Johns Hopkins Denies Pro-Life Student Group, Allows Students for Justice in Palestine

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


The rather dubious reasoning here is that student groups opposed to abortion make students feel uncomfortable, but student groups opposed to Israel make everyone on campus feel at home.

On March 12th, a pro-life group at Johns Hopkins University, Voice for Life (VFL), was denied the right to become an official student club by the Student Government Association (SGA) during a student Senate meeting, after having been recommended for approval by the SGA Appointments and Evaluations Committee.  At that same SGA meeting, though, another new group was approved called Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).  Although SJP has a history of anti-Semitism and disruption on other campuses, the SGA decided that the students from JHU creating the group were separate from other campus affiliations, and they couldn’t be punished for potential violations.

The SGA explained that they decided not to grant official club status to Voice for Life because:

1) The pro-life group’s intentions to peacefully engage in sidewalk counseling off campus at a Baltimore abortion facility “clearly violates the JHU Harassment and Code of Conduct policies.”

But the SJP’s habit of protesting Holocaust memorial commemorations and holding Israeli Apartheid Weeks, while assaulting pro-Israel students, is apparently completely in line with said code of conduct.

A class senator of the SGA, said in the e-mail chain that she objected to Voice for Life because of the GAP display on campus, saying she and others “felt personally violated, targeted and attacked at a place where we previously felt safe and free to live our lives … this sidewalk attack on how abortions are hateful and such amounts to hate speech.”

Regarding Voice for Life and free speech, the senator said, as a private university, “we have the right to protect our students from things that are uncomfortable. … Why should people have to defend their beliefs on their way to class?”

Good question. It’s not like Johns Hopkins is a university or anything.

But if the SGA is going that route, then it shouldn’t approve any groups that engage in campus protests or hold positions that offend some students.

The SJP approval makes it clear that there is a double standard and that the issue is not tactics, but views that the SGA agrees with and those it disagrees with.

  • http://twitter.com/Wakepedia @Wakepedia

    Yes, very worrisome. Pro-lifers kicked out or forbidden or shut down, but the Pallie gut-splat brigades and their fellow travelers get a free ride in "academia". Put a fork in it. The culture is shot. It's beyond moral relativism and multi-culti mush now, and into outright maggot infested rot.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Paul Revere would have been riding long before this.

    • Mary Sue

      it's the student societies that run the joints. They're all populated by NDP/Liberal Democrat types who somehow made it official that the University of Whatever is "officially" of a "Pro-Choice" stance on abortion, therefore no dissenting opinion on abortion can be heard, because to be pro-life is to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen under a glass ceiling or some junk.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    What leftist hegemony? What? Me worry?

  • thomas_h

    Farce rules

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Justice delayed is justice denied.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Will reiterate, until I am blue in the face – the way to stop the madness is through exposing the LEADERS of the ISM, the tentacled terror hydra of SJP and all the rest – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/28/the-assorted-

    Moreover, John Hopkins, and all the rest, will be responsible for the eventual fall of the west – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/21/the-paradox-p

    The tragic fall is not a long way off.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • http://www.wakepedia.blogspot.com Wakefield Tolbert

      AdkinK is correct.

      The ISM has PLAINLY and OPENLY admitted that their goal is not ultimately some "human rights" based initiative (unless "human rights" is to be equated with the will of the Prophet, perhaps), but rather the destruction of Israel. All of it. No, not just Gaza or the "West Bank".

      And like the Pallies themselves, if you grill the ISM for more than 3 minutes, they'd get around to admitting this even if stateside the Obamanauts can't bring themselves to admit what the "Pally" cause is all about, or the crackpottery of the "Palestinian perspective" on things being something other than sheer hatred.

      As with the Pallies, if we shan't take them at their word, then whose word should we take?
      Hillary Clinton's State Department?

      They plainly say that the whole point of BDS has less to do with some protest movement on principles regarding alleged "war crimes", such as stanching the flow of Jihadist weaponry via Gaza (as one example where Israel has to act at some point, as in the Jihadtilla/"Flotilla" episode a few years back) and more to do with isolation and de-legitimization of an entire nation in the eyes of the rest of the world; the thinking here being that so isolated, Israel would be abandoned with little trade, aging weaponry, and fall to Arab powers finally empathetic to the Pallie "cause" (though in a fit of perhaps poetic justice, most of the Arab nations hate the Palestinian Arabs. They use the "Palestine" issue as a way to cook up hatred for Israel and keep matters in the region on a rolling boil on the front political burner and away from their own daily internal horrors far more real than anything the IDF has ever done).

      For more fun and adventure and ammo about how to take a machete to the weedy thicket double-talk of local dingbat politicians who're into this kind of thing, as well as answering left wing street zombies who’re bunking over to spread the ISM bullseed stuff, see also:
      http://stoptheism.com/

      • Ar'nun

        Great link, bookmarked.

    • A Henneberry

      There are 200 million girls aborted from the world's population; so sorry Hopkins students feel uncomfortable about supporters of life. These geniuses need to watch abortions in progress and get real.

  • Michae1803

    It;s not like the students at Johns Hopkins display any sort of discernment or logic. They are lemmings following the other lemmings over the cliff. And to think that my brother donated $100,000 to that school. He's spinning in his grave. They're as vapid as all Ivy League wannabe's.

    • kasandra

      And this is the school where students are objecting to Ben Carson giving a commencement speech. The world certainly has turned upside down.

      • Wannabe

        Students at the School of Medicine objected to Dr. Carson speaking at the Commencement due to a separate matter, specifically, his comment equating same-sex marriages with bestiality and pedophilia, to quote:

        CARSON: "Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality. It doesn't matter what they are."

        Regardless of your own individual viewpoint or stance on this matter, there's a level of professional conduct that is expected of someone of his stature, and, many found this comment completely out of line and rather offensive.

        And, of course, to add, he's allowed to exercise his right to free speech, and make these indirect connections on public television as he wishes. However, Hopkins students are also allowed to exercise their right to protest his offensive comment, and, subsequently request he withdraw as a Commencement speaker.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Regardless of your own individual viewpoint or stance on this matter, there's a level of professional conduct that is expected of someone of his stature, and, many found this comment completely out of line and rather offensive. "

          It is unprofessional to speak unpopular truths. No doubt about it. We want pure sellouts now that the left has established dominant cultural hegemony in the West. Political correctness rules.

          • Wannabe

            However, what we was indirectly referring to regarding homosexuality is by no means truth.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "However, what we was indirectly referring to regarding homosexuality is by no means truth."

            Please elaborate and include distinctions between subjective opinions and "truth." Maybe I missed something.

          • Wannabe

            I was going to ask you the same question originally–you referred to 'unpopular truths' in your initial response, which could be (and was) read as sarcastically insinuating his association (linking homosexuality to pedophilia, etc.), was truth, albeit unpopular.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "linking homosexuality to pedophilia"

            Homosexual sex and pedophilia are both illegitimate ways to construct a marriage in our civilization. Not only that but some pedophiles (from a legal perspective) have a stronger argument for lowering the age of consent whereas homosexual marriage has no logical arguments in favor. Pedophiles can produce children. Homosexuals can't.

            I like the laws as they exist. I'm OK with having children wait. I'm OK with gays doing what they want. It's absurd to think of "marriage" as a "right" to be defined according to BS theories.

            It's easier and more logical to say that to achieve perfect equality, the state should not sanction any marriages at all. But it has an interest in stable lives for children.

          • Wannabe

            This op-ed sums it up quite nicely, imho: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kaye/20

            "First, a note about analogies. When you make an analogy it means that you see similarities in the things being compared sufficient to make discussion of one relevant to understanding the other. So what are the similarities you must see between bestiality, for example, and gay marriage to make discussion of the former relevant to the latter? For conservatives, apparently, it's the presence of a sexual transaction or, perhaps more to the point, some sense that the defining element of both activities is sexual.

            So why the conservative fixation on sex when discussing gay marriage? Because by defining it down to a sexual transaction conservatives seek to remove the other profoundly enriching and constructive elements that most of us associate with the marital relationship from our consideration of gay marriage. It's a way to degrade the love between individuals of the same gender, and to remove their relationships from the space conservatives would prefer to reserve for relationships between those of different genders.

            And then, having stripped gay marriage of everything but the sex, conservatives go a step further, lumping it in with the kinds of behaviors engaged in by the criminal and the insane."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "First, a note about analogies. When you make an analogy it means that you see similarities in the things being compared sufficient to make discussion of one relevant to understanding the other."

            True.

            "So what are the similarities you must see between bestiality, for example, and gay marriage to make discussion of the former relevant to the latter?"

            That neither represents relationships that the state should have any interest in promoting.

            "For conservatives, apparently, it's the presence of a sexual transaction or, perhaps more to the point, some sense that the defining element of both activities is sexual."

            They're not both sexual? They're justified with similar explanations about desire and satisfaction. They are both unhealthy for children who are exposed. Need I go on?

            "So why the conservative fixation on sex when discussing gay marriage?"

            That's an absurd question. It's not about sex? Really? It's about "sexual orientation" and sexual desire, and lack of desire for people of the opposite sex but it's not really about sex? Why call it marriage because marriage is certainly about sex.

            Leftists can say anything to each other and get agreement about how smart they are. It's amazing.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So why the conservative fixation on sex when discussing gay marriage? Because by defining it down to a sexual transaction conservatives seek to remove the other profoundly enriching and constructive elements that most of us associate with the marital relationship from our consideration of gay marriage. It's a way to degrade the love between individuals of the same gender, and to remove their relationships from the space conservatives would prefer to reserve for relationships between those of different genders."

            "Love" does not require the coerced participation of others. Why do you need the government to expand marriage laws then?

            "And then, having stripped gay marriage of everything but the sex"

            No. Marriage is about commitment. It was originally a church commitment so that society would assist coercing the couples to stay together. So why do gays need marriage?

            "conservatives go a step further, lumping it in with the kinds of behaviors engaged in by the criminal and the insane."

            It's "lumped" with other desires that fall outside the realm of sex that the government has an interest in; the kind of sex that produces children.

            Now can you see the distinction? Children, vs. no plausible healthy way to produce or raise children. That's the defining distinction.

            This has been explained before and leftists will still ignore the salient points and talk to each other about how conservatives don't make sense on the basis of their own lack of comprehension.

  • Wannabe

    It's Johns, with an s.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It's Johns, with an s."

      J-Hop.

  • Ar'nun

    "Johns Hopkins Denies Pro-Life Student Group, Allows Students for Justice in Palestine"
    Ok, Johns Hopkins will be checked off as Pro Genocide.

    • Jane Doe

      Fiur members of my immediate family graduated from JHU. And we have been generous donors for many years, wrongly believing that JHU is not one of the many far left leaning prestigious universities. They have henceforth lost a major donor.

  • ______

    This is my own opinion and I do not speak on behalf of the school in any shape or form. As a student at Johns Hopkins, it is easy to understand the SGA's response. While I am not sure whether it is Voice For Life (though one source has said that it is that group), in the past, a pro-life group has posted horrendous billboards of babies' limbs on the street that I have to walk across to get to class everyday (not just outside of the abortion clinic). While I do not necessarily support abortion, the manner of their consultation is very obtrusive and does make our learning environment feel unsafe as older men (I have yet to come across a woman from this organization who has taken part in these ad campaigns) attempt to tell female students what to do with their bodies. Thus, from recent memory, the feeling of harassment may be fresh in the minds of the students. Rather than being so confrontational and closing minds, that organization, and Voice for Life should instead try to create a better environment for learning. If they want to provide consultation, instead of sidewalk consultations, the best form of informing people is to have voluntary seminars on what it means to have an abortion and advertise those classes. This will be more effective in comparison to creating mental distress that can close minds before they have had the time to consider the consequences of abortion. Please take this into account prior to making judgements.