GOP group is abhorrent. And ASU is right to let them be that way
College Republicans United have called me a 'low IQ ginger,' a 'ginger loser' and a 'creepy liberal ginger redhead.'
That's OK. I don't like them either.
They're not kind. Not smart. Not clever. Not principled. They aren't even conservative (in the Burkean or Buckley sense).
But whatever their faults, CRU absolutely deserves a place at Arizona State University. They should be able to talk, and they should be able to express their politics.
That's exactly what they recently did.
CRU held an on campus event, manned by four college men, on Jan. 31 to promote the deportation of illegal immigrants by encouraging ASU students to 'report their criminal classmates to ICE for deportations.'
They did this instead of going to class, playing intramural sports, studying, working, volunteering, dating or even drinking.
The CRU event caused a stir (obviously).
Attorney General Kris Mayes condemned the event ('this is abhorrent behavior'). So, too, did U.S. Rep. Yassamin Ansari ('misinformed and disgusting'). Arizona House Democrats wrote that the CRU created 'an atmosphere of intimidation and terror.'
Even the official (and sane) College Republicans chapter of ASU condemned the event.
Some went further and not only condemned the event, but said that it should be shut down.
Phoenix councilman Carlos Galindo-Elvira wrote, 'I call on the ASU administration to halt this conduct.' The co-chair of the Arizona Green Party, Zakir Siddiqi, posted, 'I'm ashamed that my alma mater allows bigotry on our campus.'
Despite the exhortations of these two and many other social media commenters, ASU did not shut down the event.
ASU's decision was right on the law (ASU is a public university, and the First Amendment applies on campus). It was right for the development of students, and it was right for the health of civil society.
Too many universities think it is now their role to coddle and protect students.
Opinion: 'Snitch on classmates' event is sickening
Some professors at my current home — Harvard University — canceled classes after Donald Trump won because students had 'a bunch of emotions.' Similarly, many universities have created 'safe spaces' where students can go to avoid any contentious or upsetting ideas.
The New York Times described one such safe space at Brown University as a 'room equipped with cookies, coloring books, bubble, Play-Doh, calming music, pillows, blankets and a video of frolicking puppies.'
This is poor preparation for life.
Famous social scientist Jonathan Haidt has written extensively about this 'Coddling of the American Mind,' going so far as to link the rise in 'trigger warnings' and safety space-ism to mental illness, emotional fragility and overwhelming anxiety among young Americans.
Other universities have gone even further than safety spaces and have allowed for the cancelation of bothersome ideas.
In the newly published book, 'Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites,' legal scholar Ilya Shapiro chronicles how in recent years universities have canceled the speech of a federal judge because of the judge's views on LGBTQ+ issues (Stanford), suspended the employment of faculty because of an in-your-face tweet about affirmative action (Georgetown), and escorted a speaker away from violent students because of a position on transgenderism (Yale).
The world we live in is challenging. We won't agree with everyone. And sometimes ideas can be so noxious that they can strike at our gut or heart.
The College Republicans United event recently reminded many ASU students of that.
But in civil society, we must learn to coexist with those ideas. And in college — the great forge of minds — students shouldn't be shielded from potentially hurtful ideas; they should be invited to challenge them.
That's what ASU students did. Instead of banning the event or physically attacking the CRU, students rallied thousands to sign an opposition letter and showed up in the hundreds to counter-program the CRU event.
In doing so, these students allowed civil society to work. They sharpened their own ideas, and they developed that all important emotional grit.
Over the next four years, ASU, and especially President Michael Crow, will face immense pressure to cancel or censor inflammatory or unpopular speech.
It will be hard, but other than prohibiting unlawful acts (such as speech that incites violence or protests that bar students from getting to class), ASU should take a hands-off approach. Doing so will strengthen ASU students, and it will strengthen civil society.
In other words, ASU should let idiots — like the students at CRU — be idiots.
Stephen Richer is a former Maricopa County recorder. He is now a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and CEO of Republic Affairs. Reach him on X, formerly Twitter, @stephen_richer.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: ASU is smart to let its students press for deportation | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
Trump's mass deportations leave Democrats more ready to fight back
WASHINGTON -- California Gov. Gavin Newsom looked straight into the camera and staked out a clear choice for his Democratic Party. The governor positioned himself as not only a leader of the opposition to President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, but a de facto champion of the immigrants now being rounded up in California and across the country. Many of them, he said in the video address, were not hardened criminals, but hard-working people scooped up at a Home Depot lot or a garment factory, and detained by masked agents assisted by National Guard troops. It's a politically charged position for the party to take, after watching voter discontent with illegal immigration fuel Trump's return to the White House. It leaves Democrats deciding how strongly to align with that message in the face of blistering criticism from Republicans who are pouring billions of dollars into supporting Trump's strict immigration campaign. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Wednesday he's proud of Newsom, 'he's refusing to be intimidated by Donald Trump.' From the streets of Los Angeles to the halls of Congress, the debate over Trump's mass deportation agenda is forcing the U.S. to reckon with core values as a nation of immigrants, but also its long-standing practice of allowing migrants to live and work in the U.S. in a gray zone while not granting them full legal status. More than 11 million immigrants are in the U.S. without proper approval, with millions more having arrived with temporary protections. As Trump's administration promises to round up some 3,000 immigrants a day and deport 1 million a year, the political stakes are shifting in real time. The president rode to the White House with his promise of mass deportations — rally crowds echoed his campaign promise to 'build the wall.' But Americans are watching as Trump deploys the National Guard and active U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, while pockets of demonstrations erupt in other cities nationwide, including after agents raided a meat processing plant in Omaha, Nebraska Joel Payne, a Democratic strategist, said the country's mood appears to be somewhere between then-President Barack Obama's assertion that America is 'a nation of immigrants, we're also a nation of laws' and Trump's 'more aggressive' deportation approach. 'Democrats still have some work to do to be consistently trustworthy messengers on the issue,' he said. At the same time, he said, Trump's actions as a 'chaos agent' on immigration when there's already unrest over his trade wars and economic uncertainty, risk overreaching if the upheaval begins to sow havoc in the lives of Americans. Republicans have been relentless in their attacks on Democrats, portraying the situation in Los Angeles, which has been largely confined to a small area downtown, in highly charged terms as 'riots,' in a preview of campaign ads to come. Police said more than 200 people were detained for failing to disperse on Tuesday, and 17 others for violating the 8 p.m. curfew over part of Los Angeles. Police arrested several more people for possessing a firearm, assaulting a police officer and other violations. Two people have been charged for allegedly throwing Molotov cocktails toward police during LA protests. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Newsom should be 'tarred and feathered' for his leadership in the state, which he called 'a safe haven to violent criminal illegal aliens.' At a private meeting of House Republicans this week with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Rep. Richard Hudson, the chairman of the GOP's campaign arm, framed the situation as Democrats supporting rioting and chaos while Republicans stand for law and order. 'Violent insurrectionists turned areas of Los Angeles into lawless hellscapes over the weekend,' wrote Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal, suggesting it may be time to send in military troops. 'The American people elected Donald Trump and a Republican Congress to secure our border and deport violent illegal aliens. That's exactly what the president is doing.' But not all rank-and-file Republicans are on board with such a heavy-handed approach. GOP Rep, David Valadao, who represents California's agriculture regions in the Central Valley, said on social media he remains 'concerned about ongoing ICE operations throughout CA' and was urging the administration 'to prioritize the removal of known criminals over the hardworking people who have lived peacefully in the Valley for years.' Heading into the 2026 midterm election season, with control of the House and Senate at stake, it's a repeat of past political battles, as Congress has failed repeatedly to pass major immigration law changes. The politics have shifted dramatically from the Obama era, when his administration took executive action to protect young immigrants known as Dreamers under the landmark Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Those days, lawmakers were considering proposals to beef up border security as part of a broader package that would also create legal pathways, including for citizenship, for immigrants who have lived in the country for years and paid taxes, some filling roles in jobs Americans won't always take. With Trump's return to the Oval Office, the debate has turned toward aggressively removing immigrants, including millions who were allowed to legally enter the U.S. during the Biden administration, as they await their immigration hearings and proceedings. 'This anniversary should be a reminder,' said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., at a Wednesday event at the U.S. Capitol championing DACA's 13th year, even as protections are at risk under Trump's administration. 'Immigration has many faces.' Despite their challenges in last year's election, Democrats feel more emboldened to resist Trump's actions than even just a few months ago, but the political conversation has nonetheless shifted in Trump's direction. While Democrats are unified against Trump's big tax breaks bill, with its $150 billion for new detention facilities, deportation flights and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, they talk more openly about beefing up border security and detaining the most dangerous criminal elements. Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, points to the example of Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi, who won a special election in New York last year when he addressed potential changes to the immigration system head-on. At one point, he crashed a GOP opponent's news conference with his own. 'Trump said he was going to go after the worst of the worst, but he has ignored the laws, ignored due process, ignored the courts — and the American people reject that,' she told The Associated Press. 'People want a president and a government that is going to fight for the issues that matter most to them, fight to move our country forward,' she said. 'They want a Congress that is going to be a coequal branch of government and a check on this president.'
an hour ago
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all." Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.
an hour ago
Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history
Troops marching in lockstep. Patriotic tunes filling the air. The commander in chief looking on at it all. The military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday will be a new spectacle for many Americans. This will not be the first U.S. military parade. However, it is unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out compared to his predecessors. The Army had long planned a celebration for its semi-quincentennial on June 14. Trump has wanted to preside over a grand military parade since his first presidency from 2017 to 2021. When he took office a second time, he found the ideal convergence and ratcheted the Pentagon's plans into a full-scale military parade on his birthday. The president, who is expected to speak in Washington as part of the affair, pitches the occasion as a way to celebrate U.S. power and service members' sacrifice. But there are bipartisan concerns about the cost as well as concerns about whether Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief. Ceremonial reviews — troops looking their best and conducting drills for top commanders — trace back through medieval kingdoms to ancient empires of Rome, Persia and China. The pageantry continued in the young U.S. republic: Early presidents held military reviews as part of July 4th independence celebrations. That ended with James K. Polk, who was president from 1845 to 1849. President Andrew Johnson resurrected the tradition in 1865, holding a two-day 'Grand Review of the Armies' five weeks after Abraham Lincoln's assassination. It came after Johnson declared the Civil War over, a show of force meant to salve a war-weary nation — though more fighting and casualties would occur. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units — 145,000 soldiers, and even cattle — traversed Pennsylvania Avenue. Johnson, his Cabinet and top Army officers, including Ulysses S. Grant, Lincoln's last commanding general and the future 18th president, watched from a White House viewing stand. The Spanish-American War was the first major international conflict for a reunited nation since the Civil War. It ended in a U.S. victory that established an American empire: Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and the U.S. purchased the Philippines for $20 million. Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. New York City hosted multiple celebrations of a new global power. In August 1898, a fleet of warships, including the Brooklyn, the Texas, and the Oregon, sailed up the North River, more commonly known today as the Hudson River. American inventor Thomas Edison filmed the floating parade. The following September, New York hosted a naval and street parade to welcome home Rear Adm. George Dewey, who joined President William McKinley in a viewing stand. Many U.S. cities held World War I victory parades a few decades later. But neither Washington nor President Woodrow Wilson were the focal point. In Boston, a million civilians celebrated 20,000 troops in 1919. New York honored 25,000 troops marching in full uniform and combat gear. On June 13, 1942, as U.S. involvement in World War II accelerated, about 30,000 people formed a mobilization parade in New York City. Participants included Army and Navy personnel, American Women's Voluntary Services members, Boy Scouts and military school cadets. Scores of floats rolled, too. One carried a massive bust of President Franklin Roosevelt, who did not attend. Less than four years later, the 82nd Airborne Division and Sherman tanks led a victory parade down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander during World War II, rode in a victory parade in Washington, D.C. In 1952, Eisenhower would join Grant and George Washington as top wartime commanders elevated to the presidency following their military achievements. Other World War II generals were honored in other homecoming parades. The U.S. did not hold national or major city parades after wars in Korea and Vietnam. Both ended without clear victory; Vietnam, especially, sparked bitter societal division, enough so that President Gerald Ford opted against a strong military presence in 1976 bicentennial celebrations, held a year after the fall of Saigon. Washington finally hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. The Constitution Avenue lineup included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles and representatives of the international coalition, led by the U.S., that quickly drove an invading Iraq out of Kuwait. The commander in chief, George H.W. Bush, is the last U.S. president to have held an active-duty military post. He had been a World War II combat pilot who survived his plane being shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Veterans of the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have not been honored in national parades. Inaugural parades include and sometimes feature military elements. Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade, at the outset of the Cold War, included 22,000 service members and an atomic cannon. Eight years later, President John F. Kennedy, a World War II Naval officer, watched armored tanks, Army and Navy personnel, dozens of missiles and Navy boats pass in front of his reviewing stand. More recent inaugurations have included honor guards, academy cadets, military bands and other personnel but not large combat assets. Notably, U.S. presidents, even when leading or attending military events, wear civilian attire rather than military garb, a standard set by Washington, who also eschewed being called 'General Washington' in favor of 'Mr. President.' Perhaps the lone exception came in 2003, when President George W. Bush, who had been a National Guard pilot, wore a flight suit when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which U.S. forces had invaded six weeks earlier. The aircraft carrier was not a parade venue but the president emerged to raucous cheers from uniformed service members. He put on a business suit to deliver a nationally televised speech in front a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. As the war dragged on to a less decisive outcome, that scene and its enduring images would become a political liability for the president.
