The Leftist Mob on Campus

[NotreDame]

Aside from the fact that none of those invitations were/are physically possible, you have left out a critical part of the story. The universities you cite would be well within their rights not to issue such invitations. But, in the cases under discussion the invitations were issued but the universities abandoned their principles and bowed to mob pressure. There's also the shining example of the ACLU going to court to defend the American Nazi Party's right to parade in Skokie, IL. That was gloriously American.eace

How is the distinction between not extending an invitation and rescinding one a meaningful or rational difference? Isn't a refusal of an invitation for the same reasons as rescinding an invitation both implicate your principle?

What if those ethnic and race dominated schools had extended an invitation to those speakers but then rescinded the invitation because the student body protested?

This is a very intriguing issue and I need some time to further ponder about this before I can appropriately solidify my own belief.

 

[apdst]

Ooohh, SCARY! It's two black guys looking tough, never mind that we don't know where they are, or what they're doing, they MUST be there to intimidate people!!!!

So let's pretend just for a moment, guy, that that picture is everything you think it is. Did they assault or kill anyone? On the other hand, HOW MANY TIMES have blacks been physically assaulted or killed just for being black?

But don't think about that, now. You're so busy staring at that Fox-approved molehill that you feel no need to look at that mountain behind you.

They're outside a voting house, intimidating voters.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

It is absolutely their First Amendment right, and I have never said it was not. The fault is not with some silly, shallow students, but with a craven university administration that abandons its principles to placate a mob.eace

Then you agree that we should not gripe about the students protesting; instead, we should support their decision to do so?

As far as the "craven university administration" remark goes, that goes both ways, like the 129 universities that are receiving support from the Koch Family Foundation. Sounds nice, but in return for the money, the universities often must agree to teach Koch-style free-market economics, and Keynesian economics must take a back seat or not taught altogether.

So on the one hand, the Left has students protesting...but on the other hand, the Right uses its money to make sure the universities teach what the Right wants to be taught. Really, which one is worse?

 

[Sababa]

It's hypocritical to practice your 1st Amendment right, in order to deprive someone else of theirs.

no one's rights are being deprived.

 

[Jack Hays]

How is the distinction between not extending an invitation and rescinding one a meaningful or rational difference? Isn't a refusal of an invitation for the same reasons as rescinding an invitation both implicate your principle?

What if those ethnic and race dominated schools had extended an invitation to those speakers but then rescinded the invitation because the student body protested?

This is a very intriguing issue and I need some time to further ponder about this before I can appropriately solidify my own belief.

To not issue an invitation is a simple choice based on judgment. To rescind a previously issued invitation is to invalidate a previous choice. To betray one's principles because of protests is to bow to mob rule.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Then you agree that we should not gripe about the students protesting; instead, we should support their decision to do so?

As far as the "craven university administration" remark goes, that goes both ways, like the 129 universities that are receiving support from the Koch Family Foundation. Sounds nice, but in return for the money, the universities often must agree to teach Koch-style free-market economics, and Keynesian economics must take a back seat or not taught altogether.

So on the one hand, the Left has students protesting...but on the other hand, the Right uses its money to make sure the universities teach what the Right wants to be taught. Really, which one is worse?

There is no case in which the teaching of economics has been undermined by any gift from any source. try again. Only the left imposes mob rule.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

No Room on Campus for the Bigot Shakespeare - Suzanne Fields, Townhall

"If Shakespeare were alive and invited to give the commencement address at a major American university, the favorite spring sport on campus would explode with loud and shrill protest.

Blacks could object to Othello, the angry, "erring barbarian" wife-murderer. Jews could protest Shylock, the stereotypical Jewish moneylender demanding his pound of flesh. Ageists would decry a senile Lear. Feminists would despise Lady Macbeth, the Bard's most powerful woman, as a power-seeking termagant.




And besides all that, he's a very dead white man. Of course, taking offense would require the students to have a modest familiarity with Shakespeare. The Bard is not as well-read in America as he once was. . . . "eace

​

 

[shrubnose]

The University can pick its commencement speaker and announce its political correctness reasoning.

A perspective employer of a graduate of that University can decline to hire, or even interview the graduate, based on the knowledge that the school spends far more time on Political Correctness Leftie agendas than it does teaching core competency.

A degree from that University will be very well respected in Liberal circles, and meaningless outside it.

Such an education will be very useful at getting cushy government jobs until the collapse of the country from Leftie mayhem, and then you'll be starting over.

If you have an education in the basics, with a focus on core study area competency, and the areas of study were opinion is required, free speech and critical thinking are encouraged...

Then you will have a degree that will be less useful, but still okay, during the Leftie-Fascist years, but far more valuable during the rebuild of the country.

A Higher Education is likely the most expensive purchase decision you will ever make.

Make your choices carefully.

-

And stay well clear of Neo-Cons and those who support them.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

It's the students who have led the protests. Isnt it?

That doesn't matter. What does matter is where the final decision rests on whom to invite or disinvite to speak, doesn't it?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

They're outside a voting house, intimidating voters.

Oooohhhh...let me guess - it was those two Really Scary Black Panthers about which the Right had negrophobe nightmares! BTW, was there any record of them verbally or physically abusing people?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

There is no case in which the teaching of economics has been undermined by any gift from any source. try again. Only the left imposes mob rule.eace

I gave you such a case...but as with AGW, I guess evidence doesn't matter if the one seeing the evidence refuses to admit it as evidence.

And you didn't answer my question:

"Then you agree that we should not gripe about the students protesting; instead, we should support their decision to do so?"

 

[apdst]

That doesn't matter. What does matter is where the final decision rests on whom to invite or disinvite to speak, doesn't it?

The final decision was made, because of the protests.

 

[Jack Hays]

I gave you such a case...but as with AGW, I guess evidence doesn't matter if the one seeing the evidence refuses to admit it as evidence.

And you didn't answer my question:

"Then you agree that we should not gripe about the students protesting; instead, we should support their decision to do so?"

You offered a general smear without any supporting evidence or any specific instance in which a university changed its course offerings. As for the students, they have every right to protest; I need not support them or condemn them. eace

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The final decision was made, because of the protests.

Problem is, the students get 0% of the vote. You really should learn to place the blame where it belongs. Even your brother-in-red-arms Jack Hays agrees that it's the college administration and not the students.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You offered a general smear without any supporting evidence or any specific instance in which a university changed its course offerings. As for the students, they have every right to protest; I need not support them or condemn them. eace

Y'know, I really do try to not post something I can't back up. For instance, here's what happened to Florida State University:

Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it’s not happy with the faculty’s choice or if the hires don’t meet “objectives” set by Koch during annual evaluations.

Koch wasted little time in asserting his influence. In 2009, he denied 60 percent of the faculty’s suggestions to fill the positions in the new programs, called the Study of Political Economy and Free Enterprise (SPEFE) and Excellence in Economics Education (EEE). The hires that were made were agreed upon by Koch and the department’s faculty.
But according to a memorandum about the agreement, obtained by the Tallahassee Democrat, the ability to pick and choose faculty members was hardly the only string attached. In addition, Koch wanted the ability to review work done by the economics faculty and much more:

1 - The three senior professors must come in with tenure, and FSU must continue to fund them for at least four years past the project period.
2 - The Advisory Board of SPSFC and EEE is allowed to review all publicly provided material submitted by applicants for the Professorship positions.
3 - The Advisory Board will determine which candidates qualify to receive funding.
4 - No funding for a professorship position or any other affiliated program or position will be released without the review and approval of the Advisory Board.
5 - An undergraduate program will be devised and funded for $30,000 per year for three years. The committee responsible for the program will report to the Advisory Board.
6 - Other strings spell out the right of the [Charles G. Koch] Foundation to annually review the work of funded professors, publications, publicity, etc., and to pick up their marbles and go home if not satisfied

...

David Rasmussen, the dean of Florida State’s College of Social Sciences and Public Policy, has asserted that academic integrity and “philanthropy” can coexist, arguing that there is no problem with the school’s agreement with Koch. But many universities have strict policies regarding donors’ influence over how donations are used, and Yale University once returned a $20 million donation because a donor wanted veto power over hires.

...

Because selling out its academic freedom to Koch apparently wasn’t enough, Florida State also entered into an agreement with BB&T, which provided funding for a course on ethics and economics and required that Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, be a part of the course curriculum.

Now, that's all from very Left-wing Think Progress, so in order to give you another (and not quite as Left-leaning) reference, here's from the Tampa Bay Times:

A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise."

The above is a shining example of why we need to regulate who can donate how much to any public institution, and how there should never be a "quid pro quo".

 

[rocket88]

He's pointing out that universities have decended in to lunacy, which is true.

In Minnesota it's getting nucking futs. Even for me. Minneapolis re-named Columbus Day and the DNR decided that "Asian Carp" was offensive to Asian people. To which I said "I saw an Asian carp on Columbus Day" prompting an argument between my dumbest friends - 1 liberal (and Native American) and 1 conservative with 0 HS diplomas between them.

If they hadn't listened to the protests, the students would have just protested AT the commencement. That's not a good situation for anybody.

 

[apdst]

In Minnesota it's getting nucking futs. Even for me. Minneapolis re-named Columbus Day and the DNR decided that "Asian Carp" was offensive to Asian people. To which I said "I saw an Asian carp on Columbus Day" prompting an argument between my dumbest friends - 1 liberal (and Native American) and 1 conservative with 0 HS diplomas between them.

If they hadn't listened to the protests, the students would have just protested AT the commencement. That's not a good situation for anybody.

At which time, campus security can remove their asses, or corral them in a spot where they get to excercise their 1st amendment rights, but can't disrupt the ceremonies.

 

[Jack Hays]

Y'know, I really do try to not post something I can't back up. For instance, here's what happened to Florida State University:

Under the agreement with the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, however, faculty only retain the illusion of control. The contract specifies that an advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it’s not happy with the faculty’s choice or if the hires don’t meet “objectives” set by Koch during annual evaluations.

Koch wasted little time in asserting his influence. In 2009, he denied 60 percent of the faculty’s suggestions to fill the positions in the new programs, called the Study of Political Economy and Free Enterprise (SPEFE) and Excellence in Economics Education (EEE). The hires that were made were agreed upon by Koch and the department’s faculty.
But according to a memorandum about the agreement, obtained by the Tallahassee Democrat, the ability to pick and choose faculty members was hardly the only string attached. In addition, Koch wanted the ability to review work done by the economics faculty and much more:

1 - The three senior professors must come in with tenure, and FSU must continue to fund them for at least four years past the project period.
2 - The Advisory Board of SPSFC and EEE is allowed to review all publicly provided material submitted by applicants for the Professorship positions.
3 - The Advisory Board will determine which candidates qualify to receive funding.
4 - No funding for a professorship position or any other affiliated program or position will be released without the review and approval of the Advisory Board.
5 - An undergraduate program will be devised and funded for $30,000 per year for three years. The committee responsible for the program will report to the Advisory Board.
6 - Other strings spell out the right of the [Charles G. Koch] Foundation to annually review the work of funded professors, publications, publicity, etc., and to pick up their marbles and go home if not satisfied

...

David Rasmussen, the dean of Florida State’s College of Social Sciences and Public Policy, has asserted that academic integrity and “philanthropy” can coexist, arguing that there is no problem with the school’s agreement with Koch. But many universities have strict policies regarding donors’ influence over how donations are used, and Yale University once returned a $20 million donation because a donor wanted veto power over hires.

...

Because selling out its academic freedom to Koch apparently wasn’t enough, Florida State also entered into an agreement with BB&T, which provided funding for a course on ethics and economics and required that Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, be a part of the course curriculum.

Now, that's all from very Left-wing Think Progress, so in order to give you another (and not quite as Left-leaning) reference, here's from the Tampa Bay Times:

A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University's economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting "political economy and free enterprise."

The above is a shining example of why we need to regulate who can donate how much to any public institution, and how there should never be a "quid pro quo".

Means nothing. The university is completely free to use other funds to hire other professors to teach other topics. This is completely within bounds.

 

[apdst]

Problem is, the students get 0% of the vote. You really should learn to place the blame where it belongs. Even your brother-in-red-arms Jack Hays agrees that it's the college administration and not the students.

The mob that intimidated the administration got one helluva vote.

 

[rocket88]

At which time, campus security can remove their asses, or corral them in a spot where they get to excercise their 1st amendment rights, but can't disrupt the ceremonies.

Sure, a specific "Free Speech Zone." Because conservatives are all about having areas where you can and can't excercise your rights. Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment - I never hear anyone complaining about how there are certain places where they're not allowed to carry a weapon. (For anyone who wants to jump in with the Constitution doesn't say certain places, I'll remind you that it also doesn't place such restrictions on the First)

They're also very popular with pro-lifers when they're around abortion clinics. Massachusetts Judge Rejects Pro-Life Challenge to Abortion Protest Zone

A leading pro-life law firm that filed suit against the law said it is an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights.

I guess it's all OK as long as we're only restricting those horrible libbos though.

 

[Jack Hays]

Don't Silence Graduation Speakers | RealClearPolitics

". . . One is that hecklers shouldn't have a veto in what is supposed to be a place of free inquiry. When Skidmore College issued an invitation to a former mining company executive, a student who opposed it told a faculty meeting, "It's my commencement. Not hers. Or yours." Actually, it belongs to Skidmore, not the student, who is merely a temporary member of the college community. If you detest whom your school invited, maybe you chose the wrong school.


Disinviting also carries the stain of censorship, implying that college graduates should not have to endure views that contradict their own. But what's the point of education if it doesn't confer the thinking skills to evaluate and reject wrong views?


Blocking a speaker deprives the critics of the chance to respond in a persuasive and forceful way. When Rice is induced to stay away from Rutgers, the topic of conversation is whether her critics had a right to demand her absence. Had she shown up, they could have focused attention on a far more important issue: her culpability in the disastrous invasion of Iraq.


Likewise with Birgeneau and Lagarde. You think they are bad actors? In their absence, most of the people attending those commencements will remain ignorant of their records.


If Ali dared to repeat her slander that Muslims all belong to the same "nihilistic cult of death," she would repel far more listeners than she would persuade. Anytime a speaker with a controversial record comes to campus, it's a gala opportunity to remind the audience of what they have to account for.


Why silence speakers when you can denounce or even shame them? When President Barack Obama spoke at Notre Dame in 2009, anti-abortion advocates flocked to condemn his policies. A plane pulled a banner picturing the remains of a fetus with the message: "10 Week Abortion."


At Sen. Rick Santorum's 2003 appearance at St. Joseph's University, some students attached rainbow-colored tassels to their mortarboards in a silent show of support for gay rights. At the UC Berkeley law school ceremony in 2011, protesters handed out orange ribbons to express outrage at former Bush administration official John Yoo's complicity in torture.


When former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani spoke to graduating students at Syracuse in 2002, some waved their wallets -- reminding him of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed Bronx man killed by a hail of police bullets after he reached into his jacket and pulled out a billfold.


It wouldn't be hard to find provocative ways to disavow some of this year's invitees while allowing them to say their piece. Birgeneau's critics could splatter their gowns with yellow paint to match the pepper spray used on seated demonstrators.


Rice's detractors might sport atomic symbols to evoke the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq didn't have. Islamic students and parents could have greeted Ali with signs saying, "This is what a peace-loving Muslim looks like."


The best response to allegedly villainous speakers is not to turn them into martyrs by denying them a forum. The best response is to let them speak and make them wish they hadn't."

 

[apdst]

Sure, a specific "Free Speech Zone." Because conservatives are all about having areas where you can and can't excercise your rights. Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment - I never hear anyone complaining about how there are certain places where they're not allowed to carry a weapon. (For anyone who wants to jump in with the Constitution doesn't say certain places, I'll remind you that it also doesn't place such restrictions on the First)

They're also very popular with pro-lifers when they're around abortion clinics. Massachusetts Judge Rejects Pro-Life Challenge to Abortion Protest Zone



I guess it's all OK as long as we're only restricting those horrible libbos though.

Did I ever, at anytime condone, or endorse that behavior, or activity? No, I didn't so stow that crap.

Don't forget, I'm pro-choice.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ah - most criminals are Democrats? So...why is it, then, that the states with the highest rates of homicide are all RED states? I mean, if Democrats are SUCH a crime-ridden bunch, shouldn't that show up in higher homicide rates in blue states?

Naaahhh...things like numbers and facts don't matter - as long as TD gets to say "Dems bad", that's all that matters...facts and hard numbers need not apply.

two years after Al Gore's failed attempt to steal Florida, far left and brilliant law professor Pamela Karlan (the Jewish lesbian Obama SHOULD have put on the USSCi if that was the demographics he wanted with Kagan) began a crusade to REENFRANCHISE convicted criminals. She noted at the HOWARD TAFT LECTURE AT UC LAW SCHOOL, that if FELONS IN FLORIDA had been allowed to vote, Al Gore would have won easily. A member of the audience asked why and Professor Karlan noted that her research indicated that the VAST MAJORITY OF felony convicts vote DEMOCRAT when they can vote.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

two years after Al Gore's failed attempt to steal Florida, far left and brilliant law professor Pamela Karlan (the Jewish lesbian Obama SHOULD have put on the USSCi if that was the demographics he wanted with Kagan) began a crusade to REENFRANCHISE convicted criminals. She noted at the HOWARD TAFT LECTURE AT UC LAW SCHOOL, that if FELONS IN FLORIDA had been allowed to vote, Al Gore would have won easily. A member of the audience asked why and Professor Karlan noted that her research indicated that the VAST MAJORITY OF felony convicts vote DEMOCRAT when they can vote.

And this disproves my point how? Again, if most criminals are Democrats, then the homicide rate in red states would be lower than the homicide rate in blue states.

But instead, the homicide rate in red states are generally significantly than the homicide rate in blue states. What, are you going to claim that only the liberals in red states are criminals, that when they come to blue states they suddenly stop being criminals?

And one more question: if someone's paid their debt to society, where does it say in the Constitution that they no longer have the right to vote?

 

[TurtleDude]

And this disproves my point how? Again, if most criminals are Democrats, then the homicide rate in red states would be lower than the homicide rate in blue states.

But instead, the homicide rate in red states are generally significantly than the homicide rate in blue states. What, are you going to claim that only the liberals in red states are criminals, that when they come to blue states they suddenly stop being criminals?

And one more question: if someone's paid their debt to society, where does it say in the Constitution that they no longer have the right to vote?

why would a Democratic Party Operative be leading an effort to get criminals the right to vote if she believed they were going to vote GOP?

what group commits most of the murders in the USA-answer-black males

what is the voting preferences of black males? overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT

I have not given an opinion on whether convicts who have done their time should be able to vote