<a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/08/30/controversial-author-speak-harvard/xkDvOZZSuTDRBScHlVL5PN/story.html">According to a report in the Boston Globe</a>, about American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray&#8217;s recent speech at Harvard, the notable economist was recently disinvited from an event at Massachusetts&#8217; Assumption College, after the school received threats of violence from Antifa.
Murray routinely faces backlash from &#8220;progressive&#8221; student groups for his research on developing economies, some of which leftists claim are evidence of Murray&#8217;s &#8220;white supremacy&#8221; &#8212; an interpretation Murray calls &#8220;uninformed&#8221; (though his speech to Harvard went off without incident).
But in this case, the American Enterprise Institute says, Assumption administration wasn&#8217;t so much concerned with Murray&#8217;s critical reception, but with an outside threat they received from black-clad &#8220;anti-fascists.&#8221;
&#8220;Spokespeople for both the American Enterprise Institute and Assumption College said the issue was not about Mr. Murray&#8217;s research &#8230; but over the small school&#8217;s ability to assure student and community safety given concerns expressed by state, local and campus law enforcement over outside groups that might attempt to disrupt the event and each other,&#8221; <a href="http://www.telegram.com/news/20170901/editorial-free-speech-and-specter-of-charlottesville">a local paper reported</a>.
Last year, Middlebury College, also a small school in Massachusetts, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/middlebury-college-charles-murray-bell-curve.html?mcubz=1">erupted in violence</a> during an event that featured Charles Murray. Students stormed into Murray&#8217;s speech, forced him off the stage, and sent the scholar and a Middlebury faculty member fleeing for safety. The faculty member was injured. The students involved were punished, but none were expelled.
Assumption, believing it couldn&#8217;t handle such a disruption, cowed to threats and cancelled the event altogether, proving that Antifa doesn&#8217;t even need to gear up to shut down speech.

Assumption College Disinvites Charles Murray After Antifa Threat

Charles Murray

The New York Times&#8217; Thomas Friedman called for immigration policy to prioritize &#8220;high-IQ risk takers&#8221; during a Tuesday appearance on CNBC&#8217;s Squawk Box.
Friedman was asked by CNBC&#8217;s Andrew Sorkin to comment on President Donald Trump&#8217;s rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy of the Obama administration.
Partial transcript below. Freidman stated:
<blockquote>
I go back to the original immigration compromise; the Group of Eight. We need a strategic immigration policy. By the way, I&#8217;d happily give Trump his wall. My view on immigration; I&#8217;m for a very high wall. I believe a country has to control its borders. I&#8217;m for a high wall with a big gate.
So assure Americans that you can control the border, and then have a rational immigration policy that can attract the high-IQ risk takers that have made this country &#8212; and Silicon Valley, in particular &#8212; what it is, and also the high-energy lower-skilled workers, and do it in a rational way.
We need a compromise.
</blockquote>
Watch Friedman&#8217;s comments below.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3C_vwxhpto8" width="854"></iframe></div>
Friedman did not comment on cultural or political criteria to be implemented in screening prospective immigrants seeking residency in America.
Neither Friedman nor Sorkin commented on disproportionate outcomes between varying demographic groups that would result from using IQ as a screening criteria within immigration policy.

Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

Bell Curve: NYT’s Friedman Calls For ‘High-IQ’ Immigrants

CNBC

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Illegal Immigration

Immigrants

Immigration

New York Times

Thomas Friedman

Professor Charles Murray was<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14060/anti-free-speech-protesters-shout-down-dr-charles-james-barrett"> targeted</a> by students in March when he spoke at Middlebury College, where they shouted during his lecture so he could not be heard, and followed by attacking Murray and Allison Stanger, a professor of international politics and economics at Middlebury. Stanger suffered a concussion in the scrum after the lecture; she had to wear a neck brace and spend a week in a dark room.
Now Murray notes that when he visits Harvard University on Thursday to discuss his new book, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission, he will have to be accompanied by police:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
This is sad: I will be unable to walk across Harvard Yard tomorrow, on paths I have walked thousands of times. Need a police escort.
&#8212; Charles Murray (@charlesmurray) <a href="https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/905251189520039937">September 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
Murray has been a target for the Left because of his famous book, <a href="https://www.aei.org/publication/bell-curve-20-years-later-qa-charles-murray/">The Bell Curve</a>, which references possible links between race and intelligence. Asked if he would change anything in The Bell Curve after the brouhaha it has created, Murray had a succinct answer:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Nada. <a href="https://t.co/4qX0OkRyIX">https://t.co/4qX0OkRyIX</a>
&#8212; Charles Murray (@charlesmurray) <a href="https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/905252462155759616">September 6, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
Murray&#8217;s Harvard speech will be hosted by the Harvard College Open Campus Initiative (HCOCI). Conor Healy, president and co-founder of HCOCI, told the <a href="v">Washington Free Beacon </a>the event will have &#8220;very intense security,&#8221; adding, &#8220;Unfortunately, there will be officers stationed around the building and there will be a mandatory baggage check. Also, the lecture is closed to only those with a Harvard ID.&#8221;
In late August, the Idaho Freedom Foundation was supposed to host Murray for its annual banquet at The Riverside Hotel in Garden City; the hotel <a href="http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article167886312.html">canceled</a> the banquet, citing security concerns, forcing the banquet to be relocated to Château des Fleurs, a French-themed event venue in Eagle.

PATHETIC: Charles Murray Says Police Will Have To Protect Him At Harvard

Harvard

The war on free speech being waged by Social Justice Warriors on college campuses across the country has been largely met with cowardice by faculty and administrators, who seem to believe the best way to handle fascistic, violence-prone bullies is coddling and retreat. So it&#8217;s heartening to see those who actually have a spine in higher education take a stand against the mob that is rapidly turning universities into the least free-thinking places in the country.
Six alumni of Middlebury College, who are also college faculty and administrators at other institutions, penned an <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/01/universities_should_be_safe_spaces_--_for_intellectual_diversity__134055.html">open letter</a> to their alma mater shaming it for failing to adequately defend free speech and outlining steps it can take to set a much-needed example for other colleges around the U.S.
Middlebury was the scene of one of the more reprehensible literal assaults on free speech in recent months: the leftist mob&#8217;s shutdown of a discussion featuring widely respected scholar Charles Murray, which devolved into violence and left Middlebury Professor Allison Stanger with a concussion (Stanger, by the way, went on to <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14396/professor-injured-middlebury-riot-over-charles-ben-shapiro">blame Donald Trump</a> for the students&#8217; violence). 
The Middlebury alumni say enough is enough. Here&#8217;s how the letter begins:
<blockquote>
As university professors and administrators, we are deeply concerned with escalating attacks on free speech and inquiry all across American higher education &#8211; and we believe that lessons of national import can be learned from the situation at our alma mater in Vermont. Middlebury College recently completed its public response to the physical intimidation and assault visited upon Charles Murray and Middlebury Professor Allison Stanger on March 2. Last week it issued a press release stating that 67 students had received sanctions &#8220;ranging from probation to official College discipline.&#8221; Middlebury also has appointed a special committee to &#8220;explore and discuss issues relating to&#8221; the incident.
This past semester featured episodes across the country of university and college students using physical intimidation to preempt or harass speakers; using similar tactics against professors who did not share their views on censoring speech; demanding control of faculty hiring to meet their demands for diversity; and demanding that regular disciplinary procedures to address all such extraordinary actions be suspended. The most recent incidents occurred at <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/10/protest-over-speakers-views-race-and-crime-prevents-event-taking-place-planned">UCLA and </a><a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/10/protest-over-speakers-views-race-and-crime-prevents-event-taking-place-planned">Claremont</a><a href="http://claremontindependent.com/pomona-student-senate-backs-efforts-to-shut-down-free-speech-fire-professor/">McKenna</a> College, <a href="https://itsgoingdown.org/bloomington-professors-office-sabotaged-murray-talk/">Indiana University</a>, <a href="http://claremontindependent.com/rebuffed-after-seeking-professors-firing-students-try-boycott-new-demands/">Pomona</a> College, and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/26/professor-told-hes-not-safe-on-campus-after-college-protests-at-evergreen-state-university-washington/?utm_term=.d745d84f148e">Evergreen State College</a>. Because this educational crisis has spread to so many American campuses, we think Middlebury&#8217;s leaders have a responsibility to do more.
</blockquote>
Noting that they are &#8220;grateful alumni&#8221; of Middlebury and &#8220;hold diverse political views and teach at varied institutions,&#8221; the professors underscore that &#8220;robust debate and diverse inquiry are essential to the search for truth.&#8221; But, sadly, they write, the college has &#8220;failed to seize an opportunity to firmly defend these foundational principles,&#8221; which is more important than ever &#8220;because students nationwide are rejecting freedom of expression and embracing a new version of the heckler&#8217;s veto.&#8221;
<blockquote>
Middlebury&#8217;s response thus far is simply insufficient to address the current threats to higher education, free expression, and reasoned discourse. When The Wall Street Journal published a statement &#8211; signed by over 100 faculty members at Middlebury &#8211; defending these core principles, 151 Middlebury students issued a point-by-point response. Their response demonstrates that they, like many students nationwide, equate Murray&#8217;s speech with violence, and think a belligerent response was justified. Murray had no right to speak, they contend, because &#8220;[o]ppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence.&#8221; And the students&#8217; own actions preventing Murray from speaking, they said, actually &#8220;defend[ed] the integrity of reasoned and civil discourse.&#8221;
This view is self-evidently wrong. Shouting down a speaker &#8211; to say nothing of setting off fire alarms or committing assault &#8211; is not &#8220;defending&#8221; reasoned discourse. The appropriate response to Murray&#8217;s lecture event, which by design featured his commitment to take questions and hear objections, would be an argument in kind. A special place for such important exchanges of views used to be known as a college or university.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
This view is self-evidently wrong. Shouting down a speaker &#8211; to say nothing of setting off fire alarms or committing assault &#8211; is not &#8220;defending&#8221; reasoned discourse.

</blockquote>
The professors go on to list four steps Middlebury should take to demonstrate that it &#8220;fully embraces free intellectual inquiry and the welcoming of diverse views on the campus&#8221;: 1) provide the public &#8220;a more informative summary of the judicial decisions and actions it has taken&#8221;; 2) provide a more &#8220;balanced representation&#8221; in its committee addressing free speech issues; 3) &#8220;organize a speaker series in 2017-18 on freedom of speech and intellectual diversity&#8221; that actually allows for diversity of thought; and 4) finally &#8220;endorse the Report of the Committee on Free Expression issued by the University of Chicago in 2015, as many other educational institutions have done.&#8221;
<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/01/universities_should_be_safe_spaces_--_for_intellectual_diversity__134055.html">Read the full open letter here</a>.
Below are the six Middlebury alumni who wrote the ardent defense of free speech, for which, particularly in today&#8217;s campus climate, they deserve praise:
Christopher F. D&#8217;Elia &#8216;68 
Professor and Dean, College of the Coast and Environment 
Louisiana State University
Richard Eldridge &#8216;75 
Charles and Harriett Cox McDowell Professor of Philosophy 
Swarthmore College
Peter Minowitz &#8216;76 
Professor of Political Science 
Santa Clara University
Suzanna Sherry &#8217;76 
Herman O. Loewenstein Professor of Law 
Vanderbilt University
James R. Stoner Jr. &#8216;77 
Hermann Moyse Jr. Professor &amp; Director of the Eric Voegelin Institute 
Department of Political Science 
Louisiana State University
Paul O. Carrese &#8216;89 
Director and Professor, School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership 
Arizona State University

Professors Rip Their Alma Mater For Failing To Defend Free Speech

Education

Free Speech

Middlebury College

Political Correctness

Social Justice

You would think that students who physically attacked and injured a professor, <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14396/professor-injured-middlebury-riot-over-charles-ben-shapiro">leaving her in a neck brace</a>, would have to face punishment more severe than merely being chastised verbally or in writing, but that&#8217;s not the case at Middlebury College in Vermont.
On March 2, <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14060/anti-free-speech-protesters-shout-down-dr-charles-james-barrett">hundreds of protesters</a> railed against libertarian political scientist Dr. Charles Murray, who was unable to deliver his lecture as planned. After the event, protesters surrounded the vehicle containing Murray and Allison Stanger, a professor of international politics and economics at Middlebury;
As Stanger wrote in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/opinion/understanding-the-angry-mob-that-gave-me-a-concussion.html">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>
Most of the hatred was focused on Dr. Murray, but when I took his right arm to shield him and to make sure we stayed together, the crowd turned on me. Someone pulled my hair, while others were shoving me. I feared for my life. Once we got into the car, protesters climbed on it, hitting the windows and rocking the vehicle whenever we stopped to avoid harming them. I am still wearing a neck brace, and spent a week in a dark room to recover from a concussion caused by the whiplash.
</blockquote>
So what was the upshot of the violence for the protesters? Try this:
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Speaker shouted down. Professor seriously injured. Middlebury says &#8220;Naughty naughty&#8221; to 41 students. Writes it down for 26 others. <a href="https://t.co/Vy9vBqlkUO">pic.twitter.com/Vy9vBqlkUO</a>
&#8212; Charles Murray (@charlesmurray) <a href="https://twitter.com/charlesmurray/status/867344013770280960">May 24, 2017</a></blockquote>
</div>
It&#8217;s revolting that a university would only issue a slap on the wrist, (and a verbal or written one at that) for students who participate in violent acts.

Remember When Middlebury College Students Assaulted A Professor? None Of Them Are Being Punished.

Administrators at Middlebury College <a href="http://middleburycampus.com/35221/news/college-begins-discipline-of-murray-protestors/">announced</a> that as of April 17, it had disciplined more than 70 students in connection with the fascistic <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14060/anti-free-speech-protesters-shout-down-dr-charles-james-barrett">protest</a> against Dr. Charles Murray on March 2. The Middlebury Campus newspaper reported that out of the 70+ students who faced discipline, only about 30 accepted the sanctions. The process remains in progress.
The students were identified through video footage and photographs; they had to meet with either Karen Guttentag or Brian Lind, who serve as associate deans of student life and judicial affairs. The range of punishments varied from probation letters that were placed in their file that would be removed as long as they stayed out of trouble, to having their actions documented into their permanent record in the Office of Student Affairs that would stick with them for the rest of their lives. Here is how The Middlebury Campus described who got &#8220;unofficial punishment,&#8221; or a simple probation letter, and &#8220;official punishment&#8221;:
<blockquote>
According to multiple students, the College has given unofficial punishment to students who participated in the protest prior to the live stream of the conversation held between Murray and Russell J. Leng &#8216;60 Professor of International Politics and Economics Allison Stanger. Students were told that those who continued to protest during the live stream in Wilson Hall may receive official college discipline. As of April 25, it is unclear whether or not any students have received official college discipline. Those investigations, as well as investigations into the protest prior to the start of the live stream, are ongoing.
</blockquote>
In other words, the students who participated in the protest that disrupted the actual conversation with Dr. Murray and subsequently attacked the moderator Professor Allison Sanger got details of their unacceptable actions placed in their permanent record. As of now, there are no suspensions or expulsions; the number of those who got &#8220;unofficial punishment&#8221; and those who got &#8220;official punishment&#8221; remain unknown.
Given the violent and illiberal nature of the protest as well as the blatant violations of the Student Handbook, it seems that Middlebury&#8217;s administration is trying not to impose harsher penalties on those who acted atrociously. Nevertheless, some students thought the punishments were outrageous, accusing the administrators of &#8220;stifling students&#8217; ability to express themselves.&#8221;
These arrogant kids will never learn.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>

Middlebury College Disciplined Charles Murray Protesters. Some Of The Punishments Were Weak Tea.

Protest

&#8220;The new upper class holds ordinary Americans in contempt and disdain,&#8221; said Charles Murray in a recent interview with Sam Harris. &#8220;They&#8217;re not even hiding it, anymore.&#8221;
 
Against the backdrop of his most recent book, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-State-America-1960-2010/dp/030745343X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1493653643&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=coming+apart">Coming Apart: The State Of White America, 1960-2010</a>,&#8221; Murray spoke of a modern acceleration of social stratification driven by growing material rewards for high-IQ individuals in an increasingly knowledge-based economy. In contrast with previous manifestations of American social fragmentation along the lines of class, Murray argued that today&#8217;s new upper class is increasingly isolated from what he described as &#8220;mainstream America.&#8221;

The aforementioned phenomenon has contributed to a growing arrogance among the &#8220;new upper class,&#8221; said Murray. Contemporary elites and their progeny are often several generations removed from what he said are &#8220;working class&#8221; Americans, a term he uses to describe people who work with their hands and who earnings are near the national median and average. This phenomenon, according to Murray, is unprecedented in American history.

Murray suggested that his perceptions of the &#8220;new upper class&#8221; were partly drawn from personal experience given his own life, at least in part, within the new elite.

Listen to the relevant segment of the interview below, or listen to the entire interview <a href="https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/forbidden-knowledge">here</a>.

<div class="embed"><iframe frameborder="no" height="166" width="100%"></iframe></div>

 
&#8220;The <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/9003/wut-i-represent-very-clear-challenge-status-quo-robert-kraychik">&#8216;deplorables&#8217; comment</a> by Hillary Clinton may have changed the history of the world,&#8221; said Murray, attributing the analysis to Jonathan Haidt. &#8220;That one comment, all by itself, might have swung enough votes. It certainly was emblematic of the disdain with which the new upper class looks at mainstream America, and mainstream America notices this.&#8221;

Clinton&#8217;s derision of a plurality of Trump&#8217;s supporters as a &#8220;basket of deplorables,&#8221; said Murray, was illustrative of a hatred felt by many elites towards what they perceive as ordinary Americans. This hatred, he added, was largely born of disconnection, given the fact that most elites have little to no experience with the very Americans toward whom them feel contempt.

Last September, Clinton described Trump&#8217;s base of supporters as largely bigoted: &#8220;They&#8217;re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.&#8221; Her audience of supporters cheered her remarks.

<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/b8rG1H2ZfAk" width="640"></iframe></div>

Trump&#8217;s appeal, said Murray, was that he is viewed as a &#8220;murder weapon&#8221; with which to kill the political establishment:
<blockquote>
&#8220;One of the things that struck me most [among Twitter users who engaged me] were people who say, &#8216;You don&#8217;t understand. We don&#8217;t particularly like Donald Trump. We are not defending his character, or anything like that. He&#8217;s our murder weapon. And I think that is a pretty short and accurate way of saying what function Trump served.&#8221;
</blockquote>
Harris and Murray also broadly discussed group differentials in IQ between races, ethnicities, and other populations. The virtue of comparative psychometric analyses between such groups, said Murray, was its ability to undermine the false axioms upon which harmful left-wing policies of &#8220;affirmative action&#8221; and other hiring and placement quotas are predicated.

Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

Charles Murray: Trump Is ‘Murder Weapon’ To Kill Establishment

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

Dartmouth College recently conducted a study of the &#8220;political landscape&#8221; of its student body — and ended up finding an alarming degree of intolerance and groupthink, particularly among the liberal students.
The study was a campus-wide survey conducted from April 9 to April 13 that asked a total of 432 students a range of questions, including their opinions of Donald Trump, their willingness to room with people of another political ideology, and their views on allowing conservatives to speak on campus. The campus paper, <a href="http://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2017/04/a-survey-of-dartmouths-political-landscape">The Dartmouth</a>, provided a summary of the results.
Of the students interviewed, only 23 percent identified as Republican, while 63 percent identified as Democrat and just 14 percent as independent. Asked how they felt about Donald Trump&#8217;s handling of the presidency so far, an overwhelming 85 percent of the students said they strongly or somewhat disapproved. Only 11 percent said they strongly or somewhat approved of Trump. The Dartmouth notes that the 85 percent result ends up being exactly the same percentage that said in a previous survey they intended to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/dartmouth_study_1.jpg" alt="" width="780" height="585" /></div>
In a question gauging students&#8217; tolerance of opposing views, Dartmouth asked students how &#8220;comfortable&#8221; they would be having a roommate of &#8220;opposing political views to your own.&#8221; Out of the three political affiliations, the students who identified as Democrats were by far the least tolerant, with a plurality of 45 percent saying they would be &#8220;uncomfortable,&#8221; 39 percent saying they would be &#8220;comfortable&#8221; and 16 percent answering &#8220;neither.&#8221;
Republicans were the most tolerant of the three groups, 69 percent saying they would be comfortable rooming with someone with opposing political views, only 12 percent saying they would be uncomfortable and 19 percent saying neither. Independents were slightly less tolerant than Republicans, 61 percent saying they&#8217;d be comfortable, 16 percent uncomfortable and 22 percent saying neither.
<img decoding="async" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.drt/21001_roommatef.jpg" />Alexander Agadjanian | The Dartmouth Senior Staff
The paper provides a quote from the president of the Dartmouth College Democrats, who said she was not surprised that Republicans were more open to rooming with a Democrat because they are surrounded by Democrats at the college. &#8220;It&#8217;s unfortunate — I wish we had more political diversity,&#8221; she said. The vice president of the Republican student group agreed that fellow Republicans were far outnumbered and more likely to be tolerant.
The survey also addressed the issue of freedom of speech on campus, and found additional, troubling evidence of intolerance from students who lean left.
The study asked students what they thought about allowing certain figures from the political right to speak on campus. A stunning 22 percent said they did not believe President Trump should be allowed to speak. Only 75 percent said the President of the United States should be allowed to appear on campus, while 3 percent were &#8220;not sure.&#8221;
The percentages were worse for more controversial conservative figures. A total of 38 percent said conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos should not be allowed to speak on Dartmouth&#8217;s campus, only 54 percent defending his free speech rights. Twenty-six percent said white nationalist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer">Richard Spencer</a> should not be allowed to speak, while only 65 percent said that <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14060/anti-free-speech-protesters-shout-down-dr-charles-james-barrett">Charles Murray</a> (who has been vilified for saying that I.Q. might have some relationship to race) should definitely be allowed to speak. Only Mitt Romney was given near unanimous permission to speak.
<img decoding="async" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.drt/21002_speakersf.jpg" />Alexander Agadjanian | The Dartmouth Senior Staff
The study is yet more evidence that the number of students on college campuses who defend fee speech and embrace ideological tolerance is rapidly shrinking. As the recent protests erupting over the presence of conservatives on campus have made frighteningly clear, the next generation is being raised to not only fear honest debate, but to brand those who disagree with them politically as being disqualified from First Amendment protections and worthy of censorship, even by violent means.
More from The Daily Wire on ideological intolerance on college campuses:
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14060/anti-free-speech-protesters-shout-down-dr-charles-james-barrett">Anti-Free Speech Protesters Shout Down Charles Murray, Pound On His Car As He Tries To Leave</a>
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15729/nyu-professor-defends-free-speech-campus%E2%80%A6-saying-elliott-hamilton">NYU &#8216;Defends&#8217; Free Speech On Campus&#8230;By Saying There Should Be None</a>
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15842/ann-coulter-everyone-who-shouldve-defended-free-james-barrett">Coulter: Everyone Who Should&#8217;ve Defended Free Speech, &#8216;Ran Away With Their Tails Between Their Legs&#8217;</a>
H/T <a href="https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/04/28/study-finds-democrats-least-tolerant-of-opposing-views/">PJ Media</a>

dartmouth_study_1

Dartmouth Study Highlights Widespread Intolerance And Groupthink Among Liberal Students

Conservatism

Democratic Party

First Amendment

Leftism

Liberalism

Milo Yiannopoulos

New York University English Professor, Vice Provost for Faculty, Arts, Humanities, &amp; Diversity, and leftist hack Ulrich Baer <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/opinion/what-liberal-snowflakes-get-right-about-free-speech.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&amp;smid=nytcore-iphone-share">wrote</a> an article in The New York Times claiming to &#8220;defend free speech.&#8221; However, the article advocates a completely different view of the First Amendment that does not reflect any meritorious defense of free speech. The article, titled &#8220;What &#8216;Snowflakes&#8217; Get Right About Free Speech,&#8221; starts by talking about how free expression shifted from talking about logical arguments to conversations about people&#8217;s feelings.
<blockquote>
During the 1980s and &#8217;90s, a shift occurred in American culture; personal experience and testimony, especially of suffering and oppression, began to challenge the primacy of argument. Freedom of expression became a flash point in this shift. Then as now, both liberals and conservatives were wary of the privileging of personal experience, with its powerful emotional impact, over reason and argument, which some fear will bring an end to civilization, or at least to freedom of speech.
</blockquote>
Baer implored his readers to &#8220;not rehash those debates&#8221; because it would be problematic for a generation grown up in a tradition of expressing their traumatic experiences in response to issues of fact. Using the extreme case of Holocaust denial as an example of positions people take without much basis in reality, Baer argued that certain conversations and topics should be censored to help the public, especially those who are &#8220;not open to debate.&#8221; He specifically alluded to issues of illegal immigration and racism, insinuating that minorities are incapable of arguing along rational, logical lines on tough topics.
What made Baer&#8217;s article particularly asinine was his praise for the efforts of students who attempted to or successfully shut down individuals like Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Charles Murray. In Baer&#8217;s warped perspective, these students are the true advocates of free speech:
<blockquote>
The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer&#8217;s visit &#8212; as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others &#8212; should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.
</blockquote>
He also used this op-ed to talk about how the leftist &#8220;snowflakes&#8221; attempts to silence non-progressive voices are helping to heal a racist and sexist nation:
<blockquote>
What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse. The snowflakes sensed, a good year before the election of President Trump, that insults and direct threats could once again become sanctioned by the most powerful office in the land. They grasped that racial and sexual equality is not so deep in the DNA of the American public that even some of its legal safeguards could not be undone.
</blockquote>
This is not a defense of free speech; this is an unapologetic defense of liberal fascism masquerading as social justice. The &#8220;snowflakes&#8221; that Baer champions as free speech advocates bastardize the First Amendment and rationalize their bruised feelings to act savagely toward those who disagree with them. Much of this behavior is normalized and encouraged by the Communist hacks in the ivory tower in which Baer and many of his colleagues reside; it directly correlated with President Trump&#8217;s rise to the presidency. The American people are sick of seeing spoiled brats coming out of prestigious colleges and universities acting morally superior to people who have every legal right to express their opinion in a cordial, rational manner.
<blockquote>
This is not a defense of free speech; this is an unapologetic defense of liberal fascism masquerading as social justice.

</blockquote>
However, the Left has no intention of stopping its fight against the First Amendment. As Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15610/former-dnc-head-howard-dean-hate-speech-not-free-ben-shapiro">wrote</a> in response to Howard Dean&#8217;s asinine tweet regarding hate speech: 
<blockquote>
But the Democrats have long wanted to gut the First Amendment: they want to prohibit political spending from their opponents, they want to prohibit people from using biologically correct pronouns to describe transgender people, they want to ban &#8220;hate speech.&#8221; They hate the First Amendment because they see its protections as incompatible with the collective good &#8211; the collective good protecting &#8220;non-offensive&#8221; speech only.
</blockquote>
It is for conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals to take the Left to task and protect the First Amendment from the intellectual and moral cowards that run college campuses as fascist dystopias.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>

NYU Professor ‘Defends’ Free Speech On Campus…By Saying There Should Be None

New York University

Richard Spencer

On March 4, Middlebury College&#8217;s Student Government Association (SGA) <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53a4f9d0e4b0b9f4a3e2b6df/t/58cebf83c534a59fbdbfbbed/1489944452285/3.5.17+Minutes.pdf">proposed</a> a resolution that would effectively limit the types of speech and speakers invited to campus. The resolution, introduced by <a href="http://middleburycollegesga.squarespace.com/20162017-cabinet/">Senator Hannah Pustejovsky</a>, was written in response to Dr. Charles Murray&#8217;s event at the Vermont-based liberal arts college that <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14116/middlebury-college-protests-closed-mindedness-and-erielle-davidson">resulted</a> in leftist students rioting and committing battery against a professor.
Samantha Harris of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) shared part of the resolution on Twitter.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
So the reaction of the <a href="https://twitter.com/Middlebury">@middlebury</a> SGA to the <a href="https://twitter.com/charlesmurray">@charlesmurray</a> is to propose limits on controversial speakers in the future? I can&#8217;t even. <a href="https://t.co/p8Mn2tJNex">pic.twitter.com/p8Mn2tJNex</a>
&#8212; Samantha Harris (@SamatFIRE) <a href="https://twitter.com/SamatFIRE/status/838780966315376641">March 6, 2017</a> </blockquote>
The resolution suggested that all academic departments and students should &#8220;respect the boundaries of the College&#8217;s community standards.&#8221; The standards read as follows:
<blockquote>
Middlebury seeks to prepare students to be active citizens and leaders who will address the world&#8217;s most pressing problems. This mission is advanced through students&#8217; experiences with successes and challenges, and is reflected in the following Community Standards:
<ul>
<li>cultivating respect and responsibility for self, others, and our shared environment;</li>
<li>encouraging personal and intellectual courage and growth;</li>
<li>manifesting integrity and honesty in all decisions and actions;</li>
<li>promoting healthy, safe and balanced lifestyles;</li>
<li>fostering a diverse and inclusive community committed to civility, open-mindedness and finding common ground.</li>
</ul>
Therefore, a balance of individual and community health and growth guides Middlebury&#8217;s approach to all endeavors, and to the policies that support those endeavors.
</blockquote>
In other words, Pustejovsky&#8217;s bill would call upon various bodies at Middlebury to bar speech that may not &#8220;cultivate respect and responsibility&#8221; or &#8220;foster a diverse and inclusive community.&#8221; In the <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53a4f9d0e4b0b9f4a3e2b6df/t/58cebf83c534a59fbdbfbbed/1489944452285/3.5.17+Minutes.pdf">minutes</a> of the meeting, the Secretary suggested that Pustejovsky stated that the SGA was &#8220;complicit with [a] white supremacist&#8221; due to SGA&#8217;s supposed approval of the Murray talk and that his presence on campus &#8220;violated Community Standards.&#8221; She also argued that &#8220;hate speech is not free speech,&#8221; which is <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/13858/claremont-colleges-newspaper-hate-speech-not-free-elliott-hamilton">categorically false</a>.
While discussion on Pustejovsky&#8217;s bill was tabled, it should be alarming that Middlebury&#8217;s student government is proactively attempting to leverage what kind of speech is acceptable on campus. Arguing what violates the Community Standards is in the eyes of the beholder. Nevertheless, the campus Left would argue that non-progressives like Murray, Ben Shapiro, or Dave Rubin would not be acceptable on campus because their views might not &#8220;foster a diverse and inclusive community.&#8221;
This kind of suppression on free speech remains cancerous on college campuses and it fails to teach students about the First Amendment.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>.

Middlebury Student Government Sought To Suppress Speech That ‘Violates Community Standards’

After his <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14116/middlebury-college-protests-closed-mindedness-and-erielle-davidson">event at Middlebury College</a> caused riots that put a liberal professor in a neck brace, Dr. Charles Murray could face another hostile crowd at Columbia University. According to The College Fix, flyers advertising his event at Barnard College got <a href="http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31620/">defaced</a> with devils horns, expletives, and claims that he is a white supremacist. 
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="380" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/charles-murray-vandal-columbia.jpg" width="580" /></div>
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="380" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/charles-murray-columbia-vandals.jpg" width="580" /></div>
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" alt height="380" src="https://dw-wp-dev.imgix.net/2019/09/charles-murray-vandal-columbia-pinface.jpg" width="580" /></div>
A spokesperson at Barnard College told The College Fix the following in response to the defaced flyers:
<blockquote>
The Barnard College Code of Conduct prohibits &#8216;attempted or actual theft of and/or damage to property of the College, or property of a member of the College community, or other personal or public property, on or off campus. Barnard College stands by its code of conduct and expects all students to abide by its contents.
</blockquote>
The spokesperson also stopped short of condemning students at the college for vandalizing the flyers, saying that the campus is an &#8220;open campus&#8221; and that even outsiders could be responsible.
Murray&#8217;s event, <a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/are-elites-to-blame-for-the-rise-of-donald-trump-featuring-charles-murray-tickets-32608443733">titled</a> &#8220;Are Elites to Blame for the Rise of Donald Trump,&#8221; is scheduled for March 23 at Havemeyer Hall.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>.

Menu

Premieres Tomorrow AT 9/8cPremieres Tomorrow AT 9/8c