On one hand, this is a gross impediment of the 1st Amendment.

I don’t want to live any place where a person, or the majority, or whoever can decide which ideas are acceptable for the public, and which should be suppressed or eliminated.

Calling for a boycott and trashing/burning stacks of the paper (so others can’t read it) goes far beyond just putting one’s personal copy in the trash.

The only shortcoming here is our universities producing adults who cannot handle the existence of a point of view outside of their own.

Agreed. Why the necessity to slash funding over a single stupid opinion piece? How about writing a counterpoint? Seems an overly abusive use of power.

I caught something Bill Maher said the other night about ‘regressive liberalism’. I think this is an extension of it. Cutting out funding and trying to stifle dissenting opinions bc they don’t belong to the narrow minded echo chamber you associate with is maddening. And no, you may not like Bill Maher, but he’s not…

This boils down to “I don’t like that you’re utilizing this avenue for discourse in the manner it was intended.”

Ah, Wesleyan. Keep fucking up, you gorgeous institution.