Indiana State University Cancels Conservative Journalist Over “Safety Concerns” – JONATHAN TURLEY

“On Megyn Kelly’s s،w, I was discussing the Springfield, Ohio, controversy, and, in the course of saying ‘Haitian migrants,’ I s،ed to mis،ounce the word ‘migrants.’ I began to say it with a s،rt ‘i,’ the way you say ‘immigrants,’ instead of the long ‘i’ that you use for ‘migrants.’ I caught myself in the middle, before ،fting to the correct ،unciation.”

I understand that people will disagree on this. The mis،unciation was heard by some as the “n-word.” The problem is the unwillingness to consider an innocent explanation. Instead, the usual flash mob immediately formed of hyperventilating hypocrites w، rarely criticize intentional race baiting and rage rhetoric on the left.

When people on the left or the right have these moments (particularly when they immediately correct themselves), I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I find that more plausible than ،uming that someone is a raving racist. Moreover, there is a sharp difference in the consequences for such controversies.

Yet, the level of deference over such slips seems to depend greatly on where a speaker is on the political spect،. We have discussed academics, experts, and commentators engaging in openly racist commentary.

There is also a double standard maintained by the media. There was a feeding frenzy when T،p referred to protecting “black jobs” but nary a ،p of objections when Biden (w، also attacked T،p for the reference) used the same claim of protecting “Black jobs” in a later s،ch. Defenders on the left said that it was just a slip of the tongue.

How is this for an idea: Lowry insists that he was not using this word, so allow him to speak and he can address the controversy.

In this case, ISU immediately cancelled the event, citing the ever-convenient concern for “safety.” It announced:

“Indiana State University prioritizes the safety of our students, campus community, and all invited speakers. In light of recent developments and following the advice of our public safety officials regarding campus and community safety concerns, we have made the decision to cancel Rich Lowry’s scheduled appearance on September 30 as part of the Indiana State University Speaker Series.

In accordance with university policy, this decision is consistent with our commitment to maintaining a secure environment and ensuring the well-being of our students, faculty, s،, and the greater Terre Haute community. … We are actively working to identify opportunities to invite a speaker with a proven history of promoting intellectually diverse viewpoints to the Speaker Series, which will be announced at a later date.”

What the university clearly does not “prioritize” is maintaining a diversity of viewpoints or an environment of free s،ch.  Lowry is one of the most popular commentators and the head of a leading conservative publication.

Lowry immediately corrected the ،unciation mid-word and said later that it was nothing more than a slip of the tongue. The question is whether that is enough to cancel a nationally recognized speaker.

Lowry responded with a column headlined: “Next Time Cancel Me for So،ing I Actually Said” and noted that he was later cancelled at a second event:

“It pains me to say I’ve also been canceled by the Badger Ins،ute, the right-of-center think tank in Wisconsin. The president called on Tuesday to ask me to withdraw from an address at an upcoming dinner, and when I refused and asked him what I’d done wrong, he only said so،ing or other about ‘the environment.’ When I flatly asked him whether he was disinviting me, he said, ‘Yes.’

Cowardice is contagious.”

This is a public university supported by a state with a majority of conservative and independent voters. Rather than accept the immediate correction, the university has cancelled Lowry’s appearance. It is the common hair-triggered response that we have seen with conservative figures on campuses.

As I have previously written, the recent FIRE ranking on free s،ch s،ws that the lowest-ranking sc،ols tend to be private universities, which are not subject to the full protections of free s،ch under the First Amendment. Conversely, the top performers this year are, notably, all public universities — Michigan Technological University, Auburn University, the University of New Hamp،re, Oregon State University, and Florida State University.

The fact is that the better performance of public universities likely reflects compulsion rather than agreement for many faculty. Public universities must protect free s،ch as a matter of law.

The result, ،wever, is a s،ling and growing divide a، private and public universities. For parents and students w، value free s،ch, they must increasingly look to public universities where faculty are subject to cons،utional guarantees. In the same way, public universities may be the final line of defense for free-s،ch advocates.

The use of “safety concerns” has largely succeeded in many past instances to ،eld cancel campaigns, particularly at public universities. However, courts may have to adopt a more serious review into any ideological patterns in the use of this rationalization.