ShareThis Page

Who's unsafe on campus?

| Sunday, April 16, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
Vice President Mike Pence speaks at the Trans Parts and Distribution Center, Saturday, March 11, 2017, in Louisville, Ky. Some students at the University of Notre Dame object to the school issuing a commencement-speaker invitation to Pence, who will speak at Grove City College's commencement May 20. (AP Photo)
Vice President Mike Pence speaks at the Trans Parts and Distribution Center, Saturday, March 11, 2017, in Louisville, Ky. Some students at the University of Notre Dame object to the school issuing a commencement-speaker invitation to Pence, who will speak at Grove City College's commencement May 20. (AP Photo)

Springtime may be in bloom, but snowflakes never go out of season at America's colleges and universities.

Students launched a protest this month against the University of Notre Dame's decision to invite Vice President Mike Pence as commencement speaker. Activist Imanne Mondane told the campus newspaper that she and her peers felt “unsafe” and threatened by “someone who openly is offensive but also demeaning of their humanity and of their life and of their identity.” In other words: The mere presence of a public official whose policy positions veer from acceptable left-wing norms is a public safety hazard.

Wichita State University's student government voted to refuse official recognition of the libertarian Young Americans for Liberty group because it supports — gasp! — the First Amendment. Since other chapters have invited controversial conservative speakers to their campuses, the Kansas safe-spacers argued, it would be “dangerous” to allow YAL to operate in Kansas.

And at Duquesne University, students have declared that a Chick-fil-A on campus would put their “safe place” at “risk” because the company's founder defended traditional marriage. These millennial Chicken Littles have grown softer than the insides of waffle fries.

While they hype the existential dangers of exposure to discomfiting ideological dissent, they ignore the real menaces in the academy.

Take Fresno State professor Lars Maischak. He tweeted earlier this year that “Trump must hang,” adding: “The sooner and the higher, the better.” In retaliation for the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration, he proclaimed, “two Republicans” should be “executed” for “each deported immigrant.” Using the hashtag “#TheResistance,” he tweeted: “Has anyone started soliciting money and design drafts for a monument honoring the Trump assassin, yet?” He also tweeted a photo of a bullet with the caption: “Finally discovered! A cure for racism. Take one, administered straight to the cranium.”

I can't say “lock and load” without being accused of inciting violence. But Maischak can tweet his twisted heart out with impunity. Of course, he denies harboring any hatred and claims he's the innocent target of a “digital lynch-mob.”

Real mobs set fire to U.C. Berkeley to protest speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, injured a professor at Middlebury College while hounding conservative speaker Charles Murray off campus, and assaulted conservative speaker and Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes at New York University.

As Manhattan Institute scholar and “The War on Cops” author Heather Mac Donald recounted in City Journal, she became “the target of such silencing tactics two days in a row” recently at Claremont McKenna College and UCLA. Baying protesters chanted, “We are here to shut down the (expletive) fascist” and “From Oakland to Greece, (expletive) the police.” She was forced to livestream her talk from an empty room while agitators pounded on the windows outside.

Who's unsafe on campus? The social-justice warriors play victims but attack any and all who threaten their orthodoxy and power.

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on CRTV.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.