Posted on 03/03/2017 6:39:52 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Says RBpundit, “See what happens when you give people who call everyone Nazis the license to punch Nazis? They wind up hurting non-Nazis.” Right, but I take it the people who twisted the professor’s neck would say that she became a Nazi by association by defending Murray’s right to speak after being invited. A mob will always justify its violence as righteous.
We’re getting closer to the inevitable moment when someone is literally murdered on an American campus because a right-winger tried to speak.
As [Professor Allison] Stanger, Murray and a college administrator left McCullough Student Center last evening following the event, they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors,” according to Bill Burger, the college’s vice president for communications and marketing.
Burger said college public safety officers managed to get Stanger and Murray into the administrator’s car.
“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.
“During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,” Burger continued. “She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace.”
The “event” mentioned in the first paragraph was actually the second attempt yesterday afternoon to let Murray speak. The first attempt was with a live audience, but watch the clips below (he appears onstage at 19:00 of the first one) to see how that went. The protest goes on for fully 20 minutes before Murray gives up. Middlebury officials warned the crowd beforehand that they could protest but not disrupt the speech, but “the students ignored those reminders and faced no visible consequences for doing so.” You’ll see Stanger come to the mic at the very end (at 41:00 or so) and, to her credit, refuse to capitulate: Rather than cancel Murray’s speech, they decided to move to a private location and have her interview Murray on closed-circuit TV, with the feed carried live onscreen in the lecture hall. Which makes this image of what followed revealing:
Protests continue as the conversation between Murray and Stranger are streamed into Wilson Hall. pic.twitter.com/lERQtOL1Vj
— Middlebury Campus (@middcampus) March 2, 2017
Protesting Murray when he was onstage was an attempt to stop him from speaking. Protesting him when he wasn’t even in the building was an attempt to stop interested students from listening. They went the extra mile to make sure he wasn’t heard by any open-minded observers. It was after the closed-circuit interview ended that Stanger and Murray tried to leave and were attacked. Said Murray afterwards, “The Middlebury administration was exemplary. The students were seriously scary.”
Maybe CCTV is the future of right-wing speech on campus. Fliers could be put up advertising the speaker’s appearance and then he/she would fly into town and be driven to a secret location in disguise to deliver the lecture to a camera in an empty room. Anyone interested could watch online. But that wouldn’t work, would it? The mob would scramble to discover the location and set upon it. Having the speaker dial in via Skype for the lecture/interview from the safety of home would be easier, but without their actual presence on campus, the thrill of transgression would be lost. Charles Murray giving a speech in front of a hostile crowd at Middlebury is an event; Murray giving the same speech from his study via a webcam is really just an extended Fox News segment. Better figure out a solution soon, though, because someone’s going to die.
I wonder how the prof stands on conceald carry on campus today?
We need a group of bikers, veterans, outdoorsmen and similar to protect these speakers.
And why was no one arrested?
Middlebury College is a private liberal arts college located in Middlebury, Vermont, for those like me who had no clue.
I just dare them to f()ck with me. Very creative here.
If just a few real men (and women) fought back, these leftist prats wouldn’t come out again for a year.
Shame none of those attacked were armed. These lefist thugs need a self-defense ventilating.
Who is Charles Murray?
Plenty of pictures - should be easy to pick out and expel those who assaulted the prof.....
Thought criminal who wrote The Bell Curve.
The more important question, though, is the general one of whether persons who hold politically incorrect views will be allowed to speak -- without being shouted down -- on college campuses.
Here are some ideas just off the top of my head for insuring that controversial speakers be allowed to give their speeches on college campuses to audiences who wish to hear them. It’s unfortunate that such regimentation would ever be necessary, but it could be appropriate for worst-case scenarios.
These steps — or something similar modified to be more effective — might succeed even from the beginning in permitting the speeches to take place. At a minimum, though, they would give colleges who wish to protect free speech good evidence to use against disrupters — if they choose to do so — and punishments meted out to them could serve as a deterrent to future disruptions.
1. Have the college announce ahead of time that IDs will be required, that everything taking place will be recorded on video, and that punitive action will be taken against persons who disrupt the speech. (If the college won’t do that, or if the level of punishment isn’t adequate to serve as a deterrent, then we know that its claims of wanting to protect free speech are phony.)
2. Take video recordings of each person who enters, requiring each one to show an ID to the camera, and state while being recorded, “I promise [or swear, if thought appropriate] not to interrupt the speech or in any way attempt to prevent it from being given. If I can no longer bear to listen to what’s being said without protest, I will leave quietly.”
[Having reserved seats might be a good idea too. So that each ticket is good for only that particular seat, and audience members must hold up their tickets while seated, right before the speech.]
Of course, some persons will be willing to lie and even violate an oath, but it’s to be hoped that such a provision would reduce the number of potential disrupters.
3. Take a video of the audience from the front once everyone is seated. (Remove persons who cover their faces at that time.)
4. Video the audience as the speech is taking place, and zoom in on anyone who is disruptive, so that person can be identified with certainty.
5. Have security personnel remove disrupters, starting from the front. If there are too many, then the college will just have to rely on video recordings of the offenders, later expose them as liars who violated their promise, and take punitive measures against them.
I imagine many speakers would allow time at the end for questions or brief rebuttals. In any case, in instances in which controversial speakers do manage to give their speeches and be heard, there would be time set aside after the speaker has departed for persons in the audience to present opposing views to any audience members who wish to remain and hear them.
This could be done, perhaps, by persons in the audience forming a line, and coming up to the stage to make a brief comment or to talk for up to five minutes (with the opportunity to go to the line of the line if they have more to say afterward). This could go on for hours — or a reasonable length of time, anyway — and whoever wishes to remain could hear them.
Anyone disrupting either original speakers or the dissenters who comment afterward would be recorded and face punitive action from the college (and if violent, from the police). Those measures, or something similar, would insure the right of free speech to a wide range of persons, and the right of college students to hear a wide range of opinions.
“...with the opportunity to go to the line of the line...” should be “with the opportunity to go to the end of the line”.
By the way, is the man shot outside a Milo speech doing OK. Was the perp identified and prosecuted?
Dang. Now statistics are racist. My old stats prof would be proud.
“...colleges who wish to protect free speech...” should be “colleges that wish to protect free speech”.
As I said, these were just ideas off the top of my head, hastily expressed. There may be other careless errors in need of correction, but I’ll leave them be for the time being.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.