On Friday, Middlebury College Provost Susan Baldridge <a href="http://www.middlebury.edu/newsroom/campus-notes/node/553131">sent</a> an announcement to the community outlining new interim policies regarding future speaking events at the Vermont-based liberal arts institution. Written as a response to Charlottesville, Baldridge stated that it was imperative to create policies to properly plan events that could be construed as inviting potential violence. The policy is written as follows:
<blockquote>
Until it is replaced or superseded, the following procedures will be in effect for all of Middlebury&#8217;s locations.
1) Those scheduling events (e.g., speakers, symposia, colloquia, performances, etc.) will be required to submit an event reservation request at least three weeks prior to the event date.
2) Students, faculty, and staff seeking to make room reservations for events will, beginning in September, be asked on the submission form whether the proposed event presents any special considerations or security concerns. Student groups scheduling events will be required to confirm that they have consulted with their group&#8217;s faculty or staff advisor.
3) Requests to schedule an event will be reviewed weekly by staff from Student Activities, Event Management, and Communications to identify any events that are a likely target of disruption, threats, violence, or other acts of intimidation, or are likely to draw unusually large crowds.
4) In the event of a credible likelihood, based on prior incidents or current evidence, that an event is likely to be the target of threats or violence, the Threat Assessment and Management Team will conduct a risk assessment of the event, consulting with local law enforcement as needed, in order to advise the administration.
5) Representatives from Public Safety/Campus Security and Risk Management will review the risk assessment and determine resources or measures that might be necessary to ensure that the event can proceed without undue risk to the speaker and/or members of the community. This review will include a consideration of Middlebury Emergency Preparedness Plan and Emergency Operations protocols.
6) In those exceptional cases where this review indicates significant risk to the community, the president and senior administration will work with event sponsors to determine measures to maximize safety and mitigate risk. Only in cases of imminent and credible threat to the community that cannot be mitigated by revisions to the event plan would the president and senior administration consider canceling the event.
</blockquote>
Part I requires students and faculty to submit an event reservation three weeks prior to the date. This is not an unusual policy, since universities need to ensure that spaces are available to host events. Part II requires a submission on whether the event requires security or additional consideration. This, again, is also common since universities have a propensity to invite high-profile speakers, including members of past and current governments, who often require security.
Part III requires staff from various administrative departments to determine whether an event would be a &#8220;target of disruption, threats, violence, and other acts of intimidation, or are likely to draw unusually large crowds.&#8221; While this could be subjected to loose interpretation by a normally left-leaning administration, this is a reasonable policy insofar as it forces administrators to utilize additional resources protecting free speech for a speaker while planning to counter potentially violent or disruptive actors.
Parts IV requires a risk management team to assess potential risk and coordinate with law enforcement to determine whether the event could be held safely with the presence of police forces. As was evidenced during Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro&#8217;s <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/21115/5-things-i-learned-berkeley-last-night-ben-shapiro">event</a> at UC Berkeley last Thursday, police presence ensures that Antifa thugs and assorted leftist mobs cannot disrupt events and violate the First Amendment. Thus, Middlebury&#8217;s commitment to coordinating proper protection for potentially controversial speakers is welcome since its colossal failure to protect a professor and countless others during a <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/14116/middlebury-college-protests-closed-mindedness-and-erielle-davidson">March 3 event</a> with Dr. Charles Murray. The challenge, however, is how effectively this &#8220;Threat Assessment an Management Team&#8221; will be in determining potential safety issues through an objective lens.
Parts V and VI, however, are nothing short of a capitulation to the violent mob. They open the door to subjective interpretations as to whether events could present an &#8220;undue risk,&#8221; even in the potential presence of law enforcement. Part VI is even more egregious toward those &#8220;exceptional cases&#8221; where the college president and the administration will &#8220;work with event sponsors to determine measures to maximize safety and mitigate risk.&#8221; In other words, if the thread of the mob seems too great, then the university has the discretion to reward them by calling upon event coordinators to cancel the event.
This is a common example of surrendering to the Heckler&#8217;s Veto, where one&#8217;s right to free speech is curtailed in order to prevent the overt obnoxiousness and potentially violent behavior of the mob. Middlebury apologizes for such behavior in its attempt to allow the presence of a violent mob to potentially curb the free speech of an individual whom the administration could deem problematic to the institution. Giving the president and senior administrators&#8217; immense discretion in those &#8220;exceptional cases&#8221; could result in the violation of the free exchange of ideas that Provost Baldridge ironically supported in her letter announcing these new guidelines.
However, the procedures are only an interim policy and it will remain to be seen whether Middlebury College will allow the Heckler&#8217;s Veto an opportunity to curb the freedom of speech for individuals whom they do not like.
Follow Elliott on <a href="https://twitter.com/ElliottRHams">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ElliottRHams/">Facebook</a>.

SURRENDER: Middlebury College Cowers To Heckler’s Veto In New Speaker Policy

First Amendment

Middlebury College

On Wednesday, Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro had the opportunity to speak at length with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). Here is a transcript of their conversation, which spanned topics including a recent hearing on college campus free speech crackdowns to the negotiations over Trumpcare.
SHAPIRO: What was the point of having this hearing on free speech on college campuses?
CRUZ: To highlight the assault on free speech that is occurring on a daily basis on college campuses. The universities used to be a place where the vigorous contest of ideas was welcomed, where young people went to have their ideas challenged, to encounter new ideas, and to learn what they believe.
More and more, today&#8217;s universities are becoming left-wing indoctrination centers where leftists and the faculty and the administration seek to use brute force to silence any views that counter their prevailing political view. Ben, you have courageously gone to numerous liberal campuses and encountered faculty and protesters and administrators quite eager to muzzle you. I think you should wear that as a badge of honor, because what they&#8217;re saying is that they&#8217;re afraid. They&#8217;re afraid that their ideas, their political philosophy, their worldview can&#8217;t stand scrutiny, cannot stand up to the dialectic of being challenged with facts and substance and what actually works in reality and that the only way they can hope to keep young impressionable minds believing what they&#8217;re selling is to try to silence any views to the contrary. Every time a campus silences you, the administrators and faculty are telling you they are afraid of the force of argument and facts and logic behind the very reasonable positions you&#8217;re espousing.
SHAPIRO: Do you think legislation is necessary in order to protect the First Amendment on campuses?
CRUZ: It&#8217;s not clear at this point. The main purpose of the hearing yesterday was to shine a spotlight on what&#8217;s happening. I&#8217;m a big believer that truth is the best disinfectant, and this sort of small-minded tyranny flourishes in darkness and out of sight. I hope that the hearing helped draw attention to the profoundly illiberal policies being enforced by far too many college and university faculties.
We did hear testimony from one of the witnesses, Professor Eugene Volokh, an old friend and extremely highly regarded First Amendment scholar, about how some of the anti-speech policies at universities were pushed by misinterpretations of federal law, particularly Title VII and Title IX, by which the Obama administration pressured and even coerced universities to forcibly silence disfavored political views through threats of federal action. To the extent that&#8217;s the case, that needs to be corrected by Congress or the administration or both. That merits more careful, further study.
There&#8217;s certainly precedent for using the vast number of federal dollars flowing to schools as a vehicle to protect the rights of students. Previous Congresses, for example, have passed the Solomon Amendment, that would cut off federal funding to universities that banned ROTC from campus; when I was solicitor general of TX, I led a coalition of states defending that amendment from constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court, and we prevailed. You had leftists who wanted to exclude military recruiters, and as a result, they were depriving not only their students of an opportunity to pursue a career in the military, but they were denying our military services access to talented young people. Congress could consider something similar in this regard. It&#8217;s premature for legislative action right now; we need to discuss it further and examine it more closely, but it is absolutely clear now that the policies of censorship and campus totalitarianism need to end.
SHAPIRO: Senator Feinstein said at the hearing, &#8220;I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.&#8221; She came out in favor of a heckler&#8217;s veto. What do you make of her argument?
CRUZ: The success of the heckler&#8217;s veto is the direct result of the political bias and agenda of the administrators. If students riot and commit acts of violence, they should be expelled &#8212; and we have seen acts of violence carried out. We saw when Charles Murray spoke at Middlebury, we saw violent protests. We saw violent protests at Berkeley, and the administrators are far too quick to gloss over and exonerate students who are behaving as violent criminals. If you commit acts of violence, you should be prosecuted and universities should expel you. You have every right to speak, but you don&#8217;t have a right to commit acts of violence. When administrators cancel speakers because students threaten violence, that ensures they will continue to threaten violence. It&#8217;s Pavlovian training: violent thuggery works, please do more of it.
Nobody believes for a second if right-wing students were protesting a leftist &#8211; if President Obama was coming to campus and right-wing students said they would have a violent protest &#8212; is there a university in the country that would do anything but prevent the violent protest and expel any student that tried? You wouldn&#8217;t have to have President Obama. You could have any of a thousand college leftists who are embraced and lionized and they would not for a minute approve a heckler&#8217;s veto from the right. And by the way, nobody from the right should use a heckler&#8217;s veto. But this is a problem that has arisen heavily from the fever swamps of the far left, where power and might justify silencing all dissent, and it&#8217;s the same spirit behind totalitarianism.
Conservatives respect individuals. And individuals have the right to free speech, to free exercise of religion, to free association &#8212; and in the marketplace of ideas, the better ideas prevail. You and I both attended academic institutions that are heavily liberal, and we certainly had Marxist professors, and I was glad of it. It was helpful. I disagree profoundly with Marxism; I think it&#8217;s one of the most evil doctrines ever promulgated on the face of the earth. It&#8217;s led to the murder of millions and the suffering of billions. My own family has been imprisoned and tortured &#8211; my aunt was imprisoned and tortured by Castro&#8217;s goons. But listening to people who espouse those ideas and learning from them is valuable &#8212; learning how to effectively argue against pernicious ideas.
SHAPIRO: What do you make of protesters rushing the stage at the Shakespeare in the Park performance of &#8220;Julius Caesar&#8221;?
CRUZ: I embrace everyone&#8217;s right to free speech, but I think disrupting a play is not the same thing. There are lots of plays that are foolish, that are offensive, that are politically biased, but I don&#8217;t think you have a right to shut down a dramatic presentation whether you agree with it or not. You have a right to speak about what&#8217;s wrong about it, but shutting it down crosses a line that shouldn&#8217;t be crossed.
SHAPIRO: To change topics, have you been involved in the Obamacare replacement negotiations?
CRUZ: Yes, and let&#8217;s flesh it out a couple of levels. Starting back several months ago, I worked to bring together a working group of six senators to try to come together on repealing Obamacare. That group was myself, Lamar Alexander, Tom Cotton, Mike Lee, Rob Portman, and Corey Gardner. That group spans the full ideological spectrum in the Senate. We began meeting every week in my conference room, trying to come together and get on the same page. If those six could get on the same page, that would likely be a bill that could command the support of a majority of the conference. I think those conversations were productive. One of the best signs of those conversations being productive was that not a single story leaked to the press. That&#8217;s highly unusual and a sign that everyone was trying in good faith to get to a solution.
When it became clear that the House was going to pass a bill, Lamar Alexander and I went to Mitch McConnell and said we needed a process to get people together and get things done in the Senate. We took the working group and expanded it to include other members of the leadership, and that became the larger working group meeting twice a week for a couple of months.
Those discussions have been productive, very detailed, in good faith. I think there&#8217;s an agreement to be reached. We can get this done. What I think is most critical is we honor our promise to repeal Obamacare, and that we lower premiums. The reason people are unhappy is skyrocketing premiums, and millions can&#8217;t afford health insurance anymore. We need to fix that problem.
Discussions have been quite good. At this stage, however, Mitch McConnell and his office have the pen and are drafting the actual legislation. I don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s in it. Mike Lee doesn&#8217;t know what&#8217;s in it. Both of us are frustrated that we don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s in it, after spending the last five months working to come together. We&#8217;re supposed to see bill text tomorrow. I hope it reflects the positive reform ideas we&#8217;ve been working on the last five months. I hope it is a consensus product. If it&#8217;s not, if the conservative ideas that have been offered in good faith are not reflected in the bill, if there are not reforms designed to drive down the cost of premiums, the bill isn&#8217;t going to pass. But I don&#8217;t want to be premature. I think we should wait and see what the draft is.
SHAPIRO: If the Senate rubber stamped the House bill, would you support it, given that the House bill didn&#8217;t actually repeal Obamacare in many crucial ways?
CRUZ: The first version of the House bill was very problematic and there were many issues with it &#8211; first and foremost, that it didn&#8217;t do nearly enough to drive down premiums. I think the House Freedom Caucus improved the bill significantly. They focused quite rightly on the need to drive down premiums. The Senate needs to go much further than the House Bill. We need to improve it significantly more. I don&#8217;t know if the Senate will do so or not. It is what I have been working day and night, practically every waking hour for he last five months to do: bring senators together to get that done.
SHAPIRO: Are you worried that Republicans will pass a bill that doesn&#8217;t repeal Obamacare, declare victory, then watch as premiums skyrocket and the free market is blamed for what is essentially a continuation of a heavily government-regulated Obamacare system?
CRUZ: There are two bad outcomes that are possible. One bad outcome is that we fail to repeal Obamacare &#8211; we fail to pass any bill at all. For the past seven years we&#8217;ve campaigned promising the voter that we would repeal the disaster that is Obamacare, that has cost millions of Americans their jobs, thrown them into part-time jobs, cost them their doctors, caused premiums to skyrocket. If we fail to deliver after being given every branch of government, that&#8217;s profoundly harmful both as a substantive matter of policy but also as a political matter. The credibility of Republicans would be deeply, deeply undermined. 
There&#8217;s a second outcome that&#8217;s even worse than that. We pass a bill titled &#8220;Obamacare Repeal,&#8221; but doesn&#8217;t in fact repeal Obamacare &#8212; in fact expands it. We hold a press conference patting ourselves on the back, claiming to have repealed it. And then next year, premiums continue to skyrocket and it&#8217;s demonstrated that what Republicans said isn&#8217;t true. I think that has even greater policy harms and political harms. So I&#8217;m trying to avoid both of those. I&#8217;m trying to get Republicans in the Senate and the House and the President and the Vice President to do what we said we would do. That&#8217;s what I&#8217;m urging all the players to do.
SHAPIRO: Finally, should Congress require an AUMF for action in Syria?
CRUZ: There is no doubt that to engage in ongoing military conflict, the Constitution requires that Congress authorize the use of military force. Under the Constitution the president is the commander-in-chief, the president has the authority to respond to exigent circumstances and imminent threats to national security. But for continuous and ongoing military action, a declaration or war or at minimum an AUMF is required. I have consistently called on both President Obama and President Trump to seek that authorization before engaging in ongoing hostilities and conflict.
With regard to ISIS, there are existing AUMFs for targeting radical Islamic terrorists, and I think that is appropriate to target an avowed enemy of the United States attempting to murder innocent Americans, and we should be using the full military might to defeat and destroy ISIS. But if the objective shifts to toppling the Syrian regime and engaging in what I fear would be a risky and even foolhardy approach of allowing Syria and its potential stockpile of chemical weapons to fall into the hands of ISIS and al Qaeda and al Nusra, that poses profound risks to our national security and merits a serious debate. One of the reasons Congress has the authority under the Constitution is so that commander-in-chief has to lay out the objective and seek authorization from the people&#8217;s elected representatives to go forward. That Constitutional rule applies to presidents where Democrat or Republican.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Cruz BLASTS Campus ‘Totalitarianism,’ Talks Obamacare Repeal and Syria

Donald Trump

Republican Party

Ted Cruz

Trumpcare

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

Charles Murray

Education

Free Speech

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

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>.