http://www.statenews.com Interestingly, Oxford University’s debate society is hosting David Irving, the Holocaust denier, at a forum Monday night along with Nick Griffin, leader of Britain’s far-right British National Party, a radical opponent of all immigration to Britain. en-us Foundry4 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:53:01 -0400 Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:24:04 -0500 webmaster@statenews.com http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6439/view I respect professor Waltzer’s point of view and agree with him that these men are offensive. As someone who used to be a part of YAF for a VERY short time awhile I ago I agree that most of these members are very offensive and close minded. Which was my reason for not wanting to affiliate with a group that used the Republican title as somewhat of a scapegoat for their ignorance and bigotry. Although I have to say that even though we see it as hate speech and 100% offensive. To them, this is their freedom of speech and this is what they believe. While many of us will never share the same view points and see them as breeders of hate, which sometimes they can, this is still a country in which they have every right to do this too. We may disagree with them 100% and hold deep contempt for people who feel this way, the fact of the matter is they do and they have every right to bring someone to speak to them that holds it too. Finally, to hear these speakers you had to go to the event. To say the audience should be protected is a rather foolish statement to make. If anyone in the audience found this speech offensive, do what many of us have done after finding out what these people are about, LEAVE. No one was forced to listen to this and it was people’s choice to go, stay, or leave. The faculity that supported it, along with the students of YAF, and the audience members have every right to have these speakers here. They also have every right to support it. Just as we have every right NOT to support it by not listening. Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:21:59 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6439/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6446/view YAF has never hidden behind the Republican Party. YAF prides itself on not being Republicans, they make that clear. They are conservatives who have a mission to accomplish and a revolution to fight. Before this battle is over the world will know that few stood against many. Unlike in 300, YAF and conservatives will be victorious. Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:04:12 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6446/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6447/view YAF won’t be “victorious,” YAF members will be working in bottom-feeder careers because they’re all a bunch of morons. Political views aside, many of them are idiots that won’t accomplish much in their careers. Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:57:01 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6447/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6449/view “Xavier is an idiot” is a poopy face! and he makes me emote and call people names!!! Thu, 29 Nov 2007 00:10:01 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6449/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6454/view Personally I want to know what, if any, disciplinary action was taken by MSU against those people who very clearly violated the statutes of the state – as well as university rules – in disrupting the Simcox event. My guess would be none – and if I am right – I would not be surprised. Provocation? I will tell Ken Waltzer exactly what provocation is. Provocation is an environment where people are told what they “must” believe on political issues, and that if they disagree, they are a nazi or a fascist. Provocation is forcing all students to take a class, the content of which amounts to nothing more (or less) and left-wing indoctrination (IAH 201, for instance). Provocation is people coming into this country to commit crimes and openly promote “reconquista” when they have absolutely no legal right to be here. Provocation is when the notion the notion of two genders, male and female, is said to be oppressive and to promote hatred and violence. Provocation is the long standing, although unwritten, policy of Michigan State University to embrace liberal voices and suppress conservative voices. Of course, from the point of view of people like Ken Waltzer, conservatives will always be the problem. He has not even stopped to consider that the presence of YAF on campus has caused a wider range of people to learn more about what the First Amendment really means than any political science class. He has not considered that, because of YAF, students have at least had the opportunity to hear from people that the university itself wouldn’t even consider inviting to campus. And as the dean of a college that is notoriously politically active, he hasn’t considered the possibility that YAF has caused people to take a stand on and discuss political issues that they otherwise might not care about (including those who are not JMC students). I suppose if John Conyers (a congressman so unintelligent, crazy, and far left of center that Stalin himself wouldn’t cast a vote in his favor) that would not be “provocation” in the eyes of Ken Waltzer. Anyone suggesting otherwise would probably be investigated by the gestapo in the Office of Inclusion and Thought Policings as well. I am sure one of his ilk wouldn’t even consider people like Michael “I eat” Moore, Hillary Rotten Clinton (her thighness), Barak “not that Hussein” Obama, or any member of the George Soros crime syndicate to be at all polarizing. What a joke! In conclusion, let me say something about those charged with maintaining a society of equal rights. The term “equal rights” cuts both ways. And conservatives, who have been the target of unlawful anti-discrimination policies, speech codes, and similar nonsense, have been deprived of “equal rights” in academia for years. These incidents are well documented by groups like Accuracy in Academia, The Collegiate Network, and The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Perhaps, in the interest of “equal rights”, reparations should be paid to conservatives for the inequality that exists in academia. When that happens we can all hold hands, sing songs, eat fat free yogurt, and cry “Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty, We’re Free at Last.” Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:07:01 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6454/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6468/view Xavier, you sound like YAF is on a crusade (which you believe you are) which is exactly why people find your group frightening. Jason, if someone’s looking to define “provocation” they simply need to read your post. You attack so many groups in the name of defending your views which are apparently under attack. (I’m not sure I agree seeing as neocons like those in YAF currently control the White House and most of the political landscape. Maybe you’re afraid of the political realignment that’s coming in ’08?) And nice job on mocking Dr. King’s quote in your last sentence. Call for equality for conservitism in academia and then mock the embodiment of equal rights in this country. Nice move. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:49:35 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6468/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6469/view Looks to me like YAF’s main complaint is that they feel they are being oppressed when what they really want is to be the oppressors. It’s tough down at the bottom of the swill bucket guys but you drown in what you preach. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:57:50 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6469/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6474/view Everyone who has posted knows that the YAF and College Republicans are not combined group. Too, bad Ken Waltzer is too stupid to know that. And it should also be easy to see that MSU has a goal of liberalizing students by mandatory classes and liberal editorializing professors. Ken Waltzer didn’t stop anarchist and anti-Semite Joe Carr. I think that’s because Joe Carr was brought on campus by a liberal group that is actually allowed the freedom to speak, when conservative groups are not afforded that freedom. Hypocrite, that what Ken Waltzer is, a stupid hypocrite. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:22:26 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6474/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6475/view So according to Prof. Waltzer’s theory, if someone does not like a speaker all they have to do is cause a disturbance and that speaker and/or group that sponsored the speaker should not be allowed to speak or bring speakers to campus any more? Think about how quickly that would end free speech at MSU. YAF has as much right as any other campus group to sponsor and invite guests speakers, if you do not like it don’t go or PEACEFULLY protest outside the event. And Jason, isn’t it time you moved on and found another university to harass. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:24:18 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6475/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6476/view I’m so proud of Jason Van Dyke for telling it the way it is. You detractors just aren’t old enough to remember the country club that was firebombed by 5 little black girls… Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:28:29 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6476/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6479/view You stay classy Jason Van Dyke and YAF. I challenge you to write a sentence supporting your opinions without personally attacking the individual with whom you disagree. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:42:30 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6479/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6480/view JVD – Get over yourself. You rant against provocation then spout off about nazis, gestapo, facists, and Stalin. Read the article again, Waltzer rather articulately defends Allen and Fico. His point is that questions should be asked before conclusions drawn. As for condeming higher education as liberal – tough cookies. Academics have been, in painfully general terms, more liberal than the rest of society since the conception of higher learning. If you don’t like it, just don’t go to school. We wouldn’t want to disturb the ignorant utopia of your mind anyway. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:53:05 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6480/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6487/view “He has not even stopped to consider that the presence of YAF on campus has caused a wider range of people to learn more about what the First Amendment really means than any political science class.” Inviting the KKK or the “God Hates Fags” guy to speak on campus would have the same effect, but I think people already know how the first amendment works. We don’t need hatred spouted in our faces to figure that out. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:33:42 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6487/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6492/view Ah, it was only a matter of time before my worlds of Oxford and MSU unite. The Oxford event was allowed to go forward after a democratic vote. Those who voted in favour of the event were branded as ‘racists’, those against as ‘oppressors of free speech’. Within the Oxford community, however, what we witnessed was a lot of hand wringing in the grand British fashion. “We must know our enemy!” “But he’s a holocaust denier!” “Everybody’s got a right to free speech!” Never once did the conversation arise which led to the statement, “Well, his views are valid, too.” The greatest worry, however, of the Oxford intellectual community is not that anybody would believe and trust what these speakers had to say, rather, that speaking at the world’s greatest debating society in front of the world’s greatest (well, we hope) University would give validity to their statements. Outside of the context of free speech, Griffin could easily say, “The students of Oxford listened to me and my views, and so should you.” No, no we didn’t listen. We had him here because his views represented the most abhorrent of those in the media. There is a strong vein of anti-immigration found within Britain today (in fact, the country is quite conservative and gloriously un-PC), but nobody takes it as far and denies the Holocaust quite like the BNP. We would have hosted a paedophile (under the umbrella of ‘free speech’) if we thought it wouldn’t have resulted in bloodshed. We did it because we didn’t want the ‘right’ to have the stranglehold over free (although this sometimes equates to ‘hate’) speech. We’re the left, dammit, and we’re going to wrestle free speech back from you. And that, you see, is what we did. The far rights in this country will say, “Ha ha! Griffin got to speak!” Yeah, because we lefties voted for it. He spoke so the nation could know its enemy. I’ve been following the YAF stories and remember one of the members saying, “He is a valid speaker, he’s leads the 4th strongest political party in the UK!” The BNP, however, is marginalised to the fringes of the hate: the target audience being the white members of the poor urban blight. Many columnists theorise that their ‘rise’ in polling came not from a rush of people supporting their point of views, but rather from a protest vote. NO! We won’t have Tony Blair! NO! We won’t have a drunken lib dem Scot! No! We won’t have Thatcher’s party! No! We won’t have that slimeball’s UKIP! What is left? That which received the most media attention and did the greatest campaigning – the BNP. They are not ‘popular’, they aren’t ‘populist’, and they certainly are viewed upon with disgust and disdain even from the most conservative of anti-immigration campaigners. Jiggle a turd on a stick and some people will vote for it, do it around election time and it might just become the 4th most popular political party in the nation. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:02:38 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6492/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6495/view Funny, I didn’t realize that audience attendance at these events was mandatory. If you don’t agree with their viewpoints, don’t patronize them and attend. By giving them the attention that they seek, you only help further their cause! Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:25:22 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6495/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6497/view Calling a professor of history and dean of James Madison stupid, is an ignorant statement. Maybe he is wrong about YAF hiding behind the republican banner or maybe he has a different viewpoint from you. Either way, quit spewing your hate. He doesn’t appear to be the only one to connect YAF with Republicans. Why is that so offensive anyway? I would imagine you guys vote almost exclusively for republican candidates. What I don’t understand is YAF’s attempt to create a First Amendment debate through people like Simcox and Griffin. Why not have a First Amendment expert come in and address the issue? Instead, YAF purposely attempts to stir up controversey and portray itself as a victim. The victim of what? Are you complaining that the Universtiy almost didn’t allow your speakers? Or that they may not allow similar speakers in the future? Or that the University didn’t quiet the protestors? Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:32:18 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6497/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6518/view Pete- I can understand why groups of people get very upset and try to shout down speakers such as Griffin and Simcox. I’m not condoning this strategy and its probably counter productive as you point out. However, if you are a target of Griffin or Simcox’s reform policies, you might be upset or scared enough to want to prevent him from spreading that message at all. While I would prefer groups simply ignore Griffin, YAF and the like, their anger and fear of their message is real and legitimate. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:08:26 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6518/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6521/view GPM (if you were, in fact, addressing me) – As I said, know your enemy. How will you know how to change ‘hearts and minds’ if you don’t know the absurdity you are up against? It’s like trying to cure cancer by ignoring it or calling it really bad names. Protest (not violence) is also a right of free speech. How is this offensive? The left need to regain the stronghold over free speech and that, sometimes, means listening to things which might make our ears hurt. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:00:00 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6521/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6527/view some mentally disordered liberal racists (against white people) pulled fired alarms last year at the law school and put hundreds of people in harms way, cost them tuition money b/c of lost class time, and broke the law by pulling the alarm. BUT they are considered tolerant open-minded students by MSU. asses! Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:45:03 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6527/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6531/view Dr. Waltzer, free speech doesn’t come with a civility, sensibility, analyticity, or dispassion requirement. You may be right that YAF speakers don’t add anything to the discussion, but that’s no reason to silence them. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:03:23 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6531/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6532/view No, Amy, they’re in fact considered criminals, just like you said. And, I would bet that they are no longer students here. Furthermore, I highly doubt that anyone would walk into the law school and say “Hmm, there are a lot of white people in here. I don’t like white people, so I’m going to pull the fire alarm because it will cost them tuition money.” That sounds plausible… Furthermore, I find it unlikely that many of you, with probably the exception of Mr. Van Dyke (unless he’s using a pseudonym, which is likely) would be so full of vitriol in a face-to-face setting. If we really want to have some fun, we should arrange such a debate. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:06:35 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6532/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6545/view Professor Waltzer is not the Dean of JMC, Dr. Sherman Garnett is. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:14:23 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6545/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6546/view “He has not even stopped to consider that the presence of YAF on campus has caused a wider range of people to learn more about what the First Amendment really means than any political science class.” That’s like saying that Osama bin Laden caused a wider range of Americans to learn more about radical islam than any college course could have ever done. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:19:54 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6546/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6552/view Bill L: No, I like going after this university because it, more than most others, deserves it. I know better than most. If I were to win the lottery tomorrow (which would be hard since I don’t buy lottery tickets) I would take great personal delight and satisfaction in donating a great deal of money to MSU-YAF for their current and future activities. Why? Because I could care less about the future of MSU itself. The school could disappear in thin air tomorrow and it would make no difference to me. However, I do care about the conservative students who hear great things about the MSU – as I did – only to find that the school is administered and occupied by liberal degenerates. To me, its worth helping them fight back. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:31:17 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6552/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6554/view Nate and J. Edward: A good try – but not entirely on point. Certain speech by the KKK and the “God Hates Fags” idiots is not protected by the First Amendment. And knocking down two towers, I would argue, caused more people to hate radical Islam (for every good reason in the world) than it caused them to learn about. Most only know about suicide bombings (the 9/11 attacks were, essentially, suicide bombings) – they don’t know much about Islamic law and the way that Islamofascists want to force the world to live. A good case to look at is a woman sentenced to 200 lashes, not represented by competent legal counsel, for the “crime” of being in the presence of an unrelated man. Many other Islamic laws are just as bad. The KKK is a bad example because cross burning, except in certain limited contexts (e.g. a rally held on private property) is not protect speech. Burning a cross in front of someones house (in addition to being criminal trespass) is clearly meant for the purpose of unlawful intimidation. A recent court decision also recently ruled against the “God Hates Fags” because what they did at a military funeral amounted to a tort. The situation you have at MSU is a registered student organization using a campus room to invite a speaker to the campus for the purpose of giving a lecture on a political issue. The event can be advertised just like any other event and any other speaker. The organization has the same rights as any other student organization. Nobody is being given any sort of preferential treatment. Nobody is being forced to attend. People who do attend are their on their own free will, and as some have demonstrated this semester, are free to leave at any time. If you know that you will be offended by it – don’t show up. Its that simple. But that isn’t good enough for the campus thought police and it never has been. They want an environment completely devoid of any who would dare offer anything greater than token resistance to their message – and the reason is because it is harder to indoctrinate people without such an environment. So they label the speech as “hate speech” and demand that it be declared unlawful. Or they disrupt the event, knowing cause public safety hazards, and then demand the events be canceled in the name of public safety. Something tells me that Lee June (a damn fool if there ever was one) would have a word other than “complicated” to describe a reverse scenario with YAF members trying to shout down and break up a meeting of MEXA. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:50:27 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6554/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6575/view “A good try – but not entirely on point.” I see sarcasm has failed! Your hat has eaten parts of your brain. Please take it off. But let’s get real, here. Believe it or not, I agree with you, up to a point. The campus Right should be allowed to bring hateful freaks and monsters to campus to speak their mind, just as the left should, and sometimes does. And, as you say, people should either attend or not, but not try and shut it down. No arguments on any of those points from me. That said, MSY YAF is trying to push buttons and get a reaction. And any time you do that, you will encounter resistance. That’s what the leftist radicals found out in the 60’s, before their more responsible members took over the universities. And that’s what the rightward radicals are finding out now. So please stop acting so shocked and offended? This is exactly what you wanted – a fight. And they appear to be giving it to you. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:29:44 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6575/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6576/view coughs that should be MSU YAF. I dunno if MSY has a YAF or not. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:30:45 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6576/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6582/view J. Edward and Jason Van Dyke agreeing? There is a pig flying outside my office window right now. I’m not entirely sure of what the First Amendment implications would be, but it would seem the University would be best served by creating rules or enforcing rules about civility during speakers. No shouting down the speaker, protesting outside is fine. If you don’t follow them, you are escorted out. As long as these rules were implemented even handedly, it would take a lot of the steam out of YAF’s sails. Then again YAF memebers seem to have enough hot air to propel themselves forward for quite some time. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:53:04 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6582/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6603/view Jason Van Dyke = Fail Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:23:43 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6603/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6605/view Ken Waltzer is NOT THE DEAN of James Madison College. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:40:06 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6605/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6613/view First of all, to anyone who wants to comment in disagreement of Dr. Waltzer’s view, please actually read it on its own terms and understand the the argument being made here— some of the previous commentators do not seem to care to do this. To quickly clarify— Dr. Waltzer is not saying that YAF and the College Republicans are the same group, but merely that they have co-sponsored the specific events that he discusses in the letter. No one is advocating the restriction of free speech here, for anyone or any group. However, it seems to me that it is within the University’s purview to accept and address concerns made in good faith from all members of the university community (students, faculty, staff) regarding speech or events on campus that they feel to be threatening, which is the main issue here. I would assume that access to this extends to everyone, not just one group or another. This is certainly not tantamount to restricting anyone’s free speech, nor will it lead to that. I am supportive of PEACEFUL protesting or demonstrating at campus events, and I think that it is extremely unfortunate and unproductive if any such protesting becomes disrespectful, disruptive, or endangers anyone’s safety. To my knowledge, YAF has absolutely no track record for caring about engaging in dissent in this manner, but actively and proudly engages in expressions of dissent that are willfully rude and disrespectful, and intended to rile and disrupt (see Spartan Edge interviews with Kyle Bristow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OigQ8qS9LU) The key question raised by Dr. Waltzer seems to be this one: in sponsoring these speakers, “Are YAF and the College Republicans adding to the dispassionate, analytic discussion of the immigration issue?” No. YAF is not about advancing this kind of discussion, although maybe they’d like to say they are. So what is really going on here, and what is at stake? These are valid questions and concerns. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:45:47 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6613/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6614/view Link Text This is the pertinent link, sorry about that. And by my use of “threatening” above, I do not mean “threatening” to opinions or worldviews, but physically threatening. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:52:03 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6614/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6621/view Nowhere does my post express opposition to free speech. It expresses opposition to people pursuing another strategy and calling it defending free speech. My post was a response to a letter published by Bill Allen and Fred Fico in Sunday’s Lansing State Journal. Nowhere do I call for any other remedy than more free speech — that is, calling things by their proper name. If YAF and/or College Republicans sponsor speeches only or mainly by fascists and exclusionists, then they should be called what they support. If YAF and/or College Republicans bring in multivocal speakers on immigration and sponsor debate of the issue in a thoughtful way, hearing more than a chorus of similar views, then they should be respected as doing something more civic-minded and intelligent. By the way, where are the Republicans who favor people like Guiliani, Huckabee, and others who do not demonize immigrants. No I am not dean of James Madison College— I have no idea how the State News put that in. And no, I do not defend those who disrupt university events. Some of the comments here suggest that some people do not read very carefully. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:45:34 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6621/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6631/view Outside Agitator Jason L. Van Dyke is an commercial litigation attorney and conservative activist who lives and practices in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. He holds a J.D. from Stetson University College of Law and a B.A. from the University of Dallas. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:58:35 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6631/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6635/view Jason Van Dyke’s response to Will reveals the true intent of YAF. At no point does he say he’s commenting because of infringement on First Amendment rights nor does he express concern about immigration. He and YAF only want to expose MSU as a haven for liberals. Well, congratulations!! By bringing in fascist and racist speakers, you have shown MSU to be liberal. Its odd that you are getting so upset about accomplishing your goal. But my question is, do you really think this is the best way to make MSU a safe place for conservatives? Not likely. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:53:33 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6635/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6643/view I especially like the part where Jason tells us “I could care less about the future of MSU itself.” It makes his agenda all that much more noble. Perhaps he’s not seeing enough cases? Either way, good catch, Dr. Waltzer. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:15:42 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6643/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6645/view It’s funny that the University of Dallas has distanced itself from Van Dyke, too—-and he didn’t even have a weapons violation there like he had at MSU. It’s funny how there’s no listing for any attorney, with that name, practicing in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I bet he works at a cell phone store. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:26:21 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6645/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6651/view J. Edward: Fair enough on your last point. I don’t mind a fight. But again, it takes two to fight. But unless some serious criminal act has been committed, I have never heard of MSU-YAF crying for someone to be sanctioned or investigated (except perhaps in obvious sarcasm – which as we have seen is often lost in online conversation). Tim: I agree with you. And just for the record I do not dislike J. Edward. At the very least he is a worthy opponent, which is more than I can say about most who regularly post here. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:41:49 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6651/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6652/view On Dr. Waltzer’s response: The problem I have here is when the Office for Inclusion, Thought Policing, and whatever gets involved in this kind of stuff. If what you say is true, than I completely misinterpreted what you were and were not supporting in your letter and apologize for that. But I really don’t see how you can condone an investigation of a student group by an arm of the university that, at least to some extent, has disciplinary authority over students. I know that it is indirect – but I think I could reasonably speculate that the results of an investigation from that office would go a long way in the disciplinary process at MSU (don’t even get me started on the that subject). Investigations like this – especially ones which are quite obviously based upon frivolous and politically motivated complaints – can and will have a chilling effect on free speech. I think it is very hard to support free speech while stating that it is perfect OK to have campus gestapo stalking the conservatives who dare to exercise their rights. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:48:05 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6652/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6653/view Tim: What if YAF had brought someone like Ann Coluter to campus? Or Robert Spencer for that matter? I do not believe that the response would have been any different. People would have still cried “hate speech” and would have still referred to the speaker as a racist and a fascist – just like they do every time a conservative is brought to campus. Why should YAF care one bit what the politically active minority student organizations and the Young Socialists think about them? So they offended a Young Socialist. Big deal. The very fact that socialists are permitted to live in this country, without having to spend at least one year living in Cuba, North Korea, or China, is offensive to me. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:55:38 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6653/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6655/view Yafista: I don’t feel the need to prove anything to a piece of left wing scum such as yourself, because frankly, I do not care one bit about you. You are worthless. But before you run your mouth next time, try doing a court records search “by attorney” of the Dallas County Court and Dallas District Court records. They are available for free online. And keep in mind that those cases are only my very large ones. I file most cases in Justice Court because it is far quicker and less expensive for my clients. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:02:23 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6655/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6660/view Hey Jason, I hope you’re better at lawyering than you are at boxing because I saw you get your tamale unwrapped by a skinny Mexican kid. If I would have had a camcorder I would have recorded it and sent the footage to MEXA, La Raza, CRU, CLU, Las Conquistas, The College Democrats, The Young Socialists, The Marxist Club, Lee June, and the wait staff at Chinese Country Buffet. Do yourself a favor: quit boxing. What’s the saying in Texas? You’re all hat and no cattle. Hahaha Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:13:38 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6660/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6661/view Atencion all Spartans: Could we all just chip in and get this fat fork a girl friend? How about maybe just a blowup doll? Seriously, I wait over a gotdam week for a callback from a lawyer to whom I’ve paid enough money to put Jason Van Dyke through a real law school, but I can’t stop hearing from this idiot. I will sell some of my WIC coupons and even give up some of my affirmative action scholarship money (that I no doubt stole from Kyle Bristow) to pitch in toward this cause. Any collaborators? Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:24:13 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6661/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6662/view U. Dallas Bans Conservative Student Publication Dan Flynn University of Dallas administrators suspended a student publication on December 13 that had frequently criticized officials at the Catholic institution. Administrators banned the editors of Justice, a conservative student publication, from publishing or distributing the periodical on campus. The stated reasons for banning the student newspaper included the publication’s policy of accepting off-campus donations and its establishment of a non-profit entity. The university also claimed the publication lacked a faculty advisor, which the paper’s editors dispute. “They want to have complete control over us,” Jason Van Dyke, editor of Justice, explained to Campus Report. Father Charles La Tour, UD’s associate dean of students who instituted the ban on Justice, was unavailable for comment. “The purpose was never to shut the paper down,” explained Dean of Students Fred Zucker. “This has nothing to do with content.” The paper, which has come out several times a semester over the past few years, normally featured articles on Catholic issues and questioned the leftward drift of the University administration. Last year, for instance, editor Jason Van Dyke penned an article criticizing the president of the school, Monsignor Milam Joseph, for devoting a homily at a church service to promoting gun control. Other articles discussed speech codes at the University of Dallas and elsewhere, and questioned the school president’s efforts to promote race-based preferences. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:31:21 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6662/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6666/view The Office of Inclusion did not initiate the investigation. The students who filed charges with the Office of Inclusion against MSU YAF initiated the investigation. MSU YAF, MSU College Republicans, and the advisors to both groups are facing very specific charges for very specific violations of MSU anti-discrimination policy. Van Dyke whines daily about “the stalinist left” at MSU, and in the same breath make the fascist argument that no unit of the university has the right to investigate student claims of discrimination. YAF is above reproach, unquestionable and untouchable by university administration even while its very existance as a RSO at MSU is in the hands of university adminstration. What a strange formulation, and false. It is worth noting that the Office of Inclusion has not yet released findings of its investigation. Van Dyke, MSU YAF, and MSU College Republicans are outraged that a university unit had the unintimidated gall to actually INVESTIGATE specific student discrimination complaints. Never mind that the Office of Inclusion could be sued if it REFUSED to investigate student complaints to determine whether or not violations of MSU’s anti-discrimination complaints actually occured. Van Dyke and his ilk are beside themselves about the possiblity of being held accountable for their actions. In their worldview, YAF and Co. have the unfettered right to discrminate, harrass, degrade, or insult anyone or any population on the basis of race, religion, sexuality, or political affiliation. Their right to do these things, in their warped minds, is absolute. Smells like fascism to me. And Van Dyke is almost a thousand miles away. He’s not on campus, doesn’t know what’s going on, and is therefore quite ignorant and should be consistently ignored. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:22:30 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6666/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6667/view Van Dyke didn’t pass the bar; he stopped, entered it, rode the iron bull, was tossed off the iron bull, sang karaoke, did a Nazi salute to the longhorn skull hanging on the wall, took out his MSU YAF membership card and started to cry because he reached his apex at 20 years old. Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:05:01 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6667/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6686/view Most of these posts are not worth responding to. As far as I am concerned, every member of the MSU community can sit and spin. Somehow, “Boxer from Texas” (who is probably not even from Texas) got the idea that I am a boxer. I am not. I never have been. I have never claimed to be. “Lew Rockwell” has no idea that less than two weeks after the ban on my second publication was announced, that it was rescinded. As for “Surprise…”, he clearly doesn’t get my point. I am not saying that legitimate complaints should not be investigated. I am saying complaints that, on their very face, are either politically motivated or designed to abridge the rights of those being investigated should be thrown into the trash heap. Of course, if I had things my way, I would require the Office of Inclusion and Thought Policing to notify all respondents of the names and an address at which the person can be served with process. At the very least, this allows innocent victims of frivolous complaints to immediately sue – and possibly – get a restraining order against both the blabbering idiot and the thought police. Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:00:52 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6686/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6687/view I’m not sure what everyone hopes to accomplish by slinging these childish insults at Jason Van Dyke. He doesn’t care what any of us think of him, so I’m sure he does nothing but smile smugly at posts like those above mine. Surprised- You raise a valid point and expose how YAF twists the truth. Should the Universtiy ignore the complaints of students? It would be interesting to know if YAF filed any complaints against the Salinist left. Care to inform us Jason? Jason- I think its pretty clear that you don’t hate J. Edward, but that doesn’t make it less surprising that he or I agree with you. With respect to the Ann Coulter comment, you are probably right at this point. Maybe a real conversation could have taken place if YAF had brought them in before sponsoring the likes of Simcox and Griffin. But YAF only wanted to create controversy, expose the University and become martyrs. As a result you are being treated for exactly what you are. I imagine anything YAF does from here on out will be met with protests and complaints. You can’t be surprised by any of this; its what YAF wanted. What is sad is that the conversation has degenerated into YAF calling people savages and Socialists while the Left calls you fascists and nazis. No minds have been changed, no beliefs have been challenged. Only hate has been bred. Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:14:56 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6687/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6693/view Jason, I“m a boxer; you’re not. I’m from Texas; you’re not. I’m straight and apparently you’re not. From what I saw, you touched a young Mexican student at UNT in a less than appropriate manner during a demonstration against the MM. Soap and work, right? Dude, you screamed like a school girl. Haha Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:17:02 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6693/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6694/view To the rest of this forum: I have no clue who this “Boxer from Texas” fellow is. But if he is such a tough boxer, I am wondering why he hasn’t come found me and taught me a lesson yet. He sounds like a fruitcake to me. Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:25:36 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6694/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6695/view Screamed like a middle school girl… Hahaha Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:25:56 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6695/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6698/view Why don’t you come find me and prove how big and bad you are you? Or are you just another cowardly left-wing son of a bitch? You’ve publicly declared to this whole forum that you are some big bad boxer and that you live in my vicinity. I am asking you to come find me, bring a camcorder, prove just how big and bad you are, and put the video on YouTube for all to see. If you’re such a big bad man you have absolutely nothing to lose except for your over-inflated ego. I’m not hard to find at all. If you’re so tough, than either come teach the big bad bigot a lesson or admit that you’re a liar and a coward. Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:22:04 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6698/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6699/view The testosterone, it makes the mind reel. Anyway, I’d love it if MSU YAF brought Anne Coulter in. Someone who’s controversial for the wrong reasons, instead of the right ones, would make a nice change. And I’m sure the student body could use a good belly laugh, either because they like her and find what she says to be funny or hate her and find <i>her</i> funny. Sun, 02 Dec 2007 12:43:51 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6699/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6702/view I’m a boxer/athlete; not a fighter. I am generally humble, respectful and non-violent. So, I won’t hunt you down and beat you up. I just found it funny to see a kid half your size—-and I suppose who doesn’t work or use soap—-slap you like a bigoted, redheaded stepchild. So, were you able to press charges before the kid fled to Mx? Hahaha Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:36:58 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6702/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6703/view Boxer from Texas : Like I said, you are either a liar or a coward. My guess would be both. You are obviously a liar because you can’t even state the date, time, place or occasion when this all supposedly happened. You are also a coward because you talk trash and then refuse to back up what you say. So there we have it. I am calling you a liar and a coward. You can try to prove otherwise if you wish, but I think we both know that’s not going to happen. Sun, 02 Dec 2007 14:55:10 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6703/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6718/view Jason, I was with the students protesting the Minute Man rally at UNT. Although I’m a Buddhist and absolutely abhor violence, I must admit that I I was kind of glad the kid socked you. You were pretty offensive in your comments directed at the Chicano students. I just have one question: If you hate Mexicans so much, why’d you move to Texas? Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:53:42 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6718/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6766/view “What is sad is that the conversation has degenerated into YAF calling people savages and Socialists while the Left calls you fascists and nazis. No minds have been changed, no beliefs have been challenged. Only hate has been bred.” Good point, Tim. Engaging in this type of “conversation” is precisely the problem—this applies to everyone who chooses to do so, it undermines your credibility. Jason Van Dyke: “I am saying complaints that, on their very face, are either politically motivated or designed to abridge the rights of those being investigated should be thrown into the trash heap.” “Politically motivated”? What a smokescreen— it sounds so suspect, but a moment of thought reveals its emptiness— how Orwellian. Again I’ll reference Tim’s voice of reason: “At no point does he say he’s commenting because of infringement on First Amendment rights nor does he express concern about immigration.” The investigation was initiated by students who felt their rights had been violated under MSU’s anti-discrimination policy—not seeking to “abridge” YAF’s “rights,” undefined by Jason Van Dyke. Mon, 03 Dec 2007 11:10:00 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6766/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6803/view I was not at the UNT Minuteman Rally. I didn’t even know that the Mintuemen were coming to UNT or else I would have gone. I know that they had one around this time last year, but I was still living in Florida at the time. I was not present for their “Catch an Illegal Immigrant” game either, and again, did not even know they had one until I did a google search (just now) for the event to try to figure out what they heck some of the people here were talking about. My assistance has never been requested from those involved in the conservative movement at UNT and I am not involved with or affiliated with them. My understanding is that they are part of a group called “Young Conservatives of Texas” and are not part of YAF. I was affiliated with YCT a long time ago, but have not had any contact with them since late 2002. As for Mexicans, the notion that I hate or dislike Mexicans is an absolute lie. I dislike illegal immigrants of any national origin because I think they should follow our laws. I resent the fact that activist groups, most of them Hispanic, feel they have an absolute right to break our laws. Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:20:24 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6803/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6804/view Jasmine: An article published by The State News specifically states that at least one of these complaints was filed by Doug Schraufnagle, a person that the article states clearly is a member of Young Democratic Socialists. I found it interesting that the State News decided to mention that when considering that The Sharon Statement (YAF’s statement of principles) specifically stresses victory over rather than co-existence with communism. When a members of two political organizations are rivals based upon their adopted statements of principle, such complaints should arouse suspicion. Furthermore, based upon the descriptions of the letters I read, assuming that The State News described the complaints accurately, I can state with relatively certainty that the complaints are invalid on their face. At the end of the MSU Anti-Discrimination policy it specifically states that nothing contained in the policy is to be construed as a denial of First Amendment rights. The complaints were for the act of holding the Simcox speech and bringing Simcox as a speaker to campus as far as I can tell. To engage in “content-based” discrimination based upon what Simcox said during his speech would very clearly abridge the First Amendment Rights of both the CRs and YAF, and therefore, the complaint should have been dismissed as invalid on its face with no further investigation. Period. Instead of investigating complaints that are clearly without merit, the Office of Inclusion and Thought Policing should request that the complainants take a course on the first amendment next semester. Abundantly clear is that either (a) the Office of Inclusion and Thought Policing doesn’t understand the First Amendment; or (b) the complainants do not understand the anti-discrimination policy. Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:34:40 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6804/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6821/view Duh. MSU cannot dismiss an individual’s complaint of discrimination because said individual belongs to a particular student organization. That, my lawyer friend, is called discrimination. For example, if a Jewish who belongs to Hillel student complains of discrmination by the Muslim Students Association, that Jewish student’s complaint cannot be dismissed just because she belongs to Hilllel. That would be a clear case of discrimination, as no one would look into the students’ complaint because she belongs to a particular student organization. Do you really practice law? Further, Doug Shraufnagle is NOT listed as a complaintant. You can easily verify this by asking your fellow YAF-ers here at MSU for a copy of the complaint. The State News article was wrong, as hard as that might be to believe. Also, the students listed on the complaint have not spoken publically as to not interfere with the investigation. This has required great discipline, considering this low-level media assault by YAF and MSU College Republicans and their advisors. Many students, from many different backgrounds and student organizations filed individual complaints, but you don’t know this because you are not involved in this investigative process. Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:54:49 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6821/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6841/view “Office of Inclusion and Thought Policing” That’s clever. Like “Micro$oft” and such. Good job! Tue, 04 Dec 2007 10:45:45 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6841/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6908/view I am not saying a complaint should be dismissed based upon student organization membership – I am saying that it is one of many things to be considered in determining whether the complaint, on its face, has any merit whatsoever. I could continue to argue this point, but ultimately, it is irrelevant. What I know of the complaints is that either all or most of them arose because of the Simcox event. I do not think that point has been the subject of any serious dispute. Furthermore, it is my understanding that The Office of Inclusion and Thought Policing does not have the authority do “make” discrimination policy. Their job to to look at alleged conduct and decide whether, in their unprofessional opinion, the conduct violates the written anti-discrimination policy. The anti-discrimination policy is available for any member of the public to read online and it very specifically states that the “[t]hese prohibitions are not intended to abridge University community members’ rights of free expression or other civil rights.” So you look at the conduct. Was the action discriminatory? No. Even if offensive, the acts cannot be considered discriminatory because they were not closed, at least not by those against whom complaints were filed, specifically to members of specific protected groups. All were welcome to stay and remain so long as they did not act like savages or commit crimes. Those who acted like savages and committed crimes were forcibly removed and should not be permitted to complain about being removed for blatantly and openly violating state law and school policy. Next you look at harassment. Is the conduct harassing? I don’t think it can be. Those who were present were there on their own free will and free to leave at any time. Nobody pursued them and they were not at all compelled to attend and remain except by their own choice. Therefore, the complaint fails because there was no harassment and no discrimination. Then you look at the defenses. The policy itself specifically states that it is not intended to abridge free expression or other civil rights. So, they look at whether the conduct complained of is protected free expression or protected by some other civil right. The very clear answer is yes. Once again, the complaint fails because based upon that clause the policy could not have been violated. When a complaint is read carefully and considered and a reasonable person is able to make a determination that nothing occurred in violation of school policy, the complaints should be dismissed without further investigation. In law, we have something similar called “summary judgment” – which occurs when the facts of a particular civil case are not subject to any serious dispute and what remains is a question of law. About 95% of my practice is contracts in commercial litigation. Unless someone were to dispute the existence of, validity, or enforceability of a contract, I would generally be entitled to a summary judgment. That is, essentially, what I think is happening here. I do not think the events of the Simcox event are the subject of any serious dispute. Most of what occurred was caught on videotape anyway. The question is simply whether they violated a school policy and I think that the answer is, quite clearly, no. The school should find accordingly and end an investigation which should not have occurred in the first place. Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:33:58 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6908/view http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6948/view Jason, 95% of your practice involves writing comments on The State News and YAF Watch. The other 5% is spent cruising middle schools for a girlfriend. Get a life, dude. Wed, 05 Dec 2007 09:24:04 -0500 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/6948/view