Campus Free Speech

A Professor Who Attended Charles Murray's Middlebury Talk Is Now Wearing a Neck Brace. Protesters Attacked Her.

So much for safe spaces.

|

Stanger
Screenshot

The principle of free speech was not the only thing to suffer injury at Middlebury College on Thursday: a professor was physically assaulted by members of the mob that shut down Charles Murray's talk.

That professor, Allison Stanger, had to go to the emergency room and is now wearing a neck brace.

"One of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger's hair and twisted her neck," Bill Burger, a college administrator, told The Addison County Independent. "She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace."

Hundreds of protesters—at least some of them students—crashed Murray's talk at Middlebury's campus, as I reported earlier. They talked over Murray and accused him of being a white nationalist.

Murray is a controversial figure, but it would be wrong to describe him as a white nationalist. It would also be wrong to presume—as many faculty members did—that there's nothing to be gained from listening to him speak. And of course, it's wrong to disrupt his event and prevent him from speaking.

Attacking a professor because she had the audacity to assist Murray during his harrowing escape from campus is very, very, very wrong.

Faculty members said Murray was guilty of hate speech, and ought to be condemned. Will they condemn the hate actions of the unruly mob that deployed violence against Stanger and Murray? And will Middlebury have the courage to see this through—to identify the protesters, and expel them (or have them arrested), as appropriate?

So much for safe spaces.

Advertisement

NEXT: What Do You Call a Tool to Help Uber Avoid Gov't Stings? A Good Start.

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. “She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace.”

    Ka-ching!

  2. So, the students involved haven’t been arrested? Or what? Do they not have police in Middlebury?

    1. They have police, just not for something like this.

      1. Police are for serious criminal offenses like shipping lobsters in plastic bags rather than paper bags. Felony assault is one of those victimless crimes that aren’t worth pursuing.

        1. Was the state harmed in this kerfuffle?
          No, so no crime.

          In fact, the prestige of the state was enhanced, so the protestors are the heros here.

        2. Or writing Trump on the sidewalk.

    2. It’s being handled by a campus Title IX tribunal, obviously.

  3. Murray is a controversial figure, but it would be wrong to describe him as a white nationalist. It would also be wrong to presume?as many faculty members did?that there’s nothing to be gained from listening to him speak.

    Robby, you’re not being wishy-washy enough. Let’s get Shikha in here to progsplain why violence against badthink can be justified simply by calling the badthink “alternative facts”.

    1. You seem to be Shikhobsessed.

      1. Nice, you’re so soave

      2. Wow, this Reasonable extension sure is great. It adds these occasional blank spaces to the comment threads. It’s like it’s giving me a chance to take a quick breather before I keep reading. Thanks Reasonable!

        1. Self imposed isolation for the win!

          1. It’s like banning people, but without the actual authoritarianism!

    2. He’s not controversial to the literate.

      He’s controversial to the ignorant.

      1. And that’s on full display here.

        1. full display as in this incident, I should say.

  4. One of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,”

    White people are the worst.

    1. I’m confused. I thought wimminz liked their hair pulled!

  5. I think Reason needs to decide when violence by leftist students is okay (according to Reason).

    From past statements, it’s okay when Milo is involved and just for general intimidation of conservative students.

    But now you’re saying it’s wrong? Just because the victim was a middle aged woman? Or because she was already injured?

    1. From past statements, it’s [violence] okay when Milo is involved and just for general intimidation of conservative students.

      Can you show me where a Reason writer, on this site, said it was “okay” to initiate violence? Thanks.

      1. Here.

        It wasn’t “on this site”. But I know you’ll just grasp at any straw to defend your fellow traveler.

        1. Dalmia’s an idiot, but Jeremy’s comment would only make sense if she wrote the article.

        2. If that tweet is a call for the initiation of force in your world, I’d get to a safe place, stat!

          1. It’s not a call to violence, it’s a justification of the initiation of violence used in the Berkeley incident. Keep moving them goalposts.

          2. If that tweet is a call for the initiation of force in your world, I’d get to a safe place, stat!

            DanO., that’s what it was. It was absolutely a defense of the initiation of violence. I really don’t think “brute force” as a reaction to your intellectual opponents refusing to accept your worldview as “just argue a little harder please”.

            1. Run and hide, (Paul), the proggies are coming!

        3. The past statement of someone else in her private Twitter feed. Yet he twice attributes the position to Reason.

          1. “Microaggressor” and the other Shikhobsessives here are like Apsy elephants that never forget a perceived wrong, however fanciful.

              1. I’m still not clicking your YouTube links, Spot.

            1. “Shit, I’ve been shown to be stupider than Tony! Time to throw out the ad hominems!”

        4. Lol! You’re funny. You consider others demanding some proof of your own claims to be “grasping at any straws.” It’s clear who’s grasping, and you kid only yourself to think otherwise.

    2. Oh, give it a rest. Dalmia deserves all the scorn she has received for her idiotic comment. But it’s just dishonest to portray her comment on Twitter as Reason’s editorial position on the matter.

      1. Yeah, the reason edtorial staff thinks she’s to moderate.

  6. It’s true that people named Murray can say icky things.

  7. “Faculty members said Murray was guilty of hate speech, and ought to be condemned.”

    Ok I can at least get at least why they say “racism” since he did tread on hold ground by daring to compute average IQ’s, but “hate speech” accusations are getting out of control. A statistician analyzed some statistics.

    1. Statistics are racist

      1. 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot

          1. But 80% don’t.

  8. Professor Stranger? Are we sure she’s not one of the X-Men and her neck can just do that?

  9. It appears “preponderance” does not suffice in politically motivated physical violence. — Oh, hold on. Presumably all the violent protesters were drunk and thus unable to “consent” to attacking their victim. Chances are the professor will be expelled for gender-based violence. After all, Murray had written about women, the professor sort of supported him, and their was the aforementioned lack of consent.

  10. So Soave. How should conservatives defend themselves without you chastising them as whiners?

    Such a conundrum-rum.

    1. But they are whiners, by and large. Yes occasionally their whines are responses to legitimate grievances. But Good Lord, I am sick and tired of the whole persecution complex on the right. Whine about media bias, whine about universities, whine about Hollywood movies, whine about TV shows, whine whine whine. Republicans (or their appointees) now control all three branches of government and the vast majority of state governments, and yet the whining never ceases. When are Republicans actually going to stop whining and actually stand up to change something in their favor? They actually HAVE been successful by and large when it comes to gun rights and abortion (it is still legal but the rate has plummeted). So, go do that when it comes to all of their other whines. Instead all we hear is “waa waa Hollywood hates us”. Well no shit. But at some point just shut up about it.

      1. If you want to ask conservatives those questions, why not go to a conservative site instead of a libertarian one?

      2. But a rich white feminist complaining about having to pay sales tax on tampons is, what, bravely finding one’s voice?

        1. No, it’s stupid.

      3. Occasionally?

        The MAJORITY of the media and academic apparatus IS liberal?

        Da fuck?

        1. drop the first ?

        2. Yup, they are. But FFS, stop whining and do something about it! I am utterly tired of the Right posing as the victims when they now control the commanding heights of power in this country.

        3. Yup, they are. But FFS, stop whining and do something about it! I am utterly tired of the Right posing as the victims when they now control the commanding heights of power in this country.

          1. Plus I blame them for the squirrels.

          2. Control of legislative power is fine, since it’s at least legitimate. But the left owns and operates the Ministry of Truth. The power to broadcast propaganda far and wide is, IMO, even stronger than the power to legislate, since ignorant perception can turn even a perfectly legal presidential action into a new fascist leader acting outside of the confines of law…even if it’s not.

            Good example: Goldwater wanted to bring back slavery because he pointed out that the 1964 CRA was unconstitutional. Winner: Ministry of Truth.

            Complaining about the propagandists–something Trump is profoundly skilled in–is the only antidote. Ignoring it, which is apparently what you’re advocating by dismissing legitimate complaints as whining, is precisely what a commie pinko lefty would want, since that’s worked very well for the left against Republicans thus far.

            1. Curses on Reason for not providing an edit button.

              ‘Goldwater the slaver’ exemplifies the power of leftist propaganda to undermine the Constitution in legislation. Ignorant perception went along with that the same way it did with the non-existent illegality of Trump’s order to temporarily suspend immigration from certain terror-sponsoring countries.

  11. Murray, who apparently was unhurt in the incident, is best known for his 1994 book, “The Bell Curve,” for which he was criticized for an assertion that people of different races have different economic outcomes because of their inherent difference in intelligence.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has called Murray a “white nationalist” who has used “racist pseudoscience.”

    Here is the paragraph in which Dick Herrnstein and I stated our conclusion:

    If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate. (p. 311)

    That’s it. The whole thing. The entire hateful Herrnstein-Murray pseudoscientific racist diatribe about the role of genes in creating the black-white IQ difference.

    We don’t need to bother spitting on that hate group known as the SPLC.

    1. Any acknowledgment of heritable ability is kryptonite to their egalitarian worldview. Somehow, I don’t think the people denouncing it as racist pseudoscience have actually evaluated the evidence. It’s a kneejerk reaction because entertaining the idea would result in cognitive dissonance.

      Nevermind that, heritability of ability is a precondition for the mechanism of evolution. They fucking love science, except when it makes them uncomfortable.

      They might argue that scientific inquiry into the subject is a slippery road to white supremacy. It looks more like it would lead to east asian supremacy, but you don’t hear much about that.

      1. So did I inherit my white privilege or not?

        1. No, because if you’d inherited it, then it would be something you couldn’t control, and no progressive would ever hate on you for that.

          Your white privilege has to be something you decided to perpetrate, like the way you invented that time machine and forced your ancestors to oppress black and brown people (but not Asians or Jews, at least since the Jews quit letting the Aryans and Arabs shit all over them).

          -jcr

          1. Oh. Well, I hope nobody else decides to be white like me or I will run out of free labor. I might have to mow my own lawn or … pay someone! Hell, I might have to … shudder … go to work myself!

      2. Rather than egalitarianism, I see it as a class-warfare view that will believe anything to justify an agenda of wealth distribution, so blames all disparities in performance on white people’s unfair advantage resulting from slavery or institutional racism etc. Elite minorities (as well as successful African immigrant groups) are simply purged from existence in that worldview.

        Interestingly, a lot of liberals will accept the existence of IQ differences as long as they can blame them on lead paint (which of course is the fault of evil corporations). I guess that still allows for wealth redistribution as a punitive measure, so it’s acceptable.

        1. Lead paint only tastes good to brown babies. White babies won’t touch the stuff.

          1. They do better with formaldehyde but it’s so hard to find.

      3. The problem is, as always, when one doesn’t bother judging the individual and simply classifies based on average (correctly or not) characteristics of a group.

        The fact that the strongest man will always be stronger than the strongest women doesn’t mean there aren’t women who are stronger than the vast majority of men.

        The fact that the male IQ distribution curve tends to be broader than the female distribution doesn’t mean there aren’t women who are much smarter than the vast majority of men.

        The same things in any other characteristics of any groups apply.

        1. Well yeah. The whole point of the bell curve is to illustrate this. That’s why it’s near useless to judge individuals. All it gives you is a range of plausibility.

        2. The main point to be taken from the statistics, imo, is that, even when society is perfectly equal, we should not be surprised if everything doesn’t break down perfectly along racial or gender proportions, and therefore that a disparity is not sufficient evidence of unfairness.

          1. Yes, that is it! Progressives are looking for nice tidy proportions or else they charge racism. Nature doesn’t always cooperate.

            1. Curiously, though, they don’t seem too concerned about the shortage of male nurses, the excess of male homeless, or the dearth of white rappers.

        3. Combine that with assortative mating, then with residential segregation, and the impact becomes much greater.

          1. Thank God for “regression to the mean”

        4. That’s deep.

      4. A prog on another site recently was berating a commenter who mentioned an alt-right author whose article pointed out that the academic achievement hierarchy goes something like Asian–>white–>Hispanic–>black, while the crime stats essentially reverse the flow. The prog accused the alt-right author of being a white supremacist. To which I responded by pointing out that he’s doing a lousy job of promoting white supremacy by saying Asians are statistically superior academically.

    2. Well, if you don’t happen to have a urine-bomb handy.

    3. “We don’t need to bother spitting on that hate group known as the SPLC.”

      Well, I you don’t have a urine-bomb handy.

  12. Who was it said, “Universities today are islands of bigotry in an ocean of diversity?”

      1. Seems you are a little fuzzy on the “Do you know who else …” game.

        1. Lou Reed?

          1. …and the colored girls go…

          2. …and the colored girls go…

    1. Dean Wormer. But in his defense, it was meant as a compliment.

    2. Jaques Cousteau?

  13. OT. Has anyone heard from [fill in the blank] lately?

    “Lonely . . . man who amassed a SIX-TON pile of dirty magazines died when it collapsed on top of him… and his body wasn’t found for six months”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..zines.html

    1. Pretty sure this is how I’m going out.

      1. Not me. My memory is bad enough that, after going through just a few hundred pounds of porn magazines, I could start over at the beginning and never know the difference.

        1. Your collection has been digitally remasturbated.

        2. Its good to be realistic about your limitations

    2. Condolences to Crusty’s family

      1. No way, man. Crusty is protected by a sturdy chinchilla cage.

    3. and his body wasn’t found for six months

      To be fair, the pages were all stuck together.

  14. Better, Soave. I would have preferred you left out the “controversial figure” part, or at least provide some evidence or background of why he is controversial. It’s good that there was no “to be sure” or what-about-ism about Team Red students or remark about how this makes the noble cause of leftism look bad. You may have not intended to send that message, but that is the one I and many others perceived from your other articles.

    Here is how I would have introduced Murray:

    Murray is an American political scientist best known for his controversial book The Bell Curve. In it, he examined many aspects of IQ, including differences in average IQ among different groups. Many accused him of racism for saying that as a group, whites have higher IQs than blacks, although he also said that Asians have higher IQs than whites. He has been a lightning rod of criticism since it was published in 1994.

    Short and sweet; no editorializing.

    I am not on Team Red by any means, but I can certainly recognize a difference between the two Teams when it comes to free speech on campus. If you honestly think they’re both just as bad, I invite you to go give a talk at a college on the dangers of Trump. Then go to another college and give a talk on the UVA rape hoax. See which one protesters try to shut down.

    It is enough to just report what happened. There is no need to defend, rationalize, or grope for excuses or explanations for why left-wing zealots are acting stupid.

    1. My mistake: Soave introduced Murray in the other article.

    2. You forgot the part where Murray spent the first part of his life working to improve the standard of living in poverty-stricken areas of Thailand, where he met his first wife and mother of his first two children.

      Because that’s what White nationalists do, work to improve the lives of 3rd world villagers while race-mixing with them.

      1. Yeah, I thought him being in the Peace Corps would end any speculation on him being racist, although I was in the Peace Corps too and have been accused of racism for time to time, including by our very own Tony.

        “Yeah, you got me. I learned Swahili and spent 2 years living in Africa because I hate black people. I’m the world’s most confused white supremacist.”

        Let’s see if SPLC mentions his Peace Corps service:

        Charles Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has become one of the most influential social scientists in America, using racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor.

        Huh. I’m sure leaving it out was an honest mistake and totally not part of a deliberate campaign of deception.

        On a side note, I got an email a few days ago from an orphan I used to tutor in Tanzania. He found me on Facebook. He wrote to tell me got a scholarship to medical school. I know you’re supposed to do good and throw it into the sea, but I felt pretty good about that.

        Sorry, sometimes I forget that as an evil, greedy libertarian, I should have kidnapped him and forced him to work in a monocle factory.

        1. to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor.

          If someone from the SPLC ever read his dissertation, which was based on research he did while working in Thailand, he or she would know that Murray actually argues that social inequality is caused by onerous government regulation and bureaucratic interference in the lives of people whom they know nothing about and don’t understand.

          But that parses to “racist” in SPLC-speak as well.

          1. At this point, “racist” is the prog version of the point-n-screech from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

            Or to paraphrase Sowell, racism is liberal ketchup. They put it on everything.

          2. There is this:

            “No woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world’s great philosophical traditions.” So said the author Charles Murray in a 2005 essay titled “The Inequality Taboo,” in which he argued that men are better at abstract thinking than women are. In a recent talk at the University of Austin, timed to promote his new book The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Getting Ahead, a student asked Murray if he stood by this claim. As Amanda Marcotte notes in a piece at Slate, Murray began with condescension (“tell me who you had in mind”), and then added, “Until somebody gives me evidence to the contrary, yeah, I’ll stick with that statement.”

            Say what, Murray?

            1. Now put all this alongside the historical data on accomplishment in the arts and sciences. In test scores, the male advantage is most pronounced in the most abstract items. Historically, too, it is most pronounced in the most abstract domains of accomplishment.[17]

              In the humanities, the most abstract field is philosophy?and no woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world’s great philosophical traditions. In the sciences, the most abstract field is mathematics, where the number of great women mathematicians is approximately two (Emmy Noether definitely, Sonya Kovalevskaya maybe). In the other hard sciences, the contributions of great women scientists have usually been empirical rather than theoretical, with leading cases in point being Henrietta Leavitt, Dorothy Hodgkin, Lise Meitner, Irene Joliot-Curie, and Marie Curie herself.

              literally shaking

              1. There’s almost certainly an innate tendency toward male superior ability in quantitative fields and inferior ability (in general, not necessarily at the top echelon) in language. I’m skeptical of their claim about ‘abstract thinking’ though because defining ‘abstract’ vs. ’empirical’ is, well kind of hard to pin down. Quantitative vs. non-quantitative is easier, and better explain the concentration of men in physics vs. biology, or economics vs. sociology. The more quantitative, the fewer women. Also, the greater variance in IQ probably better explains male dominance at the top of almost every field better than other factors.

                Lastly: “No woman has been a significant original thinker in any of the world’s great philosophical traditions.”

                That’s just not true. Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the greatest western philosophers of the 20th century.

                1. It’s not ‘abstract’ vs. ’empirical’ it’s “empirical rather than theoretical” HUGE difference.

                  Always too issue with this–

                  “There’s almost certainly an innate tendency toward male superior ability in quantitative fields and inferior ability (in general, not necessarily at the top echelon) in language”

                  Major writers? Male. Major researchers in linguistics? Male orators? Male. Where exactly does this generally inferior ability in language make itself evident?

                  Because, when you really delve into women’s purported ‘superiority’ in communication you are very quickly faced with the awkward truth that the people insisting on this are referring to the fact that women express emotions more openly than men–and nothing more.

                  They don’t put words together better, they don’t craft more accessible explanations and descriptions of and for the universe, they don’t grasp the concept of language better.

                  They’re not even CLEARER at expressing their emotions–they just express emotions more readily.

                  Do you know where the idea of women being superior at language comes from?

                  Men, telling them that, to make them feel better.

            2. I guess the question is whether Simone de Beauvoir and Ayn Rand, etc., count as “significant original thinkers in the world’s great philosophical traditions.”

              If you set “significant” meaning “David Hume or better,” then you have a large handful of thinkers, arguable all male, and leave out Rand, who is hugely influential but who people don’t take as seriously as, say, Nietzsche.

              If you set “great philosophical traditions” to leave out feminist theory, then arguably de Beauvoir’s contributions aren’t original, depending on how you feel she and Sartre influenced one another.

              Personally, I don’t think you can leave them off the list. I presume Murray has a pretty cramped interpretation of “significant”, “original”, and “great” as used in his statement, and no concern for avoiding offense – it would have been easier to use those terms more charitable to widen the field past the top dozen.

          3. Well yeah.

            He’s an academic who doesn’t conform to their goodthink about regulations and the role of government in people’s lives.

            That’s like uber racist.

        2. Greedy capitalists deprived him of employment in a monocle factory by deploying machines that terk ‘is jerb!

          -jcr

        3. What I don’t get is why NOBODY goes after SPLC for slander.

      2. Uhmmm … isn’t that Derb’s story too?

  15. If the Left is going to play that way, I propose that libertarians recruit some goons who will defend speakers like Murray (and Milo) against them. I volunteer to be one.

    1. libertarians recruit some goons

      You repeat yourself, sir.

    2. Universities are already supposed to have goons to defend the free speech rights of speakers against the heckler’s veto – they’re called cops. If the universities were serious about allowing a diversity of thought, they’d make it crystal clear that they’ll not tolerate speech suppression – get some video cameras for these demonstrations, expel some students, arrest some law-breakers, file criminal trespass charges, etc.

      Charles Murray, a political scientist who has been criticized for his views on race and intelligence, was invited to speak on campus by a student group. He was greeted late Thursday afternoon outside McCullough Student Center by hundreds of protesters, and inside Wilson Hall, students turned their backs to him when he got up to speak.

      What were these students doing inside Wilson Hall if they didn’t want to hear the man speak? They weren’t happy not hearing him speak, they wanted to make sure nobody else heard him speak, either. As a libertarian, I’m fine with treating people as they treat others – you think it’s fine to make other people shut up, I have no problem with making you shut up. As long as we’re all following the same rules, it’s fair.

      1. I still don’t see why anybody pays cops. From Berkeley to the shithole at the center of this replay.

      2. Don’t most colleges have rules explicitly stating students cannot seek to just silence a speaker they do not like? Colleges support the action.

        1. Rules? That’s a good one. Of course they have rules. Many, many rules. So many rules that they cannot possibly enforce them all, so they have to decide which rules are to be enforced at any particular time.

          This formulation brought to you by numerous police who chose what to enforce, and numerous prosecutors who decide what to prosecute. Along with everybody else who has police power behind their rules.

      3. Universities Societies are already supposed to have goons to defend the free speech rights of speakers against the heckler’s veto – they’re called cops.

        FTFY

        Rioters have run free on campuses. It’s not up to the universities to stop them. It’s up to the cops and local government to enforce the law, and protect people in their exercise of their rights.

        I note that some guy on the Right actually fought back today, and all of a sudden police are all over the event, charging him with multiple crimes.

        Riots are OK as long as it’s Left on Right violence. When the Right fights back, the cops drop their donuts and get busy.

        Much like Germany. Cops did nothing about the New Year’s Eve sexual assault riots by Muslims. But when Germans came out to protest the lack of action by the Police, the water cannons were deployed to preserve order.

    3. I propose that libertarians recruit some goons

      START RESISTING!! START RESISTING!! START RESISTING!!

    4. Voltaire squad, assemble.

      1. Superbly the French fascination with lions makes more sense.

  16. OT. Florida man makes good!!!

    “The self-dubbed ‘King of Instagram’ is receiving backlash online for his most recent post.
    Dan Bilzerian, who is known for posing in photos with scantily-clad women and huge guns, posted a picture on Tuesday of himself next to a woman in a bikini who is sitting on a 100-year-old Galapagos giant tortoise at Sir Richard Branson’s Necker Island.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..rn_rm=als1

    1. But did the turtle enjoy it?

      1. But did the turtle enjoy it?

        I never found out. Ask Mr. Owl.

      2. During the whaling days, they would throw these fucking tortoises belowdeck on a whaling ship and keep them there for months without food and water, because the tortoises would survive and it was the cheapest way to store fresh meat. These poor tortoises never seem to catch a break.

    2. Another headline about some social media/SJW thing that describes “outrage”.

      How do they do it? Strong negative emotions like outrage are, well, outrageously stressful to your body and mind. How do you not burn out if you’re in a constant state of outrage?

      Or is outrage just a drug to those types – one that is terribly addictive?

  17. I keep hoping that one of these violent nitwits picks on somebody with MMA experience, and gets curb-stomped.

    1. Look up Jake Shields at the Berkely riots. I don’t think he got up to full throttle, but yeah.

  18. Murray is a controversial figure, but it would be wrong to describe him as a white nationalist. It would also be wrong to presume?as many faculty members did?that there’s nothing to be gained from listening to him speak. And of course, it’s wrong to disrupt his event and prevent him from speaking.

    Three wrongs don’t make a right. Like a triple negative, that’s one wrong too many.

  19. There is a bright side to this. The more leftists make asses of themselves, the weaker their movement will become.

    John made a really good point earlier about rationality. It’s a mistake to dismiss progs as stupid or irrational. Wearing a tinfoil hat is perfectly rational if you assume it prevents the CIA from reading your thoughts. Most people are rational most of the time. It’s the assumptions that cause trouble.

    Case in point: here’s an article about a remorseless ISIS bomber awaiting execution. Based on the assumptions he holds, everything he did was rational and justified.

    1. I do think a lot of political differences come down to a divergence in facts to be believed. We (almost) all want to live in a better world, with more stuff, less suffering, less hate, more justice, and so on. I don’t dispute that lefties genuinely believe hiking the minimum wage means giving the poor a raise and will reduce inequality. The problem is that they are factually mistaken about what it accomplishes.

      If being rational means applying your knowledge in logical ways to achieve an end, having incorrect knowledge isn’t the same as being irrational.

    2. The more leftists make asses of themselves, the weaker their movement will become.

      The leftmost 20% will hear about it and side with the attackers.
      The rightmost 30% will hear about it and continue hating leftists just as much as they did before.
      The other 50% of the population will never hear about it.

      So you tell me, how is this going to make their movement weaker.

      1. The p-rotests may do what I believe they are meant to do – distract the rank and file from the REAL theft of the 2016 election (of the nomination by Hillary from Sanders) – but it is also likely to energize the base that voted for Trump, who are sick to the teeth of the Leftist yammer yammer yammer. I figure a lot of people who might have voted for Trump stayed home because they believed what they were told about a Hillary landslide being inevitable. Those voters are going to come out in 2020 if the left keeps annoying them. OTOH, the voters who were uninspired by Hillary the first time are unlikely to be galvanized by her in 2020 (or, for that matter, by any of the options the Democrat establishment might pick instead).

        If the protests continue in al their idiocy and excess, Trump will win a landslide in 2020.

  20. It was very, very, very wrong? Wow, what a bold statement. Sadly, I guess that is a bold statement in today’s climate of Progressive censorship. Still, I’d prefer that the most prominent libertarian publication in America be bolder about a black and white of despotic physical assault.

    1. It’s like we’re talking to these overgrown undisciplined children like they’re children. They’re not, they’re adult thugs, and they don’t need to be told ‘hey, you’ve been very very bad’, they need their ass smacked down hard like they probably should have been 20 years ago.

  21. I’m confused. Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago when Robby was calling classes for just this sort of violence “Awesome”?

    1. They were just bashing the fash.

      Did conservative students accidentally convince their liberal counterparts to take the right to self-defense seriously? To guard against Trump-inspired hate crimes, a socialist student club at the University of Central Florida has started a “Leftist Fight Club”?an ode to the well-known Chuck Palahniuk book and fim?to practice hand-to-hand combat and self-defense.

      This ought to be applauded.

      I wonder if Soave realizes the left has a different definition of “self-defense”.

      1. I don’t know. Seems like the sort of pathetic, left wing version of a militia. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they really just want to defend themselves from their imagined fascist threats.

        1. Alert readers will note that not one of these self-defense class attendees have actually assaulted any conservatives.

      2. Another point on rationality:
        What they’re doing is perfectly rational, if you understand their belief that in Trump’s America it has suddenly become okay to beat up homosexuals in the street while the cops look the other way. They bought the fake news about “Trump-inspired crime wave” because it conforms to their worldview. Their delusion only ends up with them initiating violence to defend against the imaginary transgression. They can be cured of this delusion by getting “mugged by reality”, but first they need to leave the university and start providing for themselves.

        It’s fascinating to me how much violence can result from alternative facts. I guess this is how wars are started. I should read more history.

    2. This?

      https://reason.com/blog/2017/02…..ents-start

      Learning to fight in self defense is the same as attacking people unprovoked? That’s not a very popular view among libertarians.
      The groups worldview is flawed, to say the least, but at least as presented, they don’t seem to be promoting unprovoked violence.

      1. You seem to have missed the episode of “It’s okay to punch Nazis” which morphed into “It’s okay to punch white male libertarians for standing up for the Nazi’s right to speech”.

        1. Hell, we should disarm leftists before things get out of control!

      2. Any fighting skills useful for self-defense are also useful for attacking people. And…

        “Bash the fash”

        Doesn’t sound like self-defense to me.

        1. It’s self defense if the “Fash” initiated violence. Not a difficult principle to grasp. Or is a slogan a crime in your world?

          1. It’s self defense if the “XXXXXXX” initiated violence.

            See how that reads when you substitute other groups for XXXXXX:
            blacks, gays, lesbians, Mexicans, immigrants, …

      3. No one’s attacking the idea of self-defense, they’re pointing out the naivete of anyone who believes it is really about learning to use violence to defend against violence (as opposed to using violence to defend against dissent, which leftists would also classify as “self-defense”). The fact that they are promoting it using a slogan common among people who initiate violence should be a clue, to anyone who isn’t willfully blinding themselves.

        1. No one’s attacking the idea of self-defense

          If not, then what? A handful of students at one college who took these self-defense classes might “initiate violence” at some time in the future, presumably against conservatives only, and because you can read their minds and predict their future actions and intentions, you are shitting your britches? Grow a pair, Sally.

    3. They were self-defense classes in one small school, attended by just a handful of students, so I can see why you are confused, but why are you against self defense?

  22. LOL – Good times, good times. Anybody here remember July, 2015?

  23. I guess non-leftist speakers are going to have to be accompanied to these events by members of The Hell’s Angels. Then we’ll see just how tough and intimidating these leftist snowflakes really are. They appear to be white spoiled brats, probably still living in their parent’s basement.

    1. Yes, because those Hell’s Angels are very protective of free speech.
      Unless it is that of the WBC, in which case, carry on. Obstruct, block, hurt…

    2. Actually, I think they would tend to be on the protester’s side.

      Outlaw bikers tend not to have jobs and are on welfare or some other government assistance.

      1. Outlaw bikers tend not to have jobs and are on welfare or some other government assistance.

        Citation needed. I actually knew some outlaw bikers, members of the Sons of Silence. Granted this was back in late Seventies/early Eighties. Most of them actually had jobs; the ones that didn’t engaged in less-than-legal activities like marijuana trafficking, in fact quite a few of them supplemented their incomes in this way.

        Two of them actually co-owned a custom bike shop and made pretty good cash. Not a damn one of them wanted to be any higher on government’s radar than they could possibly help.

  24. The enemy will continue to do this to you if you let them do it.

  25. I’m just waiting to hear about someone being killed either by a mob of the so called protesters or a person defending them kill some of them

    1. [Themselves]^^^

  26. So demonstrators leftists, snowflakes, students
    Allison Katherine Stanger = brave conservative who was protecting a not white nationalist.

    Cool.

    1. Being physically assaulted =\= being discomforted by having to hear opposing viewpoints. Two very different things.

  27. Is Charles Murray courageous or foolhardy? I’m not sure what he has to say that is worth risking his neck for (nor someone else’s literal neck).

    1. I’m not sure what he has to say that is worth risking his neck for

      i’m not sure why you think simply “giving a talk” should involve risking one’s neck

      it sounds like you’ve inverted responsibility for attacks and placed it on the victims

  28. The unfortunate thing is that they didn’t break the necks of every professor at the preschool.

    1. Bash the Fash in reverse? So much for the NAP.

  29. “very, very, very wrong

    Social signal much, Robby?

    1. Some would say that the overuse of “social signaling” is itself a social signal.

      1. You’re just social signaling by pointing out the overuse of social signaling. It’s social signaling all the way down.

  30. She looks like she deserves a good smack. They should give the student extra credit.

  31. upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site
    ====================== http://WWW.4DAYJOBS.COM

  32. Socialists/Fascists control much of the education system and are typically vastly more violent and radical than say Tea Party members. The Democrats who once had a huge kinship with the KKK now march to the tune of riots and mayhem? The wimp Jeb Bush’s partial solution? Common core, common as in centralized indoctrination by fair and balanced Fascists.

    1. For instance, the closest thing America has to a non-astroturf political force is the Tea Party. Which doesn’t even litter. Nor does it matter, and this is not a coincidence.

      — Modlbug

      1. Moldbug

  33. The Teacher’s Union motto: “There for you, until you’re not “there” for it.”

  34. What I have learned is that no conservatives are safe in Trump’s America. You might even say, It’s Open Season On America’s Conservatives?. Not that some of Reason’s libertarians are actually conservatives.

  35. I am making $89/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is acquiring $10 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it. simply give it a shot on the accompanying site.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_ http://www.moneytime10.com

  36. Again, it is hard to say whether this is a denouncement of violence or safe spaces.

    It would also be wrong to presume?as many faculty members did?that there’s nothing to be gained from listening to him speak.
    Why would it be wrong to presume that? Perhaps they have read what he has said, and reached the conclusion

  37. So much for reasoned debate and freedom of speech. NOW do you understand the Trump victory?

  38. Peak Derp? Nah we cain’t be there yet. And mark my words here. This shit-storm isn’t over yet and probably won’t end well. We are kinda in the warm-up rounds. Also something about being born in “interesting times”. Those Chinese. They have an ironic curse for every occasion it seems.

  39. Protesters Attacked Her.

    Violence for political purpose is terrorism.

    You might have called them terrorists, criminals, brownshirts, thugs, rioters.

    Instead, you chose to call them protesters. If grab a woman by the hair and jerk her head around til she needs to go to the hospital and get a neck brace, what is my “protest”?

    When Robby uses propaganda to cover for those who attack you by the hair, you know he’s in the tank.

    1. I don’t know. Perhaps “Terrorists Protested Her.” would have been a more accurate ..uhm..Phrasing? If I was a professional writer. Which I am not.

  40. Is she one of the ones that fed the leftist beast, though?

    Years have been spent programming the proto-Red Guards, and leftist professors have been the coders. If their monsters turn on them, good!

    If she is not one, then I’m sorry for her getting caught, and hope she takes a good, hard look at her “colleagues” who ultimately bear some responsibility.

  41. My Uncle Nolan recently got Infiniti G Sedan by working part-time from a macbook… go to
    the website…………. https://tinyurl.com/5days-job

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.