George Will

George Will Uninvited from Scripps College

A prominent conservative political pundit was uninvited from speaking at Scripps College, in a program designed to promote conservative views on campus, because of his conservative views.

Nationally syndicated columnist George Will was slated to speak at the ninth annual Elizabeth Hubert Malott Public Affairs Program, the mission of which is to bring speakers to campus whose political views differ from the majority of students at the all-women’s college, but had his invitation rescinded after he wrote a column about sexual assault on college campuses.

“It was in the works and then it wasn’t in the works,” Will said in an interview with the Independent. “They didn’t say that the column was the reason, but it was the reason.”

Will also told the Independent that Christopher DeMuth, former president of the American Enterprise Institute, one of the most influential conservative think tanks in the country, resigned from his position on the program’s speaker selection committee over the decision to revoke the invitation.

The Elizabeth Hubert Malott Public Affairs Program was established under the belief that “a range of opinions about the world – especially opinions with which we may not agree, or think we do not agree – leads to a better educational experience,” according to the Scripps College website.

It has not been announced who will be selected to replace Will at this year’s series. Previous speakers invited to campus by the program include conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan.

News of the cancellation comes shortly after the release of a recurring study by Claremont McKenna College Professor Emeritus Ward Elliott that aims to measure political attitudes at the Claremont Colleges. In the most recent update of the report, Elliott could not find any Scripps faculty members who are registered Republicans.

“Among the 532 [Claremont Colleges] core faculty only 15 Republicans could be found in the registries,” Elliott said in an email to the Independent. “Pomona, Pitzer, and Scripps have a very few registered third-party core faculty, but no Republicans at all found.”

Libby Ramsey SC ‘17 said that the cancellation underscores the lack of political diversity at Scripps.

“There is minimal political diversity at Scripps,” Ramsey said in an email to the Independent. “Not only this, but the minority who have different viewpoints feel uncomfortable sharing their opinions, and there is a culture of exclusion and a lack of acceptance. If Scripps claims to want ‘to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently,’ as our founder explained, it should not keep contributing to a culture of exclusion and silence.”

Will’s June 6 column centered on the issue of sexual assault on college campuses, particularly regarding the federal government’s recent intervention into how colleges should respond to such incidents.

“[Colleges and universities] are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (‘micro-aggressions,’ often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate,” Will wrote in the column. “And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.”

Progressive groups were quick to condemn the column, and at least one newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, responded by dropping Will’s twice-weekly column from their op-ed page.

Four Democratic members of the U.S. Senate signed a June 12 letter denouncing Will’s column, writing that his “notion about a perceived privileged status of survivors of sexual assault on campuses runs completely counter to the experiences described to us.”

Will responded to the U.S. Senate in a June 13 letter, writing, “I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you. Which is why I worry about definitions of that category of that crime that might, by their breadth, tend to trivialize it. And why I think sexual assault is a felony that should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and not be adjudicated by improvised campus processes.”

A representative from Scripps could not be reached for comment before press time. The Independent will update this article as their comment becomes available.

Update: Scripps Defends George Will Disinvitation

Image Source: Flickr/Gage Skidmore

121 thoughts on “George Will Uninvited from Scripps College”

  1. If you make the decision to publish — in a national column, in a major paper — the statement that being the victim of a sexual assault is a “COVETED STATUS that confers PRIVILEGES” and thereby makes “victims proliferate” (emphasis obviously added), you need to be ready to accept the harsh and critical responses that you subsequently get. It’s his prerogative to write that. It’s also Scripps’ prerogative to use the column as an indication that he isn’t someone they want representing intellectual diversity on their campus. There are plenty of other conservative, centrist, or right-leaning columnists and public thinkers they can invite in his place who haven’t espoused harmful views towards an already extremely marginalized group of people, those being survivors of sexual violence. I’m very liberal; there are conservatives I respect and would love to invite to the Ath, and there are conservatives I don’t respect and wouldn’t want to bring. I can say the same for liberals. I would love to bring, for example, Ta Nehisi Coates — he’s thoughtful, reasonable, and always respectful. But I would not want to invite Bill Maher, because his views are often crude, malicious, and not constructive. The mere combination of the facts that A. George Will is conservative, and B. Scripps uninvited him, does not prove that Scripps is censoring diverse viewpoints. It only shows that they’re exercising their right to filter those viewpoints to those that will have the greatest and most productive impact on broadening Scripps students’ mindsets. On a purely pragmatic level, whether or not you want to concede that Will’s column reveals a fundamental error in his judgment, the visceral hurt and disrespect that survivors of sexual assault at the 5Cs — regardless of their personal politics — are perfectly justified in feeling in response to George Will’s column disqualifies him as an effective spokesman. I hope they choose someone interesting in his place, but I have no problem with Scripps rescinding his invitation.

    1. Tragic- your comment is exactly what’s wrong with our colleges today. We only want people from different perspectives– as long as we agree with their viewpoint. I think that sums up the ‘liberal’ view of American free speech.
      Let’s sanction cop killers to speak to our kids-? But not respected conservative thinkers.

      1. You have hit the nail on the head. Liberals/progressives are far more intolerant and intellectually incestuous than conservatives, and their detachment from reality is exposed the most on college campuses. What a black eye (ooops, is that racist???) for Scripps college.

        1. Sad,Sad response. George Will is a American treasure and the controlling left continues to limit speech. Orwell’s comment come to mind, that the further a society drifts from truth, the more it will HATE those that speak it. We need another wake up call, libs.

    2. Yes, George Will has made offensive claims. Yes, the direct victims of these claims are justified in feeling hurt. But how can you say that this one column out of the HUNDREDS of Pulitzer-Prize winning articles he wrote completely disqualifies him as being an effective spokesperson? You cannot simply replace George Will with the cookie-cutter moderate conservatives, centrists, and right-leaning columnists that you specifically choose to tolerate and engage with. That is not only a narrow-minded approach to political discussion, but it is also incredibly disingenuous to profess how open-minded you are when you support “filtering” certain individuals from even entering the realm of discussion.

      1. Firstly: If you noticed what I actually said, my statement that George Will wouldn’t be an effective spokesman was *independent* of how you feel about his comments. I believe that he will be ineffective, whether you like it or not, because that particular column incited a level of pre-judgment and immovable opinions about him among (not that I’ve done a poll, but I’m just guessing) the Scripps student body. He will be ineffective because people will dismiss him because of those offensive claims, which you yourself acknowledge entitles those individuals to feel hurt. As I said, this is a matter of pragmatism, not a normative judgment. The point bears no relation whatsoever to his merits as a speaker or his professional accomplishments. I just think the damage has been done, and he wouldn’t have an audience willing to listen even if they didn’t rescind the invite. Secondly: I’m genuinely confused about your (and others’) vehement objection to “filtering.” To invoke “the classic Clay Spence question,” as Professor Hurley would put it, where do you draw the line? This is a genuine, not a rhetorical, question. Surely you are not unreasonable or naive enough to hold the position that ANYONE — any speaker that any single person wants to bring to a college campus — should be allowed, and paid by our institutions, to do so. There must be filtering. And as an empirical matter, at every single institution where speakers are hosted, there IS at least some degree of it. I’d also like to clarify that I never said I would *personally* draw my line at George Will; I said I don’t take issue with Scripps choosing to draw their line with him. Where is yours? As a previous commenter implied, he or she drew the line at “cop killers.” Do you draw the line there too? For that matter, what about killer cops? What about convicted rapists? Or an active member (or even personal sympathizer!) of the KKK or the American Nazi Party? Would any of these people be fair game as long as they had accomplished some standard of professionalism that impresses you enough to excuse the rest? What about an un-accomplished Nazi or Klan member or convicted rapist — could a Grand Wizard come to speak purely for the sake of intellectual diversity? Now, please don’t confuse these examples to mean that I’m equating George Will to them. I am not. But some degree of filtering, gatekeeping, or if you want to be dramatic about it, “censoring,” is always going to exist; to claim that it isn’t is just to obfuscate your own standard, whatever it is, under an indignant blanket claim of openness. I’d actually be interested to hear what George Will has to say, but I can personally accept where Scripps has drawn their line. Where do you draw yours?

        1. Why bring in Nazi’s and Rapists and the KKK? Just to associate them further with the evil cause that is the Conservative party? How childish of you. Furthermore, George Will was selected by Scripps College, extended an invitation by Scripps College, and then disinvited by Scripps College. Had Mr. Will not published his June column he would still be slated to make the appearance that at least some Scripps students, myself included, would have been delighted to attend. This was a decision made by the administration, it had nothing to do with the student body protesting, or any of that nonsense that is so common at institutions of higher learning across the nation. As far as pragmatism goes, to say that the Scripps population would be deterred by Mr. Will’s comments and therefore not attend his lecture is absurd, as undoubtedly the majority of Scripps students would not attend his lecture anyhow. This man is a well known Conservative Journalist and therefore highly offensive to the greater population of the 5c’s. I highly doubt that the Scripps students who would have enjoyed a talk by Mr. Will would have been deterred by his oh-so objectionable comments. The objective problem is not that the school decided to filter a speaker, but that the school decided to filter a speaker with whom their own politics (and the politics of the majority of the student body) did not align. Is this man inheretly evil or criminal, like the Nazis, Klan members, and Rapists you previously mentioned? If you agree with me in thinking the answer is no, then as an already highered speaker for the institution, there is no reason that his voice does not deserve to be heard. It is the prejudice with which this man was filtered that gets under the skin of any 5c non-liberals. The comments he made are only controversial enough to lose him his place as a speaker because they do not align with the political party of the administration of Scripps College.

          1. Although Scripps students have a right to be upset by George Will’s comments, it does not give them a right to outright dismiss his insights as a political commentator. His article had nothing to do with his views on conservatism or even politics in general, which is specifically what he would be brought in for. By rescinding Will’s invitation, Scripps College is enabling the Scripps student body to conflate this one isolated incident with Will’s entire professional career and views as a journalist, which I argue is erroneous and particularly damaging for our political diversity (or lack thereof) at the 5Cs. Your “damage-has-been-done” attitude of defeat runs contrary to the liberal arts notion of continuously challenging each other’s views. Instead of immediately defending Scripps’ decision, you should reflect on whether your assumption that “he wouldn’t have an audience willing to listen” to him is A. factually correct and B. something we ought to question and strive to change.

            As far drawing lines go, I admit that I don’t have a hard-and-fast rule for determining where the line ought to be drawn. I do know, however, that if you draw the line (or defend drawing the line) at someone like George Will, who is accomplished in his field and articulate in his arguments (whether you agree or disagree with them), then that is a serious loss for the depth of political discussions on campus and opportunities for presenting valid, politically opposing viewpoints at the 5Cs.

        2. Shannon, I think you’re completely missing the point. The point of these lectures is educational. Meaning, George Will would have some different perspectives, namely conservative perspectives that are not found on Scripps’ Campus. If we submit to your hypothetical about a KKK member or a member of the Nazi party, you have to realize that their perspectives have already been through the rigor of discourse and the general consensus is that their perspectives are bad. In George Will’s case, he brings out a perspective which Scripps happened not to like, but instead of invalidating his perspective through discussion, they invalidated his perspective through fiat- which I hope I may need not remind you is the trademark of every dictatorship in history. In other words, George Will’s talk still had an educational value that your hyperbolic examples of the Klansmen or other extreme groups do not hold. A great many people hold Mr. Will’s beliefs and I am positive that had the invitation held, there would have been a full room that night. I should clarify that I am in no way trying to validate Mr. Will’s beliefs by way of majority, I am pointing out that if Mr. Will’s beliefs were so consensus bad, then he would not have been invited to speak in the first place. Scripps’ standards as an educational institution should not lie in the will and beliefs of their general public. If Scripps’ general student population is hypothetically 80% liberal, of course George Will’s opinions aren’t gonna fly- which is why they have the speaker series in the first place. It is the responsibility of Scripps as an institution facilitate such a discussion.
          The line which you speak of should not be as arbitrary as you want it to be, because of course different people have different thresholds. The line should ideally lie between ‘bad’ and everything else. Meaning if something has been debated and discussed and it is general consensus that the particular belief is bad or harmful to society, such as KKK, then let us exclude it from discourse. Otherwise, openness should reign king

          1. The problem with your analysis is that, on Scripps campus, it probably is general consensus that George Wills falls into the “bad” category. That’s the beauty of free speech, though – even the “bad” speech is permitted. No one group or person gets to draw the line between bad and everything else. The line should instead be about what speech is influential among a large group of people. It should always intellectually and morally interesting to learn about what other people believe, and why.

        3. Universities are constantly inviting controversial speakers. The thing they all seem to have in common is a hatred for America, white people, anti-religion (except Islam of course) or cops. Those kind of inflammatory speakers are welcomed with open arms.

        4. The shame is that what Will said is true, and if you took the time to listen to what he said you might learn something. He did NOT belittle or in any way dismiss real victims of sexual assault. No one of any character would do so. What he did say is that campus societies have so trivialized what the term means that one can claim victimhood simply because she has survived some guy asking multiple times for a date! Oh, the horror!

          The message: grow up!

          Sexual assault is a violent crime. It’s not “he was talking to me and I don’t like him!” It’s not “He was looking at my low-cut blouse and high-cut skirt and I feel so violated!”

          For Scripps to pretend that what George Will has to say is too offensive for the virgin ears of the student body is sickening. The mid-control police are winning the battle for the minds of young people in this country, apparently beginning with you. We have fought many wars for the right to speak freely. The old Soviet Union was famous for having only one acceptable point of view, with any other point of view likely to get one imprisoned. The US is beginning to approach that mindset, and it’s doubly sad. Why? In the Soviet world the leaders had to kill millions of their own people to gain such control. Here, we seem to be willing to simply surrender our rights and demand conformity to the elite opinion. What a sad bunch of sheep we are becoming.

          1. This is what seems to be lacking at Scripps College is actual thought. If the college is staffed with reactionaries then even the American Kennel Association would not be able to have conversations on campus about breeding dogs. The first moment the leadership at Scripps heard the term for a female dog she would shut down the campus, defund the planet and call her feminazis.

          2. I understood his column as you describe it too. He hasn’t been in college for a long tine. Neither have I. I can only assume this topic raises issues I don’t see Today’s students have no privacy for one. Maybe that’s some how part of it?

        5. Apparently you draw the line a cop killers. That they are more acceptable than someone whose speech offends you speaks volumes about the pervasive rot in colleges today.

        6. “that particular column incited a level of pre-judgment and immovable opinions”

          Isn’t this a laugh! This author and her liberal/progressive psuedo-intellectuals represent the height of pre-judgment and immovable opinions.

          What a joke Scripps has become. Remember, Shannon, reality always bats last (oh, a sports analogy — is that sexist???). Dope.

        7. I draw my line at a body of work in which the sum of the output (words and actions) produces little academic value (value would include ideas not easily accessible elsewhere on campus.) I think that’s a fair, useful standard, and one that would reduce the number of far-left speakers (Mumia Jamal, Bill Ayers) and expose students to half of the political spectrum that is generally off limits to them.

          Obviously, the school can draw their own line. I think that this case sets a standard that will be hard for them to apply consistently.

        8. Shannon Miller, I’ll say this…You came here with a minority view that few share. Some think you’re defending the indefensible. But you’re able to offer thoughtful points and explain yourself. Challenge us to think.

          That’s what Will would have done. We benefit from being challenged by your view. The Scripps students are denied that benefit. Shielded from intellectual rigor, they will graduate the worse off for it.

        9. I guess we shouldn’t confuse the examples of Klan members and rapists you offered with a comparison to the excluded speaker, but if the filter whereby university progressives excludes people like George Will and Ayann Hirsi Ali while accepting people like Mumia Abu Jamal, then the filter operates only to exclude right-of-center figures with no clear limit for what kind of left-of-center figures would be unwelcome.

          Given that your own list of examples is comprised of universally reviled figures to which progressives nonetheless typically equate the center-right, I’m curious where you would set the left-of-center boundary. Progressives mounted an impressive display of critical opposition when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia, but they at least allowed him to speak. This seems to be a privilege withheld from center-right figures.

        10. Typical. Disagree with a liberal and hold them to their own standards and he ad hominem flows. The left is a Fascist regime with one sole goal which is a one party or totalitarian government. Hitler ans Stalin rolled into one.

      2. The Declaration of Independence was highly offensive to George III. So what if some Code Pink thing is offended?

    3. Shannon, go back and find the column and you will see that he never says “that being the victim of a sexual assault is a ‘COVETED STATUS that confers PRIVILEGES.'” Never. He said the general concept of “victimhood” is what confers such privileges. You can disagree with that, but it’s very different from what you’ve said he said. I can’t blame you — hack publications like Salon put that distortion out there in hopes of shutting down Mr. Will’s career. We are unfortunately living in a time when the left has lost any interest in fostering diverse viewpoints or even seriously engaging with opposing arguments.

      Note how you condemn him, but you can’t even cite one full sentence in quotation marks where he says these dastardly things. I seriously dare you to go find the column, and post one complete sentence that is so offensive that this cancellation would be justified. You won’t be able to.

      Will’s main point is that campuses are being induced to set up parallel track processes for allegations of sexual assault — processes that ignore the presumption of innocence, treat defendants unfairly, and admit evidence that would never be admitted in a criminal proceeding.

      That viewpoint, however, does not show up in your comment. I wonder if you really even disagree with his actual position. Do you really think it’s defensible that someone accused of a crime — say, a relative of yours — should be deprived of those civil liberties?

    4. This doesn’t make any sense. A) You (theoretically) want diverse opinions on campus so that students can engage on an intellectual level; B) People (including students) are often offended, however, by opinions that differ from their own; C) If students are offended by a speaker’s differing view, they will refuse to listen to that different view, and therefore that speaker will be ineffective; D) Speakers with different opinions should therefore be unwelcome and censored whenever they are deemed by the majoritarian view to be offensive. It’s sad to see students at places of higher education advocating academic exile of people with dramatically different opinions, rather than calmly listening and intellectually discussing those differences.

    5. Even if you strongly disagree with someone to the point that you’re offended, if many other people agree with what that person is saying, it’s important to listen and intelligently respond. Anyone with a public following is worth interacting with respectfully, and students should leap at the opportunity to have a one-on-one conversation with a public figure with whom they disagree. The world greatly benefits when reasonable people are willing to carefully pick apart specious arguments.

      For example, it is so amazing when Muslim scholars and theologians intelligently defend their view of Islam as a religion of peace. For their arguments to be effective, they need to first learn about the opposing opinion – which might require, for example, reading terrorists’ manifestos. Regardless how offensive or terrible those manifestos might be, they are influencing the world, and are therefore worthy of study, consideration, and careful response.

      It’s impossible to listen and respond intelligently if you’re too busy providing others with your own opinion and feeling offended. You have to listen to what people say before you can respond and change minds! The answer to “wrong speech” is “more speech”, not censorship. I’m sad that the world will be deprived of the student comments that likely would have followed George Will’s appearance.

    6. You and your ilk, don’t want George Will to speak because you don’t want to be in a position and be ‘challenged’ to a debate with George Will or anyone who might share his views and opinions cited in that column you find objectionable (going so far as to state that the column is evidence that George Will’s opinion on sexual assault is similar to the type of thinking and opinion one would expect to hear from a Nazi, KKK or someone convicted of shooting a helpless police officer in the face four times).

      PS He’d kicked your rear end in such a debate using facts and logic vs your predictable ’emotion’ laden diatribes.

      Ditto for Al Gore and his silly hoax of man made global warming; papers who dropped Will’s column; papers that won’t allow dissent and different view points of global warming.

      Why are you wasting everyone’s time (and your parent’s hard earned money) attending to college? It’s obvious you are never going to learn to encourage and demand to hear from those who have opinions you disagree with and who are not Nazi’s, Mass Murderers, KKK, ISIS, etc.

    7. “Victim status” is ABSOLUTELY the golden ticket in Progressive Wonderland. If you deny that, you are completely clueless.

      Note, we’re not talking about “real” victims of “actual” wrongdoing; this is the people who are victims only in their imagination to perceived wrongs that don’t actually exist except in the psychotic ravings of the left.

    8. None of this smoke screens a serious matter: the apparently out of control hooking up, getting intoxicated and gross sexualizing (tweaking) taking place on college campuses today — and all of this gets blamed on the males, the guys or for those under age, the boys. Is it any wonder a growing body of men are getting sick and tired of the failed attempts by feminists to make sense of what has been going wrong between young men and young women?

    9. Filter those viewpoints…great way to promote the discussion. What about the stated goal of the college. “a range of opinions about the world – especially opinions with which we may not agree, or think we do not agree – leads to a better educational experience,”

    10. This reply was as disingenuous as the politicized movement to redefine “sexual assault” downward in order to facilitate the utterly indefensible growth of campus tribunals. The offended students could have engaged Will, or at least heard an extended take on the issue. But they and you choose to silence dissent.

      Because to let him speak would acknowledge that what’s being done on campus is highly controversial, even among women, and would highlight the disturbing fact that a hugely disproportionate amount of influence over young women and men, and society, is being exerted by the mere 23% of U.S. women who identify themselves as “feminists.”

      Honest debate is the enemy of modern feminism.

    11. He never said that being the victim of a sexual assault is a coveted status. Did you even really read the article? Or did your blind faux-feminism make you too angry to understand it?

      “when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.”

      Ask yourself this? What is the purpose of his article?
      This article scares people like you because there are certain crimes that progressives feel do no deserve a presumption of innocence. Sexual assault is the main one.

    12. You’re conflating two sections of the column to make a connection that Will doesn’t endorse. The quoted passages clearly refer to “micro-agressions”, defined as (usually) unintended verbal slights, not rape. He thinks the definition of sexual assault has become so broad as to trivialize victims of the crime as traditionally defined. That’s an arguable point, but it’s only beyond the pale if the goal is to suppress debate, not encourage it.

    13. The “disinvitation” is not punishing Will. He’ll be fine.

      The “disinvitation” is evidence of Scripps’ intolerance and narrow world view.

      I think your piece sums up the Scripps view perfectly. They, and they alone get to “filter those viewpoints” that they want their students to be exposed to.

      I guess they want to challenge their students, but, not TOO much. Right?

      You’re correct: They have every RIGHT to do it, but banning/silencing somebody whose opinions some individual or group determines that they don’t like, for whatever reason — that they’re “crude”, “malicious”, “not productive” – is the definition of intolerance.

      Tolerance is putting up with somebody or something that you DON’T like, something that takes you out of your comfort zone. Like somebody behind you talking talking loudly on their phone in a bank line, or a baby crying on a plane…or allowing somebody to express opinions you find offensive.

      There was NOTHING offensive about what Will wrote. His piece was intelligently argued and written.

      The school was simply intolerant of the fact that somebody had the audacity to disagree with their world view and policies. They didn’t want to risk others listening to his argument and agreeing with HIM. It’s that simple.

    14. Ms Miller, does the mere combination of facts that A. Scripps has ZERO Republicans on their staff and B. George Will was uninvited because of his viewpoint demonstrate that Scripps censors diverse viewpoints (emphasis obviously added)?

      How bout we add threshold facts to the “combination”:

      “Among the 532 [Claremont Colleges] core faculty only 15 Republicans could be found in the registries,” Elliott said in an email to the Independent. “Pomona, Pitzer, and Scripps have a very few registered third-party core faculty, but no Republicans at all found.”

      Does that combination of facts unlock the mystery of leftwing censorship that is only a mystery to Liberals like Ms Miller?

    15. You are truly a dimwit. The issue is that colleges are not providing due process and rights to the accused and are totally unequipped to handle a judicial/police investigation process. Instead, the male/accused is assumed to be guilty and must prove innocence. Pointing out the absurdity of a college conducting what should be a criminal investigation is NOT harmful. Is there any wonder why the male enrollment at US colleges/universities has declined as a result? Who wants to run the risk of a permanent record in the event of a one-night stand that the woman regrets – Will’s point is that this type of accusation doesn’t belong under the purview of ill equipped college faculty and administrators – there are numerous stories out there of young men who were acquitted/cleared by a police investigation have been severely and permanently penalized by colleges. What the liberal jerks who run academia have done to the United States IS harmful, if not downright treasonous.

    16. no, not really
      The column is about higher education. Universities are learning “that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (‘micro-aggressions,’ often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate,” Will argues. “And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.”

      That isn’t the best beginning for a man whose prose is crystalline at its best. It’s more difficult than it should be to discern that Will is distinguishing “the status of victimhood” from actual victimhood. When he says that colleges are causing “victims” to proliferate, he is referring to a category of people who he doesn’t regard as actual victims but who have either declared themselves to be victims or have been declared victims by others within the subculture of elite academia.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/rage-against-the-outrage-machine/373069/

      that’s the general thrust of will’s argument though he does write a bit inartfully (he essentially is condensing 2 articles into 1: problems of ambiguous hookup culture and trend to amplify what counts as victimhood in a context where “checking privilege” is about giving the victims special status)

    17. Your response has proven George Will’s point. By the fact you are responding negatively makes you a victim and you enjoy your status by the number of nods of approval you no doubt will get.
      George Will is correct but he isn’t alone. Will’s is one of several foundational attributes that Rush Limbaugh gives to prove that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

      I suggest Scripps hire an Imam to come in and speak about women’s rights. Probably win a Nobel Peace Prize compared to George Will.

    18. If this University wants to invite an expert on rape and how the mind of a sexual predator works it should invite Bill Clinton to speak at this forum. Maybe President Clinton can explain how his leftist politics gave him immunity and how no Conservative could survive the same.

    19. His article was about the dumbing down of sexual assault. When we equate a lingering look to rape we make the former a crime and the latter an administrative matter. To simplify for you; when everything is sexual violence nothing is. That is what he was writing about.

    20. Shannon, did you actually understand George Will’s column? It sounds like you simply reacted to “victim hood” and “coveted status” in the same sentence and now are joining the mob in it’s punishment of George Will.
      To illustrate his point, when a man opens a door for a woman and she becomes a “victim of this “microaggression” it trivializes the horror of the countless “real” victims of “real” sexual assaults. In the rhetoric and persecution of serial door openers, you avoid dealing with the root cause, and therefore prevention of predatory sexual behavior. The opportunity for meaningful dialog on his points is lost.

      Perhaps your, and others anger and reaction to his column is more, not less of a reason to have him heard. Or is it preferable to simply disregard his views by labeling them a “microagression”?

    21. Scripps didn’t invite Will to be an ‘effective spokesman’. They invited him to be a diverse voice. Obviously, Scripps is only interested in voices that are not ‘too’ diverse. “We want diversity of political opinion on our our terms”. “We want diversity we like.” “We want diversity that is easy to swallow” “We want diversity that doesn’t cause people to be uncomfortable.” In other words: “We don’t want diversity if it is uncomfortable, difficult to grapple with or offends us”. A reminder: Popular speech does not need protection, by its very nature. Only unpopular speech and speech that offends needs protection in a democratic republic or in institutions that value diversity. And on that count, Scripps is a major failure.

    22. I find your comments very similar to a 12 grade commencement speech. The sing song ideological phrases “espoused harmful views”, “marginalized groups of people” and the not so subtle ” filter those viewpoints to those that will have the greatest and most productive impact on broadening Scripps student’s mindset.”
      I remember in my youth ” power to the people” actually meant power to a few of the people who will give the rest of the people what is “deemed necessary” by the people in power.
      I assume you would like to be one of the givers and of course the “final filter”.
      Mr. Will stated he was more serious about rape than the “lawmakers” (polling hucksters) and inexperienced children in school. He advised to let the criminal justice system handle the cases and let the jury decide.
      Does ideology supersede proven guilt or innocence in your “mindset”?
      Please let me know if you are “offended” and I shall change all my views
      to make you more comfortable. Herd movement and all that.

    23. My (or your) “right” to disagree with Will or any other person should never make us (or you) so giddy with the vulgar sense of “faux-power” that I (or we) should NEVER employee over another being…an increasingly sad occurrence in our dwindling “democracy”…job well done Britney and sadly your ilk continues to reproduce under the rocks of Mr. Chips now-irrevocably soiled academy…Homer and Plato and Socrates cry in the little shadow of your shamelessness.

  2. “I have no problem with Scripps rescinding his invitation”
    “there are conservatives I don’t respect and wouldn’t want to bring”
    “I would not want to invite Bill Maher”
    Blah, Blah, Blah, me, me, me, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, me, me, me.
    Congratulations, you represent the opinion(s) of 1 (ONE) person! No one asked for who you would invite and its certainly not only up to you. You represent the Ath and when you speak, you represent the whole of CMC’s Athenaeum. “I don’t” think you should be an Ath Fellow if there are people in this world you wish to censor.

  3. So Shannon, you’re saying it doesn’t matter what one THINKS of Will’s views as long as someone FEELS they’re offensive. When you treat sentiment and opinion as objective and actionable fact, then don’t be surprised when you’re accused of intellectual bankruptcy. This is not the way for a women’s college – or any college – to show it is serious and attached to the real world.

  4. When Liberals say they are in favor of a diversity of thought, what they mean is :
    Foreigner – “America sucks because X,Y,Z … and you are all racist”.
    Liberal – “I know we suck and are all racist and we (Conservative Middle Class white people ONLY) should give you lots of money because your butt hurts … oh, and you can kill some of our soldiers”.
    See – you have 2 separate opinions …. that’s diversity.

    1. “I know we suck and are all racist and we (Conservative Middle Class white people ONLY) should give you lots of money because your butt hurts”

      Uh, how about “rich people of all races”

  5. As the Principal of distribution center companies, we have our west coast DC in the Inland Empire is area where we employ approximately 1800 people with quite few graduates from these colleges. Most employed at the regional and national c-level. Based upon our experience we had no option but to put forth the directive of no political proclivity years ago of which poison we have found begins at the higher education levels. This college has now put themselves on the map for lack of diversity. This means, again in our experience, a graduate that would most likely bring this mindset and disruption into the private sector. We have Claremont Grad’s employed in our legal, IT, accounting departments and now Claremont McKenna College has put itself on the map, collectively, which as a matter of protocol will now be distributed to all HR departments. We’ll also be revisiting the performance of those currently in our ranks. The little muse that roared, no?

    1. Oh, please. By all means, please “revisit” the performance of current employees because their alma mater disinvited a sexist, pro-rape, rightwing blowhard from speaking on campus after the employees graduated. You know that the Inland Empire is in California, right? The lawsuits you’ll get hit with will be absolutely hilarious.

  6. You people are beating up on poor Shannon here. She probably feels violated. This makes you rapists, you understand.

  7. He was disinvited due to his sexist and hateful views, not his conservative views. Unless of course you are implying that conservative views are inherently sexist and hateful.

    1. Did you read the article? Your implications are hateful, but that is OK because you are a blinded leftist. And we pity you.

  8. So the guy who claimed that being a rape victim was a “coveted status” that conferred “privileges” on all of those women eagerly seeking to be assaulted; the guy who openly mocked one rape victim whose story likely hit home with many women; you mean that guy was disinvited from speaking at a women’s college? I am shocked I tell you. Shocked. In other news, the leader of the KKK has been prohibited from giving the commencement address at Howard University this year.

    1. did you read the article? he said claimed victim status confers status and starts with examples of “microaggressions” highlighting his problem is with fake

      the leader of the KKK
      and the award for stupidity goes to… you

      1. I am so hurt. How can I go on? Well, let me try. What was stupid was Will’s original column, which I read in its entirety, more than once. It was written by an old man who clearly knows nothing about sexual assaults, has never spoken a word to a victim of a sexual assault, knows nothing about the law in this area (criminal, Dept. of Education, or otherwise), and did very shoddy research for his column, if he did any research at all. What’s stupid is claiming that being a rape victim is a coveted status. What’s stupid is believing that Will is only concerned about “fake” rape reports when his definition of “fake” includes the student he mocked in his column, who was in fact raped. What’s stupid is believing that a women’s college can or should invite a guy like Will who is openly espousing a policy that would be unlawful for any school receiving federal money and would make schools far less safe for women. Despite all of the sexist, idiotic noise to the contrary, rape remains one of the most underreported crimes in America. One of the reasons for that is that the criminal justice system treats sexual assault victims so poorly. By suggesting that colleges and the federal government do nothing in this area and leave everything to law enforcement, Will is in fact advocating a policy that will allow rapists to go unpunished and to continue to prey on students. That would be a stupid policy for this country to adopt. Thankfully, Will’s out of touch, sexist nonsense is not and will not be accepted by any government or college official who is interested in keeping his or her job.

        1. So, you really believe that a University Student Grievance Panel composed of Professors of English, Geology, Electrical Engineering, Finance and Chemistry can do a better job of adjudicating guilt or innocence in a he said/she said sexual assault case than the entire City/State justice system?

  9. I read Will’s column. Clearly he’s never been raped. If he had, he would not have chosen to write in such an insensitive, disparaging manner about victims of sexual assault. Try reporting a rape to the police or university officials and see what reaction you get. Most women choose not to report that they were raped because the treatment they receive from the authorities places them in position of having to defend themselves against charges that they lied, led the man on, or otherwise encouraged the assault. Many prosecutors tell rape victims flat out that unless you show signs of a struggle and injuries they won;t even consider your case. And God forbid you knew the person who assaulted you, even though most sexual assaults are by people known to the victim.

    As for free speech, that term is misused on a regular basis. Will was free to publish his column. No one from the government censored his speech. However, the first amendment right to free speech does not cover private entities. They do not have to offer Will a platform to espouse his views, even if the Washington Post and other media outlets choose to do so. So, please enough with righteous censorship argument. Disagree with the decision or not, but Will’s free speech rights were not affected one iota by the decision to dis-invite him as a speaker.

    1. We are talking about a higher level institution of learning – sharing ideas and thought- shutting down a respected author with whom they disagree. The fact that a few bitter people got ‘offended’ by Will’s free speech (like you obviously) – their reaction is classic neo-Marxist – shut down the messenger – ban the book – shred the bill of rights — what’s next?
      …..nice attempt — trying to change the narrative- this is not about sexual assault or free speech-

  10. Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

    The modern, progressive, tolerant Left. So afraid of dissenting views, they’ll burn them. Books are next.

  11. that comments section,my liberal ladies living in your little liberal collage bubble,is called a major debate beat down. Did you happen to notice? That’s what a real debate looks like. It’s a shame you won’t get to try your luck with Mr Will.

  12. The claim that Will stated that “being the victim of a sexual assault” is a coveted status that confers privileges requires both a deliberate misreading as well as a selective editing of Will’s actual statement – I note with interest the point at which this commenter chooses to begin quoting from the piece. Rather, the point of the contentious quotation – “that when (colleges) make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate” – should be as unremarkable as noting that the sun sets in the west. Will’s point is simply that the Left has fine-tuned the art of victimhood to such a degree that one needn’t have suffered any real criminal act to don the mantle of victim, as long as one can claim membership in certain politically-favored identity groups that feel put upon by society.

  13. I read the article and I stand by what I said. Don’t give me your hateful implications nonsense while claiming I am a blinded leftist in the same sentence. That would be ignorant and hyprocritical, the kind of ridiculously blatant stupidity that would deserve only derision. Next time please take a few moments to read your own words and decide whether they make you look like an idiot.

  14. George Will is a sick man – he has no empathy for rape victims. He was rightly rewarded by God with a Downs Syndrome kid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *