Protesters at TSU Law School Shout Down Congressman at Conservative Student Event
Then the school president ended the event.
The Federalist Society at Texas Southern University’s Thurgood Marshall School of Law invited Republican State Rep. Briscoe Cain to speak about his experiences in the Texas legislature. Unfortunately, a group of protesters took it upon themselves to decide Briscoe shouldn’t be allowed to speak.
KHOU News reported:
Protesters at TSU prevent state representative’s speech
There was controversy on the Texas Southern University campus right before the cancellation of one lawmaker’s speech Monday.
After dozens of protesters filed into an event featuring House Representative Briscoe Cain, they wouldn’t allow Rep. Cain to speak, claiming he has ties to the Alt-Right and is anti-LGBT.
Rep. Cain was invited to the Thurgood Marshall School of Law by the Federalist Society to talk to the students about the recent legislative special session. Instead, the event was shut down before it even started.
“No hate anywhere, you don’t get a platform here!” protesters yelled inside the room.
The words echoed through the classroom.
“When a racist comes to town, shut him down,” they continued.
That was the mission of the student protesters: shutting down Rep. Cain, who was invited on campus by student Daniel Caldwell.
“It appears that many of you have comments, questions or concerns that you’d like to take up with him,” Caldwell said to the students while at the podium.
No comments, questions or concerns were ever voiced, however. Rep. Cain tried to speak, but his words were lost below the chants.
“No hate anywhere. You don’t get a platform here!” the chant continued.
Here’s a video of the protest:
University police removed the protesters from the room and Cain prepared to resume his talk.
Then something unexpected happened. University President Austin Lane entered the room, invited the protesters back in and claimed that the Federalist Society had not gone through the proper channels to invite a campus speaker. He then cancelled the event, drawing applause from the protesters.
Here’s what Lane said via the Coed Blog:
The university, however, has a right to regulate time, place, and manner. That’s something that universities have the right to always regulate, which is time, place, and manner, and that today has not been done. So that’s why this event will be cancelled until we have the appropriate [drowned out by applause]. So, again, we welcome free speech, but we need the ability to make sure we can handle whatever guest is coming here today.
I appreciate — I didn’t know about it, and I just happened to be with another Senator here, Senator Boris Miles, we were out doing some other things early on. We were glad that we were able to meet, and I look forward to going out and talking with, is it Representative Cain? I look forward to talking with him as well to make sure that we all get on the same page. … We’ll go back to the drawing board to make sure that if in fact we have speakers that come in, and that’s fine, but we need to make sure that we regulate the time, place, and manner, and not the speech.
Let me say that again because [something] a lot of people will pick that up. Universities can regulate time, place, and manner, and we have not done that today through our appropriate processes. … If there is another event that is scheduled to be here in the law school, in this particular room, then we need that to occur. … It’s my job to make sure that nothing, absolutely nothing, disrupts the academic environment.
Here’s the video of Lane’s remarks:
Two things are clear. The left doesn’t want to discuss ideas, they want to silence all perceived opponents. And university administrators are emboldening protesters by excusing their behavior.
Silencing the speech of others is not free speech. It is an aggressive act which stifles free speech.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Going through the proper channels has worked out SO WELL in the past.
Seems like the protesters get a pass on going through said channels.
“Two things are clear. The left doesn’t want to discuss ideas, they want to silence all perceived opponents. And university administrators are emboldening protesters by excusing their behavior.”
Bullshit. This is no different than TAMU declining to provide a forum for Alt-righters. It’s PERFECTLY within their purview.
President Lane was absolutely correct.
Successful trolls do not use expletives when discussing with adults. It makes them sound too much like another whining snowflake.
The going gets tough for the vocabulary-challenged, the vocabulary-challenged get going on profanity.
President Lane is the racial grievance industry’s Rochester.
Fucking a bunch of down votes and no rebuttal.
Rags you are wrong, this school is paid for by the state taxpayers and is therefore public property. This is the problem with Socialism. The President can’t really turn down this speaker because “we” all own this property and the 1st amendment applies in spades.
Shane, why would I bother responding to a pack of liars (LCD and the idiot who called me a “troll”) and legal know-nothings hopping around claiming this is “First Amendment” country.
Nothing is more “public property” than a court room or police station. Try speaking out in contravention of the rules each employ, and see where it gets you.
As I maintained WRT the TAMU controversy, a state university has a perfect right to impose various rules on the use of its venue.
I was called names for that, too. By ignorant haters like those on this thread. I’m used to it.
The Interim Dean of the Law School has released this statement:
James Douglas, interim dean of the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at TSU, told The Dallas Morning News he’s looking into why Deer Park Rep. Briscoe Cain’s appearance was suddenly canceled after protesters showed up at the event Monday in Houston. Douglas said the law school’s branch of the Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization with chapters across the county, cleared the event with him.
“We have a process here in the law school, and they went through our process,” Douglas said of the Federalist Society. “The speaker had a First Amendment right to be heard by the students that invited him.
Secondly, the President’s response contained this:
Additionally, any activities that are unlawful or disruptive to the normal operations of the University, including classes and University business activities, will not be tolerated. Groups or individuals engaging in disruptive activities or failing to comply with University policies and applicable local, state, and federal laws may face immediate removal from the campus and other appropriate actions by University officials and University police.
That leads to the question of “who was being disruptive of the normal operations of the University?” Certainly the law society which sponsored the event wasn’t. Certainly the Representative Cain wasn’t.
The protesters were the disruptive force.
Yet despite being disruptive, the protesters were allowed back into the room. The President violated the very policies he says he is upholding.
It should also be noted that the legal group tht put on the event had arranged for extra security from the school because the protesters had made it clear they were going to disrupt the speech.
It is unfathomable for the school president to say “we didn’t know about this speech.” It is ridiculous to say that the group did not have the permission of the school when in fact the Law School had approved the event. It is further more ridiculous for the President to hang his hat on policies and procedures in one breath and then violate those same polices and procedures in actions.
Your last paragraph is just opinion.
Here’s what I’ll bet will be the case; the school will look into the incident. The Federalists will invite the speaker back. (When I was in law school, I was an officer in the Federalist Society.) He’ll give his speech.
IFFFFFF anyone files any kind of legal action here asserting First Amendment violations, it will be dismissed.
Watch and see.
Your last paragraph is just opinion.
As is your position.
As you well know, TPM restrictions must be able to survive strict scrutiny and serve a compelling governmental interest.
Please explain how the stopping of this speech which was approved by the Law School serves survives any examination. Please explain why the school has no duty to protect the First Amendment rights of the speaker (ad failed in that duty by not only allowing the protesters, but allowing them back into the room)?
The problem is that you seem to be saying that TPM restrictions trump everything. What you fail to address is that TPM restrictions cannot just be slapped on or invoked at the drop of the hat. Your position is akin to saying “the restrictions are legal because the restrictions say they are legal.”
It doesn’t work that way and you know it.
Yeah, I know it was opinion. In that case, the specialized class of opinion that is predictive.
No. I won’t “explain” anything to you. If you don’t understand enough about organizational behavior to know that the right hand frequently does not know what the left had fully laid out down to the parking permit, nothing I could tell you would make any difference.
I’ll just lay it out again; any First Amendment action will be dismissed.
You’re all wee-weed up that the president let the protesters back in the room…after peace was imposed. From my POV, he did that to impart an important teaching moment. Listen again. And, remember, THAT is his job.
I absolutely DETEST that every-flucking-incident is a new demand for everyone to light their hair on fire and do the tribal taboo dance of outragedy outrageousness and indignation to the 11th power.
Now, take your opinions in your hand, and YOU predict what will come out of this (really very minor) contretemps.
In other words, you were being a hypocrite in trying to dismiss my “opinion” by simply labeling it an opinion, while your opinion gets some sort or special treatment because it was uttered by you. Got it. You’re being a hypocrite and illogical.
I fully understand that you won’t “explain” anything and trying to make the totally irrelevant point of right and left hands in an organization.
Your whole premise in this discussion is that the school is allowed to make TPM rules and that they must have followed them. The problem is, of course, that the TPM rules have to survive strict scrutiny, and as you now seem to acknowledge, the school President did not follow those rules. You should know that the application of governmental restriction on speech cannot be based on content and must follow the legal rules set up by the institution.
That didn’t happen here. Therefore, there is a violation of the First Amendment.
You have talked and insulted your way into the very position which initially you denied. After all, remember you said that any action would be dismissed because there was no First Amendment violation. Now you seem to be claiming that there was a violation only that nothing will come from it.
I disagree. I suspect it is far more likely that the school and the group will come to an agreement that there was a violation, the school will apologize and that the rules will be clarified. It will not be dismissed out of hand.
As for the “teaching moment,” once again you seem to think that the President of the university should be teaching students that it is acceptable for him to not abide by the rules of the university and that they do not have to abide by the rules of the university. That’s what happened here. The President shut down an approved event and then did not hold the people that were disruptive of the event accountable.
His actions can be taken (and would most likely be taken) by any normal, thinking human being) as trying to end the speech by a sitting elected official based on what he felt would be the content of the speaker’s remarks. Even you should see that as a violation of the First Amendment.
That violation is the what the President taught. He taught that the rules don’t apply to some students and that the First Amendment doesn’t apply on campus.
I actually agree with you that not everything should be a “hair on fire” response. Yet it is important to remember that the students who disrupted the speech not only had their hair on fire, but were intent on figuratively burning down the speech, the speaker and those in attendance. You don’t have to go off the deep end on saying this was a problem, but your attitude has been to defend the illegal actions of the school, the president, and the disruptive students.
One of the signs of a mature, thinking adult is the ability to say, “I was wrong.” That is a skill set that you apparently have failed to learn. You seem to be more concerned with saying you are right than being right.
Pity.
***In other words, you were being a hypocrite in trying to dismiss my “opinion” by simply labeling it an opinion, while your opinion gets some sort or special treatment because it was uttered by you. Got it. You’re being a hypocrite and illogical.***
That’s just total bullshit.
“Your whole premise in this discussion is that the school is allowed to make TPM rules and that they must have followed them. The problem is, of course, that the TPM rules have to survive strict scrutiny, and as you now seem to acknowledge, the school President did not follow those rules. You should know that the application of governmental restriction on speech cannot be based on content and must follow the legal rules set up by the institution.”
You’re just making up crap now. This whole paragraph is your fabrication. Show any mention of “content”. Anywhere.
“I disagree. I suspect it is far more likely that the school and the group will come to an agreement that there was a violation, the school will apologize and that the rules will be clarified. It will not be dismissed out of hand.”
OK. FINALLY, there is a prediction.
Of course, you crawfish here. What I predicted was that any legal action claiming a First Amendment violation would be dismissed.
What the president said, very clearly, was that there would be a conciliation with Mr. Cain, and another opportunity provided that met the rules.
Did you miss that? Or do you just choose to ignore it?
That’s just total bullshit.
I all appreciate the thought and effort you put into this intellectual argument. It seems to be typical for you.
You’re just making up crap now. This whole paragraph is your fabrication. Show any mention of “content”. Anywhere.
So are you saying that TPM restrictions can be made and based on content? How odd that you would ignore the law and court rulings on that.
Of course, you crawfish here. What I predicted was that any legal action claiming a First Amendment violation would be dismissed.
A dismissal by a judge is quite different from the parties coming to an agreement. Or are you not aware of that? And are you now backing away from your original assertion?
Did you miss that? Or do you just choose to ignore it?
It’s not relevant to the discussion. Not one single bit. You seem to think that a violation of the school rules and Constitutions (Texas and US) can be dismissed by “well, they can come back later and speak.”
You cannot be that stupid.
Furthermore, as stated, the lesson the President taught students was that speakers can be shut down because of the content of the speech. (Or is it your opinion that the protesters were there to support Representative Cain?) That is what the protesters sought to do. The President then cleared them of any fallout and accountability contrary to the school rules. In other words, he supported the protesters attempted blocking of the speech because of its content. There is no other conclusion that a reasonable person can come to. .
You have flopped around on this issue like a fresh fish on a dock. But as the fish rots from the head, your arguments are doithe same.
You’ve managed to distort, misrepresent, and impose enough irrational bullshit here to make this worthless.
So, here’s a recap; the president had and has every right…and responsibility…to control his venue.
According to the president, there had been a failure to abide by the venue rules. He shut the speech down, with the clear statement that all the interested parties would meet together to provide another speaking engagement.
The president did not fail to use police to impose peace.
There was no mention whatsoever of “content”. It was all about TPM.
I predict that there will be no successful First Amendment claim coming out of this.
Apparently some people are ignoring the statement from Rep. Cain:
Today I attended an event scheduled by the TSU chapter of the Federalist Society a few months ago. I was greeted by campus officials, given a guest parking voucher, and brought into a room in which the administration had specifically requested the talk occur. Then Black Lives Matter came in and bullied the administration into ending the event. It’s a sad day for universities across Texas whenever speech and a variety of views are prevented from being presented due to bullies.
If that is the case, the school clearly knew about the event and had sanctioned it.
Furthermore, if the event was unscheduled, why let the protesters back into the room? Why not just explain the situation and end the event? If the goal of the school and its president was to end the talk and have people vacate a room, why allow more people into the room if not for the express purpose of empowering the protesters?
Bullshit.
The school receives FEDERAL funds, therefore FEDERAL rules apply.
If they wish to return the federal monies and go private, THEN they can dictate who may and may not speak.
You’ve gotta love Rags. The self-proclaimed Mr. Ultra-conservative. So conservative, he’s the only real conservative on this forum. Maybe the only “real” conservative to ever live. So conservative, that his moniker is taken from a radical French Marxist and blood-soaked revolutionary.
If I hadn’t spent the last several months filtering out his incoherent, self-refuting nonsense, I’d be laughing. He’s a reflexively anti-American, anti-Western, anti-rational, anti-intellectual bigot. A man who argues with the wind because it gives him a sense of importance and relief from the pressure of the manifest failures elsewhere in his life.
You are astutely observing that he has gone from riches to Rags.
No, he’s very intentionally lying his ass off to try to smear me.
You, or course, are slurping along, sucking that crap right up.
It’s just who your tribe is.
“This is no different than TAMU declining to provide a forum for Alt-righters. It’s PERFECTLY within their purview.”
There is one glaring difference. TAMU cancelled the event days ahead of time. Even if the law school didn’t follow all of the proper procedures the event was advertised and people at the school knew about it. Using a technicality after the start of the event emboldens the protesters and sends the signal that they were right. That is why President Lane is wrong.
Thank you Dean Wormer, may I have another?
The protestere of course were not there to enforce a poorly-understood protocol; they were there to infringe civil liberties. Even if President Lane were correct to cancel the event. he has a remaining duty to punish the protesters. We shall see, but I am not hopeful.
Are there not enough conservative students left on college campuses to shout down liberal approved speakers?
Yeah, I know. They would be expelled on the spot! If college administrations didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.
TSU is a 4th tier law school, founded and dedicated to the proposition that there should always be a place for applicants who have been rejected every where else, and that they should still be allowed to pay tuition – as long as they can qualify for government sponsored loans, of course.
TSU was actually and honestly excited when their bar passage rate got up to 64%. Average passage rate for Texas law schools is in the mid 80’s over time, and would probably get close to 90 if all the TSU students were left out.
Ah, but there’s so much money to be made by encouraging them to take out loans that they’ll never to be able to pay back, and telling them they’re going to have careers that are never going to happen.
The only reason it exists is so that an entitled bureaucracy that doesn’t want to actually work for a living can continue defrauding foolish young students out of their money. But if you point that out you’re a racist.
The whole thing is absurb, Universities are of our control and I hope their Admissions keep
going down .
In this case a Black University , probably not, BLM BS and all that goes with it. Can’t even have conversations with majority of Black people anymore, they are absolutely convinced they are still being repressed..
It really was not like this before obama. Yes you had pockets, but this is insane.
The FASCIST protesters should have been photographed for ID, thrown out, and expelled from the university. Since that did NOT happen, the entire group of upper administrators should be summarily fired y the universities trustees.
Rep. Cain’s response: https://www.tribtalk.org/2017/10/11/free-speech-under-assault-at-texas-southern-university/
…snip…
The chapter chair followed the requested protocol for scheduling the meeting. He was told by the campus administration that they preferred the meeting be held in the law school’s mock court room. The dean of student affairs asked to arrange a meet-and-greet after the event. The administration even designed the flyers.
…snip…
What is clear is that the university chose to side with those wanting to silence the free speech of the students who organized this event. The administration’s fabricated excuse of this event being “unapproved” doesn’t match up with the numerous approvals they made along the way.
TSU Thurgood Marshall School is a public law school. I hope the DOJ looks carefully at what happened here.
BTW here are stats on the law school. http://law-schools.startclass.com/l/145/Texas-Southern-University
Thank you Amwick for doing the follow up. Seems like the president is being a douche.
My take away is that the student organization didn’t go through the correct process for the event. …. OK …. so they need to go through the process. It would be good to reach out to that organization to see when they will be bringing back that speaker or if they will be hosting other events.
I noted that the campus police were present, and they removed the protesters (they were allowed to do their job). That bodes well. I am not really willing to jump on this President yet. I would like to see a registered conservative speaker and then protests and then response to see how this would really be handled.
I am aware that the president could be stalling and using the bureaucracy to stop speakers that he doesn’t like, but we have no idea on whether or not that might have occurred. Speaking to the student organization would be the only way to find that out and this article is incomplete without it.
Posted at the same time as Amwick above please reference there.
“Two things are clear. The left doesn’t want to discuss ideas, they want to silence all perceived opponents. And university administrators are emboldening protesters by excusing their behavior.”
I was immensely impressed with President Lane’s ability to:
A) Determine within moments that a peaceful meeting of students and a state representative was not in compliance with university rules, despite the room having been reserved and the university police present to maintain order (no small tasks given TSU bureaucracy).
B) Manage to use the power of his position to cancel said event without consulting with any person or university department with which the Federalist Society made the initial arrangements.
C) Proceed to hijack the event to give the most amazing double-meaning speech off the cuff where he both voiced praise for free speech even while grinding his heel down on the voices of those who only wanted to exercise the right peacefully.
D) To have the GALL to do that to a TX representative who votes on the school finance that taxpayers send to his institution every year.
Undoubtedly, the left is only in favor of free speech that agrees with them. This proves it. What we frequently forget is just how *hard* they will push this when in power.
President Lane needs to resign. He’s proven beyond a doubt by word and deed that the power entrusted into his hands will be used inappropriately. It’s time to take that power away.
I would also expect that if the event organizer and conservative students in general would escalate this and attract more publicity, they would find themselves being more harshly graded in their classes, which are likely being taught by liberal professors. The students would likely know or believe that and would elect to stay quiet on the issue.
“Thurgood Marshall School of Law”
Judge the book by the cover and name,
Thurgood Marshall, the country’s first AA judge.
You might say Marshall was the the Serena Williams of male Supreme Court justices.
And if you really want to insult him, call him the Sotomayor of Supreme Court justices.
And if you really hated his guts, you might refer to him the michelle obama of Supreme Court justices.
Different day, same comment: “Have my tax dollars been defunded from these diversiversity, marxist indoctrination camps formerly known as universities?”
Micturating in the Wheaties of state legislators may have fiscal consequences for state schools. I would suggest cutting funding to any law schools, 2/3 of whose graduates cannot pass the bar exam on first try.
I’m sorry, but the optics here just need to be pointed out. A white Republican Texas Representative was treated with complete disrespect by a black university president. Then, that same president proceeds to speak about his nice talk with a Democrat black Texas Senator.
Reverse the colors, reverse the political affiliation, and this makes national headlines.
I will never speak about TSU in a positive way unless they immediately renounce this racist behavior.