At Harvard Law School in 1991, Obama Approved of Restricting Speech to Protect Minorities

Charles C. Johnson, Daily Caller, October 8, 2012

At the height of early-1990s conservative backlash over political correctness and “speech codes” on U.S. college campuses, Barack Obama participated in a panel event geared toward denying that restrictions on free expression were problematic, or happening at all.

The 1991 Harvard Law School yearbook quoted the future President of the United States virtually shrugging his shoulders at the thought that non-liberal white students might take offense at restrictions on speech that minority students found objectionable. “I don’t see a lot of conservatives getting upset if minorities feel silenced,” Obama said, flipping the argument around.


The ACLU’s John Powell denied political correctness led to a silencing effect, calling it impossible that “the dominant, white majority on college campuses is being silenced by the small number of minority and feminist students.”

Sally Greenberg of the Anti-Defamation League called for bans on “hate speech.” Professor Richard Parker, who taught Obama in 1989, wanted to punish only speech that was “intentional, persistent, pure, and patent abuse.”


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    Obama was 30 years old at the time.  He can’t chalk this up to being a wet behind the ears immature kid.

    • The__Bobster

      Don’t worry, the MSM will do it for him. As a matter of fact, they’ll ensure that this piece of information will never see the light of day,

  • The__Bobster

    The ACLU’s John Powell denied political correctness led to a silencing effect, calling it impossible that “the dominant, white majority on college campuses is being silenced by the small number of minority and feminist students.”

    Correct, they are being silenced by the commies who run the joint. Also, straight, White Christians are a minority on a lot of campi.

  • JohnEngelman

    In the United States no one goes to jail for saying or writing something that is politically incorrect, but people can lose their jobs. 
    It is often dangerous to criticize blacks, even if what is said is widely known to be true, and is easy to prove. 

  • jedsrael

    So where is our ban on the hate speech term “White privilege”?

    “White privilege” stereotypes Whites as deserving punishment because it stigmatizing us as  anti humanity hatred incarnate. Whenever you hear “White privilege,” you are hearing code word for “Get Whitey!”

    Where is our protection?  Shouldn’t statistics showing the comparison of black on White attacks to White on black attacks from 2008-2012 be used as evidence that the rise of “White privilege” awareness has caused more White Victims of Diversity Violence?


  • anarchyst

    The “tribe” would LOVE to see European-style anti-free thought laws enacted here in the USA.  You see, the jewish “holocaust ™” is sacrosanct in Europe.  ANY investigation or criticism that veers from “official” jewish “holocaust ™” orthodoxy is punishable by stiff fines and imprisonment.   Those accused of “thought-crimes” have even been forced to recant in order to lessen their “sentences”.
    The “fly in the ointment” for the jews is that the muslims are demanding the same thing . . .

  • SarahConnor

    Well we can see how well that “conservative backlash” worked!

  • tombarnes

    Mario Savio led the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in 1965. That was the wedge, the beginning of the changes, the first step in the long march  through the institutions.
    How things have changed, the left and the Tribe were great advocates of Free Speech in 1965. Not now.
    Yet another double standard that whites have to deal with. “Free speech for thee but not for me”

    • The__Bobster

      They play the game until they win. Then they walk home with the ball.

  • The__Bobster
  • Jewish hideousness knows no bounds. The whole shtick about banning ‘hate speech’ to protect the powerless and minorities is really just a ruse. Jews wanna ban ‘hate speech’ — of course, they get to decide what is and isn’t hate, i.e. Zionist vitriol against Palestinians isn’t hate speech but Palestinian-American condemnation of Zionism is ‘hate speech’ — to shield the powerful and privileged, namely themselves, from opposition and scrutiny. Jews are the most powerful and wealthiest people in the world. They control US and EU, and global trade. They can make or break nations. Just ask Iraqis or Iranians. So, controlling ‘hate speech’ is really about shielding Jewish power from those who dare speak truth to Jewish power. But, Jews in their cleverness, have framed the issue in terms of our need to suppress ‘hate speech’ to protect the weak. By the way, since whites will be minorities in US and even in the EU, maybe we should ban Jewish speech because it’s so harmful to whites who are destined to be minorities in the very nation their ancestors did so much to found, settle, and build.

    Gays are also immensely rich, powerful, and privileged;  and they want ‘hate speech’ laws because they don’t want to be called ‘fags’ by blacks. Since blacks are the most violent and aggressive people in America–especially against gays–, so-called ‘hate speech’ laws would favor rich powerful gays over poor blacks. 
    Obama is, of course, a shill for gays and Jews.

  • I just posted about the city of Eugene, which considers “hate speech” to be a crime, even though it’s non-criminal:

  • Frank

    Give him another term and you will see our right of free speech limited, at least to some degree.