As part of a Friday report on CNN This Morning on the “free speech debate” on college campuses, Elle Reeve wondered if debating transgenderism is like debating murder.
On the specific topic of a recent debate put on by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute between The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles and gay libertarian Brad Polumbo on “Should Transgenderism be Regulated by Law” at the University of Pittsburgh, Reeve asked Vice President of College Republicans at Pitt, Josh Minsky, “But would you have a panel where someone spoke about whether or not there should be legal murder?”
Conservatives would call abortion “legal murder,” but shortly before that question, writer and activist Charlotte Clymer told Reeve that debating transgenderism would be like debating whether or not to bring back segregation.
As for Minsky, he replied, “No, because murder is objectively wrong and you're killing someone, but I would not put that on the same spectrum.”
As Minsky was speaking, somebody detonated an incendiary device and after several seconds of looking around trying to figure out what had happened, Minsky continued, “As I said about shutting down free speech, I think this is a very good example of the fact that clearly something is going on here.”
One would think a literal explosion would clarify the debate, but Reeve only confirmed that it was, in fact, an incendiary device. Back with Clymer, Reeve noted, “She says this generation is different, but not because it's more fragile.”
Clymer claimed that, “As millennials, you know, you and me, I think that, we were taught to stand up for what we believe in, but we were also taught that there is a certain amount of abuse that we need to take to push the ball forward. Gen-Z, for them, they refuse to accept premises that are dehumanizing.”
Again, ignoring a literal explosion that took place during one of her interviews, Reeve asked Miami Law Prof. Mary Anne Franks, “Why do these debates over rights for minority groups always get converted into debates over free speech?”
The simple and correct answer was that the left keeps trying to shut people up (the recent infamous Stanford Law incident, somehow, failed to make it into this segment), but for Franks it is because conservatives are cowards:
When someone backs you into a corner and says I don't like your ideas, the easiest thing for you to say is “oh well, that’s because you don’t like my free speech, you want to censor me.”
And it’s really the coward's way of trying to deal with any argument. Your answer should be “here’s why my ideas are interesting and why they're important” not invoking some kind of quasi-constitutional gloss for what you have to say.
Conservatives have been making arguments, especially scientific ones, so Franks is simply wrong. It’s the left that cowardly seeks to avoid debate by simply appealing to emotions, but back in studio Reeve also ignored all the intellectual problems with transgenderism that conservatives have raised to say “I think it's important to notice that it's not, like, capital gains tax that is sparking protests, it’s some scientist with a theory about black holes. It's trans rights this year.”
She then outrageously and falsely claimed “Five years ago it was white supremacy.”
Nobody at ISI, YAF, or any other group that organizes these kinds of speeches has ever done tours in favor of white supremacy. That’s simply fake news. Still, Reeve concluded, “And so, of course, those issues provoke an emotional reaction because they affect someone very personally and what the students are trying to say is that's over the line. That's not just a political debate. I am not a thing to be debated.”
It says a lot about the lack of confidence transgenderism's advocates have in their own ideas that they refuse to submit them to scrutiny.
This segment was sponsored by Audi.
Here is a transcript for the April 28 show:
ELLE REEVE: But would you have a panel where someone spoke about whether or not there should be legal murder?
JOSH MINSKY: No, because murder is objectively wrong and you're killing someone, but I would not put that on the same spectrum. [Explosion] As I said about shutting down free speech, I think this is a very good example of the fact that clearly something is going on here.
REEVE: That boom was an incendiary device set off outside the building according to a university statement. No one was injured but some buildings were temporarily shut down.
Do you think the point of this debate is to try to convince people in this room or to convince people on the internet?
MINSKY: I think it's both. I mean, the goal of the event is not to make some uneducated leftist kid, you know, feel like an idiot. I hope there’s leftist people here that ask questions opposing Knowles and are able to do so respectfully.
REEVE: So, the protestors burned Michael Knowles in effigy, which is protected speech.
CHARLOTTE CLYMER: It is; I wouldn’t do that though.
REEVE: Why not.
CLYMER: It's too violent, it's too aggressive, in fact, it's counterproductive because what they do is they take an image of that, they spread it online and say, see? This is what the movement is trying to do. They are going to burn anyone an effigy who disagrees with them.
REEVE: She says this generation is different, but not because it's more fragile.
CLYMER: As millennials, you know, you and me, I think that, we were taught to stand up for what we believe in, but we were also taught that there is a certain amount of abuse that we need to take to push the ball forward. Gen-Z, for them, they refuse to accept premises that are dehumanizing.
REEVE: Why do these debates over rights for minority groups always get converted into debates over free speech?
MARY ANNE FRANKS: When someone backs you into a corner and says I don't like your ideas, the easiest thing for you to say is “oh well, that’s because you don’t like my free speech, you want to censor me.”
And it’s really the coward's way of trying to deal with any argument. Your answer should be “here’s why my ideas are interesting and why they're important” not invoking some kind of quasi-constitutional gloss for what you have to say.
CROWD: Trans live matter! Trans lives matter!
AUDIE CORNISH: And Elle Reeve is here to talk more about this. What is, kind of, the industry of speakers that is taking advantage of this?
REEVE: Yeah, I think it's important to notice that it's not, like, capital gains tax that is sparking protests, it’s some scientist with a theory about black holes. It's trans rights this year. Five years ago it was white supremacy. And so, of course, those issues provoke an emotional reaction because they affect someone very personally and what the students are trying to say is that's over the line. That's not just a political debate. I am not a thing to be debated.
