By Nikita Vladimirov, May 15, 2018

-- When a committee chair issued an unauthorized statement on behalf of the Student Bar Association at Rutgers Law School and refused to rescind it, SBA President John DeLuca decided to give him a taste of his own medicine.

-- DeLuca issued a statement endorsing President Trump's nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize, which was quickly denounced as "harmful," "dangerous," and "intimidating."

Students at Rutgers Law School are condemning two campus organizations for making an “intimidating” suggestion that President Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.

The students voiced their objection to a statement filed by the Rutgers Student Bar Association (SBA) Safety and Wellness Committee and the Federalist Society in early May, supporting “the movement for...Trump to win the Nobel Peace prize for his efforts towards securing peace on the Korean peninsula.”

“If the President were to preside over the verifiable destruction of the North's nuclear and missile programs, formally end the Korean War, and usher in the destruction of the World's last Cold War-era frontier, Trump would claim a feat that has eluded all of his most recent predecessors,” the statement argued.

The provocative joint declaration, however, was not received well by multiple student organizations, which penned a joint response letter blasting the two groups and labeling their statement as “harmful” and “dangerous.”

“On May 2, 2018, the Federalist Society and the SBA Safety and Wellness Committee issued a joint statement supporting Donald Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize,” the students wrote. “Many students on our campus felt that we needed to raise our voices in opposition to such a harmful statement.”

“Although we support freedom of expression, we do not condone unilateral, damaging statements masquerading as representative of our entire student body,” they continued. “Furthermore, this particular statement is made at the expense of students who experience the structural inequality of the Trump administration.”

The students went on to outline several key reasons as to why they oppose giving the prize to Trump, including an assertion that the law school “is made up of a diverse student body, many of whom have been threatened or harmed by Trump’s statements and policies.”

snip

The pro-Trump statement, he said, was intended to “gain your attention and to ignite a discussion on this precise topic.”

“It was wildly successful in doing so,” DeLuca pointed out. “It appears that many individuals only want rules and procedures enforced when it is convenient to their own beliefs and agendas. Beyond that, it appears that many individuals do not want to even hear or contemplate beliefs and ideas contrary to their own.”

snip

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10904