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.

As well you should publish different viewpoints even if they are sometimes dumb/morally bankrupt/etc. Whatever happened to the whole, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” idea?

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.