Campus Free Speech

The Growing Right-Wing Threat to Campus Free Speech

Conservatives deploy state power to go after speech they don't like.

|

When it comes to free speech on American campuses, there seems to be a law of conservation at work: Just when the internal threat of censorship from left-wing campus activists is abating, the external threat from right-wing lawmakers starts rising. Given that the new threat relies not on the decibel level of immature 18-year-olds but the state power of motivated adults, it may be much harder to fight.

Concerns about political correctness on campus date back at least 25 years before Philip Roth wrote The Human Stain, his brilliant novel depicting the travails of a half-black classics professor pretending to be Jewish who gets summarily fired after black students take offense over his use of the word "spooks." But after a brief hiatus, these concerns came back with a vengeance in the last decade, at least partly because a well-oiled right-wing machine emerged to pounce on every student transgression—big and small, real and imagined, in order to paint a picture of a "free speech crisis" in academia.

Consider the experience of Ursinus College's Jonathan Marks, a conservative professor who writes extensively about higher education: He recounts with amusement how first The College Fix, a right-wing campus watchdog website, and then Breitbart picked up a piece he wrote for Commentary earlier this year making fun of California State Fresno's new faculty and staff rules prescribing that "everyone be nice to each other." Both outfits distorted the story and blamed students who had nothing to do with the rules, because that was better aligned with their narrative of easily triggered snowflakes demanding safe spaces. The College Fix appended a grudging "update" after some coaxing from Marks, but Breitbart didn't bother. "If you investigated the dental profession with as much intensity as college campuses and devoted entire websites to covering it, you could come up with lots of bad things too," he laughs.

Though the notion of a campus free speech crisis may be overblown, it's still a problem. Otherwise, New York magazine's Jonathan Chait, a liberal, wouldn't write about the damage that a culture rife with trigger warnings and microaggressions does to the cause of free and open dialogue. Vox even thought it fit to run a piece by a liberal professor under a pseudonym complaining that some of his liberal students "terrify" him.

But regardless of how one characterizes what's transpiring on campuses, there are encouraging signs that things are getting better.

A report last year by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an outfit that does yeoman's work tracking the threats to free speech in colleges, found that the percentage of institutions with speech codes "that clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech," a genuine problem in the 1990s, had diminished by 42 percentage points since 2009 in the sample it surveyed. Even better, 37 universities earned its green light rating for having no speech codes whatsoever compared to merely eight in 2009. Meanwhile, 27 schools or faculty bodies embraced University of Chicago's widely-praised free speech principles—up from just seven the year before. The principles reaffirm the university's commitment to stand firm against the disinvitation of controversial speakers or disruption of events.

There is more good news on the disinvitation front: After peaking in 2016 at 43 disinvitations, the number plummeted to 18 last year, according to FIRE's non-comprehensive tracking list. This year, the disinvitation number has moved up to 30—including 13 leftist speakers—but that's still lower than the peak. The most likely reason for the overall drop isn't self-censorship or state laws protecting campus speech, Acadia University's Jeffrey Adam Sachs has convincingly argued. Rather, it is a combination of boredom over the tactics of campus yahoos and a new culture of campus tolerance with students forming clubs and networks to promote respectful cross-political dialogue. It also helps that, unlike 2016, this is not a polarizing presidential election year.

But even as universities are beginning to defuse the threat to free speech from leftist radicals on campus, they are facing new ones from right-wing lawmakers off campus.

Conservatives warn day and night about liberal political correctness but give scarcely a thought to how their own brand of patriotic correctness stifles free expression. If they did, they wouldn't be instigating anti-flag-burning amendments on a regular basis. And they certainly wouldn't have stood squarely behind this president when he berated 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and demanded that the NFL fire him.

Nor are conservative lawmakers shy about launching their own jihad on academic freedom to squelch professors or viewpoints they dislike.

There is a rising trend that goes something like this, as per New York University's Jonathan Haidt: A left-wing professor says something provocative on social media or elsewhere and the right-wing media goes into overdrive, covering the story ad nauseum to gin up viewer outrage. Republican politicos jump in and demand action. University administrators, terrified of the PR damage but unworried about academic freedom, put the professor on leave and begin the "process of termination," especially if the professor isn't tenured. (Haidt, incidentally, is no liberal pleader. He is a celebrity in conservative circles because he founded the highly respected Heterodox Academy, whose purpose is to address the lack of intellectual diversity on liberal-dominated campuses.)

In just the last six months, Acadia University's Sachs has documented several incidents in Iowa, California, and Connecticut that fit exactly this pattern.

In another incident just last month, the University of Alabama fired Jamie R. Riley, its black assistant vice president and dean of students, after Breitbart exposed past tweets in which Riley criticized the American flag and made a connection between police and racism. Meanwhile, the chief of staff of Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R–Neb.) personally called and threatened University of Nebraska Professor Ari Kohen for "liking" a Facebook post depicting a defaced campaign sign of the congressman showing googly eyes and calling him Fartenberry. The staffer accused Kohen of encouraging "vandalism," arguably an attempt at chilling speech.

It isn't just professors that Republicans are going after. In January, FIRE had to send a cease-and-desist letter to the University of Georgia after it invited an investigation by the state's Republican attorney general into a philosophy graduate student who called white people "crappy" at a meeting.

Meanwhile, bills are proliferating across Republican-controlled states such as Wisconsin requiring universities to expel students engaging in "disruptive" protests, which could potentially include anything from loud clapping to walkouts, according to the ACLU. Also in Wisconsin, a Republican lawmaker threatened to cut the University of Wisconsin's budget over an "obscene" reading assignment aimed at exploring how sexual preferences can lead to racial segregation in the gay community.

In another disturbing incident, Rep. Ted Budd (R–N.C.), successfully petitioned the Department of Education secretary to investigate Duke University and the University of North Carolina to ensure that the $235,000 grant that the universities' Middle East consortium received isn't being used to promote "anti-Israel bias."

Conservatives pose as the guardians of free speech against the excesses of political correctness. Yet they have few qualms about deploying the purse and power of the state to police the boundaries of acceptable speech and speakers. It is too bad that conservatives' threat of censorship is heating up just when campus snowflakes are showing signs of melting away.

A version of this column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Justin Trudeau Apologizes for Brownface Photo

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. TL;DR: “Conservatives pounce.”

    1. The better TL;DR is the phrase Shikha used – Conservatives pose

      1. All of these statements, along with the article itself, are unacceptable and should carefully be kept from the eyes of youngsters on our college campuses. Here at NYU, we do not distinguish between “conservative” and “left-wing” efforts to crack down on some of this here “free speech” that we keep hearing about from the “first amendment community,” an expression that sounds almost like a joke today. Quite to the contrary, we recognize widespread agreement on all sides that there is no room in any American institution of higher learning for certain forms of “speech” that nobody likes, that nobody wants, and that are unworthy of “constitutional protection” (another expression that sounds quaintly humorous). Who here would dare to defend the inappropriate “first amendment dissent” of a single, isolated judge in our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case? Everyone knows that this “free speech” baloney has gone much too far and must be decisively opposed, if and when necessary by vigorous law enforcement action. See the documentation at:

        https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        1. My Whole month’s on-line monetary profit is $2287. i’m right now prepared to satisfy my fantasies basically and live home with my family moreover. I work only for two hours every day.
          everyone will utilize this home benefit framework by this link.======>> http://earny.xyz/MADcKp1e2t

      2. F off, JFree. You repulsive anti-Semite.

    2. I am absolutely loving this libertarian vs trumper schism that evolves every day

      1. The author is not a Libertarian. She has a long history of supporting Progressive causes. She can claim to be whatever she wants to but she is really the turd in the punch bowl. No one likes her.

        1. And this article was a bunch of tone deaf retarded fiction.

          Shikha is one stupid bitch.

        2. similarly as William reacted I’m flabbergasted that a housewife ready to benefit $4424 in a month on the web . unique site…

          HERE :)…… http://xurl.es/dx2hl

      2. “Shikha is a libertarian” – t. Chris Hatch

        Hahaha, oh wow!

    3. Something about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

    4. I thought Shreeker Shikha was gone for good from reason.

      1. I guess the turd is still here spreading her form of garbage and phony Progressive Libertarianism.

    5. yeah that’s right, beware all those right wingers. 90% of professors identify as left, a good chunk of those as outright socialists or communists. Che Guevara T-shirts are fine but the Betsy Ross flag is oppressive. I don’t know who this author is but this is about as absurd an article as I have ever read on reason. If anything, reason can be to pure in its ideology but that is why I love reading it. It challenges orthodoxies of both left and right. I will chalk this up to the editors just missing this one. I felt like I was reading mother Jones not reason.

      This is simply a wrapped of an obvious partisan.

      1. She has a point about ‘Conservative’ politicians. A small one. Several of the cases I have read about recently seem to have damned little to do with political outlook and far too much to do with thin skinned politicians wrapping themselves if the Flag when somebody makes (admittedly) ham-handed fun of them.

        Of course, for me to be terribly upset about it, the Leftwing ninnies who infest college campuses would have to have stopped a whole raft of deranged behaviors, and we all know they haven’t.

    6. “But even as universities are beginning to defuse the threat to free speech from leftist radicals on campus, they are facing new ones from right-wing lawmakers off campus.”

      Suppression of Free Speech is OK so long as the left is doing it. But now that the right has adopted the same tactics, its suddenly a threat.

      1. That sums up about half of Reason’s rhetorical output over the last two years.

    7. So long an article with such a slim assemblage of evidence. Not to mention the total disregard of any motive why lawmakers might be provoked to prohibit disruptions of speakers. But I did enjoy her suggestion that Trump be muzzled for criticizing Kaepernick, on the peculiarly circular ground that Trump’s free speech about Kaepernick’s free speech amounts to intimidation. This is really Reason?

  2. “Just when the internal threat of censorship from left-wing campus activists is abating, ”

    LOL WUT?

    1. I guess she didn’t read Welch’s article about all those 18 year old kids who shut down any discussion of their school busing policies.

    2. If only she had included data in the article – like increasing adoption of free speech codes, and decreasing instances of disinvited speakers – to support that contention.

      1. If only she read all the data in her own rag daily that defeats it.

        1. Hey look, you ignored the data I posted just above you, so weird.

        2. Specific incidents don’t “defeat” data like a 42% reduction in restrictive campus speech codes, or a greater than 4x increase in the abandonment of speech codes altogether (both since 2009). There can be good overall progress and continuing instances of bad behavior at the same time, those aren’t mutually exclusive.

          1. “Specific incidents don’t “defeat” data”

            Actually, that is exactly what they do, by agglomeration.

          2. Specific incidents don’t “defeat” data like a 42% reduction in restrictive campus speech codes,

            This is meaningless data since speech codes themselves are not the main problem, they merely indicate campus leadership supports efforts by activists and students to abridge free speech. Being forced to hide their support does not show the attacks on free speech have lessened.

          3. Some people love to throw around the anecdotes aren’t data thing. They are wrong, data, all data is ultimately a heaping pile of anecdotes run through a mathematical blender.

      2. “There is more good news on the disinvitation front: After peaking in 2016 at 43 disinvitations, the number plummeted to 18 last year,”

        Yeah, irrefutable. The decline in disinvitations couldn’t possibly be due to the lack of invitations in the first place. No chance.

        1. Yeah that’s definitely possible, do you have data to suggest that’s the case here?

          1. Kinda. The article cites another study which I don’t think Ms. Dalmia read carefully. The study first admits that collecting data for “self-censorship” is difficult to do. But then also admits that commencement speakers are more likely to be “non-conservative” than in the recent past. Then, inexplicably, drops self-censorship as a relevant factor.

            So, after finding evidence of self-censorship in commencement speakers, self-censorship is dropped as an explanation in favor of “boredom.” WTF??

            1. harpac….Yeah, same here. WTF ever happened to reason and logic?

              1. “WTF ever happened to reason and logic?”

                In this specific instance Dalmia happened.

                But more generally the answer is editorial choice.

            2. Yeah I agree it’s certainly not conclusive, though the point in the Niskanen piece about counteracting “chilling” and “heating” effects is, in my opinion, a worthwhile one.

              I also do think the data Dalmia sites about changes in overall speech codes is pretty damn solid.

              1. No, I agree with that regarding speech codes. But the internal pressures to self-censor are still very strong. It takes years for that to thaw, speech codes or no.

                1. But the internal pressures to self-censor are still very strong. It takes years for that to thaw, speech codes or no.

                  This is very true. The pressures to conform in academia are very much social, not very much official.

      3. Anecdotes are good enough for you idiots when it comes to the supposed liberal fascist suppression of speech in colleges, so why not address the ones she suppled?

    3. Unfortunately @reason has shown increasing disapproval of the right while ignoring the left.

      It is connected to its anti_Trump behavior I have noticed.

      Too many times @Reason has made statements to suit its articles.
      I no longer trust it – having subscribed to @Reason since publishing from MIT

      1. Imagine, libertarians focusing on the people with political power.

        1. As opposed to the leftist establishment and clerisy who hold the bureaucratic, corporatist and cultural power?

  3. Hey look! After 30+ years of getting drummed out of academia by public shaming campaigns, several Conservative machines have adopted the same tactics. Who’d have thunk it?

    I think it is very important to stand for academic freedom. And Libertarians should rightly condemn attempts by conservative law makers to intimidate schools. However, that is where Shika’s standard sloppy writing comes to the front. She conflates lawmaker intimidation with private people disagreeing with school employees. She conflates conservatives (correctly) pointing out that academia is overrun by radical leftists with law makers intimidating others.

    1. Take heart, conservatives. Not all of academia is overrun by leftists and their reason, tolerance, modernity, and science.

      Plenty of schools — fourth-tier and unranked schools, mostly — are controlled by conservatives, who generally impose old timey conduct and speech codes; reject academic freedom; engage in viewpoint-discriminatory hiring and admissions; disdain science to flatter superstition and warp history to advance dogma; and engage in strident censorship when they get control of a campus, turning the average right-leaning campus into another low-quality yahoo farm.

      1. “science”

        57 genders and a climate that never changes in any way.

        SCIENCE!!!

        1. Slack-jawed right-wing bigots are my favorite inconsequential, disaffected faux libertarians.

          I wonder whether the culture war would be more fun if clingers were more competitive.

          1. Go die in a fire, idiot leftist troll.

          2. Haha. The funny thing rev, is that you and your brigade of whiny, angry “betters” think that you are in a position to “permit”, or not permit anything. Delusions of grandeur.

            1. You have been obsequiously complying with my political preferences (those of the culture war’s winners) throughout your life, you disaffected bigot. Open wider, because more progress will be shaped against your wishes soon.

              1. Haha. Sure I have, old man. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

              2. I’m not at “war”, rev. You see, I’m happy. (Oh that just will not do!) Haha.

                Just for fun, what “wishes”, specifically, have I ceded to your “better” war winning abilities?

                This should be good. Haha.

      2. Yep: I was just thinking this article was little more than bladder bait

      3. It’s your friends that believe that vaccines cause autism, fuckwit.

      4. I realize you are a troll but you would help your rant if you provided evidence.

      5. This idea that modern leftists are somehow more scientific than everyone else is absurd. 20 years from now your average leftist will be the equivalent of today’s out-of-work assembly line workers, except they’ll be less employable unless there is suddenly a big surge in demand for early 21st century woketarian bloggers.

      6. “Lefty ‘Tolerance”?????….LOL, U should do stand up comedy!!!

    2. Excellent point that occurred to me too.

      Most of his criticism seems aimed at the fact that conservatives did not like the views of social liberal college policy

      Quite a distance from so-called chilling of free speech claimed by the article.

    3. I believe there might be a subtle difference between saying a man is not a woman and saying whitey is evil and must be banished from the earth.

      I know subtlety is not shiksa’s strong suit.

      1. There’s also a pretty big difference between saying “We’re going to riot if you let this Nazi who says a man is not a woman speak!” and “We’re not going to give you taxpayer money to say whitey is evil and must be banished from the earth.”

  4. next time provide samples that actually support your article instead of samples that when looked at are defensive actions against leftwing suppression of free speech and left wing violent speech against other peoples and yea you reap what you sow

  5. So it comes down to the 12th paragraph in of this rambling screed before Dalmia can begin to describe any concrete examples of the right wing threat she perceives.

  6. Interesting, but why is there nothing in here about the anti-BDS movement, which is the real driving force for campus censorship on the right, one that is, in fact, being championed by at least one of the Volokh folk?

      1. You hate all who do not submit to (and adore) both the Trumptatorship and the Tulpatatorship. We get it.

        1. Yeah, those God damned Jews demand everyone submit to them.

          You called it dude.

          1. Yeah, I broke him yesterday and he started full on ranting, the kind that gets restraining orders issued.

            1. Tulpa, to be fair, that’s just how he typically raves/gibbers by 5 pm.

          2. So the space aliens assisted you in accessing my innermost thoughts, to this little clump of neurons, where I hold the belief that both the Trumptatorship and the Tulpatatorship are Jewish?

            I’d like to sarcastically tell you “You called it dude”, but you’re so obviously so far gone, I’d hate to be part of your continuing breakdown. Seek help now! Check your meds!

            1. “So the space aliens assisted you in accessing my innermost thoughts”

              See? I broke him.

          3. John….you’re being facetious, right?

            1. That’s highly likely to not even BE John… Tulpa is such a monstrously YUUUUGE asshole, that he-she-it has often resorted to ID theft! He-she-it will “spoof” your ID by inserting invisible control characters in your handle, and posting in YOUR name! Tulpa is the very lowest of lowly hagfishes!

              1. Actually that all sounds like something YOU would do.

          1. Tulpa, you are one low-life, lying bastard! We all know you make up new handles for yourself, to try and “pile on”! You’re so full of shit, you’re gonna explode one of these days! Then we’ll all have shit all over us! Yummy, yummy, in my tummy!

            1. Cool attack a jew and blame it on me, super sane.

              1. Hey now, Lev Goldfarb might be a Presbyterian.

  7. It is too bad that conservatives’ threat of censorship is heating up just when campus snowflakes are showing signs of melting away.

    I’m not sure how to explain the concept of a bad analogy to somebody who doesn’t understand the cause-and-effect relationship between heating and melting. Does she seriously believe that it’s the melting snows of Winter that bring the warm breezes of Spring?

    1. With the election next year, “winter is coming”.

    2. It’s the standard journalist “wet streets cause rain” logic.

      1. I don’t think she’s in any way saying that the heat from would be conservative censors are what caused the snowflakes to melt. On the contrary, she’s saying it’s ironic that the snowflakes are already melting (for other reasons) just as the conservative censors are heating up.

        I’m not necessarily agreeing with anything she’s saying, but I don’t think her analogy is illogical.

        1. As metaphor it works, but only in a Rube Goldberg fashion. As analogy it’s horrible.

  8. “In another disturbing incident, Rep. Ted Budd (R–N.C.), successfully petitioned the Department of Education secretary to investigate Duke University and the University of North Carolina to ensure that the $235,000 grant that the universities’ Middle East consortium received isn’t being used to promote “anti-Israel bias.””

    Better would be if he petitioned to ensure the grant IS being used to promote anti-Isreal bias. Amirite?

    1. Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

      Nope

    2. It’s revealing campus activists routinely have conniptions over Koch donations but concurrently believe questioning foreign cash is a violation of academic freedom.

  9. It would be better if he petitioned to have all grants canceled,

    1. Reason should be embarrassed to run with this drivel. It’s complete bullshit.

    2. What? You think this place is libertarian?

  10. Conservatives are forcing leftists to eat the shit sandwich that they themselves created. It’s not about “right-wing snowflakes”.

    1. Yes, this! What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander!

      (In the longer term, free speech for all would be better, though).

    2. Didn’t your mom teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right? This is what “conservatives” are reduced to so often these days – some bullshit peewee playground finger-pointing.

      But they did it first! I know you are, but what am I? I am rubber you are glue.

      1. Tit for tat works. Sorry bitch, but mom was wrong.

        1. At least you’re willing to admit you’ve abandoned any actual principles in favor of lame-ass red team vs blue team schoolyard shit.

          1. Last I checked, the Left made these rules.

            Yes, it is horrible for anybody to expect them to abide by the rules they created.

            1. Heaven forbid that the people who claim to support free speech actually stick to their supposed principles instead of simply sinking to the level of other bad actors.

                1. There was a woman who had triplets, and named them Nat, Pat, and Tat
                  They say is was fun in the breeding but hell in the feeding,
                  for she hadn’t a spare tit for tat

                2. It might work to achieve emotional satisfaction of some kind, but I don’t think it works to increase net freedom of speech.

                  1. Tit-for-tat works with nukes too. No one do anything crazy.

              1. “Heaven forbid that the people who claim to support free speech actually stick to their supposed principles instead of simply sinking to the level of other bad actors.”

                Jesus taught turn the other cheek.

                He didn’t teach to do it forever at all times.

                “Why don’t you just let us fuck you over and not do anything back.”

                What about THEIR supposed principles, out of curiosity?

                1. Jesus taught turn the other cheek.

                  He didn’t teach to do it forever at all times.

                  What makes you think he didn’t? In what circumstances did he not?

                2. But what is your goal?

                  I don’t think this is about turning the other cheek to an attack.

                  You can’t look at this as just the left attacking the right. They are attacking a PRINCIPLE.

                  If the left hits my free speech baby on the right cheek, I don’t defend it by hitting my free speech baby on the left cheek.

                  Our goal is not simply to have our voices heard. If we achieve this by silencing their voices, we’ve LOST.

                  This is why I use the racism analogy. I understand the impulse for historically oppressed minorities to strike back at the oppressor.

                  But what is the goal? Is it to now oppresss the former oppressor? That isn’t the kind of winning I think we want. For me winning is the end to any race even having the desire to oppress another. The goal is to end racism itself. Perhaps there’s no easy path to that goal, and we don’t all agree on tactics… but I personally think not having ANY racist policies is at least a good goal.

                  Same with free speech.

                  If the right turns the tables and silences the left, to me that’s not winning.

                  We need to show them that we fight for the principle of free speech itself. We don’t want an echo chamber like they seem to want. We understand the dangers of that. We WANT to hear the other side speak. If we disagree… GREAT, more speech. And in the end our goal isn’t necessarily to win all debates, it’s to reach the best ideas.

                  We have to show them the value in wanting to hear from the other side – in a good faith, civil manner – so that we might improve on our own ideas.

                  That’s why free speech itself is so important… not just so we are heard, but so that THEY are heard to.

                  Once they really understand that we value being disagreed with, and discussing all things peacefully, can we hope to persuade them to see the value in this themselves.

                  Don’t you agree that the goal is free speech for its own sake, regardless of the speaker?

                  1. Again, either qualified immunity is good or it is bad. Which is it? Why should the left get qualified immunity from their rules while it is a horrible idea for cops to get the same?

                  2. You can’t convince psychotics.
                    All you can do is either
                    -ignore them
                    -defeat them
                    -destroy them

                    Ignoring them doesn’t work.
                    Defeating them is an unending process that leaves open the possibility of their return to again threaten.
                    So if they’re not thoroughly defeated, the only option left is destruction.

                  3. “But what is the goal? Is it to now oppress the former oppresser?”

                    The “former oppressors” are long dead. Starting with a false premise is divisive. And the people who do that are well aware of this.

            2. I understand how it might be emotionally satisfying to stick it to the other side using their own rules, and maybe there is a moral justification to it, but do you really think it’s a wise tactic in the long run, or even short run?

              It kind of sounds like the justification for reverse racism and sticking it to the team that was doing most of the oppressing for so long.

              Do you honestly approve of this philosophical school of thought, either morally or strategically? Or in the case of racism, do you think it would be better to skip the emotionally satisfying revenge part and go straight to ending all racist policies?

              I’m assuming your goal isn’t to “win” in the way it often appears that the leftist speech-chillers are attempting to win; and that what you’d ultimately like is free speech for all (and when it comes to the racism analogy, an end to ALL racism).

              Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand your goal.

              1. It kind of sounds like the justification for reverse racism and sticking it to the team that was doing most of the oppressing for so long.

                ^ This.

              2. you really think it’s a wise tactic in the long run, or even short run?

                Tactically, yes. Strategically? Who knows? But it’s not like its employment should be a surprise.

              3. The ONLY way to get rid of an idiotic rule is to enforce it rigorously.

                1. You say that the only way to get rid of an idiotic rule is to enforce it rigorously…

                  Do you really believe that’s true in this case? I believe the left already sees the battle as tribal and about one side silencing the other and continuing the battle on these terms.

                  When we play by their rules of oppression, it only reinforces what they believe about their enemies: that their enemies just want to do the suppressing, and nobody actually values the free and open marketplace of ideas.

                  Are you really counting on the left admitting defeat and start chanmpioning free speech as a result?

                  Wouldn’t a better plan be for the people who claim to believe in free speech be the ones to fight for it?

                  Should abolitionists become slavers in hopes that the former slavers will suddenly start championing freedom for all?

                  Or maybe the freedom lovers should fight against ALL slavery, regardless of who started it.

                  1. Are you really counting on the left admitting defeat and start chanmpioning free speech as a result?

                    The left’s whole motive is power. Has been since the French Revolution.

                    Look at Masterpiece Cakeshop. The guy is still getting harassed by a mentally ill tranny lawyer who’s trying to drive him out of business.

                    You either use the left’s rules against them, or start breaking out the firearms. Because force is the only thing they understand.

            3. the Left made these rules

              Setting aside the collectivist assumptions that underlie this, did they really?

              Where do we have to draw the “start” line in order to say “the Left made these rules?”

              It has to be after the Free Speech movement of the ’60s, right? When the right-wing governor of California was trying to remove people from the UC Board of Regents because he didn’t like their politics?

              Was the Berkeley Free Speech movement a bunch of Right Wingers? Were they being resisted by Left Wingers?

              Are you old enough to remember the ’90s when Left Wingers were justifying their attacks on Right Wingers because “the Right Wingers started it” with McCarthyism and the attack on Free Speech at UCB?

              As libertarians, what does it mean to us that one stupid team poked the other stupid team in the eye and so the second team is now poking the first team back?

              Why should libertarians care about, let alone choose sides in, the Duopoly’s race to the bottom?

              1. “Was the Berkeley Free Speech movement a bunch of Right Wingers? ”

                No. Just hypocrites.

                THEY started the ball rolling on all of the speech rules when they got in power on university campuses.

                1. THEY started the ball rolling on all of the speech rules when they got in power on university campuses.

                  Yes, all the while screaming “THE RIGHTWINGERS STARTED IT!!!”

                  So, as I said, you have to draw the “Start” line well after the Free Speech Movement if you’re going to go with “The Left started it.” And you have to ignore the Free Speech Movement and who was leading the charge against it.

                  If you’ve ever heard this argument break out between two little kids, you know about where it goes.

                  1. Ok.
                    Do you have a point?
                    Do you have an alternative?
                    Libertarian dogma hasn’t been winning much during the century long Progressive Era

                    1. “So, as I said, you have to draw the “Start” line well after the Free Speech Movement if you’re going to go with “The Left started it.” And you have to ignore the Free Speech Movement and who was leading the charge against it.”

                      In what way, EXACTLY, was the “Free Speech Movement” “silenced”? Examples.

                    2. Do you have a point?

                      Yes. It’s that “the other side started it” is both inaccurate and childish.

                      Do you have an alternative?

                      Yes. Don’t be childish.

                  2. In what way, EXACTLY, was the “Free Speech Movement” “silenced”?

                    I didn’t say it was silenced, I said that the movement was composed of left wingers and the opposition to it was conducted by right wingers.

                    Do you seriously not know anything about the Free Speech Movement? Do you know what started the protests?

                    Did you know that UC President Clark Kerr was forced out by Governor Reagan for not expelling the protesters who were arrested? That the FBI was actively digging up dirt on him to discredit him and ruin his career because they and Reagan didn’t like his “ultra-liberal” politics?

                    And there was a famous period just prior to that where one side pretty well fully criminalized the views of the other and held Congressional hearings destroying the lives of many people over their incorrect political views.

                    At that time, which side was the Right, and which was the Left?

                    So, do you really not understand what I mean when I say that the Left has been doing everything they’ve been doing for the last 40 years thinking to themselves “the right wingers started it?”

                    1. “Did you know that UC President Clark Kerr was forced out by Governor Reagan for not expelling the protesters who were arrested?”

                      Seems Reagan had a point. And it shows the colleges were bending over backwards for these clowns from the start. Which was always the problem.

                      “And there was a famous period just prior to that where one side pretty well fully criminalized the views of the other and held Congressional hearings destroying the lives of many people over their incorrect political views.”

                      You mean the hearings McCarthy specifically asked to be closed session to protect the innocent and the Dems said no (Congressional record shows this)? THOSE hearings in the Senate?

                      “So, do you really not understand what I mean when I say that the Left has been doing everything they’ve been doing for the last 40 years thinking to themselves “the right wingers started it?””

                      Remember who started the first red scare? The one that led to ACTUAL prison sentences for political opponents?

                      Hint: Not Republicans. Nor conservatives.

                    2. Seems Reagan had a point.

                      So, it sounds like you’re just explicitly coming out and saying that if someone has left-wing views, it is good and proper for the government to suppress them, and that when you say “the left started it” you meant “by existing in the first place.”

                      Because you don’t deny that right wingers were suppressing the views of left wingers, you just say that those views should have been suppressed.

                      McCarthyism was great, and was started by the left-wingers anyway.

                      I think we’re done here.

          2. Tit for tat is not choosing sides, it is enforcing the principle of one standard for all.

            If it’s a bad standard it is also the only way to eliminate it.

      2. Conservatives have been turning the other cheek for 40 years. Where has that gotten them?

        At some point, there will be no principles left to defend.

        1. Conservatives have been turning the other cheek for 40 years. Where has that gotten them?

          Into a position of dominance in the Federal and most state governments?

          1. “Position of dominance”

            Really?

            1. Yes.

              It’s funny how flexible right wingers are in their perceptions of their position in society.

              Sometimes it’s “we’ve got the majority of governors and state legislators and all three branches of the Federal government, the Dems are DONE!”

              Sometimes it’s “woe is, we are so small and so persecuted!”

              1. The progressive era hasn’t lasted a century, nor accelerated?
                Progressives don’t control academia, mass communication/media, federal bureaucracy?

                Keep carrying there water, square.
                I’m sure you’ll be sent to the gulag last

          2. “Into a position of dominance in the Federal and most state governments?”

            And in utter oblivion in pop culture or academies. And the academies is largely because leftists won’t permit the hiring of conservatives in the first place.

            1. And in utter oblivion in pop culture or academies.

              Mmmmkay. A bit hyperbolic, but setting that aside, how is “not turning the other cheek” going to lead to conservative victories in pop culture and academia, and why are those arenas so much more overwhelmingly important than controlling the government the way Republicans currently do?

              1. How is turning the other cheek going to change anything?

                “You oppose litmus tests for employment. We do not. Therefore, we can fuck you over and you’re hypocrites to disagree” is a retarded way to think.

                “why are those arenas so much more overwhelmingly important than controlling the government the way Republicans currently do?”

                Can you think of major conservative political policy implementations recently?

                1. How is turning the other cheek going to change anything?

                  Talk to Jesus, man, I didn’t make the rules.

                  Can you think of major conservative political policy implementations recently?

                  Are Trump and his Republican Congress failing to implement conservative policies?

                  I thought we were winning?

                  1. Are straws being banned based on laughable “science”?
                    Are cities and states trying to outlaw “misgendering”?
                    Is the culture still quite hostile to anybody who is not a Democrat?

                    Not seeing much success there.

                    Where are these conservative wins? Trump is doing what he can.

                    1. Are straws being banned based on laughable “science”?

                      Across the country? No. In a few widely mocked places? Yes.

                      Are cities and states trying to outlaw “misgendering”?

                      Across the country? No. In a few widely mocked places? Yes.

                      Is the culture still quite hostile to anybody who is not a Democrat?

                      That depends on where you are and what culture you’re talking about.

                      Where are these conservative wins?

                      I’m guessing anything I point to will either be dismissed as “not really conservative” or will be batted away as “not going far enough.”

                      Because honestly it sounds like for you anything less than Total Victory is Total Defeat, and this is because you’re viewing the world in binary terms.

                      But seriously – are you arguing that Trump hasn’t accomplished anything despite having a majority in the Senate, having a majority in SCOTUS, and having controlled both houses of Congress for his first two terms?

                      Is your argument that the Republicans are on the side of Righteousness, but are laughably incompetent? Because it sounds like that’s what you’re arguing.

                      What does the country need to look like before you’ll admit that Republicans are not in fact powerless and marginalized? Or, conversely, if the Republicans are still powerless and marginalized despite all the real-world government power they currently wield, what does that say about them?

              2. a leg it argument is that politics is downstream of culture and to a big extent , entertainment and acedemia are the major influences of culture , especially in a secular society

      3. Didn’t your mom teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right

        No one on the left cared that Brendan Eich or James Damore was fired. But they all spoke up about James Gunn.

        Those who argue Gunn shouldn’t have been criticized are arguing for the continuance of that framework indefinitely. Those who want it all to go away support subjecting the left to the same standards they advocate.

        1. Confronting violence with non-violence is a desperate option for a side fundamentally weaker than its aggressor.
          In and of itself, passive response to aggression only ever accomplishes its goal when a third, more powerful, party steps in on behalf of the passive side, or the aggressor realizes it will be too much effort to fully accomplish its goals.

          Passive resistance cannot win victory for itself. It can only persevere through the decision of another party.

          1. A mugger won’t leave you alone if you don’t fight back.
            The mugger will take everything he can.
            He will either walk away after taking all your valuables, or after discovering that you have no valuables for him to take.
            Either way, in the end you’re left without valuables.
            The only way to stop the mugger while retaining your valuables is to confront him with enough pain/force that he either decides to stop, or is unable to continue, mugging you.

          2. the aggressor realizes it will be too much effort to fully accomplish its goals

            Passive resistance cannot win victory for itself.

            Your self. You contradict it.

            1. Not at all.
              The aggressor has to decide to desist. The passive party doesn’t decide how much effort the aggressor is willing to expend, but is entirely dependent on the will of that aggressor.
              Lie to yourself all you want, but it’s a position of dependency and fundamental weakness.

              1. Ghandi was only Ghandi because he was dealing with the British.

                Had he been dealing with an Islamic Mughul he’d be forgotten fertilizer.

                1. Correct.
                  Passive resistance seems to be (somewhat) effective only in the West

  11. Bullshit. This women is an idiot.

    1. I could thank you for saying it for me, but still…

      BULLSHIT THIS WOMAN IS AN IDIOT

      1. Goobers prove her correct, unwittingly.

        1. Hey SQRLSY, got some shit in your teeth.

  12. And they certainly wouldn’t have stood squarely behind this president when he berated 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and demanded that the NFL fire him.

    So demanding that the president no criticize anyone for any reason is the “pro free speech” position now?

    As much as we pick on Dalmia, the woman just isn’t very smart and deserves sympathy more than condemnation in some ways.

    1. So, was Obama chilling free speech when he said the cop who dealt with that professor acted “stupidly” or how Trayvon Martin “looked like my son”?

      Dalmia, does ANYTHING from the Right come close to the Whiteness studies courses on campuses? I mean, those courses are only exceptionally racist…but whites deserve it, right?

      Gotta disagree, John. While we should condemn Reason for giving time for a blithering moron, we shouldn’t let her off for being a blithering moron.

      1. And she is a nasty, hateful moron as well. There really isn’t much positive you can say about her.

        1. I’ve wondered about that; does she serve the purpose of presenting “both sides [to be sure]” for Reason, or is she more like a formal troll, along the lines of butt plug and bladders?

          1. Not a troll. Just Tony-level stupidity.

            She’s here to present Reason’s benefactors’ side; to whit, open borders, citizenship, and unlimited free shit for anyone who can fit into the US. This particular article (which I hate to have read, just b/c it gives her another click with which to justify whatever pittance Reason’s paying her) is straying far off her reservation.

        2. “There really isn’t much positive you can say about her.”

          Would “Well, she makes everybody feel better about themselves? ‘I may be dumb, but I’m not Dalmia dumb'” count?

        3. John, I logged in to say just that. She’s not just stupid, she’s nasty, bigoted and hateful, prone to ad hominem and strawman construction, and wouldn’t know a logical argument if it bit her in the ass.

          1. Have you read the comments here?

      2. If you think the “but whites deserve it” justification is bad, don’t you also believe the “but the left deserves it” justification is equally bad?

        What’s the difference?

        1. “If you think the “but whites deserve it” justification is bad, don’t you also believe the “but the left deserves it” justification is equally bad?”

          I’ll try and go slow.

          The.
          Left.
          Created.
          These.
          Rules.
          And.
          Demanded.
          EVERYBODY.
          Live.
          By.
          Them.

          Seems reasonable to expect them to do the same.

          Do you think qualified immunity is a stupid idea? How would this be any different?

          1. No do what’s different about “but whites deserve it.”

            1. What is different is “whites deserve it” is a moral judgment and a condemnation not enforcing one rule.

              This isn’t hard you fucking half wit.

              1. What is different is “whites deserve it” is a moral judgment and a condemnation not enforcing one rule.

                You’re still missing the point. If “The Left” can be collectivized and blamed for “Its” past behavior, then why doesn’t the same logic extend to “whites.”

                This isn’t hard you fucking half wit.

                Fuck off and stop acting like a child.

                1. What “past” transgressions?

                  These are PRESENT transgressions by the Left.

                  And given the lack of the desire for the Left to police itself, all are responsible.

                  1. And given the lack of the desire for the Left to police itself, all are responsible.

                    But “The Right” is not responsible for Charlottesville, right?

                    1. Absolutely not.

                      What Republicans defended ANY of the alt right in Charlottesville? Not a single one.

                      Democrat congresspeople were FUNDRAISING for antifa.

                    2. Absolutely not.

                      *sigh*

                      I understand that. No individual is responsible for the actions of another individual.

                      Just because you’ve decided that someone’s views are on “The Other Side” doesn’t mean they are responsible for all of the evils you perceive in the world any more than you are responsible for all of the evils that Progressives who see you as “The Other Side” blame you for.

                      Do you see?

                    3. No, square is – as usual – trying to create a false equivalence to maintain a paradigm square is egotistically invested in.
                      Unless, square, you can demonstrate how Charlottesville was consistent with “The Right” as a widespread and characteristic aspect of the movement, or how censorship and harassment is not a widespread and characteristic aspect of “The Left”

                2. People can change their ideologies and their political activities. Skin color not so much. That seems like the important distinction. So if people continue to adhere to an ideology that promotes anti-free speech codes or – in more extreme cases – groups like Antifa, they open themselves up to condemnation and blame.

                  OTOH to the kind of person who believes that being white literally makes someone racist, there probably is no distinction.

                  1. So if people continue to adhere to an ideology that promotes anti-free speech codes or – in more extreme cases – groups like Antifa, they open themselves up to condemnation and blame.

                    But “The Right” is not responsible for Charlottesville, right?

                    1. Just as the first time you asked…no.

                      The Right condemns white nationalists anytime they are asked.

                      Democrats are FAR less willing to condemn antifa. Or any of the assorted SJW groups on campuses.

                    2. You like the “Charlottesville” smear.
                      Interesting.
                      It is a favorite of progressives.
                      But I’m unclear what you mean. Charlottesville is a city. I assume you’re referring not to the city, but to the events of a few years ago.
                      So what is “the right” do you propose they’re equivalently responsible for?
                      The demonstration?
                      The counter demonstration?
                      The rioting?
                      The police response?
                      The death of Heather Heyer?

                      And by what basis do you have to justify that the characterization of a single event is equivalent to a continuous trend?

                      Please, explain your reasoning.
                      Otherwise it just looks like your grasping at straws to avoid reality.

                3. “If the left can be collectivized and blamed for its past behavior”…..

                  Past?

                  “Then why doesn’t the same logic extend to whites?”

                  What “whites”? Dead ones?

                  The “past behavior” (present) of “the left” insisting that “present” whites have something to atone for is the most divisive issue we have.

          2. I understand what you’re saying. But the fight is against the rules they created. The goal is not to let them win by fighting the wrong fight on the battlefield of their choosing.

            This is the fight they want. It’s the one they understand. It’s all about power and who gets to silence whom.

            That’s not a fight my side CAN win.

            Just like I can’t win a fight of which race gets to dominate which race. I only win when racism itself is defeated.

            Shouldn’t we fight for the principle of free speech itself and reject any temptation to silence anyone?

            Or are you and I fighting a different fight? I don’t mean that in a judgemental way. I understand that MOST people disagree with me about what winning looks like. The left certainly sees it being about one tribe silencing another. Yes, they established those rules. They suck.

            Just like white people established institutional racism rules. Fortunately, there were people like MLK (despite his flaws) that saw the goal being the end of those rules, not fighting within the scope of race vs. race.

            1. What rules did they create? Do you know what you’re talking about? Are you thinking using facts and thoughts, or just strings of words fed to you by bullshit artists on the internet?

              Why don’t you bitch about Christian colleges forcing kids to pray every day? Why don’t you bitch about conservatives suing colleges that dare to teach about Muslim culture? Or that dare to not proclaim that Christianity is the bestest religion?

              Because you are on a TEAM and you want it not only to win but to stick its little pathetic dick in the eye of the other TEAM.

              In remember when you guys used to lecture me about having principles. You don’t do that much anymore, do you?

    2. As much as we pick on Dalmia, the woman just isn’t very smart and deserves sympathy more than condemnation in some ways.

      With a dog, you issue the command and discipline disobedience. Maybe being generous and assuming Shikha’s more intelligent than an animal as well as observing libertarian principles, I can only state repeatedly what a blathering idiot she is in hopes that she either stops blathering or starts thinking.

    3. It’s embarrassing. ENB should be embarrassed to run this

  13. “Just when the internal threat of censorship from left-wing campus activists is abating”

    So, you’re a fucking moron on college AND immigration, token?

    1. Goober needs to learn what “abating” means.
      She even gave data. But goobers be goobers.

      1. This is what he does when he doesn’t actually have a point.

        “Learn what ____ means, DATA!!!!”

        It’s not abating. Her data doesn’t show that and you’re a shit eating imbecile.

      2. Yet examples abound to disprove the “abatement” claim. Weird.

  14. I try to prioritize my problems. Trump is a disaster on trade; there is no single person who is a greater threat to economic health. But the Progressives, and every single Democratic Presidential candidate, are a far bigger threat to economic health.

    The same goes for threats to freedom. Progressives and all their ideology — cancel culture, Marxian academia, politically correct AGW, socialism, antifa — are far bigger threats to freedom than a few right wing nut jobs. Even the few white supremacists are far outnumbered by the white-is-evil crowd.

    1. He is a “disaster” on trade yet the economy continues to grow, wages continue to rise, and employment remains at record levels. Maybe your understanding of trade isn’t quite the entire picture. At some point the data contradicting the theory puts the theory in jeopardy. If it doesn’t, stop calling what you are doing economics and just admit it is a religion.

      1. “If it doesn’t, stop calling what you are doing economics and just admit it is a religion.”

        Read a story about somebody going to a conference of climate change activists. He asked “What could be done to make you doubt climate change is a problem?”

        They responded with “Nothing”

        He then got up and said “Sorry, but I’m not dressed for church then” and walked out.

      2. And maybe you are an economic ignoramus.

        Stalin industrialized the USSR. Does that make him an economic genius?

        Hitler revitalized the German economy. Does that make him an economic genius?

        You don’t know squat about trade. You still think exports are what we want, not imports; you still think trade deficits are not only real, but meaningful; you still think trade wars are winnable.

        1. Your premise is wrong. POTUS Trump is not trying to ‘win’ a trade war, and has said as much. What he IS trying to do is to change Red Chinese behavior: serial lying, serial cheating and serial theft of American IP.

          You seem to think tariffs are some kind of economic policy. This is another premise that is just wrong. Tariffs are a tool for foreign policy.

        2. This isn’t a “war” to win.

          This is a “war” to change illicit behavior by a bad faith actor.

          The OTHER option is to simply boycott them outright.

        3. “You still think exports are what we want, not imports; you still think trade deficits are not only real, but meaningful; you still think trade wars are winnable.”

          No, not dogmatic at all…

        4. You know who else didn’t know squat about trade (apparently)?
          Adam Smith:

          “The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods, is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours. …There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.

          To judge whether such retaliations are likely to produce such an effect, does not, perhaps, belong so much to the science of a legislator, whose deliberations ought to be governed by general principles which are always the same, as to the skill of that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs. When there is no probability that any such repeal can be procured, it seems a bad method of compensating the injury done to certain classes of our people, to do another injury ourselves, not only to those classes, but to almost all the other classes of them.”

          1. While I appreciate that there is more to this argument than many are willing to admit, Appeal to Authority is still fallacious, even when it’s Adam Smith.

            1. As opposed to an ignorant appeal to idealism? The first rule of economics is to use reality, not an idealistic model of what you want to achieve. Tit for tat is a legitimate part of game theory. Economics relies a lot on game theory. Pretending china isnt a bad actor is pure ignorance.

              1. As opposed to an ignorant appeal to idealism?

                Not “as opposed,” no. They are both fallacious.

                Tit for tat is a legitimate part of game theory.

                Yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s always the right answer, either.

                Pretending china isn’t a bad actor is pure ignorance.

                Sure. Still doesn’t make “Adam Smith said so” a good argument.

    2. >I try to prioritize my problems.

      if T is a problem in your daily life you may need a new daily life

      1. If reading is a problem in your daily life, you may need an education.

        1. >>>Trump is a disaster on trade; there is no single person who is a greater threat to economic health.

          miniscule chance the above literally affects you in any way yet you seem threatened.

          1. Trump is a heretic, and all heretics are a threat to the one true faith of believers

            1. all heretics are a threat to the one true faith of believers

              Which is why Progressives need to be wiped out.

              What were we talking about again?

              1. You seem confused and emotionally unstable.

    3. Let’s assume your priorities when it comes to threats to freedom (and economic health) are correct, you can still have a point of view on the lesser of the evils – as you clearly spell out when discussing Trump’s bad trade policy.

      Do you think the “two can play at the left’s speech-chilling game” is either a wise or moral strategy? If not, don’t you think it’s worthy of an article and discussion? Even if we all agree that the left are worse and they started it?

      The right wing response might be the lesser of the evils, but it still might not be totally insignificant.

      1. Is qualified immunity a bad idea?

        Or is expecting government actors to abide by the rules they create for others the basic concept of equality?

        Take a pick.

        you either are FOR qualified immunity OR you are going to “go against your principles” and demand people abide by rules you find abhorrent but that you did not support nor demand.

        1. I’m sorry. I don’t think I know enough about qualified immunity for this analogy to be useful.

          In principle, I suppose I’m against qualified immunity. I think if a cop breaks the law he’s a criminal.

          But I could be missing something.

        2. Or is expecting government actors to abide by the rules they create for others the basic concept of equality?

          Who’s talking about government actors?

          1. We’re talking about the idiots on the Left and I’m using the exceptionally apt analogy of qualified immunity.

            Either rules apply to all or they should apply to none.

            1. I’m using the exceptionally apt analogy of qualified immunity.

              How is it apt when the people you’re talking about aren’t in the government, aren’t empowered to make any rules for anyone, and aren’t actually covered by qualified immunity?

              1. *shaking head*

                Good lord you’re dense when you want to be.

                So, with you, no more analogies. You aren’t able to follow them. Got it.

                1. You’re missing the fact that your qualified immunity analogy depends on the people being empowered to make binding rules over you.

                  They don’t.

                  That’s why your analogy doesn’t work.

                  1. And being told who can and cannot speak and what opinions are and are not permitted in discussion isn’t being empowered over me?

                    I fail to see how.

                    The Leftists do this. In some states and cities, they are trying to make it illegal to call a biological male a male because he says he THINKS he’s a woman.

                    1. And being told who can and cannot speak and what opinions are and are not permitted in discussion isn’t being empowered over me?

                      And who is, in fact, doing this to you?

                      Keep in mind that upthread you expressed complete approval of the laws that used to make it illegal to express political advocacy on a college campus and cheered Reagan’s crackdown on those who protested against those laws.

                      In some states and cities, they are trying to make it illegal to call a biological male a male because he says he THINKS he’s a woman.

                      Trying being the operative word there. I seem to remember recently some people in some cities and states wanting it to be illegal for some people to refer to their relationships as “marriages,” but I’m sure that’s different.

                      Keep in mind that I’m only arguing one thing: when you say “but The Other Side started it!” realize that The Other Side says the exact same thing. You even admit Your Side was smacking down The Other Side just prior to The Other Side cracking down on Your Side while screaming that Your Side started it.

  15. Here’s another example from last year:

    https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/07/12/university-kansas-removes-controversial-flag-art

    Republican politicians started crying in public about a piece of art at a public university, so KU administrators ordered its removal, citing concerns about “public safety”.

    1. As opposed to all of the Confederate and now Revolutionary art (not to mention Colonial) that are being destroyed because political correctness? And the one in Cali that they had to hang a curtain in front of because it would cost too much to do an environmental impact study to remove (despite the artwork itself attempting to show the evil of White man).

      1. Supporting an artist’s free speech rights doesn’t compel the state to positively portray abhorrent behavior or perpetuate historical inaccuracies. Nobody claimed the Kansas government should be forced make a statue out of the flag exhibit and maintain its presence indefinitely.

  16. >>>Just when the internal threat of censorship from left-wing campus activists is abating

    misspelled “eternal” … eternal threat of censorship from left … does not abate.

    1. Left – Right = Zero.

      But which ones have been burning books for centuries?

      1. “Left – Right = Zero.”

        No one cares about the hemispheres of your brain.

      2. Hihn I thought you’d been committed. Are you on furlough from the psych ward of Azkaban? Did the dementor treat you well?

  17. I doubt the liberal-libertarian mainstream, which operates our strongest schools precisely because it rejects right-wing preferences on campus operations, is in the market for pointers from clingers (who tend to operate lousy schools) with respect to censorship, quality, academic freedom, science, or political correctness on campus.

    Carry on with the ankle-biting, clingers. Impervious to self-awareness, as is customary.

    1. “Carry on with the ankle-biting, clingers.”

      God damn dude do you write anything that isn’t an overused cliche.

      1. Tell him Ginsberg has died and watch him shit his pants.

        1. That would be just another spot to fill when America’s betters enlarge the Supreme Court in a couple of years.

          Or do the bigots still think they can turn the tide of the culture war and stop liberal-libertarian progress in America?

          1. Didn’t work for FDR, fucko, and it won’t work for you.

            Why are you such an America-hating fuckwit?

            1. That’s big talk from a guy who has been losing the culture war throughout his deplorable, bigoted lifetime.

              1. Haha. The rev’s at “war”! How cute!

  18. Is this The Onion? Did I accidentally enter a parody site?

    1. If only… But I think it’s master level trolling

    2. Onion’s funny. this not so much.

      1. Well, not intentionally funny.

      2. The Babylon Bee is funny, Onion used to be funny.

        1. yes funny i looked that up last time you or someone else suggested

  19. Far from being prophetic, The Camp of the Saints is spectacularly wrong at nearly every level.

    So here’s my cri de couer to fellow conservatives: Banish this book from your library. Purge it from your consciousness. This book should never have been admitted into civilized company, but especially not now ,when America is a polyglot, multi-ethnic — and, yes — multicultural country where Indian folks like us are likely to be your friends and family.

    You can still stand athwart the Statue of Liberty and yell stop to the huddled masses. Just don’t do it while waving this scatological screed — lest it besmirch you.Shikha Dalmia

    Any good criticism, eh, Shikha?

    What an absolute moron.

    1. Dlamia is all about free speech and book burning. She really likes the book burning part of free speech.

      Moron is too nice of a word for her.

    2. Haha. Ah yes, the Statue of Liberty and the 140 year old “huddled masses” sign.

      It’s amusing how people who call themselves “progressive” love to live in the past.

  20. I guess if it takes a half dozen conservatives to employ the same tactics the left have been using to great effect for years– to get someone to sit up and take notice of the problem, then so be it.

    1. Granted. IF it takes…

      But my question to you is, do you really think that this will garner the results you’re going for? If so, great. It’s always emotionally satisfying to stick it to the side that started it.

      But I am honestly dubious about the strategy of countering censorship with more censorship.

      Isn’t it usually the case that just going with the goal policy is the best tactic?

      Like when it comes to the question of how to counter years of institutional racism against black people, is it wise to counter that with anti-white policy, or is it best to skip right to the goal of NO institutional racist policies?

      I’m assuming in good faith that most of us here have the same ultimate goal on both the issues of free speech and institutional racism.

      1. Again, if one side is STILL advocating these idiotic rules — then let them live by them.

        They are just as subject to their moronic desires as anybody. They should be MORE so since they profess to support it.

        1. But we shouldn’t want ANYONE to live by them. Chilling of speech is losing no matter whose speech is getting chilled.

          If the idiots have to live by their idiotic rules, that’s them winning. They have established what the fight is: power, suppression of speech, silencing any dissent… those are the rules they love.

          I’d like to defeat the bad rules, not any particular set of would be speakers.

          1. You’re right. We SHOULDN’T.

            But if anybody on Earth is going to be…it damned well should be the ones demanding others do so.

            Feel free to find a way to stop censorship is we allow the censors to censor away and suffer literally zero consequences for their actions.

          2. “I’d like to defeat the bad rules, not any particular set of would be speakers.”

            But you have absolutely no idea how to do so

            1. Sure I do. But I need allies. I need the people who cry out for diversity of thought and free speech to not turn around and silence the voices of those that disagree with their ideology the second they get the chance.

              I’m not saying there’s any overnight way to defeat bad ideas. All we can do is remember what the good ideas are and why, and then try to convince others that freedom of speech and thought is a value in and of itself. If enough conservatives truly adopt that point of view, and stop trying repeat the exact wrongs of the left, my way will stand a chance.

              It’s like asking me how I’d fix institutional racism. First of all I’d commit to ending all racist laws, not gleefully try to institute them the other way.

              Will it end racism over night? Of course not. But hopefully over time good ideas win out over bad ideas. One thing you can’t do is give in to the bad ideas yourself.

              I think a lot of of people do good work exposing the dangers of stifling free speech. In fact, many prominent conservatives have been exposing the problem. If they continue to push for free speech rather than just oppressing the other side back, I think eventually people will see the value of of not silencing the other side.

              If you think reverse racism is problematic, you can probably also see how reverse speech-stifling is problematic to the overall goal.

              And even if I don’t have an incredible quick solve to the problem, it doesn’t mean that abandoning my cause for the sake of revenge is a good idea.

              1. So you’ve had your head buried in the sand for the past decade.
                If you’re looking for allies, try preaching something other than submission.

    2. Yes, but it’s unfortunatley more probable that these conservatives are just challenging a flock of pigeons to a chess tournament.

  21. Nice article. Here is an example…

    In an attempt to demonstrate their belief that professor of English and comparative literature Joshua Clover should be fired over his anti-police comments, the Davis College Republicans (DCR) held a rally outside the Memorial Union with the help of ASUCD Senator Mohammad Qayum and former ASUCD President Michael Gofman on March 15.

    “The goal of the rally was to demonstrate to campus administration that the student body was not going to stand idly by while a murder advocate is protected by the university,” DCR chair Ryan Gardiner said. “Advocating for violence against any group of people is unacceptable.”

    Murder advocate. Pfft… get over it snowflakes.

    1. He called for the murder of police. That makes him a “murder advocate”. Words mean things you fucking illiterate retard.

      1. They also, it doesn’t seem, disrupt his classes. Wish the Left could follow suit.

  22. Just when the internal threat of censorship from left-wing campus activists is abating,

    I appreciate when someone let’s us know she’s fantasizing right at the beginning of the column. It saves so much effort trying to understand up until the reveal.

    1. You say fantasies, I say hallucinations. Vive la difference.

  23. blamed students who had nothing to do with the rules

    Hey Shikha,

    Here’s the entire text of the Breitbart article:
    Ursinus College Professor Jonathan Marks argued in a recent column that college students want to be treated like children. He snidely suggests Fresno State University, which has adopted a new policy about being kind of fellow students, should adopt Barney the Purple Dinosaur as a mascot.
    The column, which is entitled “First Grade University,” goes after a new policy at Fresno State University that Marks says are similar to what one might see in an elementary school classroom.

    The policy, which was proposed by staff and faculty at Fresno State, encourages students to be “kind” and use words “thoughtfully.” Marks, of course, is not against these universal principles. Instead, he is concerned that the staff at Fresno State think that college students need to be reminded about these simple principles.

    Fresno Staters “are Respectful,” which means, among other things, that they “listen with attention to all perspectives with the intent to understand,” “consider the impact of [their] communication,” and “honor [their] word and commitments.” Fresno Staters “are Kind,” so they “use words thoughtfully and [are] mindful of [their] actions.” Fresno Staters are “Collaborative,” so they “do [their] share and make space for others to shine.” They are “Accountable, so they “own responsibility for [their] behaviors and actions.”

    The new policy is allegedly meant to reduce bullying at Fresno State. But do college-aged students really need to be reminded to be nice to one another?

    Marks goes on to subtly imply that college professors want to transform universities into a religious center based on their partisan social justice politics. He specifically says that they want to turn universities into “Sunday Schools” based on social justice teachings.

    As I noted, ideology is not to blame for the abject failure of a university to articulate in any way, much less live up to, its truth-seeking mission. Partisans of social justice seek to turn our universities into Sunday schools. The bureaucrats who manage universities as they would any other enterprise, and faculty who go along with them, are satisfied with less. They just want the kind of school in which all the children seem happy.

    Marks sarcastically ends his piece by suggesting Fresno State replace its current mascot with Barney the Purple Dinosaur, to fit in with its new policies on kindness.

    Please point to the part where they blame the students for enacting the policy. The best I see is that they assume that the policy is targeted at students, which it is and Marks reports it as such.

    Journ-o-lists fucking journ-o-lists fucking journ-o-lists. Get this clusterfucked garbage off of Reason.

    1. Nobody even calls for anybody to be silenced or lose their job and aren’t even really at odds with each other on the policy.

      It’s a trivial squabble between sympathetic authors over whether they’re all towing or toeing the line and doing so in the same direction.

      Shikha’s really just a terrible human being.

  24. You wrote this article more generally a few months ago, about how the left is a bunch of children poking the bear, and the right wing coalition is stronger and more uniform in retaliation.

    My continued question is: why don’t you cut it off at the source, the leftist nonsense, rather than scolding the retaliation? Are you afraid? Why wait to both sides this rather than attempting to get the children to understand why they’re not going to like the outcome?

    You continue to admit that conservatives are the adults in the room, but fail to deploy your lesson on the left.

  25. Conservatives warn day and night about liberal political correctness but give scarcely a thought to how their own brand of patriotic correctness stifles free expression.

    This is a revealing comment. Dalmia hooks her pretense free speech on the left is waning to disinvitations as if other forms of leftist attacks on free speech don’t exist. In fact disinvitations are the least important – they simply have the advantage of being undeniable. Mob targeting and impacts on future employment are by far more worrisome. Contra Dalmia there is no sign this is abating. In fact it is migrating from campus to the broader culture becoming an even greater problem.

    But Dalmia’s criticism of the right shows she understands these types of free speech violations exist she’s merely choosing not to apply a similar analysis to the left. Meanwhile she tries to pass racism and bigotry off as “academic freedom”. I have a hard time believing a professor citing Klan doctrine would be protected under academic freedom.

  26. Why does Reason publish the writing of this modern-day Goebbels?

    1. Goebbels was an effective and convincing propagandist. Shikha’s more in Baghdad Bob’s league.

  27. Were these woketarians thinking that none of their opponents would be willing to resort to censorship?

    1. I doubt the woketarians assumed that their opponents wouldn’t be willing to resort to censorship. I’m guessing they see this through the prism of “power” and “winning” rather than see anyone as having the silly goal of a free and open market place of ideas where no one tries to silence anyone.

      But that’s a problem. The last thing I want to do is prove their assumptions to be CORRECT!

      Once we start playing the game of power and winning, rather than furthering the goal of free speech for ITS OWN SAKE, we’ve lost.

      It doesn’t matter whose speech I prefer. I don’t want the other side silenced. I want to hear from voices I don’t already agree with.

      Let’s not lose sight of WHY free speech and open discussion is so important. We can’t always assume the ideas we already have can’t be improved, and they can only be improved by open discussion and civility all around.

      Please tell me that I’m not the only one who abhors the idea of “winning” the speech-chilling contest.

      1. You can do nothing while speech gets silenced if you so wish. Conservatives thought this would eventually burn itself out.

        Nearly 30 years later it has not.

        1. I’m happy to discuss whatever you think might be the best somethings to do, but I’m sure you’ll agree that doing the WRONG thing is most likely even worse than doing nothing.

          But before we can discuss the best course of action, we first need to agree on the goal. Do you and I actually share the same goal?

          My goal does not involve silencing the silencers. My goal is to hear the other side speak just as much as it
          Is to hear my guys speak.

          Is that your goal as well? Or is sticking it to the other side and silencing them a feature rather than a bug?

          Forget about your justified lack of sympathy for the guys who made the crappy rules. Let’s agree that you don’t need to share any tears for them. But regardless, In your world, would you rather have more freedom of expression for everyone, or is it a good thing to have your point of view silence the other point of view when your side gets the chance to do so?

          1. My goal is absolute free speech. Say what you want, when you want. No shouting down people so others cannot hear them speak.

            You feel standing on principles will bring this about. I feel mutually assured destruction will. You silence us, we will do the same in return. I feel “standing on principles” is far too easily confused for weakness and surrender.

            1. You silence us, we will do the same in return.

              At least be willing to entertain the notion that your opposition feels exactly the same way.

              If it were the case that your opposition felt this exact same way, does tit-for-tat still seem like a good plan to end it?

              1. It is if you’re the last one standing.

              2. “At least be willing to entertain the notion that your opposition feels exactly the same way.”

                They’re not being silenced. They can feel whatever they wish. I lack the desire to entertain delusions.

                “If it were the case that your opposition felt this exact same way, does tit-for-tat still seem like a good plan to end it?”

                One side standing on principle while the other silences them has assuredly failed thus far.

  28. The premise of the headline is so idiotic that is just screams “CLICKBAIT”.

  29. The article appeared to be quick to castigate the conservative point of view in the campus free speech tug of war. The thrust of the message, that conservatives are trying to use a heavy hand in limiting certain kinds of speech, is counter-intuitive and not much evidence was presented to correct the prevailing notion that liberals-progressives control the agenda on campuses across the nation, with few exceptions.

    1. Conservatives control hundreds of colleges. Nearly all of them are lousy, objectionable, and unaccomplished institutions, but they exist and their abuses of expressive rights, academic freedom, and reason should not be ignored.

        1. Do your own basic research, you half-educated, bigoted malcontent. Otherwise, how will you ever learn anything?

          1. In other words, you can’t prove it.

  30. Right Wing Nus have always hated free speech. Just look at their censorship efforts. Larry Flynt (the great freedom fighter and conservative enemy) know this better than anyone.

    1. child porn is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Go somewhere else you degenerate moron.

    2. Oh great it’s butthead

  31. Conservatives will continue to whine about Berkeley, Harvard, Columbia, Michigan, Wellesley, and similar strong schools.

    America’s liberal-libertarian mainstream will continue to rely on and operate our strongest schools, which follow the path of reason, tolerance, modernity, science, and inclusivity.

    Right-wingers will continue to rely on Hillsdale, Liberty, Grove City, Regent, Ouachita Baptist, and hundreds of other low-quality, conservative-controlled schools for education of fledgling clingers and promotion of the Republican worldview.

    Democrats will continue to ignore those right-wing yahoo factories (or maybe recognize the error of accrediting schools that teach nonsense).

    The continuing course of America’s culture war therefore is predictable.

    1. Whoever is programming this bot needs to update the talking points. These have gone stale.

      1. WHOA, John. They were NOT stale at some point?

        I have to disagree, friend.

    2. Go die in a fire, slaver.

    3. Wellesley, Berkeley, and MI are just not that strong

      1. In a race against Biola, Wheaton, Patrick Henry, Hillsdale, Liberty, Regent, and Franciscan, they are twice as strong as they need to be in this context.

        1. of course that was not your claim above, troglodyte…you know nothing of these schools

    4. inclusivity?. You mean like the Borg?

    5. Again I’m violating my “don’t respond to trolls” rule. There is no “America’s liberal-libertarian mainstream.” Ipse dixit. To help out an ignoramus like you, that means that this is an assertion that has not been proven. There is no “leftist-libertarian” mainstream (I refuse to use “liberal” when referring to the left); the two sides are diametrically opposed. The primary focus of the left is to expand the reach and power of government, while we true libertarians are trying to restrict and reverse the expanding power of government. I suggest that when you say “liberal-libertarian,” what you really mean is “leftist-libertine.”

  32. I guess the turd is still here spreading her form of garbage and phony Progressive Libertarianism.
    https://www.escortsadservice.com/

    1. Look, I ask simply for information, but…are you some kind of pimp? I’m not saying you are, just that the name of the link prompts the question and I don’t want to click on your link.

  33. “The Growing Right-Wing Threat to Campus Free Speech.

    That’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time.
    Hey, Ms. Dalmia.
    Do you have any other jokes for us today?

  34. Left wing right wing. Who cares which side of the chicken they come from. I’ll have the spicy garlic.

  35. Oh goody. Shitma is still be published here.

  36. my god, Shikha is an intellectually dilettante

  37. “Conservatives are starting to take over just as lefty snowflakes are starting to melt away!”

    And the evidence for this is…..?

    Shikha is straining for a narrative by playing equivalency game, picking up on some instances on the right who want to squelch speech. She completely ignores the fact pundits like Shapiro and Crowder routinely defends offensive content college professors. Banning flag burning is not some holy grail on the right.

    Free speech does not protect Kap or anyone else from criticism. If someone waved a confederate flag at my face on public ground, I have every right to curse him out. The conservatives merely boycotted the NFL, they did not launch witch hunts and dehumanizing campaign on Kap or anyone else. Even if they did betray free speech principles, they’re not even close to being on the same level as liberals.

    SIGH. What “threat” does the right wing pose on college campuses, which are progressive strongholds? Do conservatives have input on arbitrary codification of language and student conduct there? Or their kangaroo courts? Should we have just ignored the Trudeau blackface photos, because that might be used as pretext for dismissal.

    This is a petty personal agenda from a writer obsessed with immigration to the exclusion of all else. It’s shame to see a writer of her caliber to lower herself this way. Breitbart plays her game often, because they’ll highlight every single illegal alien murder and rape that occurred in sanctuary cities to push their point. So Shikha is now on the level of Breitbart.

  38. Seriously, Shikha, you have lost your fucking mind.

    1. I don’t know why they’re insisting on focusing on this false equivalence. Robby is no better.

      It’s like they don’t read FIRE and Campusreform.

      This toxic atmosphere is 100% the retarded child of the progressive left.

      Pisses me off to no end.

      1. Some “libertarians” are reflexively progressive, adopting their paradigm while nitpicking policy proposals.
        Others simply derive their self-worth from standing outside the fray, representing a third way, and striking a pose as neutral. Such a stance is vital to their self-conceit, thus maintaining (false) equivalence is their priority… no matter how much reality must be ignored.
        “I am better than them or them” is the whole of their law

      2. This toxic atmosphere is 100% the retarded child of the progressive left. Pisses me off to no end.

        There’s a certain type of “libertarian” who supports the toxic atmosphere against non-leftists. The can’t agree with the far left on economics because they aren’t quite stupid enough. But they agree with the left on all other issues including that everyone one the right is racist and stupid. Effectively they are progressives on these issues which is why they – like other leftists – defend campus radicals from criticism by (among other things) pretending they have no influence or their influence is waning.

        There’s no sense in getting pissed off, just recognize what they are.

    2. “Seriously, Shikha, you have lost your fucking mind.”

      Oh, she knows where it is, but chooses not access it for whatever reason.

  39. “Just when the internal threat of censorship from left-wing campus activists is abating”

    Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!

  40. This article claims Jamie Riley was fired, but the the link and all the articles I’ve read say he resigned. Nor have I seen any articles suggesting he was pressured to resign. Riley himself has not said so, unless he did it real quietly.

    There’s a big difference between being fired for alleged misconduct and quitting because you feel your employer is not woke enough.

    You’re borderline engaging in libel against Riley here.

    1. “Your involvement in this matter has been reported to the gestapo. It has been an honor serving with you”

      (Takes out revolver and places it on desk. Turns and leaves the room closing door behind him)

      1. It *might* have been quit-or-your-fired but there’s not much evidence.

        Given Riley’s stated beliefs, it’s also possible that Riley quit because he thought the University of Alabama was insufficiently supportive.

        I’ve quit jobs because the boss sucked and wouldn’t want Shikha Dalmia “defending” me by saying I was fired.

  41. Goose, gander. Make dimwits live by their own rules.

    1. So you agree with her then. It is just that it is ok because they do it too.

  42. Dalmia is clown world and Reason are bigger clowns for publishing this.

  43. Sounds like the progtards are getting a taste of their own medicine. Good.

    I guess the cons figured out that two can play that game.

  44. Shikha is a terrific writer. I am glad she posts her articles here. She has a way of getting to the issue and provoking people into revealing their real motivations.

    I am neither left nor right so interesting to me that almost nobody here takes the view of simply defending freedom of expression as a positive good in itself and viewing the world as composed of individuals each with their own rights.

    1. I am neither left nor right so interesting to me that almost nobody here takes the view of simply defending freedom of expression as a positive good in itself

      If you think this you don’t understand anything at all. People are defending free speech by showing normals what the left’s program against speech entails. No one paid any attention to free speech when right wingers were harassed or fired (and still don’t). But as soon as James Gunn was fired normals and even the the non-activist left started thinking maybe the rules needed some adjustment.

  45. “they certainly wouldn’t have stood squarely behind this president when he berated 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick for kneeling during the national anthem to protest police brutality and demanded that the NFL fire him.” I have yet to see Trump or anyone else actually using government force against Kaepernick. I stand squarely behind Trump in his criticism. That support would immediately disappear if force was used

    1. Yet nobody says that he does not a right as an individual to do so.

      There is also a right for any one of us to disagree or express the view that in his job as the president he should refrain from public statements about such matters.

      1. “There is also a right for any one of us to disagree or express the view that in his job as the president he should refrain from public statements about such matters.”

        And a right for the rest of us to laugh at such a ridiculous claim.

      2. Yes and the negative press his kneeling caused plus his suck ass QB play got him fired.

    2. The post you quoted gets it wrong. It is not a free speech issue.

      I think in that case the president was making the situation worse. Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and the whole thing is blown over. Same for the football players. Their job is to play football so go do that.

      1. “The post you quoted gets it wrong. It is not a free speech issue.”
        Followed by:
        “I think in that case the president was making the situation worse. Sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut and the whole thing is blown over. Same for the football players. Their job is to play football so go do that.”

        So it *is* an A-1 issue, but you would prefer they all shut up?
        I thoroughly support Kaepernick in making an ass of himself and, further, making sure that no NFL team is going to waste any money employing someone who should be in jail for impersonating an NFL QB.
        I further support those who point out that Kaepernick ought to keep his yap shut when his employer is providing the pulpit from which he gets to preach.
        You’ll notice that Kaepernick had not problem with these issues while he was a starting (fake) QB, but once his ass was on the bench, he seemed to find ’causes’.

      2. ” Their job is to play football so go do that.”

        The corrollary is that, when they don’t do that, it is the job. of their employer to make corrective actions. Which could include firing them. And it is acceptable for anyone to recommend just that course of action.

        Saying that someone else is not entitled to say such things is denying them their freedom of speech.

      3. Almost every person on every cop post says things that are in total agreement with what CK is protesting for. I guess not disagreeing with Trump overrules that?

  46. She is absolutely correct!
    Several weeks ago, there was an instance of a right wing group outing a lefty prof for hypocrisy, and he resigned.
    I think there might have be TWO since then! A 200% INCREASE!

  47. This is how ‘Reason’ defines libertarianism = Front page space for virulent progressives as long as they bash conservatives.

  48. This is peak gaslighting. Conflating forceful Leftist censorship with Rightist cultural pressure is pitiful. University policy and the letter of the law are backed by force; nobody ever got expelled from their school or denied 1A rights by a bunch of conservatives writing mean things online.

  49. There are some interesting points here, but I have to take exception to one thing she said. The statement that there could be restrictions on “clapping loudly” is disingenuous. There are left wing lunatics screaming in people’s faces and using noisemakers to drown them out so they can’t be heard. This is the kind of behavior that conservatives wanted stopped, and if she has a better idea for how to word a bill to prevent unintended consequences, I’m all ears.

  50. This is an impressively stupid column, even for a fourth-rate thinker like Shikha.

    While the defenestration of campus speech codes is all to the good, modern “cancel culture” is almost entirely a phenomenon of the left. (Progressives will trot out examples like Ward Churchill and Melissa Click to dispute this, but not only are those exceptions rather than the rule, in neither case were they fired for their views: Churchill was fired for plagiarism and academic misconduct, and Click was canned for, essentially, soliciting violence against journalists and police.) While “Disinvitation Season” may have gone out of vogue, the left persistently uses a combination of heckler’s vetoes and social pressure on public and private authorities to deplatform and/or ruin people they disagree with. The right, by and large, has not done this, and pretending otherwise is a clown-shoes level denial of basic reality.

    1. The right by and large does do this, has always done it, and is in many ways defined by its willingness to suppress thoughts it doesn’t like. Like Islam, for example. Or saying the Civil War was about slavery. Or that the Founding Fathers were anything but Jesus’s representatives on earth. In those cases it’s usually high schools they’re going after. When kids are even more impressionable.

  51. God dumb as shit article.
    Yes the conservatives are out there trying to shut down your speech.
    Not

  52. Oh, I get it now. Shikha is Reason’s comedy writer.

  53. I miss the day when you guys lectured me about the virtue of having principles.

    Half this thread is “They started it! Wah! I can do it too now!”

    Can we not have every single political philosophy be dead and dying right now? Something has to keep us afloat for fuck’s sake.

Please to post comments