The right to free speech does not include the right to incite rights-violating *action* because there can be no such thing as a right to violate rights. Speech that threatens violence is not protected because it is not merely speech; it forcibly stops the victim from acting on his own judgment by creating a threat that he must respond to in order to protect himself. Forcibly preventing others from acting on their judgment *is* what it means to violate rights, except, of course, when one's judgment is that he should forcibly stop others from acting on theirs. This is the key principle that so many people miss, misunderstand, or misinterpret on this issue. I'm not familiar with the case you're talking about, so I can't comment on whether his particular words and actions constituted a violation of rights, but they were morally despicable in any case.
It's good to criticize the left for failing to support free speech in the past, but it's a bad idea to use those past failures to criticize current attempts to support free speech. The government trying to deport a permanent resident without due process is not really comparable to a speaker being forced off-stage, which is bad, but not even close to the same level. Permanent legal residents get freedom of speech too. If he broke the law you put him on trial and after a conviction maybe the judge takes his green card away. That's called due process, it's very important.
I dislike pro-Palestinian protesters as I consider them ignorant conformists who believe everything they read on instagram. If Columbia wants to expel them, fine. But the government can't just snatch people it doesn't like.
Of course it's true that the left is hypocritical, but that's grounds to criticize the left, not to oppose free speech.
I keep seeing this phrase, “due process,” albeit with no explanation as to how it applies to Mahmoud Khalil. He is not, after all, a citizen of this country but merely a foreign guest whose green card is a gift of the United States. Given the undeniable fact that he’s a supporter of Hamas and that he fomented disorder and chaos on the Columbia University campus, specifically targeting Jews, what do we owe him besides a boot in the butt on his way back to Trashcanistan or wherever he comes from?
He is a lawful permanent resident. By giving him a green card, the US government has said he has a right to be here. There are well-known processes by which green cards can be revoked, one of which is due to a criminal conviction. If the government wants to revoke his green card they need to pursue one of those processes. This is called due process.
When the government decides to ignore well-known processes in order to punish people whose views it doesn't like, that's exactly what the first amendment is meant to prevent. The fact that he's not a citizen is significant in that he could be deported if his green card were revoked. But it doesn't put him outside due process.
He's a lawful permanent resident. I don't like the protesters either and I know it's easy to let your negative emotions override the thinking part of your brain, but this is what's supposed to separate us from the animals.
He's a lawful permanent resident. I would agree with his expulsion from Columbia (a private college). I'm guessing you're proud to be American, but you seem to have little respect for our founding principles. I doubt you'd pass a citizenship test.
Ad hominem argument: your argument posits assertion not based on fact. Non-citizens, including green card holders, do not have the same rights as citizens.
I would temper the concluding paragraph with "some". Some, like you persuasively argue, indeed dont care about "freedom of speech" at all - just for him. But some, like Andrew Sullivan and others (as do I) do. Otherwise - good piece. Thank you
Its hard to reconcile one’s own sense of betrayal—which you eloquently describe—with principles one believes in. It is, in many respects, the great conflict of modern society: the “man” against the “state”, however it manifests. One can easily find oneself capitulating to questionable behavior—the extra-legal treatment of Mr. Khalil—because it hoists those who previously had been in power on their own petard. But it doesn’t make it right — nor wrong. The case has to be analyzed under its own facts—is it lawful or not, and do we want it to be lawful or not.
The fairer question about it all is what it really teaches us. And that isn’t just that people in charge of universities are hypocrites. We’ve known that forever. What it really teaches us is how weak we can be when it comes to our principles. Most of us don’t have time to live according to these principles—we are busy with everything else. And we can see how that preoccupation with actual life leads to mischief and real pain for so many because we just don’t have the time to care about everything.
In any event, good column. I enjoy reading your stuff.
Too many people seem not to have thought much about what thier values are, and too many that claim to have them have 'reasons' they apply to 'us' and not 'them'. They follow the tribe, not any set of values with personal integrity.
So many on the left recently decided 'misinformation' must be censored. Now the right is in power, and defining that term... What exactly did they expect to happen?
It is so strange most of us are never taught any method to investigate our values and understand them. I was well past 30 when I realised I might have to do so to find. out who I am...
Not one Columbia faculty member complained about Barack Obama’s DOE “dear colleague” letter which forced the university to set up kangaroo courts to prosecute #MeToo complaints without due process. Not one. These antisemite bastards are so full of shit their eyes are brown.
If the Khalil case does not become more transparent, I think it is reasonable to be worried about the 1st Amendment.
If it turns out that he did things that are not 1st Amendment protected, violated the rights of others, destroyed property, and celebrated and advocated for terrorism, I have little sympathy for him. Nor would I allow rhis case to concern me regarding the 1st Amendment.
All that being said, thank you for sharing your experience as it pertains to Columbia University's commitment to free speech and the 1st Amendment.
The left considers itself on a war footing and thus rationalizes the suspension of civil rights it theoretically champions in the perfect society that is to come. The problem, though, is that, for most of the left, their utopianism isn't really an end goal, but an excuse to operate on a war footing, which is really the thing they enjoy. All the moral benefits of utopian ideals combined with the physical delights of murder, rape, and pillage. And this is why they flock to the support of other groups on a permanent war footing no matter how alien their self-justifying ideal may be from their own.
Absolutely agree. I remember a workshop in orientation (and my entire U Writing class) were designed to teach us that the only thing required for a statement to be racist is someone from a minority group to believe it is racist. Contrast that with the protestors whose response to Jewish students saying they believe certain statements are racist was basically “no it’s not! And you’re a genocide supporter for thinking that!” It really epitomizes the hypocrisy for me.
I am glad to see such sentiments at Columbia University. It grieves me to see Columbia University overrun with such activists, knowing it was the University where Lionel Trilling and Philip Rieff taught.
Just one correction. Several rulings by the Supreme Court have confirmed that legal permanent residents of the US (that is, green card holders) enjoy the same constitutional privileges and protections as native born citizens. Free speech is one of them. Of course, everyone has to obey the laws of the country and incitement to violence against a group is illegal.
I agree with your assessment of the foibles of the Left but would have found the articulation stronger if you unequivocally denounce this dude's deportation...which is Sullivan's stance: the person is abhorrent, but that does not justify the unlawful response. just because our adversaries are selective in their embrace of free speech does not mean we should be.
I have been a staunch defender of freedom of speech all my life. I decried the "anti-terrorism" legislation of the early 2000s. I strongly and publicly opposed the cancel culture of the left in the 2010s and early 2020s. I continue to speak out against the misinformation-industrial-complex. I was outspoken during COVID and suffered for it. Do you know what it's like to have a family member screaming that I'm a dangerous idiot who needs to be locked up, at a wake of all places? Perhaps you do.
I advocate for the speech of those who agree with me, but especially of those I disagree with. This is a foundational principle for me. Even if someone is smearing me, saying things I STRONGLY disagree with, I will back them up if they are facing censorship.
Unfortunately much of the right (of which I am a member) has been hoodwinked into supporting woke cancel culture censorship. The issue has not changed at all, just the groups involved. That's all it took. This concerns me greatly.
The hypocrisy of the left is no alibi for hypocrisy of our own. You are quite right to point out the absurd position of the Columbia students given most of their positions over the past decade. The left is equally correct to point out the same hypocrisy on the right for bringing woke cancel culture to the Israel issue.
We need to wake up. Both sides of elites (left and right) are playing us against each other for their own benefit. They have no principles, they only crave money and power. They play lip service to freedom of speech, but only actually support it when people are saying things they agree with or which can put them in power.
Fact is there is no Israel exception to the first amendment. You have the fundamental, inalienable right to criticize them all you want, all the way up to the extremely strict standard set in Brandenburg v Ohio (1968). This is being eroded, and I will speak out about this to whoever willing to listen.
“Yet protests are nothing new—they have been the hallmark of Columbia University since the Vietnam era and were a definitive part of my experience as an undergraduate student.”
Student terrorists led by Mark Rudd famously took over campus and held hostages during the Vietnam era.
We can talk about the deplorable behavior of leftist hypocrites at Columbia and beyond when their targets are arrested without a warrant. And hopefully we can also then talk about why Jewish students should be granted equity rather than equality, and why the small number of mostly Orthodox Jewish students demanding it are no more representative of young Jews than those who joined the encampments.
The administration of this school (and every other elite school) is characterized most of all by cowardice. Cowardice is required to rise that high in a bureaucratic structure in academia. If candidates were courageous and independent-minded they would've been eliminated.
Add that fact to their reflexive love of progressive activism (ANY progressive activism) and you have multi-billion dollar institutions held in thrall to the most unstable and spoiled members of the student body, kids who are effectively pretending to be revolutionaries. It's a pathetic spectacle in every respect.
The right to free speech does not include the right to incite rights-violating *action* because there can be no such thing as a right to violate rights. Speech that threatens violence is not protected because it is not merely speech; it forcibly stops the victim from acting on his own judgment by creating a threat that he must respond to in order to protect himself. Forcibly preventing others from acting on their judgment *is* what it means to violate rights, except, of course, when one's judgment is that he should forcibly stop others from acting on theirs. This is the key principle that so many people miss, misunderstand, or misinterpret on this issue. I'm not familiar with the case you're talking about, so I can't comment on whether his particular words and actions constituted a violation of rights, but they were morally despicable in any case.
It's good to criticize the left for failing to support free speech in the past, but it's a bad idea to use those past failures to criticize current attempts to support free speech. The government trying to deport a permanent resident without due process is not really comparable to a speaker being forced off-stage, which is bad, but not even close to the same level. Permanent legal residents get freedom of speech too. If he broke the law you put him on trial and after a conviction maybe the judge takes his green card away. That's called due process, it's very important.
I dislike pro-Palestinian protesters as I consider them ignorant conformists who believe everything they read on instagram. If Columbia wants to expel them, fine. But the government can't just snatch people it doesn't like.
Of course it's true that the left is hypocritical, but that's grounds to criticize the left, not to oppose free speech.
I keep seeing this phrase, “due process,” albeit with no explanation as to how it applies to Mahmoud Khalil. He is not, after all, a citizen of this country but merely a foreign guest whose green card is a gift of the United States. Given the undeniable fact that he’s a supporter of Hamas and that he fomented disorder and chaos on the Columbia University campus, specifically targeting Jews, what do we owe him besides a boot in the butt on his way back to Trashcanistan or wherever he comes from?
He is a lawful permanent resident. By giving him a green card, the US government has said he has a right to be here. There are well-known processes by which green cards can be revoked, one of which is due to a criminal conviction. If the government wants to revoke his green card they need to pursue one of those processes. This is called due process.
When the government decides to ignore well-known processes in order to punish people whose views it doesn't like, that's exactly what the first amendment is meant to prevent. The fact that he's not a citizen is significant in that he could be deported if his green card were revoked. But it doesn't put him outside due process.
No, he has no right to be here. He’s a guest. His continued presence is contingent on good behavior. Do you think he meets that standard? As if…
He's a lawful permanent resident. I don't like the protesters either and I know it's easy to let your negative emotions override the thinking part of your brain, but this is what's supposed to separate us from the animals.
I’m all in favor of separating us from the animals. That’s why this rat Khalil needs to be sent packing.
Non-citizens are not American Citizens. Lying on the application, and fomenting future violence are grounds for expulsion.
He's a lawful permanent resident. I would agree with his expulsion from Columbia (a private college). I'm guessing you're proud to be American, but you seem to have little respect for our founding principles. I doubt you'd pass a citizenship test.
Pshaw
Ad hominem argument: your argument posits assertion not based on fact. Non-citizens, including green card holders, do not have the same rights as citizens.
Instead of rotting your brain on the internet why don't you go take a civics class?
You are mistaken
Nah I think I'm right on the money
I would temper the concluding paragraph with "some". Some, like you persuasively argue, indeed dont care about "freedom of speech" at all - just for him. But some, like Andrew Sullivan and others (as do I) do. Otherwise - good piece. Thank you
Its hard to reconcile one’s own sense of betrayal—which you eloquently describe—with principles one believes in. It is, in many respects, the great conflict of modern society: the “man” against the “state”, however it manifests. One can easily find oneself capitulating to questionable behavior—the extra-legal treatment of Mr. Khalil—because it hoists those who previously had been in power on their own petard. But it doesn’t make it right — nor wrong. The case has to be analyzed under its own facts—is it lawful or not, and do we want it to be lawful or not.
The fairer question about it all is what it really teaches us. And that isn’t just that people in charge of universities are hypocrites. We’ve known that forever. What it really teaches us is how weak we can be when it comes to our principles. Most of us don’t have time to live according to these principles—we are busy with everything else. And we can see how that preoccupation with actual life leads to mischief and real pain for so many because we just don’t have the time to care about everything.
In any event, good column. I enjoy reading your stuff.
Too many people seem not to have thought much about what thier values are, and too many that claim to have them have 'reasons' they apply to 'us' and not 'them'. They follow the tribe, not any set of values with personal integrity.
So many on the left recently decided 'misinformation' must be censored. Now the right is in power, and defining that term... What exactly did they expect to happen?
Very true!
It is so strange most of us are never taught any method to investigate our values and understand them. I was well past 30 when I realised I might have to do so to find. out who I am...
Not one Columbia faculty member complained about Barack Obama’s DOE “dear colleague” letter which forced the university to set up kangaroo courts to prosecute #MeToo complaints without due process. Not one. These antisemite bastards are so full of shit their eyes are brown.
If the Khalil case does not become more transparent, I think it is reasonable to be worried about the 1st Amendment.
If it turns out that he did things that are not 1st Amendment protected, violated the rights of others, destroyed property, and celebrated and advocated for terrorism, I have little sympathy for him. Nor would I allow rhis case to concern me regarding the 1st Amendment.
All that being said, thank you for sharing your experience as it pertains to Columbia University's commitment to free speech and the 1st Amendment.
The left considers itself on a war footing and thus rationalizes the suspension of civil rights it theoretically champions in the perfect society that is to come. The problem, though, is that, for most of the left, their utopianism isn't really an end goal, but an excuse to operate on a war footing, which is really the thing they enjoy. All the moral benefits of utopian ideals combined with the physical delights of murder, rape, and pillage. And this is why they flock to the support of other groups on a permanent war footing no matter how alien their self-justifying ideal may be from their own.
Absolutely agree. I remember a workshop in orientation (and my entire U Writing class) were designed to teach us that the only thing required for a statement to be racist is someone from a minority group to believe it is racist. Contrast that with the protestors whose response to Jewish students saying they believe certain statements are racist was basically “no it’s not! And you’re a genocide supporter for thinking that!” It really epitomizes the hypocrisy for me.
I am glad to see such sentiments at Columbia University. It grieves me to see Columbia University overrun with such activists, knowing it was the University where Lionel Trilling and Philip Rieff taught.
Just one correction. Several rulings by the Supreme Court have confirmed that legal permanent residents of the US (that is, green card holders) enjoy the same constitutional privileges and protections as native born citizens. Free speech is one of them. Of course, everyone has to obey the laws of the country and incitement to violence against a group is illegal.
I agree with your assessment of the foibles of the Left but would have found the articulation stronger if you unequivocally denounce this dude's deportation...which is Sullivan's stance: the person is abhorrent, but that does not justify the unlawful response. just because our adversaries are selective in their embrace of free speech does not mean we should be.
I have been a staunch defender of freedom of speech all my life. I decried the "anti-terrorism" legislation of the early 2000s. I strongly and publicly opposed the cancel culture of the left in the 2010s and early 2020s. I continue to speak out against the misinformation-industrial-complex. I was outspoken during COVID and suffered for it. Do you know what it's like to have a family member screaming that I'm a dangerous idiot who needs to be locked up, at a wake of all places? Perhaps you do.
I advocate for the speech of those who agree with me, but especially of those I disagree with. This is a foundational principle for me. Even if someone is smearing me, saying things I STRONGLY disagree with, I will back them up if they are facing censorship.
Unfortunately much of the right (of which I am a member) has been hoodwinked into supporting woke cancel culture censorship. The issue has not changed at all, just the groups involved. That's all it took. This concerns me greatly.
The hypocrisy of the left is no alibi for hypocrisy of our own. You are quite right to point out the absurd position of the Columbia students given most of their positions over the past decade. The left is equally correct to point out the same hypocrisy on the right for bringing woke cancel culture to the Israel issue.
We need to wake up. Both sides of elites (left and right) are playing us against each other for their own benefit. They have no principles, they only crave money and power. They play lip service to freedom of speech, but only actually support it when people are saying things they agree with or which can put them in power.
Fact is there is no Israel exception to the first amendment. You have the fundamental, inalienable right to criticize them all you want, all the way up to the extremely strict standard set in Brandenburg v Ohio (1968). This is being eroded, and I will speak out about this to whoever willing to listen.
“Yet protests are nothing new—they have been the hallmark of Columbia University since the Vietnam era and were a definitive part of my experience as an undergraduate student.”
Student terrorists led by Mark Rudd famously took over campus and held hostages during the Vietnam era.
We can talk about the deplorable behavior of leftist hypocrites at Columbia and beyond when their targets are arrested without a warrant. And hopefully we can also then talk about why Jewish students should be granted equity rather than equality, and why the small number of mostly Orthodox Jewish students demanding it are no more representative of young Jews than those who joined the encampments.
You touch it with a needle. And as if to validate the truism that great minds think alike, I just published an article on this subject:
https://unwokeindianaag.substack.com/p/the-anti-zionist-exception
The administration of this school (and every other elite school) is characterized most of all by cowardice. Cowardice is required to rise that high in a bureaucratic structure in academia. If candidates were courageous and independent-minded they would've been eliminated.
Add that fact to their reflexive love of progressive activism (ANY progressive activism) and you have multi-billion dollar institutions held in thrall to the most unstable and spoiled members of the student body, kids who are effectively pretending to be revolutionaries. It's a pathetic spectacle in every respect.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/pretend-revolutionaries