Marquette College Republicans on Student Whose Admission Was Threatened Over Conservative Opinions

From Marquette’s College Republicans on the attempt — which Marquette was seriously considering acceding to — to boot a student from the 2020 freshman class because of her conservative opinions.

The Marquette College Republicans want to commend our University for upholding their mission in the search of truth and discovery of knowledge by maintaining their decision regarding Samantha Pfefferle’s acceptance to Marquette this Fall. While, in the end, administrators made the correct decision, the way events transpired continues to concern our members. Our club has a standing offer that if people disagree with our points of view, they are welcome to attend any club meeting or event to discuss those disagreements. Instead of pursuing this appropriate course of action, emboldened upperclassmen (those meant to embody tolerance and maturity) mischaracterized and slandered one of our own. More concerning is the feeling that our school’s administration gave these schoolyard bullies legitimacy by forcing Samantha to defend conservative thought in an intimidating setting (outnumbered and answering trap questions) with the threat of university rejection looming. What transpired was unacceptable and must not be the procedure when conservative students share their views.

Marquette, as an institution of higher learning, has the responsibility of encouraging diversity of thought, not just skin color or ethnicity. It cannot endorse intellectual intolerance and certainly not partake in Cancel Culture. Our club members deserve the ability to share their views without the fear of an inquisition by our administration or threats of harm by fellow students. Marquette must stand strong against any threats of violence towards any student, including Samantha. We seek only equal treatment and equal respect.

This affair highlights that too many people continue to misunderstand, willingly or unwillingly, our club’s intentions and opinions; but, while those who slander and threaten our members want us to retreat from our views, this matter will only strengthen our resolve and our mission. We believe great institutions like Marquette should be proud of diverse opinions, as well as people, and we hope our fellow students, faculty members, administrators and alumni feel the same way too.

-The Marquette University College Republicans

This is quite a good statement, and “schoolyard bullies” is the perfect description of the mob that wanted Pfefferle cancelled.

We, however, would not have “commended” Marquette. Marquette did not really come down on the side of free expression and intellectual diversity. Marquette backed off because Pfefferle was willing to fight, and the issue had gotten considerable attention.

There is no reason to believe that the basic instinct of university bureaucrats — to pander to politically correct leftists — has changed at all.

But statements like this one — as well as the massive public relations fiasco Marquette brought on itself — will hopefully temper the expression of that instinct.

Marquette Student Who Instigated Campaign to Get Samantha Pfefferle Cancelled Under Investigation by Marquette

Her name is Erin Cook, and she started the campaign to get Samantha Pfefferle who had been admitted to the fall, 2020 freshman class, cancelled from Marquette because of her politically incorrect opinions.

From her Instagram account: an e-mail she got from Marquette officials telling her she is the subject of a student conduct investigation:

We do not know if anything came of this investigation, and Marquette never reveals such information.

Cook, of course, is entirely unrepentant. She promises to “call out” racism, sexism, transphobia and xenophobia, which in her world are pretty much any political opinion with which she disagrees.

We don’t know whether her campaign violated any Marquette rules — although trying to get somebody punished for their political opinions ought to be against the rules at any university. But few, if any, universities have the courage to make or enforce such a rule against leftist cancel culture. Instead, they pander to that culture.

Any Marquette students who sent harassing or threatening messages to Pfefferle can be punished. We hope to learn that that has happened.

And we hope that Samantha Pfefferle’s success in fighting off the forces of intolerance will embolden students to express themselves freely, ignoring the threats of the Erin Cooks of the campus.

Marquette’s Dishonest Spin on Student Whose Admission Was Threatened Because of Her Conservative Views

We broke the story right here, and it’s been all over the place: Samantha Pfefferle, a student who had been admitted to Marquette for the fall semester posted a video touting her support for Donald Trump, and leftists on social media took offense. They searched her posts, and found some politically incorrect opinions: she opposed illegal immigration and refused to accept transgender ideology. A massive e-mail campaign from leftists put her admission in doubt.

But now, Marquette is trying to imply that her admission was never really in doubt, without actually saying so.

Marquette’s First Lie

Marquette send out an e-mail on July 22, touting a PolitiFact article, claiming:

A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel PolitiFact analysis rated “mostly false” a claim that Marquette University threatened to rescind an incoming student’s admission for views she expressed on social media.

Here is the blurb from the Marquette e-mail:

But in fact, the article assesses the claim that “Marquette University threatened to rescind student’s admission over pro-Trump TikTok video.”

PolitiFact claimed:

The pro-Trump post was not at issue. Marquette and the people complaining to the university were examining comments on topics like sexuality and immigration in other social media posts.

In other words, it was her political views that got her in trouble with the Marquette Admissions office.

In fact, 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.”  In the world of politically correct identity politics, “discriminatory language” is pretty much any conservative political position.

How the Issue Developed

The student’s admission came into doubt when a leftist Marquette student named Erin Cook noticed the pro-Trump TikTok video. She described it as “Shits tacky. Pls watch out for this one, MU.”

Click on image to enlarge

Going over Pfefferle’s other posts, she found the heretical opinions on immigration and transgenderism, and started a campaign to have her admission cancelled.

Was Pfefferle Threatened?

Marquette told PolitiFact:

“Marquette received hundreds of emails, social media messages and formal bias-incident reports from current students, alumni and others regarding the incoming student’s social media posts and her comments on social media, which some deemed to be ‘transphobic and racist’ language,” university spokeswoman Lynn Griffith told PolitiFact Wisconsin in an email. “The concerns brought to us by hundreds of students and non-students were not specific to that (pro-Trump) TikTok. Rather, the messages and formal bias incident reports referenced other posts on the student’s social channels.”

Translation: it was indeed her political opinions that caused Marquette to consider cancelling her. The fact that there were “hundreds” of people in a leftist mob — most apparently claiming an connection with Marquette — is utterly appalling.

Background

Pfefferle knew about the campaign against her, and had indeed received many harassing and threatening messages.

And Marquette had indeed recently cancelled a student for an “offensive” social media post. The student compared the cop who knelt on George Floyd’s neck to Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the National Anthem.

That’s a stupid analogy, but not much more stupid than that of a Marquette English professor who compared looting and rioting in the wake of George Floyd’s death to the Boston Tea Party.

Further, if you show me an 18 year-old who never makes stupid analogies, I’ll show you somebody who probably doesn’t need a college education.

But the leftist mob, having gotten one scalp, smelled blood, and was after Pfefferle. Pfefferle knew about all this.

And indeed, Erin Cook, after the attempt to oust Pfefferle failed, said that she thought that, after the successful attempt to oust one student, this attempt would succeed.

Click on image to enlarge

Hostile Interrogation

When leftists begin to bombard Marquette with demands that Pfefferle be cancelled, the Admissions office, rather than simply responding that “we don’t cancel students over political opinions,” promised to “review the situation and take appropriate action.”  Erin Cook posted the response she got from Admissions Dean Brian Troyer:

Click on image to enlarge

Pfefferle was then interviewed via Zoom by two Marquette officials, Admissions Dean Brian Troyer and Erin Lazzar (Associate Dean of Students). She has given several consistent accounts of what happened.

First, she was reminded she was “not a student.” And, according to The College Fix:

“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.”

Further, she was told by Lazzar “The content you are pushing out has created this environment that is contrary to a learning environment that we hope our students are ­engaged in.” What kind of “learning environment” is that? Perhaps one where leftist views are never challenged?

The interrogation was on Wednesday, June 24. They told her they would get back to her in a couple of days.

Threat?

Marquette claims Pfefferle was “never threatened.” Indeed, Pfefferle doesn’t claim that anybody told her “we might kick you out.”

But was she right to feel threatened?

Given the context, absolutely.

But Was Her Admission Really Under Threat?

When the weekend came, and she had no response, she went to a conservative Marquette student activist, who came to us, and we blogged about it on Sunday night.

It was picked up by local talk radio, with Marquette getting chewed out by:

• Steve Scaffidi
• Vicki McKenna
• Mark Belling

Other outlets picked it up, but somewhat slowly, most only reporting on it the following week. But local talk radio is plenty powerful enough to get Marquette’s attention.

When other media outlets became interested, and Marquette went into full damage control mode, they put out several non-denial denials, claiming (as we have seen) that she was under attack for alleged “discriminatory language” which simply means she expressed politically incorrect opinions on immigration and transgenderism.

Marquette Lied

But then Marquette told the Daily Mail:

Information circulating today from a blog that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded her admissions offer.

Note the intention to deceive. After Marquette had backed down and told Pfefferle her admission status had not been revoked (on July 6), Marquette put out (on July 8) that it was untrue that it might rescind Pfefferle’s admission. A dishonest evasion. The issue is whether Marquette had earlier considered cancelling her. It clearly had.

The Smoking Gun

On Saturday, June 27 (the day before we blogged about it), we e-mailed Brian Troyer, asking him “What can you tell me about the attempt of leftist students to get the admissions offer of Samantha Pfefferle cancelled?”

His response at 10:38 a.m. the following day was “I cannot discuss matters under review involving future and/or continuing MU students.” [emphasis added]

So her case was “under review.” The only issue that might be “under review” was her social media posts. Nobody had accused her of anything else.

The entire e-mail and his response is here.

Troyer had no way of knowing that his honest response that Sunday morning would undermine Marquette’s later spin on the issue.

After the story broke here and on talk radio, Troyer failed to respond to an e-mail from Fr. Kurz (posted here on July 6, but sent several days earlier) or our letter of June 30.  He (or Marquette PR people) could have responded saying the issue was moot, since she was not going to be cancelled.  But apparently, the issue was not moot.

Quite obviously, they were still considering whether to boot Pfefferle.

Lovell and Damage Control

A leaked e-mail, dated July 8 that Marquette President Michael Lovell set to trustees has been published on PowerLine Blog.

In it, Lovell says that:

We at Marquette then received many messages and bias incident reports about the language she [Pfefferle] used in her posts.

Here is an article about the trend at high schools and colleges around the country, especially in the wake of George Floyd’s death.

As is our practice when bias incidents are filed, Dean of Admissions Brian Troyer and Associate Dean of Students Erin Lazzar followed up by having a conversation with the incoming student. We did NOT rescind her offer nor was that even mentioned.

But it was clearly being considered, and Pfefferle could plainly see that.

Following this conversation, however, the incoming student conducted interviews with blogs and talk radio where she inaccurately says that we threatened to rescind her admission.

She didn’t say any such thing, but she clearly knew that her admission was under threat.

Those blogs have been making the rounds for about a week, and one such link from powerlineblog.com has been more widely shared today.

This afternoon Donald Trump, Jr. retweeted an article from College Fix.

Since then, we have received messages on social media, mostly from people with no affiliation with Marquette, who want to express their anger about us “rescinding” her offer of admissions. We did correct misinformation with blogs that were spreading blatant falsehoods, though some still continue to share inaccurate headlines, links, and social media posts. We are also replying to Marquette alumni and those with a Marquette affiliation letting them know of the inaccuracy of the reports. That has satisfied most of the people we have engaged in the Marquette community.

Now the most damning:

After consultation with our external crisis communication consultants this afternoon we released the following statement [emphasis added]:

Marquette University’s admissions decisions are made based on academic achievements and student involvement, not political views. Information circulating today from a blog that Marquette might rescind the admission of incoming freshman Samantha Pfefferle is false. Marquette has not rescinded her admissions offer.

Yes, when you are the head of a bureaucracy that has done something evil, simply telling the honest truth won’t suffice. You need “external crisis communication consultants.”

To state the obvious, an honest university administration would not need “external crisis communication consultants.”

Summary

Marquette did what it usually does: it pandered to the leftist mob, seriously considering whether to placate the mob by kicking out a student who had expressed politically incorrect opinions.

What they did not foresee was that Pfefferle was willing to fight back, first by coming to us, and then by interviewing with any media outlet interested in the story. A lot were.

Although the huge burst of national (and international) publicity came a day or two after July 6, when Troyer told her she had not been cancelled, the bureaucrats knew that she was willing to fight back, and could easily foresee that the story would go national and international.

When it did, they moved into damage control mode.

Free Speech Group Speaks Out Against Cancel Culture at Marquette University

The fiasco which Marquette brought upon itself by pandering to the leftist mob, and threatening a conservative entering freshman with having her admission cancelled, continues to resonate.

PRESS RELEASE from the LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER
MEDIA CONTACT: Kristen Williamson, media@libertyjusticecenter.org

MILWAUKEE (July 16, 2020) — In an incredibly toxic, divisive political environment, a mob-like cancel culture has taken hold in many industries. This culture of shutting down debate and muzzling free speech is not limited to professionals or public figures. It has infiltrated college campuses in an attempt to silence a new generation of college students.

Recently, an admitted student to Marquette University was villainized and shamed for expressing her political views. When a current Marquette student discovered her online posts and unilaterally declared her point of view intolerable, the student led an attack campaign against the incoming freshman. The new Golden Eagle, Samantha Pfefferle, told her story to various media outlets to expose the hypocritical and discriminatory behavior she experienced from the Marquette community. She alleges that her very admission to the university was threatened and she even received death threats.

Today, Patrick Hughes, president and co-founder of the Liberty Justice Center, felt compelled to weigh in through an open letter to the university’s president, Dr. Michael R. Lovell. Hughes not only leads a national, public interest law firm committed to protecting our fundamental, constitutional rights, he is also a graduate of Marquette University.

Hughes warns that Marquette University should not discriminate based on political views or free speech expressions. This discrimination runs afoul of Marquette’s principles and could put the university’s federal funding at risk. Here are excerpts from Hughes’s July 16 letter:

On Patrick’s motivation to contact the university president:
“Not only is the Marquette campus better off with a wide array of perspectives, but so is our country. To that end, I have spent the better part of the last decade working to make life better for others by litigating to protect our fundamental, constitutional rights. Ten years ago, I co-founded the Liberty Justice Center, a national, public interest law firm that specializes in First Amendment and free speech litigation. We are best known for helping free non-union public sector workers from paying forced union fees in Janus v. AFSCME…”

On threats made against incoming student Samantha Pfefferle:
“According to Ms. Pfefferle, an admissions official asked about her image on campus, her reputation as a result of her videos and how students who hold different points of view would feel if she was present on campus. My firm has not observed or been made aware of any instances of students who hold opposing points of view to Ms. Pfefferle being treated in remotely the same manner.”

On university leaders living up to Marquette’s commitment to free speech:
“Marquette has made several commitments to students that guarantee their free speech. Marquette’s mission statement states, ‘[W]e are firmly committed to academic freedom.’ The University’s guiding values also promise ‘an inclusive, diverse community that fosters . . . vigorous yet respectful debate.’”

Finally, Hughes concludes:
“Moreover, I am left to wonder what would have become of Ms. Pfefferle's admission if she didn't have the courage to speak to the press. What will happen to others seeking a Marquette education — who like Ms. Pfefferle simply prefer a political candidate in opposition to the mob — and who don't have the power to speak? I hope it never comes to that again, but if it does please know that the Liberty Justice Center will be there to speak (and litigate) on their behalf.”

University leaders must model support for free speech before they become complicit in the silencing of students and faculty on campus, thereby quashing the free, academic exchange of ideas. If students at Marquette University or other universities and colleges across the country experience this type of suppression in the future, Liberty Justice Center is prepared to defend their constitutional rights.

The entire letter is here, and is well worth reading.

Marquette College Republicans Respond to Threat to Cancel Admission of Conservative Student

At the behest of a leftist mob, Marquette’s Admissions Office contacted Freshman admit Samantha Pfefferle over her supposed “discriminatory language” in social media posts.

Pfefferle had made it clear she supports Donald Trump, wants to end illegal immigration, and does not accept transgender ideology.

She was reminded she was “not a student” and subjected to a hostile interrogation concerning her political views.

The admissions office said they would “get back to her” in a couple of days, clearly implying her admission was now in doubt. But they did not get back to her. She went public on this blog, and after her situation was publicized on Milwaukee talk radio, Marquette (twelve days after the original interrogation) finally told her her admission had not been cancelled.

This threat to free speech and diversity of viewpoint has concerned a lot of people, but especially concerned have been the Marquette College Republicans. If conservative speech can be punished coming from a incoming freshman, are Marquette students who express similar views in danger? Pfefferle was a bit more vulnerable, having not begun classes, but intolerant leftist mobs routinely target conservative students.

Thus the Marquette College Republicans sent the following statement to Marquette officials.

The Marquette College Republicans want to commend our University for upholding their mission in the search of truth and discovery of knowledge by maintaining their decision regarding Samantha Pfefferle’s acceptance to Marquette this Fall. While, in the end, administrators made the correct decision, the way events transpired continues to concern our members. Our club has a standing offer that if people disagree with our points of view, they are welcome to attend any club meeting or event to discuss those disagreements. Instead of pursuing this appropriate course of action, emboldened upperclassmen (those meant to embody tolerance and maturity) mischaracterized and slandered one of our own. More concerning is the feeling that our school’s administration gave these schoolyard bullies legitimacy by forcing Samantha to defend conservative thought in an intimidating setting (outnumbered and answering trap questions) with the threat of university rejection looming. What transpired was unacceptable and must not be the procedure when conservative students share their views.

Marquette, as an institution of higher learning, has the responsibility of encouraging diversity of thought, not just skin color or ethnicity. It cannot endorse intellectual intolerance and certainly not partake in Cancel Culture. Our club members deserve the ability to share their views without the fear of an inquisition by our administration or threats of harm by fellow students. Marquette must stand strong against any threats of violence towards any student, including Samantha. We seek only equal treatment and equal respect. This affair highlights that too many people continue to misunderstand, willingly or unwillingly, our club’s intentions and opinions; but, while those who slander and threaten our members want us to retreat from our views, this matter will only strengthen our resolve and our mission. We believe great institutions like Marquette should be proud of diverse opinions, as well as people, and we hope our fellow students, faculty members, administrators and alumni feel the same way too.
-The Marquette University College Republicans

The College Republicans have asked for a meeting with Marquette officials. Hopefully, those officials will commit to free expression on campus.

And hopefully, they will live up to that commitment the next time the leftist mob gets mad.

Christian Schneider on Marquette Freshman Whose Admission to Marquette Was Threatened for Conservative Posts

Christian Schneider is a former student of ours, and a former opinion columnist for the Journal-Sentinel, who now writes for a variety of outlets, including National Review.

It seems the story of Samantha Pfefferle, whose admission to Marquette was thrown into doubt when the leftist mob discovered her politically incorrect social media posts, has made it to out-state Wisconsin markets. Schneider is here interviewed on WCLO in Janesville.

Marquette Freshman Whose Admission Was Threatened on Laura Ingraham

Marquette Freshman Trump Supporter Whose Admission Was Threatened Goes International

Her name is Samantha Pfefferle — we declined to name her at first, to protect her from additional harassment, but her name is now all over the place.

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 In

Finally, 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

And many more.

Marquette’s Dishonest Response

Marquette 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.”

Conclusion

Marquette, 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.

Trump Supporting Student Will Not Be Cancelled From Marquette Freshman Class

It was an outrageous case of intolerant political correctness: a bunch of leftists, at least some of them Marquette students, tried to get the admission of one Samantha Pfefferle cancelled because of her support of Donald Trump, her rejection of open borders and unwillingness to accept transgender ideology.

This morning, she got the follow e-mail from the Marquette Dean of Admissions:

Dear Samantha,

Yes, I received the letter from your attorney after reaching out to you this morning. To confirm, your status as an incoming first-year student at Marquette has not changed. Our goal in a follow-up conversation was to check in with you, to discuss the additional threatening posts you have received, and to ensure you were clear that your status has not changed.

Sincerely,
Brian Troyer
Dean of Undergraduate Admission
Marquette University

It would be nice to believe that the Marquette Administration acted in good faith on this. Unfortunately, the fact that the Admissions office subjected her to a hostile interrogation when the demands from the leftist mob should have been summarily dismissed, and the fact that they took almost two weeks to inform her that she had not been kicked out, both suggest that they had their finger to the wind.

Did they view pandering to the hostility of the leftist mob as the safest course, or did they, once this issue blew up on conservative talk radio and Facebook, decide that blow back from kicking her out was more dangerous?

Hiring a lawyer is usually a good idea, but the above message sounds like Admissions reached out to her to tell her she had not been cancelled before getting the letter from the lawyer.

Regardless, her willingness to fight the forces of political correctness gave her a great victory.

Distinguished Emeritus Professor Reprimands Marquette Over Attempt to Cancel Admission of Trump Supporter

From Fr. William Kurz, commenting on this case.

This is unbelievably nasty. No matter what one’s political views, Marquette U. should be deluged with angry protests over apparently threatening to withhold admittance from an incoming freshman student who dared to openly support the current president of the United States. This is out-and-out fascism. Is Marquette not going to allow freedom of speech and opinion and dare to call themselves a Catholic University?

I taught at Marquette for over 40 years, won a university teaching award, am about to receive a Festschrift from international scholars honoring my scholarship, over 20,000 international scholars continue to download my scholarly articles. . . . Marquette has got to put a resounding stop to this and all other forms of censoring students’ political views, and the students (and possibly MU admissions personnel) involved should be disciplined.

Amen.

Admitted Marquette Freshman, Target of Leftist Mob, on Todd Starnes

Click arrow below picture to play.

Threatened Incoming Marquette Freshman Conservative: Letter to Admissions Dean

“Brian” here is Brian Troyer, Marquette Dean of Admissions.  Background on this is here.

---

Brian:
              You have, in recent days, been subjected to demands from a leftist mob that you cancel the admission to Marquette of a woman named Samantha.  She expressed some political opinions on social media to which the mob objected, and now they want to punish her.

              You, unfortunately, have encouraged this by cancelling another incoming freshman student who likewise made a social media post the mob found unacceptable.

              If you give the mob what it wants this time, you will face a situation where you will be swamped with demands that any conservative student who expressed his or her opinions on social media be cancelled.  It will spiral out of control.  It is time to draw the line.

              The mob, of course, will say it’s not any conservative opinion to which they object, but only “hate speech” directed at “marginalized groups.”  It should be obvious to you that these people are so immersed in identity politics that any conservative opinion is interpreted this way.  Oppose abortion, and you are “sexist.”  Oppose gay marriage and you are “homophobic.”  Oppose tearing down statues (even Lincoln and U.S. Grant) and you are favoring “white supremacy.”

              The mob is intolerant of any and all disagreement.

Your Interrogation

              Samantha says that, during the interrogation to which your office subjected her, she was told that someone with her political opinions on campus would make favored victim groups feel “unsafe.”

              This would be hilarious if it were not so outrageous.

              The mob is essentially taking the position that they feel “unsafe” merely because of the existence of people who disagree with them.  I’m sure you would have no sympathy for a business major who claimed to feel “unsafe” hearing the philosophy of Karl Marx, or a devout Catholic who claimed to feel “unsafe” hearing atheist arguments.

              But those are not politically correct victim groups.  Thus it is fine to subject them to arguments and viewpoints with which they disagree.   Indeed, that should be a key part of a college education.

              It is condescending and paternalistic to believe that favored victim groups should be protected from viewpoints with which they are presumed to disagree.

              Note that I say “presumed” since not all members of victim groups believe what white leftists think they are supposed to believe.  American Indians, for example, don’t mind the athletic nickname “Redskins,” according to a poll in the Washington Post.

              It would be one thing if Samantha had, for example, advocated beating up transgender people.  But she did no such thing.  She simply asserted that if somebody is a biological male, she refuses to believe that they are really female merely because they think they are female.

              She has science on her side.

              She also has the teachings of the Catholic Church on her side.  Pope Francis has spoken out on this.   Do you really want to cancel the admission of a student because she stands with Catholic teaching on gender?  Do you want to reinforce the narrative that says Marquette is no sort of “Catholic university” but just a secular politically correct one?

Unsafe?

              But the claims on behalf of favored victim groups that they feel “unsafe” are simply lies.  The worst thing they might face at Marquette is somebody who disagrees with them, and that happens far too little.

              But they know that claims of being “offended” and feeling “unsafe” are tactics they can use to shut up and stifle opinions of which they are intolerant.

              It speaks very badly of the Marquette administration when they accept – either through naïveté or unprincipled expediency – such claims.

              Ironically, Samantha has been subjected to posts promising or wanting physical violence against her.  So who is “unsafe?”

Litmus Test

              So this issue is a litmus test for the Marquette administration.  Does Marquette care about tolerance and diversity of opinion, or is it just a secular, politically correct reeducation camp, with a rigid orthodoxy.  And indeed an orthodoxy that is not merely heedless of Catholic teaching, but hostile to it.

              A huge amount of evidence supports that latter view.  Do you want to give students, potential students, alumni and the general public yet more evidence that it’s true?

John McAdams

Political Science

Marquette Warrior Blog

Warrior Blogger, Threatened Incoming Marquette Freshman Conservative on Steve Scaffidi

Samantha (the Student) Warrior Blogger

Threatened Incoming Marquette Freshman Conservative on Vicki McKenna

Belling Chews Out Marquette Over Threat to Incoming Freshman Conservative

Marquette Threatens to Cancel Acceptance of Conservative Student / Panders to Leftist Mob

What happens to you if you are a recent high school graduate, just admitted to Marquette, and you go on Tik Toc to boldly affirm that you are a supporter of Donald Trump?

The answer is: some leftist Marquette students demand your offer of admission be rescinded.

And how does Marquette respond to such demands? It calls in the student for an Inquisition about her political beliefs, and tells her she may be kicked out of the Freshman class.

As usual, Marquette panders to the leftist mob.

The Beginning

This particular student, whose identity we will not reveal, is quite outspoken in her support of Donald Trump. She posted on TikTok a video of herself over a hip-hop song with the letters on the screen saying “when people see that I support Trump, they start hating on me.” And further: “Then try to hate on me, and think I’ll change my views.”

The TikTok video was apparently noticed by one Erin Cook, who reposted it on Instagram, with the notation “Shits tacky. Pls watch out for this one, MU.” Yes, you really have to watch out for those Trump supporters.

We can tell how much Cook hates Trump from a meme she posted on Instagram:

The Campaign Begins

But Cook was not content with this. She wrote to Marquette’s Dean of Admissions, apparently demanding the student’s admissions be cancelled. We say “apparently,” since she did not post her message to Bryan Troyer. But she did post his response:

Cook also began a campaign to get fellow leftists to write Marquette. Her Instagram profile has a notation “Email Marquette Admin.” A down arrow leads to a PDF document that is supposed to be slightly customized and sent to a long list of Marquette officials. It outlines the supposed offenses of the student.

Click on Image to Enlarge

The Supposed Offenses

The document attacks the student for “posting her explicit political views.” Heaven help us if somebody should be “explicit” about their political views.

Further: “she is defending President Trump’s stance on immigration” — something that clearly should not be allowed — and “arguing that undocumented immigrants are ‘illegals’ and ‘only here to commit crime.’” Of course, they are here illegally,  and it’s dishonest to use “undocumented.”

And she in fact never said immigrants are “only here to commit crime.”  She did say that immigrants increase crime, but didn’t say they are more crime prone than other groups.

The student is further accused to mocking transgender individuals in a YouTube video where she is wondering around a thrift store. She points to a pair of of shoes that are a woman’s style, but a very large size. She says “those are cross-dressing shoes.”

This is supposedly an outrage, not withstanding that biological males who cross-dress do, in fact, have feet way larger than the typical woman.

Cook takes offense at another post by the student on transgenderism.

The irony here, of course, is that the student’s position is essentially that of the Catholic Church. Not that Marquette bureaucrats care about that in the least.

Feeling Unsafe

The document ends with the usual claim of the politically correct:  people will feel “unsafe” if allowed to hear political arguments they don’t like.

These comments create and perpetuate an unsafe space for the LGBTQ+ community, first generation students, and Dreamers at Marquette. . . . The University can and should make it their priority to ensure students (specifically LGBTQ+, immigrants, first gen [sic], and POC) feel safe, valued and appreciated on campus.

In the first place, anybody who is too cowardly to hear political arguments they don’t like doesn’t belong on a college campus.

But in the second place, it’s a lie. These leftist students simply don’t feel unsafe. But claiming to be  offended hearing arguments they don’t like, and feeling “unsafe” are claims used to bully into silence people with whom they disagree.

Student Harassed

The student began getting nasty messages and e-mail from leftists. We have included a sampling below.

There are a lot more.

Marquette Responds

Such messages are relatively minor, obviously from idiots, but much worse is what Marquette could do.

The student was subjected to an inquisition by officials from the Admissions Office. The point: was she really the evil conservative that the leftist students claimed.

According to the student:

It did not appear that they were placated. If anything the hostility with which they spoke was made apparent in their questioning as if nothing I said could liberate me from their judgments, only convict me further.

Of course, this being an Inquisition, there is no way to prove your innocence to the Inquisitors. If you are accused, you are guilty.

We will see what they will do. But given Marquette’s pandering to leftist students claiming to represent some victim group, we are not optimistic.

We queried Brian Troyer, Dean of Admissions, and he simply responded that “I cannot discuss matters under review involving future and/or continuing MU students.” We didn’t expect him to.

And we have pretty much given up expecting Marquette to care about free speech, a diversity of opinion, and Catholic thinking.

Or challenging students to consider ideas they might dislike. Unless they are conservative students. But there are going to be many fewer of those.

Update

New, recent messages posted about the student:

All of these, of course, show the deranged hatred leftist students at Marquette have for people who don’t share their political views.

Yet these are the sort of people to whom Marquette panders.

Undate: 7/11/2020

The nasty messages keep coming:

Angela Merkel. Why Does She Sound Like Hitler?

“We must regulate our words and our thoughts—or else our society won’t be as free as it was!” *standing ovation with everyone looking out for who’s got the balls to sit down first* pic.twitter.com/FdnFqiFG1R

— Benjamin Boyce (@BenjaminABoyce) November 29, 2019

Conservative YouTuber Speaks at Marquette: Draws Protests, Protester with Knives

It’s pretty common: anytime a conservative speaker comes to a campus leftists turn out to protest. What is uncommon is that one of them brings a weapon. But it happened at Marquette. From the Marquette Wire:

A Marquette student was arrested for disorderly conduct while armed in the Wehr Chemistry lobby at approximately 7:15 p.m. Nov. 12, Marquette University Police Department assistant chief Jeff Kranz said.

. . .

MUPD arrested the student following a report from another student saying that they saw an individual wearing a mask and carrying two knives at a Young Americans for Freedom event in Wehr Chemistry, Kranz said. The event featured John Doyle, a conservative YouTuber.

“It was a bandana style face covering so it covered (the student’s) nose and mouth,” Iona McPeake, a junior in the College of Arts & Sciences who attended the event as a protestor, said.

Prior to the event, students stood outside and protested because they found some of Doyle’s tweets and YouTube videos offensive and not in line with Marquette’s values.

McPeake was a part of the group of protesters. She said the individual with the mask was not affiliated with the group protesting.

There is more information here. We can’t know if the individual actually intended any violence, but between the mask (typical of the violent thugs of Antifa) and a knife there is certainly an implied threat.

Campus leftists have a history of intolerant response to Young Americans for Freedom and their speakers. When the group invited Rachael Campos-Duffy to campus, they went around tearing down posters advertising the event.

On the other hand, a large group of leftists showed up at the event, and listened to Campos-Duffy without incident. They asked critical questions of her during the Q&A session, and listened in a civil way as she responded.

Who is John Doyle

We had never heard of John Doyle, but he’s a very young fellow who has gotten a considerable following as a YouTuber. In one recent video, he actually discusses the Marquette incident.



His final point: that conservatives can prevail if they just refuse to be intimidated by the left, is a good one. Doyle was willing (see the video) to flatly say that transgenderism is a mental illness. Rejecting this notion is a prime example of mindless political correctness. Transgenders claim to need to “transition” with massive doses of hormones and surgical reconfiguration of their genitals. But how could you need that unless something was wrong before?

A large part, and maybe most, of the toxic politically correct atmosphere on college campuses these days is (at least on most campuses) the result of the left being willing to bully and intimidate anybody who dissents.

Kudos to Young Americans for Freedom of bring speakers like Campos-Duffy and Doyle to campus.

Doing that breaks the spiral of silence and emboldens people to challenge politically correct intolerance.

Marquette Faculty Senate Mulling Ways to Silence Warrior Blogger

An e-mail from the Marquette Provost about a meeting of the Academic Senate sounds bland enough.

But it’s necessary to know some context to know what’s going on.

When Marquette lost its legal case against us, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed our contractual right to blog about things at Marquette (including misconduct at Marquette), the university released a truculent statement affirming it was right to try to fire us.

Marquette’s statement included several of the lies they have been telling all along.

The professor used his personal blog to mock a student teacher, intentionally exposing her name and contact information to a hostile audience that sent her vile and threatening messages. Fearing for her safety, the former student teacher left the university, a significant setback to her academic career and personal well-being.

Our post on the conduct of graduate instructor Cheryl Abbate was not mocking at all, but rather described how she told an undergraduate that he was not allowed to express opposition to gay marriage in her class since it would “come across as homophobic” and might “offend” any gay students in class.

We did not “expose her contact information.” We linked to her public blog. Had somebody dug around the blog, they could have eventually found her e-mail address, although it was not on the page we linked to. But it would have been much easier to just Google her name.

Abbate received vile messages, certainly, but no threatening ones, as she admitted on her blog.

The difference is not trivial. Real threats are a matter for law enforcement.

Finally, Marquette lied about the reason Abbate left the university.

In reality, she had wanted to leave Marquette for Colorado (a much better Ph.D. program) the year before, but there was no room for her. The brouhaha over our blog post caused Colorado to reach out and offer her admission.

Marquette’s Threat

Doubling down on its position, Marquette promised:

Marquette will work with its faculty to re-examine its policies, with the goal of providing every assurance possible that this never happens again.

What policies could that be? The Faculty Handbook, which is incorporated into every contract Marquette faculty have. The language in that handbook is what led the Wisconsin Supreme Court to find that Marquette had breached our contract when it tried to fire us.

And what “faculty” would Marquette “work with” to change the rules and silence (or at least impede) our blogging? The Faculty Senate.

So these entries in the schedule of the meeting look particularly significant:

XI. Workgroups – Dr. Michelle Mynlieff (4:35 to 4:57)

• Consider what to include in “professional conduct/cyberbullying” policy.
• Balance of academic freedom and professional behavior

XII. Call for volunteers for ad hoc committees (4:57 to 5:00)

• Professional behavior/cyberbullying policy committee
• Review of Grievance procedure

Apparently, Marquette wants to call it “cyberbullying” if we report misconduct on the part of anybody at Marquette.

And also claim that faculty have rules for “professional behavior” that preclude criticizing people at the university.

How Do We Know?

How do we know that this is aimed at us? Because in oral exchanges within the Academic Senate the “McAdams issue” has been mentioned in connection with potential amendments to the Faculty Handbook.

We will see how this unfolds, but unfortunately, academic freedom is in poor hands when it is in the hands of the faculty.

In the first place, the ideological biases of the faculty mean that conservative ideas and people will get little protection. College faculty are the sort who label speech they don’t like “racist” or “sexist” or “homophobic” or “hate speech” or “harassing” or “offensive.”

In the second place, groups like the Academic Senate tend to contain a self-selected bunch of faculty, many of which want to remain in the good graces of the administration.

So we will see what we shall see.

ACLU Likely Won’t Defend Politically Incorrect Speech

From the Wall Street Journal, a description of an internal ACLU document that explains how the ACLU justifies failing to defend speech that offends leftist, politically correct sensibilities:

The American Civil Liberties Union has explicitly endorsed the view that free speech can harm “marginalized” groups by undermining their civil rights. “Speech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality,” the ACLU declares in new guidelines governing case selection and “Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities.”

This is presented as an explanation rather than a change of policy, and free-speech advocates know the ACLU has already lost its zeal for vigorously defending the speech it hates. ACLU leaders previously avoided acknowledging that retreat, however, in the apparent hope of preserving its reputation as the nation’s premier champion of the First Amendment.

But traditional free-speech values do not appeal to the ACLU’s increasingly partisan progressive constituency—especially after the 2017 white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. The Virginia ACLU affiliate rightly represented the rally’s organizers when the city attempted to deny them a permit to assemble. Responding to intense post-Charlottesville criticism, last year the ACLU reconsidered its obligation to represent white-supremacist protesters.

The 2018 guidelines claim that “the ACLU is committed to defending speech rights without regard to whether the views expressed are consistent with or opposed to the ACLU’s core values, priorities and goals.” But directly contradicting that assertion, they also cite as a reason to decline taking a free-speech case “the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values.”

In selecting speech cases to defend, the ACLU will now balance the “impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression.” Factors like the potential effect of the speech on “marginalized communities” and even on “the ACLU’s credibility” could militate against taking a case. Fundraising and communications officials helped formulate the new guidelines.

One half of this balancing test is familiar. The “impact of suppressing speech”—the precedents that suppression might establish, the constitutional principles at stake—is a traditional factor in case selection. But, traditionally, the ACLU has not formally weighed the content of speech and its consistency with ACLU values in deciding whether to defend it.

Tension between competing values isn’t new to the ACLU. Given its decades-old commitment to defending civil rights and liberties, the organization has long navigated conflicts between equality rights and freedoms of religion, speech and association. The guidelines assert that “no civil liberties or civil rights value should automatically be privileged over any other.” But it’s clear that free speech has become second among equals. Where is the comparable set of guidelines explaining when the ACLU should decline to defend gay-rights claims that infringe on religious liberty or women’s-rights cases that infringe on due process?

The speech-case guidelines reflect a demotion of free speech in the ACLU’s hierarchy of values. Their vague references to the “serious harm” to “marginalized” people occasioned by speech can easily include the presumed psychological effects of racist or otherwise hateful speech, which is constitutionally protected but contrary to ACLU values. Faced with perceived conflicts between freedom of speech and “progress toward equality,” the ACLU is likely to choose equality. If the Supreme Court adopted the ACLU’s balancing test, it would greatly expand government power to restrict speech.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for example, the ACLU defended the First Amendment rights of a Ku Klux Klan leader prosecuted for addressing a small rally and calling for “revengence” against blacks and Jews. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Clarence Brandenburg’s conviction, narrowly defining incitement to violence as speech both intended and likely to cause imminent illegal action. Brandenburg made an essential distinction between advocacy and action, which progressives who equate hate speech with actual discrimination or violence seek to erase.

The ACLU would be hard pressed to take Brandenburg’s case today, given its new guidelines. The organization hasn’t yet endorsed a ban on hate speech, or a broader definition of incitement. The guidelines affirm that “speakers have a right to advocate violence.” But even if Brandenburg managed to pass the new balancing test for speech cases, some participants at his rally were armed, and, according to the guidelines, “the ACLU generally will not represent protesters who seek to march while armed.”

All this is the ACLU’s prerogative. Organizations are entitled to revise their values and missions. But they ought to do so openly. The ACLU leadership had apparently hoped to keep its new guidelines secret, even from ACLU members. They’re contained in an internal document deceptively marked, in all caps, “confidential attorney client work product.” I’m told it was distributed to select ACLU officials and board members, who were instructed not to share it. According to my source, the leadership is now investigating the “leak” of its new case-selection guidelines. President Trump might sympathize.

Actually reading the document shows it to be even more mendacious than this article suggests. For example:

The ACLU has also made many other rights priorities, including religious liberty, privacy, autonomy, reproductive freedom, the rights of people with disabilities, and criminal defendants’ rights. In deciding how to use our limited resources, no civil liberties or civil rights value should automatically be privileged over any other. There is no presumption that the First Amendment trumps all other amendments, or vice versa. We recognize that taking a position on one issue can affect our advocacy in other areas and create particular challenges for staff members engaged in that advocacy. For example, a decision by the ACLU to represent a white supremacist group may well undermine relationships with allies or coalition partners, create distrust with particular communities, necessitate the expenditure of resources to mitigate the impact of those harms, make it more difficult to recruit and retain a diverse staff and board across multiple dimensions, and in some circumstances, directly further an agenda that is antithetical to our mission and values and that may inflict harm on listeners.

Of course, for people who believe in free speech, it does trump other issues. It’s called the “preferred position” doctrine, and holds that no other liberties mean much if people aren’t free to speak in support of them.

And if you have free speech, you have a right to “directly further an agenda that is antithetical to [the ACLU’s] mission and values.”

And what kind of “harm” might be “inflicted on listeners?”

The ACLU seems to have adopted the position of intolerant campus snowflakes: that merely hearing opinions with which you differ is a form of “harm.” This, of course, enables a robust heckler’s veto, in which people can stifle speech by merely claiming to have been harmed.

And undermining “relationships with allies or coalition partners” and making it “difficult to recruit and retain a diverse staff and board” simply means we have to be team players. We are leftists, and if defending free speech alienates other leftist groups, we will back off. Of course, the ACLU doesn’t have to be part of a team. And their team could consist of groups that actually favor free speech, like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. But in fact, their team is all the usual leftist suspects.

Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed, depending on factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.

Translation: if we think speech is harmful to our “justice work” (read: leftist political agenda) we might decide that government can suppress it, and we will stand aside.

Conclusion

The document admits that the ACLU might need to defend unpopular speakers, in order to maintain its own credibility. But it outlines a huge bunch of other considerations that can be “balanced” against free speech. All of these, of course, amount to excuses not to defend speech that the intolerant left does not like.  That is quite a lot of speech.