“We are at a critical point in higher education where we must either fight to preserve free speech or yield to a mob-led orthodoxy on our campuses.”
—George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, stating what should have been obvious decades ago.
I am a Turley admirer, but if ever a statement mandated the response, “No shit, Sherlock! What was your first clue?,” it is that one. It is his considered conclusion to a post about the recent silencing of Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren at the University of New Mexico, where her speaking engagement was cancelled by chanting students, a pulled fire alarm, and other tactics designed to keep the campus “safe” from the opinions some students don’t want to allow to be advocated, debated or even heard.
Turley compliments the university’s administration for promising “accountability” (unlike, say, Yale Law School when its students behaved in a similar totalitarian fashion), but even if there is substantive punishment levied, which I doubt, it is just another barn-door fallacy episode. Why are the university’s students behaving like this? Why isn’t the school teaching the values and traditions of the nation and the Bill of Rights as part of its obligation to society and the culture? Why is it hiring faculty members who support these Marxist tactics?Higher education reached this dangerous state of leftist ideological indoctrination openly over a long period of time while those who should have been noticing and acting just sat by and metaphorically twiddled their thumbs. Public education has been heading down the same path, and that is even more ominous: a lot of students enter college with enough character and knowledge to resist brain-washing, but younger students are far more vulnerable.
Prof. Turley is right, but I have to ask: Where were you, Professor, when the radical Left was taking over most of the universities, including your own?
Ethics Alarms 
The problem I see is that the college allowed this happen in the first place! It’s not like the college didn’t know that something like this was very likely, to the point of dead certainty, going to happen, they enabled it to happen because they didn’t actively do anything to actually prevent the intentional infringement of free speech. The ends justifies the means to these immoral people but I’m sure to save face they might levee some miniscule punishment to a couple of the students but you can be certain that it will be something that won’t negatively deter this from happening again.
The political left and their social justice warriors have effectively weaponized THEIR free speech and intimidation tactics on college campuses and elsewhere to INTENTIONALLY infringe upon the free speech rights of those they disagree with. These tactics are immoral abuse of individual rights, these people are the non-violent (most of the time) equivalent to totalitarian political terrorists, yes terrorists. This is one of the most prominent tactics of the political left in the 21st century and they will not do anything to actually deter their ability to continue this intentional abuse in the future.
How does society put a stop to this abusive and immoral behavior?
How does society put a stop to this abusive and immoral behavior?
Triple the usual speaking fee and then give universities a 2/3 educational discount. Then –
Speakers should include a cancellation clause that states in the event the engagement is cancelled by the sponsoring organization or entity, due to no fault of the speaker; or, the engagement cannot be continued due to attendees preventing the expression of ideas through threats, intimidation, or loud raucous behavior in the venue, the speaker shall be entitled to treble damages for the costs and/or trauma inflicted by the sponsoring organization or its attendees.
The speaker could be indemnified against such damages by initiating actions at the time of the event to prevent the unnecessary cancellation.
Interesting idea but I’m not sure how your idea would work in the real world beyond the colleges simply never signing up Conservative speakers because the conditions would be too strict; so in a very real sense, conservatives would essentially be self canceling due to their own conditions.
How about people do something like what the Patriot Guard Riders have done to counter lunatic protesters at military, veterans, and first responders funerals like the wackos from Westboro Baptist Church, I’ve seen these nuts first hand. I rode with the Patriot Guard Riders at a couple of military funerals in Wisconsin a few years back, good people with an honorable mission of countering disrespect.
I’ve seen these Westboro nuts first hand.
I appreciate Turley as well but his continuous genteel manner can be irksome and has me wondering if he has more than a single emotional gear. Still, I am grateful he has the guts to speak up publicly unlike the horde of cowards in positions of power who think it but will not say it.
Gotta stay comfy and cozy. Change can be scary but living on your knees isn’t all that swell either.
“How does society put a stop to this abusive and immoral behavior?”
One authentic brave patriot willing to overtly resist the fascist Left at a time.
The ripple effect…
The irony of a censorious act like this during #BannedBooksWeek which was “created in response to increased challenges to certain books in schools, libraries, and bookstores.”
The quote of Prof. Turley is admirable. But the institutes of higher learning have let in the Trojan Horse of leftist/marxist ideology. Their attack has been unrelenting. But we have a conumdrum. We want free speech but we also do not want to be silenced by their right to fre speeech. The rules should be set about behaviors ( actions) in and around the venues. If the rules of action and behavior are violated then steps should be taken.
Regarding censorship- I differentiate between banning books in libraries and allowing parents to know if books and texts appropriate for children’s ages are being used.
My wife, the librarian and active member of the ALA privacy committe is adamently against book banning on the whim, however, she does recognize that the library is an extension of the local government and its citizens have a right to redress their concerns. Thus, all libraries should have policies in place for the serene redress of the citizens and procedures with objective criteria for making the choices for their collection.