University of California

Protesters wreck College Republicans’ info table, spit on US flag, at UC Santa Cruz, video shows

In the latest act of violence against conservatives, protesters at the University of California at Santa Cruz recently smashed a College Republicans information table, according to reports. A video posted on social media shows two protesters tearing up placards and ripping down signage – with one of them appearing to spit on a 13-star “Betsy Ross” American flag that is seen lying on the ground. “I think this guy’s trying to assault me,” one protester says, laughing, as someone tries to grab an American flag away from him. The man attempting to take back the flag later falls to the ground during the struggle. “Get a life!” those fighting off the protesters say at one point. The video starts when the incident is already underway, so it’s not clear exactly how it began. But Dylan Temple, president of the College Republicans chapter at UC Santa Cruz, told The Post Millennial it began when one of the protesters grabbed one of the group’s flags. Temple said he immediately reported the matter to campus police. Subsequent posts on social media gave a name for one of the protesters, but it was unclear if that person was charged with any crimes. The Santa Cruz incident appeared to extend a recent wave of violence against Republicans and supporters of President Trump. Other recent incidents have included a driver smashing his van into a GOP voter-registration tent in Jacksonville, Fla., and an unidentified woman fleeing after allegedly punching a retired New York City police officer who was wearing MAGA-style attire in a Tennessee bar. In New Hampshire, a man was arrested for allegedly assaulting a 15-year-old Trump supporter and two adults near a polling site during the state’s primary election.

This sort of thing is becoming more and more common, unfortunately.  For more on this story, click on the text above.

Univ CA students and Democrats file complaint, tear down ‘racist’ pictures of Kate Steinle

Students at the University of California San Diego filed a complaint and triggered an administrative probe after pictures of Kate Steinle were hung on campus. Gregory Lu said he hung up 150 posters picturing Steinle with the caption, “She had dreams too,” on Dec. 7. Four days later, he said he received an email from the Office for the Prevention of Harassment & Discrimination asking to meet with him. “Our office received an online incident report and I would like to schedule a time to speak with you about it,” an investigator wrote in the email, reported The College Fix. “Are you free this week by phone or in person.” Mr. Lu said the meeting has not taken place and he has contacted an attorney. He said the probe is an attempt to intimidate conservative students on campus, arguing that the same scrutiny would not be applied to a poster advocating a liberal stance on immigration. “We have had a bunch of left-wing posters go up all the time,” he said. “So the argument they might make is, ‘This is a political poster, we don’t want you to put it up,’ is a nonsensical argument because leftists put up posters all the time.” The UC San Diego College Democrats called the posters “racist propaganda” and “displays of hate” targeting “undocumented students and the undocumented community.” “We urge all students, staff, and other UC San Diego community members to condemn these displays of hate,” the Democrats wrote in a post on Facebook. “It is unacceptable to allow racism, bigotry, and hate to dominate the campus conversation, shifting the rhetoric of our university.” Steinle, 32, was shot and killed in 2015 while walking on a San Francisco pier by Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a Mexican national residing illegally in the country who had been deported five times and was wanted for a sixth deportation at the time of the shooting. Her death has been a rallying cry for proponents of immigration reform, including President Trump, who question the wisdom of San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” laws barring local officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Garcia Zarate, who said he accidentally fired a stolen gun that he found wrapped in a shirt under a chair on the pier, was found not guilty of murder on Nov. 30. Mr. Lu said the poster campaign was the initiative of a newly formed campus group called Right Wing West. The group posted a video on Facebook showing the pictures of Steinle being torn down. “The media and our politicians want to erase Kate’s name and story from history,” Right Wing West wrote on its Facebook page. “It’s on us to speak the name of America’s lost daughter: Kate Steinle. #EndSanctuaryCities.”

Another brazen example of how liberals and and Democrats are all for free speech…until it runs counter to their agenda.  Then they call it “hate” speech, and try to get it censored.  Typical..   Equally typical is how they attack the victim of MURDER.  Shame on these nauseating self-righteous, spoiled brat Dem kids at UC San Diego.  And, kudos to Mr. Lu for taking the fight to the administration.

UC student who stole ‘MAGA’ hat in viral video could face felony charges

A college student in California who says he was assaulted by a classmate for wearing a ‘MAGA’ hat on campus said he plans to file criminal charges against his attacker. Matthew Vitale, a member of the University of California, Riverside Republicans, said he was “stunned” when classmate Edith Macias snatched his “Make America Great Again” hat from his head during a campus meeting. Vitale alerted authorities after the incident but declined to press charges because campus police told him it would only be a misdemeanor. But then Macias posted a bizarre, profanity-laced “SnatchAHat” video online, which eventually went viral, that showed her physically removing the hat from his head – and then verbally attacking him for promoting “genocide.” By showing that she took it off his person, the crime rose to the level of felony, Vitale said campus police told him. And now, he says, he wants her arrested. “Honestly, this isn’t me trying to get revenge on her,” he told Todd Starnes during a Fox News Radio interview, “this is me just trying to say: ‘Look, behavior like this is not tolerated in this country. There are individual rights and individual freedoms that we are granted as per the constitution, that everybody’s granted. It doesn’t matter what your beliefs are.’” University chancellor Kim A. Wilcox released a statement afterward promoting “respectful dialogue” – though Vitale said it didn’t go far enough in condemning Macias’ behavior. “Coequal to our dedication to mutual respect is our commitment to free speech and the free exchange of ideas,” the chancellor’s statement said, according to the College Fix. “A university requires an environment where students and scholars can freely express ideas and pursue knowledge, while also promoting respectful dialogue among individuals or groups with opposing viewpoints.” Vitale called Wilcox’s response “very disappointing.” “UCR affirms its dedication to free speech, but [adds] free speech has to come under our shared values of mutual respect, which is not freedom of speech,” Vitale said. “The moment that you stop protecting speech that is controversial, is the moment that your right to speak your mind is taken away.” A university spokesman told Fox New UC champions free speech – as long as it remains cordial. But he was vague on where it would draw the line. “The university stands very strongly for free speech and its protections, and for a congenial dialogue on campus,” university spokesman John Warren said. “The students on our campus have used this episode to affirm their support for free expression, and a productive exchange of ideas.” Some students on campus started a “Statement of Solidarity with Edith Macias.” The statement claims free speech has been “used as a dog whistle for the protection of white supremacist violence in the University of California system and elsewhere.” The statement also claims that Macias has been “doxxed” and “harassed,” and they demand the university pay Macias’ rent, grant her amnesty, cover her legal fees, condemn white supremacist violence, and support a sanctuary campus. Vitale dismisses the solidarity statement as a fringe group, but says he is “overwhelmed” by the support he’s received from across the country from people on both sides of the political aisle. “This just goes to show,” he said, “that I think freedom of speech and individual rights are maybe just one thing that everybody in this country can rally around.”

Glad Matthew is finally fighting back against this piece of garbage.  If you’ve not seen the video of Edith snagging his MAGA hat off and going on a silly rant, you really need to.  Just click on the text above.  Keep in mind, Edith, who has the IQ of a chihuahua,  is actually a college student.

John Stossel: The incredible threat to free speech that no one is talking about

A third threat to free speech at University of California, Berkeley has led to more censorship than political rioters or college administrators. It’s the Americans with Disabilities Act. Berkeley is expensive. Out of state students must pay $60,000 a year. But for five years, Berkeley generously posted 20,000 of its professors’ lectures online. Anyone could watch them for free. Then government regulators stepped in. The Americans with Disabilities Act stipulates, “No qualified individual with a disability shall … be denied the benefits of … services.” As with most laws, people can spend years debating what terms like “denied,” “benefits” and “services” mean. President Obama’s eager regulators, in response to a complaint from activists, decided that Berkeley’s videos violated the ADA. The Justice Department sent the school a threatening letter: “Berkeley is in violation of title II … (T)he Attorney General may initiate a lawsuit.” What Berkeley had done wrong, said the government, was failing to caption the videos for the hearing impaired. The ADA makes it illegal to “deny” deaf people services available to others. Equality is a noble goal, but closed captioning is expensive. Computers are learning to turn speech into text, but so far they’re not good at it. A speech-to-text program transcribed a Harvard lecturer’s comment “on our campus” as “hot Kampen good.” Captions that meet government’s standards must be typed out by a person who listens to each word. Captioning Berkley’s 20,000 lectures would cost millions. The school decided that, to be safe, it would just stop offering its videos. The administration even removed the existing videos from its website. So now, instead of some deaf people struggling to understand university lectures, no one gets to hear them. Politicians mean well when they pass rules like the ADA, but every regulation has unintended consequences. Most are bad. In this case, fortunately, an angry entrepreneur came to the rescue. Jeremy Kauffman hates to see valuable things disappear, so right before Berkeley deleted its website, Kauffman copied the videos and posted them on his website, called LBRY (as in Library). He says the Berkeley videos are just the start of what LBRY has planned. He wants the site to be YouTube — but without the content restrictions. LBRY uses a new technology that operates like Bitcoin. It’s “decentralized,” meaning videos posted are stored on thousands of computers around the world. That makes it nearly impossible for governments — or even Kauffman himself — to remove them. “LBRY is designed to be much more decentralized, much more controlled by users” and “absolutely freer,” Kauffman explains in a video I posted this week. He acknowledges that with no censorship, his invention may end up hosting videos of bad things — beheadings, child porn, who knows what else. But he argues that if he creates a system with censorship, “it allows us to keep the bad stuff out, which is great, but it also allows dictatorial regimes to keep content off. Do we want to make videos available to the people in Turkey, Iran and China? We say yes.” LBRY will let users flag videos depicting illegal actions. Those videos may no longer be shown on LBRY. However, other websites can show the illegal content using LBRY’s technology, and Kauffman can’t stop that. Kauffman says he won’t remove the Berkeley videos from his site even if he’s sued because there aren’t captions for deaf people. “Is that a reason that content shouldn’t be available to everyone?” asks Kauffman. Government is force whether it is deliberately doing something cruel or just trying to solve one group’s problems by imposing restrictions on others. “Do you want to put a gun to someone’s face and say ‘Caption those videos’? It’s absurd.” It is absurd. What government does is often absurd. Thank goodness for the internet and for people like Kauffman, someone willing to spend his own money to keep information free.

Libertarian crusader, and author of:  “No They Can’t!  Why Government Fails – But Individuals Succeed,” John Stossel wrote that op/ed.

Starnes: Who knew there were so many homophobic, racist xenophobes at Berkeley

The birthplace of the free speech movement has become its graveyard. Hundreds of liberals rioted at the University of California Berkeley Wednesday night — burning stores, throwing Molotov cocktails and clashing with police. The rampaging mob forced the university to shut down an event featuring gay conservative firebrand and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. “I’m outraged that Milo has been given a platform at UC Berkeley, and there should be no place for him here,” visiting assistant art professor Samara Haplerin told the Daily Californian. “He should be scared that people aren’t going to stand for this.” Ironically, Milo had planned to deliver remarks defending free speech. “One thing we do know for sure: the Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down,” he wrote on Facebook. The British conservative journalist called the violence a “horrible spectacle and very humiliating for American higher education.” The crowd hurled fireworks at police officers and smashed windows at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Student Union. They also damaged buildings in downtown Berkeley – including a Starbucks and a number of banks. The bloodthirsty mob targeted several supporters of President Trump. One young lady wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat was attacked during a television interview. An unknown man sprayed some sort of liquid in her face. The Daily Californian reports another Trump supporter was grabbed by a crowd of agitators and thrown to the ground. He escaped, but they grabbed his red hat and set it on fire. And police had to rescue another man who was bloodied and beaten. The university released a statement blaming the violence on outsiders who they allege came to the campus to cause mayhem. They also affirmed Milo’s right to speak on the liberal campus. “Chancellor Nicholas Dirks made it clear that while Yiannopoulos’ views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to those of the campus, UC Berkeley is bound by the Constitution, the law and the university’s values and Principles of Community, which include the enabling of free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective.” Those are very nice words – but they are meaningless – unless they are enforced. According to the university, not a single person was arrested. Not a single arrest, folks. Did someone order the police officers to stand down? If so, who gave that order – and why? So here’s what needs to happen: President Trump should immediately issue an executive order blocking Berkeley students from receiving any federal funding. And the same goes for any other public universities that want to silence conservative voices. Universities must guarantee free speech for all students – conservative and liberal. It’s time for the federal government to eradicate this un-American infestation in higher education. So shut down Berkeley, Mr. President. Shut it down. “No one’s safety is at risk from different opinions,” Milo told “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “No one’s physical safety is endangered by political ideas from a speaker on campus, but universities have sort of allowed this stuff to happen, and even in some cases encouraged it.” Ironically, it was liberals who silenced a gay immigrant and vandalized a building named after a Civil Rights legend. Who knew there were so many homophobic, racist xenophobes at Berkeley?

No kidding…  Culture warrior Todd Starnes is responsible for that op/ed.

Scientists to study strange star for signs of intelligent life

Starting on Wednesday night, scientists on the hunt for extraterrestrial life will begin studying a strange star that has generated plenty of buzz because of its unique behavior. The distant sun is known as Tabby’s star, and what’s atypical about it is that its brightness does not remain constant. Data show that the star dimmed slightly from 2009 to 2012, and then its brightness dropped by two percent over a period of six months. Now, the Breakthrough Listen project at the University of California, Berkeley, has announced that they will peer at the star using a radio telescope to see if they can detect intelligent life. “The Breakthrough Listen program has the most powerful SETI equipment on the planet, and access to the largest telescopes on the planet,” Andrew Siemion, director of the Berkeley SETI Research Center and co-director of Breakthrough Listen, said in a statement. “We can look at it with greater sensitivity and for a wider range of signal types than any other experiment in the world.” One farfetched theory about the star is that aliens are somehow responsible for the star’s dimming, perhaps by having built a structure that passes in front of it, although Dan Werthimer, the chief scientist at Berkeley SETI, said he thinks that’s incredibly improbable. “I don’t think it’s very likely – a one in a billion chance or something like that – but nevertheless, we’re going to check it out,” Werthimer said in the statement. The Berkeley team is not the first to look for signs of life around this star, which is formally known as KIC 8462852, and no one has found anything yet. They’re going to spend a total of 24 hours over three nights gazing at the star using a large, movable radio telescope in West Virginia, but even in that amount of time they predict that they’ll gather oodles of data that will take a while to analyze. The star has been a subject of much fascination since it was first described in 2015 by astronomer Tabetha Boyajian, an assistant professor at Louisiana State University.

Fascinating!!  Curious to hear what they learn!   🙂

Univ. of CA Student’s Conservative Op-Ed Draws Stabbing Threat

A student at the University of California–Santa Barbara had to deal with someone threatening to stab him because he dared to write an op-ed with a conservative point of view. Jason Garshfield wrote a piece in the Daily Nexus, the school’s official newspaper, criticizing the Department of Feminist Studies. Basically, Garshfield’s piece argued that the department violated the the University of California Regents Policy 3201, which forbids using the classroom “for political indoctrination.” He explained that he himself once took a course in the department, and that it promoted ideas such as gender as a social construct and the “recognition of male privilege,” and that the lessons were taught as fact without giving students the opportunity to contest or debate them. “How can an academic department which is explicitly named after a political movement possibly claim to be ‘aloof from politics?’” Garshfield asked. “Imagine how you would feel if there was a Department of Objectivist Studies at UCSB. The department was dedicated to promoting Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. All of the professors were Objectivists, and students in the department were taught heavy doses of Objectivism without being exposed to a single dissenting opinion. Would you consider such a department to be ‘an instrument for the advance of partisan interest?’ You probably would.” Now, you may disagree. But one of his peers, Claire Dorothea, went way, way further than that: She posted on Facebook that she “wanted to stab Jason Garshfield” because of his piece. After backlash, Dorothea eventually changed the word “stab” to “slap,” but not before a screenshot of the original post was captured by Campus Reform. Now, whether you think Garshfield has a point or that his article is misogynistic drivel, you should still ask yourself one question: What might the response have been if someone had been threatened for writing an article supporting feminism?

Great point, Kat!  Katherine “Kat” Timpf was the author of that piece.  Good on Jason for calling his hypocritical, liberal, professors out like that!  Outstanding!!   🙂

Black students call to eliminate campus police at University of California, Irvine

The Black Student Union at the University of California, Irvine, has accused the campus police department of being complicit in anti-black violence, calling for “the dismantling of this institution’s presence in its entirety.” A petition, which had garnered 180 signatures by Tuesday afternoon, called for the campus police department “and any additional paramilitary force presence on campus” to be completely abolished, Campus Reform reported. “The problem is that policing as an institution is unethical; it accompanies anti-Black violence,” the BSU wrote. “The need to dismantle UCIPD and bar the occupation of any additional paramilitary force on campus does not stem from any spectacular event of violence: it stems from the anti-Black paradigm of policing. “Police presence on campus is a manifestation of anti-Black aggression. This aggression produces the same psychic damage and racial terror that Black folks suffer from beyond the university,” the group continued. “The university purports to be a ‘safe’ space, a place for all students to excel academically — but instead, the university engages in a range of practices and policies that reaffirm the message that we, Black people, are America’s internal enemies. The police are emblematic of an endless array of dead Black bodies, the death of our loved ones, and of our communities. “The university is an anti-Black institution, and as such, has failed to address Black suffering on its campus. In addition, the university does not adhere to Black student concerns which is evident in its pursuit to increase the police presence on campus regardless of instances of Black death and police violence. Therefore, our demand does not call for the reform of UCIPD, it calls for the dismantling of this institution’s presence in its entirety,” the group concluded. The petition, addressed to UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman, was just shy of its goal of 200 signatures by press time. One commenter, who identified herself as a lecturer at the university, said she “fully supports” the students’ demands, writing that the school has “a fiduciary duty to prioritize the well being of each of its students.”

And how, exactly, do you define “the well being” of a student, Ms. lecturer?  Their tender, fragile feelings?  Nobody has a right to not be offended.  Frankly, this whole BSU and their demands are offensive, and (ironically) inherently racist.  Anyway, one thing the “school” has a responsibility for, is the safety of its students.  And, having a competent security force is a wise, and prudent measure that the Univ. of CA has in place to reduce crime and keep students safe.  But, this really isn’t about safety and security, is it?  It’s about a group of entitlement-minded, spoiled brat, black, racist punk kids whining just to whine…and to bully those who they think aren’t strong enough to stand up to their bullying tactics.  The school President should acknowledge receipt of their little “petition,” and then tell them to get back to class…as he rolls his eyes and tears it up.  As for the lecturer that “fully supports” these losers…  She should be fired..and told to take her racial entitlement community activism some place else; maybe join up with Al Sharpton or someone like that.  Teachers and administrators have every right to their First Amendment freedoms.  That said, they should not use their positions to publicly push that sorta crap…and the school should not tolerate it.


Safety concerns prompt Border Patrol to pull out of Univ. of CA job fair amid protests

The Border Patrol is looking for a few good men and women — but not angry confrontation, and that concern is what prompted the agency to back out of a college job fair. Accusing the federal agency charged with protecting U.S. borders of “unjust killings, …. racial profiling, use of force, and unjust violence,” protesters at University of California-Irvine succeeded in stopping the Border Patrol from taking part in a weekend career fair – and blocked students from learning more about a possible job opportunity. “We regret to inform the community that out of concern for the safety of CBP Recruitment Officers, U.S. Customs & Border Protection will no longer be participating in the UCI Fall Career Fair,” U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Ralph DeSio told, instead referring students to the agency’s recruitment website. DeSio did not say what specific threats prompted the decision. But the move followed a petition drive that some 600 people backed demanding the agency be banned from the Oct. 22 job fair at UC Irvine’s Student Center. The petition claimed “having Border Patrol agents on campus is a blatant disregard to undocumented students’ safety and well-being” and is insulting to “mixed-status families.” UCI’s administration was “prepared to take every step necessary to ensure their safety and the safety of the attendees,” said school spokeswoman Cathy Lawhon, adding that the university never received any threats to safety. “The petition and comments on the petition were not threatening,” Lawhon said. The petition claimed the mere presence of Border Patrol representatives could prove traumatic for students. “The fact that UCI has invited an agency known for racial profiling, use of force, and unjustified violence is an act of disrespect and insensitivity and ignores the struggles and needs of the undocumented student community on campus,” it read in part. Ironically, most of the people who signed the petition weren’t students from the university, said UC Irvine’s College Republicans President Rob Petrosyan. He said the campaign was organized by outsiders “politicizing a jobs fair aimed at helping college students find work once they graduate.” “I haven’t seen that petition distributed around the UCI class pages, and it seems like most of the signatures are from outside UCI,” Petrosyan said. Even if the 640 people who signed the petition were in fact enrolled at the 30,000-student campus, that’s just 2 percent of the student body, some noted. Whoever was behind the campaign to bar the Border Patrol showed ignorance about the important role the agency plays, according to DeSio, who said new recruits to the agency have an opportunity to save lives as well as protect U.S. sovereignty. “The Border Patrol in San Diego conducted 37 rescue missions and saved 96 people from Oct. 1, 2014 to Aug. 31, 2015, rescuing them from the elements and environment when they attempted to cross into the U.S. illegally,” DeSio said. On the UC Irvine student Facebook page, students and people unaffiliated with the public university carried on the debate. “Students didn’t want Border Patrol there because it is an immoral, human rights-violating institution,” wrote a commenter identified as ‪Levi Vonk‪. “This is about denouncing an organization that has ruined literally millions of people’s lives through detention and deportation, and has deported unknown thousands to their deaths in their home countries. This is a civil rights movement for everyone, regardless of citizenship. This is bravery.” However, college is supposed to be about peaceful interaction and respect, Petrosyan countered, echoing what many others said on the UC Irvine student social media page. “If you don’t like the Border Patrol, it still doesn’t give you license to demand their removal. Especially since they were there to recruit for jobs as opposed to running patrols,” Petrosyan said.

Agreed! Sorry to hear the CBP kinda wussed out. They should have stuck to their guns, and UCI should have had their security and/or local police on site to ensure that the job fair was free of these whiny, liberal, loser protestors. If I were at a job fair and there were actually protestors, I’d tell them to “get a job!” 🙂

Leftist Universities Will Never Stop Trying to Stifle Free Speech

This Thursday, the University of California Board of Regents is set to consider adopting a new policy that would establish a “right” to be “free from acts and expressions of intolerance” on campus. The policy would prohibit, among other things, “hate speech [and] derogatory language reflecting stereotypes or prejudice.” It would also single out specific forms of expression, including “Depicting or articulating a view of ethnic or racial groups as less ambitious, less hardworking or talented, or more threatening than other groups” and “questioning a student’s fitness for a leadership role or whether the student should be a member of the campus community on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, citizenship, sex, or sexual orientation.” As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh notes, the policy would officially condemn anyone who advocates against illegal aliens serving as student members of the California Board of Regents. It would also condemn, as Volokh puts it, “Articulating a view that there are cultural (or even biological) differences between ethnic and racial groups in various fields . . . without regard to the arguments for or against the particular assertion.” More ominous still, the proposed policy declares that “the University will respond promptly and effectively to reports of intolerant behavior and treat them as opportunities to reinforce the University’s Principles Against Intolerance.” As my colleague Charlie Cooke observed to me today, liberals are less than one week removed from furious and sanctimonious invocations of the “rule of law” in support of their demands that Kim Davis issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Where is the Left’s love for the rule of law on campus? While there is not (yet) any specific federal court order striking down the proposed University of California policy, its language violates the terms of every federal court decision evaluating campus speech codes anywhere in the U.S., including in California. Simply put, no federal court has ever upheld such sweeping prohibitions on speech. Let’s take California. In 2007 San Francisco State University put its chapter of the College Republicans on trial for desecrating the name of Allah. At an anti-terrorism rally, members of the College Republicans stomped on paper representations of the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, which contain the name “Allah” written in Arabic script. Bear in mind, this is a school where activists routinely burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag. Students charged the College Republicans with “attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment” and “actions of incivility.” At the time, I worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, and we filed suit, seeking an injunction against California State University–system policies that mandated “civility” and prohibited conduct that was “inconsistent” with the university’s “goals, principles, and policies.” In response, the court not only enjoined two separate university policies, it noted that deliberately offensive speech is often the most effective form of expression, including in the context of the students’ anti-terrorism protest: The mode of communication that the plaintiffs chose was controversial. To many in the audience, it seemed disrespectful and offensive. But it is these very characteristics that were critical to its effectiveness. A timid, tepid articulation of concern about terrorism likely would have been largely ignored — and certainly would not have provoked the discussion and debate that this rally precipitated. This is exactly right, and it’s consistent with similar court rulings in Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia — including rulings that struck down university policies that banned “acts of intolerance” and even policies that banned speech that had the “purpose” of creating a “hostile” environment. It is, of course, also worth noting that the Supreme Court has categorically rejected the notion that the state may prohibit so-called “hate speech.” Fully aware of the law, universities try subtle means of enforcing speech codes while insulating themselves from judicial review. Such codes will often impose explicit, unconstitutional speech restrictions at the same time that they claim these restrictions are not intended to violate the First Amendment. The University of California’s proposed policy is no exception. It claims (hilariously) that it is not intended to be used as a basis for discipline or to suppress “educational, political, artistic, or literary expression of students in classrooms and public forums that is protected by academic freedom or free speech principles.” Yet the entire policy suppresses expression protected by free-speech principles. California State University lawyers tried this same argument in 2007. The court was not impressed: What path is a college student who faces this regulatory situation most likely to follow? Is she more likely to feel that she should heed the relatively specific proscriptions of the Code that are set forth in words she thinks she understands, or is she more likely to feel that she can engage in conduct that violates those proscriptions (and thus is risky and likely controversial) in the hope that the powers-that-be will agree, after the fact, that the course of action she chose was protected by the First Amendment? The University of California is, sadly, not an outlier in its flagrantly illegal attempts to police speech. Our colleges and universities are in the midst of a decades-long wave of lawlessness. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has documented, more than 55 percent of American colleges and universities maintain at least one policy that substantially restricts constitutionally protected speech. Meanwhile, the systematic enforcement of an utterly lawless Obama-administration policy requiring colleges to prosecute sexual-assault allegations on campus, with a low standard of proof and minimal due-process protections for accused students, continues apace. Colleges suppress free speech, ruin innocent students’ lives, and raise a generation of victim-focused social -ustice warriors who are busy trying to close the marketplace of ideas. And they do it all in clear and knowing violation of the supreme law of the land. Some would call that a conspiracy to deprive students of their constitutional rights. I just call it American higher education.

Lawyer David French knocks it out of the park yet again with this outstanding op/ed about the out-of-control liberal pc police and speech nazis at our institutions of higher learning.