Dan Riehl has the story of some Virginia legislators who are putting pressure on four Virginia radio stations to drop libertarian talk-show host Neal Boortz’s show over comments he made in the wake of the VT shootings (Boortz attributed the fact that students didn’t fight back to the “wussification of America,” which he blamed on the left-wing nannystate).
The radio stations reported that they received very little in the way of listener complaint. Which means that if the market won’t stifle speech critical of “progressive” social policy, it’s up to the progressives in government to step in and apply pressure.
Of course, applying pressure—as with the case of Democratic Sens. Salazar and Menendez over the Burns PBS WWII documentary—doesn’t rise to the level of official First Amendment breach (after all, no “law” has been passed to shut Boortz up), but it certainly straddles that line. In the case of PBS, Senator Salazar, you’ll remember—after wringing out some PC concessions—has promised to keep a “watchful eye” on the public broadcaster, as well as have a word with the outfit’s president.
Which is the kind of Orwellian pronouncement “progressives” are always sussing out of remarks from the Bushies, using the kinds of “close reading” techniques that give rise to all sort of paranoid conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, they casually ignore the obvious instances of Big Brother asserting power over free expression, presumably because it’s being done to shore up the power of identity politics—which is a necessary structural plank in any progressive ship of state.
I was critical of Condi Rice when she noted that Don Imus should be fired for his remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team—not because she isn’t entitled to her opinion, but rather because powerful people in the government, when they make such decrees, have undue influence, and their remarks can be seen as having a chilling effect on free speech. I was equally critically of Ari Fleischer for his remarks aimed at Bill Maher, who shortly after 911 noted that the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers weren’t cowards—particularly when judged against the metric of lobbing missiles at Aspirin factories.
In this case in Virginia, the legislators are operating in an official capacity, affording their calls for Boortz’s show to be dropped the imprimatur of their elected offices.
This is not, technically, censorship, as Riehl argues. But as with the Salazar / Menendez gambit, it certainly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitutional Right to free speech.
As I am sure Del. Shuler already does….right?
The good news is that Neal is just the sort to tell these schmucks to feck off.
I am a Virginia Tech professor and a Blacksburg resident. Boortz is, of course, free to use the fresh blood or our students and faculty to make his political points and increase the profits of radio network. Jeff is, of course, free to suggest that by getting yourself elected to a part time position as a state legislator you forfeit the right to suggest to local radio stations (over which you have no legal control) that they would be better off not employing someone who had the bad taste to call 32 dead people cowards before their bodies had a chance to cool.
Do they mention anywhere that first thing the next morning Boortz apologized for letting his anger get the better of him? He stood by the gist of his remarks, but said while listening to tapes of the show afterwards he realized he had gone too far and was embarassed by his lose of composure.
The firing of Imus made media figures fair game for this sort of thing. Tenured authoritarians like Bob_R are not going to be at all eager to put that toothpaste back in the tube.
I imagine he quite generously donates part of each Virginia taxpayer’s salary to it. His own? Probably not so much.
In other words, there’s some free speech they don’t support. Not speech that’s libelous, or treasonous, but speech that’s merely an expression of opinion.
This kind of crap is one reason I trust the left less on free speech than I do the right. I know the religious right (for example) won’t make much ground on its censorship crusades, but the left can, primarily because so few people are outraged by their attempts.
Legislators scare me. Once in office, it is as natural as the sun rising for them to over reach. That is precisely why I value gridlock and obstruction, it minimizes the damages these tools can inflict on us.
I love how willing these clowns are to spend somebody else’s paycheck, and the disdain our tenured professor has for profits and the free market.
Stevens is a radio station manager, not a politician. It is his job to decide what speech he will pay for and broadcast. The way Reihl places the quote makes it seem like it comes from one of the legislators. I’m sure this was unintentional on his part.
Wow. That’s some pretty fast reporting. Or did you mean all the way down to ambient temperature?
Being that Bob_R is a Virginia Tech professor and a Blacksburg resident, perhaps he shouldn’t indulge in rhetoric about Boortz somehow “using the fresh blood of our students and faculty to make his political points and increase the profits of radio network” when such simply hasn’t happened and is surely not the point.
Libertarians (and pre “wussification” Americans, for that matter) are, of course,
freeall but obligated to demand of those elected to a part time positions as state legislators that they have the good sense and simple damn maturity not to presume to suggest to private industry (over which they have way too much political control already) what it must or must not say.Bob_R should also know that implying that anyone’s calling 32 dead people cowards “before their bodies had a chance to cool” in order to make points for what always had been basic and essential rights is meaningless nonsense befitting, as has been said, typically a tenured authoritarian.
Boortz is absolutely correct questioning why Tech students didn’t/couldn’t fight back, that being the entire underlying point of the Second Amendment. In short, Bob_R, nannyism costs lives.
I think the issue with Stevens is that he got only one complaint, and a vague one at that. Then the politicians write and now he is ready to pull the plug. Of course, if his employer is OK with that basis for making a commercial decision, fine. Not much of a market force type action there, however.
With ya. When I hear people complain about gridlock in congress, I just say bring it on!
Yeah; I’d rather they spent their time having fistfights amongst themselves or visiting prostitutes than passing more laws…
I suppose the Market should not be allowed to speak, either. That’s us, of course.
[Major John beat me to it.]
Virginia Tech’s job is to decide who is ideologically sound and pay and tenure them to indoctrinate students in the art of properly policing the “bad taste” encountered in the free speech of others.
I really believe that the concept of a free market does not compute for these folks. The market exists solely as a nebulous entity to be regulated, and manipulated. Just look at how it has become the standard school of thought that profits at Merck are bad, Travelers is making too much money, or the evil oil companies dare to turn a profit.
I’m disinclined to be too hard on Bob R. Speaking ill of the dead, even if it makes a valid point is always a touchy thing. Boortz likes to tout his “insensitive” image, but you can take that kind of thing too far. Not that I think he ought to be censored, but respect for a decent mourning period is never a bad call.
Where did I say they forfeited their right?
I called for them to use discretion, because using their office gives their criticisms the imprimatur of government.
Why not just write as ordinary citizens and make a complaint?
I haven’t said one way or the other whether I believed what Boortz said is correct, in good taste, or deserving of scorn. What I’ve argued, instead, is that it is his right to say it—and that putting pressure on the station managers under the auspices of an elective office is a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.
If I’m wrong on the argument, feel free to correct me, Bob_R. But I don’t intend to get into a moral debate that centers around who can gin up the most emotional outrage.
Because that’s not the point of this post. In fact, the point is the exact opposite: that we shouldn’t be allowing our emotional outrage to convince us of the righteousness of violating one of our most important rights, however carefully and obliquely those violations manage to skirt the letter of the law.
It was a sunny day in April, and as the bodies lay cooling, Bob_R marveled at all the lives that the gun-free zone had sheltered from the killer’s depredations.
I guess we’ll just mark Bob_R down as a ‘for’ in the Stifling of Dissent column.
I should say, too, that I agree with Farmer Joe that we shouldn’t be too hard on Bob_R. I think he’s wrong in his assessment, but I can certainly understand why he would list that way on this particular topic.
Still, it is of the utmost importance that we not allow emotional reactions to poor taste chill free speech. Because the potential for a slippery slope looms quite large—and in fact, with hate crime legislation, and “tolerance” dicta, and “free speech zones,” and “sensitivity training,” and the broadening definition for what constitutes sexual harassment, etc., we have set the stage for a walking back of free speech rights.
And you’re hearing more and more, “I respect free speech, but”—which is generally followed by an instance where the speaker does not, in fact, respect free speech, but is instead convinced that this particular utterance was so offensive that surely free speech wouldn’t mind being distanced from it.
Very dangerous stuff. But from a certain perspective, quite predictable.
Farmer Joe (11:00 AM):
Well said. I agree with Jeff on this one, but in Bob_R’s shoes, I’d be pretty pissed at Boortz myself. Maybe enough to be pleased by calls for his firing.
For the record I’m untenured and most definitely ideologically unsound. This isn’t about ideology anyway. I for one got damned sick of people, on any side, reacting to the massacre by saying, “You see? This just goes to prove what I’ve been saying all along….” It’s a dick move even if you have a point.
As the opprobrium grew, it passed unnoticed that the loquacious happyfeet had fallen silent.
Boortz has said alot of stupid shit in the past. Like, when Air America was still broadcasting he used to encourage his listeners to listem to them when he was off the air, and even donate money to their pledge drives, because he said, get this lol, that if Air America went off the air the Democrats would then go after all talk radio and try to get it off the air!
ROLFOFORLLOLOL!!111!!!!!!!
Well, this is a toughie. I’m somewhat unimpressed over concerns of a slippery slope. Tabloid publications, the Springer show, ‘Piss Christ’ and any rant by Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are some examples of tasteless, poorly created, and at times vicious, forms of expression. While some commentators criticize it, none of these are in any danger, in at least the near term, of being driven underground.
And yet, Jeff has cited excellent examples where some other celebrities, politicians and Academics have been pilloried and suffered tangible harm.
It’s confusing. I would be very curious as to what Bob_R thinks about his colleagues at Duke who encouraged people calling for the castration of their own students. Does he agree with these sentiments? If so, is he in favor of Legislators arriving on campus and delivering a list of professors who need to be fired or disciplined?
I agree. Can’t we disagree with the guy without the bile we usually save for alphie, et.al.?
(at least until he really pisses us off)
As calls for sensitivity rose in number, it passed unheeded that some continued to claim that nannyism still costs human lives…
Great. Then you should be familiar with the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”.
Who is more to blame, Boortz, who made a stupid statement that he immediately apologized for, or the Networks, who milked every bit of the tragedy for ratings? Or how about the gun control groups, some of whom put out press releases the same day, demanding more gun control?
Jeff was pretty clear about the reasons their intervention was inappropriate. Namely, they used their office to add weight to the issue, which, considering there had only been one prior complaint, can be the only reason the issue got traction. At what point does a legislator go from private citizen to agent of the goverment? And how are we to distinguish?
Boortz’s entire point is that they were not acting like cowards, because society has essentially bred aggresiveness out of people and encouraged them to be compliant. They were acting as they were taught.
I don’t particularly agree with him, but nobody listens to me anyway.
How many state legislators castigated media outlets for calling for stricter gun control measures the same day as the shootings? I will acknowledge that Bob R may be given some quarter due to his involvement, but he needs to recognize the politicization began immediately, and it wasn’t the wingers who started it. Personally I am tired as hell of the progressives repeatedly getting away with this stunt.
Related, from How HHS Bullies North Dakota Citizens:
Is the question of abuse of office only pertinent when real damage has occured as the result, thereby establishing another form of relativity, probably tied to, in this case, the sheer weight of the influence of the offending agency/official?
Or in Boortz’s case, is the slippery slope already well in play? I suspect the answer lies in the simple fact the Constitution does not enumerate which such offenses are permissible and which are not.
Ever heard one of them react to the phrase “marketplace of ideas”? I’ve heard some interesting—contemptuous—reactions to the very idea.
It’s like the very word pisses them off.
A lot of comments since I checked in, I’ll start with a summary. I think that Boortz comments are an order of magnitude worse than the Va Delegates. Jeff may be right about the existence of a slippery slope, but we are in a pretty damned flat part of it with most government officials he criticizes.
My basic problem with Boortz is that while I agree with many of the general points he made, he is completely off base when trying to apply these points to Virginia Tech and went even further off the rails by basing a number of his comments on erroneous reports that came out of the fog on Monday. And of course, the commenters here are doing the same thing – trying to shoehorn VT and Southwest Virginia into a rigid little narrative about liberal academia even though the fit is so bad.
Virginia Tech historically is an engineering/ag school with a strong military component. (Membership in the Corp of Cadets was mandatory until the 50s and is still very visible on campus.) There is a strong military flavor of the faculty with many second-career military in engineering. We have great hunting around here, and gun ownership within the faculty is relatively high. Despite that, I would guess that handgun ownership is relatively low. This is simply a very safe place. The crime rate is extremely low, and probably still is with the shooting averaged in. I had a colleague complain a few years ago that is was a shame that people had started locking their cars because you couldn’t turn people’s lights out when they forgot. A lot has been made about the “gun – free” rule. In principle, I agree. But I’ve asked other members of the faculty, and none of us can remember when this rule passed. The fact is that I don’t know of anyone who kept a gun on campus before the rule – it is like they passed a rule prohibiting serving haggis for lunch. No one noticed. There is simply so little violence and crime here that almost everyone judged the inherent risks of carrying a gun as worse than the benefits.
People in SW-VA took comments like Boortz’(and Styne’s and Derbyshire’s) personally. (I’ll bet that is the source of Steven’s reaction, not the letter from Schuler.) These were untrained, unseasoned, victims of a ten minute surprise attack in which Cho averaged 15 shots a minute. The implication that they were “wusses” because they (with varying degrees of success) barricaded their doors rather than having organized a counterattack is a vile insult. The delegates suggestion was not that he be fired, but that Virginia stations boycott his product. Maybe it’s bad style coming from a state legislator, but I still believe Boortz’ speech more worthy of criticism of than the legislators.
As far as the idea that my status as a “tenured authoritarian†renders my comments invalid… Well, tenure is nice – well worth having it thrown at you as an insult. As for “Authoritarian†I’m a mathematician, so in my discipline appeal to authority doesn’t count for much. The only authority that I’m claiming here is that of local knowledge. I’ve lived in Blacksburg and taught at VT for almost 20 years. I know the University, its students, faculty and administration pretty well. I know the local area and its politics. I know the layout in Norris, where I have taught. I watched the police reaction to the attack from my office two buildings away. The ambulances waited below my window. I saw wounded people running out, body bags carried out. I don’t see how I was trying to pull rank in my previous comments.
And you have done an admirable job of critiquing them. But you must recognize the difference in rebutting and silencing?
I haven’t seen anyone do that. I personally feel it is a much wider ranging problem with roots in pre-high school education. Basically boys aren’t allowed to be boys anymore.
The point is that you have coverage for what you write and say that other people do not. The example I cited of 88 Duke professors encouraging protesters calling for physical mutilation comes to mind. How many professors are complaining that these 88 hide behind tenure? Most of the peasantry can’t get way with such things. Tenured professors enjoy a level of immunity that this radio host, and most of us do not.
Please compare and contrast the events that transpired at VT and the subsequent comments from this radio host with the events that took place in NY on 9/11/2001,which was followed by references to “little Eichmanns” made by Prof. Ward Churchill. Then, compare and contrast the reaction of the media, those personally or tangentially involved in both horrific events, policy makers (acting in an official capacity) and free speech advocates.
For extra credit, please pay attention to the reactions of Academia.
Was anybody saying they weren’t?
And most of us disagree. But the fact remains that nobody was even considering removing Boortz from the air until the legislators got involved.
IOW, do you think that if four other individuals had written, it would have had the same effect? Of course not.
How can you possibly say that? What evidence do you have?
Most rural area with high gun ownership rates have low crime rates. I wonder why?
Professor, that is why it is called concealed carry. You don’t know who is armed and who isn’t. That way the entire population benefits from the actions of a few. The town I live in has an incredible high rate of concealed carry, and I’ve never seen a handgun carried in public.
Frankly, I’m not even sure of your point. But it is getting away from the free speech issue.
Hmmmmm…. What units are comments measured in?
I want to live in a country were people are ashamed not to fight back.
For having such a great modern standard of living, we sure seem to Go Gently Into That Good Night.
Pacifism in the face of slaughter shouldn’t be applauded. It must be condemned or we get more slaughter.
Bob_R, I think you’ll find most anti-authoritarian types quite fair, as naturally testy about advancing PC shenanigans in the public sector as they may be. Add to that the fact that PC academia is so consistently questionable in its theories and methods and you’ll understand this pattern of attitude you may see emerging.
I think it’s deserved. Then you yourself led off miscasting Jeff, threw in a little rather fanciful rhetoric, and summed up with what amounts to a fairly nasty slander.
Mewling about a remark on the radio and then attempting to censor it from within government is entirely possibly part of the thinking that prepared an opportunity for 32 to die, and why more will, one day, also likely die.
Therefore the issue immmediately flows from a mistaken sense of what’s proper speech and what’s not (and who gets to make that call and by what measure) into the cause for the deaths of a great number of innocent people.
Public sector attempts at censorship don’t only point to useless officials, they point to a constituency that has simply forgotten its rights and obligations, and from there to one that’s tacitly elected to allow some to die needlessly and terribly for it’s failed idealism.
The final cold fact is that had certain influential elements in this odd political culture of ours the integrity to face the human condition, they’d realize that only deadly force stops deadly force and that removing that option, as the VAT culture attempted, damn likely therefore achieved the opposite.
Cho had the cognition to not select a police academy, a gun shop, or a NRA meet. Meanwhile signs and policies intended for law abiders proudly hail shooting-free zones by somehow outlawing firearms among anticipated criminals.
And still this blindingly obvious reality doesn’t dawn on folks. Rather, let’s ostracize the commenters because they make us uncomfortable. And let’s spout our historically failed PC mores and their policies all over again because they comfort us. All over again. Lovely.
It’s a chill wind blowing . . . but it doesn’t bother Bob_R or me becuase it’s blowing in the direction we approve.
Boortz I find a bore, but on this point, not too far off topic. Given his quick apology, it is fairly obvious that he would address it at a different time.
The legislators, I despise. Their use of their elected office in an attempt to coerce the media should be repulsive to all. It is simply another example of feel good politicians attempting to chip more away from the 1st Amendment. The ironic part is that this type of political speech is exactly the type of speech this Amendment was designed to protect.
Agree. Disagree. It does not matter. However, legislators have no fucking business messing around with it. The mere fact that we must discuss this is evidence enough of how far we have moved from basic foundational principles.
Let’s look at this a different way. Assume that, instead of 4 legislators, 4 local businessmen wrote that letter. Let’s also assume that these businessmen are also the 4 largest advertisers for the show.
If they wrote a letter asking for the show to be removed, while specifically stating that they are only writing as private citizens, and not as representatives of those businesses, do you think it would make a difference with the station manager? Hell no. Because human nature being what it is, it would be impossible for the manager to separate the man from the business.
Just throwing this out there, since we’re talking about free speech.
Imus is going to make bank in the lawsuit. I suspect ultimately he comes out ahead in damages and somebody hires him- 2-3 year deal just to see Imus do his last hurrah. Interestingly, its going to be a breach of contract case (which it should be) versus a constitutional case.
I do hope he takes his settlement check and jams it up Al Sharpton’s racebaiting ass.
I am but a humble database manager in the Midwest. I do not own a gun. I hate goverment types who want ot regulate speech (a la McCain-Feingold). I despise academics, usually because they are divorced from reality and spit upon humble database managers like me. This apepars to be no exception, wherein he want to control speech because he finds it offensive.
Sorry. But you are not the boss of me. Do something real ith your life.
Some responses –
To Jeff – Yes, I’d agree that writing as private citizens would be best. And if there is any actual coercion it would be inexcusable. (It would be interesting to see the actual letter. It is not included in the RT article.) But it seems to me that a boycott is an appropriate response within the spirit of the first amendment to someone who has used a commercial product (a radio show) to defame a group.
To BlueHen – The only good thing about the Duke 88 is that the mathematician in the group realized what a mistake he had made, retracted and apologized. Too bad he was the only one.
To TomB – The second amendment issue has been brought up in other places in regard to VT’s “wussiness” (and JHoward mentioned it at 10:34 above). As for how I got my knowledge, yes it is anecdotal. But I like venison, know a lot of hunters, and have admired a lot of gun cabinets. I know of more people in New Jersey (where I grew up) who have illegal hand guns than people in SW-VA who have legal ones. Not conclusive, but a good basis for a guess. I agree that people would be unlikely to reveal they were carrying concealed on campus or (much more likely) had a gun in their desk. But there was absolutely no outcry when this rule was adopted. That’s not the way academics usually operate. My guess is that almost no one had a gun stored on campus. (And again, we have a lot of hunters and ex military guys on the faculty who I expect would want to keep a weapon handy if this were Temple or Columbia. I know I would.)
To JHoward – In the first sentence of your last post you say that anti-authoritarian types are pretty fair. Then you go on to exhibit exactly the type of unfairness that has been setting me off since 4/16. You type a paragraph that could have been lifted from any one of a hundred comments you have made over the past several years that I have been reading Jeff’s blog. Colleges and Universities are just one uniform PC mass to you. Makes it nice. You don’t actually have to learn the local situation. Don’t have to check on any detail. Just put the word processor on autopilot. What’s worse, I agree that the problems you are worried about are real and important. They just don’t apply in every situation. Frankly, your assumption that you know the situation at VT and that you have figured out my politics on so little information does not speak well of you.
Bob R – Most around here simply object to legislators and the government attempting to regulate, stifle, control, allow, legislate, or otherwise insinuate themselves into a constitutionally protected right.
Now, if these legislators had approached this in their capacities as roofers, small business owners, advertisers, etc … it would not have even warranted a blog post. Acting under the cover of their elected offices makes their actions highly objectionable.
I think boycotting media is a very sound general principle. More, please.
Bob_R, there’s more than a few ways to answer your charge. From my not being in any place—despite paying taxes and abiding the law continuously for thirty-two years—to influence the bullshit, predominately leftist policies that have forever impacted my private life and those of very many around me on the one hand, to the very global theory expressed by looney American PC among pop media and most education on the other, and everything in between.
You can take that anti-authoritarian, anti-PC, anti-oppressive, anti-statist, anti-revisionist view and you can distill it down as either more than adequate personal experience or you can distill it down to the fundamental error of PC’s initial reasoning, but you cannot debunk it by either perspective. And you have not.
PC is the constant erosion of valid, conservable, and proven principles. PC is like rust; it decays. It’s a moral and intellectual parasite. To a great degree it’s these things because PC is the new religion of the lie, of sloth, envy, theft, oppression, sexism, racism, and all the rest of the ills its practicioners routinely prance around claiming to repair.
Which brings us to VT and to free speech and if and how society failed on that day.
I understand that you like venison, know hunters, and have admired gun cabinetry. But it’s still not clear why you started off this thread like you did. It’s not clear why you may not know how or if to connect the profile of your substantially conservative, moral, self-sufficient, responsible, legally upstanding stomping grounds to whether anyone there carries personal protection—isn’t it reasonable to suggest that on that day they did not?
Why?
Again, this particular issue starts with government desiring the censorship of this fundamental question and it ends with the lives that PC may have taken and will continue to place at risk. Somehow my pointing out that cancer of thought and reason angers you because I don’t take the time to fisk the complete lie of PC in sufficient prior detail to earn your satisfaction?
Wouldn’t that be like pushing water uphill? Conversely, when shall I suggest that the Left’s assumers should be required (by law?) to first demonstrate the physical success of every last of their feel-good policies prior to enacting them as the laws that will so permanently affect others?! Why exactly must the anti-authoritarian always precede his claims with proofs of the negative effects of authoritarianism but never the reverse?
But fair enough, Bob_R. At such point as you want to line up all the parameters for proper discourse, for proper reasoning, and then neatly file away all the causes, effects, and utter, lethal failure of what is no longer the set of innocent political views once called liberalism, you let me know. I’ll keep my big mouth shut and stop stereotyping what gives every last appearance of being the great majority of the press and academia.
I would like to propose “group-building activities” as a next step in the healing that this thread is tentatively moving towards.
Allllrighty then. To get started what we need to do is everyone switch nametags with the man or woman to your right. YOUR right JHoward, yes… very very good.
This is gonna be so great.
Dear Bob_R,
I was with my son, a fairly recent VA Tech graduate, when we heard the first news about the massacre. He was devastated.
We were travelling from the West Coast all day and at each stop the news got worse. When I tried to lighten the mood with a quip, he reacted as you did: angrily. This was a devastating attack on the Hokie Nation. To him and all members of that group only grief and respectful silence is allowed.
So I understand your anger, which is reflected in the heated and loaded rhetoric you employ. Some of those adjectives don’t belong in a mathematical proof, but they are part and parcel of an outraged editorial.
Some of your comments reminded me of an article I read recently about The Toledo Blade’s Dan Simpson and his recipe for disarming America. He begins by pointing out that he is not a liberal zealot:
He then proceeds to prescribe literal police state tactics to confiscate guns, place them in museums under armed 24/7 guard and prison plus fines for anyone who has a gun.
So Bob_R I’m sure you are a wonderful man, devastated by the Tech massacre and as a mathematician averaged out all the killings, including Cho’s, and maintain that – on average – Tech is a safe place. Do you realize how really, really insensitive and undivorced from reality that is? That has the moral component of those who pointed out that the 3000 that died on 9/11 were not a big deal because many more die on our highways every year!
That is offensive. But it also reveals something about your mindset. You have no problem with the Tech policy of the campus being a gun-free zone. And as you point out, none of your colleagues did either. Or, the few who may have, knew enough about their colleagues that they kept their mouths shut. After all, who wants to be the one to stand up and say: “I have a gun in my briefcase†and be considered some sort of a gun nut? How would that go in a faculty meeting?
So Bob_R, does the ridiculousness of declaring VA Tech a “gun free zone†penetrate? Was it really? Can it ever be? Our governor issued an executive order making mental disorders part of the background data base that gun shops search before selling a gun. So the next Cho may not have a history of mental illness. Great job of locking that barn door.
A final question: do you support the Tech policy that guarantees that the next person who wants to kill as many members of the Hokie Nation as he can will be sure that his victims are unarmed, defenseless sheep?
This is it?
88 professors get away with calls for mutilation and lynching, hiding behind tenure while three families are millions in debt and fending off death threats and national condemnation? That doesn’t even consider the rest of the team and the coach.
Over 3,000 dead from the attacks on 9/11 and another professor asserts that the victims in the office buildings are “little Eichmans”? He then hides behind tenure and is protected by other tenured professors. You said that you saw some of the carnage on your campus. Most of us saw the carnage from 9/11.
If you want this radio guy crucified, fine launch your crusade. I want to see tenured professors call for their colleagues to be dragged out from behind the cover they gleefully take advantage of. You want some sympathy here? Let’s see you either extend to the radio host the blank check that tenure provides to you and your buddy Ward or cast tenure aside and live the same way the peasantry does.
Yo think that this is insensitive? Harsh? There’s quite a few victims whose lives have been trampled by Academicans that would share your pain.
Moneyrunner-
I’m a strong supporter of the second amendment and do not support a ban on guns at Virginia Tech. But I also don’t believe that Cho would have been stopped if the ban had not been in place (as it was not for most of my time here). I’m not saying that a ban was right. I’m saying I believe it was irrelevant. You are free to believe that there were a lot of faculty members with guns hidden in their briefcases who were afraid to speak up when the gun ban was passed. I strongly doubt it. We don’t all fit you simplistic little stereotype.
When people are free to own and carry guns (as the faculty of VT were for 125 years and the residents of Blacksburg are today) they make rational decisions on whether to do so based on their assessment of the costs and benefits of owning a gun. Some costs (purchase price, work necessary to maintain skills and the gun, danger of accidental discharge) are fixed, some (danger that the gun will be stolen and used against you, danger of shooting the wrong person) vary with place. Almost all the benefits vary with place. If you were in Blacksburg, how did you weigh the costs and benefits? Did you carry a gun? Did your son? Did the ban have anything to do with your decision? Did you or your son insensitively think that Blacksburg was safe enough for you to go unarmed?
I’m all for the right to bear arms. I simply don’t have an unrealistic, romantic idea that it will protect me from all dangers. And I don’t hurl insults at a bunch of people who are spending a big chunk of their time going to funerals in order make a point I am interested in in a situation where it doesn’t really apply.
Give my best to your son.
Is it impossible to express that position without the gratuitous emotional appeals ?
Nobody around here is unsympathetic to the tragedy bbeing endured. Having said that, the existence of the tragedy does not make the blatant mucking around with the 1st and 2nd Amendments any less noxious.
Not me. I want to see tenure go the way of the Dodo. I want the States to start saying to the Public University professors: “You are a State employee, you work for the citizens of this State. You are nothing more. If you do or say things that the citizens of this State decide are bad enough, and their representatives think are beyond the pale, you will be fucking fired. Period”
(And yes, I realize Duke is a Private University).
In other words, the ban may or may not have had any effect whatsoever in gun carrying and therefore gun carriers may or may not have had any effect in stopping a gunman who had the run of the place for a tremendous length of time, wounding or killing some (what was it?) five dozen victims?
That is an interesting position, Bob_R. Imagine, a hundred concealed carriers simply heading for the car when the first shot was fired. Five hundred? A thousand? How many law abiding citizens are on campus at any one time, Bob_R? And there was no way whatsoever to (1) influence whether or not they carried protection and (2) if carrying such protection, to predict whether only one of them might choose to use it prior to police arriving, arriving entirely too late to save, how did you put it, 32 now-cooling bodies?
It was irrelevant. To the shooter (apparently in more ways than one, given that he didn’t stroll into a gun shop with his fancy vest on.) Frankly, I think you’re saying that it’s quite clear you refuse to take a stand on the issue.
Our very nerve, Bob_R?
Here’s a simplistic little “stereotype”: Gun ban achieves its precise desired first effect and prevents concealed carry but only among law-abiders. Cho arrives, apparently intending to pay no heed to said gun ban. Events occur. And at least one VT academic refuses to face those facts.
Shorter Bob_R: Surely that other first intent—the one where concealed carry has virtually no negative effect on safety but every effect daily on upholding the law and saving lives—can’t be equated with the first intent of, say, a gun ban.
Therefore any amount of logical contortion can be used to avoid simply saying that had one member at VT been armed pursuant his or her constitutional right to so be—presumably armed so as to protect him or herself as well as others, that being why concealed carry exists—Cho might have been stopped thirty bodies earlier. Oh, and let’s not so much as ask that question.
No, Bob_R, you’re not. You cannot be. You cannot be because you haven’t sorted out the most basic and most proven features of actually bearing arms.
Thanks for demonstrating your faith in the 2nd and in your fellows, Bob_R. That certainly didn’t take long.
Because that’s a transparent strawman derived from a bullshit stereotype itself. Earlier I mentioned the human condition and the fact that lethal force has a remarkable record of stopping illegal lethal force. Nobody in this entire thread would promote gun carry as a means to ensure absolute human safety so please leave that one back in the house. But more importantly, nobody in this entire thread would promote a gun ban as a means to ensure absolute safety either.
In other words, you have no point whatsoever.
But you’ll hurl rhetoric and absurdities and confusion at a bunch of people who are spending a big chunk of their time trying to not go to funerals because people like you refuse to logically assess situations where the mortal basics absolutely do apply. And did.
I for one am significantly less interested in protecting the the grieving than I am preventing that grief from reoccuring. I ask you: is that sensible?
Look hard enough and you’ll find some public funding. if Duke or the University of Colorado was treated like Bob Jones University, then the tune would change. We live in a world in which professors can advocate “ A million little Mogadishus”, and be told that ‘infants less than x months old aren’t really human’ (Singer at Princeton)and we’re told that this is beyond reproach; that professors have to be free to promote controversy and the free flow of ideas.
Indeed? Then I say that we should have the same right. If professors hear something that offends their sensibilites, have them vent during their next tenure meeting. I don’t care to hear what some radio host said that offends a professor. Actually, I’m glad to hear that there is something left that a college professor believes is beyond the pale.
Does tenure serve more to insulate them from public accountability or to protect them from each other?
Bob_R,
I notice that in your last posting you are very careful to restrict the class of people who might be armed to the faculty. You also mention that no faculty member protested the disarmament policy.
What about the students, sir? They were also allowed to have CCW permits by law. They were also forcibly prevented from exercising the inalienable right to effective self defense. They were certainly the majority of the victims.
The reports showed clearly that when they attempted to exercise that right they were punished. They also show that when a student wrote a protest, the reaction of the administration (and probably your reaction as well) was to deride the student AND the publication which dared to give him a voice. If you were so in favor of the right to bear arms, where is your public statement telling the administration they were wrong? or your proposal to allow students who have met the law’s requirements to carry now?
Blue Hen-
I didn’t know I had to prove my loyalty by writing a 12 page essay on what idiots the Duke 88 are. If you really need it I’ll say that I agree with everything K.C. Johnson has written on the subject and think he deserves a Pulitzer. Oh, wait, Johnson is a Tenured Authoritarian too! He’s probably at the secret meeting with Ward Churchill were we plot the demise of the republic right now.
JHoward-
The idea that the only genuine support for the second amendment is a religious belief that it solves all problems of violence is … well I guess I’m just never going to measure up to your messianic standards. But more specifically, your scenario of how the army of citizen soldiers would have stopped Cho simply exposes your ignorance of the specific situation and would be a good Exhibit A in any demonstration that second amendment purists have “silly romantic” notions of how it works in practice. Norris hall is over a quarter mile from any non-handicapped parking lot. The first police arrived three minutes after the first 911 call. More police arrived rapidly after that. I saw them from my window. Anyone bringing a gun from the parking lot would have walked by my window, but they would not would have walked far. They would have been on the ground handcuffed in no time. No the only possible help would have had to have come from guns already in Norris. I think it is very unlikely that the gun ban had an effect on that number.
SDN – Faculty, students, staff – I don’t support any ban. I suppose I agree with the student who wrote the protest and disagree with the administrator who took issue with him (have not read either statement). I would guess that you are implying that the administrator did something wrong in disagreeing with the student. You know, for people who post on a pretty contentious blog, you guys seem to have a strong belief in the chilling effect of criticism. Hasn’t seemed to have had much effect in the last few thousand words.
Nice try. No one asked you to prove loyalty. It has been noted repeatedly, by mutiple posters here, that calls for restrictions on free speech, particularly when they may result in the loss of a job or public condemnation, are especially ironic, if not hypocritical, when coming from a guy with tenure. This is because some professors have defended some of the most egrious tripe expressed by other instructors, simply because the sanctity of Academia had to be maintained.
I’ve read The Durham-in-Wonderland blog, and I think that it’s great that some professors like Johnson buck the convention that instructors are not responsible in any way for their behavior. That seems to be a minority view. Otherwise, Ward Churchill wouldn’t have gotten the widespread support that he received, and the Duke 88 wouldn’t be employed right now.
One hopes that you, like Johnson, believe that tenure is not some sacred status.
Piss off, Bob_R. “We don’t all fit your simplistic little stereotype.”
In addition to never addressing isues directly, apparently you’re an idiot, invoking your own stereotypes. Cho’s second or fourth or seventh or twentieth or even thirty second intended victim, a potential silly romantic, could have permanently changed Cho’s mind!
Does it feel good tacitly calling those victims cowards, Bob_R?
What a spectacular admission…
That being the point.
Having just stated that because of a gun ban, police would have taken down anyone using theirs in a legitimate defensive measure, thereby firmly establishing a powerful and potentially lethal deterrence not for murder, but for preventing it.
You’re utterly clueless, Teacher.
Dear Bob_R,
Allow me the opportunity to address your reply to my comments.
You are entitled to your beliefs. However, please note that they are simply assumptions on your part. There is simply no way of proving whether the absence of a “gun free zone†would have made a difference. We do know that in its presence 32 people were murdered so that we can conclude that in this instance the school policy failed in its effect. Can we agree on that?
See, Bob, there you go again, calling my comments a “simplistic little stereotype.†This is an example of an ad-hominem, basically accusing me of being simple and attempting to stereotype academics. I try to avoid that, but really, Bob, while you do your best to try to portray the academics at Blacksburg as coonskin wearing Davy Crockets we have the contrary as evidence. You yourself stated that no one much noticed that the administration outlawed guns on campus. How does that make your “rootin-tootin†big game hunters on the Tech faculty any different that the faculty at any of the Ivies? In fact the only academic that I have seen posing with a gun is Ward Churchill of “Little Eichmanns†fame whose picture with an AK-47 can be found on this very site.
And I never stated that I believe that a lot of faculty members had guns “hidden†in their briefcases. I don’t know if any had guns that they carried regularly. And why did you use the term “hidden?†As if there was something shameful about carrying a gun in a briefcase? What I am saying is that I doubt if any faculty member made it a habit to carry a gun, he would want to speak out about the “gun free zone†policy because he would have been in a very small minority and his habit would have been considered aberrational. Feel free to disagree, since that is my opinion based on my personal acquaintance with many in the teaching profession.
Bob, I don’t live in Blacksburg although I have visited many times. It’s a nice little community with a mighty big school. Carrying a gun is not totally a rational decision. In fact, resistance to crime of any type is not rational because, for the average person not engaged in nefarious activities like drugs, becoming the victim of a crime is a very low probability event. Becoming the victim of a mass murderer like Cho is so small as to be negligible. So to spend something like $300 to carry a piece of metal around that weighs in at maybe 5 pounds is not something that the odds makers at Las Vegas would lay odds on.
Yet, there you go. Cho happened…in pleasant rural Blacksburg. So I carry a gun as often as I can, hoping never to use it because the chances that something that will occur where it become necessary that it will save my life or the lives of people around me are not zero. And since I am not bullet proof and since I get older every year and could not defend myself physically against someone who wants to take my life with a gun or knife or club, I have what used to be called an “equalizer.†As a mathematician, surely you understand that. If I had been in the building with Cho with my gun, there is a possibility that 32 people would not have been killed. That’s not a guarantee. The people who attacked the hijackers on flight 93 did not succeed in saving their own lives, but they did succeed in saving the lives of the people who were targets of that flight. That’s why we admire them and honor them, even though they died. And there are literally thousands of me in Virginia and millions in the United States.
Bob, as you can see, I don’t harbor unrealistic or romantic ideas about the efficacy of allowing people to carry weapons. And the idea that they will protect me from “all dangers†is one of those straw men that I cringe when I see it used by someone who claims to be a tenured professor at any university, let along Virginia Tech. You do yourself a disservice when you go on flights of rhetoric like that. It may feel good when you type it, but it makes you look small when it’s read. And the part about attending funerals reminds me of act 2 of Coriolanus where he is encouraged to show his wounds to get the public’s approval. A little less public self pity would go a long way.
I try to avoid insults since they only serve to harden hearts rather than persuade. As a member of the Tech faculty, and as a professed supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I would hope that you would bring your influence to bear on changing the Tech policy on being a “gun free zone.†By all means punish those who misuse guns, but give Tech students an opportunity to defend themselves in the unlikely chance that another Cho should appear.