第二港湾, 华人休闲之家

 找回密码
 注册帐号
搜索
热搜: 活动 交友
查看: 1270|回复: 7

University of Missouri and Yale Show What Mob Rule Looks Like

[复制链接]
发表于 2015-11-11 00:11:13 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

Andrew Kloster@ARKloster

America’s universities are supposed to be places where students can get an education. The vast majority of students want that. Some, however, do not. They want a “safe space” where their strange ideas about society can be aired without criticism, and where they can unilaterally punish other students for failing to toe the mass line. These student activists want blood.

At Yale University, last week, a number of members of the Black Student Alliance physically surrounded an administrator and berated him for standing up for free speech and are now demanding his resignation. Caught on camera, one can easily see how dangerous the situation was.

In another example, the president of the University of Missouri, Tim Wolfe, has resigned. His resignation comes after more than 30 members of the football team threatened not to play unless he was forced out. Their claim was that, in unspecified ways, Wolfe failed to eradicate “structural racism” on campus.

These situations have much in common, and the story is becoming a familiar one.


First, both situations involve student activists disrupting education, allegedly on behalf of education. At Yale, the activists claimed that allowing free discourse and debate and challenging their assumptions threatened the “safe space” they thought Yale was.

At Mizzou, activists claimed that failing to deal with “structural racism” was harming their education. Both groups of students listed not specific harms, but rather vague interests in feeling good at their university.

Second, both situations involve administrators being asked to clamp down on the free expression of other students. At Yale, students were upset that Yale administrators were not clamping down on Halloween costumes. At Mizzou, students wanted more unspecified action against perceived racism on campus.

Third, both situations involve menacing groups of students that come very close to physical violence. At Yale, for example, students physically encircled the administrator, shouted him down, and got very close to him in a threatening manner. At Mizzou, students physically surrounded the car of Wolfe and demanded he exit the vehicle into the mob.

This pattern is becoming more prevalent on American campuses. In the name of education, education is being disrupted by intolerant student activists, harming the experience for everyone else. At my alma mater, New York University Law School, a small cadre of students is complaining about Halloween decorations that included a man hanging from a noose, because such a decoration was “harmful suicide imagery.”

These students, complaining about harmless decorations at an optional fall party, are attempting to assert disruptive political control over all aspects of educational life.

If one accepted all of the claims and agreed with the political aims of the student activists, one might think it advisable to close such unrepentantly bigoted universities down.

A more moderate response by university officials, however, would be to take their job as educators seriously. If a student seeks to disrupt the safety or education of another student, punish the disruptor.

If that were to happen, colleges would once again become “safe spaces” for free thought and expression.

This piece has been updated to state that Jonathan L. Butler’s hunger strike was for 7 days.



发表于 2015-11-11 03:11:17 | 显示全部楼层
你每天就看这种环球时报风格的东西?我只需看他的一面之词就已经知道里面充满了春秋笔法。
 楼主| 发表于 2015-11-11 13:57:40 | 显示全部楼层
kaleege 发表于 2015-11-11 03:11
你每天就看这种环球时报风格的东西?我只需看他的一面之词就已经知道里面充满了春秋笔法。 ...

历史性事件留个纪念。
 楼主| 发表于 2015-11-11 15:20:53 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 万得福 于 2015-11-11 15:23 编辑

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o[media=x,500,375][/media]

 楼主| 发表于 2015-11-12 13:57:09 | 显示全部楼层
A professor who bullied a student reporter at the University of Missouri represents a generation of freedom-hating Americans, says a media watchdog.
Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center was reacting to footage of Melissa Click, a communications professor, who was filmed by Mark Schierbecker as she claimed he wasn't allowed to film a protester campsite on the Columbia campus.

"Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here?" Clicks asks students, when Schierbecker refused to leave. "I need some muscle over here!"

The footage of Click confronting Schierbecker (see above) has gone viral, which is ironic since a professor who teaches mass media was knowingly being filmed screaming at Schierbecker to "get out," smacking his camera, and asking for "muscle" to physically remove him.

Later in the 12 minutes of footage, Click is filmed walking the perimeter of a student wall much like a general surveying the troops.

"The work you are doing is really important," she shouted to the students. "We've got a lot of press that's trying to get in."

One member of the press was apparently Schierbecker, who filmed the professor as she walked past and encouraged a fellow student who was attempting to block his filming with a protest sign.  

Schierbecker also filmed a second Mizzou student, freelance photographer Tim Tai, who was pushed back by a mob of students while defending his First Amendment right to document the protest.
"This is where we are. We have trained the next generation to hate freedom," comments Gainor, who is vice president of media and culture at MRC.

Responding to the protests at Mizzou, National Review writer David French suggested the protest is about power - not about airing grievances. He wrote:

People who shriek in the quad, launch hunger strikes in a blaze of publicity, or stand outside free-speech events and chant for censorship aren’t anyone’s victims. They’re not weak. They don’t need “protection.” They’re revolutionaries, and the revolution they seek is nothing less than the overthrow of our constitutional republic, beginning with our universities.


A student at the University of Missouri was confronted about the perception of being intolerant to other views - and defended it.

"I personally am tired of hearing that First Amendment rights protect students, when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and for other students here," Brenda Smith-Lezama, vice president of the Missouri Students Association, told MSNBC in a live interview.

The students association vice president also insisted that the student journalists - likely referring to Schierbecker and Tai - shouldn't act with "hostility and with anger," though footage shows both of them acted calmly despite other students' mocking, yelling and pushing.

The university is known especially for its Missouri School of Journalism and some media may have mistakenly identified Click as a journalism professor soon after the footage hit Youtube. Other professors were quick to use Twitter to point out Click teaches mass communication in the Department of Communication.

The professor did hold a "courtesy appointment" at the journalism school, which she resigned from this week at the same time journalism faculty were meeting to discuss the appointment.

Click also issued a written apology. She said the university had endured a "historic day" in which there was "emotion and confusion," and she regretted the "language and strategies I used."

What did Schierbecker think of the apology?

"I thought it was curt and insincere," he told The Washington Post.

"You don't organize a mob to attack a student," Gainor says of Click. "How are you not in jail?"

Click's faculty biography reports that her "research interests" include "50 Shades of Grey" readers; how social media impacts Lady Gaga's relationship with her fans; and "messages about class and food" in reality TV shows.

"The stuff she teaches, and the stuff she's written, is so ludicrous that someone would have a job in academia teaching this stuff," says Gainor.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This story has been updated with quotes from a University of Missouri student, Brenda Smith-Lezama.

 楼主| 发表于 2015-11-29 22:50:40 | 显示全部楼层
Free Speech
Walter E. Williams | Nov 25, 2015

Recent events at the University of Missouri, Yale University and some other colleges demonstrate an ongoing ignorance and/or contempt for the principles of free speech. So let's examine some of those principles by asking: What is the true test of one's commitment to free speech?


Contrary to the widespread belief of tyrants among college students, professors and administrators, the true test of one's commitment to free speech does not come when one permits people to be free to express those ideas that he finds acceptable. The true test of one's commitment to free speech comes when he permits others to say those things that he finds deeply offensive. In a word, free speech is absolute, or nearly so.

No doubt a campus pseudo-intellectual, particularly in a law school, will chime in suggesting that free speech is not absolute, bringing up the canard that you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue. A person who shouts "fire" violates the implied contract that theatergoers have to watch a performance undisturbed. Of course, if all patrons were informed when they purchased tickets that someone would falsely shout "fire" during the performance, there would be little problem.

Then there is speech called defamation, which is defined as the action of making a false spoken or written statement damaging to a person's reputation. Defamation is criminalized, but should it be? That question might be best answered by asking: Does your reputation belong to you? In other words, are the thoughts that other people have about you your property?


The principles that apply to one's commitment to free speech also apply to one's commitment to freedom of association. Like the true test of one's commitment to free speech, the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association does not come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems acceptable. The true test of one's commitment to freedom of association comes when he permits people to be free to associate -- or not to associate -- in ways he deems offensive.

Permitting discriminatory association practices in publicly owned facilities -- such as libraries, parks and beaches -- should not be permitted. That is because they are taxpayer-financed and everyone should have a right to equal access. But denying freedom of association in private clubs, private businesses and private schools violates people's right to freely associate.


Christian Americans have been prosecuted for their refusal to cater same-sex weddings. Those who support such attacks might ask themselves whether they would also seek prosecution of an owner of a Jewish delicatessen who refused to provide services for a neo-Nazi affair. Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair? Should the NAACP be forced to open its membership to racist skinheads? Should the Congressional Black Caucus be forced to open its membership to white members of Congress?

Liberty requires bravery. To truly support free speech, one has to accept that some people will say and publish things he finds deeply offensive. Similarly, to be for freedom of association, one has to accept that some people will associate in ways that he finds deeply offensive, such as associating or not associating on the basis of race, sex or religion.

It is worthwhile noting that there is a difference between what people are free to do and what they will find it in their interest to do. For example, a basketball team owner may be free to refuse to hire black players, but would he find it in his interest to do so?

I am all too afraid that most of my fellow Americans are hostile to the principle of liberty in general. Most people want liberty for themselves. I want more than that. I want liberty for me and liberty for my fellow man.
 楼主| 发表于 2016-2-25 16:42:25 | 显示全部楼层
University of Missouri fires professor Melissa Click

The University of Missouri announced on Thursday it has voted to fire professor Melissa Click.

Click, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication, attracted nationwide attention after she was caught on video calling for "muscle" to help her eject a student journalist from a protest site on campus last November. Click faced further scrutiny after the Columbia, Mo. Police Department  released video from a separate  October protest on campus in which Click can be seen cursing at a cop who is trying to clear a roadway on campus after Click and a group of student demonstrators locked arms to block a road during the university's homecoming parade in October.

The University of Missouri Board of Curators system said it voted 4-2 for the firing of Click.

"The board believes that Dr. Click’s conduct was not compatible with university policies and did not meet expectations for a university faculty member," Pam Henrickson, president of University of Missouri system Board of Curators. "The circumstances surrounding Dr. Click’s behavior, both at a protest in October when she tried to interfere with police officers who were carrying out their duties, and at a rally in November, when she interfered with members of the media and students who were exercising their rights in a public space and called for intimidation against one of our students, we believe demands serious action. "

Click was filmed having physical contact and berating a student journalist who was trying to conduct interviews at a campsite set up on the university's flagship campus in Columbia by students protesting the treatment of African Americans by administrators.

A video of the confrontation, which was taken by student journalist Mark Schierbecker and went viral on the Internet, begins with a group of protesters yelling and pushing another student journalist, Tim Tai, who was trying to photograph the campsite. At the end of the video, Schierbecker approaches Click, who calls for "some muscle" to remove him from the protest area. She then appears to grab at Schierbecker's camera.

Henrickson said Click has the right to appeal her firing.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us ... td4?ocid=spartanntp
发表于 2016-2-25 17:43:58 | 显示全部楼层
万得福 发表于 2015-11-29 22:50
Free Speech
Walter E. Williams | Nov 25, 2015

这人的法律知识这么欠缺,就不要出来献了。也就是对法律同样无知的人,容易被这种文章煽动。

Should a black catering company be forced to cater a Ku Klux Klan affair?

反过来问:Should a Ku Klux Klan-owned restaurant have the rights to refuse serving a black man。这个作者支持吗?

这个作者肯定也不知道,前者和后者不是对称的,在法律上有不同的basis。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册帐号

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|第二港湾

GMT-5, 2024-9-27 16:33 , Processed in 0.017205 second(s), 14 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表