After spending the year as a provisional member of Dwight Hall, Choose Life at Yale (CLAY) — Yale’s pro-life student organization — was denied full membership status in Dwight Hall’s Social Justice Network for the upcoming school year.

The approximately 90-member Dwight Hall Cabinet, which comprises member group leaders and executive committee members, gathered Wednesday night to vote on CLAY’s status within Dwight Hall. After deliberation, they denied the organization membership, blocking further access to Dwight Hall’s resources, including funds, cars and printing services.

“We are all obviously disappointed and frustrated with this decision, especially after having gone through this year-long provisional process,” said Christian Hernandez ’15, the president of CLAY’s Spring 2014 board.

Each full member organization of Dwight Hall is allowed one vote during cabinet meetings, according to Shea Jennings ’16, Dwight Hall’s public relations coordinator. Representatives from each organization up for a vote, including CLAY, gave a brief presentation before the cabinet voted, she added.

Jennings said that the body does not debate immediately before a vote, as Dwight Hall assumes each representative comes bearing the carefully considered views of his or her member group. Still, in the weeks leading up to the vote, she added that discussion among member groups about CLAY far exceeded that of any other organization seeking full member status this year.

“Generally what happens is in most member groups the decision is made without as much discussion,” Jennings said. “Because this was a more political decision, there was more discussion.”

The vote was not unanimous and had an unusually high proportion of abstentions, said Dwight Hall co-coordinator Sterling Johnson ’15. Multiple members of Dwight Hall’s executive committee declined to specify the exact number or breakdown of votes cast.

Still, members of CLAY present at the meeting said that members of the executive committee seemed “biased” against their organization’s pro-life stance. Courtney McEachon ’15, CLAY’s president last spring, pointed to co-coordinator Teresa Logue’s ’15 decision to wear a “Yale feminists” T-shirt to the cabinet meeting.

“It was an affront because the person wearing the t-shirt was leading the meeting,” she said. “It seemed like a shameless plug against CLAY.”

Though Logue said that she personally identifies as pro-choice, she was careful not to advocate against the group in any way.

“We treated CLAY as we did every other group,” Logue said. “It was a democratic decision.”

Members of the Social Justice Network, including Johnson, encouraged CLAY to apply for Dwight Hall provisional membership in fall 2013, citing the group’s volunteer work at Saint Gianna Center — a local crisis pregnancy center on Whitney Avenue — as community service.

CLAY regularly sends its members to volunteer at Saint Gianna Center, a nonprofit organization that provides resources and education for pregnant women, Michaels said. In addition to offering free pregnancy tests and assistance in obtaining baby supplies, the center helps expecting mothers find housing and employment as needed, she added. The center ensures that women who wish to keep their pregnancies have the ability to do so, McEachon said.

In addition to approaching CLAY, Social Justice Network members also contacted other religious groups that engaged in community service, such as Students for Justice in Palestine and Visions of Virtue, a Christian mentoring program for adolescent girls, Johnson said.

Before joining Dwight Hall as a provisional member group, CLAY had applied to become a member of the Women’s Center twice, McEachon said. Because its mission did not align with the Women’s Center’s constitution, which specifies that new groups must offer women “reproductive freedom,” CLAY was rejected both times, she said.

“I personally do not think promoting crisis pregnancy centers on their website that may seek to shame and guilt women into carrying pregnancies they may not want, and which may neglect to inform them of all their options, is serving the community,” Laura Kellman ’15, the Women Center’s political action coordinator, said in an email. “I do not see working to strip people of their rights to control their own bodies as service.”

CLAY currently receives funding from the Undergraduate Organizations Committee to host speakers, participate in the March for Life and hold candlelight vigils.

Had CLAY become a Dwight Hall member group, the money it received would have gone towards similar activities, said Molly Michaels ’15, CLAY’s spring 2014 secretary.

“We would like to be more involved in the Yale campus by doing more outreach and having more resources to promote life and to oppose abortion on campus and in New Haven at large,” Michaels said.

Money received from Dwight Hall would have also gone towards holding an annual pro-life conference at Yale, Hernandez said. CLAY held its first conference in October, bringing in speakers of different faiths to engage students in discussions about the issues surrounding abortion.

CLAY members have not yet decided if they are going to continue pursuing membership in Dwight Hall, Hernandez added.

Assuming it will need to undergo another yearlong provisional process, CLAY will consider spending the following year restructuring its program before re-applying for Dwight Hall membership, Hernandez said.

In addition to voting on the membership of CLAY, the cabinet also voted on the admission of two other provisional groups, New Haven REACH and Circle of Women, Johnson said. Both groups gained full membership into Dwight Hall.

  • yalesocialist

    “CLAY held its first conference in October, bringing in speakers of different faiths”

    When I first read this I thought it was saying that clay hosted a conference dedicated to different faith perspectives. Looking at the schedule online, I see that an interfaith panel was only one of the discussions hosted, with two other seeming to be philosophical by their title, one hosted by a pro-life law firm (presumably speaking about the law based on the mission statement available online), and one led by a member of Feminists for Life. While these people probably have different faiths too, it seems a little misleading to paint their conference as simply interfaith.

    Can’t say there is much to say on the vote itself. As Vonnegut says in Slaughterhouse Five, “so it goes.” Time to transition ahead to other stories on Yale’s as soon as this coverage ends.

  • Guest

    McEachon’s explicit statement that her organization is incompatible with even the most contentless expression of “Yale feminism” is precisely why her organization cannot be a social justice one; it further renders the previous publicity-seeking attempts to join the Women’s Center even more comical.

    • Bijan Aboutorabi

      Have you considered the possibility that it’s “Yale feminists” who have drawn that line in the sand, not Courtney? (The Women’s Center has made it very clear that that designator is not “contentless” where abortion is concerned.) There are self-described feminists in CLAY, and at least twice in the last three years CLAY has hosted feminist pro-life speakers on campus.

      • kit

        Feminists have every right to draw a line in the sand. Not every woman is a feminist and not every self-described feminist is a feminist. Different people have different definitions of the word and various Women’s Center boards have decided CLAY’s mission does not fit their definition, as is their right. Furthermore, the Women’s Center is an explicitly pro-choice organization and says so in their constitution. That would have to change before any possibility of CLAY being admitted–and I do not think it should. There is a big difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. Many pro-choice advocates are anti-abortion but support a woman’s right to choose depending on her moral parameters (and since many anti-abortion advocates find their justification in religion, I think this only helps strengthen our separation between church and state that allows cultural plurality in a diverse country). It is only people who seek to limit a woman’s legal right to choose that are the problem here.

  • Bijan Aboutorabi

    I can’t (alas) say that I’m surprised, but I am disappointed. Apart from the substantive argument to be had (i.e. whether CLAY’s work is good or ungood), this decision proves that Dwight Hall’s definition of “social justice” is baldly tendentious. CLAY is no more “political” than such other entrenched Dwight Hall member groups as the ACLU, Amnesty International, or Students for Justice in Palestine, all of which advocate policies that can be controverted by reasonable people. (The ACLU, for instance, is a hardline supporter of abortion rights, including the right to snip a partially born infant’s neck and suction out its brains.) If these are acceptable member groups, but CLAY is not, then Dwight Hall should just drop the “social justice” charade and declare itself Yale’s Center for Left-Wing Activism. Honesty’s the best policy, and all that.

    • aaleli

      For anyone who is not deaf, dumb, or blind Dwight Hall = “Yale’s Center for Left-Wing Activism” has already been declared. Yesterday reiterated it.

  • theantiyale

    “Multiple members of Dwight Hall’s executive committee declined to specify the exact number or breakdown of votes cast.”
    Star Chamber?

  • eli1

    What a bunch of cowards…lets see if anyone at Dwight Hall has the stones to come out and defend this (indefensible) decision? I also hope that CLAY continues fighting for the “tolerance” and “equality” the Dwight Hall leadership pretends to embrace.

  • yalestalinist

    “It was an affront because the person wearing the [Yale Feminists] t-shirt was leading the meeting,” she said. “It seemed like a shameless plug against CLAY.”

    Is this a joke?

    Here’s looking forward to next year when the Yale chapter of the KKK applies for Dwight Hall membership and people are pissed that a black person shows up to deliberations.

    • yalesocialist

      Devil’s advocate: why do you think the person who would be at the front of the room chose to wear a Yale Feminist t-shirt for the election of a pro-life group?

      I’m assuming that members of excomm are not allowed to explicitly lobby for or against groups at these sorts of meetings. I don’t actually know if that is a thing. I don’t think there is anything the coordinator did that was wrong (someone could say unprofessional, but I think that is debatable given that this is a network dedicated to advocacy) but I don’t doubt for a moment that a statement was trying to be made.

      • fst1

        I completely doubt the statement that you are trying to make. It is incomprehensible.

        • Colin McCafferty

          You do not admit the possibility of the political t-shirt being a statement against the admittance of CLAY? You find such a possibility incomprehensible?

          • fst1

            The only thing I admit is what I see , and what I see are a bunch of intellectual fascists masquerading as progressives. What I find incomprehensible , is that the for mentioned fascists can not tolerate dissenting points of view. If it wasn’t a tee shirt , it would be a hat and if it wasn’t a hat , it would be a jacket and if it wasn’t a jacket . it would be , fill in name of article of clothing here _______. And as they get everyone caught up in the details , they force us to abandon the larger question. Are our universities teaching us to think or are they telling us what to think ? Reading the comments of the so called tolerant tells me they are not tolerant of anything that doesn’t reinforce their world view. They are nothing but , walking , talking , automatons who haven’t had an independent thought since 1968.

          • Colin McCafferty

            I believe you misunderstood yalesocialist’s point, then. His observation was that the “Yale Feminist’s” t-shirt was an intentional statement made against the admittance of CLAY to Dwight Hall — contra some comments here which suggest that the t-shirt was not a political act against CLAY. Your comment does not engage his, and thus neither you nor I nor he are in disagreement.

    • Christian Hernandez

      I have no problem with students attending the election with any sort of clothing or yale feminist shirts. They have their right and their own commitments/groups that they are representing and advocating and that is something that I respect. However, speaking for myself, I do think it is unprofessional for someone conducting the election as a member of the executive committee to try to make a statement (that is, I believe it is fairly obvious that the choice in shirt worn was intended to make a statement ).

      For openness, I was texted last night by the writer and specifically asked if the coordinator was wearing a Yale Feminist shirt. I responded “yes” and then received a phone call asking if I had a comment on that. I chose not to comment because I did not believe that what I expressed above would be concisely quoted and elected to not take that risk. As a group that has members that identify themselves as feminists and as a group that invited Feminists for Life to speak on our campus in the fall, we are not opposed to feminism.

      I can’t promise to follow up to responses on this website but I am open to responses sent to my student email.

      -Christian Hernandez

    • Brittany

      Your definition of feminism is laughably narrow, yalestalinist. The “right” to have an abortion championed by those who adhere to your definition of feminism implies that women are so weak and powerless that they must have the right to kill their own children in order to achieve full equality. As a woman, I find this to be quite offensive. The choice to wear the shirt was a blatantly obvious attempt for this individual to “stick it” to the pro-life group by implying that her brand of feminism is the only legitimate one. Dwight Hall’s decision is akin to that of a pre-Civil Rights Act institution in the South denying a student group funding because the group regularly participates in lunch counter sit-ins. I am absolutely sick of the lack of tolerance for opposing views at this institution. Ironically, the people who claim to promote “freedom of thought” are usually the biggest culprits.

      • Guest

        Everyone seems so interested in explaining what motivated a woman’s fashion choices. How revolting.

  • terryhughes

    This incident should force the university to come to terms with the now unavoidable fact that Dwight Hall is no longer a nonpartisan forum for student social outreach efforts, but a politicized clearing house for center left community organizers. Dwight Hall certainly can no longer be considered by the University to be “an independent, nonsectarian nonprofit umbrella organization” (as Dwight Hall styles itself) in the sense that has been taken in the past. There’s nothing wrong with such a politicized organization as such, but it’s role and character are more similar to those of the Yale College Democrats or Yale College Republicans, and Yale’s relationship with the current Dwight Hall organization should reflect the identity that organization has chosen to assume.

    The current situation established by this vote is similar to what the University would face if the Yale Political Union were to exclude parties other than the liberal and further left. There would be nothing wrong with an organization of the nature, but it would certainly no longer fill the role of the political umbrella debating society as it has in the past.

    Dwight Hall has its own endowment and grants. I pretend to no understanding of whether Dwight Hall is entitled to retain its endowment notwithstanding its relationship with Yale. But there is no question that Dwight Hall’s access to and relationships with foundations, governments and other funding sources largely depends on how Yale communicates Dwight Hall’s nature and Yale’s relationship with Dwight Hall to the outside world. Those communications should be revised promptly to reflect Dwight Hall’s exclusionary, politicized nature. No doubt at least some current funding sources will wish to continue their relationships with a politicized, more independent organization. A task force should be formed and charged with designing a new organization to serve the role of an umbrella for student social outreach efforts. It seems likely that it will be necessary to displace the current Dwight Hall organization both physically and organizationally within the Yale community to accommodate whatever new umbrella organization is formed. Whether there will or should be consequences to Dwight Hall’s tax exempt status is unclear to me, but I’m sure Yale will take no chances on that score. No doubt more points of adjustment will be required.

  • Fakey McFakename

    I think a critical question here is this: is CLAY actually about CHOOSING life, or is it a political organization advocating for the prohibition of abortion? Providing assistance for women in need is obviously a social justice mission; political advocacy against abortion perhaps less so.

    • fst1

      Define social justice. Wait , I will define it for you.

      Social justice
      Social justice is the ability people have to realize their potential in the society where they live. How do you enforce social justice. By taking away the rights , property and freedom of others . How ? Start by stifling dissent . Dissent is a huge impediment to anyone’s version of utopia. Marginalize those who disagree. Call them uncaring , call them greedy and call them bigots. Take away their funding. Refuse to let them speak at institutions of higher learning and if need be criminalize their activity. And always remember that its all done in the name of the greater good.

  • phantomllama

    In my view, there are two plausible ways in which Dwight Hall could reasonably judge which groups to allow in:

    i) an ‘open’ criteria under which any group that can make a meaningful case that a substantial element of its activities involve doing social good can join. Other parts of groups’ work may (as in the case of MEChA / GHeav, say, or the Roosevelt Institute) be more political in nature. Until the CLAY decision, it would appear that this criteria was the one being used.

    ii) an ‘apolitical’ criteria in which in order to be offered membership, a group must dedicate itself to things that one might term indisputable goods – i.e. everyone would agree that the world would be a better place if the group were to achieve its aims. Groups like YHHAP would likely meet these standards, but many others would not and might need to set up separately managed organisations to disconnect the social from the political.

    I have no strongly held preference for either system, but consistency is crucial. The problem, as I see it, is that a group of organisations allowed in using system i) have decided to hold CLAY to system ii). This is deeply problematic given the obvious benefits that full membership confers, and since the group making the decision on CLAY is likely to be more liberal than campus as a whole. It may be that a campus-wide referendum would have reached the same decision, but I think that’s unlikely having heard a fairly wide range of voices from across the political spectrum say that they support CLAY’s right to membership. Regardless of that, I don’t believe that this issue is really a question of majorities, but a question of what criteria are being set for membership and how those criteria are being interpreted. Rejecting CLAY is rather like a militant UOC denying the Yale College Republicans or Democrats registered status because they don’t agree with key elements of each party’s platform, or the YPU rejecting a new party that had met our membership criteria simply because the Right had a majority on E-Board and didn’t want another left-wing party diluting that.

    All in all, I don’t think this is a question about CLAY as much as it is an issue of freedom of speech. Though I appreciate that the majority of Dwight Hall funding doesn’t come from the university, some does, and Yale resources / buildings have been crucial to helping it become so successful. I am deeply troubled to see those resources distributed in a way that can have no other result than to further the political aims of some at the expense of the social aims of others.

    — ACF

  • jeburke

    Dwight Hall, Yale University and the Yale undergraduate student body ought to respect the possibility that, having a real choice whether to bear a baby or not, some women might choose to do so, and applaud fellow students who wish to help those who do navigate the often difficult issues flowing from that choice.

    In giving CLAY the back of its collective hand, Dwight Hall chooses ideology over community service and abortion over “choice.”

  • excelsior

    Apart from the absurdness of the decision itself, several things stand out, none of which put Dwight Hall in a very flattering light:

    –It seems like the question of whether an organization works for social justice should be decided in advance of granting provisional membership. For Dwight Hall to reach out to CLAY and have their members help raise money for them for a whole year and then reject them (presumably, since it’s a secret deliberation) not because they failed to live up to their obligations but because they apparently don’t meet the most basic criteria for membership in Dwight Hall is laughable on Dwight Hall’s part.

    –As mentioned above, the secret deliberation process, and the fact that the vote count is completely secret.

    –A one-minute presentation? Enough said.

    –“Because this was a more political decision…”; come again?

    –“…and had an unusually high proportion of abstentions…” Read: CLAY’s work obviously qualifies as social justice (especially given Mr. Manuel’s very helpful definition!), but I can’t possibly do anything that would be tolerant of a pro-life group.

    • fst1

      Define social Justice.

  • kit

    the most frustrating thing about the abortion debate is that pro-choice is conflated with pro-abortion. many pro-choicers (such a loaded term, as much so as pro-life) do not believe in abortion, but their often religious objections do not determine the laws we should enact (duh). and they know that. legalizing abortion simply says that women should be able to do with their bodies what they wish–and that, frankly, abortions will happen whether it is legal or not and we should provide safe ways for women to do so. if pro-lifers wanted to do some good in the world they would do better to prevent anti-equality abortions (such as when a mother aborts a fetus because it is a girl) or to reduce the number of abortions through sex education, availability of contraception, and information (not manipulation!) about adoption. and if we better provided for new mothers in this country there would be less abortions.

    the fact of the matter is CLAY’s funding was to go towards pregnancy crisis centers, which are manipulative organizations that use delay and pressuring tactics to trick women into carrying their children to term. this has been covered in a Broad Recognition article that i suggest those not knowing what to believe read:

    while i personally do not believe making abortion illegal is social justice and sets a dangerous precedent for “i think it’s wrong…just because it is” type laws, i would feel slightly differently if CLAY’s actual intention were to reduce the number of abortions through the avenues i listed above, or to help newly pregnant women or new mothers who are struggling or want to put their child up for adoption.

    • eli1

      That fact that you point us to a broad recognition article as some sort of “fact” or “truth” really shows your true colors and undermines any legitimacy your argument may have had.

      • phantomllama

        I know, right? “Those not knowing what to believe” should read Broad Recognition? It’s about as fair and balanced as Mao’s Little Red Book.

        • fst1

          Is that that same Mao the killed 50 million people

        • kit

          This “fair and balanced” ideology is so toxic–revealing that it is the one trumpeted by Fox News. If someone’s viewpoint directly impinges upon my rights as a human being, then I do not have to respect it. If it values my life less than another’s, then I do not have to respect it. There is a difference between hearing out the viewpoints of others and respecting them. People are not “welcome to their opinions” if they damage and socially imprison other people. If they were, we would live in a lawless society.

          • $29627240

            If it values someone else’s life less than yours are you equally offended? Or are you all about you?

          • kit

            I’m all about women, not unborn yet-to-be humans. In an ideal world there would be no need for abortions but we can’t premise legal policy on a situation that does not exist. As I’ve said elsewhere, I support reducing the number of abortions through sex education, easy to access contraception, and post childbirth services that prevent in-need mothers from danger or sliding into poverty. If we coupled those measures with safe, legal abortions I think you would find the situation much better in times to come.

      • kit

        The Broad Recognition article has cited sources and plenty of facts and testimony. It is literally based upon fact and the personal experience of people who have been manipulated and abused by pregnancy crisis centers. Regardless, the magazine provides a voice for little-heard issues on a campus where white male wealth and austerity is the norm. It is a counter-balance against the mainstream culture. I would not have provided a link to the article if it had been merely an opinion piece, but it is completely 100% couched in fact.

    • Nomadic100

      Please show me some “pro-choice” people who are NOT pro abortion.

      • Ttoe

        What he means, and I’ve met them, are those who are pro-abortion, but do not believe that they themselves should ever have an abortion, usually because of their Christian faith. In fact, I’ve never seen it outside of Christianity, this odd contradiction that Christian liberals always love to side with.

        It’s a rationalization that a lot of Christians make when confronted with the irreconcilable fact that the Democrats they support, the liberal side they are on fights for the rights of a woman to kill her unborn child for any reason like a tumor that must be excised, except a 12 year old has to tell her parents about the tumor before she can have it excised, where as in many places the same girl will not have to tell her parents that she’s even pregnant before getting her child excised and murdered. The pedophile that got her pregnant is safe, as most of the time when a 12 year old actually gets pregnant, it’s with a 20 something year old man or a teen adult.

      • John O’Brien

        Pro choice is not pro abortion.

      • kit

        There are many on this campus if you would actually take the time to talk to them rather than assuming to know their viewpoints!

    • fst1

      So by definition Clay should be shut out of the discussion.

    • Ttoe

      And murderers will continue to kill in spite of the law, so we should make sure they can do it in a clean and safe manner. Sort of like the show Dexter, right?

      What you’re obviously not getting, and what most who think like you don’t get is that murder is murder, and it’s wrong. Hitler was wrong for killing Jews in spite of the fact that he did it anyway, Kings were wrong for killing their subjects even though they did it anyway, Stalin was wrong to murder Deists even though he did it anyway, and mothers are wrong if they kill their children, even if they will do it anyway.

      Like the White Democrat-loving southerners of our past, you mostly white Democrat-supporters of today don’t seem to quite grasp what inalienable rights actually means, what all men created equal quite means.

      If it’s wrong to kill your baby, if that is wrong, and should be prosecuted, and it should, you know because of inalienable rights, created equal, yada yada, then just because your baby is prior to a certain stage of development doesn’t magically make them any less your baby, nor any less the human being they are. I.e. ,those inalienable rights, created equal ideals you on the left say you believe in, but never act like you believe in, those apply to the child that is less developed as well.

    • Ttoe

      And murderers will continue to kill in spite of the law, so we should
      make sure they can do it in a clean and safe manner. Sort of like the
      show Dexter, right?

      What you’re obviously not getting, and what
      most who think like you don’t get is that murder is murder, and it’s
      wrong. Hitler was wrong for killing Jews in spite of the fact that he
      did it anyway, Kings were wrong for killing their subjects even though
      they did it anyway, Stalin was wrong to murder Deists even though he did
      it anyway, and mothers are wrong if they kill their children, even if
      they will do it anyway.

      Like the White Democrat-loving southerners
      of our past, you mostly white Democrat-supporters of today don’t seem
      to quite grasp what inalienable rights actually means, what all men
      created equal quite means.

      If it’s wrong to kill your baby, if
      that is wrong, and should be prosecuted, and it should, you know because
      of inalienable rights, created equal, yada yada, then just because your
      baby is prior to a certain stage of development doesn’t magically make
      them any less your baby, nor any less the human being they are. I.e.
      ,those inalienable rights, created equal ideals you on the left say you
      believe in, but never act like you believe in, those apply to the child
      that is less developed as well.

    • Ttoe

      Wow, liberals at yale daily news really can’t tolerate dissent. They’re only letting through the very lightest of arguments for the side of pro-life on this posting forum.

      Any tough arguments, they filter out.

      Fascinating. It’s like they don’t even know the definition of liberal. It’s like they think that liberal means to remove dissent. lolol. Liberals, they’re just such funny people.

    • CentralJerseyMom

      Every single law in the world is based on “I think it’s wrong…just because it is.” Unless of course it’s “I think it’s wrong because my religion says it’s wrong” which I can only assume you would object to even more violently. The Nazis thought genocide was a positive good for the world. Himmler praised the SS for being able to carry out this psychologically extremely distasteful and stressful task (killing non-Germans) which nonetheless had to be carried out for the good of future generations. You (I assume) think this is wrong because…well….because you think it’s wrong. The only arguments that can be made for or against the “wrongness” of something are 1) to compare it to other things about which there is general agreement (“if you think X is wrong then Y is wrong too”) or to argue potential consequences (“if X is done, Y (which is generally held to be a bad thing) will result”). Unless you are religious, there is no absolute right or wrong. “The dream of reason produces monsters.” See also: Stalin, Mao, Hitler.

  • kgfer

    If wearing a “Yale feminist” shirt makes someone biased against your organization, then there might be something wrong with you organization

    • Ttoe

      LOL, the liberals love to show their ignorance.

      kgfer, feminism today, amongst other stupidities, is often on the side of abortion. In fact, in the left wing world feminism and abortion advocacy has almost become synonyms.

      Now, in the right wing world, our feminism has more to do with fighting against the left’s imposed views more than anything else. You know, such as when a woman elects to be a stay-at-home mother, and the left-wing world gets all up on arms, and start ridiculing her unmercifully. Or when she’s constantly defending herself against left-wing attacks on her character because she’s a woman and dares to be right-wing, you know like their unmerciful assaults on Palin.

  • Still Watching

    HELP THEIR CAUSE! Only send your ABORTED Children to Yale !

  • Karl Hungus

    The most intolerant human being on the planet is the modern day white liberal.

    • Guest

      Really ? It would not seem so in this case would it ? Based on the evidence available and based on the fact that this blog is censoring comments that agree that Clay should be allowed to participate , tells us all we need to know about liberal tolerance.

    • Ttoe

      You’re not even being racist because most minorities who support Democrats aren’t even liberal, but vote for Democrat for other reasons. Most of them actually tolerate dissent because they’re conservative even though they elect people who will fight tooth and nail to destroy dissent.

  • fst1

    The so called tolerant people are at it again. Keeping views that contradict their own from even entering the debate. Silencing those they disagree with is standard procedure for the academic left. They harass , they vilify and they dismiss all who are not on their sanctioned grievance list. They use the term social justice because it can mean just about anything , and something that can mean anything can be anything. Yes ,they are they are designated drivers of the conversation and if you dare to disagree with them you are not allowed in the car. And its all done in the name of tolerance !.

  • Guest

    And lets not forget censorship. Censorship is the rock that holds up their foundation .

  • Guest

    Hold on this comment is waiting to be approved by the Yale Daily News . Once we determine that you completly agree with us we will post your comment. Otherwise your comment will be deleted in the name of tolerance and social justice.

  • Nomadic100

    As an alumnus, I’m not entirely up to speed on the politics of this issue, but I want to make a couple of comments. It’s not clear from the article as to the nature of the “Women’s Center,” but it seems to have its bias against pro-life positions built into its constitution. As a psychiatrist, I can attest to the fact that abortions are hardly the unalloyed benefit that some of its proponents might assert. With regard to the issue as to whether CLAY members might “manipulate” or “shame” women into not aborting their babies, is it unconscionable that someone should advocate for the babies?

    Ms.Laura Kellman ’15 is reported as stating , “I do not see people working to strip people of their rights to control their own bodies as service.” But, really, Ms. Kellman, the baby/fetus is not the woman’s “own body.” It is a separate body with separate genes, not entirely the woman’s genes, who wants to live. It is a separate human being which depends, for 9 months, on the woman’s nutrition. So abortion is murder, clear and simple.

    If women do not want to commit murder, they know what to do. Go to any drug store. Just do it! Is that so hard? And to be fair, men should also go to any drug store if they do not want to murder some one.

    In the last few days there were articles in the national press about Planned Parenthood having “quotas” for abortions among their clients to keep the program solvent. There is no “manipulation” or incentive to encourage women to abort their children there? Does the Women’s Center have any advocacy for the fetus/baby?

    I thought not.

    Charles Morgan, M.D., ’68

  • fst1

    Come on guys, Show me some of that progressive tolerance. Post my comments. Show me that open mindedness , that willingness to listen to other points of view. Lets debate in the tradition of the British empiricists. Lets talk about social justice as we use the federal goverment to criminalize dissent and lie about it. Lets talk about progressive values as we deny Dwight Hall membership funds to those who don’t walk in lock step with our progressive values.

  • tomads

    The fact that women have redefined themselves as people who murder inconvenient babies denigrates women…

  • tomads

    The fact that women have redefined themselves as people who murder inconvenient babies denigrates women…

  • tomads

    That’s a long approval process…

  • tomads

    I turned down Yale a few decades ago…
    maybe this wouldn’t be happening if I had matriculated here…

  • Ttoe

    I would give my opinion, and even explain why. But every time I try, it’s filtered out by moderators.

    Considering I’m right-wing, and my opinions are right-wing, it doesn’t surprise me. I mean institutions of higher learning have become centers for indoctrinal reinforcement.

    And the left wing has become rather adept at weeding out right-wing thinkers from news reporting.

    It’s sad because this is a very strong indicator that our freedom, all that we understand is going to come to an end. Every dictator in modern history has proven that power and control over media and education, both of which the left dominates, are the keys to creating a successful autocracy, and the ousting of Christianity, of which the left has also made great strides, is the key to a stable autocracy.

  • $29627240

    Intolerant left shows its colors again.