Recently, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) spoke at the Frederick County Republican Central Committee’s Lincoln Reagan Day Dinner. According to The Frederick News-Post, one of the areas Jordan discussed was the “suppression of speech on college campuses” as one of the biggest issues facing conservatives in America.

As a young person currently in college, it’s always fascinated me that the people most worked up about the so-called “suppression” of free speech on college campuses are often those who have been out of college for decades themselves.

Look, I’ve been a Republican, an independent, and a Democrat on a college campus, and I’ve never felt like I couldn’t express my political views due to some kind of “suppression,” even when I was a Republican. College campuses are more liberal for a variety of reasons, but a vast conspiracy to undermine conservatives is not one of them.

Jordan and others like him seem to, constantly, not understand that there’s a difference between being “suppressed” versus just having views that aren’t popular with certain audiences.

Maybe Republicans should spend more time trying to win back the suburbs than complaining about how upset they are that college students don’t like them. Just a thought.

Camden Raynor

Middletown

(68) comments

des21

This kid must have ideological whip lash! I'm glad he's open to suggestion but man, believe in something!

jsklinelga

The militant left carried their cause to the college campuses. It was a "perfect storm" scenario. Youth needed a new cause for excitement.The progressive agenda and. the idealistic youth were a good blend. Plus being climate warriors they could save the world. But reality will set in. First Trump was elected. Instead of screaming the true scholars might ask why. Then their is the logic of AOC. Youthful exuberance cannot forever be blind to AOC drawing the short intellectual straw. As long as we remain free this situation will find correction.

awteam2000

The true scholars know why Trump was elected. An electoral college rather than a democratic popular vote which he lost by 3 million votes. Even with that, his difference in winning the electorate in the three upset states had a total difference of 77 thousand votes. Out of the 136 million ballots cast Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 % points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 % (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 % (10,704 votes). Not quite a mandate.

jsklinelga

awteam2000
Your comment is a perfect example of why many in America give only minor credence to what is being shouted from the college campuses. Blame it on the electoral college. Pack the courts. Russian conspiracy. Wasted vapid words .We don't get our way so destroy the system. As far as Trump's intelligence vs. AOC's. Trump is President. Do you think, in your wildest imagination AOC will ever be President? There is a good chance she will be one term congress person.

awteam2000

JSK,

Sounds like the ‘mother of dragons’AOC, challenging the ‘Mad King’ Trump.

hayduke2

jsk - exactly what does intelligence have to do with being president? We've had some highly intelligent presidents and some not so much. Your point is invalid. As far as electoral college, there is some ligimate discussion about a need to revisit and possibly modify. Pack the courts, isn't that exactly why you and other groups so love this president - do you agree that Obama's appointee should have been given a fair shot at the SC? Your comments often ignore your own bias.

gabrielshorn2013

aw, didn't HRC have a 4.3 million vote margin over DJT in CA? So in the rest of the country she lost by 1.3 million, but CA put her over?

hayduke2

Don’t the sparsely populated states have an outsize advantage/influence over the more populated states in the Senate?

gabrielshorn2013

Yep, the Constitution gives big states an advantage in the House, and small states parity in the Senate. So? If this wasn't made so when the Constitution was written, small states had little reason to join the Union because their political will would constantly be negated by the larger states. It was a good compromise.

jsklinelga

gabe
Early on there were mostly the left oriented folk commenting so it was fun to stir the pot and ruffle some tail feathers. But later on there were some valid comments.
But in the vain of stirring the pot: HOW do you say 4.3 million voters in Spanish.?

gabrielshorn2013

4.3 millones de votantes (I had to look it up in Google Translate since I don't speak Spanish). Je parle Francais. Rwyf hefyd yn siarad Cymraeg. Nid oes llawer ohonom.

awteam2000

Gabe,

Does Maryland get any credit for voting 2 to 1 against Trump? Or your vote, under existing electoral system, doesn’t matter?

gabrielshorn2013

aw, unless I vote for a Democrat for President in Maryland (which I have done in the past), my vote is pretty much wasted due to the 2:1 D:R ratio in Maryland, attributable to the large number of Federal employees in this state. I'm not sure what your point is. The President is elected by a vote of the representatives of the individual States, as per the Constitution. It is not now, nor ever been a popularity contest. I'm OK with that.

shiftless88

When you criticize AOC's intelligence why touting DJT, we know you are irrational.

hayduke2

Jsk - is there a militant right who also does the same in your mind?

veritas

Mr. Raynor’s assertion that he has not experienced attempts to suppress speech on his un-identified college campus is purely anecdotal, mildly interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. I suggest he avail himself of the vast research resources of 21st century media and simply Google the topic, at which time he almost certainly will discover an abundance of evidence contradicting his contention. Typical of his generation, he projects his personal experiences onto the world at large. Ah, sweet youth.

public-redux

"...one of the areas Jordan discussed was the “suppression of speech on college campuses” as one of the biggest issues facing conservatives in America." (emphasis added).

Yeah, it exists but it is hardly a big problem. One of the biggest problems for conservatives in America today is the take-over of the GOP by people who aren't conservative.

veritas

It all depends on how one defines “big problem.” My definition of the term would include suppression of free speech on college campuses, especially when considering how many young people are willing to accept, support and/or defend speech suppression as well as how many others casually dismiss it as “no big deal.” Slippery slope and all that...

public-redux

I think you've got a tautology. You are concluding that something is a "big problem" because you have defined that term to include the something. No matter how rare or inconsequential the something is, it will always be a "big problem", by definition.

shiftless88

It is like those who define terrorism only as a muslim thing. So when you try to point out other terrorists they claim those people aren't terrorism and use their tautology to claim that that terrorism is because of muslims.

veritas

My tautology was in response to yours. You are concluding that somethings is not a "big problem" because you have defined that term to omit the something. No matter how evident or consequential the something is, it will never be a "big problem" by definition.

shiftless88

I quantified the problem below. Granted those are round numbers but do you have numbers to dispute them? Do you consider my numbers indicative of oppression?

gary4books

Anyone in the USA that stands up to an audience should expect a response. That is not supression of their views. it is "freedom in action." Get used to it. We own it.

richardlyons

[thumbup]

awteam2000

[thumbup]

TwoDawgs56

No Gary, “freedom in action” would be where the left would want to engage in an intellectual debate. Years ago, didn’t the left stake the claim that college campuses are about the open exchanges of ideas? What you want to the total shutdown of opposing views, and that my friend is totalitarian. It’s sad that many conservatives speakers get disinvited from colleges, but those that get thru absolutely tear the little “snowflakes” to shreds. There is a silver lining to the speech repression.....many of those are graduating with worthless degrees and tens of thousands $$$$$ in student loans and will have to work 40 years serving Lattes at Starbucks to repay their college debt.

gary4books

I have never wanted a "total shutdown." It IS totalitarian. But I do like a polite exchange of ideas. Getting opinions and wild notions torn to pieces is a basic part of a good education. I am all for it. Educations are opportunities and many have turned "worthless degrees" into good lives. That is what counts.

hayduke2

Mr. Jordan should spend more time explaining how he, as a wrestling coach at Ohio State, had no inkling that the team doctor was molesting hundreds of athletes. Hard to believe he had no clue. His manufactured outrage is similar to Graham's oscar worthy acts. Benghazi Jim needs a new conspiracy to hang his hat on.

veritas

This is your post? Seriously?

hayduke2

Yup - Mr Rightous ran away from his time at Ohio State and claimed I knew nothing about this while sending young men to this doc

veritas

My point being... so what?

hayduke2

Sad

TwoDawgs56

Really???? If there was a there-there the media and academia would still be talking about this....as taking out a prominent, effective, and vocal Republican would be a trophy kill. The story lasted maybe a week. Need a conspiracy theory? Now that Trump’s “Wingman”, AG Barr is solidly in place, get your popcorn ready. Previous leaders from CIA, DOJ, FBI, DNI are in deep kimchi.

hayduke2

Wanna bet on that? It will be another Benghazi probe.

tonyc51

I am sure the republicans will use different facts about colleges stopping conservative from expressing their point of view, when liberals on compass stop trying to suppress conservative's point of view.

hayduke2

I don't subscribe to your conspiracy theories.

jsklinelga

tonyc51
Interesting to see yours and Ricks comments amidst the chorus of playground like bullies that tend to dominate this section. In many ways it symbolizes what is happening on the campuses. But the saving grace is people tire of people yelling wolf. Just as the public will tire of the off beat chants coming from the campuses.

shiftless88

Jim there are about perhaps five such events per year. On the other hand there are thousands of invited talks at the thousands of universities across the US. That doesn't seem like a major issue to me. Heck, look at all the Republicans who go on to be professors or visiting scholars at universities across the nation. No, this isn't a real problem, it is something manufactured by the right wing to fool the ignorant.

awteam2000

JSK, I agree with you. You have ‘freedom of speech’ but not freedom of criticism. This thread, as well as, on college campuses reflects that.

Well said Camden.

public-redux

Another example of the maxim that "every accusation is a confession".

Rick Blatchford

Camden, Are you unaware of the number of conservative speakers on college campuses who have been booed off the stage by people unwilling to listen to a different point of view? How about those who were invited to speak, then uninvited when liberal students decided that they didn't want to hear a conservative speaker? Is this what you call open minded? For reference I submit: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6444 P.S. Free speech isn't exemplified by permitting it only in "free speech zones" and prohibiting it elsewhere.

hayduke2

Is it not their right to boo them off the stage?

gabrielshorn2013

Booing? No, inappropriate. Not attending if you don't wish to hear what a speaker says is appropriate in a public setting. There should be some expected level of civility and decorum. Would you allow your students to disrupt your classroom or a school assembly if they didn't want to hear what you were saying? I don't think so.

hayduke2

Sorry, but if someone provokes a crowd intentionally and gets a response, they got exactly what they were looking for

gabrielshorn2013

Really hay? Would that be true if the speaker was from the left? If not, why not? As public states below, those that disrupt and boo are preventing the remainder of the audience that wants to hear the speaker from being able to do so. Is that fair? If you still agree that such behavior is appropriate, your classroom/school must be bedlam, because anybody that disagrees with anybody about anything must feel free to voice their objections at anytime, no matter how disruptive. see also: anarchy.

hayduke2

I may have made my point poorly - someone who is known for provocative speech and outrageous comments can expect the audience to react Think Alex Jones or similar saying Sandy Hook was a government ploy, etc. Controversy or different viewpoints are important tools but deliberate shock jock techniques are not

hayduke2

Sorry Gabriel and public - the original post was said in a rhetorical vein....

gabrielshorn2013

I understand your point hay, but why would someone who doesn't agree with someone like Alex Jones attend a lecture put on by that person? Everyone (is that safe to say anymore?) knows Alex Jones schtick. It is beyond the pale. His point about Sandy Hook was to inflame, and when people got inflamed, he got what he wanted, more publicity. He is an outlier. Conservatives like Condoleeza Rice, and IMF Chief Christine LaGarde are not shock jocks, yet they had to withdraw from their speaking engagements after campus protests against them. This is the kind of stuff that conservatives are talking about; "if you don't agree with them, protest and shout them down. It should be, "if I don't agree with them, I won't attend." Others were denied the experience of listening to these two women at the top of their respective fields.

gabrielshorn2013

For a fair look at the people that were disinvited as speakers at colleges, here is a link to a database. It looks to be an even distribution between left and right:

https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/?view_2_sort=field_10|desc

hayduke2

Gabriel - interesting website. Thanks for sharing it.

public-redux

hayduke, Is it not your right to hit someone with your fist? No, it isn't. Similarly, it isn't the right of audience members A-G to prevent audience members H-Z to hear the advertised speaker.

hayduke2

Wasn't the point I was trying to make so I must have done it poorly?

threecents

Gabe is right, but at the same time, if you hear some white supremacist talking about how the races should be separated, homosexuality should be outlawed, Confederate flags should fly, and so on - at some point some feel the need to go beyond respectfully raising their hand or having a polite debate. It is probably best to let the Nazis have their say, but at the same time the schools and much of their student bodies want their minorities to feel safe and welcome.

gabrielshorn2013

Agreed three. The best way, IMHO, is to let them have their meeting, and everyone ignore them. What is worse, having someone howl at the moon in front of no audience, or having the audience howl back? I would say that the former shows how ridiculous the speaker's position is, and that the latter shows the speaker's opponents can be just as nuts as the speaker. If someone speaks and nobody is listening, did they really say anything?

threecents

Sometimes it is impossible to know which is the best course - to ignore it and hope it goes away - or to draw your line in the sand. It depends on the situation.

gary4books

Rick - "Piffle."

gabrielshorn2013

How so?

gary4books

Universities are all about the free expression of ideas. Setting up straw figures and using them to surpress speech or responses to speech is not logical or even needed. Just ask this question: "How would you fix the problem?"

gabrielshorn2013

I absolutely agree that Universities should be all about exposing students to a myriad of ideas and philosophies, allowing them to evaluate each of those ideas on their merits. What I don't accept is some petulant overgrown adolescents deciding that their way is the only way, and if they can't have their way, they will pitch a temper tantrum to drown out any speaker that expresses a different idea. This applies to the right as well as the left side of the political spectrum. As I said above, if they don't like the scheduled speaker, don't attend. Allow those that do want to hear the speaker's message to hear it. Freedom of speech also means freedom to hear such speech. My own alma mater dis-invited Condoleeza Rice as a speaker just because some protested because she was in the Bush Administration. A woman with a PhD at the top of her profession and one of the world's most respected and influential women, kindly accepted the invitation to speak. When a few protesters threatened to disrupt the commencement exercises, she was dis-invited. They subsequently invited "Snooki" from the Jersey Shore reality program to speak at another event. SMH...Shameful.

shiftless88

Rick; there are about perhaps five such events per year. On the other hand there are thousands of invited talks at the thousands of universities across the US. That doesn't seem like a major issue to me. Heck, look at all the Republicans who go on to be professors or visiting scholars at universities across the nation. No, this isn't a real problem, it is something manufactured by the right wing to fool the ignorant.

niceund

You should probably grow up and experience more of the world before you start slamming adults about suppression of free speech. Your article, while fairly well written, expresses a juvenile, political attitude towards the problem.

marinick1

[thumbup][thumbup]

phydeaux994

niceund, Mr. Raynor recently was a candidate for the School Board in Frederick County and did quite well, making it into the final group of candidates in the Primaries. Mr. Raynor is a knowledgeable, articulate young man capable of expressing an opinion about attitudes on College Campuses more relevant than most. I assume you are a fan of Mr. Jordan’s RRR(RadicalRightRepublican) unfounded rhetoric he throws around ad nauseum that causes you to attack Mr. Raynor with such gusto. Too bad Mr. Jordan didn’t speak up more forcefully as an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State during the 15 years his wrestlers were being sexually abused by a team Doctor.

olefool

Good on you phy.... I remember Jim "Benghazi" Jordan as a lying "nudnek"..... nuff said.

melbell75

"You're not old enough to make observations about things that happen to people your age" is a patently ridiculous argument.

gary4books

mwl - [thumbup][thumbup]

threecents

Wow, he should not express his opinions because he is too young/naïve/doesn't agree with you? Actually, I agree that the letter writer is naïve. The reason he never had trouble expressing his opinions, even when he was Republican, is probably because his opinions did not include limiting the civil rights of specific groups of people.

hayduke2

niceund - from your comments, perhaps you should look at " growing up " and re-examine your attitude toward young folks.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.