ACLU Official Attacks Transylvania University for Admitting Nick Sandmann as a Student
“Does anyone else think it’s a bit of a stain on Transylvania University for accepting Nick Sandman?”
Nicholas Sandmann, the young man who was smeared by the media for the sin of wearing a MAGA hat, and ended up speaking at the 2020 Republican National Convention, has been accepted as a student at Transylvania University in Kentucky.
As a result, an official at the ACLU is now attacking the school. This is unreal.
Remember when the American Civil Liberties Union defended people’s civil rights? They don’t.
Professor Jonathan Turley writes:
ACLU Staffer Attacks University For Admitting Nick Sandmann While Professor Denounces His “Anti-Intellectual” Views [Updated]
I have previously written, as a long supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), about my concern over how the venerable group has changed under its current leadership, including a departure from its long robust defense of free speech. Recently, the ACLU has abandoned its famed neutrality and has not supported some on the right while supporting those on the left. Now, the ACLU’s Samuel Crankshaw in Kentucky has targeted Transylvania University for admitting Nick Sandmann, who was falsely accused of abusing a Native American activist in front of Lincoln Memorial.
This is what Crankshaw wrote on Facebook:
Does anyone else think it’s a bit of a stain on Transylvania University for accepting Nick Sandman? I’m sure it’s a “both sides” defense, but it’s pretty counter to their mission and another instance of there not actually being equal sides to an issue. I think TU should accept anyone willing to have an open mind and engage in debate, regardless of their views. That’s how we all learn. That’s Transy’s mission.
But this kid clearly is a provocateur in training with no intention of learning. He exists only to troll, intimidate and play victim. He and his attorney proudly use their national platforms to promote QAnon, which has *literally* been the direct cause of multiple instances of violence (not to mention all of the other batshit stuff). He is proudly defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who murdered two people for exercising political speech. Ironically, this silenced victim is running with Don Jr., spoke at the GOP convention, has a bill in his honor at the General Assembly, has attended private schools, has a national law firm representing him, etc. So silenced. He’s no different from the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos, but he is more dangerous.
Crankshaw noted that he was speaking on his own behalf and not for the ACLU.
Professor Turley reports that a ‘diversity scholar’ at the school responded positively to Crankshaw and promised to ‘monitor’ Sandmann:
One person responding positively was Dr. Avery Tompkins, an Assistant Professor and Diversity Scholar at Transylvania University, acknowledged that the university supported diverse viewpoints but promised to closely monitor Sandmann while he is on campus: “If he were to cause problems by being disruptive, trolling, or engaging in unethical behavior of any kind, I would immediately document it (just like I would for any student doing the same thing)…and he would just be putting himself in a position for me to file a conduct report.”
Doing the same thing? What thing? Free speech?
Brittany Bernstein of National Review has a response from the university:
The university said in a statement to National Review Tuesday that it would be reviewing the situation and that “Transylvania, like nearly every campus, is composed of those holding the full range of viewpoints.”
“There are two things that, as a university, we are not able to discuss: our students (without their permission) and personnel matters,” the statement said. “In response to posts on social media and other websites over the Labor Day weekend, we reiterate that point. A review of the situation will be conducted expeditiously by the appropriate university officials.”
Turley also offers an updated statement from Professor Tompkins:
I want to apologize for my mistake in singling out a student and any misunderstandings that arose from that. One of my favorite things about working at a liberal arts institution is that the University community has diverse perspectives. All students, faculty, and staff are able to engage in civil discourse with those whose views may be different from their own, and to learn about those views in an academic setting. I value and support these conversations with students, and I know that students value these conversations with their peers as well.
Someone apparently got a phone call from the legal department.
Have you ever seen such contempt for a young person from people on the left?
Wow, I see another libel suit in the making. I hope Nick would do it.
That Crankshaw is spreading dangerous allegation about Nick, and other kids will make his life difficult or harm him.— HockeyMom (@hokyruffusringo) September 8, 2020
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Sandmann didn’t ask for any of this. He is not a professional provocateur, Nathan Phillips is. He just responded and stood up for himself after being railroaded by an out of control media.
I hope the ACLU is also sued and loses.
What could the ACLU be sued for here? It’s not involved at all. Even Crankshaw and Tomkins haven’t done anything to be sued for.
I read the article and I take it as Crankshaw speaking as an individual, not for the ACLU. That’s my uptick.
From the article above:
“Crankshaw noted that he was speaking on his own behalf and not for the ACLU.”
Why do you so reflexively want to defend thew ACLU and its goons?
Where in his comment is he specifically defending the ACLU? I know it is great sport to beat up on Milhouse, and heaven knows I have given him downticks, but I do so in disagreement, not to be “beating up on the playground geek”.
The question is why do you so reflexively want to attack the ACLU even when it hasn’t done anything at all, let alone anything wrong. If you think there are grounds to sue the ACLU lay them out. If you think there are grounds to sue anyone in this, lay them out. Because as far as I can tell there aren’t any, and no number of down-votes will change that. I notice that people down-vote my comments not because they disagree, but because they don’t like the reality I point out.
He represents the organization and they have the ability to refute all of the false claims he made and clarify that his opinions do not reflect theirs. If they do that, they are pretty much in the clear.
However, it will be getting harder either way as Sandmann becomes a public figure and these clowns get more leeway to make crap up with little penalty.
He speaks for himself unless he says he is speaking for the organization. But even in his own right, how could he be sued for this? What grounds are there to sue him?
No matter how much you don’t like it, it is a fundamental principle of defamation law that opinions cannot be defamatory.
Crankshaw’s not writing as an opinion, rather representing that he’s writing facts. Big difference. “In my opinion, you’re a thief,” is different from, “you’re a thief,” and they are two very different statements. The former clearly represents an opinion, the latter represents a statement of a fact. That makes the latter a libel and defamation.
Crankshaw has accused Nick Sandman of being a provocateur and not interested in learning, and does so without any evidence. Think he’s likely to apologize when Sandman excels in school? Bet you a buck he won’t, even with it pointed out to him. And why should he? Like Mr. Biden, it seems that Mr. Crankshaw doesn’t want the facts; he wants “The Truth.” [Note the strategically placed verb, “seems.”]
That Sandmann “clearly is a provocateur in training with no intention of learning; He exists only to troll, intimidate and play victim” is an opinion, not a fact. The word “clearly” makes that, um, clear. It’s a conclusion based on stated facts, and conclusions are a kind of opinion. This is firmly established law; ask any defamation lawyer.
There are some factual statements in his rant, which if both false and defamatory could be actionable. “He and his attorney proudly use their national platforms to promote QAnon, which has *literally* been the direct cause of multiple instances of violence”. I have no idea whether this is true, but if it isn’t then Crankshaw’s only defense would be to argue that it isn’t defamatory. That would be a tough sell, since he gives the reasons why (in his opinion) promoting QAnon is a bad thing.
“(Not to mention all of the other batshit stuff)” is a reference to unstated facts, which are alleged to be “batshit”. That could be actionable, but I doubt it.
“He is proudly defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who murdered two people for exercising political speech.” That he is defending Rittenhouse is obviously true, and therefore can’t be actionable. That Rittenhouse “murdered two people for exercising political speech” is obviously false, but it’s a conclusion based on known facts, so it counts as an opinion and is thus not actionable. In any case, the only one who could take action for that would be Rittenhouse, not Sandmann.
Wait till Rittenhouse has the time and resources to launch defamation actions.
I remember when the ACLU stood up for Freedom.
Now, they try to suppress Freedom. They need to go.
Yes. The ACLU used to do good work, along with some bad. Now, not so much.
Virtually all organizations change over time, often having more interest in feathering their own ness than following their original mission. Here was a time when I supported ACLU, hat ended at least 20 years ago.
Today, they are mostly a self serving bureaucracy.
As far as ACLU’s Samuel Crankshaw goes, he is a rather young punk, with little life experience and limited reasoning skills.
“He is proudly defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who murdered two people for exercising political speech.”
There is no excuse for his ignorance of the facts, well known facts in both Sandman’s and Rittenhouse’s cases.
Looking a how Sandman handled himself, and how Rittenhouse handled himself, I would say that Crankshaw would greatly benefit from learning from their examples.
Samuel Crankshaw opened his mouth, and removed all doubt.
Any parent would be proud to have one of those two as their son. Crenshaw not so much.
This kid has learned in two years a thousand times more than his peers, and the faculty and administrators of almost ANY university will. What the hell did he do to deserve all that ill will, really?
You can guarantee this kid is now more hardened and resolute to stand for himself than he was two years ago. He’s also got the settlement cash to go with it. He’s now got a legal team by his side. He’s now a force to reckon with.
And the Left knows it.
If I were the head of a more conservative-leaning university, I’d offer him a full-ride scholarship for him to attend my college.
I am sure he could go to a much better school and obtain a tuition refund. A quick look over this non-scholar activist Tomkins profile suggests he/? will prove a problem, even though Nick most likely will never participate in his hokey classes.
Crankshaw needs a baseball bat to the face. Hard.
That wasn’t even close to being a legal analysis. It was a brazen political diatribe.
Crankshaw. Emphasis on “crank”.
Maybe somebody could make a movie: “The Crankshaw Dementia.”
After the settlement Nick could buy the university. Lot of places would be happy to welcome him.
Just face it. They are already doing this on a limited scale. But it will get much worse if the Dems win in November. What is “this?” All wrong think must be punished. And rest assured, if you are conservative, you are a wrong thinker. You will be punished.
If the vile Dhimmi-crats weren’t engaged in the politics of personal destruction, I would be amazed. Their behavior is as predictable as a rooster crowing at sunrise.
Combine infantile spite with bullying, thuggish totalitarianism, and, the desire to completely destroy all dissenters and heretics, and, therein lies the core ethos of contemporary Dhimmi-crat narcissist-apparatchiks.
“Does anyone else think it’s a bit of a stain on Transylvania University for accepting Nick Sandman?”
Does anyone else think it’s a stain on Harvard for accepting David Hogg?
Or on the ACLU for employing Samuel Crankshaw?
Oh wait, there are several people here in this comment thread who are saying exactly that.
Yes. But that escutcheon is so blotted one more blot is not noticeable.
Curious. Who are the people who down-voted this comment, and why?
Harvard? Next to this no mere stain is noticeable.
Nick Sandmann should hire an investigator to dig up all details about Samuel Crankshaw. If anything illegal is there as a “concerned citizen” he should pass that info along to the authorities.
You can do a lot of things legally with money to motivate a scumbag to leave you alone.
I hope Sandmann gets a good education that will teach him how to properly manage his newfound wealth.
It would be for naught! As you have noticed Lefties are not held responsible
“This is unreal.”
This sentence pretty much sums it up.
Would that be a blood stain?
How do people let their children go to most of these institutions?
I know nothing of this institution, probably that’s a good thing and an outlier
“He is proudly defending Kyle Rittenhouse, who murdered two people for exercising political speech.”
Um.
To the vile Dhimmi-crats, attempted murder is now considered “political speech.” And, lawful self-defense to prevent that attempted murder is considered “murder.”
That comment really stood out, there is ample evidence that he defended himself, Impressingly!!
So attempting to bash in someone’s head with a skateboard is now “political speech”?
I’ll have to remember that.
Some states have Stand Your Ground laws. Others require an “attempt to retreat” before using deadly force to defend yourself.
Rittenhouse was obviously attempting to retreat, in fact running for his life from an armed mob. He did not fire until he heard someone in the mob firing, and he didn’t know who had fired a shot and whether it was at him or not. The mob had him cornered, and he fired out of panic. That would qualify as self-defense in any state.
The mob continued to chase him, and he continued to retreat until the mob made him fall and assaulted him. One of the mob whacked him with a skateboard and tried to take his rifle, pulling the rifle toward himself, and Rittenhouse pulled the trigger to protect himself.
Another member of the mob pointed a pistol at him, and he shot the arm that held the pistol. His attempt to shoot the pistol out of the hand of the attacker shows he was trying not to kill him.I don’t think there is a jury in any state that would convict him of murder or anything else.
The Dhimmi-crat Regressives are staunchly committed to moving things backward, as far as racial progress is concerned.
I was pondering the other day how it’s patently obvious that the vile Dhimmi-crats have no interest or desire, whatsoever, to see progress made towards achieving racial harmony in this country, because their entire political ethos and platform is predicated upon fomenting an embittered and poisonous perpetual grievance and fallacious victimhood.
There’s simply no political percentage in it for the Dhimmi-crats to acknowledging undeniable racial progress and greater equality. These dopes have a vested interest in keeping the black community in a perpetual state of infantilized resentment and agitation.
Sorry; posted this on the wrong thread.
Wonder why he didn’t choose Hillsboro College?
Given all the schools he might have considered, perhaps he chose a more liberal leaning school and in keeping with his own personal statement to not “sit it out” as made clear by the law suits filed. He never wanted nor asked for the media attention, but now that it has been thrust upon him, Nick seems to be well grounded in all things considered; age, family, religion. With the type of affirmations he has received via the courts and the public, he does have leverage to challenge and place the onus on any institution which may want to take his education less serious than the P.R which “as in this headline” comes name recognition.
I think that the retraction which was put out by Prof. Tompkins came at the behest of his employer(s). Unlike Oberlin, they may want to stay open and cover their expenses.
I’m a Transy alum. When I attended years ago, I found it left-leaning but respectful and not hysterical. I wish Nicholas all the best and hope that he finds his niche.
Transy is a pretty well respected but Lib School. We had an Exchange Student who ended up there and has had a position there for many years. Nice kid but I guarantee you she wouldn’t vote Republican if her life depended on it! LOL
Lin Wood, call Nick Sandman, immediately!
I can only guess that there was a nicely worded letter from Lin Wood to TU admin/legal staff, if not also the ALCU.
To hell with letters, how about notice of pending litigation
As I remember ….didn’t Harvard go Hogg wild? A gun controller with marginal link to Florida shooting is embraced while a far more mature kid is pummeled. The ACLU can’t be used but it is a stern reminder that “civil” and “liberty” are a false front.
“Turley also offers an updated statement from Professor Tompkins:
I want to apologize for my mistake in singling out a student and any misunderstandings that arose from that.”
He’s not sorry; he’s sorry he got caught. It wasn’t a mistake singling out a particular student by name, that was the point. The point was a brush-back pitch at Sandman and anybody watching: stay on the Ideo-ranch or we’ll get you eventually.
No, no misunderstand here. We understood him perfectly. We also understood the U perfectly — alienate enough paying students and those cushy admin jobs start going away.
Retraction or no, there’s a slander case here. I also await the restults of the U’s hostile environment / harassment investigation on this matter. Title IX, xir is a beyotch.
I think that anyone who could write the drivel that Samuel Crankshaw just did is, figuratively speaking, a skidmark on the shorts of our civic life. And then little Sammy wants to erase the brown stain by means of a craven apology. Nope Sammy–you said it, you own it.
On of the commenters above asks why anybody would want to attack the ACLU. Well gollee! I didn’t realize that Moses had come down and handed his tablets to the ACLU. They’re a modern institution. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else. And on occasion they put their foot in their mouth–just like everybody else. You screw up, you get caught, you get criticized. And yes Little Sammy said that the views were his own, not the ACLU’s. If that’s the case, don’t identify yourself as an official of the ACLO.
Nobody ever suggested that the ACLU is above criticism. You are deliberately and dishonestly setting up a strawman. The question remains why maxmillion so reflexively wants to attack it even when it hasn’t done anything at all, let alone anything wrong. Crankshaw made his comment on his own Facebook page, and did not identify himself as an ACLU officer. You just made that up for the sake of being dishonest and looking for an excuse to attack the ACLU. So I have to ask what makes you so desperate to attack it?
Professor, “Liberal universities are open to all points of views. SNORT!
Young Mr Sandman was seen as an easy target for some publicity seeking bunch. Wrong!
The American Criminal Lobby Union is just another leftist special interest group.
The ACLU is a joke. A dumping ground for all those unemployed lawyers turned out yearly.
Who cares what they think?
“Have you ever seen such contempt for a young person from people on the left?”
Trig Palin
The ACLU is a bought and paid for part of the George Soros hate-American campaign.
> … But this kid clearly is a provocateur in training with no
> intention of learning. He exists only to troll, intimidate and
> play victim.
There’s your grounds for another defamation suit. Crankshaw, you *****! With the complete video of that [non-]confrontation available to anyone who wants to see it (mostly boring..) and desperate settlements from the media giants who defamed him, you still perpetuate the brazen lie that he is a provocateur? The only incident in which he was involved was thrust on him, the obvious victim of a provocateur.
I guess I won’t trust you with my accounting, since I firmly believe 2+2 == 4 and you apparently have your doubts.
It’s an opinion, and therefore not actionable.
The “Crenshaw” Facebook account has no friends and a grand total of two postings including the one against Sandmann. I suspect it to be fake. The one against Sandmann was deleted as of today.