An article titled “Instructing Insurrections: How UChicago Can Avoid Creating the Next Ted Cruz” was published on Sunday in The Chicago Maroon.
Replete with obnoxious Ivy League elitism, the article reads like an instruction guide on how to undermine the University’s renowned “Chicago Principles,” which guarantee free speech and open discourse on campus, and how to gaslight conservative students in the classroom. It is also a direct attack on the Chicago Thinker, an opposing conservative student publication I co-founded this summer, which is the sole voice on campus deviating from academia’s woke orthodoxy.
“We’ve seen the consequences of elevating hateful rhetoric—we have seen it now in the highest echelons of power,” writes student author Kelly Hui. “It begins in our classrooms,” where the Ivy-educated Cruzes and Josh Hawleys “are given the tools they need to acquire and keep power, even if it means promoting fascism and white nationalism.”
“The next Ted Cruz could be walking through the quad right now,” warns Hui. “The future Josh Hawley might be playing devil’s advocate in your [sociology] class. We can prevent such radicalization by reexamining the Chicago principles and prioritizing safety over absolute free speech.”
Horrifying, right? Conservative thought leaders mingling and learning at American’s most distinguished academic institutions, staining their good names and inciting violence with, God forbid, words.
In the wake of the left-wing purge of conservative ideas from virtually all public platforms, this is your daily reminder that it isn’t just leaders in the conservative movement being silenced; it’s everyone. Being an undergraduate student at the University of Chicago, I have an up-close and personal understanding of this kind of left-wing cancel culture and intellectual intolerance.
Last March, I participated in a digital initiative of the University of Chicago’s “nonpartisan” Institute of Politics, called “I vote because…,” where students pose with a small whiteboard stating their personal reasons for voting. I wrote, “I vote because the coronavirus won’t destroy America, but socialism will.”
For opposing socialism, I received an onslaught of online hate and real threats of violence. My peers attacked my character, intellect, family, and appearance. I was called a racist and a xenophobe, compared to animals, and told I deserve to be bullied and that I don’t belong at the University of Chicago on account of my beliefs. When I received a death threat from one of my classmates, I decided to write an op-ed, sharing my side of the story and defending what I wrote on my whiteboard.
The summer after the incident, my friend Audrey Unverferth and I decided to launch the Thinker on campus. Acutely aware of the breakdown of free speech and intellectual diversity, we created this publication with a clear objective: “to defend conservative and libertarian perspectives in a community that is increasingly intolerant of such voices,” as stated in our mission statement.
From the inception of our launch, we received aggressive pushback on social media from the leftist student body. The hate is persistent and increasing. Our commitment to “defend[ing] both limited government and the Jeffersonian notions of life, liberty, and property,” has been smeared by woke buzzwords. Fellow writers at the Thinker and I are used to labels such as racist, white supremacist, bigot, xenophobe, and transphobe, which leftists routinely use to silence anyone who challenges their worldview. Now, taking cues from Nancy Pelosi, Big Tech, and the corporate media, Hui has added “insurrectionists” to the ever-growing list.
Hui’s article makes things clear: amateur journalists at a small-time, student-run newspaper are not exempt from the same attacks being lodged at big-time conservative leaders. No one is safe. No matter who you are, as long as you dare to think differently, you will be punished.
“My peers at the Thinker may think me hypocritical… for wanting to reimagine free speech on campus,” writes Hui, who really means to abolish the principles, not reimagine them. “[M]y words,” she continues in reference to her own opinions and writing, “do not do any harm. They do not inspire hate or fear. In short, they have no capacity for violence.” What she means is that left-wing opinions, like her own, are unproblematic, but that the sole conservative voice on campus, the Chicago Thinker, is harmful, inspires hate and fear, and has the capacity for violence.
Once upon a time, violence used to mean physical force. In the woke world, which the left is successfully blurring with the real world, violence is verbal or written. “[W]e are seeing,” writes Hui, “how the latent violence wrought in language can speak (or tweet) violence and death into the world.”
“[W]e must recognize,” Hui continues, “how an emphasis on free speech, which is so often used as a right-wing talking point, opens up room for bigoted language and bigoted actions, and how university administrations including our own—enable this. In a post-insurrection society, we must reexamine the Chicago principles and find a way to balance freedom of academic inquiry with protecting our marginalized students and creating an inclusive community for all.”
The “Chicago Principles” represent the university’s purported commitment to protecting free speech and encouraging open debate. They are a defining characteristic of the University of Chicago, what I wrote my college essay on, and why I chose to attend the school in the first place. So how does Hui plan to squash UChicago’s famous ethos? By “disinviting pseudo-Nazis and fascists from campus,” which is really code for anyone the left disagrees with.
Hui uses Steve Bannon as an example of who should be excluded from the campus dialogue. But we know that Hui and others don’t just mean some conservatives, like Bannon, should be banned. They mean all conservatives. Ben Shapiro, one of the most measured and reasonable voices in the conservative movement, for years has been barred from universities and subject to woke name-calling, which ironically includes “antisemite” (Ben Shapiro is a devout orthodox Jew).
Hui also calls on her peers to delegitimize “xenophobic thinking when it is masked as ‘debate and deliberation’” in the classroom by calling it out, disengaging in discussions, and “actively voicing to the speaker and the professor the harm that they do.” This means students should bully their conservative peers into silence with the aforementioned buzzwords and encourage their teachers to do so as well. This, of course, has the desired effect of forcing conservative students to self-censor in one of the only places solely dedicated to open debate and discussion.
“[W]ith its ‘Chicago principles,’” writes Hui, “our school has become a leader in framing hateful rhetoric as par for the course in the pursuit of free speech. These principles bolster and enable the next Ted Cruzes and Josh Hawleys and harm marginalized students, who are told that their rights—their very humanity—are up for debate.”
Hui wants to demolish the “Chicago Principles” because they permit the expression of ideas and opinions that she does not agree with and that her coddled mind can’t handle. She and the rest of woke academia are disguising their own fears by claiming that open debate and free expression, protected by the Principles, “propagate white supremacy by justifying racism as intellectual discourse.”
“It is not that [Hawley’s and Cruz’s] education failed—their education did exactly what it was meant to do,” writes Hui. “It prepared two budding conservative minds to go forth into the corridors of power—to disguise bigotry as love of country, hate speech as meaningful debate.”
In essence, what Hui really desires is for the liberal reputations of elite schools, such as the University of Chicago, not to be in any way stained. To her, this is not possible if esteemed institutions produce conservative thought leaders. I do have to thank her. She put into explicit words what many on the left have tried to deny: American universities are vehicles of indoctrination, not education.
Her argument is also a perfect example of the grotesque elitism that is poisoning the discourse in our country. Hui, a college freshman, is entrenched in her own self-importance and blinded by the nauseating self-referential prestige the University of Chicago holds among America’s educated elites. Her older mentors in the system know how to mask their own arrogance and pretend to be sympathetic to the working-class commoners that live outside the ivory towers. Hui is young and hasn’t learned the ropes yet.
In many ways, that’s what makes her article so very special. Young, vainglorious, and refreshingly honest, Hui has inadvertently exposed the terrifying intentions of her role models in the American Ivy League gentry class, who seek to squash conservatism (which they deem repulsive and unfashionable), the free speech ethos of the university system, and intellectual diversity in our country.
*The views expressed in this article solely represent the views of the author, not the views of the Chicago Thinker.
The mask is finally off. Finally, someone says outright that conservatism is not embodied by the measured Sens. Romney, Murkowski, and Collins. It’s the treacherous Hawley and Cruz — educated at Stanford then Yale, and Princeton and Harvard respectively, surrounded by generations of the wealthiest students in the country, and without an ounce of self-reflection. Despite his consistent history of Islamophobic commentary, routine science denial on issues of gender and sexuality, and his assertions that anti-occupation Jews are not real Jews, the author claims that Ben Shapiro is “one of the most measured and reasonable voices in the conservative movement”.
Defending small-d democratic institutions against theocracy starts by rebuking the boat-shoe-clad wannabes in SOSC. When other prominent GOP figures do not rebuke Trump’s treachery *on the basis that they fear for their safety if they do so*, it is time to wonder on which side of the anti-free-speech crowd really gathers.
You unfortunate people on the left should try to smile. And I’m not saying that as a joke either. You are consumed with unhappiness & anger based on defining your life by being anti-this and anti-that, and you are the worst for it.
Give it all a rest for a while, get outside, and just smile.
Hello kind sir! Can I offer you a nice egg in this trying time?
Please????????????????????????????????????????????
Bro she’s a conservative, the mask was probably never on in the first place. And if it was, it was probably just around her chin or something
At the very least, we can rest assured that the next Hawley/Cruz will come from the thinker. They don’t say Marxism enough.
Will not*. My bad, Miswrote ——————————————————————-——————
If anybody would like a further rundown on some of the pretty impressive straw manning going down here, a dude named Ian Haney Lopez has a great lecture on youtube where he discusses this stuff. Tbh, you guys should be able to write your stuff. The only thing that has even come close to “dangerous” rhetoric was that unity article. Conservatives must be allowed to defend their ideology. But @thethinker, if this is the best you’ve got I’m not sure you’re doing conservatism any favors
Don’t forget that he referred to Democratic Jews as “JINOS” (“Jews In Name Only”) and should “turn in their badge as a Jew,” and also made the implication that only Orthodox Jews take Judaism seriously.
There simply isn’t enough time in the world to go over all of the stuff that makes shapiro a pretty awful human being. And @the author, it’s not an invasion of Shapiro’s freedom of speech to point it out and call him homophobic etc. Now, some food for thought:
-Shapiro opposed Obergefell, thinks homosexuality is a mental illness, thinks homosexuality is a sin, thinks trans ppl are mentally ill, said “The ideology of the Palestinian population is indistinguishable from that of the terrorist leadership.” and “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage”. -Doesn’t think females should be rabbis.
hmmm yes today I will dunk on a first year for saying people shouldn’t be racist in class
thought sent. mob status: owned
The mask is finally off. Finally, someone says outright that conservatism is not embodied by the measured Sens. Romney, Murkowski, and Collins. It’s the treacherous Hawley and Cruz — educated at Stanford then Yale, and Princeton and Harvard respectively, surrounded by generations of the wealthiest students in the country, and without an ounce of self-reflection. Despite his consistent history of Islamophobic commentary, routine science denial on issues of gender and sexuality, and his assertions that anti-occupation Jews are not real Jews, the author claims that Ben Shapiro is “one of the most measured and reasonable voices in the conservative movement”.
Defending small-d democratic institutions against theocracy starts by rebuking the boat-shoe-clad wannabes in SOSC. When other prominent GOP figures do not rebuke Trump’s treachery *on the basis that they fear for their safety if they do so*, it is time to wonder on which side of the anti-free-speech crowd really gathers.
You unfortunate people on the left should try to smile. And I’m not saying that as a joke either. You are consumed with unhappiness & anger based on defining your life by being anti-this and anti-that, and you are the worst for it.
Give it all a rest for a while, get outside, and just smile.
Hello kind sir! Can I offer you a nice egg in this trying time?
Please????????????????????????????????????????????
Bro she’s a conservative, the mask was probably never on in the first place. And if it was, it was probably just around her chin or something
At the very least, we can rest assured that the next Hawley/Cruz will come from the thinker. They don’t say Marxism enough.
Will not*. My bad, Miswrote ——————————————————————-——————
If anybody would like a further rundown on some of the pretty impressive straw manning going down here, a dude named Ian Haney Lopez has a great lecture on youtube where he discusses this stuff. Tbh, you guys should be able to write your stuff. The only thing that has even come close to “dangerous“ rhetoric was that unity article. Conservatives must be allowed to defend their ideology. But @thethinker, if this is the best you’ve got I’m not sure you’re doing conservatism any favors
Don’t forget that he referred to Democratic Jews as “JINOS” (“Jews In Name Only”) and should “turn in their badge as a Jew,” and also made the implication that only Orthodox Jews take Judaism seriously.
There simply isn’t enough time in the world to go over all of the stuff that makes shapiro a pretty awful human being. And @the author, it’s not an invasion of Shapiro’s freedom of speech to point it out and call him homophobic etc. Now, some food for thought:
-Shapiro opposed Obergefell, thinks homosexuality is a mental illness, thinks homosexuality is a sin, thinks trans ppl are mentally ill, said “The ideology of the Palestinian population is indistinguishable from that of the terrorist leadership.” and “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage”. -Doesn’t think females should be rabbis.
hmmm yes today I will dunk on a first year for saying people shouldn’t be racist in class
thought sent. mob status: owned
It is extremely on-brand for the Chicago Thinker, which purportedly gives a voice to young conservatives on campus, to have nothing to say about attempts to overturn the election or the violent insurrection but everything to say about “cancel culture” and the “muzzling” of free speech. It is almost comical to me how quickly conservatives flocked to this issue to avoid talking about the growing moral rot of their own party.
And the irony of a proponent of the party of “The president is an agent of Russia, and he conspired with them to steal the election!” now saying the elections are beyond even the most rudimentary scrutiny is lost on you.
Thanks for the genuine laugh – and the validation!
As a middle-of-the-road father of a UC graduate, I am on the one hand encouraged by the bravery of individuals willing to defend their beliefs against such hateful attacks. On the other, I wonder if we can ever have reasoned debate again without it. Freedom should be preserved through speech; differing viewpoints respected; and comradery grown through shared experiences, especially on college campuses. You are our future. embrace that.
Thank You
Dad? Is that actually you? What are you doing reading and commenting on the UChicago Thinker?? Shouldn’t you be at work?
I read both articles, both were well written, but only one was genuinely thoughtful. And that’s the one that didn’t disable the comments after a couple of days. How sad it must be to go through life as this angry freshman who thinks the whole world is out to get her. Genuinely, truly, sad.
I agree it’s sad to see someone who genuinely believes that everyone is out to get them. Ms. Duffy, for example, has published three articles on this platform, all of which have precisely the same thesis: they are all dire warnings against the silencing of conservatives on campus. Ironically, she can’t seem to stop talking about it. If the minds behind this bastion of conservative thought can’t put together a new set of talking points after nearly half a year in operation, then I frankly can’t wait for them to be silenced.
It is extremely on-brand for the Chicago Thinker, which purportedly gives a voice to young conservatives on campus, to have nothing to say about attempts to overturn the election or the violent insurrection but everything to say about “cancel culture” and the “muzzling” of free speech. It is almost comical to me how quickly conservatives flocked to this issue to avoid talking about the growing moral rot of their own party.
And the irony of a proponent of the party of “The president is an agent of Russia, and he conspired with them to steal the election!” now saying the elections are beyond even the most rudimentary scrutiny is lost on you.
Thanks for the genuine laugh – and the validation!
As a middle-of-the-road father of a UC graduate, I am on the one hand encouraged by the bravery of individuals willing to defend their beliefs against such hateful attacks. On the other, I wonder if we can ever have reasoned debate again without it. Freedom should be preserved through speech; differing viewpoints respected; and comradery grown through shared experiences, especially on college campuses. You are our future. embrace that.
Thank You
Dad? Is that actually you? What are you doing reading and commenting on the UChicago Thinker?? Shouldn’t you be at work?
An excellent and important write up. Congratulations. It underscores the gap (and larger higher education and public dialogue) between a collective, ideological coercive moralism, versus the cultivation of rational, and independent, habits of mind. This is precisely the “Chicago School” ambition, and promise. Keep up the good work. Regards, ’96, Booth MBA
reeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEE BUSINESS STUDENTS GET OFF MY BOARD REEEEEEEEEEEE
Honestly though, this is absolutely *not* an excellent write-up. Sure, it’s relatively well-written, but when it comes to the substance it’s just yet another article from yet another triggered reactionary screaming about how their views are being oppressed on college campuses. Being unpopular doesn’t mean you’re being oppressed. But the whole “conservatives are being persecuted, woe is me” narrative works to attract views, so here we are.
I read both articles, both were well written, but only one was genuinely thoughtful. And that’s the one that didn’t disable the comments after a couple of days. How sad it must be to go through life as this angry freshman who thinks the whole world is out to get her. Genuinely, truly, sad.
I agree it’s sad to see someone who genuinely believes that everyone is out to get them. Ms. Duffy, for example, has published three articles on this platform, all of which have precisely the same thesis: they are all dire warnings against the silencing of conservatives on campus. Ironically, she can’t seem to stop talking about it. If the minds behind this bastion of conservative thought can’t put together a new set of talking points after nearly half a year in operation, then I frankly can’t wait for them to be silenced.
An excellent and important write up. Congratulations. It underscores the gap (and larger higher education and public dialogue) between a collective, ideological coercive moralism, versus the cultivation of rational, and independent, habits of mind. This is precisely the “Chicago School” ambition, and promise. Keep up the good work. Regards, ’96, Booth MBA
reeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEE BUSINESS STUDENTS GET OFF MY BOARD REEEEEEEEEEEE
Honestly though, this is absolutely *not* an excellent write-up. Sure, it’s relatively well-written, but when it comes to the substance it’s just yet another article from yet another triggered reactionary screaming about how their views are being oppressed on college campuses. Being unpopular doesn’t mean you’re being oppressed. But the whole “conservatives are being persecuted, woe is me” narrative works to attract views, so here we are.
This article would hold a lot more water if the Chicago Thinker had come out unequivocally against the insurrection on 1/6 (or indeed, if its writers had published *any* opinion on it whatsoever).
Also, being called “racist,” “xenophobic,” etc. isn’t an infringement of free speech. If anything, an essential part of free speech is that people should be able to call you whatever they’d like, and it’s up to you to actually defend yourself.
Dear Chicago Thinker,
I have seen no indication that you believe the events at the Capitol on 1/6 were a bad thing. In fact, this article implies you see no issue with them. Some clarification on this issue would be appreciated.
I don’t think we need clarification. Even if they disavow the violence, they’ll immediately continue to promote the same brand of politics that caused it to happen.
This article would hold a lot more water if the Chicago Thinker had come out unequivocally against the insurrection on 1/6 (or indeed, if its writers had published *any* opinion on it whatsoever).
Also, being called “racist,” “xenophobic,” etc. isn’t an infringement of free speech. If anything, an essential part of free speech is that people should be able to call you whatever they’d like, and it’s up to you to actually defend yourself.
Dear Chicago Thinker,
I have seen no indication that you believe the events at the Capitol on 1/6 were a bad thing. In fact, this article implies you see no issue with them. Some clarification on this issue would be appreciated.
I don’t think we need clarification. Even if they disavow the violence, they’ll immediately continue to promote the same brand of politics that caused it to happen.
Do you even know what conservatism is? I’m sure you read Burke in “[sociology],” right? Attacking democracy and our Constitution is not conservative, and referring to the word “insurrectionist” as a “label” doesn’t make it any less accurate. Your refusal to disavow the violence on January 6th, and more importantly your refusal to disavow the brand of politics – *your* brand of politics – that caused the violence in the first place is shameful and appalling.
Honestly, I’d wager that the Thinker has done a great disservice to conservative thought at this school just by its existence. Where does a thoughtful young conservative nowadays go to publish? They have to choose between submitting to the Maroon, whose conservative columns have been siphoned off by the Thinker, and submitting to the Thinker, which would associate their name with this drivel. If your goal was to delegitimize conservative thought at this school, you’ve done a great job.
Do you even know what conservatism is? I’m sure you read Burke in “[sociology],” right? Attacking democracy and our Constitution is not conservative, and referring to the word “insurrectionist” as a “label” doesn’t make it any less accurate. Your refusal to disavow the violence on January 6th, and more importantly your refusal to disavow the brand of politics – *your* brand of politics – that caused the violence in the first place is shameful and appalling.
Honestly, I’d wager that the Thinker has done a great disservice to conservative thought at this school just by its existence. Where does a thoughtful young conservative nowadays go to publish? They have to choose between submitting to the Maroon, whose conservative columns have been siphoned off by the Thinker, and submitting to the Thinker, which would associate their name with this drivel. If your goal was to delegitimize conservative thought at this school, you’ve done a great job.
“Ivy League elitism”? Really? You, I, and everyone on campus know that UChicago is not part of the Ivy League. But that doesn’t matter; all that matters is using every opportunity you have to bash “elites” (despite being the daughter of a TV host and a Congressman). Your intended audience–which is clearly not the University of Chicago community–will make the connections for you.
This article is just the latest of many that shows that the founding of this publication was never to release “thoughtful conservative content” or to partake in “free discourse.” No, the Thinker’s raison d’être is to give people a platform to be wrong in public as loudly as possible, and to reap the benefits in the form of a cushy job in the right-wing media empire.
The first amendment has been created because human beings disagree and to allow speech that e.g. YOU perceive as wrong. In an communist or socialist world where everyone is forced to think the same the first amendment is useless.
“Ivy League elitism”? Really? You, I, and everyone on campus know that UChicago is not part of the Ivy League. But that doesn’t matter; all that matters is using every opportunity you have to bash “elites” (despite being the daughter of a TV host and a Congressman). Your intended audience–which is clearly not the University of Chicago community–will make the connections for you.
This article is just the latest of many that shows that the founding of this publication was never to release “thoughtful conservative content” or to partake in “free discourse.” No, the Thinker’s raison d’être is to give people a platform to be wrong in public as loudly as possible, and to reap the benefits in the form of a cushy job in the right-wing media empire.
The first amendment has been created because human beings disagree and to allow speech that e.g. YOU perceive as wrong. In an communist or socialist world where everyone is forced to think the same the first amendment is useless.
Thanks for your courage to write such an important article in these cancel culture times. Universities need more independent thinkers like you.
Thanks for your courage to write such an important article in these cancel culture times. Universities need more independent thinkers like you.
If you want to experience North Korea, visit any U.S. college or university.