A Christian College Becomes Bastion of Student-Led Censorship

  • Post category:News / US News

Get Your Patriot911 Newsletter In Your Email Inbox

Free speech and free inquiry are in bad shape on college campuses. You might hope that things would be better on avowedly Christian campuses, but if Whitworth University is any indication, they aren’t.

On April 12, Whitworth’s student government voted 9-4 to deny a conservative group’s request to invite Chinese dissident Xi Van Fleet to speak at the university in Spokane, Washington. Van Fleet, now a Virginia resident, escaped Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution and frequently criticizes ideas such as critical race theory and hecklers’ vetoes that, in her view, mirror it.

The minutes from the Whitworth student government meeting are publicly available online, so we can see exactly why the students refused to let Van Fleet on campus.

Nick Yochum was the first student representative to object to Van Fleet. Yochum complained that “his constituents” who are “people of color [and] identify as LGBTQIA+” were “very concerned” with Van Fleet’s criticism of woke culture on Twitter. Students were especially concerned that she compared student mobs who shout down speakers with Mao’s Red Guards and Hitler’s brownshirts.

The president of the conservative group on the Whitworth campus, Grace Stiger, who is also a student senator, defended the invitation on the grounds that “a lot of people don’t know a lot about the Cultural Revolution” in China from 1966 to 1976 and “that’s important to learn about.”

Yochum responded by suggesting that the conservative group, Turning Point USA, should discuss only conservative economic policy. He even seemed to suggest that Turning Point deceived the student government when it applied for a club charter.

“When you were first chartering,” Yochum said to Stiger, “it seem[ed] to be [about] a lot of conservative and right-wing economics talk.”

But to Yochum, nothing in Van Fleet’s criticism of woke culture “has any sort of regard or relation to economic policy or conservative economic ideas, even when talking about things like communism.”

Is Biden the ultimate embarrassment to our country?

This poll gives you free access to your Patriot911 Newsletter in your email inbox. Email field is required. Unsubscribe at any time.

Stiger responded that Turning Point USA should not be forced to talk only about conservatives’ views on economics. She appealed to Whitworth’s commitment to civil discourse and to the value of hearing from those we may disagree with.

Her appeal fell on deaf ears.

Niraj Pandey, a student senator, expressed concern about inviting someone who would “equivocate [sic] programs or ideals that has [sic] welcomed us into the United States and celebrates our diversity, to communism and in some thinking, fascism.”

If you’re unsure of what that means, you’re in good company.

Pandey also agreed with Yochum that Turning Point should stick to discussing conservative economics and suggested it could do that just as well by replacing Van Fleet with Whitworth history professor Anthony Clark.

(Disclosure: Anthony Clark did not live through China’s Cultural Revolution).

Still, Pandey concluded that “when I try to look at [Van Fleet’s] ethos of where she is coming from besides her valuable personal experience, I couldn’t really find anything.” 

Whatever that means.

Katelynn Diaz, another student senator, complained that Van Fleet’s Twitter posts seem “like a lot of bold claims not backed up by anything.”

“Feels like someone using a platform to sway thinking a little bit,” Diaz said.

Imagine that: A conservative using Twitter to influence the thinking of others. Precisely what many college students fear most.

Jamie Gassman, club coordinator on the Whitworth campus, provided the assembly with a “general reminder” that “our goal here is not to bring someone that is harmful, and make sure students feel safe.” She conceded that “civil discourse is also needed and important,” but “we need to vote based on safety and comfortability.”

A student identified only as Alex, who isn’t listed as a member of student government, spoke up “as a queer constituent” to say that Van Fleet’s “hateful views” could affect him.

Stiger again tried to appeal to free speech saying, “civil discourse is what we say we stand for, so I hope that’s considered.”

It wasn’t.

Pandey jumped in again to ask, “Is there any chance to bring in a speaker that doesn’t equivocate [sic] certain things to communism but has the lived experience?”

She said that “it only makes sense to have someone who doesn’t shares [sic] those views but can also talk about their experience in the Cultural Revolution.”  

Translation: You should find another speaker who lived through China’s Cultural Revolution but isn’t offensive to liberals.

Stiger explained that it wasn’t possible given how long it takes to find a guest speaker.

Georgia Goff, student body president, wondered if there would be a Q&A session and if it was “possible to have a moderator shooting down inappropriate questions.” Stiger said yes, and Goff ended the discussion.

Nevertheless, Katie Chilcote, another student senator, added her 2 cents that Van Fleet doesn’t stand for the “types of communities” that “are important in recognizing.”

The vote was 9-4 against inviting Van Fleet, with two abstentions.

The Whitworth student government’s viewpoint-based censorship is somewhat surprising given that the college is avowedly Christian (although thoroughly captured by woke dogma) and maintains a strong-sounding commitment to free speech.

But what is even more surprising is that the school’s administration has delegated total power to the student government to veto speakers. What good does it do for the university administrators to publish a free speech statement if the students aren’t bound by it and have the power to censor speakers with impunity?

Early Monday morning, I reached out to the president of Whitworth University, Scott McQuilkin, by email and asked him the following questions:

  1. Who in the Whitworth administration made the decision to give the student government veto power over speakers?
  2. Do you support that arrangement?
  3. Will you take any action to reverse the student government’s decision?
  4. Do you support banning speakers based on their views?
  5. Do you think that viewpoint suppression is consistent with your school’s professed Christianity?
  6. Do you think that diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, is consistent with your professed Christianity?
  7. Do you think your school is inclusive for conservatives or others committed to free expression?

McQuilkin has yet to respond.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

The post A Christian College Becomes Bastion of Student-Led Censorship appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal
Share to break through the censorship!

JOIN US @NewRightNetwork on our Telegram, Twitter, Facebook Page and Groups, and other social media for instant news updates!

New Right Network depends on your support as a patriot-ran American news network. Donate now