Marquette Freshman Trump Supporter Whose Admission Was Threatened Goes International
Intolerant leftist students, led by one Erin Cook, wrote Marquette demanding her admission to the school be revoked on the basis of certain politically incorrect opinions she held: opposition to illegal immigration and refusal to accept transgender ideology.
Marquette responded by subjecting her to a hostile interrogation, and then for 12 days holding over her the possibility that she would be kicked out of the freshman class.
We broke the story, and Milwaukee area talk radio quickly featured it.
Finally, on the morning of July 6, she got an e-mail from Brian Troyer, Dean of Admissions, assuring her that her admission was not in danger.
The College Fix Chimes InFinally, on July 7, The College Fix ran a story on the issue.
|Click on image to enlarge|
This got picked up widely.
- In the UK, by the Daily Mail.
- By the New York Post.
- By Howie Carr on talk radio.
- Church Militant
- Duke Pesta Podcast — go to 11:40.
- The Dom Giordano Program.
- The Mix
- The Sun (U.K.)
- The Post Millennial
Marquette’s Dishonest ResponseMarquette tried to downplay the whole business by issuing a non-denial denial that rescinding her admission was ever under consideration. Marquette’s web page asserts:
Marquette University’s admissions decisions are made based on academic achievements and student involvement, not political views. Information publicly circulating that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded, nor did it threaten to rescind, her admission.But Marquette was clearly considering rescinding her admission.
In the first place, a form letter, distributed by on Erin Cook on Instagram clearly called for the rescinding of her admission. Presumably, a fair number of people sent it to Marquette.
Second, Marquette had recently rescinded the admission of another student over a politically incorrect social media post.
Third, the Admissions office subjected Pfefferle to an Inquisition over her social media posts. According to Pfefferle:
“They also asked me hypothetical questions regarding Dreamers,” she said. “How would I respond if a Dreamer who lived down the hall from me came up to me and told me she didn’t feel safe or comfortable with my views and me being on campus. They also asked me if they thought there was anything I could do to improve my image on campus. They proceeded to ask if I was comfortable with the reputation I have established for myself. The assistant dean asked if I put any thought into the response I would be getting from my videos.”What would be the point of the interrogation unless they were considering rescinding her admission?
They told her she was “not a student,” and that they would “let her know something” in a couple of days. “Know something” about what, if not whether she was to be booted?
Fourth, Admissions Dean Brian Troyer could have responded to this letter (which we e-mailed to him as well as posting on this blog) by simply saying that her admission was not in question. Other people wrote too. But he did not. Which clearly implies kicking her out was still under consideration.
Finally, after the hostile interrogation on June 24, Admissions waited until July 6 to finally inform her that her admission was not in question. Quite clearly, whether she would be admitted was under consideration that entire time.
“Discriminatory Language”Marquette told the New York Post that “Concerns about this new student that were brought to the university’s attention were not based on political affiliation but on alleged use of discriminatory language.”
But what was the “discriminatory language?” Pfefferle made it clear that she did not accept transgender ideology, and further that was was opposed to illegal immigration. In the world of leftist (or merely opportunistic) bureaucrats, that’s “discriminatory.”
ConclusionMarquette, quite simply, pandered to the leftist mob who wanted Pfefferle kicked out of the Freshman class, and seriously considered kicking her out. When she fought back, going public on this blog and on local talk radio, they decided that the backlash from kicking her out would be worse than the wrath of the leftist mob if they failed to.
But then, they issued intentionally misleading statements, implying that her admission was never in doubt. But their use of the term “discriminatory language” shows it clearly was, and that the “discriminatory language” was merely her espousing standard conservative political opinions.