Title IX

My Alma Mater American University Cancelled My Title IX 'Hate Speech' Panel

The American Association of University Women at AU celebrated when a talk about feminism, Title IX, and sex on campus got canceled.

|

Last night I was supposed to participate in a panel at my alma mater, American University, on feminism, free speech, and Title IX. My co-panelists were to include a former president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the current head of a group that fights for students' rights, and two staffers from the British website spiked—not what you might think would be a controversial lineup. But in the days leading up to the event, the AU chapter of American Association of University Women organized a campaign to "Keep Our Campus Safe," describing the panel as "hate speech" and "violence" designed to undermine "decades of work… to make campuses safer for victims of sexual violence."

The panel was put together by spiked as part of its "Unsafe Space" tour, which will visit several U.S. campuses and include such figures as Laura Kipnis and Jonathan Haidt (along with Reason's Robby Soave). The event on American's D.C. campus was to kick off the tour, with me, spiked's Ella Whelan, former ACLU chief Nadine Strossen, and Foundation for Individual Rights in Education director Robert Shibley on a panel moderated by spiked Deputy Editor Tom Slater.

Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) was the student group hosting the event, and was in charge of making arrangements with the campus. An auditorium had been secured since summer, but a few days before the event AU administrators told YAL that the space was no longer available and then that the panel had to be canceled altogether.

Annamarie Rienzi, D.C. chair of YAL and one of the student organizers of last night's event, told me that the school claimed it came down to YAL classifying the panel as a "meeting" rather than an "event." But this is standard practice for YAL and other student groups, she says, when a talk or panel does not involve bringing paid speakers to campus or providing refreshments.

Whether the cancellation was strictly about this policy or motivated by other concerns is not something I'm interested in parsing here. The event went on, albeit in a smaller and much less collegiate location: Reason's D.C. office. Luckily we were able to open our space to the event at the last minute; thanks to a Learn Liberty livestream, you can watch the whole thing below.

Overall, it's a thoroughly tame event, albeit one that fostered some good discussion with students who had trekked from AU's campus to the Reason office. We talked about how Title IX proceedings are often assumed to only involve sexual assault, though they encompass a range of other areas that can have nothing to do with sexual activity or violence, and that can seriously jeopardize academic freedom and (often liberal) professors' livelihoods. Whelan talked about how Title IX proceedings and the general sexual climate on campus can infantilize female students and take women's progress a step backward.

Shibley argued that Title IX had had many positive accomplishments before it was, only recently, expanded to its current form under the Obama administration. We all stressed how rolling back some of the Obama era's approach to Title IX won't lessen the law's significance as a tool against sex discrimination—and won't stop the momentum toward reforming campus sexual assault policies—but will discourage schools and the government from weaponizing it in weird ways.

I talked about how it's the feds, much more than any minority of illiberal students, who are forcing campuses into absurd "safe spaces." The media spend too much time blaming "campus feminists" or leftist student groups for Title IX's worst excesses when the real culprits are government bureaucrats and schools scared to cross them. Colleges would rather crack down on any potential liabilities—i.e., anything anyone complains about—rather than face steep fines or lose the ability to participate in federal student-loan programs.

The audience of students and non-students asked thoughtful questions. Afterward the panelists all hung around for a while and chatted with students eager to share their own thoughts. Not everyone was on the same wavelength about Title IX completely, but there were no progressive protesters or ranting men's rights activists. It was hardly an anti-feminist space, nor a spectacle of the Milo "free speech event" type. It's a shame that more students at American didn't get a chance to come, judge the panel for themselves, and directly voice their perspectives and concerns.

It was especially disappointing to learn today that this may have been provoked by a women's student group severely misrepresenting the event and then urging students to be angry about it. Here's how the American Association of University Women (AAUW) of AU described the spiked panel:

The Unsafe Space Tour is coming to AU. What do they want to talk about? Completely revising and undoing decades of work by activists around campuses across the country to make campuses safer for victims of sexual violence.

The group did suggest that students confine their protest to Q&A time. But then, after linking to the event page, it added:

A note on First Amendment rights to free speech: AAUW at AU fully supports free speech. This does not mean we support forcing marginalized students to hate speech and other forms of violence and trauma.

In the days leading up to the panel, the AAUW of AU Facebook lobbed several misguided outrage missiles at it. "Title IX is not a threat to free speech. So why is spiked so threatened by it?" one asked.

As proof of folks being "threatened," the group quoted a bit from spiked about the event in general (not Title IX) on how its intention in invoking "safe spaces" wasn't to provoke aimlessly but to spark discussion and debate—"to the end of understanding what is going on, drawing out the radical, humanist case for free speech, and convincing students of why every college should be an Unsafe Space."

After learning that AU had canceled the event, the group posted (twice):

We are STOKED to announce that the Unsafe Space Tour has been canceled at AU! In their words, they, "got word of resistance from some campus groups." Good riddance! Thank you to everyone who expressed interest in [the "Keep Our Campus Safe" counter-event] and spoke out.

Here's the "trauma"-inducing "hate speech" they missed out on:

This piece has been updated to reflect that Camille Paglia is no longer scheduled to speak as part of the tour.

NEXT: Previewing the next Supreme Court term

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. You clearly didn’t virtue signal hard enough.

    1. Anything that is unsafe must clearly be prevented from happening. Let us not forget that the words of the so-called free-speech community (ha-ha-ha) must always be taken literally. Surely no one here would dare to defend the “First Amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in America’s leading criminal “satire” case? See the documentation at:

      https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do… http://www.netcash10.com

      2. 2/5 – needs more segue

    2. Is there actually a link to the video of the event?

  2. the AU chapter of American Association of University Women organized a campaign to “Keep Our Campus Safe,” describing the panel as “hate speech” and “violence” designed to undermine “decades of work… to make campuses safer for victims of sexual violence.”

    The AAUW: Showing that maybe women DON’T belong in higher education…

    Whether the cancellation was strictly about this policy or motivated by other concerns is not something I’m interested in parsing here.

    You probably should. This is how colleges deny a platform to opposing views on anything.

    1. More to the point: How is Title IX anything but sexist? I thought the whole “separate but equal” canard was settled with Brown v. Board of Edu-ma-cation”, but apparently not.

      Let women compete on the same basis as men. No more men’s tennis and women’s tennis. No more women’s basketball and men’s basketball. If there are going to be sports, let all compete directly against each other. We don’t need baseball for the guys and softball for the women. Pick on and let EVERYONE compete.

      What’s that? No woman would ever make any of the teams? But they WERE given the same opportunity? Too bad then. That’s what fair competition means.

  3. Hey, you write for Reason, you’re alt-right.

    1. Remember when we called Scalia and Thomas bigoted retards and defended gay rights right up to the point of insanity?
      Neither do I.

      1. Where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to be gay? A custom perhaps?

        There isn’t and gay people should be treated the same as everyone else with no special privileges.

        1. > Where in the Constitution does it say there is a right to be gay?

          Article in amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          Bazinga.

        2. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  4. Maybe you should have thrown Milo under the bus harder, and more often.

    Surely that would have convinced progressives that you’re “one of the good ones”, and made them listen.

    1. Maybe that’s a sign ENB’s opinion of Milo isn’t motivated by wanting to please progressives as much as you insist it is?

      1. ENB’s opinion of Milo isn’t motivated by wanting to please progressives as much as you insist it is

        I’m not insisting anything about her motivations.

        I’m just pointing out that regardless of how nuanced your POV – whether sincerely held or not – that people on the left don’t fucking care., because they’re not interested in any debate or discussion of the merits of their ideas. They’re only interested in wielding power to silence opposition.

        I was just noting that despite the fact that Reason has made some noble efforts helping them in that regard… they shouldn’t be surprised when they themselves get they get the same treatment.

        1. My point is this – when has Reason ever claimed that their nuance will make everyone on the left love them and not object to what they say? I’ve literally never seen any of them put forth that argument, but it seems to be an accepted fact by half the people here. Also, not everyone on the left is a screeching campus SJW. For example, it’s a pretty good guess that the former president of the ACLU is left-of-center and they were a part of the panel.

          1. when has Reason ever claimed that their nuance will make everyone on the left love them

            i’m not sure that’s at all necessary to my point above.

            If there’s something i said you want to respond to, quote it.

            1. If there’s something i said you want to respond to, quote it.

              When did you turn into John?

              1. this might seem strange to you, but i don’t think there’s any point simply making unrelated rhetorical speeches in each other’s general direction.

                If i say something, and someone disagrees, i don’t think its asking too much to request that they be specific about what they object to.

              2. When did you turn into John?

                When John disappeared, Gilmore took over his responsibilities. However, now that John is back and Gilmore has had a little taste of the power of being able to read other people’s minds, he is reluctant to give it up.

            2. Then what is your point? If ENB has never given any indication that she’s tailoring her words to make progressives like her, or that she’s surprised when they don’t, then what exactly is the point of your comment? Nothing in the article indicates she’s shocked by that.

              1. His point is pretty simple: being a dick.

              2. She and the magazine have certainly made efforts – sometimes a bit excessive – to insist that they’re not like those evul cultural libertarians, and they’re hunky-dory with social justice causes (“their intentions are noble, but their methods are illiberal”), and have gone a bit over-the-top describing anyone the SJW left opposes as kissing-cousins-to-nazis….

                what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, is my point. if you play the “some speech is OK, but some is literally hitler”-game, sooner or later, you’re gonna be the Hitler. as the above non-platforming demonstrates.

                1. The moral of the story is that you reap what you sow. ENB got shut-down and she should get as defended as much as she offered to other speakers ranging from the disgusting (Milo) to the benign (Ben Shapiro), which is zero.

                  1. Robby writes 95% of the articles here about campus speech, I think it’s unfair to conclude ENB thinks it’s ok for Milo or Ben Shapiro to be deplatformed just because she doesn’t usually write articled about that topic.

                    1. Robby writes 95% of the articles here about campus speech

                      and what a marvelous defender of libertarian principles he is.

                    2. I think it’s unfair to conclude ENB thinks it’s ok for Milo or Ben Shapiro to be deplatformed just because she doesn’t usually write articled about that topic.

                      ROFLMAO. We’re talking about a woman who was so enraged because some dude made a “make me a sandwich” joke on Twitter that she openly wanted to ruin his life and keep him from ever getting a job again.

                      Don’t make me go back and start reposting that conversation with links, because if I have to I swear to God I will.

                    3. I’d actually like to see that just for the LOLs

                    4. Those tweets are still up, as far as i know. so much for “might delete this soon”

                    5. It wouldn’t matter even if she did delete them all, because a guy calling himself “MundaneMatt” documented the whole thing in a YouTube video.

                    6. She definitely overreacted there. She’s not wrong that is pretty stupid for that guy to tweet stuff like that under his own name, and I don’t think doxing is the right word to use there as it is in the youtube video, considering he’s using his own name on a public forum.

                    7. The woman group in question laughed at the joke.

                    8. she openly wanted to ruin his life and keep him from ever getting a job again.

                      lol

                2. if you play the “some speech is OK, but some is literally hitler”-game, sooner or later, you’re gonna be the Hitler.

                  Since no one who writes for Reason does that, your actual point still remains elusive. Do you think that disapproving of the content of speech is the same as wanting to censor it?

                  1. Do you think that disapproving of the content of speech is the same as wanting to censor it?

                    Absolutely not. But i think the context that’s missing here is that many of the people in question weren’t being demonized for the content of their speech… because the content of their speech was almost never (in some cases, literally never) cited, or even paraphrased. They were simply described as “controversial” and “offensive” and other sort of vague terms which rhetorically rationalized the violent, hysterical over-reactions people were engaged in. I have no problem disagreeing with people who say stupid shit, and indeed: many of these alt-lighties say very stupid shit. What i’ve taken issue with since day 1 is the intellectually dishonest demonizing of people, the mischaracterizations of their views/statements, and the refusal to ever actually quote them or provide any evidence for the moral-denunciations.

                    e.g. Milo was routinely beaten like an Alt-Right pinata in these pages over the last 2+ years. Please see if you can find a single link anywhere to any one of his “Dangerous Faggot” speeches. I’ll wait.

                3. That’s all you got? An article criticizing the alt-right and the “alt-lite” means they think anyone who opposes SJWs is a Nazi? The problem with this mindset is that you make the left the center around which everything revolves. They are THE enemy of libertarians and thus criticism of their enemies = support for them. Consider the possibility that there are multiple groups opposed to libertarianism in many ways, and that criticizing any given one doesn’t mean you support their opponents or are pandering to them.

                  Also, even setting aside the strawman aspect of your last paragraph – what exactly is the implication? That you must have the same opinion of all speech and you can’t judge any speech because someone might judge yours (as if one is even dependent on the other)? At no point in either of the article you linked is there an argument made that anyone, even fans of literally Hitler, do not have free speech.

                  1. handwaving away milo protesters as meaning well doesn’t end well.

                  2. The problem with this mindset is that you make the left the center around which everything revolves

                    no, not everything. “speeches on campuses”, yes.

                    If you would limit yourself to a single question, i’d humor you, but you’re just handwaving at this point. Either quote what i said and say what you disagree with, or make your own positive statement. shotgun-rhetorical-questions is just stawmanning.

                    1. It’s a bit rich you’re complaining about strawmen and not quoting people right after you dropped a “some speech is ok but some speech is literally hitler” accusation.

                      I still don’t see how criticizing the enemies of campus leftists equals support for them. Especially considering neither of the articles you linked to were about campus speech.

                    2. It’s a bit rich you’re complaining about strawmen and not quoting people after you dropped a “some speech is ok but some speech is literally hitler” accusation.

                      in one of the links above they called Lauren Southern a quasi-nazi. did you not read those links?

                      look cali, i’ve explained my point pretty clearly, and you’re just being obtuse at this point.

                      if you’re really interested in more in-depth perspective on the matter, why not ask one of the dozen+ other people below who seem to share the same opinion as me?

                    3. I followed it Gilmore. I think you are dead on. Reason’s articles on “alt-right” figureheads have always basically stated, “all speech is free speech, let them talk” but no Reason author has remotely attempted to empathize with the perpetually bashed Milo characters — in fact Reason has basically said “they are Nazi’s, their ideas suck, and they should be summarily dismissed; but let them do their campus speeches.”

                      Gilmore is pointing out (if I am inferring properly) that ENB got a taste of what it’s like to be on the other side. To know you are not a Nazi and yet you have a vast number of people dismiss, scorn and slander you as such without a second thought. I wonder if on a human level it will make them reassess their own casual backhands to people like Lauren Southern, etc.

                    4. Because are people like Milo, Ben Shapiro, Lauren Southern really all that different from ENB in this instance?

                      Like ENB (and other Reason authors) they simply showed up to take part in the discourse, they want to rationally discuss the issue — and yet by showing up they get deemed EVIL.

                    5. Please point out who here said any of those people were Nazis – and who here put Ben Shapiro in the same group as Milo or Lauren Southern? You don’t have to be a literal Nazi for someone to criticize you. I just don’t get this notion that right-wing figures should be above criticism because the left also criticizes them, and they criticize libertarians too. Also, Milo is a troll and a provocateur, his whole schtick is getting attention by pissing off SJW idiots, he’s not a very intellectually engaging person or rationally-minded person – there’s nothing wrong with pointing this out to the idiots attacking him, and it’s not a defense or justification of them.

                    6. You don’t have to be a literal Nazi for someone to criticize you.

                      Is that what happened? ENB got criticized? Milo and the rest got criticized?

                      No sir, they got barred entry. Criticism would happen if there could be a discussion.

                    7. I was talking about Reason writers’ criticism of those people, not the protester or rioters. The entire context of this discussion is about Reason writers writing about those people. And neither ENB or Robby ever said those people were right to shut down anyone.

                    8. And neither ENB or Robby ever said those people were right to shut down anyone.

                      True, but they did virtue signal that those people were more or less… Evil (bad). Certainly in the sense that there is nothing of merit to their arguments and that they should be soundly and ardently opposed.

                      The wholehearted virtue signaling Reason did is the same that they have now received in return. You must acknowledge that to a certain extent.

                    9. Why exactly must they refrain from saying that, if they believe it? If they don’t think Milo has worthwhile ideas, why can they not say that, as long as they don’t use it to justify infringing his free speech? What they said about Milo is nothing like the campus group demanding they not be able to speak. And why should you judge all speech equally (to be clear, I’m not talking about from a legal POV) just because someone might misjudge your speech?

                    10. They should refrain after being asked to quote the people they try to slime and never seem to get that evil quote.

                    11. Trolling becomes a political act when you’re faced with people so humorless and self-important they actually believe they have a right not to be ridiculed.

                      I don’t agree with him on everything, but Milo has always been doing god’s work by exposing the left for the rabid, butthurt hatemongers they are. Where did you get idea the kid gloves are still on? Everyone else being civil and polite and reasonable is why the left has been winning the culture war. They have no principles, no standards but double standards, and they deserve every bit of the trolling.

                    12. Once again, the guy who insists everyone else quote him directly or else they’re strawmanning switches up what someone else said. I don’t see the term “quasi-Nazi” anywhere, I do see “alt-lite,” which if you follow the link is a term used to describe people like Lauren Southern, Milo, etc. that embrace right-wing populism and nationalism while not delving into the explicit white nationalism of the alt-right. The alt-right label got muddled, both by critics on the left who wanted to use it against their opponents broadly, as well as the alt-right themselves who wanted to seem bigger than they are and/or bring in new recruits (Ben Shapiro has written about this). One person who also stretched the label for his own purposes was Steve Bannon, who described Breitbard as the Internet platform for the alt-right.

                      As a result, “alt lite” became used to describe people like who embraced the term at one point, or rubbed shoulders with people who did, who weren’t necessarily the same as the Richard Spencers of the world. No one was accusing her of being a Nazi, the article is a critique of right-wing nationalism and populism broadly, of which the alt-right is the most extreme form.

                    13. Once again, the guy who insists everyone else quote him directly or else they’re strawmanning switches up what someone else said. I don’t see the term “quasi-Nazi” anywhere,

                      obtuse is actually generous in your case.

                    14. As you said, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you insist on everyone quoting you exactly right, live up to the same standard when you talk about others. You could admit you don’t know what “alt lite” actually refers to and thought it was a synonym for quasi-Nazi but that’s asking too much. Apparently by your logic, Steve Bannon actually admitted Breitbart was a Nazi platform.

                    15. If you insist on everyone quoting you exactly right

                      which you haven’t done once, i’d note.

                      you’re not very good at this.

                    16. I don’t see the term “quasi-Nazi” anywhere, I do see “alt-lite,”

                      I’ll let Justin Raimondo give the rebuttal to your bullshit hair-splitting rationalization for racism-accusations

                    17. Oooh Justin Raimondo, I’m impressed. And seriously, it’s unfair to call or imply Molyneux is racist? Have you paid attention to anything the guy’s said in the last 3 years? I have no problem explicitly calling him that, the guy is a fuckhead.

                      Again, alt-lite was specifically brought about to distinguish between the hardcore white nationalists and the right-wing populist/nationalists more generally, because “alt-right” had begun to be used to encompass both – and as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, this was not just done by leftist critics. People described themselves this way only to latter disassociate. Milo and Breitbart fostered it with their guide to the alt-right and Bannon’s comments about Breitbart being the alt-right’s platform. If you’re going to insist on hammering Reason for calling them that (or “alt lite”) and thus accusing them of being Nazis, what does that say about Milo and Bannon?

                      Also, you don’t have to be a Nazi to be racist, stop equating the two terms.

                    18. Oooh Justin Raimondo, I’m impressed.

                      I don’t like him much either. But he’s right, and his point is very similar to mine: once you start engaging in that sort of holier-than-thou peer-demonization, you’re basically allowing anyone to play the same games with you. “oh, you’re not “Nazi-Racist”, but you’re close enough”

                      which is exactly what the American University Women’s groups are doing in order to cast ENB’s “Dangerous Faggot-Lite”-Tour as hate speech.

                      Which apparently you still don’t grasp.

                      Thanks for playing Cali, best of luck

                    19. There are three problems with your whole argument:

                      1. No one at Reason has argued that any of those people should be denied free speech even if they are literal Nazis.

                      2. You seem to be the only person who thinks someone must be a literal Nazi (or a leftist, naturally) before they can be subject to criticism. This is the only sense in which you’re “close enough” line even works, because they aren’t arguing for them to be deplatformed. And there’s nothing wrong with drawing the line for criticism before you get to literal Nazis.

                      3. That Reason’s criticism of these people is in any way connected to the women’s group wanting to deplatform the panel. Do you think any of the people in that group have ever read Reason.com? And if they had, would they get the impression that campus speech you don’t like should be met with demands of deplatforming? The problem here is that if the women’s group actually treated the panel the way Reason has treated Milo, they wouldn’t have done what they did as you seem to think, they’d say “We don’t like what you say, but you have the right to say it.” And what exactly would the problem be at that point? Criticism is a healthy part of free speech, it shouldn’t be off limits just because some people jump from criticism to demands of deplatforming.

                    20. You seem to be the only person who thinks someone must be a literal Nazi (or a leftist, naturally) before they can be subject to criticism

                      remember what i said about quoting me when you respond to me? This is why. the staw-man impulse seems to always win.

                    21. Gilmore, you can’t be such a hypocrite about this and expect me to refrain from making those insinuations.

                      I said that because you are equating Reason’s criticism of Milo, etc. with not being supportive of free speech and with the women’s group’s demands of deplatforming.

                    22. you are equating Reason’s criticism of Milo, etc. with not being supportive of free speech

                      Nope, i’m just observing that they’re trying exactly the same speech-tour he did, and thinking they should be treated differently, because they’re the ‘good ones’.

                    23. But they never condoned the way Milo was treated in the first place, which is why your whole point is nonsensical. And again, the fact that leftist idiots might equate ENB with whoever doesn’t mean ENB or anyone else should be afraid to criticize other people. It’s like saying libertarians shouldn’t criticize leftists because some right-wingers will nonetheless lump them in with leftists.

                    24. Campus groups have called both Milo and ENB/Robby mean things without evidence.
                      Both have been shut down from speaking.

                      ENB/Robby have also called milo mean things without evidence.

                    25. A simple google search will provide plenty of reasons why Milo is a controversial figure. Maybe you disagree with their conclusions about him, but it shouldn’t be difficult to see why some people don’t like him.

                      And seriously, Milo’s defenders complaining about other people saying mean things about him is hilarious when that is basically his whole schtick.

                      And the most important part there – Reason never called for him to be shut down from speaking.

                    26. you are equating Reason’s criticism of Milo, etc.

                      speaking of which – i pointed out above that i think that’s an overly generous characterization of the way he (and others) have been handled.

                      e.g. please find me an example of a single article in reason which actually quotes the guy at any great length, and actual “criticizes” his arguments in detail.

                      failing that: find me a single article which links readers to his long-form speeches, and encourages readers to decide for themselves if the content of his speeches matches their characterization.

                      I’ll wait.

                      if instead all you find are articles describing his “controversial” content, and “offensive” way of discussing certain topics, and some “trans/islam/phobias” and “racist” characterizations slathered on top….

                      …well, maybe you’ll start to see why i think your pretense about ‘criticism isn’t the same as advocating suppression’ is pretty weaksauce.

                    27. Milo’s views and statements aren’t the point of any of the campus speech articles about him. I wouldn’t mind any of the things you suggest being included, but none of the articles are about whether or not Milo is bad. The condemnations of Milo are always in the context of “Milo is (or may be) bad/controversial/whatever, but that doesn’t affect his right to speak.” The latter part is always the main point of the article, I don’t see why it’s a shock that the focus isn’t on establishing the first part.

                      And again, I continue to find the narrative of poor Milo being tarnished with the alt-right label hilarious in light of his own writings on them, and his former employer’s public stance on “the alt-right.”

                    28. A simple google search will provide plenty of reasons why Milo is a controversial figure

                      “it is known”

                    29. “because all those other sources, like HuffPo and CNN provide objective affirmation of Reason’s own judicious (and unsubstantiated) moral pronouncements”

                    30. You know who else was a literal Nazi?

                    31. You know who else was a literal Nazi?

                      Louis-Ferdinand C?line?

                    32. > it’s unfair to call or imply Molyneux is racist? Have you paid attention to anything the guy’s said in the last 3 years? I have no problem explicitly calling him that, the guy is a fuckhead.

                      AFAIK Molyneux still and always has supported the NAP. Racism does not violate the NAP.

                      I’d rather be associated with Molyneux than some of the Reasoniods Cosmotarian neocons like Cathy Young any day of the week.

                4. Can you really not tell the difference between someone being criticized and someone being silenced?

                  ENB and reason have criticized the alt-right and “cultural libertarians.” They’ve never, as far as I can remember and as far as you’ve shown, demanded that those groups be silenced or supported the silencing of those groups (and in fact, they’ve been pretty vocal about opposing the silencing of those groups). So “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander” would only really make sense if ENB and reason were being subjected to verbal critique.

                  1. (and in fact, they’ve been pretty vocal about opposing the silencing of those groups)

                    no, they have defended the protesters for meaning well. They have repeatedly commited character assassinations over the last few years to describe speakers. I have asked robby and enb for a milo quote that would make me agree that he is the awful person they claim. It has never been provided.

                    Antifa uses those same words and equate it to nazism. it’s ok to punch nazis.

                    1. They’ve been far more critical of the protesters (specifically the rioters who insist on violence and not just speech to oppose people they don’t like) far more than not.

                      Let’s suppose there’s nothing they can quote that would make you agree Milo sucks (and are you really surprised they don’t respond to every demand in the comments?). Does that mean they’re engaging in character assassination if they disagree with you on what makes someone awful? Milo has said some shitty stuff about child abuse, his comments about Ariana Grande after the terror attack, and plenty more. Enough that at the very least you should be able to see why a reasonable person would have a problem with him even if you don’t.

                      And again, even setting all that aside – Reason, unlike Antifa, never uses criticism of another person to justify attacking them or shutting down their right to speak. It’s a categorical difference that gets brushed aside like it doesn’t matter.

                      And seriously, if you’re leaving, why exactly are you hiding behind an alt account?

                    2. I would take any quote. they never gave one.
                      I don’t even like Milo. It would not be hard to convince me at all. Ad homing others is fine, just don’t be surprised when it happens to you and your speech gets cancelled.

                      And again, even setting all that aside – Reason, unlike Antifa, never uses criticism of another person to justify attacking them or shutting down their right to speak.

                      ENB tried to get a libertarian banned from any future job over a joke they made.

                      it’s not an alt account. I tried to delete the account but that doesn’t seem to be an option.

                      i changed my name, who gives a fuck.

                    3. As I said to Gilmore above, whether or not Milo is bad is never the subject of the campus speech articles. Why is it a shock that their goal isn’t to establish that, when they explicitly argue that it doesn’t matter whether or not he’s bad or offensive?

                      She was immature in that Twitter spat, I agree. Even then, wanting someone’s prospective employer to see their tweets about you is pretty far from antifa beating people with bikelocks, wouldn’t you agree? She wasn’t wrong that the guy was stupid to tweet that in his own name, employers absolutely look at social media these days and avoid people that embarrass themselves on it. That doesn’t mean she didn’t overreact, but it’s a far cry from demanding people be banned or beaten for speaking on public campuses.

                    4. whether or not Milo is bad is never the subject of the campus speech articles.

                      strange, then, it seems to always be mentioned.

                    5. The entire point of those articles is “free speech is for everyone, even controversial/offensive/bad people.” That’s why it gets mentioned. But establishing if the person is bad isn’t the point of the article, because by the very nature of the argument that isn’t relevant to the question of whether or not they have free speech rights.

                    6. look at the videos where people interview protesters at milo or shapiro. no one can quote them, they just say they are mean or evil or a nazi or problematic or rude or beyond the pale.
                      then, a magazine also does that.

                      Some groups just call milo names. Some groups equate those names with being a nazi. more violent groups use violence against anyone they deem a nazi.

                    7. No one here is saying they are right to attack anyone. The fact that those people think it’s ok to attack people they find problematic doesn’t mean everyone else is obligated to refrain from (verbally) attacking their opponents. And seriously, when has Shapiro, let alone Milo, been called a Nazi by Reason? Those two guys hate each other and while I don’t always agree with Shapiro, he’s a lot smarter and more reasonable than Milo is (not saying Milo is a Nazi either, before this gets misinterpreted).

                      I’m sorry I don’t think it’s such a tragedy that a trolling provocateur whose whole schtick is calling people mean things gets called mean things without accompanying theses on why that’s so.

                    8. but it’s a far cry from demanding people be banned

                      let me remind you of the statements i’ve actually made


                      Maybe you should have thrown Milo under the bus harder, and more often.

                      Surely that would have convinced progressives that you’re “one of the good ones”, and made them listen.

                      and


                      you are equating Reason’s criticism of Milo, etc. with not being supportive of free speech

                      Nope, i’m just observing that they’re trying exactly the same speech-tour he did, and thinking they should be treated differently, because they’re the ‘good ones’.

                      no where in between did i say that Reason called for banning speech.

                      Cali, when i get to the point where i have to read my own comments back to you, i’m done

                    9. That comment wasn’t even responding to you, get a grip.

                    10. I never claimed that, either.

                    11. its the same dumb fucking point you made to me immediately below

                  2. They’ve never, as far as I can remember and as far as you’ve shown, demanded that those groups be silenced or supported the silencing of those group

                    to be sure, some are beyond the pale

                    1. And that equates to a demand for silencing … how exactly?

          2. If a bunch of progtard SJWs loved me I would know I was doing things wrong. I bask in the warmth of their abject hatred like a comfortable bath. Colleges won’t be fixed until we get jocks back to beating the crap out of these retarded hippie pieces of shit.

      1. I support people’s right to speak. supporting more/wider debate has nothing to do with ‘agreeing with’ or even liking them.

        I think Reason’s decision to ‘calling milo as an alt-right leader’ and repeatedly describing him as ‘beyond the pale’ (without saying why, or ever quoting) served to simply help justify other people silencing him.

        this has been explained to you before.

        1. this has been explained to you before.

          If you misspell a few more words you will have it nailed.

        2. Where’s the quote on “beyond the pale.” I couldn’t find that in the linked article, or your comment. I also don’t see a description of him as an alt-right leader, just alt-right speaker.

          I think Milo is more accurately described as “alt-lite” but he has no one to blame but himself for getting conflated with the alt-right. He wrote a praising guide to the alt-right where he disingenuously tried to argue it wasn’t a racist movement, while also acknowledging people like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor were the intellectual founders of it.

          1. Where’s the quote on “beyond the pale.”

            ….

            “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.

            …..

            also don’t see a description of him as an alt-right leader

            Robby described him that way in an article, then edited it after the fact (i think about a week later) following complaints. there was no correction added to the article.

            the before and after text is in the link above.

            please forgive me, but i can’t spoonfeed everything to you in perpetuity.

            1. I missed the “leader” comment, I’ll take your word that was actually there. The second article wasn’t linked, excuse me for not pouring through Reason’s archives to find that quote.

              In any case – so what? He’s always been insistent that Milo has every right to speak and no one has a right to shut him down. That he thinks Milo is unreasonable or “beyond the pale” doesn’t mean he’s not pro free speech. Being pro free speech doesn’t mean you must refrain from holding opinions of people who exercise it, and that you can’t describe someone as unreasonable, offensive, or “beyond the pale.” And he didn’t even state that unequivocally.

              And again, when Milo rights glowing reviews of the alt-right where he nonsensically argues they aren’t racist, and his boss promotes their website as the platform of the alt-right, why exactly is it a shock that people began to describe him that way? It’s really kind of funny – you’re complaining that people described him as alt-right, and thus unfairly implied he was racist, when Milo himself wrote an entire article about how the movement wasn’t racist (despite listing its blatantly racist founders and praising them as intellectuals). If we take Milo’s word for it, “alt-right” isn’t much of an insult. I agree the term got overused and stretched beyond its original meaning. Milo and Breitbart are two major reasons why that happened and why people started using it even while not trying to describe themselves or an opponent as a (pseudo) Nazi.

              1. I missed the “leader” comment,

                you’ll see it being quoted in the comments.

                https://reason.com/blog/2017/02…..pus-on-fir

                In any case – so what?

                its funny how in one breath, you’ll dispute evidence of the sort of thing i describe exists

                then in the next breath, you’ll insist the evidence is completely meaningless, which makes one wonder why you were so adamant about disputing it in the first place

                thanks

                1. I glossed over it and thought it said “speaker,” I already acknowledged I missed it, I didn’t say it wasn’t there.

                  I asked because I genuinely did not see those comments in your link (one of which indeed was not there), so I was confused why you were saying that while linking something that didn’t show it. I never thought the central argument hinged on whether or not that specific language was used.

                  And once again, you ignore the point about how Milo himself and the outlet he wrote for helped obfuscate the use of the term alt-right and dissociate it from its explicitly white nationalist roots, which led to people him being described as such, for which we are now supposed to sympathize with him as the victim of name-calling and smears.

                  1. And once again, you ignore the point.

                    I’m sure it was a very good point, and convinced you entirely.

                    1. Yeah, it’s not relevant to your argument about how using the term “alt-right” or “alt lite” to describe Milo is totally an unjustified smear and accusation of racism and Nazism, to point out that Milo himself wrote a long article proclaiming the alt-right to be not racist, and that his employer explicitly described themselves as the online platform for the alt-right. That has no bearing on why usage of the term alt-right became muddled and used to describe Milo and Breitbart conservatives.

                    2. your argument about how using the term “alt-right” or “alt lite” to describe Milo is totally an unjustified smear

                      they called him an “alt-right leader”

                      you see why i’m a stickler for quoting people now?

                    3. it was so justified, they edited their article and flushed the prior version down the memory hole.

                      jesus you’re tiresome.

                    4. They also kept a line describing him as an “alt-right speaker.” Jesus, is this really worth getting your panties in a bunch over? Milo and his Breitbart buddies have no one to blame but themselves for people thinking they fell under the alt-right label. That’s what happens when you call your website the online platform for the alt-right.

                    5. Yes, editing articles after publication without disclosing that is something to be upset over.
                      It wasn’t a typo they fixed.

                    6. Milo and his Breitbart buddies have no one to blame but themselves for people thinking they fell under the alt-right label

                      “Did you see how she was dressed? She was asking to get raped”

                    7. “”If they didn’t want to get demonized as nazi racists, they shouldn’t have written for a right wing magazine”

                      Because everyone knows you’re a racist when you write for a right wing magazine. Ergo, if anyone calls ENB a holocaust denier, its her own fault.

                      Thanks for proving my very first point from way way way up above, Cali.

                    8. I only rape them if the way they were dressed asks politely. With rape, good manners and civility are a must.

                    9. As I’ve said: alt-right originally referred to the hardcore neo-white nationalist movement that emerged online. It eventually grew to commonly encompass right-wing nationalists/populists more broadly – this was done partially by leftist critics, but also by the original alt-right, as well as people in the new, broader definition – such as Steve Bannon, who proclaimed Breitbart – which would not be an alt-right site under the original definition – to be the online platform of the alt-right. Milo writing a guide to the alt-right that also denied that it was a racist movement is another example of the broadening definition. Under this broader definition, it is not unreasonable to call Milo an “alt-right leader.” He was one of the most popular and well-known figures within the movement under the broader definition.

                      Now in light of Richard Spencer and his crew coming more into the public eye, and especially after Charlottesville, there’s been more of an emphasis on returning alt-right back to its original meaning, and the broader, more moderate faction is often described as “alt lite” instead. My point is that you’re making this out to be a smear campaign by Reason, when it’s more a result of confusion in the meaning of terms based on the “alt-right” label getting obfuscated and used more broadly than it initially was – something that Milo and Breitbart contributed to.

                    10. No, it did not “eventually” grow to mean something else. It was redefined in a single Hillary Clinton campaign speech, and every media lapdog picked it up like a ball and ran with it. They knew, as Hillary Clinton’s speech writer(s) did, that they were consciously changing the definition from “self-described, proud white nationalists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis” to “everyone on the right who isn’t an establishment Republican, everyone who voted for or approves of Trump in any way, and self-described, proud white nationalists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis.” They knew exactly why they did it: so all of their political enemies could be tarred with the same brush as “beyond the pale.”

                      You’re not doing yourself any favors by using their language to denigrate their enemies the same way they do. You’re knowingly slandering everyone who isn’t a hyper-RINO or a neocon by associating them with extremists they aren’t anything like, and you’re feigning ignorance. Unless perhaps you were actually that ignorant, in which case you can’t make that claim anymore.

        3. Are people solely responsible for the content of their own speech, or also for the ways that speech might incite or provoke others to action?

          If they’re just responsible for the content of their own speech, then Reason is responsible for using somewhat harsh language (I would say justifiably harsh, you’d say unjustifiably harsh) to describe Milo. They’re not responsible for the fact that other people tried to shut Milo up, and wouldn’t be even if those people were waving around copies of reason magazine while they did it.

          If people are also responsible for the ways their speech might incite or provoke others to action, then Milo is responsible for provoking his twitter followers into harassing people online and people who speak in support of the Alt-right are responsible for tons of violent acts, up to and including ramming a crowd of people with a car and killing somebody.

          Which is it?

          1. Are people solely responsible for the content of their own speech, or also for the ways that speech might incite or provoke others to action?

            You might want to ask Robby about that.

            The female student is particularly irritated that the male student would walk into a conference dressed as a he was, so it’s possible he was looking to provoke, and succeeded….

            …if someone takes your MAGA hat because they fell for the trap you set, maybe you don’t have to be such a whiny little snowflake about it.

            also, i think you need, like others, to quote what you’re responding to. It helps make it clearer when you’re trying to twist something for rhetorical convenience.

          2. It is an axiom of communication theory that The Meaning of Your Communication is the Response That You Get.

            It’s not true at all in any provable sense, but you’ll have a better life if you believe it.

    2. Surely that would have convinced progressives that you’re “one of the good ones”, and made them listen.

      Buh buh buh, I’m not an evil sexist who should be shunned and silenced like *those* guys. I’m one of you! Really!

  5. gee ENB it’s almost as if the left doesn’t like you no matter how hard you suck up to them.

    imagine that.

    1. Wow, original comment.

      1. Rataxes has the sadz 🙁

        1. Sounds like you’re the one who’s sad I’m responding to someone else.

    2. Like her? Again, who wants those progtards to LIKE them? The important question is: when are we going to get to together on DOING something about progtard SJW trash? They really need to go, and are not going to disappear on their own. How miserable are all of you prepared to let things get before enough is enough?

      Is that a little more original?

  6. Quick question, Elizabeth. Did you really not see this coming?

    1. I’m sure I’ll be a czar in bernies america!

  7. An auditorium had been secured since summer

    The university is saying that’s not the case. Now they could be lying to justify cancelling the event, but it could also be a case where YAL dropped the ball and is lying so that they can blame the university for being disorganized.

    Is there any proof that the venue was actually reserved for this event prior to last week?

    1. Unfortunately, information regarding the event in question was lost in an unfortunate server fire last week. Fortunately, Steve remembers that YAL totally dropped the ball and fortunately did not reserve the venue in question. Please refer any additional questions to fytw@au.edu.

      1. YAL surely has a letter or e-mail or something to the effect of “Dear so and so, we’re sending you this to confirm that John Doe auditorium has been reserved for your ‘An Evening with the Reason Comment Section’ event on September 28 from 7:00pm to 10:00pm”, right?

        Right?

        1. Also lost in an unfortunate server fire. It’s server fires all the way down.

    2. This would be my first assumption.

    1. I can’t believe we live in a time where we have to explain free speech and expression as an ideal worth protecting.

      If you don’t have it what’s the point?

      Just go full commie and be done with it already.

      1. Dialog and empiricism are tools of the white supremacist patriarchy used to justify their dominance.

        I’m not exaggerating, this is what postmodernists actually believe.

            1. Noted useful idiot, Hugh Akston: Jordan is alt-right, because everyone who doesn’t fall in line is alt-right

            2. Postmodern thought is characterized by skepticism toward overarching narratives and claims about objectivity and universalism.

              For example, the claim that ‘there is such a thing as a postmodernist and this is what they all think’.

              1. For example, the claim that ‘there is such a thing as a postmodernist and this is what they all think’.

                And, thus, like certain subatomic particles, “post-modernism” ceases existing the moment it is conceived.

                1. So mathematically consistent, but measurably impossible. Cool.

          1. “Post-Modernism” is not a term that has ever had very much meaning. It tends to get conflated with “Deconstruction” a lot.

            “Deconstruction” tends to be poorly understood by academics, as goes it against a number of the base assumptions one needs to make in order to want to become a professor.

            BUT, both terms lead a lot of lightweight academics who understand neither term to talk themselves into exactly things like “Dialog and empiricism are tools of the white supremacist patriarchy used to justify their dominance.”

            It takes a special kind of academic to not perceive how this threatens their own authority, too, but academia has been filling up with them.

            So while it’s correct to say “that’s not what Post-Modernism is,” it’s also correct to say that that is what a lot of self-designated “Post-Modernists” do in fact believe.

            1. This is the best description of post-modernism in fact and usage I’ve ever read.

            2. Post-modernism is just the assertion that meaning isn’t intrinsic. That is, the question “what does X mean?” has no answer without specifying “what does X mean to Y?”.

              1. The Meaning of Your Communication is the Response That You Get.

  8. It was especially disappointing to learn today that this may have been provoked by a women’s student group severely misrepresenting the event and then urging students to be angry about it.

    This is what’s known, these days, as “reasoned debate.” The next step beyond it is punching.

    1. MAGA hats stand for genocide now. It’s a religion. Either you agree with them vocally and wholeheartedly, or you’re evil incarnate and deserve to be murdered in pre-emptive self-defense.

      1. This just goes to show that Robby and Elizabeth don’t yet realize what they’re up against is a religion. By attacking title IX and safe spaces, they’re attacking the fundamental faith, which is class oppression theory. Since this faith states that men oppress women, and they are in a zero-sum power struggle, any harm that title IX inflicts on men is beneficial for social justice. And that explains why anyone attempting to point out problems men face are subject to silencing.

        You MUST understand the Marxist religion if you want to stop falling into their traps. Stop appeasing. Stop apologizing. Stop to-be-sure-ing. It won’t help you in the end.

        1. But definitely make sure to appease other religions, like patriotism, yokelism and Christianity.

          1. if you could just define yokelism that’d be great. how’s that a religion?

            1. It’s a religion dedicated to Cletus from the Simpsons.

          2. I can’t figure out who you’re talking to.

            1. That straw man over there.

        2. Good, and then lets do something about them. Some good old fashioned hippie beatings should help get them back in to line. Its also a fine way to achieve catharsis.

          1. Put them all in a ship and send it out to sea. If they try to land at any US port, sink them.

      1. Your transphobic and speciesist use of the word “bitch” is highly problematic, shitlord.

        1. But I love it. It’s so Jesse Pinkman.

        2. *Ahem*, I believe I am the shitlord here.

    2. Deception in service of social justice is morally acceptable to them.

      By Any Means Necessary

  9. It was especially disappointing to learn today that this may have been provoked by a women’s student group severely misrepresenting the event and then urging students to be angry about it.

    Isn’t this SOP for the prog-tarded left?

    1. And they need to get kicked in the teeth for it, as often as possible.

  10. “…the AU chapter of American Association of University Women organized a campaign to “Keep Our Campus Safe,” describing the panel as “hate speech” and “violence” designed to undermine “decades of work… to make campuses safer for victims of sexual violence.”

    Now look, these gals have worked hard for years to get things to the point that sexual assault lies entirely within the view of the assaulted; consent can be retroactively withdrawn, and they get to decide just what constitutes sexual assault. And the perp is presumed guilty and good luck with that as the accuser is exempt from the trauma of any type of cross examination. You cannot possibly expect them to tolerate a discussion that could possibly question that. SARC

  11. Hey TreasonNN, your leftie pals aren’t impressed by you either!!

    1. I’ve asked before: what’s the NN supposed to be? seriously.

      1. Play on TNN, The Nashville Network.

        1. +1 Daisy Duke

      2. ReasoNNN, masters of the triple net lease, scheme of an evil capitalist landowner.

      3. It’s Crusty’s play on CNN fake news for Reason. I am not a fan. “Treason” alone is more lul.

        1. Doubling the insult is stupider, and thus better.

        2. It’s Crusty’s play on CNN fake news

          ah. ok.

  12. Noted alt-right provocateurs ENB and Robbie Soave. Probably should stop ‘to sure’-ing free speech problems at universities.

  13. Those wacky snowflake conservatives. Always shutting down speech and running to their safe spaces and whining about micro aggressions.

    Progressives don’t give a shit about ‘different points of views’. They think shouting down their opponent is an appropriate form of argument.

    Get that through your collective thick skulls.

    /By the power of Grey Skull!!

    1. Guess you missed the dozens of whiny comments about how NFL games should be safe spaces.

      1. Free speech, motherfucker.

    2. Yes, those conservatives are all about different points of view. Well, unless the president Tweets about your profession.

      1. I wouldn’t say Trump is too pure retaliate against organized football for permitting those protests, but I notice that so far Trump hasn’t done it – perhaps he genuinely wanted to express a viewpoint without forcing it on others?

        To be sure, I don’t know what Trump has in his head.

        1. What are you talking about? I was responding to Rufus’ statement – the term “snowflake” can easily be applied to each side in the culture war, and the recent NFL controversy is a great example of that.

          1. Yeah, but only one side is using tax dollars to silence opposing points of view. Maybe cosmotarians should focus less on their love for culture wars and more on principles

            1. Yeah, but only one side is using tax dollars to silence opposing points of view.

              . . . at the moment.

              1. Please, tell me about all those Team Red proposals to use government money to shut up the snowflakes. Or, even one of them.

          2. Sure. ones about speaking at campus and the other is a protest about 80 different things before a sporting event.
            One side just wants football players to stand. the other is forcibly stopping speakers.

          3. The football controversy can certainly bring out snowflake-ism on each side – victimhood is often a competition – but at present the controversy is about an employer allowing some of its employees to engage in speech which pisses off some customers, who in turn may stop using the product – then the Pres weighs in and *maybe* he’ll follow up with government action and maybe he will be content with talking.

            If I got anything you said wrong, consider the wrong remarks retracted, I was just free-associating.

            1. I don’t wish to debate the NFL thing – I was merely pointing that the term “snowflake” can easily be applied to each “side” in every culture war debate. Each side “virtue signals” and accuses the others of being “snowflakes,” and is generally uninteresting. To act like conservatives – and really, are they actually conservative? it’s more or more like they are on one particular team – are somehow above the snowflake fray is laughable.

              1. Again, this is a dodge. Absolutely, Trump was wrong to speak on the controversy. Absolutely, both sides play stupid little culture war games. But, to compare tax funded institutions shutting down speakers as a mere ‘culture war’ is supremely disingenuous and is meant to excuse the actions.

                1. But, to compare tax funded institutions shutting down speakers as a mere ‘culture war’ is supremely disingenuous and is meant to excuse the actions.

                  Right, because I weighed in on that. Good catch!

              2. OK, I see, maybe I wasn’t paying attention, my bad.

                To an extent, conservatism is downstream from progressivism because many conservatives are former progs – they started off saying they’re still on the left but they just have this one minor objection to mainstream left-wing thought and…”OMG why is everyone calling me a fascist?” So they end pushed into the “conservative” side but don’t necessarily shed all prog attributes.

                And in addition to there being a lot of overlap between conservatives and progs, some conservatives thrive in an oppositional mentality, which is arguably the more adaptive response given their status on the defensive nowadays…but that can encourage victim thinking.

          4. Are you serious, Crusty?

            No it can’t.

          5. And talk about a false equivalence.

            Unless I’m mistaken, how many conservative student body shouting down speakers or shutting down guest speaker on a university campus on the continent again?

            1. I was not referring to this particular situation – I thought that was clear and apparently I was mistaken.

              1. I disagree in general.

                See you in the PM links.

        2. Maybe he should have stuck to calling up coaches and suggesting plays, like Nixon.

          1. Maybe NFL players should have considered that their white working and middle-class customers don’t consider “Only Black Lives Matter” to be a unifying cause.

  14. American University is no place for intellectual discourse

  15. Remember that sammich joke?

  16. Well Elizabeth, at least having been disabused of your status with the school of piranhas that is the progressive left, we won’t have to invitations to our wedding on any of them.

  17. student group severely misrepresenting the event

    This site has done that for the last year.

    1. Don’t let the back button hit you in your ass on your way out.

  18. “It was hardly an anti-feminist space, nor a spectacle of the Milo ‘free speech event’ type.”

    Too bad.

    But it just goes to show…these progressives don’t do nuance like they claim to do. They don’t care if the speaker is deliberately provocative, showcases his sexual habits, and calls feminism cancer, or if (s)he speaks in terms of upholding the *true* meaning of Title IX and avoiding excesses…it’s all the same and they all deserve to be censored.

    1. It is quaint that ENB thinks that Prog groups are motovated by rationality and fair play, rather than if you question what they want, then you are the enemy that must be destroyed, however readonsble you think your case is.

      1. That’s why prog need beatdowns, and not debate or dialogue. The idea that progressives can be reasoned or bargained with is absurd on its face. They never should have been allowed to gain what they have already. The easiest way to stop them is to just take shit away from them. No talking no negotiating. Just take it, whatever it is, and kick the fucking shit out of them if they interfere. They’re utter pussies unless they outnumber you at least five to one.

        If you don’t believe that, take a look back at that proggy college flag burning that those bikers stopped. The bikers were actually outnumbered, but the proggys were gutless pussies.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQfRudgAvns

        That’s how they need to be dealt with.

        1. I agree, except replace beatdowns with being stuffed into woodchippers.

  19. Is that Robby sitting next to the lamp?

    1. I love lamp.

  20. ENB: “I talked about how it’s the feds, much more than any minority of illiberal students, who are forcing campuses into absurd “safe spaces.””

    Really?

    “It was especially disappointing to learn today that this may have been provoked by a women’s student group severely misrepresenting the event and then urging students to be angry about it. Here’s how the American Association of University Women (AAUW) of AU described the spiked panel:”

    That’s not the feds. Incidentally, do you expect universities to “roll back” the Obama-era changes once federal policy allows it?

    1. The Obama administration and the proggy lobby in the universities were mutually reinforcing each other – now that the federal government is no longer on the side of the prog activists we’ll have to see how far universities are willing to roll back their worst rules as they’re now allowed to do.

      But until the current administration there wasn’t a hard-and-fast separation between the activists on campus and the activists in the education department, they were pulling together as a team.

      1. Obama Titie IX gave justification for employment of literally 1000s of women’s studies graduates. Unless they cut back on student loans, none of those jobs are going away.

        1. ^^this.

          they pretend* the enemy was Catherine Llamon’s OCR; the fact is that institution was simply a vehicle for the ambitions of millions of institutionalized progressives that are still embedded in those institutions

          (*which i think is odd, because they still don’t argue that title IX should be repealed; they think somehow that future OCR’s will be wiser and more-judicious)

          1. Worth noting that, unlike with other things, creation of “bureaucracy” is much easier than its destruction.

  21. “My Alma Mater Cancelled My ‘Hate Speech’ Panel”

    Urge to laugh rising

    1. Don’t stifle that urge; laugh right along with me, because it couldn’t happen to someone more deserving.

  22. Arizona University sucks anyway. University of Arizona rules. BEAR DOWN

      1. Every semester, bro. Every semester.

  23. Heh, a hateful, angry lefty got screwed over by a group of even more hateful, angrier lefties.

    Feels kind of like cosmic karma. Grab a bucket of popcorn and bask in the schadenfreude!

  24. It’s hopeless. It’s all hopeless.

    And who goes to the trouble of starting a college only to call it American University?

    1. They wanted to call it Melvin Moneybags University, but he wouldn’t contribute any money.

    2. I’m a fan of “University of Maryland University College.” You know it’s learny ’cause it gots two Universities and a College in it!

      1. Who heads the department of redundancy department?

        1. It’s co-chaired by professors Bill Williams and Jim James.

      2. It’s no IUPUI, but ok.

  25. To be sure, a private institution should be able to set its own rules, so long as it respects the contracts its made with customers and employees.

    I happen to think a university – well, first, it shouldn’t try to admit everyone and fleece them out of money they don’t have in exchange for a less-than-remunerative degree. But that’s a bit off topic.

    A university which goes in for liberal arts education should *require* students to participate in, and attend, debates of different viewpoints. Maybe even require them to make the case for a position they disagree with fervently.

    So by all means require participation in debates on university policy, federal policy, the existence and attributes of God, etc. And any would-be disruptors should get picked up by the scruff of the neck and thrown off the premises.

    If outside speakers like in this case offer to help in this key university mission, especially if they’re doing it for free, take advantage of that! Ideally, there should be a debate on Title IX to see whether the activist position holds water intellectually.

    1. A person with a liberal arts degree from a respectable university – regardless of the specific field of study – should be a master of the various rhetorical strategies and be able to recognize them in others – should be able to anticipate problems with their own position and to assimilate and weigh objections, and to argue the substance of a position effectively.

      1. And mad research skillz should be a given.

        1. Enough statistical background to clearly state “7 facts that PROOVE Haley Duff escaped childhood insanity” when that degree doesn’t pan out quite the way it was intended.

    2. “”Maybe even require them to make the case for a position they disagree with fervently.”‘

      They want safe spaces to protect them from this.

      1. If they don’t want to be trained for a world in which they need to understand the other guy’s position, then what’s the alternative? Apparently a world in which they don’t *need* to understand the other guy’s position because they don’t have to debate him, and they don’t have to debate him because he’s been suppressed.

        Even with all that’s happened lately, I feel a bit paranoid saying out loud that these students want to be trained for a world in which dissent is suppressed. But it seems to fit the evidence.

        1. Either they assume they will be the ones doing the repressing, or they anticipate deferring to others as to what ought to be repressed.

  26. Don’t care; you guys didn’t ardently defend free speech when it was questionable characters. Why should anyone care when you are shut down and deemed questionable?

    1. I curious – your handle. What does it mean?

      1. I changed it to reflect my opinion after today.

        1. What was your handle before today, if you don’t mind my asking?

          1. (this is a trap, don’t answer it!)

          2. I’d really rather not say. I lurked for about 7 years, and had been commenting for the last 5. I am ashamed I promoted this place.

            1. You should stay, Reason is not and should not be an echo chamber.

              1. You know who else shouldn’t have had chambers?

                1. Harry Potter?

                2. Ted Dansen?

                  1. Not Fraser Crane!

      2. It means he is no longer sufficiently aroused by this site.

    2. Don’t care; you guys didn’t ardently defend free speech when it was questionable characters. Why should anyone care when you are shut down and deemed questionable?

      Well said. I feel like the Gilmore lead discussion above really just boils down to this statement.

      1. agreed. wish i had been that concise.

        1. sometimes i can pull something like that off.

    3. Apparently ardently defending free speech means you have to refrain from criticizing anyone who exercises it. The whole point of defending free speech is that you think someone like Milo (or whoever) is a jackass and still insist he has a right to speak. Some people here seem to think if you say the former in the same article as the latter, you aren’t really defending free speech. Which is asinine.

      1. We have asked for a quote of milo to match what he has been labeled by writers here. It never happened.
        There have been lots of “the protesters mean well!” no, they don’t. stop defending them.

        It has not been ardent defense of free speech. There have been mealy mouthed attempts to save face with people who dislike milo and shapiro.
        ENB and Robby can see what that sort of defense gets.

      2. They didn’t criticize speech. they criticized people through character assassination over several months. Then they defend protesters for meaning well.

        1. You think leftist protesters ever “mean well”?

          Begone, your brain is too shriveled to be useful any more.

      3. Some people here seem to think if you say the former in the same article as the latter, you aren’t really defending free speech. Which is asinine.

        This is asinine, but the crux is that much of what you characterize as “criticism” others see as misrepresentation, dehumanization (what else could dismissal without consideration be?), and attacks on character. Just look at how the people in this article depicted ENB without a second thought:

        “describing the panel as “hate speech” and “violence” designed to undermine “decades of work… to make campuses safer for victims of sexual violence.”

        With one stroke they say ENB is an accomplice to the Hate Movement. And the point is Reason has themselves listed on a whim many others as accomplices to Hate. The only apparent difference is Reason argues that the Hateful should still be allowed to speak; whereas these progressive groups want the deplatformed. They were in agreement with the “Hate” labeling but now they have experienced what it’s like on the other side.

        1. To be sure, ENB is a misogynistic gender traitor and rape apologist, but deplatforming her is illiberal. Let her spew her vile speech, and counter it with better speech.

          /soave

          1. Nice!

  27. Shibley argued that Title IX had had many positive accomplishments before it was,

    Like what?

    1. Abolishing rape, of course. Remember how in the 1950s the government would give out rape licenses to frat boys, like hunting licenses, and as long as they didn’t rape the daughter of a major donor they could do as they pleased?

      1. I mean, they would auction off coeds like in the Algiers slave market…or am I confusing that with some movie I saw?

    2. Bringing full athletic scholarships to women’s hockey, crew, golf, bowling….

  28. The media spend too much time blaming “campus feminists” or leftist student groups for Title IX’s worst excesses when the real culprits are government bureaucrats and schools scared to cross them

    This is completely wrong, there is no difference between these groups. The DOE bureaucrats are professional campus feminists.

  29. The auditorium reserved months in advance, money spent for the event, and then a cancellation at the last minute? Sound like breach of contract. If there were a Yelp for venues, this one should be getting thrashed.

  30. AU is a hotbed of progressive SJW culture these days, like most private schools. I know someone who decided to go there, and to watch her social media feed was to see someone get radicalized in real time. Face it ENB: your alma mater is a lost cause right now

  31. is hating hate speech hate speech?

    1. Is a tweedle beetle battle in a bottle in a puddle racist?

  32. Both the limey and the yankee spellings of “canceled” right there in the headings?

    Maybe that’s why your talk got cancelllled.

  33. Tom Price has resigned.

  34. This illustrations the problems with SJWs. You can’t ever please them enough, no matter how much you virtue signal

  35. Fuck the feminazis, the democrat progressive communists, and Antifa.

    Their plan, of course, is to chip chip away.

    The founders wrote the Bill of Rights in order:

    1 – to peacefully assemble and speak your mind
    2 – the right to keep and bear arms.

    Now the communists may chip away at the first, but they will never be able to grab all the guns for their ultimate goal of full on communism. You know, the true kind were no one gets murdered by the state for incorrect thoughts.

    1. > they will never be able to grab all the guns for their ultimate goal of full on communism

      That’s why they started Redneck Revolt.

  36. this is cute


    ElizabethNolanBrown? Verified account @ENBrown

    our commenters hate campus “snowflakes” who shut down speech unless it harms @robbysoave or I talking, of course…

    ElizabethNolanBrown ?Verified account @ENBrown

    Robby & I have been writing every week more than 3 years in defense of free speech, but we’re not virulently anti-leftist hacks, so [horror]

    3 whole years?! .

    I suppose all these disgraceful commenters who have been reading + donating to reason for 10-20 years should feel more grateful you’re deigned to be our champions for liberty; something few of us understand well, in truth.

    1. ENB continues to miss the point so much that one must wonder if it’s intentional.

      1. Does she really think beloved current + former writers like Welch, Sullum, Balko, Moynihan, 2chili, Cathy Young, etc…. are all “virulent anti-left-wing hacks”? and that’s why they don’t catch any shit?

        Or… maybe (gasp) they’re just *actual libertarians*?

        apparently the only reason these 2 poor millenials get no love is because the entire readership magically turned *right wing* after they were hired. What an amazing coincidence. I’m betting it was because of Obama, and because we’re all crypto-racists. Or at least that sounds like the sort of thing they’d say on Woke-Twitter.

        She thinks we’re happy they got shut out of their event. Nothing could be more wrong. I’m *embarrassed* they didn’t fucking know this would be the case well in advance, and do something to ensure they wouldn’t get no-platformed. Its like they don’t even read their own magazine. Or that they actually, naively think that “they’re the good ones”, and that their social-media-wokeness somehow counts for something in the real world..

        1. And it’s not really that they ‘get no love,’ it’s just that they get rightly criticized when they try to advance a libertarian position but ‘to be sure’ enough along the way to hopefully get invited to the proper cocktail parties. Pretty sure the commentariat was almost universally positive about ENB’s initial articles concerning the abuses of Title IX kangaroo courts, and Robby’s takedown of Rolling Stone’s treating of a total work of rape-fiction as the Gospel according to Jackie.

          1. Sorry, ENB’s articles about how sex trafficing stings harm sex workers were initially highly praised.

    2. She’s not really going to get it until she finally realizes that universities and the people who run them and teach their classes are the enemy. Complaining about how they don’t allow for free speech misses the point–they don’t care. Their whole MO is to demand that people who don’t think like them live by the rules of a classically liberal society while they get to act however they want. Universities are the epitome of anarcho-tyranny and should be crushed.

      1. Their whole MO is to demand that people who don’t think like them live by the rules of a classically liberal society while they get to act however they want.

        The Left defects from the various cease fires of civilization. And why shouldn’t they?

        The Right has been full of idiots who think adhering to “muh principles” demands that you honor ceasefires while the enemy doesn’t.

  37. Young Americans for Liberty are literally Hitler

  38. “It was especially disappointing to learn today that this may have been provoked by a women’s student group severely misrepresenting the event and then urging students to be angry about it.”

    This seems to be standard fare today on college campuses when it comes to -gasp- viewpoints that aren’t part of the feedback loop of the politically dominant on campus.

    Their message is: Just turn your brains off, students.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.