Free Speech

Waiting-and-Seeing on the Trump Campus Free Speech Executive Order

It's an order to create policies, not a policy -- so it's hard to tell what it will do until we see what policies various departments create.


I appreciate some of the criticism (e.g., Keith Whittington's and Heather Mac Donald's) of President Trump's Executive Order on campus free speech. Its results certainly could be bad, or good, or neither, or a mix.

But because the order simply instructs various departments to create policies (and coordinate them with the Office of Management and Budget) aimed at protecting speech in federally funded university programs, it's hard to tell what will happen until we see the actual policies. Nor is this uncertainty inherently bad: Ordering your subordinates to use their judgment to come up with something, after some thought, discussion, and coordination is often a pretty sensible way for a superior to act.

Now sometimes when that happens, we can see the writing on the wall, and know that it's bad. But this isn't so here; I don't think any of us can predict with any confidence what the various agencies can do. Of course, if I thought that the federal government just had no business ever requiring free speech protections as a condition of federal university funding, I would fault the order even without knowing just what policies will be implemented. But I don't see any basis for so categorically condeming all possible speech-protective strings on federal grants.

Nor do I think that such policies would necessarily set much of a bad precedent (as Heather Mac Donald suggests might happen); the precedent has already long been set with various conditions attached to federal spending. Trump's actions to protect campus free speech are unlikely, for instance, to be much of a precedent for some future actions (whether by a future President or Trump himself) to restrict campus free speech. Such use of federal funding as a basis for demanding campus speech code already happened during the Obama Administration; I don't see the Trump Executive Order as making that materially more likely.

Finally, if I somehow thought that we were in a speak-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace situation—for instance, if a government action authorizing some future action involved some important grant of power that couldn't easily be taken back (e.g., consider a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to enact campaign finance laws of its own choice, even if it doesn't specify exactly which laws aut to be enacted)—I could see the value of nipping the proposal in the bud.

But it seems to be that there'll be plenty of time to condemn the actual policies that are proposed when they are proposed, if they need condemning. Indeed, it would be easier to do that precisely because one will then have specific language that one could criticize. Or, of course, if the specific language actually proves to be pretty sensible, one would be spared the need to criticize it.

NEXT: About that Campus Free Speech Executive Order

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Here’s what I would like to have answered: Since colleges and universities routinely violate students’ first amendment rights (particularly conservative, religious, and anti-abortion viewpoints), what other methods exist to solve these violations of fundamental constitutional rights? Universities get sued on these issues and lose regularly, feign contrition, issue banal statements, and then go *right back* to violating these rights.

    What’s the solution?

    1. If I might make a humble suggestion, clearly the correct solution is to call in the police, or other armed authorities, whenever we can. There is ample president for taking such action when dealing with certain academic controversies. See, for example, the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal libel (I misspoke: I meant to say criminal “parody”) case at:

    2. I’m all for federalizing MP formations of the National Guard and sending them in when liberal “students” agitate against conservative groups and speakers. If the campus police can’t or won’t keep order, then send in someone who will.

      1. Still wondering why your side lost the culture war, croaker?

        1. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

          click here ======??

        2. Because we didn’t start doing things like that 30 years ago?

          1. I think it was mostly the backwardness, intolerance, and authoritarianism.

            1. Within living memory, conservatives controlled all these campuses…as well as the NY Times and the Chi Trib.
              Unless you subscribe to some whacko Marxist theory of history, how do you know that the pendulum won’t swing back?

    3. “Since colleges and universities routinely violate students’ first amendment rights”

      A substantial portion of colleges and universities categorically cannot violate students’ first amendment rights. Are we to target them, as well?

      1. I wonder why we have all those fights about campus speech codes? Odd since, of course, universities categorically cannot violate students’ 1st amend rights. How could a plaintiff ever overcome the formidable, categorically can’t violate defense?

      2. The concern is government silencing people, or being derelict in securing those rights of speech (if not outright complicit by deliberately looking the other way.)

        Though every private university be an outdight SOB, they are not government, which is forbidden from doing this.

      3. The consensus view is that private schools still need to comply with their handbooks, codes of conducts, etc.
        This means that schools with an explicit viewpoint/mission can act consistent with vision (e.g., a Christian college can require religious classes). But it also means that schools that promise support academic freedom / free expression need to act consistent with that promise. And note, the later promise is very common. Almost ubiquitous even.

    4. Since colleges and universities routinely violate students’ first amendment rights (particularly conservative, religious, and anti-abortion viewpoints)

      Are America’s right-wingers genuinely unfamiliar with the hundreds of conservative-controlled campuses that stridently and systematically censor students, faculty, speakers, and others? Are they unaware of the rejection of academic freedom, the speech and conduct codes, the loyalty oaths, the dogmatic control of research and scholarship, the required teaching of nonsense that are the signature elements of every conservative campus in America?

      The type of regulation Pres. Trump envisions would put most of the fourth-tier conservative goober factories and yahoo farms out of business — unless, of course, Republicans come up with another snowflake-coddling, viewpoint-controlled, partisan privilege for campus censorship that derives from backwardness, superstition, and bigotry.

      1. Well, certain kinds of speech are appropriate, and others are inappropriate (see this thread for examples). The Executive Order contemplates only inappropriate speech-suppression efforts coming from the so-called “left.” The speech-suppression efforts of conservatives?indeed, of the very conservatives who claim to be supporters of “free speech”?are hardly matters for appropriate discussion.

        1. ” The Executive Order contemplates only inappropriate speech-suppression efforts coming from the so-called ‘left.'”

          Why doesn’t it contemplate only inappropriate speech suppression efforts, regardless?

          1. Very good question. For the same basic reason it’s okay to send an email in another’s name if it’s “puerile” enough, or if one does it to convey an idea, but not if one does it to damage a reputation: there are certain lines, certain degrees of inappropriateness, and it’s the powers that be that get to decide what they are, and hence to determine when suppression is a good thing and when it’s not a good thing.

            1. ” the same basic reason it’s okay to send an email in another’s name if it’s “puerile” enough”

              Freedom of speech is the reason why we’re only interested in freedom of speech that’s encumbered by one group, and not another?

              I think I’ve figured out why nobody’s taking you seriously.

              1. Now you just have to figure out when he’s being ironic.

              2. This claim is based on a false presumption. The ones who take me most seriously are, of course, those who pretend not to take me seriously.
                I also believe you misunderstood my comment. The reason is not “freedom of speech,” but the line between speech worth protecting and speech not worth protecting. See the Second Circuit’s decision in the case I linked earlier. The court held that if it’s puerile enough or expresses a legitimate idea, it’s protected; if the intent is to damage a reputation (which is not a legitimate idea worthy of constitutional protection), it’s not protected. That is the basic reason why libel can and should be criminalized (see elsewhere in this thread). Clearly these are fine judgment calls, of the same sort involved here.

                1. P.s. my comment above is in response to James Pollock. I certainly would not wish to be accused of irony, which is a form of deceit punishable, in some instances, by jail and also by prosecution, both in our American criminal courts and in the press.

      2. Apart from this rant, can you recount any actual instances where any of these institutions violated any student’s rights?

        1. And this blog has talked about private institutions, and possible legal actions, when their actio s do not line up with their official statements about respecting free speech.

          Which is fine, but also irrelevant to the murderous spectre of government silencing you.

        2. Clingers generally should be encouraged to perform their own basic research, lest they remain hapless rubes, but here are some pointers, MKE:

          Trump favorite (and national shame among competent adults) Liberty University

          Tries-to-be-decent-but- just-can’t-shake-the-childish dogma Georgetown University

          Standard-issue backwater religious school Cedarbrook University

          1. Fourth-tier yahoo factory Franciscan University

            Cedarbrook, which just can’t quit the censorship, again

            Heartland goober farm Wheaton College

            1. More and even more Liberty University

              Why provoke a debate you know you can’t win, clinger? Are you impervious to reason and evidence? Just wallow in your futility without making silly claims of adequacy.

              1. Thanks for that amusing mass of disinformation, bad reporting and basically irrelevant “news.” The New Republic? Seriously? But how is it a violation of the constitution for christian/catholic universities to actually pursue christian/catholic agendas? Seems kind of, oh what is the word?, constitutional. And I’m sure, in your most thorough research, you have encountered stories where public institutions actually engage in gross violations of student rights, but you must have just lost those links.

                1. Your taste for right-wing censorship is noted and disdained. As is your lack of consistency and principles.

                  Improving America by crushing the aspirations of half-educated, bigoted conservatives in the culture war has been quite satisfying.

                  Carry on, clingers. Until you are replaced by your betters, that is.

                  1. So, in sum, you really have nothing substantive to say in response. But you do really seem to like the “clinger” reference. Does it ever occur to you that you’re just reminding people how obnoxious and elitist Obama’s rhetoric actually was? But I guess if you actually had the wit to come up with your own original insults you wouldn’t need to rely on the likes of Obama.

                    1. It is substantive to note that censorship on conservative campuses is far greater than limitations of expression on liberal-libertarian campuses, and that strong schools tend to be mainstream schools while conservative-controlled schools tend to be low-quality institutions. The evidence supporting those points is overwhelming (unless one genuinely believes Hillsdale is better than Harvard and Wheaton is better than Wellesley, in which circumstance one is beyond reasoned debate). I believe censorship is a substantial reason for the poor quality of conservative schools.

                      You hate Obama because he is half-black. That’s your problem. But it won’t be America’s problem much longer, because the changes in our electorate indicate our intolerant, ignorant citizens are to be replaced soon enough.

                    2. So that’s your attempt at an original insult? Playing the race card? Not really that impressive an insult but at least you’re trying.

                      Or maybe I misread you, maybe you’re just pretending to be obnoxiously obtuse in an ironic kind of way to expose the idiocy of the positions you pretend to support? But you don’t strike me as that bright.

                    3. I guess I’ll have to go with the irony theory. No one, even someone with such a silly pseudonym, could ever seriously maintain such views. So, very amusing Rev. Keep it up.

                    4. You seem a conservative Republican.

                      It is reasonable to consider a current conservative Republican a bigot — if not a forceful bigot, at least an appeaser of diffuse bigotry. Guys who lurch into complaints about Obama’s elitistm, then mumble about the “race card,” are reliably classified as bigots.

                      Carry on, clinger. Continuing to crush guys like you in the culture war will be a pleasure.

                      Oh, and be sure to send your children to Ouachita Baptist or Regent, like a good little half-educated right-wing yahoo. At least then you’ll be something other than an all-talk right-wing malcontent.

                    5. “But how is it a violation of the constitution for christian/catholic universities to actually pursue christian/catholic agendas? ”

                      It isn’t. It also isn’t a violation of the constitution for a private “liberal” institute to pursue a “liberal” agenda, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

                    6. Yes, but when they pursue an illiberal agenda in conflict with the laws of the land, then we have a problem

                    7. First, half-educated? I’m at least 2/3 if not 3/4 educated. Second, I wasn’t sure what “diffuse bigotry” was and had to look it up, but I’m still not sure. Third, do you have an address or contact info for those schools?

  2. Seems a sensible approach to take, rather than grasping to find something objectionable before we even know the substance of the policies that will be produced.

    1. Agreed. I would also submit that a similar argument can be made in support of criminalizing libel everywhere in our great nation. After all, we don’t know in advance exactly what will be criminalized. So the fears of individuals like the president of the University of Chicago can safely be ignored, just like the “grand principles” laid out by the authors of the Model Penal Code quoted in the famous Garrisoncase, to the effect that “personal calumny is inappropriate for penal control.”

      1. in our great nation

        And you lost me.

        1. There is certainly ample president for calling our nation great. Just as there is for calling in the police to deal with certain academic controversies, and for criminalizing libel.

          1. P.s. and it’s great that we have an academic of Eugene Volokh’s stature to continue supporting at least some of these positions, as I’ve explained at greater length in a comment below.

          2. “Just as there is for calling in the police to deal with certain academic controversies, and for criminalizing libel.”

            Not as many among libertarians, I would think.

        2. in our great nation

          And you lost me.

          Really? No matter. Apparently we’re gaining a great number of people who feel this is a great nation to go to, as admitted to by both Republicans, who want to slow it, and Democrats, who, pleased with America’s greatness, want to increase it.

          You are in a thin minority.

  3. We must certainly do our best to justify the Executive Order. Above all, let us not directly engage with the irrational “warnings” issued by the president of the University of Chicago and a number of other individuals. For this polemical purpose, we need an academic figure who will speak in a “moderate” conservative tone about the matter. Ideally, someone whose “free speech” academic credentials are fully demonstrated by the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “parody” case at:

    Now, who better than Eugene Volokh to take on that role? After all, it is Eugene who has so eloquently spoken out in terms that favor criminalizing libel everywhere in America. In doing so, moreover, he has brilliantly demonstrated his capacity to engage in just the kind of “hit and run” tactics that we need when dealing with little issues of this sort. Most importantly, he has succeeded, time and again, in presenting his path-breaking perspective while casually refraining from addressing the inappropriate statements of the “Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Expression,” who have wrongly asserted to the world on so many occasions that “criminal defamation is not a justifiable restriction on freedom of expression; all criminal defamation laws should be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws.” Let us all support Eugene’s courageous stand in this regard, as well as in the matter of the Executive Order.

    1. Are you okay? Do you need an adult?

      1. I believe we all need an adult, and the adult we need is Eugene Volokh ? especially in regard to any academic “free speech” issues, along with the constitutionality of our nation’s criminal libel laws. Clearly we here in America know better than any “human rights” organization or any “Special Rapporteur” of the so-called United Nations or any other “international” body.

        1. A right-wing professor who engages in viewpoint-based censorship (Artie Ray says ‘hey,’ professor) and partisan polemics seems a strange hero for anyone interested in freedom of expression.

          1. I’ve been accused of having odd ideas before, but when I returned from my journeys and gave up my arms, everyone was begging me to pick them up again.

    2. P.s. as a further point in favor of Eugene’s stance, I would point to the moral consistency of his positions.

  4. Quixote: You’ve posted six of the first ten comments in the thread; and this isn’t the first thread you’ve threadjacked with your private obsession. You can take whatever view you might about People v. Golb, impersonation law, or my many failings, both in the comments here and elsewhere. And you can post all you want on whatever blog you might start up yourself. But if you keep posting multiple comments that are at best loosely connected to the thread (with that judgment being entirely in my discretion, just to anticipate your objection), I’ll delete them and block you.

    1. Eugene, I’m very sorry for my multiple comments above, and I do apologize for getting carried away.
      In amicable reply to your other points, I would merely suggest again that all of these positions you have advanced are interconnected, and they are related to your principled, conservative stance; which is why, far from seeing them as “failings,” I support all of them so eagerly. Am I wrong that your positions are interrelated and reflect a coherent, principled philosophy? Either we have a discussion, or we don’t; and sometimes it is better not to have a discussion, which is why you are so right not to have directly engaged with the academics and organizations who disagree with you on these various issues. (P.s. did you mean “parody” law? If libel should be criminalized, then surely we should also be open to criminalizing parody, at least when it’s not immediately recognizable as a light, reverential sort of comedy.)

  5. As auditions for a Trump nomination to the federal bench go, I give this a 6.

    Mentioning the Volokh Conspiracy’s censorship of liberal comments (while allowing free-wheeling, even threatening and bigoted conservative commentary) could have taken it to 8.

    You can’t get past 8 without declaring that Pres. Trump is the greatest businessman, candidate, president, negotiator, golfer, dancer, and lover of all time. I believe that is a bridge too far for Prof. Volokh, but let’s see how it goes toward the end of the Trump presidency.

    1. “You can’t get past 8 without declaring that Pres. Trump is the greatest … lover of all time.”

      You don’t think he’s a good lover?

      1. Exh. 1: Melania’s sleeping arrangements.

        Exh. 2: Stormy Daniels’ eyewitness account.

        Exh. 3: The accounts of countless women subjected to Trump (usually unwanted) moves.

        Exh. 4: Any recent full-length (and -width) photograph of Donald J. Trump.

        Motion for summary judgment.

        1. Sanctioned for exh. 4.

        2. I’m impressed Rev, most people would be ashamed to admit they read Stormy Daniels’ book. Maybe Avenatti will write a book and supply you with some more material.

  6. “Trump’s actions to protect campus free speech are unlikely, for instance, to be much of a precedent for some future actions (whether by a future President or Trump himself) to restrict campus free speech.”

    I would bet money that this is EXACTLY how it gets used, and before Trump leaves office.

  7. Seems to me, no matter the rules progressives are in control and will call the shots. Reforming (education, no indoctrination) the public school system would have to begin in kindergarten and would take a generation, or more probably two.

    1. Who calls the shots at Regent, Hillsdale, Liberty, Ouachita Baptist, Wheaton, Cedarbrook, Ave Maria, Franciscan, Biola, Regent, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, and dozens (such as Ozarks, Grove City, King’s, Dallas, Houston Baptist, Christendom, Patrick Henry, Evangel, Brigham Young, Harding, Cedarville, and Cornerstone) just like them? How free is expression on those campuses? How does the climate for expression influence quality on those campuses?

      1. Unfortunately well over 95% of the schools are public schools and in the almost exclusive control of deluded progressives.

        1. Unfortunately well over 95% of the schools are public schools and in the almost exclusive control of deluded progressives.

          You would be more persuasive if you stopped relying on imprisoned faith healers and 8chan comments for your statistics.

          1. Victims of progressive educators rarely understand arithmetic.

            1. Those damnable progressive educators. If only more Americans could avoid our Columbias, Pittsburghs, and Reeds and instead benefit from the faculties of Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Regent, Liberty, Hillsdale, and Ouachita Baptist.

              1. Poor Kirkland as clueless as a child, but then he was exposed to progressives at a tender age.

              2. RALK vomits out the very same phrases and lists in hundreds of posts per week. Aside from being unthinking an unoriginal, much less having even a tenuous grasp on the subject at hand here, let us examine his thesis.

                He has a real thing for Ouachita Baptist, I assume because of the funny spelling. In addition to the Huckabees, and Dallas Cowboy great Cliff Harris, their most prominent alumni include the head of the Human Rights Campaign, Chad Griffin.

                I guess the head of the most prominent LGBT Rights organization is the type of indoctrinated, poorly educated rube clinger RALK is constantly babbling about

            2. “Victims of progressive educators rarely understand arithmetic.”

              Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

        2. Made up numbers are unconvincing.

      2. Who calls the shots on those many campuses? Not the government.

        Which is the point.

        1. Pres. Trump, Prof. Volokh, and other right-wing polemicists target private institutions as well as public institutions in this context. They focus myopically on liberal-libertarian mainstream schools, and ignore censorship at conservative-controlled schools, though, because that is what partisan, cherry-picking appeasers of the backward, the bigoted, and the ignorant believe they must do.

          1. Oh look, Arty still has trouble grasping simple concepts. Good thing you have that great “liberal-libertarian” education…

          2. You might want to consider reading the 1st Amendment. It’s easy to find. It’s the first one.

    2. If you think socialisim starts in our kindergardens, I would be curious what you’re talking about, unless you think the gun-poptart thing is happening daily.

      1. Who said anything about socialism? Progressives,usually don’t characterize themselves as socialist . . . I starting to feel sorry for Alice.

        1. Your dooming and gloomign is starting to sound more performative than serious.

          1. I can understand why a victim of progressive educators might think that.

            1. I understand how a partisan tool might enjoy walking around calling just about everyone he talks to a victim, but I was a physics major; not a lot of partisanship in my classroom.

              1. Wow, you may be one of those rare progressives who understands math.

                1. Like I said, performative.

                  1. Took you long enough.

                2. Socialists are notoriously far better at math than capitalists – at least if we are judging from the USSR, Bulgaria, Romania, North Korea and China. Cuba, Angola, and Venezuela maybe not so much.

                  Hmm, it is almost as if there were some other factor at play that is not related to economics. Wonder what that could be..

          2. Your dooming and gloomign is starting to sound more performative than serious.

            You probably don’t wanna look at the histrionics on campuses, where claims of mental damage are rewarded to use government power to silence opposition.

  8. “Of course, if I thought that the federal government just had no business ever requiring free speech protections as a condition of federal university funding, I would fault the order even without knowing just what policies will be implemented.”

    It’s a reasonable position, but then you would have to say that the feds would have to get out of the affirmative action, gender discrimination, racial discrimination, etc. business on campus too. We might be better just leaving it up to the courts rather than the bureaucracy.

    I’d like to see the administration come up with a model ratio of administrators to faculty. Then apply the formula to grants. Say you set a limit of 1 administrative person to every faculty, adjunct, and graduate assistant. Then if the university exceeds that by 50% then federal grants are cut by 50%.

    1. But if you don’t hire administrators then you can’t administer and comply with the grants and other government mandates. These are not things professors want to or can do in their spare time.

      I guess the eventual workaround if your proposal were adopted would be to have administrators teach a course or two and call them adjunct professors.

  9. When the right to vote is restricted to net tax payers and those in the Armed Services then, and only then, will there be a chance for reform.

    1. The fact that you had to add that exception should be a red-flag for the plan.

      1. Nah. Let him explain to the retired military why their votes don’t count any more.

        1. Who are retired remain as a ready reserve and ought be among those who vote.

          1. That’s not how any of that works.

              1. So you are part of the reason America hasn’t won a war in 70 years?

                Did you at least get to participate in a vague draw with ragtag irregulars, squandering the enormous resource advantage American taxpayers provided for you?

    2. Get an education, WJack. Start with standard English, focusing on capitalization, you bigoted hayseed.

  10. By all means wait and see…but I’m curious as to what kind of federal intervention we’re talking about.

    People can sue state schools in federal court for censorship. In such cases I would imagine that the US Justice Department would be able to intervene to give its perspective. Maybe the same applies to suits against private schools for violating their terms of service (or whatever the academic term is).

    But Congress has declined to make support for free expression a *condition* of federal funding.

    So wouldn’t this end up like the sanctuary city cases, where the courts say the executive is illegally trying to add conditions to the receipt of federal funds?

    1. It depends. Some of the conditions that Congress has made on various forms of federal funding might be interpretable in context as covering free speech. It has been historically considered essential to academic integrity. That is, after all, one of the primary justifications for the concept of tenure.

      And mind you that under Chevron/Auer deference, if an agency can come up with such a plausible interpretation, courts are bound to follow it. (Note that I think Chevron and Auer are travesties but they are so far still the law of the land.) So maybe it will end up like the sanctuary cities cases but maybe not.

      1. That might happen, I don’t know, but I personally am still hung up over the fact that when Congress designated groups that colleges lose money for discriminating against, they didn’t designate political groups.

  11. When President Warren adds “free speech” requirements to private corporations, don’t pretend you weren’t warned about it.

    1. I thought her name was Chief Running Water?

    2. And don’t forget we told you that, “This is neither a precedent for that, nor would refraining from this in any way hinder her from attempting that.”

    3. Do private corporations receive anywhere near the amount of government largess as do academic institutions?

      And, for that matter, are their purposes the same? Free speech is much more important to the mission of colleges and universities than to the mission of for-profit corproations.

  12. EV patrols not only the U.S., but the world, wielding his precision legal theodolite, ever vigilant for slippery slopes that trend toward U.S. Constitutional controversies. And now it’s, “Eh, let’s wait and see”?

    1. If it serves the movement conservative cause, or at least the perceived right-wing cause, Prof. Volokh is ready to carry that water.

      1. Cuckland tried to carry water for the Left once, but it ended up being too heavy and hard.

      2. “If it serves the movement conservative cause, or at least the perceived right-wing cause, Prof. Volokh is ready to carry that water.”

        Might this be a remark made by a product of progressive educators who has been taught to self-identify as a victim while perceiving others as “privileged” conservatives?

        1. Might be, but probably not.

          Amazing how many experts on universities comment here. Or are the just parroting Breitbart, or Fox?

  13. Demanding that public institutions respect free speech should be pretty non-controversial and “how” you do it is you don’t censor. If you want to censor than no public funding for you. Its easy.

    Having dealt with the federal government before as a potential contractor I know they put all kinds of stipulations , social justice stuff, on contractors. You must basically have a social justice office to make sure you are SJW compliant to do federal work. It goes way beyond just following the CRA.

    So they already attach strings. In this case just allow speech even speech you don’t like.

  14. I will never forget when one of my professors at my alma mater stated in class that private universities are not required to respect constitutional protections of our natural rights. I was surprised how proud he sounded stating that, as if denying free speech is somehow desirable irrespective of whether or not there is a sound legal argument for it.

    1. Did this occur at Ave Maria, Regent, or Biola? Or was is Wheaton, Cedarbrook, or Ouachita Baptist?

      1. No, more likely that it happened at Berkeley, Michigan or Harvard.

        You liberals only support private property rights if it’s denying speech to people you disagree. If a baker doesn’t want to bake a cake to celebrate the “marriage” of two men who like to shoot off inside each other’s tuchises, you have no issue using the power of the state to force him to.

        1. two men who like to shoot off inside each other’s tuchises

          Show of hands — anyone want to claim they believe this guy isn’t a closeted pile of self-loathing?

          He’s a natural for a Republican member of Congress.

          1. More likely AWRP under any name is just a parody identity. Having fun making outrageous statements. Not even a tenth as witty as Quixote.

  15. In practice, the most valuable thing here is to give cover to bureaucrats who want to do the right thing e.g., “sorry, we can’t disinvite a speaker who’s message you don’t like because it will put our federal funding at risk.

    Yes, campus nazis administrators who want to ban speech will still find a way, but there must still be a few good people in these organizations.

    1. Standing in the middle of a circle of bad people going, “Reeeee!”

      And, yes, I knew that reference before it was a meme.

  16. Ultimately, until we get third world immigration under control, none of this matters. Third world immigration will destroy America on its own.

    1. Yep, and the products of progressive institutions (having no clue what the historical record shows) think open borders are a good thing.

      1. The leaders know that it’s a bad thing. But destroying the West is their goal.

        1. I think that was Sauron.

    2. I suspect you’re just trolling but in case that was a serious comment, it’s worth noting that third world immigration is what made America. We have always been a nation of immigrants. With luck, we always will be. It is a source of strength and innovation.

      The arguments being made against the current wave of immigrants (that they don’t share our values, don’t speak our language, have a different religion, are unskilled and won’t assimilate) are the same bad arguments that were made against the Norwegians, the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Slavs and every other immigrant group since the Pilgrims.

      1. Italy, Poland, Germany, and England were not the third world. Furthermore, the other white immigrants had IQs of 100. The average non-white immigrant today, outside of Asia, have IQs of 85. Somalis, Salvadorans, and Haitians do not make America great.

        1. Have you ever eaten a really good pupusa? Or enjoyed the music of Wyclef Jean?

        2. So it’s confirmed that you’re just trolling. Italy, Poland and eastern europe most certainly were the equivalent of third world countries at the time.

          Your claims of IQ are ludicrous and utterly unsupported by science. While there are some population-level variations in IQ, there are none with as wide a spread as 15 points. (And considerable evidence that what much smaller differences do exist are artifacts of the testing regime, not of the underlying intellectual measure.)

          1. No, they weren’t. They were less developed than England, sure, but they were not close to the level of Somalia, Guatemala or any third world shithole today.

            Regarding the IQ, blah blah. Read the Bell Curve. Read Race Differences in Intelligence. I’m really getting tired of the so called “party of science” denying the obvious and then wondering why Africans fail everywhere they exist in the world.

            1. The Bell Curve??

              Are you kidding? All that is is a retread of some very dubious “studies” done by others. It has zero credibility.

  17. The time when this country was postured to accept almost unlimited immigration (from Europe) is long past. Those who propose unlimited immigration, at this juncture, would have the greatest country ever preside over its own demise.

    1. You will be replaced, clinger.

      And watching it occur will be a pleasure.

      1. You realize, you’ll have a spot right next to him in the camps, right?

        1. No, he doesn’t realize that. White liberals think they’ll always be the leaders of their sick movement. As we saw when Pelosi faced challenges to her speakership, the non-whites they use as pawns eventually want the power for themselves.

        2. The camps?

      2. We fight all of our wars, grow all of our food, provide all of our energy, and pay all of our bills. You’re not going to like an America without white men.

        1. Check the demographics of our military sometime, you racist chuklehead.

          1. I have. The combat units are still overwhelmingly white men from the South and Midwest.

            1. The combat units are still overwhelmingly white men from the South and Midwest.

              Could that explain why America hasn’t won a war — settling instead for a series of vague draws against ragtag irregulars despite an enormous taxpayer-provided resource advantage — in more than 70 years?

              1. Because our leftist leaders won’t allow us to.

                1. Or perhaps because having too many slack-jawed hayseeds in the mix causes problems.

  18. I think the reason for trepidation comes from the idea of the federal government using the spending power to interfere with university autonomy and dictate details of how universities teach and discipline their students, even if this particular time you or I might prefer the federal government’s approach to the universities’. The broad interpretation of Title IX was an example of this, but this appears to be another example. Whether we prefer the particular policy result is not the point.

    If the federal government can use the spending power to broadly interfere with how universities conceive and achieve their missions, it can destroy liberty in a way that Sweeney v. New Hampshire warned about.

    There have always been universities that see it as their job to act in loco parentis and shape student character and morals, including (especially on the right) chapel requirements, sexual behavior restrictions, “ungentlemanly behavior” restrictions, etc. Same with schools on the left that teach preferred perspectives, and their own versions of conduct restrictions.

    You may not like it, but the right to do this is part of a private school’s institutional liberty. It isn’t the job of the federal government, whether coming from the right or left, to use the coercive power of government to get rid of the educational approaches it doesn’t like or force everyone to do the approaches it likes. If you don’t like it, go to some other school! Or start your own.

    1. Wow, the taxpayers should not police the tax funded progressive propaganda pumps? The damage the pumps are doing is readily apparent by looking no farther than this page.

      1. You continue to have trouble distinguising between ‘progressive propaganda pumps’ and ‘teachign some stuff that doesn’t align with my idiosyncratic worldview.’

        Anyhow, governmental payments to a private university for services rendered are not public funding.

        1. “Anyhow, governmental payments to a private university for services rendered are not public funding.”

          Perfect example the damage.

          1. The government does not taint everyone with whom it participates in the free market. Your argument otherwise by pure appeal to my false consciousness puts you in a sophisitc league with Trotsky.

            1. “When I use a word,” said ? it means just what I choose it to mean.”

              Explains your remarks it, or not?

              1. Perfect example the damage.

Please to post comments