Connect with us

Education

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

Published

6 months ago

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.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
1 Comment

Education

Harvard rescinds admission for Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv

Published

1 day ago

on

June 17, 2019

By

Harvard rescinds admission for Parkland survivor Kyle Kashuv

Being accepted for admission into Harvard University takes excellent grades, top test scores, strong extra-curricular activities, and recommendations by influential people. Having that admission rescinded takes irresponsible Tweets by a 16-year-old.

That’s the case for Kyle Kashuv, a survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida. After being accepted to Harvard with plans on attending this fall, the person labeled by some on the left as the “Parkland provocateur” received a letter from the university rescinding his invitation to attend.

Did 16-year-old Kashuv make mistakes by being cultural insensitive, even outright racist? Yes. But as he pointed out in his Twitter thread, the posts he made were the mistakes of someone before experiencing the massacre of his classmates. Things are different, now. He’s different. Everyone at his school is different.

The message Harvard is sending is a belief that someone qualified to go to their school who receives public backlash for stupid actions when they were younger are irredeemable. What Kashuv did is likely no different or even less severe than many who are or will be attending Harvard. But the others weren’t at the scene of the infamous shooting. They weren’t brought into the spotlight where their pasts were scrutinized. Perhaps most importantly, they probably aren’t the type of common sense gun rights activists Kashuv is.

That last point, which rubbed so many progressives wrong since the shooting, is likely a contributing factor in Harvard’s decision.

In a follow up Tweet, Kashuv posted this:

So what now? I’m figuring it out. I had given up huge scholarships in order to go to Harvard, and the deadline for accepting other college offers has ended. I’m exploring all options at the moment.

For complete transparency, I’m not fan of Harvard’s. Perhaps it’s because I’m Asian; Harvard doesn’t like Asians.

It would be different if they never accepted him in the first place, but accepting him and then rescinding is poor form. He made mistakes. He has apologized. He has grown. Harvard should let him in.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Economy

Blue Collar Logic: Most young people have big dreams and no real work ethic

Published

2 days ago

on

June 16, 2019

By

Blue Collar Logic Most young people have big dreams and no real work ethic

If you want to know why this current generation of young people seem to be embracing the tenets of socialism, we need only to look in the mirror. Granted, not all of us in Generation X and our predecessors are directly to blame, but many have given our children so much prosperity through our own pursuit of the American dream, this new generation hasn’t acquired the work ethic to match their elevated tastes.

They want security and prosperity, but many are unwilling to do what it takes to achieve it on their own. They’re taking out student loans willfully, then turning around and embracing politicians who are offering to forgive the debt they accrued. They look at the bills they’re paying for healthcare and demanding that the rich people in this country make healthcare free for them. They hear promises of higher minimum wage and universal basic income and they think it will benefit them without forcing them to work harder for their lifestyle.

These are all clearly false notions, of course, but when powerful Democrats tell them these notions are true, many progressives hop on the socialism bandwagon because they now have justification for being lazy. It really does come down to that, being lazy.

The folks over at Blue Collar Logic put together another of their thought-provoking videos detailing these. One of the hosts, Jason, recounts experiences in his life that point to a reality of today’s misguided youth.

“How lazy have we become that so many Americans are willing to give the control of their life over to the state for the promise of security? Jason asked. “It’s terribly sad you’re living in the greatest country in the greatest time in history and you want to throw that away all because you just don’t want to work, and that’s a simple truth.”

If you want something badly enough, you work hard to get it. You take risks. You patiently build up your resources and abilities to achieve it. That’s the American dream. Socialism is the antithesis of that dream.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Education

University of Alabama returning big gift over interference, not abortion law

Published

1 week ago

on

June 9, 2019

By

University of Alabama returning big gift over interference not abortion law

The University of Alabama has been adamant about the reason they’re returning $21.5 million Hugh F. Culverhouse Jr., their biggest donor in school history. Despite reports that they’re returning it to show their support of the state’s new abortion law, the school has been clear from the start they’re returning the gift because of the donor’s actions.

“The action taken by the board today was a direct result of Mr. Culverhouse’s ongoing attempts to interfere in the operations of the Law School,” the university’s vice chancellor for communication, Kellee Reinhart, said in a statement to Fox News. “That was the only reason the Board voted to remove his name and return his money.”

Culverhouse encouraged boycotts at the school over the Alabama abortion law that would essentially eliminate abortions in the state if the judiciary doesn’t strike it down, which it almost certainly will. Following appeals, it will likely be considered by the Supreme Court.

While the board did not imply they supported the abortion ban, their willingness to pan such a large donation is a good indicator they don’t appreciate Culverhouse’s perspectives. He can keep his money.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading
Social Injustice
Subscribe by Email
Whatfinger

Facebook

NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Trending