mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Safe Spaces Indeed
College Protestors Send Professor to the ER
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • WigWag

    Why were there no arrests? There had better be suspensions and expulsions. If Professors were involved they should be fired.

    • Blackbeard

      There will be no investigation, no suspensions, no expulsions and certainly no criminal proceedings. The law does not apply to leftists.

      • dwk67

        Somewhere in hell Lenin Stalin and Mao are smiling….

    • Disappeared4x

      What is odd is the online news is almost all ‘conservative’ media, or from Vermont. It is only ‘news’ if it breaks through to CNN…

      Wanted to post this to the thread: Myron Magnet at City-Journal taught at Middlebury 40 years ago:
      https://www.city-journal.org/html/middlebury-shouts-down-charles-murray-15042.html

  • J C Miller

    To echo wigwag, why were there no arrests? No one wants another Kent State but if these kiddies aren’t restrained, that’s what we may end up with.

    • WigWag

      It’s time for Trump and DeVos to crack down hard on these colleges and universities. Without Government subsidies, Middlebury and institutions like it would not survive.

      I hope Trump has the guts to take these bullies on.

      • Peter Henderson

        One thing you can count on: De Vos would fight Trump tooth and nail. She’s a fashionable rich lady and her only cause is charter schools. She has no stomach for locking horns with Ivy League bigwigs. Trump should ditch her and appoint Bill Bennett. Then we MIGHT get somewhere. Trump has all the guts in the world but one guy can’t do it alone, probably.

  • rheddles

    The Students should get safe space at Marble Valley.

  • Fat_Man

    The county authorities should subpoena all information relating to this fiasco, and convene a grand jury. Somebody needs to be indicted and tried for felony assault.

  • Proverbs1618

    Can’t wait to hear our resident leftists’ opinion on this. Preparing for the deluge of hot takes.
    Or alternatively they will say nothing since it doesn’t fit the Leftwing narrative.
    One or the other.

    • Spencer

      If the commenters who regularly speak in support of anti-free-speech policies fail to speak up here, I would just presume they missed the story! And so it would be a service to them to reply to any comment they make on unrelated stories with a request for their opinion… over and over and over again, until they respond. Just to be helpful, you know.

    • FriendlyGoat

      This resident leftist thinks the protesting students at Middlebury don’t understand how to do leftism. They aren’t helping by embarrassing themselves and instead making social observers such as Murray into martyrs. Completely misdirected.

      • Makaden

        Thanks for making clear when violence is an acceptable accoutrement of leftist intolerance. At least now we are all on the same page and can know when, precisely, and under what conditions, we will have angered the Beast and caused our own victimization. We really should know better than to walk into your fists like that.

        You should be made aware that the whole argument that “these folks don’t reeeeeeally represent our movement/belief system” was tried for a long time by Christians wanting to distance themselves from antisemitism. It was only after the home of Protestantism turned into the home of human ovens did Christianity take a long, hard look at how our theologies had been fostering anti-semitism over many centuries. And we finally came to terms with the truth and made necessary corrections. Islam must do the same (in the specific sense of coming to terms with their relationship to the Jews), in the left must do the same in coming to terms with its own internal contradictions, millennialist tendencies, and ridiculous assumptions about human nature. But maybe I’ve asked for too much.

        • FriendlyGoat

          You have asked FAR too much and your analogies are ridiculously twisted. Protestant Christians who actually (actually) put “love your neighbor as you love yourself” at the top of their to-do list will discover that they can and should be naturally allied with modern left-side thinking.

          At times this has occurred, but more often they were dragged kicking and screaming to the implementation of human rights (aka “love your neighbor as you love yourself). At this moment, the Christians in several countries at once appear to have completely lost sight of their top two commandments.
          Both Putin and Trump are evidence of this, for instance, in Russia and America simultaneously. The “church” most certainly has not “made necessary corrections”. It is steadily going down a tragic rat hole even as we speak—-completely captured and unaware of its situation in that regard.

          • Boritz

            Got a good laugh out of the concept of dragging someone kicking and screaming to make them love their neighbor. Belongs right up there with continue the beatings until morale improves.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The American Civil War was not “a good laugh”. If the supposedly Christian governments of European colonial powers had said OF COURSE there will be no slavery where our flags are planted, there would have been none. Why would they have said that? Because any church person of any time or place whose head is/was not irretrievably up his butt knew it was never right anywhere and cannot be accommodated on any “love of neighbor” standard. But—-we are familiar with what actually took place instead. A lot of real kicking and screaming for several hundred years.

          • Jim__L

            If you take a look at the Bible, you’ll see that as far as any kind of servitude is concerned, there’s already a passage that integrates it with Love The Neighbor…

            “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.” — Colossians 4:1

            Which many slaveholders used to justify slavery. However, to my knowledge none of those slaveholders ever supported a law that would be a logical corollary to that verse: “Whereas teaching him proper empathy for his fellow slaves will benefit his soul more than his freedom would, if a slaveholder is found to be mistreating his slaves, he should immediately be reduced to a state of servitude himself.”

            My personal take is that this would lead to far, far more slavery than is good for a country, and so liberty for all is the best approach.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Colossians 4:1 exists because slavery was an unmitigated norm in the backward times during which Paul wrote—-not because it ever was okey-dokey in human rights as defined by the conscience presumed to exist in a person who is attuned to the Holy Spirit.

          • Jim__L

            Way to come out against the Bible, FG.

            What’s your religion, again?

          • FriendlyGoat

            My religion is the fix Jesus provided to Judaism by His prioritizing of commandments. It is the understanding and relationship we can have for the asking with both Jesus and Holy Spirit guidance if/when we ask, seek, knock It is NOT a blind worship of the Bible as a book—-as in the common claim in some churches that “every word of this Bible is true”. The earth is round and not does not have four corners even though the Bible speaks of four corners of the earth, we don’t volunteer to send our virgin daughters out to be ravaged by a mob as Lot is said to have done at Sodom, and we don’t somehow think that slavery was ever okay or maybe even God’s will because it existed in Bible times and was mentioned by Paul in Colossians.

            The worship of the Bible book (BOOK itself) in the place of and AT THE EXPENSE OF common-sense effort to put brotherly love in practice is a great deal of the reason why (some of) the Church is so susceptible to being hoodwinked into meanness and stupidity. This has been true all through history and it is true today.

          • Jim__L

            Old Testament? Icky! Throw it out! (Except for one passage that Goat likes.) So maybe the New Testament is OK?

            New Testament? Toss that too! (Including the bits that explain what love actually is.) Maybe just the teachings of Christ, then?

            Christ said some things Goat disagrees with (including some nice things about the Old Testament). So out He goes, too! (Except for that one phrase Goat likes.)

            Hm, the faith is looking kinda thin, now… Well, how about the Democrats’ party platform? True, true, true, every word of it!

            So there you have it, folks, the Goatian religion. Blind worship of your own proclivities, with a generous portion of current-day political ideology thrown in. Oh, and one or two verses of the Bible to make you not only feel good about yourself, but to feel even better than those poor fools who think Goat’s “inner light” doesn’t have all the answers.

            Goat… you are a flawed human being just like everyone else. You do not have all the answers. The Bible is a really, really good place for a Christian to look for additional guidance, wisdom, and perspective — in fact, it’s essential to read deeply in it to understand even one part of it.

            I hope you consider doing so.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The Bible is a great place to look for guidance, wisdom and perspective as long as we do not take the “every word” part too seriously. You can insult me all you want, but we do not sacrifice animals in burnt offerings, we do not stone people and everybody wears poly-cotton blends.

          • Jim__L

            FG, Goatianity leaves behind more than it takes, from the Bible.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The Bible is supposed to make us kinder, smarter, more loving, more discerning, more amenable to sensible talk. When it ends up having the opposite effect on some people, I conclude they are interpreting it incorrectly or using it inappropriately or both.

          • Jim__L

            FG, handy thing… the Bible even includes some passages that say what it’s for. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

            FG, whenever someone attempts to use the Bible to teach some wisdom and discernment — or, even to rebuke and correct! — in a way that is contrary to the national platform of a certain political party, Goatianity rejects the Bible outright.

            Please do some thinking about this. You’re trying to serve two masters here — and the one you love is the ideology you’ve come to idolize.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m aware of 2 Timothy 3:16 ——-a matter of Paul’s opinion in a letter to Timothy with respect to Jewish scripture then known to the two of them. As a matter of logic, I sincerely doubt Paul ever imagined his letters would become “scripture” and scholars now claim that most of the rest of the New Testament—-the Gospels and Revelation, in particular—– was not yet even written when Paul wrote letters. So, extending this verse from a personal letter as supposed proof that “every word in the now-bound-together Bible is true” is simply a stretch and a fallacy. Nonetheless, I know a lot of people subscribe to the idea and, back in the 1970’s I sat under the teaching of a summer substitute pastor who spent several weeks dwelling on that particular verse.

            Please review this thread and notice that I did not set out here to debate this with you. Boritz seemed to be having “a good laugh” at the idea that the march to human rights has been a long and difficult one. It WAS centuries of foot-dragging and should not have been. ANYONE who asked Jesus into his/her life, who asked for the Holy Spirit to come into the personal heart would know IMMEDIATELY that you may not buy, sell and own a person. You may not keep a person captive, you may not do torturous punishment on people who try to run away. You may not seek to prevent another person from learning to read. You may not sell other people’s family members “down the river”, causing their involuntary separation.

            You can call me evil or errant until the cows come home for claiming to KNOW this instinctively from early childhood and certainly from the moment, as a VERY little boy, I asked Jesus to be in my life and help me do right. This is not sourced from political Democrats. It is not sourced from scripture, either. It is sourced from the heart of anyone who has a Holy Spirit heart. Why (WHY) do you hang around a church and not know this? I knew it before I was ten.

          • Jim__L

            So FG, what you’re basically saying is that your personal thoughts are inerrant, and Paul is wrong? (And Christ is too, when He disagrees with the principles of Goatianity?)

          • FriendlyGoat

            Going with a repeat message here:
            “The Bible is supposed to make us kinder, smarter, more loving, more discerning, more amenable to sensible talk. When it ends up having the opposite effect on some people, I conclude they are interpreting it incorrectly or using it inappropriately or both.”

          • Jim__L

            FG, you need to work on the “more discerning” part.

      • M Snow

        Are you really justifying the violence and property destruction at U.C. just because Milo seems outrageous to you?

        • FriendlyGoat

          Whatever it took to keep Milo out is what is appropriate. If the protestors could get it done with less violence and destruction, then, of course, less would be better. But resisting means being EFFECTIVE in resistance. This is the lesson of every positive movement in history.

          • M Snow

            Ah! The totalitarian soul of the friendly lefty emerges as a supporter of violence to suppress the free speech of someone he disagrees with. Just curious, if maceing an innocent passerby whose hat is mistaken for one supporting Trump, damaging commercial establishments, throwing rocks at police, setting fires and breaking tens of thousands of dollars worth of windows in the Martin Luther King building isn’t enough to prevent Milo from speaking next time, would it be OK to shoot the security guards? That would be “EFFECTIVE” I guess.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The best result, of course, would be for any college or college group to not invite a person like Milo in the first place. Then no protest is needed. We are talking about a creep who even CPAC correctly disinvited on short notice when it finally found enough brains to stop adoring him. Bear in mind that World War II and the Holocaust might have been prevented if a few rock-throwers at the right (early) times had similarly said—–We ARE NOT listening to Adolph Hitler. We ARE NOT hosting him. We ARE NOT permitting him in our space. Ditto Ayatollah Khomeini. Ditto the self-proclaimed Caliph of the Islamic State.

          • M Snow

            No one cares what you don’t want to hear. If you don’t want to listen to Hitler et al., don’t. It’s when you interfere with other people’s right to listen to what they prefer that you become the sort of totalitarian your side usually pretends to rail against. But, you ducked the question. If the run-of-the-mill leftist rioting doesn’t work to stop Milo Yiannopolis speaking, is it OK to shoot the security guards, or even Milo himself?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Answer it yourself. You’re the gun nut married to retired LE. You’re the ones carrying guns and defending the freedom to shoot anyone you perceive as a threat. Why am I going snarky? Because you’re going nuts. Anyone who defends the NECESSITY of history’s big wars to finally conquer the evil consequences of bad messaging—–declaring that is/was PREFERABLE to shouting down the bad messaging in the first place is no longer in a place of reason.

          • M Snow

            Ok, if you are unable or unwilling to disavow murder in your little hypothetical free speech suppression project, I’ll answer. It’s not okay to murder those whose speech you disagree with. Your history references are absurd. History is full of people who would have been strangled in the cradle if those around them could have foreseen the future, but since no one can actually foresee the future, we don’t allow the killing and/or silencing of those with different views. By the way, I do not now, nor have I ever carried a gun and I do not insist on the freedom to shoot anyone perceived as a threat. You are the one who began this thread by condoning violence.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m gonna stick with the idea that someone who might have shot Hitler early on conceivably could have saved tens of millions of innocent lives. But I never recommended shooting him. I recommended keeping his messaging out of the public eye and ear.
            A little protesting, a little rock throwing—–sure, as needed. Ditto the religious control of Iran. Ditto Islamic State. Ditto Boko Haram. Ditto Putin (depending on what he might be saying or doing on a given day). Ditto—–in this day and age—-any messaging advocating the roll back of 20th Century international standards of human rights. Freedom of speech is important—–but it IS NOT the most important matter when cock-eyed speech risks the creation of tipping points into repression in this country or in any country.

            As for you and guns, there is nothing you have ever said to me which would cause me to believe you are not WITH “open carry”, and “concealed carry” and the loosest possible interpretations of “stand your ground” based on anyone’s perception of feeling personally threated. Right now in Florida, legislation is proposed to put the burden of proof on any prosecutor to prove that a shooting is not self-defense rather than on a shooter to prove that it was. This stuff is going farther and farther all the time—-courtesy of the Republicans you are WITH. So don’t lecture me about murder, capiche?

          • Tom

            “So don’t lecture me about murder, capiche?”

            Spare us the sanctimony. You’ve already established that failure to comply with your vision of speech acceptable to the social order is worth the use of violence.
            Long live his highness, Tsar Dobri Kozel.

          • Jim__L

            Aaaactually, there were quite a few communists doing civil violence (including conducting street battles with the police and brownshirts) in the ’30s. It was those communists that prompted a lot of Germans to join up with the NSDAP, even before it became popular.

            So their approach backfired, didn’t it?

          • Jim__L

            Oddly enough, Christian martyrdom is not contingent on any temporal “resistance” goal being attained in the near term, but in the longer term, it has mattered immensely.

      • Jim__L

        I’ll bet the protesters aren’t True Scotsmen, either.

  • Fat_Man

    Another point. I am done with the colleges in this country. It is time to cancel their tax exemptions, tax their endowments, and put them in receivership.

  • Suzy Dixon

    Just more socialist/communist violence. Only been happening for 100 years.
    Certainly helps destroy any case for communist “free” university, not that there was much of one in the first place.

  • Beauceron

    I would give quite a bit to say I am shocked by this.

    It would mean we are not entering as dark a place as a society as we clearly are.

    But I am not surprised at all.

    What’s most troubling to me about this to me is that the same people who are using these fascistic tactics do so under the banner of anti-fascism. They’re projecting– these people are dangerous– and the physical violence is not the most dangerous thing about them. This has been brewing for years. And we have done nothing about it.

    • Jim__L

      Trump should pull a Reagan and call out the National Guard, if it gets any worse.

      • Beauceron

        I think this is a local matter and the local and state police should do their jobs.

        People should be able to protest. I am fine with them protesting any speaker for any reason they choose. When they prevent speech, through intimidation, use of disruptive tactics, or, worst of all, outright physical violence, I have a problem. People should be able to protest. People should also be able to assemble and speak. In the end, my problem is that it is censorious. The tactics they are using to be censorious are growing worse, but my root issue with them is their censorship. It is, dare I say it, oppression.

        • daveleeander

          Pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire, and then yelling fire in a building with people present, should be punishable by a well placed shot between the eyes. These kids are worth nothing. The professors who allow it are worth nothing.

        • Jim__L

          Was it GWB that made it known to various governors that the National Guard was available to help put down out-of-control protestors?

          • f1b0nacc1

            And he was wrong to do so. The various governors have a responsibility here that goes along with their authority, and for the feds to preempt it undermines the whole principle that lies behind limited government in the first place.

          • Jim__L

            I can’t remember exactly what case this was, but the governor in question declined the offer, and that decision was respected.

  • Beauceron

    “And Coming Apart, the relatively uncontroversial and well-reviewed book Murray was invited to Middlebury to speak about, doesn’t talk about race at all.”
    I would also add that I would dispute that statement. It wasn’t about racial relations, it wasn’t about People Of Color, but it was about white people in America. Like a book on blacks in America or Asians in America, it is about race to a certain extent.

    • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

      No. If you read the book, which is extremely unlikely, you would understand why Murray wrote about “white America”: to isolate the racial variable. Especially if you are a left-wing ideologue who believes that all whites should spend their lives doing nothing but expiating the grievous sin of white privilege, you should appreciate that effort.

      The real problem with the book, as with J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy and the reporting of Kevin Williamson, is that it exposes the (entirely unremarkable, one would think) fact that not all whites live in Montclair, Manhattan, and McLean.

      • Beauceron

        “No. If you read the book, which is extremely unlikely”

        F off, you dolt.

        “you would understand why Murray wrote about “white America”: to isolate the racial variable”

        When you write a book in America that focuses in on the social aspects of one race, it is de facto about race. Discussions or books about race are not restricted to comparative studies. I think you mean it is not a book about race relations. You write a book subtitled “The State Of White America,” you cannot fairly say it “doesn’t talk about race at all.”

        “Especially if you are a left-wing ideologue who believes that all whites should spend their lives doing nothing but expiating the grievous sin of white privilege, you should appreciate that effort.”

        Left wing ideologues won’t be swayed by Murray or by any other argument. That’s why they’re ideologues. They genuinely believe Murray to be a white supremacist neonazi. But of course pretty much everyone they disagree with is some sort of “ist” or is afflicted with some sort of “ism” or “phobia.”

        “The real problem with the book, as with J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy and the reporting of Kevin Williamson, is that it exposes the (entirely unremarkable, one would think) fact that not all whites live in Montclair, Manhattan, and McLean.”

        Do you genuinely believe that to be the real problem with the book? I live in Manhattan. I assure you the fact that many whites in America are different from them is not news to Manhattanites. They are well aware that what most would consider provincial, poorly educated, invisible sky god believing, uneducated, armed and dangerous, nationalist, racist hicks are living in flyover country. And many hate their guts. They also sincerely believe that they know what’s best for all of those people, and if only those people were just a little brighter, they’d be able to understand that. That’s the real problem.

        • ვეფხისტყაოსანი

          Well, you’ve given convincing proofs that (a) you haven’t read the book* and (b) you have a malfunctioning sarcasm detector.

          *Hint: It’s about class; you know, one of the other aspects of the leftists’ peculiar triune god.

          • Jim__L

            You might ease up on Beauceron a bit, it’s not reasonable to consider him a Leftist at all. If there’s anything to take issue with in his comments, it’s his despair over whether anything can be salvaged from our current situation.

            Dissension between people who agree that something needs to be fixed, unfortunately supports his sense of despair. =/ But I’m optimistic enough to think that if you read more of his comments, you’d find a lot to agree with — I suspect you’d be pleasantly surprised. =)

  • Disappeared4x

    Imagine how the other Middlebury students feel. NOT safe to say anything ‘off-script’. It has been this physically dangerous for Zionists on too many campuses, since at least 2013. I tried to warn a friend whose granddaughter chose Middlebury. This is her second semester.

  • SpiderPie

    Time to start enforcing some laws. Start with Middlebury, then head out to Berkeley to deal with this joker…

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/watch-a-liberal-bro-student-calmly-destr

  • Anthony

    A phrase (cultural libertarianism) utilized by some gives context to reactions and counter-reactions among college student demographic (proponents and opponents) – please do not misconstrue. Cultural libertarians recognize that efforts to police language and expression are not only counter-productive but also fragile – thus you have events like Middlebury College. Something related: https://thearcmag.com/the-anti-pc-revolt-and-the-milo-problem-3111b6d#.fd6ojxmvj

  • Eurydice

    Yes, ideology and free speech and intellectuals and shoulda, coulda, woulda. Nothing brings home reality to an administration faster than a big fat law suit. Stanger and Murray should sue the pants off the college – then we’ll see how fast those snowflakes melt.

    • Anthony

      Litigation always potentially avails remedy but the phenomena ought to be honestly examined (by interests and sans political interests – if practicable).

      • Eurydice

        By all means. But, from my experience with university administrations, there are always so many competing priorities that honest examination never makes it to the top of the list unless it’s accompanied by a swift kick in the pants. First, you have to get their attention.

        • Anthony

          No disagreement here Eurydice (and I’ve never been opposed to a swift kick, when and where appropriate). Still, I sense the current movement is largely about emotional well-being (students well-being that is) as it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche. Some forthright discussion relative to causes, affects, and institutional (not to mention social) harm, I want to believe, can only benefit. Educators have forgotten that old maxim: “don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think.”

          • Peter Henderson

            Educators have not ‘forgotten’ it, rather the left sees education as a means to political change. The “new socialist (wo)man” must be re-programmed. What to think is more important to them than how to think. In the education field the thought-reform agenda is not seen as particularly radical. All sorts of people you wouldn’t expect subscribe to it. “Education” is really a non-subject and should be defunded, like its big sister “Psychology.” In a hundred years psychology has discovered nothing but a collection of truisms and tautologies.

          • Anthony

            Big country (320 million) and many interpretations (opinions).

  • Andrew Allison

    Is it really necessary to point out that these children will continue to escalate their misbehavior until they’re spanked, HARD.

  • The only thing that will stop this fascistic activity from continuing/spreading is if the people in positions of authority act like people in positions of authority and enforce order on the campus. If you’re a student and you prevent a duly authorized speaker from speaking, then you get expelled without recourse; if you’re not a student, then you get banned from the campus under threat of a trespassing conviction if you return. Mouthing platitudes about the importance of free speech and the respectful exchange of ideas and information or, even worse, doing nothing will only encourage the brownshirts.

    • Johanna Roberts

      Doing nothing, not only encourages brownshirts, it is cowardly, and to my way of thinking, ignorant.

    • Peter Henderson

      I object to the continued use of the word ‘fascistic’ which gives fascism an undeservedly bad name. These students are on the left and view real fascists as their enemies and vice versa. The Communist movement, though popular with the parents of today’s neoconservatives, was just as violent and terrorist as the fascists; in fact, the fascists arose largely as a last-ditch attempt to thwart the Communist drive for control. The word ‘authoritarian’ would be more accurate.

      • David Miller

        Horseshoe Theory. Go far enough to the left or right and you eventually arrive at authoritarian oppression. Each will have a different reason but ultimately they want to be able to tell others how to live their lives under the threat of force if they refuse to do so. The Middlebury protesters are just the latest in a long line of anti-intellectualism that surfaces in supporters of authoritarianism.

        • Peter Henderson

          I don’t agree with your horse-shoe theory. btw the left is highly intellectual, less so the right. I don’t regard all forms of authoritarianism as equally bad. Fascism protected the Church and persecuted Communists. I think that’s great, since the alternative is to let the Communists destroy the church and family and make animals of us. Too simple to think all authoritarian ideas are equally bad. Most fascism is, like Trump, a desperate defense against the left.

  • Andrew Allison

    While the behavior of the children was despicable, the attempt by the President of the University to deflect blame to “outside agitators” was equally so. It was, and is, ultimately her responsibility to maintain order on campus. If she’s unwilling or unable to do so, she should find other employment.

    • Jim__L

      You know, if I were a Russian agent trying to destabilize America and erode our trust for our institutions and freedoms, going onto college campuses (in disguise) and exacerbating these tensions would be a pretty obvious step.

      • Andrew Allison

        Unhappily, that happened a generation ago when academia became “progressive”.

        • Jim__L

          Yeah, but putting boots (and masks) on the ground is another move to make the agitation worse.

  • Mark Hamilton

    “The letter closes by asserting that Murray’s presence on campus “directly endangers members of the community.””

    This is their excuse for violence. It’s the same thing with the Milo protests last month. They pretend they are the victims in danger and use it as an excuse to silence voices that they believe should not exist. If left unchecked, this sort of thing will eventually lead to people dying. Historically, it has lead to many, many people dying. Which leads me to my next point.

    “We’ll take students at their word about such subjective matters.”

    Why? They are not willing to take Murray at his.

  • Peter Henderson

    Someone should try to analyze the cause of this extreme behavior. It’s not a matter of academic standards. I went to college in the 1960s and leftists then were just as illiterate and obtuse if not more so. Chanting “Chairman Mao” alternating with “Off the pigs” (kill the police) and similar stuff while carrying clubs and Vietcong flags was not preceded by a deep study of Mao’s works.

  • SDN

    “They send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue!”

    Only rules the Left understands.

    https://youtu.be/3qQ17UnJk_Y

    • Peter Henderson

      The larger fight is to destroy the Trump presidency and get into a state of permanent war with Russia. That fight is fought with lawyers and leakers, and Trump needs to get tough with whoever is undermining him from within. I don’t completely trust Priebus, Kutscher, Pence, or De Vos. He needs a J. Edgar Hoover.

  • ExNavyDoc

    “People of Color”. Why do leftists use such stilted language? Just say “colored people” or “the coloreds”. It was good enough for my granma 50 years ago…

  • COLRET

    These protestors are cowards. I would not hesitate to put my hands on martial training to defend myself. If you are a conservative, you must attend with those who can, as a group, push these brown shirters away. Fight back. Obey the law but you are allowed to use fire arms in most states if you are threatened with death. They want a war. I say give them what they want. I’m tired of “listening.” I will defend my rights if the local police are too scared to do so. I won’t seek violence, but I won’t turn my backs to these vermin either.

    • Makaden

      Hold your fire, soldier. Do not underestimate the power of video in exposing the bankruptcy of a movement. This is the start of an implosion, let the process play out, let gravity do its work. You will save your soul in the process. MLK taught us that.

  • ELC

    “If college students are not internalizing the need to engage primary sources, what exactly are they learning in their undergraduate years?” How to shut down people that their leaders tell them are evil.

  • Chris

    The administrators at Middlebury are cowards. These people are the enablers of the new fascist movement. They are not “intellectuals”, they are weak-minded promoters of exactly what they claim to be against. Hypocrites is too kind a description.

    • Peter Henderson

      The left, and parts of the right, subscribe to cost-benefit morality and think it’s really clever to put hypocrisy to work. They are indeed intellectuals, as were most of the modern era’s worst tyrants. They have the strong minds. We have the weak minds, since we think pointing out their hypocrisy will somehow stop them. Read “The Spider and the Fly” by Don Marquis.

  • submandave

    I recommend you change your headline. “Protesters” do not use the heckler’s veto and certainly don’t beat people and send them to the emergency room. During the Civil Rights era, it was the bad guys beating up people just trying to speak their mind. CLUE STICK: It still it.

    • Peter Henderson

      How do you define “the Civil Rights era”? There was a lot of violent protesting in the sixties. A Harvard dean was carried to the river Charles and thrown in. The Black Panthers had gun battles with police. Urban riots and campus riots were violent on both sides. Student radicals killed police and blew up a building at U of Wisconsin killing a young professor. Etc.

      • submandave

        And I don’t categorize any of the violence you cite as “protest” either. Neither were the Minute Men at Lexington and Concord “protesters,” they were an armed resistance. FWIW, many of the examples you provided didn’t consider themselves to be “protest” as much as “revolution.”

        The lunch counter sit-ins, the bus boycott, the marches from Selma to Montgomery, these were principled protests with specific grievances and goals and accomplished much more real positive change than anything you mentioned

        • Peter Henderson

          There were idealistic protesters such as you describe; nonetheless, the Civil Rights movement was funded by rich white radicals just as BLM is today and had a fair number of Communists in the ranks hoping to use the movement for their own purposes. Rosa Parks trained at a white-run camp for her media moment for which journalists had been notified and prepped. Having lived through that era I saw the radicals gradually gain control over the non-violent types and by the end of his life, MLK was speeding leftward in an effort to hang on to leadership, giving speeches on Vietnam and urging us to get along with the Vietcong. btw people who talk about ISIS beheadings should know that the Vietcong beheaded hundreds of local leaders who refused to follow them. Bolsheviks, French Resistance, Spanish Republicans, were all into beheading civilians. It’s only bad when Muslims do it.

          • Tom

            “Contriving to have violence occur is itself a pretty violent strategy.”

            Call me crazy, but if you can provoke violence just by protesting, that’s a sign that the system needs changing.

          • Peter Henderson

            Demonstrations by both ‘left’ and ‘right’ frequently provoke violence. A pro-Trump demonstration In San Francisco predictably caused violence the other day. Milo Y’s attempt to give a talk caused violence. Nazi marches in Illinois caused violence. Antiwar marches caused violence. What is your point? Ok, “the system needs changing.” But it is human nature to get angry and violent, even about soccer games.

          • Tom

            “Contriving to have violence occur is itself a pretty violent strategy.”

            Call me crazy, but if you can provoke violence just by protesting, that’s a sign that the system needs changing.

          • submandave

            Idealistic or not, it was MLK and SCLC that actually effected positive societal change, not the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, SLA, Nation of Islam, etc.

  • johngbarker

    I wonder when the burning of forbidden books will start.

  • Oxford Martyrs

    People who care about freedom in this country need to start going to these meetings with baseball bats.

  • Oxford Martyrs
  • Rick Johnson

    You are right to point out that academics and administrators need to take a hard look at the ideology many of them have been directly and passively incubating on campuses. This is the root cause of the problem. The Leftist crap taught at our universities for the past generation has infested not only the universities, but much of our political, media and opinion making class. The rot that has so firmly set in needs to be exposed and expunged.

  • ljgude

    I feel moved to publicly disclose that while I went to high school in Vermont, I am a New Hampshire man through and through. I crossed the sate line in 1956 only because the nearest high school teaching a full college preparatory curriculum was located on the ‘other’ side. Vermont has always been a place of violent rabble which is why King George III had to set the boundary between New Hampshire and Vermont at the WEST bank of the Connecticut River. As Robert Frost pointed out “Good fences make good neighbours.” And General Stark spoke for all of us in the Granite State when he said “Live free, or die.”

    • Peter Henderson

      Unfortunately New Hampshire is going the way of Vermont with all those “libertarian” weenies from NY and CT moving in and bringing their birkenstocks with them. File the rust off your pitchforks and drive the b*stards out!

  • Michael Berkowitz

    Although I agree with the thrust of the essay, I think the author makes a fundamental error in downplaying the incendiary nature of Murray’s writing. It isn’t necessary for Murray’s opinions to be within some consensus for him to be allowed to speak without fear of violence. It may be difficult to tell when inflammatory rhetoric leads to violence, but it isn’t hard to tell the difference between the two and to allow the one while forbidding the other.

    • Jim__L

      The problem with “incitement” or “incendiary writing” is that that is so very subjective. Some of these little snowflakes are primed to explode at the slightest breath of what they consider “crimethink”.

      • Michael Berkowitz

        I wasn’t interested in distinguishing between the “truly” incendiary and the thought-crime variety. I was pointing out that the author, by repeating that Murray’s theses were not all that bad, implied that had they been that bad there would have been a justification for silencing him. I think that’s wrong and weakens the very case the author is trying to make.

    • Jeff77450

      I respectfully disagree. If your standard was formally adopted by all then the extremists would likely respond with violence to literally *everything* that they disagree with. Judging by the events of the past couple of years the Left seems to engage in more bad behavior, of the kind demonstrated at Middlebury College, than the Right.

      • Michael Berkowitz

        I’m not sure what standard you’re referring to. My point is that speech, unless of the “yelling Fire!” variety, shouldn’t be prohibited. And if it leads to violence – something that’s hard to prove anyway – then we should simply deal with the violence per se. If you disagree with that please explain; I’d like to understand.

        • Jeff77450

          Perhaps I misunderstood you. In your original comment you seem to be saying that extreme rhetoric that is reasonably certain to lead to violence should not be allowed. The problem with that is that if the Right said, “Agreed. We’ll refrain from any speech that is likely to result in violence regardless of how sound our position/thesis is,” then the Left, having clearly demonstrated no inclination to be reasonable or fight “fair,” would respond to *all* speech that they disliked with violence, effectively ending free speech by the Right.

          • Michael Berkowitz

            I failed to make myself clear, then. My apologies. When I wrote “It may be difficult to tell when inflammatory rhetoric leads to violence, but it isn’t hard to tell the difference between the two and to allow the one while forbidding the other,” what I meant by “the two” was rhetoric on the one hand and violence on the other. I don’t think we should ban rhetoric, even on the fear that it will lead to violence. We can easily recognize actual violence, so it’s hard to confuse it with rhetoric. Of course actually calling on people to commit violence is, I assume, illegal independently.

  • Jeff77450

    If your cause is just then you shouldn’t have to cherry-pick facts, manipulate polls & statistics, suppress or shout-down your opponent or engage in violence to make your point and win the debate. The fact that the Left engages in so much of that speaks volumes about the soundness & legitimacy of their positions. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

  • Sharon Pederson

    No one was arrested? Why do we continue to nurture and coddle this aberrant behavior? We’re doing EVERYONE a disservice by allowing this and normalizing this behavior.

    To you stupid liberal college asshats all over the country: You know what free speech is you little overindulged punks?? It’s the right to be heard for ALL and to possibly engender some meaningful conversation about differing points of view. If your version of free speech is to shout down anyone who you don’t want to hear – you are doomed to failure and, sadly, so is the future of this country with you at the helm. You are an entire generation of spoiled brats – let’s see how “liberal” you are when you have to pay bills and support yourselves. We are looking at a wasted generation…

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service