I have heard from several reports that a lecture by David Horowitz at Emory University was cancelled due to unrelenting protests from the audience. The lecture was to be in recognition of national Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. While I do not necessarily endorse the views of David Horowitz, I find the nature of the disruption very unsettling. These protestors are literally against free speech.
This easily could have been a lecture by Dr. Yaron Brook, Dr. John Lewis or Dr. Elan Journo that was ruined. I do not think that the specifics of the message really mattered. The crowd seemed to want to protest anyone who was vaguely for any kind of military action.
Organizing a lecture of this scale at a university requires almost a month of effort. It is very dishearteningly how easily such an event can be ruined, despite one’s efforts, by a mob who refuses to think. Especially since this was at the other major university in my city.
How ridiculous! I find it sad and scary that these young people at these universities, who will be leading this nation one day, are very adamant about their rights, yet they find no problem with shutting others up.
I have heard from several reports that a lecture by David Horowitz at Emory University was cancelled due to unrelenting protests from the audience. The lecture was to be in recognition of national Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. While I do not necessarily endorse the views of David Horowitz, I find the nature of the disruption very unsettling. These protestors are literally against free speech.
That might be true – I haven’t seen reports of the concrete facts – but isn’t Emory University a private university? I take “free speech” to refer to government restrictions on what may be said in public. In this case, I think the real issue is that the protesters are claiming a right to set policy that they do not in fact have, but seem to have been granted by the Emory administration, on the spot. Why campus security didn’t deal with that is another matter, whose answer should be obvious with regard to the policy makers.
That might be true – I haven’t seen reports of the concrete facts – but isn’t Emory University a private university? I take “free speech” to refer to government restrictions on what may be said in public. In this case, I think the real issue is that the protesters are claiming a right to set policy that they do not in fact have, but seem to have been granted by the Emory administration, on the spot.
Emory University is indeed a private university. I am not sure what you mean by that the “protesters are claiming a right to set policy that they do not in fact have”.
Thinking on this further, perhaps I was hasty in calling this an infringement on a right to free speech, when this was really limited to trampling on an arranged right to speak at Emory University. Was this what you meant? Of course, this shameful display of mob mentality is still terrible.
When these events are coordinated, the organizers often reserve the right to host a speaker in certain auditorium at a certain time on a certain topic with the university. Although the lecture is open to the public, I think that individuals are only allowed to attend the lecture with the implicit understanding that they will not disrupt it in any fashion. My guess is that the organizers of the David Horowitz lecture certainly secured the right for him to speak on Emory’s campus at that time. However, the protesters sought to wrench this right away, as they attended the lecture for the sole purpose of drowning it out.
Why campus security didn’t deal with that is another matter, whose answer should be obvious with regard to the policy makers.
From second-hand sources (in addition to the blogs, my roommate who listens to Neal Boortz in the morning), I heard that campus security initially attempted to remove many of the protesters but seemed overwhelmed by the sheer number of disrupters. According to some estimates, as nearly as 80% of the attendees seemed to be there to protest the event. Given that many of the protesters appeared to not be willing to leave peacefully and given the recent publicity on the Andrew Meyer tasing, the university calculated that it was not worth the effort to clear out all of the hostile attendees. Hence, the event was instead cancelled on the spot.
I was not there so I cannot vouch for the veracity of any of the information in the paragraph above. I will try to obtain more information from some Emory students. If I learn anything interesting, I will relay it back to this thread.
I am not sure what you mean by that the “protesters are claiming a right to set policy that they do not in fact have”.
It’s what you say when you say this is trampling on an arranged right to speak at Emory University. Indeed, the mob mentality is terrible.
When these events are coordinated, the organizers often reserve the right to host a speaker in certain auditorium at a certain time on a certain topic with the university.
I suppose that it’s possible that the organizers only secured technical permission. That’s not too hard to do – a campus organisation fills out some paperwork and requests a room. The person taking the form doesn’t have a clue and necessary precautions aren’t taken. I would not be surprised if the police would be less overwhelmed by rioting right-wingers. I guess the Mayer event might put a damper on campus law enforcement, thought.
I’m not so sure it’s the students so much as the teachers. Let’s face it, they’re the ones who spout this garbage and get people riled up, then they have control over the facility, so they can create an event like this. But, at the end of the day, multiculturalists are bankrupt and they know it, that’s why this is all they can do.
If anyone wants to be encouraged, then check out this debate over multiculturalism. It takes place in the UK. I found it linked in The Forum. It’s really fantastic.
It doesn’t matter if Emory is private or not, because the same thing happens to him when he goes to public universities. My wife attended Bowling Green State University and went to a speech by him where the same thing happened.
This is a common occurrence with right-wing speakers. My friend was at the speech by Ann Coulter at the University of Texas when something similar happened. Then there was that time Ann Coulter had a pie thrown at her. Then there was that time when Pat Buchanan got hit in the face with a pie. And I think we all fondly recall the incident where someone asked Antonin Scalia if he approved of a marriage where the man “does nothing but fuck his wife up the ass.”
This is one of the main reasons why I find the left to be more threatening than the right and will continue to vote Republican.
It does. It is right and proper for a private university to prohibit the expression of views which it finds to contradict its values and purpose. The concept of “free speech” refers to the government imposing restrictions on the free expression of any and all ideas in public. The right to free speech means that the government may not prohibit you from expressing anti-Muslim ideas in public just as it may not prohibit you from expressing pro-Muslim ideas in public. Free speech means simply that the government cannot restrict the expression of ideas in public. But a private entity has every right to prohibit the expression of any and all ideas in private. Thus the private / public distinction is essential.
You misunderstood what I meant. I agree that Emory has the right to do whatever it wants with Horowitz’s speech, including allowing its idiot students to disrupt him. What I meant was that Emory’s distinction as a private university doesn’t invalidate the point that the far left consistently opposes freedom of speech, since the same sorts of tactics are used when he speaks at public schools.
… including allowing its idiot students to disrupt him.
I have some additional information. The President of Emory University sent out an e-mail on the day following the incident. According to the university President, the “majority of the protesters were not affiliated with Emory” but he expressed some uncertainty by stating that this was “from the best [they] could determine.” In addition, the president of the University condemned the protesting as an “assault on free speech.” It sounds like he is handling the situation fairly well.
You misunderstood what I meant. I agree that Emory has the right to do whatever it wants with Horowitz’s speech
Okay, I thought you misunderstood what I said, when I said it mattered whether Emory was private (and you claimed that is didn’t matter). Since you didn’t say “This is not a matter of free speech”, and you seemed to reject the point that I made, I naturally thought you were claiming that this is a free speech matter.
If the government was stopping the speech, it would be a free-speech issue; here, it is more of a property rights issue – with the protestors trying to stop some fellow private citizen. Still, my guess is that some of these protesters actually think the government should be stepping in and stopping this type of speech. Perhaps they even think they are doing what the government ought to be doing. So, in that sense, they are anti free-speech.
This is about letting ideas being expressed freely. Unless there is a man on campus such as Mahmoud of Iran, who we know has slaughtered American soldiers and could very well have been involved in the 1979 Hostage crisis, I say let people speak. I simply think that the behavior of these protesters is very telling of the oppressive mentality of Leftists. I would not attend a lecture given by a Marxist, or perhaps I might. If I did, I would come with appropriate and well-mannered questions. I wouldn’t demand he deny all that he believes or that he be chased off stage like some kind of irrational brute.
Okay, I thought you misunderstood what I said, when I said it mattered whether Emory was private (and you claimed that is didn’t matter). Since you didn’t say “This is not a matter of free speech”, and you seemed to reject the point that I made, I naturally thought you were claiming that this is a free speech matter.
Yeah, my bad, I should have explained that better. I agree that the specific instance should not be considered a violation of freedom of speech, but I also think that it is just a symptom of a larger trend where the left thinks it has the right to force other people to shut up…and in many instances, it is a freedom of speech issue.
If the government was stopping the speech, it would be a free-speech issue; here, it is more of a property rights issue – with the protestors trying to stop some fellow private citizen. Still, my guess is that some of these protesters actually think the government should be stepping in and stopping this type of speech. Perhaps they even think they are doing what the government ought to be doing. So, in that sense, they are anti free-speech.
Agreed.
This is about letting ideas being expressed freely. Unless there is a man on campus such as Mahmoud of Iran, who we know has slaughtered American soldiers and could very well have been involved in the 1979 Hostage crisis, I say let people speak. I simply think that the behavior of these protesters is very telling of the oppressive mentality of Leftists. I would not attend a lecture given by a Marxist, or perhaps I might. If I did, I would come with appropriate and well-mannered questions. I wouldn’t demand he deny all that he believes or that he be chased off stage like some kind of irrational brute.
I agree with everything in here except the bit about Ahmadinejad. I personally supported the idea of having him speak at an American university. People in this country are getting complacent and need to be reminded what Iran stands for.
I agree with everything in here except the bit about Ahmadinejad. I personally supported the idea of having him speak at an American university. People in this country are getting complacent and need to be reminded what Iran stands for.
And yet, there were cheers in the audience at some of his comments.
Also, this man is a known murderer of U.S troops. Perhaps a speech followed by a hasty arrest and execution would be better? But then, I’m speaking like Ahmadinejad himself.
I just think that some heinous ideas, presented by disgusting individuals, don’t deserve any academic sanction whatsoever. The Holocaust happened, end of story. You can’t let modern day Hitler’s rant and rave. If Americans want to know what this man is like, they can just as easily watch the News and listen to his statements on Israel, or goto Tehran themselves and attend a Holocaust denial convention. The man shouldn’t even be let onto American soil. He doesn’t deserve it.
I agree that he should be allowed on American soil. But since he was allowed here, I think there was a definite benefit in letting the American people hear him first hand.