Connect with us

Education

The real danger of quashing voices like Ben Shapiro’s on college campuses

Published

on

Why is it that so many colleges react negatively when a conservative speaker is booked to do an event on campus? It seems lately the words many college administrators dread the most are, “Young America’s Foundation has invited Ben Shapiro to speak on campus.”

It isn’t just Shapiro, but he’s conspicuous for two reasons. First, the unhinged hatred towards him is not congruous with his level of offense. Yes, he will offend people sometimes as the truth invariably does, but he’s not David Duke or Louis Farrakhan. Somehow, he’s able to stir up such positive and negative responses on college campuses that one might think President Trump himself was making an appearance.

The second reason he’s conspicuous is because his protesters don’t have valid reasons to protest him. They’re forced to pull from their own irrational fears of him that have been conjured up out of fiction. He’s a devout Jew, yet protesters call him Hitler. He’s adamantly opposed to authoritarianism, yet protesters call him a fascist. He’s one of the most targeted journalists in America by white supremacists, yet for some reason protesters seem to think he’s a white supremacist.

Gonzaga recently claimed their reason for not allowing Shapiro to speak on campus is because his speeches “routinely draw protests that include extremely divisive and hateful speech and behavior, which is offensive to many people.”

They weren’t accusing him of being offensive, which colleges often cite when rejecting speakers like Suzanne Venker or Milo Yiannopoulos. Instead, they were accusing him of drawing protests that were offensive. Let that sink in for a moment. Here’s a speaker that a good chunk of any college campus wants to hear and a bigger chunk needs to hear, but he’s being quashed because of the protests that rise up when he speaks. I’m not going to go into a long rant about mob rule. Either you see it in play here or you don’t.

Commentators, particularly conservative ones, often discuss how colleges have a problem with free speech. Colleges often counter by having “free speech zones” or their polar opposite, the much maligned “safe space.” They might hold free speech events before cancelling them over someone’s… speech. Hmm.

But here’s the problem with framing the issue in this way. First, it adds to confusion about what free speech is and isn’t. The 1st Amendment, which is the first thing that comes to mind when people invoke “free speech,” has very little to do with what’s happening on college campuses. Our Constitutional right to free speech is a protection against government suppressing speech for unlawful reasons. What’s happening on college campuses is different. Now, thanks to the ugly protests that have been following conservative speakers, private AND public colleges can invoke safety concerns whenever a heavily protested speaker is planning on coming to campus. The progressive puppetmasters have known this for decades. That’s why they spark the protests in the first place. It’s a dirty little secret the organizers of these protests will never mention. By allowing their protests to turn violent, they set the precedent by which universities can turn away controversial conservative speakers. It’s not spontaneous in most instances. It’s done by design.

The second reason we shouldn’t frame the issue as one about freedom of speech is because we can debate all day about it, but the best we can hope for is a logical victory that does nothing to change the situation. We shouldn’t allow the left to drive the narrative within the futile debate over free speech. Instead, we need to address the core issue, which is the systematic quashing of free thinking.

If you read the introduction page of any college in America, they all claim to nurture free thinking among their students, but this is absolutely false. They only nurture thoughts that align with their progressive agendas. Students are free to think whatever thoughts are approved of within these leftist echo chambers. Progressives are free to do or say their heart’s desires and their worldviews are reinforced by their treatment as students. Meanwhile, conservatives must persevere through their college experience with hopes they won’t succumb to the sustained festival of leftist indoctrination they’re forced to immerse themselves in while they work towards getting their degrees.

Freedom of thought is a nebulous concept because it’s often difficult to recognize attempts to suppress thought. We can easily recognize when the freedom of expression is being suppressed because it’s enforced through rules. However, suppressing freedom of thought is done through absence. Meteorology students aren’t told it’s against the rules to be skeptical of proposed methods to reverse man-made climate change. They’re simply never shown any research that runs contrary to the “settled science” that embraces Al Gore’s politics over actual scientific debate. Students are told that socialism can be effective if the greed of the elite can be eliminated, yet every failed attempt to institute socialism is categorized as a false attempt. This is why students leave college thinking that socialism has never been tried. Legitimate contradictions to Darwinian evolution are never discussed. Once again, it’s “settled science.” If ever a student brings up evidence that points to intelligent design, they’re either told that given enough time, nature can accomplish anything, or they’re fed the multiverse theory. Either way, the challenging evidence is dismissed as settled, debunked, and let’s get back to looking at chimp DNA.

The same process is applied to conservative speakers. Rather than allow the discussion, university administrators have grown so accustomed to controlling every aspect of their indoctrination centers that they’re preference is to prevent these thoughts from making an appearance at their schools. They are ill-prepared to win the debate, so they suppress the debate before it can occur. Even those that allow conservative speakers prepare their students for the unapproved thoughts they’re about to be exposed to.

When universities hamper or block conservative speakers, they’re not attacking freedom of speech. Their suppressing freedom of thought. Indoctrination is standard operating procedure at most universities today. The greatest threat to this status quo isn’t conservative speakers who might say something offensive. It’s that their students might hear something that actually makes them think.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

Advertisement

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Michael Dexter

    January 7, 2019 at 10:50 pm

    Romans 1:18-19 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    Unbelief and Its Consequences
    18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth [a]in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them.

    Footnotes:
    Romans 1:18 Or by
    Romans 1:19 Or among
    New American Standard Bible (NASB)
    Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

PragerU: Do college students support abortion or life?

Published

on

PragerU Do college students support abortion or life

Progressive indoctrination centers, better known as American universities, have been pushing students towards a leftist worldview for decades. One might start believing the mainstream media narrative that college students are overwhelmingly pro-abortion based solely on other things we’ve seen coming out of college campuses.

PragerU tackled the issue. While nothing in this video will shock anyone, it’s a good cross-section of perspectives that likely reflects what’s actually going on at universities like UCLA. Will Witt went there and found the standard answers on both sides of the board. While the majority were pro-abortion, two pro-life students were found. Their responses were clearly more thought through than the answers given by their pro-abortion counterparts.

This leads to my next article. I’m starting to believe that if people are given all the information about abortion, and more importantly about the life attributes of preborn babies, they’d be more willing to accept a pro-life perspective.

Of all the challenges facing America today, the abortion issue is the most directly tied to life and death, literally. A world without abortion can only be achieved when we’re willing to have the conversations with everyone regardless of their current stance.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Counterbalancing the fire-hose of Leftist propaganda

Published

on

By

Counterbalancing the fire-hose of Leftist propaganda

A study confirms the extreme bias of the national socialist media and what you can do about it.

A study just released from the MRC should only confirm what is already understood to be the case. The national socialist media is horribly biased against the pro-liberty right and the president in particular.

Since January 20, 2017, the Media Research Center has analyzed every moment of coverage of President Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts, seen by approximately 23 million people each night. Highlights:

The tone of coverage remains incessantly hostile: 90% negative, vs. just 10% positive (excluding neutral statements), matching the historically bad press we documented in 2017. Yet despite the media’s obvious disapproval, public opinion of the President actually improved slightly during 2018, from an average 40% approval on January 1 to 42.7% approval on December 31, according to RealClearPolitics.

[Our emphasis]

This is how the insanely biased Leftist media has a pernicious effect on our society. This explains how some actually think that the historical scam of socialism is a workable system of government. Or how there is a panic over the onset of Global Cooling.. Global Warming.. Climate Change to the point that we somehow need a ‘Green new deal’ of ideas that aren’t even ‘green’ or new. This is how it’s become acceptable in some circles to jettison basic civil rights because of some perceived ‘epidemic’ in ‘gun violence’.

Pushing back on the Overton window.

We are dealing with a phenomenon of once outrageous ideas becoming mainstream. Concepts that only a few years ago would have had people protesting in the streets are accepted with almost quiet resignation. This has been labelled the ‘Overton window’ where a constant drumbeat of Leftist lies and propaganda have altered the perception of acceptable policy agendas. This was exemplified in a recent article about the state of Oregon wanting to institute extremly strict laws on Liberty. The piece causally refereed to government control of private property almost in passing:

A bill that would increase firearm regulations in Oregon is a reminder that states have vastly different gun laws.

In Idaho, for example, you can purchase a gun from a private owner without going through a background check. In Oregon, background checks are required for all sales.

Never mind that practically everyone – Academia, Vox, even the director of Everytown – has admitted that Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, enhanced] will not have any value aside from setting up the nation for the next step to confiscation: Registration.

In the battle against the ever encroaching authoritarian Left, we need more voices instead of more regulation. Leftist media sources will continue to discredit themselves spewing narrowly focused propaganda. Some may wonder why they don’t talk about the treatment of ‘marginalized’ groups overseas or similar issues they consider to be critical in the states. The answer is simple, they have a specific focus and agenda that cannot be distracted by these and other problems. This is why it is critical that people have sources such as the NOQ report that don’t carry those agendas. This is why we desperately need your help.

The national socialist media will hopefully become less and less effective at selling the Left’s authoritarian agenda, but they are still able to sway the opinion of many. That is why is it critical that we have voices that act in opposition to its outrageous propaganda.

Continue Reading

Education

Heather Mac Donald sums up the silliness of college perspectives on diversity

Published

on

Heather Mac Donald sums up the silliness of college perspectives on diversity

From the beginning of this 3-minute video, Heather Mac Donald tears apart progressive dreams and leftist talking points with the skill of a word surgeon. She’s an attorney, but she’s much more than that.

Her take on the plague of university student perspectives on diversity is classic. Here’s her opening line to the question.

“They define it by the trivialities of gonads and melanin, and now the various gender identities that are being rapidly crafted by desperate students who are finding it’s getting harder and harder to be transgressive and get your own personal bureaucracy to cater to your delusions about being oppressed.”

It only gets better from there.

When Heather Mac Donald gets started, she’s an unstoppable force of clarity and an immovable object of common sense. Even Ben Shapiro could only drop the question and get out of the way as she went to work. What do colleges get wrong about diversity? Watch.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report