If my comments are being removed without explanation, can I get a refund on my subscription? I realize it is Dr. Loury’s site and my opinions differ from most. If comments are going to be romoved, I would appreciate a refund.
According to FIRE and many professors, things haven't been normal at Harvard for a long time. FIRE rates Harvard's freedom of speech as the lowest in the nation, the only school to earn "abysmal".
Lol. You post the point about Trump as if I would disagree. Disagreeing with Harvard's current state isn't agreeing with Trump's solutions to anything. You may be in a tribe. I am not.
Glad to see that Harvard agrees with part of their problems, but this hardly addresses their adjudicated racial biases in hiring and admissions. Given the court findings against Harvard, and the reported defiance within the school at making change, the Federal Government has some well-founded options that have historical precedent, such as denial of tax exempt status.
The IRS is supposed to be independent. Harvard could win the tax case simply because Trump put his thumb on the scale.
Edit to add:
If I’m in a tribe, I proudly claim membership. Harvard can self correct. The big danger staring us in the face is Trump’s authoritarianism. Trump’s action against Harvard is part of the danger we face.
Harvard can self correct, but has not. Does your tribe support continued lawless action from Harvard, or should they reform admissions as directed by the courts? Should only Trump follow Court rulings, or does everyone have to?
The president of Harvard came out and said "No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire". Does he think his university is not subject to the ruling of the Court, and does he think his University is not subject to Federal and State labor laws on hiring discrimination?
I would think twice about being part of any tribe that thoughtlessly proffers such sentiments.
My tribe agrees that the government should not dictate what can be taught at Harvard. Antisemitism is being used as a distraction to meet authoritarian ends. I agree with the response from Harvard.
Americans have been given a lot of education on slavery and Jim Crow, and some of it has been exaggerated, but only a hermit in America would be unfamiliar with these unsavory aspects of our history. No race, howver has the enduring hsitory of racism that the Jews have had. From the Spanish Inquisitions, to the Russian pogroms that resulted in Jewish immigration to America and eastern, central and Western Europe. The former resulted in discrimination that led Jews to build their own everything. They were not going to complain about racism as long as people let them live. The latter resulted in the Holocaust and the creation of the nation of Israel. After one day of nationhood Israel had the first of many Arab-Israeli wars with an aim to end the existence of a sovereign nation. If more Americans knew the very long history of the Jews, they might understand that Hamas is not kidding when they say they are committed to the extermination of Israel.
Americans for and against Israel, do not want innocnt Palestinians murdered or living in unconscionable conditions. I suspect more Americans are aligned on this than were on the Holocaust. Our history of turning a blind eye to Jews during the Holocaust is another unsavroy part of our history. Perhaps, Americans need to be hit with a two by four about the past and present history of racism agains Jews, much as was necessary for racism against African Americans.
DEI has now come to mean Didn’t Earn It. DEI now applies to white Conservatives. Trump doesn’t know if he is supposed to follow the Constitution Trump and Vance said Haitians eat pets. Hegseth ignores security measures. RFK Jr is an anti-vaxxer who swims in sewage. Marjorie Taylor Green sits on Homeland Security committee despteranting about Jewish space lasers. Allies recoiled in horror at the instability of the administration. China and Russia are laughing at us.
On Monday, we celebrated the 100th birthday of Malcolm X, a man who was a true Conservative. Fannie Lou Hamer considered Malcolm her best friend. Hamer also rejected core tenants of the Nation of Islam. Malcolm saw blue-eyed white people who were not the devils depicted by the Nation. Hamer noted that whites were needed to insure racial progress in the United States. She also challenged the policies of the Democratic Party. Neither was a cultist. Cult behavior is what we see in the Republican Party.
Glenn and John are lost in their imagined Black Dystopia. Those on the outside are not expecting the Democrats or the Republicans to save us. We fight the politics, attack on employment, education and history. We are reading about battles past and present in books like “The Afterlife of Malcom X”, “Spell Freedom” about the underground schools that fed the Civil Rights movement (may require resurrection), and even “Uncommon Favor, Dawn Staley’s autobiography. We are thriving.
Last week saw a former concentration camp for enslaved people burn to ashes. We saw sadness in eyes of people who turned the camp in a resort. These people love their history but are actively trying to destroy Black history. We watch Dr. Loury fight a futile battle expecting people who only respect power to not try to annihilate their opponents.
Edit to add:
We are also re-reading Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here”, because it is.
To say this is identity politics by another name you'd need to show that those affected share a common identity. What they share by your own writing is a common belief or a common pattern of action, criticizing Israel.
What they share that you miss in your analysis, in the cases we know about, is making NON-PROTECTED speech that is over a line. It's not legal to take over a building and hold hostages. People were successfully prosecuted for that action at Columbia so it wasnt protected speech. People being kicked out of the country for inciting illegal behavior is a far cry from people being kicked out over "speech".
If this was a campaign against speech for *any* who criticize Israel you'd have to show that there has been some unreasonable consequence sought by the government towards a non-immigrant. The list of those you're talking about only includes immigrants, most but not all of whom seem complicit in highly disruptive *illegal* protest where arrests have been made including building takeovers with hostages, not simply speech.
I'll just be the devil's advocate against Glenn, because I'm in basic agreement with most of what he says.
What seems to escape people's notice concerning today's issues is any question of how it got this way. One cannot look at Israel and Gaza right now, and draw any rational conclusion without studying the history going back at least a century, or longer.
So, what is the history behind the issue of Trump's actions? The history is one of persecution by progressives, who have no tolerance for a contrary opinion. My own conclusion, from long before Trump ran for office, is that progressive ideology is not to be reasoned with, but to be held in check. Certainly, Trump and his supporters owe progressive leadership, in both government and education, no consideration whatsoever. Should he be bigger than them, more reasonable? Philosophically, yes. Politically, that would be suicide.
I said, "One cannot look at Israel and Gaza right now, and draw any rational conclusion without studying the history going back at least a century, or longer."
What you have chosen to do is to cherry pick specific events to support your belief system. It's a free country, and you can do that, at least until the 'disinformation police' declare that you can't.
But you'd be doing yourself and everyone around you a big favor if you went to the trouble of trying to comprehend all the issues involved. No, not easy. But it's the adult thing to do.
I understand the history. Jewish people were slaughtered in the Holocaust, a period so horrifying that it has its own name.
What concerns many is that the United States is supplying weapons in the current situation.
Edit to add:
We see pictures of the destruction of Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas has the weapons so all Palestinians become the targets when Israel attacks Gaza. There does not seem to be an endpoint
Two Israelis were murdered in D.C. last night. Apparently the murderer is in custody. How is demolishing Gaza preventing a crazed murderer in DC? The concern is that the United States is an accomplice to genocide
The other issue is that the leader of Israel has no problem supporting one particular political party in the U.S. and attempting to influence an election. Also Americans are being punished for criticizing Israel. No other state has that amount of influence.
So wrong . Why can’t you see that ALL Jewish kids , parents and most Americans expect is that universities enforce the rules EQUALLY for all students and yes professors . Anyone with eyes and an open mind can see that has NOT been the case when it comes to the anti-Israel protestors - some who have a sincere concern for the Palestinians and are not antisemitic but many (which includes almost all of the leadership of SJP) are blatantly antisemitic , violated code of conduct when it comes to protest (both speech , intimidation violence and vandalism ) and align with Marxist/anti-west ideology (which is fine ) .
Maybe for some chanting from the River to the Sea is not antisemitic but anyone who knows the Arabic version of the slogan understands that it means no Jews and no Israel . Anyone chanting globalize the Intifada is call for the Jewish genocide . Anyone who accuses Israel of committing genocide and ignores real genocide in the Sudan , Syria and other places are most likely antisemites (the jerk at NYU ). How many students have been disciplined ? How many profs for code of conduct violations. My guess is less than the number of students who have been disciplined for misgendering .
How many Israeli , Jewish American pro Israel speakers (along with many right of center speeches ) has been banned from speaking on campus . Now you are concerned about speech ? Because the government of finally enforcing title 6
Give me a break . No serious person can argue this is about speech and not anti-zionism and antisemitism . Many ways to be against the Israeli government but denying the reality of Jewish right to live in their ancestors homeland is beyond the pale
Alan: What Jewish American pro Israel speakers have been banned from speaking on campuses? While I'm aware of some specific speeches that have been disrupted by protesters (and I agree that colleges should take disciplnary action on protesters that prevent speech), I'm not aware of any pro Israel speakers who have been banned. Can you share some examples of the folks you have in mind.
Meanwnile, I'm not aware of any pro Israel speakers of any nationality who have been deported or jailed. Are you aware of any?
Not sure why you're expecting me to query ChatGPT for you Kelly b ut the answer is no. Neither I nor ChatGPT can find examples of Ben being banned from campuses in recent years (i.e. nothing in the 2020s).
Gordan . I should have been more specific . Banned no bit cancelled due to threats , shut down by protestors so they could not speak (and this prevented from alternative viewpoints ) etc . Essentially anyone who advocates to have womans sports be just for biological woman , anyone from Trump Admin or bush admin , anyone who has views that might conflict with climate , trans , DEI policy etc . Are they technically banned ? No ! But the admin at many schools do not treat them the same way they treat others
Pro Israel speaker deported ? Think we need to understand the difference between being here on a visa vs being a citizen . Need to understand that if you are a non citizen violate schools code of conduct or breaks the law you can be sent home . And I am sure if a foreign student who happens to be pro Israel assaulted a Muslim student or broke any school conduct rules would be treated the same
Alan: Don't think the blocking of pro Israel speakers has happened nearly as often as I think you believe. In fact, I think it's almost never. There have definitely been cases where protesters have temporarily disrupted speeches but in virtually all cases the universities have not only not banned pro Israel speakers but have been successful at allowing them to speak. Would encourage you to list counter examples if you think that's incorrect.
As for people being jailed and deported, I don't believe anyone should be jailed or deported for speech and yet that has been happening (and only to folks who have been criticizing Israel).
There are more. Alan is correct that this happens. His point in talking about it has yet to be answered: do you support the freedom of speech of people speaking out in favor of Israel as much as you support it for people who are anti-Israel?
I think they were wrong to cancel both talks, but they were consistent.
- The Naftali Bennett was disrupted by protesters at Princeton. But the University Police not only removed the protesters, Princeton's President condemned the protesters, apologized to Bennett for the disruption, and the university is investigating to determine what disciplinary action is appropriate:
What you'll find, as I said above, is that while there are certainly cases of protesters temporarily disrupting speeches, there are practically no cases in recent years of universities banning pro-Israel speakers or even of speeches being fully cancelled. In fact, in terms of universities revoking invitations to speak, it actually is happening more because of complaints from supporters of Israel than the reverse.
As for your question, of course I believe people speaking out in support of Israel should get all the freedom of speech protections that folks criticizing Israel should get. For two reasons:
1. Most importantly, with almost no exceptions, I'm a strong supporter of everyone receiving freedom of speech protections. If a group on campus wants to invite a speaker, they should be able to do so and the speaker should be heard by those who want to hear them. The universities should enforce this equally for everyone.
2. While I'm highly critical of Netanyahu and Israel's settlements on the West Bank, overall I'm a strong supporter of Israel and believe that almost all of the protesters on college campuses over the last year are ignorant rubes who would benefit greatly from hearing from speakers on both sides of the debate.
Finally, a question for you Kelly. Do you believe that international students should be jailed and deported for criticizing Israel?
Your question to me is phrased as if these folks are being “jailed” at all or deported for speech. I reject both suppositions. Many other people have been critical without these actions being taken against them. The connecting thing is not speech against Israel.
First, The US Supreme Court long ago, in the period 1880-1905 recognized that deportation is not a criminal punishment, it is a civil matter that involves the revocation of a privilege/invitation in the form of a visa. They further ruled that They further ruled that no due process at all is required in such cases, and that courts can not review visa revocations in general. Due process is required prior to “deprivation of life, liberty or property” not a revocation of an invitation to be in the country. They further recognized that detention for as long as is required to complete review processes and a deportation is a natural requirement of such processes that does not constitute an undue deprivation of liberty. They explicitly excepted such detentions from constraints.
In the case of someone charged with a crime and potentially to be deported for that, they required due process, as the crime involves a criminal sentence which is a deprivation of liberty. Crimes require due process and must be proven in a court of law prior to deportation for criminal activity.
The process that has emerged and we are used to and is why everyone thinks there is "due process" is that legally Congress controls this area and by 1950 or so set up the immigration courts. The laws made by Congress do require review by an immigration judge in most cases other than recent crossings. The fact that this is beyond normal judicial review is emphasized by the fact that these courts were determined by Congress to fall in the Executive Branch, are conducted entirely by the AG within the DoJ. Importantly for the next four years in this context, judges are named to 6 month terms by the Attorney General - be ready for a bunch of yes-men and women who agree with this administration to be in these positions.
Certain rights of the Executive are beyond judicial review in this process, but where governed by specific laws requiring interpretation, normal judicial review by the regular court system does apply. Like "is there a predatory incursion" at all that kicks in Executive power under the law, that is reviewable.
But where the law is forgiving or clear, little review will be possible. It will not be judicially reviewable to judge if the Secretary of State's judgment is that someone will hurt foreign policy. Anyone being kicked out under that statute has little chance of redemption beyond convincing Marco Rubio they won't hurt foriegn policy.
If we don't like it, Congress can change that law. But that's the law right now.
The Supreme Court has also specifically allowed banning people for intrinsic beliefs such as Communism. If you get up on a stage and spout communist beliefs for the first time, and then your visa is revoked, you're not being banned for speech, you're being banned for being a communist and the SC has allowed it.
These people aren't being banned for speech, and their speech is not restricted. They can go back on stage tomorrow and spout whatever they want - they all hold press conferences regularly. But they can also be removed from the US for opposing our foreign policy. It has been the foreign policy of both parties to support Israel, so it's the collective foreign policy of the US. My opinions don't matter, the law does and these folks will be judged under the law.
The fact that pro-Israel speakers are not equally removed is because they are aligned with that foreign policy. The very tool to remove the others is because they oppose it, so requiring or discussing balance is nonsensical. We would not remove people for agreeing with our foreign policy for the same reason we do seek to remove others for opposing it.
I don't have a horse here, you and Adam were discussing and I merely pointed out where he was right that there have been cancellation on the right. At which point your goal posts became "recently" while his point had no recency requirement to be valid. I don't care about his main point, but your new evidence supports it: both sides are being blocked. You were citing no evidence of his side, now you admit that it's a two-way street. Congrats to Adam, I guess, but idgaf.
Are comments being removed?
Edit to add:
If my comments are being removed without explanation, can I get a refund on my subscription? I realize it is Dr. Loury’s site and my opinions differ from most. If comments are going to be romoved, I would appreciate a refund.
Trump just fold every foreign student at Harvard they need to transfer.
The cult will continue to pretend things are normal.
According to FIRE and many professors, things haven't been normal at Harvard for a long time. FIRE rates Harvard's freedom of speech as the lowest in the nation, the only school to earn "abysmal".
https://www.omarveritas.com/p/veritas-betrayed-wake-up-stand-up
FIRE links to unHeard’s post that Trump’s foreign student ban is itself an attack on free speech.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/trumps-harvard-foreign-student-ban-is-an-attack-on-free-speech/
Harvard examined the bias on campus and issued a 300 page report as a call to action
https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Harvard-ASAIB-Report-4.29.25.pdf
Lol. You post the point about Trump as if I would disagree. Disagreeing with Harvard's current state isn't agreeing with Trump's solutions to anything. You may be in a tribe. I am not.
Glad to see that Harvard agrees with part of their problems, but this hardly addresses their adjudicated racial biases in hiring and admissions. Given the court findings against Harvard, and the reported defiance within the school at making change, the Federal Government has some well-founded options that have historical precedent, such as denial of tax exempt status.
The IRS is supposed to be independent. Harvard could win the tax case simply because Trump put his thumb on the scale.
Edit to add:
If I’m in a tribe, I proudly claim membership. Harvard can self correct. The big danger staring us in the face is Trump’s authoritarianism. Trump’s action against Harvard is part of the danger we face.
Harvard can self correct, but has not. Does your tribe support continued lawless action from Harvard, or should they reform admissions as directed by the courts? Should only Trump follow Court rulings, or does everyone have to?
The president of Harvard came out and said "No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire". Does he think his university is not subject to the ruling of the Court, and does he think his University is not subject to Federal and State labor laws on hiring discrimination?
I would think twice about being part of any tribe that thoughtlessly proffers such sentiments.
My tribe agrees that the government should not dictate what can be taught at Harvard. Antisemitism is being used as a distraction to meet authoritarian ends. I agree with the response from Harvard.
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2025/the-promise-of-american-higher-education/
Harvard is already complying with the SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action.
https://www.newsweek.com/harvard-sees-drop-new-black-students-after-affirmative-action-ruling-1952286
Harvard is addressing antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias. That is a result of the internal review it instituted.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/executive-leadership/2025/04/29/harvard-eyes-changes-address-antisemitism-anti#:~:text=Harvard.
Americans have been given a lot of education on slavery and Jim Crow, and some of it has been exaggerated, but only a hermit in America would be unfamiliar with these unsavory aspects of our history. No race, howver has the enduring hsitory of racism that the Jews have had. From the Spanish Inquisitions, to the Russian pogroms that resulted in Jewish immigration to America and eastern, central and Western Europe. The former resulted in discrimination that led Jews to build their own everything. They were not going to complain about racism as long as people let them live. The latter resulted in the Holocaust and the creation of the nation of Israel. After one day of nationhood Israel had the first of many Arab-Israeli wars with an aim to end the existence of a sovereign nation. If more Americans knew the very long history of the Jews, they might understand that Hamas is not kidding when they say they are committed to the extermination of Israel.
Americans for and against Israel, do not want innocnt Palestinians murdered or living in unconscionable conditions. I suspect more Americans are aligned on this than were on the Holocaust. Our history of turning a blind eye to Jews during the Holocaust is another unsavroy part of our history. Perhaps, Americans need to be hit with a two by four about the past and present history of racism agains Jews, much as was necessary for racism against African Americans.
DEI has now come to mean Didn’t Earn It. DEI now applies to white Conservatives. Trump doesn’t know if he is supposed to follow the Constitution Trump and Vance said Haitians eat pets. Hegseth ignores security measures. RFK Jr is an anti-vaxxer who swims in sewage. Marjorie Taylor Green sits on Homeland Security committee despteranting about Jewish space lasers. Allies recoiled in horror at the instability of the administration. China and Russia are laughing at us.
On Monday, we celebrated the 100th birthday of Malcolm X, a man who was a true Conservative. Fannie Lou Hamer considered Malcolm her best friend. Hamer also rejected core tenants of the Nation of Islam. Malcolm saw blue-eyed white people who were not the devils depicted by the Nation. Hamer noted that whites were needed to insure racial progress in the United States. She also challenged the policies of the Democratic Party. Neither was a cultist. Cult behavior is what we see in the Republican Party.
Glenn and John are lost in their imagined Black Dystopia. Those on the outside are not expecting the Democrats or the Republicans to save us. We fight the politics, attack on employment, education and history. We are reading about battles past and present in books like “The Afterlife of Malcom X”, “Spell Freedom” about the underground schools that fed the Civil Rights movement (may require resurrection), and even “Uncommon Favor, Dawn Staley’s autobiography. We are thriving.
Last week saw a former concentration camp for enslaved people burn to ashes. We saw sadness in eyes of people who turned the camp in a resort. These people love their history but are actively trying to destroy Black history. We watch Dr. Loury fight a futile battle expecting people who only respect power to not try to annihilate their opponents.
Edit to add:
We are also re-reading Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here”, because it is.
To say this is identity politics by another name you'd need to show that those affected share a common identity. What they share by your own writing is a common belief or a common pattern of action, criticizing Israel.
What they share that you miss in your analysis, in the cases we know about, is making NON-PROTECTED speech that is over a line. It's not legal to take over a building and hold hostages. People were successfully prosecuted for that action at Columbia so it wasnt protected speech. People being kicked out of the country for inciting illegal behavior is a far cry from people being kicked out over "speech".
If this was a campaign against speech for *any* who criticize Israel you'd have to show that there has been some unreasonable consequence sought by the government towards a non-immigrant. The list of those you're talking about only includes immigrants, most but not all of whom seem complicit in highly disruptive *illegal* protest where arrests have been made including building takeovers with hostages, not simply speech.
I'll just be the devil's advocate against Glenn, because I'm in basic agreement with most of what he says.
What seems to escape people's notice concerning today's issues is any question of how it got this way. One cannot look at Israel and Gaza right now, and draw any rational conclusion without studying the history going back at least a century, or longer.
So, what is the history behind the issue of Trump's actions? The history is one of persecution by progressives, who have no tolerance for a contrary opinion. My own conclusion, from long before Trump ran for office, is that progressive ideology is not to be reasoned with, but to be held in check. Certainly, Trump and his supporters owe progressive leadership, in both government and education, no consideration whatsoever. Should he be bigger than them, more reasonable? Philosophically, yes. Politically, that would be suicide.
The problem is that we have seen Israeli soldiers kill people waving white flags.
Netanyahu and Gallant were indicted for intentionally killing Palestinians
Israel killed aid workers in a clearly marked van “World Central Kitchen Aid.”
Israel bombed World Food Program convoys.
Israel can fight its war. The problem comes when American weapons are used.
I said, "One cannot look at Israel and Gaza right now, and draw any rational conclusion without studying the history going back at least a century, or longer."
What you have chosen to do is to cherry pick specific events to support your belief system. It's a free country, and you can do that, at least until the 'disinformation police' declare that you can't.
But you'd be doing yourself and everyone around you a big favor if you went to the trouble of trying to comprehend all the issues involved. No, not easy. But it's the adult thing to do.
I understand the history. Jewish people were slaughtered in the Holocaust, a period so horrifying that it has its own name.
What concerns many is that the United States is supplying weapons in the current situation.
Edit to add:
We see pictures of the destruction of Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas has the weapons so all Palestinians become the targets when Israel attacks Gaza. There does not seem to be an endpoint
Two Israelis were murdered in D.C. last night. Apparently the murderer is in custody. How is demolishing Gaza preventing a crazed murderer in DC? The concern is that the United States is an accomplice to genocide
The other issue is that the leader of Israel has no problem supporting one particular political party in the U.S. and attempting to influence an election. Also Americans are being punished for criticizing Israel. No other state has that amount of influence.
So wrong . Why can’t you see that ALL Jewish kids , parents and most Americans expect is that universities enforce the rules EQUALLY for all students and yes professors . Anyone with eyes and an open mind can see that has NOT been the case when it comes to the anti-Israel protestors - some who have a sincere concern for the Palestinians and are not antisemitic but many (which includes almost all of the leadership of SJP) are blatantly antisemitic , violated code of conduct when it comes to protest (both speech , intimidation violence and vandalism ) and align with Marxist/anti-west ideology (which is fine ) .
Maybe for some chanting from the River to the Sea is not antisemitic but anyone who knows the Arabic version of the slogan understands that it means no Jews and no Israel . Anyone chanting globalize the Intifada is call for the Jewish genocide . Anyone who accuses Israel of committing genocide and ignores real genocide in the Sudan , Syria and other places are most likely antisemites (the jerk at NYU ). How many students have been disciplined ? How many profs for code of conduct violations. My guess is less than the number of students who have been disciplined for misgendering .
How many Israeli , Jewish American pro Israel speakers (along with many right of center speeches ) has been banned from speaking on campus . Now you are concerned about speech ? Because the government of finally enforcing title 6
Give me a break . No serious person can argue this is about speech and not anti-zionism and antisemitism . Many ways to be against the Israeli government but denying the reality of Jewish right to live in their ancestors homeland is beyond the pale
Alan: What Jewish American pro Israel speakers have been banned from speaking on campuses? While I'm aware of some specific speeches that have been disrupted by protesters (and I agree that colleges should take disciplnary action on protesters that prevent speech), I'm not aware of any pro Israel speakers who have been banned. Can you share some examples of the folks you have in mind.
Meanwnile, I'm not aware of any pro Israel speakers of any nationality who have been deported or jailed. Are you aware of any?
Ben Shapiro has been blocked from speaking a number of times.
Has Ben been blocked from speaking on any campuses in recent years Kelly?
Ask Chat GPT and report back
Not sure why you're expecting me to query ChatGPT for you Kelly b ut the answer is no. Neither I nor ChatGPT can find examples of Ben being banned from campuses in recent years (i.e. nothing in the 2020s).
Lol "for me" to answer your question. Not sure why I am expected to do your research for you.
Gordan . I should have been more specific . Banned no bit cancelled due to threats , shut down by protestors so they could not speak (and this prevented from alternative viewpoints ) etc . Essentially anyone who advocates to have womans sports be just for biological woman , anyone from Trump Admin or bush admin , anyone who has views that might conflict with climate , trans , DEI policy etc . Are they technically banned ? No ! But the admin at many schools do not treat them the same way they treat others
Pro Israel speaker deported ? Think we need to understand the difference between being here on a visa vs being a citizen . Need to understand that if you are a non citizen violate schools code of conduct or breaks the law you can be sent home . And I am sure if a foreign student who happens to be pro Israel assaulted a Muslim student or broke any school conduct rules would be treated the same
Alan: Don't think the blocking of pro Israel speakers has happened nearly as often as I think you believe. In fact, I think it's almost never. There have definitely been cases where protesters have temporarily disrupted speeches but in virtually all cases the universities have not only not banned pro Israel speakers but have been successful at allowing them to speak. Would encourage you to list counter examples if you think that's incorrect.
As for people being jailed and deported, I don't believe anyone should be jailed or deported for speech and yet that has been happening (and only to folks who have been criticizing Israel).
Sam Fried blocked from Wake Forest talk
Naftali Bennett shut down at Princeton
There are more. Alan is correct that this happens. His point in talking about it has yet to be answered: do you support the freedom of speech of people speaking out in favor of Israel as much as you support it for people who are anti-Israel?
A few points:
- Wake Forest did cancel Sam Fried's talk. But just as they had cancelled the talk of Rabab Abdulhadi earlier.
https://wfuogb.com/26381/news/update-former-idf-soldiers-talk-canceled/
I think they were wrong to cancel both talks, but they were consistent.
- The Naftali Bennett was disrupted by protesters at Princeton. But the University Police not only removed the protesters, Princeton's President condemned the protesters, apologized to Bennett for the disruption, and the university is investigating to determine what disciplinary action is appropriate:
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/04/princeton-news-adpol-eisgruber-sjp-react-accusations-antisemitism-protest
Anyway, the best way to research this is not through ChatGPT. It's by using FIRE's deplatforming database:
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/campus-deplatforming-database
What you'll find, as I said above, is that while there are certainly cases of protesters temporarily disrupting speeches, there are practically no cases in recent years of universities banning pro-Israel speakers or even of speeches being fully cancelled. In fact, in terms of universities revoking invitations to speak, it actually is happening more because of complaints from supporters of Israel than the reverse.
As for your question, of course I believe people speaking out in support of Israel should get all the freedom of speech protections that folks criticizing Israel should get. For two reasons:
1. Most importantly, with almost no exceptions, I'm a strong supporter of everyone receiving freedom of speech protections. If a group on campus wants to invite a speaker, they should be able to do so and the speaker should be heard by those who want to hear them. The universities should enforce this equally for everyone.
2. While I'm highly critical of Netanyahu and Israel's settlements on the West Bank, overall I'm a strong supporter of Israel and believe that almost all of the protesters on college campuses over the last year are ignorant rubes who would benefit greatly from hearing from speakers on both sides of the debate.
Finally, a question for you Kelly. Do you believe that international students should be jailed and deported for criticizing Israel?
Your question to me is phrased as if these folks are being “jailed” at all or deported for speech. I reject both suppositions. Many other people have been critical without these actions being taken against them. The connecting thing is not speech against Israel.
First, The US Supreme Court long ago, in the period 1880-1905 recognized that deportation is not a criminal punishment, it is a civil matter that involves the revocation of a privilege/invitation in the form of a visa. They further ruled that They further ruled that no due process at all is required in such cases, and that courts can not review visa revocations in general. Due process is required prior to “deprivation of life, liberty or property” not a revocation of an invitation to be in the country. They further recognized that detention for as long as is required to complete review processes and a deportation is a natural requirement of such processes that does not constitute an undue deprivation of liberty. They explicitly excepted such detentions from constraints.
In the case of someone charged with a crime and potentially to be deported for that, they required due process, as the crime involves a criminal sentence which is a deprivation of liberty. Crimes require due process and must be proven in a court of law prior to deportation for criminal activity.
The process that has emerged and we are used to and is why everyone thinks there is "due process" is that legally Congress controls this area and by 1950 or so set up the immigration courts. The laws made by Congress do require review by an immigration judge in most cases other than recent crossings. The fact that this is beyond normal judicial review is emphasized by the fact that these courts were determined by Congress to fall in the Executive Branch, are conducted entirely by the AG within the DoJ. Importantly for the next four years in this context, judges are named to 6 month terms by the Attorney General - be ready for a bunch of yes-men and women who agree with this administration to be in these positions.
Certain rights of the Executive are beyond judicial review in this process, but where governed by specific laws requiring interpretation, normal judicial review by the regular court system does apply. Like "is there a predatory incursion" at all that kicks in Executive power under the law, that is reviewable.
But where the law is forgiving or clear, little review will be possible. It will not be judicially reviewable to judge if the Secretary of State's judgment is that someone will hurt foreign policy. Anyone being kicked out under that statute has little chance of redemption beyond convincing Marco Rubio they won't hurt foriegn policy.
If we don't like it, Congress can change that law. But that's the law right now.
The Supreme Court has also specifically allowed banning people for intrinsic beliefs such as Communism. If you get up on a stage and spout communist beliefs for the first time, and then your visa is revoked, you're not being banned for speech, you're being banned for being a communist and the SC has allowed it.
These people aren't being banned for speech, and their speech is not restricted. They can go back on stage tomorrow and spout whatever they want - they all hold press conferences regularly. But they can also be removed from the US for opposing our foreign policy. It has been the foreign policy of both parties to support Israel, so it's the collective foreign policy of the US. My opinions don't matter, the law does and these folks will be judged under the law.
The fact that pro-Israel speakers are not equally removed is because they are aligned with that foreign policy. The very tool to remove the others is because they oppose it, so requiring or discussing balance is nonsensical. We would not remove people for agreeing with our foreign policy for the same reason we do seek to remove others for opposing it.
I don't have a horse here, you and Adam were discussing and I merely pointed out where he was right that there have been cancellation on the right. At which point your goal posts became "recently" while his point had no recency requirement to be valid. I don't care about his main point, but your new evidence supports it: both sides are being blocked. You were citing no evidence of his side, now you admit that it's a two-way street. Congrats to Adam, I guess, but idgaf.