Althouse: How to lose your job in higher education: Speak freely and cause offense... about white privilege.

June 26, 2017

How to lose your job in higher education: Speak freely and cause offense... about white privilege.

1. The University of Delaware is declining to rehire the "part-time professor" Katherine Dettwyler who wrote on Facebook (and later deleted): "Is it wrong of me to think that Otto Warmbier got exactly what he deserved... His parents ultimately are to blame for his growing up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted. Maybe in the US, where young, white, rich, clueless white males routinely get away with raping women. Not so much in North Korea. And of course, it's Ottos' parents who will pay the price for the rest of their lives." She spoke of privilege, perhaps relying, ironically, on the privilege of freedom of speech.

2. Essex County College fires adjunct professor Lisa Durden after she defended a blacks-only Black Lives Matter event (on Tucker Carlson's show). She said: "What I say to that is, boo hoo hoo... You white people are angry because you couldn’t use your white-privilege card to get invited to the Black Lives Matter all-black Memorial Day celebration." She said white people have had "white days forever," and this was one day when black people were saying "stay your asses out... We want to celebrate today. We don’t want anybody going against us today."

Both women voiced a critique of "white privilege." Is it evidence of white privilege that this is the offense that gets you fired? I observe that both of them spoke clearly and with edge but were inviting or participating in dialogue.

Dettwyler posed a question, beginning "Is it wrong of me...?" Are people so afraid to have that conversation? Yes, it was a time of overflowing empathy for the unfortunate man and his grieving family, but Dettwyler wasn't showing up to yell at Warmbier's funeral. She was showing her thoughts on Facebook and exposing an issue that some people might want to discuss, even if others want to slam the door on that line of inquiry.

Lisa Durden had the nerve to go on Tucker Carlson's show, where guests must know they are going to be hounded. Carlson had the easy side of the debate: Racial discrimination is bad. And Durden gamely jousted: The traditionally discriminated-against group is justified promoting and participating in a one-race festivity; can't you white people back off for one day and give us that?

Dettwyler and Durden should not have lost their jobs over this.

274 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 274 of 274

Fen said...: "We haven't considered the alternative - the Left would be happy to have a speech war because..."

They already have a speech war. Uncontested till now. Your argument is like saying "if we retaliate for Pearl Harbor it could mean war".

Two Jews are being led to the gas chamber. One says to the other "don't make a fuss, they might punish us"; 6/26/17, 11:14 AM
Martin L. Shoemaker said...: A few here are getting it. It's about Missouri. Other schools, too, but Missouri is the glaring example. The unwritten rule these instructors broke was, "Do not draw attention to our school in such a way that it costs us enrollment or funding." It's not about privilege, it's about the budget.; 6/26/17, 11:17 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Kevin said...And I will ask again: The way you're going to get these things is to impose more restrictions on speech and imposing your own heckler's veto?

Yes! W/r/t the heckler's veto, anyway, the practical answer is yes, or at least "possibly!"

Many universities have looked the other way when Leftists interrupt and/or assault non-Left speakers. They have rules against that sort of thing, but never bothered to enforce those rules. Now that a few non-Lefties have started interrupting Lefty speakers, suddenly the schools are much more interested in enforcing the rules. I'm sure things will still be unequal, but if takes breaking the rule to get the people in authority to start enforcing the rule against everyone...seems like a reasonable tactic. The same, sadly, may be true for more extreme things like riots.

The Media covered one jackass interrupting a play like it was a huge, unprecedented deal. Their doing so, though, couldn't help but point on their own hypocrisy in not covering the many instances of Lefty interruption and rule-breaking against non-Left speakers. I think the Lefty rule book calls this "heightening the contradictions."

You have a good point that the Left may be happy to accept the outcome and the stable equilibrium might be one of shared antipathy towards free speech as a principle. That's a bad outcome, sure. Is it worse, though, for the non-Left than the current situation? We're already getting interrupted, and fired, and beaten in the streets! We're already in a "lose" quadrant--right now it's Left= Win, Right = Lose. Changing our tactics in the current game to push the outcome to Left = Lose, Right = Lose has a chance of making the Left change their approach to the next iteration...and it doesn't leave the Right any worse off even if that tactic doesn't work.

I agree about the law, of course. I don't favor changing the law and I oppose anyone who does--the law should respect free speech. We're talking about cultural norms, though.

You asked me if that tactic could work. I think it might but acknowledge it might fail. I argue that even if it fails the outcome for the non-Left isn't much worse that what we're getting now.
I'll ask you--what other approach do you think will work? Laws and political wins aside, I don't think we've been winning. I agree it'd be bad to replace Lefties who dislike free speech with Righties who dislike free speech. I disagree, though, that we've been winning--nothing we've been doing prior to "punching back" has been changing the Left's mind. I have given up on changing their hearts--I don't believe they're ever going to embrace free speech (for all) as a principle. I have not given up on changing their behavior.

I am willing to be convinced that there's a better way, Kevin.; 6/26/17, 11:20 AM
Ralph L said...: I really do not like people to lose their jobs
It ain't pleasant, but it encourages the others.; 6/26/17, 11:21 AM
n.n said...: [class] diversity is a racist, sexist, congruent ("=") doctrine advanced by the Pro-Choice Church. I thought people wanted a separation of Church and State.; 6/26/17, 11:24 AM
Rosalyn C. said...: There's a difference between offending people by advancing unpopular facts and misleading people with rank falsehoods. Academic freedom doesn't include the right to advocate destructive behavior, for example.

The way to get beyond racism and inequity in society is not to advance the cause of black racism and black supremacism, for another example. Common sense.

There's been so much indoctrination against US culture and basic moral values that many students are confused and have become fascists using violence to advance their beliefs. Speakers are being shut down by violent protestors, property destroyed. Enough already.; 6/26/17, 11:26 AM
SGT Ted said...: Kevin, you need to stop trying to blame the victims in this culture war for fighting back on multiple fronts in order to defend civil liberties that are under active attack by totalitarians.

We didn't win the Revolution by passing the US Constitution and having a commitment to free speech. We won the war by shooting British soldiers from behind trees until they surrendered.

There is no conflict in fighting a bit dirty in order to uphold seemingly contradictory principles. We've won some battles, but the war is not over.; 6/26/17, 11:26 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ann Althouse said...2. There's actually a strong commitment to academic freedom here at the University of Wisconsin. We have people here who have fought for it over a long period of time. Look up "sifting and winnowing."

Related:

Wisconsin Assembly Takes Up Campus Free Speech Bill

MADISON - Lawmakers late Wednesday voted to crack down on University of Wisconsin System students who disrupt other people's speeches and events, pitting one set of free speech concerns against another

Wisconsin Dems Complain Free Speech Bill Targets UW-Madison; 6/26/17, 11:26 AM
Unknown said...: "Yes. And think of the chilling effect this has on the many, many people who work at this level in higher education"

In any job where your task is to interface with the public, one ought to be sensitive about the effect of their free expression. An off the cuff remark that is insulting to the bulk of the customers is ill-advised.; 6/26/17, 11:26 AM
Mary Beth said...: When you're 62 and an adjunct professor, maybe there are more reasons you're not being rehired than making one (incredibly) stupid statement. I looked at the "rate my professor" comments (all from before 2017) and the major theme there is that she's rude and opinionated.

I can't tell from any of the articles I found about her, were they planning on rehiring her before this? The ones on Durden say she had been finishing up a summer semester class and preparing for a fall one, but the ones on Dettwyler just say she won't be rehired. It could be that she wasn't coming back anyway and the university chose to publicize that fact in response to her comments.; 6/26/17, 11:27 AM
Rick said...: A better summary:

How to lose your job in a left wing institution: bring disrepute on the left by revealing what they really believe in ways even those only tangentially aware of politics will react to.; 6/26/17, 11:28 AM
frenchie said...: Dettwyler and Durden should not have lost their jobs over this

Nonsense. This is the difference between having tenure and not having tenure. The latter is in the nature of a probationary period where one is to watch one's Ps and Qs until one is offered a full-time gig, with tenure. Until then it's entirely at-will.; 6/26/17, 11:33 AM
Achilles said...: Replace "White Male" with Jew or Black and see what happens to you.

Fuck these people. They have been acting like pure shitheads. Should they have lost their jobs? No. Except they want to tear down the same free speech that would have protected them. These people don't want their political opponents to have free speech as demonstrated by past actions. These people have destroyed careers and lives of political opponents as a tactic. They use violence as a standard course of action against political enemies. They are not good people and they do not share the common belief in individual liberty that is a core common value in the United States. They support an endless investigation into a lawfully elected president with no probable cause and evidence they manufactured illicitly solely to undermine the elected government because they lost the election.

They do not act like decent people. It is imperative that we treat them like the enemies of freedom they are.; 6/26/17, 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann writes:

Dettwyler and Durden should not have lost their jobs over this.

Dettwyler and Durden are racist pigs, who made racist statements. Plenty of people (Lawrence Summers and Harvard come immediately to mind) have lost their jobs for far less inflammatory statements on the subject of "race" and / or sex.

If you can lose your job for making anti-black, anti-Hispanic, or anti-Asian statements, then you should lose your job for making anti="white" statements, not matter how you try to disguise them with babble about "privilege".

Either you judge people by the content of their (individual) character, or you're a racist judging them by the color of their skin.

The direction of you judgment (positive or negative) is irrelevant. All that matters is that you're judging based on skin color; 6/26/17, 11:38 AM
Earnest Prole said...: Technically, the recipe for losing your job in higher education is to speak freely, cause offense, and forget that you don't have tenure.; 6/26/17, 11:40 AM
Rick said...: Dettwyler posed a question, beginning "Is it wrong of me...?" Are people so afraid to have that conversation? Yes, it was a time of overflowing empathy for the unfortunate man and his grieving family, but Dettwyler wasn't showing up to yell at Warmbier's funeral. She was showing her thoughts on Facebook and exposing an issue that some people might want to discuss, even if others want to slam the door on that line of inquiry.

You're leaving out quite a bit to protect this hagiography. Dettwyler linked the dead person to others because of superficial relationships and in so doing demonstrated her dislike effected her reason.; 6/26/17, 11:42 AM
MayBee said...: The anti-white people rhetoric, and anti-male rhetoric really needs pushback, though.; 6/26/17, 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Kevin said...And I will ask again: The way you're going to get these things is to impose more restrictions on speech and imposing your own heckler's veto?

So long as one side gets to impose restrictions on speech engage in a heckler's veto without cost, they will continue to do so.

The Peace of Westphalia was instituted because both sides were being slaughtered, and wanted the pain to stop more than they wanted to get their own way.

You don't want speech restrictions? Then when Lawrence Summers was in danger of losing his job for saying that "maybe there's more men in Math because they're better at it", you should have attacked his attackers, and successfully fought for him to keep his job.

You don't want right wingers engaging in their own "hecklers veto"? Then every time Leftists try to stop a conservative from speaking, you need to successfully attack them, and keep them from winning.

Not willing / able to do that? Then STFU about the Right returning the favor. Everyone gets harmed, or no one gets harmed. Until you have destroyed the Left's ability to cost people their jobs, and their ability to stop people from speaking, attempting to stop the Right from returning the favor makes you as an ally of the speech restrictionist thugs.; 6/26/17, 11:48 AM
Rick said...: Ann Althouse said...
think of the chilling effect this has on the many, many people who work at this level in higher education.

Do you suppose it's much like the chilling effect these hateful lunatics have on those studying under them? I'm sure dozens of frat members or other white males are certain she would grade them fairly despite her openly judging a dead guy by the actions of others.; 6/26/17, 11:49 AM
Gahrie said...: You can't shame or reason the Left into better behavior, because the Left doesn't care. All it cares about is winning and power. Now the more astute of you might wonder, "but doesn't that describe Trump?" Why yes it does...which is the point. Let's face it, Trump is at heart a Progressive Lefty. He ran for president as a republican because the media and the Left (I repeat myself) mocked him at a White House correspondents dinner. He literally began making plans to run for president that week. But he serves our purposes, he ends business as usual, and the Republican establishment was just fine with business as usual. If he burns Washington D.C. down..oh well, no great loss at this point.

The Republican Party currently controls most state governorships and legislatures, the House, the Senate, the presidency and some would say the Supreme Court.

And they still won't pass any budgets. Where the Hell is my fiddle?; 6/26/17, 11:51 AM
Fen said...: "Imagine the chilling effects"

Hard to do. My people have been suffering from political hypothermia for so long we are numb, the chilling effect is a distant memory.; 6/26/17, 11:59 AM
Anthony said...: As a matter of principle, I am generally against firing people (or refusing to rehire) based on their privately (i.e., not on company time and equipment) expressed views. That said, the Left has been getting away with this crap for years now, and I'm more than happy to make them live by their own rules.; 6/26/17, 12:01 PM
Rick said...: Kevin said...
The Left is waiting in earnest for the Trump "brownshirts" to emerge. Why do we so badly want to give them that?

People who criticize others for obviously stupid actions are now Brownshirts. People are overreacting to fascists people people with bike chains because it's only a few of them. We really need to watch out for these online criticizers. They're the real danger.; 6/26/17, 12:35 PM
Drago said...: Earnest Prole: "Technically, the recipe for losing your job in higher education is to speak freely, cause offense, and forget that you don't have tenure."

Nope.

The recipe for not gaining a job in higher education or losing it if you do is...be a conservative.

For the left it is a very different set of rules which Rick captures perfectly above:

Rick: "A better summary:

How to lose your job in a left wing institution: bring disrepute on the left by revealing what they really believe in ways even those only tangentially aware of politics will react to."; 6/26/17, 12:45 PM
Gabriel said...: @Kevin:Would you similarly suggest to the fire department they put out a building fire through the use of Molotov cocktails?

Fire is in fact used to fight fire. Fires that rage out of control over a wide area are often suppressed by counterfires, which use up the fuel they need to spread.

Accelerants, such as those found in Molotov coktails, are often used.; 6/26/17, 12:47 PM
Kevin said...: I am willing to be convinced that there's a better way, Kevin.

Good. I was about to bang my head into my keyboard until I blacked out. Let's start with the idea that winning doesn't mean inflicting pain hoping the other side will cave. We didn't find Germany's pain threshold in WW2. The Germans fought until the last bullet to save Berlin. Hitler believed the entire population of Berlin should perish in a great show of German unity, or the war would be for nothing.

You win the war by depriving them of what they need to win. Hitler was out of gasoline, and manufacturing capability, and men. If he had those things, he'd still be fighting.

So I ask you, can the left win without controlling speech? Can their leftist utopia come into being without censoring not only speech but thought itself? Has any leftist regime been able to hold power for any significant time without controlling the thinking and speaking of their citizens?

And if the answer is no. And we know it is. Why would we turn America into a country where controlling speech was deemed OK by both sides? Why would we start controlling thought ourselves? Why would we hand the anti-speakers the one thing which they don't have and desperately need - a legitimate rationale to control speech?

Didn't we all watch Die Hard? Didn't we all know the whole caper could never be successful on its own, because they could never get through the seventh lock?

00:33:32 The 7th lock, however, is out of my hands.

00:33:58 I'm sorry?

00:33:59 The 7th lock... the electromagnetic seal.

00:34:02 You do understand the circuits cannot be cut locally?

00:34:07 Trust me.

And didn't they get all the money, and would have succeeded in their plan, if not for the FBI cutting power to the building?

The left is hoping we start censoring speech. They cannot end free speech locally. They need outside help from people, who at least on this thread, seem eager to give it to them.; 6/26/17, 12:59 PM
wwww said...: Facebook should be for pictures of family and pets.

Too many people get in trouble on social media. It's happening in all sorts of professions -- somebody tweets or writes something ill-advised on facebook & then they get fired.

It's the opposite of NIKE -- Just don't do it. & Stay off of social media unless you want to post baby pictures or clips from the baseball game.; 6/26/17, 1:00 PM
Kevin said...: People who criticize others for obviously stupid actions are now Brownshirts.

No, criticize all you want. Just don't demand other people act on your criticisms. Don't start barricading rallies and taking away the rights of others to speak. That's a brownshirt. That's who they think you are, and it's who they need you to become.

Then they can "save" the country from you and usher in their leftist utopia all in one massive police action. And the people in the middle will find themselves cheering as they do it.

If you don't act out, you leave them very few moves on the board.; 6/26/17, 1:02 PM
Gahrie said...: The left is hoping we start censoring speech. They cannot end free speech locally. They need outside help from people, who at least on this thread, seem eager to give it to them.

Have you been asleep the last thirty years? The precise point is that the Left has already been censoring speech. they don't need our help, just our acquiesce, which you seem eager to give.; 6/26/17, 1:03 PM
Kevin said...: Everyone gets harmed, or no one gets harmed. Until you have destroyed the Left's ability to cost people their jobs, and their ability to stop people from speaking, attempting to stop the Right from returning the favor makes you as an ally of the speech restrictionist thugs.

Thank you for labeling me. You seem to be in good company today.; 6/26/17, 1:05 PM
Gahrie said...: No, criticize all you want. Just don't demand other people act on your criticisms. Don't start barricading rallies and taking away the rights of others to speak. That's a brownshirt. That's who they think you are, and it's who they need you to become.

So by your definition, the Left actually are brownshirts.

Then they can "save" the country from you and usher in their leftist utopia all in one massive police action.

So why don't we save the country from them?

And the people in the middle will find themselves cheering as they do it.

Don't look now, but the people in the middle are on my side, and are demanding that somebody start fighting back. The Republican Party refused to do it, and so we got Trump.

If you don't act out, you leave them very few moves on the board.

Except to continue to do exactly what they have already been doing for the last thirty years with impunity.; 6/26/17, 1:09 PM
Kevin said...: We won the war by shooting British soldiers from behind trees until they surrendered.

Come now, we didn't kill them all. They never lost their will to fight. We won by depriving them of what they needed to win.

And America has lost many battles and wars in the succeeding years by believing otherwise.; 6/26/17, 1:12 PM
Kevin said...: So by your definition, the Left actually are brownshirts.

Yes.

So why don't we save the country from them?

What do you think Trump is doing? He could have said F-you to the Judiciary, implemented his travel ban, and let the Left gin up impeachment charges for usurping his power. Or he could let the Supreme Court do its job and tell the whole country he was right all along.

Which action saves the country? Which imperils it?

Don't look now, but the people in the middle are on my side, and are demanding that somebody start fighting back. The Republican Party refused to do it, and so we got Trump.

Yes, and let Trump's supporters start busting heads and flipping police cars to shut down dissenters and see how quickly they denounce them.

They're not going to care that the other side did it too. They're going to recoil in horror as it's all linked to Trump and replayed by the media 24/7.; 6/26/17, 1:17 PM
Rick said...: Kevin said...
No, criticize all you want. Just don't demand other people act on your criticisms.

You mean like you are? Are you a brownshirt?

Don't start barricading rallies and taking away the rights of others to speak. That's a brownshirt.

Oh, so no one then. Yet despite no one on the right meeting this definition the right is just like the left. Got it.; 6/26/17, 1:18 PM
Achilles said...: Kevin said...

And I will ask again: The way you're going to get these things is to impose more restrictions on speech and imposing your own heckler's veto?

I agree with the substance of your post 100%. I agree we should not be using the "heckler's veto" like the left does.

We want a free speech war only because we think it will be so immediately painful that they'll quickly sue for peace. We haven't even considered the alternative - that they'd be happy to have one because they can't obtain their objectives in a world where speech isn't effectively controlled.

You are 100% correct. We will not win a free speech war with the left because they do not value free speech. They do not value freedom.

Instead we should be treating them like enemies of freedom. The people who use the freedoms granted to us in the constitution to destroy those freedoms for others should be treated like traitors.

They shouldn't be fired. They should be put in jail. Some of the leaders should be shot.; 6/26/17, 1:19 PM
Big Mike said...: @Kevin, the First Amendment allows me to call my old boss a piss-ignorant bitch without being arrested, but there's a nonzero chance it would have impacted my annual performance review. If I was still employed by that firm long enough to have one. Likewise with Dettwyler and Durden, and June Chu, talking and writing about there institutions' potential customers.; 6/26/17, 1:20 PM
Gahrie said...: So I guess the answer is to just let the Left keep punching us in the face until their arm gets tired?; 6/26/17, 1:23 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I appreciate the responses Kevin.

Kevin said...Good. I was about to bang my head into my keyboard until I blacked out. Let's start with the idea that winning doesn't mean inflicting pain hoping the other side will cave. We didn't find Germany's pain threshold in WW2. The Germans fought until the last bullet to save Berlin. Hitler believed the entire population of Berlin should perish in a great show of German unity, or the war would be for nothing.

Well, yes and no. Wars end when one side is unable or unwilling to continue the fight. Japan had plenty of men ready to fight against an invasion. The United States had plenty of industrial and military capacity to continue fighting against the North Vietnamese. Other examples abound.

In your analogy the law is the "ability" part and the cultural/social norm is the "willingness" part. The Left hasn't been able to get many laws passed to censor speech. People act like that's natural but you only have to look at Canada and the UK right now, TODAY, to see how much work the 1st Amendment is doing to protect us--other supposedly "modern" western nations have the equivalent of blasphemy laws right now under the guise of "hate speech protection."

The left is hoping we start censoring speech. They cannot end free speech locally. They need outside help from people, who at least on this thread, seem eager to give it to them.

So, again: I'm not talking about changing the law. I think we may be speaking past each other, in fact. At the moment the Left already "ends free speech" by successfully shutting down non-Left speakers, getting non-Left people fired, and keeping non-Left people out of Left-dominated positions (in the Academy & Media, particularly). So in the non-law realm we're already at the "restricted free speech" place, man. I'm sure things could get worse...but in the non-legal realm the Left already acts to restrict the freedom of speech of people they oppose. Applying the same standards to the Left doesn't moving from free speech to non-free speech for the non-Left because we're already there!

Those of us who support holding the Left to their own rules/standards should explicitly say "this is not how things should be, but if you're going to use this standard against use we'll use it against you" every time we do that. We should be willing to accept any offers of detente or compromises that reset the social standard in a more free speech direction.; 6/26/17, 1:24 PM
Valentine Smith said...: Who gives a shit what adjunct profs have to say about anything? Are there bigger fools in any profession? People who parlay approx 20 years of education into 4-month contracts paying a pittance. Only wannabe intellectuals can be that stupid.; 6/26/17, 1:39 PM
Jim at said...: "Yikes, the noise the gander makes is so satisfying."

Indeed.

The left doesn't like being subjected to the same rules they force upon the rest of us?

Tough.
Choke on it.; 6/26/17, 1:42 PM
mtrobertslaw said...: Now that Dittwyler"s contract has not been renewed, will Ann support a law school faculty motion for the UW Law School to dip into it's Visiting Professor Fund and hire Dittwyler for the next academic year?; 6/26/17, 1:45 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: "The traditionally discriminated-against group is justified promoting and participating in a one-race festivity; can't you white people back off for one day and give us that?"

I invite any and all Blacks to stay away from me any and every day. Indeed, I encourage it.

Stay woke.; 6/26/17, 1:46 PM
Balfegor said...: Re: Kevin:

Good. I was about to bang my head into my keyboard until I blacked out. Let's start with the idea that winning doesn't mean inflicting pain hoping the other side will cave. We didn't find Germany's pain threshold in WW2. The Germans fought until the last bullet to save Berlin. Hitler believed the entire population of Berlin should perish in a great show of German unity, or the war would be for nothing.

You win the war by depriving them of what they need to win. Hitler was out of gasoline, and manufacturing capability, and men. If he had those things, he'd still be fighting.

WW2 is just about the worst example of a war in which we did not seek to break the enemy's will to resist. It's almost the only example of a war in which that was precisely our aim. Both Germany and Japan ran out of gasoline, manufacturing capability, and men well before they actually surrendered. That's why Berlin was defended by child soldiers. That's why Korean and Taiwanese enlistment in the Imperial Army skyrocketed in the last two years of the war. By its last stages, WW2 was pretty much entirely about inflicting pain on the enemy population, in the hopes their will would crack.

It did.; 6/26/17, 2:00 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: mtrobertslaw said...Now that Dittwyler"s contract has not been renewed, will Ann support a law school faculty motion for the UW Law School to dip into it's Visiting Professor Fund and hire Dittwyler for the next academic year?

Funny you mention that: I read an interesting blog post last week about how the Left's superior organization and networks of mutual support make them more formidable in a "civil war" scenario than many on the Right seem to think.
One example was in how each "side" treats terrorists, and I think the comparison was between how unrepentant Leftist terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn are treated vs someone like Eric Rudolph. The Left does take care of their extremists, and gives an academic gloss to violent radicals on their side as a way to funnel money and resources (prestige, etc) their way.

If you think the terrorism angle is unfair, fine, but non-violent Leftists with extreme views tend to do OK, too. Remember anti-Israeli prof. Steven Salaia? Try and imagine a similar treatment (as a hero/martyr w/significant financial payoff) of a right-wing prof. who said impolitic things!; 6/26/17, 2:34 PM
Alex said...: Yes. And think of the chilling effect this has on the many, many people who work at this level in higher education.

Good. I want SJWs to think twice & thrice about the racist shit they spew.; 6/26/17, 2:38 PM
PaoloP said...: "Dettwyler and Durden should not have lost their jobs over this."
Durden no; Dettwyler: absolutely deserved.; 6/26/17, 3:00 PM
Kevin said...: Rick said...

Yet despite no one on the right meeting this definition the right is just like the left. Got it.

I don't know where you got that, so let me be clear.

I have been proud that my brothers and sisters who value free speech have shown restraint in the face of multiple and sustained attacks on civil rights. I have been disappointed but not surprised as politicians and law enforcement have purposely stood by while people literlly rioted in their streets and physically assaulted people for holding unsanctioned views.

I would be severely disappointed, however, to see the right adopt similar tactics. I know no one is suggesting we flip police cars or smash windows, only heckle leftist speakers and demand leftist professionals be fired - as is being done to those on the right.

The question is where does it lead, who might be emboldened to take it to the next level, and how much would it undermine the actual progress being made under Trump.

I didn't think it was necessary for me to state, but I can assure you I'm every bit as disturbed as anyone else on this thread by the undermining of the Constitution which has gone on for far too long. And if I believed restricting speech was the best path forward, I would be here advocating exactly that.; 6/26/17, 3:36 PM
Ralph L said...: I want SJWs to think twice & thrice about the racist shit they spew.
6/26/17, 2:38 PM

I want them to spew every poisonous thing they believe. Transparency! Let the schools lose prestige, students and funds for hiring such assholes. (more effective with private schools)

I sent an angry email to the Davidson alumni office after reading the president said women who claim sexual assault should be believed. It would have been more effective if I'd sent them some money in the last 20 years, but at least my father has.; 6/26/17, 3:38 PM
Kevin said...: Achilles said...

You are 100% correct. We will not win a free speech war with the left because they do not value free speech. They do not value freedom.

Instead we should be treating them like enemies of freedom. The people who use the freedoms granted to us in the constitution to destroy those freedoms for others should be treated like traitors.

They shouldn't be fired. They should be put in jail. Some of the leaders should be shot.

I think we should be treating them as the children they have shown themselves to be. They are already beginning to destroy the left and pretty soon one of them is going to point their finger at George Soros and he's going to take away their allowance.

I think treating them as more than that gives them credence they have yet to earn. And I mean that whether we're talking about the Mayor of San Jose, or the Berkeley Police Chief, or Madonna. We should hold them accountable for their actions, no more or less, and we shouldn't start calling some things treason or shooting people in the public square. Civil rights violators have been dealt with for centuries without resorting to that.

We have laws which are now being enforced, we have the DOJ which can exert considerable influence, and we are pushing the blue out of the heartland and into both oceans.

Let's not lose the momentum we have by doing something as stupid as they are.; 6/26/17, 3:47 PM
Kevin said...: Big Mike said...

@Kevin, the First Amendment allows me to call my old boss a piss-ignorant bitch without being arrested, but there's a nonzero chance it would have impacted my annual performance review. If I was still employed by that firm long enough to have one. Likewise with Dettwyler and Durden, and June Chu, talking and writing about there institutions' potential customers.

Agreed on all counts.; 6/26/17, 3:58 PM
Kevin said...: Gahrie said…

So I guess the answer is to just let the Left keep punching us in the face until their arm gets tired?

If a person of any political persuasion punches you in your actual face, the right of self defense is still in play.

If we believe our collective outrage entitles us to have them silenced or fired, however, we are no different than those who we’ve come to despise. Even if "she hit me first".; 6/26/17, 3:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Kevin said...
The Left is waiting in earnest for the Trump "brownshirts" to emerge. Why do we so badly want to give them that?

Um, Kevin, in case you missed it, the Left's Brownshirts are out in force. They're the Black Block (however they spell it). They're also the students who attacked Murray and Middlefield. They're the people who shout down conservative speakers. They're the people who drove Lawrence Summers out of Harvard for wondering if, just maybe, men are better at math than women,

From violence, to destroying businesses, to costing people their jobs, the Left is already on it. It's a bit late in the day to be complaining about people on the Right not following Robert's Rules of Order; 6/26/17, 4:05 PM
Rick said...: I don't know where you got that

Maybe here:

"Both parties do it" is not where you want to be on these things.; 6/26/17, 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Kevin said...
I am willing to be convinced that there's a better way, Kevin.

Good. I was about to bang my head into my keyboard until I blacked out. Let's start with the idea that winning doesn't mean inflicting pain hoping the other side will cave. We didn't find Germany's pain threshold in WW2. The Germans fought until the last bullet to save Berlin.

1: Germans fighting Americans were often very eager to surrender.
2: We started WWII objecting to unlimited submarine warfare and bombing cities. We ended it by practicing unlimited sub warfare against the Japanese, and bombing the hell out of German and Japanese cities.

I suppose we could just cut to the chase and start shooting everyone who says or does anything leftist in public. But, since I'm a nice guy, I'll settle for doing unto them as they do unto us.; 6/26/17, 4:10 PM
Kevin said...: HoodlumDoodlum said…

I appreciate the responses Kevin.

And I the ability to clarify my remarks where they may have been confusing.

Wars end when one side is unable or unwilling to continue the fight.

Yes, one generally precedes the other, but as you point out one can have the resources but lack the will to use them. My larger point is that you don’t fight wars hoping to make the other guy hurt so much he stops fighting. You go into them to make it impossible for them to continue, or, as we’ve also seen, we might lose our will to continue before they lose theirs.

The Left hasn't been able to get many laws passed to censor speech. People act like that's natural but you only have to look at Canada and the UK right now, TODAY, to see how much work the 1st Amendment is doing to protect us--other supposedly "modern" western nations have the equivalent of blasphemy laws right now under the guise of "hate speech protection.”

Excellent points. For all the uproar and creeping acceptance in certain circles, the laws have not changed and they can be fully used to prosecute those who break them. Saying goofy things has never been illegal here, and we should not help to make it so.

Those of us who support holding the Left to their own rules/standards should explicitly say "this is not how things should be, but if you're going to use this standard against use we'll use it against you" every time we do that. We should be willing to accept any offers of detente or compromises that reset the social standard in a more free speech direction.

Then I feel like we’re not using the law and free speech to our advantage. We are forced into acting as they act and replying as they reply. In doing so, we move the level of acceptable censorship in the wrong direction. And we take away one of our most potent weapons - the liberal with a microphone telling the world exactly what they think.

For example, just today I came across this:

"White women: it is time to do your part! Your white children reinforce the white supremacist society that benefits you. If you claim to be progressive, and yet willingly birth white children by your own choice, you are a hypocrite. White women should be encouraged to abort their white children, and to use their freed-up time and resources to assist women of color who have no other choice but to raise their children."  

You think I want that person to shut up? I want her talking, and talking, and talking…; 6/26/17, 4:14 PM
Kevin said...: "Both parties do it" is not where you want to be on these things.

Thanks. I'm not saying both parties do it today. I'm cautioning against doing what they do, such that our only defense is that both parties do it.

We should not end up being indistinguishable from them, or we have become what we despised.; 6/26/17, 4:19 PM
Rick said...: Or maybe it was here:

Either one side tears up civil liberties to meet their objectives, or the other side does it for them in response.

Somehow criticizing people has been converted into tearing up civil liberties.; 6/26/17, 4:25 PM
Kevin said...: Balfegor said...

By its last stages, WW2 was pretty much entirely about inflicting pain on the enemy population, in the hopes their will would crack.

Interesting. Long before either enemy was defeated, their ability to win had been extinguished. And I think we'd both agree that had those strategic objectives not been achieved, there was no way they would have stopped fighting.

We can see that because the people of Japan and Germany, even with the ability to win outside their reach, never cracked. Perhaps this was due to such strong belief in their leaders that they would find a way to win anyway. There is evidence that some people never believed the war was lost right up to the moment of surrender. But another reason was they were defending their homeland. There was no place for them to return. And the idea of being occupied - for the second time in Germany's case, and by a foreign power who might seek to exact revenge for a sneak attack in Japan's - was so horrible, even death didn't seem worse to many.

Had we the will ourselves, which after so many years was running low, we could have encircled both countries and simply let them starve to death. They would have continued to have the will to fight, but they would have died from lack of the resources necessary to do so.; 6/26/17, 4:31 PM
Kevin said...: Rick said...

Or maybe it was here:

"Either one side tears up civil liberties to meet their objectives, or the other side does it for them in response."

Somehow criticizing people has been converted into tearing up civil liberties.

Thanks Rick. Again, my point was not that we are doing anything to their civil liberties. It was that once we start "doing it too", as several people were advocating, then it doesn't matter who is doing it first and who is responding. In either case, our liberties would be destroyed in the process.

I suppose it could be misleading when I'm copying part of what someone said and responding. I have their entire post in my head, but if you're only reading the snippet and my response, I can see where it might not be clear that I'm responding to more than just what I quoted. And I can see it might look like I'm implying things generally rather than addressing their words and intended actions.

I'll have to think about that.; 6/26/17, 4:38 PM
Kevin said...: gregq said...

From violence, to destroying businesses, to costing people their jobs, the Left is already on it. It's a bit late in the day to be complaining about people on the Right not following Robert's Rules of Order

No doubt. So is it an eye for an eye? Free speech for no one? Outlawed beliefs on both sides? Closer and closer to a shooting war?

Or are we, the party in power, going to use the law to our advantage rather than following them into the bottomless pit of tearing it apart?; 6/26/17, 4:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Blogger Kevin said...
gregq said...

From violence, to destroying businesses, to costing people their jobs, the Left is already on it. It's a bit late in the day to be complaining about people on the Right not following Robert's Rules of Order

No doubt. So is it an eye for an eye? Free speech for no one? Outlawed beliefs on both sides? Closer and closer to a shooting war?

Here's what it's NOT going to be: It's not going to be "free speech for the Left, but not for the Right."

You want to devote your life to waging war against all the Lefties denying free speech for the Right? Great! Awesome! Wonderful!

Let us know when you're successful, and conservatives can speak freely on college campuses, and be invited to be speakers just as often as lefties, and where there's no Left wing hecklers veto.

Until then, then we intelligent people will be bringing the Left's rules and standards to them.

Because anything else is stupid; 6/26/17, 5:26 PM
Swede said...: Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Those rules weren't meant to apply to US!; 6/26/17, 5:28 PM
Rusty said...: Kevin said...
gregq said...

From violence, to destroying businesses, to costing people their jobs, the Left is already on it. It's a bit late in the day to be complaining about people on the Right not following Robert's Rules of Order

No doubt. So is it an eye for an eye? Free speech for no one? Outlawed beliefs on both sides? Closer and closer to a shooting war?

No. it doesn't have to be that way.
If they bring a riot to a campus speech event we bring the security.
Defending free speech is a virtue.
denying ANYONE their right to speak freely should be a felony.; 6/26/17, 5:51 PM
Jim S. said...: This has been pointed out already, but adjunct professors are hired on a semester-by-semester basis. Not hiring them the next semester is not the same thing as firing them. However, if they were fired in the middle of the term, that would be different.

The life of an adjunct is rough. I'm teaching more classes per year than I would with a tenure-track job (because I teach at more than one school), and I earn less than twenty thousand a year.; 6/26/17, 6:21 PM
Ralph L said...: Does the fact that they were at state schools change anything?; 6/26/17, 6:25 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: I think we all know what follows sifting and winnowing.; 6/26/17, 6:35 PM
Unknown said...: racism is racism; 6/26/17, 6:59 PM
Paco Wové said...: "Somehow criticizing people has been converted into tearing up civil liberties."

A few days ago, Kevin was arguing that telling commenters on this blog that they were wrong was "policing" them. I'm not sure what the limits of acceptable non-lefty behavior are, but for Kevin the limits seem very tight.; 6/26/17, 9:57 PM
Hyphenated American said...: Long time ago, my cat bit me. I bit him back. He looked at me as if the entire world has ended. He stopped biting after this. He was a sweet and very intelligent cat, but he needed to learn....

Conservatives need to arm themselves to the teeth (pun not intended) with the concepts of political correctness and intersectionality, weaponize them and use against liberals with devastating force. This is the only way to teach the dumb bustards not to screw with us. Nothing else works. We need to make them to live according to their own rules...

get in their faces and punch twice as hard, as a recent Nobel prize winner has taught us.; 6/27/17, 2:08 AM
Kevin said...: A few days ago, Kevin was arguing that telling commenters on this blog that they were wrong was "policing" them. I'm not sure what the limits of acceptable non-lefty behavior are, but for Kevin the limits seem very tight.

I'm new to posting here, so forgive my confusion. It seems just about everyone here is upset the left prohibits free speech, right? Am I wrong that this is a major theme of most posts and comments? Did I miss something?

And yet if you read through the comments in this thread, people are advocating adopting the left's tactics to "show them" or "punch back twice as hard". We're going to denounce them for violating our civil liberties and we're so fed up we're going to do it by violating theirs.

This may not be the majority position of the people on this blog, but it certainly is the majority position on this thread.

All I'm doing is calling the same behavior wrong in both cases. There is no "they did it first", because I guarantee you the left thinks they are "just responding to the right" when they're out there flipping police cars. In their minds, they love freedom too and are just responding to X and Y and Z which are inherently unfair and must be dealt with by "punching back twice as hard".

It can't be wrong for them but right when we do it. That's all I'm saying.; 6/27/17, 6:12 AM
Kevin said...: Long time ago, my cat bit me. I bit him back. He looked at me as if the entire world has ended. He stopped biting after this. He was a sweet and very intelligent cat, but he needed to learn....

I think the better analogy is this. A few weeks ago someone else's cat bit them on TV. That bothered me so I bit my cat to let him know cats biting humans was not OK.

My cat was upset that I'd do that to him. He felt I was mean. He told other cats about what I did. And surprisingly, some of them bit their owners to let them know that biting cats was hurtful. It seemed the only way to let humans know they would not stand for this.

Whatever message we'd like to send, it's not going to be restricted to the "bad" people. It's not going to hurt only the people who supported the original infraction. And it's not going to be dealt with person to person. There is a lot of collateral damage.; 6/27/17, 6:18 AM
Kevin said...: Rusty said...

No. it doesn't have to be that way.
If they bring a riot to a campus speech event we bring the security.
Defending free speech is a virtue.
denying ANYONE their right to speak freely should be a felony.

Amen brother.; 6/27/17, 6:21 AM
Rusty said...: If one is reserved to promote free speech it cannot be wrong. Moderation in the defense of an inherent right is an admission that that right is not inherent and should be regulated.
You don't like my speech? You have two choices. Counter my argument or punch me in the face. But don't be surprised if I punch back and continue my free speech.
This is America. You want a fight?
OK.; 6/27/17, 6:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Kevin said...
Rusty said...

No. it doesn't have to be that way.
If they bring a riot to a campus speech event we bring the security.
Defending free speech is a virtue.
denying ANYONE their right to speak freely should be a felony.

Amen brother.

That's nice

And everyone should have a pet unicorn who poops rainbow skittles

the reality is that violent thugs work aggressively to stop free speech both on and off campus. On campus, the University Administrations support the violent thugs. If they call security, it's too arrest anyone who hands out a US Constitution, or to "escort" (but not safely) the conservatives away after they've given up on speaking.

Off campus? The cops sit back and watch the Black bloc attack, as they've been ordered to do.

Tell us, precisely, who you're going to change that. Tell us where you've been successful, and how.

Or else piss off. Because all you are is yet another enabler of the people destroying free speech; 6/27/17, 12:32 PM