Whether it’s tagging legitimate news stories they disagree with as “fake news” or launching increasingly-violent protests to shut down opposing viewpoints, it’s clear: the left is gearing up their war on free speech.
Like most wars premised on indoctrination, young adults are the ones being overtly radicalized. Protected by tenure, radical leftists seemingly dominate most institutions of higher learning. Once a free marketplace of ideas, today’s academia seems increasingly a modern inquisition against any who challenge the increasingly cult-like radicalism being infused into the minds of college students. According to a recent Gallup survey, a whopping 72% of college students now think the government should ban all “offensive” speech. What they find offensive, of course, is any remark outside of politically-correct liberal orthodoxy. And they protest – riot – for it.
These aren’t your father’s college protests. Today’s mob rule on campus is something new? At California’s Claremont McKenna College, protesters blocked the entrance to a campus building to prevent conservative author Heather MacDonald from speaking. Despite being a well-respected commentator, left-wing radicals justified their anti-intellectual actions by claiming to be preventing “fascism” and “racism” from taking hold in America. Undeterred, MacDonald entered in secret through a back door. When she arrived on stage, however, she found the hall nearly empty–because the mob also refused to let anyone interested in hearing her ideas enter the building.
Dan Backer writing in "The Daily Caller"I never heard about this Heather McDonald, so I did a search and found this sympathetic article about her "controversial" views. It seems she thinks one reason for the increasing crime rate in the USA is the anti police movement fueled by leftists. Here's a segment of an article in The American Conservative
It’s hard to recall the last time a relatively short op-ed received the sort of instant vituperation rained upon Manhattan Institute fellow Heather Mac Donald’s recent piece in the Wall Street Journal. What explains it?
In her piece, Mac Donald parsed recent statistics showing an uptick in urban crime, which are not yet comprehensive but certainly suggest that the 20-year trend of reduced crime is being reversed. Sharp spikes in the homicide rates in Milwaukee and St. Louis, Atlanta and Chicago. The terrifying surge in Baltimore shootings since the riots last April mostly came too late for her overview.
Then she suggested a reason for the rise in crime: “The most plausible explanation of the current surge in lawlessness is the intense agitation against American police departments over the past nine months.
The stats Mac Donald cites are what baseball fans would call a “small sample size,” and it might take several years of data to know conclusively that a crime upsurge is happening. But that can’t quite explain the strong language Mac Donald’s opponents deployed. “More sophistry than science,” opined Yale Law professor Tracey Mearnes. Bernard Harcourt, a Columbia professor, slammedMs. Mac Donald for producing “fiction” designed to “undermine the recent gains of the country’s newest civil rights movement.” Liberal websites linked to these so-called rebuttals again and again, as if terrified that, if left unrefuted, Mac Donald’s arguments would gain irresistible momentum.
Why charges of “sophistry” and “fiction”—rather strong language from academics? The figures Mac Donald gathered were, everyone acknowledged, correct. Perhaps what was troubling was her quotations. One New York City had cop told her, “Any cop who uses his gun now has to worry about being indicted and losing his job and family.” A Milwaukee police chief is quoted as saying he has “never seen anything like” the current hostility towards police.
Or perhaps it was her suggestion that longstanding laws and due process procedures are in danger of being circumvented, to accommodate the new anti-police sensibility. In New York state, for instance, efforts are now underway to create a special prosecutor to put cops on trial when a grand jury doesn’t come forth with an indictment.
The overall result is what the St. Louis police chief called “the Ferguson effect”—cops are essentially retreating to a reactive mode, answering 911 calls and investigating crimes, but not going out of their way to proactively police crime-prone neighborhoods. Police officers simply don’t know how to deal with a dominant media narrative intent on portraying them as a violent blue gang.It seems to me there's no reason to suppress her views or silence her the way university radicals are doing. Thus I have to conclude this censorship culture we see arising in USA campuses is extremely dangerous and will eventually lead the USA towards a communist dictatorship.