To the left’s hissy fit
If you feel like joining the whinefest about the student Democratic Party club being shut down at Liberty University, be my guest. I’ll laugh at you.
One school shuts down Democrats, and the left has a hissy fit. One news network isn’t controlled by liberals, and the left has a daily hissy fit.
As if 99% of college campuses, 99% of Hollywood, and 99% of TV news, and 99% of newspaper editorial boards wasn’t enough for liberals.
Gotta have that other 1%, too, don’t you?
When we have 50% balance in the media, the press, and on college campuses across the country, then come and talk to me about Liberty University.
Til then, chill.
Category: Catch-All
Loading ...
[...] local conservative blog defends the school’s action, arguing that it’s okay to target Democrats at schools like [...]
Actually, there are a number of College Republican groups on “liberal” campuses across Virginia and the country. I was a founding member of a College Republican club at VCU in 1994. Eventhough we could not get “student activity” Fee money because we were a “political” organization, we were a recognized club at the university, listed and supported every other way. We even hosted the CRFV State Convention in 1995, using the schools auditorium. So I don’t buy into the 99% argument that is posted.
Institutions like Liberty and Regent pride themselves in teaching the principles of the “founding fathers”. I don’t believe you would find anything in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers that would support banning a political party organization from a college campus. We should all strive to further the cause of liberty (not the college)!
I can’t count the number of times my conservative views were discounted at James Madison University.
They never banned our College Republican club, but they made it more difficult to operate. If you were an environmentalist or a minority they threw the world at you.
As a private institution, Liberty University has every right to set its own standards and to limit access to its facilities as it sees fit.
That doesn’t make this decision any less boneheaded.
Writing off an entire political party — and not a fringe party, but the party that controls the White House, both houses of the U.S. Congress, the Virginia state senate, and the Virginia governor’s office — as “immoral” is utterly ridiculous.
Does this mean that, when Liberty hosts the annual Virginia Boys’ State gathering (as it does virtually every year), no Democratic party politicians will be allowed to address the high school students there? Will Governor Tim Kaine also be banned from the campus?
Liberty’s officials did not think this decision through to its logical conclusion. Let’s start an office pool: How long will it take Liberty University to rescind the ban of College Democrats out of well-deserved embarrassment?
What a laugh. Seriously. The liberals want to go down this road do they. Okay how about why is it that the Armed Forces cannot recruit at certain “liberal” schools or why is it that some “liberal” schools do not permit ROTC or frankly why is it alot of Northeastern schools do not seem to have very many “conservative” clubs…..ummmmm. Why is it only “private” institutions in the liberal fold have the right to be exclusionary with regard to which endeavors it allows on campus.
Frankly, if Liberty were at State school I would not support such a measure as if a school takes state or public funding it should be required to allow equal access to ALL groups. ALL folks. If schools want to exclude than they should go private; afterall the basis for many of these schools being started and funded in the first place is it not? I wonder just how the liberals rationalize their folds behavior on such matters, heck many liberal institutions seem to have a problem with free speech on campus these days for gods sake.
“Institutions like Liberty and Regent pride themselves in teaching the principles of the “founding fathers”. I don’t believe you would find anything in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers that would support banning a political party organization from a college campus. ” – J.M. Ripley
What about freedom of association? It is a private college! What about property rights? True, socialist democrats don’t believe in property rights. They love taxing you out of it and stealing it through abuses of eminient domain.
Is it a fact that when you enter a “private” institution friends you surrender such liberties freely and knowingly when you enroll there. Private schools are not held to the same standards as publicly funded schools. Maybe this will bring out the fact that many liberals do not recognize any differecne in the matter in that they refuse to recognize private property/ownership rights nor see any barrier on entry for their philosophy on the matter.
V.M.I. was forced by the courts to admit women BECAUSE it was funded by the State, however had it petitioned the State to go private or was historically a private college to begin with it could have retained all-male status. Not seeing a difference between State and private schools is rather astonishing. but then liberals always seek to amaze me.
I’ve gotta disagree with you on this one. There’s no legitimate reason for shutting down the club.
Britt,
Being a member and/or identifying oneself with a political party is the ultimate “freedom of association”.
J.M., I agree that identifying oneself as and/or being a member of a party , is a part of freedom of association.
However, forcing a private entity to sponsor your favorite club on their property is not freedom at all. Its almost like the British forcing the colonist to house Red Coats in their homes. If that private entity has a purpose to promote social conservatism or liberalism, it would be act against freedom to force them to sponsor a group opposite their cause.
Sure, you have the right to think they are incredibly short sighted and possibly indulging in a publicity stunt, but their actions do seem to be Constitutionally protected.
VaBlogger– they do not need a “reason”…as a private institution they have the “right” to remove the club or at the very least not sanction it on campus. None of us as individuals have to declare a reason for exercising our rights in the manner in which we do; they are our rights to exercise and so was this by the administration.
A greater debate would be the last two years at UVA (of course a State school) squashing freedom of speech in a stadium built on State property and insured by the State by prohibiting “critical” signs expressing outrage at the performance of a coach, team, or whatever. I can’t wait for someone to take that crap on in court. Treating speech like a draft of beer is absurd and frankly very un-Virginian but then UVA gets less and less conservative (the adminstration) with every class.
Perhaps 99% is the same kind of hyperbole that the left is exhaling in acting that a college club’s existing is the end all and be all of freedom in the nation.
I’ve been on college campuses, and I’ve seen the other side. I’ve seen how conservative speakers are treated, booed, attacked with pies…the MoveOn crowd alone wanted conservatives arrested for their beliefs.
I’ve also been a student during the years when my professor’s just adored Gorbachev and thought he was the man to whom we owed our freedom and liberty, meanwhile encouraging us to sign up for nuclear freeze fasting weekends and letter-writing to save the trees, which was pretty funny. They wanted us to use more paper to save trees.
By the way….our grades would be out soon.
So a few Democrats can’t have a club at Jerry Falwell’s university? Welcome to the world we conservatives have been living in our whole lives.
AoF, perhaps you confused my point. I’m not claiming that what they did was illegal, I’m just saying it’s wrong. They have full right to do what they did, I just believe they shouldn’t have.
Actually, if they receive any federal funding under Title IX or a religious exemption under IRS code, it could be in jeopardy because of this boneheaded decision.
Brigham Young recently banned both Young Democrats and Young Republican clubs, so they can’t be accused of discriminating or making a partisan decision. But when Liberty claims it has reviewed all its student activities and clubs and found only one to shut down, well, the only words are “they stepped in it.”
But they don’t have a Communist Party Club, do they? Or a Green Party club? Should they be forced to have one?
I would never advocate forcing them to have a Libertarian Party Club. Disregarding property rights and freedom of association is a bad thing in my eyes. If you FORCE something on their campus do you even think the little club will find much interest given the demographics? Could it possibly even be effective?
Va Blogger, I’m glad to see your clarified view. I can appreciate that.
If I was on the board of that University, I would advocate restoring the Democrat club in 2-3 years just so they could get more free publicity when they shut it down again later. Market to your customer, not groups that wouldn’t be caught dead on your campus.
Actually, Brian, there probably are Green Party clubs on campuses. I am not sure anybody wants to be a Communist Party member nowadays. The object isn’t to force schools to recognize clubs that nobody wants to form or join, but to allow clubs to be chartered and exist that students actually want to be in.
A function of education is to promote a marketplace of ideas. Banning an existing political club, especially from one of the two major political parties, certainly doesn’t do that. And doing this simply makes the university look like a laughingstock.
You really don’t want me to start talking about “speech codes” currently in place at colleges and universities, do you.
Anonymous, you don’t think anybody wants a communist party? Communism is fairly popular among students that still don’t have to earn money or property. The young are often idealist that think everyone should be given certain things. They don’t see that its fair that some have more than others.
“The object isn’t to force schools to recognize clubs that nobody wants to form or join, but to allow clubs to be chartered and exist that students actually want to be in. ” – Anonymous is a woman
Don’t you mean,”but to FORCE clubs to be chartered and exist that students actually want to be in.”
That still isn’t Constitutional to force them to “allow” something they are perhaps opposed to in philosophy as a PRIVATE school.
The function of education is to educate. Promoting a marketplace of ideas is rarely the case with individual institutions even in public universities where conservative thought is often frowned upon and discouraged. If you are a conservative or liberal private college the function of education is to educate the students on the basic college curriculum with a slant that fits with the institution. In the market place of ideas, you can go to Berkley. You can also go to Liberty University. If you’re lucky, you might find a university that allows the free exploration of all concepts, philosphies, religions, and political thought.
Promoting the market place of ideas does not include thought police or forcing anyone to allow something they don’t want to deal with on their campus.
If a private liberal college doesn’t want to allow military recruitment on campus, that should be ok. They should not be “forced” to “allow” a Republican Party at their infamously liberal campus either. Perhaps it is a place for liberals to learn and associate with other liberals. The same concept applies to Liberty U.
Is Liberty U. small minded on this? Pulling a publicity stunt to market themselves to their niche audience? Possibly. That doesn’t make it illegal/unconstitutional.
Most of your comments about how liberal institutions, like Berkley, make it difficult for conservative students to express their ideas may be true, and you guys, in fact, frequently criticize it and whine about it. But name me one school that has actually banned the College Republicans.
Being in an unpopular minority and being subject to informal harrassment, which is wrong on the part of harrassers, is still not the equivelent of the actual univeristy officially banning a club and forbidding it to meet on campus.
Refusing to allow an outside group, in this case the military, from coming on campus to recruit, or not allowing ROTC is also different from banning a student led club from meeting. Again, name me the school that has banned the Republicans. Only that is the equivalent action.
You are right that, that was not analogous. It was’nt meant to be. It merely went to the point of freedom of association and an institution forbiding something that went against its core principles. Vote with your wallet and your feet.
I’ll look for and example of what you ask for, but I categorically insist that it isn’t necessary. One doesn’t need to find an example of the democrats doing it first to claim that what Liberty did was constitutional. It just is.
It may be that liberal universities will realize that banning a club that is a small minority and ineffective is a waste of time and will serve as ammunition for Republicans screaming about liberal indoctrination at major universites.
Ok, the following articles relate to the University of Rhode Island which banned the college Republicans because they advertised a satirical $100.00 grant for white heterosexual american males. (WHAM). Later, the Senate voted to allow(FORCE) them to apologize and thereby end the derecognition. Later, they ended up voting down their previous vote and did not allow(force) the College Republicans to apologize finally ceding to free speech.
http://www.newsbull.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=44062
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7976.html
Many universities apparently don’t appreciate free speech. In the following, there are examples of banning the American flag on campus and the reciting of the pledge of alliegiance.
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/nov_2001_1.html
http://blog.case.edu/james.chang/2006/11/10/orange_coast_college_student_trustees_ban_pledge_of_allegiance
Liberty University’s move was constitutional at least. Some liberal universities see the Constitution as an inconvenience.
“Most of your comments about how liberal institutions, like Berkley, make it difficult for conservative students to express their ideas may be true, and you guys, in fact, frequently criticize it and whine about it. But name me one school that has actually banned the College Republicans”
Nice to know that Anonymous is a Woman thinks it’s perfectly fine for colleges to supress speech as long as they allow a club.
This is what happens to conservatives on a college campus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPsU-kSBnwI&feature=related
I never read a single blogger castigate that activity.
Don’t start whining now about a little club on Liberty University.
Rhode Island derecognized the College Republicans temporarily for offering a satired college grant of $100.00 for a white heterosexual american male. They later voted to recind that derecognition and give sway to the freedom of speech.
I posted the link, but its waiting in Limbo. Also are links to colleges banning the American Flag and the pledge of allegiance. Hopefully, they’ll pass muster and you can see for yourself.
Then I think Rhode Island was boneheaded too. If I had known about it, I certainly would have said so. I have defended the right to freedom of speech for some pretty off the wall speakers. And I certainly have defended the right to free speech of conservative commentators, who have been the subject of calls for a boycott, in the past, even when my own side of the blogosphere disagreed with me.
And I am not saying it is right for conservatives to be harrassed. Brian, I think you know I’d never agree with that. But there is a difference between some boorish and bad mannered ultra leftwing students harrassing other students and a university administration shutting down a legitimate campus club because they don’t agree with their politics.
Look, as you point out, most campuses are liberal. What would happen if they followed LU’s lead? More Young Republican groups would be shut down than Young Democrats groups. It is not to your advantage to keep arguing this point. It actually is to my advantage to solemnly agree that that LU has every right to do this and it is a good move, and then I could slip away and go laughing as I quietly encouraged larger, more liberal groups to follow LU’s example. But it would be wrong and ultimately harmful to a democracy and to freedom.
The thing of it is, it’s detrimental to a democracy to have college groups banned. And it’s harmful for academic freedom and free speech. You can’t just defend your own side’s right to free speech and turn a blind eye when it’s your rival’s right at stake.
If you don’t defend the right to freedom of speech for the unpopular minority while you are the majority, who will be there to defend your right to the same should the tide turn against your own popularity?
And besides, whatever happened to the cornerstone of free speech: “I may disagree with you but I would defend to my death your right to say it.”
If you can’t agree to that, you actually don’t support freedom despite all your posturing.
It’s not about speech. It’s about money. It’s about being recognized as “a club” which means getting student activity funding. They can say whatever they want all day long. Liberty decided they can’t use Liberty’s name or money to do it.
They could go rent a room at a restaurant on Saturday mornings and talk about Obambi all day long. But if they want to use a college’s name and a college’s money, they kind of have to play by the college’s rules.
Imus got fired for something he said. Did you defend him?
NO! you didn’t.
In fact, you attacked him and others for speech. The “indecency and crudeness that the Coulters, Boortzes and Imuses spew” is what you called it. Read your own post here: http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com/2007/06/ann-coulter-mean-girl.html
Can’t find “free speech” or “first amendment” in your entire post. So get off your perch yammering about defending speech you disagree with until you actually do it.
Again, Public Universities are different than private. You are still likely to be right that even among private institutions, more Republican groups would be banned than Democrat. Numbers being against you or not, you still have to side with freedom and the Constitution.
As Brian pointed out, they still have the 1st ammendment, just not a Democrat club.
I absolutely agree with your point that a minority’s right to free speech must be defended. That’s precisely why we have the Constitution, because we are not a tyranny of the majority. But this isn’t really about that.
You can’t talk about politics all day at work(unless that’s part of your job). If you do, your boss can fire you for cause claiming it interferes with work. You still have freedom of speech, but are likely held to a contract of performance standards. Most companies have clauses enabling them to release you if you prove to be an embarrassment or potential legal problem that tarnishes the name of the company.
Imus certainly had the freedom to say what he did. The company had the right to fire(or not) him. You or advertisers also have the right to refuse to do business with any employer of Imus.
You do agree to certain rules of behavior when you accept entry to a college or university. A private institution has even more leeway. People go to Liberty University FOR A REASON. They don’t expect a Berkley type atmosphere. They are sold a representation of a conservative atmosphere. If the university rightly or wrongly feels the democrat club as a distraction from the product they are trying to provide, it is their right to exclude that club.
Protecting minority rights is exactly what I’m arguing on behalf of Liberty University. They are clearly the minority in upper education. You must also protect THEIR property rights, their right to THEIR name, and THEIR right to structure their campus to be a place for like minded people to learn and associate. You can’t force them to allow a party they feel represents the exact opposite of their ideals.
The students are quite free to associate themselves with any university they qualify to attend. Why choose L.U. when you disagree with the basic tenets of the university?
The L.U. decision was right and proper. Apparently, the students did not choose their college well.
You know Brian, a marketplace of ideas actually means a free exchange of ideas, where those on opposite sides get to criticize each other. The fact that I wrote a parody of Ann Coulter (one which I am still proud of, btw) does not mean that I support censorship. I have as much right to criticize or parody her remarks as she does to make them. Dig deeper and show a bit more intellectual honesty – a trait I know is actually pretty foreign to you.
Here is the post i was referring to, where I indeed did support Neal Boortz’ right to free speech, even though he said some fairly reprehensible things about the students at Virginia Tech. I suspect you didn’t want to put this up because it still makes even the right in Virginia cringe.
I took an incredible amount of flack, on and off the blogs, for defending free speech in that particular case. More than you will ever take from your side because you never actually defend principle, only what benefits your side of the fence, regardless on the principles involved. That’s not real conservative principles.
And my statement still stands, if you can’t stand up for the statement: “I may disagree with you but I will defend to my death your right to say it” you don’t support freedom.
Anything else is an excuse.
“More than you will ever take from your side because you never actually defend principle”
Thank you for the personal attack and insult.
Every Liberty University Democrat can say today anything they want to say. They just can’t use “Liberty University” as a title or a funding source. What’s wrong with that?
If you didn’t deliberately misrepresent my positions, I wouldn’t attack you personally. You did, after all, question my integrity first. BTW, no where in my Ann Coulter parody did I even suggest that she should be censored. I simply criticized her nastiness. I said specifically, if you read the piece carefully, that she should not be censored.
As for what is wrong with a university banning a Democratic club, I am afraid that if you have ask, it can never be explained. Suffice to say many many people made great sacrifices so that you and I and students and adults could have free speech.
Republicans frequently make a big deal of “protected political speech” every time somebody tries to reform campaign finances with legislation like McCain-Feingold. You guys talk a good game about protected speech when it affects you personally. Not so much when you think stifling somebody else’s right to “protected speech” will give you a political advantage. But mark my words, not standing up for free speech as a general principle will come back to bite you someday. And you know what?
I will be the first one defending your rights. Because I know if your rights are endangered, so are mine.
Also, let me add that I never said what Liberty University did was unconstitutional or illegal. I just said it was wrong. I still believe that.
Nobody’s blocking anyone’s speech. The students can say anything they want to, as long as they don’t use the name of the college or its funding.
By your logic, Liberty University should have a Hail Satan club.
Woman, you say it is wrong — why? Because you do not like it?
These students chose a college that was founded on principles that are anathema to the Democrat Party. Why should a college support such a group or allow its name to be associated with such a group?
Jack,
Someone might want to attend Liberty University because they are Christian, although they might not perhaps be Republican. It is possible to be both liberal and Christian. If you live in Hampton Roads and want a Christian university, perhaps you should consider Virginia Wesleyan located right here in Virginia Beach. The tuition is pretty steep but from my experience they are pretty liberal in offering at least partial scholarships to worthy students (one of my kids qualified so it must not be that hard – I steered him to ODU but sometimes regret having done so). Perhaps Virginia Wesleyan will not attempt to make you feel unwelcome if you dare say there is nothing wrong with a married couple using birth control if they do not want children.
Liberty is stringently Pro-Life and they have every right to ban a chapter of such a despicable party
PWConservative,
So you are defending the narrow Liberty education. I think the term for that is bigoted. If you are not going to allow the opposing voice to speak you are a bigot. You do not need to agree with the opposing viewpoint, but if you do not allow the opposing viewpoint to speak because you fear the speaking, well…. then you are a bigot.
I will accept that liberal universities can also be described as being just as bigoted. But if St Thomas Aquinas himself would have been barred from speaking at universities that call themselves Christian I think we have a problem.
David, the opposing voice can speak all they want. They just can’t use Liberty University’s name as a group, and they can’t get student organization funding.
In fact, with their appearances on MSNBC, members of that former club are exercising more free speech than they ever have in their lives.