Campus Free Speech

Professor Forced to Resign Because He Supports Antifa

By punishing Jeff Klinzman, Kirkwood Community College has dealt a blow to free speech.

|

In yet another example of campuses prioritizing nebulous safety concerns over free speech, a community college has pushed a professor to resign for stating his alignment with antifa.

"I affirm that I am antifa," Jeff Klinzman, an adjunct professor of English literature at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa, told local reporters last week after some of his controversial social media posts came to the public's attention.

In response to a tweet from President Donald Trump calling antifa "gutless Radical Left Wack Jobs who go around hitting (only non-fighters) people over the heads with baseball bats," Klinzman had written, "Yeah, I know who I'd clock with a bat…" on Iowa Antifa's Facebook page.

On Friday, Kirkwood announced that Klinzman had resigned. While the college did not immediately respond to a request for comment, the official statement certainly makes it sound like this was a forced resignation:

The school has stated that the professor was not removed due to his views or his right to express them. Kirkwood says their decision is based solely on their commitment to harboring a safe learning environment for our students, faculty and staff.

The college has also stated: "However, when the expression of views by him or any member of our community is perceived as placing public safety in jeopardy, or hampers our ability to deliver on our mission, we will always do what is necessary in service to our students' pursuit of a higher education."

This is a troubling confession. "When the expression of views by him or any member of our community is perceived as placing public safety in jeopardy," college officials believe they must take action, even if that perception is wrong, as it was in this case. Neither Klinzman's support for antifa nor his stated interest in hitting someone (implied to be Trump) with a bat represents any actual threat.

Antifa is an illiberal movement that doesn't believe in extending free speech rights to its opponents, and thus it's always somewhat ironic to watch this perspective used against them and other far-left anti-free-speech folk. Nevertheless, even those who do not recognize free speech as a right should still enjoy its benefits. Getting rid of Klinzman was a serious mistake, and a powerful example of what happens when administrators interpret a mandate to protect students' safety as an excuse to censor provocative speech.

For more about antifa, order my new book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trumpwhich contains a chapter about the movement's tactics, goals, and belief system.

Advertisement

NEXT: Lawyer Loses Bid To Redact Opinion Labeling Him a "Copyright Troll"

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. “I affirm that I am antifa,” Jeff Klinzman, an adjunct professor of English literature at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa…

    Being part of a violent criminal conspiracy organization (The National Socialists of Antifa) is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

    Peaceful assembly is protected.

    1. Yes. If he were only voicing support for Antifa, that would be bad enough; but he apparently brags about being a member, ie, a criminal.

      “I affirm that I am mafia.”

      “I affirm that I am a neo-nazi brown shirt.”

      “I affirm that I am a street mugger.”

      Antifa is criminals.

      1. Membership in the Left’s Sturmabteilung is indeed not a matter of SPEECH. The Antifidiots go so far beyond the issue of speech that they can’t even see it in their rearview mirror. As for ‘peaceable assembly’ one might well ask what part of blocking roads, pounding on cars, and hitting people until they bleed constitutes ‘peaceable’.

        We do need to be careful that in our disgust for the excesses of the Fascist Left, we do not commit similar excesses. But firing this moron because he has declared his membership in a gang of violent criminals doesn’t cross that line.

        1. Do some of them there antifa members use “satire”? If so, they should all be arrested, every last one of them, including this here professor. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “parody” case at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          1. Depends. Does the current definition of satire include repeatedly hitting someone in the back of the head with a chunk of metal?

          2. Ignorance is bliss, huh, bud?

      2. Wow, some of you guys have no principles at all. And I am not surprised at all. Tribalism is like some sort of all-consuming mental disorder. Did this professor commit any violence against anyone? No, he simply claimed association with a hated organization. If he said “Proud Boys,” you guys would be defending him.

        Wake up and rise above your mental conditioning. Grow and evolve as people. Learn. Self-actualize. You are stuck in the belonging layer of Maslow’s pyramid.

        1. “You guys”? Talk about a broad brush!

          This is about bragging of being a criminal.

          Where did anyone of “us guys” ever defend any criminal gangs? I know nothing of Proud Boys. Where have I or anyone else defended them for being criminals.

          Stop generalizing. Start with some individualized personal responsibility, such as “us guys” said in this particular case, and take responsibility for your misguided unverified general allegation.

        2. Kill yourself, eunuch

        3. I like you the one screaming tribalism is always putting his opponents into a tribe. Stay fucking stupid chipper.

          1. Chipper is always stuck on stupid.

            1. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

              …….. Read More

        4. CMW, the guy posted his desire for violence against the president. How do you know he didnt hurt anyone? The bike lock guy was a professor. Proud Boys dont go around looking to beat people up. Leftists talk about violence even more than actual racists, racists mostly post statistics and talk about how they’d rather be isolated.

          1. It wasnt against the president, but violence and death against Christians, which statistically includes his potential students. He also had much feedback from course surveys about him bleeding his politics into grading.

            1. If I had that turd for a professor I would destroy him, and take the university for as big a settlement as I could squeeze out of them.

          2. Just so we’re clear, a comment about feeding a judge into a wood chipper is perfectly acceptable speech protected by the First Amendment, but a comment about hitting the president with a baseball bat is beyond the pale and no longer protected by the First Amendment? Is that really the path you guys want to go down?

            I can understand and appreciate the schadenfreude, but a lot of you seem to be going beyond that.

            1. This was an employment action, not a First Amendment case. He had a perfect right to make his comment – and his employer had an equally solid right to fire him from his customer-facing position for showing the poor judgement to make that comment in public (and based on his student evaluations, the worse judgement to have made similar comments during classtime instead of actually doing his job).

              1. Pretty sure the community college is a public community college.

                1. It is a public college.

                2. Which slightly complicates but does not eliminate the employer’s right to fire him for poor judgement and/or low customer satisfaction ratings.

                  1. Firing someone for political speech on matters of public importance made outside the scope of employment is generally frowned upon. And from what I’ve seen, they’ve made no claim that his firing was based on his unsatisfactory performance.

                    1. He was fired for advocating for the murder of christians. Ya know, fellow human beings who didnt agree with him. Grow a brain stem and get your news from a real outlet.

                    2. He wasn’t fired for political speak he was fired for advocating violence in a public forum and associating with a violent organization. How do you not understand that? Would his forced resignation be justified if he had came out advocating for NAMBLA and professing his love for boys?

              2. He had a right to advocate for the murder of Christian’s? Oh wait, you probably didnt know about that because it’s not in the article. Stop getting your news from trash sites like this.

            2. I literally just told you who the comment targeted dumbass. It targeted the professor’s potential students.

              1. You mean the one he made back in 2012 you ignorant slut? It didn’t target anyone, and the fact that you are acting like a whiny little bitch about it is exactly the problem I’m referring to. You aren’t using the left’s tools against them. You’ve internalized and accepted them.

        5. “”If he said “Proud Boys,” you guys would be defending him.””

          Would you defend him if that were so?

          1. The Proud Boys aren’t criminals or a domestic terror group. They’re just good Americans. So no equivalence whatsoever.

        6. How many times have the Proud Boys gone out and rioted?

        7. It’s the bat comment directed at the President. That’s breaking an actual law. The rest of it, he might as well say, ” I am a p***y”.

        8. The right to freedom of speech only means that he will not be arrested and charged by the government. It doesn’t guarantee that he won’t face non-criminal consequences. He would face those same consequences if he came out and affirmed that he was an active member of the KKK.

        9. I’m not against principled defence of freedom of speech but…

          “Yeah, I know who I’d clock with a bat” isn’t speech.

          It is a claim to an action. If he would have at least said, I wish somebody would clock him or just wished general harm, that would be another thing.

        10. Not so:

          – Tribalism is mankind’s natural state as evidenced by thousands of years of history and academic studies, not the least of which is the relatively famous Stanford Prison Experiment. I’m afraid your perspective is the aberration.

          – While we all quote it, Maslow’s Pyramid has never been successfully ratified academically.

          – Few rational individuals if any, regardless of personal beliefs, would support sociopolitical extremists of any stripe. AntiFa is just a euphemism for Communists, and Communists took around a 100M lives over the last century or so. There’s a reason they richly earned their helicopter rides, courtesy of Pinochet. And AntiFa is just starting to get revved up. You want to talk tribes . .

          – This individual doesn’t merely support physical violence as dispensed by AntiFa; he endorses it; he likely engages in it and although that last bit is speculative, it is more likely than not.

          He gotta go.

        11. First of all it sounds like you just stumbled across this big word “tribalism” and now you’re trying desperately to use it in a sentence to make yourself sound smart. Second, you’re trying to equate Proud Boys to Antifa when the correct comparison would be Antifa to the Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany or the German Communist Party (KPD) before Hitler’s ascension to power.. And lastly, if the Proud Boys were in fact guilty of putting on masks, violently attacking people on the streets, disrupting and shutting down free speech events, and otherwise openly committing crime on the streets, which Antifa does, no one here would be defending them.
          Follow your own advise you condescending little twerp and rise above YOUR mental conditioning.

      3. “No means yes, and yes means anal.”

    2. As it should be. ANTIFA is a terrorist organization.

      1. Oddly enough, East German soviet socialism called the Berlin Wall the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall! They even put that on a postage stamp commemorating the thing. One-dementional altruists cannot even conceive of anything NOT being socialism, but if they ever see the LP, I’ll lay odds as to what they will squawk.

    3. Antifa is international terrorism, operating in the US.

      How is it unreasonable to conclude that a self proclaimed member of a terrorist organization represents a threat to the public safety of a community?

      Robby’s first link has a link to a local story
      https://www.kcrg.com/content/news/Kirkwood-professor-I-affirm-that-I-am-antifa-557897151.html
      A search through Klinzman’s Facebook page shows over the years he has also made statements expressing his desire to “stop evangelical Christians” where he included a poem that said, “Kill them all and bury them deep in the ground”. Klinzman went on to explain, “It’s not pretty, and I’m not proud, but seeing what evangelical Christians are doing to this county and its people fills me with rage, and a desire to exact revenge.”

      Apparently “Kill them all and bury them deep in the ground” didn’t fit Robby’s “No Threat to See Here” Narrative.

      That’s the way #FakeNews generally works. They usually don’t report fake facts. They *spin* a Narrative based on ignoring the facts of reality that don’t fit The Narrative.

    4. Wonder if Robby would have claim it is sad if a professor who was an active Klan member was made to quit.

    5. Any of these total whackjob Dipshits whoever and wherever located are NOT protected by free speech and will SOON be deemed by the US as a DOMESTIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, as they should be!! THEN it’s open season for these little twats. MAGA2020. KAG2020. GO BLUE!!! TRUMP2020.

  2. Antifa isn’t merely “illiberal”, it explicitly advocates and carries out violence. It is reasonable to take them at their word and exclude them from places where violence is unwanted. I don’t see how that constitutes an infringement on free speech.

    1. Any Antifa violence is the fault of a few bad apples who should not be used to smear the entire movement.

      1. Do agree to give that same consideration to Right-leaning movements? I have not seen any indication you do, but of course, if it were not for hypocrisy, the Left would have no beliefs at all.

      2. Something about apples and omelettes?

        1. Apples don’t belong in omelettes!

          1. That seems almost like a challenge. A nice sour apple, paired with the right cheese, some smoked bacon or better yet Prosciutto, and pickled walnuts. I can see that working in an omelet

            1. Interesting…….. but I’m skeptical.

      3. What a joke statement, they are on full on assault

        1. It’s a parody account. FYI.

          1. No it isn’t FYI

            1. Yeah—it’s a pretty long-standing one. And pretty obvious. But believe what you’d like.

            2. Absolutely is, and one of the better ones. Though it’s rapidly being overtaken by Poe’s law.

            3. OBL is definitely a parody account and proud of it.

          2. You would think it is by this shit,,, done with reason

          3. There is no difference anymore from the left – – – – –

            1. Indeed. Which would be amusing if it wasn’t so depressing.

  3. “Antifa is an illiberal movement that doesn’t believe in extending free speech rights to its opponents”

    We Koch / Reason libertarians need to recognize that Antifa is on our side. What do we want more than anything? To defeat the Drumpf regime and abolish the concentration camps in which people are literally forced to drink from toilets. Antifa wants this too.

    #LibertariansForAntifa

    1. If there are Libertarians for Antifa, I am not a Libertarian… bunch of assholes

      1. OBL is a parody account.

        The creepiest thing about OBL is how short the length of time it has taken for over-the-top parody to sound EXACTLY like what the left is preaching now.

        And make no mistake–when this started OBL sounded like a fruitcake–even by leftist standards.

        Now? OBL sounds like a Democratic presidential front-runner

        1. I expect he’s somewhat frustrated about that. Poe’s law is really starting to bite, isn’t it?

        2. The creepiest thing about OBL is how short the length of time it has taken for over-the-top parody to sound EXACTLY like what the left is preaching now.

          And make no mistake–when this started OBL sounded like a fruitcake–even by leftist standards.

          Now? OBL sounds like a Democratic presidential front-runner

          This is incorrect. OBL started out parroting Reason’s eccentric and absurd stances by some of it’s more left-leaning writers. The creepiest part is how it has coalesced into larger contributions by most all Reason writers, the media at large, *and* the Democratic platform.

          The media sounding like Democrats is nothing new or particularly creepy. A magazine that used to brim with the sound of woodchippers and branded as alt-right sounding like Democrats is creepy.

          Shikha Dahlmia used to be Reason’s exception and OBL was her biggest cheerleader. Now, you can’t tell whether he’s parodying Robby, Nick, ENB, Binion, Schackford, Davis, etc., etc. You really only know he’s *not* parodying Bailey and Tuccille. Maybe.

          1. I would say ‘incorrect’–more like ‘This can be further elaborated on.’

            Yes?

            1. Fair. Didn’t mean to imply error as much as convey the fact that the creepiness goes all the way to 11.

        3. It’s become a thought-leader for liberals. Eerie.

      2. How about infiltrators for antifa? I have all the schadenfreude in the world for those creeps, and would pay to get in and watch them and as many dixiecrats go at it with short knives. People who are into the initiation of force could harmlessly get what they dish out as a Roman holiday.

    2. Antifa is the perfect expression of the Fascist impulses of the Left; every bit as lawless and violent as the Sturmabteilung, but sloppier.

      1. “Antifa is the perfect expression of the Fascist impulses of the Left; every bit as lawless and violent as the Sturmabteilung, but sloppier.”

        Perfect.

    3. Antifa are natural allies of libertarians. Reason told me so. Antifa is for open borders, therefore we must make common cause with them.
      #LibertariansForAntifa

      Nick:
      In the 21st century, libertarians are going to have make common cause with the globalists of all parties, with the people whose core value is the right of individuals to move freely around the planet.
      https://reason.com/2019/04/12/steve-bannons-economic-nationalism-is-th/

  4. an adjunct professor of English literature at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa

    I would suggest the real problem here is that community colleges in Iowa have adjunct professors of English literature. Or full professors of English literature. Or English literature classes. Talk about mission creep, is it any wonder students frequently complain of six-figure student debt? If you have the interest and the aptitude for studying English literature, you don’t belong at a community college and a community college has no business catering to a niche market like that.

    1. To be fair, the point of going to Community College is to get the first 2 years of University requirements out of the way cheaply so that you can then only spend 2 years at the expensive university. Since pretty much every degree requires a Lit-101 course, there is a place for lit professors at the community college level.

      1. Maybe they should just teach English, not English literature?

        1. Well, if they called it what it really is – Remedial High School English – nobody would accept the credits for transfer. Like most of what passes for ‘higher education’ it’s a polite fiction.

          1. Like most of what passes for ‘higher education’ it’s a polite fiction.

            Not once you understand that “higher education = education on drugs”.

          2. +100

        2. Grammar should have been taught back in elementary school. That college freshman don’t even know the grammar of their own language is an indictment of our education system.

          The study of literature is a respected area of study. The insistence that everyone be an engineering major is bullshit.

          What should be done instead is let the chips fall where they may. A literature degree probably isn’t going to earn one the millions they imagined, but that’s not the fault of the literature. Whining about the job prospects afterward is silly, but no reason to coerce every student into STEM classes.

          I’m a literature major myself, and make well over six figures in a STEM field. The degree is not the problem. The attitude that the world owes you a living is the problem.

          1. Should of*

            /s

            1. That drives me nuts

              1. Yes.
                When I see it, it makes me want to punch the internet in the face.
                It’s a pet peeve I could care less about

          2. The problem as I see it isn’t that students are forced to choose STEM, it’s that they’re coerced into going to college at any cost. So we have kids on a literature degree track, and they’re willing to spend six figures to do it. A literature degree should be $1,200 a semester, plus books.

            But since people literally have gotten six figures of debt with a literature degree, parents see that and push kids into STEM fields so they at least feel like they’re getting a return for their money.

            1. > A literature degree should be $1,200 a semester, plus books.

              Which is sort of the ballpark I got my degree in. I also minored in computer science, by the way. EVERY degree needs to be well rounded, in my opinion. STEM degrees need liberal arts minors, and liberal arts degrees need tech/science/engineering/math minors.

              1. Back in the mid 80’s I got my professional doctorate for about $800 a semester for the first four years, then $1600 a semester for the next two.

                So $1200 a semester for just about any bachelor’s degree today seems about where it should be.

        3. That should be known before entering college at any level.

    2. The real problem here is that someone who was so incapable of living the PhD life but was so desperate to remain in academia that he took his Masters degree to work in a community college in Cedar Rapids.

      I still sort of remember a time when adjuncts were people who took their degrees to work years in industry *and then* came back to impart some of their real-world experience to students.

      1. So he is an adjunct. Basically an at will professor who works semester to semester. So, what is the problem with him being asked to leave because of his statements and poor instructor evaluations? Happens every day to adjunct professors.

  5. Terrorism isn’t free speech.

    1. But using the wrong pronoun is terrorism.

      1. And words can cut like a knife………… is something you should never say to a customs official at the borders when asked if you have any weapons.

        1. ..unless you’re singing along with Bryan Adams.

          1. Highly dependent on the agent present being favorable towards Bryan Adams.

            1. So…you should never do it.

  6. Let’s say the professor made remarks aligning with neo-nazis. Is the reaction the same? In both situations I’d say they are free to express themselves and the college is free to associate or not with that person. In general, I want businesses to be less inclined to get rid of employees with unpopular opinions. I am a bit less tolerant when educators are too emotionally and intellectually biased to educate based on the world as it exists

    1. Nazis were fully left wing

      1. Exactly. The charge that Nazis and commies fought each other doesn’t mean one is right and the other left.

        They’re all offshoots and derivatives of socialism and Marxism.

        Goebbels proclaimed ‘we are socialists’ and Mussolini (along with his father) were socialists.

        Fascists are to the ‘right’ of those ideologies on the LEFT scale.

        Hence, why they coyly say ‘right-wing!’

        It’s retard fight among illiberal forces and this professor is just one among many retards.

        1. “They’re all offshoots and derivatives of socialism and Marxism. ”

          Hitler was never a follower of Marx. He supported private property and contracts. He privatized banks and businesses that the liberal Weimar republic had nationalized. Communists and Fascists are both totalitarian and illiberal, but that doesn’t make them both leftists. Their respective attitudes towards private property should make that clear for you. IE Fascists were for it, Communists against.

          1. Communists and Fascists are both totalitarian and illiberal, but that doesn’t make them both leftists

            What does make them both leftists is that they are both collectivists, anti-free-market, and grievance based.

            Their respective attitudes towards private property should make that clear for you. IE Fascists were for it, Communists against.

            Socialists, communists, and fascists all permit personal private property.

            Corporations under fascism are only allowed to operate under state control and for the purposes of the state; the difference is that under fascism, they continued to be run by their former owners, while under socialism/communism, their former owners were replaced by political appointees. Calling that “private property” is a meaningless distinction, since in both cases, the people operating the companies could not use them as their private property, and in both cases, they profited handsomely from their positions.

            1. What does make them leftists is that they are both violent, murderous oppressors. The details hardly matter and tend to change according the whim of whoever is in charge since there is no foundation other than power and control.

              1. The details DO matter and the details point to the fact that the Nazis were/are Socialists.

              2. What does make them leftists is that they are both violent, murderous oppressors.

                No, that’s not it. There have been plenty of violent, murderous “right wing” ideologies, namely religious dictatorships and murderous monarchs. Left and right are different ideologies, it’s just that socialism and fascism are actually ideologically close and on the left.

                1. Robby Sloave needs to be fired for this shit post. Yet again, a sad little snowflake cant tell the whole story. Wheres the part where he advocated for the murder of Christians? What a pathetic little piece of shit, stirring the pot from behind his screen.

            2. “What does make them both leftists is that they are both collectivists, anti-free-market, and grievance based.:

              Hitler wasn’t anti-free market. As I pointed out before, He privatized nationalized industries. This is more or less the opposite that leftists do. Business in Nazi Germany was free to operate and profit. If they wanted to contract with the government they were free to do so without coercion. If you think conditions were similar under the USSR, you should read more about it. There was no freedom of contract or ownership of enterprise beyond selling surplus vegetables etc.

              “Corporations under fascism are only allowed to operate under state control and for the purposes of the state”

              We’re talking about Nazi-ism here. You know, Hitler’s party? That great follower of Marx and all those other Jews he loved so much. In any case,

              1. We’re talking about Nazi-ism here.

                Yes, we are talking about the German National Socialist Party, a party whose motto was:

                We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one!

                That is textbook leftist ideology, both then and now.

                As I pointed out before, He privatized nationalized industries. Business in Nazi Germany was free to operate and profit. If they wanted to contract with the government they were free to do so without coercion.

                Get a basic education

                1. It’s a party document. That’s your problem. It’s much more telling to follow what the party did or didn’t do than campaign promises and empty rhetoric. Hitler was an opportunist who was smart enough to exploit Germany’s desire for socialism to his own advantage. Would you expect anything less from such a skilled and cunning operator?

          2. What Hitler had was still socialism, if you look at the relationships that the business heads had to the government, the companies were private in name only.

            1. “…if you look at the relationships that the business heads had to the government, the companies were private in name only.”

              And that only temporarily…

            2. You don’t understand my point. In socialist countries, almost all enterprise is public. That’s what makes them socialist. A socialist country wouldn’t tolerate private enterprise, and certainly not companies private ‘in name only.’ They would have socialized enterprises and name them socialized enterprises.

              1. Socialism is defined as the government (public) owning and controlling the means of production.

                It does not mean that every piece of property belongs to the state and there is no trade that is private enterprise. That is Communism.

                1. The means of production remained in private hands during the 3rd reich. Film studios and armaments factories and banks were private. Hitler was a dreamer uninterested in economics. He was a nationalist first and foremost.

                  The left is bad, Hitler is bad, thus Hitler is a leftist. Does that sum up your argument? I suspect it does.

                  1. Hitler was a dreamer uninterested in economics.

                    True. Nevetheless, “national socialism” and fascism were, as the original person claimed, “offshoots of socialism”.

                    The means of production remained in private hands during the 3rd reich.

                    Correct: fascism isn’t exactly identical to socialism, it is an offshoot. But even though the means of production remained in private hand, fascism was diametrically opposed to free market capitalism.

                    The left is bad, Hitler is bad, thus Hitler is a leftist. Does that sum up your argument? I suspect it does.

                    Well, to a historical ignoramus like you, any argument must appear that simplistic.

                    1. “offshoots of socialism”

                      Nazi-ism certainly came after socialism and all these ideologies including capitalism are off shoots of the Enlightenment engendered them. But Hitler, the embodiment of Nazi-ism and the fuehrer principle, was a creature of the right and always had been. His family was of the right. So were his most ardent followers. Hess, Himmler, Bormann, Goering, Goebels all were rightists. I can’t see how you can paint any as a socialist, or off shoots of socialists, whatever you mean by that.

              2. Yes, you are absolutely correct that national ownership of the means of production is a difference between fascism and socialism. The other difference is that fascism focuses on national identity while socialism focuses on class identity.

                But you are arguing a straw man. We didn’t claim that fascism and socialism are identical, but merely stated the fact that they are similar, far-left, anticapitalist, totalitarian ideologies.

                1. “but merely stated the fact that they are similar, far-left”

                  Were Americans who supported Hitler like Charles Lindbergh, Prescott Bush and Father Coughlin of the far left? Or were they just confused not having the benefit of your sage advice?

          3. Hitler followed the fascist model of economic control, where you had nominal private ownership, subject to sufficiently oppressive regulation that the nominal owners were, in effect, working for the government, not themselves.

            Really, it’s just a question of the fascists wanting to delegate the detail work, while the communists wanted everything in house. Neither were into what anybody in a free market economy would call “private ownership”.

            1. “”where you had nominal private ownership, subject to sufficiently oppressive regulation that the nominal owners were, in effect, working for the government, not themselves. “”

              That is what many on the left want.

              1. That is what we refer to as “democratic socialism.” The fact that so few can see it or identify it as such is alarming. Almost nobody makes this argument and those who do are not exposed to the public at large

            2. By 1944, Hitler and the Nazis assumed almost complete control and ownership of all of German business, land, and people.

              It was Total War by then and all of Germany was forced to produce for the war effort.

            3. This whole question of whether the Nazis were right-wing or left-wing is itself a symptom of tribalism. The left and the right both want to claim anti-Nazi (and anti-fascist) bona fides for themselves, and associate that great symbol of evil, Hitler, with their ideological opponents. I would say Hitler was a straight-up authoritarian, not really left or right in any meaningful way.

              1. While what you are getting at is one strategy.

                Our point is NEVER let the Lefties get away with lying. The Lefties are pretty desperate in 2019 because their lies are not working well.

                Lefties are lying that Nazis were not Socialists. Lefties are mostly Socialists and so were the Nazis. That should tell most people to steer clear of those anti-Liberty lunatics.

              2. Totalitarianism is left wing….

                1. Right wing are Monarchies and Theocracies which are tend to be authoritarian and usually totalitarian.

              3. Authoritarianism is Left wing…

              4. This whole question of whether the Nazis were right-wing or left-wing is itself a symptom of tribalism

                No, it’s not. Before the Nazis started mass murdering people, American progressives were quite fond and supportive of both Hitler and Mussolini. That’s a historical fact.

                Another fact is that Democrats are running on a political platform that has a large overlap with the Nazi 25 Point Program, while the Republicans do not.

                I would say Hitler was a straight-up authoritarian, not really left or right in any meaningful way.

                That’s true of every socialist, fascist, and communist. You cannot have a government that is “left in any meaningful way” because leftists cannot deliver on their promises. Socialism, fascism, and communism are empty promises by which people get into power, not actually real forms of government.

          4. Its almost like the political spectrum is not a line with “left” on one end and “right” on the other, who woulda thunk??

            1. Good job NOYB2, Big salami, Brett Bellmore, and TripK2 !!! Kudos all around!!! “Private property” in name only, for both fascists and communists, yes! Even under Stalin, if one commie-party member repeatedly went and snatched a sandwich out of another one’s hands, he or she would get SOME kind of spanking! Unless you were Stalin Himself, of course…

              Which brings to my mind, the very-recent disturbing news that “Orange Hitler” feels that He is entitled and empowered to “order” American business people to yank up stakes and pull out of China. Here again, we have “private property in name only”, and I for one find it to be VERY disturbing!

              1. Anyone know who the crazy is? I didn’t even talk about private property.

                1. Sorry I didn’t get your drift right! Private property is a crazy idea? You don’t like private property? Every time you lift a drink or a bite to eat or drink, to your mouth, I can snatch it right out of your hands, and you’re OK with that? Or only if the majority of the voters say it’s OK for me to do that, in the name of the Collective Hive, then you’re OK with that?

                  Property is LIFE ITSELF, if you think about it with more than 2 or 3 neurons!

                  1. I think you’re confused. I didn’t even talk discuss private property in my post, so I think you’re rebutting the voices in your head.

                    1. I endorsed your message of generally equating fascism and communism. For that you call me…

                      “Anyone know who the crazy is?”

                      WHO is the crazy asshole here? Is THIS how you would like to gather consensus to support your ideas? Or are you just here to inflate your ego by putting others down? Is it working for you? Are you going to go and beat your dog now, to inflate your ego some more?

                    2. I endorsed your message of generally equating fascism and communism

                      Never did that. I think the voices in your head saw my comment and then extrapolated to the point of you freaking the heck out.

                      WHO is the crazy asshole here?

                      You, dude. Look at what you’re writing. You seem unhinged. Are you okay?

                      Or are you just here to inflate your ego by putting others down? Is it working for you? Are you going to go and beat your dog now, to inflate your ego some more?

                      This is concerning. You need to get it under control, man.

                    3. OK, so, then, you’ve basically said NOTHING… Certainly nothing that you are willing to clarify. Other than, that you are wanting to call other people crazy. Is it working for you? I suspect not… Did your Mama teach you ANY morality or ethics as you attempted to grow up? You MIGHT want to try and treat other people with the tiniest hints of respect, because, “what comes around, goes around”. People eventually figure out who the assholes are… And generally don’t care to interact with them in a positive manner. Buy a clue!

                    4. If you were more polite and asked me to clarify, maybe I would have. But instead you went on a rant about something. I couldn’t make heads or tails of it, so I called it what it is – crazy. I don’t mind that your feelings got hurt. What goes around comes around. Don’t expect to be respected if you don’t respect others.

                    5. You started it, asshole! That is as clear as the written word can get. So no, not now any more, I’m not going to ask you to clarify, because in my opinion, the opinions of assholes should be disregarded. The ideas of hateful egotists are not going to help this planet. Grow up!

                      Let me post “according to the theory of the stuff and stuff, stuff and stuff is stuffy, except when it isn’t.”

                      Then when I get any comments in response… Whether they endorse me or not… I call the responders “stupid” and-or “crazy”. And offer NO clarification of my “theory” of the stuff and stuff! What would you think of me for that? What do you expect for me to think of YOU?

                    6. Riiiiight. Just.. try not to shoot anyone today, okay?

                    7. TripK2, honesty in advertising would say that you should change your handle to “TrippingToMyEgo”.

                      If you still have any vestiges of an open mind left, I would recommend that you ponder that perhaps narcissism and unchecked ego terminates at evil. Please try this book:

                      https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonfoundation-20/
                      People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil Paperback – January 2, 1998
                      by M. Scott Peck (Author)

                    8. I think you should calm down and realize you’re not the center of the universe. You should also ponder why you got so upset when someone called you crazy after you posted some seriously crazy shit.

                    9. You are hopeless. Try growing up some time, it can actually WORK for you!

                    10. I’ll just chalk it up to you having a bad day. Take care!

              2. Which brings to my mind, the very-recent disturbing news that “Orange Hitler” feels that He is entitled and empowered to “order” American business people to yank up stakes and pull out of China.

                Other than set your hair on fire with his tweets, has Trump actually done anything? Abused any power of his office? Done anything authoritarian? No, of course not.

                By this time in his presidency, chocolate Jesus and his bloody maiden were holding weekly meetings in the WH deciding which civilians they could murder with drones.

          5. A) Never said Hitler was marxist per se. But that Nazism is just a derivative of socialism. I mentioned Marxism because when classical liberalism pretty much died after WWI, a mix of socialism and Marxism came in to fill the vacuum. For that, we have Mussolini to thank who first started off as an editor at the socialist Avanti! and then moved on to invent fascism which addresses all the little details of how privatization was to operate within a fascist framework.

            B) “Communists and Fascists are both totalitarian and illiberal, but that doesn’t make them both leftists.”

            What does it make them then? Keep the labels (to the extent they’re useful) squarely where they belong. In this case, all these ideologies including modern progressivism belong under the same tent in differing degrees. Classical conservative or liberal they ain’t.

            C) Blah, blah. The left are masters at confusion and language manipulation. Like Warren and Sanders. We’re ‘democratic socialists!ergo not real socialists because democracy!’ nonsense. At the end of the day, it all ends up in one place: Misery and gulags with control firmly in the hands of the bureaucracy and state with freedom all but eliminated.

            1. +1000

            2. Well said. I think the whole idea of “left” vs. “right” is pretty terrible way to try and plot out all of these political ideologies, anyway. But Nazis were socialists through and through.

            3. “Never said Hitler was marxist per se. ”

              So he wasn’t a Marxist. I agree. He constantly railed against the Bolsheviks and launched attacks against them. Mussolini was a socialist but rejected it for fascism.

              “What does it make them then? ”

              One is friendly to private property, one isn’t. I can’t make it much clearer than that. If you were a Jew or goyim business magnate, you wouldn’t have such troubles distinguishing between the two.

              “We’re ‘democratic socialists!ergo not real socialists because democracy!’ nonsense. ”

              I agree again. Look at what they do, not say.

              1. Nazis were not friendly to private property.

                1. They enjoyed good relations. Germany’s most powerful commercial and industrial enterprises carried on without expropriations, or compulsion. They profited and were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I don’t think you understand Hitler. He was a nationalist, an anti semite and a war monger. Aside from that, he was an opportunist, and economics didn’t interest him.

                  1. Germany’s most powerful commercial and industrial enterprises carried on without expropriations, or compulsion

                    Are you seriously that ignorant of basic history?

                    1. If you know any forced nationalizations or expropriations of private enterprise, let me know. As far as I know the economic sector most vital to Hitler’s plans, the armaments business, was not forced to follow Hitler’s orders, but engaged willingly and profitably. Banks which were nationalized under the Weimar republic were privatized under the Nazis. Granted, this is not your ‘basic history,’ but pick up a book, it’s there if you look.

                  2. The only part of Hitler that seems like he wasn’t a socialist, which he was, is the fact that he didnt see the point in a class war, because it would pit germans against each other. He was in a hurry, and didn’t want the part of socialism that causes crisis, to hold the country back. Attacking the rich and nationalizing property would devastate the economy. That is a far cry from supporting private property. Of course he was a nationalist. Most socialist countries have no problem being nationalist, because the opposition to it desolves. There are plenty of people who have nationalistic pride in their country for socialist reasons and think nothing about it. Many people in countries like canada would wave their flag with pride because of their love for socialized medicine. It is only a capitalist country, where any loyalty to country is tempered with the need to put aside your own values because you have to consider the values of the market to survive, which makes such “Nationalism” benign (and relentlessly attacked)

                    1. “he wasn’t a socialist”

                      He was a rightist, same as his family and all his closest supporters. I don’t know anyone who claims he had anything to do with the left whom he railed against repeatedly. Do you also believe that Himmler and Goering were leftists? Followers of Rosa Luxemburg, perhaps? The Nazi party is a right wing reaction to the success of the socialists and communists. They would not have taken power without the connivance of other German right wingers like Von Papen etc. They were all leftists, too, weren’t they? Or maybe they were rightists fooled by Hitler who was all along a secret leftist.

            4. The tent is progressivism:
              -totalitarian, authoritarian in its moderate stages, central planning of society in order to manufacture/produce New Man (Soviet Man, ubermensch, good little citizens*, etc), and “right” the things nature got “wrong”. It is the complete submission of Man to Civilization. Progressivism is necessarily socialism.

              Types of progressivism:
              – nazism, communism, fascism, democratic socialism, social democracy*, Islamism (and other theocracies to varying extent)

              *research the development of public schooling, specifically the US – it is explicitly designed from the Prussian model, which was instituted to bolster Bismarck’s innovation known as social democracy in the late 1800s – its explicit aim is not education per se, but to create “Good Citizens”, be they Prussians, Germans, Americans, etc (hence the regimentation, periods, bells, clustering, etc)

              1. “totalitarian, authoritarian in its moderate stages, central planning of society in order to manufacture/produce New Man (Soviet Man, ubermensch, good little citizens*, etc), and “right” the things nature got “wrong”. It is the complete submission of Man to Civilization. Progressivism is necessarily socialism. ”

                You got the totalitarian and authoritarian part right, but Nazi-ism harkens back to a lost ideal that it promises to regain. It’s about submission to blood that they’re about. Or opposite to certain blood lines. Remember Nazi-ism is all about Hitler in the end. It’s not collectivism, it’s not socialism. It’s about the Fuehrer.

                1. Whatever you gotta tell yourself, man

                  1. Take it from the big guy himself if you don’t believe me. Or just keep parroting the talking head you saw on TV.

                2. You got the totalitarian and authoritarian part right, but Nazi-ism harkens back to a lost ideal that it promises to regain. It’s about submission to blood that they’re about

                  So? Socialism, Italian fascism, and Nazism picked different somewhat different identity groups to base their otherwise nearly identical collectivists ideologies on; that was a deliberate plan actually, since Mussolini just didn’t believe the “international workers” would unite.

                  And it’s not like racism and eugenics are foreign to the left; the racism and eugenics laws of the Nazis were literally based on those of American progressives and eugenicists.

                  1. Read the 1920 NSDAP platform. It drips mystical altruism and endorsements of xtianity. Likewise the Enabling Act speech to the Reichstag. Nothing sounds quite as nationalsocialist as the GOP platform.

                  2. “Socialism, Italian fascism, and Nazism picked different somewhat different identity groups to base their otherwise nearly identical collectivists ideologies on”

                    They are all anti-liberal too. That doesn’t make them all leftist though. We agree that Hitler and his important followers were of the right, what’s with the insistence that their party they ran was of the left?

                    1. the purpose of having a political spectrum, isn’t just to point out the extremes as they may exist today. By saying hitler is right wing, you are litterally helping to crowd out a whole side of the spectrum.

                      Notice as the depression went forward, who was crushed the most ideologically. What happened to all those “right wing” thinkers that existed before the depression? They were wiped out! Ignored! And one way to continue the process of making sure they remain ignore is by associating them with Hitler.

                      Hitler did not come along in the late 30’s and declare his sympathy with Ayn Rand or Henry Hazlitt, trying to preserve a LEGITIMATE alternative to Socialism. The depression confirmed that we are “all socialists now!!” You would think with everyone on the same page ideologically we would at least have peace. Instead we almost blow up the entire world over the terribly important question of,- do we want a one world internationalist socialist government under the UN for example, or many, smaller, National Socialist countries, which differ basically in which color their flag would be.

                      It is fine to point out the fascist tendencies of the “right” today as a way of keeping those tendencies at bay, but the reason is to keep room open for the widest possible understanding of various political ideologies.

                      Besides the antipathy towards Hitler the left has is mostly a ruse. The lefts position on Hitler was always dependent on what side Stalin was on. The american left had NO problem when Hitler and Stalin were planning to take over the world together. The left were mainly the hard headed realists, trying to get the rest of us to accept our new benevolent leaders.

            1. I’m pretty sure Socialists did not always disown him. At least up to and including the formation of the Nazi-soviet pact. About 3 seconds after Hitler turned on Stalin, that’s when socialists disowned him. As a matter of fact, the whole american left had no problem with racism period, up until that point.

          6. “Hitler was never a follower of Marx.”

            Which is irrelevant; Hitler was a socialist, and Germany would have closely resembled the USSR had he lived long enough to accomplish his goals.
            Read “Wages of Destruction” (Tooze) and quit making a fucking ass of yourself.

            1. “Hitler was a socialist”

              Was he a socialist when he was in the Frykorps?

              “and Germany would have closely resembled the USSR had he lived long enough to accomplish his goals.”

              And what would USSR have resembled? What does your crystal ball have to say about that?

          7. Hitler was a follower of Mussolini – and Mussolini created fascism because he thought communism didn’t go far enough.

            1. Mussolini was a philosophical pragmatist. He greatly admired Dewey, one of pragmatism’s founding fathers. Contrary to his thuggish image, Mussolini was philosophically quite sophisticated.

              Italian Fascism has its philosophical roots in American pragmatism which is why Mussolini was so remarkably popular in American progressive circles. He was talking to progressives in their native language.

              For pragmatists, the test of the validity of an idea is whether it enables you to accomplish your purpose, not whether it is rational or even whether it’s true. Mussolini’s goal was power and whether power was obtained by spouting Marxism or Catholicism, it made no difference.

              How power hungry was Mussolini?

              “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” — Benito Mussolini.

            2. The Economic Leadership Secrets of Benito Mussolini

              The son of a socialist blacksmith, Mussolini believed in government ownership and government control of the economy. He became outraged when socialists opposed Italian entry in World War I, because he figured that Italy could emerge from the war with an empire like Great Britain, France and Germany. So he blended nationalism with socialism and came up with economic fascism. This involved private ownership and government control of the economy. Individuals continued to own their property and their businesses, but without the right to do what they wanted. Government told everybody what they must do and not do.

          8. “He supported private property and contracts.”

            You base this on…what?

            He supported HIS CRONIES having private property. Much like Communists do. Non-connected groups? As long as they did EXACTLY as his government ordered, fine, they could keep “their” property.

            “He privatized banks and businesses that the liberal Weimar republic had nationalized.”

            …that the government still controlled under the Nazis, mind you.

            “Communists and Fascists are both totalitarian and illiberal, but that doesn’t make them both leftists. Their respective attitudes towards private property should make that clear for you. IE Fascists were for it, Communists against.”

            Explains why Communist leaders did so well financially in every instance they’ve existed. Their hatred of private property.

            They liked THEIR CRONIES having property. They liked controlling “private” property.

        2. Not to mention Vladimir Lenin, like Bernie Sanders, was a self-proclaimed Democratic-Socialist!

          Or the fact that Progressivism is the derivative of Marxism that arose in the USA in the late 1800s.

        3. Antifa, and all their members, need to go.

      2. Indeed; a Progressive is a Socialist is a communist is a Fascist is a Nazi. The differences are matters of packaging and branding. The ingredients are toxicity are the same.

        1. This. Totalitarian is as totalitarian does. People who seek to say that one is somehow different – practically or morally – from the other is only doing to to mask their own authoritarian inclinations.

        2. “The differences are matters of packaging and branding. The ingredients are toxicity are the same.”

          Ya nailed that one!!! NAZIs propaganda SUCKED if you weren’t “Aryan”… SOME Native Americans, and the Japanese, were declared to be some sort of “other colored Aryans”, which showed what a joke the racial bullshit really was…

          Anyway, “Germans are the master race” wasn’t very good, appealing propaganda for most of the rest of the world. “Empowering the international working class” sounded MUCH better! (To a world-wide audience). But the centralized power-pig bullshit was one and the same!

          1. Not to mention that Progressives Bernays and Lippmann developed the methods of propaganda used by Progressive Democrat President Wilson to segregate the US federal government.

            As well as being admired and used by National Socialist Goebells of Germany, Communist (self proclaimed Democratic-Socialist) Lenin of Russia, Communist Mao of China, Progressive Alinsky of USA in his Rules for Radicals, and currently by Progressive Democrats of USA.

            1. ” National Socialist Goebells of Germany, Communist (self proclaimed Democratic-Socialist) Lenin of Russia, Communist Mao of China, Progressive Alinsky of USA in his Rules for Radicals, and currently by Progressive Democrats of USA”

              My advice: add a name of a black person and a Mexican. Jews, and Chinese no longer move the bigots like they did in the good old days.

          2. Ya nailed that one!!! NAZIs propaganda SUCKED if you weren’t “Aryan”

            So just like American progressives of about a century ago?

            After all, Nazi race theories were based on the ideas of American eugenicists and progressive academics.

            1. “After all, Nazi race theories were based on the ideas of American eugenicists and progressive academics.”

              Absolutely true (Margaret Sanger and her intellectual forebears etc.), and people are all to eager to sweep that all under the rug…

  7. Antifa are domestic terrorists, so I don’t really see much of what they do falling under the 1A.

    As far as I can tell, the article didn’t really draw much of a connection between the professor and Antifa, though. All it said was that he commented on one of their pages, which, in my opinion, should be protected under the 1A. Unless he’s participating or providing material support, this all looks like free speech to me. Despicable speech, but that’s part of free speech.

    1. I generally side with Robby on this—but he managed to leave out some of the more troubling details—like the professor’s desire to “exact revenge” on evangelical Christians, which caused him to recite the following lines of a poem: “Kill them all, and bury them deep in the ground.”

      I probably still side with Robby, because this seems similar to a “Red Flag Law” situation—but it’s a close call. Probably because I view “being employed by the government” as almost akin to a privilege, rather than a fundamental right.

      Losing his job over offensive social media comments just puts him in the same position as the rest of us schmoes in the private sector, who would be canned for far less inflammatory remarks.

      1. Okay, yeah now I see that Reason’s version of this is borderline fake news — they left out a lot of pertinent details shown in this story: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13614

        Sounds like this guy was committed to hating a significant portion of his students, which, in my opinion, puts them in a risky position. Its one thing to insinuate that just because someone likes far left policies that they are violent – its entirely different when you have someone actively promoting and insinuating that it is justifiable to go around killing innocent people over their religion. The guy sounds like someone that should not be in a position of authority over anyone, especially students.

        1. “they left out a lot of pertinent details”

          I’ve noticed they do that a lot.

      2. Understanding the full story, I have to agree. Mr. Soave left out large and extremely relevant facts. So much that I consider this article a lie of omission. EDITOR, I request that you amend or rescind this piece.

        This goes far beyond political statements. He made active statements promoting violence against people based on religion.

        Then, the accusations that he grades based on agreement with ideology is serious. Academic malpractice on the highest order, especially for an English professor, whose core job is judging persuasive or analytical essays.

        1. “Mr. Soave left out large and extremely relevant facts.”

          Welcome to Reason, Sir.

  8. Getting rid of Klinzman was a serious mistake

    No, it’s an essential part of the fight to restore bipartisan support for freedom of expression. These crapweasels only understand power, so the only way to get them back to the liberty side of the ledger is to make it clear that their liberty is in just as much jeopardy as their opponents’ in a world where you get run out of your livelihood by online mobs.

    Call it “mutually assured repression”

    1. Look up to self-proclaimed Marxist professors interrogating Lindsey Shepherd. They have her practically crying at one point.

      I agree. These censorious, control freak idiots are damaging education.

    2. Much like MeToo only became a problem when the wrong oxen started getting gored.

  9. Good. About time the tables got turned.

    This goes on long enough, more mature heads will figure out that both sides are stupid and we get back to something more normal.

  10. …Klinzman had written, “Yeah, I know who I’d clock with a bat…” on Iowa Antifa’s Facebook page.

    Do we really want teaching our impressionable children those who see ideological opponents as fair game for violence?

    Okay, I joke, but a community college is a business that wishes to attract customers, and generally businesses should not keep employees who make that difficult. On the other hand, does anyone under 40 use Facebook anymore? No potential students saw that quote. So, in conclusion, whatever.

  11. Some perspective robby for some reason ignored.

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13614

    He was openly calling for assault and murder of Christians. Not sure if robbie is familiar with Iowa, but a decent percentage of his students were probably Christian. Not sure how you can say a teacher pontificating in assault and murder of a certain class can objectively teach said group.

    This wasnt a case of him being a democrat, but of what he said about others he would likely be in charge of in their college classes.

    1. Beat me to it. To me this was a matter of free market principles. Many parents were threatening to pull their kids out of classes if Klinzman was still teaching. Also he didn’t have a very stellar review record as a teacher either. Most of the statements on Rate my Professor were negative due to his implicit lefist bias while teaching. The commie kids all did good but if you questioned what he said he screamed at them and gave them bad grades.

      1. I’m pretty sure the courts try to balance that factor, as well—with a three-part test.

        (1) Was the problematic comment done in the course of performing official duties? If yes—they can be fired. If no, move to (2).

        (2) Was the statement on a matter of “public concern”? If no, they can be fired. If yes, move to (3).

        (3) Does the government’s interest in delivering services, as an employer, outweigh the employee’s right to speak freely? If yes, the employee can be fired.

        This situation probably hinges on (3)—whether this guy’s comments inhibit the school’s ability to efficiently deliver the intended service.

        1. I can see that logic. Plus, I think you look at all the hateful stuff this guy has posted, espeically in the context of all the recent high-profile shootings, and you think “do we really want to put this guy in a room filled with people he hates all day long every day?”

          Yeah, this might be a safety concern that balloons into a liability concern once the school has been repeatedly notified that this guy is an avid promoter of violence.

      2. Many parents were threatening to pull their kids out of classes if Klinzman was still teaching.

        How did this even become a thing? When I was in college (mid ’80s), parents getting involved like this was unheard of.

        1. Helicopter parenting.
          Stupidly inflated cost of college
          High stakes of higher education
          Profound leftist bias in higher education
          Middle class moms and dads tired of being everyone’s wallet and a punching bag

          I could go on.

        2. A lot of the lower-level classes at community colleges now serve as the defacto ‘gifted program’ for high school students. If he taught a 101 or 102 type course, many of his students would be under 18.

    2. I appreciate you posting this. The last half of last week was starting to give me hope for Reason, but this article pours water on that.

      Too bad Reason has decided to continue publishing poorly researched disinformation on its website again.

      1. Yeah—unless there’s some reason to believe the “kill them and bury them in the ground” stuff was not actually said, I’m not sure why Robby/Reason haven’t edited the article to include it.

        At best, it’s sloppy and incomplete. At worst, it’s an attempt to portray this situation as “professor criticized Trump, gets fired.” I hope it’s the former, and not an attempt to downplay difficult facts to push their preferred conclusion.

        As I’ve said, I probably still side with Robby here—but it’s a very close call, given the full story. It’s still a “perceived threat”—but more thorough reporting would admit that the perceived threat stems not just from his association with Antifa, but from his own words expressing a desire to exact revenge through violence.

        1. Yeah, I agree.

      2. K2….I have a simpler outlook on this. To me, free speech does not mean free of consequence. The professor is free to say what he likes, but he should realize that an employer might not like that, and actually act on it. Looks like they did. I have no sympathy. This professor has a long track record of saying shit like this, so it is not a case where he just momentarily lost his head (I am much more lenient in those cases).

        Secondarily, and maybe this is too simplistic. But 1A reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting….”
        So to me, Congress hasn’t done a damned thing here. The state, or county can decide what to do using their police power. Probably not a good way to look at it, I suppose.

        1. I can get behind that logic. The dude said a lot of shit, publicly (!), showing that he endorses violence against people he disagrees with. Then, on top of that, he overtly states that he has some serious prejudice against Christians. The statements, coupled with customer’s expressed concerns over the quality of the instructor’s teaching, safety of the students and fairness in grading… I think a reasonable person could conclude that he bore the consequences of his speech and the 1A shouldn’t play into it since the 1A doesn’t speak to employment.

          I have issues with Reason reported this because they left out some the details above that, in my opinion, are pertinent to the story. The facts that they failed to include are made even more pertinent given the context that this is not a government action in which the 1A has to be invoked (which was my error in my OP way further up this comment section).

    3. “He was openly calling for assault and murder of Christians.”

      No he wasn’t. There’s no way a reasonable person would read that and think that he was actually calling for the assault and murder, even of the evangelical Christian activists who “seem to WANT gay teens to commit suicide” rather than just expressing his outrage.

      1. Yes. There is a reasonable way. Read his fucking words. Stop trying to parse them.

        1. I did read them. And being a reasonable person, instead of a whiny little bitch, I understood them.

          I also understood that he made the comment that has your panties in a bunch back in 2012. Is your stretch to include this as a reason he was fired because you realize just how stupid firing him over the Trump tweet is?

          1. You’re the only poster who looks like a whiny little bitch here

            1. Well you, and eunuch of course

            2. I’m not whining, and I’m not the one getting all verklempt over a seven year old tweet that quoted some poetry. An English professor quoting poetry. How super scary!

              I guess when the standard bearers of the alt right decided to name themselves after a Disney musical, it should have been a sign that the days of manly men on the right had long since passed us by. It’s soy boys all around now.

              1. You try so hard
                Yet fall so short

                1. I don’t have to try hard at all. I just don’t have to pretend to be afraid of a community college English professor quoting some poetry while talking about his feelz. Not being a whiny little bitch, that’s not very hard at all. Too hard for you, sure, but easy for any normal person.

  12. Is Reason aligning itself with Antifa now? If so let me know, I’ll never be back!

    1. Indeed. This isn’t, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

      At some point, you devalue speech by refusing to take threats seriously and respond appropriately to them.

      1. Meanwhile ‘white supremacy’ is something that ‘needs to be addressed.’

        1. Socialist distraction 101

  13. I gotta disagree with you on this one. He made a public threat of physical violence. He made no apology and offered no explanation that would justify leniency. No employer in his/her right mind would keep such a person on the payroll in any customer-serving capacity (and likely not in any capacity at all).

    Freedom of speech is important. So is freedom of association. Freedom of association is meaningless if we can’t even opt out of association with people who threaten us.

  14. Blocking “Reason” from my feed now. This article is ridiculous. Antifa is literally a fascist thug movement & anyone supporting them should be ignored, that includes individuals as well as “publications” like this. Now that media is only concerned about generating revenue thru clicks, the only thing to do to shut this bulls#!t out is to mute or block. Anytime I see a nonsense story like this, the source gets blocked. No more CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. Its certainly helped.

    1. That’s the open-minded judiciousness libertarians are renowned for.

      What are you reading now?

  15. Robby.

    Antifa is violence and thuggery.

    They’re a bunch of cowardly, privileged, little shits going around smashing people’s head in (including innocent elderly folk for some reason) and destroying property.

    No sympathy here.

    1. The reason is that elderly folk are known for not fighting back effectively, especially when the state disarms them.

  16. This is ridiculous. Antifa is a terrorist group. The guy was threatening people with violence.

    At some point you have to draw a line.

    1. They are not a terrorist group.

      Not that I’m defending them, but get your fucking facts right for once in your goddamn life. Laura Ingraham wants them to be labeled a terrorist group, but they are not. Anybody’s guess where you get your information about antifa.

      I agree with Noam Chomsky that they are a “gift to the right.”

      1. Right. Antifa is not a terrorist group, it’s a group that uses violence and the threat thereof in order to frighten people into changing their behavior in a way antifa desires.

        LEARN THE DIFFERENCE, SHEEPLE!

        1. That’s a specific legal designation and not one to throw around.

          You give a shit about a quasi-group of radicals who have never killed anyone because your zombie overlords want to distract you from the fact that Trump-humpers have killed many and will again. It’s all so nonsensical.

          1. We’re not throwing it around, they literally meet the legal definition of “terrorists”, using violence and threats of violence to advance a political cause.

            You don’t want to admit it, because they’re terrorist on your side of the political spectrum, and there’s no enemy to the left.

            1. Thank you Laura Ingraham. I eagerly away the designation being applied legally. If Trump’s not gonna do it, who will?

  17. Maybe instead of firing him, they should have beaten him with a bicycle lock.

  18. Sounds like he did NOT get booted because he claimed to be antifa. He got booted because he lacked decorum and stated he wanted to clock someone over the head with a baseball bat.

    I could certainly get fired if I expressed that opinion at work. Why should a smarmy associate prof get a privilege that I don’t? If you’re in a professional position then it’s part of the job to behave professionally.

  19. How does one force a terrorist to resign?

    1. By telling them that, if they’re fired for cause, it will effect the vesting on their pension, I’d assume.

      1. Wouldn’t they just pull the pin on their exploding clothes?

    2. Blow their cover?

      Shoot them a letter?

      Grab an outstanding resignation letter and throw it their way?

      Beat the issue like a dead horse?

  20. In 2008 I helped create the Cedar Rapids Tea Party and Jeff Klinzman tired on several occasions to get me fired from my job for being involved with a “homophobic , racist” organization. He got rebuffed by my employer when it was pointed out that my co-founders were a gay man and a black man. While I dont think Jeff should have been fired, I do find it wildly amusing that he was bitten by his own snake.

    1. Nice! I went to Jerkwood CC for two years. This is the Soviet Socialist Republic of Eastern Iowa, so there you go – not surprising at all. I too fall on the side of free speech, so I had to laugh that this guy got rung up too.

  21. This has not one damned thing to do with free speech. This is all about somebody affirming and cavorting with a destructive, VIOLENT anarchist group. Their physical beatdowns of unarmed people in the public square in Portland are appalling. Beatdowns because people have a belief system different than theirs. Speaking of cretins attempting to restrict free speech; that would be the chitbags of antifa. Doesn’t say much for the Calibre of the professors the school hires. Who vets their prospective employees?
    Any proof that marches in LOCKSTEP with violent people, deserves to be hanging out in the unemployment line and outed to any school that would hire this anarchist.

    1. “Doesn’t say much for the Calibre of the professors the school hires.”

      The school has an “English department.” What on earth do you expect.

    2. Except they’re not anarchist, they’re progressive (mostly of the fascist-communist flavor)

      1. Virtually nobody who publicly refers to themselves as “anarchists” today is actually an anarchist. They’re usually just people who heard the phrase, “bomb throwing anarchist”, and thought, “Coo! I get to throw bombs!”

        Literally you’ll get self-proclaimed “anarchists” protesting at economic summits calling for more regulation of international trade, and not knowing that they’re idiots.

  22. That kind of radical leftism has no place in an educational environment. It wasn’t a blow against freedom of speech, it was a blow against radicalization of students. These professors take advantage of their positions to push their views on students and even take out their frustrations on conservative students.

  23. I’m really surprised at this article, being part of antifa is a far cry from being a tea partier or Democratic Socialist. It’s fundamentally violent, I’m fine with violent left and right wing groups being out of bounds, and I’d be pissed if public education was knowingly employing these people.

  24. If nothing else, dude should be fired because he voiced support for antifa, thereby revealing that he doesn’t have the intellectual competence to teach anybody anything

    1. I feel the same about libertarians. Which ones of you should be fired for your political beliefs?

      1. How many do you employ?

      2. “Yeah, I know who I’d clock with a bat” is not a political belief

  25. When I look at that photo I realized that the reason they wear masks is so their parents won’t find out.

    1. That and so you cannot see how scared they really are.

      1. You can see the fear in their eyes.

        The fear mom will call them to come home and their friends will find out.

  26. Good riddance to this pos.

  27. Antifa is a group of heroes defending the streets against nazi wannabees.

    1. If they were just standing up to Nazi wannabees that would be one thing. But I’ve seen too many videos were they punch people for carrying an American flag. That’s something an actual Nazi might have done.

      Why do you suppose protestors in China are waving the American flag?

      1. “Why do you suppose protestors in China are waving the American flag?”

        And singing the American National Anthem.

        They are hoping to gain some support from Americans who understand the significance of the flag and the anthem in the context of the War of 1812 and how that relates to their situation with the mainland. I wish that more Americans understood that relationship.

    2. Troll account. You’re clearly not a “reason”-able person or a libertarian. Bye.

    3. Gangs of idiotic young people fighting in the streets were instrumental in allowing the real Nazis to gain power in Germany.

  28. An English teacher at an Iowa Community college…. This is practically the absolute lowest rung of academia besides kindergarten art teacher. I loathe antifa, but if this dingleberry wants to be a little keyboard tough guy then I don’t think it’s grounds to lose ones (meager) employment. Antifa is a violent group, but I don’t like the idea of firing someone because they associate with a group that I don’t like, just like I don’t like it when leftists demand termination for people who are members of groups that THEY don’t like.
    If this guy committed violence then that’s an entirely separate issue. But from the looks of it, he’s just a weak little beta behind a computer screen trying to find a group to belong to that makes him feel cool.

    1. Maybe you haven’t dealt with Antifa before like us Californians, they are not nice or want to debate.

      1. You’re right, I have seen enough footage to know that they are completely irrational, childish, and the lowest of the low in our society. I’d assume that most “online members” are just losers more than anything. As much as I hate their group, I love freedom more. As I said, if he actually has been violent then that’s an ENTIRELY different issue. But if he’s just a keyboard warrior, then feel free to call him out for the loser that he is, but I don’t think it’s grounds for firing.

        1. ” but I don’t think it’s grounds for firing.”

          The man is an ‘English professor’ who doesn’t vote Republican. Let that sink in for a while.

    2. I can solidly say that nobody from Antifa is good for this country.

      1. I think libertarians are terrible for this country. How any of you should be fired?

    1. Renoir liked looking at naked women! How absolutely shocking.

      This has been known to happen when a Y chromosome is present. Other perverse effects include a deepening of the voice and the development of facial hair.

  29. Dude got fired because he publicly indicated an interest in clocking another human being with a baseball bat.

    Doesn’t matter what the political leanings are. That’s grounds for review at minimum. Dismissal seems perfectly reasonable.

    1. One shouldn’t say shit like that until they get tenure.

  30. By punishing Jeff Klinzman, Kirkwood Community College has dealt a blow to free speech.

    These people are out there committing assault with deadly weapons – but the university should just stand by while their faculty openly promote them? The dude’s promoting fascism. Why shouldn’t the university divest themselves of those relationships?

    Neither Klinzman’s support for antifa nor his stated interest in hitting someone (implied to be Trump) with a bat represents any actual threat.

    Sure – except for all the other antifa that have already been doing that exact same thing. These people aren’t just talking, they’re out there committing overt acts of violence against not just their ideological opponents, but random passerby that they don’t think are ‘woke’ enough.

    1. Its pretty simple. Don’t advocate for violence – until after you get tenure.

      1. Wouldn’t it be great if all our political enemies were pacifists?

        1. Yes. The only people who say “words are violence” have never seen violence. We should allow all language, fair or foul. It’s far, FAR better than when people try to talk with their fists, and even that is better than when they reach for their guns.

          1. “The only people who say “words are violence” have never seen violence. ”

            Come to think about it, they’ve never seen words neither.

  31. A “stated interest in hitting someone…with a bat” is not an “actual threat”? Seriously?

    1. I think the author is trying to say it’s not an actual threat in the legal sense. That’s the only way I can make sense of it.

      1. But it’s not a legal case. It’s an employee discipline action.

        1. You have a really, really, really good point.

  32. In other professor News, Michael Mann’s libel lawsuit against Teb Ball was thrown out in Canada and he has to pay all Ball’s court costs. Or maybe not, I’m just seeing this story in blogs cannot find one MSM article to verify.

    1. Correction Tim Ball.

      1. Damn
        I liked it better as “teb”

  33. How do you join antifa? I’m against fascism, but not really into protesting.

    All I know is antifa has killed *checks statistics* exactly zero people, while right-wing ideological movements have killed hundreds on the low end (if you leave out the lynchers).

    1. Yeah, antifa just beats up journalists, that’s all. No big deal.

      1. Well I don’t support them.

        You know who props them up in your imagination? Not who you think I’m gonna say! But FOX News also.

        The most widely circulated petition on social media to label Antifa a terrorist group originated from a known Russian troll source.

        Don’t be duped. Russia doesn’t want to help you.

        1. Did the Russian trolls beat up Andy Ngo too?

          1. They got Trump elected and he locks up the children of migrants in cages.

            1. Did the Russian Trolls beat up Andy Ngo, Tony?

              1. A guy got beat up. Nobody disputes it, and nobody in this room is saying it’s OK. I do not support Antifa and I wish they would disappear.

                One guy getting beat up is a pretty weird thing to fixate on for months and months and months and months on end, do you not think?

                Stop being had. It embarrasses me.

                1. A guy got beat up, passive construction. Maybe he got hit by baseball sized hail in a storm. Maybe he tripped on the stairs. Certainly wasn’t done by humans with agency who were members of a group that publicly advocates beating up people who disagree with them.

                  Could you be more despicable? Why, yes you could: You could join Antifa and mysteriously be present while people you don’t like “get beat up”.

                  1. I’m sure you’ve never told anyone to “get over it” about anything that Trump or his rightwing inbred minions do.

        2. Says the people who never had a problem with russia before

          “The 80’s called, they want their foreign policy back”. – Smartest guy ever.

    2. They’re just not very good at it.

    3. Mostly because they’re incompetent. They’re gotten very lucky so far.

      1. they’ve

    4. “right-wing ideological movements have killed hundreds on the low end (if you leave out the lynchers).”

      Citation needed.

      1. Ideologies more associated with libertarianism than with Antifa blew up the OKC building.

    5. You join antifa by going to one of their protests carrying a U.S. Flag. Just hang out for a bit, and they’ll come to you.

  34. This is precisely the article that was needed to separate the libertarian men from the FOX News junkie boys.

    1. Tony. Simple question.

      Have Antifa thugs physically attacked people and do they engage in the destruction of property?

      1. They are an openly militant organization, yes.

        1. FINALLY WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!

    2. “”FOX News junkie boys”‘

      Wouldn’t that be you? You seem to know more about what is going on with Fox news that anyone else here.

      1. Indeed. No rightwinger on the Internet has ever seen FOX News.

        1. FOX News!
          Russian Trolls!
          FOX News!
          Russian Trolls!
          FOX News!
          Russian Trolls!
          FOX News!
          Russian Trolls!
          Tony want a cracker?

          1. To Tony and his ilk, the only good cracker is a dead cracker.

            1. But to Tony and his ilk, a hard crack cracker is good to find.

      2. I don’t think I’ve ever watched TV news outside of when I was growing up and in the airport. I’ve never had broadcast television as an adult so I never really got why everyone freaked out about Fox News or CNN. I thought everyone already knew that what they were watching is mostly entertainment, not education.

        1. People who brag about not having a TV on liberal sites are made fun of.

          1. To be fair, the left only have two modes for interacting with people who don’t agree with them: “Make fun of” and “punch a Nazi”. So that IS kind of the optimistic scenario.

            1. Have you ever tried not being a Nazi?

          2. Why? It gives the impression that liberals think it appropriate to condemn someone who prefers to spend his time reading.

            Is this why Liberals favourite books are about cats?

    3. “This is precisely the article that was needed to separate the libertarian men from the FOX News junkie boys.”

      As if shitbag had any idea what ‘libertarian’ means.

      1. Is it calling people “shitbag” and saying absolutely nothing of substance, ever? Is that what libertarianism is? Anyone else want to vouch for this?

  35. Well, boo-hoo.
    A professor who supports and is a part of a violent gang of thugs gets fired.
    Not to worry, though.
    I’m sure all these rich, spoiled, violent white kids will support the prof so he can pay off his mortgage, car payments, etc.

    1. so he can pay off his mortgage

      He was an adjunct. He’s probably living in his car.

  36. If all he did was support Anti-fa and make woodchipperesque comments then he did not deserve to lose his job.

    If as has been suggested elsewhere, he yelled at students in the classroom and systematically graded students with differing political opinions than him lower, then he deserved to be fired on those grounds.

    That said, I’m not losing sleep over this guy. He got what he wanted good and hard.

  37. I’m not sure if Reason is trying to balance coverage by searching for any example of left wing speech being censured or if RS is just completely ignorant of the facts in this case and academia in general. This story has absolutely nothing to do with free speech on campus or in general.

    First, Klinzman is not, was not, has not, and never will be a “professor.” He’s an adjunct instructor. He doesn’t have tenure. He’s probably part time. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/08/23/professor-confirms-his-support-antifa

    Second, he was not fired for supporting Antifa. He was fired because he refuses to stop making bigoted, violent comments on a social media account that also says he teaches at the college, and students have complained that his extreme opinions are a major factor in his subjective grading standards. Keep in mind that this is a community college serving employed adults and not a university with 18 year old student children.

    This guy made the school look bad, he had no employment contract or guarantee, and he repeatedly violated school policy. He should have been fired long ago. It’s his own damn fault, and it has absolutely nothing to do with government suppression of speech. The only way government suppression of speech would become a factor is if the government forced the school to employ this guy.

    1. Well said.

    2. Fired for voicing extreme opinions when warned not to. The “submit” button at the bottom of the text window here, is that what I think it means?

      1. Declaring allegiance to a criminally violent organization goes beyond simply expressing an extreme opinion.

        1. He could have kept himself hidden and still expressed his views, rudely too, by hiding behind pseudonyms like normal people do.

    3. Still no corrections or addenda from Robbie.

      Color me un-surprised. A both sides effort from Suave to be sure.

  38. Deconstructed Potato feels no sympathy for this enemy of freedom.

    1. You can be ruder, you know. Nobody knows it’s you.

      1. Wait, you mean he is not the real deconstructed potato?

        Shocking.

  39. You know how hard it is to find another word for thesaurus, right? But for antifa, econazi, communist, republican, democrat, dixiecrat, prohibitionist and all other initiators of force, the antonym is libertarian.

    1. well, until it comes to immigration with the “libertarians” here. Then use of force is ok, because [insert Statist argument here].

  40. are community colleges essentially private in this regard? (i have no idea how they’re funded and what strings come attached with said funds). But, if yes, there is no free speech issue here.

    1. They’re part of the state university systems.

  41. So we’re supposed to throw a pity party for this moron for losing his job for “exercising his free speech”, we he and his ilk physically ATTACK others for exercising theirs? And it’s not just that he threatened a sitting president (which really SHOULD have been enough), he also voiced his opinion that fundamentalist Christians need to be killed, em mass, and “put in the ground”. This guy is part of a group that beats people up for “preaching violence” (though that label doesn’t even apply to half the people they attack)… why in the world she he get a pass for doing the same? He deserves what he got.

  42. Antifa is nothing other than a criminal organization, supported by politicians.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.