OT: At Risk of this Thread Getting Banished to the Test Board

[Sharkies]

I thought I would present an op-ed just published by Eric Barron.

Richard Spencer is not welcome to speak at Penn State
August 22, 2017

In light of the recent violence and tragedy in Charlottesville, Penn State has evaluated a request for Richard Spencer, who is president of the National Policy Institute, to speak on the University Park campus this fall.

I disagree profoundly with the content that has been presented publicly about this speaker's views which are abhorrent and contradictory to our University’s values. There is no place for hatred, bigotry or racism in our society and on our campuses.

As stated last week, Penn State is an institution of higher education, and fully supports the right of free speech and encourages its expression in thoughtful and respectful ways, even when we strongly disagree with the opinions expressed. But the First Amendment does not require our University to risk imminent violence.

After critical assessment by campus police, in consultation with state and federal law enforcement officials, we have determined that Mr. Spencer is not welcome on our campus, as this event at this time presents a major security risk to students, faculty, staff and visitors to campus. It is the likelihood of disruption and violence, not the content, however odious, that drives our decision.

As we enter the new semester with a national climate of great uncertainty, Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, genders and other differences. Our University strives to create an environment where everyone can teach, learn and live in an atmosphere of safety and mutual respect.

Eric J. Barron

Penn State President



It would be nice if we could discuss this without it getting political but I doubt it. Just that this heavily pertains to Penn State and I think we can all agree that banning free speech, especially at a public University, even if it "risks imminent violence" (wouldn't nearly every speech risk this? How does one define imminent or risk for that matter?) is a very, very slippery slope.

 

[sluggo72]

I am interested to see if Richard Spencer files a lawsuit against PSU, and if the ACLU will take up his case.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I am interested to see if Richard Spencer files a lawsuit against PSU, and if the ACLU will take up his case.

Guess they can join A&M in court....

White nationalist rally at Texas A&M University has been canceled
The white nationalist rally planned on the campus of Texas A&M University has been canceled, officials confirmed Monday.

Saying they’re concerned about student safety, Texas A&M University leaders announced Monday that they have canceled a planned white nationalist rally on campus.

The school said in a statement that it made the decision after consulting law enforcement and "considerable study." The event won’t happen because of "concerns about the safety of its students, faculty, staff and the public,” the school said.

The move is sure to prompt questions about its legality, however, because A&M is a public university that can't block an event because of the views of its organizer.

"Texas A&M's support of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech cannot be questioned," the university said in a statement Monday afternoon.

"However, in this case circumstances and information relating to the event have changed and the risks of threat to life and safety compel us to cancel the event."

Reached by phone while shopping at Walmart on Monday afternoon, rally organizer Preston Wiginton said he had not heard the news. He said he had signed up to protest at a “free speech area” on campus on Sept. 11, but had not heard from anyone at the school since he announced. His response: “I guess my lawyers will now be suing the state of Texas.”

The school cited the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, this weekend in guiding its decision. At a Unite the Right rally near the University of Virginia, multiple fights broke out and one woman was killed when a man drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters.

Wiginton, a local white nationalist, announced his plans for the A&M rally on Saturday amid that violence. The headline for his press release read, "TODAY CHARLOTTESVILLE TOMORROW TEXAS A&M." A&M officials cited that headline in their decision.

"We were disturbed about the title of Mr. Wiginton's release," said Amy Smith, senior vice president and chief marketing and communications officer at the university.

The decision to cancel the event came in an afternoon meeting involving university President Michael Young, A&M System Chancellor John Sharp, other university leaders and law enforcement officials. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, also consulted with school leaders, his spokesman said.

“When we discussed with law enforcement and others who were at the meeting today, there was no guarantee that we could guarantee safety,” Smith said. “If we could not get that guarantee from our law enforcement, we were not going to put a single student at risk.”

The event was touted by Wiginton as a “White Lives Matter” rally. He said on Saturday that it would feature multiple speakers and a DJ. Infamous “alt-right” leader Richard Spencer confirmed on Sunday that he was planning to attend.

Wiginton, who is in his 50s and briefly attended A&M, hosted Spencer for a speech on campus in December. Thousands of people protested. At times, the night seemed like it might boil over. Police in riot gear had to clear out the student center where Spencer spoke.

After the event, A&M changed its events policy so that anyone who wanted to host an event on campus needed to be sponsored by a student group. A&M officials said Wiginton couldn’t find anyone to sponsor this year’s event, so he filled out a form to hold it on a “free speech” area on a busy plaza. The plaza is named after former A&M president Earl Rudder, who first became famous for his heroism fighting Nazis in World War II.

A&M’s safety reason for canceling the event seems almost certain to be tested in court. First Amendment experts told the Tribune on Monday that if A&M were sued it would probably have to prove in court that it didn’t discriminate based on Wiginton’s views and that it provided ample alternatives for his message to be articulated. Over the weekend, an A&M System regent said he didn’t think the school could cancel the rally.

“If the people coming to do a ‘White Lives Matter’ rally remain in a public area or do so in a manner that doesn’t disrupt the educational function of the institution, the school is going to be highly unlikely to be able to shut it down or restrict it,” said Saunie Schuster, an attorney for The NCHERM Group, which provides consulting for schools on First Amendment issues. She spoke before the cancellation was announced.

Wiginton said A&M can expect legal action soon, saying he knew of a lawyer who would help.

“We have two lawyers in Texas who are alt-right leaning who will get in on the action, too,” he said. “We will probably get the ACLU to file suit as well.”

 

[LionDeNittany]

I thought I would present an op-ed just published by Eric Barron.

Richard Spencer is not welcome to speak at Penn State
August 22, 2017

In light of the recent violence and tragedy in Charlottesville, Penn State has evaluated a request for Richard Spencer, who is president of the National Policy Institute, to speak on the University Park campus this fall.

I disagree profoundly with the content that has been presented publicly about this speaker's views which are abhorrent and contradictory to our University’s values. There is no place for hatred, bigotry or racism in our society and on our campuses.

As stated last week, Penn State is an institution of higher education, and fully supports the right of free speech and encourages its expression in thoughtful and respectful ways, even when we strongly disagree with the opinions expressed. But the First Amendment does not require our University to risk imminent violence.

After critical assessment by campus police, in consultation with state and federal law enforcement officials, we have determined that Mr. Spencer is not welcome on our campus, as this event at this time presents a major security risk to students, faculty, staff and visitors to campus. It is the likelihood of disruption and violence, not the content, however odious, that drives our decision.

As we enter the new semester with a national climate of great uncertainty, Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, genders and other differences. Our University strives to create an environment where everyone can teach, learn and live in an atmosphere of safety and mutual respect.

Eric J. Barron

Penn State President



It would be nice if we could discuss this without it getting political but I doubt it. Just that this heavily pertains to Penn State and I think we can all agree that banning free speech, especially at a public University, even if it "risks imminent violence" (wouldn't nearly every speech risk this? How does one define imminent or risk for that matter?) is a very, very slippery slope.

I'm fine with this. Not the right time.

I am curious about this:

"Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, genders and other differences."

Can't he just say "all" instead of the various labels?

"Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all."

LdN

 

[Obliviax]

I have mixed feelings....this guy is despicable, by just about any measure. But I grow concerned when people censor other's right to speak on any given subject. What was that goofy church that used to cheer Iraq war dead?

 

[BobPSU92]

 

[BobPSU92]

I'm fine with this. Not the right time.

I am curious about this:

"Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, genders and other differences."

Can't he just say "all" instead of the various labels?

"Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all."

LdN

All is not sufficient. What about Tide, Gain, Purex...?

 

[sluggo72]

I'm fine with this. Not the right time.

I am curious about this:

"Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, genders and other differences."

Can't he just say "all" instead of the various labels?

"Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all."

LdN

I have mixed feelings....this guy is despicable, by just about any measure. But I grow concerned when people censor other's right to speak on any given subject. What was that goofy church that used to cheer Iraq war dead?

I believe in free speech, just not 'that' speech!!! Is what I hear in most of these releases.

 

[83wuzme]

Given what happen at UVA, it's hard to argue with this. The right to free speech and assembly does not include the right to show up armed for a riot, as was the case in Charlottesville. This applies not only to Spencer and his affiliated groups, but all groups regardless of where their beliefs fall on the political spectrum.

 

[83wuzme]

I have mixed feelings....this guy is despicable, by just about any measure. But I grow concerned when people censor other's right to speak on any given subject. What was that goofy church that used to cheer Iraq war dead?

That was Westboro Baptist. I don't think they got violent, but yeah, they were despicable.

 

[pandaczar12]

You know who is welcome to come speak on campus... Louis Freeh. Time to invite him back to fulfill his contract.

It's sad they spent more time and resources vetting this speaker than they did reviewing the garbage Freeh Report before "accepting" it's conclusions.

 

[Raffycorn]

Good for Barron. Penn State should give no support, comfort or accommodation to people who outwardly and openly advocate for genocide. Barron is being an effective leader here in making it very clear that this piece of garbage isn't welcome.

 

[Obliviax]

I believe in free speech, just not 'that' speech!!! Is what I hear in most of these releases.

Fair enough....you get to decide who and who does not get to speak! It is settled then!

 

[BBrown]

I have mixed feelings....this guy is despicable, by just about any measure. But I grow concerned when people censor other's right to speak on any given subject. What was that goofy church that used to cheer Iraq war dead?

You mean Wesboro Baptist?
I haven't heard much from them lately.

 

[Lionguy32]

I believe in free speech, just not 'that' speech!!! Is what I hear in most of these releases.

Free speech means he has the right to speak his mind without being prosecuted for it. It doesn't guarantee him the right to speak any place he pleases.

Barron has a responsibility to keep his campus safe. If Spencer came to speak at PSU and someone got hurt, you can bet PSU would be facing a negligence lawsuit as a result.

 

[denniskembala]

Barron hasn't done one thing for Penn Staters except to make us all look like stupid fools. I hate to think of what the BoT's first choice would be capable of. Maybe he's right here, but he needs to get off that fat ass and do something positive, like pursuing Delany and the BigTen for the extortion.

 

[Obliviax]

Free speech means he has the right to speak his mind without being prosecuted for it. It doesn't guarantee him the right to speak any place he pleases.

Barron has a responsibility to keep his campus safe. If Spencer came to speak at PSU and someone got hurt, you can bet PSU would be facing a negligence lawsuit as a result.

totally agree with this. but wonder about people that come onto campus espousing not vaccinating your kids, allowing abortions in the third trimester, advocating drug usage....they hurt people too. It get scary when a guy like Barron gets to decide who kids can and can not listen to.

 

[fairgambit]

If the rest of the world turns against the free exchange of ideas, college campuses should be the last bastion of defense. When I was at Penn State I challenged myself to attend events where the speakers held ideas I opposed. I still do that. Occasionally I was persuaded to change, or modify, my own ideas on a given subject, but more often, by challenging my beliefs, I made them stronger.

 

[Colorado Man]

I am interested to see if Richard Spencer files a lawsuit against PSU, and if the ACLU will take up his case.

Why not? Everyone files a suit against PSU lately.

 

[Player2BNamedL8r]

I thought I would present an op-ed just published by Eric Barron.

Richard Spencer is not welcome to speak at Penn State
August 22, 2017

In light of the recent violence and tragedy in Charlottesville, Penn State has evaluated a request for Richard Spencer, who is president of the National Policy Institute, to speak on the University Park campus this fall.

I disagree profoundly with the content that has been presented publicly about this speaker's views which are abhorrent and contradictory to our University’s values. There is no place for hatred, bigotry or racism in our society and on our campuses.

As stated last week, Penn State is an institution of higher education, and fully supports the right of free speech and encourages its expression in thoughtful and respectful ways, even when we strongly disagree with the opinions expressed. But the First Amendment does not require our University to risk imminent violence.

After critical assessment by campus police, in consultation with state and federal law enforcement officials, we have determined that Mr. Spencer is not welcome on our campus, as this event at this time presents a major security risk to students, faculty, staff and visitors to campus. It is the likelihood of disruption and violence, not the content, however odious, that drives our decision.

As we enter the new semester with a national climate of great uncertainty, Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, genders and other differences. Our University strives to create an environment where everyone can teach, learn and live in an atmosphere of safety and mutual respect.

Eric J. Barron

Penn State President



It would be nice if we could discuss this without it getting political but I doubt it. Just that this heavily pertains to Penn State and I think we can all agree that banning free speech, especially at a public University, even if it "risks imminent violence" (wouldn't nearly every speech risk this? How does one define imminent or risk for that matter?) is a very, very slippery slope.

Slippery slope indeed. Our colleges and universities used to be places where we challenged our minds with even the most abhorrent contraries to our core beliefs. We learned from others regardless of what they stood for. Most importantly, we allowed social discourse...we allowed civil debate. Perhaps (at the understandable risk of sounding too naive) if we allowed more talking, we'd have less violence.

 

[KnightSlayer]

Fair enough....you get to decide who and who does not get to speak! It is settled then!

Fair enough....you get to decide who and who does not get to speak! It is settled then!

I'd say there is a legitimate threat of violence based on his history of his public speaking events.

Other than the real threat of violence, do you have no problems with any group holding a rally at Penn State? What if NAMBLA wanted to have a rally at Penn State in support of Sandusky and man boy love? Would you be good with them posing for photos with the Nittany Lion statue or at the stadium with big man boy love banners with our PSU logo visible in the background?

 

[NC2017]

I have mixed feelings....this guy is despicable, by just about any measure. But I grow concerned when people censor other's right to speak on any given subject. What was that goofy church that used to cheer Iraq war dead?

Westboro Baptist Church

(oops, I answered w/o reading the entire thread)

 

[Obliviax]

I'd say there is a legitimate threat of violence based on his history of his public speaking events.

Other than the real threat of violence, do you have no problems with any group holding a rally at Penn State? What if NAMBLA wanted to have a rally at Penn State in support of Sandusky and man boy love? Would you be good with them posing for photos with the Nittany Lion statue or at the stadium with big man boy love banners with our PSU logo visible in the background?

All good points...and debatable. NAMBLA? Hell, guys on here were cheering an adult screwing 14 year olds this week!!!

Seriously, I agree with you in this case, I just hate the precedent that Barron can now call on to ban anyone he thinks might incite harm. That gives him WAY too much power, as we've seen what people like the BOT and Barron can do by controlling the message.

 

[Raffycorn]

If the rest of the world turns against the free exchange of ideas, college campuses should be the last bastion of defense. When I was at Penn State I challenged myself to attend events where the speakers held ideas I opposed. I still do that. Occasionally I was persuaded to change, or modify, my own ideas on a given subject, but more often, by challenging my beliefs, I made them stronger.

Surely, though, you can see that there's a difference between speakers merely holding ideas with which you oppose and Penn State providing a platform for someone to advocate for genocide. I don't see how Penn State is in the wrong for standing against someone who would, in all seriousness, be advocating for the death of significant portions of Penn State's student body on its campus.

 

[sluggo72]

what I think would be interesting is for someone to compare and contrast Charlottesville, and Ferguson.

 

[LionDeNittany]

If the rest of the world turns against the free exchange of ideas, college campuses should be the last bastion of defense. When I was at Penn State I challenged myself to attend events where the speakers held ideas I opposed. I still do that. Occasionally I was persuaded to change, or modify, my own ideas on a given subject, but more often, by challenging my beliefs, I made them stronger.

"When I was at Penn State I challenged myself to attend events where the speakers held ideas I opposed."

So you're saying you went to class?

LdN

 

[JR4PSU]

All is not sufficient. What about Tide, Gain, Purex...?

I prefer Downy

 

[LionDeNittany]

What is so threatening about referring to all races, religions and or orientations?

I don't understand why people feel threatened by honest attempts to assure/reassure an inclusive atmosphere.

Who said they were threatened. I believe the word "all" has the same meaning without specifically calling in and out some groups.

LdN

 

[83wuzme]

QUOTE="Obliviax, post: 2933151, member: 1414"]All good points...and debatable. NAMBLA? Hell, guys on here were cheering an adult screwing 14 year olds this week!!!

Seriously, I agree with you in this case, I just hate the precedent that Barron can now call on to ban anyone he thinks might incite harm. That gives him WAY too much power, as we've seen what people like the BOT and Barron can do by controlling the message.[/QUOTE]

I think the deciding factor here is that Spencer's affiliated groups, KKK, etc, clearly demonstrated a desire for violence in Charlottesville. The same could also be said for " Antifa " and some BLM events.
If that is the case, it becomes a public safety question.

When I was in grad school in Pgh in the 1980's, Louis Farrakhan came to speak. He was virulently antiSemitic and did not have anything good to say about white people at that time. There was a lot of consternation and public discussion ahead of the event, but the speech was permitted and there was no violence. Maybe we have declined as a nation since then.

 

[Obliviax]

QUOTE="Obliviax, post: 2933151, member: 1414"]All good points...and debatable. NAMBLA? Hell, guys on here were cheering an adult screwing 14 year olds this week!!!

Seriously, I agree with you in this case, I just hate the precedent that Barron can now call on to ban anyone he thinks might incite harm. That gives him WAY too much power, as we've seen what people like the BOT and Barron can do by controlling the message.

I think the deciding factor here is that Spencer's affiliated groups, KKK, etc, clearly demonstrated a desire for violence in Charlottesville. The same could also be said for " Antifa " and some BLM events.
If that is the case, it becomes a public safety question.

When I was in grad school in Pgh in the 1980's, Louis Farrakhan came to speak. He was virulently antiSemitic and did not have anything good to say about white people at that time. There was a lot of consternation and public discussion ahead of the event, but the speech was permitted and there was no violence. Maybe we have declined as a nation since then.[/QUOTE]
KKK marched in CLE during the GOP convention. There was also an anti-KKK group marching. The city gave permits that kept them far apart and separated by some armored vehicles....there were no problems and nobody really cared except extreme nut cases on both sides.

 

[ForesterGump]

Spencer has been denied speaking engagements at Florida, LSU, and Michigan State since Charlottesville. Given our past PR problems, I think its prudent not to be associated with white nationalism and joining the other universities.

I wonder who scheduled him as a speaker? Do these guys pay to speak here? I wonder how much attendance there would be if the press wouldn't bring it up? As long as Spencer gets free press, he'll keep on trying these speeches. He runs a think tank, and that brings in money.

 

[Fayette_LION]

I'm fine with this. Not the right time.

I am curious about this:

"Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all races, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientations, genders and other differences."

Can't he just say "all" instead of the various labels?

"Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all."

LdN

Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all." unless you are Richard Spencer. Much to contradict here. What if ANTIFA asked for a march at PSU? Would they be welcomed? Would a Trump gathering be welcomed? What does all mean?

 

[KnightSlayer]

what I think would be interesting is for someone to compare and contrast Charlottesville, and Ferguson.

Really? Not sure how anyone can claim they are comparable in any way, shape or, form. Ferguson had a local black population that faced systemic racist persecution from an overwhelmingly white police force for decades. Charlottesville had a bunch of out of town nazis and white supremacists come to town looking for a fight.

 

[fairgambit]

Surely, though, you can see that there's a difference between speakers merely holding ideas with which you oppose and Penn State providing a platform for someone to advocate for genocide. I don't see how Penn State is in the wrong for standing against someone who would, in all seriousness, be advocating for the death of significant portions of Penn State's student body on its campus.

Who draws the line? If It's me, I'm OK with it. Anyone else, not so much.
That said, I must leave this debate for now. My sister is taking me to lunch and I am running a bit late.

 

[KnightSlayer]

All good points...and debatable. NAMBLA? Hell, guys on here were cheering an adult screwing 14 year olds this week!!!

I believe that was in reference to NAWBLA. A completely different group with a much lower icky score.

 

[LionDeNittany]

Penn State continues to foster an inclusive climate for all." unless you are Richard Spencer. Much to contradict here. What if ANTIFA asked for a march at PSU? Would they be welcomed? Would a Trump gathering be welcomed? What does all mean?

All isn't the key part of the phrase. "Inclusive climate" is the key part. Anyone who does not promote an inclusive climate is not welcome.

The list could be 100 different things and it wouldn't change the first part. Once you put the word "all" it is fine.

LdN

 

[BBrown]

Free speech means he has the right to speak his mind without being prosecuted for it. It doesn't guarantee him the right to speak any place he pleases.

Barron has a responsibility to keep his campus safe. If Spencer came to speak at PSU and someone got hurt, you can bet PSU would be facing a negligence lawsuit as a result.

OMG thank you. Finally someone who understands what "Free Speech" actually means.
Now only if you could get this to about 75% of the country

QUOTE="Obliviax, post: 2933151, member: 1414"]All good points...and debatable. NAMBLA? Hell, guys on here were cheering an adult screwing 14 year olds this week!!!

Seriously, I agree with you in this case, I just hate the precedent that Barron can now call on to ban anyone he thinks might incite harm. That gives him WAY too much power, as we've seen what people like the BOT and Barron can do by controlling the message.

I think the deciding factor here is that Spencer's affiliated groups, KKK, etc, clearly demonstrated a desire for violence in Charlottesville. The same could also be said for " Antifa " and some BLM events.
If that is the case, it becomes a public safety question.

When I was in grad school in Pgh in the 1980's, Louis Farrakhan came to speak. He was virulently antiSemitic and did not have anything good to say about white people at that time. There was a lot of consternation and public discussion ahead of the event, but the speech was permitted and there was no violence. Maybe we have declined as a nation since then.[/QUOTE]

I thought he might have been at Penn State when I was there in the early/mid 80's?
Thats when he seemed to be most popular and also militant.
He seems to have mellowed with old age.

 

[LionDeNittany]

Then why comment?

Why not? Are you anti genderless people?

LdN

 

[Obliviax]

OMG thank you. Finally someone who understands what "Free Speech" actually means.
Now only if you could get this to about 75% of the country


I think the deciding factor here is that Spencer's affiliated groups, KKK, etc, clearly demonstrated a desire for violence in Charlottesville. The same could also be said for " Antifa " and some BLM events.
If that is the case, it becomes a public safety question.

When I was in grad school in Pgh in the 1980's, Louis Farrakhan came to speak. He was virulently antiSemitic and did not have anything good to say about white people at that time. There was a lot of consternation and public discussion ahead of the event, but the speech was permitted and there was no violence. Maybe we have declined as a nation since then.

I thought he might have been at Penn State when I was there in the early/mid 80's?
Thats when he seemed to be most popular and also militant.
He seems to have mellowed with old age.[/QUOTE]

I don't know of anyone who feels Barron's decree is illegal due to free speech. We've seen what the powers that be can do by regulating the messaging and using their vast resources to shape public opinion. The only recourse is to listen to those who disagree with you, no matter how vile. So it isn't a legal issue, its an issue of allowing yourself to be herded like sheep. I understand and agree with Barron, but he's about the last guy I want making a decision on who I can and cannot list to.

 

[fairgambit]

"When I was at Penn State I challenged myself to attend events where the speakers held ideas I opposed."

So you're saying you went to class?

LdN