Last Friday, the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program hosted its fifth annual conference on “The Future of Free Speech.” Planned over six months ago, the daylong conference brought together 14 distinguished guests from policy, journalism and academia to discuss contemporary issues of free speech. The prospect of our panelists speaking freely, however, did not sit well with everyone at Yale.

The unrest began when a student in a yellow t-shirt rushed to the front of the lecture hall during a panel. When other attendees told him to sit down, he refused and instead taped posters across the wall. A Yale police officer stationed outside entered the room and asked the student to leave.

“You’re going to have to carry me out,” the student said. The officer obliged.

Another student soon wrote about the incident on the Facebook group “Overheard at Yale.” Comments on the post identified our event’s location. “Run through,” one recommended.

Protesters lined up outside the lecture hall. Some demanded that we immediately add speakers of their choosing to the conference. Others tried to get into the lecture hall, which was oversubscribed and required preregistration. Police stood guard at the doors to ensure our symposium could go on as planned.

The professed reason for the protest was an off-color joke made by one of the panelists, Greg Lukianoff. “Given the reaction to Erika Christakis’s email, you would have thought she burned down an Indian village,” he said, referring to an email sent a week prior about Halloween attire.

Whether or not the remark was in poor taste is beside the point. As the Woodward Report, a cornerstone of Yale policy, makes clear, free speech is about the ability to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable and challenge the unchallengeable.” In any case, the protests did not conclude when Lukianoff left the stage.

For nearly two hours, the crowd outside grew in size and volume. Social media attacks on our organization intensified. When I offered the protesters leftover cookies — intended as a nice gesture — I was called a “white colonizer” and told to stay in the hallway to be “educated.” As audience members exited the lecture hall, protesters chanted, “Genocide is not a joke,” called attendees “traitors” and “racists” and, in at least one instance, spat on an attendee affiliated with the Buckley Program.

Our entire conference on free speech had come under attack.

Some would argue that free speech is merely a political right enshrined in our Constitution. So long as the federal government isn’t censoring anyone, it has been achieved. Yet this conception treats free speech as if it arose in a vacuum — as if it is a fact of life rather than a normative ideal.

The Constitution is an aspirational document, which states principles and a vision for our society. For free speech to be actualized, it must be an active and tangible part of everyday life. It can only exist in a culture of intellectual humility that recognizes that the whole truth is seldom expressed in prevailing views.

The university has always been essential to this project. It can foster a climate for intellectual expression that is open, honest and civil. It is no coincidence that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin — two pioneers of free speech — also founded universities.

Yet last Friday, we saw how delicate this climate is. What good is the First Amendment when people are shamed for holding dissenting views? Those protesters who called me a “white colonizer” and posted on Facebook “unfriend me if you disagree” are creating a campus culture that is hostile to free expression and the exchange of ideas. It is a culture in which students and faculty are afraid to voice their opinions. It is a culture of conformity, intimidation and silence.

I did not agree with everything our speakers said. Nonetheless, it was when I disagreed that I encountered new views and perspectives — and found myself reconsidering my own. Free speech is not just about persuading others; it’s about understanding and articulating ourselves.

What does it say when holding an event on free speech requires the presence of several Yale police officers? Fortunately, the Buckley Program is in a financial position to incur these costs, yet not every student organization is.

I worry that other students seeking to stand up for free speech may find their events dictated by the whims of protesters. Ultimately, we completed our conference, which included a fantastic keynote address by Sen. Ben Sasse.

The Woodward Report called the “free interchange of ideas” indispensable to the fulfillment of a university’s mission. At Yale, we must work together to vigorously defend free speech as the report envisions. We must make an effort to engage in meaningful and respectful dialogue — even with those that vehemently disagree.

Zach Young is a junior in Silliman College. He is president of the Buckley Program. Contact him at .

  • FreedomFan

    Good job, Zach. I hope you are among our nation’s leaders, and not the psychotic free-speech protesters.

    • Harry Melline

      Zach is smart enough know that someone with a pretense of freedom with such a long history of intolerance isn’t on his side at all. You mock him and his institution one day and then come to his elbow saying he’s part of the team.

      The right is and always has been antagonists to freedom and free speech.

      • Hieronymus Machine

        I refer you to The National Review’s mission statement (scroll for it): even if you disagree, it is enlightening, not least for its sincerity.

        A wikipedia distillation: “It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.”

        • NRGuest

          There’s irony in that statement though, as the “organic order” is anything but moral. One could say we’re regressing to the more organic state of mob rule and centralized authority, as those two things have defined human social organization for millennia.

          Classical liberalism, anarchism, libertarianism, and much of “modern conservatism” are inherently based around artificial constructs as they require a populace of educated individuals willing to agree to a social contract ensuring a free society. That kind of arrangement doesn’t happen naturally.

          tl:dr, conservatism is decentralized, not organic.

      • FlameCCT

        Really? Like Progressive Southern Democrat President Wilson segregating the federal government? Perhaps you mean the Progressive Democrats that opposed every Civil Rights Act? Or do you mean the Progressive Democrats that beat up Martin Luther King and his followers? Maybe you are talking about the protesters abusing and spitting on people at Future of Free Speech conference?

        Projection is a serious issue my friend.

      • RoamDawG

        It is inane to try to paint this as a left/right issue. The only point in Zach’s article that related at all to the right/conservatism is the word “Buckley.” Similarly, to call the Yale protesters “the left” paints the rest of us with a nasty brush that we can certainly do without.

      • Baroo00

        I’ve enjoyed your comments on this thread.

        They are completely juvenile and inane, but incredibly educational and humorous…

  • Commander_Chico

    Like it or not, the face of Yale today is that reaction to the Christakis email.

    • Harry Melline

      What is so dependable about “conservatives” in the US is that they always, always overplay their hand. In these stories about Yale, such as this column, those who have always been opposed to racial equality and anything even moderately liberal with regard to social policy rail about “fee speech.” And effectively… at first. But wait a little while or dig a little into their previous comments and you see the vile, nasty, hateful and intolerant pride of the classic right wing zealot.

      The right loves these kinds of over-reactions from the left (and the student’s reactions were not pleasant). But in their response the right does what it always has done: pats itself on the back so encouragingly that soon their real beliefs show.

      You aren’t interested in free speech. You are interested, as you always have been, in selecting what to be free and what should not be free. You are and always have been the oppressor. The students, while not yet wise, are on the side of justice. They act (at times foolishly). You react (almost always with a degree of hatred so much a part of you that only someone outside your clan can see it.)

      The right is always opposed to equality. It uses any guise it can find (sarcasm, humor, rage, aloofness) to try to win the moment and advance their logic. But the dirty underside of bigotry is always evident, Just let them talk enough and it discloses itself.

      • Hieronymus Machine

        Project much? Don’t use what you see in *your* mirror as the measure of others’ internal drivers.

        “Conservatives” want one set of rules — for everyone. Not a two-party system (no, not Dem/Rep but Party/Prole), not “identity politics” set-asides, not racial quotas… “A level playing field” does not mean special-snowflake considerations, it means we are all equal under God and under the law.

        We see that free will and moral authority derive from objective (not subjective) reality (sometimes known as God); political and economic liberty are essential to the preservation of free people and free institutions; government must be strictly and constitutionally limited; and the market economy is the system most compatible with freedom. Conservatism is incompatible with collectivism: we promote the freedom of the *individual* as the central and primary end of political society.

      • Hieronymus Machine


      • Rick Calvert

        I’m sorry, but this is far too broad a brush. I’m opposed to cultural appropriation via costume, have protested the name of the Washington DC NFL team, and tl/;dr I’m a product of a liberal arts education that emphasized critical theory and the narrative of structural oppression (and I hate bringing this up because it shouldn’t have any bearing, but I’m also an Asian American POC).

        But I also think what is happening now in Yale is overtly censorious and inimical to the free expression that is a necessary pre-condition to achieving social justice.

        Sure, there is a degree of push back from some who have no interest in free speech, who only want to rehash the usual “We’re too PC derp derp I don’t care if NOTRE DAME used an Irish person mascot derp” camp, but there is also a lot of concern from those who are often derided online as SJWs.

      • zhivago

        Well, thank goodness you caught on to that comment’s inherent conservatism and could tell there was zero actual interest in free speech behind it. I’m clearly immune to such poorly-hidden agendas because I am a liberal and I AM interested in racial equality… but of course, I also rail about that pesky concept of ‘free speech’.

        It’s not that I LIKE people who say asinine things, it’s that I want them to have that right. In part because it’s a fundamental one -after all, some people think MY ideas are asinine- and also in part because it’s a fantastic way to quickly learn who I’m probably going to not get along with. I much prefer that than having people hold their racist, sexist, whatever sentiments in and hide their true colors.

        So, yes, I’m interested in free speech and find these protests to be frustrating. It’s a less than ideal situation, protecting speech versus protecting peoples’ feelings of safety, their culture, etc. There is no question about that. But given the choice between a necessity and a desire, I’ll choose the necessity – society needs free expression more than it needs security from offense.

      • bowhowdy2

        You don’t get it, do you?
        Free speech is the ACLU defending the rights of Nazis to march.
        It’s allowing people to burn the American flag as a protest.
        If one espouses “bigotry, hatred or racism,” that’s covered under free speech, as long as it’s not connected to violence, the SCOTUS ruled.
        That’s what the Westboro Baptist Church picketing is all about.
        It’s hate, injustice, etc. etc. but they are PROTECTED by the courts.
        If free speech is “oppressive” so what?
        You can object to the content of the message but you can’t censor it.
        Feelings, believes, emotions cannot be censored, the courts have ruled
        Again, no violence, nothing obscene. You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
        Dang, you really, really don’t get it, do you?
        Please, please go read up on this.

      • pixie-n-dix

        What is so despicable is that you want what you want when you want it and are not willing to share the bread you worked for.
        If you are in school you think everyone else should pay for it and then when you graduate you complain that your philosophy or art history or sociology or ethnic studies bachelors degree does not “entitle” you to a high paying job.
        Consider what your contributions are to the universe.

        • ldffly

          Better not denigrate philosophy. Bad philosophy is at the heart of this mess. Philosophical critique is what this mess needs, though I doubt these lovely little so and sos would listen.
          Also, a philosophy BA or Ph.D. from Yale used to get you into Wall Street, the old Bell Labs, and even CIA. It didn’t make you unemployable.

      • JP

        This is just narcissistic projection. Honestly. I’m not being at all snarky. I think you could benefit from some introspection if you think conservatives blocking the speech of liberals is a serious problem on campuses today.

      • KadyM

        “The right is always opposed to equality.”

        To be sure, the right is obsessed with equality — the creation of a meritocracy, to be more precise. To the point that we wish to ignore differences in race and gender, and do away with all policies which advantage one group over another.

        People like yourself, who do not trouble themselves to actually understand what we believe, interpret the latter as “racism” — taking the rationally untenable position that if an individual does not believe in legislating equality, they must be opposed to it.

        I am quite sorry, but that is simply not true.

      • Steven Flanders

        Wow, what a large and irrelevant straw man. Once again, someone on the left tries to equate free speech with oppression. No, the antidote to oppression IS free speech, as even a cursory look at history, from the Jim Crow and slave days, to Apartheid in South Africa, would reveal. Those who are oppressed must always be silenced.

      • MrBiggsEsq

        We’re not opposed to equality;
        we just feel sorry for the inferior, as in, yourself….

      • TexasJack

        Classic political maneuver, accuse the accuser of the committing the same accusations but on a larger scale.

      • MinnesotaConservative

        Why such a bigoted view of conservatives? Do you really mean to claim that you KNOW that no conservative is interested in free speech? How did you come by this knowledge? Do you like to classify people into groups and then denounce them? Do you regularly make broad accusations without presenting a single shred of evidence?

        Ad hominem, non sequitur, tu quoque are not effective tools…if you had been properly educated, you wouldn’t have to be told.

  • reggiedog

    It would be interesting if people would read and discuss the event speaker’s article from last month on the subject. It seems incredibly ironic that the article is a precursor to the situation (and that no one is discussing it)

    • Darren J

      Did you skip this paragraph: ‘Some would argue that free speech is merely a political right enshrined in our Constitution. So long as the federal government isn’t censoring anyone, it has been achieved. Yet this conception treats free speech as if it arose in a vacuum — as if it is a fact of life rather than a normative ideal.’

  • uh_no

    just a reminder:

    • Steve W,

      Likewise, the students who are utilizing their free speech rights to disrupt University activities, disrespect faculty, and break Yale’s student code are also subject to the consequences of their speech, including academic suspension and expulsion.

      Sadly the odds of Yale actually preserving their institutional integrity by taking such action are slim to none.

  • Wise King

    Reminds one of the situation in Denmark.
    A benefactor committed to diversity discovers that among those newly admitted are a hateful, angry lot violently opposed to free speech.

  • Will Rogers

    The protesters outside bear a strong resemblance to Hitler youth during th 1930s. What’s next – burning the books of people they don’t like?

    • Hieronymus Machine

      Or Red Guard. Google the videos of their professor-shamings.

  • OCB

    A joke about genocide is not thinking the unthinkable, discussing the unmentionable or challenging the unchallengeable. That’s what the protesters in the hallway were doing. Your defense of “free speech” is a defense of power structures that uphold systematic racism that allows you to erase the history of minority groups and hide behind the wall of free speech instead of grappling with the ways in which the behavior of your group marginalizes already disempowered communities. You unfortunately are the status quo not the disenfranchised minority in this case.

    • Barzini

      So if we don’t have free speech, we must by definition have policed speech….

      Who in your opinion should police what people in the USA say?

      If, after some years, the agency in charge of policing speech believes you yourself must be prevented from speaking, will you abide by the decision of this new regime?

    • Will Rogers

      Sound familiar?

      “Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice … In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for the uniting the proletariat. ” Vladimir Ilylich Lenin

    • CentralJerseyMom

      It wasn’t a joke about genocide. It wasn’t even a joke. It was a perfectly rationale statement of fact. The response to the email was an appropriate response for mass murder. But these Red Guard idiots use that comment as an excuse to further their rampage.

    • Odysseus

      This is why I won’t hire Yale grads any more.

    • MisterH

      Sometimes a joke is just a joke – even if it’s not funny to you. BTW, I think you’ve done a terrific job cobbling together every trite, meaningless expression commonly uttered among those majoring in ethnic or gender studies these days. So which are you?

    • Jeff Reynolds

      He still has the right to speak freely and not be disrupted by hostiles. Your argument is set aside because your conduct was reprehensible. It’s why no one listens to hard-left wackos anymore.

    • JP

      THIS is the whole point. Critical thinking (along with empathy, and introspection) are entirely absent from the militant speech deniers.

      Lukianoff didn’t make a joke about genocide. He didn’t even use the word genocide AT ALL. He said that the person had acted with the level of offense a if an Indian village had been burned down. In other words, he was saying the response was disproportionate. He didn’t act like burning down an Indian village wasn’t a horrible thing – it is clearly implied in his metaphor that it is.

      In no way can that analogy be honestly equated in any halfway intellectual discussion with upholding racist power structures. No. Way. I feel like that is all window dressing that people use to say what they don’t actually want to say – you don’t like the people. You don’t like people who you label as more privileged than yourself, and you feel that because you’ve labeled them as more privileged, any kind of attack short of actual violence is fair game.

      If no one who disagrees with you on how to achieve and/or maintain equality in this country can be seen as anything but someone who ‘upholds racist power structures’ you have become everything you decry.

    • KadyM

      As soon as somebody starts talking about “power structures”, you know they’ve missed the point.

    • Steven Flanders

      No, a joke about genocide is mentioning the unmentionable. The protesters in the hallway were trying to suppress the speech of others. Your kind of muddled thinking leads to genocide and other crimes of tyranny.

    • ataturkey

      “A joke about genocide is not thinking the unthinkable, discussing the unmentionable or challenging the unchallengeable.”

      There was no ‘joke’ about genocide. The plain meaning of the phrase was that the reaction of students to an email seems to approximate the outrage at what would happen if a village, be it Indian or any other, were razed to the ground, even though, clearly, they aren’t of the same severity.

      But way to miss the point…you must be a Yalie

    • John Citizen

      For starters, the protesters were not “discussing” anything. They were disrupting and intimidating people actually having a discussion. When you use the tactics of a mob to drown out others, you’re practicing something bordering on violence. You’re certainly not upholding values like reasoned inquiry or intelligent debate.

      Regardless, a true sit-in is an honorable form of dissent–but you make it impossible to take you seriously when delve into hyperbolic mumbo-jumbo. Nobody is upholding a “power structure,” nobody is “eras[ing] the history of minority groups,” nor is anyone’s group “marginaliz[ing] already disempowered communities.” Certainly not the author, who BTW, never claimed to be disenfranchised.

      You do a great disservice to the generations of great liberal and progressive thinkers who cared very much about both the disenfranchised and human liberty. But its likely you’re not really progressive or liberal anyway. I think Will Rogers’ quote is a pretty good sizing up of your value system.

    • CorbinCrawley

      Oh, shut up, commie OCB. Actually, don’t shut up. You have the right to speak. (there’s a hidden lesson in here for you)

    • iamstopper

      That is truly one of the most mind numbingly stupid things anybody has ever written. When someone speaks of hidden boogie men and “power structures” that “uphold systematic racism” and maintaining the “status quo”, you seek to deflect away from the real issue at hand, which is the intimidation of people who don’t think the way you do and their freedom to express those opinions. Answer this, when is the last time someone tried to prevent you from expressing your opinion? However uneducated and silly it might be, I support your right to shout it from the mountain top. Would you do the same for me?

    • Baroo00

      You got all of your buzzwords and newspeak into one, inane paragraph.


    • Gerry Delonzo

      The sad thing is that you think that you are defending what happened, but in reality your post just makes you and the Yale students seem even more ridiculous. You’re actively hurting your cause, not helping it.

    • MinnesotaConservative

      I just hope you didn’t waste over $100,000 learning to parrot that drivel.

    • Doug

      References to “systematic racism” are the last refuge of those who can’t point to any actual racism.

    • cutitall

      What a humorously pieced together list of meaningless phrases. Future government employee no doubt, nobody else would pay for this nonsense.

    • Querent

      Utter nonsense.

      • RonRonDoRon

        What’s nonsense? The article? The protesters actions? Your comment doesn’t even make clear what you object to.

    • RonRonDoRon

      “hide behind the wall of free speech instead of grappling with the ways in which the behavior of your group marginalizes already disempowered communities”

      There is no such thing as a “wall of free speech.” Free speech allows you to respond by making your case.

      Start by specifying what group you’re talking about and then make the case that its behavior (what behavior?) is “marginalizing” someone

      Start by specifying what communities you’re talking about. Then explain what “marginalizing” is in this context and how it’s accomplished.

      Perhaps your dislike of free speech arises because your argument hasn’t a leg to stand on – it’s nothing but jargon and buzzwords.

    • ldffly

      I thought Herbert Marcuse died years ago?

  • Contrarianthefirst

    How very tolerant of the false liberals… not.

  • cbanalyst

    Noam Chomsky said,” If you do not agree with freedom of speech for one that you despise, you do not agree with it at all”.

    • RonRonDoRon

      For Chomsky, that’s an unusually lucid statement.

  • Jim Huston

    The suppression of dissenting speech is crucial to attaining the collectivist objectives of the left.

    • Hieronymus Machine

      That moves quickly to simply “suppression of dissent.” Thoughtcrime, e.g.

      • Callawyn

        Like Hillary saying Exxon should be investigated after they stopped donating to her Foundation, and within a week the NY AG bringing charges against them for their position on the AGW hoax.

    • Mutteringretreat

      The suppression of dissenting speech is also crucial to attaining the acceptance of political movements which are self-declared enemies of the Infidel West and which disguise themselves as merely innocent religions.

  • jq2intx

    It is a shame that in a place where discussion, free expression of ideas, is now to be censored because some might have to hear something they don’t like. The actions of the protesters shows that Yale has become just another in a long line of institutions who wish to silence critical thought and discussion. Conservatives happen to believe that discussion, and rational thought will go a long way toward solving the problems of the day. However those of the socialist bent, are intolerant of anything that disagrees with their agenda. It is a shame that this is permeating our society. Of course George Orwell saw this many decades ago, check out his book “1984”.

    • Baul Bracre

      Those who believe that George Orwell was a conservative hero would be well advised to investigate beyond a superficial reading of 1984.

      “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it.”

      “I had seen little evidence that the USSR was progressing towards anything that one could truly call Socialism.”

      “In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy ‘proving’ that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this. The thing that attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the ‘mystique’ of Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me.”

      – George Orwell

      • ASCB

        Orwell isn’t a hero to conservatives because of his socialism (a system with such an embarrassing history of failure that only an intellectual could fail to notice it) but because of his brilliant warnings about the totitarianism of the far left. We can look past Orwell’s mistakes because of his human decency and his great writing.

      • jq2intx

        I was aware of Orwell in my 20’s (now over 70). His political bent notwithstanding, his words are coming true. That was the reference I was making.

  • Smokey


    • DowntheRabbitHole2

      A billion would a nanoaggression. No doubt, we’ll soon be educated as to the myriad of these which manifest against the oppressed as well.

  • tedpeters

    The repression of speech is always compelled by a deep seated fear of becoming aware of undesirable news about oneself, which is defensively projected against others who appear different. It is really not ideologically driven at all… that is just an excuse. Gallileo’s inquisitors, the Nazi book burners, the KGB, the mullahs in Tehran, etc., etc.,… and today’s college student protesters… are all kindred spirits. They cannot bear to hear any expression that challenges their hyper-delicate and ultra-vulnerable sense of identity. Those who are not psychologically impaired need to stand up to them en masse… before all of our freedoms are quashed.

  • pixie-n-dix

    These pathetic little darlings at a privileged university have never given a damn about free speech…unless someone asked one of them to turn down the annoying music. They know no history, have never heard of the Free Speech Movement, have never heard of Chicago in 1968, and have no appreciation for those of us who risked all so that they could sashay around New Haven and make demands and offer nothing in return.
    And then they kvetch kvetch kvetch when no one wants to hire them.

  • invention13

    I saw a lot of the same kind of nonsense at Brown in the 70’s and 80’s when controversial figures like Edward Teller and William F. Buckley came to speak. There were protests demanding that the university rescind the invitations. I didn’t care for either of the speakers, but was interested in what they had to say. I wondered what the protesters were afraid of.
    I have to say, in the case of the halloween costume flap at Yale, it’s gotten ridiculous. The correct answer to speech you don’t like is more speech – reasoned arguments and respect (even in the case of ‘hate speech’ and when the speaker is someone you don’t like).
    To the students at Yale who don’t get this, a couple of points:
    1) You are becoming a national laughingstock – there is a growing perception that you are pampered little flowers, living in a bubble.
    2) In your zeal for ‘safe spaces’ – what is it preparing you for? There are lots of people out there in the world who care not one whit about your feelings. During your life, you are sure to run into a few of them. It’s better to develop a thick skin, a sense of humor and the ability to argue.

    • Renaissance Nerd

      Pampered hothouse flowers is right. But it’s a short step from hothouse flower to SS goon, as these petite-fascists demonstrated. Fascists and Nazis both started out as brawlers, shutting down the competition by shouting them down and beating them up if necessary. The politically correct apple hasn’t fallen far from the tyrannical tree. They should just start wearing black or brown shirts and embrace their forebears.

    • wheezer

      the anti liberal PC invertebrates dont understand your #2. Their version of #2 is whats more commonly found in a toilet.

    • StayingAlert

      @invention13 — good points. Your characterization of some of these intolerant students as pampered little flowers is accurate. Equally good was Peggy Noonan’s description – snowflakes, because they melt with a little heat.

      Both of these descriptors are better than what we used to call them years ago — neurotics.

  • Cooper_Monster

    There’s a simple solution to all this – tie free speech to federal money. Yes, the 1st Amendment applies only to the government, but that doesn’t mean Congress can’t tie federal funds (including student loans) to colleges allowing full and free speech on their campuses. The mere threat of losing their funds will put a stop to this nonsense.

    It time to put the principle of “He who takes the king’s coin is the king’s man,” into practice.

    • Baroo00

      That has got to be one of the worst ideas I’ve ever heard.

      You think free speech should be for sale? You want more government involvement? Do you think free speech was granted by the government, and is theirs to sell?

      I hope you were being sarcastic…

      • Cooper_Monster

        This doesn’t put free speech on sale at all, instead, it puts a price on the suppression of speech. Suppress speech and you pay for it with a loss of federal funds. Congress is entirely within its rights to place conditions on colleges to receive federal funding – the same way that they said military recruiters must be allowed on campus as a condition for receiving federal funds. Colleges don’t have to do it, but they don’t get the money without doing so either.

        It’s the Golden Rule – Those with the gold get to make the rules.

    • Doug

      The only problem with this suggestion is that the Obama administration (via the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights) has taken exactly the opposite approach, threatening to take away federal funds from any college that does not suppress any speech that might make women uncomfortable.

      • Cooper_Monster

        Congress can trump that by passing this law. Let’s call it the Free Speech Act of 2015. Should be easy to introduce and pass by year end. Let Obama try and veto that one or have his cronies in the Senate try and block it. Yes, let’s debate free speech right now and see where the progs come down on that one.

    • sergey nechayev

      good idea

  • KadyM

    Well written.

    A person who cannot function in the presence of views they disagree with really shouldn’t be at Yale. They will not be functional citizens in the society after graduation.

    • Eva_Galley

      Well said.
      However, the Poison Ivy League is getting exactly what it deserves. What outcome do the leftist professors at Yale and elsewhere think they are creating as they indoctrinate these young skulls full of mush that America is the problem?? Look no further than the “protesters” at this event.
      The inmates are officially running the asylum.

    • MinnesotaConservative

      The purpose of an education at Yale is not to produce “functional” citizens. The very idea of citizenship in as bigoted and unjust society as America is hateful to them. The purpose of the “education” is to upend take our liberal traditions and replace them with Liberal ones.

    • Mutteringretreat

      Perhaps we should be chatting with Admissions to determine the mind-set of those who make these decisions.

  • RNHou

    Is Yale an institution of learning and open debate or a day care center. This story makes me shudder when I think where this country is headed.

  • AlFromBayShore

    This article can be easily titled “The Intellectual Bankruptcy of the Left”.

    • Querent

      It can, as your comment proves, even though it’s unintelligible.

      • AlFromBayShore

        I see nothing unintelligible about my comment. In fact, it’s quite easy to understand. I am going to guess that you were unable to create a response to what I said and, out of hurried frustration, you conjured an attempt at insult but failed miserably. I’ve been there before.

        • Querent

          It’s funny how you spout gibberish, but think it’s coherent. Just like every other drooling idiot.

          • AlFromBayShore

            Oh, I’m sorry. It seems that I’ve exhausted your argument after only two comments. And those comments were two sentences or less. If you had something fact based to offer you would not have resorted to the exclusive use of insult. It appears that you attempted to engage me with shallow and short sighted retorts, and couldn’t last beyond my previous comment. Hopefully you are not a Yale student for if you were, I’d go to the registrar and demand my money back, and present your last comment as proof of educational malpractice. Go take a screenshot of our exchange, print it, and use it as proof of educational malpractice. Get crackin’.

  • General Tsu

    Let’s be clear here: if the author wants to support free speech, then it must be allowable for someone to call him a “White colonizer.” It must be allowable for someone to unfriend you on Facebook. What is NOT allowable is to break the law by spitting on someone, by failing to follow the legal instructions of a law enforcement officer, or by not respecting private property rights. Trample those and where are we? Lord of the Flies. ps. If someone wants to orally “erase the history of minority groups” that is fee speech too, OCB.

    • theduke89

      Calling someone a “white colonizer” with reckless disregard for the truth can be construed as libel, which is also against the law.

      • General Tsu

        Libel has to be in written or broadcast form. Could be slander, but only if the comment was heard by others and more importantly that he was caused harm. Maybe he could say his feelings were hurt? The whole point of the original article and the ongoing, nearly fascist efforts to control speech, is regarding the damage to our whole society.

      • sergey nechayev

        it might even be a micro-aggression !

        • JohnHousecat

          Nah, that’s pure aggression.

  • itslarry

    Pardon the cliché but it would seem Yale University has
    successfully reaped what its liberal administration and faculty has sowed. Good
    news is the result of the “Ivy” indoctrination is a new generation of student
    “activists” that will certainly qualify for the minimum wage at one of the many
    food service establishments along the I95 corridor between New Haven and

    • Steve Rodriguez

      They will never work in fast food – they’ll get a job in government, to perpetuate their anti-American nutbag leftist views.

    • Querent

      Your comment shows zero insight and zero intelligence.

      • SAS

        That’s a rather subjective opinion Querent. What do you seek? Wisdom or attention? Which has more value?

    • Caleb Powell

      The only jobs for Social Justice Warriors should be future jobs teaching each other at universities. Supply and demand dictates many will be unemployed.

  • Frank411

    If the Yale President does not speak up, he should resign as unworthy to head an institution of higher education.

    The behavior of a significant number of Yale students is Maoist Red Guard behavior, the behavior of those who seek to impose a totalitarian society.

  • Tim the Enchanter

    I weep for the future.

    • Mutteringretreat

      You had better do more than merely weep.

    • sergey nechayev

      WELL SAID !

  • Mick_Shrimpton

    Leftists are intellectually lazy people. Most are incapable of serious debate and therefore rely on childish tactics such as verbal or physical assault. This is because they assume that they always occupy the moral high ground, regardless of the issue.

  • Darren J

    Whining is not fighting for equality. It is accepting victimhood. These groups create Groupthink. These groups have convinced themselves that yes, that considering the appropriateness of a costume, is racist. It’s disheartening to hear over 740 Yalies already call for faculty resignations. I am sure if you ask a minority group close to her, they’d have nothing but respect and admiration for her. However, Liberals assume through one comment taken out of context, that she only cares for non-minorities. It is ridiculous, and Yale is looking like a circus of liberals because of these reactions.

    Here is a typical question: “Why isn’t this woman successful?”The liberal will answer every time, “Society society society, society doesn’t allow her to.” Questioning this idea will be categorized as misogynistic. This mentality chooses to silence any piece of evidence that proves to the contrary of the idea of societal oppression.


    The ” TRUTH” i.e. PC and social justice shall set you free

  • CorbinCrawley

    Man, i remember being a young dumb college kid. Hopefully these toddler protesters will grow up and change their views once they actually have to LIVE in the real world

    • marcosamine

      If they don’t destroy the real world in the process first.

  • Gerry Delonzo

    Ah, leftist brainwashing at our universities. I’m not surprised.

  • KrazyP

    Sometimes working within the current constructs of what many call “free speech” requires creativity. My favorite approach is to use the quotes of past thinkers who are unassailable within these constructs. A favorite thinker of mine currently is Ibn Khaldun. He is a great one to quote – as a 14th century Islamic scholar. What he would have to say about the T.P.P, for example is germane to the current debate – and wise – and would open some eyes, perhaps. What he had to say about “ʿasabiyyah” is also instructive. Here is another favorite: “It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.”

  • theduke89

    Classic 1930s authoritarianism: speech is only free if has prior approval of the fascist herd. Their view of free speech is entirely self-serving: they get to shout down those with whom they disagree.

  • U.S. Deplorable ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    Democratic Party Requirements:

    You can be a part of the Democratic party and have free speech as long as:

    1. You believe Bruce Jenner is a hero.

    2. You think it’s ok for a teen boy with male anatomy, who claims he is a “transgender” girl, to shower with underage school girls.

    3. You believe that ANY critical comment about Obammy is racist.

    4. You believe in abortion.

    5. You believe the church of Globull warming is real, even when your “scientists” are caught red handed altering climate data because 100% of ALL of their prediction models prove false or that tree trunks are now being exposed by the retreating Mendenhall Glacier, that grew during the medieval warming period 900-1300ad, are denier lies.

    6. You do not believe Hitlery Clinton LIES daily, and whose only qualification to be POTUS is that she is a woman is enough.

    7. You believe ALL the Black LIES Matter LIES, even when 6 black eye witnesses testify that Michael Brown attacked the cop.

    8. You think his majesty Oblow negotiated the “best” deal the US could get with the Iranians.

    9. You give Oblow ALL the credit for $2 a gallon gas prices, even when it was fracking that resulted in forcing the Saudi’s to drop the price of oil to try and put fracking out of business.

    10. You believe that all the anti-fossil energy movement groups are genuine, even when it is exposed that the Russians were the one who put up the all the money for them.

    11. You are ok with the Bern being a “socialist”, despite the fact that he put up a communist Soviet flag behind his desk after he was elected mayor of Burlington, spitting in the face of the 100k+ US families that lost family members fighting the communists in the Korean and Vietnam war.

    12. You believe each and every article written by the main stream press is factual, even when jur-no-lists like John Harwood is shown on national TV to be an out-right LIAR.

    13. That Democrats know what’s best for everyone.

    14. That the Harvard Medical study showing that liberalism is a genetic brain condition is all a BIG lie.

    15. You don’t mind if the government agencies, aka EPA, BLM, NSA, etc, violate your Constitutional rights daily in the name of the greater liberal good.

    16. You look the other way during elections at Democratic election fraud, even when presented the facts on video.

    As long as you believe all the above, you can join the “Big Tent” Democratic Party.

  • U.S. Deplorable ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ


  • Michael Livingston

    well spoken

  • Michael

    Why in the world would anyone send their kid to Yale? Get a real education, go to Hillsdale where big ideas are still discussed and differences of opinion are entertained.

    • river_tam

      HAHAHAHAHA Hillsdale? Quick – what’s lower? The average Math SAT score of a Hillsdale student or the number of applicants who DON’T get in?

  • pca2002

    I’d be lying if I said there wasn’t just a little joy in watching leftist academics get consumed by the little monsters they created …

    • Mutteringretreat

      I think you are lumping all academics into the same pile. As I watched a video of this event, in which an enraged young female student shouted down a professor with inappropriate language, she cut him off as he tried to explain his point of view, which seemed to be that the students were demanding an unreal atmosphere that would not prepare them for the outside world. She cut him off because she didn’t think there WAS any other point of view but hers.

      Now I don’t know the full story of what happened here. I understand that there was allegedly a frat party at which some frat members told some black students they were unwelcome because of their race. I’d like to know if this has been substantiated, what happened to the students, and how the administration is handling the fraternity.

      I also understand that this young woman is offended by some Halloween costumes that are being allowed to be worn on campus. Are these anti-black costumes?

      If not, and they are deemed by her to be offensive, what are the rules? Does anyone on campus get to say they are offended by anyone else’s costume?

      • pca2002

        OK, first of all I did not lump all academics together, I lumped all LEFTIST academics together …. which as a practical matter is almost, but not quite, the same thing.
        Secondly, the party story is confirmed bogus. The frat house was over capacity and ALL new entrants were barred. But of course, when you are looking to be offended in every interaction, some black girl mistook her refusal of entry as due to her race.
        Lastly, the other young woman was not offended by a costume. She was offended by an email discussing how to handle POTENTIALLY offensive costumes. Again, when you are looking for bogeymen everywhere, no one should be surprised when these “special snowflakes” SEE them everywhere.

      • JohnHousecat

        There were two separate issues. I don’t think the girls were confronting the professor about the frat party. It was just that his wife had written that “offensive” email. His wife wrote it, and they treated HIM like that. Think about that for a minute.

  • Steve Rodriguez

    Ironically – by using Stalinist methods to impose totalitarian speech codes, and call people names, these groups are actually proving they really ARE inferior. If you need to blame white people for your ancestors selling themselves to white ancestors, and then the whites give you access to the western superior culture, then prima facie, you are inferior, because you need the colonizers help. Yes, I call them Indians…..killing each other before the whites arrived…..nomadic and making no claim on the land in many cases, and losing the war to the whites. Next time say thank you for having air conditioning and the internet.

  • American Dox

    Alinsky’s rules for radicals… “RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
    Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go
    after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
    is instructive to read the following link regarding the origins of the
    current Alinsky-esque climate on campuses around the country.

    If you are of the new left, please be aware of the origins of your
    thought. And consider, as you attempt to dismantle the foundations of
    your own civilization, if the world that will fill the vacuum is going
    to be the utopia that you imagine. By the way, if my etymology serves me
    correct, the word, “utopia” means “no place.”

  • mistermcfrugal

    I’d never hire any Yale graduate.

  • mistermcfrugal

    Notice that the comments have to be “approved” by Yale Daily News. That makes the same point as the article.

    • Mutteringretreat

      Yes, and no. You might be astonished at what people actually write. . the language they use while making no point but enjoying their rants.

  • firedrake911

    Responding to General Tsu. Describing someone as a “White colonizer” – fair enough, but when it reaches the point of intimidation, shouting in peoples faces, are you good with that? Intimidation, and disruption are how you disrupt free speech. It worked really well for Stalin. (Do these Yale kids even know who Stalin was, I wonder?) Or perhaps because he was a “leftist” he’s now a role model?
    Are you ok with disruption of any event to the point that it can’t go on without police protection as OK. There are plenty of instances on campuses, where “unpopular” speakers are shouted down so that events are canceled, or held but cannot be conducted.
    Since you seem to think this behavior OK, can we count on you to defend protesters in front of abortion clinics screaming “baby killers” in the faces of women trying to enter? There is no real difference between that and the Yale campus behavior. Disruption, or intimidation, both chill, or completely freeze out free speech and other’s peoples rights. The University of California system, notably Berkeley, UCLA and Irvine are downright famous for similar types of incidents, not to mention anti-semitism. I’m not even sure if the protesters at Yale (they can’t be real students, that implies LEARNING”) are It’s sad when supposedly our brightest “children” at our “best” schools behave like 5 year olds having a temper tantrum. And they are proud of it, and promise their behavior will never behave.
    Funny thing, if George Orwell was alive today, thinking back on his writings, he might be “amused” that with the direction things are going, it turns out he was an optimist. (I don’t suppose that his books are read on Yale’s campus – have they been banned there?) Ayn Rand, on the other hand, would just be going “told you so!” Do they even teach students in poly-sci, about concepts such as free speech, or libertarianism.

    • Jarka

      my family moved to US after holocaust. Are we white colonizers too?

    • General Tsu

      No offense, but you need to re-read my piece. I more or less support everything you said here. Free speech yes; spitting, law-breaking, and intimidation no. I think we just disagree about intimidation. If a protester wants to yell from across the street “please reconsider your decision” that is free speech in my book, but not to get within inches and scream “baby killer”. These are the kinds of distinctions that end up at the Supreme Court.

    • sergey nechayev

      I think that free speech at yale has now become a “micro-aggression” !
      free speech is clearly just another type of institutional racism, because the “white colonizers” control the institutions. (this is CRAZY)

  • American Dox

    Alinsky’s rules for radicals… “RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go
    after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
    is instructive to read the following link regarding the origins of the
    current Alinsky-esque climate on campuses around the country.

    If you are of the new left, please be aware of the origins of your
    thought. And consider, as you attempt to dismantle the foundations of
    your own civilization, if the world that will fill the vacuum is going
    to be the utopia that you imagine. By the way, if my etymology serves me
    correct, the word, “utopia” means “no place.”

    • Mutteringretreat

      When I was young — very young, like these students — I, too, was a student of Alinski. I wanted “change” before I knew the value of what we had. It was baby out with the bathwater mentality. We were the good guys; the enemy was everyone who disagreed with us; the cops were bad (even then); the administration was bad (even then) and America was deeply flawed.

      Little was understood about how America was great. A full year of American History failed to convey that concept.

      It took a lot of living and travelling and reading to see the difference between America and the rest of the world; it took conversations with immigrants to America to realize that they appreciated what we have here more than we were taught to do–we who were born here and who took it all so much for granted. We, the little fools.

    • marcosamine

      oh but they think they’ll get it right this time.

    • JohnHousecat

      That was an interesting link. Though I don’t think this strange movement is Marcusian,,,it’s not “don’t work, have sex”, it’s “don’t work, don’t have sex”.

  • David Eisenberg

    It is sad that so many young people are being taught the worst part of politics – try to make it so the other side doesn’t get to speak. I’m a moderate, but, I have to say in m life I have seen aversion to free speech go from more so the right to more so on the left. Only recently any number of comedians have spoken how difficult it is to make jokes on a college campus. Any number of colleges have tried to limit speech themselves, and many have been successfully sued over it. This is all part of the same victimization syndrome so prevalent these days. Almost every group seems to want to see themselves a victim. Black, white, straight, gay, theist, atheist, handicapped, full-figured, thin, every ethnic group. Enough with the War on this or that. And, unfortunately, many people are invested in teaching our young people that they are victims and that the way to combat it is to make themselves unbearable. It’s one of the reasons that Donald Trump is so popular among a segment of our population who are tired of political correctness.

    • sergey nechayev

      I think that we should start “victims anonymous” (va) so that all the victims can get together and whine and complain.

    • PaulO

      The victimization mindset is not incidental; it’s a strategy. Those on the left need to convince groups a) they are victims, b) they are victims because conservatives hate them, c) democrats are saviors and d) all you need to do is give us (the left) more power and we’ll give you the things you deserve. Inherent in this is that there IS a free lunch – actually it’s just taken from the rich; they have a lot of bread, you know…

  • Joe

    These Yale protesters have Van Gogh’s ear for free speech.

  • theduke89

    Interesting. I just had a comment on the subject of free speech in which I equated the protesters to the fascists of the 1930s disallowed. Oh the irony . . .

    • Mutteringretreat

      Disallowed here by the Yale Daily News?

      Why? Because they do not recognize fascism when they see it, or because they do?

  • Mike Green

    its “free speech” only when you agree with me. otherwise you are A: racist B: misogynist C: Colonialist D: fill in the blank. this is how fascism grew throughout Europe in the early 20th century. anyone who doesn’t have the faith in their own ideals and arguments to embrace opposing views should reread history.

    • Mutteringretreat

      Either 20th Century European history is not a required course at Yale, or it is and these students want to be the ones in control, just like the Nazis.

  • Craig the Czech

    The admissions dept. should be replaced in toto.

    • Mutteringretreat

      I suspect that this department is fighting hard to gain the approval of the brightest minority students applying for admission, because diversity is much sought after. I am guessing that in order to get these kids to choose Yale over its competitors, the admissions office promises that the environment here is one that welcomes and respects minorities.

      That is why this young student fully believes that her complaints are justified and that the threat to transfer out is truly a threat to the university.

      And I’m guessing that no one in admissions told her that her role as student does not come with the ability to hire and fire, or to berate the professors for policies of which she disapproves, or to shout them down so that only her viewpoint may be heard. They probably assumed that anyone bright enough to gain admission to Yale would know these things and value their time here.

      Admissions had better think again.

      • ptsargent

        The truth is virtually all private universities are deathly afraid of the Federal Government because they take research money (last I heard Yale’s was $300 millions for medical research alone and don’t forget student loan guarantees by the feds) and should they fail to show respect for diversity as defined by the feds that money is jeopardized. This accounts for lowered admission standards for some and intense competition among the “elite” schools for the few minority students who are legitimately qualified. It’s probably from among the latter that the radical element leading campus unrest comes. They see themselves as the next Che Guevara.

  • barnburner

    The dirty little secret is that this is all happening as planned long ago. Herbert Marcuse, Fabian Socialist and Communist fellow traveler (if not supporter), said long ago that the “revolution” would be led by the culturally oppressed, aka racial minorities, women (feminists), LGBT, etc., not the “workers” as Marx predicted. Radical professors at Yale and elsewhere understand this and developed concepts to indoctrinate individuals in these groups toward that goal. Hence, “intersectionality” of the oppressed, which is nothing more than a theory to bind the “oppressed” groups together to form a new proletariat. Hence, white male privilege to build racial and gender divisions. Hence, a new definition of racism developed out of thin air tying racism to institutional power, which insulates the “oppressed” from charges of racism for clear classical racist thoughts and acts. Hence, “microaggressions” to keep the “oppressed” alarmed and angry. They teach that one’s identity is the superficial and bound to a collective, and that all of that identity must agree politically, philosophically and ideologically. None of this happened in a vacuum. This is the result of cultural Marxism. This will continue and continue until they reach their goal of destroying every cherished Western institution, like free speech. It’s time that the radical professors and students be called out for what they are and what they are doing.

    • Eiiidiotts

      Though that was an amazingly written comment, I think you’re giving these people too much credit. To me it looks like just a bunch of over privileged kids, going to one of the most over privileged schools in the country, trying desperately to appear to be “radical”, “oppressed”, and “anti establishment” for attention. After all, what do the most privileged students in the country really have to protest, lest they manufacture hardship? How else can they feel relevant in a country which classifys them as the 1%? Their ultra liberal counterparts who they so desperately try to align with, have basically labeled anybody who isn’t poor, disenfranchised, and a card carrying member of the “99%” as the enemy. So they find some non issue to try to seem oppressed and fit in with the “cool 99% kids”, then feel powerful when they have a mob of students at their back and cellphone cameras in their face while yelling at people older and more powerful than they are…they have become addicted to that power & attention.

  • Doug

    Mr. Young, I encourage you to stick to your guns. Ignore the shamers, the social media vultures, the leftist authoritarians. There’s a whole wide world out there that will welcome you even if the narrow-minded bigots at Yale do not.

  • demmi

    I see the ‘monster’ you created has turned on you. Pity.

  • sknapp

    I ran across this article on a nationally published blog. Yeesh! Such moral preening! Such intellectual pretense!
    My biggest take away after reading this piece and its accompanying comments: I will never hire someone with a degree from Yale.

    • JMG_DC

      Gee, that’s open minded….

    • RonRonDoRon

      You think the author’s defense of free speech is moral preening?

      If that’s not your meaning, maybe express yourself more clearly.

      If that is your meaning, perhaps you could explain where the moral preening lies in this article.

    • Callawyn

      You champion the “heckler’s veto” and despise actual Free Speech, and you behave like you’ve got the moral high ground? Your attitude is disgusting. You are a disgrace not only as an American but as a human being.

    • ldffly

      Please don’t do that. I and others need work. We graduated from Yale a long time ago. We’re not like these people. We’ve got a big appetite for work. lol

    • Jihad Joe

      Is McDonald’s hiring?

  • Cogsys

    Unfortunately, as a nation we seem to stand ata crossing. First, no speech enrages so much as political speech, and many people understand that it easy to gather crowds with incindiary rhetoric that is intended to inflame. In the I stant case, the students who are described as joining this ‘protest’ seemed to glory in intimidating others acting in this instance like a mob.

    Secondly, the line between speech and behavior is blurred, some actions are intended to be speech, and therefore all actions are protected as speech. Students and Individuals seeking attention, crossing g these boundries then insist it is all free speech rather than trespass or assault.

    As a direct result, schools and universities are letting academic freedoms be eroded by a hot tide of irrational actions justified under a false guise of social equality that seeks to make threats and intimidation an appropriate vehicle for free speech.

    • innocentbystanderboston

      At Yale about 45 years ago (broadcast on Firing line), Noam Chomsky and William F Buckley debates the merits (or lack there-of) of the US involvement in Vietnam. The two men talked calmly, lucidly, never talking over each other, never raising their voice, and it was interesting. Somehow, someway, we got away from dialogue and for the life of me, I don’t know why. We need to bring that back and right soon….

  • barnburner

    I see the Yale Daily News censors the comment section to keep their students uninformed. Way to support free speech on a column on free speech.

    • RonRonDoRon

      “I see the Yale Daily News censors the comment section”


      • Eiiidiotts

        Submitted comments are reviewed before they’re allowed to be posted. Who knows what they do not allow to be posted. Could be spam…could be comments the reviewer happens to disagree with, or God forbid, finds offensive.

  • TBone

    Do we not see it… the left becomes more radical the totalitarianism that has always accompanied it rises to the top.

  • ThinkerPrime

    If dissidents could stand up to the Communist party in the USSR, Academicians who care about free speech should be able to stand up to a bunch of whining ignorant little twerps brainwashed by ultraleft faculty. It is a matter of courage, of will.

    • ldffly

      I suspect this group of Fellows of the Corporation have other ideas. We shall see.

  • JMG_DC

    Well, his problem is that he neglected to mention that the cookies were made with hemp….

  • Jarka

    Silencing of opposition is quite normal for progressive left. You can be wife beater, junkie, criminal, cheat, and all is forgiven and excused, as long as you agree with their ideology, you will be labeled as victim of society. But don’t you ever dare to disagree. Years of hard work, patents, papers, professorship, tenure, or even Nobel prize will mean exactly nothing and those fanatic Jacobins, those social justice warriors, will swiftly end your career and employment.

  • anonymous conservative

    This is a generation of college students who get apparently get dressed up for Halloween.

  • BlakeSDavis

    Why would anyone bother with a school like Yale? If this what their students are like, I would recommend against hiring any of them.

    • People

      Imagine the chaos these bright young minds will bring to your company. You thought you had a job. Wrong. Your company’s participation in transforming the country has been requested, courtesy of the fresh diversity hire you made from Yale and the Federal EEOC. You wouldn’t want anything bad to happen, would you?

  • BlakeSDavis

    It’s time to separate from these people, the Democrats. Let left and right go their own way. I don’t want to live in the same country as the Democrats, appoint a commission, divide up the country, and that’s that. We’ve had enough..

  • Mutteringretreat

    Zach Young is right when he argues that “Some would argue that free speech is merely a political right enshrined in our Constitution. So long as the federal government isn’t censoring anyone, it has been achieved. Yet this conception treats free speech as if it arose in a vacuum — as if it is a fact of life rather than a normative ideal.”

    The First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…” which only guarantees that the US government will not criminalize free speech. Now these students are taking it upon themselves to act as a de facto government in order to squelch speech they do not like. . .speech that does not comport with their personal ideas of what the rest of society should be allowed to say.

    In effect, the result they want is the same resul we would get if the government actually were restricting free speech. We had a revolution to prevent that. Someone at Yale forgot to teach that.

    This is not democracy any more, folks. This is totalitarianism imposed by the proletariat…or extremist Islamism imposed by fundamentalist Imams issuing death fatwas.. .or. . .

    If allowed to continue unchallenged and uncontrolled, it is the beginning of the end of America, the land of the free– an end which is designed to, and which will, come quickly.

  • Flyover Al in CT

    Bravo to the Buckleyites!

    I lost all respect for Yale when a Yale Free Press publication of the book about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons depicting Mohammad REFUSED TO PRINT THE CARTOONS.

    Regrettably, Yale seems to be practicing trickle-down cowardice, thereby tainting all who come within the ambit of a once-great institution.

    Further, it is promulgating a serious untruth about adult life via an overly solicitous (dare I say emotional – feminine) reaction: there is no proscription anywhere on not having your feelings hurt or soap bubble sensitivities impinged upon.

    Yale needs some Dad energy fast.

    • ptsargent

      Hear! Hear! Adults need to take the gloves off. The young woman in the video should be put on probation at a minimum.

  • ASCB

    Zach, keep fighting the good fight.

  • Ed The Oregonite

    Zach…good effort. Your generation is so messed up and many have been led astray by people who wanted to control them. Professors and activists who may have felt outcast in their prime now desire that everyone agree with them and their totalitarian stance of almost every important issue. Thank you for not being mean-spirited in your column…that just feeds the beast of intolerance. I don’t have much respect for the Ivy League schools, but you give me a bit of hope.

  • CookieGugglemanFleck

    So, basically all Yale graduates will be weak, sheltered and unable to think for themselves. As a business owner that hires, this is helpful information.

    • ptsargent

      In my company to be “good citizens” after the riots of the ’60’s, we hired several of the shrieker types we saw in the Yale campus video. They were all gone within a couple of years.

  • F150

    Liberals are now reaping what they sowed.

  • sergey nechayev

    thank you and your organization for standing up for free speech. However, when I think about it, the joke about burning the Indian village was a genocidal joke. we wouldn’t joke about burning Jewish villages (I hope). Free speech requires respect and responsibility on all sides.

    • ptsargent

      why do you think the Indian village remark was genocidal. Indians were tribal nomadic people who routinely and as a matter of course burned down each others villages. It was what they did. That activity hardly fits the meaning of genocidal as I understand it.

  • Gary E

    Don’t you get it? There’s one big exception to free speech. And that’s when your free speech OPPRESSES me. And when I FEEL that it OPPRESSES me, I will SCREAM and SHOUT and SCREECH until you feel GUILTY enough to back down and give me what I want. This is how the left has made its gains in the last 40 years — leveraging white, liberal guilt. Unfortunately for the left, the pendulum has started to swing back and as more people witness these travesties public opinion will turn against the left.

  • johnnydavis1

    Perhaps Zach Young should go on a hunger strike (like the student at the University of Missouri) and demand that the president of Yale resign and that more conservative professors should be hired (do they have any at all). Yeah…good luck with that.

    There is no freedom of speech for conservative voices. Liberals will stoop to outrageous lows in order to squash conservative speech.

  • Barokoo

    Liberalism in the 60’s and 70’s meant to disagree with the government, especially on the issue of the war in Nam.

    Today’s liberals would fit perfectly into Germany, Japan, or Italy in the 1930’s, because today’s liberalism means Fascism.

    Unlike the Fascist kiddies that go to college in the US today, I lived through REAL liberalism, yep there once was a time when liberalism meant open to new ideas, where one was able to express their views.

    In today’s world liberalism means fascism, it is quite funny how so called liberals have distorted the meaning of the word. Where did it all come from? Was this the intention of the “liberals” of the 1960’s and 1970’s?

    I challenge all liberals, take a GOOD look at yourself and then LOOK at what happened in the 1930’s. Liberals do NOT want ANYONE to have a different opinion of their own, and that my kiddies is exactly what Fascist of the 1930’s was all about.

    • wheezer

      However today’s libs are anti-nationalist, unlike fascists who were the opposite.

      • John Milton

        Irrelevant, they remain ripe for a dictator. The left loves their dictators!

        Third world immigrants will fit right it. They love dictators too!

      • P_Ivcec

        Being ostensibly anti-nation is of little to no significance.

        Liberals want the death of capitalism + gun-control and those two things alone are enough to recreate anything that happened in National Socialist Germany or the Soviet Union.

    • drloko

      Fascism is what happens when liberalism fails.

    • ptsargent

      Precisely. And let’s not forget what the fascism of the ’30’s led to: the Holocaust and a war responsible for an additional 20 million or more deaths of innocent people.

  • The Dead Rabbits

    What a relief to know that there remains some level of objective intellect at WFB’s alma mater. When they start in with “four legs good, two legs bad”, we will need strong men and women to push back.

  • Cogsys

    I laugh having just read elsewhere that the young lady who was so rude (affectionately named ‘ms shrieky’, is finding her internet presence being removed and erased by herself and others. It seems she is a child of privilege herself and her lack of self control has been noted and low profiles are called for.

    Good luck with that.

  • Chuck Vipperman

    Pro tip to all of you precious little snowflakes who call yourselves
    Social Justice Warriors. When you act like a child, you will be
    regarded as a child. That is to say, we will ignore anything you say,
    attributing it to childhood stupidity.

    For the record, my kids
    ditched this particular method of persuasion at around age 4. This was
    because I ignored them. When they did it again, I spanked them. They
    did it no more.

    It’s never too late to have your ass spanked.

  • blahdeblahblah

    It might be instructive for some allegedly educated students to go and wrap their melons around National Socialist Party v. Skokie, as they mistakenly seem to think they have a right not to be discomfited in any way.

    • chasgoose

      National Socialist Party v. Skokie was only about the right of neo-Nazis to the exercise of free speech, it had nothing to say about whether or not people could be offended by their odious beliefs. Dissenting, telling someone they are offensive, and yes, shaming someone for what they say are all examples of speech that are just as equally protected by the First Amendment.

      • blahdeblahblah

        What precipitated the lawsuit? The idea that the powers that be could curtail freedom of speech and assembly. Not only that, but the clothing and symbols the protestors could display. Sound somewhat familiar to the current clambake? No one is advocating suppressing these student diva’s rights to attempt eat their own over degrees of adherence to leftist dogma. They are simply calling it out for what it is, and pointing out that attempts to suppress the speech of others, and in some cases howling to strip them of their jobs should they not fall apologetically into line are not things that deserve the respect of any thinking person, either inside or outside academia.

      • ndmike12

        Explicit advocacy of censorship is also protected speech. Protected speech and pro-censorship speech are not mutually exclusive categories.

  • Don Keller

    Luckily, no one cares about what the elitist hacks at Yale think, don’t think, say, or don’t say…completely disengaged from reality.

  • David Paul

    This is nothing new. I was at Yale 40 years ago and this story could have been written then. And I guess Bill Buckley wrote about it 20 years before that. It’s not a bad thing, it’s life in America. It is life at Yale. To suggest that we live in a time of repressed speech, as your article is sent around the world at the speed of light, is a bit silly.

    • People

      How about the residence guy that’s on the way to losing his job?? No big deal? Collateral damage for the cause?

      • Saybro2016

        If you don’t even know his official title, how could you possible understand why people are asking for him to step down? Google “Yale residential college master” and look at the job description for starters.

    • ldffly

      I don’t know. I was there 40 years ago and I don’t remember a climate comparable to this one.

  • chasgoose

    “What good is the First Amendment when people are shamed for holding dissenting views?”

    That statement is exactly the problem with the conservative anti-PC critics. They fail to understand that criticism of their speech is also speech and thus is also protected by the First Amendment. They think when people say their statements and views offend them, those people are trying to silence them. Telling you to your face that your statements, actions, or even Halloween costumes are offensive is not an attempt to silence you, its an attempt to show you how your speech affects other people. Have the courage of your convictions to own your beliefs and your speech. If you truly believe that you are in the right, then it shouldn’t matter what anyone says. If you are so insecure that you feel like criticism/shaming of your speech is an attempt to “silence” you, then maybe you aren’t as sure about your speech as you think you are.

    I will agree that the recent move towards attempting to silence speakers that people deem offensive before they even have the chance to speak is extremely problematic. It’s far more productive to let the speakers deemed to be offensive speak and protest and criticize their statements. But this notion that freedom of speech/the First Amendment somehow immunizes you from dissent, criticism, or shaming for your views is absurd. The First Amendment only protects your right to speak (and really only your right not to have the government tell you not to speak). Once your speech is out there in the “marketplace of ideas” any other speech in response is fair game.

    • Eiiidiotts

      The issue we have isn’t with people complaining about being offended, the issue is people demanding that authority figures impose restrictions on other people’s speech when such offense occurs. They seem to believe that administrators and governments are there to ensure they never get their feelings hurt at any point in their lives. They’re essentially using them as their own personal thought police…driving out anybody who has an opinion that differs from their own.

      The issue with the Halloween costume email wasn’t students suggesting people should be mindful of who they may offend, it was that the email came from a school official, was signed by multiple other officials, and by all appearances seemed to imply a strict rule restricting costume choices to those deemed “non offensive” by the campus PC police, rather than a general suggestion. If you read the response to that email which sparked this whole protest, it made that very clear.

      People have the right to be offended. They have the right to express the fact that they have taken offense to something. They do not have the right to try to force me to change my views or restrict my speech though bullying & the threat of authoritative actions.

    • P_Ivcec

      We’re talking about people who believe that academia needs to be turned into a “safe space” where no one is ever allowed to disagree with them.

      Free-speech or not, they have about as much to offer to the learning environment as Westboro Baptist church.

    • Bettenguy

      I agree. And since these left wing students think it is ok to “publicly shame” and ruin careers, I think it is only fair that we taxpayers who disagree do the same. Even private colleges like Yale get billions in taxpayer subsidies, either directly or through grants to attending students. Let’s see how they do on their own dime when we revolt and shut off the spigot. These tantrum throwing brats can then put their “free speech” experience to work as greeters at Walmart or the local coffee shop.

    • JohnHousecat

      “Telling you to your face that your statements, actions, or even
      Halloween costumes are offensive is not an attempt to silence you,”

      Except that “BE QUIET!” is definitely an attempt to silence someone.

    • Ralphiec88

      You can’t equate verbal or physical assault with free speech.

  • wmartin46

    It’s a shame that the campus police do not seem to have the power to arrest those disrupting the peaceful assemblies of others. Students who become disruptive should be suspended–with multiple occurrences of such behavior resulting in expulsion.

    There is little different in the behavior of these goons that that of Ernst Rohm’s SA during the 1930s in Germany!

    • P_Ivcec

      So true. These people are utter brown-shirts.

    • ptsargent

      Excellent comparison and deadly accurate.

    • Jack Listerio

      …………. Goebbels:

      “If you tell a lie big enough and keep
      repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be
      maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from
      the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
      becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
      repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus
      by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    • Saybro2016

      Arresting people for protesting?…Sounds like an infringement of their right to free speech.

      • Richard Stands

        Is there a distinction between expressing a dissenting view and attempting to disrupt and silence one’s opposition? Are disruption and attempts to drown out the same as picketing or holding an opposing event?

        • I Dominguez-Urban

          Many events have protests and counter protests.They are all equally protected so long as the protesters don’t break the laws.

    • I Dominguez-Urban

      There we are. By Godwin’s Law this discussion is over.

  • Ellen

    Free speech is the biggest enemy of tyranny and suppressing speech not only violates the rights of the speaker, it violates the rights of the listener.

  • Dana Lee Depew II

    I am a far left near radical, if I had the option in the USA I would be a communist.

    That being said, I love free speech. The exchange of ideas and words is the most fundamental right of all humans.

    If I dislike what you say, I can offer a good rebuttal. Or maybe even think about my own ideas and change them through your input. Or maybe I change yours through my rebuttal.

    Preventing speech is always bad. I will never agree with what everyone says, but my goodness I will defend their right to say it.

    I see it on the far right and the far left, this whole idea of you cannot say this or that, and honestly, it’s more on the far left (my side!).

    Thank you for this well written article that speaks volumes about the actual purpose of free speech. Too few understand the reason we have it.

    • P_Ivcec

      A society that is based on the idea of guys with guns running around taking all of everyone’s property in order to redistribute it is always going to end up being controlled by criminals who oppress the rest of your rights as well.

      The only solution is to have a very limited amount of government so that people can be as free as possible.

    • Mary

      I was surprised you promote free speech since you are a communist. They are totally against free speech and you will generally be jailed or killed for saying anything not sanctioned by the government. Seriously wouldn’t you be happier living in China. Of course you better be careful what you say. How anyone can promote communism and being treated horribly by government without freedom is beyond me. You must love Hitler, Stalin, Kim jeoun, Castro etc. How sad.

      • I Dominguez-Urban

        Are we there yet? Are we at the end of the discussion?

      • matt10023

        In theory, communism has no quibble with free speech or even democracy.

        The practical challenge is where the state becomes the central political and economic power. Individuals then corrupt the political process to perpetuate their own power.

        In the former Soviet Union, they had elections, but voters had only one candidate to choose from. The same was true of Communist China and satellite states of the Eastern Bloc.

        This is why the broader rights of the individual are so important as a counterbalance to those in power who want to harness the machinery of the state to retain their power. Any threat to that power is suppressed through censorship and violence (eg. the 1956 Hungarian Revolution)

    • Jack Listerio

      When you claim to be a communist,you already lost the debate in capitalist America. Your views you are free to express and state,but your goals of communism will only lead to the rest of grabbing guns and fighting your agenda to take over amerce and make it communist.

    • Will Rogers

      Dana, You do have the option to be a communist. See

    • Saybro2016

      Protest is free and protected speech. People are free to make genocide jokes, sure, but students are also allowed to get angry, protest, picket, etc. What don’t you understand? How many times do we have to say it?

      • ndmike12

        Demanding that someone be punished for their speech is indeed an exercise of free speech. That doesn’t mean that giving in to such demands isn’t short-sighted and cowardly.

  • Daniel Scalf

    When Community leaders or outsiders pay people to call for the death of Police Officers or when the call for the destruction of public or private property they should be shunned. When they block roads and bridges they should ALWAYS be arrested if done without a permit… Their block of a road or bridge could hinder an ambulance and cost someone their life….. Peaceful protest is an absolute right and the right to redress our government for grievances for sure is a right. Resisting arrest however is NOT a right, we have a right to trial by jury of our peers for sure…and H. Rap Brown didn’t lead to riots when he said “Burn baby Burn” in 68 either

  • Mark Chang

    What in the world is wrong with my generation? When did we all grow into such whiny, entitled, crying, oversensitive babies? How in the world are these the people that populate the halls supposedly reserved only for the best and brightest? Sooner or later, these children will need to realize that the World will not always bend to their will, and that they’re going to have to learn to live with it. As an Asian, I could give a damn if someone dresses up as Mulan or dons yellow face. It doesn’t belittle me or make me uncomfortable in any way because my existence and self worth doesn’t hinge on the uniform acceptance of others. I learned this lesson from when I was young that not everyone is going to see or treat you as equals, but that that’s ok because that’s simply human life. The fact that these babies are crying and stomping their feet over some Halloween costumes and other “triggers” makes me worry about their future in the World, and also worry about our future as a country if God forbid one of these social justice nuts gets some actual power and takes away the rights afforded by the first amendment.

    • JohnHousecat

      I always like reading comments from sane Millennials. “I could give a damn if someone dresses up as Mulan or dons yellow face.
      It doesn’t belittle me or make me uncomfortable in any way because my
      existence and self worth doesn’t hinge on the uniform acceptance of
      others.” I will forever quote you on that, you wise young man. (I’m part Asian too and feel the same way.)

    • ptsargent

      Well spoken however one of these “social justice nuts” has already gotten power and resides in the Oval Office as we speak. Much of the out-of-control puerile behavior that you describe is the result of the tacit support of the poisonous victimhood philosophy of Al Sharpton with whom Obama counsels frequently in our White House. It’s called racism and it never ends well.

    • reggiedog

      The more I reflect on this, the more I think that, like most behaviors, the reaction is much less about the immediate incident and much more about pent up, historical issues.

      It seems to me pretty clear that there is a fairly overt war on black people in this country (see data on “justice” system, financial inequality, absurd attacks on voting rights, much of the media’s portrayal of social situations, urban education). And its pretty clearly gotten worse in the last dozen years or so.

      While it seems the local issues are blown up out of proportion, attacking well-meaning people and principles, I can’t imagine what it would be like to feel your country is out to get you.

      • John Locke

        War against black people, overt no less. Hmm. Obama elected president, twice. Most successful media figure this generation : Oprah. Most successful sports figure of this generation : Michael Jordan. Most visible scientist : Neil deGrasse Tyson. 70% of black high school graduates now attend college. What are you talking about? War? Your country is out to get you? Really? Do you think you make sense?

        • reggiedog

          I’m a data guy, Mr. Locke (though I do appreciate your philosophy, having written my undergrad sr. thesis in part on your social contract thinking) so hence I’ll “see” your 4 data points and raise you 40 million data points:

          = the incarceration rate of blacks is between 6 and 20x whites (the later if you normalize for frequency of offenses)
          = the graduation rate of high school for blacks is about 2/3 that of whites (the “attend college” is obviously a misleading stat, above)
          = the incredible voting rights scale backs, with no apparent reason, in many states that are specifically effecting people of color
          = the general narratives of Fox news and other media that disregard material circumstance (poverty) as a path-determinant in society. You think Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch don’t have an agenda and aren’t super clever in propaganda?
          = All those riots and demonstrations must mean something to the millions of people who are complaining.

          Again, I’m a data guy and the numbers are pretty persuasive, no matter what your philosophy or what color of your skin. It’s just the facts….

          • HobNobBob

            Yeah, lots of facts about underachieving blacks, etc. But you fail to show that this is the result of overt racism. Unless, of course, you include the pandering and responsibility defeating policies of the left as being racist. Nothing will keep the black man down quicker than leftist policies that treat him as if he were inferior. But of course, that is NOT what you were talking about, was it?

            Its not “poverty” that is a deterrent in life, it is the leftist policies that keep the lower classes in poverty as opposed to working their way out that is the real deterrent.

          • Henry Fulton

            Evidence! While this conversation happened months ago, I have to note that it’s a relief to see someone who has clearly not read much (any?) Locke get (politely) schooled by someone who has.

      • Barokoo

        You really need to have a good check up to see what chromosome you are missing, sorry White Boy, STOP living in denial, get OUT of your Little WHITE neighborhood and learn something CHILD.

        Maybe my Asian wife can TEACH you something about racism, see child my wife learned early on after only being in the USA 1 year that BLACKS get special treatment.

    • Water_the_tree

      These schools are not reserved for the “best and the brightest”. If I have to write “why”so that the reader can understand, then the reader ispart of the problem.
      As for the 1st Amendment, those rights are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. 2 follows 1 like night follows day.

    • John Locke

      You actually heard and remembered that “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. It’s a bizarre world we live in when that second grade truism is forgotten by Ivy league students !

      • stevereenie

        I’m wondering about what must have happened to the admission standards over the years (decades)……….

  • thesafesurfer

    In Obama’s American liberal higher education implodes.

    • JohnHousecat

      Dude, don’t. Even Obama’s saying that this campus PC crap is out of control.

      • stevereenie

        Maybe so………..after seeding the climate of these type of events and BLM protests to “Kill the Pigs.”

        • JohnHousecat

          Fair enough.

  • theiconoclast

    Can a space safe enough be created such that its occupants will find nothing to become angry or upset by? Isn’t it to be expected that people, having tasted a little power, having validated themselves, having gotten out of doing their homework, will continue to seek and always find new things to be offended by?

  • Almaty

    During my time at the University of Texas at Austin the biggest protest was the Iraq invasion. Hippies hanging from street lights. Class walk-outs. Street’s around campus were closed. Cops and campus police were visible. Nobody was fired. In fact– nobody was demanding a change. Lots of frustration, shouting and fuck yous. But that was it.

    Nobody was fired and today I’m good friends with the activists that I once called assholes. Courage to stand up for something. Behaving reasonable and taking responsibility for personal beliefs… it was a big public debate and students were reasonable enough to listen. Social media? Perhaps not widely used. However, plenty of student cameras and press to document the show.

  • ak123

    Wait a minute, I grew up in Connecticut. All that land was taken from Native Americans. So, these students have no problem living and learning on “stolen” land, yet want to crucify someone for comparing an event to burning down an Indian village?

    How about some proportionality here? What if there were huge protests every time someone made an insensitive remark? Where would society go? Imagine how many off-color remarks these very same protesters have made and will make. The sheer hypocrisy is unbearable.

  • wheezer

    “We don’t develop courage by being happy every day. We develop it by surviving difficult times and challenging adversity.” ― Barbara de Angelis

  • Cartago

    People didn’t really get the joke. It was about the extreme reaction, not saying it’s funny to burn down an Indian village.

  • ldffly

    I am waiting to see Salovey’s response to all of this. My fear is that he will slowly but surely permit those in favor of identity chauvinism to take down the edifice that is the Woodward Report. Let’s see what he does. If he doesn’t come out and explicitly back the tenets of the Woodward Report, Yale as a serious intellectual institution could be in big trouble.

  • jeffreydurbin

    I stand with the other commenters who say they won’t hire someone with a Yale degree. When I went to college many years ago, there were those who took their studies seriously and those who used mommy’s and daddy’s money to postpone facing ‘real life’. Now, more and more students think they are doing something important when in fact they are just misbehaving. The world is filled with very, very smart and capable people who don’t go to Ivy League universities. I am sure they will appreciate a job so much more.

    • I Dominguez-Urban

      When we paint everyone with a broad brush because of the behavior of a few we do a disservice to all the other individuals who are worthy and qualified. Should everyone at Mizz U be held in contempt because one person painted a swastika. Should whatever the next controversy or the last controversy at ____ school preclude someone considering all the other students based on individual merit and accomplishment? What about those schools were students get drunk, set cars on fire, etc.?

      What makes America great is when we see each other as individuals and distinguish them from whatever group they belong to. When we don’t privilege someone because of their power or wealth.

      BTW, most of the students at Ivy League universities don’t have rich or powerful mommies and daddies. Check out the stats on financial aid. Some of them have to scrimp, save, work, and borrow money to go there.

      • stevereenie

        Is the Broad Brush you refer to the one used by Tarantino……..????

  • BryceMcCalles

    It’s actually NOT a joke about genocide. It’s a joke about comparing AN INNOCENT offense to genocide. Those are monumentally different things. Do these supposedly bright students not understand that?

    What if the comment had been: “From the way the students reacted, you’d think I committed genocide”

    Would that also be offensive? Why? On what planet?

    This is strangely similar to religious totalitarianism, where the mere mention of a forbidden word risks bringing scorn down from on high.

    These children (yes, children) need spankings. Badly.

    Oh wait… did I just make a joke about child abuse?

  • Jillian5512

    In the 60s and 70s, the counterculture pushed the envelope on free speech. Nowadays, these brainless, multi-culti zombies are trying to staple it shut and seal it with concrete.

  • Water_the_tree

    Oh look. My reply post below must be approved! I laugh at Yale News. Freedom of speech…LOL.

  • Will Rogers

    How the rest of the world views Yale.

  • Socrates1112

    Thank you Zach. Well said!

  • Beachguy53

    Yale has become Stale. Save your money.

  • Richard Stands

    I’ll stop short of collectively blaming all Yale students for the actions of these thugs. But their actions were indeed shameful. Tantrums do not help whatever cause you’re championing.

  • I Dominguez-Urban

    At least 4 clear comparisons to Nazis and one semi-comparison to Hitler, et al.

    By Godwin’s Law the useful part of this discussion has ended. Good night.

  • txwelder

    Yale has become a joke.

  • txwelder

    Black people in the United States are more likely to be
    victims of violent confrontations with police officers than whites
    because they commit more violent crimes than whites per capita.

    – FACT: Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of homicides in the United States. DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, blacks committed 52% of homicides, compared to 45% of homicides committed by whites.

    More up to date FBI statistics
    tell a similar story. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of
    murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there
    are five times more white people in the U.S.

    – FACT:
    From 2011 to 2013, 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder,
    manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black. This
    figure is three times higher than the 13% black population figure. When
    you account for the fact that black males aged 15-34, who account for
    around 3% of the population, are responsible for the vast majority of
    these crimes, the figures are even more staggering.

    – FACT:
    Despite the fact that black people commit an equal or greater number of
    violent crimes than whites, whites are almost TWICE as likely to be
    killed by police officers.

    According to data
    from the Centers for Disease Control, between 1999 and 2011, 2,151
    whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to 1,130

    Critics argue that black people are overrepresented in
    these figures because they only represent 13% of the population, but
    they are underrepresented if you factor in violent crime
    offenders. In other words, you would expect the number of blacks and
    whites killed by police to be roughly equal given that they commit a
    roughly equal number of violent crimes, but that’s not the case. Whites
    are nearly 100% more likely to be victims.

    And what about black on white violence in general?

    – FACT: Despite being outnumbered by whites five to one, blacks commit eight times more crimes against whites than vice-versa, according to FBI statistics from 2007.
    A black male is 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the
    reverse. These figures also show that interracial rape is almost
    exclusively black on white.

    “Even allowing for the existence of
    discrimination in the criminal justice system, the higher rates of crime
    among black Americans cannot be denied,” wrote James Q. Wilson and
    Richard Herrnstein in their widely cited 1985 study, “Crime and Human
    Nature.” “Every study of crime using official data shows blacks to be
    overrepresented among persons arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for
    street crimes.”

    It’s clear that the greater propensity for black
    people to commit violent crimes is a driving factor as to why blacks are
    becoming involved in more violent confrontations with police than their
    13% population figure suggests they should be. If the 911 calls are
    coming from black areas and are related to black people committing
    violent crimes, then of course black people are more likely to be
    involved in violent confrontations with cops.

    Does that justify
    police brutality in cases such as Freddie Gray, Walter Scott or Eric
    Garner? No. But it does demolish the ‘Black Lives Matter’ narrative that
    the general trend of black people being victims of violent encounters
    with police is solely down to the fact that cops are racist towards
    black people. Racism is a factor, but the statistics clearly show that
    it’s by no means the only factor, and some would argue not even the
    dominant factor.

    But aren’t all these statistics undermined by the
    fact that black people are unfairly targeted and framed for crimes by
    police officers in the first place? Don’t higher arrest and conviction
    rates of blacks merely prove that police are racist? This argument is
    debunked by looking at the proportion of offenders identified – not by
    police – but by victims – as black. The National Crime Victimization Survey shows that the number of blacks arrested generally correlates with the number of offenders identified as black by victims.

    suggest that the reasons behind blacks being more likely to commit
    violent crimes are the dual issues of poverty (which exacerbates family
    breakdown) and a sub-culture amongst the black community that is
    tolerant of and glamorizes crime and violence. In the aftermath of the
    Ferguson and Baltimore riots, we saw the white metropolitan liberal
    media further legitimize this violence by openly justifying and even endorsing violent unrest that targeted mainly black-owned businesses.

    is true racism – by encouraging blacks to loot and riot, the white
    liberal media is helping to keep black communities in a cycle of
    destructive behavior that will lead to more police brutality targeted
    against black people.

    Police brutality is a huge problem within
    the United States, and anyone that denies that fact is a part of the
    problem. But until we acknowledge and address the equally important
    issue of violent criminality within the black community, and until that
    becomes part of the national conversation, the issue is never going to
    be resolved.

    And by failing to make these facts part of the
    conversation, black political leaders, protest organizers, and the white
    liberal media is complicit in perpetuating the chain reaction of
    violence that makes more police brutality against black people an
    inevitable outcome.

  • martin k

    Free speech was already on the run when I attended back in the 1980s

    Only that speech approved by self-styled progressives was permitted. Everything else was consistently silenced. Sound dramatic? It was the reality.

  • Michael Bruce Combs

    Climate change is natural, and I often speak and write about the facts and history of prior periods of climate change far more dramatic than the current one. In response I am called a climate change denier, even though my entire premise is that climate change is what climate does, and that it is natural. Besides the intellectually dishonest attempts to link science facts with Holocaust denial, there are overt attempts to bar dissenting science through censorship (LA Times won’t publish dissenting letters and articles) and intimidation (threats of legal action, both civil and criminal – for example, RICO prosecution suggested by Senator Whitehouse). It’s one thing to listen to the facts I and others present and argue against them, but quite another to say they should not be allowed to be heard at all. It’s like children shouting others down on the playground.

    • stevereenie

      The strongest argument the compliant left has in this are ad hominem attacks on their opponents. This strongly suggests that they lack understanding of the underlying merits or lack thereof of their own positions. This is a weak position and hopefully some day they will understand the deficiency of their argument.

      I’d say that they are among the ignorant masses accepting without critical analysis that which is fed to them apparently because they wish to please the proponents of these weak theses for their own personal acceptance among those peers.

  • Michael_IL

    Even Voltaire himself would be unwelcome at many college Campi today.

  • Ignatius J. Reilly

    Isn’t the whole idea of Halloween costumes, hell, any costume, to be mocking or making sport of, hopefully in good humor? My wife is a Nurse Practitioner; should she take offence at the “sexy nurse” costume? Surely it trivializes her profession and objectifies her, just as much as a sombrero and mustachio trivializes a Mexican’s heritage. If a person has an ounce of self-esteem, they can weather these slights.

    The bigger thing that worries me, is – who do these people think they are, that they can just make up rules that I’m supposed to obey? That they can tell me what jokes I can and cannot tell (and they had better cc Sarah Silverman because she’s got some pretty rough jokes), that because of my race or gender I am in need of diversity training or sensitivity training. Here’s my answer: those folks are in need of some ‘buck up’ training, and don’t wither or become outraged if someone happens to use the word oriental instead of asian.

  • Ignatius J. Reilly

    Isn’t the whole idea of Halloween costumes, hell, any costume, to be
    mocking or making sport of, hopefully in good humor? My wife is a Nurse
    Practitioner; should she take offence at the “sexy nurse” costume?
    Surely it trivializes her profession and objectifies her, just as much
    as a sombrero and mustachio trivializes a Mexican’s heritage. If a
    person has an ounce of self-esteem, they can weather these slights.

    bigger thing that worries me, is – who do these people think they are,
    that they can just make up rules that I’m supposed to obey? That they
    can tell me what jokes I can and cannot tell (and they had better cc
    Sarah Silverman because she’s got some pretty rough jokes), that because
    of my race or gender I am in need of diversity training or sensitivity
    training. Here’s my answer: those folks are in need of some ‘buck up’
    training, and don’t wither or become outraged if someone happens to use
    the word oriental instead of asian.

  • Sandra Twang

    I do not like costumes that denote denigration to any ethnicity , I cringe when I view them , or those that denigrate women, which to me means showing a great deal of flesh but I do not feel a need to attack such people who wear these costumes. The fact that there was a fraternity that hung a sign whites only is disgusting and the admin should have dealt with this immediately. The thought that immediately came to mind when reading this article is Charlie Hebdo and its racist Islamophobic artist have been protected for their hate speech for decades. This event has lead me to think deeper about the the seeming innocent choices made by human beings of costume for Halloween.

  • Michelle Arcari

    Free speech is a right that the constitution has granted us. For some of us, free speech is free and for some of us we have to earn that “free speech”. Equality has not been reach yet but I think we are making great strikes towards it. The individuals who were protesting outside Yale also have a constitutional right to protest. However, this article makes them look like unlawful individuals when in reality they were also exercising their constitutional right.