Tuesday, February 07, 2017

In the News: Marquette Staffers Plot to Sabotage Ben Shapiro Speech

We have already blogged about media coverage of a plot, by a staffer in the Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies, and an (unidentified) “director of diversity” to sabotage a speech on campus by Ben Shapiro by having leftists each grab one of the limited number of tickets, and then not show up, depriving an interested student of an opportunity to see the speech.

It seems the issue continues to have “legs.”

A search of Google News now turns up the following stories:
  • Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin. The article notes, with irony, “They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right.”
  • Washington Times.
  • PJ Media. Notes: “Students at Marquette University really don’t want conservative Ben Shapiro to speak at the school later this month. Really, they don’t want conservatives to be allowed to speak anytime, anywhere — but since it’s February, they’re going with “no opposing viewpoints during Black History Month.”
  • The College Fix.
  • MacIver Institute. The author notes the irony of a statement from Marquette President Michael Lovell who said the university “welcomes and benefits from the diversity of seekers within our ranks.”
  • Accuracy in Academia.
  • Independent Journal Review.
  • National Review.
  • Fox6Now. Good (but short) interviews with Mark Seeberg of the Young Americans for Freedom, and Ethan Hollenberger (advisor to the group).
  • Marquette Wire.
  • The College Fix.
  • Heat Street.
  • Marquette Wire. Opinon piece seems to come down in favor of free speech, asking “If we start taking away people’s ability to have an audience for their opinions, like, for example, the controversy with the Ben Shapiro event being hosted at Marquette this week, then how can compromise or the exchange of ideas ever happen?”
  • Watchdog.org. James Wigderson established that one staffer will be “reprimanded.” Yes, that’s all. Just reprimanded.
Of course, these are all conservative outlets. Why aren’t liberal outlets interested? One explanation is that they don’t like publishing stuff that makes the left look bad. But it may be worse. A lot of mainstream media people, in their hearts and hearts, don’t really, really mind having conservatives shut up.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Blogger Kirby Olson said...

Trump said he would punish Berkeley by withdrawing funds. Fire, an organization that is usually on the side of free speech, said that Berkeley itself did not disrupt Milo's speech, but that they had to cancel the speech to preserve safety. Fire said,

"To punish an educational institution for the criminal behavior of those not under its control and in contravention of its policies, whether through the loss of federal funds or through any other means, would be deeply inappropriate and most likely unlawful."

I think what happened to you was clearly under Marquette's control, however. Does Marquette receive federal funds? If so, their folderal should not be funded by taxpayers.

7:51 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

@ Kirby Olson: Yes, Marquette receives Federal funds. The Obama Administration threatens to cut off federal funds from private colleges if they are not aggressive enough in prosecuting charges of sexual assault (include removing due process protections from the accused) and to cut off federal funds to school districts who won't let a kid with a penis who thinks he's a girl run around naked in the girls locker room.

So liberals have no standing to complain if the federal government intervenes to protect free expression.

You may well be right about Berkeley. But a lot of other university administrations have obstructed campus speech that the left did not like.

9:55 AM  
Blogger BuckeyeCat said...

Berkeley Professor Robert Reisch's theory is that the violent protesters were, in truth, wild-eyed conservatives run amok. He knew that none of the (masked) protestors were UC students. The student newspaper has supported the violent means to the socially just end of silencing unwelcome voices. "Inclusion" in action is invariably uplifting for us all. Uncontrollable crowds will always be an effective means of censorship. Not much free trade when it comes to the marketplace of ideas on campuses. At today's generic Sophist U., "might makes right" is the prevailing principle.

1:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home