The irony of the increasing violence on campus

I guess everyone has heard about the violence at Middlebury College.  It wouldn’t be especially noteworthy if it were isolated or unique.  But it isn’t.  It seems to be a part of a growing and more violent trend on college campuses. It first burst onto the headlines at Berkeley around February 2nd when violent protesters rioted, burned and destroyed property in order to block a Milo Yiannopoulos speech.  Some who had come to hear Yiannopoulos were beaten.  The claim, by the rioters, was they were “anti-fascists” out to shout down and shut down the racist Yiannopoulos.

Fast forward approximately one month and the scene in Middlebury College in Vermont.

Students and professors at Middlebury College were ashamed and embarrassed after an explosive protest Thursday night that has forced the school to reconsider what it means to embrace free speech.

The normally peaceful campus of Middlebury College, with its mountain backdrop and elite reputation, was shaken last week after violent student protesters shut down a talk by controversial conservative social scientist Charles Murray and injured a Middlebury professor who was with him.

Not only did they “shut down” Murray’s speech, they attacked both Murray and a Middlebury Professor with Murray and injured the Professor.

To her eternal credit, Laurie L. Patton, the President of Middlebury College made an attempt to calm the waters by attending the lecture by Murray and saying while she didn’t agree with Murray she wanted to hear what he had to say.  Student protesters, however, would have none of it.

When Murray was unable to speak because of the protesters’ interruptions Thursday night, administrators took him to a video studio in the same building and broadcast the event online.

But some protesters began pulling fire alarms, temporarily shutting off power to the live stream. When Murray finished his speech, he left the building with Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics, and other college officials, but was met by a group of protesters who wore bandanas to cover their faces.

It was at this point that what seems to be the standard answer comes into play – it was “outside agitators”.  Because, you know, students who refuse to let a speaker speak and use intimidation and disruption as a tactic inside would never resort to violence outside, would they?

To be fair, much of Middlebury’s population is embarrassed by the incident and at least mouth the platitudes about free speech, whether or not they really believe them or not.  One student, however, said what everyone is actually thinking given the incident:

“This is more than just a Middlebury problem, it’s a problem across the country. There’s really a great divide that people can’t bridge,” she said.

It certainly seems to be, doesn’t it?  And, it also appears that the majority of students who say they’re appalled by the actions of the minority that did the rioting seem to also have a problem.  None other than Charles Murray pointed it out:

In the mid-1990s, I could count on students who had wanted to listen to start yelling at the protesters after a certain point, “Sit down and shut up, we want to hear what he has to say.” That kind of pushback had an effect. It reminded the protesters that they were a minority. I am assured by people at Middlebury that their protesters are a minority as well. But they are a minority that has intimidated the majority. The people in the audience who wanted to hear me speak were completely cowed. That cannot be allowed to stand. A campus where a majority of students are fearful to speak openly because they know a minority will jump on them is no longer an intellectually free campus in any meaningful sense.

No Mr. Murray, a campus in which “students are fearful to speak openly” is being controlled by what they claim to hate and oppose.

I know history isn’t very popular these days and I also know Goodwin’s law, but I’m sorry, both apply here.

There once was a group who controlled speech and behavior by cowing the majority.  They intimidated those who opposed them through violence and the refusal to allow them to speak.  They rioted, burned and destroyed property.  They burned books.  And they eventually took power to the point that people were “fearful to speak openly”.

They were called Nazis.  Or, if you prefer, the Red Guard.  Two perfect examples of the culmination of the behavior we’re beginning to see routinely on campus in opposition to “free speech”.

It is also important to note that this isn’t an unexpected result given what these students have been taught and who has taught them.  That’s why it will get a lot worse before it gets better.  There is going to be a lot of denial going on before anyone will begin to face the reality of “why” such violence is taking place on their campus.

In the meantime …

~McQ