Opinion
Commentary: GMU’s president is right to reject students’ call to cancel Youngkin’s commencement speech
I don’t know Gregory Washington, the president of George Mason University. I am not an alumnus of his school. To the best of my recall, I have never been on GMU’s campus in Fairfax. But I applaud Mr. Washington.
He did what many leaders in academia are unwilling to do these days: He stood up to demands to bar a speaker whose positions many on his campus abhor.
The speaker in this case is the governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin. After he was invited to be GMU’s spring commencement speaker, a student launched an online petition calling for the governor’s invitation to be rescinded.
Among the grounds posited in the petition were his administration’s advancement of policies that limit rights of trans people, that restrict access to literature and that suppress racial equity in public school curricula. Those actions, the petition asserts, result in “historically marginalizing communities comprising Mason,” and asks Washington to exercise an official, preemptive “heckler’s veto” on the petitioners’ behalf.
I get it. I have voiced objections to all of those policies. The actions against trans people – particularly students – are, in my estimation, wrong and mean-spirited. I understand how they cause real angst, anger, hardships and emotional harm.
The First Amendment, however, prevails over hurtful, hateful, sometimes even inciteful speech, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly. In a society that values free expression, Youngkin has every right to speak, including at Virginia’s largest state-supported university.
America, sadly, is a culture that increasingly accepts demands to shut down protections that the First Amendment affords us all, especially from radicalized and growing segments of both the political left and right.
The headlines are packed with stories of school boards muzzling a truthful accounting in public school history curricula of the historical mistreatment of African Americans and the banning of books that discuss subjects of gender and sex.
College campuses, traditionally havens for the free exchange of ideas, informed inquiry and robust debate, are not exempt. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports that students increasingly support disinviting speakers from their campuses. It found that Democratic students were 19 percentage points more likely than Republican students to concur that there are times when speakers should be canceled. Last spring at the University of Virginia, the charge to disinvite former Vice President Mike Pence came from none other than the campus newspaper, the Cavalier Daily.
Let’s put aside the fact that a public university has no legal or moral business taking sides and censoring a public policy debate absent a credible threat of violence. There’s a more practical argument against silencing disfavored speech: it doesn’t work.
No one is being forced to accept what Youngkin says. But what harm comes from listening firsthand to what the speaker is actually saying? How does one effectively rebut a speaker’s assertions without understanding them?
Additionally, nothing prohibits opponents from peacefully expressing their own views. The same constitutional right that protects the speaker allows opponents (even graduates in their robes) to turn their backs in protest. People can distribute literature or hold a news conference contradicting a speaker’s points. They can boo or, more unsettling, meet applause lines with cold silence — all under the media’s unblinking eye.
And what is to be gained by denying a speaker a campus forum where he or she can be challenged face-to-face? Those interested in what the speaker would say can easily find it on the internet, often in forums free of the dissenters’ balancing arguments.
Calling for adversarial speech to be silenced is lazy and counterproductive. Competing in the marketplace of ideas with your own concepts is hard but it works. It comes down to how much you really believe in the might and merit of your argument.
by Bob Lewis, Virginia Mercury
Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sarah Vogelsong for questions: info@virginiamercury.com. Follow Virginia Mercury on Facebook and Twitter.
Opinion
County Board Chair Cook Reminded of Campaign Promises
There never seems to be any shortage of controversy in our little (but growing) community. While election season heats up, the current library distraction diverting attention away from the issues that impact ALL members of the community, and not just the whims of a local faction whose agenda appears to be ramming their opinion of morality down the community’s throat is somewhat disturbing. I don’t agree with some of the literature that is being presented in our public library, but I also believe there are freedoms that take precedence over these objections where a common ground can be achieved.
Frequently, I am reading and hearing remarks on the Fork District and Board Chairman Vicky Cook. Vicki has always been cordial, open, and non-judgmental in my professional dealings with her. However, I would like to remind her of her campaign platform, as reported in 2021. These paraphrased quotes from a written publication are worthy, in my opinion, of reprinting:
“What I bring into the mix is to have a little more critical thinking. I’m really into common sense solutions that’s gonna benefit everybody”. Continuing in this same vain, “I’m really big into integrity and transparency and accountability”.
Finally, Cook wants to “bring unity” to the community. (Warren County Supervisor Candidate Offers Management Skills, NV Daily, July 18, 2021).
Chairman Cook, I hope you continue to exercise these tenets that you publicly stated and committed to when you knocked on my door asking for my vote.
Gregory A. Harold
Warren County, VA
Opinion
Defending Samuels Public Library: A Plea for Reason and Inclusivity
Dear Mrs. Cook:
It is with a heavy heart that I write to you regarding the unconscionable withholding of funding for Samuels Public Library, which will very likely result in its imminent closing.
Our library is the jewel of Warren County. How can the Board of Supervisors allow a tiny group of fanatical interlopers – many of whom didn’t even own a library card – dictate how our library is managed?
Shame on the BOS for allowing the situation to devolve to the point where our beloved Library Director, Michelle Ross, felt compelled to resign. Shame on you! How will we ever attract accomplished, educated and enlightened applicants to fill her vacant position when the BOS allows an obtuse, misinformed and manipulative minority to control an institution which is the pride of our town. It is heartbreaking to reflect on the disrespect, contempt and lack of support which the BOS has shown toward Ms. Ross and her earnest staff. Shame!
My family has lived in Warren County for 40 years. My sister was on the Board of Trustees when the library transitioned from its previous in-town location to Criser Road, where it has become a cherished hub for ALL citizens of Warren County. I have donated countless hours to the library as a past Friends of Samuels Library board member and as a volunteer shelving books, working at community events and manning the Epilogue Bookstore. Will any of the group of library dissidents contribute any time, effort or money towards the care and feeding of our treasured library? Doubt it!
Everyone in the world has members of the LGBTQ+ community as dear friends and much-loved family members – whether they wish to acknowledge that or not. A strictly heterosexual world has never existed – neither within the human species nor within the wider natural world. To deny their existence, both within our community and within the vast literature of our culture, is to oppose reality. Same-sex families are everywhere. Come out from under your rock, open your eyes, and join the 21st Century.
The BOS and their legal team should be embarrassed at the wording of the current MOU as submitted to the Samuels Board of Trustees. Beyond the question of how the county will find the funding to pay library staff county wages and benefits, how will the county find volunteers to perform the myriad tasks which keep the library functioning as an active community center when the BOS seems bent on allowing a group of religious zealots to destroy our library as we have come to know and love it. Clearly there is no longer separation of church and state within Warren County.
In closing, as a young girl taught by Ursuline nuns in the 1960’s, one of my favorite activities was walking downtown with my friends to our beautiful Ferguson Public Library where I was allowed to take out any book I desired. When it came time to choose a confirmation name, the nuns brought my class to the much tinier Catholic library run by the Knights of Columbus to read children’s books about the lives of the saints. I would encourage the religious activists of our community to invest the time and effort required to establish their own non-secular library and to cease their undesired meddling in our honorable Samuels Public Library.
Sincerely,
Margaret E. Thursland
Fork District
Front Royal, Virginia
Opinion
Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District: A Call to Support Dr. Mark Huddleston and Write-In Candidate Emma Bricker for Soil and Water Conservation Leadership
To the residents of Warren County: Both Warren County Directorships for the Board of the Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District are coming up for election this November 7. Early voting commences on September 22.
Let me say that Dr. Mark Huddleston, the only listed candidate on the ballot and retired President Emeritus of the University of New Hampshire, is fully deserving of our vote.
To fill the second position of Board Director, we will need a write-in candidate. I heartily endorse Emma Bricker and urge you to write her name where provided on the ballot. Emma is a Master Gardener, has a degree in plant science with a specialization in native plants, and has been a leader in the recent Browntown conservation planning campaign. I know her also to be a skilled computer technician. Emma Bricker deserves our support because of her environmental capacities and dedication.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Hoover
Warren County Director
Chairman of the Board
Lord Fairfax Soil and Water Conservation District
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
Board of Usurpervisors
Rather than arbitrate business, property, and tax disputes, our board of supervisors has chosen to start a cultural conflagration within our community. It is all quite clear they did this for cheap political gain. You don’t have to be savvy or experienced to see it.
Witness these excellent letters to the editor which outline the hypocrisy and mismanagement on display:
“Facts, Accounting, and Homework, Oh My!! A Library Supporter Digs Into the Finances”
Published August 23, 2023, by Sonja Carlborg of Front Royal.
Or, these excellent pieces of lay reporting,
“Investigating the Reasons for the Book Ban Campaign”
Published August 27, 2023, by Bridget Randolph of Brooklyn, NYC, formerly of Warren County, VA.
“Fact-Checking the BOS/Library MOA Negotiation”
Published September 10, 2023, by Bridget Randolph, of Brooklyn, NYC, formerly of Warren County, VA.
I was misled, personally on the phone, in the week prior to the first June 6, 2023 board meeting, by board member Jerome “Jay” Butler himself.
He assured me this would be a simple “reshuffling of some books”, yet we have since learned it was that and so much more. We have since learned this hateful harassment campaign started in January of this year and later even involved an outdoor beer party or two, complete with prizes. I have no words to express my contempt for those on the board willing to deceive me and other citizens about a topic so dear, yet with only a week or two of foreknowledge of their duplicity.
I went to school with someone who suffered violence and spoke of being gay during the AIDS crisis in the early 1990s. And, Mr. Jay Butler, I carefully witnessed the facial expressions and the false piety on display in the front row that night on June 6, 2023, at the Warren County Board of Supervisors meeting.
I sat through the whole 4-5 hours and stood and shook your hand later, feeling sure we would quickly reach a reasonable solution. I lack polite or appropriate words for you, nor board member Delores Oates, who clearly ‘hates the queers’ enough to blow $20,000 on the topic. My God, Jesus would slap you both.
The current members of the Board of Supervisors that have voted for withholding Samuels funding are complicit in the harassment and physical endangerment of Samuels staff. They have hounded Samuels out of a caring, thoughtful, and apolitical library director, Michelle Ross. In a time of such heightened tensions as this, a time when falsehoods multiply like cultivated seeds, it is beyond reckless to encourage such things.
The current board of supervisors, minus Cheryl Cullers, who voted against this nonsense, owes the following:
1.) A private apology to Michelle Ross.
2.) A private apology to each of the library staff whom they’ve harassed and placed in increased physical danger (witness D.C. Pizzagate). This includes *everyone* on the staff.
3.) A private apology to each of the families who have suffered the suicide of a family member yet bravely came before you to testify to your wrong-headedness and plead for empathy.
4.) A public apology for being so simple-minded and politically focused that you could not see the right path from the wrong and took a bigoted, hateful, and deceitful approach to political life. More than one of our Board of Supervisors has gone against their campaign promises and mandates. Witness Jay Butler’s promise to “keep government out of our personal lives.” Yeah, right!
Should these or funding for our wonderful Samuels Public Library not be forthcoming, I can only pray for our county and republic.
Daniel Silsby
Warren County, VA
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
Opinion
With Robert Kennedy Jr., It’s ‘Like Father, Like Son’
In 1968, the incumbent president Lyndon B. Johnson seemed a shoo-in as the Democratic candidate for president. Even with falling approval ratings, he was strong enough to keep a tight grip on his party — or so he thought.
As formidable as Johnson was, there was one name he could not compete against: Kennedy. When Robert F. Kennedy, brother of slain President John F. Kennedy, threw his hat into the ring late in the race, Johnson knew his days were numbered and withdrew from the election. That was the last time an incumbent president was not nominated for a second term.
Now 56 years later, the incumbent, Democratic President Joe Biden looks to be “a sure thing” for his party’s nomination. But could history repeat itself? Could the Kennedy name once again prove strong enough to shake things up within the Democratic Party?
1968 was one of America’s most turbulent years. President Johnson had claimed America was winning the Vietnam War, yet the year began with the Tet Offensive, North Vietnam’s largest offensive action to date. At home, the Vietnam protest movement was at its height and most of the anger was aimed at Johnson. Protesters felt Johnson had lied to them about the war. And while he had successfully passed two major Civil Rights bills and created Medicare and Medicaid, the war overshadowed Johnson’s accomplishments and his approval ratings plummeted.
Even with low numbers, Johnson, who had become president with the death of JFK and soundly won the Electoral College vote 486-52 in his 1964 reelection, seemed a sure thing in ‘68. The one name that could disrupt Johnson’s plan: Robert F. Kennedy Sr.
In a time of mayhem, the Kennedy name resonated with voters who still felt the loss of JFK. Surely to Johnson’s relief, not wanting to divide the party, Kennedy announced “under no foreseeable circumstances” would he run for president. The case seemed closed; Johnson would win the nomination.
However, with Kennedy’s announcement, another anti-war Democratic senator from Minnesota, Eugene McCarthy, entered the race. McCarthy seemed a long shot, so it shocked the political world when he won the first primary in New Hampshire.
Now, with the realization that Johnson was beatable, Kennedy changed his mind and decided to enter the race.
While the two had been rivals for some time, Kennedy cited Johnson’s continued support of the war as the main reason for his decision to run. Kennedy hoped to consolidate the anti-war movement in the party.
Seeing the writing on the wall, with Kennedy’s entrance in the election, Johnson pulled out of the race. Johnson’s VP, Herbert Humphrey, entered the race as the pro-Vietnam candidate.
The three candidates – McCarthy, Kennedy, and Humphrey –went on to each win several primaries until Kennedy was assassinated after a victory speech in California. After Kennedy’s death, McCarthy suspended his campaign allowing Humphrey to win. Humphrey went on to lose to Republican former Vice President Richard Nixon.
Jumping forward 56 years, again the Democrats have an incumbent president running for a second term. Like the last time, the sitting president’s approval rating is low, and he is presiding over a divided party — not to mention a nation once again in turmoil. When Biden announced he would seek reelection, it seemed as though no other viable Democratic politicians would challenge him. Yet, just like Johnson in ‘68, one name could be the incumbent president’s downfall: Kennedy.
While not a politician, 69-year-old Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer living in California, has thrown his hat in the Democratic ring.
Kennedy is a long shot. Once a media darling as an environmental warrior, Kennedy distanced himself from the Democratic Party when he spoke out against the COVID-19 vaccination, has argued since around 2005 that other types of vaccinations cause autism, and promoted other conspiracy theories.
His actions have brought condemnation from Democrats as well as family members, but he has received some support from Republicans. He has been removed from several social media platforms which he calls censorship and is one of the reasons why he chose to run.
While most are not seeing Kennedy as a threat — some of his theories are really out there — it would be unwise to count out anyone with the last name Kennedy, a name that still resonates with the American public. Because if there is American royalty in his country it is the Kennedys. And any connection to John F. Kennedy reminds us of a perceived better time in our country.
Now, one thing might give Robert F. Kennedy Jr. a leg up, and that is if New Hampshire is able to keep their place as the first primary state. Biden is trying to push South Carolina ahead of New Hampshire. But New Hampshire is a wild card and could easily give Kennedy the nod.
It is highly unlikely that Kennedy can get enough votes to win the nomination. But if he were to win New Hampshire first it could expose many of Biden’s weaknesses. And just like in ‘68, it could open the door to other contenders vying for the Democratic prize.
For many older generation of voters – a generation that votes more than any other – they revere both John and Bobby Kennedy. Those two men who gave their lives for public service. Even Republican voters who might have voted against the Kennedys at the time now look back at Camelot fondly.
While RFK Jr. has a major uphill climb to dethrone Biden, he may be the one candidate who can.
James Finck, Ph.D., is a professor of history at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma and writes for the Southwest Ledger. He can be reached at Historicallyspeaking1776@gmail.com.
Opinion
A Picture of Paradox: Library Doors Close as Vape Shops Flourish
This small town has only one quality library that I visit often with my son. Restricting access to this singular area resource for broader knowledge and a multiplicity of viewpoints seems very much at odds with, or ignorant of, the general lack of commercial and public spaces in the area that promote learning and cultural understanding. Yet we can get vape supplies and fast food at practically every intersection and generally toxic viewpoints on every other bumper or flag waving outside the flea market. – Jeffrey Kenney, Warren County
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, its affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.
While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.
In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the newspaper the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.
We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.
