Blatant hypocrisy: Milo Yiannopouos now part of demonstration to cancel a graduation speaker

Yes, what I’ll recount is blatant hypocrisy on Milo’s part, for he’s always called for free speech, and, demonized by the Left, he was for a while its poster boy. But now he’s joined Pamela Geller’s #CancelSarsour movement: a protest against the City University of New York’s (CUNY’s) invitation to Sarsour to be the graduation speaker at their commencement for Public Health students.

Sarsour is a nasty piece of work, a supporter of the BDS movement, a supporter of sharia law, and someone who once issued this tweet:

She apparently failed to realize that some of Hirsi Ali’s genitals have already been “taken away” by FGM

And these (at least two of all of these have been deleted):


You can see more of these tweets here.

Geller. who I’m not particularly fond of, details some of Sarsour’s other questionable views and actions. But in the doublethink endemic to Western third-wave feminists, Sarsour (who wears a hijab) is a Feminist Hero: a leader of the Women’s March.  Blech.  Nevertheless, if she was invited to speak at graduation, I wouldn’t call for her to be uninvited or deplatformed.

Milo, supposedly an advocate of free speech, has—by joining Geller in an attempt to get CUNY to cancel Sarsour. From

Milo Yiannopoulos will headline a protest this month against Linda Sarsour and the City University of New York’s invitation for her to give the commencement address at a graduation ceremony for public health graduate students.

Organized by far-right provocateur Pamela Geller, the demonstration is targeting the Muslim civil rights activist for her previous stately hostility toward Israel and defense of Islamic, or Sharia law.

“Such sanction is so malignant and so evil. it cannot be ignored. There is a responsibility for the time we are living in,” wrote Geller, in a press release announcing the news.

Milo should really think twice about protesting Sarsour’s invitation and being part of a demonstration to rescind it. He was once the symbol of allowing “offensive” speech, but when the speech offends him (and Geller), he’s out there trying to ban it. It’s disgraceful.

But is he trying to build a new image after he was thrust out of public view for his comments on “man boy love”? He once had my sympathy for being demonized because he offended people, even though I disagreed with most of what he said. But he’s now lost that sympathy.

Sarsour shouldn’t ever be a hero to progressives. But she shouldn’t be censored, either.


  1. Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    Hmm, not sure I fully agree Jerry. If she’d been invited merely to speak on campus then sure, she should be allowed to do that without any rescinding of the invitation.

    But a commencement address? Isn’t there an argument that for commencement addresses one should avoid any highly polarising speaker, whether from the left or right? Afterall, aren’t commencement days more about the students than the speaker?

    • Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      I don’t agree; if you want anodyne words, have some else say those. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was, I believe, invited to do that at Brandeis.

      My own Ph.D. graduation speaker was Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and he gave a very polarizing talk about the West’s failure to take seriously the threat of Communism. I’d rather hear something like that than a CEO or comedian saying “follow your dreams.”

      • Randy schenck
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        I was just thinking about who gave the speech yesterday at Liberty U. Kind of makes me sick but I don’t know if it was the place or the guy.

  2. BJ
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Listen, I HATE Milo, but this isn’t someone a group of students invited to speak, but someone giving the graduation commencement ceremony. Should Jewish students have to have their graduation ceremony blighted by an antisemite? Should others who she hates have to listen to her?

    She’s being invited by the university for a commencement address. I think this is very different from the issues we’ve been discussing. I don’t see this as any different from the students who protested years ago when Condoleeza Rice was supposed to give their commencement address.

    A commencement address should be for all students, so it shouldn’t be given by someone like Sarsour. It would be like Milo himself giving it, which I also wouldn’t support.

    • Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      I believe Ayaan Hirsi Ali was supposed to be the commencement speaker at Brandeis, which rescinded her invitation. You could use your identical argument against her, too.

      • BJ
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

        My point, though, is that this isn’t a deplatforming, and I don’t see it as a free speech issue. She wasn’t invited to exchange ideas in an open university setting; commencement speakers are invited to celebrate the graduation of the students, so I think that speaker should be someone every student can at least tolerate or, at the very least, can be relied upon not to try and use their position to make a political speech.

        Graduation is about the students, not ideas or the exchange thereof. I just see this as a fundamentally different issue.

        • Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

          She was invited to give whatever talk she wanted. Who defined graduation speakers as being “about the students and not ideas”? You? Where is that stipulation.

          Don’t respond, as I’m not continuing this discussion; I’ve had my say.

          • Craw
            Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

            Don’t respond? I can well understand not wanting to continue a discussion and saying so. Some debates are not worth continuing. But telling someone you disagree with not to respond, when it is backed by an implicit threat as it is here, is not something I can respect.

            • Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

              It’s not a threat; I have to leave, Nobody is getting banned. I just wasn’t interested in going on. Where’s the threat?

              Jebus H.

              • BJ
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

                I actually did think you were telling me not to respond to you or I would be risking a banning.

                So, if I am allowed to respond (and feel free not to respond to my response), I just think it’s a logical conclusion that graduations are about the students and the fact that they’ve completed a life goal. It’s fine if you disagree. I’m not the final arbiter on the idea. It’s just my opinion that the students graduating matter more than the speech to be given.

                And, for the record, while I love Hirsi-Ali and would love to see a talk from her, I wouldn’t want to invite her as a commencement speaker, knowing that many students would be unhappy on what they feel is supposed to be “their day,” and the only day they’ll ever get to graduate.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

                That was probably just Jerry’s way of saying talk to the hand, BJ. 🙂

              • Craw
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

                You did not say don’t bother to respond, you said don’t respond. Those are very different things. If you actually meant the former then I apologize for reading too much into it. As for the implied threat, I have seen you ban people for responding after you tell them not to, and you do make a show of banning people.

              • Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

                Yes, I meant the former; I was in a hurry. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      Why not give them and the ‘rents 15 minutes of puppy videos, while they’re all submersed in sensory-deprivation tanks? And don’t forget the warm milk and gluten-free graham crackers. Heaven forfend that anyone should get riled up.

      American free speech is robust and sloppy; it ain’t tea with the Queen.

      • BJ
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

        Hey, if you disagree with my position, it’s all good. I just personally don’t see the hypocrisy in opposing a commencement speaker while supporting the rights of students to invite who they want to speak on campus themselves.

        I can see why others might disagree, and I don’t think it’s a cut-and-dry issue, but this is just my personal opinion on the matter.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted May 14, 2017 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

          I understand, BJ; that was bit over-the-top of me — but, then, “over the top” is my beat. 🙂

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted May 14, 2017 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

          I’m inclined to agree with BJ. A commencement speech is (I presume) an official University occasion, and I would think it appropriate that the speaker should stay off politics and religion and any other ‘hot-button’ issues.

          Even if I agreed 100% with what the speaker was saying – even if they were promoting my dearest fantasies – I would feel quite uncomfortable that they were hijacking the occasion.

          Now, if it’s a meeting/debate/rally organised by a university society, they can say what they like and the opposition can protest (peacefully) or debate them or organise counter-meetings, whatever, but have no business stopping it. A quite different issue.


        • Colin McLachlan
          Posted May 15, 2017 at 9:15 am | Permalink

          I think you have a valid point, BJ.

  3. Kevin
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    Sarsour is caustic and deluded, but if a university wants her for a commencement that is an embarrassment but not something to be cancelled for fear of hurting people’s feelings.

    Worth repeating: any person forced to wear clothes because of religious faith is being oppressed.

    • Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      I do not doubt Sarsour’s freedom of speech, but I do doubt CUNY’s judgment in choosing her as a commencement speaker.

      • Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:29 pm | Permalink


      • Heather Hastie
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

        Yes, she’s a bad choice, but she was their choice, which they have a right to make. Once that choice is made, people can say they disagree with it, but trying to stop her from speaking is a different matter.

        Sarsour is someone whose opinions disgust me.
        Yiannopoulos is also someone whose opinions leave me cold.

        Both, however, should have the right to speak.

        Any other choice is inconsistent with freedom of speech, thought, and opinion.

        The “blatant hypocrisy” of Yiannopoulos is appalling. I stood up for his right to express his vile opinions during the Berkeley saga, along with thousands of other free speech advocates. This action throws that back in out faces. It’s the modern equivalent of flinging faeces.

        • jt512
          Posted May 14, 2017 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

          Nobody has a right to give a commencement speech. The university has the right to choose whomever they wish to give the speech, and, it seems to me, they have the right to rescind the invitation if they decide they’ve made a mistake. I’m not sure that’s the case here, but it sure seems possible.

        • Posted May 15, 2017 at 3:26 am | Permalink

          The “blatant hypocrisy” of Yiannopoulos is appalling.

          It is not necessarily hypocrisy from Milo unless he thinks that he himself would be an appropriate commencement speaker. It’s possible that he has enough self-awareness to realise that he wouldn’t be.

          By the way, I’m fairly amazed by the number of commenters here making no distinction between a graduation ceremony and a merely being invited to speak on campus.

          • Kevin
            Posted May 15, 2017 at 9:46 am | Permalink

            I don’t really see the difference. If a GOP student group organizes a talk that’s small group of people following an ideologically motivated prescription for their speakers. If a University organizes a talk that’s a larger group of people following some principle that they would argue matches the benefits of their student body.

            Just small or less small.

            Liberty University just invited an orange chaos monkey in diapers to speak. The low bar has now been set.

  4. poltiser
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Thank you,
    a muzzle for the speaker would not solve the problem of non tolerant bigotry.
    I miss humour of Carlin!
    He would be a good response to the nonsense of provocation and “correctness” alike.
    Today we can listen to Minchin…
    and Melody Sheep
    on the other side of the Glob…

  5. Steve
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    The only thing that surprises me is that people still think that Milo and in general the right actually care about free speech. Please they use the free speech defence for their convenience and are ready to abandon it whenever they feel threatened.
    By the way some of the commenters defending Milo above are hilarious. They remind me of all those guys on the left who were explaining why it’s OK to ban people like Milo and Coulter.

    • Harrison
      Posted May 15, 2017 at 6:27 am | Permalink

      Said it before, but just as many on the left turned out to be fairweather fans of free speech when it was convenient, I predicted many on the right would be the same.

      Sadly I didn’t have any money riding on that prediction.

  6. Ken Kukec
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Fame whore much, Milo?

    I’m all for everyone’s free speech rights being respected everywhere, in virtually all circumstances. And that goes for Milo, Sarsour, Geller — the whole lot of ’em. But the sooner Mi-Y slithers back into the crevasse whence he came, the better.

  7. S.K.Graham
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    I do not think protesting/disinviting commencement speakers presents the same free speech issues as others that have come up. To clarify the difference:

    (a) Student group invites a speaker. Protestesters demand andministration/authorities shut down the event and/or use threat of violence to shut down event. This directly impinges the free speech and free assembly rights of other students.

    (b) School administration invites a speaker. Protesters demand the administration change it’s mind about the invitation. So long as there is not a threat of violance, there is no free speech issue if the administration listens to the protesters and changes its mind about the invitation.

    The key difference is the administration (authority) changing its own mind what/who’s speech it will endorse, promote, or honor; vs. abusing that authority to shut down the freedom of speech/assembly of a group of students.

    • Randy schenck
      Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      I say you are splitting hairs and there is no difference. If you don’t like who is invited to speak, regardless of who asked them to, you don’t have to go. When you say Oh, we don’t want that guy, or we don’t want to hear that, what do you call it? If you command no, and they don’t speak, that is a removal of free speech.

      • Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

        The “you don’t have to go” point is fine for any normal run-of-the-mill meeting, but less appropriate for a commencement address.

        • Randy schenck
          Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

          Please explain what is so special about a guest speaker at a commencement verses coming to the school at another time to speak. It is all for the students, right? And they do have the freedom to go or not? I heard someone above say, well commencement is for the students. That is correct, so if it is commencement that is so important (graduation), then skip the speaker altogether. This great ability to be offended stops when you get out of school, so by graduation time, lets start getting use to it.

          • Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

            For normal talks and events a student would be expected to pick and choose which to go to out of personal interest. In any university there are likely vastly more talks and seminars than any one person would choose to attend. Thus not being interested in any given talk is the norm.

            A graduation ceremony is different, a unique event in their life where the students formally receive their degree. Surely it is an event that nearly all students would want to attend.

            • Stephen Barnard
              Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

              Moreover, an invitation to speak at a commencement is a honor, a recognition of achievement, reputation, and wisdom that isn’t normally attributed to run-of-the-mill invitations.

            • Randy schenck
              Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

              Certainly, I do not argue most would want to go. But I do not agree that the speaker should only be one that would be like milk toast and non offensive to anyone. Some are known to sleep through those. Also, refusing to allow a selected speaker is the same kind of reduction in free speech that we see in other de-platforming. I am with PCC on this one.

              • Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

                If I were a student I’d want someone with a bit of gravitas and some standing in society, someone who people from a large swathe of the political spectrum can respect, even if they disagree with them.

                That doesn’t mean they should be bland and say nothing worth listening to, but to my mind it does rule out people who are primarily political activists and who are highly polarising. Neither Sarsour nor Milo would be appropriate, as I see it, it’s just not that sort of occasion.

                But I’d have no issue with either of them being invited to address a student club.

          • BJ
            Posted May 14, 2017 at 8:16 pm | Permalink

            It’s not just for them, but their families as well. For many students and their families, it could be the most significant day in their lives so far. I think a commencement speaker should be there to speak to all students and not bring up politics or anything that might alienate any of them (not even the regressives). I remember reading a story a few weeks ago about someone who gave a commencement address, and half of the address was committed to talking about how anyone who voted for Trump was a disgusting, racist, misogynistic bigot. While I might not have a huge well of sympathy for Trump voters, they’re still people like the rest of us. All the students and the families there that day that supported Trump in any way shouldn’t have been made to feel that way on a day that was supposed to be a celebration of the students succeeding in getting their degrees.

            • Michael Waterhouse
              Posted May 14, 2017 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

              And now that Jeff Sessions is reintroducing mandatory minimums for marijuana (and I don’t know what else) they are guilty to some degree of crimes against humanity.
              Trump was always going to bring these backward twerps with him.

              Just when there was a bit of hope that this vile attack on ordinary people, destroying thousands upon thousands of lives, was being mitigated, back they go to barbarism.
              And profit.
              If this is not a crime against humanity I don’t know what is.

              Bashar al-Assad is people too.

              • Posted May 15, 2017 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

                By such lax criteria, Sarsour is surely guilty to some degree of crimes against humanity.

          • S.K.Graham
            Posted May 15, 2017 at 4:23 am | Permalink

            There are a number of distinctions you are not making. Graduation ceremonies are borderline mandatory. The speakers are invited by the university administrations. Inviting a speaker is bestowing an honor up that speaker — largely in the name of the graduating student body. Most of the other cases we have become aware of have been speakers invites by **student groups** (i.e. “College Republicans” or whatever) which other students protested and got shut down.

            If the administration colludes with protesters to shut down an event, then they are infringing up the rights of the student group that invited on the speaker, as well as infringing the rights of the speaker (so long as the invitation from the student group stands).

      • S.K.Graham
        Posted May 15, 2017 at 4:17 am | Permalink

        How is this “splitting hairs”. The two cases are entirely different. In one case we are talking about protesting the decision made by an authority (and if it is a publicly funded university, then that authority represents the government itself). The other case is one group of students restricting the freedom of speech of another group of students.

        Failute to see the distinction, is, I think, a failure to understand the concept of individual rights.

        Consider a thirst case: College Repoublicans invite right-wing-asshole-#5 to speak. Student-SJW’s protest, but instead of demanding that the administration intervene, or obstructing the event itself, instead their protest boils down to “we don’t think you should invite right-wing-asshole-#5”. Such a protest would be perfectly fine, and College Republicans , could even reconsider their decision. “Hmmm, maybe #5 really is just a totall asshole, let’s invite someone else.”(not likely, but that’s not the point) As long as there is no coercion involved, no problem.

        Student’s absolutely have a right to protest decisions made by their school’s administration, including speaker invitations made by that administration. As long as the protest does not rise to the level of coersion, then nobody’s free speech rights are infringed, regardless of the decision made by the administration in response.

        Generally speaking, I think it would be cowardly and rude of an administration to disinvite a speaker. But they are certainly within their rights to do so if they see fit.

  8. Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    I’m against banning her but I can see the point of trolling her supporters by throwing her own arguments about freeze-peach and safety back in their faces and making them defend her rights.

  9. Stephen Barnard
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    I don’t see anything wrong with protesting a speaker per se. Where it goes wrong is when it turns into violence or other tactics of intimidation, with the intention of denying the speaker a platform.

    • Taz
      Posted May 14, 2017 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

      Those are my sentiments as well. I would add it also goes wrong when the administration caves.

    • S.K.Graham
      Posted May 15, 2017 at 4:28 am | Permalink

      Generally I think it is cowardly for an administration to cave in. Not to mention rude.

      But it is important to keep in mind that the speaker has no right to the commencement platform nor to the honor of being a commencement speaker, and the administration does have the right to reconsider whether granting that honor or platform was a good idea.

  10. Posted May 14, 2017 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know if the intention is genuinely to prevent her attendance but if this forces the university to make a statement committing itself to free speech they should be held to that the next time a conservative speaker – or a good, old-fashioned liberal – is invited.

  11. Posted May 14, 2017 at 3:12 pm | Permalink


  12. Posted May 14, 2017 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    I agree with others who say that a commencement is different from an ordinary invited speaker event. The analogy I would draw is this: someone says they’re going to throw me a birthday party. Great! Then they tell me they’ve invited a clown to perform. Wait – I hate clowns! Tough luck – they want to invite a clown, and they’re throwing the party. OK, yes – they are indeed throwing the party, and it is therefore within their rights to invite whoever they want. But it’s a birthday party being thrown for *me* – a celebration of *my* birthday – so it nevertheless seems in extremely poor taste for them to invite a clown when they know perfectly well that I hate clowns. Yeah, I can just not attend my own birthday party, sure. But how much does that suck? And what kind of person would do this to someone for their birthday? They can throw a party with clowns any time they want, and then I can just not attend their clown parties; I don’t have the right to dictate to them what kind of parties they throw. But when it’s my birthday party, that’s different, and I think it’s entirely fair for me to protest the choice of a clown in that context.

    FWIW, the NYT published an editorial relevant to this topic, and it seems pretty on target to me:

    • Randall Schenck
      Posted May 14, 2017 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

      I hate to be the one to ruin your parade, or your moment but basically what you and many others think is, this is the day that johnny and jane get a pat on the back. Please give us just one more safe day before we go out to meet the mean old world. I don’t know when college was changed to milk and cookies time – I missed that part. Fortunately I also missed the part where it got so expensive few can afford it.

      • Posted May 14, 2017 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        What a mean-spirited sentiment. What do you have against allowing students one day to celebrate the completion of years of work? Why do you feel a need to denigrate that with phrases like “milk and cookies time” and “one more safe day”? What’s wrong with celebrating an achievement?

        • Randall Schenck
          Posted May 14, 2017 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

          I am denigrating nothing and there is nothing wrong with celebrating achievement. The conversation here was what is and is not free speech and you want to say cancelling this person Sarsour’s invitation to speak is perfectly fine, and I say it is another shot at free speech. You want to compare graduation to your birthday parties, you are welcome to that.

          • Posted May 14, 2017 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

            “I am denigrating nothing” – well, that is clearly not true, as your words above show. “Milk and cookies time”, indeed.

            Anyway, if you would like to respond to the actual substance of the argument – that a graduation ceremony is different from an ordinary invited speaker event, because it is a celebration for the students themselves, and that it is reasonable for those students to therefore expect a celebration they can enjoy – feel free to do so. Simply asserting “it is bad because it is bad” contributes nothing to the discussion here.

            • Randy schenck
              Posted May 14, 2017 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

              Why would it be that celebration at graduation is not possible unless the speaker fits your definition of reasonableness? And if this is so, we better tell City University to change their ways. As stated in the title of this post. Hypocrisy is the area in question. You can certainly have your version of free speech and I will have mine. That is the substance as you say to the argument.

              • Posted May 14, 2017 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

                “Why would it be that celebration at graduation is not possible unless the speaker fits your definition of reasonableness?” So then you would have no objection whatsoever to Milo Yiannopoulos showing up at your birthday party and giving one of his nasty speeches? That would not in any way affect your enjoyment of your birthday party? If you say “no”, then I think you’re just trolling; and if you say “yes”, then I think you’ve got no leg left to stand on.

              • Randy schenck
                Posted May 14, 2017 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

                You are missing the point. I am not debating who would be a proper speaker and who would not. That, as I said before is not even at play in this issue. It is – what is your definition of free speech and then what mine might be. Yours depend upon who wants to talk and what they might say and that is far from any definition of free speech I can understand and I suspect the constitution would say the same as I.

      • BJ
        Posted May 14, 2017 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

        They have every other day of their college lives to be challenged and not be safe from ideas they don’t like. You know me on this site: I’m a free speech absolutist when it comes to things like no-platforming speakers invited by students and whatnot. But a commencement isn’t for exchanging ideas or about politics or about anything but celebrating the students and their accomplishment, and for many of those students (and their families), that is the proudest day of their lives so far. It shouldn’t be marred by political divisiveness; that should be saved for the classrooms and lecture halls.

        • Randy schenck
          Posted May 14, 2017 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

          I understand you are a free speech person and I do not want to go over ground already covered. I think I have been as clear as I can in the above comments.

      • Posted May 15, 2017 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

        I wonder why this rush by older people to ruin the graduation day of the young. In my country, older people bully kids graduating high school to donate the money for fancy clothes to the poor and to attend the prom in T shirts.

  13. fizziks
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    I have to agree with other commenters here that objecting to a graduation speaker is not the same free speech issue as shutting down a speaker that a student or academic group has invited.

  14. Posted May 14, 2017 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Student could give her the DeVos treatment I suppose and turn their backs on her. But she may find an inordinate amount of sympathy there.

  15. Michael Waterhouse
    Posted May 14, 2017 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

    Do we know what Milo is going to say?

    Maybe he will simply point out Sarsour’s interests and not call for a banning.

    But I suppose being there is tacit approval for banning, unless he says something to the contrary.

    I saw that Christina Sommers has pointed out the hypocrisy and danger of banning.

  16. LeSchlumbFantastique
    Posted May 15, 2017 at 3:53 am | Permalink

    The inability to recognise fundamental differences between 2 only superficially similar situations is worrysome. It is said of liberals they often lose the ability to discriminate, for discrimination is to them the root of all evil.

    Let me try to outline the difference.

    When speakers are invited by student groups, it’s a (a) group with low hierarchal status and no institutional power (b) trying to establish a space for someone to express certain viewpoints in front of a critical audience.

    A commencement speaker is installed by (a) a group of people at the top of the institutional power hierarchy to (b) give a speech to a captive audience (c) without the possibility of any critical rescourse.

    I’m not even sure the latter case can be construed as touching the free speech complex. Infact, given what we know about Sarsour, it’s highly likely, she will spout some authoritarian religious horsecrap onto her audience. Do I hear he “Anti-Establishment Clause” alarm bell ring?

    So, no. These 2 things are similar, but not the same. Learn to discriminate.

  17. Posted May 15, 2017 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    This is priceless! Two wacko extremists unhappy with their inability to spread hate and disinformation on college campuses……let me get my violin…..

  18. Etan Ben-Ami, LCSW
    Posted May 15, 2017 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    CUNY is granting Sarsour an honor by inviting her to give their commencement speech. It shows CUNY’s approval and respect for her public opinions. The University itself is taking a position, one that tacitly opposes those who disagree. This decision cannot be compared to a student organization, such as the Young Republicans, inviting Coulter or some other controversial right-wing speaker.

  19. Paul
    Posted May 15, 2017 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Milo who? But, seriously you think he cares one jot about Geller’s cause? It’s just about attention.

  20. nicky
    Posted May 15, 2017 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    Sarsour is at least as despicable as Yannopoulos. An obvious provocateur and a promoter -if not a shill- for about the most misogynistic, homophobic, undemocratic and patriarchal regime we have.
    It is indeed kind of hypocritical of Milo to want to silence her.
    I’m not really sure what the traditions of ‘commencement speeches’ are, but I tend to think Jerry is on the right side here. If CUNY sinks so low as to invite Sarsour, that is deplorable, but deplatforming is at least as bad.

  21. David Radford
    Posted May 24, 2017 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

    Fail. Milo was invited by students who wanted to hear him speak. The left made outrageous dangerous protest against him. Linda Sarsour has often been invited by students who wanted her to speak. The right has been perfectly gracious.

    But this is a commencement speech, with Jews and gays in the audience who shouldn’t be forced to listen to this hate monger. Maybe the author of this article thinks it’s a good idea to invite a KKK leader to speak to the black students next time?

    • Posted May 24, 2017 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for your thoughts, which will be put in the circular file (as will you) because of your unspeakable rudeness. Did you even read the Roolz before hurrying over to post here?

      I didn’t think so.

  22. Jenna
    Posted May 24, 2017 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Did you know that that day is a jewish holiday!?!

    That is NOT a day to allow a demonically posessed cockroach sarsour speak more on her agenda to take over the united staes. She actually said that our President Trump was her opponent, as if she’s running for president or something. Scary person.

One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] Blatant hypocrisy: Milo Yiannopouos now part of demonstration to cancel a graduation speaker. The fundamental issue, which I alluded to earlier this week, is that it may not be that the center can hold. Once the far Left began utilizing tools of speech suppression, which has been the norm throughout human history, it wasn’t going to be limited to them. Old fashioned liberals, generally older white men, are exactly correct about what will happen. It doesn’t matter, because norm-based group are so segregated the campus Left won’t back down and put away the ticking time bombs it’s been blackmailing the administration of universities with. Perhaps they know that everyone is going to jump off the cliff together, but it doesn’t matter. […]

%d bloggers like this: