USC Law Professor: Supporters of Campus Free Speech are 'Preying on Vulnerable Teenagers'

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

USC law professor Michael Simkovic has a blog post up at Leiter Law School Reports which I can charitably deem "remarkable." The basic proposition is that the only problem with free speech on university campuses is that a cabal ["a well-funded, well-organized, and cynical campaign"] of right-wing "provocateurs" are luring immature students into trying to shut them down, to make universities look bad for the benefit of a Koch-inspired war on higher education.

Here's a taste:

Recently, the Federalist Society invited South Texas College of Law Houston's Josh Blackman to lecture at CUNY law school. Professor Blackman's sparsely attended lecture drew protestors because of Blackman's previous criticism of an amnesty program for undocumented immigrants and his use of language the protestors interpreted as racial dog whistling.

A university official asked the students to be respectful, defended Blackman's right to speak, and admonished the students "please don't take the bait." One student noticed Blackman recording himself and asked Blackman, "You chose CUNY didn't you? Because you knew what would happen if you came here." (CUNY, like Vassar, has a reputation for left-wing student activism). Blackman deflected the question. One protestor used an expletive, which Blackman repeated.

According to both Blackman and CUNY, the protestors were non-violent. Security was present to maintain order. Blackman—tall and muscular—towered over the students and appeared calm throughout the exchange.

(1) Josh Blackman is an incredibly mild-mannered, polite, nice guy. The protesters didn't identify any "dog whistle" language; they just called him a racist because that's their default criticism of anyone they don't like. Simkovic should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that the students may be correct in asserting Blackman has actually indulged in racism, which is a kiss of death in academia, and particularly potentially damaging to a young less-established law professor like Blackman. A public apology should be forthcoming.

(2) Josh hasn't criticized the amnesty program per se, which he supports, he's criticized its implementation by executive order, which he believes is unconstitutional. The fact that neither the students nor Simkovic can appreciate the distinction doesn't speak well of either.

(3) Josh is, I believe, the most prolific speaker for the Federalist Society. He speaks at many schools every year. By Federalist Society rules, the students at each chapter have to invite him, he can't invite himself. In short, the idea that he somehow chose CUNY to provoke a reaction is ridiculous, and the notion that presenting an anodyne talk on free speech, which Josh had presented at several other law schools without incident, should provoke any sensible, mature person is ridiculous.

(4) Josh is certainly reasonably tall, but when a security guard comes to you before a talk and asks if you have an "exit strategy" and gives you suggestions about various emergency routes out of the law school, even a six-footer might feel a bit threatened. I wonder how Prof. Simkovic would feel if a security guard came to him before one of his classes, and suggested he needed an "exit strategy" in case the protesters intent on disrupting his class and chanting expletives outside his classroom turn violent?

The whole piece is like this, full of illogic and innuendo, suggesting that the fault with the threats to free speech on campus lies with those who engage in and defend free speech, rather than those bent on suppressing it.

Here's a bit more from the blog post, arguing that journalists should simply ignore it when campus speakers are harrassed, shouted down, and subject to or threatened with violence: "When students are goaded into tactical mistakes, journalists should ask themselves whether mean-spirited provocations by seasoned political operatives preying on vulnerable teenagers and inexperienced young adults genuinely deserve news coverage. The United States faces serious economic challenges which get far less attention than this stage-managed political theater."

And of course, the article has to have the requisite references to the Emmanuel Goldsteins of the modern left, the Koch Brothers, who are mentioned four times for no discernable reason.

Read the whole thing and weep.

(Cross-posted in shorter form at Instapundit)

NEXT: We'll All Be Paying Trump's Hidden Tax

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. Of course he can. He can also be accused of being a secret Illuminati agent. Why not?

      1. Clearly any such accusation could be highly damaging to his reputation. In a dire situation of the sort, what is needed is not more of the “free speech” nonsense we keep hearing, but strong?very strong?action to stop these youngsters from spreading any inappropriate misinformation about Professor Blackman. For god’s sake, soon they will even be impersonating him on Twitter.

        In this regard, all of us here at Reason should join our lower Manhattan colleagues in protesting?naturally with discretion, but also with sufficient vehemence to make our voices heard?the shocking refusal of a so-called judge to jail our nation’s leading criminal “satirist,” despite our steady efforts of the past decade designed to secure that goal. See the documentation at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    2. Mr Mwzakali’s distinction between prejudice and racism ignores the history of Africa prior to the arrival of the Europeans. There was plenty of real oppression of racal group A by racial group B in Africa long before the whites arrived. Indeed in Southern Africa the Zulus only stopped oppressing the Xhosa speakers, because they were rudely interrupted by the whites stepping in to oppress them. Ditto the Matabele and Shona in Zimbabwe.

      Presumably Mr Mwzakali is aiming his stuff at a Western liberal audience (where the money comes from) on the assumption that African history is a closed book to his sponsors.

      1. I don’t know of those particular events, but I don’t doubt it. Irish and Italians are considered part of the white patriarchy now, but sure weren’t even 100 years ago, let alone when they first started coming to the US. Then there’s that whole “White Hispanic” thing.

        Evolution has bred all creatures to be incredibly good at picking up patterns, and any differences are exploited to the hilt.

        1. One doesn’t need to get into evolution here – I doubt there’s much evolutionary difference between WASPs and Irish. Or WASPs and Somalis for that matter. The point is that the notion that only whites convert prejudice into racism (as defined as systematic oppression) is ludicrous on its face, and could only be offered for sale to particularly naive and lightly educated Americans, familiar only with the unhappy parts of their own nation’s history – in which oppression by whites looms quite large.

          But if y’all go to Southern Africa, you will find the tribes of the Bantu expansion being very racially nasty to indigenous Southern Africans (the San or Bushmen) ; much racial nastiness between different Bantu language groups, racial nastiness between two tribes of whites – the Dutch and the English, nastiness between whites and Indians, and Indians and Bantu. And in the coastal regions up around Zanzibar, some Arab nastiness too. So there’s been reams of racial nastiness all over Southern Africa. We’ve heard about the whte stuff because it’s recent. The rest has been airbrushed out, or never got written down in all its gory details. None of which is to suggest that there hasn’t been lots and lots of oppressive white racism. The silly idea is that everyone else hasn’t been at it too, when they’ve had the chance.

          Which is as good a time as any to remember that America in 2018 is one of least racist societies there has ever been.

  1. Freedom of speech is largely irrelevant to people whose opinions are already well-represented amongst the population. If you want to argue that contracts should be enforceable by state power, when necessary, you don’t need to worry about being repressed by most powerful entities, because they think so, too. If you want to argue that the second amendment supports your right to park your tank wherever you want to, you need freedom of speech guarantees because a lot of people will disagree with you (particularly if you’ve been exercising your “right” to park on private property.)

    Freedom of speech has plenty of casual fans… people who think they support it, but value it less than any number of competing freedoms. Then there are folks who support freedom of speech because they need it to protect their views from oppression by the majority. It’s not a huge stretch to assume that visibly ardent supporters of freedom of speech are doing so because of ulterior motives, including obtaining the ability to access (and possibly change the opinions of) young people who are, after all, the future.

    1. You know who else thought young people were the future?

      1. Pretty much everyone?

      2. Me.

      3. Spartacus

        1. I’m Spartacus,

        2. I’m Spartacus.

          1. I’m Sparta, Cuz!

      4. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

      5. Whitney Houston?

        1. Motley Crue, in the preamble to “Shout at the Devil”

          “It has been written, that those who have the youth, have the future.
          So come now, Children of the Beast, be strong, and shout at the devil!”

    2. The purpose of speech is to affect the ideas, and flowing from that, the behaviors of others. This is not ulterior. This is the real deal, and protected, core.

      1. If you say that’s what you’re doing, that’s overt. If you say you’re doing something else, it’s ulterior.

        Some people (apparently including you) attach value judgments to these facts.

      2. “The purpose of speech is to affect the ideas, and flowing from that, the behaviors of others.”

        To the extent that speech is purposeful (and not all speech is) this is incomplete. Speech may also be used to affect your own ideas and behaviors. You can speak (or shout) to gee yourself up. You can mutter to yourself to help you remember something. You can write diaries or notes to help you remember things, or even to work out what you’re thinking when you’re not sure. You can compose letters to your dead wife to comfort yourself in hard times. You can doodle away with mathematical equations trying to work out a problem. All VC readers will habitually write on paper or computer as part of the process of solving problems at work, which they couldn’t solve if they had to do it all in their head.

        And a particularly important form of speech- for whch free speech is essential – is to expose your ideas to criticism by others, not to affect the ideas of others, but to benefit from those others’ feedback on your own ideas. With a view to improving your own thoughts.

  2. Simkovic connects the dots:

    “In 2016, the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS), sponsored an invitation-only lecture at New York’s Yale Club about free speech on campus. Invitees included libertarian-leaning professors, graduate students and journalists.

    “The speaker, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, encouraged attendees to push the envelope in expressing controversial conservative and libertarian views on campus, draw the ire of their university administrations and progressive students, and document the incidents for him so that he could publicize them through his blog, the Volokh Conspiracy”

    He advises left-wing students to be civil and avoid disrupting campus events, because that’s what the right-wing evildoers fear the most!!!!

    At no point does he recommend that administrators discipline the disruptors – even though this would be the best way to put an end to these embarrassing (for progressives) incidents.

    1. But seriously, if the disruptive students are truly giving aid and comfort to conservatives, wouldn’t that in itself be an incentive for progressive administrators to discipline them?

    2. “UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh”

      I knew he was evil! His polite mild manner and tolerant views are just a devious cover story.

      1. Apparently the USC-UCLA rivalry has reached a new dimension.

      2. Well, EV is the Chief Consprator, after all… 😉

  3. Simkovic apparently doesn’t realize that his post is playing into the Koch Brothers/Volokh/Fed-Soc’s evil plan. He took the bait and now the plotters can point to his blog to show how unhinged many law professors are. Oops!

    1. It will be the media’s fault for publicizing his otherwise-obscure blog post.

    2. Little does he know that Prof. Kerr has infiltrated Simkovic’s own faculty room.

      1. For which act of valor, we all owe Prof. Kerr a beer. 😉

      2. Even worse, his hallway.

  4. “…seasoned political operatives preying on vulnerable teenagers and inexperienced young adults…”

    Sounds a bit like colleges requiring students to attend compulsory “courses” in diversity, gender politics and white oppresor guilt.

    1. “Sounds a bit like colleges requiring students to attend compulsory “courses” in diversity, gender politics and white oppresor guilt.”

      I didn’t have any of these.

      1. It nearly is at my institution. Students have to take courses from a number of different areas, one of which involves “awareness of human diversity” and another involves social responsibilities. To satisfy the first there is a relatively small list of courses, of which one is anthropology and another is world music and the rest are gender and racial politics and intersectionality. To satisfy the second you can take anthropology (though it can’t fulfill both requirements) and the rest are all environmental stewardship, biopolitics, and racial politics.

        1. There is nothing wrong with “world music.”

          1. Au contraire. There’s no excuse at all for Chinese Opera.

            Incidentally, I’d wager a lifetime’s supply of hard liquor that “Anthropology” (as taught) is nine tenths continua-ing la lutta, with an intersectional garnish.

      2. I had to take one during undergrad in the mid-90s at my urban commuter campus. It was literally called a “diversity requirement” at the time, but unless you were majoring in some form of ethnic studies, most students just looked for the easiest one and knocked it out. I will say it provided some educational benefits, as I found out just how messed up Africa became during the post-colonial era and essentially made a mockery of the Bandung philosophy that the third world would lead the globe.

        The irony is that the campus now has more Mexicans than Tijuana, and taking a course on the American Revolution should probably be considered a “diversity requirement” at this point.

  5. It seems like, as far as free speech is concerned, many progressives are all too eager to play Bull Connor to these right-wing freedom riders.

    1. The same southern bigots who killed the Freedom Riders are the backbone of today’s Republican-conservative electoral coalition.

      When conservatives get control of a campus, the result is censorship, loyalty oaths, viewpoint discrimination in hiring and admissions, speech codes, conduct codes, suppression of academic freedom, and a third- or fourth-tier ranking.

      Other than that, great comment about the conservative-liberal divide on free expression and bigotry.

      Carry on, clingers.

      1. Sorry, Arthur, but the southern bigots who killed the Freedom Riders were censorious Democrats. You know, the backbone of today’s Law and Humanities faculties.

        1. They were Democrats when they killed the Freedom Riders, a point of shame for the Democratic Party. Then they migrated to the Republican party, which eagerly accepted them in an effort to maintain an effective electoral coalition for intolerance and old-timey ignorance, a point of current and vivid shame for the Republican Party.

          Every Republican today is a bigot, shamefully appeases bigotry, or has publicly disclaimed association with the Republican Party’s bigoted core.

          Feel free to let us know where each of you stands, clingers.

          1. Arty, the democrats didn’t switch parties. Thats a lie. It’s what you progtards do to avoid any form of accountability. The real truth is that your kind have merely substituted paternalistic racism for antagonistic racism. it isn’t better and you’re even more evil than ever.

            Feel free to let us know where each of you marxist stands, while you cling to your Communist Manifesto you dirty traitors.

        2. “Sorry, Arthur, but the southern bigots who killed the Freedom Riders were censorious Democrats”

          They were Democrats then. They’re Republicans now. Google “Nixon Southern Strategy”, genius.

          1. The Strategy that took 30 years to work before any significant gains for the GOP in Southern districts? Talk about a long play! Granted most of those racists were probably dead or near death by the time the strategy that took hold. Whoo boy.

            You do realize you and arthur both sound like evangelical christians blaming everything bad on the evil devil right? You just switched out the devil with republicans.

            1. “The Strategy that took 30 years to work before any significant gains for the GOP in Southern districts”

              I was previously unaware that there were 30 years between Nixon and Reagan.

              “You do realize you and arthur both sound like evangelical christians blaming everything bad on the evil devil right?”

              In the sense that I didn’t blame anything on anyone? Sure.

          2. Democrats have been the party of slavery all along and still are. The southern strategy is a myth fabricated by lefty academics and journalists.

            1. One of the great accomplishments of the liberal-libertarian alliance during my lifetime is that bigots no longer wish to be known as bigots, at least not publicly. The racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, etc. that was open, casual, and common during my youth has been transformed into a closeted, defensive intolerance, involving claims to be “colorblind” or to be promoting “traditional values.”

              This is why the Republicans and conservatives in this thread try to argue that ‘Democrats are the real racists.’ Right-wingers know it would hurt them to acknowledge their intolerance, and are too cowardly to admit their intolerance, so they try to muddy the water by claiming that others are bigoted, too.

              Solution: Ditch the bigotry.

              Until then, your betters will force you to wear it.

              1. Democrats are still bigots. They still fancy themselves slaveowners but now through victims politics. Look at the backlash of Kanye or any other prominent African American. Your party still believes in racial ownership. First slavery, then eugenics, and now race based politics. Only one party has based their entire platforms about race.

              2. Until we ignore it…. which we’re doing now.

          3. Wow. I learn a lot from The Conspiracy. I had no idea that Robert Byrd was a Republican.

            1. No but he was a sanctimonious hypocrite.

          4. You can look up the names of segregationists and check how many became Republicans.

            Spoiler: Three did so.

          5. I’m pretty sure these dumb asses are DEAD now.

          6. LOL, the classic Democrat defense: We supported slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK for hundreds of years, but those people are now Republicans!

            Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?

          7. LOL, the classic Democrat defense: We supported slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK for hundreds of years, but those people are now Republicans!

            New York Times: The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’

            Quote:
            In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism”, Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however ? and here’s the surprise ? even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats.

      2. “When conservatives get control of a campus, the result is censorship…”

        At private religious schools? Sure. When the ACLU defends the right of the Nazis to march through a synagogue, get back to me.

        1. Precisely how much better does superstition improve the teaching of nonsense, the imposition of conduct and speech codes, the suppression of academic freedom, and other forms of censorship?

          Carry on, clingers. To the extent libertarians and liberals — your betters — permit you to diminish free speech and temporarily delay progress, that is.

          1. People who choose a private, religious school and arrive to find a private, religious school are getting what they deserve.

            Might as well complain that some people choose majors that you wouldn’t have.

          2. What superstition are we talking about? The Keynesian multiplier?

          3. You will not like living under the new rules, in which your own speech codes, conduct codes, etc. are enforced with scrupulous fairness and equality against you.

      3. When conservatives get control of a campus, the result is censorship, loyalty oaths, viewpoint discrimination in hiring and admissions, speech codes, conduct codes, suppression of academic freedom, and a third- or fourth-tier ranking.

        Arthur L. Hicklib apparently hasn’t been on a college campus lately.

      4. I thank God that I finished my defense and got the hell out of academia, just before the Kirkland types seized control.

        Carry on, tyrannical dictator.

    2. You don’t know much about Bull Connor, do you?

  6. I like this overt connection between Instapundit and the Volokh Conspiracy.

    It removes some of the academic veneer that I once thought might distinguish the Conspiracy from FreeRepublic, Instapundit, RedState, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Legal Insurrection, and the like.

    1. “It removes some of the academic veneer that I once thought might distinguish the Conspiracy from FreeRepublic, Instapundit, RedState, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Legal Insurrection, and the like.”

      The veneer, however thin, is now almost gone.

    2. Yeah Rev, you stumbled upon the hidden conspiracy. It’s almost as if Eugene has never disclosed that Instapundit was his inspiration for starting this website and that he guest blogged at Instapundit.

      Maybe someday we’ll discover the conspiracy that renders you incapable of substantive argument. We’ll find the cure for relentless resortment to attacking the arguer someday. Or at least mitigate the worst of symptoms, resorting to such lazy attacks based on race or sex.

      1. There was a time when the rev had mostly substantive comments. Been a while though….

        1. There was a time when the Volokh Conspirators seemed to be more than polemic partisans promoting the worst elements of the modern Republican-conservative platform, and the comments were not so predictably the work of disaffected right-wing losers.

          1. the comments were not so predictably the work of disaffected right-wing losers.

            So what’s your excuse?

            1. two out of three ain’t bad.

          2. Proving my point. I say this with some sadness, as I know you’re capable of reasoned discussion.

            1. Hit send too soon… the whole reason I’ve stayed with this blog is the quality of the commenters. Granted it’s gone down hill since moving to the Washpo but still better than just about any political blog. It matters not to me whether you’re left, right or center as long as you can justify your reasoning. That you choose not to makes you every bit as guilty in the coarsening as the unthinking yahoos you so readily criticize.

              Cheers.

      2. Although my preferred policy is to not respond to him, this is hilarious.

  7. “tall and muscular”

    A tall and muscular law professor?

    Um, theoretical possibility of course but do we have actual evidence of one?

  8. I assume the kid who called him a cuck was also a Koch-plant.

  9. Vizzini: IT HAS WORKED! YOU’VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS!

  10. Simkovic: They’re just kids, they can’t help that they’re dumb.

    Also Simkovic: Dumb kids, a law degree is worth a million dollars in extra career earnings. Thankfully, you’re not smart enough to critically evaluate my methodology.

    1. “a law degree is worth a million dollars in extra career earnings”

      No, it isn’t.
      It can be an important stepping stone towards financial security, but it is absolutely no guarantee. Ask literally anybody who’s been in a law school in the last decade…

    2. “vulnerable teenagers and inexperienced young adults genuinely deserve news coverage”

      Especially if they espouse common senses things like gun control.

      1. Please watch and share this profanity-laced interview with the inexperienced young adult David Hogg, one of the astroturfed Parkland student gun control activists. This is what they are all about:

        http://freebeacon.com/issues/david-hogg-wild

        Quotes from the 17 year old:

        “When your old-ass parent is like, ‘I don’t know how to send an iMessage,’ and you’re just like, ‘Give me the fucking phone and let me handle it.’ Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government; our parents don’t know how to use a fucking democracy, so we have to.”

        “It just makes me think what sick fuckers out there want to continue to sell more guns, murder more children, and honestly just get reelected. What type of shitty person does that? They could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action, because they all still see these dollar signs.”

        To Senator Rubio: “What about the $176,000 you took for those 17 people’s blood?

  11. Well, if those ‘vulnerable teenagers and inexperienced young adults’ are considered capable of taking out huge loans, they should be able to deal with the occasional idea that did not get spoon fed by a raging progressive instructor.

  12. Ah, the devil-made-me-do-it! defense.

  13. Illiberal, left-wing ideologues would certainly know a thing or two about preying on vulnerable students.

    E.g., if someone voices a different opinion than yours, call it a “mean-spirited provocation.” What an idiot.

  14. “Josh hasn’t criticized the amnesty program per se, which he supports, he’s criticized its implementation by executive order, which he believes is unconstitutional.”

    Similar to my position on gay marriage – while I have long been in favor of gay marriage, (or state statutes providing similar rules to the heterolsexual statutes), I believe ogelfell is a gross miscarriage of constitutional law and not even a remotely EP issue.

  15. Headline:

    GMU Professor defends academic freedom, dismisses criticism of Koch influence.

  16. What’s the point of carefully laying out one’s analysis of a position if that position isn’t based on logic? It’s a fruitless gesture.

    You cannot argue with these people. They don’t “argue”, they merely repeat the words given to them by their leaders.

  17. Please, “higher education” doesn’t need a Koch to look bad…

  18. The basic proposition is that the only problem with free speech on university campuses is that a cabal of right-wing provocateurs are luring immature students into trying to shut them down, to make universities look bad for the benefit of a Koch-inspired war on higher education.

    So, essentially, conspiracy theory.

  19. Up is down, down is up.

  20. My personal favorite of Simkovic’s distortions is: “One protestor used an expletive, which Blackman repeated.”

    I believe this was when Blackman was pointing out that it wasn’t really lawful to implement DACA through an executive order, to which a student yelled, “Fuck the law.”

    Blackman then responded along the lines of “Fuck the law? That seems like an odd position for a law student to take.” The issue wasn’t the expletive; it was the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the idiot who shouted the expletive.

    1. Okay, maybe a tie: “After a violent attack on civil rights protestors that left three dead…” Yeah, he’s referring to Charlottesville. Apparently the “violent attack” was the cause of the helicopter crash that killed two state troopers.

      Is “Disingenuous SOB” a tenured position at his institution?

    2. The use-mention distinction also seems applicable here. We can imagine choices of wording — particularly in direct conversation — that get around the concern other ways, but they seem far from required here.

      Not to mention: wouldn’t required use of such evasions impose on academic freedom? It’s difficult to imagine Simkovic being happy in a world where professors can’t use expletives.

  21. So artie poo does have a few partners in crime as mind numbingly moronic as him…..here’s looking at you Pollack.

  22. [Simkovic] Many lectures about “free speech” are not really about “free speech,” but rather are intended to provoke a reaction that will discredit universities.

    “We’re a bunch of left wing authoritarian jerks who tolerate different opinions; don’t discredit us by bringing that to light.”

    1. I think he’s saying that out of a college of a few thousand, a dozen or two are really left wing authoritarian jerks and that you are baiting them.

      1. It’s far more than a dozen or two.
        The dark cloud of intolerance is always descending upon Republicans but it always turns out to be composed of progressives and Democrats.

        Dartmouth Study Finds Democrats Are The Least Tolerant Students On Campus

        Quote:
        In the campus-wide field survey, students of all political stripes were asked how comfortable they would be about living with a roommate who holds opposing political views. Of the 432 students surveyed, only 39 percent of students who identified as Democrats said they would feel comfortable living with a Republican, 16 percent said they felt neutral about the proposed arrangement, while 45 percent, a plurality, said they felt uncomfortable.
        A majority of students who identified as Republicans (69 percent) said they were comfortable living with someone of opposing political views, 19 percent said they felt neutral about it, and only 12 percent said they felt uncomfortable. Among Independent students, 61 percent said they felt comfortable living with someone with opposite views, 22 percent were neutral about it, and 16 percent were uncomfortable.

        1. Indeed, many college students are left wing. This is not a surprising result.

          It was also not at all my point.

  23. Interesting. Neither the full blog post linked at the top, nor the excerpt picked by Prof Bernstein, supports the accusations (1) or (2). “Josh hasn’t criticized the amnesty program per se, which he supports, he’s criticized its implementation by executive order, which he believes is unconstitutional.” sounds very much like “Blackman’s previous criticism of an amnesty program” As Prof Simkovic isn’t claiming that “Josh” was against immigration or amnesty in general in his post, I can only assume Prof Bernstein will be apologizing to Prof Simkovic for misrepresenting his blog post soon. Holding my breath, any minute now…

    Number (3) is a non-denial denial of the accusations that many venues are specifically picked to elicit protests and get some news stories. I don’t even know what is so negative about security guard doing his job in (4) .

    Overall, I gotta say “Don’t be an idiot and disrupt racists’ or right wingers’ speeches” seems like good advice, so I wonder why Prof Bernstein is disturbed by it. Does he want them to act like idiots?

  24. The academic left has lost all semblance of reasoning.
    What is amazing is that there is an audience for the drivel they produce.

  25. Well, it is the University of Spoiled Children, after all. Who better to teach the “spoiled” than morons.

  26. And how much did the Koch pay you to write this riposte, Dr Bernstein ?

    /sarc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.