The media is shocked, shocked to discover white extremist violence

By Meta-Content Generator A.J. Liebling with
Alison Porchnik in Manhattan

Recently a man was convicted by a jury of his peers of 34 felonies in a New York State criminal court.  His high priced lawyers ruthlessly attacked the prosecution's witnesses, but the man for whatever reason chose not to testify in his own defense after stating out of court that he was innocent.

He was convicted, as so many people are in New York State.

Normally this is not even news in New York (or anyone else), except there was one difference: the man is the Republican nominee for President.

The reaction of his partisans to the verdict was grisly:

Supporters of former President Donald Trump, enraged by his conviction on 34 felony counts by a New York jury, flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retribution.

Convictions of criminals are not unusual

After Trump became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, his supporters responded with dozens of violent online posts, according to a Reuters review of comments on three Trump-aligned websites: the former president's own Truth Social platform, Patriots.Win and the Gateway Pundit.

Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection.

“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.

On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting."

Threats of violence and intimidating rhetoric soared after Trump lost the 2020 election and falsely claimed the vote was stolen. As he campaigns for a second White House term, Trump has baselessly cast the judges and prosecutors in his trials as corrupt tools of the Biden administration, intent on sabotaging his White House bid. His loyalists have responded with a campaign of threats and intimidation targeting judges and court officials.

Quite the response from the party of law and order, although in the aftermath of wide Republican approval of the violent January 6 insurrection against the United States perhaps not surprising.

What was more surprising however was that the media was surprised by threats of violence and subversion from Republicans.

Here's former National Review gasbag and forced-birth extremist mouthpiece David French shocked to discover that his beloved Republican Party is violent and intolerant:

Two things happened that changed our lives, however, and in hindsight they’re related. First, in 2010, we adopted a 2-year-old girl from Ethiopia. Second, in 2015, Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign.

There was no way I could support Trump. It wasn’t just his obvious lack of character that troubled me; he was opening the door to a level of extremism and malice in Republican politics that I’d never encountered before. Trump’s rise coincided with the rise of the alt-right.

I was a senior writer for National Review at the time, and when I wrote pieces critical of Trump, members of the alt-right pounced, and they attacked us through our daughter. They pulled pictures of her from social media and photoshopped her into gas chambers and lynchings. Trolls found my wife’s blog on a religious website called Patheos and filled the comments section with gruesome pictures of dead and dying Black victims of crime and war. We also received direct threats. 

Ah yes, the good old days before the Republicans became suddenly and unaccountably violent and extremist. 

To be clear, there's no excuse for these vile attacks and threat of violence against someone who writes stuff (or even argues in court to force 12-year-old rape victims to bear their rapist's child, speaking of violence).  

But why in the name of Clio was he surprised?  What did he think was going to happen?  Didn't he ever see Blazing Saddles?

The forces of white supremacy constitute the base of the Republican Party.  Although their partisan preferences shifted about half a century ago, their love of violence and vengeance goes back a lot longer.

They were just as cute about it back then as the Tangerine-Faced Felon is today addressing heatstroke victims in Phoenix and Las Vegas.

In 1964, when an integrated crew of young people had the temerity to venture into the heart of white supremacist power to help Black citizen register to vote (a right they had been denied for 80 years or so), the white power structure welcomed them like this, according to the June 7, 1964 New York Times:

Two weeks later, three of those civil rights workers – James Cheney, 21, Andrew Goodman, 20, and Michael Schwerner, 24 – found out what happens when you push white supremacists too damn far:

Nor was this an isolated incident. As recounted in the Spy recently, in 1970, the Republican Party endorsed the deliberate slaughter of unarmed antiwar protesters at Kent State to the general approbation of Republican voters. The following week, white construction workers attacked peaceful antiwar protesters while the NYPD did nothing.  The mob riot was lionized by white Republicans as a patriotic response to hippie scum.

Prof. Penny Lewis argued that

the Hard Hat Riot was more than just the straightforward narrative of ‘construction worker versus longhair.’ It was a convergence of genuine pro-Nixon sentiment, an administration eager to capitalize on a nation in crisis, and the dawn of a political realignment that would shape the nation's direction for generations.

That would be the realignment of angry violent white supremacists as the foundation of the Republican Party, with the results we see today.

As Republicans took control of the White House for 20 of the 24 years between 1968 and 1992 the threat of white violence subsided somewhat, because they held the levers of government power.

When Bill Clinton had the nerve to win the Presidency in1992, the white goons came back:

The militia movement in the United States is a right-wing extremist movement with an anti-government ideology and a strong emphasis on paramilitary activity. It emerged in 1993-1994, quickly engaging in criminal activity—often centered around illegal weapons and explosives—and violence, including some murders and numerous terrorist plots. After a significant slump in the early 2000s, the militia movement experienced a second major growth spurt starting in 2008 that has resulted in continuous activity since then, including more crime and violence.

The origins of the militia movement are rooted in longstanding traditions within the American far right as well as the reactions of anti-government extremists to certain specific events and controversies of the 1990s.  

That assessment was made by that well known tool of woke Democrats, the Anti-Defamation League.

Which brings us to the Tangerine-Faced Felon and the violent insurrection of January 6, 2021, which the Republican nominee now claims was a justified action by freedom fighters.  And hardly a Republican says otherwise.

Which is why the media's shocking discovery of the violent streak of Republican white supremacy sounds so odd to us:

Some startling beliefs in the United States were revealed in a study last fall by the University of California, Davis: Nearly one in three respondents said violence was justified to advance political objectives, like stopping an election from being stolen, or to “preserve an American way of life I believe in.”

Startling, really?

The threat of violent white extremism has been real and obvious for decades.  If more evidence of that reality were needed, take a look at what The New York Times found fit to print on June 7, 1964.

The Times featured a front-page report on the 20th anniversary commemoration of D-Day.  One surprise was that General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander for the invasion, wasn't there, like Rishi Sunak, but for different reasons.  

The hero of D-Day and last honorable Republican to sit in the Oval Office had other more important things on his mind, as explained by the lead story on the front page of the Times that Sunday:

Gen. Eisenhower had to skip the commemorations in Normandy because he realized that he was needed to fight a battle at home: the gallant but ultimately unsuccessful effort to save the Republican Party from the clutches of extremist white supremacy.  Unlike D-Day, he failed, but not due to his lack of effort.

On the 80th anniversary of D-Day, our beloved mainstream media, unlike Eisenhower, is unable or unwilling to focus on the strategic imperative of our time: the defense of democracy against the current assault on it by the violent forces of insurrection and white supremacy.

We are, like England in 1940 and Eisenhower in 1964, on our own.

Preview the Front Page of The Massachusetts Spy print edition - May 31, 2024

 

From the Archives, 1932: Hot off the Campaign Trail, Berlin edition

Editors' Note: We had planned to bring you today the latest insights from the Spy's peerless political prognosticator David Bloviator, who shares his matchless wisdom with you, the simple reader, from his listening post at the National Press Club bar.  However, after a very long night of listening from said perch, Mr. Bloviator is sadly too tired to be interviewed today.  In his place, we waded into our 254-year archive to find a dispatch from our former Berlin correspondent, David Trombonick, about another consequential election.  Enjoy this little slice of ancient history!

HOT OFF THE GERMAN CAMPAIGN TRAIL

David Trombonick on 
WHITHER GERMANY? 

From Berlin Bureau Chief David Trombonick
By Cable to The Massachusetts Spy

Our man in Germany

BERLIN, Germany –  From his listening post at the bar of the Ausländer Press Verein on the Wilhelmstrasse, the Spy's Berlin correspondent David Trombonick keeps his fingers on the glass [Surely, the pulse? – Ed.] of the endlessly fascinating and colorful world of German politics.  Today, to explain the complexities of the political situation in Germany to you, the simple reader, he has graciously consented to be interviewed.

TMS: Mr. Trombonick, what do you see as the key issues facing Germany today?

DT: The key issue is that my glass is empty.  How can that be in the only bar in Berlin where you can get Chivas Regal?

TMS: Herr Ober, bitte!

DT: [drains glass]  That's better.  Now what did you want to know, you young whippersnapper?

TMS: What should Americans know about German politics today?

DT: Germany is a vibrant, stable democracy.  But it is afflicted with a level of polarization that can only be described as “tribal.”  Germans are sorting themselves out into opposing factions, each of which generates what I can only describe as a cult-like following.  As my good friend Guido Enderis of The New York Times wrote on July 9, “each party is incapable of putting the national viewpoint above partisan considerations.  This includes the government now in office, which holds no mandate from the people and was installed over the head of a divided and irresolute Reichstag.”

TMS: Who are these sides?

DT: On the left we have the Social Democrats and the Communists.  This Red menace threatens Germany with extremist positions like deficit spending.

TMS: And on the other?

DT: On the right we have a vibrant populist party called the National Socialists, which appeals to disaffected and economically anxious Germans.

TMS: You mean the Nazis?

DT: Yes, if you want to call them that.

TMS: Isn't that what they call themselves?

The Nazis are moving to the center

DT: That's not the point.  The point is that we need to understand the basis of the Nazi, um, National Socialist appeal to the electorate.  As Dr. Goebbels himself said, “Hitler knocks at the gate leading to complete power, and in his first are united the fists of millions of workers and peasants.”  That's the power of populism!

TMS: Why are those workers and peasants so upset?

DT:  The average German is struggling due to the economic depression.  You can't walk out of this club without being accosted by filthy homeless tramps demanding a few pfennig for food or something.

TMS: They look like they're starving.

DT: Whatever.  The point is that many Germans have lost hope, and are receptive to the powerful message of a charismatic leader with a strong economic message.

TMS: You mean Herr Hitler?

DT: Yes. He is increasingly regarded by Germans as their last hope.

TMS: Aren't you worried that if Herr Hitler is made Chancellor he will rule as a dictator and destroy German democracy?

DT: I speak to many highly placed German businessmen, industrialists, and generals.  They assure me that you do not need to take Herr Hitler literally.

TMS: What accounts for Herr Hitler's appeal?  He seems like an angry incoherent clown to me.

DT: In many ways his rise is due to the failure of German liberals to take seriously the legitimate concerns of ordinary Germans.

TMS: Like what?

DT:  Many Germans are still angry about the Versailles Treaty, which held Germany responsible for starting the World War.

TMS:  Didn't they?

DT: That's not the point.  The point is that the politics of grievance continue to play a role in German politics.

German tourists enjoying a rowdy night in Berlin

TMS: Speaking of grievance, let's talk about the elephant in the room.

DT: If you're speaking of my empty glass, let's.  Herr Ober!

TMS: Actually, I was speaking of the anti-Semitic views of the Nazis and Hitler.

DT: That is certainly to be deplored, but you have to remember that Germans are used to Herr Hitler's alternately reckless and incoherent big mouth.

TMS: But he has spewed out the most vile and ridiculous lies about Jews since he wrote his memoir.

DT: That's why they're used to it.

TMS: How can you get used to statements like throw the Jews out or dirty Jews, which are standard Nazi talking points?

DT: I have been assured by respectable and influential Germans that such statements are nothing more than beer-hall talk and can be disregarded.

TMS: What about the many reliable reports of Nazi brown shirts beating Jews in the streets and breaking windows of Jewish-owned businesses?

DT: You have to remember that many of these brown shirts are small-town boys and it may be their first trip to the bright lights of Berlin.  They are really nothing more than excited tourists.

TMS: So the violent riots and beatings in the streets of Berlin are nothing to worry about?

DT: Every city has its bad days.  Do you think there's no crime in New York?

TMS:  Let's talk about what you expect to happen after the elections.

DT: Informed circles in Berlin believe that while Herr Hitler may get an inconsequential position in a future Cabinet, Hindenburg will never make him Chancellor.   In response, Hitler will be compelled to moderate his conduct if he wants to play a part in any future German government.  Sources close to him tell me that you can already see signs that he is maturing and becoming more policy-focused.  That is why you see signs of moderation in the Nazi leader.  Look at his speech in Tilsit, where he said his platform was based on “honor, liberty and bread.”

TMS: While his thugs were beating Jewish students at the Berlin University.

DT: There are violent elements on both sides, not just the Nazis.

TMS: Really? Where in Germany are Jews beating Nazis?

DT: I was referring to the Communists, among whose member there are regrettably many Jews.  That is why in our focus group of 12 moderate Germans, many said that the Jews are the authors of their own misfortune.

TMS: That seems pretty cold.

DT: I have been assured by sources close to the great Jewish banking families of Germany that loyal patriotic German Jews have nothing to worry about.

TMS:  Thank you, Mr. Trombonick.

From the Archives, 2004: after 384 years, marriage dies in Massachusetts

Editors' Note: Massachusetts celebrated this week the 20th Anniversary of its Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage.   While pretty much a non-issue today, it was not too long ago when Republicans demonized same-sex marriage as supposedly the end of traditional marriage, including lovable moderate Republicans like then-Gov. Wilfred M. “Profiles in Courage” Romney.  No less a political mastermind than Karl Rove confidently predicted that appealing to anti-gay anger and bigotry would be the royal road to Republican success in the ensuing decades.  Wait a minute, are you telling me that the Republican base is motivated by unjustified white anger, privilege, and supremacy?  That can't be right, can it?  At any rate, the Spy provided comprehensive coverage of the death of marriage in the Commonwealth, like this piece from March 2004:

It was fun while it lasted. . .

HIGH COURT DECISION
DESTROYS INSTITUTION
OF MARRIAGE IN MASS.

By Scott V. Sandford
Law Correspondent
with Alvin T. Fuller
State House Bureau Chief

BOSTON, Mass. –  The institution of marriage in Massachusetts died on Wednesday, February 4, ending a generally well-received 384-year run in the Commonwealth.

The cause of its sudden demise: the decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that same sex couples were entitled to civil marriage, not just "civil union." As predicted by the many critics of that decision, the judgment promptly caused the destruction of the institution of marriage from Provincetown [It wasn't doing very well in P'town anyway – News Ed.][We do not need to go there – Ed.] to Pittsfield.

The immediate and utter collapse of the institution of marriage took many in the state by surprise, including the approximately 3 million married men and women who did not realize that their marriages had been annihilated until it was too late. "Gee, that's too bad," commented plumber Jimmy Burke of Old Sludgebury, Mass. "I was planning to take the wife to Florida for a vacation next month, but what's the point now?"

Elderly married couples were especially hard-hit by the destruction of an institution that had loomed large in their lives before Pink Wednesday. Mrs. Mary Burke, 84, was on her way to her daily visit to her husband of 47 years at the local nursing home where he was recovering slowly from a series of debilitating illnesses when she heard news of the demise of marriage on her car radio. "I know he enjoys my visits, but now there's no point. I might as well go to Foxwoods," said the no-longer-Mrs. Burke.

This happy couple never expected their marriage to end in 2004.

"I told you that this decision would mean the end of marriage in Massachusetts," smirked Brian Canker of the Citizens for the Preservation of Marriage. "And I was right. Where are those liberals now? I hope they're happy."

Perhaps the state's liberals put down their white wine and skim lattés to applaud the destruction of the well-established legal estate, but many Bay Staters expressed concern. At Esmeralda's Wedding Palace in Old Sludgebury, brides-to-be burst into tears when they were told that their dream of a fairy-tale wedding would never happen. "I mean I have this dress and the bridesmaid's dresses and the shoes and the hall and the band and the invitations and now what am I supposed to do?" wailed Brittney Burke. "You can be damn sure that the judges of the state's Supreme Court will pry my engagement ring off of my cold dead hand," she vowed.

The impact on the state's economy was less clear. While some wedding-related businesses immediately pasted "going-out-of-business" signs in their windows, Provincetown's bed-and-breakfast inns were looking forward to a banner year. The state's retailers of flannel shirts, softball bats and dog-related paraphernalia also expected business to boom.

Perhaps no single institution in the state felt the death of marriage more profoundly than that tower of moral authority, the Archdiocese of Boston. The Archdiocese had long pressed to save marriage by denying it to same-sex couples, only to see the entire institution chucked into the catacombs of history. "I don't know what we'll do without marriages to celebrate," mused the Rev. Jack Emhoff of Our Reamer of Christians Church in Old Sludgebury. "In the meantime, I'll just roger a few more altar boys."

Universities face the menace of outside agitators

From Yard Correspondent Larry Lowell with
Alison Porchnik in Morningside Heights

What's behind all those protesting students who have set up little tent cities on university lawns from Cambridge to Los Angeles?  

If you asked them (and you weren't a drunken ideologue like Peggy Noonan) they'd tell you that they were concerned about the apparently endless slaughter of civilians in Gaza whose principal goal seems to be the perpetuation in power of a corrupt Israeli Prime Minister who funneled millions to the Hamas terrorists he now vows to wipe out.

But only a fool would talk to the students and listen to what they are saying, when of course the real answer is “outside agitators:” 

According to The New York Times,

Mayor Eric Adams and other city leaders have accused so-called outside agitators — professional organizers with no ties to the university — of hijacking a peaceful student protest and spurring its participants to adopt ever more aggressive tactics.

“Professional, external actors are involved in these protests,” said Edward A. Caban, the New York City Police Commissioner. “They are not affiliated with either the institutions or campuses in question, and they are working to escalate the situation.”

And if the NYPD says so it must be true, Have they ever lied to us before? 

Blaming protests against injustice on supposed “outside agitators” is a tactic used by the forces of reaction and racism in America forever, as The Spy recounted as long ago as last week.  During the Civil Rights Movement, white racists blamed such agitators for stirring up their oppressed yet otherwise contented Black population (using somewhat different terminology of course).

Going back even further, pre-Civil War secessionists blamed Northern abolitionists for stirring up slave resistance to their enviable lot.

So how important is the role of outside agitators in stirring up conflicts at America's great universities and also at Yale? [That's enough of that – Ed.]

At Columbia outside agitators (that is people other than students and faculty) have tried their best to intimidate the University:

On Jan. 19, Angelica Berrie sent an email to Nemat Shafik, the president of Columbia University. Ms. Berrie reported that the Russell Berrie Foundation, named for her late husband, had scheduled three grant payments to Columbia.

But after months of campus protests around the Israel-Hamas war, Ms. Berrie also delivered a warning.

As the foundation prepared to transfer almost $613,000, Ms. Berrie told Dr. Shafik that future giving would partly hinge on “evidence that you and leaders across the university are taking appropriate steps to create a tolerant and secure environment for Jewish members of the Columbia community.”

Months passed, and the foundation, which has donated about $86 million to Columbia over the years, did not like what it saw. Frustrated and flummoxed by the sustained tumult at Columbia, the foundation suspended its giving to the university late last month.

Nor was Mrs. Berrie, whose connection to Columbia was based on her advantageous marriage, the only outside agitator using their wealth as a club.  Billionaire football tycoon and man in need of relaxation Bob Kraft also decided he would boss Columbia around by suspending his um charitable donations.

Closer to the Hub of the Universe, filthy rich plutocratic hedge fund finaglers like Bill Ackman have also used their ill-gotten gains to agitate for overthrow of the entire ruling apparatus of Harvard:

Outside agitator arriving at 116th St. on sealed No. 1 express

But behind [Ackman's] anger are personal grievances that predate the uproar that has engulfed campuses since the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel and Israel’s subsequent invasion of the Gaza Strip. Ackman, by his own admission and according to others around him, resents that officials at his alma mater, to which he’s donated tens of millions of dollars, and its president, Claudine Gay, have not heeded his advice on a variety of topics. 

Thus far, his agitation has had limited success (beyond the cashiering of President Gay).  Perhaps the Corporation heeded the memorable words of the current Mrs. Ackman, who once said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

If that were not bad enough, as previously reported in The Spy, a cabal of subversive Republican racists and know-nothings in DC have conducted a non-stop campaign of harassment and intimidation of major universities such as Harvard, Columbia, and Penn, but not Yale of course. [That's your last warning – Ed.] That sounds a lot like outside agitation to us.

By the way, now that the Old Bill has cleared out Hamilton Hall, how prevalent were these outside agitators?  You'll never guess:

City officials have said that 29 percent of those arrested at Columbia this week had no connection with the university. In a statement, a spokeswoman for Mayor Eric Adams said that the arrest numbers “speak for themselves.”

We didn't major in math at Columbia University, but to us that means that over 70% of those arrested by the 50 had a valid Columbia affiliation and therefore could not be accurately described as “outside agitators.”

We're beginning to wonder if your perspective on “outside agitators” depends on where on the outside you're standing.  If you're trying your best to undermine free thought and liberal education, well, anyone without a Columbia student ID is a dangerous outside agitator.

If you're more worried about those doing the undermining, not to mention the relentless and useless slaughter of civilians in Gaza to prop up the corrupt Bibi government, maybe the outsiders are the ones doing the undermining and lauding the bombers.

Or maybe the whole thing is designed to distract us from the real issue, whether it's slavery, white racism, or the continuing refusal of Israel to grapple with the legitimate demands of the Palestinians for a state of their own.

And then sometimes it turns out you want a little outside agitation.  

The day before Commencement at Harvard is known as Class Day, when the school usually recruits a celebrity speaker to generate some good publicity and warm feelings from the soon-to-be graduates who will be hectored until death (and after) for bucks by the same University that ignored them up to then.

This year, though, for some unaccountable reason Harvard can't find a big enough name, at least according to the Harvard Crimson (so who knows if this is true?):

More than 10 people have declined offers to serve as the keynote speaker for Harvard's Class Day, leaving the Harvard Alumni Association scrambling to find a speaker with less than two weeks before the ceremony
Any volunteers out there? https://t.co/gWFBM7ZLvQ

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell) May 11, 2024

How about a celebrity of undoubted charisma and integrity, who epitomizes the ideal of a strong and self-made woman who isn't afraid to speak truth to power?

Members of the Class of 2024, please give a warm Harvard welcome to Stormy Daniels!  Better grab her before Yale does! [You're fired – Ed.]

From the Archives: Disruptive outside agitators break the law and face the consequences

Editors' Note: From Los Angeles to Hanover, N.H. (in the land of Live Free or Die), nonviolent student protesters are being met by riot clad police breaking up their demonstrations and arresting the perpetrators, including 65-year-old tenured faculty who dare to record the proceedings.  The police and their many apologists, who by some odd coincidence tend to be white men, have justified their assault on speech as protecting us from lawbreaking outside agitators who deserved what they got. That rationale rang a distant bell.  In the days when the Spy was dependent on The New York Times News Service to fill up its pages, it brought its readers other reporting of brave officers teaching lawbreakers lessons they wouldn't forget.

By Spy Archivist Aula Minerva

 

April 6, 1963

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., April 5 – Ten more Negroes were arrested today when they sought service at lunch counters in two downtown drugstores.  24 of those have been found guilty of trespass and sentenced to 180 days in jail.  

Police put the bite on lawbreakers

Mayor-elect Albert Boutwell said at a luncheon at the Advertising Club today that if “outside elements and agitators” would only go away Birmingham could work out its own problems.

The Negroes seeking service are asked to leave.  When they refuse they are arrested under a local ordinance popularly known as the “trespass after warning” law.

June 14, 1964

JACKSON, Miss., June 13 – White Southerners are bracing for the planned “Freedom Summer” operating in Mississippi.  The project includes voter registration drives, special academic programs for Negro youths, and nonviolent political action.

Whites refer to it as the “invasion.” More than a score of new laws have been passed to combat it.  The strength of the Mississippi state highway patrol has almost doubled.  Vigilante groups have sprung up across central and southern Mississippi.  The Ku Klux Klan has experienced a resurgence.

In recent weeks, countless rumors have been circulating. These spurious reports range from one involving a planned mass assault on white women to another that cooks were polluting food.

Ten more Negroes were arrested today when they sought service at lunch counters in two downtown drugstores.  24 of those have been found guilty of trespass and sentenced to 180 days in jail.  

A letter reflecting the tenor of thought in some white circles in Jackson, Miss. was published in the Jackson Daily News.  It said in part: “It is incredibly criminal and cowardly for a group calling themselves  a Council of Churches to send young students out to prepare a blood bath that would invite a death-dealing shower of hot lead... Have these Marxist-mannered ministers who plan to flood our state with their guerillas never heard of Scripture?” 

Other white citizens, including Francis Bruni, Sr., have urged civil rights workers to understand the entirely legitimate grievances of white Mississippians. [Really, Aula?  – Ed.]

March 8, 1965

SELMA, Ala., March 7 – Alabama state troopers, aided by volunteers from the Dallas County Sheriff's office attacked a column of peaceful Negro demonstrators with tear gas, nightsticks and whips to enforce Gov. George Wallace's order prohibiting a protest march from Selma to Montgomery.  The suppression of the march, which was called to dramatize the Negroes' voter-registration drive, was swift and thorough.

At least 17 Negroes were hospitalized with injuries and about 40 more were less seriously injured by tear gas and police assault.

Outside agitators told to go home

John Lewis, chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, was among those injured with a skull fracture caused by a police attack.  Before being taken to the hospital, Mr. Lewis spoke to the angry and weeping crowd who had taken refuge in a church sanctuary. 

About 525 demonstrators embarked on their march by crossing the Pettus Bridge, where they were met by over 50 armed troopers and a few dozen other armed white men claiming to be a posse.  When the demonstrators were 50 feet away from the police lines, their commander, Maj. John Cloud said, “This is an unlawful assembly. You are ordered to disperse.”

When a protest leader asked to have a word with the major, Maj. Cloud replied, “There is no word to be had.”  As a result, Maj. Cloud was placed on the short list of candidates for the job of President of Northeastern University [One more Aula and you're fired. – Ed.]

A few moments later, the troopers rushed forward. The first 10 or 20 Negroes were swept to the ground screaming, arms and legs flying.  A cheer went up from the white spectators.

Suddenly the police fired tear gas, but before the gas cloud hid the attack, fifteen or twenty nightsticks could be seen flailing at the heads of the marchers.

The Negro leaders continued to urge calm and nonviolence, but the Rev. Hosea Williams later told the protesters that the Germans he fought in World War II were less brutal than the Alabama State Police.

May 5, 1970

KENT, Ohio, May 5 – Four unarmed students, including two women, at Kent State University where shot to death this afternoon by a volley of National Guard gunfire.  At least 8 other students were wounded.

Mainstream Republicans supported the massacre of students

Although National Guard spokesmen claimed they had been forced to shoot after a sniper opened fire, no such sniper fire was reported by students on scene.

In Washington, President Nixon said: “This should remind us all once again that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy.” 

Area hospitals reported that six students had been treated for gunshot wounds.  Three remained in critical condition.

General Robert Canterbury, commanding the Ohio National Guard troops at the scene, later claimed that the Guardsmen had been attacked by rock-throwing students.  He admitted that no order to fire had been given. 

In response, students walked out on strike on campuses from coast-to-coast. For the first time, many college administrators supported the students.

At Harvard Law School, exams and classes were cancelled for the semester, an action that Assistant Law Professor Alan Dershowitz termed “anti-Semitic.” [Aula, you're fired – Ed.]

 

 May 5, 2024

[We're not printing this s***, right? – Editorial Page Ed.]

Heard Off Campus: Power to the Rich White Men, Right On!

By Business Editor Samuel Insull with
Meta-Content Generator A.J. Liebling

What's the matter with American higher education?

If you said it's that students are forced to borrow $360,000 that they will never be able to pay back to be taught by unwashed graduate students (also known as the Harvard Plan), you're wrong!

The real problem, according to the very wise suck-ups at New York Times Dealbook, is that rich white men don't have enough power over it.

This may come as a shock to anyone who has observed the death grip that such men have over the ruling bodies and fiscs of America's great and not so great universities, not to mention the destruction of formerly respectable state schools like the University of Florida at the hands of intolerant white men like Ron “These Go-Go Boots are Made for Walking” DeSantis (remember him?).

The great non-white non-rich and half-female unwashed need to get schooled:

 

Yes, the problem is that rich white male finaglers don't have enough power over what happens on college campuses.  Tell us more, Andy:

Many business leaders have told me they are deeply concerned about incidents of harassment against Jewish students that have taken place at and around universities like Columbia and appear to be increasing.

Inside corner offices, there has been a lot of hand-wringing about the most blatant examples, like antisemitic signs and chants or the assault of an Israeli student. But there has been little action from corporations, which have a synergistic relationship with the schools where they recruit employees.

Some executives are privately pondering what they can do. The most common course of action so far has been to pull back on individual donations. The New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, for example, said this week that he was “no longer comfortable supporting Columbia University.” 

And there is nothing more concerning to the editors of Dealbook than the comfort of Robert Kraft, although left to his own devices he appears generally to be able to find some modest comfort in the happy ending spas found in the strip malls clinging to the swamplands west of Palm Beach.

These concerns were shared privately (which is to say publicly on condition of anonymity) with New York Times reporters on the very same day that The Times reported that Columbia had in fact, without busting heads or arresting peaceful protestors, taken action against anti-Semitic hate speech on its campus:

But don't confuse plutocrats with the facts when they're swinging their great big Master of the Universe dicks around.  Not content with cutting off donations or organizing to drive out university presidents who dare to disagree with them (see, e.g., Harvard and Penn), they are conniving new ways to impose their views on people like students and faculty who have some nutty idea that there ought to some freedom of thought on college campuses, regardless of which finagler's name is carved over the door:

But businesses have other levers that affect universities, and some of those levers would undoubtedly put more pressure on universities to take action against antisemitism.

Here’s one out-of-the-box thought experiment: Most businesses scrutinize their vendors quite carefully and maintain approved lists of vendors whose policies align with their own. Companies could scrutinize universities, a main source of their talent, as they would any other vendor. They could tell universities that they won’t hire their students unless the schools take decisive action to stem antisemitism....

To be clear, companies would need to define antisemitism and the satisfactory actions to mitigate it — currently both topics of fierce debate. 

Thanks, Andy, for the clarification. And of course if it's one thing that billionaire plutocrats are known for, it's carefully listening to all sides before taking a nuanced approach that reflects the complexities of a fraught situation. Like Elno. 

In other words, these immensely powerful creeps could punish the innocent – students graduating with a mountain of debt and looking for work – because of supposed delicts on the part of administrators at the schools from which they graduated.  That sounds fair – to Andy.

But the stupid idea that some big-buck douchebag whispered into Andy Sorkin's ear during a quiet cocktail at Manhatta got us to thinking about other uses of economic leverage to get universities to do what they should.

Consider the news from Emory University in Atlanta as reported in The Emory Wheel (as usual, the most reliable college news can be found in the student newspaper, Harvard excepted):

Heavily armed police on campus: what could go wrong?

A young woman cried into a cell phone camera as a police officer dragged her off of Emory University’s Quadrangle around 10:15 a.m. this morning, stating her birthday and her mother’s phone number. Ten minutes later, a young man yelled as another officer walked him off the Quad in handcuffs, shouting that the restraints were too tight and were cutting off his circulation. The officer looped an arm under the protestor’s leg and lifted him, carrying him away as the protestor yelled for help.

The two individuals were among several protestors detained during a demonstration this morning. Protestors gathered on the Quad at 7:30 a.m., erecting around 20 tents in an “encampment for Gaza.” They listened as demonstrators took turns stepping to the front of the group to share speeches through a megaphone, cheering for each other as they declared support for Gaza in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Within three hours, Georgia State Patrol, Atlanta Police Department (APD) and Emory Police Department (EPD) officers walked along the sidewalk before turning onto the Quad and closing in on the protestors.

Screams broke out as the protestors attempted to run away and officers began tackling some of the individuals. Less than a minute after the altercation began, officers released irritant gas on the protestors. Officers tased at least one of the protestors.

An officer outside of the Administration Building told detained protesters they were being taken to DeKalb County Jail. Multiple members of police declined to confirm this information to Emory Wheel reporters.

Police officers had gas masks and used non-lethal ammunition. Officers also tackled protestors and used zip ties to arrest individuals on the Quad.

In short, a peaceful protest that had begun three hours earlier and not interfered with the operations of the university led the Emory administrators to treat paying students like John Lewis in Selma. 

Now Emory is a perfectly OK B+ university with pretensions to Ivy League greatness.  It competes for the best and the brightest.  If I were the parent of little Ethan or Sophia, I'd have a few questions of my own for Emory officials before dropping off a $90K kiss and my pride and joy:

1.  Under what circumstances could my child be arrested for peaceful protest?

2.  Under what circumstances could my child be suspended or expelled for peaceful protest?

3.  If my child is expelled or suspended for peaceful protest, will I receive a tuition refund for the semester?

4.  Under what circumstances will your university use police forces to arrest peaceful protesters?

5.  How do you vet officers on your campus police force to make sure they have not used excessive force in the past or otherwise committed misconduct?

6.  Who decides whether to call in outside police forces?

7.  How do you confirm that the members of outside police forces you call onto campus have not been found to have used excessive force or otherwise committed misconduct?

8.  Are any officers on campus armed?  If so, how do you confirm that they have had appropriate training in the use and abuse of deadly force?

9.  Who supervises the campus police?  Who supervises the actions of outside police forces you call into your campus?

If the people who pay the bills don't like the answers they're getting from university functionaries, they are free to direct their tuition payments elsewhere.  It's not like Emory has a unique position at the zenith of the American collegiate firmament.  Far from it.

That's the beauty of the free market, amirite, Andy?

Of course the universities siccing armed police on their students already have an economic incentive to call off the dogs: the students they brutalize today are the ones that universities will be schnorring from for decades after graduation.  You'd think any university bigwig would remember this before calling in the 5-0.

And yet they don't.  Maybe, just maybe, the grandiose overpaid bureaucrats who run America's universities aren't – very smart?