...were blocked by the rowdy student activists who locked arms and refused to let people by, video and eye-witness accounts show.

I'm no fan of Ben Shapiro (because he's a smug, condescending prick), but if he were speaking in my area, I'd certainly want to attend. If for no other reason to hear the opposing views, and I do actually enthusiastically agree with him on some points.

Locking arms and blocking people from entering??? I'd be tempted to punch them in the face. I don't suppose that's legally justifiable. On the other hand reasonable force is permitted when someone is blocking your freedom of movement. If I attempt to push through and they push back, it could very well escalate to the trading of blows.

Patrick: "because he's a smug, condescending prick"

Very well put - I find Shapiro that way too. Although I might agree with him on some issues; even when I do agree with him he can be, and often is, an ass about it.

Still, I might attend just to hear what he and others have to say.

I don't know how/why these "kids" today think that they were born knowing all the right answers without listening to others.

Good Lord! Was *I* like that when I was their age?! I hope not; and if I was I owe a big apology to everyone!

On Kurtz's plan, especially this:

"Second: Colleges and universities need to systematically educate members of their community in the principles of free expression."

I think most colleges have failed miserably at it - I blame the educators, both faculty and administrators for they think that the only conclusion to any issue is the solution they have - all else is wrongheaded, not thinking clearly, ignorance.

Too many times I had both professors and fellow students ask, in a rhetorical, shocked-fashion, "how could you, with your education possible think that!" As if to say I was just plain stupid. So much for open-minded liberals. Ha, one classmate even suggested that she was a "bleeding-heart liberal" because she received a "liberal" education. The stupid jerk (argued with everyone is class, BTW) didn't even know that liberal has more than one meaning. So, how did her education work out?

Actually, her education work out exactly as the "liberal" educators expected - she is totally brainwashed into their way of thinking and won't question anything - since they have given her all the answers she needs to know. Which leads me to believe that colleges will NEVER adopt Kurtz's plan. It would threaten their beliefs too much; and their whole world may just fall apart.

Not only is it disruptive students, but often disruptive professors, as well, who both instigate the protests and participate in them. Both students and professors need to be subject to disciplinary action if their protests step over the line and become violations of speakers' rights to be heard. Once a few examples are made of the worst offenders via expulsion and dismissal the protests will dry up.

How can you know what you don't like if you don't listen or learn about it? A generation of Know-nothings doesn't bode well for this country.

How can you know what you don't like if you don't listen or learn about it? A generation of Know-nothings doesn't bode well for this country.

The game plan of the Millennials is simple: simply decide who they don't like (meaning someone who doesn't fit with the SJW narrative), affix them with a stigmatizing label, such as transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, etc. And that makes the cause of silencing them just.

Stanley Kurtz:
"Second: Colleges and universities need to systematically educate members of their community in the principles of free expression."

Communist theorist Nikolai Bukharin in 1917:
"We asked for freedom of the press, thought, and civil liberties in the past because we were in the opposition and needed these liberties to conquer. Now that we have conquered, there is no longer any need for such civil liberties."

I think colleges and universities are going out of their way to prevent members of their community from being educated in the principles of free speech.

charles: "I think most colleges have failed miserably at it - I blame the educators, both faculty and administrators..."

But I think they've succeeded at accomplishing what they intended.

charles: "Good Lord! Was *I* like that when I was their age?!"

I don't know about you but I think I kind of was, back in the days of the Berkeley protests and Kent State shootings. But as much as I knew better than the narrow minded older people of "the establishment" I never would have dreamed of physically preventing anyone from speaking their message or of preventing anyone wanting to hear them from doing so.

In fact I was in favor of letting their misguided messages be heard so that their errors would be exposed to all. I often listened to their messages myself, straight from the horse's mouth, so that I could learn how to more effectively refute them.

This self-inflicted exposure to the ideas of others quickly led to the downfall of my naive belief in the competence and benevolence of government of any form or ideology.

The Anti-Lobbying Act of 1913 prohibits political lobbying by federal grant recipients. That includes colleges and universities.

They've evaded these requirements by not expressly lobbying for or against laws and policies under the name of the institution. But it's apparent that many schools are engaged in de facto political advocacy through their programs and policies. Therefore they are in violation of the act.

The simple answer is to prosecute school administrators. Historically the federal government has tolerated political advocacy by academics and students in fealty to the idea of academic freedom. But schools no longer uphold or even pretend to defend this principal, so there is no reason to grant institutions a dispensation in that regard.

lawyer guy: The Anti-Lobbying Act of 1913 prohibits political lobbying by federal grant recipients. That includes colleges and universities.

Lawyer guy, Isab or JD, or anyone else who might know, wouldn't that also forbid students who receive federal grants (such as Pell), from participating in political lobbying?

"Lawyer guy, Isab or JD, or anyone else who might know, wouldn't that also forbid students who receive federal grants (such as Pell), from participating in political lobbying?"

I suspect a court would say "no", but they'd have to do a lot of wordsmithing to draw a distinction. After all, federal employees are still subject to the Hatch Act (although it has been weakened some), and that has survived many court challenges. If a court did find that receiving a Pell grant limits one's political activity, then it stands to reason that the same is true of welfare recipients... imagine how that would go over.

Something to keep in mind and that students need to be reminded of, is that Hitler's successful strategy used the students as the first attack group against jews and against the press. Mao set the students loose against anyone opposing the state (professors!!!, middle class people, any random person) and they killed and killed, even beating children.
The idea that students are virtuous due to their youth is simply delusional thinking. This particular batch seems very well-suited to being turned into a mob. When I was in school, we were all too busy doing our own thing (football for some, yoga for others...) to listen to anyone trying to get us organized for something.

The idea that students are virtuous due to their youth is simply delusional thinking. ~ Craig Loehle at May 23, 2016 11:43 AM

Students are used by totalitarian movements as the first wave because they are young enough to see the world as black and white and they have time on their hands due to not having full-time work.