Campus Free Speech

Indiana Wesleyan Student Kicked Out of Honors College for Questioning Cultural Appropriation

Bias incident reports, safety concerns, and harassment charges, all because of a slightly trollish Facebook post.

|

Two years ago, Micah Sample, a libertarian student at Indiana Wesleyan University, penned a rant against the campus's guidance to students to avoid offensive Halloween costumes and published it on Facebook.

The post was a tad on the trollish side: Sample referred to IWU's Halloween costume awareness checklist as "cancerous," and accused the social justice left of fetishizing victimhood.

"I'm going to culturally appropriate as much as I please, and I couldn't possibly care less about who gets offended," he wrote.

The statement was provocative, but it wasn't crude or threatening. Some of Sample's Facebook friends objected to the tone of it, and said so. That should have been the end of the entire ordeal.

It wasn't. Instead, IWU launched an investigation. Then administration felt compelled to issue a statement denouncing the post. Then the university suspended Sample from his student leadership positions. IWU deemed Sample guilty of harassment and disruptive behavior: He arrived at a meeting with administrators only to learn that they had already reached this verdict without providing the student any meaningful opportunity to defend himself. Ultimately, the Honors College ejected him.

"Before going through the Student Conduct process, I believed that Indiana Wesleyan University was a place for free thought, dialogue, speech, and expression," wrote Sample in an email to Reason. "Afterward, it became apparent that this was nothing more than a facade."

This incident unfolded in the fall of 2017. It has only recently come to light, as Sample opted to share the entire investigative report—a 91-page testament to the horrors of university bureaucracy—with Mark Bauerlein, an academic and journalist. Bauerlein wrote about Sample's ordeal at Minding the Campus. I obtained a copy of the report from Bauerlein. Having read the entire thing, I cannot disagree with Bauerlein's impression that Sample was subjected to a kind of Star Chamber, and that freedom of speech and thought are seriously imperiled at the private, Christian university.

"Is it possible for an entire institution to go crazy?" wonders Bauerlein.

Here was Sample's initial Facebook post, which came in response to campus posters warning students about Halloween costumes that borrow from other cultures and thus commit the sin of appropriation:

Just to mess with the ideologically possessed people who made this cancerous sign, I'm very, very tempted to dress as an incarcerated Muslim Native American chieftain, wearing both a hijab and a ritual headdress. If anyone can get me some face paint and a headdress, or an authentic hijab, please message me here on Facebook. I'm going to culturally appropriate as much as I please, and I couldn't possibly care less about who gets offended. If my choice of costume is restricted by "social justice"—that is, "victim" worship and fetishizing—I'm going to rail against every boundary these people set up. Let the virtue-signaling games begin, and may the odds be ever in your favor this Halloween—if you're a member of a non-privileged, non-white, non-male minority, that is.

Also, please don't dress up as a Wild Western cowboy outlaw—that's appropriation of my culture, and I find that really offensive. Just, like, be culturally sensitive and stuff, so we don't have to send the thought police after you.

Rude? Perhaps. Edgy? Sure. An example of targeted harassment, worthy of formal sanction? Surely not.

But the post generated many complaints. Several students even filed bias response reports. (These are also contained in Sample's file.) IWU's bias reporting system asks the victim to give the name of the perpetrator, provide documentation of the offense, and explain the impact. One victim said Sample's post "made me feel upset and shaken." Still another wrote "he cannot state that cultural appropriation is irrelevant/idiotic and mock other religions and cultures," as if disagreeing with with someone else's beliefs constituted criminal behavior.

Based on the feedback, Sample apologized for how he worded his post.

"I think that views which may be in conflict with those held by administrators, staff, students, or organizations ought to be not only allowed, but perhaps even encouraged, because I value diversity of thought, and that was my original point," he wrote. "I did not express that well initially, and for that, I'm sorry."

The file contains copies of emails exchanged between various IWU administrators. They take note of Sample's apology but conclude that "I don't think this changes our course of action."

Next, the dean of the Honors College, David Riggs, emailed Sample to inform him that the college was "beyond disappointed" with his "deeply problematic and offensive" post.

"As a result, the faculty decided it is necessary for us to issue a public statement making clear that we find this sort of uncharitable and inflammatory use of social media to be at odds with the ethos of our Christian liberal learning community," wrote Riggs.

But merely issuing a statement wasn't enough. The university also decided to inform Sample that he was potentially in violation of university policy relating to harassment and disruptive behavior. He was asked to appear for a meeting six days later, where "based on the information gathered, a decision will be made."

It soon became clear that the decision to sanction Sample had already been made, and could only have been avoided if the student had groveled before the administration. The file contains the notes of an administrator named Laura Bronsink, who met with Sample and explained that "based on only reading the post he seemed to have no concern for how others might respond. … It did not seem to invite a conversation, but rather antagonize individuals to respond with their opinion, even though his mind would not change."

On this basis, Sample was found responsible on the two charges. IWU has three levels of probation: verbal warning, disciplinary warning, and citizenship probation. Sample's thoughtcrimes were so egregious that the university had placed him in the most serious category—citizenship probation. He would be suspended from his extracurricular activities—including his position in the student government—for 60 days. He was also required to write a two-page reflection paper. Finally, after additional back and forth, he was dismissed from the honors program entirely.

What he wrote in his reflection paper probably didn't help his case:

Throughout the humiliating process of being berated and condemned by Student Conduct for the sole purpose of appeasing offended parties, I have come to realize that the impact I have had on this campus due to the Facebook post in question has been immensely positive, despite mid-ranking faculty (who I will neither name or indicate here) doing their absolute best to convince me otherwise. Not only am I wholly innocent of the charges at hand—because I neither harassed anyone, nor instigated disruptive behavior, but instead merely spoke the truth in a humorous fashion—but I have also created a conversation among students surrounding the restrictions of free speech on this campus, which is a highly necessary conversation.

Reading through Sample's responses to the patronizing and melodramatic missives of the administration, I noticed that his own conviction he did nothing wrong—indeed, that he was the victim—increased over time. In fact, he eventually filed his own bias complaint, asserting that the university had discriminated against him on the basis that he had been perceived as a white male. (Sample asserts he has Native American ancestry, and thus his declaration that he would appropriate this culture was not offensive.)

"I am convinced that the Leftists in power desire nothing less than total domination over their students' ideas and worldviews," Sample told me.

If the university wanted to persuade a young man that railing against social justice warriors wouldn't win him many converts, its strategy backfired. Administrators appear to have made Sample more convinced that progressives don't want to hear ideas they find offensive, more convinced that lefty-sympathetic authority structures will violate principles of free speech and due process to punish wrongthink, and more convinced that he was right to mock them.

NEXT: Ashley Judd and Seth Meyers Say They Want to Help Sex Workers. They Could Start by Shutting Up.

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. Headline is backwards. He didn’t question Cultural Appropriation. He embraced Cultural Appropriation.

    1. He questioned the SJW doctrine that says cultural appropriation is even a thing and that it’s bad.

      1. Cultural appropriation is a thing. He merely questioned that it is a bad thing.

        1. Cultural appropriation can only occur if culture is immutable and perpetual.

          1. And uniquely homogeneous.

            1. Regardless, his right to do his questioning the way he did is, to say the least, highly questionable. It’s a pity Indiana is so far away, because if he had engaged in such “questioning” here at NYU we could have had him arrested to see how the courts would handle it. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “troll” case at:

              https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

              1. Quixote
                November.26.2019 at 6:02 pm
                “Regardless, his right to do his questioning the way he did is, to say the least, highly questionable….

                You.
                Are.
                Full
                Of.
                Shit.
                Grow up and quite whining.

                1. Tut-tut, such language. In our classrooms at least students are instructed to be civil, and making others feel upset and shaken with mockery of their religions and cultures is not allowed.

                  1. You.
                    Are.
                    Full.
                    Of.
                    Shit.
                    Grow up, you pathetic infantile piece of shit.

                    1. Tut-tut. Is that the “rough and tumble” of the Internet?

                  2. Feeling upset and shaken…what a bunch of soft pussies you are. No wonder its just a hop, skip and a jump for you to become women!

                    1. Tut-tut, clearly such “speech” must not be allowed any of our institutions of higher learning, and we here at NYU are proud of the example we’ve set in this regard for our colleagues everywhere in America, and wherever we have campuses abroad as well.

                  3. Are you from Spain? If not, how dare you appropriate your handle! That being said, if the cultures suffering with inferiority complexes want to keep their mud huts, high infant mortality, and rape, we whiteys won’t begrudge them.

              2. Oh, if it’s NYU, why bother? Just take the little bugger out back and string ‘eem up. How DARE he hurt the feelings of crybullies near and far, correct? Study the Bolshevik’s deeds in 20th century Russia for an accurate depiction of the body count (100 million) to which sanctimony-fueled rage leads. Weak minded individuals invariably turn to draconian measures and violence in particular, since it’s indeed the only thing meaningful that’s at their immediate disposal. They certainly can’t THINK their way through an issue, as they’re entirely unaware of what THINKING actually is. They substitute emotion for thought. Weak minded much?

        2. I don’t think it is a thing. The idea is nonsense.

          Culture is culture. It doesn’t belong to anyone and it can’t be taken from anyone except by force.
          Cultural exchange is how culture develops and changes.

          1. “…The idea is nonsense…”

            And those embracing the concept are ignoramuses.

        3. It isn’t. Culture isn’t property. It can’t be owned. The concept is ridiculous on it’s face. We really need to smoke crape these progtards off and flush them all.

        4. You’re using English, electricity, internet, phone lines. How stupid are you?

    2. Unfortunately, he made the mistake of apologizing. You NEVER apologize to SJWs! You have to just defy them, rattle them with additional triggers, and file suits against them using the law to get them to stop. Looks like he learned that eventually. Who says you don’t learn anything useful at university?!

        1. I’m sorry…… that progressives yet draw breath.

      1. Exactly. Never, ever apologize (unless you’ve actually in the wrong). It’s a show of weakness that, far from mollifying them, encourages them to move in for the kill.

      2. “…and for that, I’m sorry.”

        Yep. From there on, he was doomed.

      3. Cranedoc: ANY concession at all, big or small, is considered by the left as merely a staging point for their next attack. When PC first reared it’s stunningly ugly head in the late 80’s, I immediately adopted Elizabeth Taylor’s attitude toward crybabies; “I so dearly LOVE making the bitches that hate me… hate me MORE.”

    3. Now you can be thrown out of college because of what you say? What happened to free speech? Cultural appropriation is censorship. It is telling people what they can not wear. Censorship must stop.

    4. What if you could dress up as something you are not on and take that risk of being mistaken for a minority that 99% of the American population has complete ignorance about … on Halloween or a campus party?

      Novel idea quickly swept under carpet of incestual list for absolutist interpretation …

    5. hAnnAh. i cAn see whAt your sAying… elizAbeth`s storry is AmAzing… on sundAy i got A brAnd new hondA from eArning $9023 this lAst four weeks And even more thAn 10-k this pAst month. with-out Any doubt it’s the most finAnciAlly rewArding i’ve ever hAd. i stArted this 8-months Ago And pretty much strAight AwAy wAs bringing home over $71… per-hr. i use this greAt link, go to this site home tAb for more detAil…../.morning6.com

  2. Administrators appear to have made Sample more convinced that progressives don’t want to hear ideas they find offensive, more convinced that lefty-sympathetic authority structures will violate principles of free speech and due process to punish wrongthink, and more convinced that he was right to mock them.

    And he is right to mock them.

    And this goes to my point that I have responded to the good Reverend with when he does his private Christian school schtick. Places like Wheaton, Taylor, and Illinois Wesleyan all have the same bent as his preferred left-libertarian colleges. They are busy shoving progress down the throats of bitter clingers. I don’t know what he is complaining about.

    1. *Indiana Wesleyan, Although Illinois Wesleyan has the same issues it’s not a Christian School. Correction there. Edit button time.

    2. How else are you clingers going to get out of the way progress? If you don’t capitulate to the thought Police in the correct way then we have to careingly stomp on your neck. In the long run it is for your own good and the good of society.

    3. ” Places like Wheaton, Taylor, and Illinois Wesleyan all have the same bent as his preferred left-libertarian colleges.”

      Wheaton, the resolute clinger factory that kicked a faculty member off campus for saying something nice about a Muslim?

      The same right-wingers who nip at the ankles of mainstream schools like this strive to defend any fourth-tier yahoo farm or unranked conservative-controlled campus that claims its censorship, denial of academic freedom, enforcement of dogma, suppression of science, or viewpoint-based discrimination is rooted in clinger-friendly superstition.

      1. Wheaton, the resolute clinger factory that kicked a faculty member off campus for saying something nice about a Muslim?

        That wasn’t actually what she was fired over, but I realize to a slack-jawed, slope-foreheaded hicklib, it would seem that way.

        1. I suppose it is possible she was fired by a right-wing school for not being white.

          Are you enjoying getting curb-stomped in the culture war? It seems to be making you cranky.

          1. Then why are you the one crying?

          2. I suppose it is possible she was fired by a right-wing school for not being white.

            In slack-jawed hicklib land, I’m sure that seems like a possibility. That’s not what happened, though.

          3. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
            November.26.2019 at 1:17 pm
            “Are you enjoying getting curb-stomped in the culture war? It seems to be making you cranky.”

            Are you enjoying making a fucking laughingstock of yourself, asshole bigot?

          4. They’ve got your number, Art.

            Not that understanding you is exactly quantum mechanics.

          5. They only discovered this After she was hired by them?

        2. What’s wrong with having a slack jaw and a sloped forehead? Libertarians should respect different people’s individual appearances.

          1. I think you’re gonna have to settle for “tolerate” when it comes to your having a slack jaw and sloped forehead, Chips.

            1. Wow, that was such low hanging fruit that even shorty Tulpa could reach it.

              1. I kind of like how you insulted your own post, if I’m being honest.

                It’s a bold strategy, let’s see if it pays off.

          2. If you have a small cranium, it’s usually a good idea to keep your jaw closed. It’s not just about appearance.

      2. I have to say that is one impressive persecution complex you have there Rev; please, share your personal story with us.

        1. The rev is a parody, dedicated to making leftists look as repugnant as possible. Probably working for trump/2020.

          1. I wondered that very thing; but unlike true parodists like OBL, he’s just bitter, not to mention repetitive to the point of being pointless.

          2. If he’s a parody account, he’s got his own parody account now.

          3. The rev is a parody

            Nah. He learned from experience he’s too stupid to win arguments, but he can’t go away because his self-worth is too closely tied to left wing politics. So he engages in the most profound contribution he is capable of making: childish insults.

      3. You must not have visited the campus recently, Rev. A quick walk around and a cursory examination of the posters on the bulletin boards will make you realize that they’re on your side.

        You should be happy! All of the bitter clingers are sending their children to these schools, believing that they will get a fourth-tier, dogma enforcing education, and instead they’re paying to have progress shoved down their throats. Take the win, bud.

      4. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
        November.26.2019 at 11:48 am
        “…Wheaton, the resolute clinger factory that kicked a faculty member off campus for saying something nice about a Muslim?..”

        Check directly above; you been busted, asshole bigot.

  3. If the college was really concerned about appropriation, they would ban Halloween.

    1. And Christmas, and Easter, and so on. Anything that recognizes individuals for that matter.

      1. Yep.

        Someone at the college should start a petition to return the holidays back to their pagan ways.

        1. I would sign it!
          But then we just got out the decorations for Yule, so……

        2. IO Saturnalia!!

    2. and change the name of the university.

  4. The university also decided to inform Sample that he was potentially in violation of university policy relating to harassment and disruptive behavior.

    I trust Sample then decided to inform the university that it was potentially in violation of his civil rights.

    1. He should have invited the University to join him in an activity that transcends all cultures: “Suck my Cock”!

      1. With affirmative consent at every step, of course.

      2. Hey, not all cultures appreciate cocksucking. In fact, I believe the activity is still technically illegal in several Bible Belt states.

        1. Hey look, you’re wrong again.

          1. I personally have no problem with you blowing truckers at rest stops for money. Keep at it, if it makes you so happy.

            1. And it makes me money!

              But you’re still wrong, and now you’re a bigot too.

            2. Great, you’re stigmatizing gay sex and using it as an insult.

              1. Which he is free to do, right?

            3. Chipper, once again, insinuating that being gay is somehow negative. Sheesh.

              1. Because I told him he was wrong on the law. That trivial interaction makes him go bigot.

            4. ENB should ban you for belittling SexWork

        2. Laws may still be on the books if that’s what you mean, but I’m pretty sure they are unenforceable at this point.

          1. Lawrence v Texas

            “Lawrence then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case. The Supreme Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas in a 6–3 decision and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states , making same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory”

            He was wrong. It isn’t even technically illegal.

            1. I could engage in some pointless pedantry now, but I won’t.

              1. Please do. It’ll end with “the Supreme Court invalidated all of those laws, so he was wrong from every angle”

        3. I would guess it’s more popular in places where circumcision is common.

        4. naaWWWW… don’t listen to those lyin’ cocksucking cocksuckers.

    2. He should sue. You should quit whining.

      1. And you should get the full Kent State, hicklib.

        1. I have enjoyed watching right-wing bigots become disaffected, inconsequential losers in modern America. Open wider, clinger.

          1. “You should quit whining”

          2. You must be talking about your hicklib family again.

          3. “One victim said Samples post “made me feel upset and shaken”.

            A fine example of the revs “betters” ladies and gentlemen! A fearsome force indeed!

            Haha.

          4. BIGOT: pejorative term that you call someone you don’t like, as a means of presenting yourself as much lesser an asshole than you actually are. Also, see “ninnies, and how they project”.

            How about a nice, tall glass of I don’t give a fuck?

        1. I suspect his entire life is a whine. Bets that he went to some small religiously affiliated liberal arts college, and got aggressed in some way. Will likely never get over it, much less got on with it.

          AmIright Rev? Your feelings are perpetually hurt, so you troll here to express your malaise?

          1. You will be replaced. By a better person. Until you, you will comply with the preferences of people such as me. You get to rail and mutter and flail and sputter about it as much as you like, though.

            Thank you for your obsequious compliance.

            1. Oh please, just tell us who did it to you.

              1. A republican obviously. He had a crush on a hot yuppie and got blown, and then blown off.

            2. Are you drunk again?

            3. So your preference for totalitarian tyranny comes out.

              We always suspected as much. It’s so nice to see it out in the open!

              (And no, we will *not* submit.)

              1. I think he’s just trying really hard to get us to say “we shall not be replaced” or something to that effect.

            4. Rev would gleefully put people up against the wall.

          2. Haha. The rev will one day rescind the courtesy of allowing you to hold your own beliefs. Sounds reasonable, right?

            He’s clearly just here to parody left wing victim think. And for that we thank him.

    3. If he actually wanted to stay at the school, that would have been a good step, with a lawyer present, and inform them that he would Oberlin every single one of them if they kicked him out over wrongthink.

      The funny thing is, the university proved him right about the school being a haven for thought police.

  5. Based on the feedback, Sample apologized for how he worded his post.

    Too bad he didn’t just say “I’m sorry people felt offended” and let it go at that.

    1. Nah. He should have said “if you weren’t mini-authoritarians dying to be protected from thinking nothing I wrote would bother you”.

  6. Two years ago, Micah Sample, a libertarian student at Indiana Wesleyan University-

    Uh-oh.

    1. Yep, all you need to know.

  7. He should ask the offended students, do you like Imagine Dragons?
    Then Imagine Dragon deez nuts across your face!

    1. Well done, sir. This ticks all the boxes.

    2. Not a foolproof comeback. What if they don’t like Imagine Dragons?

      1. “Who cares, Imagine Dragon deez nuts across your face!”

        Your slack jaw and sloped forehead aren’t just part of your appearance, but indicators of a deeper mental issue it seems.

    3. You DO realize, one might hope, that there are disadvantaged children living in far away shit holes that have never HAD nuts dragged across their face, correct? Ever think about that? Of course not… you only think about yourself.

  8. Welp, sounds like lawyer time to me. See how much you can make them pay, maybe it’ll make them think twice next time

    1. How much did a court order Wheaton to pay to the faculty member who was kicked off campus for saying something nice about Muslims?

      1. Was it the same amount that a court ordered Oberlin to pay to the Gibsons?

      2. That never happened, so nothing presumably.

  9. Never apologize. It’s a sign of weakness. Stay off Facebook. Oh, and always carry a knife.

    1. This is America, where’s your handgun?

  10. He apologized? How did that work out for him?

    1. Apologizing was the first mistake. Second mistake was taking their little Star Court/struggle session seriously.

      They were already going to expel him, he should gone in there, told them to their face what a bunch of brain-dead zombie Maoists they are, told them every student and teacher that whined about it should kill themselves, and walked out.

      1. A hearty ‘fuck off, slavers’ would have been delicious.

        1. Don’t forget to slam the door! (right after you’ve dropped a steaming pile on the floor and walked through it on your way to the door)

    2. About as well as it’s gonna work out for Chick fil a.

  11. Reading through Sample’s responses to the patronizing and melodramatic missives of the administration, I noticed that his own conviction he did nothing wrong—indeed, that he was the victim—increased over time.

    For a moment there I thought Soave was going to call him a snowflake.

    If the university wanted to persuade a young man that railing against social justice warriors wouldn’t win him many converts, its strategy backfired.

    Persuade? That’s not what these types do. They enforce.

  12. Keep this in mind in the context of the liberaltarian throat-clearing and concern trolling about Oberlin and Gibson’s Bakery.

    The reason these schools don’t expel students for shoplifting, harassing private citizens at their homes, conducting hate hoaxes, skipping out on finals for being “stressed,” or shutting down non-leftist speakers, is because the students do these things with the implicit and explicit support of the administrators and faculty.

    If you want to mitigate these actions and their broader effect on both individuals and society, you have to go after the universities and the people who run them, not the students. The students are just useful idiots who are enabled by the schools. Destroy the university system, and most of these neo-Marxist ideas like cultural appropriation will be driven underground where they belong, instead of infecting the country’s social and economic institutions.

    1. “If you want to mitigate these actions and their broader effect on both individuals and society, you have to go after the universities and the people who run them, not the students”

      The faculties, trustees, administrations, and alumni at Berkeley, Harvard, Williams, Penn, and Michigan must be quaking at the prospect of attacks from disaffected, half-educated, bigoted, downscale right-wingers — every bit as much as they worry about academic competition from the fourth-tier, clinger-grooming, nonsense-teaching schools controlled by conservatives.

      1. Ask Oberlin how much they should worry about it, hicklib.

        1. Shhhh if he wants to encourage those universities to fuck up and pay 50 million dollar judgements, let him.

          1. Right; as Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.

        2. When mainstream America withdraws accreditation from downscale right-wing schools — although not from Oberlin or other strong liberal-libertarian schools — your lamentations will be fine entertainment.

          1. Ahahahaha he thinks people care about accreditation ahahahahahahjaaj

            What a credential whore ahahahahahahahah

          2. When mainstream America withdraws accreditation from downscale right-wing schools

            When hicklibs are beaten within an inch of their life at the next Antifa rally, your moans of pain will be fine entertainment.

          3. “…Oberlin or other strong liberal-libertarian schools…”

            See, there’s the proof that it’s a parody account.

      2. “The faculties, trustees, administrations, and alumni at Berkeley, Harvard, Williams, Penn, and Michigan ”

        Use racism to exclude Asians?

      3. At Michigan, this happened:

        University of Michigan ends Bias Response Team in free speech lawsuit settlement

    2. Destroy the university system,

      We can’t do this. While SJWs control campus politics there’s much more to a university than politics. We need Engineering, Science, and Business schools to exist. The better solution is to take back the schools from the nuts. We can do this directly by appointing trustees willing to fight it out and then backing them up. Or we can do it indirectly using competing schools which exclude SJW centered majors (i.e., grievance studies, journalism, English) and hire based on ability & sanity rather than politics. So an approach would be to target science based schools (GA Tech, Texas A&M, etc), eliminate the left appeasing spending on administrators / activism, and then let the pricing do the work.

      1. While SJWs control campus politics there’s much more to a university than politics.

        That hasn’t been the case for 50 years.

        1. So there isn’t much more to a university than politics? What do you mean by that? That it’s all politics? Or mostly politics?

          Seems to me that plenty of people have been getting decent education from universities in the past 50 years, so your comment puzzles me.

          1. “Seems to me that plenty of people have been getting decent education”

            Ok

            “from universities”

            I think we’ve found the issue.

          2. I’d say they’ve been getting a decent education IN SPITE OF universities for the past 50 years, myself included. “I have never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education.” –MARK TWAIN

        2. SJWs are a small minority of students. The usual crowd for protests are a dozen or two, with maybe a hundred for big events. This despite many campuses having 20k – 40k students (Berkeley = 43k for example). Even at lefty loon bin Berkeley 100 times more show up for home football games. The vast majority of students don’t want anything to do with politics.

          That’s why the key is eliminating the programs catering to these outliers which also rids universities of the faculty and administrators most involved in corrupting their students.

      2. You sound like someone dumb enough to believe that clingers are going to reverse the tide of the culture war, and that right-wingers are going to stop turning the campuses they control into fourth-tier goober factories.

        1. “You should quit whining”

    3. the university system is destroying itself already

  13. When i see something i don’t like on facebook or twitter i ignore it why do SJW’s think they have to punish it. Rhetorical

    1. Because it is out there and someone else might be influenced by it OMG you should be locked up for your inactivity.

      1. “someone else might be influenced by it” the argument presented by busybodies near and far. Howz ’bout you just tend to your own plate?

  14. “It soon became clear that the decision to sanction Sample had already been made, and could only have been avoided if the student had groveled before the administration.”

    I’ve watched social justice warriors online for a few years now, and this is a textbook example of the way they do things. That school is compromised and is being run by radicals.

  15. I’ve wondered why a place like Hillsdale College can exist between two stalwart leftist institutions like the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. Now it is obvious.

    1. Hillsdale — the conservatives’ crown jewel, despite its mediocre standing.

      1. Aww you didn’t get in, don’t be all sour grapes bro.

      2. The Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland, the let’s crown jewel, because he’s just as dumb as bubble bath.

  16. two years later was he in a cave?

  17. So what is Mr. Sample’s status now? Explain this to me in english.

    He was “dismissed from the honors program”. Does that mean he was expelled from the University? Or does it mean he still attends, just not in the honors program? (whatever that is).

  18. “The post was a tad on the trollish side”

    As compared to what? The only thing he did was provide some assholes an opportunity to give him grief, which they did. There are plenty of dipshits who apparently spend most of their waking hours looking for just such an opportunity.

  19. The post was a tad on the trollish side: Sample referred to IWU’s Halloween costume awareness checklist as “cancerous,” and accused the social justice left of fetishizing victimhood.

    I’m not sure what your definition of “trollish” is, but it sounds as if you might have “trollish” and “bluntly” confused. Obviously, the post was not blunt enough in expressing the idea that all y’all retarded motherfuckers can fuck off and die in a fire.

    1. I could see calling his hypothetical costume description trolling. Deliberately saying stuff you know will get people riled up sounds like trolling to me. Sometimes a little trolling helps to make a point.

      1. The verb “troll” appears to mean to deliberately provoke, but using social media. This seems to (falsely, in my view) assign it more mechanistic significance than voicing opposition in print media or conversation. This increased significance is used as a pretext to censor it.

  20. It did not seem to invite a conversation, but rather antagonize individuals to respond with their opinion, even though his mind would not change.”

    I’d like to see one example of a left winger discussing politics which meets this standard, or one example of any school in America disciplining a leftist based on this standard.

    1. We believe Trump is literal Hitler, but we invite your opinion?

    2. I was thinking the same thing. Wtf world do you live in, Mr. Soave?

      Who the hell takes the time to post about a political position while also seeking to have their minds changed?

      Robby Soave pulling some random moral standard out of his ass, acting like its somehow an expected standard that we all know about and hold each other to.

      1. Robby Soave pulling some random moral standard out of his ass,

        That wasn’t his comment, he was quoting one of the Wesleyan administrators justifying their punishment.

  21. I’m very, very tempted to dress as an incarcerated Muslim Native American chieftain, wearing both a hijab and a ritual headdress. If anyone can get me some face paint and a headdress, or an authentic hijab, please message me here on Facebook.

    LMAO! Dude needs to be a writer on SNL. Maybe they could be funny again.

    1. “Maybe they could be funny again.”

      That horse has long ago left the barn and been turned into glue.

      1. Someone needs to pass around some red caps with MSNLGA emblazoned on them! That’ll fix it!

      2. SNL hasn’t been funny since Eddie Murphy.

        1. SNL has always been funny. We just remember the good skits from long ago and forget the bad skits from long ago. The bad recent skits are still fresh in our memory, and outnumber the good recent skits. But they always did.

          1. The problem isn’t in the existence of bad skits. The problem is that nowadays, the ratio between bad skits and good skits is so bad, you can’t really say they are funny.

            I cannot bring myself to watch three or four episodes of SNL hoping for one good skit, particularly since long ago SNL mistook crudeness for humor, and I don’t particularly like “comedy” that consists solely of crudeness.

        2. Phil Hartman’s Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.

          1. Chris Farley and his “in a van down by the river”.

            1. Major Head Wound Harry

      3. “Jane, you ignorant slut.”

  22. “He cannot state that cultural appropriation is irrelevant/idiotic and mock other religions and cultures,”

    But cultural appropriation is irrelevant/idiotic. Also, cultural appropriation does not mock other religions and cultures by default. Certainly it can, but the notion that wearing a headdress or a hijab on Halloween, in and of itself, is mocking is nonsense.

    1. The odd thing is that when asked, the people who are having their culture appropriated don’t appear to mind. They aren’t the ones doing the complaining. It’s a bunch of concerned, liberal, white women who are leading the charge.

      1. What happens when men tell trannies to stop their appropriation of male culture.

        1. Males, especially white heterosexual males are the bottom of the ring. They get no SJW points.

          1. Which is true, but not responsive. That works for individuals, but the arguments against cultural appropriation are different, so it doesn’t work there.

          2. Incorrect. They are allotted negative SJW points on a daily basis and must continually grovel and socially signal every day just to get to a 0 point balance in the eyes of SJW chicks that will never, ever fuck them.

            Its pathetic but endlessly entertaining to watch. I just feel sorry for the occasional random non-SJW dude that gets swept up in the manufactured controversy with no prior knowledge of whats going on.

            1. “in the eyes of SJW chicks that will never, ever fuck them.”

              Patently false.

              1. Do you ever get tired of taking everything so seriously and literally?

                1. Do you ever get tired of missing a joke because you’re hopelessly blinkered?

  23. Well, Halloween has passed, so I’ll have to wait until next year to try out his costume ideas.

    I didn’t follow the details, but I think they said such a costume would be appropriate? So I don’t see a problem.

  24. Having read the entire thing, I cannot disagree with Bauerlein’s impression that Sample was subjected to a kind of Star Chamber, and that freedom of speech and thought are seriously imperiled at the private, Christian university.

    Since when is freedom of speech and thought guaranteed at a private university? If I chose to attend Bob Jones University and decided to troll against Christianity they would be free to suspend me, and I’d likely deserve it if they did.

    1. If I chose to attend Bob Jones University and decided to troll against Christianity they would be free to suspend me, and I’d likely deserve it if they did.

      That’s a pretty amusing admission that SJW beliefs are tantamount of a religion.

    2. I sort-of agree with you, but usually private schools have clear cut “honor codes” of some sort that students are expected to live by, and if you breach that code, whatever action the University chooses to do is appropriate. Additionally, the schools typically lay out a procedure for determining when you breach that code.

      This leaves us with two questions: did the student breach the school’s code of conduct? Did the school go through the promised procedures for determining if that breach was sufficient reason for punishing the student?

      If the answer is “no” to either question, then yes, the school should be held accountable for unjustly punishing the student.

      1. I don’t know what they did in 2017, but the current student handbook has lots of broad language which could be invoked against someone like this guy, if administrators feel like it:

        “IWU MISSION

        “Indiana Wesleyan University is a Christ-centered academic community committed to changing the world by developing students in character, scholarship and leadership….

        “ACCESS, EQUITY, DIVERSITY STATEMENT
        Indiana Wesleyan University endeavors to maintain a teaching and learning environment that supports sensitivity to diverse individuals and groups. Acts of racism, hazing, sexism, bigotry, harassment, and violence are not acceptable behaviors from either employees or students of Indiana Wesleyan University. Persons found involved in such behaviors may be dismissed from the institution.

        “Any persons who believe they are the object of such behaviors should speak to division chairpersons, resident directors, counselors or supervisors. If satisfactory resolution is not found, grievances may be filed in the manner indicated in the employee handbooks, the faculty handbook, or the university catalog….

        “DISCRIMINATION

        “Because we believe Scripture supports the worth and dignity of all persons, Indiana Wesleyan University strives to be a place where all members of our community are respected, valued, and appreciated for their diversity and role in the University. Discrimination includes but it’s not limited to distinction, preference, advantage for or detriment to an individual compared to others that is based upon an individual’s actual or perceived race, sex, color, national or ethnic origin, disability, age, or marital status that is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with or limits a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the university’s educational program or activities….

        “DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR

        “Disruptive behavior or language that either (a)negatively impacts the ethos of the community (i.e. profanity, vulgarity, disorderly conduct, etc.); (b) hampers the growth of others; or (c) threatens the safety and well-being of others.

        “Note: Depending on the severity and impact of the behavior or language, a violation may limit a students enrollment and/or ability to remain in University Housing. In such circumstances the University reserves the right to restrict or administratively remove students who:
        • exhibit little or no control in adhering to University policies;
        • are unable to carry out the normal routine of campus life;
        • threaten to harm others, have a health or physical condition that reaches a critical level and becomes life threatening; are disruptive to the living and/or learning environment on campus (i.e. create undo emotional or physical stress for others); or place consistent unrealistic expectations on the time and energy of other students,
        faculty or staff.

        “HARASSMENT

        “Unwelcome conduct or language which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment, including epithets,slurs or negative stereotyping; threatening, intimidating, derogatory, or hostile acts; denigrating jokes; verbal, written or graphic material that degrades or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or group; or severe, persistent slander or malicious gossip. It also includes interfering with or blocking a person’s legitimate movement or access in the classroom or workplace, the use of profanity or vulgarity to convey hostility toward others and pranks or horseplay intended to embarrass or humiliate others.”

        https://www.indwes.edu/undergraduate/Life-at-IWU/_files/IWU%20Student%20Handbook.pdf

        1. (there should be ellipses before Harassment)

        2. “HARM TO PERSON

          “No student shall cause physical harm or threaten to cause physical harm to any person. In addition, no student shall take any action which creates a danger to the health, safety, or personal well-being of others.”

          1. “SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES

            “The internet has provided many advances and opportunities for students to connect in cyber-communities, not only on the IWU campus but also nationwide and globally. Students must be careful that the material that is posted on their accounts falls within University expectations. In addition, students need to be aware that the material on their site is open to public viewing and potential employers, graduate schools, and others can obtain access to postings. In the interest of campus safety, students should avoid publicly posting any personal contact information including, residence hall, room number, phone number, class schedule, etc.”

            1. “Internet Usage

              “The IWU Lifestyle Statement applies to all student activities, which includes the use of the Internet. the use of proxies and/or inappropriate use of the Internet to access sites such as pornography, gambling, illegal downloads of content, and hate speech outside of legitimate academic research is prohibited. Internet usage is tracked on IWU’s network and whenever possible the University seeks to take a developmental approach when dealing with violations of University policy.”

      2. Also, the hearing process on p. 33 of the link provided seems fairly Star Chamber-y.

        1. Oh, and on pp. 34-35, there’s a right to a non-attorney advisor to provide emotional/moral support but not participate in the hearing “directly.”

          The advisor can be an attorney if criminal charges are pending simultaneously for the same incident, but only to “advise” the student and not (God forbid) “speak” or “be an active participant.”

          1. oops, “serve as an active participant”

    3. Thanks for posting this.

      It was amusing to read a bunch of libertarians complaining about a private corporation running its business the way it sees fit simply because it chose to run that business in a left-leaning way.
      But after the first dozen or so, it got boring again. So thanks for getting real.

      1. This is more in the nature of a warning to those considering going to the university.

  25. Mocking another culture is rude. But cultural appropriation is how society makes progress. I thought they called themselves progressives.

    And maybe the university might consider where the first word in their name comes from, and get busy on changing that.

  26. Unless he was getting a scholarship who cares. Save your money and go somewhere cheaper. Iwu is horribly overpriced

  27. Unless that degree from that “Christian” school was going to drive his income North of six figures why does he give a fuck?

    1. Because maybe he has principles?

      1. Hurray for him standing by his principles, rancid as I find them personally.

        It’s his whining about the fact that there were consequences for the way he chose to use his free speech that grinds on me.

        Note to others: if you’re a tender snowflake and can’t accept the consequences for being a rude jerk to people who have authority over you, don’t be a rude jerk.

        1. This should also apply to shrieking trannies.

  28. Cultural Appropriation is an imaginary cultural construct. We’ve known since Ralph Linton’s The Study of Man that we evolved to learn from others, that ALL current “cultures” consist of parts drawn from OTHER cultures, hence that “cultural appropriation” cannot exist. Truly delusional. No Anthropologists at IWU.

    1. IMHO it’s more accurate to say: hence “cultural appropriation” is universal, which makes attempts to identify as objectionable any specific instances of “cultural appropriation” a fallacious exercise.

  29. It sounds like this young man has learned a valuable life lesson about bureaucrats and humor.

    1. “I was only joking” is a juvenile and cringe-worthy excuse for anyone over the age of 13 but especially so for someone who felt they were well-positioned to be the rational voice for free speech in society.

  30. Cultural Appropriation is an imaginary cultural construct. We’ve known since Ralph Linton’s The Study of Man (1936) that we evolved to learn from others, that ALL current “cultures” consist of parts drawn from OTHER cultures, hence that “cultural appropriation” cannot exist. Truly delusional. No Anthropologists at IWU. For details, see: https://www.routledge.com/Our-Story-How-Cultures-Shaped-People-to-Get-Things-Done/Handwerker/p/book/9781598746785

  31. As a practicing witch, I am pretty damn sick of seeing my culture appropriated at Halloween.

  32. Personally, I am very upset that some humans can be such pussies. Their very existence makes it hard to for me to function.

    If I understand the rules, this compels them to stop being pussies, right?

  33. I believed that Indiana Wesleyan University was a place for free thought, dialogue, speech, and expression

    Clearly he knew nothing about Wesleyan before he applied…

    1. This young man will go far. With reference to bitter clingers in the comment: does this have anything to do with “KLINGONS AROUND URANUS”. ?

  34. When you’re persecuted for speaking the truth you can’t be free.

    Apologizing for speaking the truth is kowtowing to oppression.

    If reality offends you, reality isn’t the problem, you are.

  35. Hmmm.. I wonder what the dweeb admin at this den of cultural “correctness’ would have to say if they were to apply the same logic to, say, Paul the Apostle as he wors over the “judaisers” on their issues of foods and circumcision. As to the latter, he ridiculed them for their inappropriate “cultural appropriation” on the matter of circumcision saying something very like: I wish the knife would skip and they;d cut the whole thing off, emascualting themselves”. Or about Jesus as he was confronted on the issue of the woman “caught in the very act of adultery”, and surrounded by a mob of falsely self-righteous religioins muckety mucks all demanding Jesus order her stoned to death. Right here. Right now. He knew their hearts….. and turned things right round on them. KNOWING the Law does indeed demand the death penatly for adultery, and that that law requries such a sentence be carried out “on the testimony of two or more witnesses” and that those two plus witnesses must be “with CLEAN HANDS” (in other words, innocent of any involvement in such behaviour themselves), and that not one of her accusers had clean hands, AND knowing that if SHE was caught in adultery there absolutely MUST have been a HE also present, and where was that HE? Could it be HE was one of their pals, “getting a littie” on the side>

    The scripture abounds with incidents of mockery, scorn, ridicule, taunting… often done to expose false hearts and false self-righteousness. And Master Sample did precisely that.

    We need a few million more like him, able and courageous enough to take hipocracy such as this and throw it back into the smug mugs of the self-righteous who would control every aspect of our lives, including our thoughts and values. Three HUZZAHs for this strong young man.
    Oh,and I agree 100% his apolgy was not only not helpful, but unwarranted.

  36. Indiana Wesleyan is a private entity carrying on business in a manner that suits their business model. If one doesn’t like how they do business, don’t patronize them.
    This would be a very different story if a government agency were enforcing these rules.

    1. They take tons of federal money, update your stupid fucking talking points.

      1. How much?
        Do you have any idea?

    2. They operate their business in a nation which ostensibly has the right to free speech.

      If that nation allows them to violate any right they wish to, then it can’t claim that those rights exist within its borders .

      1. You misunderstand the right to free speech at a very basic level.

        The government, which a private institution is not, cannot restrict (abridge) your speech. That private institution can restrict speech however it wants. Quite a few religious schools require students and employees to sign religious morality pledges, which, among other limitations, restrict campus speech.

        1. Quite correct. I fully agree.

          Of course, one can choose not to attend or, more important, CONTRIBUTE such an anti-free speech college.

          Stepping back to look at the larger college PC issue, we find that almost 3/4 of college students attend GOVERNMENT institutions, where the anti-liberty PC codes are, if anything, even worse than private colleges — an apparent violation of the First Amendment restriction on government censorship.
          https://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/

  37. As I discussed at far too much length above, the university’s rules – at least in the current academic year and maybe as far back as 2017 – seem to allow for this sort of Star Chamber-ish treatment of a student who says something about race, etc. which upsets other students.

    FIRE doesn’t seem to have a rating for this particular university, maybe they should look into it? My guess would be that they’d earn a yellow light at best, and more likely a red light.

    Of course the university might ask to be graded on a curve because they claim that their policies are based on their Christian heritage. Maybe it is, but the standards seem to be remarkably similar to what many avowedly secular institutions come up with.

    1. So if their religious convictions lead them to adopt censorship rules which are similar to censorship regulations they have at our great liberal-libertarian institutions, does that make them superstitious nonsense factories, or do they get a pass because their religion leads them to the correct SJW results?

  38. Incidentally, the real Star Chamber (of the 16th and 17th centuries) started out as an effort to hold powerful criminals accountable – high and mighty people who might be able to overawe the regular courts.

    In other words, like the founders of the University “diversity” policies, you could say the founders of the Star Chamber had “good intentions.” Good *egalitarian” intentions.

    But then the Star Chamber took a prominent role in going after middle-class and even poor Puritans and separatists for dissenting from the official Church. So when these religious dissidents came to dominate Parliament just before the English Civil War, they extorted a statute from King Charles I abolishing the Star Chamber.

    It’s almost as if so-called “good intentions” aren’t enough to guarantee justice.

  39. The whole concept of “cultural appropriation” ironically bares some resemblance to the offensive Aryan religious concepts of the Nazis.

    It posits there are “pure” cultures that apparently never appropriated their culture from anyone else, they just magically appeared in history in their present form.

    It further posits that certain other cultures, such as western culture, are a non-preferred class and should not be allowed to “mix” themselves with these “pure” cultures. Such a mixing is considered offensive.

    However, there does not appear to be a reciprocal concern. For example it is not considered offensive if someone of the “pure” cultures appropriates something, say a NY Yankees hat, from western culture. Thus it establishes a preferred class culture, i.e. the “pure” culture that is able to have access to both their own culture of heritage as well as that of other cultures while still remaining “pure”.

    1. “…It posits there are “pure” cultures that apparently never appropriated their culture from anyone else, they just magically appeared in history in their present form…”

      Further, the cultures are assumed to be fixed; not variable over time.
      Ha and ha.

  40. This is the USA where we are a MELTING POT nation. You cannot be guilty of cultural appropriation in the USA, it is what we are all supposed to do to merge all of our cultures into the American culture.
    The concept of cultural appropriation is ANTI-AMERICAN as much as anything can be. Europe goes for dividing people by race and culture, In the USA we do the opposite.
    Marxists and communists values are reflected when an American falsely accuses another of cultural appropriation.
    We sincerely hope that newcomers appropriate as much of our culture as possible and that they leave as much of their culture available for other citizens to appropriate.
    It is an honor to have your culture appropriated unless you are a grievance monger full of hate for others.

  41. Samples behaviour wasn’t “trollish” at all.

    He voiced his opinion about a policy, staying on topic, as is anyone’s free right to do so.

    Suggesting that it was somehow trollish is not only wrong but simply kowtowing to the oppression of political correctness.

    “ In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll’s amusement or a specific gain.”

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    1. Robby is increasingly adopting the premises of SJWs.

      The Right having opinions and voicing them without apologizing for existing is “trolling” and “provocative”.

  42. Obviously Jesus Christ is the party at fault.

  43. Those snowflake whacky conservatives at it again!

  44. As a person of Italian heritage NO PIZZA for these people!

    1. Pasta is from China.
      Tomato sauce is from Latin/South America.

      Italian? Maybe not so much.

  45. Look up the controversy at Antioch College over the sheep on their campus farm for a delicious example of SJWs getting a taste of their own poison.

    1. I remember when Antioch College was in the news for its “specific consent to each stage of sex” policy.

      Hmmm….are these stories related?

  46. Why does anyone in his or her right mind give any money to an institution like this?

    1. Might I suggest the libertarian principle of freedom of association?

      1. Sure, as long as I don’t have to bake your dumb tranny ass a cake.

  47. With rare exception (Hillsdale College, for instance), college campuses today have become “progressive” propaganda mills — reeducation camps (MIS-education camps) that effectively brainwash students to despise the free market, capitalism, property rights, the rule of law, freedom and liberty. Today’s “college experience” usually includes this concerted effort by the left to mold the young into dutiful leftists who are intolerant of any diversity — of opinion.
    GUT the colleges — especially the liberal arts colleges. Offer lower cost, more accessible alternatives such as online courses. And don’t give colleges a dime. Wealthy alumni fondly remember hazy days of campus life — often not aware of how lockstep the PC oppression has become. No mas!
    The best thing you can do for your college? Send them a letter telling them WHY you’ll never give them money. Send a copy to the campus newspaper. Send a copy to your your local paper. Post it up online.
    Most colleges today — especially the liberal arts colleges — are the enemy of our country. Online education strikes mortal fear into liberals, because such independent learning is removed from the indoctrination centers that constitute modern classroom learning at our universities.

    1. “With rare exception (Hillsdale College, for instance), college campuses today have become “progressive” propaganda mills — reeducation camps (MIS-education camps) that effectively brainwash students to despise the free market, capitalism, property rights, the rule of law, freedom and liberty. ”

      West Point and the other military colleges seem to be bastions of reaction. I’ve yet to read any Reason article critical of them. These colleges truly love our country.

  48. Famous last words:

    ” and I couldn’t possibly care less about who gets offended”

    1. +1

      He cared enough to whine ceaselessly about it.

      1. It certainly is a great argument for why progressives deserve the landfill.

  49. Thanks for share such a great article best wishes from Business Directory India

  50. Wonderful article, very interesting, thanks for sharing……
    we are painting services

  51. Well that all depends on what he wanted to dress up as. If it were to dress up with a black face as white men did in the silent movie era then no he shouldn’t be able to do so without serious backlash. THERE IS A LIMIT TO WHAT WE CAN WEAR AT HALLOWEEN. A friend of mine Son put a dildo on his hat. He was arrested and jailed. Some bullshit law I’ve never heard of.

  52. Now you can be thrown out of college because of what you say? What happened to free speech https://gistgallery.com/

Please to post comments