Campus Free Speech

'These Institutions Are Betraying Their Own Values'—Here's How Offended Students Seized Power on Campus

At Middlebury, Claremont, Wellesley, and elsewhere, censorship is winning because faculty and administrators won't fight it.

|

Protest
Jeremy Hogan/Polaris/Newscom

In the wake of the mob violence against Charles Murray at Middlebury College and Heather MacDonald at Claremont McKenna College, it's getting harder to deny that there is a censorship problem at American college campuses.

"These cases are proliferating," Nicholas Christakis, the former head of Yale University's Silliman College, told Reason in an exclusive interview.

Christakis, readers will recall, faced his own mob of unfriendly students a year and a half ago, after his wife—an early childhood educator—sent a campus-wide email pushing back against the administration's opposition to offensive Halloween costumes. The students implored Christakis to affirm that it was his job as an administrator to be their father figure on campus and provide a safe space where they would feel protected from emotional discomfort; when Christakis refused to do so—reasoning that learning is sometimes uncomfortable—they demanded his resignation.

The Yale incident happened in the fall 2015 semester. In retrospect, it almost looks like a high-water mark for the civil exchange of ideas. At least Christakis's students bothered to debate him: the mobs at Middlebury and Claremont McKenna so desperately wanted safety from offensive ideas that they were willing to resort to violence to get it. The 2016-2017 academic year has seen a transgender film director harassed at Reed College, windows smashed at the University of California-Berkeley, a controversial speaker maced at American University, and a liberal professors sent to the emergency room with a neck injury because she dared to have a conversation with Charles Murray.

Meanwhile, countless student groups, visiting speakers, and professors have had their rights infringed by administrators—sometimes at the behest of students.

"If you look at these incidents over the last couple of years, we're seeing escalations, in my view," said Christakis.

Indeed, the escalation theory is getting harder and harder to deny. While most college students remain friendly to freedom of expression and genuinely interested in hearing from speakers with different points of view, these students are increasingly cowed into silence by the small minority of censorious activists, New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt recently told The Wall Street Journal.

"The great majority of college students want to learn," said Haidt. "They're perfectly reasonable, and they're uncomfortable with a lot of what's going on. But on each campus there are some true believers who have reoriented their lives around the fight against evil."

Nor is the "fight against evil" mentality reserved for use against characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale. The Middlebury and Claremont McKenna incidents demonstrate that students are perfectly willing to shut down speakers who hold views that may be wrong, but nevertheless fall within the bounds of reasonable debate.

To prove this point—that Murray, an American Enterprise Institute and author of The Bell Curve and Coming Apart, is worth hearing out—Cornell University Professors Wendy Williams and Stephen Ceci recently surveyed dozens of professors for a New York Times piece. They sent the (presumably overwhelmingly liberal) professors a transcript of Murray's prepared remarks for his Middlebury lecture and asked them to rank the speech on a 1-9 scale in terms of how liberal or reactionary it was. Murray's talk received an average score of 5.05, indicating it was moderate in tone and substance.

That group wasn't told the remarks were Murray's. The second group was informed of the author's identity: this group gave Murray a score of 5.77.

"Our data-gathering exercise suggests that Mr. Murray's speech was neither offensive nor even particularly conservative," wrote Williams and Ceci. "It is not obvious, to put it mildly, that Middlebury students and faculty had a moral obligation to prevent Mr. Murray from airing these views in public."

What's not obvious to Williams and Ceci, Christakis, Haidt, or any number of other defenders of classically liberal values, seems very obvious to a whole host of people who make excuses for the students.

"There's nothing outrageous about stamping out bigoted speech," read the subhed of Slate writer Osita Nwanevu's piece responding to the Murray episode. The election of Donald Trump to the presidency has, in Nwanevu's view, dealt a blow to the idea that "those with the best command of facts and reason… will emerge victorious." The implication: the entire project of using reasoned debate to overcome harmful ideas in place of brute force might therefore be worth abandoning. How the worthy cause of halting Trump's anti-cosmopolitan agenda could possibly be served by a further retreat from liberal values is left unexplained by the author.

And yet Nwanevu's position is undeniably popular among the group of people for whom the benefits of free speech should seem most obvious: college professors. John Patrick Leary, an English professor at Wayne State University, celebrated that "Middlebury's students do, however, have every right to shout [Murray] down, and by all accounts they accomplished this end." Several professors at Wellesley College recently sent an email to students recommending that speakers like Laura Kipnis—a critic of Title IX witch hunts—no longer be invited to campus. The professors argued that people with disfavored opinions impose burdens on whichever groups are bothered by their views. The obvious flaw in this logic—what about the burdens imposed on the groups who want to hear the disfavored opinions?—was ignored, as is typical.

Wellesley's students apparently got the message. On Thursday, the college's student newspaper released a brazenly illiberal and poorly-written editorial that cheered on efforts to quash hate speech. No one on campus has a right to make statements that are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, or discriminatory in any way, according to the editorial. "If people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted," wrote the editors. What kind of hostility? You can guess. The undeniable subtext: Conform to ill-defined and constitutionally-suspect ideas about hate speech, or face violence.

In his interview with me, Christakis stressed that he shares students' commitments to fighting racism, sexism, and other societal evils.

"I am on the side of students," he said. "I believe in this generation. I believe in progressive values."

But censorship is not a progressive value, nor is violence. Christakis thinks professors are retreating from Enlightenment values and thus failing to instill proper liberalism in their students.

"I really believe the faculty, from an understandable position of empathy with the students, are nevertheless abrogating their duty to the students," he said. This has resulted in a failure on the part of colleges to foster appreciation for freedom of speech. "These institutions are betraying their own values," he said.

We are living with the results. In fact, Christakis is worried that one of the central tenets of the Enlightenment—that words are not the same thing as coercive violence—is being cast aside.

"During the Enlightenment we drew a big distinction between words and actions, and that the response to words is more words," he said. "We use our words so as not to fight. This was one of the great contributions of the Enlightenment. We used to burn people at the stake for saying the wrong thing."

Members of the faculty, particularly those who teach the humanities, social sciences, and the liberal arts, have an important role to play: they could reinforce the values of the institution, explain what a liberal arts education actually means, and push back against the ongoing conflation of words and action. And indeed, many continue to fulfill this role admirably. Not all campuses are plagued by censorship, and not all controversial speakers are run off campus. (Just last week, psychology professor Jordan Peterson, a critic of gender neutral pronouns, gave a talk at Harvard University that met with surprisingly little resistance.)

But more must be done to hold the line, because the power dynamics have shifted in favor of the most offended and speech-averse students at many of America's top colleges. As Murray himself noted, he has been speaking at university campuses for 20 years, and this was the first time the mob could not be silenced. At previous events, he wrote, "I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, 'Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say.' That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority."

Take it from William Deresiewicz, author of Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite, who recently spent a semester at Scripps College and writes for The American Scholar:

I had one student, from a Chinese-American family, who informed me that the first thing she learned when she got to college was to keep quiet about her Christian faith and her non-feminist views about marriage. I had another student, a self-described "strong feminist," who told me that she tends to keep quiet about everything, because she never knows when she might say something that you're not supposed to. I had a third student, a junior, who wrote about a friend whom she had known since the beginning of college and who, she'd just discovered, went to church every Sunday. My student hadn't even been aware that her friend was religious. When she asked her why she had concealed this essential fact about herself, her friend replied, "Because I don't feel comfortable being out as a religious person here."

I also heard that the director of the writing center, a specialist in disability studies, was informing people that they couldn't use expressions like "that's a crazy idea" because they stigmatize the mentally ill. I heard a young woman tell me that she had been criticized by a fellow student for wearing moccasins—an act, she was informed, of cultural appropriation. I heard an adjunct instructor describe how a routine pedagogical conflict over something he had said in class had turned, when the student in question claimed to have felt "triggered," into, in his words, a bureaucratic "dumpster fire." He was careful now, he added, to avoid saying anything, or teaching anything, that might conceivably lead to trouble.

I listened to students—young women, again, who considered themselves strong feminists—talk about how they were afraid to speak freely among their peers, and how despite its notoriety as a platform for cyberbullying, they were grateful for YikYak, the social media app, because it allowed them to say anonymously what they couldn't say in their own name. Above all, I heard my students tell me that while they generally identified with the sentiments and norms that travel under the name of political correctness, they thought that it had simply gone too far—way too far. Everybody felt oppressed, as they put it, by the "PC police"—everybody, that is, except for those whom everybody else regarded as members of the PC police.

Permission to speak on campus is no longer absolute: it is managed and restricted by an unofficial ruling class consisting of a small number of students—the aforementioned PC police—who see no difference between speech and action, and reflexively lash out at any kind of expression that might offend someone. Professors are not taking strong enough action to fight this ruling class, and administrators are often complicit in its censorship.

And it's getting worse.

NEXT: Mike Pence in Korea, H.R. McMaster in Afghanistan, Trump Supporters and Antifa Battle in Berkeley: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …the mobs at Middlebury and Claremont McKenna so desperately wanted safety from offensive ideas that they were willing to resort to violence to get it.

    They tasted unchecked power and they liked it.

    1. Sometimes a little bit of violence is necessary to stop “free speech” that everybody knows should not be allowed. Heck, academic administrators have even been obliged to call in the police to deal with certain unwanted manifestations. Surely no one here would dare to defend the “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

      http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  2. The people must resist Emmanuel Goldstein, and his acolytes like Murray and McDonald. Sometimes, a two-minute hate isn’t enough.

    Ignorance is strength!

  3. Nor is the “fight against evil” mentality reserved for use against characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.

    This could be problematic.

    1. beyond the pale

      That’s Antisemitism, straight up.

      1. I thought it was anti-Irish.

      2. “Straight up”
        That’s homophobic

      3. Beyond the pale-FACE is what is implied… Pale-faces are responsible for ALL of the evils of the world, so, racism-wise, this is the only properly approved flavor of racism that there is.

        “Nothing to see here, folks, move along…”

  4. “Trump’s anti-cosmopolitan agenda could possibly be served by a further retreat from liberal values is left unexplained by the author”

    It’s funny that you think these people care about liberal values.

    1. I think that the paragraph you excerpted from is making the case that they (or in this case, she) don’t.

      1. My mistake. Missed the context

  5. I remember when campuses protested killing in southeast Asia, not thinking in the USA.
    I remember when Berkeley was for free speech.
    I feel very, very, old.

    1. Has Berkeley ever argued for the free speech of ideological opponents?

        1. Berkeley the Collectivist.

          1. When Berkeley and I went out for a beer one day, Berkeley says, “Drinks all around, on me!”

            Drinks were served. The bill came… And Berkeley passed it to me! He says, “Pay up, capitalist motherfucker! You have a job, and I don’t; they don’t even pay me the minimum wage for my power-to-the-people poetry! So pay up!”

            I’m a tellin’ ya, do NOT take Berkeley out drinking!!!

        2. Berkely the 18th century philosopher I assume.

      1. I always thought that Berkeley’s arguments were more focused toward epistemology

      2. actuallly, yes…. used to be open meetings where any ideas could be put out there and examined from various aspects. Same at other UC campi…… I know, I attended one of them during the People’s Park days. I was at some of those meetings.

  6. The Progressive faculty is promoting the problem otherwise they would just expel the brats. The only good thing that is going to come from this is when the little Frankenstein monster turns and kills it creator and the uneducated neofacist cops are going to sit back and watch.

  7. ‘These Institutions Are Betraying Their Own Values’

    I wasn’t aware that they had any values to betray.

    1. Well, stated values anyway.

  8. Oh you punk kids, will you never get off my lawn?

  9. With all his hand-wringing, Robbie is this close to a juicy Fox & Friends gig.

    1. With all the ridicule, and no substance, can you be anything other than an Alinsky disciple?

      -An an-cap

  10. an unofficial ruling class consisting of a small number of students?the aforementioned PC police?who see no difference between speech and action, and reflexively lash out at any kind of expression that might offend someone.

    Then let the violence begin. No reason to keep putting it off.

    1. It is. Conservatives are learning to physically fight back against the antifa mobs. Cops do not want to get involved, so there will be significant bloodshed eventually. These groups aren’t used to opponents fighting back and the conservative groups aren’t used to fighting at all — but they will learn and likely excel at it.

      The Trump supporter rally in Berkeley with the Oath Keepers is just the start.

      1. The Trump supporter rally in Berkeley with the Oath Keepers is just the start.

        You may be right. I’m not really eager to see it, but it looks like it has to happen.

        1. If we’re going to be the next Weimar Repubkic can we at least have a resurgence of cabaret to go along with with it?

  11. We are living with the results. In fact, Christakis is worried that one of the central tenets of the Enlightenment?that words are not the same thing as coercive violence?is being cast aside.

    Just a grammar point: It’s Chistakis “are” worried. If you are going to use the pejorative for Christians, at least get the grammar right: Pakis are, Christakis are.

    1. Long way to go for that one.

    2. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or does it come naturally?

      “Nicholas Christakis” is the person whose interview was the nominal point of this article.
      It is not a pejorative for Christians, it’s the guy’s NAME. Dang.

      1. Sense of humor = 0

  12. Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.

    Oh fuck off, Robbie.

    -jcr

    1. Yeah, Robby. Fuck your opinion!

    2. Light the virtue signal! Robbie is pure of heart and mind!

      1. Or the other virtue signal! Robbie is impure and must be cast out!

        1. Only others virtue signal. We real men of integrity simply state our position.

          1. All you other motherfuckers are ALWAYS virtue signalling, all day long, every day!!! Low-lifes, ALL of ye!

            ME, on the other hand, I NEVAH virtue-signal!

            So I am the more virtuous, obliviously!!!!

        2. May not be impure. Might be plain lazy.

          Because if you are going to allege an argument that you’ve never actually bothered to make there has to be a reason.

    3. Exactly. No reason to put that in.

      1. You can’t think of one reason to put that in?

        1. She was pretty slutty in that dress. To be sure.

      2. Indeed not. But what were you expecting?

  13. characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.

    Feel free to make that argument. Otherwise sit back and look at your dwindling ad revenue as you try to figure out what you have done to alienate your readership.

    1. John Stuart Mill already made it:

      “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

      “…characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.”

      That I can read such intellectual excrement at a libertarian publication is deeply troubling. Christ, I thought this kind of nonsense had long been confined to the trashcan of intellectual history.

      1. Could you please quote the piece of the article where Robby says Milo needs to be shut down? Thanks.

        1. “…who are arguably beyond the pale.”

          1. Where’s the part where he says that means it’s OK to silence him?

            It’s not there. Robbie has his quirks, but he has never remotely suggested that any speech should be banned or shut down through violence.

          2. Can you please quote the part of the article where Robby says that Milo should be silenced? Thanks.

            1. I already did, obviously not to your satisfaction, but that’s of no moment or consequence to me…

              1. So what you’re saying is that you don’t think people can strongly disagree. Interesting conclusion.

                1. I think he’s saying what “beyond the pale” means is different for him than you.

                  I also think the teenage girl cuntiness is really not necessary or constructive.

                  1. also think the teenage girl cuntiness is really not necessary or constructive.

                    Sorry, you’re using old definition irony.

                    1. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

                    2. Sorry I hurt your feelings.

                      Oh please. In any case, it’s certainly helpful to have yet another moron join the commenting fray. Welcome, dummy.

                    3. Because your reflexive “I know you are but what am I” isn’t a dead giveaway right?

                      And the namecalling basically seals it.

                    4. And the namecalling basically seals it.

                      Sorry, this is yet another use of old definition irony.

                    5. Today we learned Sparky doesn’t know the difference between behavior and a person.

                    6. Today we learned Sparky doesn’t know the difference between behavior and a person.

                      People should learn something new every day is my motto.

                      Today I learned that logic-impaired people such as Chamonix really do exist and are as child-like in their thinking as you’d expect.

                    7. Listen, I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.

                      I let you have your tantrum, and then we can move on.

                    8. Listen, I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.

                      Are you another one of those people who believe that getting the last word with a lame comment like this means you won? Will you really keep going forever until people stop responding?

                      Very well, in the interest of saving space, you “won”.

                    9. “you “won”.”

                      Thanks.

                      Run away now, cunt.

                    10. I looked through this thread.

                      It’s you insulting people over and over. Not making arguments, then insulting people.

                      Just insulting people.

                      What high road do you think you have guy?

                      And why are you crying so much about an off handed comment by some fucking nobody on the internet?

          3. And this is the flipside of the PC argument.

            On one extreme, you have the PC crowd, which wants to silence all “problematic” speech, by force if necessary.

            On the other extreme, you have the anti-PC crowd, which does not think any “problematic” speech should suffer any criticism whatsoever.

            So it’s either trying to silence the speaker or silence the critics.

            Maybe neither one should be silenced?

            1. Maybe neither one should be silenced?

              Pick a side or get lost, fence-sitter.

              1. I know, right?

                It’s easy to just fall in line with tribal loyalty, it’s much harder to actually stand for a principle or two.

            2. I don’t believe the anti-PC crowd is saying no speech should be criticized. I think they are just saying that using violence and silencing speech is, you know, illiberal.

              Talk about false equivalencies. One side silences speech with violence and the other one says ‘we shouldn’t silence speech, nor should it matter the context of that speech’ and you shout: “all my God, they’re all extremists”

              1. the other one says ‘we shouldn’t silence speech, nor should it matter the context of that speech’

                Oh no it’s more than that, it is criticizing those who dare to criticize an anti-SJW warrior, because – tribalism, I guess. Milo has said some pretty horrible things, even besides his supposed support for pedophilia, and when Robby or anyone else offers some mild criticism of that, he gets inundated with 5,000 responses of “shut up” and “virtue signal” and “how dare you” type comments. No one is bothering to defend Milo’s own words, just trying to shut up someone criticizing Milo. So yes there is a strong parallel between those trying to silence problematic speakers, and those trying to silence critics of problematic speakers. The difference is the initiation of force, of course, but the philosophy is the same.

                1. Shouldn’t the initiation of force be a serious mitigating factor? Or, let’s ignore the ‘non-agression principle’, because ‘yokels’ and stuff

                  1. Oh come on. I’m not saying anyone should be silenced by force. But you are missing the point. The pro-PC crowd thinks it’s okay to silence speakers that they disagree with, just because they don’t like what they are saying. The anti-PC crowd thinks *the same thing*; the only difference is that the pro-PC crowd thinks initiation of violence is an acceptable means to achieve this goal. That’s the only difference in my view. But the fundamental goal – try to shut people up who are saying “bad things” – is the same between the two camps. Once again, those who are railing against Robby aren’t even bothering or pretending to defend what Milo said. All of the criticism is just “shut up Robby, don’t criticize an anti-SJW warrior, stop virtue signaling, yadda yadda”. No one is arguing the substance of the case. No one is arguing the merits or lack thereof of what Milo said. It is scarcely different than the Middlebury students who protested Charles Murray without knowing what he actually said or believed. If you want to defend what Milo said, then go right ahead. If you want to criticize Robby’s criticism of Milo, then go right ahead. But do so *on the merits* not based on some tribal desire to shut people up who are fighting for the “wrong tribe” or some such.

                    1. But the fundamental goal – try to shut people up who are saying “bad things” – is the same between the two camps

                      Too nuanced, dude. That’s going to go over like a fart at a wedding.

                    2. So criticism is exactly the same thing as a heckler’s veto or violence. Yeah, you’re right. It’s hard to find any daylight between those positions.

                      Simple question for you: With the exception of actually inciting violence, is there any relevance at all to the speech which is being suppressed? Or maybe, just maybe, the issue is purely one of free speech itself? Nah, that’s crazy talk.

                    3. But you are missing the point.

                      Really? You think there is no difference between saying “That’s fucking stupid and you should be ignored” and my softball league showing up with 18 bats to punish that speech?

                      Think harder, peanut brain…

                  2. No one is ignoring the non-aggression principle. Robby criticizes Milo, certain people criticize Robby, others criticize those people. All without threats of force.

                    The non-aggression principle doesn’t mean you can’t criticize people unless they are aggressing against you.

                2. Commenters here have said markedly worse things than Milo has dreamed of saying…yet I don’t think anybody here is “beyond the pale”.

                  That Robby issues such criticism for no apparent reason is why it gets criticized. And that he does it so frequently. He seems unwilling to criticize the violence without, somewhat, justifying it.

                  “Yeah, violence is bad and needs to stop…but Milo kinda had it coming, ya know”

                  1. I could certainly do without Robby’s little whatever-you-call-thems. And I’m not saying I agree (Milo is deliberately provocative and kind of an ass, but there is definitely a place for that kind of shit-stirring in this world). I just think it’s about time people got over it.

                    1. Yeah, the problem with Robbie’s remark is it suggests it’s reasonable to shut down Milo, just not Murrary. But once you think it’s understandable to want to shut anybody down, it’s just a question of who gets to draw the lines.

            3. Given that the “arguably beyond the pale Milo” had a fucking RIOT against him being able to speak, then perhaps the anti-PC crowd has more of a point.

              We’re seeing the violence by the Left increase and have been watching it for years. The Right actually tried to play nice.

              That is ending.

              This will not be fun for the Progs.

            4. On the other extreme, you have the anti-PC crowd, which does not think any “problematic” speech should suffer any criticism whatsoever.

              Cite?

              Because it’s pretty plain that the anti-PC crowd would prefer ANY conversation over the silencing…well except when that ‘conversation’ is nothing more than screeching so that no one can hear the anti-PC people.

            5. “Beyond the pale” is not criticism, at least not of any substance. Yes, the expression mean something beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse, but absent any explanation of why it is so the use of the expression basically boils down to “he needs to shut up.”

  14. In fact, Christakis is worried that one of the central tenets of the Enlightenment?that words are not the same thing as coercive violence?is being cast aside.

    I’ve felt for a while that this was/is the “end game” for the SJW ‘tards. By conflating words they don’t like with actual violence it makes it that much easier for them to rationalize responding to those words with violence. Since in their tiny little brains “those people started it,” which fits in perfectly with their childish, idiotic, mentally stunted worldview.

    1. Well said – that’s exactly the same dynamic that the asshole bullies use to attack gay people. ‘he started it by looking at my ass’

      Or is that too PC for this crowd?

  15. But censorship is not a progressive value, nor is violence.

    Uhh…did the author write that as a serious proposal?

    1. I think progs are so devoted to the feelz for the often specious groups of victims and intolerance of anything outside their narrative that anything would be justifiable in their view. We are after all fascists, you know.

    2. There is a need among cosmos to falsely equate ‘progressives’ with ‘liberals’. Reason is not a magazine to be taken seriously. Some on their own staff do not support liberal values.

      1. And yet, here you are taking everything printed as serious as death.

        1. When reflecting on how terrible this publication has become, yes, I do take what they say seriously. Is there a question here or are you do you just want to behave like an angsty teenage girl?

          1. Look dude, people already get that you’re not very bright. If you’re intent on showing just how dense you are, I’m not going to stop you.

            1. You’re the one arguing for censorship, because of feelz and I’m dense? My lord, you are a special kind of stupid

              1. You’re the one arguing for censorship

                Thanks for summarizing your stupidity.

    3. I noticed that little tidbit myself, and as far as I can see Progressivism is nothing except censorship and violence as far as history is concerned. It’s a cancer.

      Just because it has ‘progress’ in it’s name doesn’t actually mean that the progress they refer to is actually progress. In fact, in just about every case it’s a regression.

      1. progressivism=collectivism=civilization.

    4. One should say it isn’t a (classical) liberal value; lol beralism refers to a principle or set of principles. Progressivism, or conservatism, merely refer to orientations relative to the status quo. Whether progressivism or conservatism is violent depends entirely on what one is trying to progress towards or conserve.

      1. ” Progressivism, or conservatism, merely refer to orientations relative to the status quo.”

        Largely, but not entirely. To be sure there is always some sort of telos is implicit in progressivism. But conservatism may be less about maintaining the status quo than about a desire to ‘return’ to some idealized prior state – e.g the European conservative who is actually an anti-modern seeking a return to monarchy, or the American conservative who seeks to undo a century of the expanding welfare state.

  16. “Nor is the “fight against evil” mentality reserved for use against characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.”

    The above sentiment is inarguably beyond the pale for a libertarian publication.

    1. What do you think “beyond the pale” means?

      What is libertarian about saying that someone is offensive beyond the standards of civilized society? I’m not saying it’s true of Yiannopolous (or untrue), but I’m pretty sure libertarians are allowed to have strong negative opinions about people.

      1. I’m pretty sure libertarians are allowed to have strong negative opinions about people.

        And I’d always considered the conditional ‘arguably’ to be a direct nod to the 1A premise of disagreeing with one’s arguments and premise while acknowledging their right to make them.

      2. The phrase “beyond the pale” connotes to me, in certain contexts, something that should not be permitted, obviously your mileage varies…

        1. Hey, but it sells well at cocktail parties

        2. The context here being a defense of free and open speech.

        3. I actually do agree that “beyond the pale” seems a bit strong.

          But what is ridiculous is that people seem to see Robby’s little caveats like that as evidence that he is somehow being dishonest or hiding his true motivations. Which seems rather unfair if you look at the work he has done at Reason which consistently stands up for open and free speech on campus and condemns the people who would shut down unpopular speakers.

          1. I think what’s actually ridiculous is defending a writer who could come in here and clarify what he meant.

            1. If you’re too stupid or disingenuous to understand his post as written, no amount of clarification will help.

          2. What’s ridiculous is that people think such caveats speak to a weakness in his respect for free speech, rather than a strength.

            He’s trying to address people who say, “Yes, free speech is good, but not for those evil folks who are trying to make things worse.” His response is, no, even when I agree that this guy sucks, we still have to respect his freedom to speak and the freedom of others to listen to him. But that makes Robby suspect, and there’s “no reason” to include it except to appease the god of DC party invites.

            1. Yes, that too. It is a point worth making as often as possible that free speech means free speech, even for highly offensive and/or obnoxious speakers. Like when liberals used to proudly point out how they would even defend the rights of Nazis to march in Illinois.

          3. Which seems rather unfair if you look at the work he has done at Reason which consistently stands up for open and free speech on campus and condemns the people who would shut down unpopular speakers.

            But his endless caveats undermine this. He comes off looking like he believes in the causes of the people who would shut down unpopular speeches–and he has done so from the beginning.

            The record you’re trying to cite could best be expressed as “Robbie believes in Free Speech, but…”

            1. But his endless caveats undermine this.

              No they don’t.

              He comes off looking like he believes in the causes of the people who would shut down unpopular speeches–and he has done so from the beginning.

              No he doesn’t.

              1. “Beyond the pale”

                Raping your 4 yr old child. Killing a 60 yr old black lady for the $27 in her purse.

                Speech? Never

              2. But his endless caveats undermine this.

                No they don’t.

                He comes off looking like he believes in the causes of the people who would shut down unpopular speeches–and he has done so from the beginning.

                No he doesn’t.

                I know I’m on a dead thread here, but gods above, what has happened to you, Sparky?

                This isn’t even trolling–this is just juvenile. It’s crap.

                It really looks like you’ve got nothing to say and are shouting it from the rooftops.

    2. The statement “…reserved for use against characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.” means exactly what it says.

      It means that a person could make the argument that Yiannopoulous’s behavior is outside the mainstream. Now, since many people from both sides of the political spectrum have indeed made that argument it would seem that at face value this is a true statement. It’s simply an acknowledgement that Milo is controversial, which itself should not be controversial.

      You’ll note that Robby did not say one word about his own opinion on the matter beyond the fact that some people have indeed said that Yiannopoulous’s opinions are outside the mainstream.

      I agree that this isn’t a comment that necessarily needed to be made, since it more or less amount’s to acknowledgement that Milo isn’t a great case to use for his point yet he uses it anyway. To his credit, he followed up with better arguments though.

      He took Journalism classes and knows that he generates more clicks by tweaking your noses. Who is more foolish; the fool or the fool who follows it.

      1. WE KNOW WHAT HE REALLY MEANT

        And need I remind you of Shikha’s tweet? QED

      2. And, to clarify, he’s specifically saying that these types of regressive leftists are now targeting people that no one argues are outside the mainstream (except these idiots, apparently, who are clearly far outside the norm).

        This is another way of saying that these idiots are now attacking people in the center for being ‘extreme’. That’s what he’s saying here. He’s not implying that’s ok, merely that this is what is happening.

        Is it good writing? Maybe, or maybe not, but I don’t see all the secret implications that some of you are seeing.

        1. I don’t see all the secret implications that some of you are seeing.

          Here, put these on…

          1. I’m at work so I won’t click on any links (not that I don’t appreciate them) but if that isn’t a link to a clip from ‘They Live’ I would be super disappointed.

  17. Milo Yiannopoulos, libertarian standard-bearer. Who could have predicted that?

    1. Seriously, call me back when he’s fired arrow at a crowd of people or bitten the head off a live chicken.

    2. So strange how people are more apt to condemn words by a provocateur over people engaging in actual violence to silence words.

      Pretty much sums up why ‘libertarian’ is now just a by-word for ‘coward’

      1. One sentence about the former in an article about the latter clearly proves your point.

        1. No, I’d say the responses from you prove my point pretty well

          1. No, I’d say the responses from you prove my point pretty well

            You’re right, clearly I made a mistake. From this point on I promise to let your raving stupidity stand on its own. I’ll only point it out if you feel some urge to respond to something I post.

              1. Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh! Clowns! Clown panic!

              2. Wow, you and WakaWaka are definitely not Tulpa.

                1. That’s exactly what Tulpa would say.

                  Haaaaaaiiiilllllll Rrrrrrrreeettaarrrrrdeeeessss!!!!

      2. One sentence in a nearly 2000 word post denouncing campus activists. “More apt,” indeed.

  18. Somehow there’s a group of people who are worse for our free speech rights than the government. That’s terrifying. One of the biggest ways it happens though is through student government and “campus involvement” bullshit. No normal kid gets THAT involved on campus anymore. In fact most normal kids don’t even vote in those elections. There are better things to do with your time. So the worst possible kids start making nice with this ever-growing administration and start pushing for this type of insanity. You saw it with the student who killed himself after he claims his gay classmate hit on him but he was subject to discipline instead. Of course the other student was close with the administration and could influence the case, because those are the sorts of insane people who have the ear of the administration. Everyone else is getting real degrees, working, or partying like college kids are supposed to

    Also, Milo is a Rudy Giuliani-supporting moderate Republican. He’s just more abrasive than we’re used to. Come on Robby, stop pushing this tired narrative. If Milo were a leftist, I bet they would have said his comments about teenagers were his way of coping with his own history of being abused and he wouldn’t be in exile like he is now

    1. The biggest idiots were in student bodies when I was in university. I remember a scandal during their elections – where I think most normal people ignored – being so stupid I prayed none of those involved ended up in real jobs.

      Basically, they were fucken losers.

    2. oh please. just look to religious institutions for a group of people who are worse for free speech rights than the government. Just look at all the places where ‘blasphemy’ can get you killed. Not just locked up by evil theocratic governments. Killed. Murdered in the street. Just for saying something less than glowing about someone’s religious belief system.

      And yes, those who disdain and refuse to vote in student government elections have the same lack of grounds for dissension as those who disdain and refuse to vote in real elections. If you don’t vote, you can’t complain that your voice is irrelevant. You’ve done that to yourself.

      1. If you don’t vote, you can’t complain that your voice is irrelevant. You’ve done that to yourself.

        So you’re one of those people.

      2. I’ve tried voting and not voting. The results were identical as far as my voice being heard goes.

      3. So, you think people who voted for Trump are better than people who didn’t vote?

        1. It is better to vote for a buffoon than to not vote at all. Better to vote for Ricky Rouse or Monald Muck than not to vote at all.

          Apathy breed tyranny in the same way that gullibility breeds lies.

    3. I have noticed that there is definitely cohesion amongst vast differences of geography through the grossly obsolete student unions. Even their moronic chants from Ottawa to Berkeley are the same.

  19. “A mob of students beat a classmate to death for blasphemy while shouting “Allahu Akbar” at a Pakistani university Thursday.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04…..z4eWBlp9Gg

    So American Universities are on the same path but not quite there yet. Years or decades before a college mob kills a kid who denies some aspect of leftist doctrine?

    1. Years, but they’ll be sure to claim it was an accident.

      1. “Years” is generous. All it takes is one black hooded “anarchist” with a brick, and tens of thousands of progressives cheering him on, and the death will bet there. Of course, the progressives didn’t throw the brick. All protests are peaceful. War is piece. Slavery is freedom.

        1. You left out the most important slogan of the PC crowd:

          Ignorance is Strength.

  20. They don’t fight for them because they don’t actually believe in them, except maybe for themselves. Certainly not for the hoi poi.

  21. How the worthy cause of halting Trump’s anti-cosmopolitan agenda could possibly be served by a further retreat from liberal values is left unexplained by the author.

    Because for the author it is a self-evident truth that if people reject her ideas, the reason must be because people are selfish and evil, not that the ideas themselves are wrong or based on wrong assumptions. Therefore the only way left for the true revolutionary is to crack a few eggs to get her omelet.

    1. This whole article should have been titled: “How to Virtue Signal Yourself Into Defending Free Speech”

      1. You’re trying so hard to fit in with the right group.

        1. Dude, I really feel sorry for you

          1. Thanks, I appreciate that.

    2. Because for the author it is a self-evident truth that if people reject her ideas, the reason must be because people are selfish and evil, not that the ideas themselves are wrong or based on wrong assumptions.

      She proceeds to bemoan Team Other and their antiquated, conventional, (not-exactly-)sexist ideas and then proceeds to wear her persecution at the hands of Title IX as though it were a ‘Title IX tried to fuck me and all I got was this lousy shirt’ t-shirt.

      We’ve *maybe* gone a bit off the rails with regard to TItle IX, but there are never any moral dilemmas that enough good intentions can’t pave over. So, diversity for the sake of diversity, without regard for existing diversity, and MOAR EQUALITY ALWAYS! are both still a full go.

      1. And the funny part is that the same Title IX equality warriors are intentionally gutting the shit out of it with their quite fervent support of trannys. Women’s sports in college are on borrowed time at best, given that it would make a ton of sense for a mediocre boy basketball player from high school to claim he identifies as a girl for a scholarship to dominate women’s basketball at a college.

        Same works for soccer. The best women’s teams in college couldn’t beat good boys high school teams as is. Let boys get the playing positions and women are frozen out of sports completely.

      2. Grr…. time to close some tabs.

  22. I guess not wanting to be stoned to death or thrown off a rooftop by a bunch of deranged Islamonazis is “beyond the pale” according to Reason.

    And you wonder why there’s like six people left here.

    1. It would be six if you would go the fuck away you retarded asshole.

      1. You first, you Obama momma.

        1. Sometimes I think you couldn’t possibly get any stupider, but you always manage to step up your game, Weigel.

          1. “Stupider”

            Ahahahhahahhaahahahahhahahaha

            Retard!!!

            1. Oh look, someone made a special handle just for me. I’ve finally made it!

              1. Rrrreeeeeeeeeeettttaaaarrrrrddddd!!!

                Say something even “stupider”!!!

                Ahahhahaahahahahahhahaahahahahahha

    2. Yes, I’m sure that’s the only reason why Robbie would describe him that way. Milo has never done anything provocative other than defend his right to be gay against Islamists. Robby just hates people who don’t want to be murdered by Islamonazis.

      1. Why are you defending someone who reads the comments and can defend himself?

        1. I don’t know. Just for fun, I guess. Why are you asking me why I do what I do?

      2. Let me explain something: “provocative” and “beyond the pale” aren’t remotely close to the same thing.

        But you already know that, don’t you? Of course you do.

        1. I said they were? Good job missing the point.

  23. OFFS, Robby, shut up about Milo. Why do you think there are so few comments here any more? Because of idiocy like this!

    1. Seriously, this nonsense will be the death of Reason! No one’s gonna bother with this place any more!

      1. Not after this virtue signaling crap!

  24. “arguably beyond the pale”

    Because the way you really defend free speech is by being evenhandedly ineffectual. I mean, god knows you don’t want to OFFEND the people who are trying to censor and silence you at every turn?

    1. Took you long enough. Too many others are already defending this stupid point.

      1. Because the way you really change people’s minds is by coddling up to the people and institutions that demonize and destroy anyone who dares fight back with any sincerity.

    2. I know! The way to stop SJW fascism is to engage in anti-SJW fascism!

      1. Indeed: when one side starts referring to anything it disagrees with as “Fascism”, the proper thing to do isn’t to point out how retarded & ahistorical that description is = The thing to do is to join in and validate their hysterical terminology.

        1. IOW, if I’m against someone, everyone they hate I must defend to the death or else I’m one of them.

          Come on, Milo has given us all plenty of reasons to despise him. The idea that just because SJWs hate him we all have to support him or indeed not call him a cunt (because he is a cunt) is pretty moronic.

          1. The idea that just because SJWs hate him we all have to support him

            You seem to be having an argument with someone other than me, because i’m pretty sure i never said that.

            What i specifically said above was using the term ‘fascists’ to describe people you disagree with (simply because they use that term incorrectly as well) is stupid, and contributes to justifications of speech-repression.

      2. Because bringing attention to someone’s rudeness is the highest form of rudeness.

  25. When I read that “beyond the pale” line, I just knew that the ‘usual suspects’ would get their panties in a wad about it, even though the rest of the article was very well done I thought.

    Has Robby – or anyone else here, for that matter – EVER suggested that Milo be *silenced by force* from speaking? No? Okay then.

    Does Robby think Milo’s opinions are wrongheaded? Probably. I know I think they are. I don’t think Milo should be forcibly silenced though.

    I am rather tired of the PC crowd trying to silence speakers, but I am ALSO tired of the anti-PC crowd trying to silence the speakers’ critics.

    In fact I would argue it is our duty, as moral people, to criticize ideas that we believe are horrible. Not to initiate violence against speakers. But to criticize terrible ideas. Because if we don’t criticize them, then they are allowed to flourish and spread unchecked by legitimate arguments against them, leading to potentially ruinous consequences in the future if they are ever adopted in a large scale manner.

    1. “Has Robby – or anyone else here, for that matter – EVER suggested that Milo be *silenced by force* from speaking? No? Okay then.”

      Are we suppose to ignore the tweets by Shikha and ENB?

      You can criticize all you want, by all means, but when you shrug when speech is being silenced with force then you are an illiberal prick.

      1. What did ENB say? I must have missed it.

    2. I know I think they are.

      Either present an exhaustive and sufficiently convincing case for why you consider Milo an unperson who you are so eager to erase from history, or keep your virtue signaling to yourself.

      1. I don’t consider him an unperson. I don’t think he should be erased from history. But I don’t think he is above criticism either. For example he has accused transgendered people of being mentally ill. I don’t think that criticism is valid as a blanket statement. Sure some might be suffering from gender dysphoria. But to make it a blanket statement about all, is not justified, and is offensive in my view. He has also made rude and belittling comments against his critics which is unproductive and devalues whatever he has to say.

        1. That list… is pretty thin fucking gruel.

          1. You don’t think it is worthy of criticism? Well it’s not up to you now entirely, is it?

        2. He has also made rude and belittling comments against his critics which is unproductive and devalues whatever he has to say.

          Please stop undermining my mockery

          I am trying to subtly point out how retarded this is, and here you go shouting retardation from the rooftoops like its some sort of great wisdom.

          1. STFU YOU VIRTUE SIGNALING TWAT

            1. smdh

              See? There you go “devaluing what you have to say”…. if you actually had anything worth saying, that is.

  26. “But censorship is not a progressive value, nor is violence. Christakis thinks professors are retreating from Enlightenment values and thus failing to instill proper liberalism in their students.”

    Au contraire Christakis. The base root and foundation of progressivism is not open dialogue. Shutting down ‘stuff’ is the rule not the exception. Progressivism is predicated on panels of experts and ‘intellectual betters’ or ‘masters’ to social engineer human ‘progress’ as they define it; that is, by introducing policy of what ought to be. Those policies are usually rooted in faulty premises or nefarious calculations by design (think minimum wage).

    What’s this garbage of equating progressivism withe classical liberalism? Progressivism as classical liberalism was slowly choked off. It finds most of its lineage in socialism; not classical liberalism.

    I find it rich they cite The Enlightenment in the Age of Reason as if somehow their project was derailed by a bunch of lunatics.

    My argument is it wasn’t pulled of course. This IS the track they laid.

    1. “Progressive” is one of those words that means a lot of different things to different people.

      Yes, the early 20th century Progressive movement was pretty nasty, as are many of today’s self-identified progressives.
      But there is also the more general meaning of “progressive” which says that social and technological change can be to the benefit of humanity and doesn’t necessarily have to follow the 20th century plan of “top men” running everything.

      I’ve often thought that it makes sense in some contexts to talk about a conservative and a progressive wing of libertarianism, with the conservatives being more the constitutionalist, traditional society types and progressives being more open to new ways to organize society and perhaps believing that a return to the past isn’t the best way to increase liberty and prosperity.

      1. To me, ‘progressive’ is a meaningless ideological term. Classical liberalism is the best world view to ensure progress.

        Now whether it manifests itself in what you point out in the final paragraph, maybe. But again, progressives today and in the past, are not aligned with classical liberal views.

        1. “To me, ‘progressive’ is a meaningless ideological term. Classical liberalism is the best world view to ensure progress.”

          But it remains important to recognize that progressivism, as practiced by the modern left (to include the early Republican party) is NOT downstream from the Enlightenment. It descends from Kant and a particular strain of Hegel that was, and remains an explicit rejection of much of the Enlightenment.

          To be sure much of the left wears liberalism like an Edgar suit, and has pretty much since they overran the Democrat party back in the late Sixties.

      2. And yet each of those innovative social reorganizations requires top men and enforced compliance. Anti-GMO, anti-nuclear, anti-school choice, anti-fracking, etc. Progs love stasis at least as much as conservatives.

        Again, progressive != progress.

        1. You miss my point almost completely. I’m saying that “progressive” can mean more than just what today’s self-identified progressives promote. And even there, I think you assume too much homogeneity.

          Innovative social reorganizations can go both ways. Getting the government to stop being involved in certain areas of life in which they have long been involved is also innovative social reorganization. Figuring out ways to solve problems through voluntary cooperation or using markets, rather than government coercion is an innovative social reorganization.

          1. So your point is to be mortiscrum and simply like “progress” therefore anything containing the word must have some innate goodness. Or you could live in the real world and look at what self-labeled progressives have done. To do otherwise is, as rufus said, to render the word “progressive” meaningless.

            1. To do otherwise is, as rufus said, to render the word “progressive” meaningless.

              At least it’s not just me you are incapable of comprehending. Rufus said he considers the word to be meaningless, not that my definition renders it so.

              As applied to the Progressive movement, it is just a label, and as such is pretty much meaningless. Progressive means whatever Progressives do.

              What I was trying to do was give it some actual meaning. It is an actual word with meanings outside of the political movement, which is what I was talking about. I wanted to use it in political contexts as something other than a label for a political team. Perhaps it would be better if we didn’t just allow the movement Progressives to own the word when in many cases they are in fact anti-progress. Libertarians have ideas about what constitutes positive progress as well. Are we supposed not to use the word because some asshole like you will assume that it can only refer to left wing progressive statists?

          2. So you’ve now defined progressive as a meaningless term. That appears to be your point.

      3. I’ve noticed that the “progressives” never spell out anything towards what they’re “progressing” towards. They have created a lecherous cohabitation with the word and have tried to conflate political with the general society.

    2. Ehh, progressivism largely did grow out of liberalism. History, especially the history of ideas, is messy and all, but progressives were generally liberals who thought the state could be used to fulfill lofty liberal ideals. Combine with Victorian values, over-appreciation of science and rationalism, and imperialist programs, and you’ve got TR, Holmes, etc. The greater trust in the state makes the policy positions look similar to socialism, but the ideas motivating it were definitely more Bentham and Mill than Marx and Bakunin. The thread of scientism would probably be the strongest connection to certain socialist schools.

      I think the more important point are the conservative values that have been part of progressivism since the start, and which are often responsible for pulling progressives away from standard liberal positions like free speech. The tension is even more blatant today, e.g. celebrating multiculturalism while demanding conformity.

  27. what a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense.
    No, nobody is being ‘censored’.

    Your right to free speech doesn’t given anyone the obligation to give you a microphone or a platform.

    If a private institution like a college or university wants to cater to the desires of it’s students, faculty, or other stakeholders, they have the freedom to do so, no matter what sort of hand-wringing this engenders on the part of those who are frustrated that their views in support of bigotry and discrimination are unpopular.

    And before someone tries to claim that these are ‘public’ institutions by virtue of the fact that they accept ‘public’ taxdollars, do note that Bob Jones University also accepts ‘public taxdollars’, and nobody is saying boo about their refusal to book Richard Dawkins as a commencement speaker…..

    1. Lovely.

      Why can Liberty have Bernie Sanders speak and NOT have a mob try to silence him? Nobody even yelled.

      Why is Liberty more open minded than 99% of colleges out there?

    2. Yeah. You’re right. It’s all in our heads.

    3. Censorship isn’t necessarily government action. TV broadcasting companies have censors that have nothing to do with government regulation. Colleges do too.

      Yes, a private institution has the right to censor or not give a platform to any speaker it wants. But to simply state that misses the point. These are institutions that claim to be places for free and open debate, and many are also the institutions where future political and business leaders are educated. That does not bode well for the future of open debate and individual liberty.

      1. Gee, the ‘future of open debate and individual liberty’ has managed to survive all of the suppression of the voices of non-male non-white non-[insert culturally required religion here] people that has been going on since those categories existed, so I think a little pendulum swinging isn’t going to have anything like a catastrophic effect. When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Ever thus.

        As the bumpersticker says, “It’s only called ‘class warfare’ when the consumer/worker class fights back” This is pretty much the same thing. When ‘the powers that be’ are flexing their muscles to enforce their andro-euro-theist hegemony, there’s nothing to talk about. But when anyone starts questioning that cultural hegemony, then all of a sudden there’s hand-wringing and angst about all this ‘censorship’. Please. These are the same voices trying to tell the evangelicals that Christians are being ‘oppressed’ in this country, and for the same reason. Money. Opposition to the use of the power of government to protect consumers and laborers from abuse and exploitation by employers and vendors.

        1. the use of the power of government to protect consumers and laborers from abuse and exploitation by employers and vendors.

          Yeah, because that’s what Business is aaaaallll about. And, government force is just the right remedy for that!

          As the bumpersticker says

          No more apt analogy could be made of your “philosophy”.

          /I invite others to try

        2. So, netizen is coming out in support of silencing speech. Advocating use of mob violence to silence all dissent.

          As I’ve said before, don’t worry netizen. Robespierre had total control of the mob as well, right?

        3. You deserve a helicopter ride.

  28. “who are arguably beyond the pale”

    Nice article, though I am not sure how something can be at once categorical and indefinite. Milo should be appreciated, really – speaking of, where is he?

    1. I am not sure how something can be at once categorical and indefinite

      To be sure = one must imply castigation of another person’s views = not actually make those assertions directly. Making clear, definitive statements might require *defending* that point of view. And frankly, no one is getting paid enough for that sort of thing.

      Far simpler to instead employ passive-aggressive dismissal, and pretend to some vague authority-by-consensus.

    2. That’s right. Defend Milo At All Costs Otherwise The Progs Win, amirite?

      1. Well progs are arguably wrong. To be sure.

  29. At Middlebury, Claremont, Wellesley, and elsewhere, censorship is winning because faculty and administrators won’t fight it.

    This is the most surreal sentence I’ve read in my adult life.

    Traditionally, it was the faculty and administrators imposing censorship and it was the students fighting it.

  30. They told me that if Trump won the election, then the U.S. would become a nation of hatred and intolerance. “They” were right! The left has become increasingly full of hatred and intolerance, and is increasingly willing to enforce this view with coercive volence. Trump’s silly “build a wall” rhetoric seems mild in comparison.

  31. Well stated

  32. RE: These Institutions Are Betraying Their Own Values’?Here’s How Offended Students Seized Power on Campus
    At Middlebury, Claremont, Wellesley, and elsewhere, censorship is winning because faculty and administrators won’t fight it.

    Wrong.
    These institutions are betraying their own values because the college administrators don’t have the balls to bitch slap the little snow flakes back into reality.
    All these higher education administrators have to do is to tell the hyper-sensitive tinkerbells is there is such a critter as free speech. If they can’t handle free speech and other people’s opinions, then the little snow flakes should be told they are free to leave the campus and go back to their day care facility and have engage in some puppy therapy there.

  33. FYI, I did a very popular (464,000+ views) on Yale’s “Shrieking Girl”:
    https://youtu.be/V6ZVEVufWFI

  34. FYI, I did a very popular (464,000+ views) video on Yale’s “Shrieking Girl”:
    https://youtu.be/V6ZVEVufWFI

  35. So Robby and Lena Dunham are dating. That Is the only explanation for This shit

  36. “…characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.”

    This, this right here is why everyone fucking hates you Robby. Every coalmine needs a canary, do you really need to shit on the canary?

  37. “…characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.”

    This, this right here is why everyone fucking hates you Robby. Every coalmine needs a canary, do you really need to shit on the canary?

  38. “…characters like Milo Yiannopoulos, who are arguably beyond the pale.”

    This, this right here is why everybody hates you Robby. Every coalmine needs a canary. Do you really need to crap on the canary?

  39. Damn, didnt’ mean to double post, it didnt seem to go through the first time.

  40. Wtf??? I didnt triple post it on purpose.

  41. A recent case of intolerance directed toward a student at Grand Valley State in Michigan is more evidence of the same craziness. This student wrote, “Rape culture isn’t real.” One can agree, partially agree, or disagree, but the reaction of his fellow students was so over the top as to shake my basic optimism about today’s college-age students.

  42. How’s Milo beyond the pale? He’s just telling people things they don’t want to hear, but really need to.

  43. So the people who educate your children have won. All hail the masterminds of the end of reason! The NEA has won!

  44. The problem of censorship by liberals is certainly not unique to some college campuses. The New York Times, for example, routinely censors reader comments it finds politically “incorrect” — especially those critical of the Democratic Party. Big Brother isn’t the government; it’s popular culture in all it’s manifestations, including tabloid rags like the NYT. Only the loudest, most strident — and often the most bizarre — voices will be heard in this Brave New World. Those of us who believe in critical thinking and the power of reason are anachronistic. The watershed was the demonstrations against democracy after the last U.S. election, and the violence against Trump supporters.

  45. If a group of illiberal protesters meet up with a group of “conservative” protesters who are not willing to back down, the illiberal pussies back down right away. They don’t know shit about violence even though they may think they do.

    http://www.youngcons.com/watch…..-bad-idea/

    it’s only going to get worse – they will be confronted and they will wilt. notice how in many of these so called confrontations someone gets punched and the rest are scared to move in on 1 man except a woman who thinks she’s immune because she’s female. One punch from a man and she’s out for the count. That’ll happen soon too. These girls think because movies show women kicking men’s butts ie: Laura Croft or Salt or you name it means they can too. What do they think will happen when a 120 pound woman confronts a 250 pound man? They are all divorced from reality. If they want to play at radical protester they better expect to get hurt – it’s inevitable.

  46. The problem of censorship by liberals is certainly not unique to some college campuses. The New York Times, for example, routinely censors reader comments it finds politically “incorrect” — especially those critical of the Democratic Party. Big Brother isn’t the government; it’s popular culture in all it’s manifestations, including tabloid rags like the NYT. Only the loudest, most strident — and often the most bizarre — voices will be heard in this Brave New World. Those of us who believe in critical thinking and the power of reason are anachronistic. The watershed was the demonstrations against democracy after the last U.S. election, and the violence against Trump supporters.

    1. The watershed was the takeover of the Republican Party by the ‘moral majority’ folks, as Goldwater warned us against. The RP was supposed to be the ‘rational, evidence-based’ counter to the ‘pie-in-the-sky idealism’ of the Democrats. But now reason, science, and pragmatism have no place in either party’s platform. Or in political discourse at all, apparently. It’s all about ‘ideological purity’ now. If you’re for individual gun rights, you’re a ‘bad liberal’. If you’re for reproductive liberty, you’re a ‘bad conservative’.

      1. If by “rational, evidence-based’ counter to the ‘pie-in-the-sky idealism'” you mean to note that the Republican party was once the party of progressives like the abolitionists, and Teddy Roosevelt hten yeah, I suppose you are correct. but they’ve always been the ‘moral majority’ religiously based sorts. Where else do you think their abolitionist fervor came from?

        As for the ‘reason, science, and pragmatism’ having no place place in the party, well ok then.

  47. Maybe it is because I grew up in Reagan country, as one of my profs in grad school put it, but I found this hilarious:

    https://voat.co/v/funny/1796429

  48. Sorry for the double-posting. I’ll wait longer to see if it posts next time.

  49. I guess I can take pride that my Alma Mater (Indiana University) didn’t freak out as much as some others when they invited Murray to speak recently. It’s sort of like having pride in your child simply because they’re not a complete asshole, but you take what you can get nowadays. Go Hoosiers!

  50. In other words the self anointed deciders of what is or is not “correct” are akin to the Taliban enforcers who would strut around Afghanistan and punish anyone for whatever they deemed wasn’t proper behavior.

  51. ‘These Institutions Are Betraying Their Own Values’

    Not exactly
    These institutions have new values that betray the values they used to have, because they became infested with new people with new values determined to betray the old values.

    1. Absolutely. The old guard remained apathetic as they arrived or are arriving at their pension. The new radicals have turned their hiring process into a rigged game and have all but destroyed “diversity of thought” in their departments they control.

  52. I would love the chance to sit across the table from one of interviewing for a job and as soon as they opened their mouth I would stand up get 3 inches from their face and scream at them as loud as I could for 5 minutes. Let call the police to have them physically removed and charged with assault then sued in civil court

  53. And my wife wonders why I think our daughter shouldn’t bother with college and just go to a trade school instead. By the time she graduates high school in seven years, it will only have gotten worse. Far better to spend a year learning actually *useful* information, rather than spending 4 years (and bucketloads more money) having to live around the wack-heads. If she has to do actual college courses, go for online college courses, so she can stay as far away from the nutjobs as possible.

  54. I never get why a majority is cowed into silence by simpering, red diaper wearing, crybaby, commie little punks that could easily be given a spanking and told to shut their fucking mouths. That spanking is long overdue.

  55. When is Reason going to give us filter so we can weed out all the alt-right retards who keep wandering over from The Federalist. Or do I just have to skim past BuyBuyBirdie and DissidentNumnutz?

  56. “The election of Donald Trump to the presidency has, in Nwanevu’s view, dealt a blow to the idea that “those with the best command of facts and reason? will emerge victorious.” The implication: the entire project of using reasoned debate to overcome harmful ideas in place of brute force might therefore be worth abandoning. ”

    Dunning-Kruger effect makes for all kinds of hilariously tortuous deductions. Even if you sidestep the Nwanevu’s apparently inability to at-all consider the possibility of being wrong, exactly how does he expect the dynamic at hand to play out? If you are the few with all the correct answers, versus the great unwashed wrong masses, violence strikes me as a poor strategy going just by the numbers alone. Or did they not think that all the way through?

  57. The slow march to retarding the youth is nearly complete.

  58. At least that sideshow clown Trump didn’t promise free college. If this is the ruling class 20-30 years from now, we’re screwed.

  59. It’s a long way from the days of Timothy Leary, who said, “Think for yourself and question authority.” Speech enforcers don’t know how to think for themselves, and they certainly don’t know how to question authority. They do believe the best way to counter hate speech is hate speech – and violence. These students are twisted, as self-righteous people usually are.

  60. It’s a long way from the days of Timothy Leary, who said, “Think for yourself and question authority.” Speech enforcers don’t know how to think for themselves, and they certainly don’t know how to question authority. They do believe the best way to counter hate speech is hate speech – and violence. These students are twisted, as self-righteous people usually are.

  61. Whether or not most students are reasonable, the fact remains that if the handful of thugs aren’t punished, they will take over. You can’t reason with them, because this isn’t about reason, it’s about human nature. Doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about a prison, an elementary school class, Manhattan, or one of the finest universities in the world. Violence begets violence, but violence can’t be stopped without resorting to it.

  62. “While most college students remain friendly to freedom of expression and genuinely interested in hearing from speakers with different points of view”

    Needz more citationz”(sp?)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.