Augustana Dems accused of erasing speech they don’t agree with

This just popped up in my Facebook feed. Apparently, Augustana University dems think they get to decide what is free speech, and anything they disagree with is to be obliterated.

It was noted that it was reported to Campus Security.

Maybe there are some young democrats who need a remedial class on the Constitution.

46 thoughts on “Augustana Dems accused of erasing speech they don’t agree with”

  1. So we are supposed to take her claim that it was the college dems at face value? I’m sorry but I don’t just take a women at her word unless she have evidence to support her claims. So much for innocent until proven guilty. I thought this was America?

  2. If someone has the right to write a chalk (?) message on a sidewalk that is used by the public to express an opinion, I believe if someone erases it, it is another expression of freedom of speech. Some would consider writing on the sidewalk to be vandalism (I don’t if it easily removed). Angelica is certainly able to write her message again.

    1. As I don’t know the details of what happened on Augie’s campus, there is a professor (Fresno State) who was sued for wiping away chalked pro-life messages that were approved by the university. The prof. even recruited some of his students to participate.

      Why not instead of destroying the messages, make your own? I think it’s suppression of speech if you destroy someone else’s idea, not expression of free speech that you suggest. And, on top of it all, people were put in danger. Would the university be sued if someone was seriously injured or the people who poured the water? Not much thought put into that idea.

      1. The water is a separate issue. It is not like the messages were campaign signs in a yard. I am also not saying it is a good idea to remove the message. I am not even saying it is not mean to remove the message. I am just saying chalk is not meant to be permanent and if something is pasted on a public walkway, do not be surprised if it is gone.

        1. Sure, the rain or snow or constant walking over chalk would erase the messages, but that’s not what happened. Someone hatefully destroyed them and that’s a form of suppression of speech, that’s the tolerant left.

          side note… I see you like the daily caller and gateway pundit, me too;)

          1. If someone were to write a pro-Hillary Clinton message on a sidewalk, and someone else deleted it, it is not hate. It is not nice, but I cannot see making a federal case about it.

            1. Someone who respectfully disagrees with a message walks on by or creates their own counter message. Someone who has enough anger and hate, takes the time to destroy a message. This person(s) took time to get water to erase the message and were so blinded by their hate that they couldn’t see what they were doing could seriously injury others.

              Like your example of yard signs. @Keatongray had enough anger and hate towards Kristi to take the time to kick down her signs, wanting to destroy the message. Knowing she could be arrested/fined didn’t bother her a bit.

              You think the person who set Dusty’s sign on fire respectfully disagreed with him? I don’t. There’s something more going on and it ain’t love trumps hate.

  3. When I was at Augie, a friend of mine romantically (hearts and cupids and all) wrote in chalk outside of where the nursing students studied, “Amy, meet me in the Huddle for supper. Love, Mark”

    I heard some hate speech when Mark came back to our dorm because we had changed “Amy” to “Tammy.” Tammy was also a nursing student and Mark’s prior girlfriend.

    I just want to say messing with someone’s chalk talk can be a touchy subject.

  4. Pat, where in the Constitution does it state private entities must uphold free speech? I don’t like this but suggesting it as a violation of free speech is a stretch when free speech doesn’t apply to private entities like augustana or any other private employer. You may need that remedial class more than they do.

    1. Why should the Augie Dems get to decide what speech is allowed, and what isn’t? I’m certainly not saying it’s something to be enforced legally, but as a policy, why should obliterating conservative messages be tolerated? Because doing the same to liberal messages would certainly be frowned upon.

      1. Sorta like my posts you keep deleting, then.


        (Only when they’re off topic. Or it’s funny).

          1. Never asked for, nor received any such thing. Just pointing out the ridiculous hypocrisy. What was it – do as I say, not as I do?

                1. Hey Ike,

                  Glad to hear you’re super concerned about first amendment rights. As an augie student (and a member of the college republicans and pro-life club), I am too! All clubs on campus have always been allowed to write with chalk on the sidewalks. The individuals who poured water over the messages are attempting to block the group’s freedom of speech by literally washing away their message simply because they disagree. If other groups on campus are given this platform for expressing their views, the CR’s and pro-life groups should be allowed the same rights since exercising our freedom of speech is what all the cool kids are doing nowadays. Thx homie.

                  1. This has nothing to do with your first amendment rights. The govt isn’t trying to silence you. You are on private property and just as your employer can silence you, so can the school or anyone affiliated with it. You can go take a remedial class on our constitutional rights along with Pat.

                  2. Erasing the messages is also a form of “speech”. Why are you trying to silence the silencers, frien?

        1. I have been deleted and blocked many times. I have always been very civil and respecful.

        2. This is Pat’s Blog; if you want total freedom to push a socialist/communist agenda start your own blog.

      2. Why should you get to decide what happens on private property? It’s not your place to make that call. What they tolerate is up to the school. So again, do you understand that you don’t have a constitutional right to freedom of speech on private property?

    2. Does Augustana accept Federal funding?

      I suspect ensuring free speech on campus may well be a condition, for Federal grants and loans.

    3. Anonymous 1:25 (I wish you people would post your names), it doesn’t. Everyone needs to better understand what it does protect. Perhaps someone out there can give a good and simple explaination.

        1. Is it Styles Bitchley or Stiles Bitchley? Either you’re a liar or don’t know how to spell your “real” name correctly.

    4. Anonymous 1:13

      This actually has everything to do with our first amendment rights. As I already said, Augustana has always allowed for groups to put their messages on the sidewalk with chalk. Another group finds the speech offensive and is attempting to take that away, essentially blocking us one group from expressing their right to freedom of speech because they don’t agree with their message. Disagreement is not grounds for standing between a person and his/her right to say what the heck they want to say. Plus, Augustana receives federal funding, so as some have pointed out, there may be an issue with restricting freedom of speech. The augie dems certainly do not get to decide what forms of speech are protected on campus. Conservative speech is continuously blocked by several members of the Augustana community including faculty, staff, and students. If the augie dems have a right to write with chalk on campus without fear of that right being restricted by other members of the Augustana community, the same should be afforded to the conservative clubs on campus. So, yeah, I think I’m good on those remedial courses 😉

  5. Hate is a very serious word. Methinks we over-use it to the point of sanitizing true hate.

    Chalk talking on public property and erasing said chalk talking is not the equivalent of putting up yard signs and kicking down said yard signs on private property.

    Protesting and yelling during a speech in the public square is not the equivalent to shouting down a speaker in a college auditorium.

    Protesting outside a public building is not equal to banging on Tucker Carlson’s door to the point of scaring the bejeezus out of his wife or threatening a man having dinner with his wife at a restaurant.

    Let’s look at behavior in proper perspective and proportion. I’m with dugger. Except for the danger from the ice (which I assume was just not thinking this all the way through and not intentional), this is not a big deal.

    1. How about “intolerance”? Wait, I don’t think Democrats can be intolerant, can they? They are so open-minded and fair to all.

  6. Certainly not so intolerant as to run over peaceful protesters, mail pipe bombs to political opponents, or shoot up a church, synagogue, or pizza joint, right?

  7. I think the bigger issue is that this group thinks their “right” to erase the message is somehow more superior to someone’s right to slip and fall because the area they poured water on froze. That’s not just reckless, but pretty self-centered.

  8. Augie Doggie
    Rock Chalk Jayhawk
    Win one for the Gipper
    Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac…It’s in the hole! It’s in the hole! It’s in the hole!

  9. While I think we are overstating the erasing, it does speak to how things have changed.

    When I was in Augie’s CR’s, we met the same night as our Dem counterparts so we could meet together after at Charlie’s. We even had inter-dating of which one led to marriage.

    Once when the Dems didn’t show, we wondered what they were planning when all it was some donor bought them pizza and beer so they never came to Charlie’s.

    In short, this hostility and division is not good. We’d have never thought erasing Dem Chalk Talk as good. And they rightly would have been irate had we done it. Free Speech at its best moves discussion forward. Erasing thought doesn’t do that.

  10. okay but how do we know this was even the augie dems tho. like honestly, what absolute proof is there? i see a comment that says “there is video, be patient. it will surface” but that’s a really vague thing to say that has no meaning about having actual tangible proof. and how would someone know there is video without having video themselves–if it were the case that the person who wrote the post took the video, the video would already be released. I just am not one for saying anyone is guilty without the burden of proof being on the accuser. And there is no evidence, just a whole bunch of name calling. thank you for coming to my ted talk

    1. Just for the record: hmmm and I are NOT one and the same … although I do think you have excellent taste in screen names, hmmm. 😉

Comments are closed.