I had already written to the President of DePaul University about the suppression of free speech shown in this morning’s video, but before he responded (if he even does), I got an email from a member of the DePaul faculty, who, among other things, enclosed a letter that President, Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, sent to the University community. The faculty member, who will remain anonymous, said this:
I have forwarded the message sent by DePaul’s President Holtschneider yesterday morning. This is the latest in a line of other messages sent by him to the DePaul community, all affirming the importance of free speech at DePaul. I would appreciate if you could publish a follow-up post to allow other WEIT readers to know that the actions of a subset of DePaul’s students does not necessarily reflect the stance of the institution, its administration, or its faculty on free speech and are, in fact, in direct opposition to it.
Done. Thanks to this person for contacting me! And here’s the President’s letter, which, to my delight, affirms the value of free speech and says that the University will not tolerate further disruptions (my emphasis). Like me, he’s not down with Yiannopoulus’s message but strongly in favor if allowing it to be issued without interruption:
From: “Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M.”
Subject: Tuesday’s speech and protest
Date: May 25, 2016 at 11:15:55 AM CDTDear Members of the DePaul University Community,
I am writing from France, where Fr. Udovic and I are leading a mission trip to introduce our trustees to the life and legacy of St. Vincent de Paul. Because today is a free day, a number of us are spending the day in Normandy, touring the museum, walking the famous beaches of the D-Day landings and standing silent before the rows and rows of graves honoring the men and women who gave their lives so others might live in freedom.
I tell you this because I awoke this morning to the reports and online videos of yesterday’s speech by Milo Yiannopoulos and the accompanying protest. I was sorry to see it.
Mr. Yiannopoulos and I share very few opinions. He argues that there is no wage gap for women, a difficult position to maintain in light of government data. As a gay man, he has claimed that sexual preference is entirely a choice, something few if any LGTBQ individuals would claim as their own experience. He claims that white men have fewer privileges than women or people of color, whom he believes are unfairly privileged in modern society — a statement that is immediately suspect when white men continue to occupy the vast majority of top positions in nearly every major industry.
Generally, I do not respond to speakers of Mr. Yiannopoulos’ ilk, as I believe they are more entertainers and self-serving provocateurs than the public intellectuals they purport to be. Their shtick is to shock and incite a strong emotional response they can then use to discredit the moral high ground claimed by their opponents. This is unworthy of university discourse, but not unfamiliar across American higher education. There will always be speakers who exploit the differences within our human community to their own benefit, blissfully unconcerned with the damage they leave behind.
Now that our speaker has moved on to UC Santa Barbara and UCLA, we at DePaul have some reflecting and sorting out to do. Student Affairs will be inviting the organizers of both the event and the protest — as well as any others who wish — to meet with them for this purpose. I’ve asked them to reflect on how future events should be staffed so that they proceed without interruption; how protests are to be more effectively assisted and enabled; and how the underlying differences around race, gender and orientation that were made evident in yesterday’s events can be explored in depth in the coming academic year.
As this proceeds, I wish to make a few matters crystal clear.
* Yesterday’s speaker was invited to speak at DePaul, and those who interrupted the speech were wrong to do so. Universities welcome speakers, give their ideas a respectful hearing, and then respond with additional speech countering the ideas. I was ashamed for DePaul University when I saw a student rip the microphone from the hands of the conference moderator and wave it in the face of our speaker.
* I was alarmed when I watched individual students on both sides intentionally provoking the others with inflammatory language, but I was proud when I saw students — many students — working to calm each other, and at times, even hold people back from hasty decisions. Many of our students understood that protests only work when people conduct themselves honorably. I wish to thank all of them for self-monitoring the crowd’s behavior. The experience could have been a far worse experience had they not done so.
* I wish to thank our Student Affairs staff, Public Safety team, Student Center employees, Chicago police and temporary contract safety personnel. They were thrust into an unexpected and challenging situation that we must examine for hard learned lessons. I am grateful that the situation was calmed and dispersed without serious injury to anyone’s person. I know the staff, too, are reflecting on these events and what might be learned for the future.
* On behalf of the university, I apologize to the DePaul College Republicans. They deserved an opportunity to hear their speaker uninterrupted, and were denied it.
Here in Normandy, I expected to be moved by the generosity of those who gave their lives on the beaches early on June 6, 1944. I did not expect, however, to be shocked when I realized that most of the soldiers were the same ages as our students today. The rows on rows of white crosses in the American cemetery speak to the selflessness of the human spirit at early adulthood to lay down their lives for a better world.
I realize that many of yesterday’s protesters hold similarly noble goals for a more inclusive world for those traditionally held aside by our society. I realize also that these young soldiers died for all the freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech and assembly. We honor their sacrifice best if we, too, remember and honor all the rights of human freedom, even as we fight for more freedom and justice for all.
God bless you.
Rev. Dennis H.
Good for him. (Although I could do without his final parting three words!)
Well, we should ignore them in this instance, I think! One battle at a time. . .
Did someone sneeze?
lol
Good for him, although I could do without his laying on the privilege-guilt trip which is at the root of so much of these speech problems.
Truly a fantastic letter by the university president. I certainly hope that at least a few of the students will reflect on what he said and take it to heart.
DePaul has never had a great track record with freedom of speech, especially when university donors get involved….
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/arts/11depa.html?_r=0
Interesting, it is always good to have a few more bits of evidence.
Fine words, but what about the student who ripped the mic away from the moderator? Any punishment? Until these clowns have to pay the price for the attention they seek, this behavior will continue.
Grammar police alert! “women or people of color, whom he believes are unfairly privileged”; this should either be “women or people of color, who, he believes, are unfairly privileged” (“who” is subject of “believes”, and commas are necessary todisentangle overlapping clauses), or “women or people of color, whom he believes to be unfairly privileged” (“whom” is the object of “believes”)
Hie *is* a College President, after all.
Absolutely! Well said, Paul Braterman. I hope Jerry won’t mind if I attach a link to a short bl*g post I wrote on the subject of ‘whom abuse’: https://wordpress.com/post/brandonrobshaw.wordpress.com/793
If it sounds correct with “him” in the place, then it’s whom, if it sounds correct with “he” in the place, then it’s who. Or at least that’s the rule I apply when confused. 🙂
“…women or people of color, whom he believes are unfairly privileged”
“…women or people of color, whom him believes are unfairly privileged”
I agree with you, which means that Holtschneider was correct in the first place.
Good work! I actually understood that, which may be the first piece of grammar I have understood. [/why can’t grammar educators never write understandably; well, some obviously can]
Oops! Grammar alert, repeat use of words. [/rushing to the store]
No, nothing ungrammatical has occurred.
That may be a stylistic crime but not a grammatical one.
😉
cr
… and I was wrong. While looking for the ‘repeat use of words’, I completely missed the double negative!
I think there’s some corollary to Murphy’s Law which covers this.
cr
Muphry’s Law. Seriously. Google it if you don’t believe me. 🙂
I’m a bit puzzled by your analysis. Although I support your corrections, in all three examples the subject of ‘believes’ is ‘he’.
No doubt you’ve noticed the increasing tendency, across the fruited plain, to replace the relative pronoun “who” with “that.”
“Whom” seems to be resistant (so far) to such a change. I have yet to see, “To That It May Concern,” or, “That are you?” 😉
I think the interrogative ‘Who’ would logically be replaced by ‘What’.
However, I would not recommend doing that as – particularly in Australian circles – ‘What are you?’ is likely to receive an unhelpful answer.
For correct pronunciation see this at 1:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXhs6vNLdvo
cr
“Who” am I? A flesh-and-blood human being.
“What” am I (in the eyes of a Master-of-Mankind type)? A “human resource” or “human capital.”
Rather serendipitous that he is in Normandy.
As opposed to Sri Lanka?
(I guess there is some connection between DePaul and Normandy? Did Lindsey perform there before setting up the university, or something?)
“Mr. Yiannopoulos and I share very few opinions. He argues that there is no wage gap for women, a difficult position to maintain in light of government data. As a gay man, he has claimed that sexual preference is entirely a choice, something few if any LGTBQ individuals would claim as their own experience. He claims that white men have fewer privileges than women or people of color, whom he believes are unfairly privileged in modern society — a statement that is immediately suspect when white men continue to occupy the vast majority of top positions in nearly every major industry.”
This is unfortunately why people like Milo are needed, despite the attention seeking taboo smashing. Does the present really believe Milo believes the Wage Gap doesn’t exist? Or that sexual orientation is all choice? Or young lower and middle class white men aren’t systematically discriminated against because the top CEOs are still mostly old white men?
I feel like the President, and Jerry even, are going out of their way to distance themselves from someone who’s been smeared and lied about. And this is rather disheartening. Granted, I don’t know what Jerry would say about these issues… but I would hope he has the ability to see the rhetoric employed by the President here is intellectually dishonest… and that alone, the need to pander to SJWs, is exactly why “horrible” people like Milo are needed.
Milo might be full of shit sometimes, and begging for controversy… but realize that the core of the issues he talks about are real. The same people smearing him are the same people smearing Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
I’m glad the President took a stand, but the need to throw in the BS I quoted above really tells me it’s all just post hoc PR work.
Which parts of the paragraph you quote are false?
Wage gap based on ‘government statistics’: broad sweeping numbers without correcting for differences in job, experience, time taken off, etc. More detailed analysis than the 80% yada yada demonstrates that when other factors are carefully controlled for, the difference is MUCH smaller, sometimes vanishing.
Orientation as a choice: Who, exactly is he tell Milo about Milo’s sexuality? Sexuality as a unchangeable biological determinant has been so strong a liberal narrative, that people accept it as established truth.
Why even be concerned about it? Whether it’s a choice or not shouldn’t make any difference. (Religion or non religion is a choice too but it’s still a protected choice we are allowed to make)
1- Milo argues there’s no wage gap even though government data shows otherwise
Milo argues correctly that it is either misnamed (it’s an earnings gap) or the way “wage gap” is understood by too many feminists as a gap in pay for the same work, which it isn’t since it’s a total earnings gap. Implying there’s a sexism issue because there’s a wage gap in a sexually dimorphic species is naive and often deliberately dishonest. Raising this issue dishonestly as feminists do creates more problems than it helps solve.
2- Milo believes sexual orientation is a choice
Has he claimed it’s a choice for everyone? Or just for himself? I’m curious where this idea is coming from. Was it even serious? Was he laughing while saying in the middle of a drunken stream? I don’t know, but this seems like a case of the Telephone Game being played by people looking to be hyperbolic about Milo’s beliefs and statements. If anyone knows… please enlighten me.
3- He claims that white men have fewer privileges than women or people of color
I’ve heard him say multiple times that the plight of blacks in America today is real, while that of women is mostly BS. I think this is rather spot on. The biggest issue women in America have today in my opinion is a toxic form of feminism fearmongering at their expense. His critique of BlackLivesMatter shouldn’t be equated with a belief that blacks are privileged. And yes, white men are less privileged than white women. What other class of people have their issues dismissed because some tiny group of people (the 0.01%) are mostly white men? It’s as ridiculous as ignoring black poverty because the majority of rich athletes are black. The majority of the super rich are men, yet the majority of homeless are men. I think there’s a lot of room for argument when it comes to the genders, but engaging in dishonest SJW rhetoric should be below a University President.
Very well said. Kudos.
Agreed.
I thought most of it was waffle.
And on privilege, despite the good reverends words, standing before all those graves, honoring the men and women who died, I bet that none were women.
I was wrong, there are 4.
I wasn’t terrible impressed. He spent too much time kowtowing to the positions of the protestors to cover his @ass, rather than address focusing on the real issue. I also found the statement “They were thrust into an unexpected and challenging situation” ridiculous. Given the history of Milo’s tour such behavior should not have been unexpected.
And also while I don’t agree that “white men have fewer privileges than women or people of color”, saying that “white men continue to occupy the vast majority of top positions in nearly every major industry” is a non-sequitur. The fact that white men occupy the majority of top positions does not mean the average white male has more or even equal privilege to women, or people of color.
I wanted to add I have a number of other problems with what he had to say, but I’ll leave it at that.
Indeed. This borders on a notpology. He still owes Milo an apology and he needs to discipline both the students involved and the administrator who refused to allow the security team and, later, the Chicago police to do their jobs.
I think in general the President, or anyone in a similar position, makes a mistake in trying to argue with Yiannapoulos while defending him. All he needs to say is “While I do not personally agree with many of his stances, the university is committed to freedom of expression and the civil engagement of ideas.” Beyond that, it simply isn’t the President’s business to argue for or against specific positions. (In this capacity, it might be elsewhere if he were giving a speech on diversity issues, e.g.)
Agreed. His statement would have been much clearer, and on point if he had limited it to that.
What’s that Voltaire quote? Not the one about not having time to write a shorter letter, but the one about defending offensive idiots to the death?
I see there was no apology for Milo. I’m not a fan of Milo, but he certainly has one owed to him on top of the $3000 he spent on the actively passive security.
I’m sure the institutions that are having these problems will need to find their own ways to stop this. It looks stupid to invite someone to speak, regardless of who that might be and then either cancel the invite or have a demonstration that accomplishes the same thing.
They will find little to help in the fact that now at most Trump rallies we see conflict and fights both inside and outside while the event goes on. Soon this will escalate and there will be shootings as guns are about as common place as water. This will also be possible at these school functions if they do not get it stopped.
Interesting thought.
Since Trump is now apparently opposed to all gun free zones (or he was yesterday), I’m just wondering if the people around him at Trump rallies are ever checked for arms. Just in case one of them, like, decides to shoot Trump.
It would be deliciously ironic, wouldn’t it?
cr
I haven’t read the paper today, so this is news to me.
Is there a gun in Trump’s sigmoid colon? No? Then it’s a gun-free zone. Which should have a gun in it.
Sideways.
Dry.
Is he back-tracking yet? Or just backing away keeping his back against the wall.
Yannopolous was rudely interrupted but goes back to his multi thousand dollar job.
Norman Finkelstein was fired from DePaul for voicing politically incorrect opinions about the middle eastern conflict. Two years ago the same happened to Steven Salaita in another university.
There is indeed a censorship problem in the US academy, but it has to do a lot more with political conformity of administrators and bullying of donors and lobbies than the occasional loudly protesting students.
Tenure was put in place to promote and defend academic freedom. Once you have tenure, you can espouse controversial views on many topics and, it is hoped, avoid retribution. But tenure is a two-edged sword, meaning that before you have obtained it, you gotta be more careful. Finkelstein was behaving as if he had tenure, when he didn’t. His loss.
BTW, tenure also protects university presidents from upset donors. “Hey, the guy has tenure, I can’t fire him, as much as I’d like to”. It’s more difficult to call for the president’s head in this situation.
It’s important to note that DePaul administrator Lindsay Ritenbaugh promised beforehand that disruptive protestors would be removed then told both the security guards and the Chicago police to not take any action when the event happened. She should be disciplined as well.
I appreciate such sites as this that promote reason, education and debate. I appreciate the
knowledgeable people who share their thoughts and resources. It reminds me of how much I don’t know that I, probably, should. I didn’t know anything about Yiannopoulos and had to look him up on Wikipedia. Definitely sounds like a guy who would do anything to create
negativity and conflict (especially given that he “chose” to be gay in response to his middle class parents and their environment.)
My initial reaction to the letter from the DePaul University president was positive.
More and more, I feel we live in a universe in which we residents can find no way to be right about anything, however big or small. I sometimes think we nitpick everything to death (camel and eye of needle time). Even if I were someday to approximate a profound thought in writing, I, for example, frequently am wrong about where to place punctuation following a parenthetical inclusion. So, sometimes, I put the punctuation outside the parentheses and, sometimes, put it in inside. Given my extreme block on this critical issue, I have gotten tired of looking it up.
You did it right. 😉
I wonder if Jerry Coyne and the “free speech” crowd are going to discuss this little incident in the US academia:
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/african-american-student-accused-bias-incident-st-louis-university-condemning
I don’t get it. Are you practicing your trolling skills?
As a member of the “free speech crowd” I have no idea what the issue is here. People in a class (?) (or presentation of some sort) are arguing about Israeli/Palestinian politics.
Your point is what, exactly?
Read the article
Why did you post the video?
And, again, what’s your point exactly?
For fuck sakes, a student asks a question, now he has the university-equivalent of two restraining orders against him, and he has been found guilty of discrimination.
If that’s the case I don’t think there is anyone here, including “the free speech crowd”, who would support that.
But I don’t think that’s your point. I think you’re trying to call “hypocracy” on advocates for free speech. And that’s, to use the vernacular, bullshit.
FWIW, neither I, nor anyone else here, is required to read an article because you post a link. If you want to make a case for hypocracy you really need to do better than try that tactic.
I don’t think that video covers the pertinent part where the university felt it was necessary to issue a no-contact decree. It most likely comes after Winston starts calling the presenters fascists. Again though, SLU is a private catholic university, so how does their actions fall under your constitutional protections against the government infringing on your freedom of speech? Is there something I’m missing?
@mordacious1
DePaul is a public university? Free speech/constitution, huh?
If you don’t see the difference between the two situations at DePaul and the one you presented at SLU, then I can’t help you. The page YOU linked to admitted that the guy at SLU was calling the speakers fascists and there was likely more to it. Whatever it was, the school decided it was beyond the behavior expected from their students and told them not to contact each other. I don’t have a problem with that, you obviously do. There is no constitutional protection of free speech in either case. The question is academic free speech, which is less clearly defined but probably doesn’t include inciting people to violence (i.e. calling people fascists).
BTW, the Winston character was wrong about his assertions vis-a-vis Israel and the Red Crescent. Israel has a perfectly sound and valid reason for not allowing unrestricted free movement of their ambulances in Israel (they cart around bombs, weapons and terrorists…including the drivers being terrorists).
@mordacious1
“Israel has a perfectly sound and valid reason for not allowing unrestricted free movement of their ambulances in Israel (they cart around bombs, weapons and terrorists…including the drivers being terrorists).”
Terrorists? The PRC operates in the West Bank! What “terrorists” are you talking about?
That is occupied territory. I’m not sure how they are “terrorists”…
Jesus, Coyne has some right-wing lunatics on this blog.
How is the Occupation exactly supposed to end? If Palestinians in the West Bank resist, well, it’s ok to kill them indiscriminately. If BDS supporters protest, it’s anti-semitic.
As I said, on this blog, there is never criticism of religious lunatics in Israel Beiteinu. We only bitch and moan about those fucking Muslims…
Here ya go:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/ambulances.html
@mordacious1
That’s from 2002 during the Second Intifada! We are discussing 2-0-1-6, in the West Bank.
https://www.palestinercs.org/en/details.php?nid=1071
Question: How are ambulances from the West Bank going to drive into the green line when a giant wall was built there in 2004?!?!
Jesus fucking christ, some of the commenters here really need to be watered twice daily.
No more dialogue with you until you read some books.
(Oh yeah, Muslims are fucking violent and stupid! Terrorist assholes! Blow them up!)
“No more dialogue with you…”
Oh, thank god!
The point is there is an axe here to grind. In the anti-intellectual environment of this blog’s comments, bashing those women-hating beheading Muslims is fair game. (The idiotic white trash Christians are easy to make fun of as well.) If a brown person is violent, that’s terrorism.
Black protestors get rowdy on campus? They are entitled brats, fuck them!
Well, there is never any discussion (as far as I can see) of racist, violent lunatics in the Knesset. Never read condemnations of Likud, never hear anything about the 500,000 religious (well-armed) zealots in the West Bank. That’s ok. Racist rabbis calling Africans living in Israel a “cancer”? Nothing.
Certain US writers have made somewhat of an industry of bitching and moaning about the “free speech” problems on campus. Yet, where is Jonathan Chait to condemn equating BDS with anti-Semitism? Never hear it.
It’s a political schtick. Stop the bitching, and get back to research. Otherwise, shut the fuck up already.
Why the quotations? What response are you expecting?
Its actually very simple. St Louis proved itself to be a pro-Israel and anti free speech school, however they probably have a legal right to do so seeing as they are a private university and get to decide ground rules on campus. DePaul is also a private school so they have no legal obligation for free speech.
Anti-zionism is hate speech against zionism, just as anti-ISIS speech is hate speech against ISIS. Plain and simple, “hate speech” is no reason to persecute anyone, and of course in addition, being against a religion is different from being against a race, anti-zionism is not anti-semetic, not all Jews are zionists.
What seperates your linked incident from the DePaul incident is that St Louis does not claim to support free speech, and it also has a very obvious conservative bias, whereas DePaul has a more liberal bias.
Conservative censorship, pro-Israel and racism is not at the forefront of our discussion because dude, they’re conservatives what do you expect? The actions of a private, conservative Institution is *not at all* representative of the climate of “US academia”.
DePaul matters because the institution is obviously more liberal, they’re supposed to be the good guys who don’t censor and yet they were tolerating students who violently shut down a speaking event.
Also, I like how Alternet points out “the only black student”. Its like yeah, get the fuck out of the KKK rally. Don’t go there if you wanna be treated fairly as a black, pro-Palestine person.
The only issue I see in that letter is where he says Milo thinks sexuality is a choice. I’ve heard Milo say several times if he could choose not to be gay, he would. The obvious inference from that contradicts the Rev. H.
Otherwise, it’s the right message for him to send. Well done.
A bit of a tangent, but the whole “debating whether sexuality is a choice” thing is stupid. Anyone who debates whether sexuality is a choice for the purpose of determining whether its right or wrong is committing the appeal to nature fallacy.
Its the one part I absolutely disagree with liberals on the LGBT issue, because many liberals are scared shitless that if they admit sexuality can be chosen (at least in some sense of the word), then all of a sudden lgbt would be banned.
The only criteria for determining whether to allow lgbt is the cost/benefit to society. Whether its a choice is pretty much irrelevant.
I’d like to make a point about free speech on university campuses. Many or most of them designate a free speech area, which seems to imply that freedom of speech is a privilege which may be granted or rescinded by the school rather than a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Not so surprising that students follow the example given. Not that I’m blaming the universities for the actions of students who should have been educated in constitutional rights before ever applying for admission. Perhaps civics classes or history classes in high schools neglected that duty.
Remember – The Constitution, in the first amendment, is protecting your right to speak from government suppression. Last that I checked, the schools or your place of employment are not the government. This generally means that if you feel that your speech and it’s freedom have been impaired by someone, you will likely have to sue to get something done about it.
Public schools are the government. As for your place of employment, that depends on where you work.
You might prefer to say governments. In this country the public school management goes right down to the local area. Primarily paid for with our property taxes. The protection against govt. suppression is “federal govt.”
Teachers, by the way get their pay and pensions from the state. But that is kind of beside the point, right. If a person going to the same school (public or otherwise) that you attend and that person interferes with your speech, where is the govt. in that?
Oh, I get it. The federal government is “the government”. Other forms of government are something else.
Turns out that states are subject to federal law and the Constitution applies even at the local leve.
So the governments, at all levels are just following you around, ready to spring into action and protect your speech anytime someone tries to shut you up. The government really thinks you are special. Try to look at it this way…
Free speech is a restriction on government, not incitement to the people.
The freedom of religion is in that same first amendment. Most of the time that particular part of the amendment is used to get religion out of schools and off of our backs. But even then it takes lawyers and lawsuits to do it. It gives people the space to practice whatever religion they want without interference from the government and that is where it stops.
One of the biggest leaps forward for constitutional rights in our country is when SCOTUS, using the 14 Amendment, started applying the Bill of Rights to the states. It is no longer federal government, but all government, including the city council, school board, etc. that cannot violate your constitutional rights.
What is your point, Randall?
depaul aint a public school.
The comment was in response to Randall’s assertion that schools in general aren’t “the government”.
DePaul University is a catholic school, so I don’t see where your constitutional protection against the government infringing on your speech come into play.
I sense a disturbance in the force.
Didn’t the President of DePaul, while claiming to champion free speech later in that letter, blame Milo Yiannopoulus for causing the ruckus by virtue of simply accepting the invitation to speak? (in bold) beforehand. Isn’t that why those 2 people, who in Reverend H’s thoughts were morally superior, went off the deep end?
Also, claiming how “unworthy” of being part of the discourse Yiannopoulus is, finally showing a shocking lack of awareness as to who on stage was “exploit(ing) the differences within our human community to their own benefit, blissfully unconcerned with the damage they leave behind.” Damage to the free speech he later says he champions. Not to mention the cause of the two protesters.
“Generally, I do not respond to speakers of Mr. Yiannopoulos’ ilk, as I believe they are more entertainers and self-serving provocateurs than the public intellectuals they purport to be. Their shtick is to shock and incite a strong emotional response they can then use to discredit the moral high ground claimed by their opponents. This is unworthy of university discourse, but not unfamiliar across American higher education. There will always be speakers who exploit the differences within our human community to their own benefit, blissfully unconcerned with the damage they leave behind.”
Did I miss something or did Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M.?
You’re being too kind to DePaul U about this. The police and the security contractors were there and absolutely could have kept the speech going had they been allowed to do their fucking jobs, but they were kept from interfering as the protesters took Milo’s stage and threatened him.
That was the saddest and most pathetic speech I have heard a college president make. He basically lays blame at the invited speakers feet and goes on to state how much he is above certain rabble-rousers that just by speaking for and what they truly believe has caused the well balanced apple cart of his campus to be tipped.
OBVIOUSLY DENNIS YOU DON’T GET IT!!! YOUR STUDENTS HAVE BEEN IN FEAR OF SPEAKING WHAT THEY BELIEVE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT STAFF, FACULTY, AND ADMIN WILL PUT THEM DOWN AND HARASS THEM IF THEY DON’T BUY THE CURRENT SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR MARXIST ANTI-WHITE RACIST PARTYLINE