The Daily Orange responds to outrage over firing of conservative journalist, demonstrates unfamiliarity with free speech

In a follow-up story to two pieces, one on institutional racism and the other on the ousting of LifeZette contributor Adrianna San Marco from a post with Syracuse University student paper The Daily Orange, we gratefully take a look at the response to the paper over the kerfuffle. We say gratefully because rarely do we get a chance to see the self-immolation at the heart of the Left on such glorious display as we do in this instance.

The Daily Orange editor-in-chief Casey Darnell spoke out on the matter via his newspaper’s Facebook page.

The Daily Orange removed a columnist [San Marco] because she wrote an op-ed in another publication arguing that institutional racism doesn’t exist. Racism is real and deadly. Dismissing that is harmful to our community members of color.The columnist’s op-ed reinforces false and dangerous stereotypes of Black people as criminals, and dismisses that police officers kill Black people at disproportionately higher rates than white people.

“Who we give a platform to reflects our values. The D.O. has published dozens of columns and letters to the editor from liberal and conservative writers alike. We aren’t afraid of controversial views, but we have a responsibility to avoid promoting harmful ones.

The words and actions of Mr. Darnell, a conservative press gift who keeps on giving, reveal so much bias, so much anti-free speech authoritarianism, so much lack of any pretense to professional ethics, we hardly know where to begin. But, begin we must.

First, Darnell seeks to protect “community members of color.” Ah, so he thinks other community members are transparent? Such is the idiocy of the “people of color” cliche now prevalent with the inane Left. Darnell is a color of a sort: it seems guilty white liberal with a tint of adolescent masochism is his hue. (Perhaps more on Darnell in future pieces.) And by the way, as a white male how dare he lecture a female such as San Marco on racism. For shame, you despoiler of the land and oppressor of the masses! Sorry pal—your rules, not mine.

He then says San Marco’s piece “reinforces false and dangerous stereotypes of black people as criminals…” San Marco does no such thing, but merely quotes federal government statistics. If Darnell sees in those facts “dangerous stereotypes” then we caution him on his automatic assumption of seeing that data as proving blacks are criminals. What knee-jerk racism, what unenlightened thinking. Quick, get him off to a reeducation camp! I mean, really, how the The Daily Orange lets someone of such obvious racist tendencies tend to their editorial corral is quite beyond reasonable explanation.

The illogical response goes on to say San Marco “dismisses that police officers kill black people at disproportionally higher rates than white people.” Well, the facts are the facts. San Marco was only relating them. And that’s where Darnell has a problem—with the facts that do not fit his narrative. Yes, inconvenient facts, stubborn facts, pesky facts, are at the crux of the issue. San Marco uses them to make her argument. Darnell runs away shrieking from them.

Then, our favorite and the most indicative part of the whole statement: Darnell says of the paper “we have a responsibility to avoid promoting harmful views.” If there ever was a dead giveaway as to the soul-searing ideological scars left by leftist programming, it is that line. “Harmful views,” as, of course, defined by Darnell.

You see, Darnell sees views that do not comport with his as “harmful.” Not just opposing, mind you, or challenging, or even disagreeable, but “harmful.” Just as Stalin found the views of his old Bolshevik comrades during the show trials of the 1930s “harmful,” just as Roland Freisler found the views of the Valkyrie German patriots “harmful,” so does Darnell dismiss opposing views as harmful. Somebody needs to remind him that in a republic, in a system that adheres to the First Amendment to its Constitution, opposing views are not “harmful,” they are expected and welcome in the debates inherent to a people familiar with the free discourse of liberty.

But freedom of thought, of mind, of speech, and of expression are not concepts on the mind of the current editor of the The Daily Orange. Conforming to a narrow-minded outdated version of PC authoritarianism is more his speed. In that mode we wish him continued luck, as no doubt he has found a comfortable place with the simpleminded baying mobs who replace facts with bias and data with virulent frothing. We prefer the plain hard facts of the “harmful” debates of freedom.