Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Violent campus protests are not about freedom

UCLA encampment

Police enter a pro-Palestinian encampment on May 2 after a dispersal order was given at the University of California at Los Angeles.

Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.

There’s a grand and important tradition of anti-war protest in America. And, when peaceful, these can be a useful and impactful mechanism to advocate for change.

Sadly, what’s happening on our college campuses right now is making a mockery of that grand tradition and civil right.


Over the past few weeks, pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, UCLA, the University of Wisconsin, University of North Carolina and others have disrupted classes and campus life, held administrators hostage to impossible and unserious demands, and resulted in the mass arrests of students and faculty, with some even turning violent.

Worse, they’ve exposed some shocking and disturbing episodes of rabid antisemitism and calls for violence.

A Columbia student and self-proclaimed leader of the pro-Palestinian movement there, Khymani James, was finally suspended for saying that “Zionists don’t deserve to live.”

“I think that taking someone’s life in certain case scenarios is necessary and better for the overall world,” he said matter of factly. “Be glad, be grateful that I’m not just going out and murdering Zionists…. So yes, I feel very comfortable calling for those people to die.” It only took four months to suspend James — “temporarily” — after he posted the disgusting video publicly.

At UCLA, pro-Palestinian students prohibited a Jewish student from entering campus to attend classes. Another Jewish student was asked if he was “a Zionist” before being blocked from entering the library.

At George Washington University protesters held signs advocating for a “FINAL SOLUTION” — a grotesque callback to Hitler’s plan for exterminating Jews.

And on campuses all over the country protesters have been spotted wearing Hamas headbands, calling for “ Intifada,” proudly flying Hezbollah terror flags, and shouting “We are Hamas!” and “Go back to Poland!”

It’s ugly stuff, and hard to wrap your mind around how these supposedly well-educated, enlightened, college students ended up on what is so clearly the wrong side of history.

I don’t blame them, entirely. Even smart kids can be naïve, idealistic, and vulnerable to propaganda disguised as revolution. Rebellion can be fun — more fun than going to class. Yelling petulantly about complex global problems is a lot easier than trying to fix them through policy.

But where are the adults to tell them that what they are doing is stupid, dangerous, and misguided, and in no way helping their cause?

Where are the parents to tell their kids that camping out in tents for Hamas and refusing to go to class isn’t what they intended their $80,000 in annual tuition for?

Where are the administrators to tell protestors that prohibiting other students from going to class, threatening other students’ lives and breaking into buildings will not be tolerated so don’t even try it?

Most importantly, where are the educators to tell students that Hamas and Hezbollah are violent terror groups antithetical to their supposed values — that the regime they align with murders gay people, rapes women, and muzzles free speech? Or, contrary to what a fifth of young Americans shockingly believe, the Holocaust was not “a myth”?

If anything, we’ve seen the opposite guidance from the adults.

We’ve seen university presidents at Harvard and University of Pennsylvania struggle to answer basic questions about whether calling for the genocide of Jews is a violation of campus policy.

We’ve seen some professors describe the Hamas terrorist attacks as “ exhilarating ” and “ awesome,” while one posted proudly, “I’m with Hamas & Hezbollah & Islamic Jihad.”

And we’ve seen some professors blocking students who don’t support the encampments from entering.

We’ve seen politicians come to campus in solidarity with pro-Hamas protesters. Rep. Ilhan Omar embraced Khymani James, who called for Zionists to be killed, and she described Jewish students as “pro-genocide.”

And we know that professional protesters, including “ protest consultants ” have infiltrated campuses to exploit students, heighten tensions, foil negotiations and exacerbate situations for their financial and personal gain.

Protesting war and violence, advocating for peace, and sympathizing with the plight of innocent Palestinians are noble causes worth expressing and commending. And there are campuses where this is happening.

But adults who know better should be telling the misguided faux revolutionaries at Columbia and elsewhere that hate speech isn’t the same thing as free speech, that there’s a difference between being antisemitic and anti-war, that calling for violence isn’t peaceful protest.

They should be warning them that “going viral” for being an ignorant antisemite isn’t going to help them get a job, and that getting thrown out of school for breaking and entering isn’t noble or righteous, but criminal and dumb.

And they should be explaining that sympathizing with barbaric terrorists is hurting their cause and dampening their message.

Clearly, the kids are not alright. But neither are the adults.

©2024 S.E. Cupp. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.


Read More

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep ReadingShow less
Rear view of teenage boy walking with arm around friends

Why many young men feel politically and socially adrift, how changing gender roles affect masculinity, self-esteem, relationships, and the future of society.

Maskot / Getty Images

Lost Boys - What Is the Role of a Man in Today's Society?

A recent New York Times article stated that young males who provided an important swing vote for Trump in 2024 are discouraged by what Trump has done and not done while in office. But they are nevertheless not particularly inclined to vote Democratic because they don't see the Party as welcoming their view of masculinity and they don't know where they fit in this society.

These young men assume that because the Party supports equality for women in the workplace and because many young women no longer have marriage and having children at the top of their agenda, the Party would not be a welcoming home for them. They see themselves as striving for the masculinity of their fathers' or grandfathers' day, where the man was the breadwinner in the family and had respect and authority. Not the weaker half in relationships with women.

Keep ReadingShow less