So after the radical Left once again shouted down and prevented the free speech of a conservative who was their as a favor because of an invitation from the school to speak at their yearly conference, what were the school's actions?
They knew that the protest was coming - the radical group told them for over a week that they would be there in force to shout McAleenan down.
Did Georgetown provide police coverage to remove disruptors? No.
Did Georgetown condemn the protestors? No. They claimed instead that they regretted the loss of opportunity for free specch "even when it comes from people who we disagree with" (paraphrase) - letting all know that they sympathisize with the cause of the protestors.
No expulsions. No arrests. No control of their radical student body. No protection of first amendment rights for conservatives.
This is the school that covered the INRI on the cross behind Obama as his precondition before he would talk at their school back in 2009 or so.
Fail Georgetown. And it makes you less relavant in the process.
Link: https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fjoshmax%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F12%2F1-Transam.jpg
Maybe you did. If so..well done, I guess.
I agree, by the way. I hate the current trend of stopping people from speaking on campuses. Don't know the details of that incident, but I don't like the trend at all.
Also: That story about Obama is essentially false. See below. They asked for a neutral background, not a secular one.
Link: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/obama-at-georgetown/
It.....that he wanted a nonsecular setting.
But for over 100 years, major policy talks were given from this location . It is well known - esp in DC.
Obama people knew what was coming, and didn't want a cross with "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews" in the back drop.
As bothersome as that is, the real issue came when Georgetown abandoned the lat vestiges of its catholicity by reciprocating. They denied their faith and covered it up in order to get the president who eschewed Christianity to speak there.
I know you buy the Obama claim "we wanted a nonsecular background", but they were knowingly telling a catholic (just barely maybe) institution to remove their religious nature or they'd take their ball elsewhere and they won.
They apparently did say "get us a clean background."
But you interpret that as anti-Catholic bias or some nonsense. Sigh.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)