MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

CUNY Students Tried to Shout Down Josh Blackman. Here's Why They Failed.

"We're not children! You can't talk to us like that!"

Josh BlackmanScreenshot via YoutubeIf you want to see a nearly perfect example of everything that's wrong with campus call-out culture these days, watch this video of Josh Blackman's attempt to deliver remarks at CUNY School of Law.

Blackman, an associate professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, supported Donald Trump's decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), agreeing that Barack Obama exceeded his legal authority when he set up the program, which allows some immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to avoid deportation. But Blackman supports the DREAM Act, which would grant residency status to many of these same people.

That distinction mattered little to the student activists who crashed Blackman's event last month, calling him a racist and white supremacist. Blackman was merely "gaslighting" them, they said. They accused CUNY of giving a platform to an oppressor. They tweeted, "My existence > your opinion." They heckled Blackman, making it impossible for him to deliver his prepared remarks. A productive conversation was possible only after the activists left the room, furious that the administration had threatened to discipline them.

That's according to video footage and Blackman's write-up of the event for National Review. The entire post is worth reading. Instead of attempting to recap it, I will note a few aspects of the episode that will be familiar to readers who follow the debate about political correctness on campus:

1. "Hate speech isn't free speech" was one of the activists' mantras. Ironically, Blackman had intended to discuss free speech and the law. It's a shame students who are confused on this topic—who wrongly believe that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech, or that it shouldn't—were unwilling to be educated by a legal scholar. But this is an attitude I encounter on college campuses all the time.

2. Activists thought CUNY should have prevented the event from taking place for reasons of safety. Never mind that the only person whose safety was threatened by Blackman's presence was Blackman himself, who prior to the event formulated an exit strategy at the urging of a public safety administrator. The student activists believed the airing of an opinion with which they disagreed was tantamount to physical violence against marginalized communities.

3. A student of color in the audience who disagreed with Blackman nevertheless wanted the event to proceed and was looking forward to asking tough questions. For saying that, the student was branded a traitor to the revolution. "Why are you here?" one activist asked him. "Why aren't you with us?" The same thing happened at the University of Michigan when Charles Murray attempted to speak there last October: Murray's presence was deemed an attack on marginalized persons, although some of the people in his audience were marginalized persons who didn't feel attacked by the speech and in fact wanted to hear it.

4. Students showed remarkable contempt for the thing they are ostensibly studying: the law. This exchange was noteworthy:

There were audible gasps in the room. "This might surprise you. I think the DREAM Act is a good piece of legislation." Someone yelled out "Gaslighting." I continued, "Were I a member of Congress..." Someone interrupted me. I said, "Let me speak, please." A number of students shouted out, "Nah." I continued, "Were I a member of Congress, I would vote for the DREAM Act. My position is that the policy itself was not consistent with the rule of law. Which teaches a lesson." Someone started snapping and booing. "The lesson is you can support something as a matter of policy." Someone shouted, "What about human rights?" I continued, "but find that the law does not permit it. And then the answer is to change the law."

A student shouted out "F**k the law." This comment stunned me. I replied, "F**k the law? That's a very odd thing. You are all in law school. And it is a bizarre thing to say f**k the law when you are in law school." They all started to yell and shout over me.

There is an important distinction between thinking a particular law should be changed and thinking law itself is invalid. The latter seems to be the position of the student radicals studying law at CUNY. I am reminded of the activists at Pomona College who published a statement asserting that "objectivity" was a white supremacist construct and the "search for truth" was an attempt to silence minorities.

That Blackman was eventually able to speak to the students in the audience who were interested in an exchange of ideas is evidence that administrators can prevent radical students from shutting down students—and that they can do so peacefully, without arresting or punishing the hecklers. The tide began to turn against the activists only after a CUNY administrator stood up and said the following:

All right, listen. Everybody stop. Let me tell you something. The university rules are people get to speak. You may protest. You may protest. But you may not keep anyone from speaking. If you do, I have other things to do, I will be back. Or you can resolve this yourselves. Or you can have me resolve it.

"We're not children!" one of the activists fired back. "You can't talk to us like that!" But the balance of power had shifted, and a few minutes later, the hecklers gave up and left.

It turns out that reminding students of their obligations as members of a community that values free speech, and imploring them to cease their heckling, can work. Something similar happened at the Murray event after an administrator spoke up.

The activist students understand the dynamics at play. When they feel they have the power, and no one will try to stop them, they proceed to shut down events that offend them. When they perceive that power has shifted to the rest of the audience, to the administrators, or to the speaker, they leave. Confronting irate student protesters isn't easy, but it seems the best thing for professors and administrators to do in these situations.

Photo Credit: Screenshot

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.

  • Rich||

    "My existence > your opinion."

    That's *your* opinion.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    It's the biggest me me me generation ever.

  • MarioLanza||

    And somehow these twinkies think that hearing a different opinion from the ones that they were indoctrinated with is a threat to their existence.

  • Sevo||

    "..."We're not children!" one of the activists fired back. "You can't talk to us like that!"..."

    Well, you're acting as if you are.

  • SQRLSY One||

    You beat me to it! I was gonna say that, and you DEPRIVED me!!!!

    WWHAAAAAA!!!!!

  • The Inappropriate Comedy Tree||

    Hey, SQRLSY. I'm bored. Wanna rap battle?

  • SQRLSY One||

    I'm disgusted!
    You're busted!
    Ya can't be trusted!

    Says the ho of the yo of the bro of the mo!!!!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Vanilla Ice,
    Is twice as nice,
    Everything else, Bro,
    Is small as the nuts of the mice!

  • The Inappropriate Comedy Tree||

    Aw, yeah.
    Getting ready y'all.
    Gonna lay it down like it's Bartertown.

    All right!

    I'm a dinosaur living in the late Cretaceous
    My balls are enormous and super gracious
    My teeth are built for ripping flesh
    I'm revved up and ready for a dinosaur fuck sesh

    Ass in the air, you know I'm gonna hit it
    Dick is magic, you know you can't quit it
    It's the Bigassic period and I'm deep in it
    No way you can stop me no matter how you spin it

    Baby I'm a T-Rex, looking for T-Sex,
    Gonna take you home put you under a hex
    With my dino boner and my flavorful cum
    When you open it up I'll make your motor hum

    Like a dinosaur living in the late Cretaceous
    My raps are fly and never mendacious
    I'm the best there's ever been at dino sex
    Everybody bow down to the great T-Rex!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Holy shit,
    I gotta quit!
    I know when I've been beat,
    I lay down my golden fiddle at yer feet!

    But I'll be back, Jack,
    I ain't talkin' smack,
    I got space aliens,
    They've got my back!

  • SQRLSY One||

    Speaking of fiddles and fiddlesticks and kerfluffleddicks…
    Lemme lay on ya, some alternative history schmistory…
    Fiddlin' Around with the Hatfields & the McCoys…

    Y'all ever hear of the Hatfields or McCoys? There in down-home Appalachia?
    You've read your "alternate history" books, yes? HarryTurtledove, etc.? I've been thinking of writing fiction like that… But I need a history expert to help me out! Anyone out there game to co-authoring a work of such fiction with Yours Truly?
    So here, check this out: The Hatfields and the McCoys get in a spat, just like in our timeline… Except they don't shoot and kill each other, they challenge each other to a down-home, ol'-time country hoe-down, fiddle contest. Each family puts up their finest 8 or 10 fiddlers, to go at it, spelling one another (per each family team) through vacations, eating, sleeping, and potty breaks, so that the fiddling contest can go on and on and on… This is the song that never ends, my friends, and it goes on and on… Till the losing side gives up, or it goes on… FOREVER!
    So I'm first-off, looking for a good working title…
    I'm thinking…
    I'm a-thinkin'…



    "The Endless Cycle of Violins" might work!

  • theomore||

    Hoe down Finals

  • Thomas O.||

    I always wondered how a rap battle between those two factions might go... like "MC Kizzoy vs. Hatty Hat" or something.

  • silver.||

    Beautiful, guys. The article made me livid; it was nice to cool down a little with an H&R rap battle.

  • DarrenM||

    The problem with rap battles is that everyone loses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    They are obviously children. Spoiled brats at that.

  • cluskillz||

    And the analysis at the last paragraph was a perfect profile of a small child throwing a tantrum, exploring the limits of the leverage they can achieve with their parents.

  • Finrod||

    Wonder how many of these cretins whining about being treated like children are still on their parents' insurance.

  • Mickey Rat||

    If they object to being talked to as children why do they act like children?

    Actually, that comparision might be unfair to most children.

  • ||

    A student shouted out "F**k the law." This comment stunned me. I replied, "F**k the law? That's a very odd thing.

    Seems kinda like a self-evident truth that a phrase like "Fuck the law." would constitute "fighting words". It's a pretty blatant invitation to the recipient to renounce their or any restraints against use of force.

  • Number 2||

    Doesn't yelling "Fuck the law" deprive rape survivors of a Safe Space? I doubt whether the person who yelled this issued a trigger warning beforehand.

  • DarrenM||

    We need a law to outlaw laws.

  • MJBinAL||

    The ones yelling "Fuck the law" should be expelled from the Law School immediately as unfit for the practice of law. I am sure that someone has video of the event that can be used as support for the action.

    They are certainly free to have any opinions they please and to speak them. However, someone who says "Fuck the Hippocratic Oath" is unfit to be educated as a medical doctor and someone who says "Fuck the Law" is similarly unfit to be educated as a Lawyer.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Now excuse us while we demand a law against hate speech."

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "Fuck the law," huh? Does that mean these turds can be beaten to death without consequence, then?

  • MJBinAL||

    I was thinking more of bathing them in napalm. But beaten can work too.

  • Just Say'n||

    "Blackman, an associate professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston"

    He's also with CATO

    And it shouldn't matter whether or not he actually supports DACA. It's insane to equate opposition to DACA with 'white supremacy' or anything racist. These are future lawyers?

  • Just Say'n||

    I noticed that people who work for CATO but don't suffer from a severe case of TDS that blinds them from principle, are often not cited as being with CATO at Reason

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    These are future lawyers?

    I doubt it.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Exactly. They will drop out, or graduate and complain that their job at Burger King doesn't help pay back their loans.

    Or since it's a City University the Empire Tuition program pays the last dollars after federal and other assistance. Tax payers screwed again.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    About a third of New York City's unskilled labor force has a college degree. This explains it.

  • JeremyR||

    I dunno. the SPLC and ACLU are rolling in money and presumably hiring people just like these

  • ||

    ^^ This guy gets it.

    Back in the (early) Nineties, there were much handwringing about the employment future of all those English Lit majors. Well, they got jobs as administrators at universities & colleges, for example.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    And this we have requirements for women's studies, gender studies, minority studies, to make jobs for the unemployable.

  • BackinIndy||

    I think that all of the "studies" types end up in HR departments so they can drive the rest of us insane.

  • Curt||

    Future Lawyers? Nope... future politicians.

    And current democrats have already proven that throwing temper tantrums in the form of sit-ins is acceptable behavior for congress.

    Just wait until one of these people becomes Representative Whiny Bitch (D-NY). Interrupting while they are in session by holding up one of those moronic and factually-challenged posters and shouting over whoever is speaking. The Speaker bangs his gavel and says the house will come to order. Rep. Bitch shouts, "You're not the boss of me!"

  • Sevo||

    "I doubt it."

    Yeah, they're future judges.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    These are future lawyers?

    Reminder: Reason commenter John is a lawyer.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Reminder: Reason commenter LibertyMike is a lawyer.

  • Just Say'n||

    That's kind a cheap shot since neither of them are saying "fuck the law" or trying to shutdown speakers. I know stupid people can be lawyers, but I'd hope they'd at least understand the law

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That's kind a cheap shot

    Duh.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "These are future lawyers?"

    Yup.

    And Proggie Politicians.

  • Texasmotiv||

    I have an extended family member currently running for Congress, a civil right lawyer, that seems to not understand what rights are.

    Here Is a particularly disturbing twitter rant about rights that simply demonstrates the inner workings of a progressive more than anything I have ever seen.

  • Texasmotiv||

  • Mickey Rat||

    To be sure, there are several federal judges who ruled against Trump's policy who are in "fuck the law" mode.

  • Cy||

    I'm sure it'll end well.

  • DarrenM||

    They're just trying to run out the clock until Trump leaves office.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""A student shouted out "F**k the law." This comment stunned me. I replied, "F**k the law? That's a very odd thing. You are all in law school.""

    And some people expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for their college education.

    A prime example of why I'm not a fan.

  • Thomas O.||

    You know who else said "f**k the law"...

  • Benitacanova||

    Stormy Daniels?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I would love to know how many of them drop out of law school.

  • Finrod||

    Hopefully all of them.

  • MJBinAL||

    Amen

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    It's getting bad when even a Blackman isn't woke enough for SJWs.

  • Cy||

    Right? Someone is opposed to not only themselves, but everyone else being taxed to death and that makes them White Supremacists?

  • ||

    According to US News, median graduating private sector salary at CUNY Law school is $45K. I think that tells me everything I need to know.

  • ||

    And ranked 125th out of 144 total rankings.

  • Jerryskids||

    I'm surprised they have any private sector salary data to work with. I assumed they were graduating "public interest" lawyers, the ones who work with "community activist" groups where everybody's paid via government grants to lobby the government for government grants.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Hey, community organizer is a real job with great career advancement potential. If you meet Joe Biden's criteria.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Wow, that's well below the median. Which I just looked up and is apparently 65k.

  • ||

    That seems pretty low. Google tells me the starting salary for a public defender is $62k.

    If $45k is the median, what kind of jobs are these law school graduates from CUNY taking?

  • ||

    *public defender in NYC.

  • MJBinAL||

    Option 1: "would you like fries with that"
    Option 2: "that was a cappichino with a double expresso shot, right?"
    Option 3: "hot dogs!, get your hot dogs!"

  • colorblindkid||

    This is why I don't think this college inanity is something to laugh about, and why they are a far greater threat than the alt-right trolls. These are the people who are going to be judges, lawyers, and politicians in ten years. Over half of our Supreme Court Justices graduated from law schools that have essentially eliminated due process in campus tribunals.

    The progressive hold on our universities is far more threatening in the long term than anything Trump can do.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Agreed. I keep hearing that once they grow up and "get a job" they'll be OK. Problem is the jobs they get will be in the warm welcoming world of academia and government where they'll be surrounded by kindred spirits.

  • silver.||

    Ditto. With each new report of speakers being shut down, especially ones sponsored by Federalist Societies at law schools (notice the bottom of the rightmost sign: "end the fed society"), I grow more cynical about the future. I'm also young enough to lack perspective; maybe this madness occurs with every generation or maybe it'll fizzle out. I know from my own college experience, however, that incompetence does not preclude graduation or even a lucrative job. Cheating is absolutely rampant, even at schools that talk tough. One student in my class who I never once saw in school had job offers from Boeing and BMW that he only lost because we were able to prove that he'd embezzled two years of club funds days before we walked.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Is it just me or does anybody else read a T into CUNY students?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    CUNYT?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    CUTNY?

  • ||

    Two actually.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Can you spell that out for me? I'm kinda slow.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    CUT the NYT?

    Somewhat OT, but not objectionable for it.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Works for me. But democracy might die. Or we won't get fit news. or something.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Only if we forget to cut all the other right- and left-wing news providers at the same time.

    #DemocracyThrivesInDarkness

  • ||

    Can you spell that out for me? I'm kinda slow.

    students

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    headdesk

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    T'CTUNY?

  • Mark22||

    CTHULHUNY?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The activist students understand the dynamics at play. When they feel they have the power, and no one will try to stop them, they proceed to shut down events that offend them. When they perceive that power has shifted to the rest of the audience, to the administrators, or to the speaker, they leave. Confronting irate student protesters isn't easy, but it seems the best thing for professors and administrators to do in these situations.


    I'm beginning to understand that the only real rules are the rules that get enforced with the threat of retaliation. I knew that this was how laws worked ever since I was a high school student reading John Locke. Now I see that some laws aren't real, because they don't get enforced in a jurisdiction, and other social norms have the weight of law in a neighborhood, because residents enforce them with violence. It's a disappointing revelation. Is knowledge like this an example of what people call, "having social skills"?

  • Kivlor||

    Reading things like this really makes me think we're doomed. Fortunately, if we can make it another 40 years without giving the nation over to the looters and commies then we've probably got a good chance at building a better future. Unfortunately, that means we have to weather 40 years of this, and hope they don't wreck it all before then.

  • ||

    What happens in 40 years?

    I was just thinking this morning that the prevailing winds are that the human population will peak at around 9 billion (give or take a billion) and then collapse somewhere back down to around 2 billion. The odds of a 2 billion person libertopia seem a lot less likely than a 2 billion person micromanaged socialist hell. Especially if only something like

  • Crusty Juggler||

    What happens in 40 years?

    The protomolecule destroys us all?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We're all too busy reading about libertarianism to understand your TV show references.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Christy Brinkley is still defying time?

  • ||

    Dammit!

    Especially if only something less than 4% of the 9 billion regard free speech, free self-defense, and free self-ownership as any sort of unalienable right or self-evident truth.

  • Cy||

    Admit it, we're fooked.

  • Kivlor||

    in that time there's a slim chance that demographics shift in a more favorable direction.

    It's not really much to bank on though. That's 40 years to tear it all down, and there's no guarantee that those trends continue even if it doesn't completely go to hell.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The odds of a 2 billion person libertopia seem a lot less likely than a 2 billion person micromanaged socialist hell.

    No, typically during periods of massive population collapse, institutions de-scale or disappear altogether because the economic and social frameworks that propped them up can't be sustained by the existing population in their previous forms. Contrary to what is typically claimed about the Dark Ages, the economic and administrative institutions of the western Roman empire didn't disappear after 476, save for in far-flung areas like Britian; they simply existed in vastly smaller forms and hybridized with Germanic practice. It really wasn't until closer to the Carolingian era that the feudal system fully took hold.

    I think going from 9 billion to 2 billion is way over-dramatic, but at some point there will probably be some kind of evolutionary collapse of the human race, either through war or disease, or both. When that happens, human society will probably become a lot more tribal and feudal in nature simply as a survival mechanism. Small societies don't really micromanage because a settled bureaucratic class simply doesn't exist in those kind of environments. Norms tend to be enforced more along social and religious lines as a survival mechanism, because smaller societies can't afford to indulge in excessively deviant behaviors without ultimately breaking apart.

  • MJBinAL||

    A worrisome statistic is that, not to put this to bluntly, our "best and brightest" are not having many children, while our welfare class has adapted wanton breeding as a profit center.

    Unfortunately, being stuck in the welfare class seems to go along with growing up in the welfare culture. It is possible for people to move up, but the percentage that do is pretty low.

    This is not a promising trend for the future.

  • SQRLSY One||

    " Activists thought CUNY should have prevented the event from taking place for reasons of safety. Never mind that the only person whose safety was threatened by Blackman's presence was Blackman himself, who prior to the event formulated an exit strategy at the urging of a public safety administrator."

    Sounds like violent thug's veto power to me! Blackman should have been issued an M-16 and ammo, for his own security, and told to stand his ground! My exit strategy is to trample over your dead bodies on my way out, if you approach me with violent intent! 15-foot, marker perimeter, you thugs get it yet?

  • Longtobefree||

    Exactly. The response to "fuck the law" is "OK, let's do that!" followed by emptying the clip.

  • SQRLSY One||

    I watched parts of the video at http://reason.com/volokh/2018/.....ool-of-law ...

    After they ran off the protesters, who were not there to listen, they were only there to shout... After that, a decent and civil exchange was had. I would like to see more of that!!!

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Okay, threatening to murder dozens of students is one thing, but use of the word "clip" to describe a magazine will not stand.

  • silver.||

    Obviously Longtobefree was talking about his M1 Garand, not the M-16.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    "Whippersnapper."

    /lovingly strokes C-96 broomhandle

  • MJBinAL||

    I challenge your use of the term "students". It does not appear that they are learning anything, so what could they be students of?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    Okay, threatening to murder dozens of extortive demonstrators styling themselves "students" with questionable validity is one thing...

  • Alcibiades||

    "Thomas More: ...And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
    ― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

  • John C. Randolph||

    Fuck "imploring them to cease their heckling". If they can't behave, expel the little shits.

    -jcr

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    A tight labor market and an explosion of new restaurants have made finding and keeping help ever more difficult across the country.

    Sounds like there might be too many restaurants.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    A decade ago, when political leaders celebrated our shift to a knowledge based economy where everyone is an artist, they forgot to mention that most artists wait on tables for a living.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Did the knowledge based economy come before or after the service based economy? Cause we could be sliding into some kind of unprecedented retro-economy that even Paul Krugman can't explain.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Nobody needs 23 kinds of restaurants.

  • Juice||

    Get creative? Like offering higher pay?

  • MJBinAL||

    Bingo, if the supply insufficient, then the solution is to increase pay to bring more labor to bear.

    Especially since we still have a significant percentage of the working age population out of the workforce. No shortage of supply ..... so?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The purpose of the protest was to draw media coverage.

    When protestors tell you to jump, you don't have to obey them.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^The shortest Ken Shultz ever.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Nope.

  • Mark22||

    I don't get it. Beans, lentils, grains, pickles, rice, and plenty of other cheap, traditional foods store very well for many years.

  • PaulTheBeav||

    The protest is so dumb I can't help but wonder if the students were actually plants put there to make the left look stupid. My main reason for doubting that scenario is that if I were planning such a thing I wouldn't have been so audacious as to make the students pretend to be quite that dumb. I would have feared that it would look too fake.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""if they... were actually plants put there to make the left look stupid. ""

    MSNBC makes so much more sense now.

  • Finrod||

    Poe's Law at work.

  • Cy||

    My Facebook stream easily refutes any arguments about people pretending to be that dumb. The amount of intellectual laziness and entitlement to that ignorance I see every day, both at work and on social media, is really, REALLY depressing.

  • Joe_JP||

    I appreciate this:

    "We're not children!" one of the activists fired back. "You can't talk to us like that!" But the balance of power had shifted, and a few minutes later, the hecklers gave up and left.

    So, in effect, the activists had a chance to speak out (something one liberal law professor deemed "quite morally wrong" as done in this fashion) but respected the rules when pressed. IRL, this is going to happen in the marketplace of ideas. Those who very strongly believing something, something at times quite personal to them, will lash out like this. But, it was a mild thing, even if you find them deluded immature children. They "gave up and left" in a few minutes. If this is the worst that will happen, it's unfortunate but something we can live with.

    As to the "f" the law business -- the protestors disagreed with him on what the law required. And, what he thought the law required was to them an unjust law. It is not too surprising for people to say "f" that type of law. To take an extreme case, in 1850, someone might say that you need to let the authorities assist in capturing an alleged slave. That's the law! Would it shock anyone if law students say damn THAT law? That is "the" law.

    I don't think the hecklers don't care about law itself. Be them wrong, their position was narrower.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    So, in effect, the activists had a chance to speak out (something one liberal law professor deemed "quite morally wrong" as done in this fashion) but respected the rules when pressed.

    That's a pretty charitable characterization. A more accurate one would be, "So, in effect, the activists violated university policy by disrupting a speech and preventing a speaker from delivering his remarks to an interested audience, and only relented when an administrator tacitly threatened them with disciplinary consequences for what they were doing."

  • leninsmummy||

    It's kind of funny they left after being tacitly threatened with disciplinary consequences. I mean, are you really anti- racists if you give up THAT easy? Isn't fighting racism worth affecting your grades?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Nope. Most SJW students turn into capitalists when it comes to grades. Same thing if confronted with a proposal for "grade equality".

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Well they expect you to share everything but are stingy when it comes to their things.

  • Joe_JP||

    Yes, it was an act of civil disobedience on their part, but even there, as compared to some sit-in, they did not persist -- even though they thought (misguided as they might be) basic human rights were involved -- merely after being strongly warned (and "tacitly" at that) but once. If "deluded lefty types" are going to only do that, it is somewhat reassuring, I would think.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Not really. They saw there was opposition and caved. Not every situation has someone (s) standing against the hecklers.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    If "deluded lefty types" are going to only do that, it is somewhat reassuring, I would think.

    So your point is that we should draw some satisfaction from the fact that these deeply stupid kids weren't, in the final analysis, all that committed.

    Okay.

    My point is that the fact that this happened at all, is a problem. The fact that these kids saw nothing wrong with trying to deplatform a speaker, based on caricatures of his opinions that exist only in their tiny minds, is a problem. The fact that they wasted half an hour of Professor Blackman's life, that he'll never get back, is a problem. The fact that a university administrator had to actually remind anybody that this kind of authoritarian bullshit will not be tolerated, is a problem.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The South is full of monuments to Civil War soldiers who said, "Fuck the law," when the law said that Lincoln would be the next president. That was America's original resistance movement.

  • Joe_JP||

    I was thinking more of those who resisted the fugitive slave laws but regardless, when challenged, those people "went away" (or tried to) in a somewhat different fashion.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    They fought the law and, the law won.

  • DarrenM||

    No they didn't. There was no law against secession. There still isn't.

  • MJBinAL||

    Actually, that is false.

    ALL the states were of the opinion that states could secede from the union at the time. Perhaps his motives were good, or not, but Lincoln was the lawless one.

    Lincoln..
    imposed a income tax that was unconstitutional at the time
    imposed martial law in the NORTH because the war was unpopular in most of the North
    had militia fire on protesters on the streets of NYC
    and much more

    The southern states lost the war and certainly slavery is and was evil. But with regard to secession, the south lost militarily to an industrial north, not because they were wrong about their right to secede but because they were unable to defend that right militarily.

    It is arguable, that slavery would have gone away anyway as it became less popular. The elimination of slavery was absolutely a good thing. The destruction of the right of states to secede was a bad thing in every way as it eliminated one of the final limits of federal tyranny over the states.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    While we're on the subject of the merits of shooting "protesters", hadn't those "protesters" in NYC just recently lynched several black people and set fire to significant swathes of the city? Squared with the distinct absence of rubber bullets and tear gas in municipal arsenals during that period in history, I think firing on those particular protesters was quite justified.

  • silver.||

    One of the reasons I, and other commenters, are upset about this type of thing is that there sometimes isn't an administrator present to reign in the students. I'm glad that the protestors capitulated this time and allowed the debate to proceed, but this isn't always the case ([1], [2], [3], and worst of all [4]). Some administrators are requiring prohibitively expensive security fees when they anticipate that a mob will become too violent to handle.

    As isolated incidents these are not all that concerning, but the idea that controversial speech (arbitrarily defined by any given group) should not be allowed whatsoever on college campuses is spreading. Instead of changing speakers' opinions with debate, they simply refuse to allow a debate to occur.

  • Mark22||

    Those who very strongly believing something, something at times quite personal to them, will lash out like this

    That's particularly common among young socialists and fascists, which characterizes these hecklers pretty accurately.

  • MJBinAL||

    This desire to paper over what is taking place bothers me. What the "hecklers" are engaging in is a use of force, or at least the threat of force. It is happening over and over that speakers are silenced because allowing them to speak "might result in violence".

    It appears to me that the logical end of this is going to be REAL violence with real blood and real dead bodies. If this behavior works in silencing those who one side disagrees with, then eventually, the other side is going to get directly violent. It is inevitable unless this behavior is reined in.

  • MarkLastname||

    How about the fact that they slandered the speaker as a white supremacist? Is that also a cause for optimism? I suppose if I went around telling all your friends you liked to rape children you'd be encouraged by the fact that I did so peacefully.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "Here's the deal—every time a toilet is flushed without its lid down, tiny bits of poop and bacteria get spun up into the air, and hand dryers can suck up those little shit bits through their intake and spit it right back out onto the next wet set of hands."
    Too much information is a real thing your horrible bastard.

  • Dillinger||

    >>Activists thought CUNY should have prevented the event from taking place for reasons of safety.

    Dangerous snowflakes.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    My existence > your opinion

    Policies that potentially threaten American lives are now forbidden to discuss?

    Well, glad to know that firearm confiscation, state healthcare programs and municipal housing regulation are officially off the table. You win some, you lose some...

  • DajjaI||

    I'd feel better about giving voting rights to people if they didn't want to immediately take away my speech rights....

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ^ Spam.

  • GILMORE™||

    This shit won't stop until you kick people out of school for disrupting events.

    they aren't being denied any right to protesting the person speaking; they can say whatever they want about that person in any variety of forums.

    What they are doing by disrupting speaking-events is taking away the audience's ability to listen to whomever they choose, and they're depriving same people of their opportunity to get an education.

  • DarrenM||

    I tend to think (hops) that colleges who accept this kind of behavior will eventually start losing enrollment. Even state schools can't afford to do this.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Juice||

    I usually order medium and get medium rare, which is what I wanted in the first place. Actually for a while there I thought that it's what medium actually was, but later I realized that it was actually medium rare. Oh well, it still usually comes out how I like it.

  • Tony||

    "Fuck the law."

    Say many people here on a constant basis. Most laws are not only bad but illegitimate, right?

    And what could be more laissez-faire than permitting all kinds of unruly behavior on such an occasion? We're praising the administration bringing the iron fist down on people exercising their rights?

    I agree with the gist of this piece completely. Student hecklers should be removed to allow the guest to speak. But why is it here? This is not Keeping Good Order magazine.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Libertarians respect the rule of law, Tony.

  • Tony||

    Less than literally everyone else except actual anarchists.

    This is bait for proggie bashing, which isn't libertarian, but it is en vogue.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The law is the law Tony, and like all libertarians I followed all anti-sodomy laws before 2013 because I respect the rule of law.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Ron Paul disagrees with your ridiculous assertion.

  • O Square||

    *insertion

  • MJBinAL||

    Sigh, Tony why are you here?

    Your posts are parades of lies, insults, and nonsense. There have been a few exceptions, but the percentage is overwhelming.

    No one here has any respect for you and regard to as an irritant at best, to wishing you would be blocked at worst. You persuade no one and no one can persuade you.

    I don't where you might go where you might feel more at home, but would you not be happier somewhere else?

  • Juice||

    Libertarians respect the rule of law, Tony.

    I don't.

  • Brian||

    I guess it's here because of assholes who think the real problem here is that the thugs didn't have badges and matching outfits.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    The law these people seek to fuck is the U.S. constitution that does not allow the president to unilaterally amend immigration law by executive fiat at least in the opinion of some smart people like Blackman. In the alternative, congress could pass the Dreamer Act that Blackman supports and solve the problem. Most laws are indeed bad and illegitimate. But the problem here is these idiots don't even know what law they're fucking. They're shouting down a speaker who by all indicators is on their side. They're a bunch of silly children who've made shouting at people they can't understand into an extracurricular activity. Nothing libertarian about that.

  • Tony||

    Agreed. But these students probably don't identify as libertarian like this magazine does.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Yeah: how do we explain that the libertarian web site is acting different and supporting different things than the progressive child retards?

    I could figure it out if I wasn't retarded myself!

  • Tony||

    It's just that in Libertopia, you're going to have to deal with much bigger problems than overly emotional college kids. Like famine.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    A prediction based on the longstanding correlation between "more government control of society" and "fewer food shortages"...?

  • MarkLastname||

    Tony is echoing Bernie Sanders' position that bread lines are good, because that shows that at least there's bread! You don't see bread lines in capitalist countries! It's because the rich people ate all the food!

  • Mark22||

    It's just that in Libertopia, you're going to have to deal with much bigger problems than overly emotional college kids. Like famine.

    Sorry to break it to you, Tony, but historically, famine is a massive problem of socialist countries, not of free market or libertarian countries.

  • Tony||

    It's a problem with poorly governed societies. What's the meaningful difference between that and "barely governed"?

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    @ Tony

    I dunno, maybe that all the societies with famines were "poorly" governed because they were highly governed, whereas the societies with barely governed agricultural sectors are the ones that don't have fucking famines?

  • MarkLastname||

    Because the government produces most of our food?

    You manage, somehow, to be a caricature of yourself.

  • MarkLastname||

    The university kicking them out of the room or out of the university isn't a matter of law. It's a matter of it being the university's property and them having the right to set the rules on it, a notion you yourself vigorously disagree with, remember?

  • Mickey Rat||

    They are saying "fuck the law" to due process and judicial disinterest. they are entirely results oriented, but they think the results they favor are the only one that will be in vogue. They are modern day Richard Rich's.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    " Confronting irate student protesters isn't easy, but it seems the best thing for professors and administrators to do in these situations."

    Never beg.

    The reality is, the more you apologize, the more the left will come after you. If you show weakness, if you let them smell blood, you're finished. The left preys on those they deem vulnerable.

    The bullies never go after people they can't break, because to do so would make them look weak and impotent.

    http://takimag.com/article/mem.....david_cole

  • DajjaI||

    Protesters have rights too. Let them vent and then boo them and escort them out. The worst thing you can do is prosecute them. Because that would only radicalize them and they will return with twice as many people the next time. And this will start a witch hunt if not a war. To be paid for by guess who?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Let them vent... Elsewhere. To begin with.

  • Eidde||

    "Protesters have rights too."

    I think that, applying the "duck test," we can tell the difference between an audience nondisruptively expressing its opinions at a speaker and trying to drown the speaker out.

    Protesters have the right to attend an event, maybe get educated, to signal disagreement in nondisruptive ways which don't interfere with the speaker's ability to speak.

    The institution, as a matter of basic courtesy to invited speakers, needs to discipline the disruptors - who only seem t act out when they seem to think they can get away with it. I don't think they want to be "martyrs" and a firm command to obey the rules or be expelled should work with most of them. Those who don't respond can be thrown out.

  • DajjaI||

    Well maybe if that sex trafficking hysteria doesn't pan out you can go after disruptive protesters. Because we need a witch hunt for civil obedience. What could go wrong?

  • VinniUSMC||

    You apparently believe, while posting on a story about disruptive protesters, that disruptive protesters don't actually exist?

    Do you not understand what "witch hunt" means?

  • DarrenM||

    There needs to be a clause in the speaker's contract that the time protesters spend disrupting the scheduled speaker is charged to the school.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Protesting does not give you the right to infringe on the rights of others.

    The room was booked for that guy to give a talk. If they want to protest, let them get their own room, or go outside and march up and down the street.

    Your right to protest is not a right to prevent others from using property they have legally obtained the rights to from the university.

  • Violent Sociopath||

    This. There's an unambiguous difference between protesting a speaker and trying to achieve a heckler's veto over that speaker.

    Protest that is respectful of a speaker's equal right to speak, and an interested audience's right to listen, is entirely consistent with principles of free expression. "Protest" that is directed toward preventing a speaker from being able to speak, and an interested audience from being able to listen, is authoritarian garbage that self-respecting universities should punish with suspensions and expulsions.

  • Eidde||

    Imagine the smelling salts these disruptors would need if a speaker said not only that the law should be enforced, but that the law should remain on the books and not modified for the benefit of "dreamers."

  • Eidde||

    Lance the boil - invite a *really* controversial speaker, not just someone who says "I agree with you about immigration policy but simply think we should follow proper procedure, i.e., pass a statute."

    What about someone who just wants to deport the "dreamers," period?

    Protect *that* person's speech from disruption, and protecting the Josh Blackmans should be easier.

  • Eric Bana||

    I am reminded of the activists at Pomona College who published a statement asserting that "objectivity" was a white supremacist construct and the "search for truth" was an attempt to silence minorities.

    There's that rancid ultra-post-modernism rearing its ugly head. There is no truth, only feelings. There is no objective reality, only individual realities. Therefore, "logic" or "rational" discussions are simply white male European constructs used to oppress marginalized groups. You only win by being louder and taking what you want.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    There is no objective truth. Everything is subjective.

    Well, everything except climate science. There, the science is settled, and if you don't accept the facts, you're a flat earther.

    But, everything else is subjective.

    And I will argue with you to the end of time if you get that wrong.

  • DarrenM||

    Everything else is subjective except that fact that everything else is subjective. That's objectively true.

  • Mark22||

    Therefore, "logic" or "rational" discussions are simply white male European constructs used to oppress marginalized groups. You only win by being louder and taking what you want.

    So they believe that white European males are violent, intolerant oppressors? And then they believe that the best way of winning against violent, intolerant oppressors is to yell at them? Good luck with that!

  • NoVaNick||

    Whatever the law may be in this case, these students were being downright rude. I learned from a very young age never to interrupt anyone, no matter how important whatever I thought I had to say was. I suspect that the boomer parents of these kids raised them to believe that every word out of their mouth was the greatest ever spoken, hence why they still act like obnoxious little shits.

  • silver.||

    Not all of us are like that. But I certainly think we are massively immature and self-centered as a generality. I definitely heard a lot of, "you're super special" growing up. Our failures in school and behavioral problems were written off as ADHD. Our social deficits were autism. Nothing is our fault, and some adult will make it all better if we just complain. Even minor corporal punishment fell out of favor, so we developed bad habits early on because our parents tried to reason with us in adult terms when we were 3. Parents failed to follow through even on minor threats, and time-out in schools was deemed unhealthy. We learned that the problem students gained control of the teacher without consequences. Having part-time jobs was discouraged, so by the time we were 23 we had only learned how to sit in a classroom. Going outside to play was discouraged because of child predators and allergies and germs. We weren't taught to understand the concept of, "she who pays the bills calls the shots," so we expect to have privileges without any responsibilities. We had the internet to instill in ourselves a deep sense of self-affirming narcissism. Independence was never presented as a desirable characteristic.

    We've internalized a notion of complete moral relativity, which I actually think is good, but it requires maturity. If we truly believe that we are right, then we must be. It is the "others" imposing their values on me that are wrong, even in cases of murder.

  • MJBinAL||

    ^This^ Is extremely well said

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I suspect that the boomer parents of these kids raised them to believe that every word out of their mouth was the greatest ever spoken

    While the boomers laid a lot of the intellectual groundwork, at this point most if not all college kids are the offspring of Gen-Xers, who've simply doubled down on such nonsense as compensation for their own free-floating anxiety and general social rootlessness.

  • XM||

    You can see why "Clinton won the college educated voters" is so utterly devoid of meaning.

  • Mark22||

    The irony, of course, is that Josh Blackman follows the same kind of leftist and racist logic as the people that protest him, as is clear from his discussion of restitution for slavery: he makes no distinction between restitution for actual victims of slavery and restitution for people who happen to share the same skin color. And he believes all Americans are somehow responsible for restitution, even though only a small minority of Southerners (all Democrats one might add) were the perpetrators.

    With that logic, why don't we just force 21st century Democrats to pay restitution to all blacks? We could start by forcibly taking Hillary's ill-gotten $200 million.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    (all Democrats one might add)

    Southern bigots of the 1960s were Democrats.

    Today's southern bigots are all-in for the Republicans, and vice versa.

  • Praveen R.||

    I think there is a place for unruly mobs. But they need to be able to pay the price for it if they really believe they are so much in the right because one can't just deprive another person of his right to free speech no matter how much you disagree with it.

    These students are just gutless protestors. They have no ability to fight speech with speech. They lack any temperment to confront ideas that make them uncomfortable. We had these kind of idiots even in the 80s and 90s, but it's gotten worse. I lean liberal on some issues, but I have no use for these kind of morons. It's these kind of idiots that drove me to Rush Limbaugh's show when he first started out. But then got tired of his shtick real quick as he was another extreme.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "
    a) A productive conversation was possible only after the activists left the room, furious that the administration had threatened to discipline them.

    b) administrators can prevent radical students from shutting down students—and that they can do so peacefully, without arresting or punishing the hecklers.
    "

    It was the threat of punishment that stopped them. Actual consequences for their actions. This is a lesson that should be learned everywhere. It is not protest to shout down speakers. It is disturbing the peace, and a crime. The thugs should be summarily arrested. Arresting those who commit crimes is the *opposite* of violence. It is the quelling of violence.

    But notice that once an administrator threatened consequences, they folded like a cheap suit.

    It's really the administrators that fail to enforce the law (in their bizarre role as civil authority over local police), or even fail to enforce university policy, who are the real perpetrators of this kind of censorship.

    This is the big news. An administrator *did not* collaborate and enable the Leftist thugs shouting down the Right.

  • esd45suf||

    "When they feel they have the power, and no one will try to stop them, they proceed to shut down events that offend them. When they perceive that power has shifted to the rest of the audience, to the administrators, or to the speaker, they leave."

    Isn't this pretty much the definition of bullying, which I am sure these students are against?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    "We're not children!"

    Umm, let's see...

    You have a temper tantrum when you don't get your way.

    You claim something is a catastrophe when it's at best a minor setback (ie, disagreement = violence).

    You're coddled by mommy so you can't handle basic life occurrences on your own.

    You have not yet learned the meaning of common words (ex. Gaslighting means falsely trying to convince someone they are crazy, not agreeing with part of what someone believes but not all of it).

    We are four for four. It looks like they are children. Quite immature and ill behaved ones, in fact.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Sounds like they're positioned for the Republican nomination for president!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Or two-time failed Democratic candidate!

  • Rebel Scum||

    "We're not children! You can't talk to us like that!"

    You are and I will. Adults are capable of critical thought, listening to ideas with which they disagree and discussing them. Children are hypersensitive, emotional reactionaries. So grow up.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Adults are capable of critical thought, listening to ideas with which they disagree and discussing them.

    How would you categorize the people who operate and attend schools such as Grove City, Regent, Biola, Wheaton, Liberty, Hillsdale, Ave Maria, King's College, and Franciscan?

  • Rebel Scum||

    "Hate speech isn't free speech"

    There is no such thing as either. There is the freedom of speech, and you either have it or you don't.

  • Rebel Scum||

    A student shouted out "F**k the law." This comment stunned me. I replied, "F**k the law? That's a very odd thing. You are all in law school. And it is a bizarre thing to say f**k the law when you are in law school."

    The concerning thing is that these are the type of people that gravitate towards positions of power. And that they are in law school but don't understand and do not care to understand what law is.

  • Nom de Sobriquet||

    "They accused CUNY of giving a platform to an oppressor."
    - An oppressor? How did Blackman exercise power? In what way did he benefit from this exercise of power? Words truly have no meaning any more.
    "The activist students understand the dynamics at play."
    - Mm. I have my doubts. If they can't see the absolutely terrifying implications of shouting "fuck the law" as students of the law, they would probably be okay sacrificing snow leopards just to demonstrate how sad it is when they get poached.

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm 55 years old, and I am still unable to supress my giggle when I read "CUNY Students". For those unversed in the English language, there is no need for a "t". The word "cuny" itself means exactly what you imagine it means.

  • TxJack 112||

    The biggest problem I see is the comment that DACA was a good piece of legislation which it is not. It was an executive order and it is terrifying law students are too stupid to understand the difference. This is nothing more than another example of the fascist totalitarian mindset sweeping this country. Unless people who actually believe in freedom stand up and refuse to tolerate this tyranny, we are doomed as a nation. They are winning the war to silence opponents and we are letting them.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Do you believe that people who 'actually believe in freedom' wish to use taxpayer dollars to build a wall, TxJack?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I'm sure the Native Americans are regretting their open borders policy.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well Rev., What does one have to do with the other?

    Obama was unable to get a Congress his party fully controlled, to pass something like DACA. After publicly stating that Congress needed to do it because he did not have the power under the constitution to implement it himself (correct), he then implemented DACA himself. He skipped the "Congress passes legislation" and went ahead and did it himself anyway.

    TxJack simply stated this fact clearly and expressed concern that these "students" did not seem to understand that DACA is not a law.

    In fact, regardless of what other actions Trump has or may take, his actions that attempted to end the illegal DACA program, and get Congress to actually pass legislation on the topic was exactly constitutionally correct.

    All of that, other that the usual political "sausage making" in Congress, has nothing to do with the wall. The idea that we need a "clean bill" on DACA is foolish. We don't get a clean bill on ANYTHING regardless of which party happens to be in control. Every bill has other, often completely unrelated stuff in it to get the bill passed and signed.

    You do at times seem intelligent and somewhat informed and must be fully aware of all this. So, did you actually have a point?

  • VinniUSMC||

    "We're not children!" one of the activists fired back.

    Then stop acting like fucking children, idiots.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    They're just acting like conservatives, Vinni, who turn just about every campus on which they get control into a censorship-shackled, third- or fourth-tier, academic freedom-suppressing, science-rejecting institution.

    When mainstream college students begin to emulate right-wingers, it's time for some adult supervision.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They're just acting like conservatives, Vinni, who turn just about every campus on which they get control into a censorship-shackled, third- or fourth-tier, academic freedom-suppressing, science-rejecting institution

    So, most universities in the nation?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I doubt that conservative-run goober factories constitute the majority of American universities, but I suppose it is possible.

    What is important is that the top two tiers -- America's strongest colleges and universities -- are operated in the liberal-libertarian mainstream. The precise number of low-ranked, substandard conservative schools is less important.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What is important is that the top two tiers -- America's strongest colleges and universities -- are operated in the liberal-libertarian mainstream

    You misspelled, "operated in the hedge fund mainstream".

  • DarrenM||

    "We're not children!" one of the activists fired back. "You can't talk to us like that!"

    Say the children.

  • Deplorable Victor||

    Better dead. Every one of these commie cunts.

  • Eman||

    CUNY is kind of a suggestive acronym.

  • prediksi sydney||

    Tidak berteriak "Fuck the law" menghilangkan korban perkosaan dari Ruang Aman? Saya ragu apakah orang yang berteriak ini mengeluarkan peringatan pemicu sebelumnya.

  • prediksi hongkong||

    Inilah mengapa saya tidak berpikir bahwa kegilaan perguruan tinggi ini adalah sesuatu untuk ditertawakan, dan mengapa mereka adalah ancaman yang jauh lebih besar daripada troll alt-right. Mereka adalah orang-orang yang akan menjadi hakim, pengacara, dan politisi dalam sepuluh tahun. Lebih dari setengah Hakim Agung kami lulus dari sekolah hukum yang pada dasarnya telah menghilangkan proses hukum di pengadilan kampus.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online