DePaul officials and radical activist cohorts try to squelch immigration debate

By Stephanie Auditore

Chris Simcox’s Minutemen Civil Defense Corps is not the monster it has been made out to be. With their lawn chairs, binoculars and cell phones, the Minutemen are essentially a protest group trying to bring the nation’s attention to a serious problem at our borders while performing a public service. At a time when literally millions of illegals pour across the borders with the seeming acquiescence and encouragement of an incompetent or indifferent federal government, the Minutemen are fundamentally trying to embarrass the Washington regime to perform its most elementary duties. Defamatory articles litter liberal blogs and websites; professional protesters even follow him around the country. They decry his organization as a group of racist vigilantes. Debating such rogues is obviously beyond the pale for the self appointed champions of tolerance and free speech, and nowhere is this more true than on those American bastions of Stalinism we call academia.

Simcox’s speech at DePaul University in Chicago in May was no exception. On hearing of his scheduled appearance, leftist professors and student organizations immediately erupted into anger and protest, sending letters to administrators asking for cancellation of the event and an apology from the DePaul Conservative Alliance (DCA), the organization responsible for Simcox’ invitation. As usual, the leftists are not the anti-establishment rebels, but the subsidized and timid guardians of the power structure, hiding behind their tenured professors and multicultural privileges. While disheartened by the adverse reaction, it is not a new experience for the DCA. The university shut down the club’s affirmative action bake sale in 2006, claiming that the price list was offensive. The bake sale was quickly followed by an appearance by Jesse Jackson who spoke in the Student Center and decried the DCA’s “racist cookies.”

The illegal-immigration forum featured similar shenanigans. Administrators scrambled to create plausible excuses to ban the event while still claiming to defend free speech. They charged the DCA $2,500 for private security. Such a requirement has never been imposed on any other political student organizations at the university, and it completely drained the DCA’s bank account. Student Affairs Vice President and establishment lackey Jim Doyle threatened to cancel the event if the DCA was unable to comply. Additionally, all decision-making power regarding the logistics and format for the evening were usurped by Doyle and his staff. In addition to the security fees, the administration made multiple, last-minute venue changes and capped the audience at 200.

The speech itself was marked by boisterous, disorderly behavior from attendees who had no intention of keeping an open mind or even listening to what the speaker had to say. Simcox was continually interrupted by boos and insults from the overwhelmingly leftist crowd. The DCA invited a leftist professor to give an alternative viewpoint. However, leftist professor Charles Strain did not even try to argue in good faith. His speech was already written despite having never met or heard Simcox speak before. Students were treated to a collection of ad hominem attacks and insults rather than anything substantial. Strain clearly thought he had scored a major point by bringing up Simcox’s arrest for bringing a gun into a national park, which is irrelevant to the immigration debate, as well as a rather pointless law which the Interior Department is considering changing anyway. After the speech, security personnel snuck Simcox out of the center because of the rioting mob.

Outside the event, more chaos awaited. An angry mob of over 500 protestors marched outside the venue, shouting insults at Simcox and the DCA. One of their more charming chants was “maricón,” meaning “faggot” in Spanish. Strangely, the homosexual groups on campus and the ever so sensitive campus administration neglected to protest such language in the days that followed. Another choice argument was “Simcox is a racist liar, let’s go and set him on fire.” Inside, the walls were lined with administrators and private security, ready to pounce. As the raucous crowd grew, the Chicago Police Department augmented its initial presence outside the venue.

The event sparked so much anger and protest around Chicago that it was featured on all of the local news channels as well as on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor. The following weeks were no less contentious at DePaul. Dozens of liberal student organizations combined their resources to create a “Stop the Hate” event, aimed at smearing, ostracizing and ultimately eradicating the DCA and their activism on campus. Representatives from the Latinos Unidos organization on campus wrote a letter to the DCA president demanding “a formal written statement of responsibility and clarification and of sincere regret” as well as demanded a “thorough revision of your organization’s promotional guidelines and officers be conducted, in order to prevent these types of incidents in the future.” Typically, the bold campus rebels ran for help and comfort from campus administrators to protect them from arguments that might hurt their feelings. Apparently unconvinced that the demand letter was sufficient, DCA members also received Facebook messages from the Stop the Hate organizers, recommending they rethink their involvement in such a “radical” organization. Conservative students tried to respond reasonably, offering to participate in the student discussion panel hosted by Latinos Unidos at “Stop the Hate”. Their offer was denied, the organizers citing that conservatives’ participation in the panel would be unnecessary. Obviously, only one side of discussion was to be heard.

Simcox seemed unfazed, as he says that this response is not uncommon. “At most liberal arts universities, where the issue seems to be very divisive it’s usually because of the influence of many professors and most of it is very misguided. Obviously the students have been fed a lot of misinformation about our organization and about the issue.” Furthermore, he says it is a problem isolated at the more liberal institutions. He says that at more conservative institutions, “there’s usually no protest. Everyone comes willing to listen and engage.”

After the madness at DePaul finally subsided, DCA members were left with one pressing and disquieting question that often plagues the group after hosting events: When did the dialogue become so difficult? A university, after all, is supposed to be a great marketplace of ideas, a places of dialogue, debate and learning. Simcox’ organization is no more radical than any citizen who calls 911 when there’s an emergency. But the left at DePaul was so shocked, appalled and offended that someone dared conflict with their views that instead of engaging in a constructive debate they labeled Simcox and all of his supporters as racists and disturbed.

Simcox had to spend a majority of the speech defending his organization, placing a particularly strong emphasis on the fact that they are in the desert trying to protect not only their communities but also the immigrants. Simcox is proud of the organization he has created. “We abide by the laws of every state,” he says, “Not one Minuteman has ever used a weapon in any way. Our reputation is above reproach.” He recounted the hundreds of dying immigrants they have saved from the desert heat, 329 people to date, and also detailed horrifying stories of drug and gang lords killing and abusing immigrants. Certainly, Simcox has saved more Hispanic lives than all the tenured, subsidized, and privileged paladins of La Raza safely ensconced in Latino Studies classes. Most importantly his organization has never been responsible for any violent acts while patrolling the border. Even the protestors could not produce any evidence to refute this.

“We’re in business to be put out of business,” Simcox states, explaining that his goal is to bring “awareness, education and the nitty gritty truth about what’s happening at the border to students in order to engage them in the discussion. Ultimately, he still believes that the best way to solve illegal immigration is to encourage students as voters to elect officials who will fix the problem.

“We need people to work pragmatically to solve the problem. The more that everyone is arguing, there’s another human dying in the desert. There’s another woman being sold into prostitution. There are victims on bother sides of the border. We need to solve it to protect people.”

Despite all that he had to say, and all of the proof he had to defend his claims, the protestors and radical audience members were unable to accept any of it. Professor Strain concluded in his speech that Simcox must suffer from a multiple personality disorder, because he knows this cannot be the real Simcox. The question and answer session yielded similar results. Students accused Simcox of various falsehoods, with flimsy to no proof supporting them.

The reaction that Simcox gets on campuses around the country, from DePaul to Michigan State, shows the priorities of the left. They recognize that illegal immigration is an issue of core importance, and they are fighting for open borders on explicitly racist and tribalist grounds. They also do not recognize any limitations on their tactics in the interest of decency or compromise. Conservatives at DePaul went out of their way to engage their interlocutors in good faith – they were greeted with contempt and hatred.

If there is some consolation, it is that leftist students are being set up for failure in the real world, where their childish behavior and antics won’t be accepted by rational bosses and managers, although the foolish of diversity programs and sensitivity training is rapidly spreading in big business as well. Their inability to have a civil debate on campus without name-calling or mass protest is becoming incredibly frustrating for the reasonable student. I suppose I’ll just have to take solace in a familiar Churchill adage, “You’ve got enemies? Good, that means you stood for something sometime in your life.” Immigration is clearly the main battleground that the left has chosen on college campuses. Conservative students must recognize this and charge forward regardless.



  • Who we are

    New Guard is the magazine of a new conservative movement, populist in orientation, original and rigorous in its intellectual dedication and young and revolutionary in character. The articles will challenge the failed approaches of the past, expose the crisis of the age and suggest real alternatives. New Guard will focus on the real centers of power in our society: the universities, the culture, the local communities and the battles for the hearts and minds of our generation. We will fight for the vision of a restored republic and a proud Western people rather than a failed reactionary opposition. We do not reject the conservative label, but we think it is insufficient. New Guard is written for and by the organizers, intellectuals and activists of a New Right that will take back our future.