Academic Theatrics as Indication of the Future

This is shocking:

DeHayes would not provide the exact contents of the messages, which he said were found on a computer in the Memorial Union, the student life building, and at Swan Hall. In an interview yesterday, he would say only that they were a “characterization” of Obama.
DeHayes said a student brought the messages to his attention. As the computers are accessible to the public, he pointed out that the messages weren’t necessarily left by a member of the university community.
On campus yesterday, more than a dozen students interviewed said neither they nor their peers knew about the messages. Some, including junior Hadyn Serby, 20, had seen the provost’s e-mail and said that was the first they heard of the incident. Others, among them sophomore Bianca Parker and junior Jalesia Terry, both 20, hadn’t seen the provost’s message, perhaps, they said, because they sometimes overlook the multiple university-wide e-mails they get or those messages automatically go to their e-mail accounts’ junk boxes.

So somebody put a stupid message on a couple of computers (I’m picturing an open Word document with the note typed in), and rather than simply deleting them and instructing folks responsible for the computers to keep an eye out for that sort of thing, the “provost and vice president for academic affairs” proceeds to ensure that the messages’ existence receives the greatest possible audience.
As a matter of sensible leadership, that’s bad enough, but Donald DeHayes when further to the point of involving the police and giving a stunning example of the totalitarian mindset:

In his e-mail, DeHayes wrote, “While each of us is entitled to our own political views, none of us should be allowed to openly and maliciously insult others on the basis of race or religion without consequences.”
DeHayes said he has asked the campus police to investigate the matter, and they are working to determine where the messages came from. While he said in his e-mail that the messages “may rise to the level of a hate crime,” he characterized them as “hate speech” in the interview yesterday afternoon.

There should be consequences, but they should be to wallow in obscurity and be insulted when caught in the act. Instead, this ostensible educator corrupts the minds of young adults by trampling with impunity the presumption of free speech — probably because he has a foggy understanding of the principle, himself.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John
John
12 years ago

I wonder if Mr. DeHayes would willingly include gender in his outrage? No…I don’t think so.
What a cruel joke fate is playing on us.

joe bernstein
joe bernstein
12 years ago

Hateful speech is protected by the 1st amendment.Direct threats against an individual(s)isn’t.
If you want to see and hear hate peech just tune in to public access tv.It’s all there and there’s no way to shut the creeps up,but that is the price we pay for freedom.

Mike
Mike
12 years ago

In his e-mail, DeHayes wrote, “While each of us is entitled to our own political views, none of us should be allowed to openly and maliciously insult others on the basis of race or religion without consequences.”
Pure Stalinism

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.