It’s a sorrowful commentary when speakers are invited to some institutions of higher learning, only to be met with ridicule, mockery, and downright rude behavior from students. What do students fear when a conservative comes to campus? The same could be said about anyone of any political affiliation. Now we have trigger warnings and “safe spaces” to prevent grave conversations and debates. More disturbingly, it cannibalizes free speech; you can’t say you support one type of speech over another. That’s not how it works. If you feel uncomfortable, don’t go. It’s not mandatory. But when Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute spoke at an event as a guest of the Oberlin College Republicans and Libertarians earlier this week, she experienced exactly that.
Nick Mascari of Ohio-based Third Base Politics has posted a delicious compilation of progressive drivel. Signs reading, “Free speech does not mean hate speech” (yes, hate speech is and should be protected), “Dear CHS [Christina Hoff Sommers]please go home and take your internalized misogyny with you, and “go away rape apologists” was posted at the event. There was a sign that said, “Rape culture is real and you are participant”, which was clearly a spelling mistake, but it was corrected with a black marker.
Here and op-ed promoting an alternative event for Sommers before she arrived at the Oberlin student newspaper. And here’s a video of two students announcing their alternative event to the public in a safe and sound space that would be protected from “toxic, dangerous, and/or violent” people. Oh, and they made fun of the people at the Sommers event (using air quotes) for their willingness to listen to the other side.
Mascari was present at the event where The Q&A session went as expected:
Not surprisingly, many in the audience were quite rude and frequently interrupted Sommers. Many students sat in the audience with duct tape over their mouths, suggesting that Sommers’ very presence was an attempt to silence them. Ironically, by calling her a “pro-rapist” and interrupting her, they were actually trying to silence her.
For most listeners, a rational discussion of the facts is not even welcome.
Example: Sommers discussed the myth of the pay gap and explained that women generally choose careers that pay less than men. More women choose to study arts and humanities, while men more often choose engineering and science. Because there is a greater need and demand for technological knowledge in the job market, people (men and women) who choose engineering will earn more than people (men and women) who specialize in, for example, art history.
When she suggested that women could earn more and close the pay gap by switching to a major such as engineering, many in the audience booed loudly and shouted, “Don’t tell me what to do!!”
Don’t give me facts. Just shut up. That’s how they responded to Sommers.
Finally, Sommers answered questions. All but one of them were clearly hostile to her presence, and she fielded questions from an equal number of male and female participants. A student behind me shouted, “Oh, look! She called out a boy!” every time she answered a question from a male student, even though every male question she received was as hostile toward her as the female questions.
After answering questions from three women in a row, she answered the last question from a man. The student behind me again remarked, “Oh look, another question from a boy!”
I asked politely, “But weren’t those the last three girls?”
She looked at me angrily and said, “This is an event dedicated to FEMINISM!”
After finishing the conversation with the student, the same student said to me, “It’s offensive that you told me, ‘Should she only call pretty girls?'”
“That’s not what I said. I asked, weren’t the last three questions from girls? You misunderstood, miss.”
She continued to accuse me. I didn’t bother to tell her that I was recording the speech and had our words on tape. It wouldn’t have mattered.
Overall, it was a sorrowful experience that is all too common these days. Too often we see a refusal to engage in a mutually beneficial debate about facts and solutions. If someone disagrees, even slightly, they should be demonized, attacked, and silenced. They should be falsely accused of hate speech and supporting rape.
This attitude was undoubtedly on display at Oberlin last night.
The sheer irony of this maniacal need for stimulus warning and safe and sound spaces that gripped this sullen crowd was that Oberlin provided Sommers with a security escort to protect her from the people who had safe and sound spaces; the same people who felt she was creating an unsafe environment (via Campus Reform):
Oberlin activists set up a “safe space” for those who were triggered by my speech. Oberlin administration provided me with police protection to protect me from those passing through the safe and sound spaces.
— Christina H. Sommers (@CHSommers) April 21, 2015
“It was such a weird experience,” Sommers told Campus Reform. “The students were so preoccupied with the idea that I was a threat to their safety — Oberlin officials were concerned — about my well-being. They arranged for security guards to escort me to and from the lecture to protect me from the safety distancers.”
Sommers said students were “booing, yelling, jeering and making fun of just about everything.”
“I doubt my appeals to reason and evidentiary principles will make any impression,” Sommers told Campus Reform. “I hate to say it, but some of these students need the services of a professional deprogrammer. What I saw was very cultish.”
…
But it’s not just feminists at Buckeye State’s Oberlin who are accusing Sommers of being a “rape denier” and a “misogynist.” Sommers faced the same accusations during a lecture last week at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.
The same “safe space because this conservative speaker is making me shake in my boots” mentality was also on display this month at the University of North Carolina, where David Horowitz was a guest UNC College Republicans:
Following David Horowitz’s controversial visit to campus, many students took to Twitter to share their feelings about the lack of safety on campus using the hashtag #NotSafeUNC.
Horowitz was invited by the Republican Party at the University of North Carolina, and in his speech he stated that student organizations such as the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine are linked to terrorist organizations.
Nicole Fauster, a high school senior who helped start the hashtag movement on Wednesday, emphasized that the movement was created with students with marginalized identities in mind.
“It emerged from the need to create a platform where students could explain and share their situations, experiences and incidents that happened to them on campus and made them feel unsafe,” she said.
Oh, and the Daily Tar Heel editorial team he had a problem with Mitt Romney coming to campus to discuss President Obama’s foreign policy:
Duke University invited former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to give a lecture on President Obama’s foreign policy, even though Romney had no practical or academic experience on the subject.
Romney, who likely received extensive briefings on national security issues during his presidential campaign, did not pair that preparation with a nuanced discussion of national security policy, instead employing sharply partisan rhetoric.
Universities, and by extension student groups, have a responsibility to promote grave discussion of controversial issues. This responsibility is inextricably linked to universities’ status as safe and sound havens for free speech.
The NC State and Duke Republican Party should not be giving speakers like Horowitz and Romney such a high-profile show and platform if they are going to utilize it solely to advance ideological agendas without grounding it in academic discussions of these key issues.
…
Horowitz’s reputation for anti-intellectualism and hate speech precedes him, which is why he should not have been invited to the UNC campus in the first place.
This is not an attack on free speech. Horowitz had every right to speak on campus.
Orwell — “I Can’t Even Do It.” UNC @dailytarheel says the ban @Mitt Romney from speaking on campus will promote freedom of speech. photo:twitter.com/tmA6AGU7BB
— Judge Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) April 19, 2015
2+2 = 5; Got it. Liberals support free speech—just their version. It’s not the norm, nor is it a grave position. During my senior year at Dickinson College, Bill Ayersco-founder of the radical left Weather undergroundwas invited to speak—and he met with a few protesters—a handful, perhaps—but they were outside the auditorium. I attended the event and do not recall any mockery or ridicule. Remember; Ayers wrote in his memoirs that he took part in bombings NYPD Headquarters, the Capitol Building and the Pentagon in the 1970s. He was eventually placed, along with his future wife Bernadine Dohrn, also of the Weather Underground, on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.
Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, the same courtesy is not extended to the right, although if I could stomach a man whose only regret from his radical days was that he didn’t plant enough bombs, I’m sure a few feminists could handle a discussion with Ms. Sommers without throwing a tantrum. Or better yet, If you’re afraid the speaker will challenge your views on something, then why not go at all. That’s a terrible reason, but hey; this is America. There’s always something better to do in college than go out of your way to be completely rude and intolerant to someone who has – shock – a different point of view.
When it comes to someone’s presence creating an unsafe environment, it never ceases to amaze me that it actually happens.
