Anthony Romero, the executive director of the opposite-named American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) spoke to college students at a presentation in Princeton where he supported the idea of cancelling people from economic, cultural, and social existence for speaking ideas that his idol, the DNC-CCP, does not support.
He said in his presentation that those who deny the “right to gender-affirming healthcare,” or those “attacking critical race theory” are the real enemies of “free speech.”
According to the conservative National Review, Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), didn’t exactly adhere to his organization’s principles (i.e., “defend the civil liberties of all Americans”) when he gave a talk on free speech at a mandatory first-year orientation event at Princeton University. Author Matthew Wilson, who attended the event “as an undergraduate academic advisor for freshman and out of [his] own personal curiosity”, reported on Romero’s talk for the magazine.
Excerpts from the NR piece:
On August 29, Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, spoke alongside Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber at a mandatory freshman-orientation event ostensibly meant to highlight the university’s commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom. More than 1,000 Princeton freshmen were required to attend this event as a part of their regular sequence of orientation activities; I was there as an undergraduate academic adviser for freshmen and out of my own personal curiosity…
Today’s enemies of free speech and civil liberties, Romero told Princeton freshmen, are those who deny the “right to gender-affirming health care,” those “attacking critical race theory,” and proponents of Florida’s so-called Don’t Say Gay law. According to Romero, these are the real “freedom-of-expression issues” of our day — the work of right-wing villains who want our society to “go back to the medieval period.”
…. Urging students to cancel “heteronormativity” and push back against “homophobes” (in other words: against anyone whose deeply held moral or religious beliefs preclude them from endorsing Romero’s secular progressive positions on gender and sexuality) does nothing to advance or promote Princeton’s “fundamental commitment” to “the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.” On the contrary, such rhetoric plainly encourages self-censorship and ideological conformity — phenomena profoundly antithetical to a campus culture of open discourse and freedom of thought — to take root among students and flourish.