Virginia Tech Just Disinvited A Black Conservative From Speaking On Campus

[Tyrianth]

Minus the part where the professor has already invited past guests. And if the professor has been inviting guests in the past through non-official means, it is the schools responsibility to let him know ahead of time that he can't do that. Nothing here suggests that he received any such warnings for past invitations however.

Getting approval to invite guests in the past does not mean that all future invitations will be approved. How fucking thick do you have to be to not understand that?

You would mention the approval process if the invitation was dependent on it... otherwise you'd look awfully silly if it didn't get approved. And considering the Dean now just reinvited the guy, are you saying the new invitation is "fake" and the Dean has not followed the rules? Bearing in mind, this supposed "approval committee" has already said no.

It's not an invitation if you if you don't have approval. The professor was in the wrong for not getting approval. And no the dean most likely got approval. Your post doesn't say that the professor got declined just that he never got approval which could mean he simply did not request approval. Or maybe he did and got denied but idiots like you are drumming up such a false controversy that the school figures it would be better to simply allow him to speak at the university for the PR.

From the view point of all, inviting a guest is not a strenuous or difficult procedure, this is not some complex thing lol. You invite someone to speak for an hour.... this is not the professor "abusing his power" or "going beyond his limits".

This is most definitely beyond his limits if he does not own, manage, or administer the venue in anyway.

[RickJamesLich]

Getting approval to invite guests in the past does not mean that all future invitations will be approved. How fucking thick do you have to be to not understand that?

Again, nothing indicates that there was an approval process, or that this professor would even need it, considering he was in charge of bringing the speakers in. What part of this do you not get? And if there was an approval process, how was the Dean able to violate it?

It's not an invitation if you if you don't have approval. The professor was in the wrong for not getting approval. And no the dean most likely got approval. Your post doesn't say that the professor got declined just that he never got approval which could mean he simply did not request approval. Or maybe he did and got denied but idiots like you are drumming up such a false controversy that the school figures it would be better to simply allow him to speak at the university for the PR.

Again, what approval? What indicator do you have that there was actually a process? No mention of the Dean needing said process was listed as well. And I urge you, look at the second invitation and ask yourself if it appears not legit? And it definitely was an invitation. Even if we believe the professor went to some sort of approval board after the fact, that does not change the fact that the professor did extend an offer of invitation. The invitation happened people lol.

This is most definitely beyond his limits if he does not own, manage, or administer the venue in anyway.

The professor had set up numerous past guests, to assume he was "not in charge" or "still needed a higher level of approval" is silly on multiple levels. You don't need to be the President of a facility in order to invite a guest justifiably.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I just wanted to add to this that Batman later went on to say that because this conservative disagrees with welfare and happens to be black, have received welfare to get where he is

I knew you were bad at reading, but come on.

[Mehrunes]

The Professor, an employee at the University, himself has stated yes, the speaker's conservative views scared some of the faculty and they were worried about a protest, hence why it was reneged upon. Why say it was unprojected motivation when even besides the professor's testimony, it is clear what happened? lol. A similar scenario happened with the previous speaker. This is just you being dishonest lol.

And that's like, his take on the events. After he probably got salty. And most importantly, not what your article based their drivel on. They didn't mention it. They just took the part where the university they haven't invited him in the first place and then "explained" it to their readers (because it was super hard, or something), during which they totally misrepresented it. They only included the letter in a later part of the article. And please, do tell how it is "clear" even without the professor's claim. Also, which previous speaker? The only one I recall you mentioning in this thread did hold a speech at the university from what I recall.

You expect anything more from the federalist of all places? That place is a cesspool of shit journalism and propaganda... Obviously the guy wasn't invited because he's a black conservative, and not a white one.

It was my first adventure with this "news" outlet so I had no prior expectations.

Whats a true liberal? And how do they differ from false ones?

You'd need to consult advanta on that. They are the authority on the subject.

Again nothing suggests that there was an approval process here or that if there was, that he wasn't vetted ahead of time. So why would the President lie here? An invitation was in fact sent out and he was aware of it. Whether you disagree with the "formality" of the invitation, it was still sent. The President said "none was sent" though.

Speaking of his letter, he did admit the invitation of his was informal. "Nothing suggests". It was pointed out to you like five times already, but the old school of covering your ears and screaming "lalala, I can't hear you" seems to be alive and kicking. And you talk about dishonesty, lel.

http://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2016/0...statement.html

So we are to believe, according to your story that a rogue Program Director (lol) within the University invited someone when he did not have the power to do so (despite inviting guests in the past).... that an "approval committee" shot down said invitation, and after now the Dean, Robert Sumichrast has invited the guy back. Now we can keep going back and forth on this, but it does not sound like the Dean went through an approval process here - do you agree? Nothing was mentioned once again about an approval process. And from what I can see, the approval process, and I use that term loosely, appears to be nothing more than higher ups saying "no" even after an invitation has been sent..... not some sort of committee or a board of review or anything. Likewise, higher ups can change their mind and then say "yes" if they want the speaker to come after all lol, without some sort of "approval process".

Did you actually read what you linked? Because your description of what happened according to it doesn't correlate with what was said there. At all.

I'll ask the same question to you though, do you feel that the new invitation is "informal" or not a real invitation? This one also mentions nothing about the approval process or suggests "if you accept this, we still need to approve you".

Just because it doesn't mention the approval process, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. You're just speculating. On the other hand, the initial invitation was not formal, according to the very same professor who sent it. Whom you're using to support your outrage despite that fact.

Nothing indicates that approval process was needed for the first or second invite however. And you'd think if there was a process, it would certainly be listed in the second invitation, considering all of the controversy. Your assumption is that unless someone if the President of a facility, there invite is not "official". Like if a Vice President sends an invite, it is not official, for example.

Except, you know, your own source from the previous page.

[RickJamesLich]

And that's like, his take on the events. After he probably got salty. And most importantly, not what your article based their drivel on. They didn't mention it. They just took the part where the university they haven't invited him in the first place and then "explained" it to their readers (because it was super hard, or something), during which they totally misrepresented it. They only included the letter in a later part of the article. And please, do tell how it is "clear" even without the professor's claim. Also, which previous speaker? The only one I recall you mentioning in this thread did hold a speech at the university from what I recall.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/...5ac7c7742.html

Another article on a past speaker:

"Sumichrast was notified of the decision to invite Murray on Jan. 4 of this year. The lecture was organized in the fall semester of 2015 with Douglas Patterson, finance professor, making the ultimate decision to invite Murray."

Ultimate decision.... taken from the school newspaper by the way. If this guy is the ultimate decision maker for who is a guest speaker, then it sounds like he operated well within his boundaries here. Not sure how more clear cut it is. If the professor does not have the final say, and someone has to approve, then that person would be the ultimate decision maker, not the professor. Interesting to note, the Dean speaks in this too and says:

“My reason for not canceling it, in part, is that these views won’t go away because we canceled the speech,”

Now from this what can gather is that the Dean is capable of cancelling events, regardless of whether or not an approval committee exists, and if they do exist, regardless of their recommendation. From this we can gather the professor can in fact invite guests that he wants, but the Dean can at a later date in time cancel it. Which is exactly what happened in this story. No mention of the professor's inviation powers being only "informal" or invalid.

Interesting to note too that the professor says in the story he is not allowed to discuss the decision to invite the speaker in the story. That is pretty odd, do you not agree? From this we can gather that the University pressures the professor when he invites conservative speakers, and can cancel avoid any sort of speaker without an "approval committee" being involved. On top of this the professor is not even allowed to discuss the process lol. I'm sorry but if you can't see that there is foul play at this point I'm not sure what to tell you.

On top of this, it appears at least some University officials, such as the Dean himself, do not even need to listen to the "approval committee" since he invited Jason Riley anyway despite the "committee" saying no lol. Long story short the approval process appears very bizarre, one in which a professor can invite someone, and then later on, higher ups can simply cancel it. Not really sure if that sounds like a committee to you though.

Another quote:

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/...b193669ed.html

The series began in 2007 after the North Carolina-based bank BB&T Corporation extended a $1 million grant for programs intended to explore “the foundations of capitalism and freedom.” Finance Professor Douglas Patterson has served as the director of the program since and has personally made invitation decisions, including Murray’s.

As you can see, this guy was the Director of the Program which invited guest speakers. Him inviting a guest speaker consequently is not an abuse of his powers lol. Not only that but he had a past history of inviting guest speakers. No "approval committee" decides who speaks at the University, he does.

[Torgent]

http://vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2016/0...statement.html

Here is the new invitation... let me know if you believe this one is informal as well or "not cleared", since the President merely states that the Dean has invited him. Unless of course you think the Dean is a one man approval committee lol.

This is a brand new invitation, not related to the other one. This one is obviously cleared, as the president has announced that he was invited back. Your own link says that the faculty member who invited the first time had no authority to do so and did so without the council having knowledge. Are you not intelligent enough to follow your own drivel?

- - - Updated - - -

I really need to hear what the college have to say about this before i make judgement on this. It really just seems like a mistake was made, and somebody pulled a fast one not to look dumb.

The college stated he was invited by someone who had no authority to do so and that another speaker was already in his place.

They have since invited him to speak at another time.

But morons will still tell us that he was declined for being a black conservative.