College PC

Trump: ‘Universities Have Tried to Impose Total Conformity. That Changes Starting Right Now.’

The president signed an executive order supporting free speech on college campuses.

|

Trump
Oliver Contreras/Sipa USA/Newscom

President Trump criticized colleges and universities for failing to protect the free speech rights of students during his remarks at a press conference Thursday. He then signed an executive order that will push universities to do more to protect freedom of speech if they wish to continue receiving federal research dollars.

"Many [universities] have become increasingly hostile to the First Amendment and free speech," said Trump. "Under the guise of speech codes, safe spaces, and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity, and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today. All of that changes starting right now. We're dealing with billions and billions and billions of dollars."

Trump repeatedly praised the many conservative activist students who have brought free speech issues to light—he twice referenced Turning Point USA President Charlie Kirk—and promised to support them.

"You've fought bravely for your rights and now you have a president who is fighting for you," said Trump. "I'm with you all the way."

The text of the order, though, does not make it exactly clear what standard various government agencies will use to decide whether universities are violating students' rights. As such, it mostly serves as a declaration of support for the First Amendment, and a sign that the Trump administration is paying attention to what's happening on campuses.

The president also lamented skyrocketing tuition prices and the crushing burden of student loan debt that many students face. He also made reference to the connection between government-subsidized loans and increasing tuition costs., and signaled that his administration is looking at doing something to help graduates drowning in debt.

"The reason is there's no incentive for [colleges and universities] to watch costs," he said. "People at the heads of the institutions, being paid a fortune, they don't care because the government loans the student the money, they pay the money to the college, and then the student graduates the college or university and they're stuck with $200,000 in loans they won't be able to pay for a long time."

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.

182 responses to “Trump: ‘Universities Have Tried to Impose Total Conformity. That Changes Starting Right Now.’

  1. I’d be happier with this if I thought the administration actually supported free speech.

    1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do

      So I started….>>>>>>> http://www.Pay-Buzz.com

    2. Nobody support free speech more than Trump; Praise jebus we have him to defend truth and freedom.

      This week, the national constitution center had an event about free speech. They had a honest truth telling panel to start, featuring the vibrant defender of the bourgeoisie – Amy Wax.

      All of the remaining panels had wussy lefters who hate speech, truth, and freedom. They are all staunch defenders of the snowflake movement. The problem of lefters hating truth is an epidemic. See for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRLg7ae9W84

      1. Do you expect censorship-ridden right-wing campuses — from Biola to Liberty, Wheaton to Ave Maria, Regent to Franciscan — to be forced to stop imposing speech and conduct codes, suppressing science to flatter nonsense, collecting loyalty oaths, banning dissent, and enforcing silly dogma, or do you expect a special superstition-laced snowflake exemption to magically cloak the conservative-controlled schools with immunity?

        Right-wing schools with be fourth-rate goober factories either way, and America’s strongest schools will still be operated in the liberal-libertarian mainstream, because conservatives just can’t operate good schools. Preferring dogma to science and nonsense to reality has consequences for half-educated yahoos.

        1. You make some good points. These speech issues almost need to happen at a mainstream school (full of lefters) to even broach the speech issue questions.

          This stuff wouldn’t even come up at the religious schools you’ve mentioned, but for other reasons. Mostly because lefters don’t go there and the student body is more homogeneous – at least about religious stuff.

          I suppose if a bunch of lefters enrolled at religious schools and demanded to talk about science instead of faith healing or other religious stuff, then we would find out.

        2. Those campuses average 6k students or about half that of Yale’s. And what, about 1/1000 as influential? How about federal $s going to those 6 versus Yale. Probably about 1000:1 also.

          1. You need to keep your gloves up, racer X, or this isn’t going to be much of a contest.

            1. You’re wearing gloves? We brought AR-15s

              1. Bring a gun to a glove fight.

              1. The Rev hasn’t come out on top rhetorically a single time in the history of the board. It’s why he drops shit bombs and flees. He realizes how painfully stupid and contrived everything he posts is, and that he has the intellectual heft of a jacksock without the utility.

                1. Every Rev post ever

                  “I have low self esteem because of my insufficient mental capabilities, so I will boringly insist I’m better than you”

                  Followed by his cowardly retreat and flight from the field.

                  1. Retreat? We won the culture war. We celebrate and impose our preferences on disaffected right-wing losers. Now be nicer or we might start positioning the progress we shove down your whiny throats sideways

                    You’ve been warned. Make this easy on yourself, clinger.

                    1. Oh my god you’re so predictably boring with your overcompensation and excuse making for your constant retreat and flight from the forum.

                      “You’ve been warned”

                      Ahahahah HAVE I?!?

                      OH NO YOU’RE GONNA WHINE, BITCH AND FLEE SOME MORE THE HARRA!

                    2. Ahahaha even your repetitive use of the same lpw level vocabulary is predictable and boring. It’s lile you don’t know what a thesaurus is.

                      Lol overuse disaffected more Reverend Mind-Numbingly Trite.

                    3. Thesaurus.com so you don’t look so stupid overusing the same words and flaunting your lack of erudition.

                      Ahahahaa YOU

                      “disaffected disaffected disaffected, right-wingers disaffected disaffected disaffected clingers”

                      Lololol my 8 year old child has better skills. I lotwrally showed him and he said “why is that fuckwit incapable of using a synonym” and we laughed at your expense!

                    4. It’s so true. The Reverend is such a sad posuer using the same tiresome hackneyed lines over and over again. He clearly knows he’s out of his depth here which is why, as you said, his pattern is to fling his feces and bolt.

                      It seems loke he doesn’t realize people can tell he’s a dullard by his unrelenting repetition.

                      He should call himself Reverend Dullard the Vapid.

                    5. Lol that would require him to take time away from being a disaffected loser and come to grips with the fact that his best efforts lost to an orange clown. Then he could stop whinging at libertarians about his nemeses the Republicans crishing him and learn what those words meant.

                      It’s easier for him to importently rage at his betters here than engage his efforts toward self improvement.

                      My child is still laughing at him.

                      “Wait that’s a grown up?” he asked me.

                      “Well, chronologically anyway” then we had another good laugh at his expense.

                    6. Oh and be careful he might “warn” you too. Of what no one has any idea since all he does is overuse disaffected and flee like a scalded dog.

                      Him “Clingers!!!” as he mounts a French Advance.

                    7. Oh I like that.

                      Reverend Dullard the Vapid, Master of the French Advance – “Release the Scat!!!”

                      His banner is a white cross on a white background

                    8. “Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.21.19 @ 9:58PM|#

                      Retreat? ”

                      That’s how you know you stung him. He repeated it because it’s true and he knows it.

                    9. Waits while Rev looks up the word “erudition”.

                      Hint: ‘e’ comes before ‘f’, Rev.

                    10. “We won the culture war.”
                      “we”?
                      Was that the two turds in your pocket, asshole?

                    11. “You’ve been warned. Make this easy on yourself, clinger.”

                      I’ll answer thusly:

                      “Molon Labe!”

                      Personally, I’ll cling to my God, my wife, and my AR (in that order). And you can try to take them from me.

                      What, you don’t have the guts?

                    12. You will comply with the preferences of people like me for the rest of your life, clinger. There just aren’t enough half-educated, bigoted right-wingers left in America — even in our most ignorant, superstitious, downscale, left-behind backwaters — to change the trajectory of American progress established for more than a half-century.

                      Are you indoctrinating your children with superstition? Do you choose backwater religious schooing?

                      I hope so, because my children and grandchildren will get to compete economically with the yahoos.

                      Carry on, clinger.

          2. Actually, most of those he listed specifically reject any and all federal funds, including student loans, so the federal government can’t impose it’s will on these schools. The President’s EO would apply to them, hypothetically, but since they don’t accept federal funding it doesn’t really matter to them. The Rev is just to stupid to understand the distinction.

            1. Wrong, clinger. Hillsdale and Grove City cling to superstition and ignorance without federal funds, but most right-wing yahoo schools participate in federal programs as long as they can maintain sketchy accreditation. Liberty, Regent, and the other right-wing goober factories suck at the federal teat when they aren’t teaching nonsense, suppressing science to flatter superstition, and warping history to conform with childish dogma for classrooms full of fledgling bigots.

        3. Hold on. I’m trying to decide which is worse: being a right wing goober or a self-absorbed pseudo-intellectual left wing pussy.

          1. Do you want to win the culture war, or lose it and spend your life doing as others wish?

      2. I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or if you are actually dumb enough to believe this…

    1. He’s ended Obama’s wars (including the War on Christmas), beat the Chinese in the Trade War, destroyed the Cuckley Standard, and now he has brought back the First Amendment.

      #MAGA indeed.

      1. Yeah, it’s a real shame that the Weekly Standard is no more.

          1. Agreed. Without the Weekly Standard I don’t know what countries need to be bombed this week. A real loss.

            1. Thankfully we still have the Niskanen Center to offer conferences for Bill Kristol and the gang.

              1. Those soyboys over at the Niskucknen Center and Kristol deserve each other.

                1. I think you mean *chicken hawks*, but yeah obviously the only reason why anyone would ever celebrate the decline of the Weekly Standard is Trump.

                  1. he only reason why anyone would ever celebrate the decline of the Weekly Standard is Trump.

                    You do love to read between the lines.

            2. Trump says Venezuela, Germany, Australia, Ukraine, and Montenegro.

              1. “Trump says ”

                Oh my god even you rando nobodies are fucking boring.

  2. “You’ve fought bravely for your rights and now you have a president who is fighting for you,” said Trump. “I’m with you all the way.”

    They stormed their generation’s beaches of Normandy.

    The text of the order, though, does not make it exactly clear what standard various government agencies will use to decide whether universities are violating students’ rights. As such, it mostly serves as a declaration of support for the First Amendment

    The First Amendment still exists? YAY!

    1. Today’s “anti-fascist” Nazis are armed with bikelocks, pepper spray and bottles of urine.

      1. Ant those are just the professors.

  3. He also made reference to the connection between government-subsidized loans and increasing tuition costs…

    The solution can’t possibly be rolling back the market-warping, college-for-everyone push started a couple decades ago, and forcing tuition back in line with reality. How many college administrators are we willing to put out of work?

    1. How many college administrators are we willing to put out of work?

      All of them?

    2. That’s on the agenda for his second term.

  4. Trump is too stupid to realize that the fascism on campuses and rising tuition could all be solved with one simple trick: stop the federal government from subsidizing tuition.

      1. Why he would wait to accomplish such a thing in his “second term” makes no sense to me. Seems like ending the subsidy would play well in the rest of the country other than the coasts

        1. Because doing it in the first term would mean there would be no 2nd

    1. How is preventing people from squashing speech mandating speech?

  5. >>>”Many [universities] have become increasingly hostile to the First Amendment and free speech,”

    admins caving to the crazymonkeys … I appreciate T’s wrench in the gears I hope it sticks

    1. Watching wingnuts rail about strong schools while ignoring the censorship, nonsense, dogma, authoritarianism, and low quality that marks conservative-controlled campuses is entertaining. Are right-wingers impervious to self-awareness?

      1. If the schools are so strong why are students 1.5 trillion in debt?

        Seems like your bastions of liberal education can’t help grievance students land any jobs.

        Go figure, leftist education is as ineffective as leftist governance

        1. “If the schools are so strong why are students 1.5 trillion in debt?”

          They thought the school’s rep was sufficient to mask their incompetence; sorta like the asshole rev.

      2. There is no such thing as a conservative controlled campus.

      3. Because many of the “conservative campuses” you’ve referenced are private institutions. While trump is mainly referring to state and publicly funded schools like uc Berkley.

  6. Two years before his next election, and Trump is already trolling for suckers among younger voters. He is not going to deliver anything. If he tried, he would find out quick enough that the President doesn’t get to compel speech.

    1. “If he tried, he would find out quick enough that the President doesn’t get to compel speech.”

      Did this make sense to you when you first typed it?

      1. Trump supports waterboarding, so technically the President can compel speech. But I don’t he can compel the anti-free speech bullies to be tolerant. He can have them waterboarded though. Just a suggestion.

      2. Not compelling speech is compelling speech! It is known!

  7. I can think of a some ways this EO will facilitate free speech on campus.

    Some colleges do nothing when protesters storm the stage to heckle the speaker or otherwise prevent him from speaking. In one recent event security personnel who was actually in the room stood and watched as a single SJW activist blocked projections and made noise. The organization who sponsored the event now have free speech mandate on their side to force the university’s hands. They already did, but I assume this makes it official.

    Things students post on social media is their personal space. If a school can’t fire a professor for wishing death on cops, then student can’t be suspended for posting pics of MAGA hats on instagram. Or even wearing one on campus.

    Can a campus impose gag orders on male students accused of rape, even when he hasn’t been charged with a crime by a prosecutor? Maybe this will change things.

    1. maybe put an end to school-sponsored safe spaces and teach the little brats freedom to (not) associate on their own

    2. If you are cheered by this news, then you are clearly an idiot – exactly the sort of person this EO was crafted for.

      The EO doesn’t do anything. It mandates that agencies making grants make sure that schools… follow the law. Which, yeah, they’re supposed to do? Most of the EO doesn’t even have anything to do with free speech. It’s mostly about transparency about student loan debt… with a little bit of red meat for the base thrown in.

      1. The EO doesn’t do anything

        Hey bud, it’s another futile victory over the libs, which is all that matters.

        1. Oh you’re doing clown nose on again I’ll keep that in mind.

          1. Thanks! I look forward to seeing you follow me thread to thread, posting lame, unfunny, obsessive comments that are by no means a sign of mental illness.

              1. Would it help if I made unfunny joke after unfunny joke about being a sexual deviant, only to also attempt serious commentary by pretending to be a sarcastic 14 year old girl, or would you lose your shit about that too because I was biting your style?

                  1. And you’re what the sixth, seventh person to take on the role of “gross sexual deviant?”

                    Even your hissyfits are unoriginal.

                    And the best part is, that unoriginal shit is the only thing you have that anyone knows you for. You only matter because SOMEONE has to be disgusting and you were elected. If you died tomorrow even your sad aspie clique would’t care, they would just elect a new “piece of shit that fucks anything” and you’d be forgotten.

            1. “posting lame, unfunny, obsessive comments that are by no means a sign of mental illness.”

              Don’t think anyone ever accused you of being mentally I’ll, crusty.
              Just obsessively and unamusingly butthurt

        2. It’s barely even that. The EO reads as two distinct directives, the “free speech” one hastily tacked on by aides wanting to give their boss some back-up for some random shit he dropped a few weeks ago. The stuff on student loan transparency is a lot more worked-out.

      2. SimonP,

        Help me understand how this EO is different from the Obama adminstration’s “Dear Colleague Letter”.

        1 The Department has determined that this Dear Colleague Letter is a “significant guidance document” under the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007), available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/site…..pdf/012507
        _good_guidance.pdf. OCR issues this and other policy guidance to provide recipients with information to assist them in meeting their obligations, and to provide members of the public with information about their rights, under the civil rights laws and implementing regulations that we enforce. OCR’s legal authority is based on those laws and regulations. This letter does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how OCR evaluates whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations.

        http://www2.ed.gov/about/offic…..01104.html

        My understanding is that this letter is to blame for a lot of the due process abuses we’ve seen since then on college campuses as they relate to sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations.

        1. Simon P has no way to give you a reasonable response. Simon P plays one trick only: ‘Trump is a big poopyhead’.

          1. I think you’re just bitter that you’re not worth more than that.

        2. I can tell you the difference. I’m not going to divulge personal details, but I’ve studied these “Dear Colleague” letters (as well as the more recent DOE rule-making) and am a specialist in a federal regulatory practice.

          The “Dear Colleague” letters were sub-regulatory agency guidance, purporting to interpret statutory and regulatory obligations of universities under Title IX. They did not and did not purport to have legally binding effect, and indeed under the APA that is likely the only way the DOE could have issued them the way it did, in the first place. That said, courts sometimes give views expressed in this kind of guidance weight when interpreting actual legal obligations. Not full-on Chevron deference, but some.

        3. Regulated institutions find this kind of interpretive guidance useful, both because sometimes it actually helps to understand the more general requirements of statutes and regulations, and sometimes because it provides compliance officers convenient CYA whose ultimate impact is not a personal concern. Indeed, given Trump’s various other pronouncements and restrictions on new rule-making, this kind of sub-regulatory guidance has become even more important.

          The EO, in contrast, does not purport to interpret any specific statute or regulation, or to impose any particular responsibility directly on federally-funded universities. It simply directs agencies to do what they can, within the confines of the law, to promote “free inquiry” (as the EO actually defines it) through conditioning research. Whether any agency can even do this is an open question that the EO cannot and does not answer. It’s entirely possible that the only outcome of this EO, for “free inquiry,” will be a lot of agency spin, in the same way that corporations have been trying to promote ordinary and planned business decisions as responding to Trump’s calls for action or the tax cuts.

        4. Only in the sense that it gave the universities a bit of official cover to do what they wanted to do anyway, which is why retracting it didn’t accomplish anything.

          1. Still trying to take over loveconstitution’s schtick, huh?

        5. Well, for a start, one affirms the First Amendment of the US Constitution, while another abrogated the First and Fifth Amendments.

          1. …And totally erases the 6th

      3. Simon makes a good point. What we really need are some Pinkerton or the equivalent ready to be deployed against activist progtards. America needs to get back to beating dirty hippies with nightsticks.

        1. I’m starting to think your just fucking around Shitlord. Jesus Christ, next we’ll find out the Ken and John are actually Barack and Michelle on ambien.

          1. Well you’re stupid eric that’s long been established.

        2. “America needs to get back to beating dirty hippies with nightsticks”

          Leave Nick alone

      4. “The EO doesn’t do anything”

        Theoretically, any school that violates free speech rights of students would receive less or no future federal funds? Although I don’t see that happening in most instances.

        1. The EO doesn’t do that. That’s the point I’m making here.

          An agency can’t condition any federal funds on a school’s promoting “free inquiry” unless some statute authorizes them to do that. By its terms, the EO directs agencies only to do what they’re legally entitled to do.

          1. Congress gave the Executive Branch the authority to distribute these funds as they see fit and the Executive branches job is to uphold the laws, including the Constitution. In fact they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. If an applicant for these funds is actively hostile to the 1A through acts, deeds or speech the executive branch has all the authority, nee the duty to withhold aforesaid funds. No further statute is needed. Congress gave them all the authority needed when they authorized the Executive branch to distribute these funds. Now the affected Universities could sue, maybe under the 14A, but it would be interesting to see them argue that the President upholding the Constitution (which is his job) is somehow discriminatory.

          2. Also, up thread didn’t you just say that this EO means nothing because the president is just telling the agencies to follow the law and now you are saying they can’t because they don’t have the authority? Consistency isn’t a strong point of yours is it?

            1. My comments are consistent. Reading comprehension is not a strong suit of yours, it would seem.

              1. I predicted this would be your response, despite the fact that the two statements are self evidently exclusive you would imply that the fault is not your own but mine. The statement that the letter just makes agencies follow the law and the statement that they lack statutory permission to enforce this EO are contradictory. There is no way that they are consistent. The fact that you resort to a peurile ad hominem rather than offer any explanation how the two can be related is all the evidence that is needed to realize you argue based on ideology rather than on logic. It is also obvious that you have a rather inflated sense of your own ability, that is apparent to the rest of us is not well deserved.

                1. The statement that the letter just makes agencies follow the law and the statement that they lack statutory permission to enforce this EO are contradictory.

                  Those statements are contradictory. Which is why it’s good that I’ve never stated the latter.

                  The fact that you resort to a peurile ad hominem…

                  I was responding to your puerile ad hominem.

                  …rather than offer any explanation how the two can be related…

                  I am not sure why you think I owed you that kind of response to the jumbled mess of comments you left for me.

                  …is all the evidence that is needed to realize you argue based on ideology rather than on logic.

                  Given that this is a total non sequitur, what might I reasonably infer about your motivations, hm?

                  It is also obvious that you have a rather inflated sense of your own ability, that is apparent to the rest of us is not well deserved.

                  Honey, this is a sick burn and all, but I am not really worried about the Reason commentariat’s opinion of me.

                  1. “unless some statute authorizes them to do that”. You never stated the latter, really? Can you post without lieing?

                  2. Also, how is stating you base your posts on ideology rather than logic a non-sequitor? Really, you have a rather inflated sense of your debating skill. You may want to give back whatever degree you were given (because it’s pretty obvious you didn’t earn it). But keep playing, sooner or later you will actually make a point.

  8. As such, it mostly serves as a declaration of support for the First Amendment, and a sign that the Trump administration is paying attention to what’s happening on campuses.

    Trump pays attention to everything that goes on. For 5 seconds. Good luck trying to keep him focused after…..oh, look! A squirrel!

  9. The only thing I don’t like about this article is that Reason is not swooning over this executive order and Trump’s remarks. Credit where credit it due! (yes, I am complaining about good journalism and lack of editorializing)

    1. I don’t like how Reason is taking Trump’s words at face value. He’s a liar. He is an enemy of free speech. He has only raised this issue in an effort to intimidate his political opponents.
      FIRE has some credibility on this issue (see FAN 204.1 on their website)
      https://www.thefire.org/

      1. “I don’t like how Reason is taking Trump’s words at face value. ”

        No one cares about the boring shit you don’t like.

    1. Well the President swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and the money is appropriated by Congress and given to these agencies for disbursement, who fall under the Executive branch, whose constitutional duty is to enforce the laws (including the Constitution). These agencies have discretion, on behalf of the President, to distribute aforesaid funds. These is entirely within the purview of the Presidency as set forth in the Constitution.

  10. Court: Victims can’t make a federal case out of police who stole their money

    Police are violating no “clearly established rights” when they steal someone’s property after seizing it with a legal search warrant and, therefore, can’t be sued in federal court, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.

    The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused to reinstate a suit against Fresno police by two people whose homes and business were searched in 2013 during a gambling investigation. After the search, three officers signed an inventory sheet saying they had seized about $50,000. But the two owners, Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian, who operated automatic teller machines at various locations in the Central Valley, said the officers had actually taken $276,000 ? $151,000 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins ? and pocketed the difference.

    Darrell York, Jessop’s and Ashjian’s attorney, said police and a city attorney denied that a theft occurred.

    Let’s reiterate:
    Police are violating no “clearly established rights” when they steal someone’s property after seizing it with a legal search warrant and, therefore, can’t be sued in federal court, an appeals court ruled Wednesday.

    Got that? The 9th circuit court of appeals declares that you have no right to property.

    1. This is one of those cases where I’m going to presume that the judges ruled on the most narrow grounds. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt here to say they have no case in federal court.

      I do admit the statement of have no clearly established rights violated. I’m not sure what that means. I’m no lawyer (or doctor) but I suspect this has to do with jurisdiction more than it does the merits of the case itself.

    2. I skimmed the opinion and got this on p. 4:

      “We need not?and do not?decide whether the City Officers violated the Constitution. At the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property that is seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.”

      https://bit.ly/2FsbtUX

      1. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

        The warrant probably did not particularly describe the amount of money to be seized. Even if it did, the amount of money particularly described would be the amount that could be legally seized as evidence. The money that the cops seized but did not report (and then kept for themselves) was not covered by the warrant, so there definitely was a 4th amendment violation (unless the court has decided that the theft was a reasonable seizure).

        On top of that, (technically) cops don’t have immunity from theft/robbery laws. In real life they do, of course, but they could still be charged with theft and/or armed robbery. Don’t laugh.

      2. I love the conclusion.

        We sympathize with Appellants. They allege the theft of their personal property by police officers sworn to uphold the law. Appellants may very well have other means through which they may seek relief. But not all conduct that is improper or morally wrong violates the Constitution. Because Appellants did not have a clearly established Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the theft of property seized pursuant to a warrant, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

        It wasn’t just improper or immoral. It was also illegal.

        By the way, here was your chance to “clearly establish” the right and you blew it.

        1. According to the Supreme Court, as I understand it, if a right isn’t clearly established all the appeals court could have done would be to write “this was unconstitutional,” but they would still have had to add that it was not *clearly* unconstitutional under prior precedent, thus cops win.

        2. “Because Appellants did not have a clearly established Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment right to be free from the theft of property seized pursuant to a warrant, the City Officers are entitled to qualified immunity.”

          “‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'” Fifth amendment. This is understood to mean that property can’t be taken at all, if not for public use.

          I’m betting the officers didn’t pay just compensation for the money they stole.

        3. They had a Fifth amendment right to be free from the theft of their property by the government, though.

          This is the usual (un)qualified immunity garbage. You just distinguish the offense to the point where there’s no perfectly on point case law, and declare that the cops weren’t on notice that it was unconstitutional for a red headed cop with a beard to beat you to death during a traffic stop.

          Notice how they specified not just theft of property, but theft of property seized pursuant to a warrant. As if the cops, while knowing they weren’t allowed to steal things in general, might have some valid confusion about whether it having been seized pursuant to a warrant made stealing it ok.

    3. “The 9th circuit court of appeals declares that you have no right to property.”

      Is there anybody surprised by this?
      Most progressive district court makes totalitarian ruling… and water is wet.

    4. This is a completely “normal” part of qualified immunity law, which has been promoted by cop-loving jurists for decades.

      Definitely a HUGE problem in our modern constitutional law, but not specific to the “liberal” circuit or any other courts. In fact, I’ll bet that you can find some real howlers in the Sixth, Eighth, and Fifth districts.

  11. “Many [universities] have become increasingly hostile to the First Amendment and free speech,” said Trump. “Under the guise of speech codes, safe spaces, and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity, and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today. All of that changes starting right now. We’re dealing with billions and billions and billions of dollars”

    I don’t know that he’s thinking about it in these terms, but this is a great speech from a campaign perspective.

    If you’re a Democrat candidate in the primaries right now, what do you do: 1) alienate your base and your donors by supporting the First Amendment or 2) alienate centrist and swing voters by coming out against the First Amendment?

    If they’re smart, they just keep their mouths shut and let President Trump chalk a win on this one.

    1. Our cherished institutions of higher learning must be able to make an inclusive environment for all students, especially those in particularly vulnerable groups such as communities of color and the LGBTQ2I community. I stand with diversity and inclusion and against hate speech.

      1. Debate hosted by The League of Women Voters, September 2020.

        In response to Warren’s reply above,

        TRUMP: “I unequivocally support the First Amendment. Are you or are you not in favor of the First Amendment, Ms. Warren?”

        1. “Yes, unlike you, Mr. Press-censoring Russian stooge, and anyway, what about a woman’s constitutional right to choose?”

          (APPLAUSE)

          1. When did Trump censor the press? His predecessor sicced the DoJ on multiple reporters and it seemed that half his staff had some relative or other working in the media.

            1. I’m trying to give a Democratic applause line, I’m not trying to be logical – the two things are opposites.

    2. “If they’re smart, they just keep their mouths shut and let President Trump chalk a win on this one.”

      More likely, it will be along the lines of Trump being the *real* threat to the Constitution, and only voting for Democrats will restore the Constitution everywhere in the country including colleges – not the just First Amendment, but the endangered right to abortion.

      Of course, if they’re smart they’ll send the Arthur Kikland types on a top-secret factfinding mission to Tajikistan, reminding them not to use the Internet lest the mission be compromised, and have come back and report after the election.

    3. That, I think, is going to be his campaign strategy this time around: Playing up just how insane the Democrats have become, by repeatedly serving up all these things that any decent person would, of course, support, and demonstrating that the Democrats DON’T support them.

      1. The things he’s gotten them on record about are amazing.
        They’re straight up claiming socialism and open ended war without goals

  12. I graduated from Reed College in Portland, Oregon.

    Because the administration has continually buckled under the demands of the school’s SJW cadre, I wrote a letter to the president advising him that I will no longer send in any donations and that I no longer consider myself a graduate of said school.

    In my correspondence, I included my shredded degree.

    Fuck off commie losers.

    1. *High five*

    2. You got a degree from them just so you could shred that degree, huh?

      1. Yes :’ ) – although at the time I had no idea that the school would bow down to authoritarians.

    3. I’m sure you don’t include it on your resume, either, huh?

  13. Watching the kind of downscale, disaffected yahoos who attend and support Ouachita Baptist, Hillsdale, Ozarks, Regent, and Liberty try to criticize Harvard, Berkeley, Columbia, New York University, and Williams is entertaining.

    1. aren’t the latter places on your list the ones where the ignorati on the left were caught gaming the system and trying to buy favor? Harvard, it seems, has an issue with Asians.

      1. Nobody cheats to get into Biola, because Biola is downscale and icky. Duh.

        Everyone cheats to get into Harvard because it’s worth it.

        1. and who wants to be part of a club whose members didn’t cheat in order to be admitted.

          1. Magnolia Cemetery is a very exclusive institution, and very much in demand….

            …and this is obvious because…

            …people are dying to get in.

      2. “Harvard, it seems, has an issue with Asians.”

        My consulting firm, Cash for Ancestors, will give rich Asian families a certified family tree showing that their Asian ancestors are balanced out by ancestors from other groups, allowing them to claim mixed race status and avoid the anti-Asian discrimination.

        “This chart shows that your grandma was a geisha and your grandpa was Muhammad Ali during a trip to Japan.”

        “But grandma was Chinese!”

        “You want your kid to get into Harvard or not?”

        1. when wokeness meets opportunity. Your clients should all get Intersectionality Club t-shirts.

        2. Filipino-Americans have started taking advantage of their darker skin to pass for blacks, I hear. My son could probably pull it off, I’ve met lighter blacks, but the eye folds are kind of a giveaway.

          1. One word for you: blasian

    2. Local Reverend Found Guilty
      Eunice Today
      By Joyce Billings
      March 3, 1996

      Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland told his parishioners they could benefit themselves while doing God’s work if they invested in his ‘Progressive Christian’-based company, which lent small amounts of money to entrepreneurs in developing countries.
      Instead, a jury in Lafayette, LA agreed that Kirkland defrauded his friends and flock out of thousands of dollars.
      Kirkland told investors they would make their money back with profit, all while fueling growth in developing countries. But that never happened.

      Kirkland’s crime was brought to light by a parishioner, whose name is being withheld because she is a minor. She reported to police that Kirkland explained his scheme to her, professed his love, and wished she would run away with him.

      1. You get to whimper, mutter, and moan all you wish, Rockabilly, so long as you continue to toe the line and comply, like a good little loser of a culture war, with the preferences of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

        Your obsequious compliance with the preferences of your betters is greatly appreciated, as is the case with all of the big-talking, no-count, disaffected right-wingers.

        1. See? Fits my template perfectly. And so fucking boring.

    3. “…try to criticize Harvard, Berkeley, Columbia, New York University, and Williams is entertaining.”

      So, asshole, which crooked outfit do you work for?

      1. I work for the liberal-libertarian mainstream . . . the folks who set the rules that malcontents like you spend your lives complying with.

        Thanks for toeing our line, Sevo.

        1. And yet you are here boringly complaining about all the things that are happening that you hate and can’t stop.

        2. “I work for the liberal-libertarian mainstream…”

          So some crony outfit? How surprising that an asshole like you would be so employed.
          BTW, I own my company and spit on people like you regularly.

    4. The irony, for libertarians, is that while the EO purports to direct agencies to “force” public schools to abide by First Amendment principles, any private school not directly subject to the First Amendment is entitled to abide by whatever speech code it should happen to prefer. Meaning that conservative think tanks and religious brainwashing institutions masquerading as universities don’t have to do anything but keep lying.

      1. How is that ironic? The government can force government agents to follow certain rules and regulations but can’t force private agencies or individuals to do the same. This is the very definition of libertarianism. Do you even understand what libertarian is? Obviously not.

  14. Such small minds have no business commenting on the interior culture of academia. What a vulgarity this man is. Your stupid conspiracy theorist uncle as president.

    1. Oh yes mr fancy pants elite who wears an ascot, now sometimes there’s a man? I won’t say a hero, ’cause, what’s a hero? Sometimes, there’s a man. And I’m talkin’ about The Donald here ? The Donald from New York City. Sometimes, there’s a man, well, he’s the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that’s the Donald The Donald, from New York City. And even if he’s a crude man ? and The Donald is most certainly that. Quite possibly the crudest in all of New York City, which would place him high in the runnin’ for crudest worldwide. Sometimes there’s a man, sometimes, there’s a man. Well, I lost my train of thought here. But? aw, hell. I’ve done introduced him enough.”

      1. Tony is 250k in student loan debt. Remember that when you’re laughing at him. He has no choice but to support progressives because he needs that debt forgiven and his shit degree gets him a job that pays nothing.

    2. “Such small minds have no business commenting on the interior culture of academia.”

      I spent 8 years in college, including 4 years at UCSD. I remember several instances in which the student ran newspapers feuded with administration over satire and some randy criticism. In one of my creative writing classes a classmate secretly reported another student for writing violent (over the top but not particularly disturbing) content.

      One of my lefty professors hated on Bush and would politicize lectures, but when some students disagreed, he would say “Let’s move on”.

      And this was early to mid 2000. Things have gotten worse since then. Now we see snowflakes demanding safe spaces and trigger warnings over professors using normal vocab and terms that offends nobody. American colleges do not facilitate free speech or discourse if it violates their progressive notion of inclusivity or diversity.

      1. Tony really doesn’t support free speech unless it’s speech he agrees with. He has supported administration in the past who have shut down conservative speakers and students. What the Democrats and progressives like Tony don’t realize is that they are driving away supporters. Not all LGBT define themselves by their sexuality alone, I belong to a Libertarian-Conservative LGBTQ group on MeWe. As a bisexual man myself, I see the growth of the WalkAway movement only continuing.

        1. Another failure seems to be their push to appeal to Hispanics and legal immigrants by pushing open borders and amnesty. To a Asian immigrant or a native born Hispanic (or a legally immigrated Hispanic) they don’t necessarily identify with illegals. In fact, most of the ones I know actually are hostile to illegals. They wonder why they had to go through the system and follow the rules but others didn’t. Why they struggle to get their families here but Central American caravans can just show up at the border and request asylum and people will support the latter.

          1. Groups like Black Guns Matter and the African American Walk Away movement also scare the Democrats. The harder they try to appeal to the fringe the more they will alienate. As I was writing that I heard Princess Leia explaining to Grand Moff Tarkin about the tighter you squeeze the more systems that will slip through your hands. I think that’s a good analogy.

  15. Or we could get the feds out of education altogether. All the Marxist grievance studies losers can pay their own way, and all the faculty can get a real job instead of stealing my money to pay for theirs

  16. OMG His statement correct “The reason is there’s no incentive for [colleges and universities] to watch costs,” The wording was wrong… It should read “The reason is there’s no incentive for government agencies to watch costs,”

    I lived next to a large government agency in Montana. At the end of the fiscal year if they have $200,000 left, they spend it. If they don’t then they don’t get the same amount next year.

    The sad thing was the items they purchased were not needed and sold as surplus for pennies on the dollar the next year. So if the President wants to save money then reward government agencies for saving money, not spending it….

    1. I got this old crate at a government surplus sale. I guess they were trying to make room in their warehouse.

      You can imagine my eagerness as I pried open the crate with a crowbar, imagining the wonders within.

      It was just an old cup. What a ripoff. I threw it out.

      1. The other crate had so many warning signs on it I hesitated to open it, so I stuck it in the shed.

    2. “At the end of the fiscal year if they have $200,000 left, they spend it. If they don’t then they don’t get the same amount next year.”

      Same is true of all large corps.
      I worked for a subcontractor with Home Depot. Occasionally, our job was to dispose of entire floors worth of equipment because the department had to order unnecessary new stuff to meet budget.
      Its ridiculous

      1. This was at their HQ, which was a rather impressive fortress

  17. Making Charlie Diapers the face of free speech does more to jeopardize it than anything universities today are doing.

    1. Oh my god even your attempt at an epithet is fucking boring.

  18. This #LibertarianMoment brought to you by Orange Man and the Deplorables who supported him, over the hysterical pants shitting opposition of Reason.

    You’re welcome.

    1. A great name for a progressive rock band, “Orange Dan and the Deplorables”

  19. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  20. It all sounds nice but I do not trust the government to actually use its powers to advance free speech, diversity of viewpoints or any of that. They never have and never will. Whoever has the reigns of power will just use it to push their own agenda.

    1. The history of federal educational regulation is, alas, in favor of your cynical view.

    2. Sadly true.

      More people, especially younger ones like students, should make it a habit to question authority. Doesn’t matter if that authority is some SJWs, So-Cons, or what. Never yield to conformity.

  21. Cambridge University rescinded a Fellowship to Jordan Peterson.

    We’re not out of this dark mess.

    1. Out? We’re not even all the way in. Remember, it’s always darkest just before it goes pitch black.

  22. Is this the same guy who started a phony University, encouraged students to take 10’s of thousands out in debt, taught them nothing of value, and kept their money? And when people, including former students, do discuss Trump University he says “fake news”. At least UC Berkeley is a real University with excellent departments and it is the polar of Trumptard U. Sure, the student body at Berkeley can be overly pendantic and not always supportive of true free speech, and that does need to change. But the conservative kid who was punched, was punched by a towney, not a student, and that man was arrested because that type of behavior is already illegal! This executive order changes nothing and is just another BS move to incite and excite his base, while snidely implying that lurnin ain’t needful. I very much dislike the far right’s denigration of education; let’s abolish college because math makes my brain hurt! The left says they love education, but seems to really only want to start more ethnic studies programs. In California, ethnic studies is now a graduation requirement. Meanwhile, we are lowering the math and science standards across the board for most majors. That is the real story, which neither side will bother to discuss.

    1. while snidely implying that lurnin ain’t needful

      I don’t get that part at all. However token, or ineffective this EO might be, I take it on good faith that there is absolutely a place for “lurnin” and this is done in defense of the principles which make that “lurnin” worthwhile.

  23. Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details…

    So I started ========>>>>>>>> http://WWW.THEPROCOIN.COM

  24. President Trump is a twit and the more people who ignore him, the better.

  25. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, now and then. Somewhat less often, Trump gets it right. Celebrate today.

  26. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  27. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily……. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE >>=====>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

Please to post comments