LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Don’t impeach Sen. Jacob Ellenhorn
I pen this open letter to the sane and responsible USG senators, however many there may be, recommending that they do not vote to impeach Sen. Jacob Ellenhorn at the hearing on March 23. This is by no means a statement of support for the senator, who has by all means earned his own dismissal from USG with his crude, unprofessional behavior. I have written elsewhere of my specific grievances with Sen. Ellenhorn; this is not the place to repeat them.
Instead, I will focus on the situation itself.
There are two reasons impeachment is a bad idea. The first is straightforward and procedural — the charges are not well-founded enough to justify impeachment. They’re vague, speculative and weak.
Filming an event without a permit? Worse offenses have been punished with a slap on the wrist. Writing slander about fellow USG members without confronting them about the issues he discusses? And misrepresenting the student body? That sure is wrong, but it’s covered under the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Creating hostile environments that perpetuate sexism? Again, clearly something wrong, but still something covered by the First Amendment. There are probably plenty of bylaws violations here and there, but if they’re dug up specifically in Sen. Ellenhorn’s case and not in other cases, is it any surprise he’s taking the opportunity to complain about discrimination?
So first off, the filers of the complaint are on shaky legal ground, as evidenced by their own submission. Better to back off rather than lose a complicated case.
But the second reason is far more important. The only thing Sen.Ellenhorn would like more than winning the impeachment trial is losing the impeachment trial and being removed from office.
Why?
Because if he’s removed, it confirms to him his theory that there’s a vast left-wing conspiracy on campus out to get him and exterminate all conservatives. It would be a validation of his conservative-victimhood worldview and would delight him beyond belief. It would probably also skyrocket him to national prominence.
Every time something has happened suggesting that his worldview might be even a tad bit inaccurate, such as the responses to the Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos speaker events, Sen. Ellenhorn has defensively and self-righteously called in the cavalry to blow up the issue into a niche national controversy. Such right-wing “news” sites as The College Fix, Campus Reform, Breitbart News and Fox News have covered USC’s allegedly liberal attacks on conservative free speech. Sen. Ellenhorn has predictably exhibited this behavior during this impeachment controversy.
Impeach Sen. Ellenhorn, and he’ll be portrayed as a poor, oppressed dissident in the national conservative media, wrongly reigniting the debate about free speech on campus. I wouldn’t be surprised if non-conservative publications like the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post take up the story and spread Sen. Ellenhorn’s fame, albeit less supportively than conservative sources.
Sen. Ellenhorn wants to be martyred. He loves the attention and fame. He’d be a kid in a candy shop if he were impeached.
USG senators, I implore you not to entertain Sen. Ellenhorn any further. Please do not remove him from his office. A few more weeks of his antics are well-worth averting the firestorm he hopes to bring.
And conservative supporters of Sen. Ellenhorn, I warn you — you’re being duped by a fraud. There’s no conspiracy against Sen. Ellenhorn but what he’s consciously endeavored to create over the last couple of years. Don’t put your name on his harebrained crusade.
Luke Phillips
Senior, international relations
The best way to avoid being seen as targeting conservatives is to not target conservatives. I know it’s not easy being a leftist, but sometimes simple is better.
This is very good. Certainly Jacob Ellenhorn needs to do some serious growing up. I’m surprised that someone of with the lack of nuance in his thinking got into an academic school like USC. But Phillips is also right to say that martyring this kid is the worst thing that could be done. Do what should be done to all teens going through an awkward period: ignore them.
“Ignore them” is the proper response to Bernie Sanders’ college cronies who are so personally offended by opposing viewpoints that they pull stunts like this. This article is adequately summed up as follows: “We can no longer go through with impeaching this student on bogus charges because he’s conservative and we don’t like him because everyone has started to notice that we’re only impeaching this student on bogus charges because he’s conservative and we don’t like him.” Luke Phillips and his fellow sensitive snowflakes should be utterly ashamed.
Well you’ve learned the talking points well and you seem to have taken shots at both young people and Bernie Saunders with no grounds whatsoever. At least it makes your own failure to think more conspicuous. The author of the piece which you are commenting under IS a conservative. Shock. Wait. What? Yes. The world isn’t so black and white. It isn’t “my team” vs. “their team”. Rather than watching Fox News, getting angry and paranoid, why not start from scratch and go looking for views of your own? God bless you in your journey.
Super cute response full of personal attacks instead of any logical thought process leading to a coherent rebuttal. Care for a mulligan?
The irony that you summed up your own post is fairly amusing. Luke Phillips is a conservative. He’s a member of the USC College Republicans. He works for Republican candidates. You come on here, lash out wildly at people who have nothing to do with this issue- like Bernie Sanders- and then try to condescend to people who point out your idiocy. You’ve made yourself look a little foolish here. Not your finest hour on the internet. Tomorrow is another day.
Taking a sarcastic shot at someone isn’t the same as dismissing an entire argument because of your own wild assumptions, such as “you watch Fox News and are angry and paranoid”, nice try though~
Would you like to address the bogus charges which were brought by one extremely liberal student against a conservative student, which the other senators openly admit are bogus charges? Or would you prefer to ignore that discussion altogether and continue this ugly little tirade against me personally?
You are just going to let your own mistake slide without an apology?
Ah, the second option, ignore the issue at hand altogether. A typically liberal tactic. Good show, mate!
Is this performance art? You sauntered in, accused people disconnected from the issue as being behind it, made a faulty assumption about the author of the piece based on your own myopic worldview, attack a poster and accuse them of ignoring random things you bring up, and then think you’ve somehow scored a point along the way. Seriously, stop. Reflect. Why did you assume Phillips was a liberal? Is it because you see the world as Senator Ellenhorn does as conservatives (good) and liberals (bad)? How were you brought to this Manichean way of seeing the world? How do you deprogram yourself? Are you even connected to USC? Or do you just troll the comments section trying to berate liberals and show solidarity with self-described conservatives when you don’t even personally know the facts at hand?
Irrelevant personal attack coming in 3, 2, 1….
You know we can all see that you’re upvoting your own posts… right?
Yes. I’ve downvoted most of yours too. Not a good day for your random assumptions so far…
This is all coming from the guy who opened with “he needs to grow up, how did he even get in to this school, just ignore him”.
I haven’t assumed anything about the author of this piece except that he’s a sensitive snowflake. Anyone who considers a conservative guest speaker’s mere presence “a hostile environment which perpetuates sexism” is, in fact, a sensitive snowflake who can’t handle opposing viewpoints.
I know you’re dying to hear more about me and my life, but I’m really interested in your thoughts on this specific issue.
From your Disqus profile, it seems like you use this phrase “sensitive snowflake” a lot. Kind of a talking point of yours. It’s rather silly. Also, yes, it does indeed come from a guy who said that. So? I’m right. He should be ignored. He’s pulling stunts to get attention. Have you met him? In the words of “Mean Girls”: “Do you even go here?” And, no, Phillips is not a sensitive snowflake. He’s a conservative who thinks Ellenhorn is a shoddy Senator. And he’s right. He is also saying that he shouldn’t be impeached for it. I tend to agree. Did you even read the article?? Again, you seem to be trying very hard to fit this into a conservative vs. liberal thing when it isn’t.
Ah, so when you attack people’s character you’re right, says you. I’m convinced!
It could not matter less what his personally political philosophy is. His basis for thinking Ellenhorn is a shoddy senator, as stated in this exact piece of writing, is that he invites guest speakers who don’t fit into the college social justice activist ideal. Do you share that line of thinking? That opposing viewpoints create unsafe environments?
Phillips has invited speakers who don’t fit that profile, so I consider your imputation unlikely. Where do you see him argue that in the text?
{ Creating hostile environments that perpetuate sexism? Again, clearly
something wrong, but still something covered by the First Amendment. }
In the original complaint, the proof used to support this claim is that he invited speakers like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos. He agrees that this is wrong and only tolerated because of the First Amendment.
He’s right. Just because Senator Ellenhorn invites stupid speakers shouldn’t see him impeached. Do you think he should be?
The last question is a good one. Would you say radical Islamic preachers create unsafe environments? Just curious.
Radical Islamist preachers are deemed so because they prescribe violence, which is not protected by the First Amendment. None of the speakers on college campuses, save a large number of Black Lives Matter “protesters”, have actively prescribed violence. A good attempt, but try again.
So the answer to my question was “yes”. That’s all you had to say. And so the answer to your own question was yes. USC is a private school, a private community, and a place run by its own rules and norms. Do you think that these should only be limited to those of the U.S. Constitution? For example, on parts of the campus, people are asked not to ride bikes. Is this an outrageous affront to liberty in your view?
Radical Islam is not an opposing viewpoint, it’s a political philosophy. A normal Islamic speaker would not be considered radical and therefore would not be creating an unsafe environment with his presence, so the answer to my originally posed question is still no. Comparing apples to oranges is not helping your argument, and you’re teetering closely on exposing your own anti-Muslim bias here.
You’re dancing but you can’t get yourself out of your own contradiction quite so easily. If a radical Islamic preacher were invited to campus but didn’t directly counsel violence when at USC, you’d be fine with it?
I’m not the one who apparently doesn’t understand the definition of the word radical.
Are you trying to ask me if I’d be okay with a fundamentalist Islamic preacher speaking at campus? Yes, that already happens frequently with many faiths, as long as they’re not advocating violence or physical action against anyone (which is what makes someone a radical).
Look up the definition of “radical” in the dictionary. It doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Good for you. But you’re being tremendously naive. Because someone doesn’t directly advocate violence doesn’t also mean that they can’t also create an unsafe environment. For example, if I held a rally on campus which said “gingers are evil. They stink. They are sub-human. We’d be better off in none were on this campus. In this country. They are a threat to our way of life. They must be stopped.” Say that I did this with a megaphone, big pictures of ginger-haired kids with one of those red circles and a bar across their heads. Do you think, if you were ginger and walking through campus, that you might feel unsafe if loads of people were there whooping and hollering?
Is there some amendment or law on the books that declares all speech must be 100% agreeable and all environments universally hospitable? If a ginger in that situation feels unsafe, they need to leave that situation. That’s their option if the only thing they’re being confronted with are words.
Many people feel unsafe with borderline militant racial groups advocating on campus, yet that is also protected action as long as they remain on the nonviolent side of said borderline. It goes both ways and we all have to accept that.
This is actually turning into an interesting conversation. I wasn’t expecting this from how you started.
Is there some law? No. Students often read challenging material, whether it is looking at the Rape of the Sabine Women in Art History or reading the Communist Manifesto. People can and do have disagreements about what is discussed on campus. If a Holocaust denier was invited to campus, I’d expect I would join a demonstration against whomever invited them, for example. I think it would probably make many Jewish students on campus feel unsafe and it is stupid to have invited them just because they have “an opposing viewpoint”. Equally, I think we can do better for ginger students in my hypothetical by saying that we don’t want that type of thing on USC’s campus. Don’t invite anyone who would do such horrible things. That’s not being a “sensitive snowflake”, it’s asking for certain rules of civility while we discuss the issues in a rational way.
But then I also agree with Luke that Senator Ellenhorn shouldn’t be impeached for his foolhardiness in inviting radical speakers. I think he should respect rules of civility more. But being an attention-seeking eejit isn’t an impeachable offense. But then you lambasted Luke and Bernie Sanders (for some reason) for just such a reasonable point of view.
Your making the point. Just because you think it is stupid to invite a certain speaker does not make it so. No one appointed you or anyone else the arbiter of what is stupid. Your condescending attitude is so typical of someone who thinks he is an intellectual elite.
Again, you are trying to play politics because you like conservatism rather than thinking about the issue. USC’s community makes all kinds of rules about how we government ourselves. And some of my preferences are just that, but it doesn’t make them any less relevant than anyone else’s. I prefer flowers by SOS. I think too many bikers make walking dangerous on Trousdale during lecture hours. Perhaps these thoughts also make me think I am part of an intellectual elite. Perhaps having an opinion is OK? A thoughtful conservative (you know, the people who it would be good if USC Republicans started inviting again to educate campus and provide diverse political opinion) is Allan Bloom. He wrote a book called “The Closing of the American Mind”. He said that it was liberals who had made people scared of saying things are “better” or “worse” and that everything had to be valued equally for politically correct reasons. You seem to be trying to impose the same fascist tendency onto me. And I reject it. Ellenhorn is a BAD Senator. He’s invited DUMB speakers. And I think civility is BETTER than a-holes shouting at people. I want good conservatives on campus, not clowns.
The problem is that the “unsafe environment” is in the eye of the beholder. Too often it is used to try to bully or intimidate opposing points of view. Often the same “snowflakes” or “cupcakes” (take your pick) alternate being hurt/distressed and taking violent action including trying to prevent access to speakers with physical intimidation (See Ben Shapiro CSULA). Nothing but fascists.
You seem to be giving characteristics to people you’ve never met based on little evidence to fit your worldview. This is somewhat ironic. This has not been done at USC much before. 3 speakers that I can think of. And USC has hundreds upon hundreds of speakers every year.
It is also a leap to say that they all “prescribe violence”. If they said exactly the same things but didn’t directly recommend the commission of violent acts, would that mean that the atmosphere would cease to be hostile?
RADICAL Islamists all prescribe violence, that’s why they’re considered RADICAL. You’ve attempted to ask me a loaded question which has exposed your own ignorance. Again.
Haha. You’re not very happy when you’re shown to be pulling a political line rather than a principled one, are you? (1) That is a definition that you have just literally made up; (2) the limits to free speech in the Constitution is for direct incitement. Can other types of words create an unsafe environment? If a speaker deemed a race “sub-human”, would this create an unsafe environment on campus for people of that race? If I ran a private community, should I have to permit all speakers invited to speak even if they say stupid and noxious things about members of my own community?
Preaching violence is direct incitement. There is no political line here, the line is whether or not you are calling on people to physically harm others. If you look up “radical Islamism” on wiki you get redirected to “militant Islam” and “Islamic extremism”. This is a political definition that has been established for decades, don’t try to excuse your ignorance, just learn from it and move on.
A speaker deeming a race sub-human doesn’t incite violence any more than saying people who eat meat are sub-human. This is simply an opinion. It does not create any environment.
The person who began the impeachment process is a fellow senator, not an administrator. We wouldn’t be having this discussion at all if an administrator of a private school denied the speaking request, but that’s not what happened. You keep thinking up these hypothetical scenarios and comparisons that are completely irrelevant to this situation.
Ah, wikipedia. You got me! Chortle. “A political definition established for decades”? Not really. For example, plenty of people apply the term “radical Islamist” to those who advocate for Sharia law. But we’ll let you off the hook on that one….
On your second paragraph. This is clearly not true. One can clearly affect an action without directly advocating for it. For example, look at a lot of political advertizing. Not all of them say “Vote for Bruce Blockhead on May 5th”. But don’t you think that’s what their intention is? It’s trying to sway the environment so that more people carry out that action. Many conservatives think that the media is biased against conservatives and that this harms conservative candidates at the voting booths. The idea is that by creating a climate of opinion hostile to conservatism, people are less likely to vote for those candidates. Most point to articles which don’t directly say “don’t vote for Ted Cruz, he’s a big-eared loon” but have more subtle biases. I don’t know whether you have read much economics, but read Hayek’s “the Intellectuals and Socialism” when you get a chance. It implies that intellectuals create an environment conducive to actions that further their cause. I don’t think Hayek was so naive as to think it was only their direct advocacy of precise policies but create an intellectual firmament.
And, lastly, yes. What’s your point? Students help run the private community that is USC too. Again, they are not confined to the U.S. Constitution as to the rules governing it. Just as they have not consulted the founding documents over bike prohibitions either. Your coming in and telling them how to run their own community is rather authoritarian and Big Brother.
{ For example, plenty of people apply the term “radical Islamist” to those who advocate for Sharia law. }
Those are fundamentalists… that’s the difference between a radical and a fundamentalist, one goes by the book in their personal life and one effects those who don’t want to participate.
A bias is not a physical action, I can be biased against people who think green apple is a good flavor without wanting to eradicate those people from this planet. Biases don’t incite action, either, becoming violent is a personal decision that can only be blamed on that individual.
You’re arguing law semantics now. The students don’t have the authority to deny speaking rights to those that the administration approves, they know this, so they move to deny a position of authority to the one who invites problematic guests. The people who see a glaring ethical problem with this action are not the authoritarians.
Fundamentalist is a political term. So is radical. Many people call Sharia Law “radical”.
And, yes, I think people should take personal responsibility for their actions so I agree with you that violence should be primarily blamed on the person committing the action, but we often make causal claims for political advertizing (“Cruz’s ad blitz saw him close the gap..”, “McDonalds advertizing boosted sales”) where they don’t directly tell people to commit an action. “Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh…I’m lovin’ it” certainly creates an environment where I want to eat a hamburger.
Also, the administration did not “approve” those speakers. They left it to students to invite whom they wanted. It seems the students disagree about whether Ellenhorn’s speakers fell outside the norms of good taste established by the elected representatives of the community. I don’t think, for example, that other members of the USC Republicans in previous semesters have been punished in any way. If they had invited Avik Roy or Ramesh Ponnuru or Cindy McCain or whoever, I am sure no one would have cared. But that’s PRECISELY why Senator Ellenhorn didn’t invite someone like them. It’s not honest intellectual and political enquiry, it’s juvenile kids deliberately trying to get attention and rile people. It’s sad.
I should also add that USC Republicans made a very similar fuss when Angela Davis was invited to campus. These discussions go both ways when someone radical is invited to speak.
I will bet they did not blockade the entrance to the site nor did they blockade the road(s) leading to the event.
Who says their “norms” are relevant. I would guess that what would fall into their “norms” is whoever they agree with.
I doubt it. They don’t seem to have a problem with lots of speakers who they disagree with, including many conservatives. The martyr complex is very tiring.
Boy, is that the pot calling the kettle black! Ha Ha Ha HA.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You still need to make a point. You barging in and telling those of us in our community that we should run it the way YOU think smacks of authoritarianism. I don’t tell your church which sermon to use on a Sunday. You’d find it insulting. And you’re insulting USC with your nonsense here.
Just because he is a republican does not mean he is a conservative. There is a difference, duh.
Sure. But he’s also a conservative.
Not by my definition.
Good for you. But this makes YOU sound like an elitist. And I don’t think this letter gives you very much ground for making a considered opinion on the matter. So again, I would look at yourself and seeing if you are emoting rather than thinking here. We’re trying to think through an issue, not representing a “team”.
If you consider the writer of this letter a “conservative” then what are you? While trying to impeach Lisa for “taking shots” at your sacred cows of young people and “Bernie Saunders” you ignore your own vitriol against Ellenhorn by claiming he has a “lack of nuance in his thinking” and God forbid how did he get into an academic school like USC. Your just a liberal snob who thinks he is more intelligent than the people around you when the reality is your more likely thought a fool and you don’t realize it.
It’s “you’re”