Jump to content

Invited Speakers at Universities


Auburn85

Recommended Posts

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/364096-video-shows-trump-supporters-being-kicked-out-of-campus-coffee

 

 

Quote

 

University investigates Trump supporters being kicked out of campus coffee shop

 

Fordham University is investigating an incident on campus after a video appeared to show several members of the campus College Republicans group being kicked out of an on-campus coffee shop for wearing President Trump's famous red "Make America Great Again" hats.

In the video posted by the conservative news site Campus Reform, the self-identified president of Rodrigue’s Coffee House, which is run by a student club, tells the students that she is removing them to ensure the safety of other customers, saying that their hats violate the shop's policies.

 

“I am protecting my customers,” the president says in the video.

“We are your customers, we bought something,” replies a member of College Republicans.

“I don’t want people like you supporting this club … no one here wants people like you supporting our club,” the president responds. “I am giving you five minutes.”

In later comments in the video, the woman can be heard telling the club members that their hats "violate safe space policy."

“You are threatening the integrity of our club. This is a community standard — you are wearing hats that completely violate safe space policy,” she said. “You have to take it off or you have to go.”

A flier obtained by the College Republicans somewhat outlines the rule, explaining the shop's policy against "racism," "homophobia" and "sexism." The rule appears to be that of the club, rather than the college.

"Be aware of the boundaries of others' space, physical or otherwise, and respect their consent. No racism - No sexism - No homophobia. If you feel that someone has transgressed this policy, we want you to feel comfortable confronting them or approaching a member behind the counter, who is available as a resource to assist you," the flier reads.

A member of the College Republicans blasted the university for allowing the club to discriminate based on political views in on-campus facilities.

Fordham University issued a statement on Saturday to The Hill, saying that the university has no campus-wide safe space policy and that the video amounted to a "dispute between students." The school also indicated that it is investigating the incident.

"There is no University safe space policy, nor one that excludes any members of the Fordham community from any public spaces on the basis of their political views. Fordham is a community that values diverse opinions, and in which students should disagree with one another in a civil fashion," Fordham assistant vice president Bob Howe wrote in an email. 

"The University is still investigating the incident, and students who may have violated the University code of conduct will be met with the appropriate student conduct process."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/11/protester-who-stole-script-for-conservative-speakers-notes-identified-as-college-official/

 

Prosecutors Drop Charges Against Conservative Lucian Wintrich and Charge College Official Who Stole His Speech Notes [Updated]

 

by  Jonathan Turley

 

Conservative commentator Lucian Wintrich was arrested recently after the grabbed a protester who stole his speech notes during an event at the University of Connecticut.  The video however shows Wintrich trying to stop a woman who acted to prevent him from speaking and grabbed his notes.  That led to many asking why the woman was not arrested.  Now she has been identified and it is worse than thought. Her name is Catherine Gregory and she is associate director of career services and advising at Quinebaug Valley Community College. It is particularly disturbing to see someone associated with an institution of high education acting to silence opposing speakers and actually stealing material. Update: the charges against Wintrich have been dropped and Gregory has turned herself in for charges based on her outrageous conduct.

Gregory’s conduct was reprehensible and showed the same contempt for free speech that we have discussed as part of a rising intolerance on our campuses.  We have been discussing how faculty around the country are supporting the abandonment of free speech principles to bar speakers and speech with which they disagree. The most extreme form of this rejection of classical liberal values is the antifa movement.  We have seen faculty physically attack speakers or destroy messages that they oppose. We have also seen faculty physically attacked and intimidated.  In some of these incidents, other faculty have supported students in shutting down speakers or fellow academics (here and here).

In this case, Gregory is not satisfied with just trying to prevent others from hearing views with which she disagrees but then actually steals material being used by the speaker. She clearly considers herself as justified to stop others from speaking by simply declaring their views to be unacceptable and her views as being correct. Her actions led to a virtual riot at the event and Quinebaug Valley Community College has now, has The Norwich Bulletin reported, increased security because of death threats directed toward teacher.

Here is the video of the encounter:

 

Wintrich who was speaking on the topic “It’s OK to Be White,” was arrested but not Gregory.  He is now calling for her arrest and The Hartford Courant has blasted Gregory in an editorial as unacceptable to hold a position with an educational institution;  Carlee Drummer, president of Quinebaug Valley Community College, issued a statement that such conduct would not be addressed by the college because “the employee attended the event as a private citizen.”

The issue of academic freedom and free speech looms large in such controversies.  As we have previously discussed (including the recent controversies involving an Oregon professor and a Drexel professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. The incident also raises what some faculty have complained is a double or at least uncertain standard. We have previously discussed controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor.

The controversy over Gregory is more difficult because it involves conduct and a possible criminal charge.  If she is not charged, the position of the college is well based even though Gregory is acting to silence others at other schools.  That can not only undermine the faith of conservatives at her college, but the involvement of a college official in disrupting another school is a serious problem for the institution.  We have previously discussed the issue of when it is appropriate to punishment people for conduct outside of the work place. We have followed cases where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once their names and employers are made known. (here and here and here and here).

Gregory’s lawyer, Jon Schoenhorn, told  Inside Higher Education his client was justified in her actions because Wintrich’s views constitute “hate speech” and his actions “are beyond the First Amendment” in their insults of black and Latino and other students. That is certainly a convenient approach since it gives your client license to stop anyone that she considers to be a hateful speaker.

Schoenhorn has an equally creative argument to justify Gregory’s theft. He insisted that his client was merely trying in a “mild and measured way” to calm the situation.  However, she was the one causing the commotion, not calming the situation.   Schoenhorn added “What Ms. Gregory did was the equivalent of unplugging a microphone. It was not to stop a speech.”  Hmmm, I think turning of a microphone is a way to stop a speech. Moreover, what was Gregory’s intention in stealing the speech if not to stop it.

Update: Now that Gregory will be criminally charged, the question is whether a conviction would lead to new review of her status, particularly if the crime stemmed from disrupting an academic event.

Unfortunately, college professor and administrators like Gregory has taught students that they do not have to respect the free speech rights of others under the same twisted logic. In a letter to the editor in The Daily Campus, student Emily Steck denounced the university for allowing the speech and supported Gregory’s disgraceful conduct:

“When your students were faced with the words of a man intending to incite anger, deny the reality of oppression and ultimately physically assault someone over A PIECE OF PAPER you were not there. What about this event made your administration believe that freedom of speech should be prioritized over hate speech?”

Steck’s inability to understand why freedom of speech would ever be “prioritized over hate speech” is a chilling example of the new legitimacy given intolerance and speech controls on our campuses. There is not a hint of concern that Gregory’s approach is a slippery slope that leads to the silencing of any voices that the majority deems “hateful.”  Steck is part of a new generation of censors who have no understanding of the foundation of our society in core free speech principles.

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-lucian-wintrich-censor-doubles-down-20171214-story.html

 

Editorial 

Intolerance On Campus: Lucian Wintrich's Speech-Swiper Doubles Down

 

Instead of apologizing for her boorish behavior at conservative commentator Lucian Wintrich's speech at the University of Connecticut, Catherine Gregory is doubling down on it.

That's not only wrongheaded. It's dangerous.

Ms. Gregory, a community college counselor, claimed this week to have support "from around the world ... in the struggle against racism and fascism." But she took her tactics out of the fascist playbook.

She wasn't the only person trying to silence the politically incorrect speaker, who was there at the invitation of the university's College Republicans. Much of the crowd was rudely shouting down Mr. Wintrich at every sentence. But he kept gamely on until Ms. Gregory ended the speech by walking off with it.

If anybody should have known better in that raucous crowd, it was she.

Censorship Doesn't Work

Catherine Gregory is associate director of career services and advising at Quinebaug Valley Community College in Killingly. She ought to know that silencing the speech of invited guests is antithetical to any college's purpose, whether that purpose is to expand minds, prepare students for a career or inspire them to make the world a better place.

The world won't become a better place if people like Ms. Gregory go around taking what isn't theirs, shutting down those they disagree with and causing uproars.

Yes, Mr. Wintrich is known for inflammatory talk, and the UConn College Republicans should have thought twice about inviting him. His speech at UConn was insulting at times, as was the crowd he addressed, which tried its best to drown him out.

 

But he had the floor until Ms. Gregory intervened. She swiped his notes, and he went after them. Bedlam ensued.

Breach-of-peace charges against him have been dropped. Meanwhile, she's been charged with disorderly conduct and petty larceny for the alleged theft attempt, and rightly so.As we have noted before, her outrageous behavior violated codes of conduct at her campus and UConn.

If convicted, she ought to be sentenced to study history. It shows that censorship doesn't win converts to a cause. It often wins sympathy for the censored.

Quinebaug officials also need to stop hiding behind the "she was on her own time" fig leaf and decide whether this is the type of person they want advising students.

'Contempt For Free Speech'

Ms. Gregory's supporters, by the way, do not include constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley. The professor at George Washington University Law School has condemned her "reprehensible" behavior in his widely read blog.

He is right to worry that her "contempt for free speech" is part of a rising intolerance on campuses nationwide, in which speech that doesn't conform to a majority's liking is suppressed.

The majority can be fickle about what voices it deems unacceptable, as history has shown.

  •  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle/uw-blocked-from-charging-security-fee-for-college-republicans-rally/281-516640834

 

UW blocked from charging security fee for College Republicans rally

 

A federal judge temporarily blocked the University of Washington from issuing a $17,000 security fee bill for a UW College Republicans event on Saturday.

U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman, who issued a temporary restraining order, said a security fee could have a "chilling effect" on free speech.

"[The UW is] saying because our speaker causes other people to want to protest, at no fault of its own, that's enough to charge us," said Chevy Swanson, president of the UW College Republicans.

The College Republicans’ Freedom Rally will be allowed to go forward, but the UW reserves the right to shut down the event if the FBI comes forward with credible information on a security risk.

The event in Red Square features Oregon activist Joey Gibson of the Patriot Prayer group as a guest and has the potential to draw 1,000 people, according to UW.

The College Republicans sued the school after UW asked the group to cover security costs for the rally, calling it a violation of their civil rights.

Several groups have canceled or postponed campus events on Saturday when rally is set to take place.

"A lot of students are concerned," said Molly Quinton, news editor of The Daily. "And the issue of free speech is coming up a lot in classrooms of whether you can set a price on it or what the university suppose to do when there is a threat of violence."

Access to Red Square and the surrounding area will also be limited Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

“This week, UWPD obtained credible information that groups from outside the UW community are planning to join the event with the intent to instigate violence,” UW President Ana Mari Cauce wrote in a letter to students and staff Friday.

"When she puts out that statement she kinda comes with the implication that we're at fault or we're causing problems," said Swanson, "when in fact it's protesters. We have a peaceful event and protesters want to come cause problems. And protesters need to be called out for it, not us for putting on the event."

Cauce said the university was taking precautions to ensure the rally unfolded peacefully, but urged the community to stay away from the area for their own personal safety.

"The temporary restraining order issued today by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha J. Pechman prevents the University of Washington from charging what we believe is a reasonable fee toward the amount of security necessary to maintain a safe environment for an event, until a final ruling is made by the court. The UW will comply with the terms of the temporary restraining order, but this legal process is ongoing and we will continue to advocate for charging reasonable security fees to campus groups based on objective criteria," UW spokesperson Victor Balta said in a released statement.

"Regardless of the court ruling, the safety our campus community is of utmost importance and security at Saturday’s event will be provided as planned by both UWPD and Seattle police."

In January 2017, one person was shot and injured when violent protests broke out in Red Square outside an event where former Breitbart Editor Milo Yiannopolous was speaking.

In a statement, a UW spokesperson said, "...we will continue to advocate for charging reasonable security fees to campus groups based on objective criteria."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fights-michigan-state-richard-spencer-20180305-story.html

 

More than 150 tickets issued as fights break out at Michigan State before Richard Spencer speech

Fights broke out between white supremacists and protesters Monday as anti-fascist activists, students and community members converged in and around Michigan State University to counter a speech by white nationalist Richard Spencer.

Hours before the speech began, police blocked access to the venue as protesters, including some masked antifascists, gathered outside and hundreds marched toward the venue shouting, "Nazis go home!"

As some of Spencer's supporters and people planning to attend the speech arrived on campus, masked protesters shouted obscenities at white supremacists and at police. A group of white nationalists marching down the road toward the speech venue - Pavilion for Agriculture and Livestock Education - were blocked by protesters. Shouts turned to punches thrown at protesters, but the group wasforced by protesters away from the pavilion where Spencer later spoke.

More law enforcement officers arrived, lining both sides of the road leading into the venue, snapping cuffs on people and restoring calm.

But as others arrived to attend the speech, which was delayed past its planned 4:30 p.m. start time, a mob of protesters swarmed around them. A circle of law enforcement officers protected those wishing to go in, but two were pushed to the ground. Another man wanting to attend the event was pelted with sticks, dirt and cans by protesters.

Two were blocked from entering, despite the police escort. They bowed as they retreated, to jeers from the crowd.

The Detroit Free Press showed video of protesters screaming at police to a steady drumbeat, one kicking the bicycle of an officer, screaming, "F-ing Nazi cops!"

Capt. Doug Monette, a spokesman for the MSU police department, said two dozen arrests were made, ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. He said there were some weapons charges, as well as charges of hindering and obstructing, but that it was too soon to confirm individual people involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/06/christina-hoff-sommers-lewis-and-clark#comment

 

Student-activists at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, made good on their threat to disrupt a Christina Hoff Sommers event at the Law School yesterday afternoon.

Sign-wielding protesters rushed to the front of the classroom where Sommers was attempting to speak and drowned her out. The leader, a woman wearing a jacket that said "stay woke" on the back, shouted "mic check." The gathered protesters then repeated the line. And so it went, with the crowd echoing the leader's claims:

"Mic check. We choose. To protest. Male supremacy. Not give it. A platform. Christina Sommers. Has repeatedly. Delegitimized. The suffering of women. Worldwide. We believe. Our siblings. And our comrades. Women are not. Liars with victim mentalities. Rape culture is not a myth. Microaggressions are real. The gender wage gap is real."

There's actually considerable disagreement, even within mainstream circles, about whether microaggressions and thegender wage gap are real, despite the student-protesters' cultish protestations to the contrary. But these activists' minds were already made up, well in advance of Sommers's appearance at Lewis and Clark. A day earlier, the Portland National Lawyers Guild, Minority Law Students Association, Black Law Students Association, Women's Law Caucus, Immigration Student Group, Jewish Law Society, Latino Law Society, OutLaw, and Lewis & Clark Young Democratic Socialists of America issued a joint-statement condemning the Federalist Society for inviting Sommers.

They described Sommers as a "known fascist." (If you're not with antifa, you must be with the fascists, I guess.) They said that "because of the way systemic oppression manifests, we know those who live at intersections of oppression—cis and trans women of color, genderqueer and gender non-conforming women of color—bear the brunt of this attempt to legitimize gendered violence." They said "we now understand how language works, and how it can be used to reproduce the systems of oppression." This view leaves no room for free speech: all perspective that clash with those of the activists are inherently violent and oppressive, and thus unfit for public utterance.

Sommers was able to partly deliver her remarks, but she so incensed the crowd that a dean of diversity approached the podium and asked her to quickly wrap things up and progress to Q and A. The journalist Andy Ngo recorded the constant interruptions—his video footage will remind readers of the Sommers shut downs of years past.

"The chaos inside the lecture hall at Lewis & Clark Law School was only part of the problem," wrote Sommers on Twitter. "Protesters outside were chanting loudly… most of the students, conservatives & progressives, were civil. A noisy minority was willing to impose its will on everyone else."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailytargum.com/article/2018/03/the-first-amendment-a-conversation-at-rutgers-on-how-well-college-students-know-their-rights

 

The First Amendment: a conversation at Rutgers on how well college students know their rights

3/6/18

Yesterday Rutgers hosted John Villasenor, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at UCLA, to discuss his research on college students' views of the First Amendment and participate in a discussion on free speech.

Villasenor conducted a national survey of 1,500 current undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities. It included respondents from 49 states and Washington, D.C.

The event was hosted by Undergraduate Academic Affairs and featured a quick presentation by Villasenor followed by moderator questions asked to a panel comprised of two Rutgers students, a Rutgers professor and Villasenor. This was then followed with an open discussion.

It began with a question to the crowd.

“To start, I’m going to just ask for a little audience participation here, the First Amendment confirms or addresses five freedoms, can people tell me what those five are?” Villasenor said to the audience.

The audience answered with the right to speech, assembly, religion, to petition the government and the press. He then asked, what limits does the First Amendment have? Answers included incitement to imminent lawless action, “true threats” and defamation.

Villasenor discussed some results from recent free-speech surveys, including his own. 

One question he posed in his survey was “A public university invites a very controversial speaker to an on-campus event. The speaker is known for making offensive and hurtful statements … A student group opposed to the speaker uses violence to prevent the speaker from speaking. Do you agree or disagree that the student group’s actions are acceptable?” according to his report in the Brookings Institution.

Nineteen percent of students surveyed agreed with that statement and 81 percent disagreed, according to the report.

A similar question asked if a student group opposed to the same speaker disrupted the speech “by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker” was acceptable. The survey found that 51 percent of respondents agreed and 49 percent disagreed, according to the report.

He discussed other findings before concluding his presentation. These included information like most respondents thinking online speech should be given the same level of protection as face-to-face speech, and that the majority of people agree on the importance of the First Amendment but less people understand the full contours of it.

“The First Amendment is specifically a constraint on government … the way you practice it is you exercise your right to free speech and respect the right that other people have to free speech,” Villasenor said in an interview about how students who might not fully understand the amendment should go about using it.

The questions that followed addressed aspects of this. 

One asked how new technologies will continue to influence and update the complex protections provided by the First Amendment.

Villasenor said in an interview that online speech is easy to do and sometimes does not provide the full context, which can cause misinterpretations.

"If it’s looked at a month or a year later it can have a different impression then it had when it was originally said. So the fact that it’s all sort of living forever in cyberspace kind of complicates things enormously I think," he said.

The questions then shifted into microaggressions, trigger warnings and where people can go from here.

Panelists discussed how words can hurt but that it can also be difficult to define what a microaggression is or how to properly respond to one.

“What can the University do, what can the state do, what can the federal government do to legislate to solve these speech problems, and the answer generally speaking is almost nothing,” said William Field, undergraduate program director in the Department of Political Science and one of the panelists.

Following that he said that people do have an obligation to be as careful and inclusive as they possibly can.

The panelists then took questions from the audience, where one member asked if the fear of being labeled offensive can limit political discourse. 

Robert Lazarowitz, a Rutgers class of 1982 alumnus who was in attendance, said in an interview that he thinks it can.

The more people have to be conscious of every word they say and give speech a “litmus test” before they say it, the more people speaking from their heart or expressing their views is going to be hindered, he said.

“Now, clearly we should be civil, but hopefully we bring our civility with us into the conversation to begin with and we don’t have to worry about going too far because most of the time we’re not going to be offensive,” Lazarowitz said. “If somebody gets offended, they might get offended for legitimate or illegitimate reasons, if we see in retrospect (that) we went too far we can apologize and that should be the end of it.”

Villasenor said that going forward, young people can practice free speech by simply exercising their right and being respectful of other people’s First Amendment rights and limitations to the amendment.

“I think understanding those limits puts people, puts us all, in a better position to kind of participate in and contribute to the dialogue,” he said.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

http://www.startribune.com/ben-shapiro-barred-from-st-olaf-during-protest-anniversary/477799223/

 

 

Ben Shapiro barred from St. Olaf College during protest anniversary

St. Olaf College is defending its decision to bar a conservative activist from speaking on campus in April, saying it was a matter of poor timing.

The college said it would be “inappropriate” to bring Ben Shapiro, a controversial author and podcast host, to the Northfield campus on April 23 because the date coincided with the anniversary of anti-racism protests that swept the campus last year.

The reasoning didn’t go over well with the students who invited Shapiro, or Shapiro himself.

“What’s the connection?” asked Kathryn Hinderaker, a conservative student leader who led the effort to bring Shapiro to campus. The protests, she noted, were sparked by reports of students receiving racist notes, one of which turned out to be a hoax.

“There shouldn’t be any reason he can’t come in on this specific date,” she said.

Shapiro, who has drawn protests at campuses across the country for his provocative views, dismissed St. Olaf’s argument as “nonsense.”

“I fail to understand why exactly my presence on campus has anything to do with a racial hoax,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Star Tribune. He spoke at the University of Minnesota in February, drawing protesters.

Shapiro is a Harvard Law School graduate who delights in mocking liberal politics. Among his books: “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans,” and “Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth.”

Carl Crosby Lehmann, the college’s vice president and general counsel, said there was no intention to link Shapiro to last year’s incident. “We nonetheless believe his appearance on our campus at that time would have been counterproductive,” he said. “I don’t think it’s debatable that he is a divisive person.”

Hinderaker, a junior, said she began working with college officials in December to arrange Shapiro’s April appearance. She said the speech was being funded by Turning Point USA, a national group for conservative students. But about a week before the contract was to be finalized in February, she said, she learned that the college would not agree to the scheduled date.

“We are open to having Mr. Shapiro speak at St. Olaf,” Lehmann told her in a Feb. 13 e-mail. But “having him here during the anniversary of last year’s protests is not appropriate.” He asked her to explore other times. “Can we look at dates next winter or spring?”

Hinderaker says she was told that Shapiro had no other available dates in 2018, although the college believed otherwise. She appealed her case to David R. Anderson, the college president, and launched an e-mail campaign to try to reverse St. Olaf’s decision.

In an e-mail reply, Anderson wrote on Feb. 15: “I share your interest in ensuring that diverse viewpoints are expressed on our campus, including the perspectives of conservative speakers like Mr. Shapiro.” But the scheduled date, he said, “is at a time that coincides with the anniversary of last year’s protests. This is deeply concerning. Our campus is still healing from that experience.”

Last April, students staged sit-ins and protests after a series of racist notes and graffiti were reported on campus. On April 29, a black student reported that she had found a threatening note on the windshield of her car, and two days later, the college canceled classes after students threatened a boycott and took over the administration building. A week later, college officials announced that the last note had been exposed as a hoax. The other incidents are still under investigation, Lehmann said.

Since then, St. Olaf has formed a working group to address the concerns that led to the unrest. “The protest made us take stock of how we as a college make students of different cultures, races, socio-economic backgrounds, and beliefs feel not only welcome, but included,” the college said in a statement Friday. “We hope that the anniversary of last year will be an opportunity to bring the campus closer together and not to divide us further apart.”

The college has offered to find another time to bring Shapiro to campus, Lehmann said. “For us, this has always been just about the timing,” he said.

Hinderaker, though, believes there was more to it. “It’s absolutely their right to say no, but I don’t think that means we should let them get away with that,” she said. “I want to go to a college that promotes the free discussion of ideas. That’s the college I thought I was going to.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/josh-blackman-cuny-law-students-****-the-law/

 

Law Students Shout ‘F–k the Law’ While Disrupting Free Speech Lecture 

 

Associate Professor at the South Texas College of Law in HoustonJosh Blackman‘s visit to City University of New York (CUNY) to speak on the topics of originalism and “The Importance of Free Speech on Campus” was met with protests by law students yelling things like “**** the law.”

 

One woman could even be seen holding up a sign in one hand saying “Your legal analysis is lazy and wrong” and another saying “**** off” in her other hand.

Blackman put up a lengthy blog post on Thursday, he said, in an attempt to “recount the events that led up to the protest” on March 29, and to provide some details about the things he encountered during the protest.

He also included a video that you can watch above. The protests happen mostly in the first eight minutes.

But before we go deeper, some context.

Blackman was invited to the school by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc) chapter at CUNY to speak on originalism. FedSoc is a nonprofit with a conservative and libertarian bent, which “place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.”

He said that three days before the speech, the president of the FedSoc chapter said “enraged students” were planning a protest because “they saw a few of your writings (specifically a National Review article praising Sessions for rescinding DACA and ACA)” and assumed he was a racist.

That student did say that, despite the anger, the school still supported the event.

Blackman showed up anyway, but as soon as arrived he was greeted by “several dozen students,” he said, booing, hissing and chanting “shame on you.”

Some of the other phrases included “Legal objectivity is a myth” and “He’s a white supremacist.”

Eventually a school administrator walked in and told the students they can protest, but can’t keep Blackman from speaking. When a student responded “Why are you not providing support for students affected by this hate speech,” the administration said “Did you hear me?”

The student then complained that they were be spoken to like children.

“We are not children. You can’t talk to us like that,” the student said.

Eventually Blackman elicited gasps from students when he said “I actually support the DREAM Act.”

“Were I a member of Congress, I would vote for the DREAM Act. My position is that the policy itself was not consistent with the rule of law,” he said.

Not long after someone shouted the “**** the law.”

“A student shouted out ‘**** the law.’ This comment stunned me. I replied, ‘**** the law? That’s a very odd thing. You are all in law school,'” Blackman wrote.

Law&Crime reached out to Blackman for comment about the “**** the law” moment. He said that this was the only response he got when he tried to dialogue on a legal question and expressed worry about the future of the legal profession.

“When I tried to engage the protestors on a legal question, their only response was ‘**** the Law.’ This incident was bizarre,” he said. “If law students can’t engage in reasoned argumentation, then I worry for the future of our profession.”

When asked for his thoughts on the “Your legal analysis is lazy and wrong” sign, he said, “I actually like the ‘lazy’ sign. I thought it was hilarious!”

Blackman went on to write that he later learned protesting students moved from the classroom to the Dean’s Office to complain.

He said he didn’t end up using his prepared remarks and answered questions instead, though he was called a “cuck” by an apparent Donald Trump supporter before his day was done.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/11/harvard-professor-representing-harvey-weinstein-out-faculty-dean/1175463001/

 

Harvard professor out as dean amid backlash for representing Harvey Weinstein

 

BOSTON — A Harvard Law School professor who became a lightning rod on the Ivy League campus for working on the legal defense team of Harvey Weinstein has been let go as a faculty dean.

Neither Ronald Sullivan Jr. nor his wife Stephanie Robinson will continue as faculty deans of Harvard's Winthrop House when their terms end next month, the university said Saturday.

Rakesh Khurana, dean of Harvard College, announced his decision in an email to residents of the school's Winthrop House, calling the situation "untenable" and saying it was "informed by a number of considerations."

Sullivan has been under fire from students since January when he emerged as one of the attorneys representing Weinstein in the media mogul's upcoming trial where he faces multiple sex-crime charges. 

But the controversy surrounding Sullivan – who presides over the Winthrop House with Robinson, his wife and also a Harvard law professor – escalated further amid recent reports from the student-run Harvard Crimson newspaper about numerous complaints against the couple since 2016 about their handling of house affairs.

"Over the last few weeks, students and staff have continued to communicate concerns about the climate in the Winthrop House to the college," Khurana said in the email. "The concerns expressed have been serious and numerous.

"The actions that have been taken to improve the climate have been ineffective, and the noticeable lack of faculty dean presence during critical moments has further deteriorated the climate in the house. I have concluded that the situation in the house is untenable."

Harvard has faculty deans to lead and reside at each of its 12 buildings that house undergraduate students. It's considered a powerful and prestigious position. Sullivan and Robinson were the first African-Americans to serve as faculty deans at Harvard.

In response to the university's decision, Sullivan and Robinson said they are "surprised and dismayed."

"We believed the discussions we were having with high level University representatives were progressing in a positive manner, but Harvard unilaterally ended those talks," the couple said in a joint statement.

The couple added that they "will now take some time to process Harvard’s actions and consider our options. We are sorry that Harvard’s actions and the controversy surrounding us has contributed to the stress on Winthrop students at this already stressful time."

Harvard's action does not change their status as law school professors. 

Khurana called the situation "regrettable" and said not renewing Sullivan and Robinson as faculty deans is a "very hard decision to make."

He said he has long admired their "commitment to justice and civic engagement" and the "good work they have done" to support diversity in the house community. 

"This decision in no way lessens my gratitude to them for their contributions to the college," he said. 

Sullivan, a prominent defense attorney nationally, had garnered calls for removal from Winthrop residents and other Harvard students who objected to his work for Weinstein, whose alleged actions helped ignite the #MeToo movement. At organized protests in recent months, students held signs that read,“Down with the Dean,” “Remove Sullivan” and “Harvard’s Legacy Ignoring Survivors.” 

Sullivan had defended his work for Weinstein by touting due process for everyone, decrying the country’s “long history of mob justice” and arguing that it’s even more important that “unpopular, vile, or undesirable” defendants have their rights. 

Protesters said they acknowledge the constitutional right for everyone, even unpopular defendants, to have a legal defense. But they questioned Sullivan’s ability to simultaneously carry out a house dean position whose duties they said include being a protector of students and ensuring they feel comfortable sharing concerns.

They accused Sullivan of dismissing their concerns. 

 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The increasing attack on free speech on our college campuses over the last decade or more is alarming. I wonder if there are parents now who send their kids off to school in bubble wrap and ear muffs.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

The increasing attack on free speech on our college campuses over the last decade or more is alarming. I wonder if there are parents now who send their kids off to school in bubble wrap and ear muffs.  ;)

Problem is it's not about free speech, its about quelling opposing speech

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Problem is it's not about free speech, it about quelling opposing speech

And it's not limited to colleges and universities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

https://reason.com/2019/08/01/university-of-florida-settles-lawsuit-with-conservative-student-group/#comments

 

 

Quote

 

University of Florida Settles Lawsuit With Conservative Student Group

 

The University of Florida (UF) has agreed to change a campus policy and pay $66,000 to the school's Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) chapter on campus as part of a settlement with the student organization.

YAF sued the school in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida last December, alleging the school violated students' First and 14th Amendment rights."The old policy unfairly taxed conservative students to underwrite the expression of leftist speakers on campus," YAF spokesman Spencer Brown wrote in a statement released Thursday.

UF had required all students to pay an annual activity fee, yet failed to give student groups equal access to the funds. Some campus groups automatically received annual money from this fund and could use it to bring speakers to campus, whereas others had to petition the school prior for funds prior to specific events. UF also gave the student government discretion to approve and deny funding, and YAF argued the body was not objective when deciding which groups to fund. 

 

"This past year, the University of Florida denied UF YAF funding to host Dana Loesch and Andrew Klavan," Brown wrote in a statement last December. "That denial … speaks loudly to the University of Florida's true intention to prevent conservative ideas being heard on campus."

The group's lawsuit argued that UF students "are entitled to the viewpoint-neutral distribution of the Student Activity Fees they have paid and will be required to pay, or to the repayment of fees they have paid and to be exempt from paying such fees in the future."

The school opted to settle with YAF and change its student activity and event policy.

"Thankfully, in response to this lawsuit, the University of Florida recognized the errors embedded within its policies by adopting changes that no longer force YAF members to pay into a system that funds opposing viewpoints and discriminates against their own," Caleb Dalton of Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented YAF, said in astatement.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

https://fox4kc.com/news/wichita-state-cancels-ivanka-trumps-graduation-speech-to-tech-school/

 

 

Quote

 

Wichita State cancels Ivanka Trump’s graduation speech to tech school

by: AP Wire

Posted:  / Updated: 
gettyimages-1001930792.jpg?w=2560&h=1440

WASHINGTON, DC – JULY 19: Ivanka Trump speaks at an event where U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a National Council for the American Worker and requested leaders of the private sector to sign a ÒPledge to AmericaÕs WorkersÓ July 19, 2018 at the White House in Washington, DC. The newly established council is intended to create solutions to issues impacting the American labor force, and the pledge is intended to create more than 500,000 opportunities for students and workers over the next 5 years. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

 

WICHITA, Kan. — Wichita State University Tech canceled plans for Ivanka Trump to give a virtual commencement speech to graduates because of criticism of President Donald Trump’s response to protests over the death of George Floyd.

Administrators at Wichita State University and WSU Tech announced the decision late Thursday, just hours after they had announced that the president’s daughter would be speaking to WSU Tech graduates.

Administrators of both universities, which are affiliated, said Saturday’s graduation for the technical university would be “refocused” on students, with a nursing graduate as the only speaker.

Ivanka Trump visited WSU Tech’s National Center for Aviation Training last fall. She responded in a tweet, saying, “Our nation’s campuses should be bastions of free speech. Cancel culture and viewpoint discrimination are antithetical to academia. Listening to one another is important now more than ever!”

The tweet included a link to a YouTube video of her telling the students who finished their degrees amid a global pandemic, “You are a wartime graduate,” and that their training has prepared them “for exactly this moment.”

The announcement that the president’s daughter would speak drew immediate criticism, led by Jennifer Ray, associate professor of photo media at Wichita State, who sent a letter asking school administrators to cancel the speech.

It circulated on social media and garnered 488 signatures from faculty, students and alumni before the speech was canceled, The Wichita Eagle reported.

While noting that Wichita State does not have administrative control over WSU Tech, Ray said having Trump speak would taint both institutions.

Protests have broken out around the world since Floyd, who was black, died in Minneapolis after a white police officer pressed a knee on his neck for several minutes even after he stopped moving and pleading for air.

Ray wrote that President Trump has said he might use federal military troops to quell the U.S. demonstrations and has made his “callous disregard” for minorities well known, while refusing to criticize police tactics during the demonstrations.

“We owe it to our students to stand up for the right thing when and where we can,” Ray wrote. “To our students of color, and to me, inviting Ivanka Trump to speak right now sends the message that WSU Tech does not take diversity seriously.”

In a separate statement, WSU Tech President Sheree Utash acknowledged that “the timing of the announcement was insensitive” and apologized.

Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Estes, who joined Ivanka Trump on the trip to the Wichita State facility, said in a statement that he was “disappointed.”

“As Kansas faces many challenges recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic to get back to our booming economy,” he said, “now is the time for us to be working together.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...