"...it was the Cultural Center that made that decision, after recieving threats to not only disrupt the event, but to inflict physical harm on people who work in the cultural center."

i'm inclined to assume that these must be the same sort of threats alicia hardin recieved. but if we were to believe this convenient and difficult-to-verify dodge, we'd still have to consider the separate-but-equal response with regard to the very few conservative speakers allowed on campuses in chicago.

threats were made here to disrupt the presentation of and "inflict physical harm" upon david horowitz, and i've seen social justice activists disrupt his speaking engagements on other campuses. i'm certain these intentions were broadcast to similar authorities on those campuses. certainly much worse was directed at the student organizations which invited him.

but no campus in any instance i know of volunteered to suppress opposition the way it has done to protect churchill from even being presented with questions that may challenge the substance of his claims.

the steps to which campus authorities go to prevent anyone on the left from suffering the humiliating "violence" of getting pied in the face pretty much defines the fragility of the glass house they've built for the left on our campuses.

"...Further Klocek crossed the boundraries of Free Speech."

he called "fire!" in a crowded theater? he incited people to criminal acts? no. he had an argument about the middle-east with a student.

ironicly, churchill has incited people to criminal acts in a rather explisit fashion, but depaul forks over ten grand and ensures him of ideological homogeneity in the audience to bring him on campus.

"If a pro-palestine professor did to Isreal's DePaul Friends what Klocek did to Students for Justice in Palestine, I can assure you DePaul would have gotten rid of them as well."

which was...? do you mean basing his argumnent on the non-existence of "palstine"? that's simply stating the facts. to state that fact does not imply an impulse to eradicate people who live in the the area called palestine.

on the other hand, when a pro-palestinian activist, be he professor or student, calls out, "from the river to the sea..." he or she is talking about the eradication of israel.

so, the answer is "no" the same would not happen if the roles were reversed.

"AS it is we still have a number of pro-isreal right wing professors at DePaul, some in the Political Science department even."

i'm certain the campus left will have that grave issue rectified sooner or later.

"...And everytime it's the zionists who end up turning it down. If I recall correctly, *the Zionists want to talk only about how to have peace*, but SJP points out that you can't have peace without jutice, and the zionists refuse a debate that delas with issues of Justice."

"justice" is a euphamism for continued murder of israeli civilians untill and unless a "one-state solution" is achieved. in other words, the anti-israel faction on campus refuses to enter into any discussion which is not based on the premise that israel is to be dismantled and its population removed by non-official means.

on the other hand, when israelis call for peace, they mean peace.

"Oh and a message for the protest warriors- the University only allows student groups who have their fliers approved posted on the bulletin boards."

the flier was posted by the campus gop or whoever, not protest warrior. you should direct your comments to them. the fliers were censored. imagine that -- political speech censored at an american university.

"...if only it didn't say protest warrior on it, I would have thought it was one of our pro-Ward groups that posted it."

so, you don't feel misrepresented by the flier then. good.

"I'm not fan of "political correctness" but calling members of United Muslims Moving Ahead "Morons" was deeply offensive."

that's a one-liner. like: "i'm not a smoker, but do you have one you can spare?"