成人X站

A librarian at the University of Washington (UW) in Seattle says certain events or groups should be barred from campus. It’s a troubling and shocking position for a librarian to take.

Dylan Burns, a Digital Arts Librarian at UW’s School of Music, posted his message in the listserv of the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). He was responding to a recent Turning Points USA (TPUSA) event that was canceled after a group of violent, far-left activists pulled a fire alarm at the building hosting the event, throwing a noisemaker into the room through a window an activist broke, and then repeatedly pounding on the doors and windows of the event space. It’s now the subject of a Title IX complaint from the conservative speaker who was invited to discuss how transgender women have violated women’s spaces.

Using a refuted and meritless claim by a UW spokesperson that TPUSA intended to get the speech canceled, Burns declared, “I don鈥檛 think TPUSA should be welcome on campus based on their history of disruption.” But then he went one step further.

“Strict and blind adherence to amorphous ‘freedom of speech’ can ultimately infringe upon the freedoms of the marginalized. I stand with our trans students. No hate on campus,” Burns declared.

For a librarian to take this position is almost comical. That he seems to not even understand the First Amendment is striking.聽

More from Rantz: Deputies livid as anti-Trump, transgender captain given a pass for policy violation

When a librarian doesn’t understand the First Amendment

Burns鈥� comments betray a fundamental misunderstanding of both free speech and his role as a librarian. Since when do librarians,听particularly one who works in the arts,听advocate for censorship? He did not respond to a request for comment.

Libraries, particularly those at public universities, are meant to be bastions of open discussion and intellectual diversity. Instead, he advocates for censorship under the guise of protecting marginalized groups. But who defines what constitutes 鈥渉ate鈥�? And why should Burns, or anyone else at UW, be the arbiter of what students can hear, read, or discuss?

His claim that 鈥渟trict and blind adherence鈥� to free speech can somehow infringe upon others鈥� freedoms is both ironic and dangerous.聽Free speech is not a zero-sum game鈥攐ne person expressing an opinion does not erase another鈥檚 right to do the same. And the First Amendment is hardly “amorphous.”

More from Jason Rantz:听Seattle homeless population is imported, almost half are outsiders

Hurt feelings? Tough

What Burns is really advocating for is ideological gatekeeping, where speech that offends his personal worldview is deemed unworthy of campus discourse. It鈥檚 a troubling sentiment that aligns with the broader trend of left-wing activists attempting to justify speech suppression under the pretext of community harm reduction.

But if one’s sensibilities are “harmed” because they hear clearly protected, and very mainstream, positions they don’t like? Tough. The UW campus allowed an illegal encampment that promoted the destruction of Israel and was filled with antisemites. Upset students (or librarians) will have to soldier through a speech about protecting women’s spaces from biological men.

Even more absurd is Burns’ reliance on a debunked university statement suggesting TPUSA deliberately sought cancellation. That鈥檚 not just wrong; it鈥檚 willful dishonesty. Rather than condemn the violent extremists who attacked the event, he rewards their behavior by calling for a ban on the very group that was victimized.

It鈥檚 a tactic straight out of the progressive activist playbook鈥攔edefine free speech as violence, justify real violence as activism, and then silence dissent. And when that justification comes from a librarian鈥攕omeone whose job is to foster access to knowledge鈥攊t鈥檚 not just objectionable. It鈥檚 a bit Orwellian.