By failing to speak out forcefully against appalling censorship in the public square at the University Of Washington, the hyper-liberal school's administration is so far - in characteristically Seattle passive-aggressive fashion - endorsing the political policing of thought. The P-I reports today that anti-abortion protestors yesterday toting disturbing pictures of dead fetuses were surrounded and blocked by censorious and intolerant abortion rights advocates. Additional comments in the P-I story reveal what a sham is the rubric of "diversity" at UW and in Seattle.
Several dozen students supporting abortion rights encircled the sign-bearers, shouting pro-choice slogans into a bullhorn. Some tried to bar a photographer from access to the gruesome pictures....students were incensed...."I think it's absurd that they're here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them here.".....Hurriedly, a campus staff member who described herself as anti-abortion, whispered "thank you" to one of the group members, but declined to give her name, saying she worked in a department "intolerant of conservative views or religion."
"It's peer pressure," said Sara Lotto, a research assistant in the university's School of Medicine, who describes herself as anti-abortion and believes many students were reluctant to be seen speaking with Show The Truth activists for fear of being ostracized by their pro-choice friends. "It's exactly what I learned in psychology class today," said Nicholas Gwynne, 20, referring to a study his professor had discussed moments earlier demonstrating that when presented with conflicting information, people become more deeply entrenched in their own beliefs, determined to shut out the other.
Abortion is a regrettable choice, but it best resides with the woman, not the government. Pro-life activists are free to continue trying to make abortion an issue at the federal level (a failing strategy), or at the state level, where approval of sweeping measures will be rare. Writ large, abortion is a losing, wedge issue for Republicans in 2006 and years to come. Yet it remains a grave matter. Pro-lifers deserve full protection under the Constitution to lobby, protest, and air their views and gory photos on a taxpayer-funded campus. President Mark Emmert: The media and blogosphere await your crystal clear pronouncement about free speech and political expression at UW.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 26, 2006 11:45 AM | Email ThisSurely you are not serious? How can abortion rights not be viewed as a federal issue since Roe v Wade? What is your justification for accusing pro-lifers from recognizing what obviously is?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 26, 2006 11:44 AM"I think it's absurd that they're here," said Grant Mandarino, 25, who is working on a graduate degree in comparative literature. "These people are not wanted. This is a pro-choice campus, and there isn't a place for them here."Grant you do not belong on any campus anywhere, at any time, period. With an attitude like that you are uneducable, completely unwilling to listen to idea that conflicts with your dogmatic stance. Trying to educate a person like you is a waste of resources.
You are ignorant of or laws permitting speech. You have missed the point of a "liberal" (in the classic sense) education of examining issues from multiple viewpoints. You obviously aren't even smart enough to grasp the vaunted concept the left use as a bludgeon to smack down opposition, tolerance.
I am embarrassed such a shallow, intolerant, narrow minded bigot was accepted to my Alma Mater.
Posted by: JCM on October 26, 2006 11:48 AM"Mr. Rosenburg writes Pro-life activists are free to continue trying to make abortion an issue at the federal level (a failing strategy)...
Surely you are not serious? How can abortion rights not be viewed as a federal issue since Roe v Wade? What is your justification for accusing pro-lifers from recognizing what obviously is?"
My response is: I'm well aware of Roe v. Wade and agitations for a Supreme Court reversal. Ain't ever gonna happen. And if, for the sake of discussion here, it did? Permanent minority status in Congress for Republicans, & probably never another R president, as well.
The GOP knows that, and will be guided by the pragmatic politics of the issue, even if the cheap-date evangelicals don't care.
Posted by: Matt R. on October 26, 2006 12:08 PMwe sure got our money's worth with that paltry raise we gave to Emmert--"your nickel--watch it work" just like DOT. what a joke.
and no professor in an entire campus who's pro-tolerance had anything to say? also--what are we paying their Diversity Department for anyway? more money wasted. talk but no walk.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 26, 2006 12:09 PMIf the campus was truly "pro-choice," it would be tolerant to the freedom of choice of others to hear and view opposing viewpoints on campus. Grant Mandarino; you are an intolerant person and a major embarrasment to the University of Washington.
Posted by: AP on October 26, 2006 12:17 PMDid the university ask the opponents of legal abortion to leave? No.
Did anyone tell the opponents of legal abortion that they were not allowed to speak? No.
Were the opponents of legal abortion attacked physically or threatened with bodily harm, prosecution under the law, or anything else if they continued to speak? No.
Fact is, if you read the P-I story and the accompanying comments, people got in their face and argued with them. That's all. That is not censorship by any measure, nor anything close to it. It is a loud public disagreement, which in some cases is the essence of democracy.
One student saying they have no place on campus is qualitatively no different under the law than someone insisting that all human life begins at conception. It's an opinion, nothing more.
Of course, none of that will stop professional liars like Matt Rosenberg, whose job is to inflame the gomers against all things perceived to be liberal, and to implant in the minds of self-described conservatives that they are somehow a beset and persecuted minority.
I feel sorry for anyone who believes this lying hack.
Posted by: ivan on October 26, 2006 12:27 PMIsn't moral relativism convenient?
Posted by: ragnardanneskold on October 26, 2006 12:30 PMTypical lib, can't argue with the content so they attack the messenger.
Posted by: JCM on October 26, 2006 12:43 PMIvan, as I understand it, the abortion people's signs were torn down but the most common tactic by the campus leftists is to shout-down and storm the stage of whomever is speaking, preventing the event from taking place at all. Which is exactly what happened last week at the Militiamen's speaking date.
The Dixie Chicks have never seen censorship or their free speech rights infringed . . .not one time. In fact they are STILL freespeeching all over the TV and have a movie coming out covering the issue. Some censorship. Make no mistake, the Dixie Chicks experienced *consequences of an opinion* and that is a very different thing. Fact is that most lefties and the Dixies can't tell the difference. Must be that public school larnin
My response is: I'm well aware of Roe v. Wade and agitations for a Supreme Court reversal. Ain't ever gonna happen. And if, for the sake of discussion here, it did? Permanent minority status in Congress for Republicans, & probably never another R president, as well.
The GOP knows that, and will be guided by the pragmatic politics of the issue, even if the cheap-date evangelicals don't care.
It really is not that important what you feel the end-game of the cheap-date evangelicals is. The point is, you are critical of them for fighting their battle at the national level, when clearly that is where the front line of the abortion wars lies. Would you seriously dispute that? Or is it more important to get out your message of liberal Republican hatred toward religious people?
Posted by: huckleberry on October 26, 2006 01:21 PMAs noted in the P-I's article this same anti-abortion group appeared at Evergreen State College where reasonable, open minded liberals spray painted and punctured their signs, scrawling "Sick lies, lies, lies". Whether this qualifies as censorship I think is debatable. Whether this kind of behavior is an indicator of how tolerant a leftist government would be if it should gain power is not.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 26, 2006 01:27 PMWhat would the UW be saying and doing if a group of students harassed and tried to intimidate a group of people who were advocating, say...
Gay rights.
Affirmative action.
Nuclear disarmament.
US pull out of Iraq.
___________.
I should not have to tell you. Thye would loudly and clearly condemn the students involved. They would hold diversity seminars and bring in speakers like Jackson, Sharpton, Sheehan, and/or some icons of liberal "tolerance" to try and "educate" the intolerant minority of their great and tolerant intitution.
But in this case, they will remain silent in the public arena and privately cheer on the harassers.
And for our Graduate student in comparitive literature? A D- for failing to understand the irony in his own statement. If I were his Academic Advisor, I would consider removing him from the program as an embarassment to his field of study.
Posted by: IWONDER on October 26, 2006 01:30 PMIt is also a very good look at what liberals with unrestrained power (will) do.
Posted by: G Jiggy on October 26, 2006 02:44 PMNo, Ivan. It's not censorship any more than when whiny liberals complain their freedom of speech is exposed to the 'chill wind blowing' when somebody disagrees with them. What's being pointed out is the attitude of liberals when somebody has the audacity to express an opinion which differs from their own.
And regarding your defense of other people obnoxiously 'getting in somebody's face' as the benchmark of democracy, I doubt you'd like it much if I did that to you. Thing is, I can get my point across without screaming in somebody's face.
Posted by: jimg on October 26, 2006 04:12 PMIn the 1850s, Democrats used to use a similar line: Slavery is a regrettable choice, but it best resides with the plantation owners, not the government.
Posted by: Aaron on October 26, 2006 05:33 PMI'm not sure I want to take the time to understand that...but if I did, then it seems to me your beef with the Evangelicals is that they aren't cheap, or even easy.
If I took the time, I'd conclude you were an anti-religious bigot...but I don't have the time.
Posted by: South County on October 26, 2006 09:03 PM"And regarding your defense of other people obnoxiously 'getting in somebody's face' as the benchmark of democracy, I doubt you'd like it much if I did that to you."
Whereas I grew up in Philadelphia and have worked for the Teamsters union, I regard people getting in my face as normal and I'd bet I have more experience of it than you do.
It's no big deal. You get in my face and yell at me, I do it right back to you. I am not your "whiny liberal," and you are welcome to try me any time.
Posted by: ivan on October 26, 2006 09:46 PMSooner or later (my guess is sooner) someone is going to oblige jabba the hut and pound his gargantuan arse into the sidewalk. Then we need only point to his own boastful declaration and shrug our collective shoulders!
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 27, 2006 09:31 AMit is widely recognized in zoological circles that the biggest ape is usually fluffing fur & bluffing when territory is threatened.
not impressed, at post 22 par. 2--i too came from a bigger and rougher city--one that Phila. took notes from. so what's your point?
please stick to the topical & academic-only arguments. i like them. both sides. your views too.
but--the chest thumping is for kids. anyone can be "adjusted" as you & I know. and I KNOW you & I "know." capiche? come on--"this is business"
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 27, 2006 01:48 PMWhat Matt R doesn't understand is that abortion is eliminating key poor democratic voting blocks, and enviromentalism is encouraging their richer voting blocks from having kids. This is why this country grows conservative and christian conservative by 500,000 people per year.
Pro-life is a winning issue, and will be a bigger winning issue in the years to come. Note, the liberal Republicans are going to get smashed this November, see how well your excessive spending, stupid war policies, incompetent government got you. Maybe principles do matter after all -- doubt you'll get it though.
Posted by: John McDonald on October 27, 2006 10:32 PMPracticing your liberal projection again, eh liberal~john?
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 28, 2006 08:36 AMPosted by Matt R. at October 26, 2006 12:08 PM
1. I don't know if the comment "cheap-date evangelicals" indicates a hatred of Christians, but it certainly shows a level of insensitivity. Does the statement mean that the Republican party is using this group and their base and will discard them if something better comes along?
2. Many evangelicals are very literal in their reading og the Bible. [Many people have Bibles in their home or close proximity, fewer have actually read it] Does the comment mean that all who practice a form of orthodoxy are suspect?