Image 01 Image 03

Post-Parkland, Colleges Announce Anti-Gun Protest Suspensions Won’t Affect Admissions

Post-Parkland, Colleges Announce Anti-Gun Protest Suspensions Won’t Affect Admissions

Would they do the same for suspensions for pro-2A or pro-Life protest suspensions?

Few things make me as simultaneously sad and frustrated as what is happening to higher education in this country.  In an apparent effort to boost the number of anti-Second Amendment high school walkouts, colleges and universities are now announcing that suspensions for anti-gun protests won’t harm their chance of admission.

It’s not difficult to understand from these announcements that such suspensions would actually make the applicant more attractive to these very institutes of higher learning.  In this socio-cultural climate, nothing says “top admissions candidate” like a proven record of social justice agitation and protest.

High school protests, walkouts, and a march on Washington are being planned for the coming weeks.

Watch the report:

Apparently, reports swiftly circulated of school officials reminding students that skipping school carries a penalty: suspension.

BuzzFeed reports:

In the Needville Independent School District just outside Houston, Texas, the superintendent reportedly sent out letters threatening three-day suspensions for any student who joins in on walkouts.

“Life is all about choices and every choice has a consequence whether it be positive or negative,” Superintendent Curtis Rhodes said. “We will discipline no matter if it is 1, 50, or 500 students involved. All will be suspended for three days and parent notes will not alleviate the discipline.”

The Spring Independent School District, also in the Houston area, and the Waukesha County School District in Wisconsin issued similar warnings. (The Waukesha superintendent later made another statement saying students could participate if they were excused from class by their parents.)

This kicked off a trend—over 100 colleges and universities across the country have made similar statements–of colleges and universities assuring students that their high school suspensions for gun control advocacy would not affect their admissions.

Fox5 DC reports:

Colleges across the country, including the D.C. area, are releasing statements to reassure students that if they are penalized for participating in gun control demonstrations, it won’t jeopardize their chances of enrollment.

George Washington University, American, UVA, and Johns Hopkins have put out statements on social media addressing concerns from students about backlash for their activism.

Fox5 DC continues that other universities are joining in:

They join dozens of other universities and colleges including Yale, MIT, Dartmouth, Boston U, UMass Amherst, UCLA, as well as Smith and Mount Holyoke Colleges who have reassured high school students facing the threat of disciplinary action for taking part in gun control protests.


As the prof tweets, Brown has also joined in.

And that’s the rub, of course.  These colleges and universities wouldn’t dream of offering the same exemption to high schoolers who protest abortion, gun control, or any other non-leftist cause.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This should come as no surprise, as schools are giving credit for protest participation and universities are offering classes in social justice warriorism. (according to spellcheck, I’ve just invented a new phrase, rags and yellowsnake must be sooo jealous)

These latest “forgiveness” notices mean that lefty institutions are encouraging ideological clones: it makes their propaganda machine jobs easier.

    bear in reply to bear. | February 25, 2018 at 7:50 pm

    Pardon my omission. It also means that parents and potential students are not expected to engage in critical or reasoned thinking.

    Why on earth should kids or universities be required to base their beliefs on anything other than feelings? /s/

    elle in reply to bear. | February 25, 2018 at 9:04 pm

    These latest “forgiveness” notices mean that lefty institutions are encouraging ideological clones: it makes their propaganda machine jobs easier.

    True, but “higher learning” has already committed hari kari, they just aren’t dead yet. They are the walking dead. Zombies.

    The future will be online with internships, etc. Businesses want people who can do the job. They will find a way to get them.
    Before another decade is over, businesses will start hiring based on online courses, online credentials, etc or whatever other disruptive technology is coming down the pike. It will take awhile, but for the campuses to start losing income, it won’t take long at all.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to elle. | February 26, 2018 at 3:00 pm

      It’s already heading that way, most colleges offer online or Hybrid (mostly online with some class) and there are now many Degrees that can be completed by what is called “Distance Learning”.

      Some schools has even found a way to do hard science courses with minimal class time. I know of one college that does a Microbiology course where there are prescribed experiments that you must complete at home and record on video that can be sent to the professor. (One of the experiments is making sourdough bread that keeps growing.

      Now the problem with these courses so far is that they want to charge just as much as if you were setting in the school, some of them I have seen are up to $500 per credit hour.

We have had a modification of SAT scores for admissions to account for “race” (hint: do not be Asian). I imagine now that anyone flunking a test because they were out protesting rather than studying will be given added points to their test scores to compensate.

Well, Holder said that guns needed to be the new “tobacco” and here it is.

    Compiling this post, all I could think of was the perfect college entrance essay: a photojournal of one’s SJW protests. Here’s me protesting Trump. Here’s me protesting the Second Amendment. Here’s me protesting tax cuts. Here’s me shrieking that conservatives should not be allowed to speak. Voila! Instant entrance to the advanced SJW training camp our nation’s universities have become.

    It breaks my heart.

      Fuzzy, it’s become a trend in education departments and others that you will not be admitted to the program without proving your “commitment to social justice” by taking part in protests / joining Leftist organizations.

      It should be breaking the bank: when is De Vos going to withhold federal funding to the seditious hellholes?

      When is hillary klinton going to be investigated?

        Withhold funding on what grounds? Even if there’s some funding she has discretion over (which you have not identified) it is illegal to deny government funding as punishment for the recipient exercising its constitutional rights.

“Guns don’t kill people, legislators do”

What does that mean? Is she talking about Ted Kennedy?

I am not a lawyer and I genuinely want to know:

If a public college penalizes a student for a suspension arising from his or her participating in pro-life or pro-2A demonstration, but they reward another student for protesting the same, doesn’t THAT amount to discrimination based on political viewpoints?
Is that legal?

    It would be impossible to prove because college entrance committees can cite a zillion other factors for rejection. It’s also difficult to prove hiring discrimination in the workplace for the same reason. They may not have hired you because you’re a privileged white male and they hate you for it, but how do you prove it when they say they had an equally-qualified candidate who was a “better fit” or whatever? You don’t unless there’s a pattern of such discrimination against qualified white males.

      I can understand that, but it does not answer my question.

      Suppose that somehow I can prove it, is it legal?

        Depends. Public universities are funded, at least in part, by federal taxpayer dollars, as are many for-profits. As such, they are technically held to EEOC laws governing hiring. I can’t imagine how this applies to admissions, though. As far as I know, and I am not a lawyer, schools can admit based on their own criteria and requirements, be they what they may. I do not think there is a legal case here, but again, I’m not a lawyer. Many of our readers are, so hopefully, they’ll chime in.

          You at least have the possibility of extended litigation on the subject. We have seen this previously in the “racial based” admissions policies. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).

          Discovery will be fun. And by “fun” I mean a nightmare. The allegation that an individuals admission will have come down to a choice between two different takes on “protected” speech by giving one preference and the other disfavor when all other things are equal will be mind-numbing.

          It’s not going to get you very far in the “private” institution setting: THOSE colleges and universities CAN discriminate on speech of the applicant. But in the Public University setting? There you’ve got at least a passable argument that “The State” is making a speech-based, non-neutral viewpoint discrimination for one applicant and against another.

          Fascinating, Chuck. As a not lawyer, I’m wondering if the race-based Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) cases can be applied to what amounts to ideological exclusion. It seems unlikely to me unless there’s some neo-Nazi university that excludes non-Nazis; the lawfare left would be all over that and create brand new “Constitutional rights” (ala Roe v. Wade) to university admission in the process. Why are they so much better at this than we are?

          I’m wondering if the race-based Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) cases can be applied to what amounts to ideological exclusion.

          In the public university context, I think that similar principles of the argument can be applied. Not the same ~legal~ arguments, but a parallel constitutional argument that says that by selecting one viewpoint over another that they are failing to make a diverse student body and are instead discriminating against what would otherwise be protected speech by even considering it in the admissions process. In the Public University context, as an arm of “The State” I think that they then have a 1st Amendment problem, because they’re engaging in “viewpoint discrimination” by making a judgment call as to what is “favored” and what is “disfavored” speech.

          As said before: in the Private school context, unless there is some State law prohibiting viewpoint discrimination where the private institution sits, then this argument isn’t going to get you anywhere because there is no “State” action (1st Amendment doesn’t apply, no State Actor).

          Why are they so much better at this than we are?

          Because “they” are willing to do it. As a general rule, the Modern Conservative is not willing to engage in these types of shenanigans, because as members of THE CIVIL SOCIETY we recognize that a naked power grab is intellectually dishonest and social-fabric damaging.

          The Modern Statist cares nothing for that, believing that the State is the end-all-and-be-all, and that by attaining power, they can right the wrongs. Therefore the ends justify the means.

    Milhouse in reply to Exiliado. | February 26, 2018 at 2:41 am

    If a public college penalizes a student for a suspension arising from his or her participating in pro-life or pro-2A demonstration, but they reward another student for protesting the same, doesn’t THAT amount to discrimination based on political viewpoints?
    Is that legal?

    For government schools, no; it would be a first amendment violation. For private schools, in most places yes, it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on political viewpoint. There are some places, such as CA, where state and/or local law bans it, so in those places it would be illegal.

Well now you have a list of the top 100 colleges to not let your children attend.

Query: How are the admissions “professionals” at these vaunted institutions going to know why the applicant was suspended?

I’m assuming that there will be some sort of note in the file. Will it be: “Participated in walk-out demonstration” or “suspended for leaving school without permission.”

Will the phrasing of that note in the student’s file be subject to litigation? Exactly how specific will the individual reporting high schools be in terms of their reporting?

How will the colleges know if the applicant actually protested that day instead of heading to beach or just sleeping all day?

Will they have a punchcard or something that the organizers have to validate? 5 confirmed protests, get 1 scholarship free?

I’ve never heard that admissions offices are at all interested in things like suspensions.

‘Way back when, colleges were interested in an applicant’s test scores, grades, test scores, letters of recommendation, test scores, hints of extracurricular activities, and test scores. Some added an interview, often with an alumnus who happened to live nearby. And some considered family relationship to alumni, particularly rich alumni.

Other colleges were interested in sports and nothing much else.

Later the trend was to work applicant race in, while pretending not to. And nowadays they don’t bother to pretend.

So, if they really weren’t interested in suspension history, then nothing has changed now.

    These are leftist psychos, looking to destroy our way of life.

    They sure aren’t Americans.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to tom_swift. | February 26, 2018 at 1:44 am

    Tom that is because you are looking at it from the standpoint of an intelligent adult instead of a leftist sociopath.

    They aren’t and haven’t been interested in suspensions. What they are going to be looking for is the ones that went to schools that did suspend kids for protesting, if you were suspended that will be a positive, if you weren’t then you obviously aren’t the right material for their vaunted institution.

    Remember these are angry leftist whatever they say you can be pretty sure is it either a lie, diversion, or delusion.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to tom_swift. | February 26, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    After seeing the situation in Broward County, I’m wondering if suspensions at “progressive” schools will even make it into the student’s records.

The next time there is one of these reprehensible shooting tragedies, one can only hope a liberal will be present there ready to defend themselves and others with a pithy sign decrying gun control. Perhaps then they will see the folly of their claims, but I somehow really doubt that.

    alaskabob in reply to Cleetus. | February 26, 2018 at 6:44 am

    In 1985 or abouts, the New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial praising the results of gun control in Washington, DC. Data was not corrected for population just raw. The law was so effective they said…that immediately after passage but before implementation , the law reduced criminal gun deaths Then, as the murder rates soared they took comfort that even as more died, the laws were saving more lives. They will not see the folly now as then.

      MajorWood in reply to alaskabob. | March 6, 2018 at 7:24 pm

      A gun lobbyist gave a presentation at Johns Hopkins where he touted the immediate effectiveness of the DC ban based on a severe reduction in crime. I then asked if perhaps the cold and blizzard which had blanketed the East Coast at that time might not be just as reasonable an explanation, or perhaps an even better explanation, as the ban. Kind of hard to commit crimes in -20F weather and 2 feet of snow. It was a wonderful 20 seconds of silence. At least one person now knows that Hopkins isn’t a safe space. 😉

Guns don’t kill people, Democrat profits, FBI collusion, and law enforcement incompetence kills people. Also, Planned Parenthood et al that denies lives deemed unworthy, immigration reform (e.g. social justice-induced refugee crises) that places Americans second, and psychoactive drugs that has a side-effect of triggering some young human beings.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | February 26, 2018 at 2:10 pm

Oh my…….

“…Florida Sheriff Was ‘Once a Proud Member of Team Obama’

Education has become inexpensive; credentials remain costly.

And they’ll likely remain so for as long as accreditation agencies retain control over the accreditation process.