Silence critics
Slander opposition
Suppress dissent
Suspend free speech

Very good response. I hope you organized it into paragraphs because that makes so the content seem less dense and easier to read, therefore more likely to be read all the way through.

I have been a loyal reader of the Post-Dispatch for ages. As a Cardinal fan, I regularly visit STL Today. I voraciously read Bernie, Jeff, and Brian’s takes on the Cardinals, and this interest has often led me to read other parts of the PD. My mother was born in St. Louis and my father was born in Willow Springs. I have lived in Ironton, MO and Columbia, MO, where I received my PhD. My grandmothers live in Willow Springs. I say all this to make it clear to you that I am not some drive-by respondent. I am exactly the sort of reader who supports the P-D, and I have done so through thick and thin. However, given your unconscionable editorial decision to silence George Will, I am no longer going to read the PD or visit STL Today. I may be just one reader, but I will not lend my support to an institution that attempts to silence the other side of the debate, particularly when you disguise such actions as some kind of principled stand. George Will is an established right-leaning and leading voice, but he is no rabble-rouser or extremist. And his column on campus treatment of sexual abuse allegations deserves praise – not condemnation. Furthermore, his article on the serious degradation of due process rights for the accused in campus sexual assault “cases” was neither “offensive” nor “inaccurate.” In fact, what is both offensive and inaccurate is your editorial comment on his article announcing the PD would no longer carry Will’s column. It offensively levels a false and slanderous charge against Will, and inaccurately portrays the content of his article. Nowhere in Will’s article did he suggest “sexual assault victims” enjoy a “privileged status.” Rather, Will took issue with is the increasing resemblance that imposed innovations on campus ‘judicial’ proceedings regarding sexual assault have to the Star Chamber – no due process, no rights for the accused, and a single judge, jury, and executioner. Nothing in Will’s article suggest that real victims of sexual assault enjoy a “privileged status” or that they should be treated in any way other than victims should be treated. What Will objects to is the low standard of proof applied to “victimhood” status – a bar which we have traditionally set high precisely to guard against false accusations. Those falsely accused are victims as well – and creating a presumption that the accused is guilty, which is what the new procedures that Will criticizes do, hearkens back to the Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps you have a different view, and that is fine – reasonable persons can disagree. But to treat Will’s defense of traditional due process as if it is beyond the pale, and to falsely characterize it as an attack on real victims of sexual assault, is itself beyond the pale. Is unconscionable. And I, for one, will not stand for it. If the PD wishes to change its lineup of op-ed writers, that is within your purview. But to do so under the color of intolerance, of silencing dissent, and of rank hypocritical dishonesty, is too much for this reader. I bid you and the PD farewell, and I implore you to reconsider this rash, illiberal, immoral, and unjustifiable decision. Or you will end up speaking to the echo chamber you apparently only listen to.

Don Gooch

Typical syndication deals don’t include an option to refuse an outlet, because only idiots would do that. But if Gerson did, it would just leave the Post-Dispatch without any conservative voices at all.

Gerson is a well-known Republican, known for his “compassionate conservatism“. Now we shall get to see the depth of Mr Gerson’s values.

If anyone has contact information for Gerson, please post it here so we can ask him to resign.

That makes the subscription decision all the more simple for the people in the Post-Dispatched market area.

“No. I don’t want your crappy, gutless, cringing, Collectivist bird-cage liner any longer. I will read Mr. Will on-line from one of the numerous sources where I can find him.”

Feel free to cut and paste, or make up your own.

It is also telling that the editors did not bother to refute what Mr. Will correctly observed. Likely as not because…

1. they cannot, and

2. the truth of the matter is of no consequence to them.

He laughingly said,”go home and beat my wife”. He immediately then said, “that was a joke, I don’t condone domestic violence, etc. He spoke lovingly of his wife and kids and said they help him immensely with his stress of coaching, etc.”

The perpetual outraged are calling for him to be fired. Seriously. They are on social media, screaming that he should at least have to take sensitivity training, go to battered women’s shelters, etc. He should be fined, suspended, all manner of things for daring to make a flip joke about domestic violence.

Every one of these actions taken by a gubmint funds recipient is unconstitutional. And when they are kind enough to put it in a formal policy, it is pretty easy to prove that they intended to do it which authorizes punitive damages.

They’re no Saint!

We should demand that their copyright to that name be cancelled!