pageok
pageok
pageok
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Chancellor on the Thuggery at the Tancredo Speech:

Jan Rybnicek passes along this e-mail sent to students, faculty, staff, and alumni by the UNC-Chapel HillChancellor:

Message from the Chancellor: Free Speech at Carolina (April 15, 2009)

Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:

I want to express how disappointed I am in what happened last night when former Congressman Tom Tancredo wasn't able to speak when a protest got out of hand, and our Department of Public Safety had to take action. Congressman Tancredo felt threatened and left without making his remarks.

Mr. Tancredo was scheduled to speak about immigration. We expect protests about controversial subjects at Carolina. That's part of our culture. But we also pride ourselves on being a place where all points of view can be expressed and heard. There's a way to protest that respects free speech and allows people with opposing views to be heard. Here that's often meant that groups protesting a speaker have displayed signs or banners, silently expressing their opinions while the speaker had his or her say. That didn't happen last night.

On behalf of our University community, I called Mr. Tancredo today to apologize for how he was treated. In addition, our Department of Public Safety is investigating this incident. They will pursue criminal charges if any are warranted. Our Division of Student Affairs is also investigating student involvement in the protest. If that investigation determines sufficient evidence, participating students could face Honor Court proceedings.

Carolina's tradition of free speech is a fundamental part of what has made this place special for more than 200 years. Let's recommit ourselves to that ideal.

Sincerely,

Holden Thorp

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Chancellor on the Thuggery at the Tancredo Speech:
  2. Thugs Suppressing Free Speech:
Constantin:
I'll look for the post indicating these thugs are being charged criminally and thrown out of school. Until then, I've seen this all before. Nothing ever happens.
4.16.2009 6:35pm
rosetta's stones:
Hear, hear, Chancellor!

I don't often have good things to say about academic types, but this statement is as good as it gets, from anybody. Well done, sir.
4.16.2009 6:40pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
One of those leading a chant outside was a professor, and I don't see the mentioned in the letter. Whether she was just chanting or doing more than that wasn't mentioned.
4.16.2009 6:45pm
hawkins:

I'll look for the post indicating these thugs are being charged criminally and thrown out of school.


Throwing them out of school seems a little harsh
4.16.2009 6:48pm
Oren:

Throwing them out of school seems a little harsh

Not for the ones that got violent, by any stretch of the imagination.
4.16.2009 6:59pm
cboldt (mail):
Sept 2006 - Students Disrupt Ashcroft Speech
Oct 2005: President of Log Cabin Republicans, had a pie thrown at him and a fire alarm pulled
.
The degree of publicity in the response by the Chancellor is commensurate with the amount of negative publicity associated with the disruption.
4.16.2009 7:01pm
pete (mail) (www):

Throwing them out of school seems a little harsh


No, throwing them out seems a little lenient. They used threats and vandalism to scare off a speaker, which is easily grounds for expulsion. Jail is an appropriate punishment for the vandal who broker the window and may be an appropriate punishment for several of the other thugs as well.

The university should invite him back and spend the money on security to make sure he is allowed to speak.
4.16.2009 7:03pm
hawkins:

Not for the ones that got violent, by any stretch of the imagination.


Perhaps. What sort of violence was there? If it was a first occurrence, I think it would normally take fairly egregious acts of violence for a school to kick a student out.
4.16.2009 7:03pm
hawkins:

No, throwing them out seems a little lenient. They used threats and vandalism to scare off a speaker, which is easily grounds for expulsion. Jail is an appropriate punishment for the vandal who broker the window and may be an appropriate punishment for several of the other thugs as well.

The university should invite him back and spend the money on security to make sure he is allowed to speak.


I agree with most of this. I just dont think vandalism normally gets kids kicked out of college.
4.16.2009 7:04pm
Redman:
Speakers with conservative points of view have been muzzled on college campuses for years and nothing has been done by school administrators to change the environment of hate which is the seed bed for the behavior.

Tancredo was silenced. Mission accomplished.

The 'apology' is a laugh riot.
4.16.2009 7:12pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
"Carolina's tradition of free speech is a fundamental part of what has made this place special for more than 200 years."

Is this true? Do the chancellor, trustees, and so on care about it? If so, then expelling the students who disrupted the speech is not harsh. Remember, it's not just that they threatened or even showed disrespect to the teacher - they made the unilateral decision for their fellow students that those students could not hear Tancredo speak. For that alone, they need to go. In my opinion.
4.16.2009 7:26pm
Laura(southernxyl) (mail) (www):
"disrespect to the teacher" = "disrespect to the speaker". Don't know how that happened.
4.16.2009 7:27pm
cboldt (mail):
-- The university should invite him back and spend the money on security to make sure he is allowed to speak. --
.
In the adult world, in civil litigation, the losing defendant pays the damages. Sue the little pricks who held up the speech, and obtain a money judgement against them to pay for the lost opportunity (travel, etc.) as well as the physical damage.
.
In the university world, the "offending" student will be tutored on how to avoid detection, and failing that, how to avoid the judgement via legal means. But I'd at least put them through the legal process. The Chancellor's letter is a farce, forced to be issued on account of the negative publicity, he would NOT have issued such a letter if the incident was not so widely known. Utterly void of belief in the principle stated in the letter.
4.16.2009 7:30pm
David Walser:
Good on him! Compared with the press releases of many campus leaders in similar situations, the letter from the UNC-Chapel Hill Chancellor clearly states it was wrong to silence Tancredo. It'll be even better if the University's actions match the vigor of the Chancellor's letter.

Too many times in the past, university officials have sought to downplay attempts to silence speakers; worse, many times university officials have lauded such actions. In this case, the Chancellor clearly states what happened was wrong without any equivocation. He also points out the proper way to object to what a speaker might have to say. By comparison with prior examples, UNC-Chapel Hill should be proud of its Chancellor.
4.16.2009 7:51pm
Splunge:
Not only that, but if they -- the miscreant students -- don't apologize, he (the Chancellor) reserves the right to criticize them a second time.

Or possibly ask for a UN Resolution condemning them...
4.16.2009 8:04pm
Borealis (mail):
The University appears to realize how shutting down ideas is the antithesis of a University. Every time a speaker gets shouted down or forced to not speak, a real University will make sure the speaker gets to voice his ideas.

For some reason, there has developed on campuses an idea that a University is a place where students need to be protected from politically incorrect ideas.
4.16.2009 8:12pm
Kent G. Budge (www):

We expect protests about controversial subjects at Carolina. That's part of our culture.


I think that's the problem right there.
4.16.2009 8:28pm
DangerMouse:
The 'apology' is a laugh riot.

You got that right. When has a left-wing protester who shut down a conservative speaker at a college ever been punished? When has a college ever spent money on its own dime to re-invite speakers who were disrupted?

This is a farce. Unless those protesters are punished, and the speaker re-invited back paid for by the college, then it's a complete sham.
4.16.2009 9:18pm
cognitis:
Tancredo sells himself as a divisive and odious clown whom some influential actors use to provoke and incite the vulgar, so UNC administration in permitting Tancredo a forum were cognizant of possible violent protests. Unlike Tancredo, rational and moderate scholars like Chris Hedges have been heckled by self-professed "conservatives"; and Norman Finklestein has been weirdly denied tenure having first been granted it, after a rabid, divisive, and odious Dershowitz influenced weirdly the Dean's office into suppressing the grantors. Administrations have a responsibility to repel odious and divisive speakers, audiences have a right to boo lousy comedians, students have a right to heckle idiots, and UNC protestors have a right to eject an odious divisive clown.
4.16.2009 9:33pm
Borealis (mail):
There is a sense in many groups at most Universities that it is a noble thing to keep an opposing view from being heard. If Universities taught true classic liberal thought, such as true free speech, then students would realize how ridiculous that idea would be. Instead Universities teach politically correct thought, including the concept to be tolerant to everyone except those that disagree with PC thought.
4.16.2009 9:41pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
Ah, divisive and odious. Can't have any of that. And weird influence on deans should certainly be stopped too. I hadn't known it had come to that. Carry on, then. Repel the odious, bless you for your good work.
4.16.2009 10:16pm
UNC Law Student:
Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion... the UNC-CH is apparently gearing up to protest Mukasey's forthcoming commencement speech.
4.16.2009 10:31pm
UNC Law Student:
*the UNC-CH community
4.16.2009 10:32pm
Houston Lawyer:
Shutting down a conservative speaker has been shown to be a risk-free enterprise. However, impolitely expressing a conservative view can often lead to a star chamber like hearing at a university.

I won't be holding my breath waiting on any investigation or hearing in this case. Forty lashes with a wet noodle.

Why is security never timely called. These "protests" don't happen in a vacuum.
4.16.2009 10:41pm
Dave Ruddell (mail):
I was a TA for Prof. Thorp about 10 years ago. He's a really good guy, and I'm glad he seems to be taking a solid pro-free speech stand on this. For those of you not familiar with UNC, the Honor Court is completely student run, so if there's charges, Thorp won't have any part in deciding what happens to the students.*


*(Thorp could file a complaint with the Student AG, who can refer the matter to the Honor Court. In addition, the Honor Court can suspend a student, but can only recommend expulsion, which is up to the chancellor)
4.17.2009 12:21am
BGates:
cognitis, on what topics may subjects of the state express disagreement with Your Lordship and the thugs at UNC?

Perhaps Tancredo could avoid this sort of problem by communicating in another format. Distributing pamphlets, for instance. It strikes me that people who think like congnitis often don't go in for reading, and I can't imagine he'd approve of burning written material, on account of the carbon emissions.
4.17.2009 1:34am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Perhaps Tancredo could avoid this sort of problem by communicating in another format. Distributing pamphlets, for instance. It strikes me that people who think like congnitis often don't go in for reading, and I can't imagine he'd approve of burning written material, on account of the carbon emissions.
No, but a common tactic of the campus left is to steal conservative publications and throw them out, so people can't read them.
4.17.2009 1:55am
Chris Roberts (mail):
"rational and moderate scholars like Chris Hedges have been heckled by self-professed 'conservatives'" - cognitis

The "rational and moderate" Chris Hedges spoke at Rockford College's commencement ceremony and told the young graduates that we 'deserved to lose the Vietnam War' and that 'we were a better nation for our defeat there.' He injected his left-wing, anti-American rant into one of the most important moments of a young person's life.

Tom Tancredo's speech was at an entirely optional event.
4.17.2009 2:07am
Random Commenter:
"UNC protestors have a right to eject an odious divisive clown."

It might be a good idea to take a deep breath and reconsider the philosophy you're advocating here. It's extremely illiberal and pretty bloody rude to those around you who don't have an allergy to ideas.
4.17.2009 2:13am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
I think cognitis--who needs a different handle if I get the root of the word--presumes the thugs will always be on his side.
That's what the Germans thought about the nattily-uniformed street fighters the Nazis put out in the early Thirties.
Get those unionists, those profiteers, those Jews, those bohemians. You're on our side, right?
Right?
If cognitis has any sense of reality, he'll figure out that allowing for thugs won't give him much of a leg to stand on when the other side recruits the football team. Neither leg to stand on, probably.
Big "if".
4.17.2009 8:13am
Harry Eagar (mail):
Hawkins sez: 'I just dont think vandalism normally gets kids kicked out of college.'

It did at my college, which was part of the UNC system, but that was over 40 years ago. I don't know what recent practice has been.
4.17.2009 8:24am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
chris roberts:

The "rational and moderate" Chris Hedges spoke at Rockford College's commencement ceremony and told the young graduates that we 'deserved to lose the Vietnam War' and that 'we were a better nation for our defeat there.'


Really? The speech is here. The words you presented as quotes from his speech are not quotes from his speech, and they are not even accurate paraphrases. And his speech was disrupted by hecklers before he even mentioned Vietnam. So your claim is bogus.

He injected his left-wing, anti-American rant into one of the most important moments of a young person's life.


He was invited to speak. Why are you defending the people who attempted to prevent him from doing so? You're making it obvious that you're in favor of free speech, but only when it's speech you like.
4.17.2009 8:55am
Sigerson:
"the Honor Court is completely student run, so if there's charges, Thorp won't have any part in deciding what happens to the students"
That's the problem. There are no adults in charge.
4.17.2009 10:13am
Cornellian (mail):
Speakers with conservative points of view have been muzzled on college campuses for years . . .

If those kids had any brains they'd have let Tancredo speak. In doing so, they would not only have been adhering to an admirable principle, they would have helped to ensure that the public continues to associate Mr. Tancredo with the "conservative point of view" on immigration.
4.17.2009 10:16am
sbron:
Tancredo could not have gotten better publicity for the cause of immigration restriction than the UNC protests. His speech would have been ignored by the media except for the protest. Libertarians might want to ponder the fact that they are on the same side of the immigration issue as the UNC thugs.
4.17.2009 10:22am
wfjag:

In addition, our Department of Public Safety is investigating this incident. They will pursue criminal charges if any are warranted. Our Division of Student Affairs is also investigating student involvement in the protest. If that investigation determines sufficient evidence, participating students could face Honor Court proceedings.

The incident was an obvious example of Right Wing Extremists that DHS warned us about. "Round up the usual suspects."
4.17.2009 10:36am
WUSTL 1L:
As an undergrad at UCLA and someone who was the negotiator between students and administrators on several occasions of the campus' recent history, this is an appropriate response from the school. If there is evidence of exactly who broke the window or did further acts (possibly in the hallway) they should be punished and expelled from the university.

You can't punish the people with the banner, as the chancellor even said in his e-mail, that is an accepted form of peaceful disruption on campus. I don't think it should be, but that's the norm for student group disruptions apparently.

As for the shouting and professor protesting outside, do you really want to punish their speech of peacefully causing a raucous and silencing someone else's speech? Seems a bit convoluted to me, especially if that location may be the designated speech zone on campus. Now if it wasn't the speech zone (it is next to an academic building), then they can probably get a minor infraction. I would hope; you don't want protesters disrupting classes and research.

Lastly, bring him back on the university's dime? In this economy? So close down a research project, or student support program (hurting every student), because of the disruption of a few overzealous wackos? That's just vindictive. No university should do that, it would be a horrible waste of money. This is a school, tensions run high. People of conflicting views are meant to run into each other.
4.17.2009 10:47am
sbron:
I would also like to point out that Tancredo's "divisiveness" consists of demanding enforcement of existing immigration law. I wish I could understand how the government decides which laws should be enforced and which should not. I was not aware that the executive branch has the authority to pick and choose which laws it feels are "just".
4.17.2009 10:54am
hawkins:

I was not aware that the executive branch has the authority to pick and choose which laws it feels are "just".


Law enforcement and prosecutors always have discretion in enforcing the law
4.17.2009 11:04am
OSU2L (mail):
Can anyone recall a story of a speaker on the left facing these sorts of "demonstrations"?? I sure cannot.
4.17.2009 11:09am
deathsinger:

jukeboxgrad,

The words you presented as quotes from his speech are not quotes from his speech, and they are not even accurate paraphrases.


From Chris Hedges speech,


Following our defeat in Vietnam we became a better nation.


Are you truly attempting to say that


'we were a better nation for our defeat there.'



is not an accurate paraphrase of the actual text? Really?
4.17.2009 11:18am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

Can anyone recall a story of a speaker on the left facing these sorts of "demonstrations"?? I sure cannot.
That's because totalitarianism is a fundamental part of leftist thinking. Read cognitis's absurdity above. When it comes to fanaticism and emotion, the left doesn't have a monopoly on it, but they certainly have a disproportionate share.


If those kids had any brains they'd have let Tancredo speak. In doing so, they would not only have been adhering to an admirable principle, they would have helped to ensure that the public continues to associate Mr. Tancredo with the "conservative point of view" on immigration.
A point of view, by the way, that not only do strong majorities of Republicans support, but even strong majorities of Democrats support.

Now, if we could just persuade our elected officials to listen to the people, instead of the corporate interests that like large populations of easily scared, poorly educated, unskilled laborers available to drive down wages of poorly educated, unskilled Americans.

If progressives actually cared about the poor, they would be joining with the majority in shutting off illegal immigration.
4.17.2009 11:27am
Clayton E. Cramer (mail) (www):

He was invited to speak. Why are you defending the people who attempted to prevent him from doing so? You're making it obvious that you're in favor of free speech, but only when it's speech you like.
Essence of modern liberalism (which is really fascism without the snappy uniforms).
4.17.2009 11:31am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
sbron:

I wish I could understand how the government decides which laws should be enforced and which should not. I was not aware that the executive branch has the authority to pick and choose which laws it feels are "just".


hawkins has answered you, but also pay attention to Eric Posner:

Prosecutors have enormous discretion; this is a fixture of American law


But maybe he was only talking about laws against torture. And/or laws broken by Republicans.

==============
OSU2L:

Can anyone recall a story of a speaker on the left facing these sorts of "demonstrations"?? I sure cannot.


Read this thread and pay attention to what's being said about someone named Hedges.

==============
deathsinger:

not an accurate paraphrase


Of course it's not an accurate paraphase. Consider the two statements again:

A) following our defeat in Vietnam we became a better nation

B) we were a better nation for our defeat there

B (especially without context) says that the defeat was inherently a good thing for us. A says that "following" the event, we figured out how to learn some things from it. And that meaning is obvious when you look at the statement in context:

This, Thucydides wrote, is what doomed Athenian democracy; Athens destroyed itself. For the instrument of empire is war and war is a poison, a poison which at times we must ingest just as a cancer patient must ingest a poison to survive. But if we do not understand the poison of war -- if we do not understand how deadly that poison is -- it can kill us just as surely as the disease.

We have lost touch with the essence of war. Following our defeat in Vietnam we became a better nation. We were humbled, even humiliated. We asked questions about ourselves we had not asked before.

We were forced to see ourselves as others saw us and the sight was not always a pretty one. We were forced to confront our own capacity for atrocity -- for evil -- and in this we understood not only war but more about ourselves. But that humility is gone.


And where did Hedges say "we 'deserved to lose the Vietnam War?' " And why are you eliding the fact that he was heckled before he even mentioned Vietnam? And why are you implicitly defending the people who heckled him?

==============
cramer:

Essence of modern liberalism


The people who tried to silence Hedges were liberals? I had no idea.
4.17.2009 12:10pm
geokstr:

jukeboxgrad:
He was invited to speak. Why are you defending the people who attempted to prevent him from doing so? You're making it obvious that you're in favor of free speech, but only when it's speech you like.

Wow JBG. You've managed to find an example of a lefty who was actually "heckled" at a university. Now I'm so totally convinced that colleges are places where both sides get treated equally badly.

Typical. Another example of phony moral equivalance; one mild case of right wing yahoos is equal to hundreds of cases of left wing thuggishness. Next you'll be telling us that university faculties and administrations are hotbeds of conservatism.

You're a big fan of cites for proving your case. Perhaps we should have a "dueling examples" competition. I'll find the cases of conservatives and/or Republicans who were verbally and even physically attacked, shouted down, uninvited after being invited, and otherwise prevented from speaking at universities, and you find the same about lefties.

Maybe we could have another competition where I find all the left wing protests at universities that have resulted in property damage, takeovers, school shutdowns, and class cancellations, and you find all the ones caused by the right.

On second thought, forget about it. It's not fair that I would have to do all the work copy/pasting hundreds of links into a comment here while you would only need to copy/paste a couple. Although my narrative would be a lot shorter, since I wouldn't need any spin.
4.17.2009 12:51pm
cboldt (mail):
-- You're a big fan of cites for proving your case. --
.
That's a feature, not a bug. One can learn quite a bit by reading the cites that JBG provides.
4.17.2009 12:55pm
deathsinger:
jukeboxgrad,

I recommend that you return to elementary school and take reading comprehension over.

I never defended anyone heckling the speaker.

I pointed out that the two statements:

A) following our defeat in Vietnam we became a better nation

B) we were a better nation for our defeat there

are very close and an accurate paraphrase. While A does not imply a cause and effect, Hedges following statements do imply cause and effect.

I never defended the earlier statement of "deserving to lose," because Hedges did not actually use words to that affect. Anyone who heard or read the speech could easily interpret it as Hedges believing that.

You'll note that I did not make the same accusations towards you in my initial statement. I mean I could have easily ripped you for defending cognitis contention that Hedges is a moderate (any self-proclaimed socialist is not a moderate). I didn't. I merely questioned how you did not consider "B" to be an accurate paraphrase of "A" considering the three to four sentences following "A".
4.17.2009 2:10pm
wfjag:
cognitis wrote:

rational and moderate scholars like Chris Hedges have been heckled by self-professed 'conservatives'

First, I hope you're not trying the "two wrongs make a right" type of argument.

Second, let's compare what happened to Hedges, who was speaking at a graduation, rather than at a speech the attendence at which was purely voluntary. From Fighting Words, When it comes to campus speakers, some students yield the floor, while others raise the roof, Columbia Magazine (Winter 2007):


It was against this backdrop that Hedges, a New York Times correspondent with much experience in war zones, opened his speech.

"I want to speak to you today," he began, "about war and empire."

For the next 18 minutes, Hedges spoke of the moral and political perils of occupation, of the inevitable bloodshed to come, and of the insidiousness of the seduction of war. Not surprisingly, many in the crowd became agitated by Hedges's words. Some stood and turned their backs, while others shouted, booed, blew foghorns, and erupted into chants of "USA! USA!" On two occasions, Hedges's microphone was unplugged, prompting Rockford College President Paul Pribbenow to get up and make a brief speech on the importance of academic freedom. When Hedges, under a barrage of heckling, drew his remarks to an early close, several students climbed up onto the stage to confront him. The students were quickly escorted away, and Hedges, who had planned to stay for the entire ceremony, was hustled from the grounds by campus security.

So, Hedges was allowed to speak, the College President spoke to the students and others there on behalf of Hedges, and those who rushed the stage to confront him were lead away by College security. Tancredo was not allowed to speak, not provided security, the people who rushed the stage to confront him were not lead away, but, the next day he got a call from the Chancellor offering an apology. The differences in the responses to the "heckling" are substantial.
4.17.2009 2:12pm
Chris Roberts:
The speech is here. The words you presented as quotes from his speech are not quotes from his speech, and they are not even accurate paraphrases.

Funny that you manage to find the text of the actual speech but don't bother to post the relevant sentence on Vietnam. I couldn't find the text last night, so I wrote an almost exact quote from what he said to Bill Moyers.

And his speech was disrupted by hecklers before he even mentioned Vietnam. So your claim is bogus.

He read his speech straight from his script, so apparently his "hecklers" were wise in concluding beforehand that his commencement speech would be a left-wing rant.

Why are you defending the people who attempted to prevent him from doing so? You're making it obvious that you're in favor of free speech, but only when it's speech you like.

It is in extremely bad form to so politicize a person's commencement. Political figures give commencement speeches all the time, but most of them are wise enough to avoid controversial political topics. Moreover it wasn't just a slight to the graduates. This happened in 2003. The graduates would've been born late 70s/early 80s. It is quite probable that several of the fathers in the audience were Vietnam veterans.
4.17.2009 2:13pm
Chris Roberts:
The speech is here. The words you presented as quotes from his speech are not quotes from his speech, and they are not even accurate paraphrases.

Funny that you manage to find the text of the actual speech but don't bother to post the relevant sentence on Vietnam. I couldn't find the text last night, so I wrote an almost exact quote from what he said to Bill Moyers.

And his speech was disrupted by hecklers before he even mentioned Vietnam. So your claim is bogus.

He read his speech straight from his script, so apparently his "hecklers" were wise in concluding beforehand that his commencement speech would be a left-wing rant.

Why are you defending the people who attempted to prevent him from doing so? You're making it obvious that you're in favor of free speech, but only when it's speech you like.

It is in extremely bad form to so politicize a person's commencement. Political figures give commencement speeches all the time, but most of them are wise enough to avoid controversial political topics. Moreover it wasn't just a slight to the graduates. This happened in 2003. The graduates would've been born late 70s/early 80s. It is quite probable that several of the fathers in the audience were Vietnam veterans.
4.17.2009 2:13pm
Chris Roberts:
The video of Chris Hedges Rockford speech is available in its entirety on YouTube. This is not a matter of reconstructing the past from questionable news reports.
4.17.2009 2:25pm
Dave Ruddell (mail):

"the Honor Court is completely student run, so if there's charges, Thorp won't have any part in deciding what happens to the students"
That's the problem. There are no adults in charge.


Sigerson, I'm going to assume you made this comment out of non-malicious ignorance. When I was a grad student at UNC, I sat on the committee that oversaw the Honor Code. I can tell you that the members of the Honor Court are well-trained, dedicated, and highly aware of the responsibility that they have been entrusted with. Also, they are all adults, although perhaps you don't think 18 and older count (you have to be a student for at least one semester to be on the court).

Mind you, almost all cases that they see involve some sort of academic dishonesty. I'm not sure how they would treat something like this.
4.17.2009 3:18pm
geokstr:

cboldt:
-- You're a big fan of cites for proving your case. --
.
That's a feature, not a bug. One can learn quite a bit by reading the cites that JBG provides.

Oh please. I learn a lot from the cites, and sites, that everybody here links to. I often insert links myself. No one demands that others provide them like JBG though.

And now he's managed to find somebody on the left that I never heard of who was actually "heckled". Golly gee.

That pretty much every big name on the opposite team has suffered much greater indignities than that on university campuses to the applause of the MSM is apparently of minor concern after that horrendous treatment of whatshisname.
4.17.2009 5:51pm
cboldt (mail):
-- No one demands that others provide them like JBG though. --
.
I agree. I tangled up with him on a set of Palin contentions he was making, and on reading the cites, concluded that JBG is a disingenuous hack. Others might reach a similar (perhaps less "heated") conclusion by reading his cites and comparing them to his representations of them.
.
Now when I read what he posts, I assume that the truth is opposite his summary. I'm sure that approach won't yield perfect accuracy, but it's close enough given the stakes.
4.17.2009 6:39pm
Visitor Again:
Can anyone recall a story of a speaker on the left facing these sorts of "demonstrations"?? I sure cannot.

I went to college/university in the early Sixties. Back then the right-wingers were in charge, and they flatly banned leftists from delivering a speech on college and university campuses and even banned student groups from sponsoring such speakers off campus on pain of losing their recognition if they did. Something about these speakers being Communists or dupes of Communists or persons who associated with known Communists and the like. Anyway, for a huge segment of speakers, things never were allowed to get to the heckling stage. Outright censorship was preferred.

These bans were largely repealed in the mid-Sixties, much to the dismay of the right. Once again the weak, defenseless and entirely incapable minds of our brightest young people were susceptible to dastardly forms of manipulation.
4.17.2009 10:56pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
geo:

You've managed to find an example of a lefty who was actually "heckled" at a university.


Not really. I haven't gone looking for examples, so it's not exactly right to claim that I managed to "find" an example. I'm only aware of the Hedges anecdote because it was mentioned in this thread.

Now I'm so totally convinced that colleges are places where both sides get treated equally badly.


I hope you and your little straw man are having lots of fun together. Maybe you can point out the place where I said that "colleges are places where both sides get treated equally badly." I have not made that claim, and I am not talking about Hedges to support that claim. I am talking about Hedges to respond to various people who are making statements like this:

Can anyone recall a story of a speaker on the left facing these sorts of "demonstrations"?? I sure cannot.


I notice that person hasn't bothered to explain why they asked that question even after Hedges was mentioned.

one mild case of right wing yahoos is equal to hundreds of cases of left wing thuggishness … university faculties and administrations are hotbeds of conservatism


I see that you and your little straw man are working up quite a frenzy. Maybe you should get a room.

As far as universities being "hotbeds" of liberalism or conservatism, that's an interesting subject. McCain did very well with whites who have no college (and not nearly as well with white college graduates). Obama had a big advantage among people with graduate degrees. I think there was a similar pattern in 2004.

So it looks like either college (and especially graduate school) turns people into liberals, or that liberals are more likely to go to college (and especially graduate school). I think it's hard to separate the chicken and the egg here.

I learn a lot from the cites, and sites, that everybody here links to. I often insert links myself. No one demands that others provide them like JBG though.


I challenge people to show proof when they make bogus claims without proof. Why shouldn't I do that?

==============
cboldt:

That's a feature, not a bug. One can learn quite a bit by reading the cites that JBG provides.


Thanks for the compliment. It's amazing to notice the number of people here who take the position that showing proof is somehow something to be mocked.

I tangled up with him on a set of Palin contentions he was making, and on reading the cites, concluded that JBG is a disingenuous hack


Speaking of making bogus claims without proof. Where is your proof that I'm "a disingenuous hack?" Here, I'll give you a search to help you narrow it down: site:volokh.com+palin+jukeboxgrad+cboldt.

==============
deathsinger:

I could have easily ripped you for defending cognitis contention that Hedges is a moderate


Except that I didn't defend "cognitis contention that Hedges is a moderate." I haven't made any claims about whether or not "Hedges is a moderate." I've simply pointed out what Hedges actually said in his speech.

I recommend that you return to elementary school and take reading comprehension over.


Since your reading comprehension is so good, hopefully you can point out where I defend "cognitis contention that Hedges is a moderate."

I merely questioned how you did not consider "B" to be an accurate paraphrase of "A" considering the three to four sentences following "A".


In my opinion, the three to four sentences following A show that A and B are quite different in meaning. I already explained this. If you have a different opinion, good for you.

==============
wfjag:

Hedges was allowed to speak


You have a curious notion of "allowed." The source you cited said he "drew his remarks to an early close." After his microphone was unplugged. Twice.

Tancredo was not allowed to speak


Hedges truncated his presentation because he was heckled. Tancredo truncated his presentation because he was heckled. There are various distinctions to be raised between the two situations, but it's bizarre to claim that one was "allowed" to speak and one was not.

==============
roberts:

I wrote an almost exact quote from what he said to Bill Moyers.


OK, here we go again. Of course you're not going to give us a link so we can see what he actually "said to Bill Moyers." I guess we're just to supposed to take your word for it.

apparently his "hecklers" were wise in concluding beforehand that his commencement speech would be a left-wing rant.


That's rich. So your position is not just that it's acceptable to heckle someone who says something you don't like. Your position is that it's OK to heckle them preemptively, before they even say it, based on your conclusion "beforehand" that they're going to say something you don't like. Nice! And this is why you characterize his hecklers as "wise."

It is quite probable that several of the fathers in the audience were Vietnam veterans.


And what were they fighting for, if not American freedoms, like the freedom to speak?

The video of Chris Hedges Rockford speech is available in its entirety on YouTube. This is not a matter of reconstructing the past from questionable news reports.


Why are you implying that I (or anyone else) has made any faulty claims based on "questionable news reports?" Who has done that?

And thanks for linking the video. It only supports what I've been saying. There is no fundamental difference between the thugs who attacked Hedges and the thugs who attacked Tancredo.

And Hedges was ahead of his time. He knew, and had the courage to say, in 2003, what most Americans figured out a few years later: invading Iraq was a mistake.
4.18.2009 9:41am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
juke managed to switch the topic to who quoted Hedges correctly, a meaningless issue.
First it was the thuggery at the college. Legit.
Then it was left vs. right speech interuppting. Legit for the original posting.
Then juke managed to figure out a way to keep the left from being even more embarrassed by changing topics.
Yet another reason to ignore him.
4.19.2009 4:47pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Then juke managed to figure out a way to keep the left from being even more embarrassed by changing topics.


As usual, it's not easy to decode your statements. But you seem to be saying that it's legitimate to discuss and criticize leftist thugs, but it's "changing topics" to make a comparison to rightist thugs. Because the latter simply don't exist, right? That was exactly the opinion expressed by a couple of people in this thread. Did I read you right?
4.19.2009 10:01pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.