re: "That’s a little like saying someone who wanted the Germans to beat Russia in World War II wasn’t pro-Nazi, he was anti-Communist" -- which _ was_ the actual position of a great many Finns, including Finnish Jews who fought the Soviets, even if it meant allying themselves with Nazi Germany.
Good point! Though there, I can certainly excuse the Finns. They weren't just bystanders. They'd been invaded by the Communists in 1939 and in the 1940 peace they'd lost a lot of territory to Russia. In 1941,they allied with the Germans and took it back. In 1944 (?), they abandoned the Germans and mde peace and gave back what Russia had conquered. So it wasn't like the Finns lived in New Jersey; they, like chose to ally with the Nazis just like we allied with the Communists, for prudential reasons. Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary may perhaps be equally excused; they each had their own situation with regard to Germany and Russia.
Freedom of speech and other expression really is bedrock. I agree entirely with you, as you already know. It has occurred to me, though, that what makes the current situation on campuses so bad isn't what people are saying. It's the fact that they demonize dissenting opinions and try ti stifle their expressions. They do it in any number of Goebbelsian ways--arguing that [others'] speech is violence, arguing that others' speech is harmful (requiring trigger warnings, cancellation, etc.), heckling, usurping the stage (e.g., Stanford Law's dean, Tirien "T-Rex" Steinbach), Yale's attempts to frame a law prof (by trying to coerce a pair of law students to lie about her) so as to be able to first strip her of tenure, then fire her. It didn't work. Law students, like medical students, tend to be fairly strong-minded. The dean as well as a couple of her unterschleppers took it in the neck over that one.
Anyway, I would argue that people who do that--stop others from expressing themselves--surrender their 1A rights by performing those actions. Sauce for the goose....
‘There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy.’
Father Ted Hesburgh (1917-2015), president of the University of Notre Dame, in a Feb. 17, 1969, letter to the university community:
I believe that I now have a clear mandate from this University community to see that: (1) our lines of communication between all segments of the community are kept as open as possible, with all legitimate means of communicating dissent assured, expanded, and protected; (2) civility and rationality are maintained; and (3) violation of another’s rights or obstruction of the life of the University are outlawed as illegitimate means of dissent in this kind of open society.
Now comes my duty of stating, clearly and unequivocally, what happens ~if~. . . . Anyone or any group that substitutes force for rational persuasion, be it violent or non-violent, will be given fifteen minutes of meditation to cease and desist. . . . If they do not within that time period cease and desist, they will be asked for their identity cards. Those who produce these will be suspended from this community as not understanding what this community is. Those who do not have or will not produce identity cards will be assumed not to be members of the community and will be charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace on private property and treated accordingly by the law.
After notification of suspension, or trespass in the case of non-community members, if there is not within five minutes a movement to cease and desist, students will be notified of expulsion from this community and the law will deal with them as non-students.
There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy, particularly those whom society has constituted to uphold and enforce the law. I would like to insist here that all of us are responsible to the duly constituted laws of this University community and to all of the laws of the land. There is no other guarantee of civilization versus the jungle or mob rule, here or elsewhere."
I’m not pro-Hamas or pro-Israel, I am simply opposed to slaughtering and starving civilians, particularly women and children and not at all willing to excuse that because terrorist or government or a terrorist state did it first.
I don’t think a protest movement that was pro-Hamas rather than opposed to killing innocent civilians would get this much support, and it seems just as lazy for counter protestors to call the protestors pro-Hamas as it is for the protesters to call the counter protesters pro-genocide. I think one side is genuinely angry about unjust 10/7 and the other is angry about the unjust war since and most people are angry about both, and really angry that the USA government is going deeper in debt to fund it.
re: "That’s a little like saying someone who wanted the Germans to beat Russia in World War II wasn’t pro-Nazi, he was anti-Communist" -- which _ was_ the actual position of a great many Finns, including Finnish Jews who fought the Soviets, even if it meant allying themselves with Nazi Germany.
Good point! Though there, I can certainly excuse the Finns. They weren't just bystanders. They'd been invaded by the Communists in 1939 and in the 1940 peace they'd lost a lot of territory to Russia. In 1941,they allied with the Germans and took it back. In 1944 (?), they abandoned the Germans and mde peace and gave back what Russia had conquered. So it wasn't like the Finns lived in New Jersey; they, like chose to ally with the Nazis just like we allied with the Communists, for prudential reasons. Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary may perhaps be equally excused; they each had their own situation with regard to Germany and Russia.
Freedom of speech and other expression really is bedrock. I agree entirely with you, as you already know. It has occurred to me, though, that what makes the current situation on campuses so bad isn't what people are saying. It's the fact that they demonize dissenting opinions and try ti stifle their expressions. They do it in any number of Goebbelsian ways--arguing that [others'] speech is violence, arguing that others' speech is harmful (requiring trigger warnings, cancellation, etc.), heckling, usurping the stage (e.g., Stanford Law's dean, Tirien "T-Rex" Steinbach), Yale's attempts to frame a law prof (by trying to coerce a pair of law students to lie about her) so as to be able to first strip her of tenure, then fire her. It didn't work. Law students, like medical students, tend to be fairly strong-minded. The dean as well as a couple of her unterschleppers took it in the neck over that one.
Anyway, I would argue that people who do that--stop others from expressing themselves--surrender their 1A rights by performing those actions. Sauce for the goose....
From today's WSJ, Notable and Quotable:
" Notable & Quotable: Notre Dame, 1969
‘There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy.’
Father Ted Hesburgh (1917-2015), president of the University of Notre Dame, in a Feb. 17, 1969, letter to the university community:
I believe that I now have a clear mandate from this University community to see that: (1) our lines of communication between all segments of the community are kept as open as possible, with all legitimate means of communicating dissent assured, expanded, and protected; (2) civility and rationality are maintained; and (3) violation of another’s rights or obstruction of the life of the University are outlawed as illegitimate means of dissent in this kind of open society.
Now comes my duty of stating, clearly and unequivocally, what happens ~if~. . . . Anyone or any group that substitutes force for rational persuasion, be it violent or non-violent, will be given fifteen minutes of meditation to cease and desist. . . . If they do not within that time period cease and desist, they will be asked for their identity cards. Those who produce these will be suspended from this community as not understanding what this community is. Those who do not have or will not produce identity cards will be assumed not to be members of the community and will be charged with trespassing and disturbing the peace on private property and treated accordingly by the law.
After notification of suspension, or trespass in the case of non-community members, if there is not within five minutes a movement to cease and desist, students will be notified of expulsion from this community and the law will deal with them as non-students.
There seems to be a current myth that university members are not responsible to the law, and that somehow the law is the enemy, particularly those whom society has constituted to uphold and enforce the law. I would like to insist here that all of us are responsible to the duly constituted laws of this University community and to all of the laws of the land. There is no other guarantee of civilization versus the jungle or mob rule, here or elsewhere."
Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the May 2, 2024, print edition as 'Notable & Quotable: Notre Dame, 1969'.
This should be much quoted.
Feel free. I quoted it from WSJ who quoted it from Notre Dame.
I’m not pro-Hamas or pro-Israel, I am simply opposed to slaughtering and starving civilians, particularly women and children and not at all willing to excuse that because terrorist or government or a terrorist state did it first.
I don’t think a protest movement that was pro-Hamas rather than opposed to killing innocent civilians would get this much support, and it seems just as lazy for counter protestors to call the protestors pro-Hamas as it is for the protesters to call the counter protesters pro-genocide. I think one side is genuinely angry about unjust 10/7 and the other is angry about the unjust war since and most people are angry about both, and really angry that the USA government is going deeper in debt to fund it.