For those who claim the campus free speech crisis is a myth, we submit yet another case of a leftist mob throwing a hissy fit over hearing views that might disagree with whatever their socialist professors are spoon-feeding them. But this time it is not provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, comedian Steven Crowder, polemicist Ann Coulter, or even the Hebrew Hammer Ben Shapiro who caused the tantrum. This time the filth spewing and hate was because of mild-mannered law professor Josh Blackman.
Blackman, an associate professor of law at South Texas College of Law in Houston, was invited to the City University of New York’s chapter of the Federalist Society to speak on, ironically enough, why free speech was important on college campuses. After the event was announced at CUNY, the trouble began, as Blackman described in his blog. “Three days before the event, the President of the Chapter wrote, ‘We passed out the flyers today (first day back from spring break) and a large number of students are already up in arms about the event.’ The Office of Student Affairs explained that “some outraged students … apparently are planning to protest.”
When Blackman asked why the students were protesting, he was told that one reason was simply because it was a Federalist Society event. Also given as a reason was a piece that Blackman had written for National Review, which had praised Attorney General Jeff Sessions for rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy.
Had the protesters done even a cursory Google Search, they would have found that Blackman actually supported the concept of DACA but argued that it needed to be done legislatively — not by presidential fiat, as was done by Barack Obama in 2012.
The day of the event, Mary Lu Bilek, the dean of CUNY’s law school, sent an e-mail to all students, reminding them, “As a law school, a public institution, and a school within the CUNY system, we are committed to academic freedom, the free exchange of ideas, and expression of all points of view, including the freedom to disagree with the viewpoint of others.” Attached to the e-mail was CUNY’s Policy on Freedom of Expression and Expressive Conduct.
In today’s climate of campus hate toward conservatives, it is to CUNY’s credit that they allowed the event to go forward. However, they gave the foul-mouthed protesters a pass on their behavior, with Bilek claiming that the protest was “limited and reasonable,” further stating that the protest did not violate university policy.
But the protest did violate the university’s policy. From page 85 of the law school’s student handbook: “Each member of the academic community or an invited guest has the right to advocate his position without having to fear abuse — physical, verbal or otherwise from others supporting conflicting points of view.”
At the event, Blackman was greeted in the hallway of the venue by dozens of students brandishing signs proclaiming, “My free speech is: F**k you, White Supremacist; My Existence > Your Opinion; No Platform for Fascists,” among others. The video that Blackman posted of the event is alarming in a number of ways. The level of vitriol is stunning, as is the complete lack of self-awareness or irony on the part of the protesters.
The protests went on for about eight minutes. Blackman was extremely calm given the circumstances, seemingly toying with the brainwashed students at times. As he began his remarks amid chanting and profane shouts, he addressed the protesters, stating: “I actually want to start by using the one legal argument you actually made. The violence exists in the law and it is a myth that law is inherently neutral. You said there is a myth of legal objectivity. So, let me talk about legal objectivity for a few minutes. Someone did some excellent opposition research. Whoever did this, I applaud you.”
Soon after this, he stunned many of the protesters by saying, “This might surprise you. I think the Dream Act is a good piece of legislation,” which prompted shouted accusations of “gaslighting.” Blackman then told the protesters, “The lesson is, you can support something as a matter of policy but find that the law does not permit it. And then the answer is to change the law.”
Although the nonsense went on for a few more minutes, Blackman’s reasoned response and calm demeanor had taken the wind out of the protesters’ sails. A few minutes later, they began filing out, shouting “shame on you,” and other empty cat calls. Blackman was then able to speak and field questions from those in attendance for the right reasons.
Perhaps these protests are just a sign of the times, the normal and natural outgrowth of too many years spent coddling young people and feeding them leftist misinformation. Professor Blackman handled himself quite nicely under the circumstances. But why should he and others have to put up with such nonsense? The answer is no one should be subjected to these jargon-shouting babies. Their right to free speech should end when their actions infringe on another’s First Amendment rights.
