Ohio State University President's Statement on Clearing of Protest Encampments

Released Monday by OSU President Ted Carter; I'm not up on the factual details, but I agree that such encampments can and should be forbidden under content-neutral time, place, and manner rules, and those rules should be enforced:

Listening to the feedback from our community over the last several days, I want to set the record straight regarding the events that took place on the South Oval on April 25.

I value and welcome free speech. I have spoken to this since the day I arrived here at Ohio State. As many of you know, I wore the cloth of our nation for 38 years to support and defend these rights. What occurred on our campus on April 25 was not about limiting free speech. It was an intentional violation of university space rules that exist so that teaching, learning, research, service and patient care can occur on our campuses without interruption.

As a public university, demonstrations, protests and disagreement regularly occur on our campus — so much so that we have trained staff and public safety professionals on-site for student demonstrations for safety and to support everyone's right to engage in these activities. Sadly, in recent days, I have watched significant safety issues be created by encampments on other campuses across our nation. These situations have caused in-person learning and commencement ceremonies to be canceled. Ohio State's campus will not be overtaken in this manner.

We have been abundantly clear in a multitude of communications that Ohio State has and will enforce the law and university policy, which is what we did on April 25. I most recently stated this in a campus message on April 22. Dr. Shivers again reinforced this and the rules that apply to Finals Week in a message to all students on April 23.

The university's long-standing space rules are content neutral and are enforced uniformly. Thursday's actions were taken because those involved in creating the encampment on the South Oval were in violation of these rules and had been notified of this beginning at 4:30 a.m. when the first encampment was attempted, and continuing repeatedly throughout the day. During and after the attempted encampment on Thursday morning, students asked our demonstration staff pointed questions about the space rules and received answers, confirming they were aware of the rules.

Despite these warnings and clear information about the rules, student organizations and outside entities promoted both the morning and the 5 p.m. activities as "encampments," and the university consistently informed the groups that this is prohibited and would not be permitted. At approximately 5:30 p.m., a group of more than 300, many of whom were not students, faculty or staff at Ohio State, crossed College Road to the South Oval and set up an encampment. Over the next five hours, the group proceeded to establish and build upon the encampment, while being repeatedly warned that this was prohibited. The Ohio State University Police Division was the lead agency, and after numerous warnings, the university made the decision to begin arrests. At approximately 10 p.m., law enforcement began the process of arresting and charging individuals with criminal trespass for knowingly violating university policy and police orders.

Encampments are not allowed on campus regardless of the reason for them. They create the need for around-the-clock safety and security resources, which takes these resources away from the rest of our community. They also create undue pressure on proximate buildings, in this case the Ohio Union, for restrooms and personal hygiene. During Finals Week, the Ohio Union is not only a study space for students, but it is also an exam location, including for students with disabilities. In this case, with the intent of creating an ongoing, 24/7 activity, the encampment also created a disturbance to our residential community in Baker Hall.

I acknowledge that even with additional facts about the incident and the timeline of events, some will continue to disagree with the actions taken. I accept that criticism and will always listen to others' concerns. In short, I take my responsibilities very seriously and am accountable for outcomes. Arrests are not an action that I or any member of the administration take lightly. I have stated since the first day I was announced as president that safety will not be compromised.

Additional details surrounding the facts of what occurred on April 25 are available on the university's Key Issues webpage and I encourage you to read them. But I wanted you to hear directly from me that Thursday's actions were not about the content of anyone's speech. They do not mean we are limiting individuals' right to gather and demonstrate. They do mean that Ohio State will continue to uniformly enforce our space rules as well as take the actions that support the safety and security of our community as a whole.

I also want to recognize and thank the many members of our community who have been committed to teaching, learning, listening to and supporting one another as well as peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights on our campus over these past months. This is what I know our Buckeye community is capable of, even — and especially — when it is most difficult.

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

Finally, a University leader with some testicles; I was wondering if there were any, anymore.

[Ed Grinberg]

With some of them, it isn't a question of being too timid to confront the Hamas-supporting protesters, but rather of being in agreement with them!
https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1782522243978789237

[NOVA Lawyer]

Neither the tweet you link (which dishonestly represents the video) nor the video it purports to summarize support your assertion. The words of Columbia University president Minouche Shafik:

What's really troubling in the region, is that there's actually quite a broad base of society that has some sympathy for the terrorists. Not so much because they approve of their methods, but because it's a way of protesting against the system which is not delivering for them on the economic or political fronts.

So you turn: "What's really troubling...is that there's...a broad based of society that has some sympathy for terrorists...because it's a way of protesting against the system" into agreeing with the terrorists?

How dishonest can one person be? If she agreed with the people who have sympathy for the terrorists, she wouldn't be troubled by it. If she agreed with the terrorists, she definitely wouldn't be troubled by the sympathy for the terrorists.

It's clear she is troubled by the sympathy terrorists have in some regions precisely because she disagrees with the terrorists.

But you pretend she thinks otherwise because that fits the political narrative you want to present.

Lying liars gonna lie. And you, sir, are a lying liar.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

With some of them, it isn’t a question of being too timid to confront the Hamas-supporting protesters, but rather of being in agreement with them!
https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1782522243978789237

You should go back and read some of the responses to that tweet...especially the ones that expose how dishonest it is. I have no admiration for the woman, but I have even less regard for intentional bullshit.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Kudos to you, Wuz.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Finally, a University leader with some testicles

How should UCLA's leaders have treated those apologists for Israeli war criminals who violently attacked protesters for peace?

(Student journalists have performed admirably in reporting on campus disputes. They, and the protesters who object to the right-wing war criminals afflicting Gaza and the West Bank, generate great optimism concerning America's future.)

[ReaderY]

Note how the Rev. brands self-defense from lynching as “criminal,” exactly as the Klan branded African-Americans who attempted to defend themselves from lynchings a century ago. By branding people who attempt to defend themselves from lynching as “criminals,” and portraying Hamas lynchers and those who support their lynching activities as “peaceful,” Rev. Confederate recycles old Klan anti-black propaganda. He just scratches out phrases like “savage niggers” and writes in phrases like “Israeli war criminals” in crayon. He isn’t fooling anybody by doing this.

People who violate the law need to be dealt with by the civil authorities. I am not advocating for countetprotestors to use violence or act illegally. However, in general, people whose way to get to school is being deliberately blocked do have a right to remove illegal blockages that obstruct their constitutional right to equal access to education if this is the only way to secure their constitutional rights.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is that how you want to try to defend Israel's bigoted, murderous campaign in the West Bank, wingnut? Or your best effort to excuse Israel's murder of thousands of children in Gaza?

It has been indicated that the most aggressive, violent abusers of UCLA's peace advocates were not students, but instead religiously motivated right-wing thugs.

Israel's countdown has begun. Let's enjoy the ride.

[NOVA Lawyer]

ReaderY, you’re despicable.

Whatever anyone thinks of the campus protestors, it is gross to try to appropriate the suffering of Black Americans to justify whatever it is you are trying to justify.

(Among other flaws in your analogy, Israel is the government holding disproportionate power vis a vis the Palestinians in general and Hamas in particular. Non-Palestinian Israelis are not, in Israel, a politically and militarily powerless minority. October 7th was a horrific terror attack, it bears no resemblance to lynching of Black people in America beyond innocent people were killed in both instances. Notably, the response to the lynching of Black people and the Tulsa massacre, etc., was not the killing of thousands of white American children as retribution. I will only concede that, yes, the Israeli right wing government could learn something from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other leaders of a peaceful response to unspeakable violence against them.)

However, in general, people whose way to get to school is being deliberately blocked do have a right to remove illegal blockages that obstruct their constitutional right to equal access to education if this is the only way to secure their constitutional rights.

That’s not what this story was about. The encampment at UC did not prevent anyone from getting to class. The counter-protesters came to assault the peaceful protesters in the encampment. (“Counter-protesters shot fireworks into the encampment just after 11 p.m..”). You’re not advocating for counter-protestors to use violence or act illegally, except when you are.

[ReaderY]

In other words, your position is that if black people had been able to defend ghemselves, the Klan’s condemnation of them would have been completely justifiable. The only reason you disagree with the Klan is that black people weren’t able to defend themselves. If they could, they would have been completely and totally in the wrong for doing so.

Israel’s actions in this war are no different from what numerous countries able to defend themselves have done in war in recent decades with no-one thinking anything of it. If African Americans had been able to stop a lynching, they would have needed to kill a large number of onlookers to do so. Not only were lynchings often done in front of crowds of thousands of onlookers, but children were often let out of school to be able to watch.

Your position is that if lynchers are careful to conduct their lynching in front of a lot of onlookers including children, as both the Klan and Hamas were generally wuite careful to do, it turns those who attempt to stop it into genocidal criminals.

In short, you support lynching. Admit it plainly.

I don’t think that the fact that Jews are able to defend themselves changes the moral calculus in the slightest. And frankly, your position implies you are sympathetic to African Americans (nad for that matter Jews) only if and only to the extent they remain helpless victims unable to defend themselves.

The minute they are able to defend themselves, the minute they stop being helplesss victims and start having real power, you completely agree with the Klan position.

This brongs us to the really fundamental problem with your position. During Reconstruction, the presence of federal troups actually GAVE Aftican-Americans some real power and they sometimes WERE able to defend themselves or get federal troops to defend them. There is in that respect a real grain of truth to the Klan’s victimhood stories. There really was a period when they were relatively powerless and their former slaves were sometimes ruling over them.

I think this basic historical fact puts your position in its true light. Your might-is-wrong, weak-is-right position means sympathetize with the Klan, who were the weaker militarily and whose victimhood sob stories had a real grain of truth, during Reconstruction. Only after Redemption, when white supremacists stripped blacks of power, do you then start sympathizing with the African Americans.

And only so long as they stay that way.

The atrocity stories Hamas tells about what happens when Jews aew allowed to have power are totally the same as the atrocity stories the Klan told about blacks when they had power. Amd since there was a period when blacks really DID have power, and the Klan atrocity stories are largely told ABOUT THAT PERIOD, the analogy is highly apt.

[ReaderY]

That is, the Klan atrocity stories are primarily about Reconstruction, a period when African-Americans, propped up by federal troops and the Radical Republicans, really did have some disproportionate real power, and the ex-Confederates really were proportionately weak, living under a highly resented military occupation propping up Reconstructionist governments, a military occupation by people they regarded as foreigners out to destroy their culture and way of life, and siccing what they regarded as this barbaric, savage, brutal, atrocious people over them to do it.

If you don’t think the situation analogous, you don’t understand American history.

[ReaderY]

As to what happened at USC, I don’t know the facts of the situation, and I am not saying everything done there specifically was legal or justified. I am simply making some general statements. There have been many reports of protesters physically preventing Jewish students from attending classes.

[Nige]

'Israel’s actions in this war are no different from what numerous countries able to defend themselves have done in war in recent decades with no-one thinking anything of it'

Like what? As I recall the run-up to the Iraq war saw the largest demonstrations the world had ever seen. The wars in Syria and Yemen were and are protested regularly, though they get little enough attention. Putin's invasion of Ukraine has drawn nothing but approbation. The Oct 7th attackes were roundly condemned.

'Your might-is-wrong, weak-is-right position means sympathetize with the Klan, who were the weaker militarily and whose victimhood sob stories had a real grain of truth, during Reconstruction'

Considering what happened after, this is obviously way wide of the mark.

[NOVA Lawyer]

In other words, your position is that if black people had been able to defend ghemselves, the Klan’s condemnation of them would have been completely justifiable.

This is firmly in idiot or dishonesty territory. No, that's quite obviously not what my position is. The Klan, like Hamas, is a condemnable organization no matter their power. I never said or implied otherwise in either case.

And frankly, your position implies you are sympathetic to African Americans (nad for that matter Jews) only if and only to the extent they remain helpless victims unable to defend themselves.

No, it doesn't. Only a moron would actually think so after reading what I wrote.

Any group targeted because of their race or ethnicity has my sympathy. But a group with overwhelming power has obligations to use that power in responsible, non-war crime ways, whether they are targeted by bigots or not.

You just make up stupid shit.

Your might-is-wrong, weak-is-right position

I repeat. You just make shit up.

I never said or implied might is wrong or weak is right. You aren't very bright. I said the fact that Israel is stronger militarily makes an analogy to the lynching of Black people both wrong on the merits and despicably racist of you. And that's what it is.

Israel isn't wrong because they are strong. Hamas damn sure isn't right because they are relatively weak. Israel has obligations to use their force justly. You can debate that, but not by stupid and, frankly, racist analogies to lynching.

Amd since there was a period when blacks really DID have power, and the Klan atrocity stories are largely told ABOUT THAT PERIOD, the analogy is highly apt.

What a cowardly and stupid way to try to save your position. And factually wrong.

The Reconstruction years are one period of Klan atrocities. For a little over a decade from 1915, is another period. The 1960s is another period, all of which involved lynchings. And, despite the presence of federal troops during the Reconstruction era, the fact is that the Klan acted with virtual impunity and was composed of many of the most powerful people in the community, so, no, they were not some poor, scared minority. They were, quite obviously, members of and/or protected by the power centers of the South. They had less military power than the federal troops writ large, but the federal troops were spread thin and had trouble, even when Grant finally mobilized them to do so, stopping them. In any case, the Klan, quite obviously, had much more power than the recently freed Black Americans they terrorized in the 1860s and 1870s.

the Klan atrocity stories are primarily about Reconstruction

No, they aren't. They are equally about the 1915-1920s and the 1960s.

Reconstruction, a period when African-Americans, propped up by federal troops and the Radical Republicans, really did have some disproportionate real power

They didn't have "disproportionate" power. They made up a majority of citizens in at least some states and close to half in others. Moreover, despite having the vote and the power that entailed, the resentful former enslavers still maintained the money and weapons which allowed them to terrorize Black Americans with virtual impunity. The whole purpose of the Klan was to keep them from gaining proportionate power, not to take away disproportionate power.

From the National Park Service: "Worse, the Klan’s goals were supported by many local officials as well as law enforcement, which meant that Klan violence was rarely prosecuted at the local or state level."

One of us doesn't understand American history at all. The Klan was not some poor, powerless group striking out against their oppressors. They were the oppressors. President Grant tried to do something about it, but had very limited success (and much pushback from both the federal and state levels, giving lie to your ahistorical take that the true political and military power was held by Black Americans). Despite Grant's efforts, the Klan and their sympathizers gained dominant political power in the South so they could use the power of the state (rather than extralegal terrorist groups) to deny civil rights and, essentially, reimpose slavery.

Analogizing Israel to Black Americans is racist. Analogizing Hamas to the Klan only works in that they are both racist, evil organizations, but they haven't the same political or military power that the Klan had vis a vis their enemies. The Israeli settlers who terrorize Palestinians and burn down their houses, etc., are much, much more like the Klan in that they have the tacit support of the government and are motivated by bigotry.

The Israeli government is not analogous to Black Americans and the suggestion is blatantly racist.

Make your case or don't. Don't distort the uniquely evil oppression suffered by Black Americans in some weird attempt to gain sympathy for Israel.

[VinniUSMC]

Any group targeted because of their race or ethnicity has my sympathy.

Except Jews. Because they can strike hard. Wait, that rebuts your own rebuttal. Weird.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Except Jews.

Why don’t you have sympathy for Jews subject to bigoted attacks? I do.

I said above, October 7th was horrific and Hamas is horrible. You can’t even pretend to get to your caricature from what I said. You miserable lying asshole.

The fact that you and ReaderY have to pretend I have beliefs other than what I explicitly said shows the vacuousness of your position and your utter lack of character.

[VinniUSMC]

I'm not pretending anything about your beliefs. You keep posting the equivalent of "I'm not racist, but ..."

You're the one in here lying about the protestors. They're not blocking access to classes, building, etc... bullshit.

Be glad I didn't point out your feigned inability to understand how analogies work, so you could attack ReaderY for saying more than he said.

[NOVA Lawyer]

You’re the one in here lying about the protestors. They’re not blocking access to classes, building, etc… bullshit.

I pointed to one article. The UCLA encampment which was attacked by right-wing counterprotestors. They weren't attacked because they were blocking access.

Again, you have to pretend I said something different than I did. You can continue lying about what I said, but you're still wrong.

Be glad I didn’t point out your feigned inability to understand how analogies work, so you could attack ReaderY for saying more than he said.

I'm glad you didn't say more because what you say has so little of value in it. I'll just note that what you didn't say was that ReaderY's analogy made any sense. Wuz recognizes that. I'm sure you do too.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

ReaderY, you’re despicable.

Whatever anyone thinks of the campus protestors, it is gross to try to appropriate the suffering of Black Americans to justify whatever it is you are trying to justify.

His analogy is a poor one, and his subsequent responses disingenuous...but your response above is no better, nor was your later accusation that his argument was "despicably racist".

[NOVA Lawyer]

Thank you for pointing out that his analogy is a poor one and his subsequent response was disingenuous.

In what way was my response no better? I pointed out his analogy was a poor one. You agree. i pointed out his response was disingenuous. You agree. I really didn’t do anything beyond that (other than point out Hamas is terrible and October 7th was a horrifically evil terrorist attack). What’s your problem with that?

Be specific. I see in this and other posts you calling out people for being dishonest or disingenuous. I appreciate that.

What, specifically, did I say that you think was disingenuous?

And why don't you think his minimization of the Klan's power, his pretending that Black Americans had "disproportionate" power in the Reconstruction era, and his inapt analogy to lynching are despicably racist, particularly when all said together?

[VinniUSMC]

What do you think you say that isn't disingenuous?

[NOVA Lawyer]

This, for instance:

I said above, October 7th was horrific and Hamas is horrible. You can’t even pretend to get to your caricature from what I said. You miserable lying asshole.

I meant every word.

[Balisane]

Too bad we don't have a President with testicles. A real leader would federalize the state National Guard units and deploy them, with orders to Kent State these losers. Turns out a 30.06 round does a good job dropping commies to the ground.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Notice how the only people celebrating violence in this comments, and generally, are from the right. If you can't beat 'em at the polls, shoot 'em, seems to be your and your ilk's take. You are not pro-life, you are not pro-democracy. You're a wannabe thug.

[Balisane]

The right can easily win at the polls, but not if the left gets to replace the electorate with low quality third worlders.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Death penalty for protesting. What a deplorable person you are.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Notice how the only people celebrating violence in this comments, and generally, are from the right.

With which end of the political spectrum are those celebrating the atrocities of October 7 generally associated?

[NOVA Lawyer]

Quote anyone in these comments celebrating October 7.

Otherwise, you’re nutpicking. My comment wasn’t so much about the right generally, as about commenters here who share your general political ideology. You should be ashamed of them for their calls to violence (shooting protesters) and the disrepute they bring to your side.

Whataboutism is not the appropriate response.

And anyone who celebrates October 7th is either depraved or horribly misguided.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Watching the culture war’s losers call for government violence is hilarious. If anyone gets the club in America, it will be our dwindling crowd of bigoted right-wingers, whose only hope will be the magnanimity of better Americans.

[Darth Buckeye]

Too bad we don’t have a President with a fully functional brain. I've seen this before...the senior staff love it when the Chief Executive is incompetent or impaired. They get to make the real decisions and exercise the power while the Chief gets all the blame if things go wrong.

[VinniUSMC]

Arrest and expel. No punishment just means it will continue to happen. Let's go.

[Sarcastr0]

Crackdowns have done rather the opposite of cooling down campus protests in the past.

Sometimes they're required out of necessity. But if it's just a deterrence play, you're making the wrong move.

[Mr. Bumble]

...so says the great equivocator.
See ng below.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Think New Orleans cops during Mardi Gras…you go too hard you start a riot and you go too soft and it could end in chaos.

[Ed Grinberg]

Hey, remember this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Minneapolis%E2%80%93Saint_Paul
As the riots began, the authorities took up your mantra ("We must avoid crackdowns at all cost!"). So, how did that work out?

[Sarcastr0]

Hard to say since we don't know the counterfactual.

[Don Nico]

You don't get it, and you never will.

[Sarcastr0]

Sorry you're so allergic to historical experience.

You want crackdown. Everywhere. You're pretty emotional about it.

I want crackdowns. Sometimes. As strictly needed.

Yeah I don't get how you can be in school and not understand thing one about the history and practice of dealing with student activism. Or just the general concept of handling things on a case-by-case basis.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are the one running around and shouting [metaphorically] that you, and you alone, knows best!

[Randal]

You mean, he's the only person not doing that, of course.

Advocating for case-by-case solutions is the opposite of running around and shouting that you know best.

[Josh R]

As Eugene explained in his podcast from yesterday, a case-by-case analysis might be subject to lawsuits as impermissibly content based (or in some cases only viewpoint-based) at public universities. To survive such a challenge, there needs to be clear, content-neutral criteria established ahead of time. Vague guidelines with substantial discretion given to school authorities raises suspicions of content-based or viewpoint-based decisions.

[Sarcastr0]

Event based needn’t be content based. Necessity will be driven by events and conditions not content.

[Josh R]

Did you listen to Eugene's comments?

[Randal]

Josh, I don't think you know what "case-by-case basis" means. It doesn't mean "content-based."

[Josh R]

Randall, did you listen to Eugene's comments?

[Randal]

Don't you think different universities probably have different situations? How could one university handling a situation one way subject another university to lawsuits?

[Josh R]

I don't think you listened to Eugene's comments (he didn't say anything to suggest one university's reaction would impact another university's legal liability).

[Randal]

Well then his comments aren't relevant to the thread, because that's what we're talking about.

[Josh R]

No, we are not debating whether one university’s reaction puts other universities in legal peril (all agree, it does not).

We are debating whether a university can deal with different protests on its on campus (without reference to other universities) on a case-by-case basis (as suggested by Sarcastr0) without running afoul of the law. If you had bothered to listen to Eugene, you would have heard him say that such an approach

can implement content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions, but they have to be clear and precise enough so they don’t have this risk of discrimination that is inevitable when you have a great deal of discretion by government decision makers.

Seems right to me.

[Randal]

That's not what Sarcastr0 suggested. He was pushing back against Don and Vinni's instinct to "arrest and expel" automatically in every case at every institution. He was suggesting that different institutions should assess their different situations on their own facts, i.e. on a case-by-case basis.

Naturally, if the same institution encounters two situations with the same facts, then even a case-by-case analysis would come to the same conclusion. Sarcastr0 never suggested that content or viewpoint should be part of that analysis, only that administrators should actually do an analysis and shouldn't jump immediately to crackdowns the way that the Italians are gunning for.

[Josh R]

You missed Eugene's point: Sarcastr0's suggestion only works if there are clear and precise a priori content/viewpoint-neutral criteria. That is, beware the "case-by-case" decisions absent those criteria.

[VinniUSMC]

That’s not what Sarcastr0 suggested. He was pushing back against Don and Vinni’s instinct to “arrest and expel” automatically in every case at every institution

He was? That's news to me. Sounds like Sarcastr0 still thinks he's a mind reader. This is not the only case I think "arrest and expel" is the answer to, but it is a specific case. In New York is another example.

Don't just clear them out with no follow through, let them come back, and just repeat. Press charges. Expel the worst offenders. Suspend others. Laugh in their faces as you give them 0s for the finals that they skipped. Make the consequences real.

[Don Nico]

S_0's idea of my instinct is just his faulty mind-reading. I never wrote "arrest and expel." I never advocated a "crakdown" again that is S_0's word. I have noted repeatedly that if some discipline was not imposed early and gradually on a case by case basis, disturbances would grow and lead to the events of this week. S_0's approach (which he refused to own up to in words) failed dramatically this week.

[Don Nico]

"general concept of handling things on a case-by-case basis."
That was done with the inevitable conclusion. The price was removing a conducive student environment for the great majority of students.

As for emotional? Nope, I would like the rights of the majority protected? Is that so hard for you to understand. Meanwhile your approach was to wait, wait, wait until the matter got out of hand. I hope that you handle US govt business more professionally than that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Arrest and expel. No punishment just means it will continue to happen. Let’s go.

Would you support rubber bullets and nightsticks as a response to the apologists for Israel's right-wing war criminals who violently attacked protesters for peace at UCLA last night? Arrest and expulsion? Live ammunition?

How much of a tough guy are you?

I figure you're an all-talk, bigoted loser when it comes to dealing with right-wing misconduct.

[Balisane]

By definition, right-wing conduct can never be misconduct, because it's done for a righteous cause. Whereas you leftists fight for the right of Muslim terrorists to sodomize other men and bust inside their rears, all while cheering for abortions.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This one seems to be Prof. Bernstein’s sock puppet.

[not guilty]

Assuming the rules are being enforced without regard to content or viewpoint, the university is on solid ground here. See, Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).

[apedad]

In Clark, the Court noted that expression is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

WAIT!

So the BoR are NOT absolute?!?

And there can be exceptions and restrictions?!?

Vinni, Dr Ed, Bumbles, etc., are going to apeshit when they hear that.

[VinniUSMC]

Vinni, Dr Ed, Bumbles, etc., are going to apeshit when they hear that.

Never go full retard.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This school apparently permitted students to camp out for football and/or basketball tickets a few years ago.

That suggests a conservative university president flattering right-wing preferences.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s obvious (or should be) what’s the problem with behavior like actively threatening/assaulting people, “occupying” buildings or blocking passages, but what’s the problem with “encampments” per se? Is it an aesthetics thing? Universities usually have a “quad” area where students can be seen hanging out. When does this cross into the prohibited “encampment?” Is it a structures thing (pitching tents?)? A time thing (staying overnight or past some limit)? Does there need to be a rule about these things beforehand?

If the same students who are in violation for “encampments” just showed up every morning with signs and songs or what not and left at 10 or 11 pm or midnight and returned would they be in violation?

[Jacob Grimes]

It destroys the property (kills the grass, disrupts and tears up the ground), leads to litter, people start pissing and shitting on the ground, vermin start feeding on leftover food, people start taking advantage of the inability to secure personal belongings, etc. It's not a good scene.

If all people were doing was standing around, then leaving to go sleep and eat elsewhere, it wouldn't be a problem, even if they were there from dawn to dusk.

[Nige]

Oh my God you fucking snowflake.

[Jacob Grimes]

It's called property rights, dude. No one is stopping them from protesting like civilized human beings. They merely aren't allowed to live like homeless people on someone else's land.

[Nige]

You have to strain every sinew to get properly furious at a bunch of people in tents on a distant campus, just obsessing about that LEFTOVER FOOD with tears in your eyes and your forehead veins bulging!

[Sarcastr0]

protesting like civilized human beings
You folks keep falling into these tropes.

[Don Nico]

You just keep interjecting meaningless criticism.

[Michael P]

He just wants to start fights.

[Scooter]

Typical for the Low IQ / Low EQ types.

[Sarcastr0]

It is notable how if you've studied the civil rights movement at all, how many on here are echoing the southern Jim Crow supporters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Where were all of the right-wing bigots when students were camping out for days in pursuit of football and basketball tickets?

This is just partisan blowhardship by a bunch of bigots who perceive a chance to play offense for once, no matter how disingenuously.

It won't change the trajectory, pace, or result of the glorious modern American culture war. Clingers hardest hit.

[Bwaaah]

I so want to crap on your bed. Just express my filthy self all over your personal space. And spray paint “SNOWFLAKE” on your toilet seat.

And return for more the next day.

[Nige]

I know you do. You weirdo.

[Bwaaah]

And then I want to lecture you about the moral superiority of my feces, and how that obviates the need to protect people who sleep in crappy beds and pee in SNOWFLAKE toilets.

[Nige]

Nothing you want to do would surprise me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They DO have rules -- and reservations. And requirements for dig safes (see below). The problem is that the rules are being violated.

Yes, they could stand there with signs to their heart's content, it is the tents and the tables and the stuff driven into the ground.

[David Nieporent]

it is the tents and the tables and the stuff driven into the ground.

This is the stupidest thing you've ever said since the last time you posted a comment. The reasons for banning tents and erected signs have nothing whatsoever to do with digging safety. That's just something crazy you made up.

[Kazinski]

The statement addressed what the concerns are:

"Encampments are not allowed on campus regardless of the reason for them. They create the need for around-the-clock safety and security resources, which takes these resources away from the rest of our community. They also create undue pressure on proximate buildings, in this case the Ohio Union, for restrooms and personal hygiene. During Finals Week, the Ohio Union is not only a study space for students, but it is also an exam location, including for students with disabilities. In this case, with the intent of creating an ongoing, 24/7 activity, the encampment also created a disturbance to our residential community in Baker Hall."

And there is nothing in the rules against demonstrating all day, leaving at night and coming out again in the morning.

[Randal]

Encampments are not allowed on campus regardless of the reason for them.

Except, of course, if you’re a dedicated sports fan, as Arthur pointed out. In that case it’s totally fine to camp out overnight on campus and even have an impromptu late-night dance party!

Oh and Jacob... they were eating pizza! Just imagine the environmental impact!

[Drewski]

Eh. You can line up all night at the Apple Store for a new iPhone or a theater for a new release, but you can’t camp on the sidewalk nearby randomly or hold a parade or march in the street protesting. This is true in pretty nuch every city in America. The law is able to recognize that different things are different. This is also why immigration is not an invasion.

[Rossami]

The “undue pressure on proximate buildings” clause is an implicit limitation on the number of people who could come in each morning and stay all the way until night.

I’ll concede that limitation comes with a complicated calculus – if your protest is short enough that participants will have their say then go home to use their own bathrooms, the number the area can support is probably quite high. But if you’re planning to stay long enough that you’ll need to use the local restrooms, the number of people the area can support is quite a bit smaller.

That, by the way, is why Randal's hypothesized tail-gates can be tolerated but these encampments are not.

[Randal]

My tailgates are not hypothesized and they lasted over 24 hours.

[Rossami]

And how many people stayed overnight at your tail-gates? You and a few friends? Maybe a dozen hard-core partiers?

You have not yet rebutted my point.

[Randal]

If your point is that universities should have a capacity limit on overnight camping instead of an absolute ban, then I agree. You sure used a lot of extraneous words in making that point, and it’s not a “complicated calculus.” It’s a safe assumption that overnight campers are gonna use the facilities.

[Josh R]

I don't see a legal problem with a reasonable, content-neutral rule that incidentally limits the number of people.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What needs to be remembered is that all of these colleges have buried high voltage (up to 13,600 volt) power lines that aren't that far below the surface.

Part of the land use procedure involves checking to see that you aren't going to drive a stake into (or even near) one of these wires because that would ruin your whole day....

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

My college had secret nuclear testing in tunnels underground.

[Sarcastr0]

Thank goodness Ed isn't actually a bureaucrat. His bad faith reading of fire and safety regs in the past couple of days really show how shitty he's be with even a sniff of power.

Luckily...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you think guys like Dr. Ed have any say in the shaping of American progress?

I have 50 years of evidence to the contrary. These clingers are all-talk losers in the culture war.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why does Prof. Volokh post this shit, other than to lather his collection of culture war casualties?

Ohio State's disdain for overnight camping seems to be a relatively recent development, but that viewpoint-driven inconsistency won't bother right-wingers who are just ranting about liberals, modernity, and the strong schools they resent and despise as they await replacement.

[Nige]

Well done, setting the cops on your own kids, that will certainly ensure their safety, and certainly sort the whole thing out and make it all go away.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Those kids will get the last laugh, just as they did a half-century ago.

Let's hope this new wave of protest and calls for progress precipitates another wave of great music.

[ReaderY]

The Rev. is just wrong on this point. The students protesting half a century ago, protesting negro atrocities, protesting the cultural genocide from forcible negro settlement in their neighborhoods and illegal occupation of their schools, protesting foreign haves settling and occupying their neighborhoods and schools and siccing these savage niggers on them, did not in fact get the last laugh.

Progress, as the Rev. sees and the students saw progress, just didn’t happen. The settler-colonists won. The illegal occupation and encroachment on neighborhoods continued. The savage niggers moved in, with all the barbarities and atrocities the students had been saying so much about. The student protesters lost. The winners of the American Civil War not only resumed their policy of illegal occupation and settler-colonialism that had been interrupted by the victims’ successful appeals to justice for most of a century, they accelerated its pace.

[Randal]

Oh look DMN, it's your best friend again. I bet you're also excited about the upcoming congressional hearings being instigated by your favorite right-wing nutjobs as well. Good company you're keeping these days.

[ReaderY]

Well, you’ve tied yourself to the cause of people who openly support the restoration of slavery and who do their best to expose as many Gaazans as possible to Israeli combat fire so they can cry “atrocities.”

And of course, under your reasoning, as long as lynchers manage to gather and strategically position a large enough crowd – the burning alive of Henry Smith in Paris Texas in 1893 attracted a crowd estimated at 5 to 15 thousand, and many others attracted more – the rights of the crowd outweigh the lynchee, and any attempt to stop the lynching is genocide and a violation of human rights in your eyes. In other words, so far as you’re concerned the only thing anyone can do about lynching is mealy-mouthed moralizing. And you haven’t even done very much of that.

[Randal]

How have I tied myself to a cause just by pointing out that it's not inherently antisemitic? As I've repeated many times, I want Israel to win, and by win I mean ethnically cleanse the Palestinians out of Palestine.

From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free... of Palestinians.

See how that works? You can't really accuse me of being an Islamophobe now. All these accusations of antisemitism can only backfire on Israel.

Israel needs to make it seem like they're doing the Palestinians a humanitarian favor by escorting them out of Palestine, not fighting a stupid religious war of bigotry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The protests against unearned privilege, misogyny, racism, unjust war, environmental predation, antisemitism, social injustice, and other flawed elements of American society were admirable and successful.

The liberal-libertarian mainstream has been shaping American progress -- environmental protections, diminution of bigotry, consumer protections, diminution of unearned privilege, respect for science and reason at the expense of dogma and superstition, diminution of other bigotry, social justice -- against the efforts and wishes of conservatives for more than a half-century.

That progress is the reason today's conservatives are so disaffected and desperate. Which is great!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Anyone want to guess how many Volokh Conspiracy discussions have featured vile racial slurs this year? The commenters have taken Prof. Volokh’s cues to heart (bigoted, disgusting hearts); the Federalist Society professor and his fans, working together, have easily outdone 2023’s bigotry-soaked pace!

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, though . . . not a step beyond. Thank you for your continuing compliance.

[ReaderY]

Says the guy who allies himself with people who openly support the restoration of slavery and chant “death to the Jews.”

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

My allies are the members of the mainstream liberal-libertarian alliance, victors in America's culture war and shapers of our national progress. We work against the right-wing bigots. Quite effectively, for more than half a century.

[SimonP]

Yeah, it strikes me as manifest malpractice, a complete failure of an institution of higher learning, to respond to these encampments with arrests, suspensions, and expulsions. These are your students! Teach them something!

I suppose it's good that Eugene is getting out of the practice of teaching students; he clearly doesn't seem to care for it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Teach them something!"

That's what the "arrests, suspensions, and expulsions" do.

[Nige]

'We will crush you because the right are a bunch of fascist crybabies we have decided to inexplicably appease in their quest to destroy higher education.' It's a good lesson, I suppose.

[ReaderY]

It’s the same lesson President Kennnedy and his coterie of fascist crybabies taught at Ole’ Miss.

There’s a huge difference between merely protesting and closing the schoolhouse door to people because of their race. These protesters crossed the same line the Ole’ Miss protesters crossed. “Protesters” who cross that line deserve the same lesson. Kennedy and his fascist crybabies gave the Ole’ Miss protestors protesting illegal occupation, cultural genocide, and being subjected to the same sorts of savages and their atrocities.

[Nige]

'There’s a huge difference between merely protesting and closing the schoolhouse door to people because of their race.'

You do know that a protest is a protest regardless of whether you think the cause is just or not, right? People protesting racial diversity might be pieces of shit, but they're still protesting. It's almost as if you can judge people by what they protest and what they support, which is why everyone who is pro-war are working so hard to lie about what the anti-war protests are about.

[Josh R]

You missed ReaderY's point.

Imagine instead, protestors are occupying buildings and staying for days in encampments to demand the university stop covering abortion in its healthcare plans (or as ReaderY suggested, protesting against integration). Are you willing to argue the university should use the occasion as a teaching moment rather than enforcing their rules? And if so, exactly how would the teaching moment play out?

[Scooter]

No, Nige completely ignored it as it showed he's completely in the wrong on this issue.

SSDD

[Harvey Mosley]

In before Sarcastr0 cries "Counterfactual!"

[Sarcastr0]

That's asking a commenter to interrogate their priors. It is not being used to assert anything regarding the truth of the counterfactual.

[Nige]

‘Are you willing to argue the university should use the occasion as a teaching moment rather than enforcing their rules? And if so, exactly how would the teaching moment play out’

I would say ‘teaching moment’ ought to be way down the list of priorities, if on it at all. What should be top of their priorities is the safety and welfare of their students, inside and outside the occupation, which means ending the occupation as peacefully as possible with minimum disruption.

[SimonP]

All that unnecessarily severe punishment teaches them is that the system opposes them.

Teach them effective protest techniques. Teach them community organizing. These kids are camping out in order to... what? Divest? Get some professors out there to tell them why that is stupid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

I suppose it’s good that Eugene is getting out of the practice of teaching students; he clearly doesn’t seem to care for it.

He seemed to love using vile racial slurs in class!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Twenty-three.

That's how many Volokh Conspiracy discussions have featured vile racial slurs this year, so far.

The Volokh Conspiracy's bigotry will continue, of course, but the days of UCLA's apologies for Prof. Volokh's use of vile racial slurs are nearly concluded.

[Kazinski]

Yes, it was heartbreaking to hear the reaction of occupying Columbia students when told the police were going to enter the building and arrest all the occupyers:
“Fuck you! It’s finals! Can I go home?!”
https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1785489880308424715?t=L5E9JbSPsJ9ENpqBaDpWWg&s=19

I'm glad they are honoring the students commitment by not watering down the consequences. It would be an insult just sending them home like nothing happened.

I have a niece who was arrested at a demonstration blocking a freeway a few weeks ago.

[Sarcastr0]

The important thing is to take a video from twitter, generalize based on it, and have a proper hate-on for the group.

Hey I see folks on the left doing it to brief videos of the cops!

Such symmetry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you in any position to judge what should constitute entertainment for a disaffected old bigot holed up in his off-the-grid hermit shack, muttering about the modern world and awaiting replacement?

[Nige]

That'll teach them to have opinions not approved by right-wing idealogues!

[larryseltzer]

I think the headline is supposed to be "THE Ohio State University President's Statement on Clearing of Protest Encampments"

[apedad]

Only former OSU football players are allowed to use the 'THE.'

Mainly during NFL games' introductions.

[Bob from Ohio]

No, no, it should be:

"An Ohio State University President’s Statement on Clearing of Protest Encampments”

[santamonica811]

A The Ohio State University President's statement on clearing... perhaps.

[Stephen Lathrop]

I'm not up on the factual details, but I agree that such encampments can and should be forbidden under content-neutral time, place, and manner rules,

Once again, will someone please explain how anyone can restrict the time and place of an assembly without gutting the Constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble. The power to convene jointly, at a place of mutual agreement, at a particular time, seems the essence of the right. Thus, time, place, and manner restrictions are rightly applied to speech, but not to the right of peaceable assembly.

Public authorities and their supporters object to political assemblies because they are potentially powerful tools for political opponents. Peaceable assemblies organized by citizen initiative put administrators and organizers of nearby permitted assemblies under pressure; the citizen-initiative assemblies detract from appearance that constituted authorities control public spaces for their own purposes.

Constituted authorities can be expected to reach for any tool available to resist such visibly efficacious constraints on their own power. But the 1A right of peaceable assembly is a declaration that public spaces are constitutionally available for purposes chosen by public groups at their own volition—not just available for purposes government officials control.

And of course the manner of assembly permitted is already Constitutionally specified; it must be peaceable. Public officials should not suppose they enjoy power to add to, or subtract from, that Constitutional specification of manner. To convene at a chosen time, at a chosen place, is, once again, the essence of the right.

To specify with exact precision the locations where assembly is Constitutionally protected is admittedly more complicated. For instance, private property is normally off limits, and must continue to be. In historical context, however, the public streets are normally freely available for peaceable assemblies. Modern opinion, however, resists that historically provable interpretation. Whether that resistance is Constitutionally permissible, and can be allowed to prevail by force, seems a neglected subject. Constitutionally and historically incongruous assertions of time, place, and manner restrictions are the commonest means to reinforce that neglect.

[Kazinski]

The statement makes it clear that they are not preventing the students from peacefully assembling and demonstrating.

But encampments which takes over spaces exclusively for days, goes far beyond the right to peacefully assemble. That's not speech, it's a taking.

Same with blocking freeways.

[Randal]

I think what Stephen is more worried about is the need for a permit in order to assemble in "a group" at all.

[VinniUSMC]

They don't need a permit to protest or to assemble. They are being told that they are not permitted to camp there for days on end.

[Steve_E]

Time, Place and Manner restrictions as they apply to assembly (here, also for camping):
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/288/

[David Nieporent]

I already cited that for him and he dismissed it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Once again, the case was presented as a speech freedom case. Assembly never drew the Court's focus. The decision does not mention it.

I am not a lawyer, so I could use an explanation how it can happen that a decision on a case where no one argued a right of assembly, and the decision did not feature assembly, somehow sets a legal precedent establishing the limits of the 1A right of assembly.

Why do people keep coming back to that case, by the way? Aren't there any others where limits on the right of assembly were the subject of the case?

[David Nieporent]

Why do people keep coming back to that case, by the way?

Because that one is actually about camping, making it incredibly on point.

As for the rest, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe you can explain for me, though, why you have such a weird antipathy towards speech that you support every effort to narrow the right, and then want to carve out press/assembly as entirely different rights to be protected more broadly.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent: "antipathy towards speech."

You have always been mistaken about that. Your own extreme, hyper-rationalist, libertarian advocacy is dangerous to expressive freedom in practice. You advocate for policies which first-hand experience teaches will:

1. Mobilize political hostility to expressive freedom;

2. Foster widespread hatred by proliferating published defamations of innocents while denying them legal remedies;

3. Encourage for-profit business models built around systematized publications of defamations, frauds, racial attacks, hoaxes, damaging public health falsehoods, etc.;

4. Open the door to a public life suitable only for data exchanges between robots, which will take over internet commentary and drive out human participants;

5. Continue to advance a disastrous decline already begun in the practices of systematic news gathering and factual publishing.

6. Further leverage concentration of political power among a few quasi-oligarchical corporate entities and their unaccountable owners and managers.

I understand that you do not expect those will be the unintended results of advocacy such as you favor. Alas, you have been thinking about these problems at most for a few years, and you have not thought systematically. You lack both training and the practical experience to do so.

You rely instead on outworn legal nostrums, developed at a time when means of communication functioned differently. The best that can be said is that reliance of that sort puts you in plentiful company. A downside is that it encourages belief in the wisdom of crowds in a case where the crowds coalesced around utopian expectations like those you also entertain.

Previously—before internet publishing—customary private publishing practices precluded need for laws to address issues and phenomena which internet publishing has lately made salient. While private editors worked everywhere, laws to suppress publication of lies, frauds, defamations, political hoaxes, racist advocacy, etc., were scarcely necessary. And that was a blessing, because advocates of expressive liberty understand accurately that government and law have no business to regulate expressive content.

Those previous customs are now outmoded and in decline. They addressed needs felt both then and now, but with yet-greater intensity now—while dealing with those needs by means of government and law remains as unwise as ever. The obvious need is for policy to foster new private customs, better suited to present circumstances.

The law has thus been caught unprepared. A previous system that functioned with less reliance on law has gone by, and you have not particularly noticed that happened, nor the implications of the disappearance. Nor have the hosts of like-minded advocates from whom you draw encouragement. While legal cases claiming frauds and defamations multiply, citations to pre-internet legal precedents deliver ineffectual outcomes. A proliferating process to disintegrate public life goes unchecked.

So here we are, in a world of expressive malpractice I predicted in detail years ago, in comments on this blog. The nation's ticklish challenge is to re-invent means necessary to take maximal advantage of newly-powerful publishing technology, but to keep beyond government's capacity to interfere all questions of content. Fortunately, that new technology offers never-before-seen powers to advance expressive liberty, if we can learn how to harness them properly—which means to manage content questions by private means re-cast to match present need.

Expressive liberty ought to be advanced maximally, not hampered or restricted. That has always been my advocacy. I expect a means to do it will be found, and deliver more individual expressive power to each person than has been available before. I do not apologize for insisting that no such advance can succeed if it blunders outside limits of unavoidable practical constraint.

Nieporent, the question is how soon success can be enjoyed. To ignore practicalities is to court delay. Internet utopianism ignores practicalities. You would be wise to give it up.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter Lathrop: yes, I am opposed to free speech.

[Armchair]

You're mixing up the right to occupy property (which doesn't exist) with the right to assemble.

In terms of private property, it's pretty simple. If it's your property, you can assemble with whoever you want, for however long you want, whenever you want. If it's not your property, you don't have that right.

In terms of public property (or property owned by the public), it's more complicated. Since we all "own" the property in common, we decide as a group the purposes that property is put to. Just like we decide what our purpose our private property has. Some property owned by the public, we consider off limits to all protests. It has a special purpose, and protests would interfere with that. That could be..oh..the US Capitol (which you would agree is property owned by the Public, yet simultaneously people aren't free to protest whenever they want inside). Or it could be a bridge, where a protest would shut down the intended public purpose...transportation.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, will someone please explain how anyone can restrict the time and place of an assembly without gutting the Constitutionally protected right to peaceably assemble. The power to convene jointly, at a place of mutual agreement, at a particular time, seems the essence of the right. Thus, time, place, and manner restrictions are rightly applied to speech, but not to the right of peaceable assembly.

Once again, like Brett, you think your personal opinions define what the constitution means. The right to peaceably assemble is not the right to peaceably assemble anywhere at any time one chooses, just like the right to speech is not the right speak anywhere at any time one chooses.

The public square has physical usage constraints. Everyone can't use it at once. Therefore, there has to be a way to manage that.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If someone argues that the 1A right to use the public square takes priority over other uses which lack specific Constitutional authority, does question begging settle the conflict?

[Harvey Mosley]

Once again, will someone please explain how anyone can restrict the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms without gutting the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The power to protect oneself seems the essence of the right. Thus, restrictions are rightly applied to using firearms to attack innocent people, but not to the right to keep and bear arms.

[mydisplayname]

There was a House vote today seeking to illegalize speech “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

The legislation “doesn’t allow calls for the destruction or elimination of the Jewish state,” thereby attempting to renege on the Treaty of Rome and Treaty of Geneva each precluding genocide of the sort practiced by Israelis over the past 75 years.

“So why would you do that, except if you want to weaponize antisemitism and you want to use it as a political ploy?”

See also https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx

[Randal]

The more the pro-Israel side just dismisses the anti-Israel side as antisemites and fails to engage substantively, the quicker the demise of Israel.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Correct. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of superstitious, bigoted, selfish, violent, parasitic, right-wing jerks.

[Armchair]

Simple question. Do you think "Jews" should be protected from discrimination like African Americans are? Yes or no.

[Randal]

Ugh. This again?

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/04/28/ucla-professor-dov-waxman-on-the-pro-hamas-campus-protests/?comments=true#comment-10541967

[Armchair]

Can't answer the simple question?

[Randal]

I’m not your show pony. Your non-sequitur question doesn't deserve an answer.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You’re talking to a guy (Armchair) who frequents this white, male blog because it uses so many racial slurs.

[Armchair]

You realize the OP was literally about this. Protecting Jews from discrimination.... Right?

Not much of a non-sequitur, if that's what the post is about.

But please, explain why you can't answer the simple question.

[Josh R]

The OP did not mention Jews or discrimination.

[Randal]

What Josh said. Also, to the extent, if any, that your question raises a relevant comparison between the discrimination Jews face and the discrimination African Americans face, my linked comment addresses it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Simple question. Do you think “Jews” should be protected from discrimination like African Americans are? Yes or no."

Do you think gays should be protected -- from right-wing religious assholes in particular -- Armchair?

Do you think transgender people should be protected -- from white, male, right-wing law professors with a trans fetish, for example ?

How many tingles do you every time Prof. Volokh uses a racial slur, Armchair? Are you too embarrassed to tell?

[ReaderY]

He’s stalling because he knows perfectly well he doesn’t think Negros should be protected either. He knows that a large number of Israelis are negro, and are virtually the only negros in the area. That’s part of why he feels free to bandy such vile accusations about. The Jews are the other part. Like the Klan, he wants all who can’t be made into serfs (or less) out.

He attempts to hide this, rather badly, behind a thin veneer of left-sounding verbiage. He doesn’t know very much about it, which is why he keeps repeating the same vaguely left-sounding verbiage over and over and over and ovet again.

Maybe he’s a gay Klansman, since that’s what he mostly focuses on. I wouldn’t really know.

[ReaderY]

When he refers to Israeli “racists,” it’s a pretty good bet he’s referring to Israeli Negros in code. And when he refers to ending “Israrli racism,” he’s referring to ending it the same way the Klan wanted to end American racism.

When inferior and mongrel races are booted off pure-blood territory and put in their place, racism ends.

[Nige]

'it’s a pretty good bet he’s referring to Israeli Negros in code'

You are out of your tree.

[Armchair]

Do you think "right-wing religious assholes" should be protected from gays?

[Randal]

Nope. Right-wing religious assholes are that way on purpose.

[David Nieporent]

Prof. Volokh has never used a racial slur — at least not, as far as I know, publicly. (Like Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz and Lucille LeSueur, I have never been in his kitchen.) Are you still pretending not to grasp the use/mention distinction for the purposes of engaging in defamation?

[ReaderY]

The more the pro-“native American” side attempts dismiss forward-thinking anti-“native American” people as anti-Indian and fails to meaningfully engage by taking the obvious step of disentangling Indians as a people from the rediculous claim they are “native Americans,” the quicker the demise of the so-called “native Americans.” The sooner the Indians accept their betters’ judgment that Indian identity is a purely cultural identity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the very recently fostered and obviously false settler-colonialist myth that they are “native Americans” and their identity has anything to do with any part of or claim to American land, the better off they and everyone else will be.

Right?

[Josh R]

I think you are referring to the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This law would not criminalize antisemitic speech. It would require the Department of Education to consider whether antisemitism, including antisemitic speech, motivated discriminatory conduct that would violate Title VI had the conduct discriminated on the basis of race or national origin.

I'm not sure how it would work or whether, as opponents claim, it would chill speech.

[Armchair]

Seems from the wording it would just make it a bit more explicit that "Jews" as a category are covered under the Civil Rights Act as a group that should be protected against discrimination, like currently African Americans are.

[Josh R]

How about Muslims and Christians?

This article provides a nice overview of the issue. I’m not competent to speak to whether this bill is a good or bad thing, other than to say it’s more complicated than protecting Jews (it must be good) or outlawing some anti-Israel speech (it must be bad).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You guys can try to muzzle, or can muzzle, as much speech as you like. But unless you can stop time, you can't stop better Americans from ending America's support for murderous, superstitious, bigoted right-wing jerks in Israel.

Tick tock. Tick tock. You're on the clock.

[ReaderY]

The better Americans didn’t manage to end their inferiors’ support for brutal, savage, obviously inferior niggers whose savagery threatens civilization itself, or so they said (and whose sayings you keep cribbing).

Why should this be any different?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Volokh and his co-bloggers thank you for using that racial slur. Without fellow right-wing stains like you, they might have a hard time meeting this blog’s weekly quota for vile racial slurs.

Carry on, culture war casualties.

[Armchair]

"How about Muslims and Christians?"

Not relevant to the question at hand. We're witnessing a broad new swath of antisemitism here. Jews represent a religion and ethnicity, which have been extremely commonly discriminated against. But currently their protections under the Civil Rights Act is only due to an interpretation of the law by a government agency. An interpretation which can "change" given the proper atmosphere.

Writing it into law to "explicitly" also mean Jews is only beneficial for the future, for a group which has been massively discriminated against.

It's saddening that people can't support this.

[Josh R]

I take it you didn't read the CRS report to better understand the complexity of the issues.

[Nige]

You think Muslims aren't getting blowback over the conflict as well as Jews?

[ReaderY]

Antisemitic discrimination is in fact discrimination on the basis of race. Shaarei Tefila.

Jews are not white under American Civil Rights law, whereas Middle Eastern Arabs are, having been citizens of a free empire never colonized or enslaved, and indeed having done a great deal of colonization and enslavement on their own part.

Facts many on this blog do not merely ignore. They completely turn them on their head.

[Kazinski]

Well at least the country isn't hopelessly divided over the pro and anti Israel sides.

At the University of Alabama pro Israel demonstrators started chanting "Fuck Joe Biden", to which the pro Palestinian side answered: "Fuck Joe Biden".

https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1785814840650477716

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let’s hope Pres. Biden responds by refusing to provide additional military assistance to Israel’s war criminals. I am looking forward to watching Israel try to operate without American skirts to hide behind. Maybe not for long, but should be entertaining while it lasts.

And if Israel survives, it probably won’t pick a government of belligerent, corrupt, right-wing bigots and war criminals again.

[Balisane]

Why do you enjoy rough sex from your bathhouse boys?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No chance Prof. Volokh will censor you.

He would prefer you mention some type of trans angle, though.

And a racial slur is never out of place at the Volokh Conspiracy.

[Darth Buckeye]

Oh come let’s sing Ohio’s praise
And songs to Alma Mater raise
While our hearts rebounding thrill
With joy which death alone can still
Summer’s heat or winter’s cold
The seasons pass the years will roll
Time and change will surely (truly) show
How firm thy friendship … OHIO!

I am a double Buckeye with a B.A. and a J.D. from the school. I have a nephew in his first year of medical school at OSU right now. He has been pretty shaken by what is happening. I am torn. I defend free speech, but disruptive behavior is not always defensible.