Yeah – sure thing. Read it and tell me if you noticed what I did. This came from Anna Hall, the Dartmouth Senior Assistant Dean for Student Life (pictured above):
In light of concerning information from Hanover police regarding safety issues, similar concerns expressed by the College Republican leadership, and challenges with the student organization’s ability to staff a large public event and communicate effectively (including dissemination of the visitor policy and a prohibition on bags in the building), the College has requested that the Extremism in America panel be moved online. The event was not cancelled. The College has supported the event virtually.
This decision aligns with Dartmouth’s policy on freedom of expression and dissent:
Freedom of expression and dissent are protected by Dartmouth regulations. Dartmouth prizes and defends the right of free speech and the freedom of the individual to make their own disclosures, while at the same time recognizing that such freedom exists in the context of the law and in responsibility for one’s own actions. The exercise of these rights must not deny the same rights to any other individual. The institution therefore both fosters and protects the rights of individuals to express dissent.
Protest or demonstration shall not be discouraged so long as neither force nor the threat of force is used, and so long as the orderly processes of the institution are not deliberately obstructed.
Way to go, Anna! Nice attempt to make something seem to be something that it wasn’t. Or isn’t. And never will be. You lied through your teeth in constructing this (or your Office of Communications needs a total overhaul – you know, like Joe Biden’s?). Let’s fisk this, shall we?
- …challenges with the student organization’s ability to staff a large public event
Really? Same venue, filled to capacity, and an actual demonstration within Filene Auditorium – the Dinesh D’Souza event held earlier. Seems to be a very similar situation if just “staff a large public event” is taken word for word.
- …the College has requested that the Extremism in America panel be moved online
They did no such thing. They hijacked it over the protestations of the Dartmouth College Republicans. The latter were given absolutely no choice (I was in contact with them most of the night). “Request”, to be precise, is an ask – the person of whom the ask is being made has the ability to say “no”. Anna (and others, like Jim Alberghini) didn’t ask or request. They decided. Without consulting the College Republicans.
- …The event was not cancelled. The College has supported the event virtually.
That last sentence is trying to pass the nuance that the College Republicans had the complete support of Dartmouth College. People who were on the ground know better. For all of us that traveled for hours (and not a few people, either) it was canceled. There is NO quibbling about this. If you came two or more hours, wait another (or two), you are already on your way home. You may not have received that torn off piece of paper with the URL for the virtual event, you were disenfranchised. You were excluded (or in Leftist speech, only the favored are given “inclusive” status).
And lest I forget – “supported” is an attempt to further hide “hijacked”. Miserable word choice because it tries to give the nuance that the College Republicans had made a decision to embrace the virtual event and didn’t care that many were turned away due to the decision of the Dartmouth Administration.
And next is where the Big Lie starts in:
- …This decision aligns with Dartmouth’s policy on freedom of expression and dissent:
No, it followed their policy of giving into the Heckler’s Veto.
- Freedom of expression and dissent are protected by Dartmouth regulations.
But not by actions. Regulations are nothing if not backed up in the spirit in which the regulations are written. If their Rulebook was right in this regard, if they REALLY meant by their words, the physical event would have moved forward. It did not.
In fact, and by their inaction, they sided with the Antifa online threat to deny the freedom of Speech of both the speakers and the College Republicans. And they did it with a smile.
- …while at the same time recognizing that such freedom exists in the context of the law and in responsibility for one’s own actions.
No, not in the “context of Law” but by the black and white Letters of both the NH and US Constitution – and not once did Dartmouth College bring that foundational Right into view or context. And the College Republicans were being responsible for their own actions; were they not, Anna Hall? If they were not, please explain how they were not? And to be frank, you’d be a master of Solipism if you think you can convince others that your sentence is valid AND truthful.
- The exercise of these rights must not deny the same rights to any other individual.
So tell us all, Anna Hall, how is this sentence even relevant? Again, how is Andy Ngo speaking to curious onlookers denying any kind of Right to anyone else? How was the Dartmouth College Republicans holding an event where Andy Ngo and Gabe Nadales can exercise their enumerated Rights to Free Speech and Freedom of Expression?
No, it was Antifa who started the process of denying those God-given Rights (er, you DO remember God, yes? He WAS the reason why Dartmouth was founded, am I right?) but it was Dartmouth that nailed that coffin shut by extending Antifa’s reach into the event. There is no other explanation if you are going to base your argument on Rights.
- The institution therefore both fosters and protects the rights of individuals to express dissent.
I can’t speak to the first part but a total fail by Dartmouth College on the second. Dissent is fine – First Amendment. The use of Physical Threat to silence the Free Speech is not protected.
Yet, Dartmouth College protected the Threat made by Antifa and canceled the Speech of the College Republicans. Dartmouth College made sure that the Threat made by Antifa to shut down the event (and not necessarily to murder Andy Ngo) was carried out by – themselves. Antifa wanted the event shutdown – Dartmouth College obliged them.
Sure, they are “boasting” that 177 got to the virtual event – but I’ll ask: how many of them were Antifa clogging up the available slots?
And the rest of us turned away by their underhanded method?
- Protest or demonstration shall not be discouraged so long as neither force nor the threat of force is used
Snort. That’s all – snort. Snicker works as well. Antifa threated physical force.
Dartmouth College caved into the threat.
In the end, only one thing is clear. If their RuleBook TRULY held, they would have manned up, police’d up, and made sure that the event was held in its original structure and showed the world that their stated value of protecting Free Speech was absolute.
It’s not. So what else is Dartmouth College willing to equivocate on? What other value is subject to be threatened and proven not to be a value at all?
