Two schools stand up to their radicals… a little
Remember last month when appeals judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down at Stanford when he attempted to speak there? One of the highlight items was that not only did students shout him down, but the associate DEI dean Tirien Steinbach participated and essentially took the side of the hecklers. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, brought down fire on Stanford Law for its behavior:
Following the incident, Cruz sent a letter to the high profile university, demanding the students be punished and Steinbach be held accountable for her treatment of the judge.
“This disgraceful behavior is antithetical to the principles of free speech and open discourse that are essential to the mission of any credible academic institution, let alone a top-tier law school,” Cruz wrote in a March 14 press release.
Just weeks after the Texas Senator called on school officials to take action against the “disgraceful behavior,” Cruz received a response that included news of Steinbach’s leave and that all law students would be required to attend a session on free speech.
Hopefully this isn’t a paid leave, aka unplanned vacation. But it’s nice – and slightly mind-boggling – that Stanford is actually rocking the academic boat in favor opf civilized behavior, isn’t it?
And, to boggle your minds further, a Michigan professor has been suspended for his actions:
A Michigan professor was suspended Monday for a post in which he said: “It is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.”
Professor Steven Shaviro of the Wayne State Department of English took to Facebook to post his views on free speech (re. the Stanford incident – Ed.) A screenshot of his post can be found at the Volokh Conspiracy.
“Every time protestors shout down a racist or transphobic speaker, they are indulging their own moral sense of validity at the expense of actually strengthening the very bigots against whom they are protesting,” Shaviro wrote. However, the professor did qualify his Sunday post by saying: “I do not advocate violating federal and state criminal codes.”
“We have on many occasions defended the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we feel this post far exceeds the bounds of reasonable or protected speech. It is, at best, morally reprehensible and, at worst, criminal,” wrote Wayne State president M. Roy Wilson. “We have referred this to law enforcement agencies for further review and investigation.”
In Shaviro’s view, right-wing groups bring speakers on campus to elicit a reaction that discredits the Left.
“The protesters get blamed instead of the bigoted speaker; the university administration finds a perfect excuse to side publicly with the racists or phobes; the national and international press has a field day saying that bigots are the ones being oppressed, rather than the people those bigots actually hate being the victims of oppression,” Shaviro wrote in the Facebook post.
Reports vary on whether Shaviro was suspended without pay. I did read one eggheaded response saying that in no way were his statements an incitement to a crime.Whaddya bet the same academic would strongly aver that Trump advocated armed insurrection, violence, and killings at his rally? No takers, huh…
Category: Schools, Society, The Stupid is Strong
I sort of agree with his statement that the right brings speakers on campus to discredit the left. But then, if the left were rational adults, they could not be counted on to make asses of themselves with their childish behavior.
“I sort of agree with his statement that the right brings speakers on campus to discredit the left.”
Actually what he said was that the right was “eliciting a response” that discredits the left.
It’s not trying to shut off speech that’s the problem, it’s the act of speaking, which the left is obligated to try to shut down, that’s the problem – and only because it makes them look bad.
The mental gymnastics to come up with that one are quite impressive.
If shutting down free speech is not bad in and of itself, how is drawing attention to it making the left look bad? How can drawing attention to a good (or even neutral) act make one look bad?
And if the act is bad, isn’t it performing the act that’s the problem regardless of whether attention is drawn to it? If I rape someone and they never report the crime, does that mean I did nothing wrong?
And somehow, killing the speakers outright rather than just shouting them down and preventing them from speaking would somehow look less bad? In what world?
Oh yeah, it’s not that he promoted murder that’s the problem, the problem is that the evil people on the right drew attention to it.
” the problem is that the evil people on the right drew attention to it. “
The “Libs of TicTok” affect.
Incitement to violence has NEVER been protected speech.
And it IS allowed to shout “Fire” in a crowded movie house, just as long as the intent isn’t to cause panic and chaos.
But this raises the question; is it allowed to shout “MOVIE” in a crowded Firehouse?
It’s only allowed at the designated movie time, and only after all daily training has been completed. And nobody is ever allowed to sit in Mouch’s spot for any reason.
I may not agree with what one has to say, but I will defend their right to say it. Then again, is it better to remain silent and be thought a fool or to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Double standards means at least they have some kind of standards.
“Whaddya bet the same academic would strongly aver that Trump advocated armed insurrection, violence, and killings at his rally? No takers, huh…”.. wow, between this and the post about Soros getting President Trump indicted, you guys really are baiting the seagull today, aren’t you???
BRAVO!
When those who wish you harm come out and say it, pay attention. They’re just proving that they’ve moved past the theoretical.