This College President Knows the First Amendment Protects the Drag Show He Canceled. He Just Doesn't Care.
"I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require it," he wrote.

This week, the president of West Texas A&M University canceled a student group's upcoming drag show. The move was unconstitutional—and he knew it.
"I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require it," he wrote.
Now the school is facing a lawsuit, which alleges that the president's conduct violated students' First Amendment rights.
On Monday, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler announced in an email to students that he was going to cancel a drag show hosted by Spectrum WT, a student LGBT group. Wendler made it clear that he was canceling the performance—which was a charity event raising funds for the Trevor Project, an LGBT suicide-prevention group—because it offended him personally.
"I believe every human being is created in the image of God and, therefore, a person of dignity," wrote Wendler. "Does a drag show preserve a single thread of human dignity? I think not."
Wendler went so far as to compare drag to blackface in order to justify his censorship. "As a university president, I would not support 'blackface' performances on our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor. It is wrong," he wrote. "I do not support any show, performance or artistic expression which denigrates others—in this case, women—for any reason."
However, Wendler seemed aware that he was engaging in unconstitutional censorship. In a blog post, he wrote that he knew the "law of the land appears to require" him to allow the performance, yet he would proceed in canceling it anyway.
On Friday, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression announced that it had filed a lawsuit against Wendler and other university administrators, with the student group's president and vice president acting as plaintiffs.
"President Wendler's edict canceling the student group's charity drag show is textbook viewpoint discrimination," reads FIRE's complaint. "Of course, as a private citizen, President Wendler enjoys the First Amendment right to criticize expression he finds offensive, distasteful, or immoral. But as a public official, he cannot bar Spectrum WT and its members from exercising their First Amendment rights merely because he believes his personal opinions override the Constitution."
The lawsuit was filed after FIRE sent a letter to Wendler reminding him of his legal obligations and urging him to reinstate the performance. After the letter was ignored, FIRE filed suit.
"President Wendler has made it clear to us that he knows what his legal obligations are, but he chose to ignore them," Spectrum WT President Bear Bright said in a Friday press release. "Hopefully, this lawsuit will not just help us the LGBTQ+ students here at WTAMU protect our rights, but also help protect students' rights across the U.S."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Mexicans, ass sex, food trucks, but drag queens are the most important thing.
You forgot about weed.
I'm just waiting for a story about Mexican drag queens selling marijuana infused food out of a truck while getting pounded in the ass. At long last, the Libertarian Moment!
I’m paid $185 per hour to complete the task using an Apple laptop. I absolutely didn’t think it was conceivable, but my dependable buddy convinced me to give this straightforward an03 chance a go after she made $26,547 in just 4 weeks working on it. Visit the following page to find out additional
.
.
instructions—————————>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Libertarian Climax.
I guess it would at least be a libertarian moment.
Not when the government silences its critics.
“Mexican drag queens selling marijuana infused food out of a truck while getting pounded in the ass”
I missed the part in this scenario involving government silencing of its critics.
I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
Click the link—————————————>>> http://WWW.Pay.JioSalary.COM
Transsexual drag queens, women that trans to men just so they can dress up like and pretend to be women!
Now that’s real lib.
You raise a good point.
Conservatives dislike the idea of males surgically or chemically transitioning to be artificial females.
But transvestites are males who are staying male, not doing any of the above, which seems like conservatives would want to not discourage.
Except I’m not sure “transvestite” is woke kosher, any more.
Aren't transvestites "gender traitors"? I mean if you keep the dangley bits you cannot claim to be woke. At most you are at least drowsy, maybe even sleep walking.
Yeah if you keep those dangly parts you are still a "toxic male" you have to cut them off to become non-toxic to the woke.
Libertarians would not want to encourage or discourage drag shows, it is up to the individual, no infringing on anyone else's rights. A libertarian would protest if you tried to push the drag show on them infringing on their rights, say taking their child to one without their permission.
Most conservatives would not support cross dressing and drag show because they are sexually deviate. They would want to stop them, infringing on the participants rights.
Reason used to discuss things like that before it became woke liberal, and a home for Conservatives and liberal trolls.
You can't shoot a doctor for helping a male transvestite exercise birth control, nor abscond with any "persons born" issue into a Trumpenjugend "educational" facility. Conservatives need actual involuntary servitude, something Das Bible does not condemn.
Some people actually make comments that make sense. I am not sure what your point is other than proving to the rest of us you are not functioning with a full deck.
Is that the college President in the picture? Yowsa! Would.
It is a drag performer.
Well, still would.
🙂
Do you swing both ways? It is a guy in a dress.
Ummm.... I've never been THAT hard up. But, hey. You do you brother.
Just to Reason writers.
My last month check was for 11000 dollars... Everything I did was basic online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this office I found over the web and they paid me for it 95 bucks each hour... Attempt it yourself....
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
A college president openly thumbing his nose at the First Amendment IS important, whatever you may think about the specific issue involved. What is weird is that he seems to be coming from a culturally "leftist" perspective, whereas most opposition to drag shows comes from the "right".
He -- or his Title IX Coordinator?
He says that drag shows degrade women and are “derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny.” That sounds like a Title IX Coordinator.
The head honcho of the School of Mines in South Dakota is not allowing students to carry a gun on campus. My son is leading the organization that is trying to get that changed. Mines is a state school. He shouldn't be able to say the 2nd Amenent stops at the property line of the school but despite two years of effort they have not gotten the rules changed. I suspect the lawsuit won't get much done as these state universities seem to be safe from such constitutional issues.
He definitely sounds like a right wingnut who's co-opted leftist rhetoric to justify his intolerance.
Should they have simply shouted down the event? Would that be better?
And I am fairly sure universities are able to ban events that are legal. I doubt you'll see a KKK meeting at a university, even though it'd be legal.
You won't see Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro at very many college events either. Snowflakes can't handle a midwit conservative commentator challenge their precious views.
But that's good censorship!
It's different because contradictory ideas are hate speech, not free speech.
https://twitter.com/stormrobinson/status/1639460448348274689?t=8SMUUSM9uzZEuh5ZWzmRlQ&s=19
The “trans rights movement” is a hate movement that operates under the guise of LGBTQ+ liberation. This is not ok.
[Video]
Um, "LGBTQ+ liberation" is also a hate movement.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/10/06/the-never-ending-persecution-of-jack-phillips/
re: "I am fairly sure universities are able to ban events that are legal"
I am more than fairly sure that you are (mostly) wrong. Private universities can ban anything they want. Public institutions can only impose viewpoint-neutral "time, place and manner" restrictions. So, yes, they can ban an event that goes over X decibels after Y o'clock - so long as they enforce that rule consistently. They cannot, however, ban an event solely on the basis on opposition to the viewpoint presented.
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years or are you just lying? They're supposed to act as you indicate but there are numerous conservatives who've had their appearances cancelled for purely viewpoint ideological reasons.
Name some?
ANTIFA riots during 2016 managed to get Milo Yianapolis, who actually did some of his campus shows in drag, canceled several times. There's one, do want more?
That was wrong too. They usually used "security concerns" as a fig leaf for their discrimination, just like this guy's use of leftist rhetoric about dignity and respect.
They cannot, however, ban an event solely on the basis on opposition to the viewpoint presented.
CAN they? No. DO they? Yes.
Wendler went so far as to compare drag to blackface in order to justify his censorship. "As a university president, I would not support 'blackface' performances on our campus
An apt comparison. We will not be seeing any blackface minstrel shows on university campuses. Are they protected speech under the First Amendment? Of course.
Racist Speech has no place on Campus. Drag Shows Are Not Racist.
Why doesn't racist speach have a place on a campus? It's offensive to some people, but so are drag queens. Seems what's good for me isn't good for thee is the new rule.
A public U can't legally force students to cancel an event, because a member of the administration disapproves.
That is entirely different from certain individuals not being invited, for lack of a constituency that wishes to invite them.
But that's not what's happening and you know it.
Everyone from Jordan Peterson to Josh Hawley have been disinvited or canceled because of "safety concerns" or even outright opposition from university administrations. It's happened thousands of times.
Who did you think you were tricking?
Difference is they were never cancelled. The request to have them speak was denied:
You just used “they” as the university president’s pronoun, but I would bet he goes by the traditional “he”.
My pronouns are he/haw.
Public universities are allowed to ban events on the basis of time, place or manner of expression. But, they can't ban an event on the basis of viewpoint or content. Whether the event is otherwise legal or not doesn't matter. The constitution takes priority over statute law. So they cannot ban drag shows because they think that its offensive to women, anymore than they can can Ann Coulter or Ben Shapiro from speaking on campus.
Child molesters everywhere appreciate Reason's obsessive advocacy
You realize college students are adults, right?
Going beyond this specific article, Reason in general frequently write in favor of more liberal social values and against conservative family values. Conservative family values are the main enabler of child molestation, they encourage children to obey authority figures without question and to treat molestation as a private family matter that the authorities shouldn't get involved in. They also discourage sex education, meaning that children often don't understand what is being done to them until it is too late.
The assertion that molestation is enabled by liberal sexual values is based on multiple falsehoods. In particular, some people seem to have the idea that children are inherently asexual as long as they are kept in ignorance of how sex works, at which point they are somehow "activated." All these assertions that our culture is promoting pedophilia are premised on the assumption that people are trying to "activate" kids at younger ages. This assumption is doubly false. First, no one is trying to "activate" kids, they either do not view things like drag shows as sexual, or do not think exposing kids to sexuality will "activate" them at a younger age. Second, the "activation" hypothesis is false, developing sexuality is part of the aging process and will not be accelerated by exposure to sexualized entertainment, or decelerated by sheltering kids.
nerve struck. ^^
I didn’t see any emotional language. Are you saying that writing something lengthy is a sign of emotional triggering?
You realize college students are adults, right?
You realize the more times you trot out the "It's not happening." line of arguments and the more people are able to accurately rebut it with the line of argument:
1. It's not happening.
2. It's happening, but it's just coincidence.
3. It's happening, and it's not coincidence, but it's a good thing.
4. It's happening, but it's not as bad as you thought.
5. It's happening, it's as bad or worse than you thought, but it's a good thing for the people who benefit.
6. It's happening, it's a bad or worse thing for everyone involved and you're a bigot for recognizing it and not preventing it.
7. Just shut up already, bigot.
The more retarded you guys look.
Why don't you just say women will always be victims of discrimination until Lia Thomas can dance across the stage in a thong and be more up front and honest about your idiocy?
@mad.casual Adults can engage in whatever consensual sexual activity they want and there's nothing you can do to stop it. As far as drag shows go, the First Amendment applies here.
As far as drag shows go, the First Amendment applies here.
So does the 14A and the expenditure of student loan dollars or are you yet another of the "Libertarian until a man puts on women's underwear" crowd?
You aren't fooling anyone and, as I indicated, the more you repeat the lies the more people realize they are lies.
There’s plenty of things we can do to stop you molesting kids.
You get that to avoid committing the slippery slope fallacy you need to actually explain what makes the slope slippery, don't you? There isn't any logical reason why 1 should lead to 2. or 3. to 3. etc etc.
I’m one of those people. I think humans have lost reproductive instincts, and that only culture carries it on. I do think that once they’ve been told what’s possible and try it, they find heterosexual intercourse (and in a minority of cases, homosexual intercourse) rewarding, but I don’t think they’d do any more than masturbate if sex wasn’t explained to them.
What's the evidence for that? I mean evidence that aging is sufficient for humans to develop sexual behaviors.
"developing sexuality is part of the aging process
What’s the evidence for that? I mean evidence that aging is sufficient for humans to develop sexual behaviors."
Humans existed before sex ed. That's the evidence.
You ignored this: "I think humans have lost reproductive instincts". Your counterargument is weak.
I dunno. I was playing doctor with my first girlfriend at four years old.
Ah, so that makes it okay when a twenty-five year old does the same with the four year old.
Also, I believe your lying. I don't believe that you had an actual girlfriend at four.
Any sexual play at that age is a 100% indication that the child has been sexually molested.
Child molesters and misogynists that make Anthony Wiener and Harvey Weinstein look like half-hearted hacks.
And supported by institutional power, though it's getting more difficult to maintain
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1639375297970855937?t=dzgsFdO4uKcxAC0t5mW0ZA&s=19
The international governing body for track and field will ban trans women athletes from elite women's competitions, citing a priority for fairness over inclusion despite limited scientific evidence of physical advantage.
[Link]
despite limited scientific evidence of physical advantage.
Sure, and the science that's stood for several hundred years, differentiating egg-carrying females from sperm-carrying males and sexual dimorphism back up the evolutionary ladder into invertebrates is sadly lacking as well.
I really wish these literal science-denying, gender-complex worshiping morons would just start chucking each other into volcanoes.
And he is correct.
That remains to be seen. Even under current interpretations of the First Amendment by SCOTUS, both public and private universities have some power to restrict offensive language by professors, staff, and students.
Furthermore, regardless of what precedents SCOTUS has set, it is crystal clear that the original meaning of the First Amendment was not intended to restrict the regulation of speech at universities by its staff or management. Our current interpretation of the First Amendment is a legal fiction created during the 20th century (Gitlow v. New York).
When talking about whether something is "unconstitutional", it's important to be clear about the meaning: is it objective unconstitutional under the Constitution, or is it unconstitutional because of SCOTUS decisions, decisions that may well be reversed.
What’s (not so) surprising too is Emma and the rest of Reason’s convenient ignorance of the longstanding consideration or understanding of the 1A but also the implications of the reversal of that consideration under the 14A.
Men able to dance in women’s underwear on campus and/or as a campus activity to raise money and women’s inability to do so is pretty directly against the 14A.
Maybe women like Emma and ENB think women being able to strip on campus too is female affirming, but something tells me they’ve never been grad students living on a $20K/yr. stipend or that they value the development of a woman's mind above the ability to exploit her body.
Why are you acting like the development of a woman's mind and the ability to exploit her body are contradictory things that we have to choose between? I've known women who worked at strip clubs to put themselves through college, it didn't seem to harm their studies any.
In any case, I would certainly say that if women wanted to put on some kind of fashion show for fundraising where they wore similar clothing to what the drag show performers were wearing, it would certainly be a legitimate and justified fundraiser that the college would be wrong to prohibit. As it happened, a quick google search reveals that fashion show fundraisers are quite common.
We're discussing a campus-sanctioned event. I wasn't aware the typical near-campus strip club was a campus-sanctioned event.
I can’t help but laugh at the “I’ve known strippers who worked to pay their way through school.” retardation.
He probably buys that the 50-yr.-old heroine-chic one with fake tits in the back is really just there to help her brother out and the 150+ lb. one is just trying to put food on the table too. The one that talks with a Southern twang really did just move to the big city!
Odd way to tell everyone “I’m stupid.”, but if it fits the narrative, I guess.
Yeah, Chris Rock once said "There are no clear heels on campus." The stripper with the heart of gold is a delusion. I've been on the lower rungs of civilization in my youth and knew quite a few strippers. Welfare recipients? Yes. Multiple children from multiple men? Yes. College textbooks poking out from their bags? Not a one, and I was in a college town.
Why are you acting like the development of a woman’s mind and the ability to exploit her body are contradictory things that we have to choose between?
They aren’t. As a matter of fact, it’s not even a dichotomy. You’re absolutely free to try to pretend and convince people that Universities aren’t operated on loans finance by the public debt. I mean, it would undermine several of your causes to do so, but you’re free to do it.
I’ve known women who worked at strip clubs to put themselves through college, it didn’t seem to harm their studies any.
OMG! You know some of them too? Did they have Russian accents? Fucking retard. You really intent on convincing other people of your abject stupidity too, aren’t you.
re: "universities have some power to restrict offensive language by professors, staff" - Yes. That's inherent to their role as employer and their right to control their own speech - which includes the speech of their employees while on the job.
"and students" - Not nearly so much. Their power to restrict is limited (mostly) to active disruption of the educational mission. So, yes, the university can prohibit you from screaming in class. But they have little to no authority over what you say outside the classroom.
Their power to restrict is limited (mostly) to active disruption of the educational mission.
Nope. This is an ideal not fully actualized or, alternatively, a specific ambiguity being exploited. As a student, post up flyers describing how women are sluts, or even something far more banal like they're just voluntarily less inclined to participate in the hard sciences for reasons you can't explain. See how far your 1A gets you.
Universities have the same means for restricting students as they have for staff: they kick them out if they violate university rules.
Apparently untrue. Academic probation has been a thing for quite awhile and, apparently, they can command apologies, threaten career prospects, share your non-criminal but unapproved behavior with other like-minded Universities, give your slanderers platform for credit repeatedly up to graduation, etc., etc. Not that they would do any or all of that for everyone equally, just some.
Well, SCOTUS hasn't been consistent on the issue, but they have upheld the expulsion of students for inappropriate speech in at least some cases (e.g., Ward v. Polite).
There is NOTHING unconstitutional about limiting the use of state funds and or government buildings. IT happens ALL THE TIME in many ways in almost all venues.
Almost all of these types of venues are there to not "promote" a political or lifestyle cause, but to indocrinate youth, most of whom are young and unsure. It is called GROOMING and it exists.
I grew up near SF and heard and had many conversations with gay men that I knew. They were straight up about it. They needed to GROOM YOUTH or there would be no more gays, in their own words.
This is all it is about, th less than 3% attempting to control the 97% and to groom the youth (usually tween to teen years), but earlier is actually better according to those I have talked frankly with.
The issue is that IF an adult male "grooms" a tween to teen girl, it is a FELONY. If an adult male grooms a male who is say 17, he can have that male groom all the young girls he wants to! It is actually an organized and planned system at this time.
No, a University only needs to say NO to some things and it is just fine. I guaranty that if a White Supremist Group was at the university openly it would be refused use. I guaranty that if a group whose purpose was to dissolve the USA or PROMOTE foreign military occupation of the USA, it would be stopped. I could list 100 things that would never be allowed. This SHOULD be one of them.
Sorry, but that’s bullshit too. Gay men no more need to groom boys than straight men need to groom girls. In fact, most gay men want nothing to do with teenagers, schools, or universities. Whatever makes men gay, it’s not grooming or pornography, or anything else that we know or can control.
"Whatever makes men gay"
Early exposure to musical theatre. Everytime.
Most gay men I know have little interest in musical theater.
Methinks the homosexual men you know are not being honest - and not just about musical theater.
So, logically, given that you don't know my friends, you are asserting that "grooming youth" is something almost every single gay man is desiring.
From this we can infer that one of two things must be true.
(1) You are a gay man yourself, and you assume that all gay men share your feelings.
(2) You are a heterosexual man, but you are a psychopath or pervert who is desperately looking for a group you can denigrate and look down upon in order to cope with your own feelings of guilt and self-hatred.
I can't help you with (2). If your problem is (1), I am afraid you are mistaken: your psychopathic or perverted inclinations have nothing to do with your sexual orientation.
Whatever your problem is, you should seek help, since your beliefs suggest that you suffer from some kind of deep psychological problem.
As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Emma here, especially considering that everyone at the college are all (technically) adults.
You either allow every possible speaker and performance permission to be on campus (preferred approach) or you recognize that this President is no different, ON ANY LEVEL, than all the other university Presidents who have banned and blocked certain performers and presentations because of the content.
But mouth-breathing lefties only care about drag shows and when non-liberal speakers get shut down it's just 'free expression' now.
>>condone the diminishment of any group
shouldn't you be offended at these idiot boys thinking they know you so well?
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier.They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill.It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information……………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
If you don't like drag shows, don't go to them. If you don't want your minor children watching drag shows, don't take them. What happened to "it's a free country" and "mind your own business"?
Progressives decided that ship sailed 15 years ago when they began banning conservative speakers on campus.
So… two wrongs make a right-winger? That's mature.
You keep saying this. First, it's not as original or clever as you think. Second, yeah, once the first fist is thrown, victory stops being decisively determined by who threw the least punches. And, by far, between Lia Thomas, Primary-school indoctrination advocacy, student loans, and Title IX abuse, the left has punched too many people too frequently for no reason at all or even under the guise of doing the right thing for everyone to just sit around and continue to accept it.
Wanna convince everyone your fist-swinging is justified? Maybe, just maybe, adopt a general policy of stopping short of punching the women and children.
Conservatives have adopted the leftist creed that the solution to too much government is more government.
Or they just don't stand idly by when seeing women and children abused.
Every day with you provides more and more illumination into why your wife left.
How many point did you get with that one? I’m sure a few imps creamed their jeans. “You brought up his divorce! Burn! High fives all around!”
And you wonder why I compare you to teenage girls.
Would you feel better if I picked any of your other foibles and pointed out how rotten it is that you place the criticism of that above the abuse of women and children? Exactly how high do you think your halo and wings would carry you if it weren't for the rest of us holding you down?
“You brought up his divorce! Burn! High fives all around!”
If you didn't want people bringing your messy divorce up, you shouldn't have bitched and moaned about it so much here.
You're the one who aired all your dirty laundry here.
re: "two wrongs make a right-winger?"
That's one possible motivation.
An alternative motivation might be described as "If we hold you to the same stupid standards that you're imposing on us, maybe you'll finally see why they're stupid and back off."
But yeah, we really need to get back to "it's a free country" and "mind your own business".
It’s an unprincipled approach that leaves the difference between left/right not one of liberty vs control, but rather who controls what.
What happened to “it’s a free country” and “mind your own business”?
With regard to this. specific. topic.? R.I.P. Feb. 4, 2000
If you dont want to fuck kids, don't fuck them. If others do, sarc seems fine with that.
And if they're your own kids, Jeffy is fine with that.
What does show given by and for college students have to do with fucking kids? How old do people have to be before you stop protecting them from themselves?
It's being held at Commie-Education.
That's the difference.
Call his bluff and hold it anyway.
And get arrested for trespassing and sued for trespassing damages doesn't improve your case? Briliant.
Also, as a polite libertarian/libertine "Fuck you, Statist.": Hold your half-naked, sex-freak party off campus like any greek fraternity/sorrority in the last bajilion years, problem solved (Unless the Title IX that you ignored gets invoked).
The university president admits he's violating constitutional law, both on free speech and religious grounds. It's a student group, at a government university. And being arrested for trespass may actually help their case, since it shows actual damages.
https://walterwendler.com/2023/03/a-harmless-drag-show-no-such-thing/
Ctrl+f "constitution": 0 results
And, once again, even if he's violating the 1A, he's not violating the 14A.
And being arrested for trespass may actually help their case, since it shows actual damages.
When you say "damages", do you mean like looting? Otherwise, show me the part of The Constitution where getting arrested for being on property that isn't yours constitutes "damages".
How hard are you gonna work to fuck that goat of yours UA?
Ctrl+f “constitution”: 0 results
“even when the law of the land appears to require it.”
If you don’t know what “damages” means in the context I wrote it, pick up a law dictionary.
getting arrested for being on property that isn’t yours
Public university. Public property.
And fuck you.
“even when the law of the land appears to require it.”
Again, the 14A requires him to protect womanhood equally. Or is it only some people who get to pick and choose which parts of The Constitution get upheld and which don’t?
If you don’t know what “damages” means in the context I wrote it, pick up a law dictionary.
OK, point me to the law dictionary that defines getting arrested for being on property that isn’t yours without permission as “damages”.
Public university. Public property.
All taxpayers equally or just the trannies and their advocates?
And fuck you.
I’m not worried, it looks like you’re gonna be awhile with that goat.
Edit: re: "appears" - "to have an outward aspect", so he could be rightly and accurately saying that between the 1A and the 14A (and troon idiocy) not everything is what it appears to be.
You seem very triggered by drag shows. I have a simple solution to solve all of your problems.
Ready for it?
DON'T GO.
You seem very triggered by drag shows. I have a simple solution to solve all of your problems.
I’m sorry that the public education that’s funded by millions of Americans has left you unable to read. It’s plainly clear from what I posted that I’m not opposed to the drag shows themselves. I’m opposed to the discriminate, selective admission and funding of some sexual performances and not others. More chiefly, and in case it’s not clear, that the taking and trickery that goes into funding it is unequivocally tantamount to lifetime taxation without representation.
As I indicated to UA, if you want to hold your half-naked/sex-freak party, do it off campus. I attended plenty without opposition.
I attended plenty without opposition.
Come to think of it. There was a Halloween party I went to with my two other roommates and the respective girlfriends at the time, each couple swapped appearances, and gender, with another couple. The party was on private property, the bit was well-received*, nobody was forbidden access to anything or skreeed about getting their 1A *or* gender norms stepped on, and everybody got hammered. Good time.
The only question to be resolved is how many tens of thousands of dollars will come out of Mr Wendler’s personal pocket.
Reason: A law-student being forced to apologize for hosting a "trap house" part for Yale students and alumnus off-campus is troubling, to be sure.
Also Reason: WTA&M President Knowingly Violates The 1A By Calling Off An Event That, If Performed By Women, No One Would Bat An Eye About!!!!11!!eleventy!!!
Again, Reasons sudden, seemingly selective, awareness of what's been performed as routine for decades (this and above) is both unsubtle and predictable.
I looked it up, the college is a "teachers" college. So I fully support this decision.
Teachers, especially future teachers, need to learn who they answer to.
Yeah. Tell them the Constitution is just a piece of paper and the first amendment doesn't matter.
This isn't some grooming operation. It's a consensual drag show among adults. Left or right, this is bullshit.
Tell them the Constitution is just a piece of paper and the first amendment doesn’t matter.
Right after you tell them the 14A doesn't matter.
It’s a consensual drag show among adults. Left or right, this is bullshit.
Whether he owns it outright or is just the manager acting on behalf of the owners, Wendler does not consent. But hey, fuck student loans, trannies in elementary schools, the longstanding ability of Universities to exercise discretion up front about what conduct they do and do not support, because when a man puts on women's underwear, all the rules go out the window, right?
My net isn't big enough for all those red herrings you're throwing out.
From the beginning, I never doubted your inability to catch red herrings.
There are no rules about what consenting adults can view. That's basically the whole point. Drag doesn't fall into the obscenity exception to 1A so it's not the government's place to censor it. To the extent that this is a public university, 1A applies, so the president of the university doesn't have grounds to ban the event unless it's disruptive which no one claimed it would be.
There are no rules about what consenting adults can view. That’s basically the whole point.
Is/ought. There *are* rules about what consenting adults can view. Especially on publicly funded campuses and in publicly funded buildings. If you're in the part of the WH you aren't supposed to be in, you're criminally liable for trespassing. There's a case to be had that your taking a left out of the bathroom when you should've taken a right isn't criminal and that smashing your way through a window is, but there are still rules.
Further, as indicated to UA, you keep saying "Muh 1A" and "Greetings fellow traveler, this is *only* about a show concerning consenting adults." like some NPC, but that's an obvious and oblivious lie (once by omission, after the omission is pointed out, commission becomes progressively more apparent). The 14A is a part of The Constiution every bit as much as the 1A. I've got no problem disregarding one or the other entirely if my money isn't being spent. I have a preference of repeal (14A) if it is being spent. The selective taking of money and then using the 14A to argue against my 1A claims and using the 1A to argue against 14A claims is the, again unequivocal, "heads you lose, tails I win" bullshit that I don't and should, in a libertarian audience, have to stand for. Especially when "Do it on your own dime on your own property, just like we did when I was in school." is *the* *perfectly* *viable* *libertarian* *option*.
It depends on the drag show. I've seen one where men were _fully_ dressed as women and singing nursery songs, just to show off how well they could make believe they were women. I could take small children to that show, and certainly wouldn't object to it being performed on a college campus.
But more recently, I've seen stills from drag shows where the performers appeared to be stripping; they showed too much to pass as women, and much more than I wanted to see. It wouldn't hurt college age kids to watch it, but it's at least bordering on obscene, and colleges don't have to sponsor it.
However, in _this_ case Wendler's ranting makes it clear that he has a religious objection to either kind of show, and misused his power to impose his religion on students in a public university. He is unfit for his position.
However, in _this_ case Wendler’s ranting makes it clear that he has a religious objection to either kind of show, and misused his power to impose his religion on students in a public university. He is unfit for his position.
Incorrect and false on several counts. Schools are allowed to hire Presidents with religious beliefs and even establish rules on those beliefs much the same way they can host drag shows. What they cannot do is say they they will enforce policy agnostically or secularly and then enforce it with a religious bias, the same way they can’t say “We will treat women equally, but women can’t dance naked on campus but men can.”
The Consitution doesn’t say “The Government is empowered to prevent anyone anywhere from making any sort of rule or law even loosely based on a personal religious supposition.” it says, “Congress shall make no law...” Webster is not a Congressman and isn’t compelling anyone to observe his faith beyond a secular support of the existing secular rules as written.
If he’s unfit for his position because of his personal beliefs then every cross-dressing tranny raising money to help with tranny suicides is objectively equally unfit, and anyone who would support them derivatively, by University and 1A standards.
Stop simping for totalitarian collectivists.
Live and let live is dead, and it was the left/establishment that killed it.
I'm done tolerating the bullshit.
Didn't Dr. King get a Nobel for not caring what the laws said he could or could not do?
He paid a high price.
King broke unjust and unconstitutional laws. By doing so, he brought these laws to public attention, which helped get them overturned.
He didn't gain a position of public trust such as running a state university, and then misuse his power to impose his religion on others. Wendler's ranting makes it clear he intentionally did just that.
"Unjust and unconstitutional"
Nope. Allowing people to choose who they do and don't associate with is perfectly just and constitutional. Literally what the founders intended.
https://altcensored.com/watch?v=c7YzrbeLbJE
Also, MLK was a piece of shit and didn't get what he deserved soon enough.
https://altcensored.com/watch?v=9cls-nGTjoE
Bullshit, Emma, and you know it. If 1A protects a drag show on campus, then it protects a fan dance, strip show, and a gentlemen's club on campus. Now, we damn well know the latter three will be banned from campus without a 1A challenge. Therefore, the drag show can be as well without it being a 1A issue.
What about wet t-shirt contests? I'd like to see those come back.
I'm not sure what fan dances are and not sure exactly what you mean by gentleman's clubs (maybe strip clubs) but to the extent that they are taking place on public property (university campus) and are non-disruptive and subject to reasonable and uniformly applied restrictions to prevent the aforementioned threatened disruption, it seems to me that it's not ban-able.
"disruption" is the excuse all the tyrants use to shut down speakers and events they dont like.
Are you paying attention yet Unicorn Abbatoir? You thought it was just about informed, consensual adults enjoying a show among each other but it's clearly not. Your position is throwing in with the rabble like Tony that can't remain consistent across two posts within minutes of each other.
I'm less interested in the legal question, i.e. whether constitutional protections of free expression are pertinent here, and more in the socio-psychologic question, why do we find certain expressions offensive?
What's the point of a drag act? It's to say, look how funny men are for acting faggy. It is indeed the same as acts in black face, i.e. look how funny people with black skin are, except that acting faggy is a conscious choice.
So this deserves discussion the same way as the events that played out in real life and then on South Park wherein a child was reviled for adopting a scary Halloween costume: that of Hitler. Why is costuming as other scary figures — vampires, pirates, gangsters — OK, but not Hitler or Stalin or the like? Why have drag acts recently seemed to cross the line in the opposite direction, going from outré to acceptable?
going from outré to
acceptable?necessaryFixed.
I prefer the term "womanface" for these performances.
Exactly. How is it not considered offensive to women to have men dance around making fun of them?
Here's a test: if you would approve (or cancel) a campus event where actual women wore the same outfits and did the same moves but not approve (or cancel) the otherwise identical drag event, your bias is showing.
Good to see FIRE carrying on without concern for which political 'side' benefits from free expression.
The 1A only means something if it applies to everyone - including those other members of society consider 'vile'.
More ?blessings? of Commie-Education.
I'd suggest that s group of students decide to have a cisgender female strip and pole dancing show, and see how the Dean responds.
I cited a couple of examples. One cancellation/ban and one "launched an investigation" that resulted in no repeat performances. Nobody screamed for a medic because their 1A had been amputated. They recognized that their event consumed University resources, wasn't as broadly popular as believed, wasn't equitable, and didn't generally advance any educational or academic interest and, instead, held it on their own dime and property where none of that mattered.
And I'll be damned if I haven't been countermanded because my solution, despite being pre-eminently libertarian, hasn't been shouted down for being too oppressive.
Did someone call for a medic? Sorry, I was taking a smoke break. What's the problem.
It's my 1A sir! [heavy breathing] One minute it was there and the University President was telling us about how we didn't have exclusive rights to property that we don't own and then, well I must've been knocked back or unconscious or something, because I woke up on this fainting couch maybe a second or two later, my ears are ringing, and my 1A was GONE! I think the President took my 1A! Oh God! My trans-femme BIPOCs friend must be hemorrhaging Civil Rights everywhere! Help zem first! Oh, God I'm going to suffer from PTSD for the rest of my life! People are going to have to hold fundraisers to prevent people like me from committing suicide!
There is NO-INHERENT right to use Public Colleges for anything one wants to do with it. Thus what these retards are proclaiming is there right; isn't a right at all but an *entitlement* to public purpose-specific property.
Next up; Student Orgies on the Football field.
[WE] have 1A rights ya know! /s
Apparently according to these self *entitled* psychopaths [WE] can have religious ceremonies at the DMV after hours against the wishes of government and hold satanic rituals at the 'government' property of graveyards....
Why is this a first amendment issue?
Because the super self-entitled think their rights have to be subsidized by the taxpayer.
Yeah, it's a 1A issue because not giving is taking.
There’s a link to FIRE’s civil rights complaint in the blog post:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/verified-complaint-civil-rights-violations-and-exhibits-spectrum-wt-et-al-v-wendler
It cites relevant First Amendment cases.
Would there be a 1a challenge if the local university chapter of the KKK held a cross-burning?
Possibly.
Still fresh in local memory: https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2017/nov/03/high-school-girls-misconstrued-kkk-photo-suing-def/
And if you haven’t seen the photo, despite the ACLU’s reaction of “My first impression on looking at the photo would not be that these girls are doing something racist,”, my initial reaction is “Oh no, Sissa Rabbits whatever’n you do, don’ take me upstairs an’ lynch me! Anything but that!”
Texas would be very wise to sell off all Commie-Education to private entities. Communism always ends badly. Guns don’t teach… They just turn everything into gangland Gun battles of dictation, armed-theft and enslavement.
Just as well call Commie-Education in this nation the Commie-reeducation Camps. Most of your Liberal retarded-ness comes *directly* from these institutions. Nobody is naturally born that retarded.
Last month i managed to pull my first five figure paycheck ever!!! I’ve been working for this company online for 2 years now and i never been happier.They are paying me $95/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-savy, they only asked for basic understanding of internet and basic typing skill.It’s been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, because they are looking for new people to join their team now and i highly recommend to everyone to apply…
Visit following page for more information……………..>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1639266932258906113?t=jsc8A370XbM3eyNcXeIiMw&s=19
A 13-year-old drag queen performs at an event as adults cheer him on
[Video]
The libertarian position would be: end public funding of higher education, shut down public colleges / universities.
But, of course, I wouldn't expect Emma to argue the actual libertarian position. These people (Reason writers) are such a joke...
That’s a purist libertarian position.
From a more moderate classical liberal view, there is a long, beneficial history of state colleges that goes back to the land grant days of state founding.
If these kind of shows are okay, why can't we have minstrel shows on campus?
Legally you probably can. It would offend a lot of people.
It would not be permitted, legal or not.
I'd like to see people actually test 1A and people's actual devotion to free speech by pushing events like this. I'm pretty sure almost any institution would shut down a conversation or TED talk that addresses sociopolitical and international politics that called itself "Hitler was right."
I don't really care about the performance this group wants to put on. As long as they aren't trying to bring kids to it, it might as well be Orgiefest. That said, I don't think their 1A right to expression eliminates the property rights of the school. I just want to see a clear standard for what is accepted vs rejected. In my opinion the people crying about free speech when they don't get to do whatever provocative thing they want have zero principles and would do anything to shut down those who they disagree with
One would think a university president could cancel anything that wasn't even peripherally related to the educational mission of the institution.
One would think that would call for a futile and stupid gesture as a response from the students.
Like liquor, it is perfectly acceptable to limit sex shows to adults. This makes transpedophiles everywhere angry.
That wasn’t an issue for this show. It was for adults.
You can't have booze on many the college campus. Guns too tend to be drastically limited. Soit seems campus admin CAN limit liberty. Not that they should, but in this day and age liberty is on the decline from both sides.
Why would a gay student group want a drag show? Homosexuality is a sexual preference for the same sex not someone who dresses as the other sex. Just don't get why he LBG is so obsessed with trannies?
Why would a gay student group want a drag show?
Traditionally, gay boys grew up envying girls, which could lead to feelings of jealously and hostility towards women, especially attractive, glamorous women. Drag was a way of expressing those feelings by ridiculing women and female attractiveness. Today, with most gays growing up with better self-acceptance and so lacking those negative feelings towards women, Drag is still a gay cultural tradition.
don’t get why he LBG is so obsessed with trannies?
They're not. Drag is a completely different thing from transgenderism.
Today, with most gays growing up with better self-acceptance and so lacking those negative feelings towards women, Drag is still a gay cultural tradition.
Complete and utter 'MUH INTENSHUNZ!' bullshit. First, let me set aside your made up bullshit that completely contravenes the fact that the only reason there's a story here is because LGBTQ-suicide prevention is a thing that needs unique funding. Then, so your assertion is that gay men ridiculing women became OK because gay men are more comfortable with it now?
Fuck you, cut spending.
First caveat: the president of this university is an idiot.
Second: yes, the ones screaming about this are perpetuating a double standard as some posters have mentioned.
Third caveat: FIRE isn't wrong here.
Fourth: drag queens tend not to emulate women so much as perpetuate female stereotypes by lampooning them unintentionally..
Fifth: would the group sponsoring this also sponsor or support a program by those who have detransitioned?
All in all, most people's understanding of the 1A ends when it's something they don't like. However, the left has been able for decades to enforce their will with no real pushback. I'm not opposed to them having to live by the same rules. Except, it further diminishes our liberties. For once I will not fault Reason because some of the editors and writers have been decent about pointing out how bad the left is at this same thing in regards to right leaning speakers (although some have to take a shot at the speakers too when doing so). All in all it leaves me conflicted. Normally, I wouldn't bat an eye at a drag show for adults. Let them have their rally. The better approach I think would be to host an alternative event with detransitioners speaking about the harm of transitioning. And when the LGBTQ club throws a fit, simply use their logic against them. Say I have to allow both or neither.
I think that's the far better way to fight this than adapting to their motives. I'm half with sarc above it's unbecoming to stoop to their strategies. You don't adopt your enemies strategies, you adapt to them and come up with your own to counter them. In this case, by counter programming. Besides, Texas is in the 5th circuit, which still tends to follow the Constitution so you're likely to win a lawsuit for selective enforcement if the counter programming is barred. More speech is the answer not less. I'll call out Sarc and Mikey for their bullshit, but they aren't completely wrong here. It's unbecoming of the right to adopt the lefts tactics better to counter them. Make them defend in public their one-sided approach to Freedom of expression. The more people see, the less they will agree with it. Yes, there's been a double standard for to long, and FIRE actually has been good about winning those cases. Playing their game just makes them martyrs so it's counterproductive.
Do you mean trying to host strip shows with natural-born females, then getting the strip shows banned?
I would go with detransitioners speaking about the harm transitioning does. But it's the same principle, so why not? The best way to expose double standards is to force your opponent to blatantly apply a double standard. And then call them out for it. Once you start playing by their rules, you've already lost. Never let your opponent choose their battlefield.
Your detransitioner idea seems much better. And may I say that a sociopolitical talk is closer to “First Amendment core speech” than some person gyrating or whatever they were going to do.
lampooning them unintentionally.
No, it's intentional.
Don't confuse Drag with transgenderism.
So, the school president has a point about it being akin to black face and degrading towards biological women.
And I'm not the one who first conflated the two. It seems things like drag queen story hour deliberately conflated the two. The problem seems that there's not an agreed lexicon, that it's entirely malleable and that malleability seems only to be defined by the ones pushing this. Drag is not transgenderism but somewhere along the line transgender activists decided to obscure that fact and embrace drag as a form of transgender activism. So, maybe another good, and educationally valid, counter programming would be to have an actual historian explain the roots of drag shows, including the hostility towards women, and why it's different from transgenderism. Then you might not only satisfy those who hate the double standard but also might educate some of the feminists who support these shows by showing them that drag is not benign and that it is deeply rooted in a very specific form of misogyny. This may force the LGBTQ activists to defend what is in essence a show meant to lampoon and degrade women and femininity.
"This may force the LGBTQ activists to"
...scream that words are violence and everyone has to agree with them or else?
Yes, but it's becoming increasingly clear that this routine is paying less and less dividends. The more they do it the less it's beneficial. They're entrenched in the system. So it's a battle of attrition. The best way to win a battle of attrition is to force the other side to keep fighting. Washington didn't win the Revolution because he won the majority of the battles, but because he always managed to survive battlefield to fight again. It's why the Mujahideen succeeded in driving out the Soviets and why the Taliban now is in control of Afghanistan and North Vietnam won control of all of Vietnam.
They currently think they're winning but people are tired of their tactics. The more they use those tactics and the more people they use them against, the more it hurts them. Attacking JK Rowling's for stating her opinion hurt them badly. Drag queen story hours hurt their cause. Fighting against parental rights in schools hurts them. Screaming at a sitting US Justice and getting the DEI standing up and supporting the protesters by labeling his very presence damaging hurt them.
For normal people, it takes them awhile to get riled up enough to care. But once they do, they're unstoppable. We're seeing it turn. Trust in media is at its lowest point. Hollywood is largely failing and ignoring their one success because it doesn't fit their narrative (I would also suggest the success of Yellowstone and 1923 is a good sign that some in Hollywood gets it, I was surprised at the last episode of 1923 I watched, it sounded like some of the dialogue came straight out of the Reason comment section, including Helen Mires character pointing out the story of grizzlies on the white house lawn was all a distraction to what they don't want you to focus on). The success of Top Gun Maverick shows the they're starting to lose. The growing recall of school board members, the growing parental rights movement, etc shows they've hurt themselves.
Like Nathaniel Greene and the southern campaign, we don't have to win, but we need to keep them fighting until they've so worn out that they are forced into camp at a disease ridden port and on the defensive. Then you call on the big guns, lay siege. Those who believe in liberty and equal justice separate of ideology, who believe in classical liberalism, the Constitution and our founding principles need to realize the battle isn't lost. That those who oppose us are hurting themselves more and more with their antics. We shouldn't play by the same rules, but keep forcing them to make unforced errors. And this might mean occasionally adopting some of their tactics, and adapting them, such as the Republicans embracing ballot harvesting (because if the Republicans make major inroads you know the Democrats will turn against it). I say let California and San Francisco specifically pass there asinine reparations. Because it further alienates their non-African American base such as Hispanics and Asians, who are already leaving the party. Never stop your enemy from defeating himself. No, the key is to keep setting up situations for them to defeat themselves further.
So, I say if they scream, it's a good thing. As for most the LGBTQ community, most aren't activists and sooner or later their screaming is going to alienates them too.
Also, while I have contended that Trump doesn't have much staying power in his accomplishments and President, the one thing that he did do was vastly change the tone of the Judicial Branch. I don't even think we've begun to see what a difference this has made.
Also, after the showing in 2022, the left was overconfident and has overreached. Whitmer just overturned Right to Work, which is supported by 72% of Michigan citizens. The screaming of the left after the courts end Affirmative action is going to make last year's abortion screaming seem mild, but what they'll ignore is that the group who will benefit the most are Asian Americans, who have already been showing increase resistance to the Democratic party and play a big role in state and local elections on the west Coast and Northern Virginia. Affirmative action is also not very popular with Hispanics and is really only popular among African Americans and wealthy white progressives. And even then it's barely above 50% among those groups.
So, I say let them scream. I want them to scream. I want them to riot. I want the media to gaslight on it. When you hook a 40 pound pike on 8 lb monofilament the best thing to do is let them run with just enough drag they wear themselves out. They think they're getting away, but you're the one who will be enjoying fried fish that night. They're running right now, but don't realize they're just pulling against the drag and soon they'll be worn out and then it's time to start reeling.
The worst thing you can do is try to horse the pike in. Then all that happens is your line snaps, you're out the lure and a trophy class fish swims away.
And like my fishing analogy, the secret is to provide some resistance while making them exert themselves. Make up some room when they stop resisting, and stop forcing the issue when they start running again. The drag here is by offering counter programming and letting them scream about it. Let them sue. Let them loose in the courts. Banning them is trying to akin to trying to turn the fish before it's played out.
And pike are fast, ambush predators but move in bursts, and tire out quickly. The left isn’t good at long term thinking. Also, like the pike, theyre not used to meeting anything that threatens them and are used to winning (and much like the pike, there biggest natural predator is themselves). So, like the pike they’ll hit that shiny spoon, and run and shake their heads when they feel the bite of the hook without realizing that’s exactly the wrong thing to do. The best thing is to stop and get slack then they can throw the hook. But as long as you keep the line taut, they won't think of that.
The ideological connection between trans and drag story hour is queer theory.
For once I’m rooting for Qualified Immunity.
Let President Wendler be protected from damages because there’s no specific precedent about the rights of drag performers on public college campuses.
And his duty to uphold free speech vs. his duty ensure equal access, be they religious or female, is definitely ambiguous.
Unfortunately, the current SCOTUS has already wound this into a irrational clusterfuck with Bostock, whereby a man identifying as a woman gets equal protection as a woman by allowing him performing acts that women aren’t allowed to perform.
Screw the Left - 6 years of violent riots and assaults and death threats. They want to sue - MAKE them fight! Don’t give up territory easily!
Are we supposed to be surprised at this? So this story features one instance of a liberal group being shut down, but for every one story like this, I could find 5 or even 10 stories of conservative groups being shut down the same way on liberal campuses. The liberals are the one’s who started pushing this anti-1st Amendment narrative whereby free speech is shut down unless it follows the correct narrative being pushed by the school. The conservatives, as usual and expected, are just reacting to this new element of "political war" if you will.
The left is in its ascension this decade and the last. The right has had its decades in the sun before and will again. They can be just as nasty and offensive as the left when in power. Don't fall for the gaslighting done by the right to distance themselves from their offenses in the past.
Most Beautiful Models and Hot Escorts are available in Karachi. You will find a lot of escort and call girls providers all over Pakistan, but supplying Escorts in Karachi absolutely has already been notable. Escorts in Karachi
Emma should be put in a camp, tbh.
Amazing Post, Thank you for sharing this post really this is awesome and very useful.
https://www.hours-advisor.co.uk/footman-james-opening-hours/