This Tuesday, The Chicago Maroon, an entrenched, establishment University of Chicago student publication, fired conservative columnist Daniel Schmidt for calling out another Maroon columnist’s hypocrisy and publicly challenging her to an open debate. Maroon leadership stated via email that Schmidt’s speech constituted “concerning conduct” that “repeatedly and publicly antagonized a fellow columnist.”
Schmidt’s Colleague Took First Shots, Then Refused to Debate
Schmidt invited his peer and former colleague Irene Qi to a debate in response to a Maroon hit piece Qi wrote about the Chicago Thinker, for which Schmidt also writes, and Professor Rachel Fulton Brown, a UChicago history professor Schmidt says he respects and admires.
In her article, Qi heavily criticized Fulton Brown and the Chicago Thinker team for advocating for an end to UChicago’s anti-science COVID policies. Qi even went so far as to call Fulton Brown both “dangerous” and an “embarrassment” to the university.
Qi specifically attacked the Chicago Thinker and Fulton Brown for discussing the inefficacious nature of masks. As she explained in her piece, Qi has “simply become tired of hearing the same rhetoric of anti-masks, anti-lockdowns, anti-vaccinations, anti-expertise, and so forth that has dominated COVID-19 conversations since March 2020.”
Schmidt told the Thinker that he felt the need to respond to Qi’s article because it was filled with factual inaccuracies concerning people and issues he cares about.
Schmidt Called Out Qi for Hypocritically Partying Mask-less
Schmidt also says he found Qi’s staunch defense of masks to be puzzling, seeing as there are multiple photos, independently verified by the Chicago Thinker, that Qi posted on her Instagram of herself mask-less at crowded parties. After the release of Qi’s piece, Schmidt posted an Instagram story, publicly asking Qi how she can square her pro-mask rhetoric with her anti-mask party pictures. Screenshotting a section of Qi’s article in which she criticizes the Chicago Thinker, Schmidt challenged Qi to a public debate.
Schmidt also posted a screenshot of another student messaging him and telling him that they “would personally love to see a debate.” Schmidt included the caption “The people want it!”
In response, Qi posted screenshots of Schmidt’s posts on her private Instagram page, adding nothing but a series of surprised emojis. Schmidt responded by posting a screenshot of Qi’s post, asking her why she ignored his debate request. Several other students also asked Qi on their public Instagram pages why she would not debate Schmidt.
The Maroon Rescinded Meeting Invite, Firing Schmidt on the Spot
On Monday, the leadership of The Maroon’s opinion section sent Schmidt an email with the subject “[URGENT] scheduling a meeting.” In this email, signed by editors Elizabeth Winkler, Kelly Hui, and Ketan Sengupta, Maroon leadership accused Schmidt of “engag[ing] in concerning conduct towards another columnist” and asked him to meet with them “as soon as possible.” (Hui, a CareNotCops activist, is known on campus for her Maroon article in which she demanded UChicago eradicate its commitment to free speech).
Asked to attend a meeting alone with at least four Maroon leaders, Schmidt requested formal permission to record the meeting on-the-record (Illinois is a two-party consent state).
Rather than grant approval and have a conversation, The Maroon decided to cancel the meeting and terminate Schmidt from his position at The Maroon, effective immediately.
The editors asserted that Schmidt was fired because he “never communicated privately or directly with [his] colleague to try to resolve [his] disagreement in an appropriate and professional manner.” They added that he was dismissed because he “repeatedly and publicly antagonized a fellow columnist by spamming and encouraging others to spam their social media account and [posted] images from their private story without their permission.” However, Schmidt told the Thinker that “the accusation that I encouraged others to spam her social media account is flagrantly false.”
According to the editors, Schmidt violated a policy he previously agreed to follow. Presumably, the editors were referring to the infographic (shown below) that says columnists cannot participate in “anything egregious,” which includes making other columnists “unsafe” and “harming people.” Schmidt told the Thinker that “To the editors of the Maroon, my invitation to debate Qi is as ‘egregious’ as ‘harming people.’ Any sane person would find this ridiculous and assume it to be satire.”
The Maroon Doubled Down, Refusing to Answer Questions
The Thinker asked The Maroon whether it believes “that inquiring upon potential logical inconsistencies and publicly proposing a debate to a colleague is akin to physically ‘harming people,’ as stated on the infographic where the policy is given.” The Maroon refused to directly answer this question. Instead, it reiterated that Schmidt’s actions (challenging Qi to a debate and pointing out that she went mask-less to crowded parties) were “antagonizing” and a form of “harassment.”
The Maroon refused to tell the Thinker why it has a policy against recording internal disciplinary meetings. It also refused to substantiate its claim that Schmidt encouraged others to spam Qi’s social media account.
“By asking Qi to debate me, I merely extended the public dialogue she started,” Schmidt told the Thinker. “I did so publicly, as I wanted to demonstrate that students like her are unwilling to defend their beliefs after being challenged. The fact that I was unceremoniously fired without a meeting only proves my point.”
It is *incredibly* unprofessional and disrespectful to publicly challenge someone to a debate like that, which is why no respectable journalist does it. These kinds of challenges are (very rightfully) seen as a bad-faith attempt to publicly humiliate your opponent; if they deny the request for whatever reason, they’re “scared” or “can’t back up their ideas,” and if they accept, they’re fighting a losing battle against an opponent who clearly has no regard for journalistic ethics. If you disagree with her and truly want to engage in meaningful dialogue, speak to her privately or write an article staking your viewpoint. Also, you’d have to be incredibly naive not to understand that now that you have a platform, these kinds of challenges will invite harassment, even if you don’t explicitly call for it. Frankly, you deserved it.
It’s also appalling that your explicit rationale for publicly calling for a debate is that you “wanted to demonstrate that students like her are unwilling to defend their beliefs after being challenged.” There are many reasons that someone wouldn’t want to engage in a public debate in front of a large audience, the biggest of which is the fact that, for most people, their lives do not revolve around their political identity, and would rather spend their time doing literally anything else.
I don’t really know how else to put this, but you weren’t fired for having the “wrong” ideas, you were fired for being an asshole. You can tell your detractors to “cope and seethe” all you want, but at the end of the day, they’re gonna be the ones with actual friends and a meaningful life outside of politics.
It’s funny that you so desperately want to defend the acts of cowardice, cancel culture, and censorship displayed here. Anyone can challenge anyone else to a debate anytime they want. t is not unprofessional. It is not a “threat”. It is not “egregious” behavior. They can accept the debate or reject it, and they have the right to explain themselves any way they see fit. You go off on some silly tangent about how he wasn’t fired for having the wrong ideas, while you attack his ideas.. LOL. You area pathetic little troll, and probably friends with the idiot he challenged.
Wow, why would you think so.
Debate is how ideas are vetted. Irene Qi has the same platform.
Grow up.
Refusing to engage in any debate, formal or otherwise, is what ignorant liberals do when they don’t know the facts, use opinion only and aren’t willing to educate themselves on the issues. They prefer to shut down discussion and debate they cannot win. Their actions speak volumes about their lack of ethics and knowledge. Armed only with opinion and the ability to shut down honest discussion. I hope their readers move on! Journalism is dead at The Maroon!
With all due respect, “Another UChicago student” is a moron. Intelligent citizens use civilized debates as a fair forum to reveal their opponent’s false statements and allegations. By denying Mr. Schmidt this opportunity, Ms. Qi is openly admitting that she has something to hide, namely her ignorance.
Mr. Schmidt was denied the opportunity to record a meeting in which at least four Maroon leaders were trying to find a reason to fire Mr. Schmidt. By denying him this opportunity, they were depriving him of his right to defend himself from accusations that could be made during that meeting.
The Maroon did not fire Mr. Schmidt until after he requested to record the meeting with Maroon leaders. There is something seriously wrong with that sequence of events.
These events have revealed that the Maroon is not concerned with facts or fairness, but instead with their priority to defend their writers who publish false information to promote their left-wing agenda.
There’s a massive difference between privately asking someone for a debate, and publicly challenging someone to a debate in the hopes that they’ll refuse, just to prove a point.
If he truly wanted a thoughtful debate, to genuinely exchange and explore ideas with her, he wouldn’t have publicly announced it on his Instagram before even contacting her, and he wouldn’t have continued to pester her about it in an attempt to get her to respond–*especially* not after realizing that other people had begun bothering her too. But he didn’t, because his intention was not to actually organize a debate, but rather to get her to refuse, and then parade around the fact that he had “won.” He even explicitly said as much: “I did so publicly, as I wanted to demonstrate that students like her are unwilling to defend their beliefs after being challenged.” This is such a common tactic in bad-faith argument that there’s a word for this, “sealioning,”
The article argues that this conduct isn’t “egregious” or “harmful,” and I agree that at the end of the day this is all going to blow over and Irene is going to be fine. Still, it is incredibly disrespectful, immature, and perfectly emblematic of the sorry state of our current political discourse. This is the kind of behavior I expect from Youtube “pundits” or radio show shock jocks, not someone posing as a respectable journalist.
In her article, Ms. Qi made slanderous and defamatory statements about a well respected professor. Her article received three unfavorable comments, and no favorable comments.
Ms. Qi will learn that when you accuse a professor of helping to “fuel conspiracy”, you better be prepared for the consequences. If she didn’t want her life to “revolve around her political identity” (your words), then she shouldn’t have published such defamatory statements.
Ms. Qi’s article is so full of slanderous remarks, I am surprised that Professor Brown has not filed a lawsuit against her.
Ms. Qi is afraid to debate Mr. Schmidt, because she doesn’t have any factual basis for her statements, and therefore he would rip her to shreds. If Ms. Liu doesn’t want to debate the accuracy of her statements, then she should publish a full retraction of her slanderous article.
I agree that her article is not great, but I certainly wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s “slanderous” or “defamatory.” But even if it was, that doesn’t change anything I said, and it wouldn’t suddenly make it okay to continually pester her with public bad-faith requests for debate.
Also, just as a general rule, I wouldn’t put much stock in the comments on the Maroon.
What in God’s names are you blathering on about. Publicly calling for a debate is perfectly fine. It is the best way to get a debate. Your ignorance of free speech is unbelievable. Qi didn’t have to be a coward.. she could have accepted. Instead the liberal book burners got together and helped her hide.
Qi wants to broadcast her opinions without having to face scrutiny. That’s why she chooses “The Science”, which can’t be questioned in polite company, without understanding the science, which is all about asking questions and public debate. She’ll fit right in with mainstream journalism.
Daniel Schmidt: I’d love to talk to you. I can’t get anyone to debate me either, even for $1M just to come to the debate table.
You are right. The science clearly shows masks make no difference. This was very clear in the Bangladesh study if you download the original data. But they concealed that. See my substack for many articles on masks. stevekirsch.substack.com
I’m not aware of a single debate, anywhere in the world, where the so-called “experts” will debate those who believe that the narrative on vaccines and masks are false like yourself.