How Do You Solve a Problem Like Austin Tong?
What Austin Tong’s recent case against the university tells us about free speech on college campuses
July 29, 2020
As a disclaimer: I’m not an expert on the First Amendment, but I do know that we all walk a fine line when it comes to free speech and freedom of expression when we’re in “public.” Private spaces are allowed to regulate who they allow in and what actions are permitted on their premises. Private businesses are allowed to determine who represents them and who can be let go from a position. In both instances, when we join private entities, we relinquish some of our rights to act or speak in a certain way. We are not always guaranteed to be protected by the Constitution.
Let’s say you go to Walmart and there is a no-mask, no-entry policy, but you refuse to wear a mask. Walmart has every right to kick you out of the store, no matter how much you fight the decision. You are on Walmart’s property, violating their rules and endangering not only other shoppers but their employees as well. Or maybe you’re acting a fool in a public space, like Central Park. Amy Cooper’s biased actions against Christian Cooper, a Black birdwatcher, caused her to be terminated by her employer for not embodying the company’s standards. She wasn’t at work or participating in her job in any way, but anywhere she goes she is an employee who (even if unknowingly) represents the company. Amy Cooper was caught on camera making a false report with an obvious bias against Christian Cooper. She suffered the consequences.
Both of these situations showcase that when you enter a space or position in any private business/corporation/university, you are subject to their policies, however lenient or stringent they are.
As active Fordham students, we are subject to the rules of the university both on- and off-campus. The Office of the Dean of Students requires us to adhere to the Student Code of Conduct. In being a part of the community, we are expected to follow the university’s rules and if we violate any policy (either on the property, in the city or online), we can be reprimanded.
For example, when one student posts an image that’s divisive, threatening or could be harmful that image is a representation of a Fordham student. Just like in Amy Cooper’s case, that student did not represent the private business’s ideals and would justifiably face punishment.
Would that student have the right to retaliate against the university’s punishments and if so, on what grounds? In reality, there are none. That student agreed to be in line with Fordham’s policies until they no longer affiliated with the university, if they violate said policies they are subject to the consequences — end of story.
Both of these situations showcase that when you enter a space or position in any private business/corporation/university, you are subject to their policies, however lenient or stringent they are.
The Constitution, while we believe it is always intact and applicable to every point in our life, loses its power in non-public spaces like Fordham. Austin Tong, Gabelli School of Business at Lincoln Center ’21, claimed that the university’s actions were an “explicit attack on my freedom of expression”; however, technically, this is not true because neither the platform he posted on nor the university guarantees to protect all speech.
According to the State Action Doctrine, the First Amendment (or the Constitution in general) is in place for the protection of citizens against the infringement of government, not private actors. Fordham is a business — they want new students to improve their rankings and they want to avoid bad publicity. Tong’s actions are counterintuitive to Fordham’s reputation as a business, and as such, he should be metaphorically “fired” from his position as a member of the Fordham community.
Freedom of speech is a highly contested amendment in educational settings. In 2015, Yale University urged students to avoid cultural Halloween costumes that have the chance of offending others. One Yale lecturer remarked the university was limiting students’ expression and even asked if students were no longer allowed to make mistakes and be offensive. Conversely, students understood the task from the administration not as censorship, but as a reminder to respect their peers. Can we not ask the same of our community?
In the past five years, I have been in two lockdowns for school shooters. I know people who have been hurt by gun violence. I wouldn’t feel safe knowing someone I see in the hall has the means to commit violence at this level. By posing with the gun and spouting praise for the right to be armed, Tong showed his weapons and his potential. Fordham needs, and has the full right, to protect its community and ensure that he cannot bring the weapon he posted to campus.
Is it crazy to think about how even our online actions have consequences?
El Man • Jan 15, 2021 at 1:51 am
I agree w the school.
Is place of business.
Tong assumes is freedom without boundaries, unfortunately we are not living on the Moon.
Fordham – do not lower your standards!
Bruno Matassini • Jan 14, 2021 at 11:55 pm
Do they let anyone into this University? I’ve seen better writing come from a barely competent 3rd grader than what I’m reading here; this article’s argument is hilariously invalid in every angle imaginable. Logical fallacies riddle every sentence and your overarching claim is simply false. You compare Tong to an employee and instantly assume he has done something wrong according to the schools “policies” yet he clearly hasn’t and you can not list a single code Tong has broken. You claim his images are “threatening and hurtful” but his body language is not postured in a threatening manner nor is his caption, in any way, a threat. You take the assumption that the first amendment does not protect all speech to a blinding extreme as if you expect anything that offends you to be instantly liable to being censored or punished, that’s not how this works; Tongs image may have offended you and others but it does not stop being a picture of a law abiding citizen casually holding a legally owned firearm. He is 100% protected by his right to post that image and not face consequences as he is not inciting fear in any reasonable way. Again, YOU may be afraid, but there are people afraid of bunnies and we can’t ban those. Look at it objectively, if you can’t find any evidence of a threat or intent to harm, it’s protected by the first amendment.
Raymond Mares • Jan 10, 2021 at 5:04 pm
One of the most atrocious examples of college journalism imaginable. So for one, to compare him to an “employee” that could be fired shows a deep lack of critical thinking. He PAYS your school to receive something in kind…an EDUCATION. He also has a life outside of Fordham University and should be able to document and stand up for his American civil liberties. The Second Amendment is one of them! He harmed no one, made no threat to anybody from what I can see, and is PROUD to share his love for the UNITED STATES BILL OF RIGHTS. So…Gabriella…first thing…you showed your explicit bias and lack of education by titling your story, “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Austin Tong”…shame on you. Second, please make sure and write articles about all the pre-born babies that REALLY get killed if you are sincere in talking about violence. Third, I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS STORY BECAUSE OF AN NRA AD AND IT FEATURED AUSTIN TONG. Reading your article convinced me to JOIN THE NRA TODAY! I was on the fence about it but you convinced me I better do so sooner rather than later!
Thanks Gabs!
John Smith • Dec 3, 2020 at 5:10 am
You will make a fine journalist in the future. CNN should be your first stop. I sincerely hope Mr Tongs lawsuit puts a masive bite in the Universities budget but even more so focuses on the real problem at hand. The University itself..
Steve • Oct 10, 2020 at 5:59 am
Your logic about private business / corporation / university is flawed. Being a private business doesn’t give them the right to not serving black people.
Evan Alexander • Sep 9, 2020 at 10:13 am
These cowardly people will justify their baseless viewpoints without proper logic. There is no point in trying to discuss anything with them because they are willfully ignorant. Nevertheless, I have 2 points. I will try to be concise.
1: I start with the main point; calling a human being a “problem” in this sort of circumstance is absolutely morally bankrupt, and foolish. – he has a gun and so you are scared? How do you think active shooters who shoot up unarmed civilians are stopped? With nerf guns or hugs? The man who shot up the Florida nightclub was GUNNED down.
Sadly guns exist and gun free zones are only respected by law abiding citizens, not deranged criminals.
2: We see how corperations have been controlling our speech, so if you work for the NBA or some other large corperate garbage company, you can’t protest what’s happening in Beijing, just as an example. When will this end? We’re well on our way to an authoritarian regime limiting our freedoms.
Read a book, maybe Plato’s 5 Dialogues. Then maybe you will learn something about logic.
I feel for this poor young man, such stress over a silly picture posted in which he threatened no one.
P.S. In the article it says your freedom of speech is only respected in private, seems the author has never read the bill of rights. Your freedom of speech is respected everywhere, even in print, just not if you’re lying, which makes it libel. Sad that this is coming from an “educational institution.”
Cal Taylor • Sep 8, 2020 at 7:56 pm
Austin Tong could very well be your next VA Tech mass shooter. He posts pictures like the killer and then he rants about his gun rights while he should just be studying. Get him out of that school now.
Jack Webber • Sep 8, 2020 at 6:35 pm
“How Do You Solve a Problem Like Austin Tong?”
Easily. First, start with asking the correct question. The problem isn’t Austin Tong; the problem is Fordham University.
So…How Do You Solve a Problem Like Fordham University?
Austin Tong is a young American whose rights are being violated by Fordham University. I hope when he’s finished suing Fordham University, he will have the money to live the rest of his life in comfort.
So, to solve the problem, the administration of Fordham University first needs to get a grip on the Constitution of the United States and stop pandering to leftists and their Marxist indoctrination.
Brandon • Sep 7, 2020 at 12:16 am
Fordham Observer, Gabriela, and Mateo,
You are getting torn to shreds in the comments about your statements, and for good reason. Please educate yourself on gun laws.
You are basing your ENTIRE premise that the school made the right choice based upon your assumption that since Austin Tong posted a picture with a firearm, he would therefore then bring it to campus. You said we need to ensure that he can’t bring his firearm to campus. Are you aware of your state’s open carry laws? There is no open carry in NY, so he would go to prison if he brought the gun to campus.
You are essentially saying that you want people to be fired, expelled, cancelled, etc when they have a different viewpoint than you that makes you uncomfortable, offended, or is something that you don’t understand. That is a direct attack on the freedom of speech.
Kirk • Aug 27, 2020 at 10:34 pm
I’m confused
Is there something explicitly written that says students can’t own guns?
seems like the dean or chancellor or whoever would have to know owning guns is Constitutionally protected.
just speculating:
A. Maybe dean saw some red flags & was scared for some reason?
B. Maybe dean wanted to send message guns aren’t tolerated?
C. Maybe dean wasn’t that bright & now this guy will get an undisclosed amount in monetary settlement?
I’m going with a little of A & B with end result being C. Although really wish I knew how much money the guy gets.
Amy • Aug 27, 2020 at 8:56 pm
The inclusion of the Amy Cooper story at the beginning gave me major propaganda vibes. It’s a divisive story that’s being used on one side of the partisanship to paint the generalizations about this country that serve their interests and agendas. I feel that if the author were truly trying to explain her take from her perspective, the best strategy to communicate that to her audience would be to choose a historical or otherwise neutral, non-emotionally-charged/sensationalized scenario to explain the concepts at play in this debate. As this photo touches on current events that are emotionally-charged hot topics, taking the emotional charge out of the situation might help people see it more logically. Or perhaps, she would choose other scenarios that are actually similar to this scenario in content, such as other recent cases of university students being expelled for instagram posts, and looking at the way that those cases of attempted adherence to the constitutional law concepts in question played out. The inclusion of the Amy Cooper story seems like a grab of attention, as if she was thinking that “with all eyes on this case let me include other anecdotes that I want to give people consistent exposure to as they feed a narrative that the belief in helps me further my interests.” Of course I understand that this author is not a state-directed author in a communist regime. I don’t believe it to be a conscious stab at increasing the “familiarity effect” on a relatively unrelated issue. I just find it shocking that the structure/style of the piece is the same as the structure/style that is purposefully adopted by communist regimes specifically because it is proven to be an effective brainwashing strategy. What is going on at universities these days?
Francisco Pintado • Aug 27, 2020 at 6:52 pm
One of the examples you use involves filling a fake police report, which is illegal. The other is violating a state mandate, which is illegal. Nothing this boy did was illegal.
I see no threat in owning a rifle, and neither does the law. You will likely lost this case.
In your effort to suppress your political opposition, you have become authoritarian. Chinese immigrants are very familiar with your brand of B.S..
You are violating this man’s rights and I hope you are held accountable.
Jason Brown • Aug 27, 2020 at 1:46 am
The Supreme Court of the Unites States would disagree with your opinion (Tinker v. Des Moines). The SCOTUS majority ruled that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Isn’t it ironic that you have the freedom to disagree with the SCOTUS and not be suspended from Fordham?
Ree • Aug 26, 2020 at 4:03 pm
Brainwashed little girl… Go turn on some Ru Paul’s and hide in your parents home, he owns a legally owned firearm! Oh no!
Doug Nielson • Aug 26, 2020 at 3:55 am
Ms Rivera. I suggest you go back and read a bit of our history of this country. You should definitely see an eroding of our many rights granted to us, first, by God, and second, by this nation’s founders and our constitution. This has been a slow process taking away one ‘right’ or ‘privilege’ after another by weak lawmakers and judges who are suppose to be upholding our constitution. We are now to a point where one particular political party is willing to throw out the constitution altogether. Before the ‘social media trap’ we didn’t have issues like this. I’ll bet if you asked anyone who was around before social media was something almost all individuals knew for most of their life, whether issues like this would be a legal problem, they would probably answer they would not have dreamed of it. Technically, your points about private institutions and employers are true. However, I believe we have arrived at a time where these private entities, with their lawyers and their millions of dollars whom their employees made for them, and, oh yes, the lobbyists and crooked legislators, have made sure bills have been passed that give themselves the advantage over their employees, etc. For example, it is much easier when, an issue like posting a harmless photo on social media that someone in these entities is offended by, is able to file suit much faster and with more muscle (again-their millions and their overpaid attorneys who already work for them) there is little wonder why we have our rights, or the rights we once had, taken away from us. If you took a poll of how many employees ‘represent’ their employer or students who ‘represent’ their school during the time they are not being paid, or in class, I’m sure an over-whelming majority would answer ‘no.’ As long as the action of one doesn’t directly relate to any particular entity (who believes they have enslaved us), we are able to freely do whatever is legal. Again-I believe if you were to look at history, it is always the ‘big guy’ who wins. This doesn’t make it (first) moral, and (second) legal. Just because we pass laws, doesn’t make them justified. Our justice system is ‘supposed‘ to uphold the laws that are, and overturn the ones that are not. That’s why I hope Austin Tong and the NRA sue the pants off of Fordham.
Bobby Sacramento • Aug 25, 2020 at 7:47 pm
You’re right about one thing, you’re not a First Amendment expert. Tong will win his suit. A rudimentary reasearch effort into existing case law would likely have prevented you from publishing.
Wake up. Universities are calcifying from their own shallow Marxist ideology. There are new, more affordable vessels for finding truth. These traditional bloated institutions are relics of the past.
T Nails • Aug 21, 2020 at 12:14 pm
Gabriela,
While you’re obviously not an expert let alone reasonably informed person on the 1st Amendment and how it applies to schools that accept federal funding, ask yourself this: would you feel safer if gun owning staff and students at Fordham keep silent and out of sight about their gun ownership?
Michael Elliott • Aug 20, 2020 at 12:26 am
His photos simply reflected his beliefs in our constitution. He presented no threatening language, no offers of violence, etc. – merely a willingness to defend himself from attack. By your logic:
1) Any posting with audio and no accompanying transcript could be offensive to a hearing-impaired individual.
2) Any posting with a visual component and no accompany audio transcript could be offensive to a visually impaired individual
3) Any posting with religious symbolism could be offensive to someone that does not adhere to that religion
Need I continue?
You need to look to yourself and your own issues if you found this post disturbing, as that is more reflective on you and your desire to hide from the reality of the world we live in. And Fordham needs to stop trying to enforce a cleansed, pristine filter on the world. If Fordham wants to enforce limitations on the free speech of it’s students, they should do that based on the intent of the posting, not purely the content (e.g. if the pictures had been accompanied by threatening language, etc.).
The only justification, IMHO, of taking any disciplinary action, would be if there was accompanying threatening language, or if the photo was taken in a campus location that explicitly banned the presence of firearms.
He was definitely making a political statement with the picture. The worst response from Fordham to a political statement is to try to silence the speaker. They should have used the opportunity to open a dialog about the issue of gun rights in America, the 2nd Amendment, and the impact of guns on our society (from both sides).
Christopher Smith • Aug 12, 2020 at 7:55 am
What is baffling to me is why Fordham students “don’t feel safe having someone like this on campus.”
Why? Because he owns a rifle. He can’t be the only Fordham student who owns a rifle. Come on down to West Virginia where owning a firearm is about as common as owning a lawnmower or a chainsaw and no one feels unsafe. Quite the opposite. I know you are in NYC but when I was in law school, there were students from states other than NY and NJ and this was cited as an example of diversity. A positive thing back then. If you want to feel unsafe, why not leave the Rose Hill campus late at night and roam around the Bronx?
Is it because he posted a picture on social media of himself properly holding a legally possessed firearm? I have pictures of me holding a firearm. I think some were posted on social media. Should I be banned from campus?
Or is it because he quoted a phrase from an iconic Revolutionary War flag in reference to the Tiananmen Square Massacre? Decals of this flag are sometimes seen on motor vehicles. Should these motor vehicles or people who own them be banned from campus?
It can’t be that you object to his memorializing the massacre.
I attended Catholic Schools for most of my education. Really, I just don’t get it.
Christopher Smith, Fordham Law, 1981.
Reed Enright • Aug 11, 2020 at 1:08 pm
For those who are suggesting that Austin Tong’s posts were threatening or divisive have a tolerance level equal to that of a skittish bird. please consider that the coddling of America’s youth is what drives threat to our liberty and freedom. You can’t be hurt by Austin’s words. You should listen to them, discuss them, keep an open mind. You don’t have to agree with him you can even argue respectfully and peacefully. But it does not warrant the kind of retribution that this young man has seen. Fordham should be ashamed
Bill Varnavas • Aug 7, 2020 at 1:39 pm
Kaitlyn, at the risk of stating the obvious, this web site is out on the public internet and solicits feedback on the content posted on it—so people on the outside assume you actually mean it. The positive thing about that is that it helps you and other students avoid being stuck in an echo chamber, and leaves the door open to looking at things from other perspectives. At the same time, you also have to realize that not all the feedback you get will necessarily align with your thinking. I believe despite the exasperation that comes through in some of the comments here that people do mean well overall, and just want you to think out of the box.
Kaitlyn • Aug 6, 2020 at 11:12 pm
The number of non-Fordham students complaining about what should and shouldn’t make Fordham students feel safe is baffling. If numerous students, including myself, say we don’t feel safe having someone like this on campus, then listen. It’s not your place to talk about how we should feel.
James Bryant • Aug 5, 2020 at 8:18 pm
It makes total sense that a university ranking 74th in the country would have a student ran paper capable of this level of illogical nonsense, and that the university would be a slave to its emotionally controlled students as demonstrated by its spineless, pandering response. Did the intellectually challenged author stop to consider that ANY law abiding citizen can buy a gun, and that the absence of a picture proving that one has a gun doesn’t mean that someone, anyone, doesn’t have a gun that they could commit violence with? It is beyond laughable that the author presumably feels safer now, it speaks volumes about their lack of logic and reasoning skills. Imagine living in such irrational fear of an individual exercising a constitutional right while simultaneously condemning a humanitarian atrocity.
Enjoy writing mindless copy at your local news station for $32K a year in perpetuity…
Will • Aug 5, 2020 at 8:43 am
Unfortunately your analysis is fundamentally wrong, because Tong wasn’t asking for constitutional 1st Amendment protection, which doesn’t apply to a private university.
The university’s Code of Conduct no. 9 considers this as a violation: “Engaging in or inciting others to engage in conduct which interferes with or disrupts any University function, or which prevents or limits the free expression of the ideas of others, or which physically obstructs or threatens to obstruct or restrain other members of the University community or visitors.”
Fordham prohibits any conduct which prevents or limits the free expression of the ideas of others, and the Dean of Students himself is bound by it. The university can’t punish Tong for code violation without doing the same to Eldredge.
khal spencer • Aug 4, 2020 at 1:19 pm
Lucky me, I went to a SUNY campus so I was protected by the Constitution. What you advocate in this editorial is that anyone who has an idea contrary to your point of view can be expelled. Austin Tong is not accused of threatening anyone or using a firearm in a dangerous or menacing manner. Simply posing with a firearm. If that is seen as a threat by your or other students, you need to reevaluate your level of fear.
For the university to conclude that Tong is guilty of “bias and/or hate crimes” and “threats/intimidation.” is laughable on its face. I am happy to see that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has taken up his defense.
https://www.thefire.org/fordham-student-on-campus-probation-for-instagram-photo-holding-a-gun-memorializing-tiananmen-square-massacre/
Jorge Mora • Aug 2, 2020 at 10:46 pm
So Amy Cooper’s actions were biased, but it’s ok to feel threatened without a true motive by Austin Tong picture with a legally owned rifle? The writer says “In the past five years, I have been in two lockdowns for school shooters. I know people who have been hurt by gun violence. I wouldn’t feel safe knowing someone I see in the hall has the means to commit violence at this level”.
That kind of logic seems pretty similar to the one applied by Amy Cooper. But somehow Austin Tong is the bad guy this time.
Devin • Aug 2, 2020 at 6:57 pm
I’m so disappointed in Fordham‘S overreaction. Shame on them. Jesuits are supposed to encourage the discussion of opposing viewpoints and protect freedom of speech. I used to really respect Fordham… now I wouldn’t want any of my kids going here.
Christopher Smith • Aug 2, 2020 at 4:34 pm
You should have stopped after your disclaimer that you are not an expert on the First Amendment. That is about the only thing you got right in your commentary.
If you care to educate yourself, you should read the Memorandum of Law filed by Mr. Tong’s lawyers in support of his Motion For Summary Judgement. It is readily available on the net with a little effort. My prediction is that Fordham will lose or settle.
Fordham is not a business for profit. Fordham is a Jesuit a nonprofit educational institution stated to be dedicated to free speech, even if offensive to some, and a diversity of ideas. Mr. Tong relied on these ideals in deciding to attend Fordham. Obviously, his reliance on Fordham’s promises were misplaced.
Christopher Smith, Law, 1981
Daniel • Aug 1, 2020 at 6:51 pm
This is so ridiculous, last time I checked, Austin Tong made no verbal threat, nor did he display any violence. Matter of fact our Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms. If you have a problem with that, maybe it’s time for you to move to a different country.
I have a wife and 3 kids, and my 3 kids along with myself love competition in USPSA, Steel Challenge, and 3 gun, so are you saying, that if a Fordham student posted a video of themselves doing ones of these competition, they should get banned and removed from school?
AJ Hill • Aug 1, 2020 at 6:18 pm
A claim by college students that Mr. Tong’s post was threatening is absurd considering the amount of violence VOLUNTARILY consumed by college kids in the form of social media, movies, television, video games, news, etc. Mr. Tong legally posted a picture of himself with a legally owned firearm. He did not threaten any individual nor did he threaten violence of any sort. You VOLUNTARILY chose to view it and misinterpret it. Fordham is located in an area that sadly has an extraordinarily high crime rate, yet students still VOLUNTARILY attend the university. The underlying claim that the post was threatening is false. Sorry if it hurt your feelings. Perhaps spending some time studying the Tiananmen massacre would give you a better perspective of what is in-fact threatening and oppressive.
I wonder as well if this series of events would have unfolded in a different manner if it weren’t for the Implicit Bias toward Chinese-Americans that seems to exist on Forhdham’s campus. I guess only time will tell how much damage this will continue to do Fordham’s reputation, not only from a legal standpoint, but from a Public Relations standpoint.
Andrew Davalla • Aug 1, 2020 at 8:52 am
Ms. Rivera,
I sincerely hope that you did not spend too much time in writing this piece. The misguided conflation of an employment at a private company and an accepted student at a university clearly shows the failure to grasp what “at will” means for an employee and employer. But I guess that’s why you felt the need to try make Fordham a “business” for your purposes.
Also, you fail to discuss whether or not Mr. Tong’s posts on a social media website outside of the school year that other students decided to access of their own accord actually violated the Fordham code. If the fact that Mr. Tong owns a firearm bothers you, fine. By all means, let him know that and have Fordham inform him that guns and other weapons are prohibited on campus. Instead of doing that, Eldredge just made his decision and moved forward without any regard for reason.
I have three sons. My wife and I have always hoped that at least one of them would attend Fordham. I personally have had 12 years of Jesuit education and am a better person for it. However, this incident had caused me to question whether or not Fordham has any interest in continuing to uphold the Jesuit ideals of questioning thyself and considering other viewpoints. If Fordham has abandoned that and it becomes clear that any thoughts that aren’t in lockstep with the current environment are not welcome, then I believe that Fordham as an institution has failed its mission.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Davalla
FCRH ‘99, Law ‘03
Jack • Jul 31, 2020 at 6:48 pm
So if a Christian baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay marriage it’s ok too, because when you enter a private business or university, they now own you. They decide what you say on Facebook, in you daily life, in your house , you are now forced to speak their opinions not yours.
That’s what you guys are arguing here, mind-blowing!
I found this article to be very divisive and It makes me feel threatened. You shouldn’t be allowed to write it.
Bill Varnavas • Jul 31, 2020 at 12:09 am
How do you solve a problem like Austin Tong? Perhaps a good start would be to recognize him as a classmate and a human being who may have different perspectives than you do based on his own life experiences, rather than look at him as a “problem” that needs to be dealt with. Instead of judging him and automatically dismissing his perspectives out of hand, why not take the opportunity to actually have a conversation with him? Maybe you’ll learn something. Maybe you can challenge your preconceived notions even further by interviewing people whose second amendment rights quite likely saved their lives and/or property at a time when law enforcement for whatever reason was unable to help them.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/16/cops-refused-to-respond-to-shop-under-attack-near-seattle-chaz-report/
Part of the value of attending college should be about broadening your thinking and exploring more diverse perspectives. If you buy into the intensifying fad of restricting yourself to group-think that is reinforced by cancel culture, what have you really gained, and what are the potential implications for the civil society going forward?
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” –Noam Chomsky
Norman Newlander • Jul 30, 2020 at 8:05 pm
There was a reason why Mr. Tong should have been suspended. He violated the code of conduct and made an IMPLICIT THREAT. I know the meaning of don’t tread on me, it means do not mess with me or I will mess with you. My uncle was killed by a man who wrote don’t tread on me and sent a dead bird with it. That implies a threat. The fact that Mr. Tong mobilized the conservative “army” to threaten Fordham Students, especially women, online means he put the University name into disrepute. He should be banned from campus. And thank you Gabby for writing a beautiful article
Melanie Bernstein • Jul 30, 2020 at 7:55 pm
I graduated from Fordham University in 2008. For the past seven years I’ve been gainfully self employed by running a firearms training company, I review firearms and accessories, and have two gun related podcasts. Fordham must be so proud… Watch them try to strip me from my diploma.
Austin was not breaking any laws. Fordham and other liberal organizations won’t accept actions or views that don’t align with theirs. They’ve officially become the “thought police,” censoring and reprimanding anything and anyone who disobeys. What has happened to America, home of the free? It’s one thing to break laws, it’s another to punish someone who does something you don’t approve of.
Bob • Jul 30, 2020 at 11:28 am
Would standing up for the 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment also be “divisive”?
I think you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself and your audience. Mob mentality and cancel culture are the reasons comedians won’t come to colleges and universities anymore.
Congrats, you are the problem.
Derek James • Jul 30, 2020 at 5:46 am
Your position ignores the fact that Tong was talking about Tiananmen Square and made no direct threat against a protective group. How would you like it if Fordham disciplined you for saying Black Lives Matter with a raised fist because someone outrageously assumed that to mean that you hated everyone elses’ lives and were threatening them with violence. Please get your biases checked and further inform yourself.
https://medium.com/@wmlay/op-ed-austin-tong-was-wrongly-punished-by-fordham-university-3d138463b09d
Dwayne Johnson • Jul 29, 2020 at 9:58 pm
As a vegan, I am offended and feel threatened by all those Fordam Co-ed posting IGs of their fancy hamburgers. Where’s my justice?!
Gerret Swearingen • Jul 29, 2020 at 7:40 pm
It is difficult to understand the logic where a student in America is reprimanded for posing with a gun for a photograph but professors are praising the death of the former first lady.
America, a country founded on freedoms.
Not anymore.
Jacob B Burles • Jul 29, 2020 at 6:13 pm
The administrators and leaders of the university should be investigated for financial ties to the CCP.
Francisco Mora • Jul 29, 2020 at 6:07 pm
Your position that praising the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is divisive, threatening and a harmful image that Fordham university and it’s students do not support the principals founded in the U.S. Constitution. As active Fordham students, you are subject to the rules of the university both on- and off-campus. The Office of the Dean of Students requires us to adhere to the Student Code of Conduct. In being a part of the community, you have made a Violation of University Regulations relating to Bias and/or Hate Crime against those who support gun ownership. Given that you are expected to follow the university’s rules and have no violated that policy (either on the property, in the city or online), you need to be reprimanded.
Something to think about.
Bruce D. Campbell • Jul 29, 2020 at 5:31 pm
Every person you see in the hall might have the means to commit violence. They might have a gun or a bomb in their back pack. Tong has never, in any of his posts, threatened anyone, nor has he ever even hinted that he plans to bring his rifle to campus. I believe that the University has over-reacted, based on the complaints of a group of students who were frightened by a photograph. I believe that Dean Eldridge was way out of line with his sanctions and I fully support Tong in his lawsuit against the University.