart people can be just as ignorant as morons. If you’re not exposed to history (or your history exposure is warped by your teacher), then you simply won’t know that these policies have been proven to fail.

                      The harder hurdle to get over in declaring them intelligent is the critical thought one. It’s really not that hard to subject your ideas to scrutiny and see if they hold up. Socialism is one of those ideas that starts to fall apart, even theoretically, when you subject it to scrutiny. However, nobody seems interested in stress testing their principles. That’s not stupidity as much as it’s undisciplined thinking.

                    2. I really do believe that extermination on the margins and outright subjugation is precisely what Proggies intended and still do.

                      That may be true of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and their ilk, it’s decidedly not true for probably 99% of proggies like my aunt or the therapist who rents office space from me, people who genuinely think that their views are wholesome, moral and conducive to a happy and prosperous society. The vast majority of proggies are people who are emotionally invested in comfortable lies. That includes mayors, city councilmen and even some newbie congresscritters.

                      Back to the quip, let’s separate it from the issue at hand and evaluate it on it’s own merit “forseeable consequences are not unintended”. That’s easily refutable. Foreseeable=/=foreseen, nor does it offer a guarantee of results for minds incapable of foreseeing it in the first place. I get it though, it makes for a short and simple string of words that describes the evil at the top levels of power. It is however, not some kind of deep truth or even necessarily a truth at all.

                    3. it’s decidedly not true for probably 99% of proggies like my aunt or the therapist who rents office space from me, people who genuinely think that their views are wholesome, moral and conducive to a happy and prosperous society. The vast majority of proggies are people who are emotionally invested in comfortable lies.

                      Ah yes, the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations, of which I would bet my left testicle that your aunt and therapist tenant have in, well, spades. Also, keep in mind that racism, bigotry, and discrimination are not solely occupied by those hurling that across racial lines, but also carry such reservation about their own members of their own racial and ethic demographies (such as W.E.B, DuBois – who did champion eugenics for his own race as well as others. I chose him for a reason) that tends to appear in the guise of Classism. Such attitudes don’t have to manifest themselves in blatant or stereotypical ways for them to be valid in people who don’t otherwise feel they harbour them.

                      How else would you explain how so many districts where their local governments are dominated with minority ethnicity, yet those very people are still getting shafted? That would scream intent to me, since they know what keeps others down for the benefit of a few. I don’t make the mistake that Proggies are stupid. Vapid, smug, and self-congratulatory, but not stupid.

                    4. The “Affordable” Care Act is failing in pretty much exactly the way its critics said it would. The consequences were easily foreseen – but dismissed by the ACA’s pushers.

                  2. Foreseeable consequences can very easily be unintended, just because it’s foreseeable for someone like you or me, doesn’t mean it was actually foreseen by the people that made it into law and policy.

                    The Iron Law is a riff on responsibility for what you do. Out in the real world, you are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your actions. Whether you actually, subjectively, foresaw them or not is irrelevant. When those consequences have actually been predicted, there is no defense.

                    It is a refutation of the attempt to avoid responsibility by saying the consequences were “unintended”. If you are shooting a gun randomly in public, it makes no difference whether you “intended” to shoot somebody. When somebody catches a bullet, you will be held responsible because that was a foreseeable result of shooting a gun randomly in public.

                    1. Continued:

                      Its also a riff on what “intent” means in the law. Intent often/generally applies only to your intent to act, not to your intent that certain consequences result. Thus, if I am in my neighbor’s garage looking for tools that I loaned him, and I pick up a hammer that I think is mine but is actually his, and take it back to my garage, I have the requisite intent to steal his hammer and have committed theft. The fact that I intended subjectively only to take my hammer is irrelevant. I intended the act of picking up that hammer, so I am guilty.

                    2. It is a refutation of the attempt to avoid responsibility by saying the consequences were “unintended”. If you are shooting a gun randomly in public, it makes no difference whether you “intended” to shoot somebody. When somebody catches a bullet, you will be held responsible because that was a foreseeable result of shooting a gun randomly in public.

                      But that argument misses the entire point. It’s not about liability or responsibility. It’s about whether or not it’s intended. The fact that it was unintended does not alleviate responsibility to be sure, but the existence of responsibility does not make it “intended” either.

                    3. It’s not about liability or responsibility. It’s about whether or not it’s intended.

                      You cannot have the former without the latter. Just because intent is not couched as, “I woke up this morning and I am going to ram someone in an intersection!” does not absolve you of intent if and when you hit another vehicle or even a pedestrian simply because you know that not stopping at a controlled intersection is a fantastic way to get into an accident. Regardless of whether you exclaimed or not, “I am going to plow into someone,” ealier in the day or the instant before you hit someone.

                      With Proggies and the quip, you are conflating a reasonable, demonstrably and statistically likely conclusion with discrete pre-meditation at every point of an act and clairvoyance. Even libertarianism, free markets, and sound economic and monetary policy depend on the former to be reliably predicted and intended.

                      Proggies don’t need to have some coordinated Vast Left Wing Sect with decoder rings and secret handshakes to reach a certain, definite goal knowingly at the expense of a particular group predictably and reliably.

                    4. You cannot have the former without the latter.

                      This is getting way out of hand. I’m not talking about right and wrong, nor am I positing that any person or group is more stupid than they are evil, or vice versa. I’m talking about one particular quip that I hear all the time that is as worthless as it is demonstrably false. Let me give you an example of a demonstrably false statement: “Foreseeable consequences are not unintended”. There are no qualifiers here to make this anything but an absolute statement.

                      Yet it’s entirely possible that while a consequence of some action was foreseeable, that the actor did not intend for it to happen. That’s not a statement of guilt, or blame, or liability, or evil or good. The statement is about intent, that’s literally it. This is a statement that can be shown to be false on purely logical grounds, no extra research, case studies or anecdotes required.

                      Since foresight and intention are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive, it is categorically wrong to assert that intent and foresight are equivalents or antecedents. It’s that simple.

                      I could have foreseen that I might crash my car when I started the thing and drove off, but the crash was still unintentional. This shouldn’t even be up for debate.

                  3. Free Society – I am gonna stick with RC’s original because even if Mr. Boardmember A or congressman B cant foresee a consequence there are never any shortage of people to point it out for them. They have no excuses.

                    I will give you this: “We found out that the constitution doesnt allow us to ban certain kinds of music” – Fiona Ma, while on the LA city council, currently failing up to the California State Board of Equalization

                    There are no shortage of people in government who cant foresee consequences on their own.

                    1. I am gonna stick with RC’s original because even if Mr. Boardmember A or congressman B cant foresee a consequence there are never any shortage of people to point it out for them. They have no excuses.

                      Well socialists tell you that you’re wrong all the time, and yet you don’t believe them. I don’t think it’s all that different with roles reversed, even though we have reason and evidence on our side, those concepts are only useful to proggies when they serve their purposes. So again, something can be both foreseeable and unintended.

                    2. those concepts are only useful to proggies when they serve their purposes.

                      That, Freebie, demonstrates the requisite intent: applying concepts they know are demonstrably and reliably not beneficial, in the long run, to the people they are suppose to help.

                    3. It demonstrates cognitive dissonance. Few people except sophists actually want to be cognitively dissonant, they do it because they want to win an argument and insulate their deeply held beliefs from constantly evolving.

                    4. It demonstrates cognitive dissonance.

                      Nope, because that would imply a lack of knowledge and foresight, aka ignorance.

                      When one knows the difference and does it anyway (such as Proggies incredible ability to exempt themselves from the effects of the policies they enact) demonstrates requisite intent of result, such as keeping a certain group and/or ethnicity dependent, uneducated, and otherwise kept in check.

                    5. To touch on your example, my aunt, now retired, spent her life as a social worker. She ran a county’s welfare office for twenty years. She is really not a bad person, she genuinely believes her work helped people and made society a better place. She did not intend to turn one end of town into a crime ridden ghetto hellhole when her office spearheaded some Section 8 housing, she truly believed that since everyone was equal, that the government housing would elevate these people because they’d have more money for food and cars. She literally thought, that if you give poor people resources, they’ll become good stewards of those resources. There is no doubt in my mind that she did not intend for things to go south, even though my dad told her that it would. She didn’t believe him, because she was operating off of bad information about human nature and assumed the exact same thing about him. Now she freely admits that it was wrong to build government housing in that small town because she saw the results and wishes she could undo it.

                      So here you have something that was foreseeable, but was not foreseen (by the relevant actor) that resulted in consequences that were definitely not intended.

                    6. She is really not a bad person, she genuinely believes her work helped people and made society a better place.

                      She’s responsible for instituting a miserable ghetto, was warned beforhand, yet refused to entertain foreseeing the possibility of ruin when your Dad tolld her otherwise (and apparently still believes a miserable ghetto has made society a better place). At that point, she has demonstrated intent, regardless of likely result. Whether she wants to admit or not (apparently she doesn’t), she must, it necessarily follows, have considered the possibility that ruin would ensue (I find it had to believe that other areas with Sec. 8 housing gone awry was totally lost on your aunt.) She may state she didn’t want the resultant ghetto, but she still had the requisite intent prior to its occurrence since she was told of the likely result.

                      And with that, I must retire for the evening. Do skorogo, Freebie. 🙂

                    7. and just to be clear, the requisite intent of proggies to lie to people to prove their points does not make the aforementioned quip correct. Even if the sentiment behind the quip is correct, the statement itself is not. It’s categorically wrong, all you need is one solitary example, out of all possible examples in the known universe, that a foreseeable consequence was not intended by the actor.

                  4. To many in politics, it is all over when a new rule or law is passed. They simply believe that the new rule immediately does what is intended and solves the problem. Anyone later checking if it actually did is simply trying to spoil the party. I call it “magical thinking”.

                3. Yeah but the left can never foresee the consequences, they are completely blind to the obvious.

                  But then again a group pushing people to be punished for calling a man he and a woman she, have little use for even acknowledging reality or its consequences…

                4. It isnt just Washington that the progressive left hates. I recently spoke of F. Douglas as one of the least appreciated of the greatest of Americans in history and was met with the most insane invective from a proggie acquaintance imaginable. It was worse than the things they say about Clarence Thomas. I was shocked. I didn’t think they knew who he was as I had never heard them speak about him, but apparently he is reviled more than Satan in leftist circles.

                  Wow, they really do hate any member of the protected class that strays off of the plantation. David Clarke is in good company. I wonder if his pro-2A stance has more to do with that than his opinion about blm.

                  1. Wow, they really do hate any member of the protected class that strays off of the plantation. David Clarke is in good company. I wonder if his pro-2A stance has more to do with that than his opinion about blm.

                    Hell if you look in this board, there is at least one regular poster calling Sheriff Clarke an Uncle Tom (he put “actual black man” in scare quotes) because the Sheriff does not believe what the poster expects that all blacks should believe. He has the gall to declare him No True ScotsmanBlack Man, because this race baiter somehow is an authority on what constitutes a real black person, and of course to him, not swallowing the “everything is racism” narrative, is a disqualifying factor. Leftists, like that poster, are despicable.

              2. can’t motivation drive results? And I would suspect Dems are far more suited for the ‘foreseeable consequences’ approach than the unintended variety. Come on; when your policies provide an incentive for a certain type of behavior, even a Dem can understand that more of that behavior will follow.

                1. Come on; when your policies provide an incentive for a certain type of behavior, even a Dem can understand that more of that behavior will follow.

                  You’d think so, but it’s entirely possible that at least some of them really are that stupid.

                  1. Not just possible, but demonstrably so. Responding to incentives is also known as using a loophole.

                2. Come on; when your policies provide an incentive for a certain type of behavior, even a Dem can understand that more of that behavior will follow.

                  You assume that people are actually good at spotting the incentives produced by policy. All available evidence points to that being untrue.

                  1. You assume that people are actually good at spotting the incentives produced by policy.

                    when it’s the political class, I tend to assume that the incentives are purposely inserted into the policy. But I am willing to be proven wrong – is there one govt policy aimed at fixing a problem that has actually resulted in a fix? Far more often than not, the original situation has been made worse and that’s intentional.

                    1. when it’s the political class, I tend to assume that the incentives are purposely inserted into the policy.

                      Fair enough, I thought you were talking about street-level Dems.

                    2. At the street level, you are right; they are that stupid.

                3. You’re talking about people who are going to tax us to prosperity.

                  They is nothing that a Democrat cannot misunderstand….. Corollary there is nothing that they truly do understand, save one thing (political power)

                  I used to wonder if I was being unfair always thinking of Democrats as evil liars. But Hillary has proven that I was wrong, they’re far more evil liars than I gave them credit for….

              3. “…no one does unintended consequences better than Democrats.”

                I am stealing that.

                1. Damn I forgot to post my ? next to it. So I guess it’s all yours. Just remember me when you make it big.

            2. never attribute to evil that which can be ascribed to stupidity…and Democratz is the most stupidest peoplez in da world

              1. Addendum: Don’t dichotomize evil and stupid. They generally go hand in hand. Attributing it to stupidity does not relieve evil of responsibility.

                1. Addendum: Don’t dichotomize evil and stupid. They generally go hand in hand. Attributing it to stupidity does not relieve evil of responsibility.

                  Which is exactly why I disagree with the statement that “foreseeable consequences are not unintended”. It’s categorically wrong to equate them.

                  1. It’s categorically wrong to equate them

                    “Ignorance is the lack of knowledge something’s bad or wrong; stupidity is knowing better and doing it anyway, son.”

                    -Primus Maximus

                    Ignorance =/= Evil, since one doesn’t know better. Stupidity == Evil, since one knows better and did it anyway. Where the disagreement lies is one of scale, which is subjective.

                    If you are waiting for a majority black city council who happens to be as corrupt as any other majority non-black city council, and both exact the same policies destructive to the black citizens, for either (or both) to say, “We doing this to keep the [other] niggers in line,” you’re going to have a long wait, even though that exact, explicitly stated rationale was used no too many decades ago. And precisely what Sheriff Clarke contends as quite intended an aggregate and deliberate result.

                    Repeating the formula intending that result, regardless of a lack of specific, per-meditated events along the way, is both evil and stupid.

                    “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” no?

                    1. A caveman might smear shit on his wound to make it heal faster but instead it kills him. He could have possibly foreseen that outcome, but he didn’t. If he had foreseen it, he wouldn’t have done it since it’s not his intent to die from the wound he’s trying to heal. Thus his death was an unintended consequence of the course of treatment he chose, even though it would be theoretically possible for him to foresee that outcome. But he didn’t foresee it, so that means he intended to die all along, yes?

                      Since that quip is an absolute statement with no qualifiers or context, you need only one example in a universe full of examples to show that it’s false. I just gave you that.

                    2. Your example fails in that:

                      A) The caveman would just as likely been ignorant of infection resultant from fecal contam;

                      B) The caveman was aware of the risk from prior experience, but decided to take a chance packing the wound out of desperation with haemorrhaging;

                      C) Yes, the cavemen knew, from observing other situations like his that he would die from the fecal contam, decided to do so for whatever reason resided in his puny brain, such as a tribal tradition.

                      All of these discount that he wouldn’t have done it at all, and the last two discount that he was committing purposeful self-harm with the high likelihood of eventual death. I guess you could find me a caveman to prove or disprove this line of rationale assuming we can ask him, but I can definitely find a load of Proggies who more than satisfy the quip in question. Which is why I applied it in this case initially when I did, since it more than applies.

                    3. soooo…fuck all and let God sort them out?

                    4. A) Of course he was ignorant, he’s a caveman. But the point is that is was possible for him to foresee death as an outcome and failed to do so.

                      B) Is he now? Since you want to shoehorn in some non-factuals to rely upon, I guess I’ll narrow the parameters a bit. He lived alone, never had a grievous wound before.

                      C) See option B.

                      I guess you could find me a caveman to prove or disprove this line of rationale assuming we can ask him, but I can definitely find a load of Proggies who more than satisfy the quip in question.

                      That’s the great thing about absolutist statements like that. I only need one example to refute it.

                    5. I only need one example to refute it.

                      Without the actual caveman, you haven’t refuted anything, which is why you should find me a caveman.-)

                      If the caveman is ignorant, meaning without requisite knowledge and experience, that fecal contam can lead to sepsis, it’s simply not possible to foresee death without having prior witnessed it (assuming the caveman is capable of the ramifications and abstract concept of death). Even then, there’s no guarantee that fecal contam actually killed the prior caveman.

                      The Proggie simply doesn’t have the luxury of ignorance, whether a therapist, or your aunt at the point her husband warned her what he foresaw and why. At that point, stupid and evil applies, since she didn’t believe him, but I find it hard to swallow she was ignorant and unable to foresee the fruit of disastrous policy.

                      Yet you submit a stone-age knuckle dragger considers death from shit in a WX, but auntie could never fathom section 8 housing could be a disaster.

                    6. Oops! Your Dad told her, not your uncle. Apologies.

                    7. If you literally believe that at no time has someone experienced unintended consequences of an action, while having the ability to have seen it coming (but didn’t), then I don’t know what to tell you. I mean dude, seriously, you don’t think there was one doctor who ever killed his patient accidentally with the wrong diagnosis and subsequent treatment? You don’t think there was ever one car crash wasn’t intentional? I’m seriously astounded that this is even up for debate.

                    8. A caveman might smear shit on his wound to make it heal faster but instead it kills him. He could have possibly foreseen that outcome, but he didn’t. If he had foreseen it, he wouldn’t have done it since it’s not his intent to die from the wound he’s trying to heal

                      It’s the caveman that see the shit kill his buddy and then applies it to one after another of his buddies telling them this time the result will be different that basically make it obvious there is bad intent and they knew what they were doing but cared more about proving the ideology right than the reality on the ground smacking them in the mouth.

          2. Political opportunism, for sure. Deeming them useful idiots for their nefarious goals, probably.

            Don’t forget about plain old fashioned stupidity and an unshakable faith in the magic of good intentions – actual results be damned.

  3. White professor prevents black activist from coming to campus?

    Hmm. Sounds racist.

    1. all goes according to my secret plan…bwahahahahahaha

  4. The absolute worst thing about college suppression of free speech is that it makes me have to defend pieces of human excrement like Sheriff Clarke.

    1. He *does* play into the artificial, binary “you either support cops or you support BLM” debate, but hearing two sides is certainly better than hearing only one.

      1. Which is why I’ll defend his speech to the last, even if I disagree with almost everything the man says and does. Even if he’s possibly worse than Sheriff Apraio.

        1. Exactly, a student who hears his arguments along with the BLM arguments will be better-informed than a student who simply reads BLM pamphlets and Web pages.

        2. What, specifically? I’m not a camp follower for the guy so I can’t claim to know of everything he’s alleged, but he made a few salient points in the days following whatever incident brought him to national attention about society and government dumping social problems onto cops as both first response and last resort, leading to terrible confrontations between civilians and cops. IIRC he specifically called out inexistent parenthood, failing schools, welfarism, the drug war, and poor handling of mental health. Whether you think that’s an adequate defense of how police often interact with civilians–I don’t–is another question. He’s absolutely correct about what’s given rise to little police state fiefdoms.

          1. He’s absolutely correct about what’s given rise to little police state fiefdoms.

            The cognitive dissonance of demanding that the government act as the be-all, end-all of the social contract, and then acting outraged when that same government starts bossing you around instead of giving you free agency.

        3. What’s so worse about it? A sheriff defends law enforcement in the face of a mob; that seems more a given than something controversial. Probably likely that he rarely criticizes LEOs for doing stupid things. Then again, maybe a black guy takes the disorder in inner cities more personally than suburbia does and he’s noticed many of the problems along with their connection to Team Blue ideas. Is it his Redness that is offensive, his badge, both, or something else?

          1. His actions. Specifically what goes on in his jails (like the prisoner who died of dehydration)

            1. and maybe that’s how it went down. That every mention of it is linked to HuffPo, DailyKos, or something similar is not terribly convincing. Did find an NY Daily News article about it – bipolar inmate, turned down food, water cut off to his cell for whatever reason, and an inmate who talked to the local paper.

              1. So the inmate isn’t dead because the reports of his death come from sources you don’t like?

        4. can we have a gub fight at the A-Hole Corral?

      2. even if they’re the same, Dr. Mobius?

    2. pieces of human excrement

      Racist!!

      1. pieces of rabbit excrement

        Humanist!

      2. Sad!

  5. Last I checked people were still inviting Farrakhan to speak on campus. So this sensitivity appears to only run one way.

    1. only so we can hurl invective…like the monkees in the zoo…can’t Dolenz have his own fucking cage?

  6. The university has nothing to lose in permitting a contrary view to be heard.

    They’ll lose snowflakes but gain some water.

    1. They may not want to be embarresed by their students anticipated behavor. Sort of like how Reason feels about us.

      1. We’re collectively the perfect gentleman.

        1. SugarFree owns 19 top hats!

          1. and a monocle?

  7. #OreoLivesMatter

  8. “his appearance could potentially become politically polarizing”
    While withdrawing the invitation is absolutely politically polarizing.
    Maybe we should outlaw college instead of making it free?

  9. I reached out to UNH’s president for comment. He did not immediately respond.

    Did he eventually respond?

    1. Did he eventually respond?

      I wouldn’t hold my breathe. He probably looked up Rico Suave to see who he was dealing with, saw that he worked for an icky “right wing” rag and that he didn’t attend the Columbia School of Journalism and decide there was no way in hell he was going to talk some icky libertarian type.

      1. All he had to do was read a few articles and those fears would have been assuaged.

  10. He describes it as an anarchist movement.

    More of an angry mob. They may not have pitch forks, but they do use torches quite often.

  11. I’m going to withhold judgment until some of the original correspondence becomes available. I know from hard experience that certain faculty think they can go ahead and do whatever enters their brains, and make all kinds of offers/promises “on behalf of the university”, without actually checking with anyone else first. Once a month or so, someone comes into my office saying that they have made all the arrangements to bring in some outside person, and now we just needed to cough up money, space, time, etc., and we can’t say no because “promises have already been made”. The whole idea that they don’t actually have the authority to make commitments for the university is a novel concept to them.

    1. Alas, speaking as another faculty member and former department chair I have to agree with Sparty here. But only withholding judgment, not deciding one way or another.

    2. Once a month or so, someone comes into my office saying that they have made all the arrangements to bring in some outside person, and now we just needed to cough up money, space, time, etc., and we can’t say no because “promises have already been made”.

      Ahh, the “act first and apologize later” philosophy in action.

  12. The university has nothing to lose in permitting a contrary view to be heard.

    Clearly, you are less familiar with modern-day academia that we are less to believe. The hive cannot tolerate dissent, accepted dogma cannot be challenged, the heretic must be cast into the wilderness. If Clarke is allowed to speak, it will be like lending legitimacy to the idea that there is a viable point of view outside the one in the echo chamber.

  13. Thank God that pastey white Robbie thinks Clark is ‘very, very wrong’. We all know that the opinion of rich white liberals should be afforded more difference when it comes to issues faced by minorities than an actual black man like Clark.

    Next time just report on the emerging Maoism on college campuses without virtue signaling. You grovel for these agitators more than a university president. Pathetic

    1. So, do you have to work at being this dumb, or does it come to you naturally?

      1. That’s the kind of DERP that probably comes effortlessly to the truly retarded.

    2. We all know that the opinion of rich white liberals should be afforded more difference when it comes to issues faced by minorities than an actual black man like Clark.

      If that “actual black man” cheerleads the War on Drugs, perpetuates the “War on Cops” bullshit, thinks that mass incarceration is a myth, and thinks that the justice system doesn’t disproportionately target minorities, then yeah that’s probably true.

      1. The war on drugs is evil, the war on cops is a gross over-exaggeration and the justice system does disproportionately effect segments of the population that disproportionately commit more crime. The race of offenders in the national crime victimization survey parallels the race of the convicted, meaning either 1) victims of violent crime are so utterly racist that they’d rather accuse a random black person than see the actual perpetrator punished or 2) the demographics of criminals are more or less represented in the conviction rates.

        Sometimes there are just simply differences between groups, as uncomfortable as that may be, that can’t be solved by demanding moar equality.

        1. Not even sure what’s uncomfortable about recognizing that voting blocs singled out for special treatment which has neutered their economic progress by hobbling their achievements in education and employment and family formation tend by no accident to be those resorting to black markets and crime.

          1. the uncomfortable part for the left comes in recognizing and admitting that your good intentions went to shit, that they exacerbated the very problems they were designed to address. I still submit that, in govt, this is seen as a feature, not a bug. Not only does it develop a dependency class among citizens, it is a jobs program for the public sector. win-win

            1. exacerbated…. that’s putting it mildly.

              We almost need another word that represents made things way way way way way way worse….

              The tail end of you’re comment represents desires wholly despicable and evil, but sadly is also true.

          2. I wouldn’t dispute that at all. The state may indeed be (read: is) responsible for the present state of black inner city populations, but it’s not because all of the judges in every court in the country are secretly klansmen. It’s the whole system of identity politics begetting welfarism and affirmative action from which everything else flows.

            1. What’s most upsetting to me, and I suppose what should be least surprising, is that BLM is sidestepping the left’s culpability altogether by denying that wealth creation in terms of intergenerational success through family formation and education and careerism is itself invalid and holding blacks back. It’s like midgets coming together to denounce gravity as the reason for their height disadvantage.

              1. Well you see, the Marxists do this to fire up the unfortunate groups so that they can sic them on the enemy….

        2. I like how you limited it to violent crime.

          1. Drug crimes don’t have victims (and can’t rationally be called crimes), so pointing to the National Victimization Survey wouldn’t exactly make sense for that now would it?

            Great gotcha though, you caught me.

            1. It would make sense for examining disparties. You understand that there is research for this sort of thing, yes?

              The black/white marijuana arrest gap, in nine charts

              As you’re probably aware, black Americans are arrested for marijuana possession far more frequently than whites. You may also know that there’s not much evidence that black people consume marijuana with greater regularity than whites do.

              But the extent of the disparity between the rate of arrest and the rate of use for white and black Americans may surprise you. The ACLU has an absurdly comprehensive new report tracking marijuana possession arrests for blacks and whites at the national, state and county level. Sure enough, they find that black and white people use marijuana at roughly the same rates:

              Racial Gap in Men’s Sentencing

              Prison sentences of black men were nearly 20% longer than those of white men for similar crimes in recent years, an analysis by the U.S. Sentencing Commission found.

              1. So rioting in Democratic cities fixes this how????

              2. It would make sense for examining disparties. You understand that there is research for this sort of thing, yes?

                It wouldn’t since you were talking about rates of prosecution and I was using a victimization survey to address it, not a social justice survey produced by the ACLU and published by the WaPo. But if you want to move the goal posts and act like sentencing specifically was the issue, I’ll play along.

                The actual reason for that is rather simple, blacks are far more likely than whites to have prior convictions before appearing in court to face drug charges, which those studies don’t control for. Between mandatory minimums and the tendency of judges to treat repeat offenders more harshly, a sentencing gap “for similar crimes” is entirely expected.

                Of course there’s cases where racial and socio-economic bias unfairly plays into a harsher sentencing, but it’s not what’s primarily driving these numbers, not by a country mile. Hell that’s exactly what happened in the sentencing of Ross Ulbricht where his race and socio-economic status were explicitly cited as a justification for the sentence. Yet I didn’t see the sky falling with allegations of racial bias after that came out.

                1. blacks are far more likely than whites to have prior convictions before appearing in court to face drug charges

                  Hmm… I wonder why that is…

                  1. As long as you ignore the points made upthread about victim surveys, you can just be certain it’s racism. Shouldn’t you be out blacklivesmattering somewhere?

              3. You may also know that there’s not much evidence that black people consume marijuana with greater regularity than whites do.

                No, but there’s plenty of evidence they consume it outdoors far more often than whites do.

              4. cause they’z, bad that’s why!!!!

              5. Curiously, the ~100% sentencing premium for men relative to women doesn’t arouse SJW Indignation. Me wonders why.

      2. Whatever else Clarke thinks he is correct that society has dumped too many problems on the cops that cops are not capable of solving. If we stopped doing that (get rid of the 80 zillion petty laws and regs) then there would be no need for further CJ reform. The other problems would just evaporate as cops would have far less interaction with individuals.

        I have a suspicion that Sheriff Clarke might object to what that means in reality, but I am just guessing. Being able to pull someone over for the tint level in their windows is considered a very useful LE tool for many cops, as are the million other pretenses for going on fishing expeditions. A second sorely needed reform is with regards to asset forfeiture. Disallowing them to keep proceeds from AF, and allowing AF only in the event of a conviction coupled with getting rid of petty laws by the truck load is all the CJ reform needed. Clarke might find that objectionable at first, with I think he would eventually see the light.

    3. I for one afford Robby’s opinion much difference. We should all be so different to Robby. I always differ to his judgment.

  14. Make no mistake: Clarke is vehemently opposed to BLM. He has accused the movement of terrorizing police and sympathizing with cop killers. He describes it as an anarchist movement. So yes, he is a “potentially politically polarizing” person. But so what? Everyone with an opinion worth hearing is “potentially politically polarizing,” including pro-BLM speakers. Would the university disinvite Shaun King if some students didn’t like his message?

    UNH is a private university, and, I presume a fairly liberal place. It seems likely that most of the campus already has a fairly positive view of BLM. The university has nothing to lose in permitting a contrary view to be heard. Indeed, the university should seek out contrary opinions, in order to provide a sense of balance and perspective on important public policy issues. Clarke might not change anyone’s mind, but perhaps members of campus who support BLM will have a better idea of what motivates people who disagree with them.

    Boom! Nailed it!

    As someone who agrees with much (though not all) of BLM’s message

    Have you read BLM’s “guiding principles?” It’ll make you change your mind really quickly. It’s a laundry list of socialism and SJW talking points.

    1. 2016:
      “We have nothing to lose but our chains!”

      1848:
      “The proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains!”

      Damn this public education letting down my tovarishes fellow citizens.

      1. shit and all this time I thought is was chairs! need to rethink entire political philosophy

    2. Rico is an Obama loving, Bernie Sanders loving, SJW socialist, so of course he agrees with their “guiding principles”!

      It’s also why he disingenuously tries to portray them as a mainstream criminal justice reform group instead of what they really are: a bunch of thugs who opportunistically seize on police shootings (whether justified or not) to loot and burn shit down.

      1. I think he says things like this to provide him a shield from the DCers. Like saying, “I believe in the authority of the Pope” in the Middle Ages while pimping the Reformation.

    3. It’s a laundry list of socialism and SJW talking points.

      The latter is the “much” to which he refers.

    4. Have you read BLM’s “guiding principles?”

      Beat me to it. They make old timey Marxists blush.

    5. They have this under “Black Villages:”

      “We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially “our” children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.”

      Yes, those nuclear families have truly devastated the black community!

      1. “mothers, parents and children”

        And they left out the f-word.

        1. I can imagine the intense committee meeting where that phrasing was hammered out:

          “We should say ‘mothers, fathers and children.’

          “I’m not going to endorse that racist, patriarchal shit!

          “Could we at least say ‘parents’ – in case anyone accuses us of of neglecting fathers, we can roll our eyes and point to the word ‘parents.'”

          “OK, I can accept that.”

          1. Shut yo’ mouth!

      2. Under “Black Families”:

        We are committed to dismantling the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” that require them to mother in private even as they participate in justice work

        1. In total, they have 13 guiding principles:

          Of 13, one is against sexism, one is against transphobia, one is against sexual discrimination, one is against the nuclear family, one is queer affirming (how is that not covered in being against sexual discrimination??), one is against ageism, and one is against the patriarchy. That’s 7 for generic SJWism that has nothing to do with race.

          3 of them are various flavors of “be nice to others” with no racial angle or other point to them.

          That leaves 3 to actually cover the point of #BLM: One is globalism (an affirmation that blacks exist outside of the US), One is restorative justice (freedom and justice for black people), and one is unapologetically black (don’t apologize for being black).

          So we have 1) be a SJW; 2) be nice to people; and 3) here’s some information about black people

          1. It’s too bad that 1) and 2) are mutually exclusive.

        2. is that like like sex work?

        3. I wasn’t aware patriarchy required women to have children out of wedlock. I learn something new every day.

  15. in order to provide a sense of balance and perspective on important public policy issues

    Oh please, that’s the last thing they want.

  16. Once again, the dark cloud of fascism is always descending upon Trump but always manages to land on the left.

  17. Oh Robby. “As someone who agrees with BLM’s message.”

    You mean the message “cops bad”, or maybe the message “get whitey”, are those the messages you agree with.

    BLM is racist period. What they are doing it not helping.

    There are real problems with police brutality and policing, but forming a racist group to fight those problems is the sure way to not get them solved.

    But since when did progressive groups car about solving problems, and not sowing division…..

  18. I live in one of the least politically polarized places in the country. Bleh.

  19. A lot of these colleges that get into trouble this way are asking for it on day one. Many (though I don’t see it on the UNH app) ask “the diversity question” on their applications. The infamous “diversity question” is usually some form of: how will you add to the diversity of our campus?

    That is a nice quick way to screen out undesirable conservatives and to warn all applicants from the beginning what will be considered right-thinking on campus.

    1. “I’ll add so much diversity, you’re gonna love my diversity, it will make your head spin, believe me.

      “By the way, did Daddy deposit the diversity in the University Endowment’s bank account yet?”

    2. The infamous “diversity question” is usually some form of: how will you add to the diversity of our campus?

      Seems easy enough to just claim you’re bisexual. It’s the least verifiable “diversity” claim you can make. Even if they prowl your social media accounts to stalk diversity like the endangered species it’s purported to be and manage to determine that you’re one of those detestable white males who has seemingly only dated females, there isn’t any way for them to determine that you don’t also like dudes.

      That’s some serious bullshit, though. I don’t even know what “diversity” means anymore, now that they’ve managed to distort it so heavily. It certainly doesn’t mean diversity of philosophy, thought, opinion, political views, etc. It’s mostly about judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. I think MLK jr. would be really upset with how society has distorted his message. His hope was to unite people. I can imagine no more divisive strategy than to identify people on the basis of superficial characteristics and give some preferential treatment over others regardless of which characteristics are in vogue to favor.

    3. The infamous “diversity question” is usually some form of: how will you add to the diversity of our campus?

      Sound like the Borg.

      “We shall add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.”

  20. In addition to his anti-blm opinions ( he is not wrong) David Clarke ( I looked him up) is very much a pro-second amendment advocate ( again, not wrong). The only problem I see with his opinion, and I am not sure how far off he is on this issue, is police accountability/ CJ reform. I have never heard Clarke speak but I was won over when I read about his advising ordinary citizens to arm and defend themselves.

    Clarke is wrong about one other thing; blm is not an anarchist movement. As silly as domestic dissent/ Mike(?) can be he is correct that blm is nothing more than a radical leftist agitation group that stirs shit and bullies, who are akin to brownshirts. Leftists are everywhere and always the same and the ones we have here in the US are not different or special.

    I will take David Clarke over Sean King any day, thank you very much.

    As for the shitweasels at University of New Haven, they aren’t a private university as long as they take federal money. I am sure they will have their privileges at the federal trough revoked for this egregious racial slight. It is a tailor made title IX violation, right?

    1. PAULISTA FART SMELLER suthenboy supports Trum-supporting sheriff and demonstrates why 93% of Americans reject the libertarian brand.

      Anti-gubmint goobers like suthenboy is the reason 57% of Americans who are socially tolerant and fiscally conservative don’t vote libertarian.

      Trump loving so-called libertarians show their true dark side in their AGRESSION against renowned truth-teller Michael Hihn, successful libertarian former public official, one-term assistant county auditor of Buttfuck County Wyoming.

      Ron Paul fellating LOSERS hold back the Libertarian party with their CYBERBULLYING

      (SNEERS); (LAUGHS); (ACCIDENTALLY SHARTS A LITTLE)

  21. It appears that BLM is the latest version of the Democrat party’s KKK. Before you get your panties in a wad look back through history. They are always using some splinter group to enforce their agenda. You have the KKK, BLM, Occupy Wallstreet and several groups out of the 60s. Some might wonder why the Democrats aren’t list as a terroist organization.

  22. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.